Welcome!

My advice would be simple: be transparent and honest. Don't pretend to know what you don't know, and don't be afraid of saying something that may turn out to be wrong. That way people will know what you are thinking and they will be able to engage with it. A thread I wrote is related: Argument as Transparency.

Hi and welcome to the forum!

I would say that you need to pick a topic you are interested the most and focus on it. Go to the related subforum and read through the names of threads to see if you like a subject. Then read through the thread you are interested in. If you don't understand something then simply google it or ask within the thread (the mention command Ctrl+m is your friend). People here are knowledgeable and kind. Hopefully, you will be able to contribute to a discussion you are interested in soon.

Welcome.

How do you engage with philosophy, whether when you're reading or discussing/debating with others? — Jafar

Who're you speaking with?

Hey Jafar, nice to see you posting again, mate. I recommend you to jump on threads in which you feel interested; don't be afraid. For example, last summer I had some exchanges with folks in 'infinity' and 'perception' threads. My background is not very good in mathematics or metaphysics, but I wanted to learn, so I started to post some questions, and then I tried to debate with the rest.
I appreciate the patience and respect from the people because they could ignore me, but they decided to get me among them instead. This is the general attitude in TPF. I barely had negative experiences in philosophical threads. My only advice would be to stay away from political discussions. It is a pain in the neck!

Why not start a discussion in an area where you are comfortable. Write a good OP (original post) and be ready to answer questions and stand up for your ideas. Keep it simple and non-controversial until you feel more comfortable. Warning - consciousness, metaphysics, free will and some other topics tend to be quagmires. Look over the past couple of weeks and make sure you aren't repeating something done recently. Try not to focus on too narrow a subject to start or you might not get many responses, which can be discouraging.

From what I can see in your OP, you write clearly and well.

I feel like I never really have anything to say on a given topic, or I feel that I do not know enough about a given subject to say anything meaningful. — Jafar

I think this puts you at a distinct advantage. All too often giving an opinion is mistaken for doing philosophy. Rather then telling others what you think inquire into what others say on topics that interest you.

Inquiry is a mode of thinking. It is active rather than passive. It is critical and evaluative. It is dialogical in a double sense - both a dialogue with others and a dialogue with oneself. Dialogue with one's self is deeply personal, but dialogue with others should be impersonal. The former is about you, the latter should not be about you, it should be about the ideas at issue.

Much, however. depends on your priorities. Whether you regard philosophy as a way of finding answers or a way of asking questions. You might consider: what do you want and expect from philosophy?

I think this puts you at a distinct advantage. All too often giving an opinion is mistaken for doing philosophy. Rather then telling others what you think inquire into what others say on topics that interest you. — Fooloso4

@Jafar

To be clear, many of us here disagree with @Fooloso4’s opinion. You shouldn’t let it stop you from putting your thoughts into words. Introspection is a valid method for obtaining knowledge. You should appreciate the irony of him giving his personal preference without justification in this instance.

Thank you for your reply and the helpful advice. What you said about being transparent in your post really resonated with me! Thanks!

I'm mostly discussing with other students in a university but I'm also including informal discussion with strangers.

Great idea! I'll be honest, even though it's online, the discussions here do intimidate me sometimes. Hahahah. But I'll try and get into the habit of asking questions. Thanks!

Everything is a footnote to Plato. Just say that.

I think you should learn to feel comfortable not having anything to say, and maybe learning more about active listening. You don't need to know a lot of things or have a lot of opinions to engage well in a conversation - getting good at asking questions is more than half the battle. Maybe that's why one of the most important things in Philosophy is the Socratic Method.

So yeah, focus more on how to ask good questions instead of having things to say, would be my advice.

I'm surprised you recognized me haha! Thanks for the encouragement. Stay away from politics threads. Noted. I appreciate that others take the time for the curious.

I realize now that I can also reply to many people in a single comment. Sorry for the spam.


It's a good idea. I guess I'm still looking for something to say in that regard. I mostly read philosophy but I haven't made too much of an effort when it comes to DOING it, I guess? I do want to make a post at some point. Just as a challenge for myself.


What do you think is a good question? I really liked what you said. When you're reading or engaging with someone else, what do you find to be a good question?


I do agree to an extent because I value introspection a lot. In my case, I think it's also important to be able to formulate an idea and also be challenged on it. I really value philosophy as a means of introspection and a way to practice it, but I also get the impression that there is a lot to learn from others through discussion.

Again, thank you all for your posts. Very, very insightful.

I'm mostly discussing with other students in a university but I'm also including informal discussion with strangers. — Jafar

I should've asked before too, sorry, what do you want to get out of the discussions too?

But thanks for clarifying. I think fellow students and strangers are two different collections of contexts with different rules of thumb. I tried to write this from the perspective of someone who'd sat 16 y/o me down and told him how the hell to talk with people about abstract nonsense and the bizarrely emotive.

tl;dr - if you try to practice active listening and keep your dialogue exploratory, you'll get something from it. But you might not get out of it what you want.

With fellow students:
S1 ) Ask questions and ask to confirm you understood the answers - rephrase and say stuff back. Try to do that before responding, especially if critically.
S2 ) Do your best to keep discussions on topic, if you don't understand where a connection's come from ask in the manner of 1.
S3 ) If the discussion is textual, make sure you reference the text to support points.

With strangers IRL:
O1) They probably don't really want to be talked with philosophically, it's at best tiring, at worst a series of terrible faux pas.
O2) People do get something out of you behaving like the point S1 though, but generally only if they bring it up and you riff on it.
O3) You can smuggle in philosophical topics by sharing anecdotes that have the same theme.
O4) You can't expect randomers to enjoy playing with ideas like a philosophy enthusiast would, pay special attention with regard to ethical and political discussions!

While rapport's important in both contexts, rapport's all that can be expected when in philosophical discussions with random strangers. Randomers probably will not have studied philosophy at all.

On the forum - S1,S2,S3 are good. You can get away with being a bit more combative and blunt on here than you would IRL, since we're an old style forum.

On social media - good god I don't know, just don't.

One thing I can recommend is that you try to understand exactly what your interlocuters are saying and try to represent their arguments the way they would like - "steel-manning", or whatever. I don't always do it, and I've noticed that not doing so has a tendency to degrade threads over the course of their lifetimes, as clarifications need to be made, people get burned out arguing semantics when it isn't super relevant to the OP, etc.

I would also say just be as authentic as you are comfortable being with this motley collection of strangers. Also: don't insult @Hanover's absurdist fiction.

Do your best to have some idea beforehand what you're about and what you want. If you want to learn, talk to people who (also) want to learn, or teach. If you want to fight, talk to people who want to fight - don't confuse yourself about whom you're talking with. And if you want to talk about philosophy, talk to people who want to talk about philosophy. Fools, foolishness, and fanaticism can be kinds of addictions - addicts are usually impenetrable and usually require professional/corporate care. They will waste your time, energy, and resources and they can hurt you. If you're with one, get away asap and stay away.

Philosophy is about ideas, not ego. If you want to seem wise, listen (and learn), and be simple, modest, and honest in speaking. Now an instructive tale: In school, a girl who claimed to read, like, and understand Hegel wanted to talk to me about Hegel, whom then and now I neither read, like, nor understand. Like a fool I tried to keep pace with her - which got me forever nowhere. Far better to have pled ignorance, expressed admiration for her perspicacity, and asked for her help - would she like a glass of wine (which was available)?

You shouldn’t let it stop you from putting your thoughts into words. — T Clark

Jafar said:

I feel like I never really have anything to say on a given topic, or I feel that I do not know enough about a given subject to say anything meaningful. — Jafar

Telling him to put his thoughts into words is to ignore the thoughts he has put into words.

Articulating your thoughts is an essential part of philosophy, but there is, in my opinion, more to philosophy. It involves a critical examination and evaluation of those thoughts and opinions, whether they are your thoughts and opinions or someone else's.

