Oh yes I forgot my point would not be that they are not subdomains and rather that the subdomains should be the determing factors for topics that are well nested within the subdomain and merley the topics/questions that don't neetly fit should be considered philosophical.
The question how I should code a for loop in c is not really a philosophical one. The question what the limitations of AI could be is. Despite both being techincal questions.

rather mark it as intellectual garbage so you can present your "obviously" better point. — CaZaNOx

This seems to be a fair amount of projection on your part.

Lol, case and point for the topic of this thread. Why would anyone stick around when you have to deal with people like this?
We must be sick in the head, cuz here we are.

Indeed! :rofl:

How is this projecting?

I described what the function of a strawmen is. (In the part you quotet). I am in no way flawless far from it. So if you spot me using a strawmen feel free to point it out. Where did I mark your own position as "intellectual garbage". In my view I didn't.
I asked first for reformulation/preciser formulation via the questions:

So is there anything that doesn't fall into a subdomain of Philosophy?
And are all sciences subdomains of philosophy? — CaZaNOx

and

While your view seems to state everyone is a philosopher(please correct me If I am wrong) — CaZaNOx

And then I specified my view so you could address/argue against it properly. (ignoring the previous dispute)

Oh yes I forgot my point would not be that they are not subdomains and rather that the subdomains should be the determing factors for topics that are well nested within the subdomain and merley the topics/questions that don't neetly fit should be considered philosophical.
The question how I should code a for loop in c is not really a philosophical one. The question what the limitations of AI could be is. Despite both being techincal questions. — CaZaNOx

But anyhow like for your friend that felt the need to reference me in condecending ways ("people like this", what is this refering to?) (or am I wrong to not see this as compliment?) without him having the courage to address me directly, I feel that you are having a simular negative view on me maybe combined with a lack of courage to aknowledge shortcomings (I repetedly asked you to mention the cheritable interpretation that would exclude those philosophers therefore showing that it wasn't a strawmen and the mistake was on my side. The fact that you didn't do that despite it being in your intrest seems to suggest the mistake is yours.) that makes any further discussion not fruitfull.
Btw framing the response "Are you saying that..." [insert famous philosophers] "are all not philosophers" as Actually expressing the point x and y are subdomains of P is questionable at best even when leaving aside what is written between the lines and then trying to paint me as acting in an emotional manner or as me projecting without pointing out what and where just for giving you flak for such a reply seems to me the desperate approach to throw dirt at me and hope it sticks.
After all I took the post to be about my opinion I thought I give it and that would be that. In it I mentioned points that you now seem to illustrate quite well.

So TLDR
1) I simply gave my opinion om the OP.
2) You reply in passive aggressive semi beliteling manner via strawmen.
3) I point it out.
4) You try to paint me as the agressor write down your own view on the topic.
5) I refute your illustrations and try tonleave it be by addressing your philosophical points.
6) You ignore my philosophical point and try to paint me again as acting in an irrational manner.
7) This response. Basically refuting your points and asking for proof (that I assume wont come) and addressing further points that I wanted to mention earlier but didn't in hope of a good debate evolving. And finally me stating that I will let it be and that this is a good example of what I ment with my initial post. (I am not stating I didn't/don't do any mistakes if you point them out properly I will concede them. F.e. Where and what I am projecting).

Anyway thank you for your time and have a nice time

Exasperation, loss of interest, dispute with staff, spending so much time here that it becomes a problem in your life.

I think that covers the main reasons for leaving.

As for me, I stick around solely to make fun of everyone and everything. No other reason. I don't care about philosophy. I don't even know what it is.

And I certainly don't love you all. I hate you all with a passion. Especially you.

Complaint clinic success!

trying to paint me as acting in an emotional manner — CaZaNOx

It certainly seems to me that you are reacting in an exaggerated manner to my comment. And you are attributing to me all sorts of intentions and actions that I do not believe I exhibited.

As to the philosophical questions: I did actually respond already. I pointed out that philosophy covers matters from the political to religious to park benches.

Do I think there is anything that does not exist as a sub-discipline of philosophy? Not really. Or, at least, I don't think there is a topic that can't be made into a philosophical one if you try hard enough. And I also think people are often engaging in philosophy without even being aware of it.

Now, I will agree that there are some subjects not interesting enough for me personally to pay much attention to. And it sounds like you feel the same way. But in such a case, just ignore the thread and pay attention to those that do spike your interest.

I hope that adresses all of your concerns, and I too hope you have a nice time :kiss:

(Btw, is English your first language?)

It certainly seems to me that you are reacting in an exaggerated manner to my comment. And you are attributing to me all sorts of intentions and actions that I do not believe I exhibited. — NKBJ

Fair point to a certain degree. I interpreted it to be written between the lines but if you say that wasn't the case I am willing to believe you and apologize for my missinterpretation and the connected statements.

As to the philosophical questions: I did actually respond already. I pointed out that philosophy covers matters from the political to religious to park benches.

Do I think there is anything that does not exist as a sub-discipline of philosophy? Not really. Or, at least, I don't think there is a topic that can't be made into a philosophical one if you try hard enough. And I also think people are often engaging in philosophy without even being aware of it. — NKBJ

I agree 100% with this and already conceded to it. Cmp:

my point would not be that they are not subdomains and rather that the subdomains should be the determing factors for topics that are well nested within the subdomain — CaZaNOx

However I specified that it's a question of focus in my view. I am not questioning the philosophical realm and rather the "being appropriate" to address it as philosophy instead of addressing it as "more" part of it's subfield. F.e. I view all sciences as "children" of philosophy but the question how to code something as better left to the specific "child" and not the mother (philosophy) despite it also being part of philosophy.

Now, I will agree that there are some subjects not interesting enough for me personally to pay much attention to. And it sounds like you feel the same way. But in such a case, just ignore the thread and pay attention to those that do spike your interest. — NKBJ

Thats what I am already doing so yeah I agree.

This often leads to me reading posts but not commenting. — CaZaNOx

I hope that adresses all of your concerns, and I too hope you have a nice time — NKBJ

Yes it does and thank you.
As I stated above my view entails that some questions aren't fitting for being placed here not just because of personal prefrence but because they are to "far away" from being what I would refer to as philosophy. As illustrated by the coding example I gave. If you want we can discuss this now that we are over the intial missunderstandings.

(Btw, is English your first language?) — NKBJ

No. It's my second or maybe 3rd or 4th language depending on how you view it. I already have dyslexia in my first language. Some things are better some are worse in english but yeah I know/assume that there are enough mistakes in my posts. Sorry for that.

Your English is fine. Mostly just a few spelling mistakes. There's a Grammarly extension for Chrome that can pick those up for you along with grammar issues (though it's not as accurate with regard to the latter).

I added english to my spell check. Thank you for the tip

:up:

And I certainly don't love you all. I hate you all with a passion. Especially you. — S

Hating with passion.... :fire:
S, have I told you lately what a beautiful person you are? :flower:

I find there are enough decent people here to outweigh the unpleasant ones, personally. — NKBJ

This gives us all some hope and inspiration. Especially since trolls are about a half ton each in weight.

Yeah, it's important to learn not to feed 'em!

Hating with passion.... :fire:
S, have I told you lately what a beautiful person you are? :flower: — ArguingWAristotleTiff

Ah! Trying to kill me with kindness! :scream:

Ah! Trying to kill me with kindness! — S

Just being truthful :100:
I know somewhere deep down within you that you know that I truly love you and would be devastated if something were to happen to you. So know that in discussion we may be brutal but in heart we are one. :hearts:

Just being truthful :100:
I know somewhere deep down within you that you know that I truly love you and would be devastated if something were to happen to you. So know that in discussion we may be brutal but in heart we are one. :hearts: — ArguingWAristotleTiff

You are a good Samaritan, Tiff.

You are a good Samaritan, Tiff. — S

Just an honest soul~ :heart:

So, I normally go on the internet looking for decent staff to write about, and sometimes i end up where i don't want to, so finally today i decided to find one place and be there for as long as i can keep up with. Now to your questions, many have explained it here, but most probably that there is a limit to everyone's mind and when they cross that then either they have to search more or get tired and leave. To me it is always fun to search for more. But yes some would find that too much for them and of-course we have to bring food on the table.

Everyone has a massive ego. I'd say staying or leaving is a flight of fancy.

I come and go. Sometimes I post every day for a few weeks, and then I don't post for months, and then I'm back again.

There are quite a few people here that are interesting to talk to about Philosophy; who seem well educated on the relevant material and who try hard to engage in discussion. But there are also people who won't read a post carefully, will only provide minimal responses and will abandon a discussion if their partner "doesn't get it" after 2-3 posts. As I know Philosophy, it should be expected that a discussion might take a while to get anywhere, and for people to understand each other.

PA

I'm not really interested in beliefs alone, I like reading how people arrive at their beliefs relative to mine. There seem to be very few posters willing to explain their beliefs relative to mine, but insist only on defining them only in their own terms. This turns 60 page threads into a very draw out version of "I think this", "Well, I think this", "Oh". — Isaac

That seems to be the main problem for you (and a couple of prominent others). You just don't seem to get it that it is tedious to try to explain one's arguments, when the questions and objections come from someone who continually distorts what is being said to fit their own presuppositions, instead of trying to understand the presuppositions of the other, and examining their arguments in terms of those to see whether the arguments are consistent and coherent with those.

That is what it would mean to understand how others arrive at their beliefs, which is what you said you wanted to do. Understanding how others arrive at their beliefs can obviously be done without you needing to agree with the other's arguments, but without the good will necessary to refrain from trying to re-frame what is said to you in terms of your own presuppositions, such understanding will not be possible. The approach I have seen you mostly take leads only to talking past one another, and that is profoundly boring and a total waste of time and energy. That is why I, for one, don't bother engaging with you much.

The fact that you think there are "very few posters..." seems to indicate that you really only want to talk with those who agree with your own very subjective approach. I think there are many fine minds at work on these forums, even though I may not agree with very many of their arguments. It is also significant that those with the most chauvinistic approaches to engaging with others are often the same ones who say things like "Kant's philosophy is crap", "Heidegger is incoherent", "Hegel is a waste of space", "Postmodernism is garbage" and so on.

You just don't seem to get it that it is tedious to try to explain one's arguments, when the questions and objections come from someone who continually distorts what is being said to fit their own presuppositions, instead of trying to understand the presuppositions of the other, and examining their arguments in terms of those to see whether the arguments are consistent and coherent with those. — Janus

There's a lot in there;

First, I'm sure in some cases it is tedious and frustrating, that is of no concern to me, I'm not here to entertain, I'm here to learn.

Secondly, why 'distorts'? We each come with premises, if your argument does not work from my premises it is of no use to me, the only purpose of engagement is to see if it can be made to. This is not distortion, it is expansion (or an attempt at it), the more premises an argument works from, the more applicable it is.

Thirdly, I hear a lot about this 'consistent and coherent'. These seem to me to be pretty low targets. I'd have thought it the most basic requirement before even posting that you believe your argument to be consistent and coherent.

That is what it would mean to understand how others arrive at their beliefs, which is what you said you wanted to do. Understanding how others arrive at their beliefs can obviously be done without you needing to agree with the other's arguments, but without the good will necessary to refrain from trying to re-frame what is said to you in terms of your own presuppositions, such understanding will not be possible. — Janus

As I said above, understanding how some presupposition leads to some conclusion is the most basic understanding of logic. I don't need to examine an argument to understand this, I simply take it as read that the proponent has at least checked that one step leads to another.

The fact that you think there are "very few posters..." seems to indicate that you really only want to talk with those who agree with your own very subjective approach. — Janus

I'm not sure how you are deriving such a conclusion from my posts. I'm not the one who has refused to engage anyone, so how am I expressing this desire to limit to whom I talk?

is also significant that those with the most chauvinistic approaches to engaging with others are often the same ones who say things like "Kant's philosophy is crap", "Heidegger is incoherent", "Hegel is a waste of space", "Postmodernism is garbage" and so on. — Janus

Is it? How so? Those all seem like legitimate positions to me. Are you suggesting that there is some objective measure which prevents a person from concluding (as Russell famously did) that Hegel is a waste of space?


In addition, as far as I recall, you and I have only engaged in the thread on morality. A thread which opened with a paraphrasing of the relativist position. Are you claiming that your responses to that have been to try and understand the relativist position from their own presuppositions, because I'm finding it extremely difficult to parse your comments in that light.

Thirdly, I hear a lot about this 'consistent and coherent'. These seem to me to be pretty low targets. I'd have thought it the most basic requirement before even posting that you believe your argument to be consistent and coherent. — Isaac

Yes, I'm with you on that one, and I've raised that objection before. Soundness is pretty important. Ignoring criticism just because it isn't an internal criticism is pretty bad form.

In addition, as far as I recall, you and I have only engaged in the thread on morality. A thread which opened with a paraphrasing of the relativist position. Are you claiming that your responses to that have been to try and understand the relativist position from their own presuppositions, because I'm finding it extremely difficult to parse your comments in that light. — Isaac

Yes, I agree with you on that point also. We, the actual moral relativists, are still having to correct misunderstandings from those attempting to argue against us. And it's a much bigger problem if they arrogantly assume that they're in the right on this point. Too much talking, not enough listening.

Are you claiming that your responses to that have been to try and understand the relativist position from their own presuppositions, because I'm finding it extremely difficult to parse your comments in that light. — Isaac

As I've said before, I don't believe the relativist position, at least the one that claims that moral justification is all and only about the individual's moral judgement is consistent with the actuality of inter-subjective human life; therefore i don't take it seriously. Sure it is not internally inconsistent, which is not surprising because it is too simplistic and uninteresting to be prone to internal inconsistencies.

The kinds of distortions I've referred to consisted in asking me for some "object" that would confirm the "objective" claims I made about ethics, when I had never made any such claims and had said that the closest we can get to objectivity is inter-subjective agreement, in ethics or in science. Anyway I am not interested in discussing it further, because I know it will just be more of the same.

As I've said before, I don't believe the relativist position, at least the one that claims that moral justification is all and only about the individual's moral judgement is consistent with the actuality of inter-subjective human life; therefore i don't take it seriously. — Janus

Right, so if you don't take a position seriously because of your opinion of it, then it's OK to not try and understand it from its own presuppositions, but if I think a position is not consistent with actuality, I must nonetheless engage in good faith and try to understand the position from its own premises.

I'll try to to bear that in mind in future.

As usual you are distorting what I said. I don't expect you to take enough interest in anything to want to understand it, what I do expect is that if you do take enough interest to respond that you don't distort what is being said through the lens of your own presuppositions.

I tried to understand what the presuppositions of your and others' relativism are and as far as I could tell the only criterion to justify moral judgements according to relativism is that the individual prefers it.

Now I think that is simpleminded, but there's not much point arguing about it, because all I seem to get are assertions that I don't understand without any cogent explanations to enlighten me.

Some of us are dealing with crap elsewhere and we don't have the time, energy or interest to participate here in depth. — darthbarracuda

:smile: I have been gone a long time. I've been so busy -- and tired at the end of the day to engage fully. I also stayed away previously from the other forum (where a lot of us came from). I find that the absence made me realize how much philosophy forum and the people who participate here matter.
I'm still trying to find a balance between spending time here and dealing with things in private life.
But I will.

Breathe out, breathe in. The bad habit which brought me back now is the same one that drove me away then: breathing ...