Philosophy Now Forum

will it ever be possible to discus a noninterlectual form of philosophy.

jackles wrote:will it ever be possible to discus a noninterlectual form of philosophy.

Non-intellectual? You mean of an unregulated, casual, relaxed, and somewhat recreational ilk? Sure, there has always been that version of it. Most of the ideational exchanges taking place on the web are by those of "us" who wouldn't know what academic philosophy was if it built a nest between our ears instead of flying overhead. "We" submit sagacious adages about everyday life; revel in the debauchery of interdoxical polygamy (siring New Age and assorted pop culture woo-woo) with zero concern for the incommensurability of some those mixed canons and sciences; and chatter as if residing within the ethos of "villagers playing checkers in front of a country store, discussing socio-political affairs and using the local value-system to dispense judgments about the horrible decline of civilization elsewhere".

Yeah, the "we": I don't necessarily fit well into the above contexts but I'm not much into blatantly aloof and condescending snobbery, either.

[Edits: Missing word in a sentence corrected, etc.]

No, but we can spell it correctly.

ha ha even you brutus

Dan Dennett is a very accessible philosopher. Peter Singer is a very nice philosopher who speaks a lot of sense. Philosophy doesn't have to be incomprehensible gobbledy-gook. Quite the opposite.

jackles wrote:ha ha even you brutus

The correct phrase is et tu, Brute? j/k

jackles wrote:ha ha even you brutus

If you're referring to me and my sudden rash of editing, that's to make you feel more comfortable about trying it yourself. I.e., "If that idiot bloke hammock can go back and correct a post then so can I!"

[Edit: One word added for slight clarification.]

No indeed anyone can correct a post, as long as you are not editing it to make a completely different point after you know full well someone has posted a reply and you have hence read it and are using sophistry; just expanding your point, or correcting grammar and or spelling no once cares. Although if someone has replied to you it's probably good form to leave and ETA (Edited to Add) or EDIT accordingly after the fact if it is about your post thing at the bottom to say what you did, especially if you added a huge amount after they cross posted, although it depends it's not always necessary, I doubt anyone is going to get to bent out of shape about a minor spelling mistake, or a minor addendum to your post.

That said I think he meant and you Brutus because everyone was sticking the knife in, it wouldn't make sense if he was talking about just one poster. I liked the cultural reference, I doubt Jackles is half as dumb as his spelling and grammar makes him out to be. Book by its cover...

Blaggard wrote:No indeed anyone can correct a post, as long as you are not editing it to make a completely different point after you know full well someone has posted a reply and you have hence read it and are using sophistry; just expanding your point, or correcting grammar and or spelling no once cares. Although if someone has replied to you it's probably good form to leave and ETA (Edited to Add) or EDIT accordingly after the fact if it is about your post thing at the bottom to say what you did, especially if you added a huge amount after they cross posted, although it depends it's not always necessary, I doubt anyone is going to get to bent out of shape about a minor spelling mistake, or a minor addendum to your post.

That said I think he meant and you Brutus because everyone was sticking the knife in, it wouldn't make sense if he was talking about just one poster. I liked the cultural reference, I doubt Jackles is half as dumb as his spelling and grammar makes him out to be. Book by its cover...

I agree. And I get that feelling about Jackles as well. Sometimes people with the worst spelling say the wisest things (when you can decipher it).

hammock wrote:

jackles wrote:will it ever be possible to discus a noninterlectual form of philosophy.

Non-intellectual? You mean of an unregulated, casual, relaxed, and somewhat recreational ilk? Sure, there has always been that version of it. Most of the ideational exchanges taking place on the web are by those of "us" who wouldn't know what academic philosophy was if it built a nest between our ears instead of flying overhead. "We" submit sagacious adages about everyday life; revel in the debauchery of interdoxical polygamy (siring New Age and assorted pop culture woo-woo) with zero concern for the incommensurability of some those mixed canons and sciences; and chatter as if residing within the ethos of "villagers playing checkers in front of a country store, discussing socio-political affairs and using the local value-system to dispense judgments about the horrible decline of civilization elsewhere".

Yeah, the "we": I don't necessarily fit well into the above contexts but I'm not much into blatantly aloof and condescending snobbery, either.

[Edits: Missing word in a sentence corrected, etc.]

And you were doing so well.

Yeah, philosophy is too smart, we need to dumb it down. That is why we have politics though right?

[quote=jackles post_id=164530 time=1396539928 user_id=9272]
will it ever be possible to discus a noninterlectual form of philosophy.
[/quote]

Intellectualism (meaning advanced understanding and application of thought) is a prerequisite for philosophy but the systematic method entailed in academics are normally counter-productive in the way you've indicated..

jackles wrote: ↑Thu Apr 03, 2014 4:45 pm will it ever be possible to discus a noninterlectual form of philosophy.

Is that intellectual?
Even as a dyslexic I can see that's not right.

Philosophy requires thinking; thinking requires an intellect. So no.

dratsab wrote: ↑Wed Apr 16, 2014 7:35 pm Yeah, philosophy is too smart, we need to dumb it down. That is why we have politics though right?

And if that gets too difficult we can always have theology to fall back on when the thinking gets too tough.