The question "How Do We Think About the Bible From a Philosophical Point of View?" is really too broad to begin a detailed and constructive discussion. The Bible certainly discusses philosophical problems of humanity (i.e. origin of life, our role in the world, the origin of evil, etc.). You will need to take a philosophical stance the Bible proposes and then form your hypothesis or question from that.

The Bible does not prove the belief in God or defend it, it presumes it. — neoshaman2012

it is best to address very specific topics and issues so as we may come to find very nuanced specific answers to those questions. Otherwise we are circling around a yet to be defined grey area which does not set any new foundations of relevant boundaries. — neoshaman2012

First of all, welcome to TPF. Your input is already valuable. I think this advice is the way forward.
What specific topics/issues do you think would be of most help in understanding the role of the Bible and philosophy of religion as they meet current challenges in humanity ?

I have looked at the definitions of 'Justice' and 'Welfare' in the biblical worldview Glossary. I doubt this necessarily reflects the current views held by 'Christians' - another wide term covering a host of beliefs and interpretations. If you can update with your knowledge that might be helpful.

Here:

Definitions in Philosophy, as per:
http://www.biblicalworldview21.org/Glossary/Glossary.asp — Amity

This is a Glossary which acts as a 'mini-overview' of a Biblical and Christian worldview.
Of special importance are these words:
emotions, ethic, ethics, evangelical, heart, law, justice, philosophy (and all its synonyms), regeneration, righteousness, salvation, and truth. — Amity

However, we could say that there has been an different trend, towards an emphasis in social justice in more recent thinking, especially in the trend of liberation theology, which focuses on the alleviation of suffering...
— Jack Cummins

So, a different viewpoint from the way 'Justice' and 'Welfare' are defined in the Glossary ?
Can you provide sources from both theology and philosophy of religion ? — Amity

@Jack Cummins - interested to hear your thoughts. I think it clear that the definition of e.g. 'Welfare' provided is biased and narrow, but of interest re political stance.
This comes back to your wish not to bring in theism v atheism issues.
I doubt this is avoidable, given other discussions in TPF !

--------

Next up
Reference to Philosophy Now articles mentioned here:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/557465

[ There follows a review of 6 major genres in the Bible: mythology, poetry, laws, moral/theological reflection, historical sources, and wisdom literature.] — Michael Langford

I will try to use some of the ideas as a basis for some further discussion. — Jack Cummins

Good. I think it would be useful and productive to follow advice such as @neoshaman2012's.
Otherwise, there is a danger of:

With some sources such as these the thread may turn into a miniature encyclopedia — Jack Cummins

Here's hoping not !

Let me briefly preface that I have studied and have degrees in both philosophy and religion, and joined this forum looking for good discussion. — neoshaman2012

I really chose the idea of thinking about The Bible as an approach to the philosophy of religion with a slightly different focus rather than the typical atheist vs theist dichotomy. — Jack Cummins

The aim is to look at The Bible as a text, and I do welcome your ideas. — Jack Cummins

Looking at the Bible as a text is fine. But what is happening here is perhaps too much of a focus on quoting Scripture and the historical aspects ( as fascinating as they are).
A new focus is welcome - there remains the ever present theism v atheism debate - this thread is a challenge and I hope that it can progress in a fruitful and constructive manner, thanks.

I wonder how, from a philosophy point of view we may approach and understand this book, or collection of books .On one hand, there is theology, and, on the other, there is the philosophy of religion. — Jack Cummins

One way is to look at Philosophical Reviews of the Bible in the 'Philosophy Now' magazine.
I found this response to a review:
https://philosophynow.org/issues/101/Philosophical_Reviews_of_The_Bible

It might seem odd to include a book review of the Bible within a magazine devoted to philosophy, but one appears in Philosophy Now Issue 99. On reflection, I hold that there is a case for such a review, and not only on the grounds that that edition centred on God. Both the nature and the status of sacred texts raise a number of issues in philosophy concerning for example, the relation of philosophy to literature (to which at least one major journal is devoted), the relation of philosophy to mythology and poetry (a discussion that goes back at least to Plato), and the nature and justification of various forms of ‘authority’, to name just three. However, I found the particular review by Les Reid very deficient, and in what follows I propose to provide a more adequate one...

...any adequate review of the Bible has to begin with the many kinds of material found in it, which, taken as a whole, forms a kind of saga of a people covering many centuries. Parts are certainly mythology, but other parts have as much claim to being historical documents as many other ancient sources. This does not make them ‘literally’ accurate – but Reid’s implication that a Biblical text is either literally true or nonsense presents a bogus dichotomy. Things are more complex than that.

[ There follows a review of 6 major genres in the Bible: mythology, poetry, laws, moral/theological reflection, historical sources, and wisdom literature.]

....What worries me most about Reid’s review is the kind of certainty that pervades it, which seems to me to be inconsistent with the whole philosophical enterprise, from before the time of Socrates. To put my cards on the table, I am seriously agnostic about many theological claims, but I have made the existential commitment to be a disciple of Jesus – which involves saying, and meaning, “Jesus is Lord.” This is perfectly compatible with many kinds of doubt. Take Reid’s wholesale rejection of the possibility of a personal afterlife. Like many contemporary Christians I am not sure what will happen when I die, and my commitment to the way of Jesus in no way depends on a future life – but at the same time I find Reid’s certainty unwarranted.
— Michael Langford

Unfortunately, I can't access Issue 99 - 'The God Issue' - having used up all of my free 4 articles per month allowance. Perhaps someone else can... if interested.
https://philosophynow.org/issues/99

I do wish to keep the discussion on the philosophical. — Jack Cummins

Definitions in Philosophy, as per:
http://www.biblicalworldview21.org/Glossary/Glossary.asp

According to the author: Franklin E. (Ed) Payne
http://www.biblicalworldview21.org/Title%20Explanations/About_Author.asp

This is a Glossary which acts as a 'mini-overview' of a Biblical and Christian worldview.

Of special importance are these words:
emotions, ethic, ethics, evangelical, heart, law, justice, philosophy (and all its synonyms), regeneration, righteousness, salvation, and truth.
2) The glossary is a mini-overview of a Biblical and Christian worldview. To know these definitions and many of their nuances is to have a basic understanding of worldview! 3) This glossary is concerned with establishing definitions that are consistent throughout this website... — biblical worldview - Glossary

Justice: the application of Biblical law in the appropriate situation or each person getting his just due, both reward and punishment, by the same criteria. Why designate the appropriate situation? God's justice has the range of application from the individual's conscience in society (social justice), to the laws of church government that require correction (discipline) of its members, and to the taking of a life in capital punishment after due process of state law. Properly applied, justice is always merciful, even to its ultimate application on earth in capital punishment. Final and perfect justice will be executed in the Last Judgment.

Welfare: "financial assistance paid by taxpayers (and administered by state agencies) to people who are unable to support themselves" (Wikipedia definition, modified by Ed). Under Biblical principles and law, there is no justification for this concept of Welfare. See law and force and the not-so-great welfare state.
— biblical worldview - Glossary

However, we could say that there has been an different trend, towards an emphasis in social justice in more recent thinking, especially in the trend of liberation theology, which focuses on the alleviation of suffering... — Jack Cummins

So, a different viewpoint from the way 'Justice' and 'Welfare' are defined in the Glossary ?
Can you provide sources from both theology and philosophy of religion ?

Carl Orff - O Fortuna ~ Carmina Burana

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GXFSK0ogeg4

1. O Fortuna (Chorus) (O Fortune)
O Fortuna O Fortune,
velut luna... like the moon
statu variabilis,... you are changeable,
semper crescis... ever waxing
aut decrescis;... and waning;
vita detestabilis... hateful life
nunc obdurat... first oppresses
et tunc curat... and then soothes
ludo mentis aciem,.. as fancy takes it;...

...

Hac in hora... So at this hour
sine mora... without delay
corde pulsum tangite;... pluck the vibrating strings;
quod per sortem... since Fate
sternit fortem,... strikes down the strong man,
mecum omnes plangite!... everyone weep with me!

Mabel Pettigrew thought: I can read him like a book. She had not read a book for over forty years, could never concentrate on reading, but this nevertheless was her thought.

- Muriel Spark

I never trust the airlines from those countries where the pilots believe in the afterlife. You are safer when they don't.

- Muriel Spark

I see that http://www.biblicalphilosophy.org says “Welcome to the website that is committed to the inerrancy of the Bible”: this makes me think that actually it has nothing to do with philosophy, nor with the Bible, — Angelo

That's not what I saw. Perhaps read on...

Welcome to the website that is committed to the inerrancy of the Bible and its total sufficiency within a philosophical discussion of Christianity. “In Christ are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge,” wrote the Apostle Paul (Colossians 2:3). On the one hand, many Christians see philosophy (etymology, “love of wisdom”) as a discipline that attacks our Lord Jesus Christ, the Bible, and His people. On the other hand, many Christian philosophers see philosophy as more important than the Scriptures. So, what about a Christian philosophy or Biblical philosophy? Could either of these be consistent with Biblical teaching and with scholarly philosophy? — biblical philosophy

One of the great divisions among Christians who work in philosophy, Biblical philosophy, or Christian apologetics is over presuppositionalism and evidentialism (see below). It will not take much reading on this site to know that I am a convinced presuppositionalist. Simply, one must assume something to have anywhere concrete to begin. René Descartes said, “I think, therefore I am.” Augustine of Hippo said, “I believe in order to understand.” Socrates said, “The unexamined life is not worth living.” Or, one can say, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” Or, you can choose your own place to start. I have reviewed what some of these starting points might be.

Thus, I prefer “Biblical philosophy,” rather than “Christian philosophy.” My most basic presupposition is that the Bible is the inerrant and infallible Word of God, that it is the only source of truth that anyone will know in this earthly life, and that it is sufficient for everything that anyone needs to know. "The Bible is true about everything to which it speaks, and it speaks to everything." — biblical philosophy

it seems obvious to me that Jack and other people have no intention to explore every detail and every problem related to the Bible and to philosophy — Angelo

Yes indeed. Life is too short even for angels :halo:

Yeah. As per the OP, only philosophical contemplation of the Bible / NT is relevant. Jack Cummins, maybe you too, seem to drift changing the topic's goal posts, as it were, which is okay, but I'm off the bus before any quixotic or anachronistic detours. — 180 Proof

Good decision. It seems that this is turning into more of a full analysis of the Bible:

I am sorry if I am sending you off the bus, and I do wish to keep the discussion on the philosophical. But, the Bible is a big topic and I wish to look at it as fully as possibly can. I have a couple more books which I wish to bring into the thread but will not do so until Monday because I am at my mother's house. Generally, my own approach is about trying to use ideas in books as a basis for critical discussion, as when philosophy is just talking purely on the basis of one's own ideas I don't think it goes as far as when it involves considering specific ideas of writers. — Jack Cummins

This could be the longest thread ever - the 'specific ideas of writers' contained within:
http://www.biblicalphilosophy.org/Bible_Verses.asp

Quite the ride...
First stop, the Creation of Philosophical Concepts, Genesiis 1.
http://www.biblicalphilosophy.org/Bible_Verses.asp#Genesis_1_-_The_Creation_of_Philosophical_Concepts

We can always be tourists:
'Hop-On, Hop-Off' as the mood takes ya' :wink:

Our hop-on, hop-off London bus tours give you the flexibility to plan your day, your way. You can choose to stay on board the entire route and let us take you for a scenic spin, or hop-off at the destinations you want to further explore. Once you've seen it, done it and selfied it, you simply wait for the next bus to come along to rejoin the tour. — bigbus tours/ hop-on-hop-off- London

Wouldn't recommend the London one - stuck in polluted traffic jams. Best to explore on foot or public transport. Just like Rome...you see the best bits D.I.Y. with a Roman :cool:

Mais, chacun à son goût...bon voyage...

Brian Eno - An Ending (Ascent)
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=OlaTeXX3uH8

'Postcard from Heaven' - Lighthouse Family

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=GeNG7ns-LIo

Petty Impressive :cool:

'That Don't Impress Me Much' - Shania Twain
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mqFLXayD6e8

From the Cartoon thread: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/556887
Lyrics
https://xkcd.com/1538/

The Troll Song
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yy0Bvu7vy9I

I think I've posted this before but...what the hell...

'I'll Stand By You' - Chrissie Hynde ( live at the Proms, with full orchestra and choir )
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yyb2RX0hii8

Oh, why you look so sad?
Tears are in your eyes
Come on and come to me now
Don't be ashamed to cry
Let me see you through
'Cause I've seen the dark side too

When the night falls on you
Don't know what to do
Nothin' you confess, could make me love you less

I'll stand by you, I'll stand by you
Won't let nobody hurt you
I'll stand by you

So, if you're mad, get mad
Don't hold it all inside
Come on and talk to me now

Hey, what you got to hide?
I get angry too
Well I'm a lot like you

When you're standing at the crossroads
Don't know which path to choose
Let me come along
Even if you're wrong

I'll stand by you, I'll stand by you
Won't let nobody hurt you
I'll stand by you

Take me in, into your darkest hour
And I'll never desert you
I'll stand by you

And when, when the night falls on you, baby
You're feelin' all alone
You won't be on your own
I'll stand by you, I'll stand by you
Won't let nobody hurt you
I'll stand by you

Take me in, into your darkest hour
And I'll never desert you
I'll stand by you, I'll stand by you
Won't let nobody hurt you
I'll stand by you
Yeah

Won't let nobody hurt you
I'll stand by you
I'll stand by you
Won't let nobody hurt you
I'll stand by you

No, no, no, no, no
Take me in, into your darkest hour
And I'll never desert you
I'll stand by you
I'll stand by you

Songwriters: Billy Steinberg, Tom Kelly, C. Hynde
For non-commercial use only.
Data from: Musixmatch

He would definitely shoot himself if he accidentally browsed thephilosophyforum.com — Wittgenstein

No way :gasp:

Ray Monk's biography: "Ludwig Wittgenstein: The Duty of Genius" — Fooloso4

Thanks :up:

You should read philosophical investigation alongside tractatus and compare both of them. Take your time. — Wittgenstein

You are kidding, right.
Not gonna happen. Didn't I say, ''without needless pain'' ?
I already tried to follow TPF threads on both. Quite some time ago. He didn't grab me...or I wasn't persuaded...

To understand Wittgenstein, you need to be like him to a certain extend. — Wittgenstein

So, you are like him ? In what way ?
Take your time...I will listen...up to a point...

For starters, why do you say

Wittgenstein would have killed himself, trust me — Wittgenstein

Wittgenstein would have killed himself, trust me — Wittgenstein

Sorry, I only trust camels...are you a camel ?

I don't know Wittgenstein at all. Apart from what I discovered today about his change of heart and mind. https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/556911

Also from:
http://www.philosophypages.com/hy/6s.htm

Thus, even the philosophical achievements of the Tractatus itself are nothing more than useful nonsense; once appreciated, they are themselves to be discarded. The book concludes with the lone statement:

"Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent."

(Tractatus 7) This is a stark message indeed, for it renders literally unspeakable so much of human life. As Wittgenstein's friend and colleague Frank Ramsey put it,

"What we can't say we can't say, and we can't whistle it either."

It was this carefully-delineated sense of what a logical language can properly express that influenced members of the Vienna Circle in their formulation of the principles of logical positivism. Wittgenstein himself supposed that there was nothing left for philosophers to do. True to this conviction, he abandoned the discipline for nearly a decade...

[Then]:

...One application of the new analytic technique that Wittgenstein himself worked out appears in several connected sections of the posthumously-published Philosophical Investigations (1953).
...Wittgenstein pointed out that if we did indeed have private inner experiences, it would be possible to represent them in a corresponding language. 
....Just so, the use of language for pains or other sensations can only be associated successfully with dispositions to behave in certain ways. Pain is whatever makes someone (including me) writhe and groan.

For someone wanting to know his thoughts without needless pain, where to go...?

That is just so damned clever and makes me want to read more... before I go...

I'll start.

What do you think Wittgenstein would have said about life, philosophy, economics nowadays? — Shawn

It's one thing to start but how do you go on...

What do you think Wittgenstein would have thought, if not said ?

As Wittgenstein's friend and colleague Frank Ramsey put it, "What we can't say we can't say, and we can't whistle it either."

Ooooh, I do like a man with brackets :cool:
Wittgenstein, here I come... :wink:

'Don't Get Me Wrong' - Pretenders
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=qbAab1hTxN4

'Brass in Pocket' - Pretenders
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0H6re3PCP3E

The fucker had read Hobbes after all ... — 180 Proof

:smile:
Ah, philosophers, their egos and tantrums.
I have been turned on and off Plato so many times...
Now, it might be the turn of the Pragmatists.

Here's my latest at : https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/10814/is-deweys-pragmatism-misunderstood-/latest/comment

Wittgenstein's change of mind and heart.
How many of the 'Greats' - or anyone really - have admitted to 'Error Correction' and given thanks to someone for making them see differently ? Not many. But a few on this thread :cool:

I found the article linked to by @Shawn most informative, enjoyable and a bit tragic:
https://aeon.co/essays/what-is-truth-on-ramsey-wittgenstein-and-the-vienna-circle

...Wittgenstein was stung by this onslaught. In 1930, he wrote: ‘Ramsey’s mind repulsed me’; he had no capacity for ‘genuine reverence’; he had an ‘ugly mind’; and ‘his criticism didn’t help along but held back and sobered’. He told his friends that Ramsey was a ‘materialist’. Ramsey thought that Wittgenstein’s philosophy needed sobering up, and needed to pay attention to human beliefs, rather than independently existing propositions.

And here their debate breaks off, for Ramsey died on 19 January 1930, aged just 26. But years later, Wittgenstein would come around to Ramsey’s side.

When he did, he stopped saying nasty things about his friend, and instead thanked him in the preface to his second great treatise, Philosophical Investigations, which charted a very different course than the Tractatus:

since I began to occupy myself with philosophy again, 16 years ago, I could not but recognise grave mistakes in what I set out in that first book. I was helped to realise these mistakes – to a degree which I myself am hardly able to estimate – by the criticism which my ideas encountered from Frank Ramsey, with whom I discussed them in innumerable conversations during the last two years of his life.

Good for Wittgenstein - giving recognition to Ramsey's ideas. Pity about the nastiness that can develop between philosophers...but then again, good to see some emotion in all the dryness.

Lyrics

https://xkcd.com/1538/

The Troll Song
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yy0Bvu7vy9I

I will be following up all suggestions but also used TPF Searchbox to find this:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/1924/pragmatism-and-wittgenstein

A fascinating discussion with 2 excellent links to articles:
--------
From @apokrisis - 4yrs ago
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/100696
Yep. See https://jhaponline.org/jhap/article/download/2946/2607

--------
Also this:

...I would say the historical situation is that Peirce formed an absolutely coherent view of pragmatism/semiotics. But then because of social forces, that never broke out the way it should have at the time. What came through into the public was the diluted Jamesian understanding of pragmatism (stripped of its semiotic backbone), or the Deweyian version (stripped of the metaphysical ambition).

...And then there are a host of non-philosophical reasons why Peirce's impact was only as a whisper in the ear of AP. And why Pragmatism is viewed shallowly in terms of the metaphysically and logically unambitious retellings by James and Dewey. — apokrisis

--------
And @Shawn - 2yrs ago
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/249641

I just found this article really elucidating on the magnitude of Ramsey's pragmatic approach to philosophical issues having influenced Wittgenstein's transition and later period. Hope someone enjoys it:
https://aeon.co/essays/what-is-truth-on-ramsey-wittgenstein-and-the-vienna-circle — Shawn

A most informative and an enjoyable read. Found this a bit tragic:

...Wittgenstein was stung by this onslaught. In 1930, he wrote: ‘Ramsey’s mind repulsed me’; he had no capacity for ‘genuine reverence’; he had an ‘ugly mind’; and ‘his criticism didn’t help along but held back and sobered’. He told his friends that Ramsey was a ‘materialist’. Ramsey thought that Wittgenstein’s philosophy needed sobering up, and needed to pay attention to human beliefs, rather than independently existing propositions.

And here their debate breaks off, for Ramsey died on 19 January 1930, aged just 26. But years later, Wittgenstein would come around to Ramsey’s side.

When he did, he stopped saying nasty things about his friend, and instead thanked him in the preface to his second great treatise, Philosophical Investigations, which charted a very different course than the Tractatus:

since I began to occupy myself with philosophy again, 16 years ago, I could not but recognise grave mistakes in what I set out in that first book. I was helped to realise these mistakes – to a degree which I myself am hardly able to estimate – by the criticism which my ideas encountered from Frank Ramsey, with whom I discussed them in innumerable conversations during the last two years of his life. — Cheryl Misak

Good for Wittgenstein - giving recognition to Ramsey's ideas. Pity about the nastiness that can develop between philosophers...
--------

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/100726

Ciceronius stated that the pragmatists, for the most part, ignored what Wittgenstein had to say about meaning and use or utility. Why is that?
— Posty McPostface

I think it's more accurate to say that the Classical Pragmatists were unaware of Wittgenstein. Peirce died in 1914, James in 1910. There would be no reason for them to know Wittgenstein; the Tractatus didn't come out until after the First World War. As for Dewey, I don't know whether he knew of Wittgenstein or his work. Wittgenstein isn't mentioned in any of the works of Dewey I've read, (I haven't read them all, of course) and I think their interests differed for the most part. From what I've read, Wittgenstein was fond of James' Varieties of Religious Experience. It's the "neo-pragmatists" who have championed the view that Wittgenstein was a kind of pragmatist, so far as I know. — Ciceronianus the White

Curious now.
@Ciceronianus the White - what did you think of @apokrisis:
'...What came through into the public was the diluted Jamesian understanding of pragmatism (stripped of its semiotic backbone), or the Deweyian version (stripped of the metaphysical ambition) ?

Experience and Nature and Art as Experience are also excellent — 180 Proof

Thank you.

Of books by Dewey? Probably Reconstruction in Philosophy or The Quest for Certainty are the most readable. — Ciceronianus the White

Thank you.

Once a conversation is centered upon contempt for the participants, it reminds me of why I dropped out of high school. — Valentinus

Sorry to hear of your experience.
Unfortunately, such behaviour is not always obvious to those who should take action.
And people don't like to complain or give evidence because it seems so flimsy. Easy to dismiss.

At TPF, for a complaint to be taken seriously, it is necessary to contact the mods by PM including links to posts objected to.

This post will probably be deleted !
So it goes...

This is relevant to the ongoing nature of this thread, the content of which is suffering, as per:

But what I'm saying is that some of your formulations (e.g. "On a personal level, piety is being good to one's own self, the inner divine intelligence", "In philosophical (Platonic) life, piety is practicing philosophy whose aim is to "become as godlike as possible" = "serving one's own God", i.e., one's own self") sound more like narcissistic self-aggrandizement — baker

It is unfortunate but I think you have a point. Anyone following this thread closely will have noted a pattern of behaviour showing signs of a narcissistic personality disorder. Unfortunately, @Fooloso4 has been the main target. Anyone else showing support has been likewise treated with disdain. There is a tendency to belittle people so as to validate own sense of superiority. There are plenty of posts both here and on the other thread 'Plato's Phaedo' which, if they haven't been deleted by mods, provide evidence.
A consistent disregard of others' wishes and feelings combined with a need to control - not addressing the careful responses given with patience. And so on...
--------
Here:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/555886

I showed my son this thread and he laughed at how your challengers don't actually respond to your comments as given. That is what is funny. — Valentinus

It actually isn't funny at all. But if your son can see it...then he is more astute than some. Well done.

