Comments
-
#MeTooSome people gain a sense of self-esteem, or at least a sense of their own attractiveness, and maybe some feeling of sexual power and confidence, if they are frequently approached, even if the approachers are unattractive to them. This is a pretty ordinary thing, I think. It can be better to have options. There is self-deprecating humour in lamenting one's lack of attraction even to people one wouldn't want to say yes to.
Explaining a joke always makes me feel dirty afterwards. -
Against All Nihilism and AntinatalismStarting with such a bold claim does not endear readers to take you seriously. — charleton
I disagree. I very much appreciate it when someone begins with a bold, clear claim, and then goes on to argue for it. -
Should I give up philosophy?@StreetlightX has some good advice, but my own experience is that unless I am forced to read a book, I cannot maintain concentration unless I also maintain my passionate interest in it. So if you're not studying philosophy in an academic setting, don't beat yourself up about the fact that Aristotle sends you to sleep, and instead read the books that interest you and excite you. (Note that this doesn't simply mean read the easy ones.)
-
Do people need an ideology?You've been using the word belief in an eccentric, non-philosophical way. In philosophy, a belief is a kind of propositional attitude: the attitude you have when you take something to be true. Whether it counts as knowledge depends on whether it's true (and justified). Knowledge is thus a subset of belief. A lot of beliefs are false, but some are true.
You, on the other hand, seem to take belief to mean faith, such as religious faith. This is not what it means, except perhaps colloquially. The philosophical use fits with the ordinary use of the word: I believe that the woman I call my mother is my female biological parent (it might not be true, and if it's not true, then it's not knowledge); I believe that human beings evolved over millions of years (I'd say that's true, which would make it true belief, i.e., knowledge); I believe that Kennedy was murdered by Lee Harvey Oswald acting alone (I'd say that's true too, but it could turn out not to be).
None of this is to argue against your characterization of religion, faith, or atheism. It's just to let you know how belief is conventionally used in philosophy.
Let us begin with the observation that knowledge is a mental state; that is, knowledge exists in one's mind, and unthinking things cannot know anything. Further, knowledge is a specific kind of mental state. While "that"-clauses can also be used to describe desires and intentions, these cannot constitute knowledge. Rather, knowledge is a kind of belief. If one has no beliefs about a particular matter, one cannot have knowledge about it. — IEP
http://www.iep.utm.edu/epistemo/#SH2a
Also: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/belief/ -
The downwards trajectory of Modern MusicThis "oh, rock's dead, today's music's shit" is really uninteresting. From the surface to the depths, there are good songs being made. And I say good because originality alone isn't sufficient. There are lots of original stuff that suck. But eitherway, original music is born every day on popular genres. That's not even worth the time to discuss much in depth. What's more interesting to discuss is the change in the structure of the music business and how that change has affected both the artists and the listeners of specific genres. In my view, the whole thing has become more decentrilised, so, at least in terms of distribution and availability, it takes more effort from the listener to reach stuff that pre-broadband internet and pre-new recording technology could be reached either through multinational conglomerates or through a number of indie labels. Strangely, this is because more music than ever is readily available to simple folks. — Πετροκότσυφας
(Y)
And I suspect that many people who complain about "music these days" just don't know where to find it now, especially people who grew up in the seventies or eighties (or before), who compare their cherished LPs with what they hear on today's mainstream radio. It might also be psychologically preferable to think that music is worse than to face the possibility that one is stuck in the past, out of touch, boring, and so on.
On the other hand I think there is some reason to mourn the days when music was centralized, and hundreds would queue up outside the main record shop in town to get the latest album by whoever. -
TransubstantiationOn the other hand, if you regard something as pernicious, arguing against it might seem to be the right thing to do, even if it's not exactly the done thing within philosophy.
-
The downwards trajectory of Modern MusicI think that's what Harry Hindu was saying at least, and I agree with you: there is an overwhelming profusion of interesting new music. The sentiment that "music ain't what it used to be" often seems to be just a nostalgia for the big rock groups of the seventies like Pink Floyd and Genesis, combined with a refusal to listen to anything else. It's not music that's got worse, but their taste.
-
The downwards trajectory of Modern MusicThis is what I said:
Your focus seems to be on progressive rock, which I'd argue has a natural tendency to degenerate into uninteresting stadium rock when the big money comes along.
But sure, there are many exceptions. Although note that King Crimson is now focused on the back catalogue rather than new stuff. Anyway, I'm not denying that many musicians continue to evolve, in fact that was my main point. -
Style Over SubstanceIt's odd to be accused of political correctness of all things. In any case, thanks for your concern. We'll be trying to maintain standards, as always.
