It certainly seems better (overall) than only posting in the forums. That said, I think the forums are great starting points for forming thoughts or finding areas to explore. A good move, particularly for an old head like yourself, i'd think.

I think if I trusted more members to have reasonable discussions, i'd be more likely to PM. But I get a lot of in-person (or private P2P) philosophical discussoin through work and school anyway.

Do you find yourself using PMs for more intricate discussions? — Banno

It is not only for doing philosophy, but I use private messages to show myself with more freedom. Before @Arcane Sandwich was banned, we had deep conversations in Spanish using private messages. This is the way we became friends, and we still have contact through email. Since he is the philosopher and not me, I am like his student, and we talk of different topics, but I was learning about 'Divine Simplicity' lately thanks to him.

Overall, I believe private messages are used with members you have a certain level of confidence in.

If you and another poster have some common interest or background which isn't shared with the majority of people, PMs are preferable in lots of ways. I miss @Isaac for this, we talked a lot.

Insert caveats about shared perspectives, bias and reasoning here.

It cuts down quite dramatically on the bullshit. Quite a relief, actually. — Banno

True. I rarely post anything anymore because I find it too much bother wading through trivial responses. If this sounds arrogant I don't mind. It is just a question of efficiency. I no longer have time to spare.

To be sure, I'm talking about using the inbox facility in the forums, not a different provider.

we had deep conversations in Spanish — javi2541997

Nice. I had quite an extensive PM chat with him myself, but it became a bit odd and I ended it. I wish him well.

I miss Isaac for this — fdrake

Oh, yeah. He was very helpful.

I rarely post anything anymore because I find it too much bother wading through trivial responses. — I like sushi

I think that entirely understandable. It's not arrogant to respect your own time.

It's much easier to follow a deep discussion without interjection.

It's also easier for practical reasons. I don't have to flick back and forth between pages, and scroll up or down through irrelevant or even counterproductive material.

It cuts down quite dramatically on the bullshit. Quite a relief, actually. — Banno

In other words, by using PM it's easier to avoid the masses who disagree with you, allowing you to escape into a fabricated world of illusion, with a close buddy. Avoid the distractions which reality forces upon you, and really build your own little dream scene.

When I want to escape into my own little world of creativity, I just pm myself. It's all done in the privacy and secrecy of my own mind, commonly known as thinking.

What's with the need for a buddy in your private and secret world of creativity? Do I detect a little insecurity?

Your response shows exactly why @Banno might prefer a PM discussion. He poses a perfectly reasonable question to the members, and you slam into him. Why? What are you hoping that will achieve? If you think his ideas about PMs are open to some concerns, can't that be said civilly and respectfully? Sigh . . . I guess it's the world we live in today.

Insert caveats about shared perspectives, bias and reasoning here. — fdrake

I.e. echo chambers, for people who refuse to engage those on the open forum who question their positions and suggest that they might be wrong. I think this is a very large caveat in the OP's case.

PMs can be great, but when they are being used to limit counterarguments one would prefer to avoid I think they are a poor choice, and a poor use of storage space. Gossip is also a very relevant issue, here, related to echo chambers.

In other words, by using PM it's easier to avoid the masses who disagree with you, allowing you to escape into a fabricated world of illusion, with a close buddy. Avoid the distractions which reality forces upon you, and really build your own little dream scene.

When I want to escape into my own little world of creativity, I just pm myself. It's all done in the privacy and secrecy of my own mind, commonly known as thinking.

What's with the need for a buddy in your private and secret world of creativity? Do I detect a little insecurity? — Metaphysician Undercover

I think you've hit it. Especially in the context of @Banno's recent attacks on religion, his accusations of authoritarianism, the growing acknowledgement that his favored mode of Analytic philosophy is deficient, etc. He makes accusations, the accusations backfire, and then he takes to PM. His problems are self-generated.

:up:
Posting on the forums creates more opportunity to receive input from varying points of view and potential valid criticisms.

Is having to wade through all the drivel to get the few good responses that allow one's ideas to evolve worth it? For me it is.

In what ways has Banno evolved other than him steering more towards using PMs to preach to his choir?

I mean, honestly, you're still you in PM, so the only way to cut through that bullshit is the lose the whole thinking you're a winning dominant philosopher when you're just addicted to being a simulacrum who pretends to do anything with philosophy at all. If you wanna cut theough the BS, dont post bullshit?

The hell do you think is gonna happen in a FORUM when you set out an idea for ALL its "philosophers," and wide opinions?

A whirlwind.

Of course this shows you admitting you're good at wheeling and dealing one on one to try and dominate the conversation by just saying the same thing over and over without adding any depth. Like you did with Moliere and I. To the point I decided to poison you against me because you're easy like that.

Hence my post so long ago in the shout box "I got the poison..."

preach to his choir — Harry Hindu

Yes. I think it is a kind of preaching, which is why it is so resistant to argument, exchange, objections, questions, accurate representation, etc. Preachers who cannot find a receptive audience might end up preaching to themselves in PMs. Privately talking about how the people who object to their preaching are benighted.

I find that the PMs enable deeper focus on a particular issue or argument, to deeply dive into a topic with one or two folk who know what they are talking about. — Banno

It seems that much of what people talk about on this forum is what other philosophers have said, and what some philosophers said is always dependent upon what they knew about the world at their time, and their language reflects that. To someone that hasn't studied what some philosopher has said it may appear that some don't know what they are talking about.

I don't have much experience in what other philosophers have said. I have a lot of experience in what scientists have said and it is our current scientific knowledge that shapes what present-day philosophers say. Dead philosophers probably wouldn't say what they said if they lived today.

I form my philosophy about the nature of the world by integrating what all scientists have said, not what some few dead philosopher have said, about the world. So from a scientific perspective it can appear that you don't know what you're talking about when what you're talking about doesn't take into account the current scientific understanding of how we develop and learn in the world.

I find myself reluctantly on the side of the ungodly, though without the contempt. My instinct has always been to refuse to discuss philosophy in pms for reasons the ungodly have somewhat indicated above. But more so, it is because I want the public scrutiny and moderation of both sides of the discussion, and that whatever I have to say is 'on the record'; Paul used to say that our discussions should be conducted, not primarily for the benefit of the participants, but for the silent reader. No silent readers of pms, alas.

I wonder if your style attracts argumentative nonsense more than the content deserves? I also wonder if the moderation is too lax? I have been very impressed with the latest essays, so if there is too much nonsense and unpleasantness in the threads, then stricter moderation is the answer, because there are quality posters enough.

quality — unenlightened

If one wants to improve the quality of thought on the forum, I think the easiest way is to impose posting limits (see for example, 6). This is arguably what generated the quality submissions (i.e. the time allotted to composition). Quality diminishes when TPF is treated like Twitter and people post without first giving thought to the topic. But of course this would not satisfy @Banno, who is one of the worst culprits with over 27,000 posts and a tendency towards quippy, dismissive posts. So I'm not sure it's just a matter of his "style."

What a mean post. I like it.

For me, the forum is a community. I come here to hang around with you guys. Some of you I consider friends, most of you neighbors, and a few nemeses. We all share an interest in thinking, and thinking about thinking, and thinking about thinking about thinking. I come here to have my ideas tested. Sure there’s a bunch of crap, but nobody requires that I participate in it.

This is arguably what generated the quality submissions (i.e. the time allotted to composition). Quality diminishes when TPF is treated like Twitter and people post without first giving thought to the topic. — Leontiskos

Yes I remember reading your suggestions back then. I doubt the software allows such limits though. But if one finds one's poor posts being deleted, and then one receives a warning pm about them, that also has the effect of giving one pause - or else the effect of one going ballistic and getting banned. But I won't bang on here about it more than I already have...

But I rate @Banno highly as a philosopher, and he does engage; some people find that unpleasant.

I only use PM to gossip or talk about personal stuff.

As to the moderation question, one can of course post in the forum or the PM. I, for one, would obviously prefer a public conversation. That is, after all, the purpose of a place like this.

As an ideal, I try to consider ourselves not just as learners, but as teachers, which might mean sometimes patience with those who are missing the point. This is to say I'd prefer an open chess tournament, with grandmasters and novices alike.

I have never had discussions over PM. I don't feel obliged to respond to, or even read crap posts from crap posters, so, filtering is not much of an issue. The only problem with an open discussion is that it can get derailed or split into multiple conversations. This is where a more focused discussion with a reduced audience could be preferable. But it is unfortunate if it gets to the point where people want to retreat into private messages. This forum was meant to be a community, not a hookup spot like Tinder.

Your response shows exactly why Banno might prefer a PM discussion. — J

Pretty much. The usual suspects are here, together with the personal attacks. Of course, I created this thread specifically to run away from criticism, as always. :roll:

Paul used to say that our discussions should be conducted, not primarily for the benefit of the participants, but for the silent reader. No silent readers of pms, alas. — unenlightened

Not a bad point. The PM conversations have usually resulted in a few corresponding posts in public, or a whole thread, so are not entirely lost to posterity.

But I rate Banno highly as a philosopher, and he does engage; some people find that unpleasant. — unenlightened

Cheers.

I don't feel obliged to respond to, or even read crap posts from crap posters, so, filtering is not much of an issue. — SophistiCat

There are a few who have shown bad faith, and so with whom I usually do not engage - indeed, I don't often read their posts. They are aware of this, but curiously they insist on participating mainly in my threads.

which might mean sometimes patience with those who are missing the point. — Hanover

Patience is not infinite.

Yes I remember reading your suggestions back then. I doubt the software allows such limits though. — unenlightened

I think you're probably right. But some forum software does, so it is possible.

Your response shows exactly why Banno might prefer a PM discussion. He poses a perfectly reasonable question to the members, and you slam into him. Why? What are you hoping that will achieve? If you think his ideas about PMs are open to some concerns, can't that be said civilly and respectfully? Sigh . . . I guess it's the world we live in today. — J

The op lacks any real philosophy. It states a personal opinion. The replies are bound to be opinions about the person, because the person stated something personal. I simply met the op's invitation.

This thread ought to be in The Lounge.

I believe the point of this thread is not to be philosophical but to ask us if we use private messages to interact privately with other members.

I think it is interesting to read the replies from the other mates. Some use private messages to talk with people they consider closer to interact with; others use it to gossip, as Benkei stated. It is comprehensible that the main point of a forum is to interact with the rest widely. But this should not create boundaries for the interactions. Talking with someone privately through PM is another way of using TPF.

I mainly used private messages to talk with @Arcane Sandwich in our native language. Also, I interact with @T Clark a lot through PM when he feels I am angry. Because there are personal or emotional stuff that need to be treated more privately. I don't know if this thread ought to be in the lounge, but it is quite interesting to see that folks built personal relationships with some members that they trust in.

I believe the point of this thread is not to be philosophical but to ask us if we use private messages to interact privately with other members. — javi2541997

Good morning javi. I don't mean to be overly pedantic, but I think it's important to note that the op is clearly and specifically concerned with "discussing philosophical ideas in Private Messages".

I believe the point of this thread is not to be philosophical but to ask us if we use private messages to interact privately with other members. — javi2541997

Exactly. So the response to such a question is abuse? I don't get it. If the thread were in the Lounge, would that make it OK to be sarcastic and disrespectful? (Perhaps so; I never visit the Lounge.)

It states a personal opinion. The replies are bound to be opinions about the person, — Metaphysician Undercover

So let me see how this works. I say, "In my opinion, that's a beautiful painting." And you are "bound to reply", "You aren't very smart"? No other options? Man, I hope your real-life conversations don't go that way! :grin:

What are the other pros and cons? There's a small danger of creating echo chambers, of course, if there were no public interaction. And it doesn't add to my mentions or comments count... — Banno

I’m not a fan of PM discussions simply because I think ideas should be discussed in public, because that’s how knowledge moves society forward. While private discussions are more comfortable, I don’t think that comfort is supposed to be part of the practice of philosophy, simply through the idea that philosophy rely on conflicting ideas to be tested.

It could be nice to test an idea that isn’t well fleshed out first before going into a public discussion, but I feel like private discussions kind of defeats the purpose of this place, which is to be a public forum. Private discussions then becomes more of a fulfillment of the self and the ego, rather than what philosophical discourse is supposed to be.

