Suggestions
Here are a few suggestions for improving the quality of the forum.
1) Rename the Lounge as Conversations, and then put all the threads filled with quick back and forth in there, that is, most of the threads on the forum. Make a single safe place for all of us to fire off our insanely clever little one liner gotcha come back blurb thingies as fast as we can type. But don't confuse such day to day conversational patterns with philosophy by allowing such exchanges to dominate the forum. Make this section readable only by registered members, as I think may already be the case.
2) Make the Articles section the dominant section of the forum. This is what new visitors should see upon visiting the forum. The point here is to elevate the standards for the most visible section of the forum, thus attracting new high quality members. If we are serious about attracting the most interesting thinkers and writers, we shouldn't be requiring them to wade through tons of threads which are below their level of ability for the simple reason that they won't bother.
3) Standardize the format for articles. As example, each article should be required to begin with a title which summarizes the goal of the article in a single sentence. Below the title should be a one paragraph summary which expands on the title a bit. Perhaps arguments within the article can be numbered. Such a format would both help readers immediately identify what the article is about, and more importantly perhaps, require authors to think more carefully about what they wish to share.
4) New article submissions should go first to an editor for review. If the submission passes review it goes in the Articles section. If it doesn't meet the defined standards for articles, it goes in the Conversation area.
5) Change the primary focus of the forum from the "water cooler model" to the "magazine model". The Conversation area is for free speech and democratic inclusion, ie. the water cooler model. The priority for the Article area is quality of thinking and writing, ie. the philosophy magazine model. Everybody is free to submit articles to the editor, but only the best get published.
6) A major focus of the community should be to find new interesting participants. Everyone can participate in this project. It's either that, or you can read me blab on about the "nature of thought" five thousand more times until you die of incurable boredom. :-) Seriously, quality new members are in every one's interests, so this could be a project we can unite around.
7) All of the above is totally wrong, it's bad, it's idiotic, it will never work, it will never happen, there are too many problems to begin to list, and it's simply literally impossible for anyone to make any suggestion about the forum which the mods and other members have not already thought of years ago. This forum must exactly mimic the format of all other forums on the Internet and no other configuration is desirable, possible, or moral. :-)
1) Rename the Lounge as Conversations, and then put all the threads filled with quick back and forth in there, that is, most of the threads on the forum. Make a single safe place for all of us to fire off our insanely clever little one liner gotcha come back blurb thingies as fast as we can type. But don't confuse such day to day conversational patterns with philosophy by allowing such exchanges to dominate the forum. Make this section readable only by registered members, as I think may already be the case.
2) Make the Articles section the dominant section of the forum. This is what new visitors should see upon visiting the forum. The point here is to elevate the standards for the most visible section of the forum, thus attracting new high quality members. If we are serious about attracting the most interesting thinkers and writers, we shouldn't be requiring them to wade through tons of threads which are below their level of ability for the simple reason that they won't bother.
3) Standardize the format for articles. As example, each article should be required to begin with a title which summarizes the goal of the article in a single sentence. Below the title should be a one paragraph summary which expands on the title a bit. Perhaps arguments within the article can be numbered. Such a format would both help readers immediately identify what the article is about, and more importantly perhaps, require authors to think more carefully about what they wish to share.
4) New article submissions should go first to an editor for review. If the submission passes review it goes in the Articles section. If it doesn't meet the defined standards for articles, it goes in the Conversation area.
5) Change the primary focus of the forum from the "water cooler model" to the "magazine model". The Conversation area is for free speech and democratic inclusion, ie. the water cooler model. The priority for the Article area is quality of thinking and writing, ie. the philosophy magazine model. Everybody is free to submit articles to the editor, but only the best get published.
6) A major focus of the community should be to find new interesting participants. Everyone can participate in this project. It's either that, or you can read me blab on about the "nature of thought" five thousand more times until you die of incurable boredom. :-) Seriously, quality new members are in every one's interests, so this could be a project we can unite around.
