Where is the philosophy???

[Age]

I agree. I was beginning to think I was the only one who felt like this.

I am quite new to philosophy; I actually 'found' it by mistake, and I remember thinking, "How on earth did I not know about this? I have been thinking like this all my life. Now I know what it is called." To me, anyone can be a philosopher. I cannot jump into everyone's head an know for sure, but I suspect we all are to some extent. I think it is a very human and natural thing.

I first found out about it because I went back to university to follow my love of creative writing. However, since I was an international student, they told me that for the first semester they would choose my courses for me. One of those courses was philosophy, and I loved it so much. I used to come out of each lecture or seminar almost skipping with energy and excitement lol But I honestly never remember any animosity in the seminars, no trying to win an argument or belittling others. We just talked about all the weird and wonderful ideas that came to us, we laughed a lot and we became friends.

I had to return to the UK early for family reasons, but I missed philosophy so much, so I naturally sought out a philosophy forum (not initially this one) But I was horrified. Some of the people were so rude and disrespectful and down right nasty. Why? I don't understand at all. What does anyone gain from that? Certainly not wisdom. And people telling others that they were talking absolute rubbish and that they were not philosophers. Who are they to stand in judgement over others? I mean, perhaps if they could demonstrate that they were the perfect philosopher (their words already indicated quite the opposite) then they may have some grounds to judge. I say 'may'. They showed total arrogance and disregard for other people's views and feelings, with no respect for fellow human beings. Sorry for venting, but it makes me so upset. And the worst thing was that I was waiting for someone to pull them up for their post. I mean, I thought, 'maybe there is something wrong with them. They might have issues, or be somehow vulnerable. Or maybe they are a troll." I just couldn't figure it out. Why was nobody saying something about it. Then someone else piped up and agreed with the person, and that was it. I feel kind of bad, as I do not like confrontations, but I felt that I had to say something. To me, it was just so wrong how they were treating people.

So anyway, this is a different forum, and I am hoping so much that people will be more respectful, kinder and open minded. Of course, we are not going to all agree on everything, but to me, part of philosophy is hearing others views and being able to look at things from all angles so as to work out what we believe and get as clear and honest picture of things as we can. We may not all agree, but everyone has a right to their opinions, and this should be mutually respected... in my view.

Hi, this forum is a bit different, while there is some name calling going on here as well, that part is manageable, that's not the main issue. (There is no active moderation whatsoever btw.)
The main issue is that at least half the forum is preaching their own private versions of the Absolute Truth, and no logical or illogical argument can make them rethink anything ever.

So, this one, before it even actually finds out for certain what another's so-called 'own private version of the Absolute Truth' is, exactly, has already concluded and decided that none of them could know 'the Absolute Truth' and so it will spend its time trying to inform 'the other' of what the actual Absolute Truth is, exactly. Which, obviously, and hypocritically, is its 'own private version of the Absolute Truth'.

But, some people really just cannot see what Absolutely is Truly happening and occurring here.

Some of them even seem to be actively schizophrenic. Age is a particularly bad one, I suggest you avoid that one.

But 'you' have previously claimed that 'I' am Absolutely Truly 'schizophrenic', yet here are now saying that 'I' only 'seem' to be.

So real philosophical debates are rare,

And Absolutely Truly rare to "atla", especially.

"atla" spends more time diagnosing 'conditions' of others, and accusing others of things, than it does actually having 'logically reasoned debates'.

Which, by the way, 'debates' and 'debating', well to me anyway, has absolutely nothing whatsoever at all, to do with 'phil-o-sophy', itself.

To me, having a 'love-of-wisdom' involves always 'wanting to keep learning' more and anew, which involves having a 'love-of-learning', whereas 'debating' is the exact opposite thing. That is; just picking 'a side', and fighting, or 'arguing', for that 'one-side' only. Which obviously has nothing at all to do with wisdom, learning, nor 'philosophy', itself.

but this forum also has some better thinkers here and there.

Like who, exactly?

And, would you care to list them in the order as you see them from the better thinkers, to the less better ones?

This could be very interesting, and which might spark an actual 'philosophical discussion' here.

