Farewell to certain folks

[Immanuel Can]

In a forum dedicated to philosophy...maybe it's not the place for every spinny thought a person can get in his/her head.

Define philosophy. Better yet: define philosophy in a way everyone, in-forum & out-, can agree with.

If it can't be defined, we can't be doing it. There's nothing to "do."

However, "agreement" isn't necessary. We don't need everybody's say-so to make a decision about the proper focus of a forum. The editors can define it any way they like. If we don't like it, we can pound sand.

But as I was saying, I have no intention of advocating regulating content, apart from the sort of obscenities and incitements to violence that any decent mod should ban on any forum. But I think we can focus on style: just stay on topic, for example: it's right at the top of each thread. Speak about things in a moderately mature manner. And insulting each other is merely Three Stooges stuff...the world's a better place without it.

So...no problem.

[Skepdick]

See, Mannie? Skep considers himself an (anti) philosopher. Isn't his contribution valid? isn't he, in his own way, philosophizing?

I've had a change of heart on the matter. An anti-philosopher vindicates philosophy through complementing it.

Like heads and tails - two sides of the same coin. So...

I am neither a philosopher nor a non-philosopher.

[Impenitent]

Hi guys

I've noticed some pretty disturbing threads here recently - full of crass four letter words, hate-filled imagery and vitriolic personal attacks that have no place on a philosophy forum. I've wondered again about simply closing the whole place down and saving the money that Philosophy Now spends on it, or else on changing the set-up so that use of the forum becomes restricted to logged-in Philosophy Now subscribers. I believe that many here would welcome that change.

The mods and I are going to be deleting some threads over the next few days, and a few well known local characters will also be disappearing either temporarily or permanently for overstepping the mark a few times too often.

Best wishes,
Rick

restricting it to subscribers might be good (I have been a subscriber for a few years now) however that could drastically reduce the number of "new" posters in the forum... I agree that civility is paramount in a discussion forum...

-Imp

[accelafine]

Or ban those who insist on 'signing off' their comments on the grounds that they are being deliberately annoying.

[Age]

In a forum dedicated to philosophy...maybe it's not the place for every spinny thought a person can get in his/her head.

Define philosophy. Better yet: define philosophy in a way everyone, in-forum & out-, can agree with.

Having the 'love-of-wisdom'. Does anyone disagree with this is what the 'philosophy' word once meant, and so still could?

Also, what is entailed in and with a 'love-of-wisdom', or of having a 'love of becoming wiser', or just being a "phil-o-sopher" is 'learning'. So, having a 'love-of-learning' here, instead of having a 'love-of-wanting to be right' and thus having a 'love-of-fighting for and over one's own position or belief could, and would, make a 'phil-o-sophy' forum more conducive to and for everyone.

Is there anyone, in or out of this forum, who does not agree that the word 'philosophy' could be defined as 'love-of-wisdom'?

Seriously, give it a shot.

I'm not a philosopher so I just think about things and occasionally post those thoughts here (when I'm not shit-posting).

you may not be at all times "henry quirk" but neither is any adult human being, at all times.

However, absolutely every one of you adult human beings, and absolutely every human child, is born with a 'love-of-learning', and thus, naturally, with a 'love of wanting to become wiser'.

Absolutely every new born is a True "philosopher", with a natural tendency of being 'curios'.

This natural 'curiosity', however, diminishes, and gets lost completely, in some, by and through an ill-gotten so-called 'education system'.

I haven't a clue on how to do philosophy.

Just have a 'want-to-learn', with no preconceived ideas, views, nor beliefs, remember just like when you were a young child, then, and only then, you will just be doing 'philosophy', naturally, anyway.

You do, apparently.

But I have very rarely seen "immanuel can" 'want-to-learn' anything.

So: define it.

not tryin' to put you on the spot: absolutely, though, I'm lookin' to see how many folks, philosophers all, pop in to challenge your definition with their own

But, there can be as many definitions of 'any word' as there are human beings, who can define things.

And, no one can, rationally nor logically, 'challenge' another's view nor perspective of what 'the definition' of some thing is. When it comes to how one defines any thing, then it is 'each to their own', as some would say here.

However, there are some things in Life, that all can agree with, and accept. And, 'the definitions' of words is one of those things.

