Nobody's argued free speech or fascism — Benkei

You didn't, agreed. About 35 billion others on forums have though. Been there, done that. Pre-emptive strike.

Almost cut my hair
It happened just the other day
It was gettin' kinda long
I could-a said, it was in my way
But I didn't and I wonder why
I feel like letting my freak flag fly
And I feel like I owe it to someone

Must be because I had the flu for Christmas
And I'm not feelin' up to par
It increases my paranoia
Like lookin' at my mirror and seein' a police car
But I'm not givin' in an inch to fear
Cause I promised myself this year
I feel like I owe it to someone

When I finally get myself together
I'm gonna get down in that sunny southern weather
And I find a place inside to laugh
Separate the wheat from the chaff
I feel like I owe it to someone

I would like to suggest that the mods consider opening a new section which is readable by all, but only the mods can post there. — Hippyhead

Please note what is being objected to. A single section on a single forum which is reserved for the mods. A single section, on a single forum.

Elitist! Attack on freedom of speech! Fascist take over!!!

Do you not think that dealing with "contamination" is an important part of the modelling? — unenlightened

The whole rest of the forum would be available for that. I'm just suggesting a single section where the mods provide their own example of what they consider acceptable content to be. Don't just say what's bad, show what's good.

I agree, and have mentioned before that the way mods behave is as important as the editorial oversight.

Agreed, but I wouldn't call the current system "editorial oversight". It's more of a trash collecting operation. Necessary and valuable, but not really editing.

Not all restriction is elitist, but your suggestion is. — unenlightened

Honestly, I don't care about that at all. Again, every other forum of media has been doing what I suggest for centuries. Some submissions are published, while others are declined.

For the rest, the whole idea of a forum, instead of a publication, is that it is open to everyone and everybody can react to anyone. — Benkei

That's ONE definition of what a forum can be. A very common definition I would agree, but not the only one.

Truthfully, what annoys me is that so many forum users on every forum (been having this conversation for over 20 years) insist that EVERY forum on the net must be exactly like all the others. EVERY single forum must be open to EVERYBODY. Not just many forums, not just most forums, EVERY forum. Every single one.

Have you noticed that there are few to no professional philosophers here? That's what happens when forums use your prescription, the most qualified people walk away, and you're left with just loudmouth bozos like me. :-)

https://thephilosophyforum.com/profile/members/staff — jamalrob

Thank you, that clears that up.

Second, they made very little sense. — StreetlightX

How about writing a post on the topic yourself, which would illustrate what you consider to be appropriate? Point being, if the mods are to have credibility when they declare a post or poster to be of low quality, it would really help if the mods could be seen posting content which is by their definition high quality.

So for example, each mod should have a label next to their screen name identifying them as a mod. And then mods should focus on making the kinds of contributions they'd like to see more of. And then members could see the target they are supposed to be aiming for.

As it is now, the banning thread is not helping the mod's credibility. Bannings are inevitable and necessary, but the mod's giggling among themselves about departed members with generous helpings of snotty condescension isn't. If you want us to act professional, lead by example please.

Who are we supposed to send a PM to? We don't even know which moderator deleted (or moved) our thread. — Professor Death

I don't even know who the moderators are half the time. Is there a listing somewhere that members should be referencing?

Don't claim to know really, but if pressed for an answer I'd vote yes.

Imho, consciousness is just the multi-threaded nature of thought. That is, one stream of thought can examine and interact with another. Thus we get phrases such as...

"I am thinking XYZ", where "I" is one stream of thought, and "XYZ" is another.

Not sure why computers couldn't be given this ability.

Here's a key obstacle, as I understand it.

The "more is better" relationship with knowledge has been working great for at least hundreds of years, and continues to deliver more glorious benefits than our ancestors could have even imagined. This is what we're up against should we wish to point to the dangers inherit in such a relationship.

More elitism is totally what this world needs — Benkei

It's truly remarkable how utterly predictable human beings can be. If you'd like to chant "Freedom Of Speech!!!" now, go ahead, I'll wait. :-)

This is not the world. The forum is an Internet publication which hopes to share the best quality content it can produce. There's no way to serve such a mission without elevating some contributors and sidelining others. Every form of media for hundreds of years has used an "elitist" model, it's only on the Internet that people get confused about this.

How long would you stay on the forum if it was over run by busloads full of fourth graders? You're an elitist too.

The good cop / bad cop example comes to mind.

BAD COP: To me, it's indisputable that any serious forum needs a team of "garbage men" who will stomp on the spam roaches, sweep blatant bozos out the door, and haul the low quality content off to the dump. It's great that we have members who are willing to perform this essential service, and for free, because without such a contribution the forum would soon become uninhabitable for intelligent life. I've seen philosophy forums where anything goes, and they rather closely resemble the inside of a septic tank.

GOOD COP: I think it would help build the credibility of the mods and the quality of the forum by balancing the necessary bad cop operations with more good cop contributions. The first post of the thread could be a place to start.

Other operations might be considered as time permits.

You know, instead of just identifying losers and giving them the boot (often with generous helpings of snotty condescension in the banning thread) also identify posters who are doing what you want more of, and look for ways large and small to reward them. Think BF Skinner here, if you know his work.

One mod might be assigned the job of recruiting new quality members. Scan the blogosphere, find authors who meet your standard, build a relationship, and invite them in to the forum.

Just illustrating a general concept here, there are surely many ways the general concept could be put in to practice, which the mods can think of themselves.

I closed it because it was devoid of argument, unnecessarily personal, and the equivalent of making its point by saying "that's just like, your opinion". It was a model of exactly how not to make a thread. It ought to have been deleted had there not already been a few comments posted in it. — StreetlightX

Not arguing this claim one way or another, but saying this instead...

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/9003/leading-by-example

Perhaps a "professional philosopher" would comment on this — jgill

That would be great, good suggestion. Do we even know if there are any working or retired academics on the forum, and who they might be?

I've attempted to get this conversation going on quite a few philosophy and science blogs and forums, and not much has come of it. Brief summary, the more credentials someone has it seems the less likely they are to engage this topic.

Example, I spent months every day on a leading academic philosophy group blog which has been publishing multiple articles a week from their members (mostly PhDs, and some undergrads) for years. Last time I checked, they had a single page about nuclear weapons, and that existed only because the exasperated editor published it to shut me up. Nice people, with no clue, imho.

However, I don't claim to be well read, and I would sincerely like to be wrong about this. If there is a secret club of philosophy academics somewhere who has been working on this issue for years, happy to learn about it.

This is quite simple and straightforward, as you've said, so what use is a philosophy pro in this or a similar case? — praxis

Well, such pros, and we amateurs too, could perhaps turn our attention to questions like...

- Is it true that a "more is better" relationship with knowledge is outdated and dangerous?

- What does our general lack of interest in nuclear weapons tell us about our relationship with the generations of our ancestors who built the civilization we enjoy, our descendants who might enjoy it as we do, and each other?

- Is it possible to manage the pace at which knowledge is generated by human beings?

- If not, what is the most likely outcome of human beings acquiring ever more power at an ever faster pace?

And so on.

To answer your question another way...

Philosophy pros can lend their cultural authority, such as it is, to a process of elevating such discussions to a level where ever more people will pay attention to them.

Which reminds me, I have a question for you too.

Whatta I gotta do to break this thread out of Lounge jail? :-)

Right, so what's there to philosophize about? — praxis

I don't understand your question here. Expand a bit?

If I understand you correctly, you essentially believe that 'knowledge' is dangerous. — praxis

It's more complicated than that. Knowledge is also very beneficial. If it was just dangerous it would be far easier to manage. What I see as dangerous is a simplistic "more is better" relationship with knowledge. That was a rational paradigm for a very long time, but it has been made outdated in our time by an ever accelerating knowledge explosion.