I think the problem primarily boils down to that there are only a few on this forum that seem to have the capacity and ability to actually discuss ideas, especially when conflicting with their own point of view. And so many discussions become filled with low quality, biased reasoning, with barrages of fallacies that just bloat everything.

In my opinion, the standards should be higher. It doesn’t have to be about making an argument based on academic practices, formats, or such, but rather a standard of examined thought that excludes emotional outbursts, heavy bias and obvious fallacies. That constant repetition of flooding philosophical discussions with thoughtless ramblings warrants a warning or even ban if ignored. More than the current standard.

I think the tolerance bar is too high and it serves only the people acting on that level, often dragging things down to their level rather than them being forced to get their act together.

But it comes down to where the mods want things to be and I won’t argue that they do a bad job because how to set the bar is extremely hard. Compared to other places online, this place is pure heaven in terms of behavior. I just think that the tolerance bar needs to be lowered a little.

@Jamal Maybe threads could be marked by the writer? As an intent by the poster for what type of discussion they want? Like, if someone wants a more open discussion where people are free to express however they want, that could be “Open”. And if they want something focused heavily on logic/math or something, maybe “logic/analytical”, and if someone wants the discussion to be more focused and with heavier scrutiny, maybe “Focused” or “High level”. Or maybe just three levels; “Open”, “Medium, “High”, for free discussions, to more casual but focused, to those with longer written arguments featuring links to actual papers and high level discussions, warranting the highest level of discussion.

Maybe? At least that would warrant an easier way to mod the threads so that people who want a higher level discussion can get rid of those who are mostly here for a lower level of open discussion, while not erasing that option for those people who want to discuss more casually? :chin:

So the response to such a question is abuse? — J

I don't see why you call my response "abuse". I merely pointed out a common personality trait which was indicated to me by the op's claimed use of PM. That trait was identified as "insecurity". Do you generally interpret constructive criticism as abuse?

So let me see how this works. I say, "In my opinion, that's a beautiful painting." And you are "bound to reply", "You aren't very smart"? — J

I don't see the analogy. You provide no indication as to how you draw this conclusion. I very clearly explained how I came to the conclusion of "insecurity". Further, I did not state that I believe the conclusion to be necessary. I asked, (with a question mark in case you missed it) if it was a sound conclusion.

Therefore, I was suggesting it as a topic for discussion. And, judging by the replies, it appears like more people agree with me than disagree.

Some people appear to be missing the bigger picture. What would be the point in having TPF if we all decided that it is better to discuss our philosophical ideas through private messages? I mean, this suggestion that we use PM to discuss philosophy instead of the public forum is absolutely contrary to the very reason for being of TPF. Why does it upset you when the suggestion is scoffed at?

That is, after all, the purpose of a place like this. — Hanover

Patience is a virtue which I do not have. If someone joined the chess tournament, and recommended that we play by special rules crafted by that individual, I'd literally lose it. Then @J would see what constitutes "abuse".

Patience is not infinite. — Banno

No, but it is nevertheless a virtue. I fear your OP could be read not just as a suggestion that sometimes direct communication with a poster is helpful for clearing up issues, particularly if the matter is so esoteric that it might not be of interest or ability to others, but as a suggestion that one is better served if they remove themselves from the common man so they can discuss their thoughts among their elite equals. I can understand the impulse, particularly if you've grown impatient with challenges you feel not valid, but I also believe it is through challenging ideas (even those they may not fully grasp) that many learn, and if you remove yourself from the fray you deprive others that opportunity.

I say this to you in particular because it is obvious to those observing that you have engaged in rigorous study of contemporary analytic philosophy and your contributions have elevated those discussions. Personally, I can say I'd know far less of those areas without your posts because those topics would not have appeared on my radar given my leanings.

My point here isn't, of course, directed only at you, because there are a good many who have their own areas of expertise and many who might have none but might have occassional moments of accidental brilliance. It's really directed at anyone who is considering your OP and thinking of moving their thoughts to a PM consisting only of their hand selected peers. My preference would be to keep most discussions within the general assembly hall and not in private drawing room. But, as I've said, everyone has the right to post publicly, privately, or not at all.