I really value philosophy as a means of introspection and a way to practice it, but I also get the impression that there is a lot to learn from others through discussion. — Jafar

We are in agreement:

It is dialogical in a double sense - both a dialogue with others and a dialogue with oneself. — Fooloso4

The points you [clarification: T Clark] seem to be missing is that: 1) giving an opinion is not having a discussion, and 2) there is value in being a silent participant is a discussion.

Thanks for your post. My aim is to learn from a discussion. I would like to be able to walk away with a slightly better understanding of the subject we discussed. S1,S2, and S3 are great. I'll keep them in mind. You make a great point about talking with strangers. I forgot that not everyone wants to talk about philosophy all the time. makes a similar point. In the sense, that it's important to actively choose the right people to talk to, to get the most out of a discussion.

Good thing I stay away from social media hahaha

You're right. We do agree!

I'm curious about the introspection part. How do you critically evaluate your own thoughts? (This goes to everyone on the thread) It seems like a rather abstract thing to describe since everyone will favor different approaches, but I'm very interested in how other people ask "good" questions.

I think it's also important to be able to formulate an idea and also be challenged on it. — Jafar

I found the following from my response to you to be very helpful:

... dialogue with others should be impersonal. — Fooloso4

The Daodejing says:

practice extreme tenuousness

(Chapter 16)

Tenuousness is an openness, a lack of insistence. It is to allow things to show themselves as they are rather than imposing some conceptual scheme or structure on them. There is freedom in the play of ideas unfettered by being too attached to your opinions.

I'm curious about the introspection part. How do you critically evaluate your own thoughts? — Jafar

Good question! It involves a sense of detachment from whatever your opinion is. Of being willing and able to be wrong. To be able to change your mind. It involves an acknowledgement of ignorance.

There is an ancient practice of defending a position that is at odds with the one you currently hold. The benefits include - developing a greater flexibility of thought, looking at the issue without having a stake in it, seeing things from another perspective, and even being able to give a stronger account of your own position after examining the alternatives.

I'm very interested in how other people ask "good" questions. — Jafar

I would say you are well on your way!

I'm curious about the introspection part. How do you critically evaluate your own thoughts? — Jafar

Many people here don't see introspection and intuition as valid ways of knowing, while to me, they are the strongest intellectual tools we have to work with. How can I have confidence in what I think if I am not aware of how I think. Although it's not the standard definition, that's what philosophy is to me - an exercise in learning to be more self-aware. Even an understanding based on reason must come from, be motivated by, something intuitive. And to be useful, an intuitive understanding often must be justified using reason.

When I hear someone else's ideas, someone here on the forum or Immanuel Kant, I have to check them against my own understanding of how the world works to see if they resonate. If they don't, sometimes I'll reject the ideas and sometimes I'll expand my understanding to make room for them. The final arbiter is your own judgment. Parroting philosophers is not philosophy. Eventually you have to take responsibility for your own beliefs.

Articulating your thoughts is an essential part of philosophy, but there is, in my opinion, more to philosophy. It involves a critical examination and evaluation of those thoughts and opinions, whether they are your thoughts and opinions or someone else's. — Fooloso4

Agreed, but the purpose behind that examination and evaluation is to figure out how other's thoughts fit into your own understanding of how the world works. If they don't fit, then you can either reject them, change your own understanding, or do a little of both.

Agreed, but the purpose behind that examination and evaluation is to figure out how other's thoughts fit into your own understanding of how the world works. If they don't fit, then you can either reject them, change your own understanding, or do a little of both. — T Clark

Your tell Jafar:

... many of us here disagree with Fooloso4’s opinion. — T Clark

as if anything I said was intended to:

stop [him] from putting [his] thoughts into words — T Clark

Your claim that "the purpose behind the examination and evaluation is to figure out how other's thoughts fit into your own understanding of how the world works." is not a point of disagreement with what I said:

It is critical and evaluative. It is dialogical in a double sense - both a dialogue with others and a dialogue with oneself. — Fooloso4

You should appreciate the irony of him giving his personal preference without justification in this instance. — T Clark

The only irony here is that once you get passed your misreading of what I said, it turns out that you support what I said. As for the others you presume to speak for I see no evidence of their alleged disagreement.

