Well, I’ve been a member for six years now. I disappeared for a while, did not post, but would check on active topics.
My first post was on suicidie and yet I still ponder the option six years later.
I don’t think it’s much of a problem that similar thread topics are rehashed (because of they are important), however, I see a common theme. Much of it is Nietzche related (or religion hype). This is all fair and and good but Socrates strikes me in every arguement. People want you to define the subject. Then they debate the definiton.
If you offer a poll on an option, “other” is the most popular. Because everyone wants to be the camera behind the camera.
Lastly, and most importantly, the intention of ILP. What is it? I see many people sharpening their debate skills. This is good, but is it the goal? I notice that most people that agree on a topic ignore each other. It’s as if, if there is no conversion of thought, then it is not worth it. People don’t seek to build upon agreement, they’d rather tear apart a stranger’s point of view. In the end, is that what ILP is for? There is no Tower of Bable here.
I’ve been called stupid here. I’ve been called a genius here.
Do you fear being wrong individually even if it means sacraficing for a greater right of view in the long run?
Well, I think this is my last post. I think I wont be checking active topics anymore eventually.
At the very least, I have enjoyed knowing other people are out there are having thoughts. I suppose my ideals for such a community extend past my appreciation.
If I can speak for myself I have learnt a great deal from people in the short time I have been here. I am a mediocre philosopher at best, and a half hearted cardboard cut out on lifes highway. But I like this forum. It’s not shit. And that my friend is probably the largest compliment I will ever give any forum.
I don’t mean to say it’s shit. It is better than most stuff on the net. I’m just calling for something to build upon.
I guess I’ve broken my last post rule.
I learn stuff from people here, too, but is it enough to surpass the difference of opinons that seem to dominate much of the discussion. Isn’t agreement something to work towards? If it isn’t, then I expect too much.
You expect too much, probably the greatest strength of a community is a difference of opinion amongst its users, you don’t want to get rid of anyone no matter how crazy their opinions are.
I don’t know, I can’t comment on what makes a good forum, you just know it when you see it.
What exactly does the difference of opinions accomplish? If you make several points, the “opponent” picks out the weakest statement and addresses that, while ignoring the rest.
I’m not saying different opinions are not welcome. Of course they are. But in the end, debate is just hot air. There are a lot of people here who are satisfied with out intellectualizing each other.
I’m really aware that other people think differently even if I don’t visit this site. At what point is common ground valued?
I missed you while you were gone, and was happy when you came back. I always enjoy your take on things. I didn’t realize you had specific ideals about ILP as a community. Are you seeking to build on agreement? If so, I’ve never really had that impression about you. You seem more like a poster who enjoys crafting an innovative response to a topic, which somehow gets to the heart of the matter and possibly makes people confront their own views and values and have a little jolt of awakening. Kind of a Kierkegaardian type.
Well, thank you very much for the kind words. Yes, I am seeking to build on agreements. And before anyone claims a utopia is what I’m after, I’d say that agreements that lead to other agreements might be a start.
With people in my everyday life, I hear “whoa, you’re getting too deep” and so I come to ILP where that never stops a discussion. That’s the great thing about this community. However, I’m not looking to stand out with some unique perspective that, in end, makes me feel alone in my viewpoint. I hope that some general consensus can be reached on some of the questions that are most important to us, here. Perhaps, action would follow.
What I’ve seen is the competive aspect of not wanting to be wrong, more so than inching closer to a more correct answer. Since people are more concerned with indivdual stances, I’ve sorta lost my motive to join the like mindedness of other thinkers.
I’m aware that people have different experiences that shape how they see the world, but to put that on display with no real goal of resolving that, I’m questioning the point of measuring differences.
Anyway, thanks for the appreciation, while I last here.
I’ll be sorry to see you go if that ends up being the case, Nano-Bug, but it seems that the primary purpose of ILP is entertainment through discussion and if you are no longer having that desire met, then I understand and respect your decision.
I’ve not mentioned it, but I think it would be an interesting experiment to have a Sub-Forum in which the premise is only to contribute to a thread if you generally agree with the OP in order to construct an extremely strong mutual position on a matter. Most people (including myself) do not have the time to put into researching what would qualify as a formal academic position (i.e. at least college-level) for every opinion expressed at ILP, but if there were threads premised on some sort of collaborative effort to strengthen a position rather than argue against it, then the final position ultimately presented would be more complete.
I don’t know if you recall the ILP v. ILO Debates, but that is essentially what happened there as (at least on the ILO side) there was much discourse, via PM, on exactly how to pursue the topic at-hand and rather than just having each individual participant shoot from the hip, there was a cohesive argument (with a few individual touches, of course) that was presented.
Anyway, if there are any positions in which we do agree that you would like to further discuss with me in order to attempt to achieve said strengthening, then I would be entirely in favor of doing so with you.
Hello nano-bug
I never saw it like that before. I think that you’re right on some observations…well, most. I offer this thought. Western philosophy has been called a set of footnotes on Plato. Philosophy carries within an agonist spirit. It is defined by its jousting. From Plato to Hume, to Nietzsche, there is this idea of improving, of correcting, even when paradoxically maintaining the impossibility of progress.
So, if you see a bit of antagonism here for nothing other than to antagonize it is because philosophy has defined itself this way rather than in agreement and cooperation.
I do see debate as needed. But I also like the sub section that Pav mentioned based on agreement building.
I remember a poster one time making a thread on a metaphysical topic. I told him I agreed with much of what he said and suggested he tell me more, since he was so passionate about it. Then someone attacked his ideas and he began to address the attacker, ignorning me.
I suppose agreement is boring for some. I guess I’ll stick around, since the debates are more worthwhile than other places on the net.
Yeah trust me on this as far as philosophical mediums go this is about as good as it gets. You can leave as is your right but you wont find anything better.
