Yes, interesting.

I think your overpsychologizing the issue. I just want to live a good life. If philosophy can't answer that question then what would? Besides you haven't addressed the OP...

Is it procrastination that makes you feel uncertain? Maybe a lack of productivity? Or at least an ideal level of productivity? — Πετροκότσυφας

Yes, I think so. But is t that the bane of philosophers to feel that way? Not saying Im a philosopher, just in general.

Yes, both and somewhat unintentionally.

If you're uncertain of your current situation, then it's something specific in your life that causes this. What is it? Is it depression, unemployment, familial relations, anger? Is it the way you deal with some or with all of these? What is it? — Πετροκότσυφας

I don't know. It's not that I feel depressed, angry, or anything. I don't feel much at all. I just spend my days here on this forum reading stuff and apathetically wallowing. But, hopefully, tomorrow my classes start and I might feel a renewed interest in philosophy again. Speaking of which, it's time to hit the sack. Night!

I don't follow. You meant you're uncertain of the goodness of what? Of the ideal or of your current way of living? — Πετροκότσυφας

Both. I'm uncertain if the way I'm living or the ideal I'm striving towards is actually good.

That what is contrary to how I am currently living my life, call them alternate realities if you wish to.

If your "ideal" has any content, you have a grasp of it; maybe not refined, but a grasp nonetheless. If you don't, then your ideal is nothing. It's a vacuous concept which corresponds to nothing. — Πετροκότσυφας

I guess so. I'm just uncertain if it's truly good.

What does yes and no means? If you don't know how one answers that question how does the phrase "living the good live" even make sense? — Πετροκότσυφας

It's an ideal. I don't know how it looks like and is hard to attain if I don't know what it looks like.

Do you think that you're currently living the good life? — Πετροκότσυφας

Yes, and no. How does one answer such a question?

If you want to study philosophy to live a good life, it means you already know what a good life looks like. — Πετροκότσυφας

That can't be true. Actually, that makes little sense at all.

Specifically, "philosophies" that seem to teach how to enact that knowledge of the good life. Probably, though, you'll be better off with other disciplines teaching you that. — Πετροκότσυφας

Why do you say that? I feel as though philosophy guides one to a way of life. There are applied ethics in the field of philosophy, such as virtue ethics, utilitarianism, or deontological ethics. Those seem well apt at answering questions at/about how one should live their life.

If you don't already know what a good life looks like, it means you want to study philosophy to find out what a good life is. To know what a good life is, is different from being able to live that life. I also think that practice will teach you just as much, if not more, than theory, about the good life. — Πετροκότσυφας

See the above reference to applied ethics.

It means, living a good life.

How to study philosophy for what purpose? — Πετροκότσυφας

I don't understand. Is a purpose required? To edify the mind, body, and spirit perhaps?

Well, that's hard to say. Religion borrowed everything that it could from ancient philosophy and turned it into a living practice. There are astoundingly more worshipers of Christ than of Plato or Socrates. Just food for thought.

Sounds good. But how does one come to an understanding of philosophy? Supposedly through living a body of work or practicing it? This is where religion has the upper hand over philosophy, as it's applied ethics...

Do another Wittgenstein thread. — Blue Lux

Not until that thread is completed. Heh.

A caveat here is that one also needs to treat authors as problems. — StreetlightX

Interesting! I've always held that Wittgenstein was the epitome of what you are describing (a philosopher who treated the whole field of philosophy as one big problem), and hence the resolution of said problems was found in quietism. So, sometimes I feel that my questions are often ill-phrased or motivated due to the wrong perception of linguistic analysis.

If one goes about treating the very questions of philosophy as problems, per se, then how do you ever lift yourself out of that sorry predicament that philosophy imposes upon you?

What courses are you thinking of taking? Have you done coursework before in philosophy? — John Doe

Just some community college courses. The classical mind, living and dying, and social and political philosophy. I'm really keen on the living and dying course.

It's a really great question! The ancient Greeks only left about 10,000 pages worth of extant works and of course very little work was done between antiquity and the Renaissance, so I think that it was actually possible until about 1800 or so to have read almost everything worth while by the time you were in your twenties, especially with much stricter and longer K-12 education.

As to habits, like when and how often did they do their thinking and writing....well gosh, now I am curious. — John Doe

I've always held that the art of philosophy entails the profession of the deep mood called contemplation, sincerity, and self-reflection. Some philosophers might differ, but, it takes a certain type of personality to be a good philosopher, in my humble opinion.

Daily reading and writing? Trying to remain calm and joyful in your work? Engaging some secondary literature so you're not too far out on a limb? — John Doe

Sounds like good advice. I definitely have a low tolerance for frustration; so, sometimes I just consult with explications of a philosopher or philosophy. I like to read as many interpretations of philosophers as I can so that I can gauge how far are differing views held about philosophy.

What are you looking for that you're not getting now? Your Wittgenstein thread is exemplary! — John Doe

I guess it's engagement that's my biggest enemy at the moment. I feel a slight decline in my philosophical 'deep mood' as I called it. Maybe I'm just tired of the mode of presentation of philosophy that I'm accustomed to, which pretty much entails doing everything dialectically, on this forum. The 9 units I'm taking should liven up my spirits a bit, I hope.

Thanks for the compliment. I really am sad that the thread died; but, I might return to it, and just post an elongated monologue and hope someone pikes their interest to participate in.

Thanks. Interesting approach.

If you want me to give you an overview of my own philosophy I can, with regard to all of those people. — Blue Lux

Sure, why not?

Well, Emmanuel Levinas asked that same question and wrote a book called Totality and Infinity claiming that ethics is first philosophy. — Blue Lux

Never read him. Care to elaborate on your own studies? Genuinely interested.

This seems to me to be incredibly anti-philosophical. — Blue Lux

Perhaps I'm voicing my influence by Wittgenstein, but, I fail to see how philosophy can be taught or learned if not practiced in everyday living or life. I used to be an avid Stoic wannabe, and feel most confident about talking about Stoicism due to trying to (unsuccessfully) implement it in my day to day way of living.

I might just be confusing ethics from the rest of philosophy here; but, what would philosophy be without ethics?

Perhaps the homogeneity of the Chinese has made this possible, but I'm afraid it is quickly showing that China's system is the way to go. — yatagarasu

This is a sad post on so many levels.

All this recent talk about hinge propositions, absolute presuppositions, and what not. This seems relevant to them all... — creativesoul

How so? I mean, I see the point with existentially idependant things, but care to elaborate?

Indeed. Good point. I actually changed my mind due to the latest posts not being able to be seen under the category format. So, this works with the lounge excluded from the main view of the homepage.

Well you're not! You're oppressing my freedom! :razz: — Sapientia

Freedom away. :blush:

Then it would be more convenient for members to access those discussions which they themselves most actively participate in, providing a benefit to the membership, based on their own activities, instead of an obstacle, imposed by those who want to direct them. — Sapientia

Oh, I thought we were just voicing our opinions.

He registered and posted a couple of times, but he didn't migrate as in post regularly. — Baden

Yes, true. Anyway, I don't think anything productive can be said about the old PF. What happened happened, and unless I win the lotto, I can't buy out the old database and revive the old forum. So, I'm satisfied with what's happening here.

It's time for me to sleep, but I really do hope you implement the small change you talked about in terms of having categories define where posts get posted. Just as a matter of trial and error I suppose. The thing is that if it happens or works out, then there's no going back to this format, so yeah.

Paul never migrated over here though most of the other regulars, including mods, did. — Baden

Isn't this Paul?

https://thephilosophyforum.com/profile/comments/50/paul

Sorry to come around to this a little late, but was Timothy the Pitt grad student? — John Doe

According to what you said about him having the Bertrand Russell avatar, and being a mod, then yes that seems to be him. There was also a guy named sheps, who was also pretty knowledgeable about philosophy, although I think he had a degree in law.

Paul is still here, although he checks in rather sporadically.

https://thephilosophyforum.com/profile/50/paul

That's IMO part of the corrosive, changing dynamics of the internet. — John Doe

Yeah, the larger things get the messier they become. I don't know anything about the evolution of the internet, though. Interesting topic though...

Maybe one thing you guys might think about is asking younger Tenure-Track or even Grad Students on the job market to consider coming on here to present their work. I think they might like the exposure and interest, which is always hard to come by. They're also less prone to be divas and more likely to engage than, well, certain prominent philosophers. — John Doe

That sounds like an interesting idea. I wouldn't be able to contribute; but, it would definitely raise the quality or standard of posts due to the influx of professional philosophers.

On second thought, a newbie "subforum" would be associated with some negative connotation, so nobody would want to post there, so, bad idea I guess.

I tend to agree. It's tempting to jump in without much forethought the way things are at the minute. — Baden

I don't feel as though the site needs improvements in moderation. I didn't mean to imply that, so sorry if that came off that way. I just feel that we're approaching critical mass, where topics are pushed down the feed due to a sheet amount of posts being made at once. I also think a "newbie" subcategory or subforum would be pertinent if the plan gets realized as we have an abundance of newbie posts about philosophy, knowledge, belief, metaphysics. They tend to gets recycled by new members all the time in terms of making the same posts all the time.

It'll be less work for you guys at the least, as it tends to promote self moderation by picking a subforum to post in and sticking to whether it's epistemological, metaphysical, ethics, or what have you.

Thanks. :ok:

(it's possible to change the default view to categories rather than recent posts, for example) — Baden

Could we run a trial of this feature if others agree to it? I would like to see how discussions evolve under that feature...

Was Trump a conscious choice by the Republican party, during the primaries?

We also had a debate forum that encouraged higher quality posts on the old site. We even invited some professional philosophers, like Chalmers or Searle, to put in their thoughts to organized questions of the sort. So, there was certainly an incentive to post higher quality posts also.

Perhaps I am wrong on this? — John Doe

No, you seem to be spot on. I think it's due to the structure of this forum, though. The other forum was more organized in terms of keeping discussions in the proper subforums. Here everything is packed into one page, and hence, you get various inputs and thoughts. I don't really think the moderating team made a huge influence; but, we did have a Ph.D. in philosophy as an admin on the previous website. The final authority that was, Paul was also pretty darn sophisticated in the art of philosophy, so he had some idea on how to gear the forum towards higher standards. Timothy was a moderator, as were some other grad students or undergrad students.

I remiss about the higher standards; but, what has been done cannot be undone. So, I make the best I can out of this forum.

Simply amoral as opposed to immoral? — Benkei

I guess. But, since you can't put a finger on the epistemic component of the issue, then is morality involved at all?

Again, I bring up the issue of not knowing something unless a contradiction can be spotted.

Morally bankrupt? — Benkei

It seems to me more of an unconscious thing, due to lack of knowledge or such rather than an activity.

What if the doctrine in principle could not have contradictions? Is that something possible? Everything would simply flow effortlessly.