Answer these questions and I will engage you based upon your responses:
Can Philosophy exist without free speech?
At what point in Philosophical discussion does censorship become desirable or at least acceptable?
Does censorship become a crutch or an escape route for those whose arguments are lacking in merit?
How do you define censorship? Is it a demand on the part of an authority for certain guidelines of etiquette to be followed, or is it the removal or placement of certain ideas to places that are considered out of the way? If you take all the copies of an album and destroy them, and murder the musicians that perform those songs, that’s one thing. If you put those albums behind the counter and only allow people to buy them who come up and specifically ask for them, that’s another. If you leave them on the shelves for everyone, but advertise that they’re bad or harmful or some other negative adjective, that’s another.
So what do you mean?
Let’s just settle upon ‘the suppression or removal of information by those who have the power to do so’.
Then yeah, philosophy can exist under those conditions. It always has. Some ideas just aren’t as good as others. Some people are qualified to determine what those are. So for the longest time, some ideas have been pushed aside. Maybe they’re disruptive to productive discourse, maybe they’re not addressing the problem at hand. There are plenty of reasons to distinguish between what’s acceptable discourse, what’s advancing human understanding of the world, etc. Too often, people try and mask their intentions by referencing something in the realm of philosophical ideas, when really what they’re doing isn’t inquiring about the world for the sake of knowledge but instead constructing rhetoric in order to preach or sell one view or another. That’s just not the right way to do philosophy, so things like that should be given less credence than things which explore and analyze and advance our understanding of the things we can know. So yeah, censorship has it’s place in philosophy.
It could be an escape for those who’s arguments lack merit, but at the same time those people would have to have the authority to censor, and if might is right, which it may well be, then it’s tough to say that merit is the determining factor in which arguments should be deemed with or without merit. I mean…who’s to decide whether an argument has merit? Anyone who’s actually studied philosophy deeply, and not just enough of it, or the parts of it that they need in order to perform their sophistry must understand that when you start trying to determine that one thing has merit and another doesn’t, you’re getting into some deep epistemological shit that most people don’t have the aptitude to understand.
You say some rather inane and unintelligent things: do you fancy yourself as being ‘qualified’? Do you really know a good idea from a bad one? How do you determine such hierarchies?
Isn’t that what Philosophical debate is about? Logically putting forward a view or criticizing another? Whats is productive discourse? - consensus? That sounds more like politics doesn’t it?
Who do you deem qualified to do that? How? Which omniscient being do you nominate for the position?
I know right? I see it literally every day. You know the worst part? Most of them don’t even realize it! I swear it’s like they’ve been labotomized. They’re minds have these trigger words and concepts that impede any logical information from being assimilated into their brain. It’s pretty scary actually…
Riiiiight. But erm, how do you decide that? Again, who is it you nominate as being capable of deciding what is Philosophy and what is really Politics impersonating Philosophy? What happens if the person you deem to be politically motivated actually has a markedly better understanding of reality than you do and your censorship just masks this fact and pretends it doesn’t exist? Isn’t that profoundly anti-philosophical?
Cool brah. Why let ideas exchange honestly when we can put the indigestible ones outside of our view and pretend they don’t exist? I know what works faster I can tell you that!
You can cut the cool brah and “inane” shit if you want to have a discussion.
You came to my thread brah. And you didn’t even answer the questions in a nice 1, 2, 3 fashion like I had hoped. Why don’t you engage the material instead of whining?
lol
You get sharper and wittier by the post sir.
Don’t feel the need to hang around, the thread is already saturated with your particular brand of ‘slickness’. You have given me more than enough useful material already. Seriously.
Another example of how you lack civility when confronted with things you don’t have the capacity to consider. Enjoy fishing for people who will validate you.
I read: ‘Everything and anything to avoid answering the question’
Gotcha. Move on dude. Again, saturated.
lol
lobotomized*
Damn brah, you sure got me. Pity you don’t get Philosophy though.
It’s only the young students who are only a few years into their studies, and the people who cherry pick philosophical references to try and promote their views who think that.
lololololololol
dis is a gud philosophy thread, gud job caco
I gave you the answer to your OP. But you didn’t like it. So you posted a bunch of questions that showed you didn’t understand, then answered them yourself with a bunch of strawmen, and essentially asked me to defend all those strawmen. Hilarious. Keep studying. You can multi quote and windbag all you want, but it doesn’t demonstrate anything other than that you believe it’s “he who blows the most hot air must be right”.
I mean, “can philosophy exist without free speech?” What the fuck? Are you writing a 10th grade paper? Did you parents take away your rock and roll albums?
Of course. And this is why you like censorship isn’t it? It means you can just lazily tar people with whatever brush takes your fancy in order to mask how shallow and dim you are.
As I say, you have provided more than enough insight for me. Don’t let me keep you. Play on playa.