I think they are hard to find. A lot of people come to philosophy forums because they have a vague interest in expressing something, asking about something or just out of curiosity.

Most people are capable of philosophical thought and they are usually the kind of people who don't seek out philosophy where there is a sign saying 'philosophy' to start with.

Are most people not very philosophical in their thinking and talking? I find it difficult to engage people in large topics that may not yield rewarding conclusions. Do philosophy people have a reputation? — TiredThinker

Your post is a little unclear. Are you talking about members of the forum or the general public? If you're talking about the general public, I've almost never had any trouble getting into a conversation with just about anyone about serious issues relating to values and world views. Just look for common values and experience and show respect and interest for their views. Not hard. Oh, yes, and stay away from politics.

Philosophy is an affliction.

Are most people not very philosophical in their thinking and talking? I find it difficult to engage people in large topics that may not yield rewarding conclusions. — TiredThinker

Or maybe your thinking and talking is very philosophical. Who knows.
Not that you can make a rule out of it, but yeah I think people who love philosophy is very possible to be weird also. At least most of them.
And that's really great. Normal people are so damn boring.

I've never had any difficulties like that. I engage in philosophical topics with friends, colleagues and strangers quite frequently.

Philosophy practiced as a field of study and considered as a whole is quite convoluted - but human experience is relatively similar, so even if they haven't read all the books and haven't contemplated all the thoughts, by formulating the right words in the right order to an individual, any level of understanding can be achieved - even in the most "lazy" mind.

Do philosophy people have a reputation? — TiredThinker

From my perspective (an old mathematician) philosophy people looove to talk and write, sometimes going on for paragraph after paragraph elaborating upon a concept that I would have described in a couple of sentences. But I see that as my fault, being too concise, failing to expand and not enjoying writing as much as others do. The writing on this forum can be very impressive in both quality and content, but I fade away after reading a few lengthy paragraphs. :yawn:

From my perspective (an old mathematician) philosophy people looove to talk and write, sometimes going on for paragraph after paragraph elaborating upon a concept that I would have described in a couple of sentences. But I see that as my fault, being too concise, failing to expand and not enjoying writing as much as others do. The writing on this forum can be very impressive in both quality and content, but I fade away after reading a few lengthy paragraphs. :yawn: — jgill

Density of conceptual content is inversely proportional to required message length. Fine distinctions with caveats, more words.

Do philosophy people have a reputation? — TiredThinker

Some of them do, for something in any case.

I find it difficult to engage people in large topics that may not yield rewarding conclusions. — TiredThinker

I'm not sure what those topics may be. But if you confront people about large topics that may not yield rewarding conclusions, it shouldn't be too surprising that you find that people are inclined to avoid you if possible, or to change the subject. I've been in places where, if you tried to engage others in conversations about the reality of the external world, you'd likely be punched or beaten with a pool cue, which I think would be a more effective refutation of Berkeley than that of Dr. Johnson. In fairness to Johnson, I think he would have used a pool cue on Berkeley if the bishop-philosopher was present and a pool cue was handy.

I guess that it partly comes down to what people consider to be weird. Even within this site there are norms and some people are probably considered as the weirdos. Does it matter how one is seen? I am sure that this is variable. The point where being weird seems to matter to me is not when others consider me to be weird, but when that is how I see myself. What does it mean to be weird? It can have extremely negative connotations as being someone as an outsider to be disregarded. Or, it can even be romantic, like being a bohemian. It spans the spectrum between being a misfit or a bohemian.

On my good days I see my interest in philosophy, and related fields, as making me different and as being a bit 'interesting', but on bad days as it being a bit offbeat. Part of the problem may be about images and glamour and how this contributes to identity in relation to esteemed ideals about being worthy as a human being. The underlying problem may be about identity, and how ideas of whether someone is weird or not is ranked according to values. In particular, I am aware that I have met people who were regarded as 'strange' and saw them treated badly while I saw them as being interesting.

Another label is 'eccentric' and I probably see myself as a bit eccentric. I have joked at times about being an eccentric and, if nothing else, it made others laugh, because it may be that it is not too good to take oneself too seriously and keep a sense of humour in coping with personal weirdness, and, maybe, life itself is weird and people miss so much of the incongruities and absurdities of everything.

In social gatherings of academic philosophers, it is a Faux pas to raise philosophical issues.

From my perspective (an old mathematician) philosophy people looove to talk and write, sometimes going on for paragraph after paragraph elaborating upon a concept that I would have described in a couple of sentences. But I see that as my fault, being too concise, failing to expand and not enjoying writing as much as others do. The writing on this forum can be very impressive in both quality and content, but I fade away after reading a few lengthy paragraphs — jgill

This is what western (vs eastern) philosophy demands: state an proposition and prove it.

This is done to the tiniest details to avoid inroads of criticism. You explain everything, like in a math proof, leaving nothing to guesswork.

Eastern philosophers, at least traditionally, took the opposite way. The Master would utter a quizzical sentence, then retire to his tent and allow the disciples to duke it out among themselves what the Master had meant, and then come up with a proof to defend the Master's statement, or defend their own interpretation of it.

So when you read western philosophers, they will not be easy on you, and they will be overly wordy, too. At least to the uninitiated.

Are most people not very philosophical in their thinking and talking? I find it difficult to engage people in large topics that may not yield rewarding conclusions. Do philosophy people have a reputation? — TiredThinker

People are not interested in philosophy for many reasons - time, opportunity, relevance, difficulty, temperament. Generally people follow their upbringing and emotions into a particular worldview, be it theism or scientism, and this worldview generally comes with family and friends and does the job of providing a framework and a community.

