Towards a new charter for this board - your opinions needed!

simu

OK, this forum's been here for a few weeks now and I think I'm going to have to get a bit stricter about what's acceptable and what's not as many of the threads seem to drift away from philosophy as they progress. I don't want to make people feel too intimidated to post and I realise that most posters don't come here to write academic-style posts but all the same, I think some guidelines are needed to ensure that this forum remains a philosophy forum and dosen't end up full of posts about issues that would be better discussed in the science forum or even, the creative writing forum!

So, I've written more paragraphs to add to the forum charter. I'm posting them here for a while first becuase I'd like to hear other people's opinions on the issues I'm raising and I'd also like any criticisms and suggestions people have to offer about the charter or the forum in general and how they would like it to operate.

Here goes:

It appears that some posters are unsure what kind of topics are suitable for this board. The question "what is philosophy?" is a philosophical question itself and one that has been debated and answered differently for centuries. For this reason, it would be ever so slightly despotic of me to attempt to give a definitive answer here!

However, to give people some idea of what philosophy is about and what they could post about, here's a snippet from UCD's guide to philosophy for prospective students:

WHAT IS PHILOSOPHY? Philosophy raises - and attempts to answer - ultimate questions concerning the nature, meaning and value of our lives and of the world we live in. It considers such questions as: What does it mean to be human? Is life worth living? What is the nature and scope of human knowledge? Does God exist? Is the concept of "God" meaningful? What are the moral and political values which should govern our lives? What is beauty?

From: http://www.ucd.ie/philosop/GUIDE.htm

The history of philosophy, eastern and western philosophy, modern day philosophers, philosophical methodology, the philosophy of language, mathematics, history etc, philosophy books, websites, courses etc are also valid topics for posting about. This list is certainly not definitive - but it will do to start with!

So, how does one "do" philosophy? Again, this is not an easy question but here's a quote from the wikipedia to give an idea what's involved:

Philosophers generally frame problems in a logical manner, and then work towards a solution based on logical processes and reasoning, based on a critical reading and response to previous work in this area.

From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy

So, yes - you can post really strange ideas (and by all means do!) but you should also try to evaluate the different ideas put forward by posters and yourself on a given topic and reject them or develop them as you see fit.

I've noticed that some people have been posting verses from songs and so on that deal with the same topic as the thread. Personally, I don't see that this contributes to the debate taking place, in most cases. Songs and poetry are, by their nature, ambiguous and it would be far better if the poster explained their thoughts clearly and in their own words. If you really must post part of a poem or a song, post an explanation of how you interpret said poem or song along with it!

Also, note the emphasis on reasoning above! Philosophical ideas are evaluated by reasoning, not by empirical means. If the topic is suited to empirical investigation, then you're probably not dealing with philosophy anymore but with science! Sometimes, it's hard to seperate the two but I've noticed some threads on this board that developed in such a way that the later threads would have been more suited to the science boards! An example: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=151663&perpage=20&pagenumber=1

watty

Sophie's World is good for "beginners" but if you are a student doing a Philosophy course, not much use. In fact the lecturer will get quite cross at students who quote that instead of reading the "proper" books

Philosophy to me, like Jolsien Gardnaar (sp), author of "Sophie's World", is about stepping outside the comfortable status quo, about questioning assumptions. Let's be those who climb to end of the hair on the "rabbit's fur".

Science may be empirical, but I beleive all good Science starts with Philosophy. Philosophy does not need to lead to scientific hypotheses, but it is a "useful" contribution when it does.


So I think it is understandable when a Science thread ends up waxing Philosophical and when Philosophical questions end up sometimes posing scientific hypothesis.


Religion too can be inextricably linked to Philosophy. Much of C.S. Lewis written apologetics have a stronger Philosophical underpinning than conventional Theology. He is more likely to quote a Philosopher than Scripture! His thoughts on Evolution and the very slim volume "The Abolition of Man" owe much more to Philosophy than to Religion, Theology or Science.

I do agree it is woolly and not contributing much to debate to post a poem or a song. Certinally some poets and songwriters have religious and philosophical thoughts, i.e. Leonard Cohen "Even Hell is poisoned with Rainbows", but such a line while evocative can't directly contribute to debate. It might illustrate how a particular philosophic or religious line of reasoning started.

I think Moderating this forum is no easy task!

DadaKopf

I've been finding this forum a little frustrating, Simu. I think providing a charter, including a 'what is philosophy?' section would be useful, but it's important for it not to be too restrictive.

Philosophy is such a broad subject, I look at it as a discipline, or way of thinking about things that tries to make the disparate elements and explanations of our world meaningful.

Unfortunately, as even was the case for many in first year philosophy all those years ago, so many people started the course because they thought it didn't require any work. Philosophy to most is just random teenage whining and is not considered a rigorous way of thinking in the same way empirical or social science is.

