I’ve had the idea - it’s been back-of-mind for a long while - that there are recognisable types of contributors to the Forum. There are probably many, but I’m not wanting to try and develop a comprehensive classification. It’s more that awareness of types helps with interpreting the kinds of responses that come in from different contributors and to interpret why they approach philosophical problems the way they do. It might help to at least understand why someone else’s ‘hovercraft is full of eels’.

First I want to recognise the ‘canonicals’. Their base is the canonical literature of mainstream philosophy, with an emphasis on what is called the ‘anglosphere’ - English-speaking academic philosophy. Wittgenstein, Donald Davidson, Austin, and other prominent names in English-speaking philosophy have particular significance but with due recognition of the traditional sources.

Then there’s continentals, which include those whose interests mainly comprise existentialism and phenomenology. Heidegger, existentialism, enactivism are a few of the names and schools associated with these types. (Oh, and Pomo - currently not that well represented).

There are many contributors not especially well-read in philosophy as such but who surf the currents of modern culture in science and technology, with a generally science-y approach not necessarily scientistic in a pejorative sense but taking science to be the principle arbiter of what should be considered.

There are some original sythesizers, who are seeking a systematic approach drawing on current scientific (meta-scientific?) theorising, such as biosemiosis, quantum physics, systems theory, and many related subjects.

And then there’s counter-culturals (in which I include myself). Their search is the ‘quest for enlightenment’, a greater or lesser ‘aha’ experience (‘lesser’ in light of long experience) which, it is hoped, somehow harmonises and brings together all kinds of insights into a vision of the whole. They are often magpies who collect bits and pieces from all kinds of sources - they look for ideas that will validate their idea of what enlightenment might constitute. Often widely, but not necessarily deeply, read, and not particularly scholarly.

I’m sure there are more, but within my orbit at this particular time, these are the types whose characteristics I can bring to mind. It’s worth reflecting a little on this kind of taxonomy, because it will help explain why contributors will say what they say - which often seems very odd to those from the other categories.