No one needs to repent.

@Daniel It's a joke. You know humour.

It's a Philosophy forum.

@Daniel Philosophy precludes humour?
Go back to sleep.

Philosophy is

Attack the idea, not the person.

@Daniel You call that an attack?
Wow! As I said before the snowflake preachy philosophy is well represented. You get a cupcake for your wise cliche.

Pardon my language. I meant, direct your words to the idea, not to the person. Attack was such a strong word.

@Daniel Sometimes the idea is an expression of the person.

But not the person itself.

@Daniel What is the person "itself"! Some kantian abstraction!? Some ideas are an expression of a person.
Or do you want to preach to me anymore how I Express myself?

I agree, some ideas are. But when an idea is expressed by a subject and received by another, and when it becomes the object of discussion/debate, the idea is not the subject who expresses it, nor does it belong to such subject alone. All I am saying is that in a philosophical discussion/debate, words should be directed to that shared idea which is under discussion and not to the person or people who expressed the idea.

@Daniel It depends on the context and the idea expressed. You can say all you want. I said sometimes.
You ignore the context and what I'm saying. I will conduct my responses as I wish. I dont need your hackneyed generalisms.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

@tim wood Total strawman.
Go read again. And how about asking for a clarification or asking how you have misunderstood my position.
Knee jerk could get no jerkier.

The first task of philosophy is to describe the world. — A SeagullAnd how might you do that? You take for granted your concepts, not realizing that at different times and places people have held different concepts on how the world works and what it is.

I would say the 'proof' lies in making good decisions which enable one to achieve one's goals.ie the practicalities of the world align with one's description of the world. And yes it is subjective, but it is a subjectivity that can be shared by others. — A SeagullTo this, Nazi Germany. — tim wood

Do you have a point? If so what is it?

Or if you have a non-rhetorical question, I might try to answer it.

PS It is well known in debating circles that the first person to brink up Nazi Germany is the loser.

Protagorus the most astute of all famous philosophers explained this common sense about reality some time ago...But the perversion of common sense by Plato and academic philosophy strawmanned Protagorus.
Subjectivity does not equate to relativity.
Some descriptions are better than others. Some are agreed upon. And some are inaccurate. Some are even holy lies and propoganda. How simple it is for those who trust their common sense and dont run in fear to the idolatry of the holy lies.

I've been on TPF and its predecessor for a middling long time, and it seems to me that we're awash at this time with an unusual number of posts from people who are confused about what philosophy is. This includes the ignorant and the stupid - I plead guilty to both, ignorance all the time and occasional stupidity. And these, ignorance and being stupid, our human condition, redeemed in the willingness to be corrected and the effort to learn. But here also many who are not willing, those who just want to rant and are oblivious or hostile to argument or even sense. Those agenda-driven whose methods are mainly Prucrustean; Trumpian who insist their nonsense is sense and have zero interest in real sense; woo-mongers interested in nothing but their own woo, impervious to reason. And those who do not understand, and aren't willing to. These appearing in every one of the main TPF categories. — tim wood

And then there are the bigots...

My thoughts on the middle east is that it is one of the places on the planet where civilization "as we know it" first appeared. But middle-easterners have been fucking it up from day one to the present. I've met middle-easterners; I've known middle-easterners; and it seems to me that being one is just a disease of intellect and spirit. — tim wood

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

He really is the definition of a bigot, a word which has used a lot where it shouldn't be but its apt here. That quote you've given is definitely one of the worst things I've read on the forum. Now reading his argument to @A Seagull it is so fallacious, rude and classless. The OP is literally about how philosophy is about being good-intentioned and reasonable, I'm once again left astonished by what I'm seeing from @tim wood.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

But has not also the middle east been the site of wars and oppression for nearly all time, and even as we speak, even while other places seem to try to evolve away from that? And my personal experiences with middle-easterners is my own; but one example, the acquaintance of mine, here to become an engineer, who explained that friendship notwithstanding, were there a jihad he'd have to kill me, my not being Muslim. What do you make of that? And I should like to think that in many ways, the west is more desirably progressive than the middle east. — tim wood

To my way of thinking bigotry is an offense against thought, being an illegitimate substitute for it. So if I offended, point it out. — tim wood

Here is an illegitimate substitute for thought: discrediting the being of an entire region of individuals (“being a middle-easterner” as “a disease of intellect and spirit”) by the expressed thoughts of one person (or even a handful) from that region. We all would like to think that we are “more desirably progressive” than others, but generalisations such as these are the definition of an offence against thought, I would imagine. As an example, it has come to my attention that the US has enjoyed just 16 years of peace since its inception, and no more than a day since 1970 - a case of the pot and kettle? More desirably progressive? Not in this way, it would seem.

