Philosophy risks censure.

[Skepdick]

Philosophy is defined as the love of all wisdom so there should be zero need to have it destroyed if it can actually provide any such wisdom
Which is specifically wisdom pertaining to the human condition and the best way for human beings to live both individually and collectively

If 2000 years of disagreement is "wise", then there must be a "why?".

Although there are no right or wrong answers in philosophy for all it can do is to make sure that the right type of questions are being asked

Most Philosophers don't even know what a question is.

[Scott Mayers]

This is not all about you, skepdick. If you are unable to negotiate means for actual rational discourse, whatever you have to say will just get ignored by me. So I don't see it benefiting you either if others share the same sentiment. I've got better things to be doing with my time that is more constructive than trying to interpret what sense you might mean when it doesn't get any clearer nor that you TRY to understand what others are saying on their terms equally.

[Skepdick]

This is not all about you, skepdick.

I know that Scott. It is about us - which is why I am presenting the options as I see them: cooperation or antagonism. Science of Philosophy. I prefer the former, but I am surrounded by people who seem to insist on the latter. When in Rome...

If you can't find a way to interpret everything I say in the strongest way possible, I may have to end up concluding that it's all about you...

If you are unable to negotiate means for actual rational discourse, whatever you have to say will just get ignored by me.

I am perfectly able to negotiate rational discourse with people who understand how rationality and negotiations work. It's just that most Philosophers don't. Probably because negotiations require cooperation? And Philosophy is all about the art and science of semantic contrarianism.

So I don't see it benefiting you either if others share the same sentiment.

I work with and have met many rational people - those who understand how communication works; and how it doesn't. Many (most?) of the fall in the camp of professionals, scientists engineers - and in general, people whose business is to communicate with others, to find ways to arrive at consensus in order to get stuff done.

And if your objective is to obstruct, obscure and prevent stuff from getting done - Philosophy is an incredibly disruptive skill. I am pretty sure Philosophers are aware of this and use it intentionally - both towards constructive and towards disruptive ends.

Usually, those people seem to understand that language is generative, metaphorical and game-theoretic, not prescribed - it's negotiated/calibrated in real time.
Language is session-based. The meaning of a word in this conversation may and will differ from the meaning of a word in the next conversation.

And that's OK. Language is supposed to evolve over time, else it wouldn't work. It's why I do not get along with academics or linguistic prescriptivists who think that there is "right" and "wrong" way to use language. If it's stupid and it works, then it's not stupid.

I've got better things to be doing with my time that is more constructive than trying to interpret what sense you might mean when it doesn't get any clearer nor that you TRY to understand what others are saying on their terms equally.

As do I. Towards interpreting your sense/meaning it benefits me greatly being able to determine a player's strategy and objectives upfront. An a priori telos/intent.

Hence the question: What are we constructing and why?

The moment I sense deception, or you playing dumb Philosophical language games where you are "trying to be right", I have no problem wasting your time.

If your goal is to be right, then you are indeed wasting your time. Ironically, as I am speaking to you I am wearing this t-shirt

[Scott Mayers]

This is not all about you, skepdick.

I know that Scott. It is about us - which is why I am presenting the options as I see them: cooperation or antagonism. Science of Philosophy. I prefer the former, but I am surrounded by people who seem to insist on the latter. When in Rome...

If you can't find a way to interpret everything I say in the strongest way possible, I may have to end up concluding that it's all about you...

You are in antithesis of this site's concept, "philosophy", as understood by a convention you disagree with. I challenge you to then go to a site you think is "scientific" if you think your views are science and see if they agree with you. Why are you attempting to overrule your philosophical contrary view about what you think is under the banner of 'science' if you trivialize philosophy as under its umbrella? If you are right, then your success should be more apparent on a 'science' forum, right?

If you are unable to negotiate means for actual rational discourse, whatever you have to say will just get ignored by me.

I am perfectly able to negotiate rational discourse with people who understand how rationality and negotiations work. It's just that most Philosophers don't. Probably because negotiations require cooperation? And Philosophy is all about the art and science of semantic contrarianism.

Do you think that I don't find the same issue with how you are being contrary even where I show 'agreement' with some of your views? I can't help but notice that when or where I share some of your ideas that you inappropriately assign me in opposition when I'm not. I'm a rational skeptic who believes in competing for views but it doesn't mean I am constant contrast to you that I keep noticing for anything I suggest. You keep expecting me (or others?) to learn your own vocabulary without exception and it makes it hard to discuss with you on the same level.

If you want non-contrarianism, try doing what I suggested before with you: spell out your case here without expecting others to go do homework on your links as a pre-requisite to understanding you first. If you have logical skills, develop them here without assuming the reader's specific background. I share your value in logic where you don't turn around and dis logic for complimenting you for it as though I just insulted you instead.

So I don't see it benefiting you either if others share the same sentiment.

I work with and have met many rational people - those who understand how communication works; and how it doesn't. Many (most?) of the fall in the camp of professionals, scientists engineers - and in general, people whose business is to communicate with others, to find ways to arrive at consensus in order to get stuff done.

And if your objective is to obstruct, obscure and prevent stuff from getting done - Philosophy is an incredibly disruptive skill. I am pretty sure Philosophers are aware of this and use it intentionally - both towards constructive and towards disruptive ends.

Usually, those people seem to understand that language is generative, metaphorical and game-theoretic, not prescribed - it's negotiated/calibrated in real time.
Language is session-based. The meaning of a word in this conversation may and will differ from the meaning of a word in the next conversation.

And that's OK. Language is supposed to evolve over time, else it wouldn't work. It's why I do not get along with academics or linguistic prescriptivists who think that there is "right" and "wrong" way to use language. If it's stupid and it works, then it's not stupid.

I share the sentiment.

I've got better things to be doing with my time that is more constructive than trying to interpret what sense you might mean when it doesn't get any clearer nor that you TRY to understand what others are saying on their terms equally.

As do I. Towards interpreting your sense/meaning it benefits me greatly being able to determine a player's strategy and objectives upfront. An a priori telos/intent.

Hence the question: What are we constructing and why?

The moment I sense deception, or you playing dumb Philosophical language games where you are "trying to be right", I have no problem wasting your time.

If your goal is to be right, then you are indeed wasting your time. Ironically, as I am speaking to you I am wearing this t-shirt

Then lets move on to the argument.

You asserted 'philosophy risks censure'. I had to first point out that 'censure' is not the right word because it means "to rebuke", not eliminate from respectful discourse the whole subject. Otherwise it reduces to meaning, "X is worthy of insult" which is a 'tweeted' type of opinion or begging that the content of this thread is to insult 'X' (where X = "philosophy"). As such, it means that the content of the thread PROVES that X (= "philosophy") isn't merely 'risking censure' (risking insult), it IS being insulted in fact. It would be like asserting that if X = "censure worthy things" (as implied by the context of "philosophy" as a subset of this) 'risks censure'.

"(Censure worthy things) risks censure." is how I am interpreting it.

So instead of defying my point, why not tell me if I was correct by asserting the OP likely meant, "censor"? You didn't affirm nor deny the error as though you didn't approve of my own "censor" for what I think IS a philosophical argument.

So, you meant "censor", and not "censure". While "censor(ship)" implies "censure" is irrelevant. They are distinct meanings and the act of "discriminately hiding" content only coincidentally censures in secret, something one cannot discern for the content being censored as being 'hidden'.


Moving on, assuming you agree, then you are asserting that "philosophy risks censor(ship)" which then begs if you are suggesting censorship of the concept you define as "philosophy" or merely tweeting an oddly declarative statement without conviction or meaning, like "People risk censure." It begs a WHY to the statement.

But before answering any "why", we need to know what you mean by "philosophy". And from your prior posts, you define it in high contrast to the conventional meaning of it to which this very site's position is ABOUT 'philosophy' ....or you are on the wrong site to speak in a way that suggests this site too should be censored.

I'm assuming you understand this argument giving charity to the virtue of logic we both share without insult, right?

[Skepdick]

You are in antithesis of this site's concept, "philosophy", as understood by a convention you disagree with.

No True Scotsman fallacy.

I challenge you to then go to a site you think is "scientific" if you think your views are science and see if they agree with you.

Bandwagon fallacy.

Why are you attempting to overrule your philosophical contrary view about what you think is under the banner of 'science' if you trivialize philosophy as under its umbrella?

I mean, you can blame me for "trivializing" stuff. Or you can blame both communities for failing to come up with a meaningful distinction in 2000 years.

If you are right, then your success should be more apparent on a 'science' forum, right?

It depends on how you measure "success".

Do you think that I don't find the same issue with how you are being contrary even where I show 'agreement' with some of your views?

Am I not allowed to hold whatever view I choose to hold? Even if it's one contrary to yours?

I can't help but notice that when or where I share some of your ideas that you inappropriately assign me in opposition when I'm not.

Pot, meet kettle.

I'm a rational skeptic who believes in competing for views but it doesn't mean I am constant contrast to you that I keep noticing for anything I suggest. You keep expecting me (or others?) to learn your own vocabulary without exception and it makes it hard to discuss with you on the same level.

I expect nothing of this sort. I am perfectly capable of learning your vocabulary/definitions - Is just that most people's vocabularies/views are just narratives without any practical/utilitarian insight.

Mostly, I don't care about people's views - I care about their challenges and strategies for overcoming them. I am not a passive observer/narrator - I change things.

While philosophy prides itself on discussing ideas and defining things, they sure forget the definition of "idea".

idea noun a thought or suggestion as to a possible course of action.

Philosophy discussing "course of action" sure sounds like an oxymoron.

If you want non-contrarianism, try doing what I suggested before with you: spell out your case here without expecting others to go do homework on your links as a pre-requisite to understanding you first.

My case is trivial. Without a priori criteria for success or failure all philosophical discussions are just arguments over semantics.

If you have logical skills, develop them here without assuming the reader's specific background.

I have developed them. Enough to know that logic is not a tool for rhetoric/persuasion. Not sure why people even bother using it for that.

I share your value in logic where you don't turn around and dis logic for complimenting you for it as though I just insulted you instead.

I doubt that. It's very unlikely you see logic the same way I do. It's just a modelling tool - LEGO for the mind.

You asserted 'philosophy risks censure'. I had to first point out that 'censure' is not the right word because it means "to rebuke", not eliminate from respectful discourse the whole subject.

And I pointed out that social censure can lead to legislative censorship with broad enough social support. That is how all laws which restrict freedom of speech come about - social disapproval.

On a slippery slope censure is the first step towards censorship.

"(Censure worthy things) risks censure." is how I am interpreting it.

Anything risks censure - social mood swings are unpredictable. Puppies may fall out of fashion next week and risk censure.

So instead of defying my point, why not tell me if I was correct by asserting the OP likely meant, "censor"?

See! This is what I mean about philosophy boiling down to semantics. It doesn't matter!

The difference between "censure" and "censorship" is simply who disapproves of you and how much political power/influence they have.

If the people who censure you attain power, then they can censor you also!

You didn't affirm nor deny the error as though you didn't approve of my own "censor" for what I think IS a philosophical argument.

There's no error. It doesn't matter which one the OP meant - it doesn't affect the argument.

So, you meant "censor", and not "censure". While "censor(ship)" implies "censure" is irrelevant. They are distinct meanings and the act of "discriminately hiding" content only coincidentally censures in secret, something one cannot discern for the content being censored as being 'hidden'.

Q.E.D semantic games. No substance.

Moving on, assuming you agree, then you are asserting that "philosophy risks censor(ship)" which then begs if you are suggesting censorship of the concept you define as "philosophy" or merely tweeting an oddly declarative statement without conviction or meaning, like "People risk censure." It begs a WHY to the statement.

Why? Because somebody doesn't like you and your collective. For reasons that are unbeknown to you.

But before answering any "why", we need to know what you mean by "philosophy". And from your prior posts, you define it in high contrast to the conventional meaning of it to which this very site's position is ABOUT 'philosophy' ....or you are on the wrong site to speak in a way that suggests this site too should be censored.

I care not to define it. Those who self-identify and self-label as Philosophers are a sufficiently representative sample for Philosophy.

I'm assuming you understand this argument giving charity to the virtue of logic we both share without insult, right?

Like I said. Our conceptions and utility of logic are very far apart.

You use it to construct arguments. I don't use logic for that.
I use logic to construct plausible models of reality and calculate/compute the likelihood of outcomes/consequences.

I use logic for risk management.