Here you will probably also encounter more interesting, outside the box ideas than on other forums.

Will you provide any examples of?

Have you presented any "yourself" for example "atla"?

[Age]

What is your intent there? To both accuse me of being a sneaky well-poioning jew, to be shocked that someone would call you a nazi, and to claim a talent for logical reasoning all in the same post?

My intent is for you to pull the stick out your arse...no, wait...better not, because that's why you're named "Danger" pants in'nit?

You're just butthurt that I exposed the giant Human Blood Sacrifice being done in Ukraine by Zelensky. You've been obsessed, following me around thread-to-thread since then. Did I give you nightmares or sumthin? At first I meant it half-serious, but seeing your reaction, I'm second-guessing myself, maybe I was onto something....

The whole of the thing you are "half serious" about is nazi through and through. Therefore both halves of the thing you are "half serious" about are nazi halves. And you've written lots of other nazi stuff anyway. You are a nazi.

So there we are complete. The name calling is sometimes justified; the idea that we should all sit around being wise and splitting the difference in a collegial atmosphere of peace and mutual respect is all very well, but that club would have to turn away most members who tried to join. Some of the people here, such as you, are into race wars and complaining about miscegenation which undermines that fanciful ideal in any truly open space. Therefore friendofyours will need to learn to live with some of that atmosphere of spite.

One of you guys might want to retaliate and call me jewish, Walker can call me a "little fact checker", Age can call me "another one who is not ready to learn theeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee one and ONLY truth about WIsDOm",

Are you implying that you are 'now' ready to learn some so-called 'thing', which you just named here?

I dont' care much, you are all free to try and make those names stick, I guess it's all in the game.

[Age]

Over here! Philosophy is over here!

To me, absolutely every human being is born a True Philosopher, that is; Truly OPEN and Truly WANTING to learn and discover. That is, very sadly, until beliefs are formed, and then absolutely any want of learning and/or any openness to anything opposing that belief completely diminishes.

Philosophical question prompted by Age’s observation:

To you, is each person born perfect? (Yes or no, and why).

The 'human body', is born. The 'person', evolves.

And, yes each human body is born perfect.

But, please do not forget that absolutely every thing is relative, to the observer.

- The obligation to define the words of the philosophical question is upon anyone who has a yes or no answer.

To you, what is a 'philosophical question', exactly?

- From this, philosophical discussion ensues.

- Philosophy seeks to know and thus can choose.
- Wisdom has no choice about knowing.

[Age]

Well, I’m glad I invited you all round. Tea and cake anyone? I’m partial to a nice slice of lemon drizzle cake myself, but I can be tempted by a cream frosted carrot cake too. Will anyone join me?

I flavour my cake with anguish, not lemons, and I butter my crumpet with the tears of a thousand orphans who all got socks for Christmas. But I will take my tea with a little milk and no sugar than you.





My sister, despite having many years of life ahead of her, has for some reason taken up knitting. It turns out that there's a huge online community for that, far in excess of this one. Apparently it is entirely toxic and that's largely down to the fact that they seem to discuss American politics too much. I don't know what sort of online community one might expect to be nicer than a knitting one.... But a philosophy forum is by its nature bound to be worse than a knitting one,

Well this is one sense or one perception of what 'philosophy' is and what a 'philosophy forum' is about, but to others, a 'philosophy forum', by its very nature, is not necessarily better nor worse than a 'knitting forum' at all. Well not to me anyway.

for the simple reason that all of the madest bastards you have ever met consider themselves to be quite exquisite philosophers whereas complete mentalists are not terribly invested in wools and yarns to the best of my knowlege.

So to put it bluntly, a lot of people who are quite mentally unwell have a need to tell the world about their philosophy and no real place to do so except forums like this one*. At any given time, this little forum contains a minimum of 5 daily posters who think they are the greatest philosopher of all time. In fact one of the five single greatest philosopher of all time can be read just by scrolling back up the page a little.

Unless you want to found your own philosophy forum and ban everyone who doesn't live up to your expectations of behaviour and/or sanity and/or capability, you won't ever find the forum you are hoping for where everyone is allowed to contribute but everyone respects each other.