Food is beneficial. Food is essential. But eating as much as one can as fast as one can is not.

If that's your belief then the most straightforward action to take is knowledge regulation, similar in principle to the regulation of firearms or nuclear weapons. — praxis

I was a nuclear weapons activist for awhile, but I let it go when I came to the realization that nothing meaningful is going to happen on that front until after the next detonation. Reason is simply not enough, pain is going to be necessary. That's probably true for our relationship with knowledge more generally as well.

Knowledge regulation seems a logical direction to head, but there is very little interest currently, and plenty of out right opposition. It's worse than that really, most people don't take the threat seriously enough to bother to object to any proposed solution.

So writing on this subject may be pointless. Posting on this forum certainly is. But, that's all I know how to do, so... At least when I'm writing I can enjoy the illusion of doing something constructive.

At this point, I think a glass of wine is in order. :-) On to that! See ya tomorrow.

Philosophy needs to be liberated from the culture of its commercialization. Philosophy has become one of the surest ways to forfeit one's life to the irrelevant emphasis of abstraction. Thinkers cannot see it because they are after something other than what philosophy has to deliver, namely social validation. But thought is the antithesis of conformity. — JerseyFlight

Like it!

The intellectual is not free from the institution, economic coercion regulates his original action, forcing him to conform. — JerseyFlight

He is free if he doesn't confuse philosophy with business. No thinker is required to turn their thinking in to a money generating operation.

If we are not contained within social structures we are free to explore ideas where ever they may lead. But if we are not contained within social structures we will have no cultural authority. So even if our freedom leads us to discover "The Truth" it won't really matter, because nobody will listen to us.

My guess is that the best thinkers in human history quietly passed from the scene without anybody noticing they were ever here.

I'm moving this topic to the lounge. — praxis

Ah, so you are a mod. Thanks for making this clear to me.

The universe is an image of God's nature — EnPassant

And the universe is overwhelmingly space. Thus, the nature of space would seem to deserve a great deal more focus from theists. This is equally true for the atheist, whose methodology is the observation of reality.

We can see that reality is overwhelmingly dominated by what we typically label as "nothing". Thus, a serious philosophy aligned with the nature of reality would also be mostly nothing.

Philosophy can assist in reaching such a rational state by a process of systematic challenge to all intellectual somethings. Religion is demolished. Atheism is demolished. Philosophy itself is demolished. And we are left with mostly nothing, a state of mind which most closely resembles reality.

We might learn from astronomers. We can observe how the majority of their work seems to be focused on things in space, phenomena which represents only the tiniest fraction of the cosmos. Philosophers are like that. We focus on things in mind, only the tiniest fraction of consciousness.

Another method of approaching such a place might be to shift the focus of such investigations from explanations to experience. It's perhaps more efficient to leap over the process of challenging every idea on these subjects, and instead focus on finding out how deep in to our relationship with (insert any label here) we can go.

It is clear to me that you are not serious, I took a chance because you said you were, although I had my suspicions. If you are serious you will have to inform yourself by educating yourself. — JerseyFlight

You will sound more serious when you drop this ego positioning drumbeat which seems to infect quite a bit of your writing. Not claiming to be above it myself, just claiming it's not evidence of seriousness.

The purpose of philosophy is to teach us that the intellect cannot attain truth. — EnPassant

Casting my vote for this.

You have a prescription for what our relationship with knowledge should be — praxis

This is an understandable statement given what you know about me, but to be more precise I have a vision of what our relationship with knowledge should not be, that is, simplistic and childlike. That part is pretty easy, so even I can see and say it.

What our relationship with knowledge should be is rather more difficult. Which is presumably why we have professional philosophers. I would like them to play this role, I would like them to be far more qualified to address this all important subject than I am, but I fear that may not be the case. And I have that fear because I don't see them addressing a very easily understood, easily shared, dramatically dangerous example of where a simplistic and childlike relationship with knowledge can take us.