7) All of the above is totally wrong, it's bad, it's idiotic, it will never work, it will never happen, there are too many problems to begin to list, and it's simply literally impossible for anyone to make any suggestion about the forum which the mods and other members have not already thought of years ago. This forum must exactly mimic the format of all other forums on the Internet and no other configuration is desirable, possible, or moral. :-)
Comments (83)
I think that the suggestions you make would be the worst possibility, mainly the idea of dividing it into accepted articles and conversations. This is because it would mean that any full discussion would have to be approved officially, almost like having to get published. All else would be just seen as conversation and just be lounge material, as if encouraging only superficial material.
I would also say that the idea of articles depends on what device you are reading them from. When I am reading on my phone the font on the couple of articles was not easy to read at all.
I have looked at some other forums and not bothered to join because they seem to have less freedom than this one. I am worried that you are seeking to divide 'quality' which weaves in and out of discussion. It would also create a hierarchy or division between the writers of articles and those who are just in conversations.
As far as new members are concerned they can obviously decide for themselves if they want to participate but the main thing I believe is that they feel listened to. I think I was fortunate that in the first few times I logged in I was treated with some sensitivity. I think that the main thing is that we listen to what people are saying, especially with people who are new to the site.
Quoting Jack Cummins
Yes, exactly like having to get published. Thus, the editor(s) will be careful about what articles they publish, as they should be. There's no way around this. If the goal is quality, there has to be editing. There is no magic bullet solution which will inspire the best writers to participate here while allowing everyone and anyone to say whatever they want.
If editing the conversations under an article is considered too time consuming for staff, it may be possible to make the article writer the mod of that thread, thus shifting the burden of editing comments on to them as a condition of being published prominently. If they drop the ball or wander off etc, then their future articles may be declined.
Quoting Jack Cummins
In my proposal there would still be plenty of freedom, in the Conversation area. Nobody is taking away freedom, we just wouldn't be rewarding mediocre and worse content by giving it prominent display.
We might keep this in mind. This is a particular kind of forum. A philosophy forum. Not just any forum. A philosophy forum.
My suggestions above would not be appropriate on the vast majority of forums. Who needs editors on a Britney Spears fan club forum?
Also, food for thought. If we were challenged to raise our game to the very best that we can do, and were rewarded when we succeeded, we just might become better writers.
I am not saying that I don't want to see quality material but that in having to submit work it would destroy all the spontaneity and probably drive many away. I would certainly not have taken part in the site at all if it had been devised in this way because I do not see myself as a professional and would not have the confidence to submit. It would be like submitting for 'Philosophy Now'. Yes, I could have taken part in the lounge conversations but I probably would not have bothered because it would be just like being a nobody in the audience.
If everything had to be scrutinised, who would do it.?There are the moderators but they would be working night and day, so who we become the new judges. If it became established members of the site that would certainly be elitist, even if it were just the moderators, and it could become a clique.
I would say that I do think we should do the best we can but I do believe that it is not just about writing fully fledged articles, but involving others in collaborative discussions because philosophy is such a wide topic with so many aspects and angles.
Why not put an end to this and start a topic that explores your nature of thought, using the “magazine model” or whatever model you like.
Yes, it would drive many away, agreed. My point is only that the mass publishing of a lot of junk drives many away too. They come in off a Google search, immediately find a bunch of crap, hit the back button and are lost to us forever.
Again, in my proposal the Conservation area would allow you to do everything you're doing now. You just wouldn't be published above the fold unless you met the standards established by the editor, which I'm guessing you could meet if it interested you to do so. Maybe you'd have to work harder, and maybe that would be a good thing?
Quoting Jack Cummins
Well, hate to break it to you, but you are a nobody. Me too. Few of us actually care too much about what others are writing, except to find something we can use to fuel our own writing. Not saying that's good or bad, but it is largely the reality of philosophy forums. Point being, being published above the fold doesn't automatically make anyone take us seriously.
Quoting Jack Cummins
That's a good question. If no one will do it, then we'll just have to settle for a forum that's pretty much exactly like every other forum on the Net.