Incidentally, the most polite guy on this site is also an unbelievably condescending and routinely dishonest wanker who will very politely treat you like utter shit.





* the philosophybookclub subreddit is arguably even better. There's some guy who spams the fuck out of that who considers himself to be Australia's leading erotic poet as well as the man who will unseat Wittgenstein.

[Age]

Anyone who can manage basic modesty should be able to pull that trick off.

For what reason would anyone do that?

For the very reason that anyone could become, and do, 'better'.

[Age]

Who dares to think they're less than the best they can be?

I dare to think it. In fact, I don't dare to not think it.

At any particular moment you can only be the best you can be at that moment.

But who or what you are at any particular moment has no actual bearing on who nor what you 'can be'.

So, obviously, at any 'particular moment' one can certainly be so-called 'less' than 'the best' that they 'can be', (or 'could become').

And, I know this. I do not just think this.

[Age]

Remember, that what you 'judge' 'decent' or 'indecent' on, exactly, can be very, very different for each and every human being/everyone else.

See, some people have been so-called 'raised', and thus have so-called 'grown up', to believe that revenge, or an 'eye for an eye', mentality is not just the 'decent' thing to do, but is actually the right thing to do, in Life. Although, and obviously to some, these people have not be 'raised' properly, nor 'grown up' Correctly.

Also, with 'respect', how you, individually, think or should be done in regards to 'respect' can be very different to another. So, what this means is that when you want to make it 'clear' that 'the other' is not being 'decent' or not showing 'respect' could be like you are calling them a 'liar', because, to them, they were actually not just being 'decent' and showing 'respect', from their own perspective, but also doing the very 'right thing in Life'. To some, not showing respect and not be decent, to others, who are believed to not be worthy of respect and decency, is the 'right thing to do in Life'. See, some people have so-called 'grown up' to believe that others 'have to deserve respect', first, before they are to be given absolutely any).

Thank you. This has helped me so much to understand people better, even just in this short time. It definitely made me think more, and it has come into my mind on more than one occasion.

My pleasure.

[Atla]

I agree. I was beginning to think I was the only one who felt like this.

I am quite new to philosophy; I actually 'found' it by mistake, and I remember thinking, "How on earth did I not know about this? I have been thinking like this all my life. Now I know what it is called." To me, anyone can be a philosopher. I cannot jump into everyone's head an know for sure, but I suspect we all are to some extent. I think it is a very human and natural thing.

I first found out about it because I went back to university to follow my love of creative writing. However, since I was an international student, they told me that for the first semester they would choose my courses for me. One of those courses was philosophy, and I loved it so much. I used to come out of each lecture or seminar almost skipping with energy and excitement lol But I honestly never remember any animosity in the seminars, no trying to win an argument or belittling others. We just talked about all the weird and wonderful ideas that came to us, we laughed a lot and we became friends.

I had to return to the UK early for family reasons, but I missed philosophy so much, so I naturally sought out a philosophy forum (not initially this one) But I was horrified. Some of the people were so rude and disrespectful and down right nasty. Why? I don't understand at all. What does anyone gain from that? Certainly not wisdom. And people telling others that they were talking absolute rubbish and that they were not philosophers. Who are they to stand in judgement over others? I mean, perhaps if they could demonstrate that they were the perfect philosopher (their words already indicated quite the opposite) then they may have some grounds to judge. I say 'may'. They showed total arrogance and disregard for other people's views and feelings, with no respect for fellow human beings. Sorry for venting, but it makes me so upset. And the worst thing was that I was waiting for someone to pull them up for their post. I mean, I thought, 'maybe there is something wrong with them. They might have issues, or be somehow vulnerable. Or maybe they are a troll." I just couldn't figure it out. Why was nobody saying something about it. Then someone else piped up and agreed with the person, and that was it. I feel kind of bad, as I do not like confrontations, but I felt that I had to say something. To me, it was just so wrong how they were treating people.

So anyway, this is a different forum, and I am hoping so much that people will be more respectful, kinder and open minded. Of course, we are not going to all agree on everything, but to me, part of philosophy is hearing others views and being able to look at things from all angles so as to work out what we believe and get as clear and honest picture of things as we can. We may not all agree, but everyone has a right to their opinions, and this should be mutually respected... in my view.

Hi, this forum is a bit different, while there is some name calling going on here as well, that part is manageable, that's not the main issue. (There is no active moderation whatsoever btw.)
The main issue is that at least half the forum is preaching their own private versions of the Absolute Truth, and no logical or illogical argument can make them rethink anything ever.

So, this one, before it even actually finds out for certain what another's so-called 'own private version of the Absolute Truth' is, exactly, has already concluded and decided that none of them could know 'the Absolute Truth' and so it will spend its time trying to inform 'the other' of what the actual Absolute Truth is, exactly. Which, obviously, and hypocritically, is its 'own private version of the Absolute Truth'.

But, some people really just cannot see what Absolutely is Truly happening and occurring here.

Some of them even seem to be actively schizophrenic. Age is a particularly bad one, I suggest you avoid that one.

But 'you' have previously claimed that 'I' am Absolutely Truly 'schizophrenic', yet here are now saying that 'I' only 'seem' to be.

So real philosophical debates are rare,

And Absolutely Truly rare to "atla", especially.

"atla" spends more time diagnosing 'conditions' of others, and accusing others of things, than it does actually having 'logically reasoned debates'.

Which, by the way, 'debates' and 'debating', well to me anyway, has absolutely nothing whatsoever at all, to do with 'phil-o-sophy', itself.

To me, having a 'love-of-wisdom' involves always 'wanting to keep learning' more and anew, which involves having a 'love-of-learning', whereas 'debating' is the exact opposite thing. That is; just picking 'a side', and fighting, or 'arguing', for that 'one-side' only. Which obviously has nothing at all to do with wisdom, learning, nor 'philosophy', itself.

but this forum also has some better thinkers here and there.

Like who, exactly?

And, would you care to list them in the order as you see them from the better thinkers, to the less better ones?

This could be very interesting, and which might spark an actual 'philosophical discussion' here.

Here you will probably also encounter more interesting, outside the box ideas than on other forums.

Will you provide any examples of?

Have you presented any "yourself" for example "atla"?

I counted 10 lies in Age's Absolute Truth comment here. My point exactly.

[Age]

Hi, this forum is a bit different, while there is some name calling going on here as well, that part is manageable, that's not the main issue. (There is no active moderation whatsoever btw.)
The main issue is that at least half the forum is preaching their own private versions of the Absolute Truth, and no logical or illogical argument can make them rethink anything ever.

So, this one, before it even actually finds out for certain what another's so-called 'own private version of the Absolute Truth' is, exactly, has already concluded and decided that none of them could know 'the Absolute Truth' and so it will spend its time trying to inform 'the other' of what the actual Absolute Truth is, exactly. Which, obviously, and hypocritically, is its 'own private version of the Absolute Truth'.

But, some people really just cannot see what Absolutely is Truly happening and occurring here.

Some of them even seem to be actively schizophrenic. Age is a particularly bad one, I suggest you avoid that one.

But 'you' have previously claimed that 'I' am Absolutely Truly 'schizophrenic', yet here are now saying that 'I' only 'seem' to be.

So real philosophical debates are rare,

And Absolutely Truly rare to "atla", especially.

"atla" spends more time diagnosing 'conditions' of others, and accusing others of things, than it does actually having 'logically reasoned debates'.

Which, by the way, 'debates' and 'debating', well to me anyway, has absolutely nothing whatsoever at all, to do with 'phil-o-sophy', itself.

To me, having a 'love-of-wisdom' involves always 'wanting to keep learning' more and anew, which involves having a 'love-of-learning', whereas 'debating' is the exact opposite thing. That is; just picking 'a side', and fighting, or 'arguing', for that 'one-side' only. Which obviously has nothing at all to do with wisdom, learning, nor 'philosophy', itself.

but this forum also has some better thinkers here and there.

Like who, exactly?

And, would you care to list them in the order as you see them from the better thinkers, to the less better ones?

This could be very interesting, and which might spark an actual 'philosophical discussion' here.