I'd say that philosophical activity generally promotes wisdom and that's how it is "service to human beings." — praxis

I'd say that philosophical activity attempts to promote wisdom. I don't doubt that it succeeds in some cases, but when leading practitioners of the art can't seem to focus on a double barrel shotgun aimed right at their face, it seems reasonable to question at least the profession, and perhaps the medium itself.

Anyway, my prescription for our relationship with knowledge is that our best minds should be laser focused on it in a hurry, or they should at the least admit they can't, and find other jobs.

If you'd like to share any thoughts you have on this subject, please do. I'm only dominating the microphone because I can't find many others to share it. If you are a mod (sorry, can't remember) and would like to help to fix that, I would welcome the assistance.

To the people who assert “there are no gods” or “it is far more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one”…

…I call, “BULLSHIT.” — Frank Apisa

I believe I've read this before somewhere, just can't remember where though.....

I found B&T quite difficult. — path

What is the purpose of philosophy? If the mission of philosophy is defined as service to human beings, then it seems reasonable to question the value of works which can not be accessed by most human beings, even most college educated human beings.

If the mission of philosophy is defined as being in service to the careers of philosophers, then it can be said that obscure fancy talk projects an image of authority which helps the philosopher justify his claim to expert status, and the salary he obtains from the suckers, I mean, the book buying tax paying public.

DMT users often report that what they experience while on the drug feels much more real to them than normal consciousness. Not taken the drug myself, have no opinion on the claims other than that they seem quite interesting. The following worth watching, imho.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fwZqVqbkyLM&t=221s

In somewhat related news, a recent NPR story reports that LSD is making a significant come back, but with middle aged and older people, not the young folks.

To compare, while LSD distorts our perception of the world we normally perceive, DMT takes the user in to a completely different realm. A very philosophical drug, but not for casual users seeking entertainment.

That they mess with other countries comes from their overwhelming paranoia and own insecurity — ssu

We in America dramatically under estimate the impact of WWII on Russian psychology. They lost 40 times as many people as we did, and two vast armies ravaged over everything west of Moscow, twice. The Nazis came very close to turning the Russian people in to farm animals. And this was only the latest in a series of invasions from the West.

This is how Putin survives. The Russian people correctly see him as strong and smart, and national survival transcends all other concerns.

I think your confusion centers around the blurry vision you seem to have between morality and rationality, generally speaking. — praxis

I didn't bring up the subject of morality, and was attempting to side step it, as such directions often lead to unproductive conflicts. But, I'm agreeable to discuss morality if that is what interests you. If you lead such a discussion I will join.

If you merely snark, I will ignore. Yes, this thread in now in the lounge, but I didn't put it here.

As discussed above, it really does depend on what one's definition of philosophy is.

If one believes that the purpose of philosophy is to serve human beings, then philosophical activity which almost entirely ignores what is arguably one of the most dangerous threats to human beings is fairly labeled not very rational.

If on the other hand one believes that philosophy has some purpose other than service to human beings, then philosophical activity would have to be measured against how well it is serving that purpose.

Otherwise, the Bible is a story about the relationship between God and man. — Marco Colombini

The key word being relationship.

All the endless talk of theology and philosophy is not relationship with God (or if you prefer, reality) but is instead relationship with our thoughts about God (or reality).

I don't think god is simply invented to explain things. Belief is often based on intuition. Yes, people may use god to 'fill in the gaps' but even then they are not necessarily wrong because God really does move the planets. It is just that God's actions are more complex then we originally thought. — EnPassant

The following is a well worn path, but perhaps reminders will be helpful...

All discussions of God are contained in language, and thus become prisoner to the built in limitations of language. As example the noun God, like all nouns, presumes the existence of things, which in turn presumes the existence of boundaries between one thing and another thing.

And so it is extremely common to attempt to define God by saying God is this, God is that, God does this, God does that, just as we would do with any noun. Such attempts at explanation of God are built upon the assumption that God is a phenomena separate and unique from other phenomena, and thus subject to definition.