If this thread was started and pushed hard by the forum owner, I might very well volunteer to be an editor for free. But managing the status quo is not of interest here. And whether I would be judged a qualified editor is of course another question we don't have an answer to.
Here's another pitch. There are about a billion sites online which are very similar in form to this one. What's the point of being just another site replicating what everyone else is already doing?
BTW, thanks for engaging. I don't really expect this thread to go much of anywhere, so you can probably rest easy and not trouble yourself with too much concern.
Why one or the other? Why not both?
As you know, I've already written on the nature of thought about a hundred times. At least the way I discuss it, the subject appears to not be of much interest. But that's ok. Perhaps I suck at explaining it, that could very well be the case. A solution could be to bring in many more writers who can do a better job of engaging readers.
The thing is, we can't attract many more better writers until the existing content of the forum is raised to a higher level. Or at least until the existing content is organized so that the good stuff is front and center, and the not so good stuff is hidden away somewhere where it won't distract and discourage new prospects.
Isn’t it reasonable to think that if we can’t explain something that we don’t understand it well? Discussing it in a new topic may help you better understand it, and perhaps spare the forum from ‘the way you discuss it’ in the future.
I’m interested in the subject and I think other views and understandings may help me understand it better. If I were to start it I’d need to figure out a way to make it compelling enough to encourage engagement.
I know that you wish to end the conversation but I do think that there is some quality discussion on the site and you have not found it such junk as to stop logging in all together. I think that it would be sad if it became like Reddit and I am sure that I write plenty that is not that good. However, I do believe that the more we write helps us develop our writing and philosophy skills. it is enables us all explore our ideas, rather than leaving philosophy in the hands of the academic elite.
I agree that most of your suggestions would improve the quality of this free-form forum. But it might also eliminate non-professional philosophers like me. I assume that there are forums out there that do have more formal requirements for submission. But the ones I've looked at are way over my head. So, although most threads on TPF eventually trail-off into gotchas and one-liners, we are not forced to follow those snipe-shots all the way to the whimpering end of the flame war. That's exactly why I seldom jump-in to threads over a couple of pages long. However, perhaps the mods of TPF could spin-off a sister forum for more formal presentation of essays & articles, followed by commentary The Formal Philosophy Forum. :smile:
I also have no philosophy training. We would NOT be eliminated. Say it again, we wouldn't be eliminated. Our posts would just be re-organized in to a less visible area, unless we could meet standards set by the editors. What those standards might be is an important area of examination.
Yes, it's a different model than what is here currently, that's of course true. It's also different than the vast majority of forums, also true. And to me, that's what makes it interesting to consider. But of course, that doesn't automatically make it interesting to anyone else.
I don't wish to end it. I just know from long experience where it is headed. Nowhere. And that's ok, no problem. I just enjoy exploring ideas, that's all.
Please note that I've made no mention of the academic elite, whom I personally do not judge to be elite at all.
It's also reasonable to consider that the audience may not be capable of understanding a particular topic and there's not really anything the author, perhaps any author, can do about that. The limitations can exist on all sides of the conversation. Sometimes such limitations must just be cheerfully accepted.
Quoting praxis
Yes, my point exactly, other views may help us understand the topic better. There are many people all over the world who write on such topics, and I'm sure many of them do so better than myself and others on the forum addressing such topics.
Without some organized effort to attract quality new members then all of us are basically stuck reading the same people saying pretty much the same things over and over again for years. It might be fun to take on the challenge of addressing this limitation of our experience here. Or, it might simply be too threatening a process of change to survive here.
I think the problems this forum is facing can be solved pretty easily.
First of all it’s a philosophy forum, not a social justice forum. So any subject should be able to be raised and discussed without rabid, sanctimonious pushback.
On the Trump OP I once asked Michael why the aggressive and accusatory attitudes of so many were accepted in posts and he said that a political OP was a different sort of OP than others. Well look what it’s led to. A lot of those attitudes have flooded over as standard into other OPs. So I think the mods have let everyone down. Just look at my OP on leftist domination. The posts have gone way off topic and there’s no comment from the mods.
People like StreetlightX should be given a number of warnings about personal attacks then they’re suspended for a time. In fact StreetlightX should not be a mod. He’s intelligent but he regularly resorts to personal attacks and derails conversations. There’s a few others who do the same. They have to be managed.
A lot of the OPs have become pretty lame and yet they’re allowed. So standards aren’t being set.
My OP about leftist domination was not that they disagreed with me but how they went about it, and they responded to my OP in the same way again and were ignored by the mods.
Ironically, in light of the poll, it appears we cannot have total freedom without some sort of regulation. Otherwise we get anarchy, which is where we’re going now.
When I look back at the OPs I’ve put up in the past I can see genuine debate going on. There was still the push back on occasions but it wasn't so vituperative as it is now. Also, Biden would occasionally chip in with some comment to straighten out poor philosophy. Poor OPs were often moved to the lounge and posters were reminded of the quality in writing an OP that was expected. There was more personal input and management from Baden.
I don't believe that you believe that none can understand your ideas about that nature of thought.
Quoting Hippyhead
Having just read the OP, unless I've misunderstood it seems that all you're suggesting is to make the FORUM link on the top menu only visible to registered users and to publish rejected articles to the forum. Anyone can scout out and invite new members as it is.
My guess is that it would only decrease new membership because many would be put-off by having to register before seeing the forum. You may notice that there's only one article published to date and the forum has existed for something like six years.
This might be addressed by confining such posters to the Conversation area. They don't necessarily need to be banned, but just removed from public view so that when new people arrive on the forum they aren't immediately confronted with an ego shit show. Once new people join the forum they can see the Conversation area, and if they with to participate there they can make that choice.
This is just a guess, but I suspect Street is a mod because no one else is willing to do the job. If true I'd speculate that this is because former mods understandably became bored with managing what is often a junior high school ego shit show. And now with fewer mods of lower quality, the ego shit show stuff gets worse. Such a race to the bottom is extremely common across the forum realm.
So, we face a choice of accepting the decline with a smile, or doing something to rescue the situation. I go back and forth on that myself.
I was wondering about the situation with mods. I’m sympathetic to their situation. But Baden and StreetlightX aren’t doing anything, neither is Michael, or even Hanover. Not that it’s my intention to lump them together. Actually no one seems to be doing anything.
Whether readers can understand is largely unknown here. It does seem true that this topic routinely fails to engage. That used to frustrate me, but lately I'm learning not to worry about it too much.
Quoting praxis
Basically, yes. Existing users wouldn't see that much change. But, ANY change is typically unwelcome.
Quoting praxis
True that. But we rarely if ever do that because we don't care enough about the forum to bother. At least in part that could be because in it's current form the forum quite often doesn't merit caring about.
I don't see this as a problem with this forum specifically so much as it is a problem with the "water cooler" publishing model that almost every forum uses. That model is a recipe for content quality decline, as we see on pretty much every site built upon user generated content.
Quoting praxis
Read the proposal again please. In that proposal, the publicly visible section of the forum would be dominated by edited content. Articles approved by an editor, and comments approved by the thread starter. This is the same publishing model used by every TV station, every radio station, every print publication etc. Only in the land of social media is edited content considered to be a radical proposal.
A key challenge we've not yet addressed is that forums have long ago been branded as junk piles by the more interesting thinkers and writers. It may be too ambitious to think that justified bias can be overcome, I could see that point.
That seems a reasonable theory. I don't know what the behind the scenes situation is, so I'm just speculating. If your theory is generally correct, then we might explore why no one wants to be a mod, or at least act like a mod.
My theory, again just speculation, is that the mods have become bored with ruling over what is so often just an ego food fight. If true, I can certainly understand that as I'd feel the same way.
Quoting Hippyhead
The mods are always present but they never make their presence felt.
Edit: Baden is the administrator. He was very good once.
I think that we have to take responsibility for what we write rather than leave it to the mods. Surely we don't want them to have to keep intervening like some government.
I personally want to read good philosophy discussion and the problem is when people are just having petty arguments or ranting their own views. I do not log in to the couple of political forum threads that were opened in the last week because I know that it is going to be about people ranting or attacking one another. But of course you are right that when people who are new see this they are likely to be put off.
We are meant to be asking questions and even this one is not. It is for debate but surely it might have been better if you had put it in the lounge, especially if it just ends up saying how inadequate the site is that would put people off. Why don't you start a really stimulating discussion in the way you recommend instead, to inspire others and raise the level of expectation, so that people have something to gravitate towards and the ones which are chit chat become less popular. Really, I think you raise important points but we are the ones who should be making the site better not just the moderators.
I like the clash-of-personalities model better than the magazine model. What my books can't give me is an unpredictable collision of hundreds of personalities.
To clarify (again) there's nothing about what I've suggested which prevents a clash of personalities.
Also, my suggestions do not require a choice between the water cooler model and the magazine model, but instead make both available. All my suggestions do is reorganize the relationship between the two models so that the magazine model is above the fold, and the water cooler model is below the fold. The point of this is to make it more likely that you will be able to witness collisions between more interesting personalities.
Surely I do want such intervening. If the goal were to raise the quality of content on average, there is no other option.
Again, such intervening doesn't have to happen everywhere. The Conversation area can be much as what we have now. If someone wishes to call me a dimwit piece of shit clueless asshole who has no fucking clue etc, they can still do that, in the Conversation area. :-)
It's true that you don't eliminate the water cooler.
Maybe some posters are being scared off by low quality posts. I don't know. I have sometimes wonder why this place doesn't have thousands of active users. The interface is the best I've seen. Perhaps most scholarly types are just too busy or proud to expose themselves to the peanut gallery. I can imagine academics not wanting to waste their valuable time posting here when they should be working on a paper that will advance their career.
Anonymity is crucial. You can play with ideas at minimal risk but can't take credit for your ideas. Who does that model fit? Is this place not a massive wall for interactive graffiti? I suppose your article idea wouldn't really hurt that, but what comes to mind for me are long opening posts that don't really invite conversation. As I see it, a paragraph or two is ideal...just enough to stir responses. Posters can link to papers in their profiles.
I'm not against your idea. Some sort of image control could bring in more posters, and it wouldn't hurt my feelings to be hidden in the background.
I do know. A key problem is that many of the most interesting writers were scared off of forums years ago. You know, forums have a serious brand problem with many people. This is a big challenge and I don't have a super clever solution to it.
Quoting five G
Agreed, and 1) I've been looking at forums for 20 years, and 2) coded my own forum system from scratch and 3) am absurdly fussy about interface issues.
Quoting five G
I think the next step for my posts is to further define an article section as I imagine it. It seems we should be able to conceive of an article section so that the public face of the forum is considerably improved, while still offering an opportunity to many existing posters, if we just raise our games a bit.
Coming up next...
If you'll link to that post for us I may make a visit, thanks.
I don't know a single person IRL who uses this kind of forum. I guess most are happy with Facebook and Twitter. In the case of FB, they are happy maybe to only broadcast for their friends. In the case of Twitter, it's perhaps because they can measure their fame.
The goal of the following ideas is to 1) substantially raise the public image of the forum while 2) making the Article section accessible to some number of existing members who are willing and able to rise to the higher standards.
Let's start with some simple changes. One change that would be easy to define is to require a uniform format for all threads within the Article section. Something like this..
TITLE: Each thread should begin with a one sentence description of what the thread is about. This makes it easy for readers to quickly determine if the topic is of interest to them. It also helps the author clarify what it is exactly that they wish to discuss.
SUMMARY: A one paragraph summary can expand a bit on the title. If the author is making an assertion, this would be the place to state that assertion concisely. Something like this...
"It's my contention that X plus Y equals Z, for the following five reasons.
ARGUMENTS: Here the author lays out the arguments which support their contention, one by one by one. Each argument should be numbered for easy reference by readers who wish to comment.
CONCLUSION: Here the author wraps their contention and supporting arguments up in to a convenient package of paragraph or two for easy copy/pasting by readers so they can conveniently link to the thread elsewhere.
----------------------
If every thread in the Articles section used some uniform format like this it would elevate the presentation to a more professional looking form. Many of the existing threads on the forum could qualify for inclusion if they were put in to this format and tightened up a bit.
----------------------
As I imagine it, the thread author would be made responsible for moderating the comment section below their article. This would lift this burden off of the editor(s) and make the thread author responsible for the quality of the following conversation. The thread author would have the power to decide how much off topic elbow room they wish to allow within their thread. If the thread author failed to show up for this job then the editor may decide not to publish them in the Article section again.
The editor(s) would have the final say on any decisions. As example, if a thread author was willing to accept comments containing phrases like "fucking nitwit" but the editor was not, the editor decides the question.
----------------------
So, the price tag for being published above the fold (in the Articles section) would be something like the following:
1) Write an article which is generally of higher quality than the average forum post, as defined and decided by the editor. Present an interesting idea, and put effort in to presenting that idea in an articulate manner.
2) Agree to present the article in whatever format is being applied to all articles in the Article section.
3) Agree to moderate any discussion below the article, and actually show up and do it.
4) Agree not to take up the editor's time with complaints and questions if an article submission is not accepted in the Article section (but is instead placed within the Conversation area).
My head is shaped like an H and I can't do anything about that. It's all my mom's fault!
I am sorry to say that your thread is making me feel really angry. You are making assumptions that everyone wants this forum to be article dominated. Someone made a really nice point that the whole presence of personalities is so important.
If the changes you wish for are implemented I will stop using it because all the beauty of it would be lost entirely. But you have already said that I am a nobody although you have admitted that you are too. I am going to have to stop here because I am getting really wound up, because I feel that you are trying to destroy all freedom of expression and vitality.
Then please know this. I've had this conversation quite a number of times on a number of different sites, and it never leads to much of anything other than a bunch of people yelling at me. So I doubt you have anything to worry about. So pop open another beer, kick back in your chair, and enjoy yelling at me. I'm here for you! :-)
Quoting Jack Cummins
I'm sharing my own vision of what a philosophy forum can be. I'm entirely agreeable that others should do the same.
Quoting Jack Cummins
Many people would make this decision, as is their right. The good news is that there are already literally a million other forums which use the standard forum model, plus Twitter, Facebook and countless other platforms which allow pretty much anyone to say pretty much anything.
There are other philosophy forums too, though in my judgment most of them have gone in to the crapper for just the reasons I'm articulating here.
My argument is that EVERY SINGLE FORUM on the Internet doesn't necessarily have to be ALMOST EXACTLY THE SAME. There could maybe be one or two forums out of a million which try something different. Or not.
The reason why your thread is making me extremely anxious is that I am so grateful for this site and fear it will cease to exist or be altered too much. I am not saying that changes should not be brought in at all, but it seems that you are wishing to overhaul the site completely, so I do wonder if you would be best to start your own rather than try to change one which may be working for many. I know you say that some people keep on writing their views but perhaps it is their only way of expressing their ideas. So, while you say about catching new members that should not be the only one, because surely the site should not just be part of the grab and go, quick fixes available on Google but also, a community of minds.
Ok, I hear you. And again, the chances of the site being altered, especially to my specifications, are most likely extremely low. This is likely just an intellectual exercise which will eternally remain only that.
Also, a reminder, even if my scheme was adopted, the Conversation area would still allow members to do just what they are already doing.
And, if my scheme were adopted and everyone left, they would simply set up a new site to replace this one, which apparently has already happened in the past.
I'm not the forum owner, or a mod. I have no clout here at all, no rank, no power, no influence, no nothing. My best guess is that all the mods will reject all these ideas for the simple reason that they are not their ideas. The last time I tried this all the mods wound up yelling at me. This time, they can't be bothered. Nobody cares. Bored to tears. I'll be ignored until the thread dies and then we'll all go back to calling each other fucking nitwits. Nothing will change. Smile and be happy! :-)
I'm sorry to disturb your peace, but really, don't worry too much about any of this.
I realise that you are only making suggestions and I am probably getting wound up not with you really but because life is so difficult with lockdown restrictions. Many of us are forced to stay at home and interact online instead of in real life.
I have to admit that I get so intense reading these threads, and on several occasions I have woken up after dreams in which I have read and received comments on this site which have only been dreams. I am probably taking it too seriously, so I will try not to do so. But I think that we should bear in mind that others may also be struggling with a lack of outlets so this may impact on what they write too. I think we need a bit more fun because it is in short supply at the moment.
Welcome to my world! I've been working on that for 20 years, a work still very much in progress.
Don't know if this will be workable for you, but my sanity is preserved by the MANY visits I make to a nearby state park. The peace of nature can be a great antidote to taking human things too seriously. Without that remedy I'd probably be screaming FUCKING NITWITS!!! in every other post.
We are now shifting suggestions into the arena of life which is a new interesting take on your thread. I am not a big fan of parks but right now I would love to go to one. When the rules are a bit relaxed and weather a bit better I will take up your suggestion.
Moving the shoutbox to the registered section was an unwelcome change for many. It does not seem to have had the intended result of raising the quality of the forum.
Moral of the story: be careful what you wish for.
It ain't broke. Don't try to fix it.
In any case, there is already a section for forum suggestions. This thread should be moved.
As seems normal, you apparently haven't bothered to read my suggestions, and thus appear not to understand them. But you still want to have a fixed opinion on the matter. You have nothing constructive to offer, just the usual lazy gotcha dance little bit of nothing.
Given the number of posts across the forum of this nature, there's the evidence of the brokenness which these proposals attempt to address.
If you don't like this thread, find another one to read.
Actually, on this occasion I agree with you completely. It will just become another thread dominated mostly by people attacking one other, but it is bound to dominate above all else, just like the Leftist Forum.
This forum is run by and for curmudgeons. Get off my grass.
Yes, that's the usual pattern on this subject, and very many others. Given the popularity of that hobby there can be a place for it. My argument is that the appropriate location for such ego conflicts, which really have nothing to do with philosophy, is a section at the bottom of the forum which is viewable only by registered members. The very same high school antics can still exist. They just wouldn't get above the fold front page billing, that's all.
And I too am being a curmudgeon by challenging the prominent placement of the kinds of lazy little posts which you like to clog threads with. There's a valid place for what you wish to do. It's called Facebook.
Marco!
What the problem is though is that some people engage in meaningful political discussions and others just are attacking each other. But another problem which I see is that all these the political threads dominating the front pages are focused on America and this is an international site.
The Leftist one is not but it did not have a question. I watched it appear on the site and the whole start of the thread was an angry tone. I think that is the thread which will be the downfall of site eventually. The political poll ones just emerged in response to this. But obviously I am a nobody and I will not say anymore because I may end up being banned instead of people who insult others or make offensive comments, and already the new politics one has included an insult about people with learning disabilities. Perhaps I am too sensitive and serious but it makes me feel so despondent.
They are the froth; there are also patterns of interlinked threads on more interesting and intricate philosophical issues, which would be lost were these suggestions taken on board. And there are quite long threads on specific issues.
Take a look, in contrast, at the PN forum. What do you see?
I do see that there are other threads and I am busy reading and writing on these. It just seems that in the last few days since the one particular one I mentioned appeared that so much anger has been unleashed. But do you see my point about the dominance of American politics, when we are all situated across the world?
Take a look, in contrast, at the PN forum. What do you see?
Okay, I will say no more and just log into the threads of interest to me.
PN.
It's closer to the style circuitously advocated in the OP, and yet its longest thread is less than a tenth of many of the threads here.
I am not opposed to the thread as it obviously has given rise to a lot of opinions that could not be expressed anywhere else. I can see deeper conversations on it this evening, so I hope that it continues.
Just as people are offloading their frustration onto the political ones mine is surfacing here.Different site members express their views differently, so I hope that you can accept my view just as much as others' opinions because I do appreciate the site.
I was considering starting a topic on it in the hope of putting it out of its misery and started a bit of research, starting with a forum search for "nature of thought." Turns out that I appear to have discussed the topic with you more that I thought. You are Jake, right? a guy that was banned a couple of years ago for posting a picture of your wife's boobies.
Again, you're commenting on the suggestions without bothering to understand them, or perhaps even read them. The exact opposite of what you just said is true. If a thread was full of interesting philosophical issues it could be located above the fold in the Articles section, where it would not be buried amongst a pile of junk. Thus, it would be more visible, not less.
The whole point of such organization is to make the forum more appealing to new visitors who are capable of adding value to the forum. Those who can't or won't add value, and everyone else as well, could still do pretty much whatever they want in the Conversation area which would be available to all registered members.
The way to debunk me is to ask why I am bothering to explain all this, yet again. I have no good answer to that, I must admit.
This could be clever and funny, if it was posted on Facebook.
You’re dealing with dead wood here. Very odd the lack of interest. Almost denial.
It's very normal though. I've had this conversation a number of times in a number of places and it always goes exactly the same way.
So for this piece of dead wood it's become an exercise in how to enthusiastically embrace a topic of interest while at the same time letting it go. It's kind of like one of those Buddhist stories where the master tells you to create an elaborate pattern out of colored rocks. After two weeks you're finally done and then the master comes along and quickly kicks it all away with his foot, and tells you to do it again. You're supposed to learn how to enthusiastically embrace the moment, without getting attached to the outcome.
A work in progress here...
...forever unfinished.
Your suggestion is interesting to me. I figure a policy about secondary sources would have to be established for such a thing to work. The usual practice is that interpretations of the primary source is within the same sphere of discussion as each source. There would have to be a rule set down that restricted that practice in the interchanges.
It is a difficult rule (or rules) to enunciate because the most dedicated readers of primary texts are influenced by many others. Maybe a footnoting practice that separated arguments from admitted influences.
https://thephilosophyforum.com/categories/16/reading-groups
When I read through many of those threads, it strikes me that interest in the primary texts is rarely what gets discussed.
Edit to add: But I see you are trying to keep the focus upon what is written in many of them.
It is interesting what you both suggest. But it is difficult for me to consider what a primary source is. Furthermore, the primary source needs also to be relevant. I guess there has to be a consensus on what a primary relevant source is, right?
I can't see this as being hard, it refers to a work by the thinker themselves, not by someone interpreting it. Thus; Plato's Republic; Rorty's Contingency, Irony, and Solidarity, Kant's Critique of Pure Reason.
First off, I assume you are talking about a new philosophical category, not a change in the overall forum. If not, I think you're barking up the wrong tree.
There's no reason you can't get what you want without changing the forum at all. Here's what I do when I want to discuss very specific issues and I don't want people going off in their own directions. 1) Write a clear, specific, and detailed OP about the subject you want to discuss. 2) In the OP, make it clear that you don't want to stray from the subject and, if relevant, specify what issues you don't want to talk about. 3) When people ignore your specifications, respond to their posts and let them know. 4) If they give you any trouble, contact the moderators. In my experience, they will be responsive in helping you put the kibosh on the offenders.
There is one consideration for any future forum that affects both Reading Groups and Primary Sources. It is the exclusive nature of a thread, where it must belong to only one category. In systems where categories run on a tagging mechanism, a thread on Plato's Republic could belong to both the Reading Group category and the Political Philosophy category. This could be helpful for combining different categorization schemas. It could also be confusing if posters perusing the Political Philosophy category do not recognize that this Political Philosophy thread is also a Reading Group.
I hear the rehashing part. I do it too.
Demarking a clear line of what is or not a history of philosophy is a problem in deciding what is talked about by itself.
Plato and Aristotle have their versions of their past that are important to their statements. It would not be helpful to exclude that stuff from the discussion.
And how to approach a work like the Phenomenology of Spirit by Hegel? We cannot exclude what he did not from the discussion.