Here you will probably also encounter more interesting, outside the box ideas than on other forums.

Will you provide any examples of?

Have you presented any "yourself" for example "atla"?

I counted 10 lies in Age's Absolute Truth comment here. My point exactly.

But, will you provide absolutely any of the, supposed, ten lies here, by 'me'?

If yes, then great, 'we' look forward to looking at 'them', and discussing 'them', with you.

That is, of course, if you actually do, and really want to.

I, once again, can and do stand by everything I said and/or claimed here, and I will back up and support absolutely every thing I said and/or claimed here. And, again, with irrefutable proof.

I wonder if "atla" would be brave enough to make a claim like this, especially in regards to 'its' ten lies by 'me' claim.

[Atla]

So, this one, before it even actually finds out for certain what another's so-called 'own private version of the Absolute Truth' is, exactly, has already concluded and decided that none of them could know 'the Absolute Truth' and so it will spend its time trying to inform 'the other' of what the actual Absolute Truth is, exactly. Which, obviously, and hypocritically, is its 'own private version of the Absolute Truth'.

But, some people really just cannot see what Absolutely is Truly happening and occurring here.


But 'you' have previously claimed that 'I' am Absolutely Truly 'schizophrenic', yet here are now saying that 'I' only 'seem' to be.


And Absolutely Truly rare to "atla", especially.

"atla" spends more time diagnosing 'conditions' of others, and accusing others of things, than it does actually having 'logically reasoned debates'.

Which, by the way, 'debates' and 'debating', well to me anyway, has absolutely nothing whatsoever at all, to do with 'phil-o-sophy', itself.

To me, having a 'love-of-wisdom' involves always 'wanting to keep learning' more and anew, which involves having a 'love-of-learning', whereas 'debating' is the exact opposite thing. That is; just picking 'a side', and fighting, or 'arguing', for that 'one-side' only. Which obviously has nothing at all to do with wisdom, learning, nor 'philosophy', itself.


Like who, exactly?

And, would you care to list them in the order as you see them from the better thinkers, to the less better ones?

This could be very interesting, and which might spark an actual 'philosophical discussion' here.




Will you provide any examples of?

Have you presented any "yourself" for example "atla"?

I counted 10 lies in Age's Absolute Truth comment here. My point exactly.

But, will you provide absolutely any of the, supposed, ten lies here, by 'me'?

If yes, then great, 'we' look forward to looking at 'them', and discussing 'them', with you.

That is, of course, if you actually do, and really want to.

I, once again, can and do stand by everything I said and/or claimed here, and I will back up and support absolutely every thing I said and/or claimed here. And, again, with irrefutable proof.

I wonder if "atla" would be brave enough to make a claim like this, especially in regards to 'its' ten lies by 'me' claim.

4 more lies:
I can and do stand by everything I said and/or claimed her
once again
I will back up and support absolutely every thing I said and/or claimed here
with irrefutable proof.

[Age]

I counted 10 lies in Age's Absolute Truth comment here. My point exactly.

But, will you provide absolutely any of the, supposed, ten lies here, by 'me'?

If yes, then great, 'we' look forward to looking at 'them', and discussing 'them', with you.

That is, of course, if you actually do, and really want to.

I, once again, can and do stand by everything I said and/or claimed here, and I will back up and support absolutely every thing I said and/or claimed here. And, again, with irrefutable proof.

I wonder if "atla" would be brave enough to make a claim like this, especially in regards to 'its' ten lies by 'me' claim.

4 more lies:
I can and do stand by everything I said and/or claimed her
once again
I will back up and support absolutely every thing I said and/or claimed here
with irrefutable proof.

Where are any of the, supposed, first ten?

Now, as for these four, alleged and supposed, lies, why do you believe, absolutely, that they are lies?

What I said and claimed here, obviously, cannot be proved as being lies, until questioning and challenging has taken place.

Now, obviously no questioning, nor challenging, at all, has taken place. So, what, exactly, are you basing your beliefs and claims on, exactly?

[Atla]

But, will you provide absolutely any of the, supposed, ten lies here, by 'me'?

