ego's have run amuck

hello all. i am quite new to this website as well as the philosophical comunity. reading the forum i have discovered two things. 1) i find myself to be very humbled by your knoledge, and insight and yet 2) find myself questioning some or most peoples on the grounds that, most often then not when responding to a thread most will put into question others comments (which is in no way a bad thing, questioning is what led us to philosophy)and yet it still creates a very un-easy envirement as human condition requires most people to prove themselves right but also to strike out against the other person in question. I always believed philosophy to be the love of wisdom, and i see nothing wise in this action.I was just wondering if any of you had any comment on this.

(mind you im very sorry for grammar and sentence structure)

and spelling… welcome to the club man!

Part of this is the impersonal nature of the Internet. People can get up and start talking smack without having to go to all the trouble of actually being ready to defend themselves physically.

Part of it, as you say, is emotion and ego run amok.

But a legitimate part of it is present in all philosophical discourse. If you ever have several hours completely free to just wank off, instead read these three articles, in this order:

  1. Bertrand Russell - “On Denoting”
  2. P.F. Strawson - “On Referring”
  3. Bertrand Russell - “Mr. Strawson On Referring”

Taken as a whole, this is hands down the funniest “serious” thing I have ever read. The analytic philosophy in there is fairly thick but can be slogged through even by beginners with a not-too-strenuous effort, and understanding it makes the third paper even more amusing.

The point is that philosophers trade barbs with each other, and this is to be expected, and can make a dense work of otherwise slightly boring material entertaining. This habit seems to have rubbed off on users of this forum, and I would not have it any other way. Dearest enemy, I salute thee…

yeah zen i wish everybody was funnier or at least talked like this place was a conversation and not a philosophical joiurnal. when i have to go back and read a thread i missed, there are certain, terse, sarcastic posts i especially enjoy reading, and other, more verbose ones.

if i had to choose assuming equal quality, id say terse and sarcastic is the way

Just to add, philosophy is not synonomous with wisdom. It can be, but much of it is a sort of mathematical equation, where abstract, esoteric terms are used instead of numbers. If you value consistency and authenticity, then you are a philosopher indeed.

a philosophier has no faith, no value, only a pure mind for pure reasoning…

get me? huh? :angry:

ad hominem antics can be quite entertaining if used properly

Your sentence structure is passable. Your refusal to use capitols whilst apologising for grammar is taking the piss.
JJ

Hi John Jones,

I too have puzzled over the nature of discourse in philosophy forums.

At best, I think we are looking for dialectic. This would be thesis - anti-thesis- synthesis. This process of argumentative reasoning works best when a few minds come together and the end result is considered by all concerned as some improvement over the thesis initially considered. Then a new dissenter comes along and the process starts again. If a thesis survives an anti-thesis challenge uncompromised, then this too is an improved outcome, and likewise if the thesis is completely destroyed. The only thing important is that the process of testing should continue as rigorously as possible.

As readers of ILP will know, this does not always happen, and indeed it often fails to happen in postgraduate seminars or anywhere else for that matter.

The nature of the human mind seems to me to be defensive in that it clings to what is known, often to a ludicrous extent.

Thomas Khun’s “The Structure of Scientific Revolution” is a good study of the phenomena and the historical case of ‘phlogiston theory’ a good example of the painful birth of theoretical change.

What a palaver!

Cheers, Freethinker, :sunglasses:

synthesis is born of weakness…

-Imp

It is very true that these forums hold us back from ever actually debating anything, but it also allows people to express their individual ideas whereas in an argument, you can easily be dismissed and your wisdom never reach the outside world. Welcome to ILP, points of advice are: Don’t slam others theories. Beware of JJ. Respond with humility.

Philosophy “forums” have always been it’s landfill area but scroungers usually find nuggets confirming what they already know or think! It’s also the platform to be thoroughly unphilosophic.

Aaaah, a ‘Bushism’.

Cheers, Freethinker, :sunglasses:

not at all… try a ‘Nietzscheism’.

-Imp

Hi Impenitent,

Good point.

“WHY WE CONTRADICT - We often contradict an opinion when it is really only the tone in which it is expressed that is unsympathetic to us.”

Friedrich Nietzsche, 'Human-all-too-Human: A Book for Free Spirits", London, Foulis, 1909, p269.

Cheers,

Freethinker, :sunglasses:

What a great quote :slight_smile: Freethinker thanks for posting it.

A statement from Uniqor

“and spelling… welcome to the club man!”

I dislike criticism of gramatical errors when communicating. Mistakes are made and the communication is what is important. The whole point of perfect grammer and philisophical writing standards are for publishing or school. You need to publish or write a well defended, well organized paper to limit rebuttal or get a good acceptance. To produce a well edited and written document, like any book. In a forum, it is more of a discussion than a writing, grammatical errors should not be a problem. They are only limiting their ability to get their point across, why does the way it looks matter if you got the point? Let it be. Variation in points of view are valuable, even if they are less desirable to look at or dont follow your standards. As long as they communicate their point to some degree. Sure English has set standards and a “correct” way of using it, but like any creation, their are instructions in using it. Do you always have to follow the instructions to get results? To some degree, but not completely

What a great quote :slight_smile: Freethinker thanks for posting it.

A statement from Uniqor

“and spelling… welcome to the club man!”

I dislike criticism of gramatical errors when communicating. Mistakes are made and the communication is what is important. The whole point of perfect grammer and philisophical writing standards are for publishing or school. You need to publish or write a well defended, well organized paper to limit rebuttal or get a good acceptance. To produce a well edited and written document, like any book. In a forum, it is more of a discussion than a writing, grammatical errors should not be a problem. They are only limiting their ability to get their point across, why does the way it looks matter if you got the point? Let it be. Variation in points of view are valuable, even if they are less desirable to look at or dont follow your standards. As long as they communicate their point to some degree. Sure English has set standards and a “correct” way of using it, but like any creation, there are instructions for its use. But this isnt the only way to use it. Do you always have to follow the instructions to get results? To some degree, but not completely. If their english is so bad that communication isnt achieved, then I would say something.

Kinda basic but I hope I communicated

It tends to only be the ones who think philosophy means ‘love of opinions’ who cause any substantial grief! :slight_smile:

Thank you all for your post, again I find myself in awe of the insight that i see thruought these posts. And to answer john jones, my english is laking for the simple reason i am armenian(first language) then french(second) and have learned english only as a generality thrue school. I will do my best to improve in it, but thatnks for the advise

again thank you all.

I said that your english was passable. Your use of capitols has improved but is still not good enough.
JJ