Where is the philosophy???

[friendofyours]

Anybody who can actually do philosophy should recognise the irrelevance of wisdom to that activity.

Okay, I'd like to hear your views on this. I'm genuinely wondering what your views are on how people do philosophy. What does it entail?

NB Please don't call me names. I do not intend to call you names. I'd love for people to simply be nicer to each other on this forum. (I may be stupid and deluded, but I can live in hope. There, for anyone intending to call me 'stupid', you're too late; I got in there first. Now, can we perhaps dispense with all the insults and maybe just converse?)

[Age]

The words 'philosophy' and 'wisdom' can be 'linked' by the way that was expressed, very clearly, in the opening post.

The Eiffel Tower and your nose can be 'linked' by constructing any sentence to include those words. That doesn't make it natural or helpful to link them.

The words 'philosophy' and 'wisdom' are not usefully linked, and any fool who says otherwise can waste the rest of their lives constructing their 'philosophical' theory about what wisdom actually is.

And, it could be said and argued that any fool who cannot see the very useful link between those two words could waste the rest of their lives imagining that there is even some kind of 'your philosophical theory', about things, like what wisdom actually is, for example.

This one here still clearly believes that its own interpretation of words is the only true and right one, and that it would be better for everyone else if they all just followed and accepted "flashdangerpant's" own personal views and beliefs here.

Anybody who actually posesses wisdom would be too wise to compare it to philosophy.

It could also be said that any one who is actually wise would just ask "flashdangerpants", What do the words 'philosophy' and 'wisdom' actually mean, or are referring to, to you, exactly, which has made you believe, absolutely, that those two words are, supposedly, not linked, so-called, 'usefully'.

Anybody who can actually do philosophy should recognise the irrelevance of wisdom to that activity.

A lot of people do not see and believe that 'philosophy' is some thing one 'does'. But, you obviously do, and you are the 'wise' one here right "flashdangerpants"?

So, please inform the rest of 'us' how does one actually 'do' philosophy, exactly, "flashdangerpants".

That is, of course, you do have the ability to do so.

[FlashDangerpants]

Anybody who can actually do philosophy should recognise the irrelevance of wisdom to that activity.

Okay, I'd like to hear your views on this. I'm genuinely wondering what your views are on how people do philosophy. What does it entail?

NB Please don't call me names. I do not intend to call you names. I'd love for people to simply be nicer to each other on this forum. (I may be stupid and deluded, but I can live in hope. There, for anyone intending to call me 'stupid', you're too late; I got in there first. Now, can we perhaps dispense with all the insults and maybe just converse?)

I call the nazi a nazi because he nazis in that way that nazis do their nazying. I don't call people random names. If you can't live with that and drop the matter I will probably give you a nickname though.

Likewise, I don't call people philosophers because they like to sit under a tree and think about how deep their own thoughts are. Not that I call very many people philosophers anyway and I don't call myself one either, I just did that bit to retain a theme.

Philosophy is, or has become, a rigorous field of study whicvh I would hope is something you got at least a glimpse into when you studied it at university. I don't exactly know what they cover over there in Phil 101 (I hear dreadful rumours about Ayn Rand being invoked), but there would have been the basics of argument construction I expect - stuff like premises that support conclusions and validity and soundness; necessity and sufficiency etc.

I speak of the little plastic slabs of reasoning that are used like Lego to assemble an unassailable argument that proves we are justified in believing that our own body parts do indeed exist if I hold up my hand and say "here is a hand" or that the present King of France is bald. I am referencing there a couple of highly important philosophical arguments by way of the tiniest logical components that make them happen. None of it is wisdom though.

You could say that wisdom is that life-skill sort of knowledge, gained through experience, which tells us to master those basic building blocks so that we can later master the bigger stuff that makes it worthwhile. But wisdom should warn you that this is a trap. I can do those little building blocks of argument and every single one of the people who I would expect to stand against me on this matter ... they can't, the basics is exactly what they are worst at.

So, for giggles, I might let them win because I will make the cost of linking wisdom to philosophy for those people such that they can only win by renouncing both their own wisdom and their own philosophy.

[Age]

Anybody who can actually do philosophy should recognise the irrelevance of wisdom to that activity.

Okay, I'd like to hear your views on this. I'm genuinely wondering what your views are on how people do philosophy. What does it entail?

I will just forewarn you here "friendofyours", it does not matter one iota how much you genuinely wonder about the actual views of 'the other', gaining actual clarity from them, regarding their views and beliefs, I find a very hard thing to accomplish and obtain, well here in this forum anyway.

NB Please don't call me names. I do not intend to call you names. I'd love for people to simply be nicer to each other on this forum. (I may be stupid and deluded, but I can live in hope. There, for anyone intending to call me 'stupid', you're too late; I got in there first. Now, can we perhaps dispense with all the insults and maybe just converse?)

Just so you become aware, exactly what you are showing and doing here "friendofyours" is the exact opposite of being 'stupid'.

[Age]

Anybody who can actually do philosophy should recognise the irrelevance of wisdom to that activity.

Okay, I'd like to hear your views on this. I'm genuinely wondering what your views are on how people do philosophy. What does it entail?