-
The downwards trajectory of Modern MusicMaybe the majority of musicians don't compromise as they grow older, and you haven't noticed simply because they're less famous. And there are many even among the famous who have carried on being creative, resisting superstardom blandness, such as Frank Zappa, Scott Walker, Bjork, and many jazz musicians, like Ornette Coleman. Your focus seems to be on progressive rock, which I'd argue has a natural tendency to degenerate into uninteresting stadium rock when the big money comes along. This might apply to rock music generally, and I think rock music is an essentially commercial blip in the history of music based around the sale of albums.
-
Can anyone speak any languages other than English/What are the best ways to learn a second language?Yeah but you can drop them, or rather, they're often implicit.
-
Can anyone speak any languages other than English/What are the best ways to learn a second language?You could have said enviaré to mean "I will send". I do like Spanish.
-
Can anyone speak any languages other than English/What are the best ways to learn a second language?Take a Spanish lover. The best place to learn a language is in bed. — unenlightened
This is a good tip. I know a Spanish woman who got her then-boyfriend, a Scotsman, from zero up to fluent in one month, as she didn't speak English. I met her myself hoping I could fast-track my way to fluency in the same way, but we didn't hit it off. -
Can anyone speak any languages other than English/What are the best ways to learn a second language?Yeah, that makes sense. When everything is reggaeton, it's too easy to just turn off one's ears.
-
Some people think better than others?Without addressing your questions in much detail, let me just ask: have you never had the feeling that you are talking to someone who is more intelligent than you? It's obvious to me that some people, including some people on this forum, think faster and deeper than I can. It might be interesting to delve into what this means, but on the surface I don't see a problem.
It makes sense to say it because thinking is a general skill. To say someone thinks better is to make a general statement, which is appropriate when we're talking about a general skill. It's true that thinking combines different styles and motivations, and some may be better at logical development than intuitive or imaginative leaps, but to say someone is a better thinker in general is probably most often just to say that they are better at all of those things, and that their thinking skills can be applied widely. -
Can anyone speak any languages other than English/What are the best ways to learn a second language?Swirl those hips with Enrique Iglesias. — TimeLine
My spring and summer were plagued with "Súbeme la Radio" and "Despacito", playing constantly at the restaurant next door to my apartment, and I can't say the immersion helped at all. -
Can anyone speak any languages other than English/What are the best ways to learn a second language?I've just moved to a Spanish speaking country and I need to learn Spanish.
What are the best methods to learn a second language? Spanish or otherwise
What are the benefits of speaking another language (other than ease of communication)? — JJJJS
I just want to say, don't be like me. I moved to Spain last year and haven't made much progress. It's partly because of the nature of my work (web development), and because all my friends here are English-speakers. But those are excuses. Duolingo says I'm 45% fluent, but if you saw me trying to hold a conversation you'd see that isn't true. Duolingo is pretty good, but it doesn't work on its own. It's not focused on everyday conversation. A typical example sentence is "the elephant walked near the strawberries". Useful for learning grammar but not very useful when talking to your neighbours.
I do have one piece of advice, for what it's worth. If there are lots of English-speakers around they may, sometimes out of impatience, reject your attempts to speak Spanish and just let you use English instead (they will know you are a native English-speaker). What you should do in those situations is insist on using Spanish. -
TransubstantiationI didn't respond to it because it was a silly point, and since you know I'm an intelligent person, you must know my answer: obviously you could be arrogant and right. I happen to think you are. But that's irrelevant to the point unenlightened was making.
-
TransubstantiationAn incredible comment. You must be joking, and yet obviously you're not.
Stating that something is the cold hard truth does not make it so. You merely repeat, again and again, "I am right, I am right, I am right", claiming to be speaking the truth (as if we thought you were arguing for something you did not believe), while your views are disputed by several people. -
TransubstantiationClaims to have the plain and simple facts, and the cold hard truth at one's disposal seem to show rather the same arrogance that is claimed to be the church's. — unenlightened
Precisely. -
For a better forum cultureI know, and you have a point, and it's exactly what I tried to address in my post.
-
For a better forum cultureLet me add a point more relevant to the OP. As I have pointed out before, the single greatest need on this forum is a mod who can act as a counterweight to the present mod team. I suggested Agustino, i.e. someone who isn't best buds or ideologically sympathetic with the other mods.
The mods have refused to allow this on utterly unexplained and arbitrary grounds. They say they desire feedback and a diverse mod team, but then turn around and say, "no, we don't have to listen to your feedback, and we're not going to make the mod team diverse by adding another mod." It would be the simplest thing in the world to shut people like me up by doing this, and yet, inexplicably, they refuse. So I will continue to have a cautious, skeptical attitude toward the leadership here. — Thorongil
Baden has already addressed this but I'd already written my own response so here it is...
