It’s seems that because a large portion of the community here spends some time on the thread and then leave because of more urgent things going on in there lifes a lot of the same questions get asked over and over again in new threads.
It’s seems like it would be more productive to simply have designated threads that discuss a specific topic so that coherance and amassed information could be utilized.
As someone who asks a question that has already been well discussed and adequatly answered could be directed to it earlier in a specific thread.
Simply put it would channel new members to look over the discussions of those who may no longer partcipate in theses forums but have already greatly discussed specific topics.
Makes sense. Anyway, my problem with your idea is that I think that, unless people are only redirected to such threads when the topic, and preferably also their angle, is exactly the same, such threads will be inhibiting rather than productive.
Im talking about specific questions, the “Big” questions Good and Evil, Existance of God, What is philosophy,What is Wisdom, Truth, Justice, Specific philosophers and their Ideals etc.
I disagree. To a great extent, an OP can be used to direct the focus of a question more specifically, and, at a minimum, often sets the tone for a thread.
No offense, but not everybody can read and write everything. I don’t always have time to followup on a thread I created, and responses are lingering. Sometimes a new thought comes, and I want to write about it instead. Or sometimes a lot of people are posting, and I want to read a conversation. When I see topics per day, I tend to visit those authors who I’m familiar with, and already have a vague idea of their thinking. Call it reputation if you will.
Other people probably do the same. I’m for more organization, but I don’t think it’s an easy answer. It would be nice to consolidate thread topics and old topics, but like PM146 said, the original poster usually sets the tone for the conversation, debate, or investigation that follows.
What differance does focus make when a hundred people ask the same question only to have a few people respond to it and most likely not gain any further insight into said question?
It’s a good idea, but there are practical problems.
If you have an official thread on Morality, and it grows to 60 pages in the first three months, with four different subconversations threaded through it… are you going to read through all 60 pages and follow the points and counterpoints made to see if your thesis has already been discussed? Or will you just state it anyway, and bump the thread up to 70 pages, repeating many of the points already made?
What if you find the point you wanted to discuss back on page 5 - reply to it and hope the person who discussed it is still keeping daily track of the thread so that they see your point before it’s buried several pages back? And will you keep daily track of each thread for the rest of your stay at ILP in case someone does the same with your post?
This threadis an example, on the objectivity or otherwise of beauty (coincidentally, it’s nearly 60 pages in nearly three months, and I made those figures up at random!). Discussions go round in circles, degenerate into flame wars, people come and go. I’m not sure where I’d start looking for answers to a thesis I might have.
The general themes are the fora themselves. If there’s a topic that interests you, by all means use the search to see what others have said, and if the discussions you find don’t answer your points, start a new one. But I think, given a search functionality, it’s more effective to have several threads on similar subjects, separated by their individual theses, than one big dumpster for any and all thoughts on a general subject.
Yeah, I guess I forgot this was an internet forum…Gods help us. sigh
In truth many of these topics have probably arleady been resolved in some tome. That a lot of people haven’t bothered too read.
What the decontructionists attack and are only “successful” in their “attacks” when people don’t understand the basics of specific virtues and ethics well enough, because they haven’t bothered too research on the subject they’re arguing in favor of… speaking of which I should start studying again.
If sophists are good for anything, then at least it should be categorizing these types of arguments, so that they don’t have to become repeated over and over again for the philosophical n00bs.
There are a couple of “protocols” that seem embedded in the internet: Short attention span and even shorter posts. I’ve watched ILP go from fairly long and extensive threads to the typical OP, two or three posts, then oblivion. It’s as if the internet copied Sesame Street. Bing! Bang! and done. We’re becoming a Twitter and Facebook social network. If a subject takes more than two or three paragraphs of discussion, it doesn’t happen. What you’ve proposed would be a great idea about 20 years ago. Sorry, wiki beat you to it.
Oh well, never thought I could engage in very deep philosophical discussions without leaving my house anyway.
Thats not to say I haven’t learned anything from this forum.
It’s a great introductery to criticism, a good way too cast away ones naivite.
