Mods: Please reconsider the purpose of this forum

[Justin S.]

It is disappointing to see poorly reasoned and researched threads comprising this section. I expected much tighter "quality control" with the announcement of new moderators.

Many times I have logged on with the intention of posting something that I have spent time on, only to reconsider due to the level of discourse. Please don’t mistake my concern as a case of unrealistic standards- I think it would be detrimental for the topics to get bogged down by overly complicated exchanges (something I have been guilty of). I welcome people of all knowledge bases to engage in critical thinking. I am not concerned with how much one has read at a given time, but with how they think.

Herein lies the problem. We have speed reopening Meister Eckhart, Infoterror presenting engaging essays - all drowned by (and neglected due to) the over-saturation of US government/9-11/CIA/Internet/mind control/UFO conspiracy theories incessantly put forth by Norsemaiden, Silver Incubus, Lord Red Dragon, etc.

I realize I am an infrequent participant at best, and that my words have little leverage, but I ask the mods to seriously reconsider their standard for intellectual rigor and honesty. The internet is full of opinions- please secure us a place to present thoughtfully developed ones.

 

[ARC150]

Although my presence on this forum is limited, intermittent...I continually return to it because this particular forum appeals to me.

Like you, I appreciate the context (and/or the potential context, as it were) herein.

As to the moderators: I think they are doing a fantastic job.

If you wish to post something, but ultimately decide otherwise, I suggest that you reconsider...that you post your musings.

As to the general state-of-affairs of the board: Let natural selection reign. Foolish topics get no circulation; foolish responses are likewise left to the wayside.

 

[Norsemaiden]

I consider it a moral duty to alert people of realistic threats to our freedom (to the extent that we have it) and threats to our future quality of life and the very future of the planet for that matter.

Many great philosophers have been concerned with these matters also and have been accurate prophets of future events. Philosophy can be practical and useful rather than a self-indulgent mental gymnastics.

The thread on the Pentagon's threat to the internet is no conspiracy theory. These plans have been reported in the most well established media sources, such as the BBC and initiated by the most powerful politicians in the world. These decisions affect us all and if we agree that they are bad, it is surely necessary to alert others to the danger and to discuss the issues in the hope that widespread awareness will in some way defeat oppression or weaken it.

This is not, directly, philosophy but rather than have a seperate politics forum it makes sense that political arguments also can be expressed in the philosophy forum. Philosophising is virtually impossible in a situation where freedom of thought and expression is severely punished or where people are forced to work unreasonable hours for unreasonable pay, or are under attack by being forced to live in a hostile environment.

Any political developments which would make lives intollerable in this way are surely relevant to this forum. Threads on these subjects do not stop anyone from opening threads on more whimsical matters.

 

[Anvil]

I agree with Justin S.

People put assumption over fact way too often here. this is only one problem I have with the forum. Another would be the fact that we have so many good thinkers here, only to have people like Norsemaiden, LRD, etc. come in and kill the strength of the thread. Not to put down Norsemaiden, but her way of posts bothers me.

I do have to contradict myself a bit here though; I agree that the Moderation is done very well. The great thing about the internet (and a terrible thing) is that people of all knowledge bases, and intellects can come together and discuss Philosophy. I say a terrible thing, because we have people come into a great conversation over whatever, and just completely destroy it. I hate to categorize people here over such things, but like myself, I stay out of threads I find either too advanced for my own thoughts, or something I don't find my opinion would be considerable.

Most likely this post is extremely irrational and stupid, due to extreme lack of sleep and me not thinking this stuff through before posting it.

 

[Norsemaiden]

How exactly do I spoil some of the threads? If I was going to be very conceited I would suggest that it may be that sometimes my replies "hit the nail on the head" so to speak, such that no one can think of anything else to add. Is that what annoys people? Aristotle had a similar effect on people he argued with. (I have no problem admitting to be ignorant on a lot of matters, nor do I have a problem with anyone contradicting me.) Constructive criticism is good - so please be more constructive.

 

[Silver Incubus]

I always thought politics where part of philosophy. My philosophy textbook has a section called politics.

 

[derek]

Moderation demands walking a very fine line. I think we have a decent standard of discussion here, and has ARC_150 said, I implore you to post your musings, Justin.

 

[speed]

It is disappointing to see poorly reasoned and researched threads comprising this section. I expected much tighter "quality control" with the announcement of new moderators.

Many times I have logged on with the intention of posting something that I have spent time on, only to reconsider due to the level of discourse. Please don’t mistake my concern as a case of unrealistic standards- I think it would be detrimental for the topics to get bogged down by overly complicated exchanges (something I have been guilty of). I welcome people of all knowledge bases to engage in critical thinking. I am not concerned with how much one has read at a given time, but with how they think.

Herein lies the problem. We have speed reopening Meister Eckhart, Infoterror presenting engaging essays - all drowned by (and neglected due to) the over-saturation of US government/9-11/CIA/Internet/mind control/UFO conspiracy theories incessantly put forth by Norsemaiden, Silver Incubus, Lord Red Dragon, etc.

I realize I am an infrequent participant at best, and that my words have little leverage, but I ask the mods to seriously reconsider their standard for intellectual rigor and honesty. The internet is full of opinions- please secure us a place to present thoughtfully developed ones.

I do in many ways agree with you Justin S. on this subject (although, I do think Norsemaiden--who has a tendency towards conspiracies--does present alot of intriguing research to go with her threads, and I generally find them rather interesting). However, there are so very few decent and philosophical threads started these days, that if we were to close the rest, there would only be a few to read and post on.

I personally have a new, very time consuming and stressful job, so I just dont have the energy to think of new threads. I think the onus is on you and other intelligent and philosophically minded posters, to create interesting and intelligent threads. Persons like: You Justin S, Dushan, Master of Lightning, Demiurge, Cythraul, ARC 150, THe hubster, even Ojeblikket, and Blaphee. (and others I forgot).

Funnily enough, last night, I was very concerned about the state of the forum after noticing no one was even visiting or posting much. Plus there were a few decent threads that sort of just died without much discussion.

 

[Justin S.]

As to the general state-of-affairs of the board: Let natural selection reign. Foolish topics get no circulation; foolish responses are likewise left to the wayside.

This is assuming that those topics/ideas are recognized as such, and are put forth by a minority. Looking at the front page, Id say foolish responses act as an open door for less sober-minded members. They don’t die out, they snowball.

I consider it a moral duty to alert people of realistic threats to our freedom...

The amount of presuppositions within your opening words is astounding. The purpose of critical thought is to examine them, not to disseminate rhetoric. This is my main objection to virtually all of your posts- they are in the wrong section. "Philosophy" is certainly concerned with "politics", but it is a thinking more fundamental than politics- to interject propaganda here is not only obnoxious, but a disservice to philosophy.

The concerns in this thread are timely. A while back, I started a thread about the very conception of philosophy. In future posts, I would like to shift the focus away from debate within complicated metaphysical systems (ie Politics, Ethics, etc.) and towards a more fundamental discussion of "grounds" and metaphysics (aka “Philosophy”) itself.

 

[Lord SteveO]

I always thought politically minded topics belonged in here more than any other section of UM.

As has been mentioned already, do philosophy and politics not intertwine with each other?
I'll admit that some of the "crazier" consiracy theory threads recently have been a bit much. And those topics that originate with just a web link, or a single video are a pain.
But if there's no where specifically for such topics i think in here is better than elsewhere.

If some feel that topics in The Philiosopher should consist of only "pure" philosophy, i would suggest opening a subforum, for those less philosophically oriented topics?

 

[Cythraul]

Philosophy and politics are intertwined in so far as political ideologies are informed by philosophical reflection. Also, politics can almost always be connected up with fundamental ethical questions. I do think that discussions and debates that focus primarily on political issues should be allowed here, since this is one of the only forums on UM in which such discussions aren't entirely irrelevant. I would, however, like to see more discussions that are properly philosophical e.g. topics concerning epistemology, metaphysics, metaethics, philosophy of language, phil of science, etc. The thing is, this is not the first place that I would post a topic about the analytic-synthetic distinction, the rationality of theory choice, cognitivism in ethics, or other fun topics like that.

edit: and the conspiracy threads can just fuck right off.

 

[Øjeblikket]

How exactly do I spoil some of the threads? If I was going to be very conceited I would suggest that it may be that sometimes my replies "hit the nail on the head" so to speak, such that no one can think of anything else to add. Is that what annoys people? Aristotle had a similar effect on people he argued with. ... Constructive criticism is good - so please be more constructive.

your narcissism annoys the hell out of me. how you jump to your concision from your vain pledge of allegiance against tyranny amuses me. your self-righteous presentation, furthermore, seems to be established on your internet-speak follies, which's sad, really.

 

[derek]

Philosophy and politics are intertwined in so far as political ideologies are informed by philosophical reflection. Also, politics can almost always be connected up with fundamental ethical questions. I do think that discussions and debates that focus primarily on political issues should be allowed here, since this is one of the only forums on UM in which such discussions aren't entirely irrelevant. I would, however, like to see more discussions that are properly philosophical e.g. topics concerning epistemology, metaphysics, metaethics, philosophy of language, phil of science, etc. The thing is, this is not the first place that I would post a topic about the analytic-synthetic distinction, the rationality of theory choice, cognitivism in ethics, or other fun topics like that.

edit: and the conspiracy threads can just fuck right off.

Well, do it then. One cannot moan about lack of interesting threads (etc) yet refuse to attempt to stimulate more interesting discussion.

The skill to raise these topics illudes me, yet my interest in them is ten fold. I assume this applies to many other folks, so by all means (and I implore you) please do raise such topics.

 

[Cythraul]

I'm so lazy though.

 

[derek]

I'm so lazy though.

:zombie:

 

[speed]

your narcissism annoys the hell out of me. how you jump to your concision from your vain pledge of allegiance against tyranny amuses me. your self-righteous presentation, furthermore, seems to be established on your internet-speak follies, which's sad, really.

Come on man, dont be an ass.

 

[speed]

Well, do it then. One cannot moan about lack of interesting threads (etc) yet refuse to attempt to stimulate more interesting discussion.

The skill to raise these topics illudes me, yet my interest in them is ten fold. I assume this applies to many other folks, so by all means (and I implore you) please do raise such topics.

yeah those are beyond me, but sound quite interesting.

 

[MasterOLightning]

I wish I had more time for this place, but as a busy student, I tend to look for diversions rather than additional stimulation in my spare time. Even when something of interest comes up, I usually don't have the energy to type a sufficiently invovled reply. A one liner won't suffice for the majority of topics here. Plus my background in actual philosohpy is limited at best. I'm more at home with political/sociological issues, which definitely have their place here as well.

Please, less conspiracy theories. There also seems to be a strong correlation between those who posit conspiracies, and those who are most steadfast in their views, and refuse to acknowledge other viewpoints. This either kills discourse or turns it into mud-slinging. These members, who I don't need to name, don't add much here. Four or five more solid contributors would probably make things more interesting here, as we do need someone to throw ideas out there more often.

I appreciate infoterror's articles, and read most of them, but because of their complex ideas, they're not easy to discuss, and these threads rarely see 10 replies, which is too bad.

 

[Norsemaiden]

your narcissism annoys the hell out of me. how you jump to your concision from your vain pledge of allegiance against tyranny amuses me. your self-righteous presentation, furthermore, seems to be established on your internet-speak follies, which's sad, really.

If you had a sense of humour it would be the "narcissism" that amused you.

 

[Anvil]

Like MasterOLightning, I also have barely any time for contributing my two cents towards any thread here.

My understanding is limited, and I believe that a lot of it is because I haven't researched, been formally introduced, or taught anything to do with Philosophy. Most of my thoughts here are based on just that. Thoughts. Of course Influence has had its pokes at me towards philosophy, but nothing directly.

Anyways, my point is that I find a lot of threads here to be too far above my head, so to speak, to post my two cents on. If you guys appreciate hearing from a high-school graduate on such topics, then by all means, I have no trouble posting my opinions. Of course my understanding of a thread, topic, post etc., will be rather limited and may not get the full point.

Thats all I got to say that I can think of at this moment.