I am not opposed to the thread as it obviously has given rise to a lot of opinions that could not be expressed anywhere else. I can see deeper conversations on it this evening, so I hope that it continues.

Just as people are offloading their frustration onto the political ones mine is surfacing here.Different site members express their views differently, so I hope that you can accept my view just as much as others' opinions because I do appreciate the site.

I don't believe that you believe that none can understand your ideas about the nature of thought.
— praxis

Whether readers can understand is largely unknown here. It does seem true that this topic routinely fails to engage. That used to frustrate me, but lately I'm learning not to worry about it too much. — Hippyhead

I was considering starting a topic on it in the hope of putting it out of its misery and started a bit of research, starting with a forum search for "nature of thought." Turns out that I appear to have discussed the topic with you more that I thought. You are Jake, right? a guy that was banned a couple of years ago for posting a picture of your wife's boobies.

there are also patterns of interlinked threads on more interesting and intricate philosophical issues, which would be lost were these suggestions taken on board. — Banno

Again, you're commenting on the suggestions without bothering to understand them, or perhaps even read them. The exact opposite of what you just said is true. If a thread was full of interesting philosophical issues it could be located above the fold in the Articles section, where it would not be buried amongst a pile of junk. Thus, it would be more visible, not less.

The whole point of such organization is to make the forum more appealing to new visitors who are capable of adding value to the forum. Those who can't or won't add value, and everyone else as well, could still do pretty much whatever they want in the Conversation area which would be available to all registered members.

The way to debunk me is to ask why I am bothering to explain all this, yet again. I have no good answer to that, I must admit.

↪Hippyhead So... are we doing the call-and-answer thing? — Banno

This could be clever and funny, if it was posted on Facebook.

You’re dealing with dead wood here. Very odd the lack of interest. Almost denial.

You’re dealing with dead wood here. Very odd the lack of interest. Almost denial. — Brett

It's very normal though. I've had this conversation a number of times in a number of places and it always goes exactly the same way.

So for this piece of dead wood it's become an exercise in how to enthusiastically embrace a topic of interest while at the same time letting it go. It's kind of like one of those Buddhist stories where the master tells you to create an elaborate pattern out of colored rocks. After two weeks you're finally done and then the master comes along and quickly kicks it all away with his foot, and tells you to do it again. You're supposed to learn how to enthusiastically embrace the moment, without getting attached to the outcome.

A work in progress here...

A work in progress here... — Hippyhead

...forever unfinished.

A suggestion: perhaps have a forum devoted to primary sources? Where OPs are meant to revolve around a primary source and the threads are supposed to stay in contact with the relevant primary sources? I have noticed that it is fairly rare for posters to engage or present primary sources, and this seems like a deficit on the forum.

Your suggestion is interesting to me. I figure a policy about secondary sources would have to be established for such a thing to work. The usual practice is that interpretations of the primary source is within the same sphere of discussion as each source. There would have to be a rule set down that restricted that practice in the interchanges.

It is a difficult rule (or rules) to enunciate because the most dedicated readers of primary texts are influenced by many others. Maybe a footnoting practice that separated arguments from admitted influences.

https://thephilosophyforum.com/categories/16/reading-groups

When I read through many of those threads, it strikes me that interest in the primary texts is rarely what gets discussed.

Edit to add: But I see you are trying to keep the focus upon what is written in many of them.

@Leontiskos suggested a spot that already exists, that's all. How people use it ― well, they use it like they use the rest of the forum: being on topic is not a priority, and people never tire of rehashing the same debates.

- Yes, I suppose that's pretty much the same thing. :up:

- Good points. I was essentially thinking of a space where everyone is mutually on board with paying attention to primary sources, whether or not any strict rules are in place. "Reading groups" seem fairly close to that.

It is interesting what you both suggest. But it is difficult for me to consider what a primary source is. Furthermore, the primary source needs also to be relevant. I guess there has to be a consensus on what a primary relevant source is, right?

Perhaps 'canonical texts' might be the description. Might help to narrow it to pre 20th century as there is such a proliferation of sources nowadays.

I guess there has to be a consensus on what a primary relevant source is, right? — javi2541997

I can't see this as being hard, it refers to a work by the thinker themselves, not by someone interpreting it. Thus; Plato's Republic; Rorty's Contingency, Irony, and Solidarity, Kant's Critique of Pure Reason.

Righto, mate! :up:

- Yep. :up:

A suggestion: perhaps have a forum devoted to primary sources? Where OPs are meant to revolve around a primary source and the threads are supposed to stay in contact with the relevant primary sources? — Leontiskos

First off, I assume you are talking about a new philosophical category, not a change in the overall forum. If not, I think you're barking up the wrong tree.

There's no reason you can't get what you want without changing the forum at all. Here's what I do when I want to discuss very specific issues and I don't want people going off in their own directions. 1) Write a clear, specific, and detailed OP about the subject you want to discuss. 2) In the OP, make it clear that you don't want to stray from the subject and, if relevant, specify what issues you don't want to talk about. 3) When people ignore your specifications, respond to their posts and let them know. 4) If they give you any trouble, contact the moderators. In my experience, they will be responsive in helping you put the kibosh on the offenders.

- So do you see it as a mistake to make Reading Groups a category? Would it have instead been better for individuals to simply post individual reading-group threads?

I am always amazed at how much attention a suggestion gets. Reading Groups is only slightly different from Primary Sources, and it has the great benefit of already existing, so I think my request has already been met.

There is one consideration for any future forum that affects both Reading Groups and Primary Sources. It is the exclusive nature of a thread, where it must belong to only one category. In systems where categories run on a tagging mechanism, a thread on Plato's Republic could belong to both the Reading Group category and the Political Philosophy category. This could be helpful for combining different categorization schemas. It could also be confusing if posters perusing the Political Philosophy category do not recognize that this Political Philosophy thread is also a Reading Group.

I hear the rehashing part. I do it too.

Demarking a clear line of what is or not a history of philosophy is a problem in deciding what is talked about by itself.

Plato and Aristotle have their versions of their past that are important to their statements. It would not be helpful to exclude that stuff from the discussion.

And how to approach a work like the Phenomenology of Spirit by Hegel? We cannot exclude what he did not from the discussion.