What if boundaries, things, division and separation are not a property of reality, but rather a pattern projected on to reality by the dualistic nature of the human mind?

As evidence we might consider space, that is, the overwhelming vast majority of reality. There are no divisions in space. The space of a far distant galaxy is an single unified unbroken undivided phenomena which extends down in to the very smallest scales of our own physical existence.

Point being, our attempts to define God would seem to be in rather substantial conflict with the vast majority of reality. All of our definitions presume that boundaries are real. Are they?

Science is concerned with the invisible order behind the physical world. Religion is concerned with the invisible order behind the image that human life is. In this respect science and religion are both attempts to grasp the 'world beyond the world'. — EnPassant

EnPassant, your posts are great, thanks. I'm going to quibble a bit, but just a bit.

Your description of science seems accurate to me, and I like the way it points to something, an order, that is very real, and yet does not exist.

While the purpose of science is to develop knowledge about reality, I think religion is better described as an effort to develop our relationship with reality. What confuses this issue is that religions often make claims about reality as part of the attempt to manage that relationship.

A serious thinker, among other things, is a person who wants to comprehend reality even if that comprehension results in the total negation of their vital, positive belief structure. It comes down to truth over comfort. — JerseyFlight

A serious thinker may eventually think their way to the realization that nothing made of thought can ever be the truth. Such a realization has proven itself uncomfortable to many a thinker. :-)

First, a thank you to the mods for hiding this thread in the Lounge, thus providing a real world example of my thesis. We continue now with the regularly scheduled programming....

Is it true that, generally speaking, philosophers are largely unable to make a distinction between that which is important, and that which is merely interesting?

How do we determine what is important? Do we accept the well being of the human race as a reasonable standard? The greatest good for the greatest number? Is there some standard unrelated to human beings which we should consider?

If we feel that the potential near instant destruction of everything built over the last 1,000 years is important, who do we expect to speak to that?

Politicians? Well, politicians are typically followers and not leaders. We can be cynical about this, but it isn't such a bad thing really when you consider that we hire politicians to represent our views.

The People? Well, the people are asleep on this subject, and for some pretty understandable reasons. There is a seemingly endless list of problems which generate actual real world victims every single day, and nuclear weapons haven't been used since before almost all of us were born. The squeaky wheel gets the grease.

Scientists? Well, I used to think this, but then I (finally) realized that scientists are like highly educated car mechanics. We hire them for a specific mechanical job, developing knowledge, and they do the job we're paying them for very well. And, scientists created nuclear weapons in response to instruction from the politicians, so that's where they will point should we raise this subject.

The Media? Well, the media is not a public service, but a business. Their business model is the use of drama to build audience, and thus ad sales revenues. They will show us the Twin Towers falling down 34 billion times because that's dramatic footage which serves their business model. Where is the dramatic footage or story about nuclear weapons? Where is the news?

And so we arrive at philosophers. Why them?

Because the real threat to humanity arises less from nuclear weapons specifically, and more from our relationship with knowledge in general. As example, if we could push a button and immediately get rid of all nuclear weapons, that would be great, but um...

The knowledge explosion would still continue to generate ever more powerful tools at an ever faster pace and such tools will inevitably fall in to the hands of those who are evil, stupid, or perhaps just unlucky. Once this is seen it becomes apparent that the threat to humanity is not really a technical issue so much as it is a philosophical one.

What is our relationship with knowledge? What should it be?

If we ignore all this by say, hiding threads like this in the Lounge :-) and then by default pass the giant ticking time bomb on to our children as their inheritance, can we be said to be rational?

I respectfully decline to engage the rightness or wrongness of your points until you demonstrate that making logical points is relevant to subjects the scale of gods.

I asked what alternative "X" you would propose. I may or may not be in the market for "X", but you haven't explicitly said what it is. — Gnomon

Yes, that's true. You asked, and I didn't answer. I did try to explain why.