NB Please don't call me names. I do not intend to call you names. I'd love for people to simply be nicer to each other on this forum. (I may be stupid and deluded, but I can live in hope. There, for anyone intending to call me 'stupid', you're too late; I got in there first. Now, can we perhaps dispense with all the insults and maybe just converse?)

I call the nazi a nazi because he nazis in that way that nazis do their nazying. I don't call people random names. If you can't live with that and drop the matter I will probably give you a nickname though.

Likewise, I don't call people philosophers because they like to sit under a tree and think about how deep their own thoughts are. Not that I call very many people philosophers anyway and I don't call myself one either, I just did that bit to retain a theme.

Philosophy is, or has become, a rigorous field of study whicvh I would hope is something you got at least a glimpse into when you studied it at university.

Here is the first inconsistency and contradiction, that is; while ignoring completely this one's attempts at 'justifying' its name calling of others.

So, to "flashdangerpants" 'philosophy' is, or has become a, supposed, 'rigorous field of study', but also adds that it hopes you, "friendofyours", got at least a glimpse into, and understanding of, when you studied 'it', at university.

So, what "flashdangerpants" is here claiming, contradictory, is that 'philosophy' is some supposed and claimed 'rigorous field of study', which somehow 'studies itself'.

Unless, of course, you want to clear up what the 'it' word is referring to, exactly, "flashdangerpants?

But even if you do not want to clear things up here as well, and so will not, will you at least explain what you think or believe 'philosophy', the claimed 'rigorous field of study' actually 'studies', exactly?

Also, and obviously, as has been pointed out already the word 'philosophy' once meant something very, very different from what you 'currently' think or believe the word means and is, or has come to mean, and to refer to.

I don't exactly know what they cover over there in Phil 101 (I hear dreadful rumours about Ayn Rand being invoked),

you might 'hear' 'this' probably due to your apparent infatuation with 'that'. But, once again, you have drifted off from what was actually being asked and sought for here. Again, probably due to your apparent infatuation here.

but there would have been the basics of argument construction I expect - stuff like premises that support conclusions and validity and soundness; necessity and sufficiency etc.

So, 'doing philosophy' is about 'teaching' or 'learning' about about the 'basics of argument construction', you 'expect', only.

Have you actually so-called 'done philosophy' "yourself" "flashdangerpants"?

Also, how could being taught and/or learning how to formulate and construct premises, support conclusions, validly and soundly, and to thus to recognize these things not be linked to 'wisdom', itself?

Did you answer my earlier clarifying question about what 'wisdom' is, exactly, to you, "flashdangerpants"?

I speak of the little plastic slabs of reasoning that are used like Lego to assemble an unassailable argument that proves we are justified in believing that our own body parts do indeed exist if I hold up my hand and say "here is a hand" or that the present King of France is bald. I am referencing there a couple of highly important philosophical arguments by way of the tiniest logical components that make them happen. None of it is wisdom though.

I agree, and accept, that what you are saying and writing here is not 'wisdom' at all, as well.

You could say that wisdom is that life-skill sort of knowledge,

And, what is a so-called 'life-skill sort of knowledge', exactly, "flashdangerpants"?

Will you provide any examples if you are not able to explain what a 'life-skill sort of knowledge' is?

gained through experience, which tells us to master those basic building blocks so that we can later master the bigger stuff that makes it worthwhile. But wisdom should warn you that this is a trap.

Why, what is 'wisdom' to you, exactly?

I can do those little building blocks of argument and every single one of the people who I would expect to stand against me on this matter ... they can't, the basics is exactly what they are worst at.

Out of curiosity, do you think or believe that you are clearing things up here, or that you are just coming across as being more confused here?

you can do what, exactly, "flashdangerpants", which you believe that the people you would expect to stand against you on 'this matter', (whatever this is referring to exactly) cannot, supposedly, stand against you?

Some of those so-called 'little building block' examples, which you provided above here, could be very easily and very simply 'stood against' and thus be refuted.

What are 'the actual basics', which you believe 'people' cannot stand against you on, exactly?

So, for giggles, I might let them win because I will make the cost of linking wisdom to philosophy for those people such that they can only win by renouncing both their own wisdom and their own philosophy.

Talk about not just answering the actual question posed, and asked to you, and going off on appearing to be very confused and conflated tangents here.

All you were only asked for clarification here "flashdangerpants" was on:

What are your views on how people 'do philosophy'?

And,or

What does 'doing philosophy' entail?

you claim here that 'philosophy', itself, is the 'rigorous field of study'.

So, now what is 'the rigorous field of study', studying, exactly?

'Science', also, can be referred to as 'the rigorous field of study'. But, what is studied in or through 'science' is obvious, and obviously known. However, what is actually 'rigorously studied' in or through 'philosophy' 'we' would like to gain your actual and exact views or beliefs on "flashdangerpants".

'We' all here know what 'doing science' entails, but what 'doing philosophy' entail, exactly, "flashdangerpants"?

[friendofyours]

So true. So sad.

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

One reason the 'love of argument', and, the 'love of winning' has become so commonplace, in the days when this is being written, is because of the other Wrongly used word 'education'. The word 'education' once meant and was used to refer to, 'drawing out', or 'to lead out', 'to bring out'. Which is certainly not how the 'education-system' works, in the days when this is being written anyway. The so-called 'current' 'education-system' works on being told what to think and accept, you will then be questioned, challenged, and tested on what you have 'learned', and if you do not 'copy' and 'follow' what we have 'taught' you, then you will be either discriminated against, ridiculed, humiliated, or punished in one way or another.

Now, back to one reason why the 'love of arguing', (not in the 'logical reasoning' sense, but rather in the 'fighting to win'), is because an amount of the 'current' 'education-system' teaches one to 'pick one side/view', and then 'fight' 'to the death', for 'that side/view'.

So, and as can be clearly seen throughout this forum, this 'picking a side', or having and holding onto a particular view or belief, and then just trying to 'fight', in absolutely anyway possible, to 'prove' to others, that 'my view/belief' is the right one was a very common thing, in the days when this was being written.

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.

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.

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.

Very True, the natural instinct of being a human being is to be OPEN, with a very strong desire of wanting to learn and discover more and anew. This is the very reason why human beings, collectively, just keep imagining, inventing, planning, making, and creating newer and newer, once seemingly completely impossible, things.

Also, what else separates human beings from all of the other animals on earth is the human beings' ability to learn, understand, and reason absolutely any and every 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.

Now, 'that' is the 'real world'.

Here, in this forum, is not the 'real world', although some might belief otherwise.

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.

As I was just saying and pointing out above here some adult human beings will try just about absolutely anything 'to win' 'a fight'.

See, to some people here, they are, and literally, 'fighting' for their own existence.

This will become much better understand when who and what 'people' are, exactly, is discovered, or learned, and understood.

What does anyone gain from that?

For some adult human beings, if they think that they have 'won' some thing, then this gives them some sort of 'pleasure' or 'enjoyment'.

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?

Considering the irrefutable Fact that absolutely every one has absolutely nothing at all to 'judge' another one on, except on one's own 'past experiences', alone, 'judging' another could not be a more Wrong thing to do, in Life.

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.

The only True, or perfect, 'Philosophers' are each and every new born child. From then, it could be argued, it is all downhill. That is, of course, until human beings start learning how to Truly look and Truly listen again, from the Truly OPEN perspective, and thus do actually learn what is actually True, and Right, in Life.

By the way, all adult human beings can, and will, learn far more about 'Life', and living, Itself, in and from the most Truly 'meaningful perspective', from new born human beings, then they could ever learn from anyone else or each other.

I say 'may'.

A perfect 'Philosopher' never 'judges' another. And, an adult perfect 'Philosopher' never does because they already know, exactly, how and why every one is, exactly, the way they are.

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.

It is not just perfectly great that you are sharing 'your views' from what 'you' have previously experienced, but it also very good for 'you' and others as well.

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.

But there is not an adult human being, in the days when this is being written anyway, without 'issues'.

Or maybe they are a troll." I just couldn't figure it out. Why was nobody saying something about it.

Mostly because they are doing whatever they can to so-call 'win', "themselves".

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.

'The world', in which you are living in 'now', or 'currently', is the result of 'a world', which 'taught' its young to 'pick a side/view', and 'fight till the death', for that 'side' or for that 'view'/belief.

So anyway, this is a different forum, and I am hoping so much that people will be more respectful, kinder and open minded.

I am sad to say, I think you might even find this forum somewhat more disrespectful, less kinder, and maybe even more closed, as in this forum, as far as most of 'us' here have discovered, is the only forum where we do not get 'moderated' and/or kicked out of.

Which, in a sense, could eventually result in far more respectful, kinder, peaceful, and OPEN discussions, and even to 'logical reasoning', itself.

Of course, we are not going to all agree on everything,

But, there are some things, which 'we' all do agree on, and even accept, and when 'we' finally get to 'these things', then 'we' will also know what is Truly Right, and Correct, in Life.

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.

To 'work out' what one 'believes' I would suggest just asking "yourself", 'What are things that I do 'believe'?' Or, an even better way I found is absolutely any and every 'view' I have, or with each and every 'thought' that arises, again question "yourself", but this time ask, 'Do I 'believe' this to be true, or do I just 'think' this to be true?'

Then you can work on what you 'know' to be true, which is even different again.

But, having the 'love-of-wisdom', within, and the True desire to just keep learning more and more, anew and anewer, which just comes from having a 'love-of-learning', within, which is what is being Truly wise is, exactly, and from where 'wisdom', itself, actually comes from is done, best, exactly like you said and wrote here, From just hearing other's views, and from being able to look at things from all angles as well, then one cannot stop learning, and thus cannot also stop becoming 'wiser'. Which is just what 'philosophy' once used to mean.

We may not all agree, but everyone has a right to their opinions, and this should be mutually respected... in my view.

I would just disagree that not everyone as a 'right' to their opinions, if 'their opinions' involve the abuse of any thing.

Now, of course, every one, 'old enough' to have opinions, will have opinions, but no one has a 'right' to any opinion if 'that opinion' will lead to the harm or damage of any other one/thing.

You said a lot here. Thank you so much for your respectful and thought-provoking response. As I read through, there were lots of things that sprang into my mind. I will start, for now, with this though, just because it is something that also occurred to me, and something that I am not sure I have exactly figured out yet. I am hoping that by discussing it, I will perhaps get closer to an answer.

I would just disagree that not everyone as a 'right' to their opinions, if 'their opinions' involve the abuse of any thing.

Now, of course, every one, 'old enough' to have opinions, will have opinions, but no one has a 'right' to any opinion if 'that opinion' will lead to the harm or damage of any other one/thing.

So, something occurred to me when I thought about responding to the insulting comments I mentioned in the other forum: am I just doing the same as them?

I was initially angry and upset, which is clearly never a good basis for rational thought. To vent this, I wrote a response, but decided not to post it. I would sleep on it and see what my thoughts were about it all the next day. The next day, I had calmed down and started to wonder if maybe they were a troll, or maybe they were vulnerable or something like that, and perhaps I should not post the comment because it was too harsh etc Just to make it clear, there was no name calling on my part, but I made it clear that the decent thing to do would be to respect others etc (I admit, there was a bit of sarcasm in there too, which was perhaps not good to put in. But I was trying to get my point across, and that’s partly the way it came out.)

However, when yet another person was basically doing the same thing and throwing out insults to all the people who had contributed to the discussion, first, I was upset, then, I was sad, then, I felt like giving up, but lastly, I reasoned that I should post the comment that I wrote that tried to highlight the negative effects on others of what they were doing, not to win an argument, or to appear to be better than them, but to simply be a positive voice out there for decency and compassion. Who knows, it may have a positive impact on someone. It just sort of seemed like the right thing to do.

Then, when I wrote the last part of my first post on this thread,

We may not all agree, but everyone has a right to their opinions, and this should be mutually respected... in my view.

I thought to myself that the last part ‘…in my view’ seems a bit odd, or contradictory, to put on the end. This is because obviously I have very strong views on respect, being kind and compassionate (And before anyone thinks the wrong thing, no, I do not think I am the epitome of kindness, compassion and respect. I am human and have my flaws. I wish I didn’t, and I try not to. All I can do, or anyone really, is try to be better, wiser, kinder etc) So, anyway, I thought that by adding, “in my view” it may have taken value away from what I was advocating: for people to be respectful. But then I thought that I was also advocating for people to respect other’s views, so if I just say all I think, and then make it out to be a fact, then aren’t I being as ‘bad’ as them?

So, I do, of course, agree with this very much:

no one has a 'right' to any opinion if 'that opinion' will lead to the harm or damage of any other one/thing.

But the problem I come across is this: okay, it is easy to vehemently say, no one has a right to agree with chopping babies heads off. Of course, that is an extreme. Almost everyone, or at least most people (I would hope) would agree with that (OOOH I may have found something we can all finally agree on! Oh no ☹ someone is going to say that someone else on here would like to chop babies heads off. Darn it. I failed) But anyway, somewhere along the spectrum of people being harmful, as we get closer to normality, there is a very fine line. It seems to me to be very difficult to find and draw that line without being as judgmental as the people that we are disagreeing with for being judgmental. Is the answer to just say that everyone has a right to an opinion? How can we judge who does, and who doesn't?

While I do think a line should be drawn, I am not certain how it can be done. I hope all of this makes sense.

[friendofyours]

Just so you become aware, exactly what you are showing and doing here "friendofyours" is the exact opposite of being 'stupid'.

Aww, thank you. (She says with the British knack of total understatement!)

[FlashDangerpants]

So, for giggles, I might let them win because I will make the cost of linking wisdom to philosophy for those people such that they can only win by renouncing both their own wisdom and their own philosophy.

Talk about not just answering the actual question posed, and asked to you, and going off on appearing to be very confused and conflated tangents here.

All you were only asked for clarification here "flashdangerpants" was on:

What are your views on how people 'do philosophy'?

And,or

What does 'doing philosophy' entail?

You should learn to read the whole of the post before you start replying to each sentence as a set of unrelated parts.

In that short post I casually threw together a rough philosophical argument in support of my position that philosophy is not usefully to be described as a 'love of wisdom' and briefly sketched a more realistic position that it is a branch of logic in which a set of small logical tools are used to assemble and disassemble arguments on a wide variety of subjects. Then, I quickly looked at a plausible basic definition of wisdom to draw a distinction, but also to set up the finale in which a dilemma is presented leading to a no-win position for whoever argues against me as they would be required to undermine their own position to overcome mine.

It doesn't matter that it isn't very good philosophy, it's just a dumb thing that I made up on the fly to show what the activity of doing philosophy looks like in general. Thus answering the exact question that you think I ignored because you don't really stop to think about things you read.

You see Ken, in a show versus tell game, I can show what doing philosophy is like with a casual demonstration. You can only tell us that one day future generations will visit this site to find out how you became the greatest. You've never shown anything.

[Age]

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

One reason the 'love of argument', and, the 'love of winning' has become so commonplace, in the days when this is being written, is because of the other Wrongly used word 'education'. The word 'education' once meant and was used to refer to, 'drawing out', or 'to lead out', 'to bring out'. Which is certainly not how the 'education-system' works, in the days when this is being written anyway. The so-called 'current' 'education-system' works on being told what to think and accept, you will then be questioned, challenged, and tested on what you have 'learned', and if you do not 'copy' and 'follow' what we have 'taught' you, then you will be either discriminated against, ridiculed, humiliated, or punished in one way or another.

Now, back to one reason why the 'love of arguing', (not in the 'logical reasoning' sense, but rather in the 'fighting to win'), is because an amount of the 'current' 'education-system' teaches one to 'pick one side/view', and then 'fight' 'to the death', for 'that side/view'.

So, and as can be clearly seen throughout this forum, this 'picking a side', or having and holding onto a particular view or belief, and then just trying to 'fight', in absolutely anyway possible, to 'prove' to others, that 'my view/belief' is the right one was a very common thing, in the days when this was being written.

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.

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.

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.

Very True, the natural instinct of being a human being is to be OPEN, with a very strong desire of wanting to learn and discover more and anew. This is the very reason why human beings, collectively, just keep imagining, inventing, planning, making, and creating newer and newer, once seemingly completely impossible, things.

Also, what else separates human beings from all of the other animals on earth is the human beings' ability to learn, understand, and reason absolutely any and every 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.

Now, 'that' is the 'real world'.

Here, in this forum, is not the 'real world', although some might belief otherwise.

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.

As I was just saying and pointing out above here some adult human beings will try just about absolutely anything 'to win' 'a fight'.

See, to some people here, they are, and literally, 'fighting' for their own existence.

This will become much better understand when who and what 'people' are, exactly, is discovered, or learned, and understood.

What does anyone gain from that?

For some adult human beings, if they think that they have 'won' some thing, then this gives them some sort of 'pleasure' or 'enjoyment'.

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?

Considering the irrefutable Fact that absolutely every one has absolutely nothing at all to 'judge' another one on, except on one's own 'past experiences', alone, 'judging' another could not be a more Wrong thing to do, in Life.

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.

The only True, or perfect, 'Philosophers' are each and every new born child. From then, it could be argued, it is all downhill. That is, of course, until human beings start learning how to Truly look and Truly listen again, from the Truly OPEN perspective, and thus do actually learn what is actually True, and Right, in Life.

By the way, all adult human beings can, and will, learn far more about 'Life', and living, Itself, in and from the most Truly 'meaningful perspective', from new born human beings, then they could ever learn from anyone else or each other.

I say 'may'.

A perfect 'Philosopher' never 'judges' another. And, an adult perfect 'Philosopher' never does because they already know, exactly, how and why every one is, exactly, the way they are.

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.

It is not just perfectly great that you are sharing 'your views' from what 'you' have previously experienced, but it also very good for 'you' and others as well.

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.

But there is not an adult human being, in the days when this is being written anyway, without 'issues'.

Or maybe they are a troll." I just couldn't figure it out. Why was nobody saying something about it.

Mostly because they are doing whatever they can to so-call 'win', "themselves".

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.

'The world', in which you are living in 'now', or 'currently', is the result of 'a world', which 'taught' its young to 'pick a side/view', and 'fight till the death', for that 'side' or for that 'view'/belief.

So anyway, this is a different forum, and I am hoping so much that people will be more respectful, kinder and open minded.

I am sad to say, I think you might even find this forum somewhat more disrespectful, less kinder, and maybe even more closed, as in this forum, as far as most of 'us' here have discovered, is the only forum where we do not get 'moderated' and/or kicked out of.

Which, in a sense, could eventually result in far more respectful, kinder, peaceful, and OPEN discussions, and even to 'logical reasoning', itself.

Of course, we are not going to all agree on everything,

But, there are some things, which 'we' all do agree on, and even accept, and when 'we' finally get to 'these things', then 'we' will also know what is Truly Right, and Correct, in Life.

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.

To 'work out' what one 'believes' I would suggest just asking "yourself", 'What are things that I do 'believe'?' Or, an even better way I found is absolutely any and every 'view' I have, or with each and every 'thought' that arises, again question "yourself", but this time ask, 'Do I 'believe' this to be true, or do I just 'think' this to be true?'

Then you can work on what you 'know' to be true, which is even different again.

But, having the 'love-of-wisdom', within, and the True desire to just keep learning more and more, anew and anewer, which just comes from having a 'love-of-learning', within, which is what is being Truly wise is, exactly, and from where 'wisdom', itself, actually comes from is done, best, exactly like you said and wrote here, From just hearing other's views, and from being able to look at things from all angles as well, then one cannot stop learning, and thus cannot also stop becoming 'wiser'. Which is just what 'philosophy' once used to mean.

We may not all agree, but everyone has a right to their opinions, and this should be mutually respected... in my view.

I would just disagree that not everyone as a 'right' to their opinions, if 'their opinions' involve the abuse of any thing.

Now, of course, every one, 'old enough' to have opinions, will have opinions, but no one has a 'right' to any opinion if 'that opinion' will lead to the harm or damage of any other one/thing.

You said a lot here. Thank you so much for your respectful and thought-provoking response. As I read through, there were lots of things that sprang into my mind. I will start, for now, with this though, just because it is something that also occurred to me, and something that I am not sure I have exactly figured out yet. I am hoping that by discussing it, I will perhaps get closer to an answer.

I would just disagree that not everyone as a 'right' to their opinions, if 'their opinions' involve the abuse of any thing.

Now, of course, every one, 'old enough' to have opinions, will have opinions, but no one has a 'right' to any opinion if 'that opinion' will lead to the harm or damage of any other one/thing.

So, something occurred to me when I thought about responding to the insulting comments I mentioned in the other forum: am I just doing the same as them?

That would all depend on how you respond.

If you are just pointing out, 'what you consider to be insulting comments', then you are not doing 'the same' as them. But, obviously, if you respond in any way 'insultingly', then yes you would be doing 'the same', correct?

I was initially angry and upset, which is clearly never a good basis for rational thought.

This could be disagreed with. In that 'feeling' angry and/or upset, or 'feeling' any of the other 450 or so 'emotions' is always perfectly normal, and acceptable. There is absolutely no logical reason to try to ignore any nor all emotions and absolutely no good reason to not accept how one is 'feeling'. However, and as you alluded to just here 'reacting' on 'emotions' and not on 'rational thinking' is never a good idea.

'Being angry' or 'being upset' is also very, very different from just recognizing 'an emotion' within, or an 'underlying emotion'. And, from just recognizing how one is 'feeling', within, without 'reacting' to 'that feeling' can actually produce some very rational thinking. This is because each and all 'internal feelings/emotions' are always just a 'signal', or a 'sign post', of what is going on around 'you'. To me, all of these 'internal signals' are always best recognized, noticed, and used to change, or keep, 'the environment' in one has found "them" 'self' within.

To vent this, I wrote a response, but decided not to post it. I would sleep on it and see what my thoughts were about it all the next day. The next day, I had calmed down and started to wonder if maybe they were a troll, or maybe they were vulnerable or something like that, and perhaps I should not post the comment because it was too harsh etc

Also, always remember that what 'you perceive' can always be what was actually never intended nor meant, at all.

For example, if I say someone is being 'stupid' here, this is in no way an insult at all. I am just expressing that that one is just being CLOSED, instead of just being OPEN. This is because, well to me anyway, being OPEN is just being Intelligent, and the opposite of being Intelligent is just being stupid, or in other words just being CLOSED.

So, I am not intending to insult that one. I am just saying and presenting what they are doing, from my perspective alone.

Now, if absolutely any one wants to interpret what I am saying, intending, and/or meaning in absolutely any way at all, then they are perfectly free to do so. But, as I have continually suggested here, and which I have found far better in learning, and understanding, more and anew, is to just seek actual clarity, before one begins to presume and especially before beginning to believe, any thing at all.

That way the chances of Wrong emotions arising, and the following mis/behaviors from occurring are considerably diminished.

Just to make it clear, there was no name calling on my part, but I made it clear that the decent thing to do would be to respect others etc (I admit, there was a bit of sarcasm in there too, which was perhaps not good to put in. But I was trying to get my point across, and that’s partly the way it came out.)

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).

'Each to their own', as the saying goes.

Furthermore, it is a lot harder to 'teach' some thing to someone who already presumes or believes that they already know what is 'right' in Life, than it is to someone who is wanting to learn more, and become wiser.

However, when yet another person was basically doing the same thing and throwing out insults to all the people who had contributed to the discussion, first, I was upset, then, I was sad, then, I felt like giving up, but lastly, I reasoned that I should post the comment that I wrote that tried to highlight the negative effects on others of what they were doing, not to win an argument, or to appear to be better than them, but to simply be a positive voice out there for decency and compassion.

I do not see absolutely any thing wrong here in what you were doing, and did.

Firstly, noticing and recognizing the actual emotions within, as they arise, is a very good thing to do. Then expressing how you 'felt' and the reasons 'why' is about all one can ever really do.

How your views are then taken and/or accepted or not is not up to you at all. Although you can keep remaining OPEN to keep learning how to communicate better with 'these people'.

Who knows, it may have a positive impact on someone. It just sort of seemed like the right thing to do.

Remember that what they were doing, which you considered was not decent or not respectful, can actually have a 'positive' impact on you also. As you can keep learning, and thus keep 'growing' properly from 'that', and thus keep becoming 'wiser'.

Then, when I wrote the last part of my first post on this thread,

We may not all agree, but everyone has a right to their opinions, and this should be mutually respected... in my view.

Do you really think that 'the opinion' that all "palestinians" and/or all "Israelis" should really be 'mutually respected'?

To me, absolutely any and every 'opinion' comes from what 'a body' has previously experienced, and what every body has experienced, no one had absolutely no control over. So, in this sense, I agree, wholeheartedly, that because all opinions are based on this Fact alone, then it would be much better if 'we' all 'mutually respected' where opinions came from, exactly. But, I do not agree that all opinions, themselves, each be 'mutually respected'.

I thought to myself that the last part ‘…in my view’ seems a bit odd, or contradictory, to put on the end. This is because obviously I have very strong views on respect, being kind and compassionate (And before anyone thinks the wrong thing, no, I do not think I am the epitome of kindness, compassion and respect. I am human and have my flaws. I wish I didn’t, and I try not to.

Then, and especially when you know you have so-called 'flaws', I suggest 'you' correct 'those', alone, instead of trying to correct 'the flaws' others have.

For example, once you admit your own personal flaws, look into why you still have them, and, where they came from, exactly, then you can get rid of them, properly and correct. See, once you learn why some thing comes about, then you can prevent that/them from arising again. Prevention is always better than the cure. And, prevention is actually the best and on real cure anyway.

Also, and by the way, once you learn how and why 'you' are, exactly, then you will also learn who and what 'you' are, exactly, and then, and only then, you can Truly help others 'to be' the way that 'you' want everyone 'to be'.

Which, by the way, it will become known, soon enough, is the exact same way that absolutely everyone wants each and everyone of 'us' 'to be', anyway.

All I can do, or anyone really, is try to be better, wiser, kinder etc)

If and when any one Truly wants to just become 'better', and does what it takes to do so, then they will, very naturally, just become kinder and wiser, anyway.

So, anyway, I thought that by adding, “in my view” it may have taken value away from what I was advocating: for people to be respectful. But then I thought that I was also advocating for people to respect other’s views, so if I just say all I think, and then make it out to be a fact, then aren’t I being as ‘bad’ as them?

Presenting absolutely any and every view, with the words, 'In my view ...', or 'I think ...', instead of, 'I believe ...', or as though 'your view' is an already agreed upon and known fact, will always be much better and will lead to much more conducive discussions.

Although saying, writing, reading, and/or hearing the same thing over and over is not necessarily a practical nor productive thing to do. If, however, from the outset of any discourse one was to just make it known that every expressed view is just what 'I think' or is just what is 'In my view', which can always be false, wrong, inaccurate, or incorrect in one way or another. And, if explained, from the outset, that 'that one' would also love to be shown where and why 'i' am wrong and what is actually correct, then surely this would help in reducing, any way, insults and the fighting and bickering that comes with one is believing that they are right, or know best, and/or are fight for their own particular 'position'.
So, I do, of course, agree with this very much:

no one has a 'right' to any opinion if 'that opinion' will lead to the harm or damage of any other one/thing.

But the problem I come across is this: okay, it is easy to vehemently say, no one has a right to agree with chopping babies heads off. Of course, that is an extreme. Almost everyone, or at least most people (I would hope) would agree with that (OOOH I may have found something we can all finally agree on!

There are actually more things that absolutely everyone can and does agree on and accept.

Oh no ☹ someone is going to say that someone else on here would like to chop babies heads off. Darn it. I failed) But anyway, somewhere along the spectrum of people being harmful, as we get closer to normality, there is a very fine line. It seems to me to be very difficult to find and draw that line without being as judgmental as the people that we are disagreeing with for being judgmental. Is the answer to just say that everyone has a right to an opinion? How can we judge who does, and who doesn't?

Opinions, themselves, exist. No matter how many people say that 'we' or 'others' have a right to an opinion.

So, opinions exist. Now, would it be better if 'we' all just accepted this, and moved along here?

While I do think a line should be drawn, I am not certain how it can be done.

'The line' is 'drawn' by absolutely every one, collectively. That is how 'a line' is drawn.

This will become much clearer as 'we' proceed here.

I hope all of this makes sense.

So far. I will just ask a clarification question, if I need to make more sense of 'where' you are 'coming from', exactly.

[Age]

So, for giggles, I might let them win because I will make the cost of linking wisdom to philosophy for those people such that they can only win by renouncing both their own wisdom and their own philosophy.

Talk about not just answering the actual question posed, and asked to you, and going off on appearing to be very confused and conflated tangents here.

All you were only asked for clarification here "flashdangerpants" was on:

What are your views on how people 'do philosophy'?

And,or

What does 'doing philosophy' entail?

You should learn to read the whole of the post before you start replying to each sentence as a set of unrelated parts.

And, it could just as easily and simply also be said, 'you should learn to read the whole of the thread before you start replying to each post as a set of unrelated parts.

But, 'each to their own', as some say.

In that short post I casually threw together a rough philosophical argument

Here we can see, once again, the use of words, as though the one who is using them knows what they are saying.

If you called what you 'threw together' a 'philosophical argument' when you have specifically claimed that 'philosophy' is a 'rigorous field of study', then how, exactly, do those two 'link together'?

If 'philosophy' is a 'rigorous field of study', to you, then your 'threw together' 'philosophical argument' would be a 'rigorous field of study argument', correct?

If no, then what does 'philosophical argument' mean to you, exactly, "flashdangerpants"?

in support of my position that philosophy is not usefully to be described as a 'love of wisdom' and briefly sketched a more realistic position that it is a branch of logic in which a set of small logical tools are used to assemble and disassemble arguments on a wide variety of subjects.

So, supposedly you used a 'branch of logic argument', that is; a 'philosophical argument', to you, to support your own personal belief and position that the word 'philosophy' is not useful to you anymore, from what that word actually derived from and once actually meant.

And, calling your own view and position a 'more realistic one' just shows how Truly CLOSED you are here, to what you already believe is true.

Look, the word 'philosophy' came from the word 'philosophia', which literally means 'love of wisdom'.

Now, if you do not find 'this' very useful, to you, then so be it. But, trying to claim that you have so-called 'philosophically argued' for your own definition and/or position, then the only one you are fooling and deceiving here is "yourself" "flashdangerpants".

Then, I quickly looked at a plausible basic definition of wisdom to draw a distinction, but also to set up the finale in which a dilemma is presented leading to a no-win position for whoever argues against me as they would be required to undermine their own position to overcome mine.

But your own position, is yours alone. Which, in the scheme of things, means literally relatively absolutely nothing at all here.

Also, what is your 'plausible basic definition' of 'wisdom' anyway, exactly?

It doesn't matter that it isn't very good philosophy, it's just a dumb thing that I made up on the fly to show what the activity of doing philosophy looks like in general. Thus answering the exact question that you think I ignored because you don't really stop to think about things you read.

What?

So, you supposedly provided 'us' with a so-called 'dumb thing' that you just made up, 'on the fly', as you say, to show 'us' what the supposed 'activity of doing philosophy', looks like, in general.

Now, how exactly is 'doing a dumb thing', which you appear to now believe what 'doing philosophy' is exactly, somehow 'more useful' then what you were claiming was 'not useful' before?

You see Ken, in a show versus tell game, I can show what doing philosophy is like with a casual demonstration.

So, how, exactly, 'doing philosophy', to you, which you believe is an 'actual thing' useful in any way in Life?

You can only tell us that one day future generations will visit this site to find out how you became the greatest.

Once again, you have gone completely off-topic here.

Now, why is 'this', supposedly and allegedly, the only thing that I can do?

And, why do you have a fascination about 'me' becoming some so-called 'greatest'?

Also, what is the 'greatest' word here even in relation to, exactly?

You've never shown anything.

Okay, if this is what you say and believe is true, then this must be true, right?

Oh, and by the way, you might be 'showing' here, exactly, what I wanted to be 'seen', and understood.

[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. Some of them even seem to be actively schizophrenic. Age is a particularly bad one, I suggest you avoid that one. So real philosophical debates are rare, but this forum also has some better thinkers here and there. Here you will probably also encounter more interesting, outside the box ideas than on other forums.

[Wizard22]

Okay, I'd like to hear your views on this. I'm genuinely wondering what your views are on how people do philosophy. What does it entail?

NB Please don't call me names. I do not intend to call you names. I'd love for people to simply be nicer to each other on this forum. (I may be stupid and deluded, but I can live in hope. There, for anyone intending to call me 'stupid', you're too late; I got in there first. Now, can we perhaps dispense with all the insults and maybe just converse?)

FlashDpants basically just proved your point, and my response, quickly in this thread. So you were right, friend, and I was right too. Dpants is exactly the type of wannabe-"thinker" that does not deserve Respect. He's not intellectually-honest, which is why he goes around character-assassinating, attacking reputations, slandering, gaslighting, insulting, etc. because his "arguments" always fail on merit. He cannot debate honestly, with integrity, and so he resorts to emotional manipulation and personal Ad Hom attacks.

He poisons the well, as his kindred is so quick to resort to. But, I don't let a bad apple spoil the bunch. Just because Dpants is an idiot, I won't hold that against the rest of his tribe.

[Wizard22]

By the way, friendo, if you want the philosophy, then you either 1) have to make it yourself, or 2) depend upon another to make it for you.

So what's it gonna be, huh, huh? Make it? Or take it?

[FlashDangerpants]

Talk about not just answering the actual question posed, and asked to you, and going off on appearing to be very confused and conflated tangents here.

All you were only asked for clarification here "flashdangerpants" was on:

What are your views on how people 'do philosophy'?

And,or

What does 'doing philosophy' entail?

You should learn to read the whole of the post before you start replying to each sentence as a set of unrelated parts.

And, it could just as easily and simply also be said, 'you should learn to read the whole of the thread before you start replying to each post as a set of unrelated parts.

But, 'each to their own', as some say.

In that short post I casually threw together a rough philosophical argument

Here we can see, once again, the use of words, as though the one who is using them knows what they are saying.

If you called what you 'threw together' a 'philosophical argument' when you have specifically claimed that 'philosophy' is a 'rigorous field of study', then how, exactly, do those two 'link together'?

Mathematics is rigorous field of study. Sudoku is a trivial maths game.

That's as much answer as you need, I am bored of you now. Play with someone else.

[FlashDangerpants]

Okay, I'd like to hear your views on this. I'm genuinely wondering what your views are on how people do philosophy. What does it entail?

NB Please don't call me names. I do not intend to call you names. I'd love for people to simply be nicer to each other on this forum. (I may be stupid and deluded, but I can live in hope. There, for anyone intending to call me 'stupid', you're too late; I got in there first. Now, can we perhaps dispense with all the insults and maybe just converse?)

FlashDpants basically just proved your point, and my response, quickly in this thread. So you were right, friend, and I was right too. Dpants is exactly the type of wannabe-"thinker" that does not deserve Respect. He's not intellectually-honest, which is why he goes around character-assassinating, attacking reputations, slandering, gaslighting, insulting, etc. because his "arguments" always fail on merit. He cannot debate honestly, with integrity, and so he resorts to emotional manipulation and personal Ad Hom attacks.

He poisons the well, as his kindred is so quick to resort to. But, I don't let a bad apple spoil the bunch. Just because Dpants is an idiot, I won't hold that against the rest of his tribe.

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?