How to gain knowledge and pleasure from philosophy forums

Ansiktsburk

Good stuff from the thread:
1. Learn what guys are like what in discussions
2. Isms will fall into battle trenches an will not get out(only a few bold ones)
2.5 God discussions are for the battle roosters
3. Some reading groups, could be more active, though.(have some thoughts here)
4. Zoom. Good idea but people do not want to out. Needs some afterthought
5. Some great stuff from internet memory lane, scroll to find(links to posts here would be cool)

———————

Being an amateur, first coming in serious contact with philosophy 46 years old, I am not one of those here that involves in 7 pages long discussions trying to beat someone else in an argument. An amateur - someone who loves what he is doing - my wish is roughly to start from whats written about philosophers on Wikipedia and gradually increase my knowledge. I have been doing that in my not so abundant spare time for a decade or so now.

From Wikipedia i go via SEP and some online lectures to read some of the more approachable original works. I have come as far as reading things like Sein und Zeit and Tractatus. I do subscribe to magazines like ”Philosophy Now” and listen to radio programs and so on. But face it:
Not that many people take an interest in philosophy. Even if living in a community with teachers, doctors and engineers I have noone to discuss Nietzsche or Sartre. Either people can write a paper on details about sartre or they fluffily know that he was married to DeBeauvoir and was an existentialist. I feel like the only one in between.

An online forum seems to be the place for a guy that eg has read ”existentialism is a humanism” but want to know more about Sartre and discuss it with peers at the same level. But I have a hard time finding that. And sadly, not here. It seems like whatever is started two hotshots takes over the discussion on a scientific paper level and waits for oohs and aahs from other hotshots.

The ”philosophy now forum” is a little better, but there people are angry all the time and make politics of everything.

First question - is there a group or a forum for guys like me, amateurs that want to build knowledge together?

Second question - the concept of ”forum” is stone age computer wise. In university in the 80’s the BBS was not much different from this forum ages later. Are there any more effective group discussion platforms? Where a thread do not wander away into oblivion and some conclusions are made. Maybe an active moderator?

But even more I would love to explore the world of philosophy together with people and not against people, and without prestige. I am at the end of a rather succesful career (in a much more boring discipline than philosophy) and I have no need to prove Wit or IQ. I simply want to learn togeter with others. Is that possible here?

JerseyFlight

First question - is there a group or a forum for guys like me, amateurs that want to build knowledge together? — Ansiktsburk

You can ask questions on forums and sometimes you will get quality replies from intelligent people. "Building knowledge together," I think this is one of the hardest things, those who are capable of it have to either be fresh and new, curious, or exceedingly mature. I have searched for this kind of thing for years and never really found it. But this is only my experience.

Are there any more effective group discussion platforms? Where a thread do not wander away into oblivion and some conclusions are made. Maybe an active moderator? — Ansiktsburk

I am exceedingly cynical of the possibility in this day and age. I think these kind of forums are a step in the right direction because they go beyond mere soundbites of information. They refute the shallow formats that are suited to propaganda. I have personally found this forum to be most excellent and fair.

But even more I would love to explore the world of philosophy together with people and not against people, and without prestige. I am at the end of a rather succesful career (in a much more boring discipline than philosophy) and I have no need to prove Wit or IQ. I simply want to learn togeter with others. Is that possible here? — Ansiktsburk

This is the kind of thing I look for, but it's difficult. If thinkers are not to some extent matched, or at least good at asking the right questions, the dialogue will only go one way. Further, intelligence, and restrictions of time, dictate that thought must be aggressive, focused, it cannot afford to posture itself if it's really trying to get somewhere. Can you handle being a tough thinker?

Ansiktsburk

I dont want to handle stuff in my leisure time, I do that too much in my no-leisure time. I like friendly but deep discussions. iRL with a beer in front of me and an same minded person at the other end. Pretty difficult here on the web, online beer and chumminess is not easy to simulate.

Jamal

But even more I would love to explore the world of philosophy together with people and not against people, and without prestige. I am at the end of a rather succesful career (in a much more boring discipline than philosophy) and I have no need to prove Wit or IQ. I simply want to learn togeter with others. Is that possible here? — Ansiktsburk

The best way to do it here is probably a reading group. We have a section for that:

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

You'll notice that most of them didn't take off, because they take some effort. When they work, they tend to be lacking in the kind of unpleasantness you've talked about.

Welcome to the forum :smile:

unenlightened

I dont want to handle stuff in my leisure time, — Ansiktsburk

There is no obligation to handle stuff here. If people are unpleasant, ignore them, and if they are hateful report them. I hope you will feel able to have the conversations you like here and pass by the inevitable silliness. I find it very helpful to try and express a viewpoint, make an argument, respond to comments - it improves my writing and deepens my understanding and corrects my errors. Some threads are above my pay grade and some are beneath my dignity; some folks are interesting to read but painful to engage; some are painful to read. Please, bat away the flies, and join the picnic.

Philosophim

Best you can do is start the conversation and see if people join. People can be messy. You won't always get nice people, but you also won't always get egocentric people either. I would pick the topic you want to explore, cite it, give your opinion, and see what others think. Just be aware you have to handle the bad with the good.

Regardless, I'm glad you are interested in philosophy, and wish you well in encountering more good than bad!

philosopher004

I have noone to discuss Nietzsche or Sartre. — Ansiktsburk

Same here.

philosopher004

I simply want to learn together with others. Is that possible here? — Ansiktsburk

That is totally possible.Just do not expect others to feel that they are learning with you,some people just want to win over others.But learning totally allowed here.

Daniel

↪Ansiktsburk

Start online live meetings (using zoom or any other platform)... some people here might join the discussions. You could be the moderator or choose one among participants. Live meetings might be easier to control/organize than written threads.

tim wood

but want to know more about Sartre and discuss it with peers at the same level. But I have a hard time finding that. And sadly, not here. — Ansiktsburk

Aristotle observed that no one argues about things that are known. If to learn, then, perhaps a house of argumentation may disappoint. This place often seems more an academy of fencing, the foils not always tipped.

A suggestion: for a while journalize what you want. See if in the re-expressions some nuggets of clarity appear. Do you want to learn about Sartre, or do you want to talk about Sartre with some other folks. and so forth. Because the best way to learn, and in a Covid-19 world perhaps the only way, is to read both Sartre and commentary, and discipline your mind to work though the material as an instructor might in a college classroom. And then is the question are you looking for process, an enjoyable pass-time, or goal, the accomplishment of having learned. To be learning or learned? You're apparently at an age and level of accomplishment when you shall have to answer these questions anyway.

Srap Tasmaner

↪Ansiktsburk

I for one am not here to win arguments, and wish often that the culture of this forum were more collegial, more cooperative. I often fall into defending my position or attacking another's out of habit; now & then I notice what I've been doing and take a step back. As I write this, I can already imagine other forum members lining up to disagree with me. ("If you're not going to defend your position and look for flaws in someone else's, what are you even doing, that's the whole point of philosophical discussion, the arguments are all that matter, etc. ")

I think we can bring about an environment that looks more like cooperative truth-seeking and exploration ourselves, if we make the effort.

Srap Tasmaner

A few more thoughts:

I think sometimes people discussing philosophy have a hard time with the idea of disagreement: it's very tempting to think, "If you really understood my position, you'd agree with me; since you disagree, I'll explain it to you again."

There are biggish background disagreements (e.g., religious faith) that can end discussion, so the one further step people are willing to take is to ferret out these differences about which nothing can be done.

It rarely seems to occur to anyone that what another is saying might constitute an actual objection, something that could compel you to revise your views.

I could go on and on. Apologies if my concerns aren't quite relevant to your concerns.

JerseyFlight

↪jamalrob

Great answer. :up:

JerseyFlight

There are biggish background disagreements (e.g., religious faith) that can end discussion, — Srap Tasmaner

This is a deal breaker for me. I cannot have a serious conversation with a person who has an invisible, celestial friend. The mindset is so incredibly divorced from what is actually going on in reality. We are barely surviving in the midst of chaos. Serious thinkers don't have time to ponder the abstractions of God.

There are going to be barriers. Once thinkers have managed to escape the crudest forms of ideology, they can then begin work on liberation from more intricate, advanced forms of ideology. This is quite important. Thought is largely about liberation, this is its praxis, it is not merely about information. So my interest is in thinking with other thinkers who have escaped intricate ideological structures, thinkers who want to codify the steps that lead in this direction so it can be shared throughout society. Self-conscious thinkers, which I take to be the rarest, are not merely driven by their thought, but they have learned how to drive their thought. The former is lost in an impulse world of his own interest, while the latter strives to go in the direction of objectivity.

jgill

It might help if members gave their real names, as on Quora. It's cowardly to be nasty when hiding behind a cardboard avatar. And yes, I know there are excuses for doing so, but it's still seems a bit chicken-hearted.

Fenlander

I take an interest in astronomy, and as far as i know, there are no two discovered planets the same. And so it is with people. What appears to be mundane to some is not to others, what is valuable is as varied as there are people.

We build our own inner worlds, reading others thoughts and ideas contribute to that. I am new here, and reading some of the threads makes me wonder, and others not. Some of it i find amazing because of not whats there, but what is left out. There is a thread on abortion with no mention of conscience. There is no ultimate explanation of anything.

As long as you keep being open its all a winner.

Pfhorrest

Just want to comment that I am also looking for that non-antagonistic, collegial, cooperative, enjoyable, friendly environment of mutual learners. And as far from that as this place is some times (often), it’s still the least bad I’ve found on the internet.

3017amen

The ”philosophy now forum” is a little better, but there people are angry all the time and make politics of everything. — Ansiktsburk

Some say that's a sign of a budding (wet behind the ears) intellect.

180 Proof

This is a deal breaker for me. I cannot have a serious conversation with a person who has an invisible, celestial friend. The mindset is so incredibly divorced from what is actually going on in reality. We are barely surviving in the midst of chaos. Serious thinkers don't have time to ponder the abstractions of God. — JerseyFlight

Spinoza isn't a "serious thinker"? or Leibniz? or Hume? Kant? Hegel? Kierkegaard? Feuerbach? Nietzsche? Peirce? Wittgenstein? Buber? Levinas? Jaspers? et al ... Even Marx acknowledges the effectiveness of "the opium of the masses" helping the oppressed barely survive "in the midst of chaos".

And why should anyone assume "reality" is g/G-less on your say-so (without even addressing such an assumption as an aporia) just in order to have a "serious" (philosophical) conversation with you?

JerseyFlight

And why should anyone assume "reality" is g/G-less on your say-so (without even addressing such an assumption as an aporia) just in order to have a "serious" (philosophical) conversation with you? — 180 Proof

Here you make my point as I have no desire to engage with thinkers on the topic of God. That is, a building has a vetting process to keep certain people out, in my case it's simply a matter of not wasting my time. Though this does draw my curiosity, are you claiming that the topic of God is of utmost importance?

apokrisis

it’s still the least bad I’ve found on the internet. — Pfhorrest

:lol:

There was a golden age of internet forums back when only academics had computers and modem access. Every contribution was high quality.

Well, I say that. But academics are just as prone to bitch-fests.

One discussion board owner got so angry with the way the community was "derailing" his own preferred take on complexity studies that he shut down several years of debate and tens of thousands of posts without warning. Just wiped it.

So we are always stuck with the "least bad" I guess. :up:

Wayfarer

And why should anyone assume "reality" is g/G-less on your say-so (without even addressing such an assumption as an aporia) just in order to have a "serious" (philosophical) conversation with you? — 180 Proof

:yikes:

Of all people. But here I agree with you.

I have often walked away from/stormed off/promised myself not to post on the philosophy forum. But it’s a good forum, or as Pfhorrest says, the ‘least worst’. The Philosophy Now forum was a shitfight when I was a member, there was a massive thread called Kant is a Douchebag. The Online Philosophy Club was OK, but the owner intruded far too much (although there were some pretty smart contributors there.)

So I keep coming back here, even though I’m on the spiritual-but-not-religious side of the ledger which is a common source of friction in our secular age. I agree with @unenlightened above. I still read philosophy, history of ideas, and related, and probably always will, it’s become an interest, when I’m sitting around twiddling my thumbs, I can’t prevent myself from looking in.

_db

↪apokrisis

I'm jealous, the early internet seemed like a pretty cool place. The pioneering days, before the digital suburbia popped up.

apokrisis

I'm jealous, the early internet seemed like a pretty cool place. — darthbarracuda

It was revolutionary feeling. Woodstock for academia.

It was like one year I was down at the British Library - sometimes sitting in Marx's old research seat - waiting the three days(!!!) it took for obscure books to be retrieved from store and have them brought to me on a clanking tea trolley.

The next it was daily chatter with the biggest names in the business (so far as my research interests went). Papers would reach you months and even years ahead of publication. Any one would talk to anyone.

That lasted about a decade. Then some fool invented blogging. And kids could afford computers. The discussion boards evaporated or became narrowly focused again.

180 Proof

↪apokrisis

:up:

↪Wayfarer

:scream:

Though this does draw my curiosity, are you claiming that the topic of God is of utmost importance? — JerseyFlight

How could it not be? 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. Even if we restrict discussion to 'avowed nonbelievers', providential assumptions are likely still operative and function as unexamined inconsistencies effectively blocking, or sabotaging, all but the shallowest critique. The g/G topic must be gotten out of the way first, at least stipulatively for the sake of discussion, I think, in order to proceed seriously even with those who claim to be "atheists" or "agnostics" (but who are also e.g. anti-realists, idealists, panpsychists, hegelian marxists, et al - even "materialists" who nonetheless more-than-speculatively entertain the "Simulation Hypothesis", etc). Without bracketting g/G (in husserlian fashion) or dialectically ripping-out analoguous assumptions root & branch (i.e. neutralizing - neutering - them), only idle reflections & polemical apologetics (sophistry) seem possible, or likely.

JerseyFlight

How could it not be? — 180 Proof

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

Malcolm Lett

Sadly @Wayfarer and @JerseyFlight have just epitomised a number of points that @Ansiktsburk was raising :

discussions that go off topic and produce no outcome
ego stroking
whatever is started two hotshots takes over the discussion

Just saying.

_db

↪apokrisis

Damn, that sounds awesome. Thanks for sharing.

Wayfarer

Just saying. — Malcolm Lett

Sorry about that, Malcolm.

//I will add, I was trying to be courteous in response to your posts, but I don't feel as though you understood my objections to what you were saying.//

Pfhorrest

↪apokrisis

Are you reminiscing about the days of usenet, pre-Eternal September, pre-web? Those were the days.

I was a young early adopter of the internet just slightly before Eternal September, and was acculturated into the old ways before they went away. I attribute a lot of my success at critical thinking (and therefore philosophy) to spending my high school days debating with college professors on usenet. Before web-based centralized forums that could be controlled by a central authority were a thing, when "moderation" just meant using your own killfile, etc.

I naively thought that, through the net, reaching out to "the rest of the world", I had discovered that the rest of the world besides my tiny hometown was not as ignorant and cruel a place as my IRL interactions had led me to believe. Turns out, that was just a filter from the net of that time being available almost exclusively to the highly educated. Watching the actual rest of the world, full of the same ignorance and cruelty, spill into the space I thought I had escaped all of that into, as the internet got more widely adopted, has been quite a disheartening experience.

Nowadays, I feel like what I had thought was an escape from the hole I was born into into a brighter broader world, was actually just retreating from the dark world into a brightly-illuminated hole. And sitting in a hole avoiding the darkness of the world feels much less illuminating than the perception of having escaped a dark hole into the bright real world felt.

Wayfarer

The first forum I joined was the then Richard Dawkins forum. This was after I read Terry Eagleton's review of The God Delusion although I didn't encounter it until about 3 years later. I think I first signed up for forums in 2009. Then I joined an old philosophy forum that became taken over by Able2Know after a year or so. Then the Paul Kneirem Philosophy Forum, which this one started as a breakaway from.

How to gain knowledge and pleasure from philosophy forums

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions