The draft thread.
From personal experience, I feel as though many times we have philosophical thoughts pop up in our heads; but, then fleet away or need some guidance or template to structure them into some holistic manner.
So, I was hoping someone could come up with a thread where we could share philosophical thoughts about any matter or issue and correspond with the poster to better develop and actualize the thought or lingering pre-linguistic feelings.
If anyone has any ideas or whether this will be of any benefit, please let us know.
My hope is that people could better structure philosophical arguments of sort and possibly the moderators would have less work to do, as everything would be posted in one thread until the thought is formalized in some manner or fashion and then posted into a separate thread. To some extent the Shoutbox serves this function; but, I want there to be a thread where this goal is apparent and formalized. Think of it as a brainstorming thread if not a draft or something of that sort.
Thanks!
So, I was hoping someone could come up with a thread where we could share philosophical thoughts about any matter or issue and correspond with the poster to better develop and actualize the thought or lingering pre-linguistic feelings.
If anyone has any ideas or whether this will be of any benefit, please let us know.
My hope is that people could better structure philosophical arguments of sort and possibly the moderators would have less work to do, as everything would be posted in one thread until the thought is formalized in some manner or fashion and then posted into a separate thread. To some extent the Shoutbox serves this function; but, I want there to be a thread where this goal is apparent and formalized. Think of it as a brainstorming thread if not a draft or something of that sort.
Thanks!
Comments (83)
It could be useful for more serious stuff that usually ends up mixed into the Shoutbox and that has the potential for a good OP. So, yes, let's see how it goes. :up:
Untitled.
As Martin Luther Wittgenstein once said, 'I have a beetle...'
There will be no argument here. Some may think that where there is no argument, there is no philosophy. Hume and I beg to differ.
[Quote=Hume]Reason is, and ought only to be the slave of the passions, and can never pretend to any other office than to serve and obey them.[/quote]
So what follows is not an argument, and not even exactly a description, but an invocation, beetle to beetle, of the religious impulse that is alleged to lie in all men. There will be no facts to dispute, no doctrine, no prescription; feel something, or not.
Hymn.
The lesson is taken from the Gospel of Meno:
[quote=Plato]Meno: And how are you going to search for [the nature of virtue] when you don't know at all what it is, Socrates? Which of all the things you don't know will you set up as target for your search? And even if you actually come across it, how will you know that it is that thing which you don't know?[/quote]
Everybody knows the secret, but we have forgotten it. Facts about the world accumulate in the mind and in books and theories and practices. And jolly useful and entertaining they are too, but there is also the psyche, and what is there has always been there, and one is mindful of it or not. Well this is a story we have told ourselves at any rate. And if one does not like the story of anamnesis in relation to science, there is still some room for it in its original place, unless and until science has discovered the good particle.
Or we could say that the source of judgement is always present, acknowledged or not, and that it is other. Other, in the first place from my desires and preferences, other in fact from my self. However, in saying, or rather feeling this, there is a danger of externalising it. The horrors of righteousness follow quickly from this objectified other - my judgement becomes the Word of God to be imposed on you. Don't go there, because that is living in the presence of the devil.
To live in the presence of the Lord is something else entirely. It is always only oneself that is judged.
Hymn.
All of science and all of religion have not saved a single life. It is sometimes proposed that it is the awareness of personal mortality that distinguishes the human from the animal, though elephants and whales dispute this. Anyway, it is there, and we are aware; we will be laid low. So from elsewhere, from an other place, one judges this to be a thing of beauty, a salvation from the suffering self. All that I needed, all that I wanted I have already, gratis - is it a madness, or is it a connection with that other?
Hymn.
I love the ambiguity, the multiple meanings. Like laying down a track in the recording studio, make something of your life, and there again, relinquish that 'me' while you have the chance. And again, have that physical relationship with your lover again, before it's too late.
I have a dream, that our dreams are entwined together... that everybody knows the secret...
:up: Nice! Seems about right to me. But then, I have been eating mushrooms i picked in the backyard. :starstruck:
In general, I find that if half of me says something is too much and the other half says it is not enough, then it’s probably just about right.
Great idea! Kind of a thread nursery or nest until they are ready to fly off on their own. Like a good little crow, owl, or piglet.
You present a deep issue here. There seems to be a conundrum of sorts, which I surmise the general philosophical idea is whether psychology and feelings can be formalized in general into a coherent manner or what frame of reference ought we assume when talking about psychological matters as if the deep psychological claims made by a person are truth apt? Is that correct, according to the Humean quote?
Many people tend to brush aside these issues, due to the above quasi private content of the mind or 'psychology'. It is in some sense an insurmountable obstacle that there never can be any authority in matters pertaining the psyche, unless we're talking about "God" here.
Uhh, yea I guess. Haha.
I think Hume's point is that you have to give a shit (or not) whether feelings can be formalised before you set about formalising them. Feelings are prior to philosophy and prior to psychology. One might say, to put it controversially, that the philosopher worships truth. The way I put it previously is that something, some principle or other has to be at the centre of one's life, has to be the most important, and that might be truth, or love, or justice, or oneself, or nothing, or whatever. And that is one's god. Whatever it is, though, it is a matter of feeling, of passion, of giving a damn about something. That is the beginning. Even the most radical nihilist or antinatalist gives a damn, or does not speak. The motive must come first, before reason.
So, you're talking about ideologies then? What if someone disregards all of them? Quietude and stillness ensues? Is that the point?
Those are automatic/involuntary responses, they don't factor into the discussion, I think.
Why don't they? Perhaps you worship freedom?
Since we fleshed out all the nuances of your draft, why not start a topic then? Shall we?
I'm tired of all this Witty worship.
Quoting I'm no longer 'here'
If life after death exists, it doesn't necessarily solve any problem; the problem is that there are no problems to be solved; the problem is beginning with the assumption that there are problems to be solved. Life after death says nothing of problems that need solving. Is that trite enough for a Witty worshiper?
Quoting I'm no longer 'here'
Good on ya Witty! No complaints.
Quoting I'm no longer 'here'
No; existence is no mystery; existence is the beginning. Begin with existence (i.e. "the world") and then move out from there. What do you see in front of you? A computer screen which you're gawking at, mouth half open. Begin there.
Quoting I'm no longer 'here'
Life is religious. Atheism is religious. We talk about life: we talk about religion. Talk isn't the issue. Manner of life is essentially talk. What matters is what isn't expressed; the thing that manner doesn't express. That is universal religion.
If you use your helpfulness to others as a bridge to God, then you're not wise, not helpful, and not any closer to God.
Quoting I'm no longer 'here'
Possibly my favorite Witty quote.
Quoting I'm no longer 'here'
If this is true, then there are virtually no philosophers on this philosophy forum.
That's been ND's deranged screed of the week, thanks!
:fear:
Sorry you're sad, posty. Do you have any rebuttals? I'm happy to be put in my place if my ideas are terrible. It's possible that they are.
No, you're onto something with people using his profundity and intenseness as a veil of pretentiousness, I think.
Not feeling very philosophical today anyway so I don't have much to say.
That's the gist of my post; in both content, and, more importantly, in form.
Quoting Posty McPostface
Always willing to hear your thoughts, over here.
Thanks, I was once told by a teacher of philosophy upon being asked what would be good advice to adhere to if I wanted to delve into academia, was that she told me not to associate one's self or ego with philosophy.
Going deeper into the issue, is the deep dilemma of treating philsophy as a way of living whilst adherent to that sentiment. Trying to reconcile the two seemingly incompatible notions.
Quite difficult.
Profoundly difficult indeed.
To foolhardily hazard an answer, I see the paradox of "not associating the self/ego with philosophy", vs. "treating philosophy as a way of living" as being unified in an "intuitive" approach. I interpret "not associating the self/ego with philosophy" as an essentially mystical approach; an immanent experience that is pre-rational. The experience of "being" which is best accessed via meditation, art, and other pre-rational techniques. Then, "treating philosophy as a way of living" is the rational approach in which rational arguments are used (after intuition is used) in order to organize philosophical and ethical problems, etc. Just some thoughts.
I did with the prose of my initial post above. Having to spell it out kills the joke...
Anything ending with an 'ism, I suppose.
Read my initial post. What you're looking for is there. I'm guessing you just don't have the ironic sense to get it.
Sorry if that's a little harsh, but what you're asking for is there. That's all I mean.
Yeah, it's a hard one. I figure I'll meditate over it a little and see what I come up with. Feel free to start a topic if you're feeling inspired. I might, though I have no idea how to qualify the subject into a title. Any suggestions?
I'm not in any mindset to start any new threads for a good while; I only do that when I really have an un-scratchable itch. That's just me because I'm very much an autodidact; I know you like to start threads, so go for it if you feel inspired.
As to the topic of any potential thread...it's really not that far off from any other recent threads that deal with fundamentals. For me personally, it's an issue of intuition, which I've gotten into a lot of hot water for in the past. That's how I would personally approach it.
Good so far.
Quoting ?????????????
Correct. Why does it need to in order for me to agree with Posty's assertion that Witty worshipers can be pretentious?
From what I gather, you take an individualistic stance on philosophy. So, that assumption is put to question when I assert that everyone ought to derive their own philosophy, but not doing so by living by maxims and profound quotations made by other philosophers, yes?
Ah, you're right. Your rational faculties are sharper than mine; my imagination gets caught up, and I jump ahead.
But yes, my initial post does in fact contain examples of that pretentiousness. I invite you to use your imagination to ascertain them. They are there.
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/3614/academic-philosophy-and-philosophy-as-a-way-of-living
Still unsure about the title...
I concluded so with my commentary, and the admonishment that
Quoting Noble Dust
Jesus, lighten up man!
Where did you say you're not interested in Witty's pretentiousness, and where did you say you're not interested in my pretentiousness?
And no, I didn't mean that someone else providing those quotes is an example of that person's pretentiousness. God dude, what point are you making here? Do I nee to just spell my point out to you in kindergarden terms? Here it is: "Witty was great, but not that great. People worship Witty sometimes, and that's dumb."
I don't know. I'm just tilting at windmills here. Don't mind me.
A'ight brah, I'll spell it out since you have no imagination. I thought you did, since you have good taste in music, but you're apparently a robot: My commentary on the Witty quotes were written in a (pretty bad) Witty voice. That's it. That was the joke. Surprise!
Are you my ex? What are we arguing about? Will I ever be right? What point do you want to make? Make a philosophical point, my dude.
I think, I elucidated the matter in a short exchange with Noble Dust in the above referenced thread. If you want to continue this over, there I'd be glad to.
Can you, instead, provide examples of how Witty's trite quotes are examples of profound wisdom?
The matter of hiding behind a veil of quotes and/or maxims to justify one's prejudices or beliefs about the world or other people.
Quoting ?????????????
I'm not going to point fingers and say he did this or that. But, from my own experience, we use philosophers as crutches to stand on and justify our/my own beliefs about the world.
Quoting ?????????????
Isn't the fact that philosophers are quoted at length to support and entrench beliefs, as prime example of this?
So why are you a part of this discussion?
So you've never met a Witty fan who was a bit worshipful, right? The concept doesn't even remotely suggest a meme to you, right?
It can be. When does the referencing stop and authentic philosophy begin though, to put another way?
Sure, fire away.
Ah, so this is about @Posty McPostface and his love of Witty. You might have noticed that this entire exchange began with my commentary on the Witty quotes (made by someone else, a newbie), and then Posty's sad face emoji. The two of us began that exchange in good faith together after the sad face emoji; @Posty McPostface and myself immediately understood that there was some agreement and some disagreement between us; correct me if I'm wrong, Posty.
So why did you barge in? Again, what's your goal? I clearly described my goal to you, at the death of my clever Witty jokes. At least clearly demarcate your position in this discussion, jokes or no, so we understand ourselves better. By the way, I actually don't give a shit about this semantic battle. I'm just continuing it because I'm a vain son of a bitch who wants to be right. But please prove me wrong. Just let me know, clearly and concisely, just exactly what your stake is in this verbal battle.
Yeah, you are right. The sad face was the expression of awareness of my own hubris about being a Wittgenstein worshiper, haha. Though, I definitely wouldn't call it pretentiousness, maybe the early Wittgenstien though not the latter one.
Yeah, I certainly didn't mean to call you out as a Witty worshiper; I posted my commentary (of those quotes from a newbie) with no other reference whatsoever.
No worries dude. I don't take these matters as personal. It's philosophy not politics after all...
Wow, you're right. I'm a vain son of a bitch who's asking you questions in bad faith. I don't give a shit about this. Indeed, I'm only pretending to engage with the discussion; all because I want to be seen as right. I've totally missed how I'm wrong; that's because I'm a vain son of a bitch. And no, it's not about being right, but rather, about being seen as being right, which makes no sense.
:up:
Thumbs up as in you recognize that I'm arguing in good faith, and that we're talking past one another, right?
I literally have no idea how we got here.
And if you got bored by the sarcasm and irony, then you've missed the whole point of my initial post.
So, the whole point seems to me to be that I am too being pretentious in my worshipping of Wittgenstien. Is that correct?
No. As I already mentioned, my commentary had nothing to do with you personally. You brought yourself into the discussion by offering a sad emoji.
No, but, it does apply to me too as ????????????? is trying to point out... As he has stated that I am a prime example to this matter.
Again, I never mentioned you in this, in my first post. This whole thing is meaningless.
Oh, well. I don't mind either way.
What are we arguing about, philosophically?
Then according to you I am being pretentious. Fine, then.
Again, literally no one knows what you're arguing for right now.
Jesus, PMing you.
"Posty said you think he's being pretentious??" At least get your fucking grammar right.
Some interesting topic worthy questions from this discussion:
How to spot a pretentious philosopher?
When does worshiping a philosopher turn into pretentiousness?
How do you illustrate that someone is being pretentious if he or she worships a philosopher?
Does worshiping a philosopher necessarily mean that one is being pretentious, if so how?
When do you know your being pretentious?
And so on...
They know what you don't know.
Quoting Posty McPostface
When the worship begins.
Quoting Posty McPostface
In any number of ways, but any number of ways won't drive the point home until she's ready.
Quoting Posty McPostface
No, it just means one is badly mislead.
Quoting Posty McPostface
When you fake out on your own morals.
I have read a good proportion of witty's
Philosophy and, as many people might agree, his views on language, weren't very revealing of his religious views, - we do not even know if he really believed philosophy could be theological anymore. from what I could understand, his take on language and meaning in philosophical investigations can be said to be a form of therapy, in his words , it is addressed as a relief procedure for people/including himself who seemed to suffering from some sort from of "mental cramp". This was heroic of him, I mean, we all know how often we tend to shift from belief to disbelief, one stance on existence to another, one mental state to another ,so on and so forth. he was being pretty self critical of himself, indifferent to all those great philosopher-s before him, reduced philosophy to language analysis. What was more heroic, was that he wished to make people revise their perspectives, like for example, his nominalist perspective could help with the elimination of ontologies, which he would have called teleological fallacies , "The world is everything, that is the case", opinions aren't facts , meaning is use etc. These types of descriptions (if you have read the entire philosophical investigations) may in some cases said to be divine interpretations as they are logically sound and rare, judging everything - as universals.
That was Thrasymachus's doing. :)
Given that you probably had something to also do with @anti social sociopath, who sent me an ambiguous video "to share with my family", I think I've overstayed my stay here, along with with the above poster hiding as a moderator...
Thank you for making this place uncomfortable to further post in.
What? I moved this to help you. And I had nothing to do with anti social sociopath except to ban him/her for bothering you.
@I'm no longer 'here' is not a moderator by the way and apparently misunderstood your comment as applying to him/her. There is no conspiracy. That I know of...
Yeah, I think my health has taken a downturn. I need to focus on myself more. Until further notice take care. I'll just lurk from a safe distance.
Unenlightened told me your an OK dude. I need to chill, hate emotions and all that, haha.
Alright, cool. Hope you feel better later.
"Before the drone personnel at Creech make their way home, some drop by the Airman Ministry Center, a low-slung beige building equipped with a foosball table, some massage chairs and several rooms where pilots and sensor operators can talk with clergy. A chaplain named Zachary told me that what most burdened the airmen he spoke to was not PTSD; it was inner conflicts that weighed on the conscience. He mentioned one pilot he met with, who asked, “I’m just curious: What is Jesus going to say to me about all the killing I’ve done?” Despite their distance from the battlefield, drone operators’ constant exposure to “gut-wrenching” things they watched on-screen — sometimes resulting directly from their own split-second decisions, or conversely, from their inability to act — could cause them to lose their spiritual bearings and heighten their risk of sustaining a very different kind of battle scar: what some psychologists, as well as Zachary, have described as a “moral injury.”
Good Lord, I am so glad that my son attending a university that offers a degree in the field of drones, has resisted my encouragement to look into the program. What horrors these Drone Warriors envision sound equal to those in actual combat.
Quoting frank
At the time of the Civil War, Europe had long abandoned slavery and found it morally unacceptable. Lincoln's "emancipation" of the slaves was a political gesture, freeing only those slaves under the jurisdiction of the states in rebellion. If you look at the document, you will see that all the slaves within the northern states or in territories under control of the North were to remain slaves. The reason for that is that Lincoln lacked the power to decree anything over states not in rebellion as such would require an act of Congress (Lincoln submitted he had power under the Wars Power Clause to decree the property of the rebel states contraband (i.e. their slaves) and then to free them). The purpose of the Emancipation Proclamation was to end any hopes that the Confederacy would be permitted to negotiate peace with the help of Great Britain or France, the two world powers that would never negotiate with a state that promoted slavery. Prior to the EP, Lincoln was careful not to portray the war as one over slavery. The EP changed that and formally made the war one over slavery and it was done specifically to remove Great Britain's and France's involvement in the war.
The point of this is that the it was not a tiny minority that wanted to end slavery. It was the entire world minus the South and some small pockets among border states. Slavery did not end with the EP. It was the 13th Amendment that ended slavery, and that required a supermajority (not a tiny lunatic minority) of the states for passage.
The end of slavery did not end governmental institutionalized racism. That took almost 100 more years to happen. It was not envisioned at that moment in time that blacks would be treated in society just like white people. It was only envisioned that slavery would end.
The not so subtle distinction between Trump and Brexit is that in neither instance was there the systematic murder of a race of people. Comparing the two isn't clarifying hyperbole, but offensive ignorance, drowning whatever point you could possibly be intending to make. Trump isn't like Hitler. America is not like Nazi Germany. England is not like Nazi Germany. Obvious statements really, but for some reason you feel the need to disagree.
Here's what you said:
Quoting frank
My point was (1) Lincoln didn't emancipate the slaves. He declared the slaves free in the areas where he had no jurisdiction. I also pointed out that it was the 13th Amendment that freed the slaves. (2) Lincoln's view to end slavery was not part of a lunatic fringe. It was mainstream and supported by a supermajority even in the US (thus the passage of the 13th Amendment) (3) Lincoln did not want to give blacks the full rights of citizenship, and in fact there remained Jim Crow laws some 100 years thereafter. (4) The reasons behind Lincoln's decision to present the EP is well documented and we need not resort to speculation. He presented it to end European meddling in the war and he specifically waited until an opportune time (specifically when the army of the Potomac was able to defend the capital following the battle of Antietam).
This strikes me as directly responsive to all the points in your post and your subsequent post strikes me as inability to respond.
What? The British gave aid to the Confederacy. They were fully aware that the point of the Confederacy was to become an independent slave nation, and they would have barreled over the Atlantic playing Rule Britannia to preside over a ceremony to permanently divide their former colonies, EP or not.
What we know is that Lincoln had a conversation with Charles Sumner prior to issuing it. Sumner told Lincoln that if the war ended and slavery continued, future generations would be doomed to revisit the same struggle. The EP was issued on the assumption that it would undermine the South's ability to wage war.
Brazil didn’t end slavery until 1888. The Ottoman Empire: around 1871, but slavery continued there until the early 20th Century. The Russians abolished slavery in 1861. Britain: 1834. Guess when Saudi Arabia outlawed slavery?
The particular challenge of Americans was the prospect of becoming a multi-racial society post freedom. Anti-Slavery was prominent in the North, but they advocated sending the freed slaves to Haiti or Africa.
They most certainly did not advocate freeing the slaves prior to locating the money to deport them.
Historians tell us those funds did not exist. This is why Anti-Slavery was prone to apathy and just wanting to maintain the status quo. We see what they were really thinking when all the experienced politicians around Lincoln advised him to give a speech offering a constitutional amendment permanently protecting slavery in the South in order to avoid war.
American abolitionists (3-5% of the white American population) did advocate freeing the slaves ASAP and offering citizenship and suffrage.
There were other things you said that were wrong. Stop makin' shit up.
He struggled vigorously to achieve black citizenship. He used war power to start the process in the south since northerners initially rejected the idea.
Jim Crow was a result of an event that started in the 1890s. How do you live in Atlanta and you don't know what happened? You're oblivious to the history of your own home.
Now I get why you're so nonchalant about the Nazi side of the Republican party. You don't know what happened in the Southeast. You don't realize that fascism was actually invented here: right under your feet.
England could not intervene in the war once the EP was issued because by potraying the war as about slavery and not protecting the union, England could not support the South.
"When the Civil War became about slavery -- not just union -- Great Britain could not morally recognize the South or intervene in the war. To do so would be diplomatically hypocritical." www.thoughtco.com/emancipation-proclamation-was-also-foreign-policy-3310345
It's basic stuff: https://www.readthespirit.com/ourvalues/wait-abe-lincoln-wait-free-slaves/
The delay of issuing the EP until after Antietam was to assure it was on the heels of a victory (however slight) and it assured lack of negotiation with England and France as diplomatic rules forbade negotiating with those states incapable of consistently protecting their borders. Very basic stuff. But keep arguing. Whatever. Look it up.
Quoting frank
Secession occured after Lincoln's election but before his inaugaration. When was he going to argue for an Amendment? After the South seceded? My understanding is that he was fighting for an Amendment prior to the war's end, but I don't follow what you're saying here.
Hanover. Read your own link. It lays out speculations about his reasoning. As I initially said: that's all we have. He wasn't a writer. It was his decision alone, and he didn't tell what he was thinking. Could it have had something to do with Britain? Maybe. We know he would have framed it as being about the war effort because otherwise it would have been unconstitutional. What I was focusing on was that the vast majority of American citizens could not imagine a multi-racial society prior to the war. Word was that it would be disastrous to try it. He forged ahead anyway.
Quoting Hanover
So again, this is showing that you have never read a history of the Civil War. WTF?
What I'm more interested in now is your failure to understand the history of Jim Crow. Standing governments being run out of town. Thugs being hired to terrorize both blacks and whites in order to reverse all the progress blacks had made and make it impossible for them to vote. You need to get a clue.
Anyway, it's a topic that originated in this thread,
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/5506/what-is-your-gripe-with-psychologypsychiatry-ask-the-clinical-psychologist
I asked Anaxagoras the following question, which I think is a topic worthy:
Quoting Wallows
So, this idea originally got bestowed upon me from watching a BigThink video about the psychologist explaining the fact that people go about treating depression as a social issue in other countries. The example provided was of a Cambodian farmer stepping on a land mine and losing his ability to farm. Following this, he developed a generic case of depression due to losing his livelihood and ability to function. The doctors listened to his problems and instead of prescribing him an antidepressant, took a more pragmatic approach and bought him a dairy cow. His depression abated and he was able soon to start a dairy farm with his impediment.
Now, taking this concept of psychiatry and psychology as treating problems and not symptoms, how far can we take this idea and implement it in places like the US? That is, to treat an issue as a social problem that an individual has?
Not sure how to proceed with formulating this view; but, that's the template. Any ideas thoughts and criticisms welcome.