Most people are irritated by, or at least uninterested in defining terms, identifying categories and providing sound arguments. People into philosophy are sometimes seen as irritating, obtuse and somewhat self-regrading. You certainly don't need philosophy to get through life and do well (however you understand 'well'), so for many people it has no value.

Yes, general public.

In particular how does one meet local people to talk to about big topics about morality and existence?

Walk to them. Say hallo. Give them a punch.

Kind of feels like lots of people fear the big questions. They have trouble as we all do with the humdrum stuff so thinking about our significance as a people is just too much to think about.

From my perspective (an old mathematician) philosophy people looove to talk and write, sometimes going on for paragraph after paragraph elaborating upon a concept that I would have described in a couple of sentences. But I see that as my fault, being too concise, failing to expand and not enjoying writing as much as others do. The writing on this forum can be very impressive in both quality and content, but I fade away after reading a few lengthy paragraphs. — jgill

Density of conceptual content is inversely proportional to required message length. Fine distinctions with caveats, more words. — fdrake

[joke] Even your two takes on the subject are just long, convoluted ways of saying tl;dr. [/joke]

Kind of feels like lots of people fear the big questions. They have trouble as we all do with the humdrum stuff so thinking about our significance as a people is just too much to think about. — TiredThinker

Most people don't have anything on their mind. Some do though. Which doesn't make them more or less. The modern day mind is emptier than ever. While there are more than ever before. Empty minds are compensated by material excess. The world has never seen such a material load as these days. The minds have never been so empty. And listen to the "grown up talk". Pretending to conform to the scientific imperative. Ugly language. We gotta live with it. The best conversations are those with our dog or cat. Or if you lucky, a gentle wife. Who points you to the shadows on the curtain against the bright morning sun. Of two birds in the trees behind it.

This is done to the tiniest details to avoid inroads of criticism. You explain everything, like in a math proof, leaving nothing to guesswork. — god must be atheist

Well, here's a difference between a PhD math thesis and a publishable math paper: In the thesis the grad student is encouraged to spell most arguments out in at least some detail, but a math research paper frequently glosses over any details that have relatively brief proofs and experienced mathematicians can be expected to fill in the blanks.

Which makes me wonder if this is true with philosophy papers as well?

[joke] Even your two takes on the subject are just long, convoluted ways of saying tl;dr. [/joke] — T Clark

I try be briefer in future. :snicker:

How are math theorems found? By looking at nature? By proof? Before the proof? Is there a general method? Is there a mathematical ToE, a ToAM?

How are math theorems found? — Raymond

I be brief. Usually by playing with existing mathematics. At first a conjecture, then comes a proof.

Kind of feels like lots of people fear the big questions. They have trouble as we all do with the humdrum stuff so thinking about our significance as a people is just too much to think about. — TiredThinker

In my experience, most people who address the big questions are bores. Much more interesting and original are those who take up a unique stance on "the humdrum stuff".

I very rarely talk about anything I discuss here anywhere other than here. That's why I joined a philosophy forum. Where else can you discuss it? (Actually I did enroll in The School of Philosophy last year, but didn't continue with it. Considering re-enrolling at my alma mater but not made up my mind yet.)

I don't talk about (explicitly) philosophical topics or puzzles until whomever I'm conversing with does so first. When I do, I make short statements without explanations or arguments unless I'm challenged to explain or defend myself. And if I can't do so tersely, succinctly, in an easy conversational manner, I more or less "shrug off" the request and resume polite small talk. 'Less is usually more' – even on TPF. I do, nonetheless, recommend relevant books or articles to those whom show more than superficial interest in philosophy or "the big questions". Understanding, unlike mere information & jokes, cannot be glibly communicated without, perhaps, increasing another's confusion. I've found 'freethinking that's invisble in plain sight' preferable to conspicuous philosophizing (or worse – sophistry) in almost all situations (i.e. more often than not, being a smart ass makes one less of a bore than being a smarty-pants). YMMV :mask:

a math research paper frequently glosses over any details that have relatively brief proofs and experienced mathematicians can be expected to fill in the blanks. — jgill

That gives me an idea.

[My math paper:

1. $log_24 = 2$

Therefore...

2. The Riemann Hypothesis is true.]

Now, when some comes up with the actual proof and asks me "is this your proof?" I'm just gonna nod and say "yep, you got it!" :grin:

I once tried to prove the Goldbach conjecture. To no avail... Did construct a 16x16 and 32x32 hypermagical Franklin square by hand + calculator (afterwards only I saw how I should have started...). Man these numbers got me mad! Most math is ordering numbers or symbols representing them. Be it group theory, functionals, path intergals Manifolds are something different though. But you can put numbers on them. Or in spaces and sets. Are there other non-numerical things? I mean, not related to numbers? Integrals, space time algebra, diifferentials, etc. are all connected to numbers. Are there math formulae you can't put a number in? A Klein bottle maybe? Or Boy's surface?



You're indisposable Agent! :wink:

By the way, the Riemann hypothesis is obviously true...

Do philosophy people have a reputation? — TiredThinker

I think I can confidently say that philosophy people do not have a reputation. In order to have a reputation one minimum requirement is not to be widely ignored. Hardly anyone pays attention to philosophers aside from other philosophers.

Usually by playing with existing mathematics. At first a conjecture, then comes a proof. — jgill

Yeah, you have to jump in math to swim in math.



Are philosophy people weird? I think there exist no weirder people.

The 7 most eccentric philosophers

In particular how does one meet local people to talk to about big topics about morality and existence? — TiredThinker

You go to the nearest church, I'm afraid. The priest, minister, pastor or whatever will talk about them, I'm sure.

Imagine the looks you'd get when you walk into the bar having just proved the Riemann hypothesis is false. Maybe someone has done it, they're just keeping quiet.