What do you think is a good question? I really liked what you said. When you're reading or engaging with someone else, what do you find to be a good question? — Jafar

The most important, widely-applicable question is "why do you think that?" Also, "what do you mean?" lol. Some people get really upset by those questions but, imo, true philosophers love being asked those questions about their ideas and beliefs.

I'm curious about the introspection part. How do you critically evaluate your own thoughts? — Jafar

Good question. Can it even be done? Or do we just move from one set of emotionally based presuppositions to another?

I forgot that not everyone wants to talk about philosophy all the time. — Jafar

Yes, I think philosophy, being difficult and abstruse and inconclusive, only appeals to a small number. I've only met one or two people in 40 years who have an interest in the subject. Well, that's not really true, some people will tell you they like philosophy, but it turns out that the only thing they've read is Atlas Shrugged or 12 Rules for Life: An Antidote to Chaos

My goal is to become more engaged when I'm reading, as well as discussing philosophy. — Jafar

So are you saying that you lack confidence in discussing what you have read and what you believe, or is it that you lack certainty? I'm a bit unclear how you view your barrier to participation.

So I wanted to ask if you guys had any advice for me. How do you engage with philosophy, whether when you're reading or discussing/debating with others? When do you feel like you learn the most? Thanks a bunch! — Jafar

Hi there, welcome home!

You ask good questions already, and you have some good answers. There is a good old Catholic and defence lawyer method advocatus diaboli whereby one tries to make the argument for a position one does not hold or that is unpopular. The benefit of this is that one does not mind losing too much, and more importantly, it gets one used to the sensation of changing one's mind, something that needs doing daily at least.

(And don't go taking no advice from no parrots.)

@Jafar

I'm curious about the introspection part. How do you critically evaluate your own thoughts?
— Jafar

Good question. Can it even be done? Or do we just move from one set of emotionally based presuppositions to another? — Tom Storm

Thank you for giving me this opportunity to bring out one of my favorite quotes. I try to use it at least once every couple of weeks here on the forum. It's from "Self-Reliance" by Ralph Wald Emerson.

To believe our own thought, to believe that what is true for you in your private heart is true for all men, -- that is genius. Speak your latent conviction, and it shall be the universal sense; for the inmost in due time becomes the outmost,--and our first thought, is rendered back to us by the trumpets of the Last Judgment. Familiar as the voice of the mind is to each, the highest merit we ascribe to Moses, Plato, and Milton is that they set at naught books and traditions, and spoke not what men but what they thought. A man should learn to detect and watch that gleam of light which flashes across his mind from within, more than the lustre of the firmament of bards and sages. — Emerson - Self-Reliance

When Emerson says "genius" he doesn't mean like Einstein. It's more like our true nature, what Taoists call "Te" - our intrinsic virtuosity. It takes self-awareness and discipline to follow Emerson's path. You need to pay attention.

jafar,
Congrats on starting your successful OP. You are doing well "managing" it by continuing to do what you are doing. Philosophy can be as intellectualized or as down to earth as you may view and want it. This forum caters for the academic to the everyman approach to philosophic discourse. Decide where on that spectrum you are comfortable now and learn to be comfortable everywhere on the spectrum by asking questions and reading, reading and reading. There are usually plenty of references quoted in the academic multilogues.( or is it polylogues).Plus, most of the" professionals".here will provide references if politely asked.
This is just a suggested opening approach. i.e. an opinion.
good luck smile

That's a good question, thanks. I feel like it's the former; I think it has a lot to do with lack of confidence in philosophy and because of it that I feel that I "put off" and discussion. When talking about a specific text, I just naturally assume my interpretation is missing something and I adopt the interpretation of other people instead. I think it coincides with feeling like I don't have a "philosophical voice."