Very nice. I've added folk to the thread title.

:up:

If you're anything like me you never log out, in which case you'll never see it.

That made me wonder about the criteria for being accepted? I didn't have to go through that process and can't find information on 'how to join'... — Amity

The following message, visible if you're not logged in, is pinned to the top under the title Joining The Philosophy Forum:

The Philosophy Forum is now invitation-only, but anyone who wants to take part in philosophical discussions and who can follow the site guidelines is very welcome to join.

If you'd like us to send you an invitation, send an email to infoatthephilosophyforumdotcom telling us something about yourself, why you'd like to join, and what you're interested in.

Those emails go to me, and if they exhibit a genuine interest in philosophy and an ability to write reasonably well in English, I usually send an invitation.

Fictions by Jorge Luis Borges — javi2541997

Great book. I had some difficulty with it in the beginning: I read the first two or three stories in part one, The Garden of Forking Paths, and thought they were just mildly interesting thought experiments, written in a frustratingly terse manner, so I skipped over the rest and started part two, Artifices. I liked that much more, and when I finished it I went back to part one and for some reason I got on with it much better this time. I guess I had to get used to his writing.


I’ve just read the Republic by Plato, trans. C. D. C. Reeve. Now reading An Introduction to Plato’s Republic by Julia Annas. More than just an introduction, it’s a pretty thorough analysis of the whole work. Recommended.

And we're back. This time it was nothing to do with disk space. The data centre had a power outage.

No, mate. I don't participate in guiri things. — javi2541997

I once was aggressively called "Guiri" by a drunken Spanishman. Ironically, he was the one who was being uncouth; I was a perfect gentleman.

@BC @Amity @everyone

To clarify: if you don't join the Discord server you won't be left behind; the forum will always be at thephilosophyforum.com, and even if it did go down for an extended period, we'd bring it back as soon as possible.

So the Discord server will not replace this forum. It's somewhere to go in TPF emergencies, but also an optional social space for different kinds of interactions — we'll see if and how that develops.

I'll leave this discussion pinned for a few days so all frequently participating members can see it.

I don’t know if we’re safe and sound yet — Jamal

I wanted to say I didn’t know if we were out of the woods yet but I was worried that was just a Britishism that nobody else would understand. I was just referring to what seemed to be ongoing problems when I wrote the post.

Adrian thinks it's partly because the posts on this forum are especially large. But it's mostly uploads. When I deleted the big ones I freed up some space but not enough.

Update: the disk was full again. I'll have to clear out a lot more files than I did last time. With uploads turned off I didn't think we'd fill up the disk again so quickly.

This is something of a relief, as it means there is nothing more worrying happening than what happened last time.

There's a risk that Plush, our current platform, will cease operating before we manage to set up a new forum and move all the data across, so I've tried to ensure the community doesn't fall apart. The downtime this morning made me worry enough to set up the Discord server.

(In case anyone's wondering, I don't think there's a significant risk of our losing all our data, i.e., the posts.)

It's not a replacement for TPF or the place that TPF is moving to. It's to make sure nobody gets lost if the worst happens, or just somewhere to hang out whether or not the site happens to be down.

Also note that voice chat is merely an option.

Take pleasure in it while you have the chance, for a storm is brewing on yonder horizon.

I'd be interested to hear your views on using 'Aesthetics' as a category or sub-category? It seems broader in scope with non-argumentative approaches as to what we find beautiful and valuable in human experience. Also, our aesthetic experience, response or attitude to works of art, including objects and nature. — Amity

Aesthetics is cool. It comes under philosophy of art, and we have a category for that. There's no requirement for elaborate argumentation; there just has to be some philosophical meat. More than just a mention of an idea.

As @javi2541997 has just said, his aim was not really to discuss the aesthetic ideas, but to share his appreciation with others, so the Lounge was the right place for it. But as I said, I likely would not have removed it from the philosophy of art category if it had originally been placed there.

:up:

If started by anyone else other than the site owner, then it 'probably' would have been moved!
The privilege of power, huh?! :smile: — Amity

I don't think so. If I recall correctly, I started it because there had been one on the old forum, and if anyone else had done it that would've also been fine.

Isn't that 'philosophical' enough? — Amity

It certainly would be if explicated and developed, because it's a good thought.

Yes, but I think he wasn't in that theoretical frame of mind. He primarily just wanted to share poems, thoughts or recommendations — Amity

It's because it's non-theoretical that it probably doesn't belong in a philosophy category.

just as he does in the Main Page 'Currently Reading' thread — Amity

Yes, that thread is something of an anomaly, though I'm happy with where it is.

It probably doesn't fit in Philosophy of Art, but I might not have moved it to the Lounge if it had been placed there originally, because I just like to see threads about art, literature, etc.

Anyway, the germ of some possible philosophical content in the OP is probably this bit:

that's precisely what I feel when I read poems: Unbearable nostalgia — javi2541997

If Javi had made a brief argument as to how and why this is an important part of the appreciation of literature, that would have been enough to make it belong unambiguously on the main page, in my opinion.

Surely. Though outside beauty may not stand up to inner beauty, it is still very important. At the end of the day, when we walk into bookstores, we do judge books by their covers, at least a bit. — Lionino

Indubitably. But what happens is that once I've found the inner beauty, the outer beauty of the book as physical object pales into insignificance; it loses its novelty and pristine attractiveness. (This is partly because I can't read a paperback without creasing the covers, crushing the corners, etc.)

I love the NYRB Classics cover designs.



Shadows of Carcosa: Tales of Cosmic Horror by Lovecraft, Chambers, Machen, Poe, and Other Masters of the Weird, New York Review Books Classics.

It's the cover that makes me want the book as much as or more than the content. And it's not just the cover art, but also the livery of the whole series.

I like that suggestion actually. — Hanover

My updated suggestion is that you're talking out of your hindquarters.

The OP was not a hit and run. I promise I'll come back and respond to some of what's been said.

Also, I'll remove any more posts that include personal abuse.

There's also the fact that Marx and Engels were using the term Wissenschaft, which is broader than science as commonly understood in English today. They meant that their socialism was systematic, not merely Utopian. They certainly didn't mean to equate it with empirical sciences.

Although you're probably right, @Moliere, that they were attempting to reach beyond that older sense of science to something modern.

Wittgensteinian is interesting to the extent he lets you know the logical conclusions of analytic philosophy where the only objective is to define your terms and forget about the world — Hanover

Do you mean that he revealed this about analytic philosophy with his criticisms, or do you mean to characterize his own philosophy as exemplifying this "objective"? The former is an interesting take, but the latter seems obviously wrong.

I give up

Almost. I fixed it for you.

:party:

:up:

A nuanced view is possible, like the following from Allen Wood, philosopher and scholar of German Idealism:

This book attempts to expound the philosophy of Karl Marx. But the first question it must address is whether Marx has a philosophy at all. Marx’s principal academic training was in philosophy, but in his mature thought Marx focuses on political economy and the history of capitalism, and usually tends to neglect the philosophical side even of his own theories. Even in his early writings, Marx does not often address himself directly to philosophical questions, but treats such questions only in the course of developing his ideas about contemporary society or criticizing the ideas of others. If it is possible to describe Marx as a philosopher, it is probably more accurate to describe him as an economist, historian, political theorist or sociologist, and above all as a working class organizer and revolutionary.

Yet Marx is also a systematic thinker, who attaches great importance to the underlying methods and aims of his theory and the general outlook on the human predicament expressed in it. In his mature writings, every topic – from the most technical questions of political economy to the most specific issues of practical politics – are viewed in the context of a single comprehensive program of inquiry, vitally connected to the practical movement for working class emancipation. Further, Marx views his own thought as heir to a definite philosophical tradition, or rather as combining two traditions: that of German idealist philosophy from Kant to Hegel in which he was educated, and that of Enlightenment materialism which he greatly admired. Most of all, Marx’s social theories consciously raise important philosophical questions: about human nature and human aspirations, about society and history and the proper business of those who would study them scientifically, about the right way to approach the rational assessment and alteration of social arrangements. At least in some cases, Marx supplies some original and distinctive answers to these questions. Thus the tradition of thought in which Marx’s social theory consciously stands, the breadth of its scope and the questions it addresses all justify us in speaking of Marx as a philosopher. — From the Introduction to Karl Marx by Allen Wood

It's a great book, by the way.

:cool:

Thanks. To keep the site running smoothly over the next while I've just deleted some of the bigger old ones.

The site was down for a while some time in the last 5 hours due to a lack of disk space. I'll have to solve this by deleting lots of file uploads and blocking or restricting further uploads.

Stranger Than Paradise (1984)
Down by Law (1986)
Night on Earth (1991)
Dead Man (1995)
Coffee and Cigarettes (2003)
Broken Flowers (2005)
Only Lovers Left Alive (2013) — SophistiCat

I like Ghost Dog (1999) as well.

Currently Hothouse by Brian Aldiss. — Jamal

I had vague and tantalizing memories of this book from the first time I read it, as a teenager. I've just read it again and that memory has been replaced by the mundane reality: it's good for the first 75 pages, then pretty bad.

:up: Yeah that's probably the one I'll read too.

Currently Hothouse by Brian Aldiss.

I could never work out why the monk was a beautiful Japanese fashion model — Tom Storm

Yeah, that was baffling to me too. I think that just added to the mystery.

Piggsy was my favorite. — Tom Storm

I think I like Monkey himself most of all; his arrogance is endearing. But I do find Pigsy to be the most relatable character, since he prioritizes sex, food, and booze.

Ended up reading the original stories. They are similar. — Tom Storm

Worth reading, would you say?

Yesterday I indulged my nostalgia by watching clips of the Japanese TV series Monkey, which was on British TV, and apparently in Australia too, back in the 80s. I remember finding it very strange and entertaining.

Well, I found out it's based on the 16th century classic of Chinese literature, Journey to the West by Wu Cheng'en, which became popular throughout Asia. It was translated into English in abridged form under the title Monkey. I'll read that some time soon.

Currently Mercury by Anna Kavan, which, depending on who you listen to, is a first draft or alternative telling or rejected version of the story that was published as the more famous novel Ice.

Apart from Monkey I have the following to read soon:

• Mordew by Alex Pheby, a newish fantasy novel. I would normally avoid popular contemporary fantasy, but this looks interesting, somewhat weird and Gormenghastian.
• Malone Dies and The Unnamable by Samuel Beckett (I really liked the preceding novel Molloy)
• The Complete stories of Kafka
• The Jaguar Hunter by Lucius Shepard

Born from an egg on a mountaintop. :cool: