Isn't that the idea of philosophy, to test the waters and see where an idea goes?

The questions that have been answered by philosophy have got to be a long list, we just don't consider that is where it came from any more, it is considered known logic now.

You obviously don't realize that we are attempting to work something out here. We are attempting to communicate and understand something about each other and about philosophy.

I have actually gained a huge amount of understanding because of this thread.

We don't need a dictator in here. This thread should not be deleted. You obviously have not been paying attention to the entire thread. There have been some very good points made here and some very good conversations.

Ok, that's fine, I am no dictator, not a mod, ill just report any posts that are about a particular member and directly against the rules.

Who are you, the thread police? What has anyone said to offend YOU?

Has Creative complained to the moderators? We are addressing his claims that we have been assessing his character. He is mistaken and so are you. We are simply trying to decode his contemplations which he implies have no point anyway.

MYOB. This is not about you, and no rules have been broken here.

There are posts after posts after posts, that break the rules. I am not going to go back and report them. I am only looking forward and letting you and anyone else know that I am no longer going to ignore it.

Discuss the message not the messenger and you have nothing to worry about.

Shrug . . .

But it's not.

It's talking about the assertions and suggestings that a particular made.

Creative suggested a new forum rule that there be no 'groundless thoughts' permitted on the philosophy forums.

Creative stated that the these forums are a disgrace to philosophy.

Creative is suggesting that everyone's 'views' be treated as 'claims' and dissected with logic until they can be shown to be logically sound.

Where is there misunderstanding Jeremy?

And it's not about the 'member'. It's about what that particular member is demanding concerning how philosophy be conducted by everyone on the WHOLE FORUM!

If he doesn't want to be in the spotlight of demanding how everyone else must conduct philosophical conversations he shouldn't have ever demanded these things in the first place.

We're only address the topics that HE brought up.

That makes it appear to be 'personal' but in truth we're just address his demands concerning how he expects everyone else to treat philosophy.

He brought this on himself by demanding this in the first place and saying that the entire forum is a disgrace to philosophy.

We have a right to defend our views of philosophy as well.

If it's 'personal' at all, it's only because a single person is attempting to tell a whole forum of people what constitutes valid philosophy.

And IMHO, his view of philosophy is totally bogus anyway.

That's not a personal comment after HE insinuated that everyone on the WHOLE FORUM is doing philosophy all wrong.

Absolutely.

We're just responding direcly to his ungrounded claims that our approach to philosophy sucks.

Creative has accused us of not knowing how to properly have philosophy discussions.

We're simply responding directly to his accusations and pointing out that we don't feel his idea of how philosophy should be done holds any logical water.

We're demonstrating why his claim is 'groundless' just like he keeps demanding that we must do. We're giving him the grounds for our position that he keeps demanding and will continue to do so until he either understands them, accepts them, or quits asking for them.

We wouldn't even need to do this if he hadn't first accused our approach to philosophy as being 'disgraceful and ungrounded' in the first place.

I am not worried about it. (And I don't cave into threats.) I believe in free and unencumbered expression.

At this point the "message" you insist we discuss is unclear and Creative suggested that "maybe there is no point" and that he was just "contemplating."

Okay, if that is truly the case, it is pointless to continue the conversation or to try to discover what the meaning of the message or conversation is.

THERE IS NO MESSAGE IF IT IS "POINTLESS."

That's not consistent with requesting a new rule be made that no 'groundless thoughts' be allowed in the philosophy forum.

It's not consistent with saying that these forums are a disgrace to philosophy.

It's not consistent with demanding that everyones views be logically analyzed to decide whether or not they hold logical merit.

Yet he has demanded all of these things.

while I can appreciate the statement, I think there is a lot to be learned by sitting "around campfires" and having good conversations about the various ways people think, how they arrive at their reality, what they think about their intuition, their beliefs, hopes, dreams...ideas.

And I do think there has been many things that have changed...many many many things..

To sit with others listening to the stillness, and then discussing what they listened too...to let a person speak, to have the chance to sit with others and be understood because they are LISTENING to your words...

That, to me, is NOT foolish conversation. It helps me understand the human condition.

Perhaps there is a group of the "new" philosophers of today are more focused on the universal concepts of oneness or the spiritual side of life...

There may be other groups that "seeing" something that has been repeated over time, yet, they pause and listen...

I very much enjoy the "sociological" philosophy, or the "ethical" discussion of the human condition.

I have a degree, albeit just a Bachelors, in the Arts(Sociology)and one in Science (Nursing), and they have very much complimented each other in my life...

I really think that even today, there are many "hard" science ideas born out of the thought process...the theory...the conversations...

Just my thoughts on that!!

Peace and Light~

Invisible wrote...



The suggestion for a new rule was an attempt to reduce the personal attacks which continue to go on. There are those who address the nature of the person based upon what they think that person intends or demands. There are so many false accusations floating around here about me personally.

It is a disgrace.

If I ask for grounds, get the run around and linguistical gymnastics, and then I am then accused of doing something wrong?



Curiosity of new ideas has been brutally twisted into a negative.

James' assessment makes a lot of sense if one believes what he says about my reasons and or intent. His entire argument rests it's validity on the assumption that my mind was already made up and I am out to prove that evryone else is wrong. The fact is that I do not have my mind made up, and I am actively exploring new information. That has been turned into a negative as well?