--------

Leads to utter nonsense, meaningless language use, equivocation fallacies, and inevitable self-contradiction and/or outright incoherence.
— creativesoul

In other words, it leads to typical troll behavior. — Olivier5

Yes. And still it goes on. With bells and whistles attached.

--------
From: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/555379

Unfortunately, the misrepresentations and lies continue. Such blatant dishonesty:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/555262
I will leave it stand. As an example.

My concern is that it will not stop - not particularly from the point of view of being a 'target' - but that any further threads concerning Plato's Dialogues will suffer the same fate.
I prefer now to read and consider any Dialogue in peace.
Hope that others continue in good spirit... — Amity

--------

Mods. This needs to be addressed. Please reconsider the previous complaints and issues raised.

-------

By the way, Libravox (Libravox.com) has a reading of James' "Pragmatism" that I really like. — T Clark

A bit late but followed it up after conversation and recommendations from @Ciceronianus the White here:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/556071

Unfortunately, your earlier link didn't work for me.
[Edit: got it - https://librivox.org/pragmatism-by-william-james/ ]

I could only find this:

Democracy and Education: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Education

An important, controversial, and often cited work on public education. Dewey discusses the role of public education in a democracy and the different methods for achieving quality in education. After its initial publication, this book began a revolution in educational thinking; one that emphasized growth, experience, and activity as key elements in promoting democratic qualities in students and educators alike. — Librivox - Democracy and Education by John Dewey

https://librivox.org/democracy-and-education-by-john-dewey/

Edit - even more Dewey,18 hits:
https://librivox.org/author/1977?primary_key=1977&search_category=author&search_page=1&search_form=get_results

Help! Life's too short.
@Ciceronianus the White or anybody who knows - which book would you pick for starters ?

Do you work for the UN? — Wheatley

:halo: No. I work for God :sparkle:

'Canta Libre' - Neil Diamond
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t69AfvF6N7E

Canta libre, Canta vida, (Sing freely, sing of life)
De mi madre y mi padre (Of my mother and my father)
Canta mi corazon (My heart sings)
Para los niños y sus niños, canta libre (For the children and their children, sing freely)

And I got music running in my head,
Makes me feel like the young bird flying.
Across my mind and laying on my bed,
Keeps me away from the thought of dying.

Canta libre (Sing freely)
Canta vida (Sing of life)
De mi madre y mi padre (Of my mother and my father)

And I got music running in my brain,
Every song with it's own kind of meaning.
Cleanse my soul and wash away the pain,
Baptized by the song that you're singing.

Canta libre (Sing freely)
Canta vida (Sing of life)
Siempre conmigo (Always with me)
Canta libre (Sing freely)

Canta libre (Sing freely)
Para los niños y sus niños, canta libre (For the children and their children, sing freely)
De mi madre y mi padre (Of my mother and my father)
Canta libre, y siempre conmigo (Sing freely, and always with me)
Canta libre, canta libre (Sing freely, sing freely)

Neil Diamond
Album: Moods 1972

Cheers :party:
That is how I remember Neil Diamond. Way back. Listening to his album 'Moods',1972.
Doesn't time fly.

Compare this performance: Sweet Caroline (Live At The Greek Theatre / 2012)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ty1dwBCR6D0

The excitement and sheer exuberance of the audience. Pre-Covid. Will we ever see the likes again ?
'Hands touching hands...reaching out...touching me, touching you...
....good times never seemed so good. So good. So good...'

So sad, so sad. Now I need something to cheer me up...

I'd recommend Larry Hickman's books about Dewey. — Ciceronianus the White

Thanks for recommendation.
I searched for books after reading his impressive lecture on Dewey:
https://www.ikedacenter.org/thinkers-themes/thinkers/lectures-talks/hickman-lecture

It includes criticisms of Dewey. Mind-boggling that some thought his ideas to blame for the shooting at Columbine High School !

In 1999, for example, shortly after the shootings at Columbine High School in Littleton, Colorado, the vice-president of a suburban Chicago school board complained in print that Dewey's ideas had been responsible for that tragic event...
Dewey's philosophy of education has dominated the field of learning. We are now paying the price." He then charged that "the seemingly mindless slaughter at Littleton was the acting out of the pragmatic view. If it works, if it feels good, do it. They did." — Larry Hickman

Most books I saw were quite expensive. However, have just downloaded this for £0.00 !
Pragmatism as Post-Postmodernism: Lessons from John Dewey (American Philosophy) 1st Edition, Kindle Edition

So, he thinks conclusions are, at least in theory, subject to correction, modification or rejection as we learn more, have new experiences and discover new or more evidence. This troubles some people. — Ciceronianus the White

Yes. But for others, it is dynamic and necessary to be flexible and adapt to change, or be the change.

Another article by Hickman:

In Dewey's view, then, learning is much more than simply a preparation for living. It is a process of living whose goal is the growth of individuals and institutions in ways that will allow them to participate fully in a life that is free and democratic....

If our effort is to be intelligent, it must negotiate a creative compromise between the actual and the ideal. Where there is enthusiasm for such activities, where there is a “unity of all ideal ends arousing us to desire and actions,” said Dewey, there is religious experience...
Working together, he argued, science and religion can establish platforms on which we can build a common faith, a faith for all humankind... — Hickman on Dewey

What ? Religious experience...Buddhism ? The message of 'Peace, Learning and Dialogue' from the founder of the website https://www.ikedacenter.org/ who is described as Buddhist philosopher, peacebuilder, and educator Daisaku Ikeda.

Not sure about this dimension...

OK. Understood. Easy-peasy does it :smile:

There's no point knowing who wrote what or it could turn into a popularity contest. — Baden

I didn't say anything about it it not being anonymous. That's a good idea but I bet some will know from previous writings and contests in the 'old forum', just who is writing what and how...
Some 'good writers' already identified.
That's why I think some objective ratings as per aspects would be better...but hey...not a pressing issue.
Just glad it's being done, in some form :sparkle:

...when the time comes... — Baden

Not one second before :wink:

You'll just vote for your favorite — Baden

Right. Simples.
Could have been more interesting than that...never mind...

If anyone's not sure if their idea is acceptable, PM me. — Baden

Why the PM way ?
If you had the guidelines as to what is being looked for/ acceptable, this would be transparent for all.
Like, I think someone mentioned longform poetry or something...?

There is a standard structure to short stories but this is a lounge thing and all in fun. I don't want to be too prescriptive about it. Besides, there are much better resources than me readily available on this subject. — Baden

OK. I know the internet abounds with resources for writing, structure etc.
Glad you're setting this up as a fun thing for all. No formal criteria.
Nevertheless, it is still a 'contest' taken seriously by contenders enjoying the challenge.
Just thought there might be some introductory guide-lines, not necessarily 'prescriptive'.

Anyone could enter, entries were anonymous, and anyone could vote on winners or comment on stories. — Baden

So, we just vote on what pleases us, no other standards ?
Or is it like a questionnaire, rating 0 -10 on various aspects ?

like three guys hammering the same pole. Ting. Ting. Ting. — Olivier5

That was quite something.

I'll try and see where that takes me... — Olivier5

Rhythm becomes you. — Olivier5

if they are several of you listening, you can dance together by the magic of the rhythm — Olivier5

We can be together even when apart.
Ting, ting.

You probably know that your writing is quite mesmerising and magical - are you tempted to 'dance' competitively ? https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/11252/poll-short-story-competition-proposal

Even the one-liners are appreciated:
'When the wise points at the stars, you dissect his finger.'