Understanding Forum participants

[Kelly]

My experience from participating on Philosophy Forums over the last sixteen years makes it apparent that people who participate do so for one of two reasons. By far the majority do so with no thought of collaborating with other participates to advance philosophical knowledge, nor do they appear to have any interest and mental ability to do so. These participates identify themselves with Philosophy attempting to appear intelligent to enhance their self-esteem. Having an intelligent dialogue with these participates is impossible for they feel threatened by any idea different from their own. This creates an extremely challenging environment for the very few participates, usually no more that one or two, whose interest is creating new ideas to advance philosophical knowledge.

The advancement of philosophical knowledge demands the creation of new different ideas that can be supported by a logical argument. This is a difficult mental process that can be made easier if on a Philosophy Forum there is collaboration between those with the same interest, but the process is easily disrupted and terminated by those on the forum whose only interest is to discredit any ideas different from their own.

Creating original ideas that advance philosophical knowledge depends on participates understanding the mental process of systematic reasoning.

I will stop and wait for replies that reveal which participants have an interest in collaborating and who feel threatened.

kelly

[Felasco]

No, you're wrong, Wrong, WRONG!!

[Skip]

Creating original ideas that advance philosophical knowledge depends on participates understanding the mental process of systematic reasoning.

The political and intellectual climate of our times does not tend to support new ideas. Another problem is that the Bell curve has been changing not only shape but texture over the last 30 years. The end bits have remained approximately the same, but the center part has flattened out and homogenized (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NqEeX857Lpc ) and put up an all but impenetrable wall of distrust against the intellectuals. And all the words have lost or changed their meaning, which makes communication difficult, even with the best intentions.... which, in this confrontational era, is difficult to maintain.

And, of course, that still begs the questions:
Is it desirable to add to the enormous body of philosophical literature that already exists?
Is it possible to advance philosophical knowledge?
Is there such a thing as philosophical knowledge, or is that an oxymoron?

Besides, I suspect most people who join philosophy forums do so because they like general discussion on social issues, but the designated political forums are either uni-dimensional or strictly partisan or profane and superficial.

[thedoc]

Creating original ideas that advance philosophical knowledge depends on participates understanding the mental process of systematic reasoning.
I will stop and wait for replies that reveal which participants have an interest in collaborating and who feel threatened.
kelly

Well I approve of the idea, it seems that there is one against, and I'm not quite sure where Skip is on the subject. Perhaps a bit of clarification?

[uwot]

Anyone not familiar with Kelly and Wayne Legette Sr. will save themselves some time by looking at this thread: viewtopic.php?f=26&t=9958

[Kelly]

Doc,
I will begin and maybe others will understand how advancing philosophical knowledge through collaboration and systematic reasoning works. First we have to decide on a subject to collaborate about, either a material/physical thing or a philosophical subject which can only be a non physical thing or abstract concept. Science creates knowledge of physical things and the conditions that relate to the existence of physical things and Philosophers are left to understand abstract concepts. We might naturally assume that since abstract concepts are invented by humans that we would understand the nature of what we have invented. This is not the case, as evidence, philosophers for over twenty-five centuries have attempted but still do not have a universal comprehensive understanding of the abstract concept of truth.

What I have contributed so far merely states that in order to create philosophical knowledge through collaboration we first have to select a subject that is an abstract concept. I will stop with this question; what is the concept we should select that demonstrates our thinking to be the most systematic. My thinking dictates that knowledge is the first concept. Does anyone suggest another concept?

kelly

[marjoramblues]

Anyone not familiar with Kelly and Wayne Legette Sr. will save themselves some time by looking at this thread: viewtopic.php?f=26&t=9958

Fascinating moneyspin.

[HexHammer]

@ Kelly

I fully agree with you, it's about 3-4% of all socalled philosophers that has some kind of understanding of philosophy, rest are just clueless cozy chatters.
Majority of people lacks rationally, and can only preform parrotspeeches, therefore they end up being rainbow chasers wasting time, I see the same topics over and over, what is time, what is love, what is truth, do we have free will, etc etc, I've posted the full answer for time, even linked to the SRT article, but it's ALWAYS disregarded because these simpletons can't comprehend such simple answer, they expect something exciting filled with classic words such as determinism, emperically and all kind of other nonsens and when it's devoid of metaphors , it's left for dead.

Cozy chatters should have a forum section for themselves, where they can't pollute the rest of us with their prolific brain diariah.

[marjoramblues]

Skip:

Besides, I suspect most people who join philosophy forums do so because they like general discussion on social issues, but the designated political forums are either uni-dimensional or strictly partisan or profane and superficial.

Interesting. Perhaps. I don't know.
Understanding Forum Participants, that's it, yeah

[aiddon]

@ Kelly

I fully agree with you, it's about 3-4% of all socalled philosophers that has some kind of understanding of philosophy, rest are just clueless cozy chatters.
Majority of people lacks rationally, and can only preform parrotspeeches, therefore they end up being rainbow chasers wasting time, I see the same topics over and over, what is time, what is love, what is truth, do we have free will, etc etc, I've posted the full answer for time, even linked to the SRT article, but it's ALWAYS disregarded because these simpletons can't comprehend such simple answer, they expect something exciting
filled with classic words such as determinism,

emperically and all kind of other nonsens and
when it's devoid of metaphors , it's l
eft for dead.

Cozy chatters should have a forum section for

themselves, where they can't pollute the rest of us with their prolific brain diariah.

Funny how the rest of us are simpletons yet you are the one a)responding to a somebody who is at best dubious, but probably a fraud and b) who
doesn't know how to spell diarrhoea.

[HexHammer]

Funny how the rest of us are simpletons yet you are the one a)responding to a somebody who is at best dubious, but probably a fraud and b) who
doesn't know how to spell diarrhoea.

He might be or not be what you say, but that is irrelevant to the topic.

Does dyslexia affect abstract logic in any way? ...no?

You fail in responding with an intellectual answer, instead it's a unthoughtful emotional response.

[duszek]

Some forum participants pretend to be someone else, they try out a different identity and see how it feels and if it works.
Giving themselves airs or ... whatever.

I would not blame such people, I like experiments of all kinds myself.

Dyslexia is a serious disorder, not an excuse for ... you know what.

[duszek]

Logic comes from logos and logos depends on language.

If you are fuzzy and negligent about your grammar what can your logical thinking be like ?

[HexHammer]

Logic comes from logos and logos depends on language.

If you are fuzzy and negligent about your grammar what can your logical thinking be like ?

Then you don't know what you are talking about.

[duszek]

Without language my logical thinking would be that of an animal:

I see a lion, therefore I run away.

I see an antilope, therefore I try to catch it.