Forum Improvements
- Thread starter Justin S.
- Start date
1. We need a greater emphasis on keeping threads ON TOPIC. That's not to say that natural digressions should be discouraged, just that, for instance, every thread doesn't need to be turned into a racial discussion.
2. Those who repeatedly resort to logical fallacies *cough*MetalBooger*cough* need to be shown the door. It's a form of thread hijacking, and serves no legitimate purpose.
2. Those who repeatedly resort to logical fallacies *cough*MetalBooger*cough* need to be shown the door. It's a form of thread hijacking, and serves no legitimate purpose.
More discussion of what people are reading. When there is a common text we can all look at, we can have a more fruitful discussion. The book of the month idea didn't work. We could either make it work this time around or try something else. What we need most is more detail in discussions.
I would enjoy more threads initiated by those here with well-developed and/or formal Philosophical backgrounds. Clearly, many of us are more dabblers than philosophers and are thus possessed of a far less impressive frame of reference, proper education, etc.
*related sidebar - If we accept that race is indeed invoked too frequently here then surely religion is behind it by less than half a step! We definitely could use some broader philosophical topics to discuss/debate. derbeder's idea along these lines seems very sensible.
*related sidebar - If we accept that race is indeed invoked too frequently here then surely religion is behind it by less than half a step! We definitely could use some broader philosophical topics to discuss/debate. derbeder's idea along these lines seems very sensible.
Hm, after posting here for so long, and since Ive probably created the most threads (many consisting of inane blather as well, with the occasional decent one, hehe), I've almost come to the conclusion that a formal philosophic background, is a true impediment for the creation of threads. Perhaps said formally-trained persons think about the logic and correctness of what they post too much, and are so used to studying/critiquing others views, that they're afraid or not used to posting and formulating their own.
This is my criticism of academia in general though. Really, there's not alot of room or emphasis on creativity and free-thinking. I could be wrong though. But, as much as I respect our own formally trained philosophers, it irks me when they regurgitate others ideas (other philosophers) about almost every subject.
And about race, thank god. Im sick of reading about it. Really. There are so many philosophers and ideas we havent discussed, and yet so many seem so obsessed with some cockamamied neo-nazi dogma and idea of race...it really bothers me.
Otherwise, I think everyhing is fine. This is a internet forum, and I dont know how much better it can get.
I agree it didnt work very well. The Symposium thread started out strong, but it sort of then died. And even more vexing is the fact that threads related to specific philosophers and ideas (aside from Nietszche and my ongoing battle with understanding Heidegger or his dictionary, hehe) seem to go nowhere, or gather dust.
I think there's really only one choice: intelligent posters with deep backgrounds in philosophy need to create and comment (this sometimes doesnt happen either) on threads regarding specific philosophical theories, writings, books, or so forth.
Well, I will let others comment on this. I've said enough.
I don't see a problem with multiple "streams" of discourse, or varying levels of depth/detail/knowledge, so long as they are all thoughtful (and in being so, pertain to philosophy as stated in the policy). I think any strict structural restrictions would be misplaced, especially considering this is not a dedicated site for "philosophers", but one attached to Ultimatemetal.com (even though some of us don't venture beyond this board).
I do agree with Scourge's, Scratch's and derbeder's suggestions in that more care and effort is needed generally, slowing down the pace of the board, and allowing for better quality discussions (and also avoiding well-tread issues). But this must be a general goal accepted by the community, as it is not easily enforced outside blatant abuses.
I do agree with Scourge's, Scratch's and derbeder's suggestions in that more care and effort is needed generally, slowing down the pace of the board, and allowing for better quality discussions (and also avoiding well-tread issues). But this must be a general goal accepted by the community, as it is not easily enforced outside blatant abuses.
Personally I am here for the discussion - I enjoy reading very insightful, knowledgeable, and well written works, but there is a huge amount of works by renowned philosophers still for me to read if and when I desire. The to and fro of discussion, sharpening of the mind, and development of my own (however rudimentary) ideas is what I enjoy here. I don't see that you can entice fantastic forum posts simply by asking for them either 
Norsemaiden
barbarian
Every thread is NOT turned into a racial discussion. If the topic is directly to do with multiculturalism, immigration, etc then race is bound to be a major aspect of that.
It shouldn't be a circular, repetitive and long-lasting rant about racial issues but be intelligent.
I would like to know - if we are talking about why civilisations self-destruct and diversity is a part of that, should that be something one is forbidden to discuss?
Certain people know that race is relevent to a great many things, and they are often the very people who wish to censor it.
For example, Benjamin Disraeli said:
So while race may enter a lot of discussions, a balance should be struck whereby the issue doesn't take over the discussion or prevent other aspects from being explored.
Since only 5 out of the 28 threads anywhere on the first page of this forum mention race at all, you seem overly zealous to crack down on it.
I had been going to vote you as moderator but not now.
I don't see a problem with relevant digressions, but it's tiresome to see so many threads work back around to a handful of pet themes: race/nationalism, Christianity and Heidegger being chief among them. And it's not just the partisans of these causes either. Several of the board's liberal members resort to frequent race-baiting too, making an issue of (the totally unrelated) racial beliefs of some posters in an effort to distract attention from the current issue (as was attempted by MetalBooger in the VA Tech shootings thread). We need to stop flogging the same issues, not to mention end the practice of thread hijacking which, while not overly disruptive at this point, could certainly reach a destructive point if it is allowed to pass uncorrected.
MetalBooger deleda est.
I agree. I also have concerns there are some here who would clearly rather the topics of race/ethnicity/diversity or the catch-all multiculturalism, be abandoned altogether, whether germain to a given argument/discussion or not.
I also happen to agree in various repsects with the Scourge's response noting that there is also a fairly common degree of "race-baiting" from non "partisans" as he puts it, which tend to lead a variety of discussions back to those familiar topics. This can indeed become tedious to us all, whatever our given worldview may be. Still, as I noted with religion, to those for whom these are critical areas of interest it is natural to respond to further challenge or dissent, etc., long after you, yourself may believe a thread to be past it's useful shelf-life.
Again, for those taking issue with the racial/ethnic discussion, raise some altogether different topics. I have already encouraged and welcome this myself, though I admittedly do enjoy the afforementioned debates as well.
There are surely myriad topics to discuss here that have nothing to do with race, politics, et al. However, it is also fair to note that certain topics seem to generate a whole lot more interest than others. That threads with certain themes tend to stay toward the top of the board and receive the most comment(even though, as Norsemaiden pointed out they are in the clear minority thematically speaking) tells me that people DO wish to discuss these matters.
It should go without saying that there is nothing necessarily problematic with discussion of these topics (race/ethnicity/etc.) per se, but how they are usually conducted and argued. More often than not they are sensationalist, highly rhetorical, redundant, and crude.
I would be very interested in a more cautious attempt at exploring these issues. Unfortunately, I think far too much ideology (most firmly rooted in colonial-era theory regardless of position) is present here for that to occur.
I would be very interested in a more cautious attempt at exploring these issues. Unfortunately, I think far too much ideology (most firmly rooted in colonial-era theory regardless of position) is present here for that to occur.
Demiurge
This user has no title
I would like to see more discussion of 'hard' issues in philosophy. Let me give examples: threads on traditional problems, like universals, threads on the status of propositions, mind-body problem, philosophy of time, philo of math, epistemological issues, modality, etc. I'm into these abstract issues, as opposed to purely political ones. I like to discuss those, too, but not exclusively.
I should start them myself, but I'm sort of divided between different forums and, quite frankly, I can be lazy... I usually only browse once in awhile.
I should start them myself, but I'm sort of divided between different forums and, quite frankly, I can be lazy... I usually only browse once in awhile.
Demiurge
This user has no title
I agree in particular about the need for more detail. Many threads and posts are too vague.
The perceived degree of division between "abstract/theoretical" and "practical/political" is problematic. The relation is one of a "feedback" cycle, with both conditioning the other. I take issue with claims (and am not insinuating that Demiurge is making such a strong one here) that "abstract/theoretical/hard" philosophy somehow operates outside of, or can be severed from, the domain of political/existential concerns, and is not highly informed by them. This has always been a big criticism of mine directed against many in the (to generalize) "analytic" field (although it is certainly not limited to them): they are directly working within and, in may cases, supporting certain conceptual and pragmatic structures/power relations/ethics/understanding of being (some ontotheology, usually derived from liberalism), both politically/economically and in the modes/cognition of theory itself. Indeed, even the possibility of an "analytic" philosophy funded and supported by universities, with a certain set of concerns, narratives, and protocols, reveals the necessary enabling/conditioning structures (again both conceptually and physical) that house it contextually.
I am not suggesting that we should confine ourselves to "the political", but that any tangent (and it is such, however far reaching and complex) must pay homage to its integration. In this sense "separation" is not a problem, but an attempt at "severance" most certainly is.
I dont think there is a problem here. Philosophy is the pursuit and study of knowledge in all of its facets. It is up to individual posters and thread creators, to direct the discussion and topics of the forum.
MetalBooger delenda est.
He's a fucking kike, a fag, and a Christian. He contributes nothing. He's useless. He's probably crippled too.
GAS. FLAMES. BONES.
He's a fucking kike, a fag, and a Christian. He contributes nothing. He's useless. He's probably crippled too.
GAS. FLAMES. BONES.
Norsemaiden
barbarian
Rules are for lesser people. The point needs to be made. The fucker is RUINING this forum, and any concept of improvement has to start with giving the Faggajew the boot.
Norsemaiden
barbarian
Whatever. I just meant that anyone can end up crippled - its all down to fate.