If yes, then great, 'we' look forward to looking at 'them', and discussing 'them', with you.

That is, of course, if you actually do, and really want to.

I, once again, can and do stand by everything I said and/or claimed here, and I will back up and support absolutely every thing I said and/or claimed here. And, again, with irrefutable proof.

I wonder if "atla" would be brave enough to make a claim like this, especially in regards to 'its' ten lies by 'me' claim.

4 more lies:
I can and do stand by everything I said and/or claimed her
once again
I will back up and support absolutely every thing I said and/or claimed here
with irrefutable proof.

Where are any of the, supposed, first ten?

Now, as for these four, alleged and supposed, lies, why do you believe, absolutely, that they are lies?

What I said and claimed here, obviously, cannot be proved as being lies, until questioning and challenging has taken place.

Now, obviously no questioning, nor challenging, at all, has taken place. So, what, exactly, are you basing your beliefs and claims on, exactly?

3 more lies:
believe, absolutely
What I said and claimed here, obviously, cannot be proved as being lies, until questioning and challenging has taken place.
Now, obviously no questioning, nor challenging, at all, has taken place.

[Sculptor]

Well, in midst of all the uncool excitement of intellectual passion that lacks ill intent, if I don’t tell you this now then you won’t know …

Did you ever wonder why I got a new carpet? You see, it was quite upsetting. It all started when I was having people around for tea and cake not so long back. They were a fine group of people, each with their own unique qualities. Therefore, I thought, "We are sure to have a wonderful and interesting time, and there is nothing nicer to compliment cake with than a lovely cup of tea. So, when finally the tea was all nice and deep and rich, I poured each person a cup. Well, to start with, it was fine, and we were just enjoying the tea, but then something happened to spoil everything.

I am not sure if that person accidentally spilt their tea, or if they did it on purpose, but either way, it doesn't matter because that was what started it all. Someone sitting next to them thought the person had purposely spilt the tea, and some of it went on their shoe. They didn't like that, so then they spilt some tea on the first person's shoe. Well, it turned out that the first person's shoes were a treasured gift from their mother, who had recently passed away. Of course, nobody had known this, but either way, before we knew it, someone had thrown a cup of tea right into someone else's face. It was terrible, and pretty soon there was tea and cake being thrown all over the place. Of course, the chance to enjoy any tea and cake at all after that was impossible, and so, sadly, I had to ask everyone to leave. They left with burns and bruises, perhaps superficial wounds, perhaps not. But perhaps the thing that suffered the most was the tea because, without anyone being able to drink it, it may as well not exist.

So, why then, you may ask, if it went so badly last time, am I bothering to invite people around again for tea? Well, it is because I have a deep faith in tea, cake and company, (to be honest, mostly the people who drink the tea) and keep hoping that the company can stop throwing the tea around for long enough to simply drink it and enjoy it.

Gosh
@Pattern-chaser at least if there is no philosophy you could mine the thread for psychology.

Search for Phil

[Sculptor]

4 more lies:
I can and do stand by everything I said and/or claimed her
once again
I will back up and support absolutely every thing I said and/or claimed here
with irrefutable proof.

Where are any of the, supposed, first ten?

Now, as for these four, alleged and supposed, lies, why do you believe, absolutely, that they are lies?

What I said and claimed here, obviously, cannot be proved as being lies, until questioning and challenging has taken place.

Now, obviously no questioning, nor challenging, at all, has taken place. So, what, exactly, are you basing your beliefs and claims on, exactly?

3 more lies:
believe, absolutely
What I said and claimed here, obviously, cannot be proved as being lies, until questioning and challenging has taken place.
Now, obviously no questioning, nor challenging, at all, has taken place.

In the last post there are only 2 statements. So there cannot be 3 lies.
If you want to debate you are really going to have to read what is written and not just count lines.

[puto]

Stating, with confidence because of having read most of the message boards. I will point out and by not giving a response of convention. The tyrant or the philosopher has power, love is a tyrant (Republic 573b.) Book X is the philosopher and the tyrant. Just remember, Imitation takes us far from the truth (the idea of beauty, not the particular objects.) Truth is the Idea of the Good (508e.)