Philosophy does not involve personal character assessments.

That is what is a disgrace.

All of the other bullsheeeought has personal judgement leading the way.

Personal judgement of me is the premise which supports the idea that they believe that it is justified to talk about another person's character.

Read the posts... realize that I am clearly being attacked. I have been attempting to show this without 'striking' back, which could be very easily done using the same measure...

But what would that make me... equal in that way?

I would rather not be.

Personally, whilst i am finding this discussion quite amusing and interesting, i think everyone might as well stfu.

One or more people want something they arent going to get here no matter what they say so its pointless.

But while i say that i am going to add my quids worth on one point anyway..

When people make personal judgement on people, it is normally got good and definate grounding to the people making them.

My opinion of everyone is based on how i see them, i might think someone is an arrogant idiot, for example(and not directed at anyone at all, probably applies to myself the best if anything!), then i have made that assumption from things they have said. They may not actually be arrogant or an idiot, but regardless, i have reason to make that claim. Something made me think that.

Whether or not personal judgements are useful in a philosophy discussion, i dont know and i dont really care, but complaining about them probably takes more away from the discussion, that the judgements themselves.

I don't know who you think attacked your character, but I did not.

If you really think everyone is attacking you or your character, why do you suppose they would do such a thing?

You are right, philosophy does not involve personal character assessments but I see no philosophy in your question "Is thought an unspoken language?"

Is that really philosophy? If it is, then I don't know what philosophy is. It looks like a question to me.

In fact I have not seen or heard any philosophy from you.

I would actually love to here your philosophy.

JB, most of the rules are here so that the largest number of people can enjoy themselves in the forum. If Bushido is getting impatient with certain occurances in these thread, he is not alone. Rule interpretation is often a matter of opinion, in your opinion no rule has been broken. In Bushido's opinion there has been. In my opinion no -significant- rule has been broken in several days, but a few days ago I thought about directing mod attention to an issue. I didn't, then one contacted me (as a friend making small talk) and I mentioned that there had been a problem but it had settled down (which, again, is all my opinion).

I can certainly understand rules about name calling and flaming and such. But any rule that restricts a person from having a personal and honest strait forward conversation with another person is going too far.

Sometimes we have to assess a person's character in order to understand what he is talking about and why. Ambiguity invites wrong conclusions and misunderstanding as has been proven in this thread.

And of course, subjects with 'no point' are pointless.

This has never been about your character Michael.

It's about trying to get at the root of your problem. And clearly you have a problem with these forums and philosophy. That's not a comment about your character. That's a direct observation with respect to what you actually post.

You posted:



Clearly here you are complaining about philosophical topics and you have a problem with the way that philosophy is done on these forums.

Then later you demand that philosophical claims be backed up by logic, etc.

So then I point out how your philosophical arguments reduce to nothing more than empty semantic smoke with no logical basis at all.

How is that a comment about your character?

It's a comment directly related to how you technically argue your philosophical views.

It's totally appropriate with respect to the very claims that you are making about how philosophy should be done.

Later, I show how you approach philosophy from a top down approach, taking high-level statements and trying to reduce them to premises to see if they hold up to logic.

I show how that method is not the way professional philosophy is done, and I suggest that you are working entirely backwards and not using professional philosophical methods at all.

Everything I've said was directly related to the technical concerns that you keep bringing up.

Now you're trying to make out like your character is being attacked, like as if your some pure innocent sheep and you refuse to stoop to that level.

No one has attack your character Michael. The only thing that has been addressed is your very understanding of how philosophy should be done, and what logic even means.

Those are totally valid topics to bring up since you're the one who is accusing everyone else of doing philosophy all wrong and not being logical.

You do philosophy all wrong, and you're arguments are totally illogical. That's just a technical observation concerning the very topic that you are demanding must be addressed.

Where's the character assassination in that?

Just because you're a horrible philosopher and couldn't build a sound logical construct to save your life, doesn't say anything about your character. You just have philosophy and logic all wrong, IMHO.

And that's precisely what you have been accusing everyone on these forums of.

So don't give me that innocent victim crap that you're too good to stoop that low. That's just an insult to everyone who's trying to address your concerns.

We've been directly addressing concerns about how philosophy should be done and what constitutes good or poor logical analysis. To point out the fact that your analysis and approach to philosophy is totally invalid from a professional point of view is totally appropriate considering that this is precisely what you are accusing us of.

Trying to turn this into a character assassination like as if you are some pure innocent victim is bologna.

No one said anything about your character.

and smores

let's make smores and have groundless stoner conversations

the only "groundless" opinions are those that flout or deny natural law and proven science

just because someone is full of shite doesn't mean they are groundless

Exactly.

I have a question about this statement Creative:




1. I thought the suggestion for a new rule concerned how to discuss Philosophy and something about "groundless claims."

It now appears the true reason you wanted rules was to control and reduce what you perceive to be 'personal attacks.'

I believe there is already a rule against personal attacks, we don't need any more.

I suggest that your perceptions on what is a personal attack is skewed.



As I have said before, ambiguity invites assumptions and conclusions.
Perhaps we should just ignore all of your posts since we have no idea what they mean and any attempt by anyone to figure it out is construed as a personal attack or misjudgment.

I will consider this.

does this mean that I am full of shite because I like to sit around the campfire and have discussions?