Stop calling what you’re doing a serious discussion.
iambiguous
True…especially some philosophy forums. Would that be called human evolution or retrogression? No, it wouldn’t be called that though individualistically(?) speaking, it could be that.
Could it be called nonage…in a sense?
Enlightenment is man’s emergence from his self-imposed nonage. Nonage is the inability to use one’s own understanding without another’s guidance. This nonage is self-imposed if its cause lies not in lack of understanding but in indecision and lack of courage to use one’s own mind without another’s guidance. Dare to know! (Sapere aude.) “Have the courage to use your own understanding,” is therefore the motto of the enlightenment.
Laziness and cowardice are the reasons why such a large part of mankind gladly remain minors all their lives, long after nature has freed them from external guidance. They are the reasons why it is so easy for others to set themselves up as guardians. It is so comfortable to be a minor. If I have a book that thinks for me, a pastor who acts as my conscience, a physician who prescribes my diet, and so on–then I have no need to exert myself. I have no need to think, if only I can pay; others will take care of that disagreeable business for me. Those guardians who have kindly taken supervision upon themselves see to it that the overwhelming majority of mankind–among them the entire fair sex–should consider the step to maturity, not only as hard, but as extremely dangerous. First, these guardians make their domestic cattle stupid and carefully prevent the docile creatures from taking a single step without the leading-strings to which they have fastened them. Then they show them the danger that would threaten them if they should try to walk by themselves. Now this danger is really not very great; after stumbling a few times they would, at last, learn to walk. However, examples of such failures intimidate and generally discourage all further attempts.
Thus it is very difficult for the individual to work himself out of the nonage which has become almost second nature to him. He has even grown to like it, and is at first really incapable of using his own understanding because he has never been permitted to try it. Dogmas and formulas, these mechanical tools designed for reasonable use–or rather abuse–of his natural gifts, are the fetters of an everlasting nonage. The man who casts them off would make an uncertain leap over the narrowest ditch, because he is not used to such free movement. That is why there are only a few men who walk firmly, and who have emerged from nonage by cultivating their own minds. …
columbia.edu/acis/ets/CCREAD/etscc/kant.html
True again. I wonder - what would you say is the reason for something like this? Boredom? Again, nonage?
The blind leading the blind, human beings succumbing to what is easier?
The inability to stay on topic, the urge to want to play, to simply have a little fun, to return to the garden of eden? Yes I know that proper names need to be capitalized. I’m rebelling.
What would be the best way to handle a thread like this one? Ignore it? I suppose we all need a bit of a breather at times.
This thread which obviously honors me 
( 
) OK – the only honor here might be if the thread takes on a new light and/or flavor might be seen as a bit of a breather.
Is it possible that we at times gravitate toward particular threads because we are social creatures and not ENTIRELY in a forum to discuss philosophy or religion or science. Look at that threads and their subsets which have evolved.
Yes, in one respect I can agree with this. It isn’t as though those who mispell and use grammar incorrectly do not know any better. It is just that some things need to be sacrificed at times for more important things though I suppose I can also say some people are more brilliant when it comes to thinking and philosophy and law (I know from experience that many lawyers are not so impeccable when it comes to spelling and grammar). This is, after all, a philosophy forum, and not a publishing company.
One man’s meat is another man’s poison? If you could think of a reason for the above, honestly, what might you think it could be?
Who are the kids?
We are in here trying to prove the validity of Shakespeare’s words - and we’ve done quite well.
Speech: “All the world’s a stage”
By William Shakespeare
All the world’s a stage,
And all the men and women merely players;
They have their exits and their entrances;
And one man in his time plays many parts,
His acts being seven ages. At first the infant,
Mewling and puking in the nurse’s arms;
And then the whining school-boy, with his satchel
And shining morning face, creeping like snail
Unwillingly to school. And then the lover,
Sighing like furnace, with a woeful ballad
Made to his mistress’ eyebrow. Then a soldier,
Full of strange oaths, and bearded like the pard,
Jealous in honour, sudden and quick in quarrel,
Seeking the bubble reputation
Even in the cannon’s mouth. And then the justice,
In fair round belly with good capon lin’d,
With eyes severe and beard of formal cut,
Full of wise saws and modern instances;
And so he plays his part. The sixth age shifts
Into the lean and slipper’d pantaloon,
With spectacles on nose and pouch on side;
His youthful hose, well sav’d, a world too wide
For his shrunk shank; and his big manly voice,
Turning again toward childish treble, pipes
And whistles in his sound. Last scene of all,
That ends this strange eventful history,
Is second childishness and mere oblivion;
Sans teeth, sans eyes, sans taste, sans everything.
But unlike that stage which usually has an audience and where for the most part, mistakes ought not to be made, this stage affords us the luxury of changing our minds, taking a step back and reflecting on things (sometimes) before we make final decisions, before the final curtain of this Act.
This stage allows us to eventually see our mis[takes] , our miswantings, and the ways in which our play has been evolving in the moment. If we do not like the play as we’ve been acting it out, we can choose to be more resourceful and act out or rather change the course of our action even if it means walking to another part of the stage and beginning again.
Just as all the world is a stage, all of its players and actors are a process of becoming - ad continuum.
So - All the world’s a stage And all the men and women merely players; some play quite well and some play quite badly.
But we all play in our own little corner of the stage.
Okay, let’s be more specific. How are the arguments that Gib and I are exchanging on this thread – viewtopic.php?f=1&t=190026 – a clear example of a discussion that is not serious?
And how would you go about discussing these relationships instead such that folks like yourself and zinnat and uccisore would all agree do in fact reflect the nature of a serious philosophical discussion?
Well, we call these things whatever happens to make the most sense to us at any one particular time. My point is only that whatever it is we do call them [re dasein] it is unlikely that a serious philosopher will ever be able to pin down that this is in fact What They Are.
After all, evolution and retrogression always revolve around the subjective assumptions that we make regarding them. Besides, at ILP, there are forums that were created in which the whole point is not to exchange “serious philosophy”.
But somewhere along the line the balance tipped such that those who are inclined to discuss philosophy seriously got fed up with the sheer volume of threads [posts] that would seem to have nothing at all to do with even the broadest interpretation of a philosophical discussion.
Yeah, this seems reasonable to me. But even regarding those who refuse to remain forever young, or who refuse to nestle [more or less mindlessly] under the guidance of others, they are still intertwined in a world that I construe in terms of dasein, conflicting goods and political economy. At least pertaining to the question, “How ought one to live?” At least pertaining to this question as it relates to moral values and political ideals.
It would be interesting to hear Kant’s own reaction to my arguments insofar as they critique deontology. And I would certainly dismiss the idea that one truly can embody the most enlightened set of behaviors.
It’s just that in dismissing it I am no less subject to my own assumptions. Which is to suggest that any dismissal regarding things such as this will reflect but a personal opinion or a political prejudice.
I’m sill “stuck” in my “dilemma”.
I suppose the reasons are as varied as the folks who create the threads. Though there really do seem to be any number of actual trolls who are only here to huff and puff. And to stir things up. And to provoke for its own sake. In other words, forever young [in a place like this] in the worst sense.
Actually, I don’t really mind some of them. And I believe that all philosophy forums need a corner – a dungeon – where just about anything goes.
It’s just that there seem to be so few threads of late that focus the beam on that which most interest me: taking serious philosophy down out of the scholastic clouds and integrating the definitions and deductions in a world that is bursting at the seams with conflicting behaviors. And conflicting goods.
Thus even regarding posts in the philosophy forum itself I find few willing to go there.
As for the “Kids”, that is just a subjunctive contraption that I have come to use in reacting to particular posts [and posters] who strike me as insufferably immature. Especially those who are also utterly lacking in wit.
They bombard the site with dozens and dozens of posts a week that not only strike me as intellectually vacuous [or screeching], but as, well, boring.
And what can be worse than a boring screecher?