Mundane Babble is a cool, catchy title, Non-Philosophical Chat is lame.
It makes no sense, Non-Philosophical Chat could include all the forums besides Philosophy.
Although I suppose non-philosophical chat could mean strictly non-philosophical chat, whereas say the Science forum is open to both scientific, and philosophical chat about science.
Aside from the Philosophy board, the Society, Government, and Economics board, the Science, Technology, and Math board, the Psychology and Mind board, and the Religion and Spirituality board call the rest of them anything you like.
Since this is will soon be mundane babble, I’ll let it go.
But, if this were the philosophy board, I’d have to explain to him [yet again] the distinction between those things that we encounter in our day to day interactions with others that are readily able to be demonstrated as true objectively for all of us, and those things which would appear to be the embodiment of subjective/subjunctive opinions rooted in political prejudices derived from dasein.
Indeed, let him create that thread on the philosophy board. Let him note a set of circumstances in which conflicting goods manifest themselves through conflicting behaviors. Then we can delve into those things able to be agreed upon by all rational human beings as in fact true for all of us…and those things in which both sides are able to note arguments that are reasonable only given conflicting sets of initial assumptions.
For example, Donald Trump is now the president of the United States vs. Donald Trump is a great president. Or the issue can be capitalism vs. socialism or abortion or gun control or any other context in which objective facts are there to be demonstrated… along with subjective opinions regarding right and wrong behaviors.
It’s really not a difficult distinction to grasp.
It’s just that with the moral and political objectivist among us, there is no real distinction at all. You either agree that their own value judgments are in fact objectively right or you are objectively wrong.
That being said, that the western intellectual establishment neatly places all phenomena into one of just two boxes: matters of fact, and matters of opinion, with (next to) no overlap, is also rather subjective.
The intelligentsia wants to ensure you only think within the facts, never outside them, and every year the list of facts grows larger while the list of acceptable opinions shrinks.
I’m open to renaming it, but would need to include more candidates in the poll; limiting it to Mundane Babble and Non-Philosophical Chat is arbitrary. There’s at least one other name that that forum has worn since being named Mundane Babble (and one I particularly liked, Off Topic).
The off-topic chit-chat forum of every forum created in the early 2000s is called “Mundane Babble”. It was a thing. If it ever was cool, it is not cool now. Maybe in a few more years it will be retro cool.
Disagree. First, all the forums under the “Philosophy Forums” are philosophical. There is a catch-all philosophy forum for centrally philosophical conversations, but the other forums can be thought of as “philosophy of [forum topic]”. It’s broad, but philosophy is broad (Jimmy Wales has pointed out that if you keep clicking on the first link in the opening paragraph of Wikipedia pages, you almost always get to the Philosophy page within a half dozen clicks). And the website being named “I Love Philosophy” mostly selects for an audience that wants discussions on those topics with a philosophical flavor.
There are other non-philosophical forums, but I think the “Chat” does the work of differentiating it from them.
My own interest here however is in taking whatever “intellectual establishment” one might note out into the world of human interactions. Actual human social, political and economic relationships that come into conflict over value judgments. And, then, through an exchange of moral philosophies that would amount to anything but mundane babble, explore particular aspects of those interactions able to be established as in fact true for everyone objectively…or embedded more in subjective/subjunctive personal opinions that, from my frame of mind, are rooted less in what we claim to know is true using the tools of philosophy and more in what we are able to demonstrate as in fact true for all rational human beings in regard to this part…
My arguments here are noted in my signature threads.
“That being said, that the western intellectual establishment neatly places all phenomena into one of just two boxes: matters of fact, and matters of opinion, with (next to) no overlap, is also rather subjective.”
the matters of fact AND matters of opinion should be altered to ‘matters of fact and/or opinion.’