How to start a philosophical discussion

Amity

I've noticed that there have been a few starter discussions which have been killed at birth. Perhaps for good reason. However, there seems to be a lack of consistency in applying forum standards.

Here is an example of what I mean:

Discussion 1 :
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/3871/more-people-have-been-to-russia-than-i-have

Luke: I came across this statement yesterday and found it interesting. Does the statement in the discussion title make any sense? If not, what's the problem with it?

So, 2 questions which immediately engaged certain participants interested in semantics.

Discussion 2:

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/4945/improving-ones-own-character

Y: What are some coherent conceptions of character?
Among conceptions of character where character is mutable and can change in a way that could be called an improvement, how is it done?

So, again 2 questions. This by a first time poster. Welcome to the forum.

The response by Baden: Another lesson in how not to write an OP. Please argue for your view on the answers to these questions before inviting others' opinions. If you can't, come back when you can and try again !

----------

I hope this does not put anyone off posing questions as an opener.
I agree that sometimes we need a bit of background to the questions or issues.
That didn't happen in discussion 1. Nevertheless it led to questions I hadn't thought of.
I am pretty sure there must be other such threads.

So what makes the difference...why kill off the spirit of questioning in such a brutal way. What does that say about the character or interests of the individuals concerned, or the forum. Do we need more information about what constitutes a good philosophy question? Or can we simply write a few starter thoughts and get creative...

I hope the new member returns. Perhaps see this as a good test of commitment.
'Improving one's own character.' If at first you don't succeed...

Amity

I see I missed out a 'p' in the title. Will I be forgiven. Or can I change it, thanks !?
Filosofee rools, KO !

Valentinus

I think you might get more of a response if you raise this issue on the Feedback part of the site.

I am a newcomer here myself. I often find some judgement to be too harsh and then realize that I, too, have been a jerk. I can barely moderate myself.

In defense of holding out for standards on accepting OP topics, conversations get moved off the front page very quickly. This place is an iceberg of previous discussion. I cooled my jets when I started checking that stuff out.

Anyway, enough about me.

unenlightened

Moderators are imperfect. Sometimes they miss things, and by the time they catch up, there is an interesting conversation. Sometimes, they have phases of cracking down on some behaviour that has been let slide.

The main reason for this is that you are not paying them enough. If you paid them like bankers, judges, and politicians, they would be perfect in every way. In the meantime, if you follow the guidelines, you won't go far wrong, and even if sometimes someone gets away with not following them, that does not entitle you to do the same.

Amity

In the meantime, if you follow the guidelines, you won't go far wrong, and even if sometimes someone gets away with not following them, that does not entitle you to do the same. — unenlightened

Good advice. I checked it out. I can do a) - some of b) - I don't always have a position to advocate and so no initial arguments. I think that holds true for many who even if they do, they hold back.
c) - well, OK. But some are just eye-catching hooks to draw in interest.
d) - starting an original topic. Is that even possible in philosophy? Perhaps new to the person writing or thinking about it for the first time...or simply a different perspective on e.g. 'self.

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/480/site-guidelines

Starting new discussions:

Don't start a new discussion unless you are:

a) Genuinely interested in the topic you've begun and are willing to engage those who engage you.

b) Able to write a thoughtful OP of reasonable length that illustrates this interest, and to provide arguments for any position you intend to advocate.

c) Capable of writing a decent title that accurately and concisely describes the content of your OP.

d) Starting an original topic, i.e. a similar discussion is not already active.

(No bumps allowed. If you want to attract replies, think of a better way).

Amity

↪Valentinus

Yes. The discussion has been moved to the correct box by the moderators.

Those poor imperfect unpaid souls who every now and again crack down on poor little beginners who haven't yet cracked the code. It's not about pay, or perfection but having a certain attitude.
I just have concerns that those new to philosophy or forums get put off dipping their toes in.
Whereas those who are in with the in-crowd seem to get away with more - perhaps they've earned it.

Amity

If you paid them like bankers, judges, and politicians, they would be perfect in every way. — unenlightened

:smile:

fdrake

A bad OP which has already generated a decent conversation is more likely to remain. If we catch a bad OP before any discussion starts on it, we're more likely to trim it; either deleting the thread or closing the discussion.

That this happens more frequently to new posters is less about favouritism and more about new posters being less experienced in writing OPs. Posters that have stuck around for awhile have more experience writing OPs, and indeed regular posts, that conform to site guidelines sufficiently well to not require moderation.

Which is not to say we all act as a monolith, we all have different standards. EG, I imagine I'm more lax on moderating content than some others, but I'm more likely to think punishing aggressive or otherwise unpleasant behaviour is required.

Baden

↪Amity

What @fdrake said. Plus, I didn't look at the post count of either poster that I remember although I suppose a veteran member who has shown that they understand the guidelines and navigated successfully through numerous OPs might be supposed to be more likely to fill in the gaps as they went along. Then again we've moderated @Wallows OPs extensively and he has more discussions than anyone else. Thankfully, he's very sanguine about the whole process.

It might be a good idea to try to be more sensitive with absolute newbies wrt exemplifying their poor OPs. I hadn't considered that when I was modding this one and was thinking more about all the OPs I had recently just deleted and wanting to get the message out there that we were looking for more effort.

Amity

↪fdrake

Thanks for taking the time to explain further. I have always appreciated those who take up the challenge of moderation, using a bit of wisdom, humour and sense as their guide.
I think more care is required when responding to a new poster who fails to meet the prescribed guidelines. A quality response would be less harsh. Who knows what 'decent conversation' might have emerged.

Amity

It might be a good idea to try to be more sensitive with absolute newbies wrt exemplifying their poor OPs though. I hadn't considered that when I was modding this one and was thinking more about all the OPs I had recently just deleted and wanting to get the message out there that we were looking for more effort. — Baden

Understood. And thanks for all your hard work. This is a place I hope to continue using - it meets my standards well enough :wink:

Baden

↪Amity

Good to hear. :up:

Terrapin Station

How to start a philosophical discussion, per typical Internet discussions:

No matter what someone said, both (a) disagree with them, and (b) tell them that what they said (i) isn't adequate and (ii) isn't clear. (Nevermind that you're supposedly disagreeing with something you didn't quite understand per (b)(ii)--if they catch that, or no matter what they say, really, simply repeat (a) and (b).)

Kippo

It is more interesting, IMO, to discuss matters philosophically, rather than to discuss philosophical matters.

Well they are different discussions so I suppose a preference is inevitable. One is harder to engage with I guess, but worth the effort no doubt.

How to start a philosophical discussion, per typical Internet discussions:

No matter what someone said, both (a) disagree with them, and (b) tell them that what they said (i) isn't adequate and (ii) isn't clear. (Nevermind that you're supposedly disagreeing with something you didn't quite understand per (b)(ii)--if they catch that, or no matter what they say, really, simply repeat (a) and (b).) — Terrapin Station

And be sarcastic as much as humanly possible, although it'll be lost on someone like me, because I have Asperger's syndrome.

Amity

How to start a philosophical discussion, per typical Internet discussions:

No matter what someone said, both (a) disagree with them, and (b) tell them that what they said (i) isn't adequate and (ii) isn't clear. (Nevermind that you're supposedly disagreeing with something you didn't quite understand per (b)(ii)--if they catch that, or no matter what they say, really, simply repeat (a) and (b).) — Terrapin Station

:smile:

Not much different to politics then. 'Let me be clear....the Houses of Parliament joke.

You're not David Chalmers by any chance ?
Most helpful for a beginner.

http://consc.net/philosophical-humor/
http://consc.net/misc/philosophicalterms.html

Amity

It is more interesting, IMO, to discuss matters philosophically, rather than to discuss philosophical matters.

Well they are different discussions so I suppose a preference is inevitable. One is harder to engage with I guess, but worth the effort no doubt. — Kippo

Well, yes and no. Perhaps.
Replace the philosophical with the sexual and you can see you can do both, equally interesting.

It is equally interesting to discuss matters sexually, rather than to discuss sexual matters.

[ Feedback welcome :smile: ]

Amity

And be sarcastic as much as humanly possible, although it'll be lost on someone like me, because I have Asperger's syndrome. — S

Ah but then you have the compensation of being the Wisest Among Fools :nerd:

andrewk

Discussion 2:

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/4945/improving-ones-own-character

Y: What are some coherent conceptions of character?
Among conceptions of character where character is mutable and can change in a way that could be called an improvement, how is it done?

So, again 2 questions. This by a first time poster. Welcome to the forum. — Amity

I am pretty confident that post is somebody's homework, and they were just trying to get somebody on the forum to do it for them. Note how it just has two questions, written in the way that homework questions usually are. It contains no thoughts, suggestions or anything to indicate that the poster has thought about or is even interested in the topic.

If @Baden hadn't already closed the thread I would have reported the post.

Amity

am pretty confident that post is somebody's homework, and they were just trying to get somebody on the forum to do it for them. Note how it just has two questions, written in the way that homework questions usually are. It contains no thoughts, suggestions or anything to indicate that the poster has thought about or is even interested in the topic.

If Baden hadn't already closed the thread I would have reported the post. — andrewk

I agree. It looked iffy.
I think Baden's instincts, given his experience, were spot on.
I have responded to another iffy one. Even with this suspicion, it gave me a chance to exercise some thinking/writing skills. And others reading it might have learned something...who knows.

But yeah, all power to the mods for keeping this forum running well and without clutter.

Kippo

↪Amity

"It is equally interesting to discuss matters sexually, rather than to discuss sexual matters."

How would that work ... everything would be sexual innuendo!

Amity

"It is equally interesting to discuss matters sexually, rather than to discuss sexual matters."

How would that work ... everything would be sexual innuendo! — Kippo

The possibilities are endless.
That would be the topic of another thread. Of course every good thread starts with a wiki.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_sex

ArguingWAristotleTiff

The main reason for this is that you are not paying them enough. If you paid them like bankers, judges, and politicians, they would be perfect in every way. In the meantime, if you follow the guidelines, you won't go far wrong, and even if sometimes someone gets away with not following them, that does not entitle you to do the same. — unenlightened

I agree and will vote for a raise for you guys!
However the last part of the quote above sounds a bit like preferential treatment thinly veiled. Did I catch you right? :razz:

unenlightened

↪ArguingWAristotleTiff

Not at all. It's just that if the sheriff does not shoot every baddie, that doesn't mean he can't shoot you if you're a baddie. Sometimes there just ain't enough bullets for perfect justice.

How to start a philosophical discussion

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions