Good morning javi. I don't mean to be overly pedantic, but I think it's important to note that the op is clearly and specifically concerned with "discussing philosophical ideas in Private Messages". — Metaphysician Undercover

Good afternoon MU. Yes, I understand what this thread is about, and I still believe that the replies this OP received from the rest of the members are very insightful. Yes, it is true that we are not debating about the concept of metaphysics or epistemology. These are 'real' topics of philosophy. But, sometimes, it is nice to get to know each other a little better. These kinds of threads can help us to do so. I think discussing philosophical ideas in private messages is great because I think you share ideas with a member you have in high esteem or you trust in him.

Exactly. So the response to such a question is abuse? I don't get it. If the thread were in the Lounge, would that make it OK to be sarcastic and disrespectful? (Perhaps so; I never visit the Lounge.) — J

I will be honest: when I joined the forum, I believed that whenever a thread was put in the lounge, it was like a punishment. Nonetheless, later I learnt that the lounge can also hold interesting discussions, but the topic doesn't especially address philosophy, and that's why it ends there. I recommend you visit it. You will not get disappointed. :wink:

I think you know quite well that this is not "constructive criticism," or a disinterested diagnosis of "insecurity":

allowing you to escape into a fabricated world of illusion, with a close buddy. Avoid the distractions which reality forces upon you, and really build your own little dream scene. — Metaphysician Undercover

It's meant to be hurtful and disparaging.

But I've said enough.

the lounge can also hold interesting discussions, but the topic doesn't especially address philosophy, and that's why it ends there. I recommend you visit it. You will not get disappointed. :wink: — javi2541997

Thanks for the tip. Perhaps I'll have a look!

I think people are making too much of this.

In analog philosophy, you'd find notes (not shared), papers published or presented (definitely shared but feedback may be delayed), if presented there may be a question period (immediate feedback, TPF most resembles this, but with less up front), but then there's the whole area of conversations with colleagues, letters exchanged, that sort of thing, where ideas are shared less formally but where bringing in another party for feedback is the whole point.

I don't see why we wouldn't just think of the PM like letters exchanged by friends and colleagues. It's been an important part of the practice of philosophy forever, this informal exchange of ideas. Over the years I've shared lots of half-baked ideas in PMs I didn't think were ready for primetime (if any of my ideas are). Of course in that situation you're going to talk to someone who's outlook you're familiar with, someone you expect to understand what you're trying to do and may even be sympathetic. It's a good test bed. It makes sense not to take on people first who don't understand what you're after or understand but oppose you.

Of course some people, probably most, are here for the combat, so none of this would apply to them.

(As someone who values a more collaborative approach, I should probably have spent more time in PMs.)

Pretty much. The usual suspects are here, together with the personal attacks. — Banno

Haven't you said something like "it's not a personal attack if it's true"? Would it be a personal attack or an observation to say that you are a contradicting hypocrite?

As an ideal, I try to consider ourselves not just as learners, but as teachers, which might mean sometimes patience with those who are missing the point. This is to say I'd prefer an open chess tournament, with grandmasters and novices alike. — Hanover

Me too but Banno ends up taking the whole chess board, pieces and all, to play with someone else after we've only made two moves each.

which might mean sometimes patience with those who are missing the point.
— Hanover
Patience is not infinite. — Banno

No one was asking for infinite patience. Not responding to posts after we've only exchanged two means you have already reached your limit of patience? :roll:

We're just asking you questions to clarify what you said, or why what you said does not integrate well with the rest of what we know.

There are a few who have shown bad faith, and so with whom I usually do not engage - indeed, I don't often read their posts. They are aware of this, but curiously they insist on participating mainly in my threads. — Banno

I'm sure the people you are referencing have come to the same conclusions and no longer participate in your thread in an effort to change your mind, but to inform other, more open-minded individuals the deficiencies of your ideas. I've had some others respond to my response to your post or thread trying to make your argument for you.

The only problem with an open discussion is that it can get derailed or split into multiple conversations. — SophistiCat

This has been a frustration for me in my own threads. I try to write detailed OPs and be very specific about the issues I want to discuss. This is important to me, when I start a thread, I have something very specific in mind and I need help figuring it out or testing my ideas. When I try to enforce the terms of the OP on other posters, they are often incensed.

I think people are making too much of this. — Srap Tasmaner

I think you're missing what is plain to see:

I fear your OP could be read not just as a suggestion that sometimes direct communication with a poster is helpful for clearing up issues, particularly if the matter is so esoteric that it might not be of interest or ability to others, but as a suggestion that one is better served if they remove themselves from the common man so they can discuss their thoughts among their elite equals. — Hanover

Banno comments (brags), quite often, about how he has to take things to PM since the forum is too dumb. What others are pointing out is much more in line with the reality of the situation. You are again missing the contextual situation of the thing you read.

When I try to enforce the terms of the OP on other posters, they are often incensed. — T Clark

Yes. I wrote an OP where I wanted to work through a paper, chapter by chapter. I made it abundantly clear. This is what happened:

↪Banno - It is not a "kindness" to hijack the thread and skip to section 4...

Part of this thread is experimental: are we allowed to have focused reading groups that move at a consistent and controlled pace? Will moderators honor an OP that wishes to do this? If not, then obviously a thread like this is not worthwhile to conduct, and this sort of endeavor is not possible on TPF. — Leontiskos

@Banno, who did his darndest to undermine the thread from the first page, literally flouted the terms of the OP and moved to unread sections, all in order to try to make those sections look stupid.

I think it would be great if the mods enforced intuitive OP-terms, but that thread showed me that they are not willing, or else are not able due to time constraints. I was even PMing one, asking for help.

's thread on Adorno is presumably one place where such terms would be enforced, and that is great. I think it would be enormously helpful if users could create reading groups where such simple and commonsensical terms were enforced, and trolls like @Banno were not allowed to sabotage the threads and contravene the terms of the OP. Again, Banno is himself the biggest culprit of the things he complains about.

I think it would be great if the mods enforced intuitive OP-terms, but that thread showed me that they are not willing, or else are not able due to time constraints. I was even PMing one, asking for help. — Leontiskos

I’ve had better luck with moderators than you. Baden in particular takes these things seriously. He’s not around all that much these days. Other moderators have told me it’s not their job, which certainly perplexes me.

An interesting question Banno, There are times I freaquently use the PM function and there are times I rarely use it. For me though its function is much more social than philosophical. I also like the input of a variety of views, although my tendency to respond gets me in trouble often.

Here is a recipe for fried tripe.

INGREDIENTS

2 lbs beef tripe
1 cup flour
salt
black pepper
cayenne pepper, to taste
oil (for frying)

DIRECTIONS
Heat oil to 350 degrees F. Boil tripe until tender. Allow to cool enough to handle. Cut tripe into strips or cubes. Mix flour, salt, and both peppers. Dredge tripe in flour mixture. Fry until golden brown. Drain on paper towels.

Sounds simple enough, thanks a million Clark!

- Thanks for the information.

This sub-topic is also related to Mikie's thread/request, and also my <post> which is admittedly wacky and entirely unrealistic given the forum features of all currently extant forum software. I think the principle is interesting, even though many of the objections given were also quite reasonable.

But it is unfortunate if it gets to the point where people want to retreat into private messages. — SophistiCat

I think it's a lot more complicated than that. Consider this from Banno's most recent thread, which I also responded to there:

But I might also invite PM contributions — Banno

Banno is inviting private contributions to a public thread. How would that work? In fact what I would say is happening is that Banno is conflating himself with the public thread, and slipping into a form of solipsism. He mistakenly believes that any contribution to himself—even privately—is a contribution to the thread.

This is why we have seen Banno confusedly reprimand posters within a thread for failing to understand what is being discussed privately, by Banno's cohort, about the thread. Banno's PMs are a very strange attempt to proxy-lecture the people in public threads who are not invited to the PM. It is a cathartic way for him to "conquer" privately those who he cannot "conquer" publicly, much like someone who fantasizes about conquering an enemy and is then confused to find that their fantasy had no effect on the real state of their enemy.

This is also why this thread is filled with eye-rolling towards Banno. Posters are used to Banno gesturing towards the way he has conquered them behind closed doors, and they are sick of it. "You're ignorant. The Brights have already discussed and settled this in a private court."

Thus it is not a retreat; it is inevitably a means that is leveraged within the public forum, precisely because the public forum is the place from whence the dispute emerged, and to which it must therefore return if any resolution is to be had. In this case it is a very strange form of resolution.

(Note too how quickly these sorts of private cliques will lead to factionalism within the forum, or else exacerbate that problem.)

What are the other pros and cons? — Banno

How does one find the replies he/she made in these PM conversations? All I can find are the incoming messages.

- Clicking on the message should take you to the conversation...? The links should be in your inbox.

Thanks. I see I have neglected to reply to the one in question. :yikes:

- Just tell him that one of those damn kids knocked out your mailbox and the mailman was unable to deliver due to the damage. I'm guessing that will still be happening long into the future. :smile:

Banno is inviting private contributions to a public thread. How would that work? — Leontiskos

I think the invitation is for people to PM if they want to, not that the PM is a contribution to a public thread. So it would work by someone PMing him.

I see no problem with doing philosophy by PM, though it would defeat the point of the website to exclusively do philosophy by PM, perhaps. Still -- people are allowed to erect boundaries around themselves in any social situation, and it's the same here.

I don't mind putting my ideas out there for all the reasons thus far stated. But I can see an occasional use for philosophy by PM. One of them being asking someone you know who you share some perspective with to ask them to review their argument and make sure they aren't missing something that they are.

And sometimes I really only want to hear one person's take on a particular subject because of some past interaction. It could eventually be formulated into a whole thread, but I know that my interest is so specific at that time that the thread would be a non-starter.

I don't think it's so nefarious as you're imputing. Obviously if one wants to have something challenged then the public posting does that -- but sometimes you just want to leave as assumption alone to work out something else, and it's easier to do that with someone you have a good history of communication with.

I think the invitation is for people to PM if they want to, not that the PM is a contribution to a public thread. So it would work by someone PMing him. — Moliere

Okay, but what is the person who sends the PM contributing to? What does it mean to "Invite PM contributions"?

it would defeat the point of the website to exclusively do philosophy by PM, perhaps. — Moliere

Not 'perhaps', but 'certainly'. No?

I don't mind putting my ideas out there for all the reasons thus far stated. But I can see an occasional use for philosophy by PM. One of them being asking someone you know who you share some perspective with to ask them to review their argument and make sure they aren't missing something that they are. — Moliere

Although I am having trouble following your pronouns here, I would say that that sort of clarification is much more helpful within the public forum (assuming you are speaking about a point of clarification on something that was said publicly). That is precisely what is needed on the public forum: earnest requests for clarification, and earnest answers.

And sometimes I really only want to hear one person's take on a particular subject because of some past interaction. — Moliere

I agree.

I don't think it's so nefarious as you're imputing. — Moliere

Catharsis is not nefarious, no. That would be a very poor word to describe what I illustrated.

indeed, they are not searchable.

Okay, but what is the person who sends the PM contributing to? What does it mean to "Invite PM contributions"? — Leontiskos

The relationship between the persons. Relationships are both communal and sometimes selective -- and really these work in tandem, I think. You don't vent to your wife about your wife, but that venting to your friend can contribute to the marriage by releasing frustration. Further, sometimes your friend will see something you did not, and given the current relationship with your wife you'll listen to your friend.

 

Not perhaps, but certainly. No? — Leontiskos

Just depends on how it's done I think. The fora is what I focus my attention on. But suppose there were a person who only PM'ed for philosophy -- perhaps they are very shy or only want 1-on-1 interactions instead of the wild ride which is the public fora. I have no qualms with that.

The relationship between the persons. — Moliere

So an OP which says, "I might also invite PM contributions," is saying, "I might invite some of you to contribute to our personal relationship"? That is a very curious reading. Usually when an OP talks about "contributions" it is talking about contributions to the thread. Surely you see this?

I have no qualms with that. — Moliere

You've switched the topic. You said, "it would defeat the point of the website to exclusively do philosophy by PM, perhaps." I can see that you would have no qualms with someone who only PM'ed, but it does seem to me that the purpose of the website has to do with a forum.

You've switched the topic. You said, "it would defeat the point of the website to exclusively do philosophy by PM, perhaps." I can see that you would have no qualms with someone who only PM'ed, but it does seem to me that the purpose of the website has to do with a forum. — Leontiskos

It's not a change of topic to note what the "perhaps" I had in mind as an exception was. Also, on the other side, "perhaps" means that there's something I could have overlooked while still saying there's nothing wrong with philosophy by PM, even by the standards of a fora. It is and has been a feature since the forums inception.

Echo chambers, so I believe, we all believe are bad. Or at least understand that to be a danger. Wanting scrutiny in the public eye, so I believe, we all believe to be good.

PM's are a means to facilitate avoiding the bad and pursuing the good.

So an OP which says, "I might also invite PM contributions," is saying, "I might invite some of you to contribute to our personal relationship"? That is a very curious reading. Usually when an OP talks about "contributions" it is talking about contributions to the thread. Surely you see this? — Leontiskos

I'd say it's contributing to the question, sure. Not just any PM -- but ones about the question. Necessarily that doesn't contribute to the thread, but it could still contribute to the forum in the same manner that my analogy meant.

So, yes, it is a forum, and the forum is a community, which comprises many sorts of relationships -- even when it's a specialty topic. Sometimes a person wants to contribute to a topic without contributing to a thread, and that would most likely be due to some relationship involved such as "I tend to see you as a trustworthy person on this topic, so..."

Since this thread seems to be largely acrimonious denunciations, we have decided to close it. Please, let's try to have threads that are not largely acrimonious denunciations. :rofl: