This was the UK, so proper internet and email arrived around 1996. I tried bulletin boards earlier, but not the same thing.

The forums were actually email based. But you could browse the logs. I’m not sure. It all seems so far away and hazy now. And usage was metered so you had to get on and off with messages downloaded before you racked up a bill.

wasn't usenet a thing back then? purely text-based discussion threads?

The discussions on this forum seem to take on a life of their own. You are right that one should try not to derail a thread, but information is almost always introduced that inevitably leads to this conclusion. Even with the most intelligent people I have discoursed with on this forum this is the case.

You made the charge of "ego stroking," which is not an articulation I would use, but to each their own. In order for this to be the case, as I understand it, one must be driven, not by the desire to get at truth, but to prove something about themselves. I have consciously tried to strike out against this in my life as a thinker. One must not confuse vigor of dialogue for insecurity of ego.

"Whatever is started two hotshots take over the discussion." This is exceedingly generalized. You cannot mean that every time two people have repetition of conversation between themselves on a thread that this automatically proves they are doing something wrong? I am not sure what you mean by "take over?" I am open to being corrected if I am doing something wrong on a thread, but you will not simply be able to stick it to me through authority or your wounded feelings. I am not a moralist and don't much care for them.

These seem like cheap shot generalizations, poisoning of the well. If you disagree with something I say or am doing then confront me on it, not passive aggressive stuff like this.

That is, the word, "God," means what? — JerseyFlight

What "g/G" means, as Witty would say, is the role - function - the term plays in (our) discourse as I've already pointed out:

Either one's 'ontological commitments' include or exclude an 'ultimate intentional agency' - explicitly as g/G or implicitly as weak anthropic / contra-mediocrity / sufficient reason principle - which conditions, or qualifies, any discursive critique or praxis. — 180 Proof

Of course, your interlocator will often propose a stipulative definition; but even 'undefined', she will use the term and that usage makes explicit the commitments and implications for her statements and arguments.

The forums were actually email based. But you could browse the logs. I’m not sure. It all seems so far away and hazy now. And usage was metered so you had to get on and off with messages downloaded before you racked up a bill. — apokrisis

wasn't usenet a thing back then? purely text-based discussion threads? — Wayfarer

Usenet was accessible via email (or via dedicated clients, which made browsing it a little easier), and I remember that UK/Australian/etc internet usage was metered for longer than American dialup (besides AOL) was, so it probably was usenet that apo is remembering. Were the forums named like talk.origins or comp.sys.mac.games or alt.swedish.chef.bork.bork.bork, things in that format? If so, that was usenet.

Eternal September was apparently 1993, so I must have gotten on around 1992, which is younger than I remember (I was only 10 then), but I definitely remember when AOL gained access to usenet happening in real time, so it must have been that far back.

yeah I was never an affecianado of usenet. I got into computers in 1989 courtesy of falling into a job selling Macintosh on a campus. (It was the most fun and educational job I've ever had.) Joined Compuserve, and Apple had a system called Applelink for apple dealers. One of the 'student reps' from computer sciences came in one day and said that someone in Switzerland had just invented this amazing thing called the World Wide Web - like, literally within a day of it being publicized. Had I had the least entreprenuerial skill, I'd now be on my private island. :sad:

I'd now be on my private island — Wayfarer

Most of us are on our private islands these days.

Wish you hadn't told me that, it's going to ruin my weekend.

I found a snapshot of philosophy sites in 1995...
https://humanum.arts.cuhk.edu.hk/LocalFile/PhiloServ.html

Psyche-D and Peirce-L are a couple of listservs I was on. Talk.origins was another site. So I must have started in 1994. Psyche-D came out of the first Tucson “Towards a Science of Consciousness” conference.

Cheer up :party:

I remember when Jerry Yang was literally curating Yahoo! by hand. And then Alta Vista came along....someone I knew got the job of 'Country Manager for Alta Vista'......boy did that end up not being anything.....

the first Tucson “Towards a Science of Consciousness” — apokrisis

This one?

Yes, I did hear the Greeks were fond of discoursing on Zeus.

This one? — Wayfarer

That looks like the 20th anniversary greatest hits version.

I found a snapshot of philosophy sites in 1995...
https://humanum.arts.cuhk.edu.hk/LocalFile/PhiloServ.html — apokrisis

That was pretty good for 95. Everything isnt better now. At that time people took effort to present info in an organized manner. Try to get the most important news from eg a newspaper site now...

The discussions on this forum seem to take on a life of their own. You are right that one should try not to derail a thread, but information is almost always introduced that inevitably leads to this conclusion. Even with the most intelligent people I have discoursed with on this forum this is the case.

You made the charge of "ego stroking," which is not an articulation I would use, but to each their own. In order for this to be the case, as I understand it, one must be driven, not by the desire to get at truth, but to prove something about themselves. I have consciously tried to strike out against this in my life as a thinker. One must not confuse vigor of dialogue for insecurity of ego.

"Whatever is started two hotshots take over the discussion." This is exceedingly generalized. You cannot mean that every time two people have repetition of conversation between themselves on a thread that this automatically proves they are doing something wrong? I am not sure what you mean by "take over?" I am open to being corrected if I am doing something wrong on a thread, but you will not simply be able to stick it to me through authority or your wounded feelings. I am not a moralist and don't much care for them.

These seem like cheap shot generalizations, poisoning of the well. If you disagree with something I say or am doing then confront me on it, not passive aggressive stuff like this. — JerseyFlight

I'm not saying right or wrong, I just want to get knowledge and pleasure from a forum thread.

One thing I sometimes do when I start a thread is to try to make an "abstract"(my english fails me here) in the OP of what has been said in the thread. That is a way to try to get the juicy parts out of it.
Maybe I should do it for this thread.

Probably AI can do good stuff in the future. But I would prefer new types of media that really enhances seeking of knowledge together.

People don't really beat each other in arguments here, most of the time I suspect each side walks away thinking they put forth the better argument or that the other engaged in some kind of fraudulence. It is exceedingly rare to ever see someone say "no, you are right, good points", almost never. Therefore, there is some level of delusion if someone comes to a forum such as this, trying to show their cleverness or great ideas, they will generally only walk away with the same self-assurance they came with regardless of how good or bad their ideas were.

Nearly every philosophical idea is going to be contentious in some way, if you post anything about religion, for example, anything at all, it will probably end up being a debate between atheists and believers. There is no way to avoid this kind of thing as far as I can tell.

Maybe just remember that you don't have to respond to every post in a thread, you learn which posters you like to read and which aren't worth responding to. At least a few people will certainly say helpful things which are on topic, evaluate the value of the thread based on number of good contributors rather than how many pointless side debates are happening. Philosophy is all about yourself, even if it seems like a group activity in a forum such as this. Try to be your own biggest critic and let the forum be a way to make thinking more interesting and fun, as opposed to expecting to build your knowledge up with other posters. That's my advice on this matter.

That was pretty good for 95. — Ansiktsburk

It’s funny reading. I’m now reminded of the Usenet groups of that time. And they were mostly drivel as the page says....

Most of these newsgroups are misserable and frequently raged by flame wars.

The sci.philosophy.tech, sci.philosophy meta and talk.philosophy.misc newsgroups excel in layman's opinions, prejudices and other drivel. At regular times you'll find posts of people who think they've found the truth. Quite often the truth is a thesis of which undergraduates in philosophy know the refutations at the back of their hand. Other favourite topics are the existence of God, the meaning of life and propoposals for a theory of everything.

Every now and then you may find informed discussion of philosophy of mind and language at comp.ai.philosophy

Then back when “a browser” needed explaining....

WWW is a world wide system of hyperlinked texts. Hyperlinked means that the system allows you to jump from one text to another (not necessarily on the same computer) by activating marked (highlighted) phrases in a certain text.

To access the Web you need a special WWW-client, a so-called "browser". The browser allows you to read documents on the Web.

Most browsers also provide an interface to other parts of the net, like gopher, ftp, usenet, and an ever-increasing range of other systems. In addition, the browser will permit database searches.

Yes, I agree with you. I was replying to Malcom Lett's generalizations. :smile:

you don't have to respond to every post in a thread — Judaka

Not even if they're addressed to you!

This seems rude at first, okay it is rude, but this is crucial advice for enjoying the site.

(As they used to say on Usenet, but with ascii art, don't feed the trolls.)

For those reminiscing about the good old days: was anyone else here on Rodrigo Vanegas's ANALYTIC-L? That was easily the best experience I've ever had on the internet. I've been a wanderer in the desert since it folded.

I should here like to concede. The refutation of error, resistance to tyranny, these things are of vital importance to the quality of our species. The refutation of the error of God is exceedingly important, one of the most pressing counter-acts of ideology in the history of our species.

↪180 Proof
I should here like to concede. The refutation of error, resistance to tyranny, these things are of vital importance to the quality of our species. The refutation of the error of God is exceedingly important, one of the most pressing counter-acts of ideology in the history of our species. — JerseyFlight

:fire:

Well said, comrade.

Maybe just remember that you don't have to respond to every post in a thread, you learn which posters you like to read and which aren't worth responding to. — Judaka

This x1000. It's funny, I've been here maybe a year and I've been relatively active and there are plenty of other relatively active posters but it'll be like two ships constantly passing in the night silently with some people... just no engagement. With others I've tried to engage and it turns into a total mess and then we learn to avoid each others, but with others, again, two ships passing in the night with never any contact.

Plenty of posters are fine to engage though. @ssu is a pleasure to talk to. I think we've been fine so far despite not agreeing on everything. It's a mixed bag with some of the leftists.

Kant is a Douchebag. — Wayfarer

Ok, I admit: - This is the first quote of the forum that really made me laugh...

Yeah but after 250 odd pages of pretty ignorant polemics, the humour tended to wear off.

Just seeing this discussion for the first time. I joined up about 2 years ago - mostly just to learn and pick up new things. I've bumped heads with a few folks here and there, but on the whole my experience out here has been positive for the most part. Your mileage may vary.

Before settling in here I checked out some of the other philosophy forums - the signal to noise ratio seems much higher here than the others. My 2 cents. . . . .

Sounds great. Then you have found your way around. So, seeing a thread eg concerning a philosopher you are interested in, Althusser say, and 14 pages of stuff has already been written - what do you do?

wrote:
Nearly every philosophical idea is going to be contentious in some way, if you post anything about religion, for example, anything at all, it will probably end up being a debate between atheists and believers. There is no way to avoid this kind of thing as far as I can tell.

I answer like this because my Ipad dont have that button popping up:
Thats kind of so but its kind of stupid in some ways. Its like we have come nowhere since the Dialogues. The idea that “my ism” is better than yours is running through the societies like never before. I does not have to be like that. You can leave your trenches, get up on the higher grounds where “this is simply a hard question” and try to find ways together. If an ism is to “win” you will never get anywhere or simply repeat arguments told dozens of time before probably only in this forum?

You guys who love to take part in a lenghty argument, what do you hope to 1. Gain for yourselves 2.contribute to other readers with from a factual and readable point of view?

Ive been in “forums” on and off since way before the WWW and well, try again here. I know it aint easy. But just because somethings are hard they do not have to be impossible.

One thing, why must these forum have these bloody pages. Forums are so much nicer than reddit to read in a way, but they have done away with that, you can just scroll. Gotta be some guys out there with brains better than mine that can evolve the forum concept. If you google up the first smiley thread from computer stone age not much has happened... its like I ask for a new Brin or Zuckerberg here... or preferrably a Linus Thorvalds... but one that do not talk nerdish and invents GIT.

I like the positive tone set out in the OP's title "how to gain knowledge and pleasure...?"

The world is a comedy to those who think, a tragedy to those who feel — Horace Walpole (1717 - 1797)

i really dont think so! But I guess I am old enough maybe, and unless my fellow fatherormotherofsonanddaughterinuniveritys i do not whine about my brain getting moldy or anthing. I first came in serious contact with philosopy when I finally puked on the manager career, had some bad breaks in the IT Bubble crash, when I was finished rebuilding the house, settling in a nicer but poorly paid IT job and when the kids did mot need that much handling any longer. I read History of Ideas(really called something else in USGB supposedly) evening time after work, first time in life a subject really captured me and since then its been more than a decade of reading Sein und Zeits, Nozicks, Rawls and all kinds of philosophical magazines, reading great stuff people have contibute with on Wikipedia, youtube, IEP, SEP and harvard/yale even give you recordings of fantastic lecture series.

This is no tradgedy, this are the hey days of my life. I have been in bed with my IPad reading and writing for a couple lf hour. Off now to read, trying to find out why rich kids Sartre and Althusser REALLY became bollinger bolshies. This is no comedy or tradgedy, this is good stuff to do and I wont get up until after noon!

This is no comedy or tradgedy, this is good stuff to do! — Ansiktsburk