I for one thought you were better than this, Tim.

Now, hopefully everyone can swallow their pride long enough to return to a meaningful discussion of the topic - which I was enjoying before it descended into accusations of inciting war and oppression....

The goal of the original philosophers, according to Pierre Hadot, ‘was to cultivate a specific, constant attitude toward existence, by way of the rational comprehension of the nature of humanity and its place in the cosmos. This cultivation required, specifically, that students learn to combat their passions and the illusory evaluative beliefs instilled by their passions, habits, and upbringing.’ — Wayfarer

‘Combat’ here may be the wrong term - not to ignore, isolate or exclude, but to increase inter-subjective awareness, connection and collaboration with a diversity of evaluative beliefs in relation to passions, habits and upbringing, such that this ‘rational comprehension’ doesn’t limit itself to avoid uncertainty.

For me, philosophy is more about the questions than the answers, more about existence than humanity, and more about awareness than exclusion. But I do recognise that it takes both approaches to render philosophy productive as such. So I will continue to challenge ignorance, anthropocentrism and claims to certainty, and expect to be challenged myself on clarity, context and purpose.

The day that everyone agrees on ‘the nature of humanity and its place in the cosmos’ is the day philosophy is obsolete.

In general, I agree.
I would change "Ethics" for "Morality".
The philosophy of morality is valid for me and is generally called "ethics".
It's true that there is some ambiguity in these names. That's why it's good to clear it up.

The day that everyone agrees on ‘the nature of humanity and its place in the cosmos’ is the day philosophy is obsolete. — Possibility

Does this mean that the essence of today's philosophy is free and rational debate? That's a good point... to start a philosophical debate.

The first point would be: What is rational?

(The day the history of philosophy ends, we can leave it for the moment. These things are usually simple provocations to debate and do not have much scope. You know what happened with Fukuyama and the end of history. What was left of him was taken away by the pandemic).

I'll take issue here. The request was for my thoughts, which I provided. — tim wood

Their intellectual temper is (as everyone remarks) the reverse of dogmatic, in fact pleasingly modest. They are quick to acknowledge that their own opinion, on any matter whatsoever, is only their opinion; and they will candidly tell you, too, the reason why it is only their opinion. This reason is, that it is their opinion. — David Stove

@tim wood Your problem is you are way too fond of sweeping generalisations and unfounded assumptions and then when you cant understand a nuance you resort to your prejudicial generalisations even further.
You have enough in this small thread to identify your bad habits and inaccuracies.
Seriously,read back this thread carefully and honestly and you will see what is meant.
I'm all for banter and humour but your stuff is just strawman caricatures and misrepresentations.
What I find funny is your critique of subjectivity said with all your subjective fervour!!! I wouldn't mind but you seem unaware and unwilling to acknowledge your subjectivity.
Oh well,maybe platos subjective opinions will help you realise what subjectivity really is.

Does this mean that the essence of today's philosophy is free and rational debate? That's a good point... to start a philosophical debate.

The first point would be: What is rational? — David Mo

Not debate: more dialectics. The aim is not for one side or another to win or be conclusive, but to arrive at a relatively shared sense of reality. To relate to, without subsuming, an alternative perspective of truth (as distinct from a statement of what is true) enables us to speculate on the limitations of our own perspective.

Often it is our rational process itself that is challenged in relation to inter-subjective experience, and we may currently have insufficient information between us to resolve it. As modern philosophers, I think we need to work with this uncertainty and be open to inter-subjective collaboration and speculation, rather than retreat into excluding uncertain information on the grounds of its subjectivity. ‘Someone must be essentially right’ inspires far less philosophical progress than ‘somewhere between our perspectives must exist the right answer’ - or at least the right question...

Unless your philosophy is open to adjustment, you’re not doing philosophy. It’s rational process in free play with imaginative speculation.

To argue with a person who has renounced the use of reason is like administering medicine to the dead. — Thomas Paine

Naming TPF names isn't really necessary, is it?

Guilty, I know. But shameless, I think.