As I see it this discussion is not about ideology, but about tone, manners, and so on.
But to address your point: we have listened to the feedback, and we do want a diverse mod team. Moderators are chosen on the basis of various qualities that have nothing to do with political or religious leanings, so what you see as a refusal to be diverse is honestly no such thing. Just because we don't want person "A" to be a mod, doesn't mean it's his religious or political views that are putting us off. -
For a better forum culturePerhaps I'm wrong, but this is supposed to be a philosophy forum, not a bullshitting, verbal sparring ground for trolls and assholes or some sort of comedy club. — Buxtebuddha
You're right, and I agree with several of your other points.
I look at the list of comments you provide. They are inconsiderate, arrogant, snotty and smug. They are also bad philosophy. On the other hand, I don't see any of them that should be deleted. Be that as it may, I have made the case before that moderators should be held to a higher standard than regular posters. Otherwise, the credibility of the forum is undermined. — T Clark
I agree with all of this. The crucial part of the guidelines is here:
2) Tone matters:
A respectful and moderate tone is desirable as it's the most likely to foster serious and productive discussion. Having said that, you may express yourself strongly as long as it doesn't disrupt a thread or degenerate into flaming (which is not tolerated and will result in your post being deleted).
3) Context matters:
The amount of leeway you get on the above depends to a degree on where you post and what the topic under discussion is. You're likely to have more freedom in the Shoutbox or in discussions in the Lounge, for example, than in the philosophical discussions.
A respectful tone is merely desirable, and being disrespectful is not always a case for action by the moderators. However, it seems fair to expect moderators themselves to live up to what is desirable, and to almost always be respectful.
And although inconsiderate, arrogant, snotty and smug comments are more tolerated in the Shoutbox, when the discussion there has developed into a substantive philosophical debate that really belongs in Philosophy of Religion, that leeway doesn't apply.
I will be urging all of the moderators to try to live up to the spirit, and not merely the letter, of the guidelines, and I will be keeping an eye on how that goes. -
Is sexual harassment a product of a sexually repressive environment?If you want to stop sexual harassment, change the power relationships. — T Clark
But some power relationships are personal: there will surely always be people who have more forceful personalities, who are more aggressive, or who are more willing to use people to get what they want than others. I'm reminded of the anarchistic hippy communes of the sixties, which had no power groups or hierarchies, but which apparently degenerated because certain individuals were able to bully others into submission. -
Is a fish wet in water?On the other hand, if I was soaked by rain and I said I was as wet as a fish, you would know what I meant. It's not nonsense. The primary problem then--the way that language has gone on holiday--might be to look for a definitive answer, which is to give in to the pull of the thought of wetness.
-
Is a fish wet in water?Πετροκότσυφας got the gist of my comment, and it's a standard interpretation of Wittgenstein.
For philosophical problems arise when language goes on holiday. — Wittgenstein, PI 38
That's pretty much what I meant. To ask "is a fish wet in water" is to use language without a proper appreciation or understanding of language, i.e., without a sensitivity to context, and so on.
EDIT: By the way, I'm not sure if I want to entirely endorse the strong interpretation of this view, namely that all philosophical problems are mere linguistic confusions. -
Is a fish wet in water?I feel as though language has failed us here, just not sure how. — Posty McPostface
Or maybe we have failed language, just by asking the question. -
TransubstantiationReally? How so? — Sapientia
Yep, it's among mostly American Protestants that you find the creationists and fundamentalists. On the various brands of Christianity, their doctrines and histories, you could do worse than read A History of Christianity: The First Three Thousand Years by Diarmaid MacCulloch.
Specifically on the relationship between literalism and Roman Catholicism, you could read this article from a leading Jesuit magazine:
A Fundamental Challenge: Three ways to combat biblical literalism -
TransubstantiationYes, I agree with the absurdity of expecting people to believe in a literal interpretation, or expecting people to buy that it's reasonable and not a matter of blind faith. I also agree that there's special pleading involved, on account of it being religious, and being of this particular religion. If I were a Christian, I would definitely not be a Catholic or an Eastern Orthodox Christian. I would be a Protestant. — Sapientia
Biblical literalism is associated more with Protestantism than Catholicism. Personally I'd be a Catholic. Better buildings, among other things.
Jamal
Start FollowingSend a Message
- Other sites we like
- Social media
- Terms of Service
- Sign In
- Created with PlushForums
- © 2026 The Philosophy Forum