One of the biggest gripes of philosophers is that folks like to cherry-pick what they write. I admit to it in this case, but I also found a reason: as a rule, intellectually informed people don’t discuss leisurely. — Mww

Of course they do. There are times, like at work or in serious situation when you certainly do stay focused but my experience with friends being professors and scientists with papers cited in the hundreds is that the do very much love a leisurely discussion. And well, I love to see myself as pretty well intellectually informed, but I do not love arguing with people.

Thats a relief

Just so you don't think it was anything personal, I'll have you know not 3 hours ago I purchased a book written by a new member, one Pieter R van Wyk off an online marketplace (Amazon) for 17.36 USD. It shall be here Wednesday. While I'm questionable as to whether it will be as great as I contend it may, judging by some very critical comments here it may instead only reveal the mind and mannerisms of a confused soul. Either way, I have a morbid sense of valuation so I will likely enjoy it regardless of what I find. That should tell you all you need to know about me. — Outlander

Please don't get pissed off in the first chapter - read the whole book, then please tell me where is the fatal flaw in my reasoning

Therefore, Pinker resists "casual analysis"; either you repeat what Pinker says completely oblivious to all the moral, political, ecological, statistical collection and analysis methods, qualitative, issues Pinker never addresses, or then even the smallest analysis immediately starts to encounter questions and problems that just lead to more questions and problems, which is not a leisurely task to get through, and you just end up in those debates of those issues which Pinker ignores, and the whole point of Pinker's proposition is to encourage ignoring those issues; but if those issues aren't ignored, then in those "actual debates about stuff", Pinker's work becomes purely ornamental to the discussion. — boethius

Sure he can be casually analyzed. There are a heck of a lot in between repeating and scrutinizing everything with indignation cause what the dude says is not in your echo chamber, if it isnt. Actually, "enlightenment now" was suggested to me by a "progressive" friend in our local uni and its one of the books we do discuss.

isn't this whole forum armchair philosophers? — DifferentiatingEgg

Mostly.

There's some who have been or are in "the profession" if that's the standard we want to use.

But, yes, I think we're basically as laidback as philosophy can get while still actually reaching for philosophy.

For my part that's somewhat by design: I want it to be accessible, and know how inaccessible it was when I started.

But, yes, I think we're basically as laidback as philosophy can get while still actually reaching for philosophy. — Moliere

I don't think that's the issue here, but as has been pointed out by @Outlander, the OP and some associates want their points to be taken seriously about matters in which they have not read the source material.

I would wager a hefty sum that the motivation for this grievance is that with respect to ordinary people who haven't read anything at all, having some familiarity with popular and other kinds of commentary is quite impressive. However, as you certainly are aware, you can't really "hold your own" in a debate on a topic in which you haven't read the key texts, but imagine yourself knowing what they say anyways, but others in the debate have read those texts.

To tie into the Kantian theme that has already been developed here, the approach of not reading the source material creates a sort of phenomenology of textual noumena that are assumed to exist but one has no access to (by choice in this case). Such a phenomenology of inaccessible textual noumena can of course be quite elaborate, clever and well developed, but of course seems foolish to anyone to which the texts in question are not noumena because they read them.

This form of discourse even has a control group, as we also have discourse on texts that really are missing, and so essentially noumena to us represented by phenomena of reference of inference by other texts we do have, and the speculations and analysis about those missing texts is essentially the same kind of discourse as people who talk about texts (or topics identified by key texts) who haven't read them.

What haven’t I read?

Sure we can't talk about texts we haven't read. I don't believe the OP is stating something along those lines, but rather is looking for fellow travelers who might like to read what I'd call pop-philosophy (descriptively, not pejorative): So rather than focusing on the beauty of difficult texts, which I wanted to note I have a taste for, I thought it more welcoming to point to pop-philosophy (that then might serve as the honey which leads to harder texts if an interest is cultivated)

something like that. And the more notable pro philosophers do in no way refrain from that. The philosophy history of Russel is great and amusing reading, with every German philosopher being a member of the opponent team, Kant’s suggestions for eternal peace is as cunning as entertaining. Poppers critique of Marx et al is no heavy reading. And at least in my Scandinavian home county, the more prominint philosophers do not refrain from a pleasant and easily available manner in books and radio programs not aimed for their academic peers. Martin Hägglund, supposedly known in the USA would be one. Fellow shit suburb Stockholmer. And hey, the Republic…

I was hooked on this forum from the first day I discovered it. I later joined myself. What's really good is that any topic, even the most naive, won't go unnoticed. And they definitely won't tell you what an idiot you are, although they'll hint at it =). I've tried discussing a variety of topics here, from strictly theoretical ones to politics or gratitude practices, and I've always found a response. Well, I like it (although being too harsh is also not welcome—especially criticism of liberalism). So, I think any topic you discuss will find its audience.

I don't think that's the issue here, but as has been pointed out by Outlander, the OP and some associates want their points to be taken seriously about matters in which they have not read the source material. — boethius

Well, yes and no. People like to discuss philosophy and concepts of philosophy without being "gatekept" by those who they happen to particularly associate as the "ultimate authority" of a concept, despite that concept having existed long before them and would have existed and been developed in thought even if said person were never to have been born.

Of course these are smart people. Of course they have great things to say. But there shouldn't be some "requirement" that one has to read Nietzsche to be able to discuss nihilism. It's a concept. It existed before him, and yes, he made great contributions, but if it weren't him, someone else just would have anyway. That's not an irrational or ignorant belief.

Sure, because of your knowledge with these established figures and their works, you're effectively much more educated than someone who is not. It'd be like a high schooler discussing math with an elementary student. No fun for either party involved. But that's not the point. People can discuss philosophy, provided they have base concepts, such as which Socrates provides, without having read a single page of anything else. Truth is truth. And deserves to be taken seriously, provided it is logical. That should be the only requirement.

And deserves to be taken seriously, provided it is logical. — Outlander

Right there we have a problem. Logic comes in different forms and the colloquial use of terms does not map readily onto the technical philosophical jargon.

Someone who speaks to me in Dutch may or may not be saying something stupid. I have no idea. If I am in England and they do this they should not look upon me with indigation when wave them away after several attempts to engage with hand signals and other attempts to form a bridge of communication.

When discussing ethics, epistemology, physics, psychology, politics, eceonomics, art, etc., etc.; there needs to be some effort made by those entering from the outside to grapple with these difficulties if they wish to engage in a serious discussion.

The biggest problem is how the Dunning-Kruger effect plays out. All too often a smattering of an understanding leads the naive into thinking they have a pretty good overall grasp of this or that area, when in fact they only know a few of the most very basic parts of a hugely complex and daunting machine that countless others have been tinkering with over the centuries.

All that said, I do believe most areas of knowledge suffer from a blinkerness brought on by the state of general education. Specialists are VERY important but less thought is given to those who have a solid understanding across multiple fields. Every field of interest can gain from outside input. Who knows how a kite designer can inspire a chef, or a physicist inspire an accountant?

The biggest problem is how the Dunning-Kruger effect plays out. — I like sushi

How is the Dunning–Kruger effect tied to persons leisurely discussing some lighter Philosophy? Remember my ”not stupid” in the heading. Only a stupid person should feel fully informed by a pleasurable discussion as such. The one’s I have irl, have quite the opposite effect on me. I get a teaser to learn more.

I was talking to the person I was talking to within a braoder context. I was not talking directly to you.

I think it is our business to distinguish sense from nonsense. I do not think it can be done without touching on nonsense. I suspect the line between laidback and stupid is even more difficult to navigate without getting one's mind dirty.