Philosophy Now Forum

Is this the appropriate place for comment on the forum?

Seems to be a fair bit of agro around, and little humor. I suggest that it might help to have a section for off-topic and community threads; this is a common tactic to induce a feeling of belonging and ownership in members.

Cheers,
Banno

You mean idle chit-chat ?
I thought we were supposed to search for truth on this forum ...
Can you derive any wisdom from socializing ?

duszek wrote:You mean idle chit-chat ?
I thought we were supposed to search for truth on this forum ...
Can you derive any wisdom from socializing ?

Depends with whom you socialize, I suppose. One is not obligated to participate.

Yes, but I meant something else.
Socializing may teach you something about the human nature, but only indirectly.
Whereas philosophysing consists in verbalizing the insights, so you search for the truth directly or openly.

Socializing can serve some other aims, sometimes unconscious, like getting a feeling of belonging if you lonely and desparate or despairing.
Do you have any psychological training ? I have non at all. At all.

I find this forum rather dry. Are we not to have any fun?

Goats know how to enjoy themselves

What do you need fun for ?

In order to kill the time because you have too much of it at your disposal ?

Or in order to forget the basic anxieties of the human condition (like the inevitableness of death, the fragility of our existence ... ) ?

Fun sounds shallow to me.

fair enough. Don't participate, then. No wet blankets.

Fun is the reward you get for learning.

Banno wrote:I find this forum rather dry. Are we not to have any fun?

Goats know how to enjoy themselves

If goats do indeed know how to enjoy themselves,
and
if everything is indeed a goat
then everything knows how to enjoy itself. Which is good news.

or should that be...

everything know how to enjoy themselves?

Is the goat in "everything is a goat" singular or plural?

Is the goat in "everything is a goat" singular or plural?

Singular, assuming (1) goat ate everything.

However if everything is a goat, would everything still need to be around to be a goat?

I guess I still don't understand the whole goat thing... am I being shallow?
If I'm really a goat, then why won't the goats at the zoo play with me? I can't even climb a ten foot wall, let alone a mountain. Of course this would explain why so many people around me have such bad breath. It would also explain that strange thing that happens when the dryer eats my socks!

mtmynd1 wrote:

Is the goat in "everything is a goat" singular or plural?

Singular, assuming (1) goat ate everything.

However if everything is a goat, would everything still need to be around to be a goat?

I understand it as "each thing is a goat".

But what you are suggesting is the idea of the "Great Goat", the one who eats everything, yet is not eaten.

Some have argued that this is a necessity. I'm not so sure.

Everything does know how to enjoy itself, but some do not put this knowledge to practice.

I understand it as "each thing is a goat".

By which I would infer every thing equals it's own goat. Is that the premise?

"Everything is a goat" as stated seems to mean all things are a goat. If that is what is being spoken about wouldn't it follow that once the (grand?) goat consumes everything, there would be no more everything which in turn would no longer make "everything is a goat" viable, i.e. everything would be no more..?

Banno, you say that the goats are in a circle. If that, then they're all one goat anyway. One goat eating itself over and over again in different form.

kake wrote:Banno, you say that the goats are in a circle. If that, then they're all one goat anyway. One goat eating itself over and over again in different form.

Firstly, I am not saying that it is the case, but that it must be admitted as a possibility. Secondly, it would still be possible to individuate each goat in a circle, for example by counting them.