The idea is that there could be some kind of loosely structured discourse where people who think they might have new philosophical ideas (either new possible positions, or new arguments for existing positions) can say what those ideas are, and then the responses should only be either affirming that that actually is a new idea so far as the respondent knows, or else, a link to or quote of or other brief educational presentation of someone else who has already had that (supposedly) exact idea, and why (if) not everyone is on board with it already. — Pfhorrest
The idea is that there could be some kind of loosely structured discourse where people who think they might have new philosophical ideas (either new possible positions, or new arguments for existing positions) can say what those ideas are, and then the responses should only be either affirming that that actually is a new idea — Pfhorrest
This is intended as a serious response. There really are no new philosophical ideas. There probably haven't been any since soon after people developed written language. — T Clark
It's a nice idea but it requires quite a lot of discipline from all concerned. :) — bert1
It's a good idea. It might rather change the tone for the better of the equivalent of those discussions already taking place, perhaps making thread starters less defensive and thread contributors less aggressive? — Kenosha Kid
So, is my idea that there are no new ideas a new idea? Definitely not. — T Clark
Surely then you could cite a previous example of that idea being put forth in professional philosophy somewhere, and some responses it received to explain why not everyone is on board with it already? — Pfhorrest
Just because it's not a new idea doesn't mean people will agree with it. — T Clark
You cite Ecclesiastes. Surely someone has commented somewhere in the past few thousand years on why they think that passage is wrong? And, for that matter, surely someone has offered an explanation of why they think it's right? Ecclesiastes just states that it is, without argument. — Pfhorrest
I have been exposed to new ideas that were already out there, but that I had been unfamiliar with, and for me that is the main value of these forums. — Janus
The rest of the chapter explains why. — T Clark
For, dear me, why abandon a belief
Merely because it ceases to be true.
Cling to it long enough, and not a doubt
It will turn true again, for so it goes.
Most of the change we think we see in life
Is due to truths being in and out of favour. — T Clark
This is intended as a serious response. There really are no new philosophical ideas. There probably haven't been any since soon after people developed written language. — T Clark
Do you think Heidegger's understanding of being had a precursor? Hegel's dialectic? Spinoza's God? Kant's noumenon and transcendental ego? Descartes' "evil demon"? Leibniz' monads? Kierkegaard's leap of faith? Nietzsche's genealogy of morals? Wittgenstein's forms of life? There were recursors to all? — Janus
I can't speak to most of those. I have been struck by how Kant's noumenon is similar to Lao Tzu's Tao, even though I know he wasn't directly influenced. Schopenhauer considered himself a Buddhist. An evil demon who misleads humans has been part of folklore and religion for millennia. The idea that reality might be an illusion ditto. As I said, I am not familiar enough with the others to comment. — T Clark
So, treating this not as poetry, but as philosophy for a moment, is the claim that all beliefs are always true, and are only counted false at times, or that beliefs can at some times be true and at others untrue? If the latter would this depend on changing conditions or is the poet suggesting that truth and falsity depend on prevailing? — Janus
I'm not the one to give you a better argument than the admittedly weak one I already have. — T Clark
there could be some kind of loosely structured discourse where people who think they might have new philosophical ideas (either new possible positions, or new arguments for existing positions) can say what those ideas are, and then the responses should only be either affirming that that actually is a new idea so far as the respondent knows, or else, a link to or quote of or other brief educational presentation of someone else who has already had that (supposedly) exact idea, and why (if) not everyone is on board with it already. — Pfhorrest
The first poster can then clarify how (if) their idea is different from the older version, or put forth what they think is a new argument that defeats the existing counterarguments that have been presented. — Pfhorrest
How's that for unequivocality that may even speak to Frost's very point? — Janus
I think if perhaps such a system were build from the bottom up, with large numbers of kinda-knowledgeable people responding to the even larger numbers of complete novices, and smaller numbers of moderately more knowledgeable people responding to most of whatever goes unanswered by those lower tiers, then perhaps it could begin to attract the attention of even more educated people who would only have to respond to the little that actually makes it through all of those lower-to-middling tiers. — Pfhorrest
I've been thinking about how the gap between amateur and professional philosophy could be better bridged — Pfhorrest
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.