Absolutely every one could agree with, and accept, that the word 'philosophy' was reported to have once meant, or to have derived from, the words 'love', 'of', and 'wisdom', ['phil'-'o'-'sophy'], in whatever way those words looked like, were spelled, were said, and/or were pronounced in some time, back.

The best part of 'that word' is that when human beings have just a 'love-of-learning', which is how 'wisdom' is said to be obtained, only, then absolutely none of the bickering, fighting, ridiculing, nor humiliating that has quite easily taken over human discussions, for thousands of years, hitherto, just completely dissipates, and disappears. And, for absolutely anyone who does not believe me, then not just 'try it', but actually 'do it'. That is; go into a discussion with absolutely nothing else but with the intention of 'to learn' some thing more, or newer.

Go in without any intention at all of wanting-to-be 'heard', and listened to, nor without any intention of wanting-to-be 'right'. Go in with the intention of wanting-to-become wiser, alone, and only, and see if this removes all, on your part anyway, of all of 'the things', which 'we' all 'know' are not wanted in 'philosophical discussions'.

This is not directed to 'you', "henry quirk", but to everyone, here.

[Age]

Define philosophy. Better yet: define philosophy in a way everyone, in-forum & out-, can agree with.

Instruction not understood.

Define "define philosophy".

It can mean for 'you', a human being, to put 'your view' forward of how 'you' 'see' what 'that word' means, or is referring to.

And, if you are using the 'define' word, after the 'define' word, but you do not have 'a view' on what the word 'define' means, or is referring to, then do you even have a clue on what 'it' is that you are asking, or saying, here?

if yes, then okay.

But, if no, then are you 'sure'?

[Age]

Define philosophy. Better yet: define philosophy in a way everyone, in-forum & out-, can agree with.

Instruction not understood.

Define "define philosophy".

See, Mannie? Skep considers himself an (anti) philosopher. Isn't his contribution valid? isn't he, in his own way, philosophizing?

But, to answer 'this', sufficiently, then one would have to, first, 'know' what is 'it' that you are 'meaning' by your own use of the 'philosophizing' word, here.

What do you mean by, 'Is "he" not, in "his" own way, 'philosophizing'?'

[Age]

Instruction not understood.

Define "define philosophy".

See, Mannie? Skep considers himself an (anti) philosopher. Isn't his contribution valid? isn't he, in his own way, philosophizing?

No ad hom or irrelevancy to philosophy so far.

So far, so good.

So, you ignore "henry quirk's" request, completely, for you to provide a definition for the 'philosophy' word. Yet, you 'now' come here and claim that there is - 'no irrelevancy to 'philosophy' so far'.

Could you not making your views clear, and known, to others here be a form of 'irrelevancy to philosophy' in and of itself?

After all you have not, yet, defined the word 'philosophy', for 'us', here, so your claim that there has been, 'no irrelevancy to philosophy, so far', 'we' have absolutely nothing at all to gauge nor judge on. Except of course, our 'own definitions and meanings', which might well be opposing 'yours' completely. Therefore, this can all to quickly, simply, and easily lead straight back to each of your saying, and claiming, to 'the other', 'your wrong', and, 'No, you are wrong'.

Which is, more or less, about all of what you posters end up doing here.

One has to only look back over this forum to see that, essentially and really, not one thing has ever been solved, and/or answered, 'collectively'.

Again, this is because you, posters, here are, generally, not here 'to learn', but instead are here 'to be heard', 'listened to', and 'agreed with', and 'accepted as being right'.

[Age]

In a forum dedicated to philosophy...maybe it's not the place for every spinny thought a person can get in his/her head.

Define philosophy. Better yet: define philosophy in a way everyone, in-forum & out-, can agree with.

If it can't be defined, we can't be doing it. There's nothing to "do."

What has this got to do with what you were asked to do?

Obviously the 'philosophy' word has been defined for centuries, if not millennia, and, still, is being defined, in the days when this is being written.

However, "agreement" isn't necessary.

How quick you try to evade, and deflect.

These people, really, hated being questioned, and being challenged over things. And, this is because they hated, so, so much, just 'being wrong'. Which is and was never 'a fault' of them personally, but was, and still is, a unfortunate result of a very Wrong 'education system'.

We don't need everybody's say-so to make a decision about the proper focus of a forum. The editors can define it any way they like. If we don't like it, we can pound sand.

Once again, off topic. you were instructed to define 'philosophy', and to define 'philosophy' in a particular way.

Now, either you will do this, or you will not. So far, you will not. But, there is no use in your deceiving and deflecting ways, to evade. They certainly ar not helping you here, either.

But as I was saying, I have no intention of advocating regulating content, apart from the sort of obscenities and incitements to violence that any decent mod should ban on any forum.

Once again, everyone, including "moderators", 'should' be doing what "immanuel can" believes is the 'right thing', to do.

But I think we can focus on style: just stay on topic, for example: it's right at the top of each thread. Speak about things in a moderately mature manner. And insulting each other is merely Three Stooges stuff...the world's a better place without it.

So...no problem.

So, when you have said 'the things' you have 'about me' did you, or did you not, intend to 'insult' 'me'?

[Age]

See, Mannie? Skep considers himself an (anti) philosopher. Isn't his contribution valid? isn't he, in his own way, philosophizing?

I've had a change of heart on the matter. An anti-philosopher vindicates philosophy through complementing it.

Like heads and tails - two sides of the same coin. So...

I am neither a philosopher nor a non-philosopher.

Now 'we' are finally getting to the Truth of things.

The 'I' has never ever been any of 'those things' and never ever will be.

Also, and contrary to popular belief, 'you', human beings, have never ever been 'those things' and never ever will be.

[Age]

Hi guys

I've noticed some pretty disturbing threads here recently - full of crass four letter words, hate-filled imagery and vitriolic personal attacks that have no place on a philosophy forum. I've wondered again about simply closing the whole place down and saving the money that Philosophy Now spends on it, or else on changing the set-up so that use of the forum becomes restricted to logged-in Philosophy Now subscribers. I believe that many here would welcome that change.

The mods and I are going to be deleting some threads over the next few days, and a few well known local characters will also be disappearing either temporarily or permanently for overstepping the mark a few times too often.

Best wishes,
Rick

restricting it to subscribers might be good (I have been a subscriber for a few years now)

So, is 'it' 'good' because 'it is good', or just because you happen to be a "subscriber"?

Also, does being a "subscriber" then allow one to say and/or do what 'others' are not allowed to here?

In other words, once one has paid, 'monetary wise', then can 'that one' get away with things that 'unpaid ones' could not?

If yes, then this sounds like the whole 'democratic system', once more.

however that could drastically reduce the number of "new" posters in the forum... I agree that civility is paramount in a discussion forum...

-Imp

And, how, exactly, do you define 'civility'?

Have you always behaved 'civilly' here, for example?

If yes, then okay.

But, if no, then in what way, exactly?

[henry quirk]

What do you mean by, 'Is "he" not, in "his" own way, 'philosophizing'?'

He's thinking about things (which seems to me to be the root of philosophy).

[Skepdick]

Define philosophy. Better yet: define philosophy in a way everyone, in-forum & out-, can agree with.

Instruction not understood.

Define "define philosophy".

It can mean for 'you', a human being, to put 'your view' forward of how 'you' 'see' what 'that word' means, or is referring to.

And, if you are using the 'define' word, after the 'define' word, but you do not have 'a view' on what the word 'define' means, or is referring to, then do you even have a clue on what 'it' is that you are asking, or saying, here?

if yes, then okay.

But, if no, then are you 'sure'?

OK do it then.

Whatever it is you expect me to DO when you say "define philosophy' - demonstrate the activity.

[Immanuel Can]

What do you mean by, 'Is "he" not, in "his" own way, 'philosophizing'?'

He's thinking about things (which seems to me to be the root of philosophy).

Yes, and thinking conceptually, in a way that focuses on an issue or subject, rather than the petty character-assassinating of his interlocutors. So he's really doing what we came here to do.

If we wanted a site for the opposite, it should be called, "Uncharitable-and-Unthinking Now."

[Peter Kropotkin]

Or ban those who insist on 'signing off' their comments on the grounds that they are being deliberately annoying.

K: I wonder who he is talking about?

Kropotkin