proposing a new rule

i think here at ilp we should have a new rule, something like

"while philosophy can be seen as related to virtually any scientific endeavour of the human mind, be it hard physics or soft sociology, it can not be seen as related to any “occult” or “mystical” endeavour of the human mind, be it astrology, conspiracy theories of all sorts, fortune telling, religion (as opposed to teology, ie inasmuch as it considers “absolute” truths that have been bestowed from beyond), axiomatic retentiveness and so forth

inasmuch as what you would say is a result of a process of rational thought, it belongs shared with others and it’s welcome on this board. inasmuch as what you would say is a result of your own intimate beliefs, that you hold to be true absolutely and beyond any challenge, it belongs kept to yourself and is not welcome on this board

as a simple rule, if you can’t admit the possibility that what you are about to say is wrong (in the very practical sense that if asked to do so, you can name a circumstance which would actually prove it wrong), we can not admit it on our board."

this will hopefully go at least a bit towards keeping the philosophy board from turning into the quacks convention.

Hey zeno,

I agree with your rule but I imagine the problem would come in policing it. Every time a mod took action against this it would get called upon and we’d have to have a massive debate about it. We have enough trouble enforcing the rules that are relatively simple!

My advice is to ignore the people who you refer to in your rule. It is the only way they will learn. If you ignore and the person is still continually disrupting a thread then report them to a mod.

If you have any more thoughts on it let me know, I don’t want it to feel like I’ve just closed the discussion.

Cheers

Ben

personally i don’t get why people try to enforce or create rules on philosophy boards, then expect to have an easy go at them. The nature of a philosopher is to question EVERYTHING, weight the pros and cons of a given situation, try to discover a meaning that might not be readily seen.

I do like this idea, forcing people to philosophise about their own topics can only help the board, a true philosopher would love to debate the ins and outs of the rule, so i don’t see why a mod would have a problem enforcing it, rules can be monotonist, but once gained they are easy to deal with, especially on a philosophy board. All that rule really does is transfer people from trying to force views on others, to having ideas forced on them, which will have one of two outcomes, both are perfect for the type of board. One, the person will stop trying to force their beliefs on others, two the person will try to challenge the rule and actually think of how it doesn;t apply to them, which would create philosophical debate.

It’s actually a beautiful rule. Turning the problem causer into the cure of their own disease.

In the same way that a forum on democracy doesn’t have to be run on democratic lines and a forum on russian roulette doesn’t require its members to gamble on their life every time they log in, I see no reason why a forum on philosophy has to be run by ‘philosophical’ methods. The rules are there to promote discussion not to hinder them. Whether they work all the time is another debate, sometimes they fall short of their purpose. Giving people a ‘free philosophical reign’ would just create anarchy.

The challenging you speak of just translates to a lot of time-wasting for the mods who volunteer their time.

ben that is why i included a :

its really simple. someone says something, another person asks them for the circumstance which would prove the first person’s contention wrong. first person fails to answer that question on their next post, wham, ban.

simple, really.

Zeno,

It seems to me that your rationale for a new set of rules governing the forums is already answered for you. Please refer to the Philosophy (heavily moderated) forum. The format you seek is contained here. If you have not been invited to post in this forum I’m sure than Ben or Pax Vitae can arrange it. Although I understand your desire to limit all discussion to that which is rational, the field of human inquiry doesn’t neatly fit into that particular box. There may be other ways of ‘seeing’ the world.

Your thinly veiled contempt for other forms of inquiry in the human condition is noted, both in your collected posts, and in your proposal here. I’m sure that you would be much happier ignoring the forum in general and focussing on being present in the heavily moderated philosophy forum.

JT