Except to denigrate Reason as a tool for Cosmology. — Gnomon

That's a fair claim, as I do sometimes get carried away with the rhetoric in the attempt to generate engagement. But really all I'm doing is applying the very same test to reason that atheists apply to holy books. No proof, no belief.

I assume that, by "this process", you mean Philosophy. — Gnomon

I meant the God debate process, all sides of it. Chanting memorized phrases from holy books, fancy talk logic dancing, debate, conflict, referencing various "authorities" and so on. It's like a children's merry-go-round. There are lots of blinking lights and carnival music which give the illusion of travel, but really the merry-go-round goes eternally round and round in a tiny circle to nowhere. No answer is reached, no one's claims are proven or disproven.

If we were trying to fix our car and our repair strategy failed over and over and over again, sooner or later we'd dump the strategy. It wouldn't take a thousand years, but maybe just an afternoon. Maybe we don't yet have any idea of a better strategy. But we know what's not going to work. So we'd stop doing that. See? Nothing too clever about this, it's just common sense.

What's your problem with rational dialogue on unsettled questions? — Gnomon

I'm not referring to unsettled questions in general. I'm referring to super huge claims and counter claims regarding the most fundamental nature of everything everywhere, a realm we can't define in even the most basic manner. I'm referring to the God debate.

Everyone on philosophy forums seems to want to demonstrate their talent for rational thought, but then they so often insist on continuing to do the same God debate dance over and over, in spite of the fact there is no evidence that debate will ever lead to anything but more of the same.

"Hey everybody, look at me! I'm a laser smart reason expert, and I ignore any and all evidence I find inconvenient!!"

Um, see what I mean about getting carried away with the rhetoric? :-)

I don't think Adorno ever did, keep in mind I have criticized critical theory for getting lost in itself. Nevertheless, the question is exceedingly important. I think one thing that stands out is that thought must know how to select the right emphasis. The way I have calculated is by reverse engineering culture through an analysis of effective historical action. However, we have much more than this. We have cultural psychology and social psychology, which help to guide the process. The answer is through a multi-disciplinary comprehension of the social sciences. — JerseyFlight

Do you think engaging intellectuals can be useful? If yes, why?

Well, ok, sure. Is it ethical for those of great privilege, natural ability and advanced education to largely ignore a widely known ever imminent threat to our entire civilization?

I don't object to an ethical conversation, but I wasn't that inclined to head in a moralistic direction. I was more interested in the question of whether philosophers have the ability to think rationally, as I defined that above.

That said, I welcome an approach to the topic from any direction.

If my points are unable to comment usefully on that, simply point out why my statements are wrong. — Philosophim

I respectfully decline to engage the rightness or wrongness of your points until you demonstrate that making logical points is relevant to subjects the scale of gods. You're apparently determined to avoid that at all costs, which I can do nothing about.

This was exactly Adorno's position, that we need to be able to calculate, in one form or another, that our revolutionary action will have some relevant level of effectiveness. — JerseyFlight

So how did he calculate the opportunity for effectiveness?

It seems there are two factors for success. One, we must have something worth sharing. Two, the audience, whoever they are, must be both capable and willing to hear it. Can you provide evidence that such conditions exist?

Analytical thinkers are scared to death of dialectical thinkers, if they can censor them they will. The irony is quite hilarious, analytical thinkers consider themselves to be the elites of the philosophical world, but theirs is just a more abstract form of idealism. When the dialectical thinker shatters their false presumptions of value, they sense the total loss of their authority and cultural relevance, and so they either run away or try to attack or suppress the dialectical thinker. — JerseyFlight

While I generally agree with the thrust of your comments, I would suspect the tone will need some refinement if you are to be persuasive with your target audience. Not that I'm anyone to lecture others about tone. :-) Your points are valuable, but the tone is infected with a good bit of ego posturing which will likely trigger the same in your audience.