Philosophy Now Forum

Dear friends,

I have been on the internet for some time, and it's a very difficult undertaking. Why is this so? Because people look back at one's online history and come to false conclusions. Will you give me space in which to speak before jumping to conclusions?? I hope so.

peacegirl wrote:Dear friends,

I have been on the internet for some time, and it's a very difficult undertaking. Why is this so? Because people look back at one's online history and come to false conclusions. Will you give me space in which to speak before jumping to conclusions?? I hope so. :)

I am uninterested in the words that you have left lying around on your trip through the net. That was what you thought then.
The words that I will evaluate and critique are the ones presented Now (unless you wish to link me to others).
I don't come to "conclusions", understanding and critical evaluation is an ongoing process. 'Conclusions' are for 'believers', religion rather than philosophy.
Philosophers are mind sharks!
Welcome.

Welcome, peacegirl!
Nice to have you here! Are you all for peace? I am!

Peace! Cheers!

nameless wrote:

peacegirl wrote:Dear friends,

I have been on the internet for some time, and it's a very difficult undertaking. Why is this so? Because people look back at one's online history and come to false conclusions. Will you give me space in which to speak before jumping to conclusions?? I hope so.

I am uninterested in the words that you have left lying around on your trip through the net. That was what you thought then.
The words that I will evaluate and critique are the ones presented Now (unless you wish to link me to others).
I don't come to "conclusions", understanding and critical evaluation is an ongoing process. 'Conclusions' are for 'believers', religion rather than philosophy.
Philosophers are mind sharks!
Welcome.

Thanks for your warm welcome. From what you just wrote, are you saying that no one can come to any logical conclusions that are backed up by solid evidence? Then by definition philosophy is a field that deals only in theoretical constructs since as soon as something becomes factual, it is no longer philosophy, but science. How am I doing?

Aetixintro wrote:Welcome, peacegirl!
Nice to have you here! Are you all for peace? I am!

Peace! Cheers!

I sure am, hence my name. I do have something to offer in regard to peace. It's a book. Actually, one of the members here has already tried to refute one of the premises, but I don't think he came close to disproving it. I am a little gun shy as a result of people misconstruing what the author was saying, so please bear with me as I slowly warm up to the people here. Each forum has its own personality and I have to feel my way around before I can open up. I've been called a troll, a liar, and everything in between. Trust me, I'm not any of those things.

peacegirl wrote:Thanks for your warm welcome.

Sarcasm already? A defensive reaction? Did I offend you somehow?
(You don't come to a philosophy forum to have your vanity stroked, IMHO.)

From what you just wrote, are you saying that no one can come to any logical conclusions that are backed up by solid evidence?

con⋅clu⋅sion
–noun
1. the end or close; final part.
2. the last main division of a discourse, usually containing a summing up of the points and a statement of opinion or decisions reached.
3. a result, issue, or outcome; settlement or arrangement: The restitution payment was one of the conclusions of the negotiations.
4. final decision: The judge has reached his conclusion.
5. etc...

No, what I am saying is that;
I don't come to "conclusions", understanding and critical evaluation is an ongoing process. 'Conclusions' are for 'believers', religion rather than philosophy.

'Conclusions' are conclusive (no more critical examination or thought necessary, hence = 'belief' = religion). Understanding is inconclusive, the process of philosophy is not a process of drawing conclusions but of critical examination, and a steady unfolding of tentative understandings replacing other understandings that replaced other understandings, etc... ('unlike 'conclusions').
It is most often found, unless you have discovered a Universal Law or two, that all 'conslusions' falter and fail under the harsh critical light of philosophical examination.

Then by definition philosophy is a field that deals only in theoretical constructs since as soon as something becomes factual, it is no longer philosophy, but science. How am I doing?

I think that i have offered a good definition of philosophy; 'critical thought'!
'Facts' are science's 'conclusions', no different. 'Facts' are also contextual, which means that 'facts' are only true in certain contexts, hence, like 'conclusions', 'facts' also fade into local celebrity status (and far from the Universal to which they pretend) under that same harsh light of philosophical examination.
Philosophy demonstrates that there are darned few (Universal) 'facts'.

Lastly, as this is a philosophy site, I might add that the 'warmth' of a welcome is in the eye of the beholder. Some find 'warmth' in the most unlikely of places...
Now, here is, perhaps, a 'warmer' welcome for you;
welcome
*__-

nameless wrote:

peacegirl wrote:Thanks for your warm welcome.

nameless wrote:Sarcasm already? A defensive reaction? Did I offend you somehow?
(You don't come to a philosophy forum to have your vanity stroked, IMHO.)

I wasn't being sarcastic or defensive. I was simply thanking you for the warm welcome.

From what you just wrote, are you saying that no one can come to any logical conclusions that are backed up by solid evidence?

nameless wrote:con⋅clu⋅sion
–noun
1. the end or close; final part.
2. the last main division of a discourse, usually containing a summing up of the points and a statement of opinion or decisions reached.
3. a result, issue, or outcome; settlement or arrangement: The restitution payment was one of the conclusions of the negotiations.
4. final decision: The judge has reached his conclusion.
5. etc...

No, what I am saying is that;
I don't come to "conclusions", understanding and critical evaluation is an ongoing process. 'Conclusions' are for 'believers', religion rather than philosophy.

'Conclusions' are conclusive (no more critical examination or thought necessary, hence = 'belief' = religion). Understanding is inconclusive, the process of philosophy is not a process of drawing conclusions but of critical examination, and a steady unfolding of tentative understandings replacing other understandings that replaced other understandings, etc... ('unlike 'conclusions').
It is most often found, unless you have discovered a Universal Law or two, that all 'conslusions' falter and fail under the harsh critical light of philosophical examination.

It is very true that many conclusions do falter under the harsh light of philosophical examination.

Then by definition philosophy is a field that deals only in theoretical constructs since as soon as something becomes factual, it is no longer philosophy, but science. How am I doing?

nameless wrote:I think that i have offered a good definition of philosophy; 'critical thought'!
'Facts' are science's 'conclusions', no different. 'Facts' are also contextual, which means that 'facts' are only true in certain contexts, hence, like 'conclusions', 'facts' also fade into local celebrity status (and far from the Universal to which they pretend) under that same harsh light of philosophical examination.
Philosophy demonstrates that there are darned few (Universal) 'facts'.

There are few universal facts, that is true, but it's important that we don't dismiss the possibility of such a fact just because they are few and far between. It's difficult, I grant you, to separate the chaff from the wheat, but just as it is important to negate a conclusion if it falters, it is just as important to acknowledge a conclusion that might be correct.

nameless wrote:Lastly, as this is a philosophy site, I might add that the 'warmth' of a welcome is in the eye of the beholder. Some find 'warmth' in the most unlikely of places...
Now, here is, perhaps, a 'warmer' welcome for you;
welcome
*__-

I'm not a sarcastic person. So I will say, once again, thank you for saying hi to me in a warm way. I really truly appreciated it.

peacegirl wrote:I'm not a sarcastic person. So I will say, once again, thank you for saying hi to me in a warm way. I really truly appreciated it. :)

Good! And I can appreciate that you can find warmth where i have not. That says to me that you are a warm person (at that moment, anyway), as 'warmth' is in the eye of the beholder! and "We don't see the world as it is, we see it as we are!"
see you around
peace

nameless wrote:

peacegirl wrote:I'm not a sarcastic person. So I will say, once again, thank you for saying hi to me in a warm way. I really truly appreciated it.

Good! And I can appreciate that you can find warmth where i have not. That says to me that you are a warm person (at that moment, anyway), as 'warmth' is in the eye of the beholder! and "We don't see the world as it is, we see it as we are!"
see you around
peace

I'm not sure where to go from here. Yes, warmth is subjective, but now that we have agreed that I saw no harm in your kind reference, am I able to start a new thread on the subject for which I came? Maybe a moderator could help me out here.

peacegirl wrote:am I able to start a new thread on the subject for which I came? Maybe a moderator could help me out here.

I do not speak with the authority of a moderator, but I can assure you that anyone can start a new thread on any topic. Just go to the board index page, click through to the appropriate area (ethics, epistemology or whatever), and click on "New topic". Then give your topic an informative title, and away you go.

Richard Baron wrote:

peacegirl wrote:am I able to start a new thread on the subject for which I came? Maybe a moderator could help me out here.

I do not speak with the authority of a moderator, but I can assure you that anyone can start a new thread on any topic. Just go to the board index page, click through to the appropriate area (ethics, epistemology or whatever), and click on "New topic". Then give your topic an informative title, and away you go.

Thanks for your help Richard!

Hi everyone, it's been quite a long time, nine years to be exact. WOW! I was hoping to continue where we left off and explain why I titled this thread "New Discovery." Is anyone interested in learning more?

I think I put this thread under the wrong heading. I just wanted to introduce myself. I will have to start a new thread in the right category.

Welcome to the forum.

Welcome to the forum.