It's important not to scare people away from this board by demanding posters have studied philosophy, but I *would* like to see a higher level of debate, no, exploration throughout the threads.

I've often tried to expand arguments, or phrase things in a way that probably require more detailed responses (maybe for example this one) but no one replies. There's nothing ever entirely right about philosophy, holes can always be found, so why is no one properly challenging people's ideas like they do in Politics or Humanities, on occasion?

Without being elitist about anything, I'm wondering how, in this forum, philosophical questions/issues can be discussed philosophically? Clearly many people posting here have studied the subject.

I'd be happy to help out with a charter etc. if it meant this place becoming a hotbed of dangerous thought!

DadaKopf

Oh yeah, and another thing, quoting people, or poets or singers is fine - in fact, philosophers do it all the time but please supplement it with explanations or justifications, as philosophers do.

BuffyBot

I think providing a charter, including a 'what is philosophy?' section would be useful, but it's important for it not to be too restrictive.

I have to agree here. I think the charter shouldn't be too restrictive. Some of the more interesting posts I've read are those which have spun off on a tangent from the main topics. Being too restrictive and narrow might stilfle the whole thing

DadaKopf

I have to say, though, seems like the reason that happenes is because people don't don't want to put the work in when threads get difficult. They're rather ignore someone's point and slink around it with some silly comment. Or, most of the time, a comment that doesn't probe any deeper, which is what philosophy is about.

The whole subject is a challenge, and people seem to be ignoring that. Why, I don't know.

Philosophy always goes off on tangents, but there needs to be a rigorous continuity of thought and argument.

simu

Originally posted by DadaKopf
I have to say, though, seems like the reason that happenes is because people don't don't want to put the work in when threads get difficult. They're rather ignore someone's point and slink around it with some silly comment. Or, most of the time, a comment that doesn't probe any deeper, which is what philosophy is about.

The whole subject is a challenge, and people seem to be ignoring that. Why, I don't know.

Philosophy always goes off on tangents, but there needs to be a rigorous continuity of thought and argument.

Yes, I'm getting that too - somebody states some idea related to the subject at hand, somebody else states something else and so on but people tend not to make an effort to criticise anyone else's ideas and the thread stagnates. Maybe they think this would offend others - some posters don't seem to get the idea that you can attack philosophical arguments just as you can political arguments.

I'm not sure what to do about this. It dosen't seem fair to delete parts of threads that are a bit vague as, usually, the posters mean well and I don't want to scare them off if they're interested in the topic. Is it just that people are unaware that criticism is welcome and even necessary on a board like this? Anybody got ideas about how to encourage people to get more critical?

I'd be happy to help out with a charter etc. if it meant this place becoming a hotbed of dangerous thought!

Sure! This is why I started this thread. For anyone wants to help, post your ideas for the charter in this thread. I'm particularly hoping to get a suitable "definition of philosophy" that will give people an idea of what's relevant to the board without getting too long or technical. I posted a first attempt in my first post of this thread - if you have suggestions how to improve on this, post them!

There should also be a section in the forum on how to post here - how to state your argument and so on. Again, if you have suggestions for this or useful links, post them up.

ecksor

WRT to your post on the philosophy of mathematics thread, I am planning to reply but have spent the week so far wrestling with complex functions. I was thinking of refusing to do the assignment based on the objection that complex numbers don't exist and wondering if hilarity would ensue ...

Anyway, philosophy and particularly the more analytic branches with relevance to linguistics and mathematics are something I find interesting, but I certainly am not well informed in the area. I wouldn't expect all posters to be well read in the area but I'd still expect the clear presentation of arguments and ideas at all times and an attempt to resolve them with any problems that arise through the course of the discussion. Although I have given the core question of that particular thread about mathematics some considerable thought at various times, I wouldn't be able to rattle off a glib answer without giving it some time. I'd hope that people do try to post something that they think they will be able to stand over (you can't allow for the possibility that someone will decisively disembowel your argument in front of you and proceed to perform an autopsy on it while it dies before your eyes of course).

Regarding the image that philosophy has, the thread on random thoughts about time reminded me of the woman who was going to spend her lotto winnings on windmills and all the horses in Ireland ...

davej

I've often tried to expand arguments, or phrase things in a way that probably require more detailed responses (maybe for example this one) but no one replies. There's nothing ever entirely right about philosophy, holes can always be found, so why is no one properly challenging people's ideas like they do in Politics or Humanities, on occasion?

I would really like to get into some philosophical discussions, especially about the nature of language, Kant's (and others) ideas about time and space, the relationship between evolution and understanding, the relationship between science and metaphysics etc..

However at the moment i simply don't have the time to compose such weighty missives. I feel I wouldn't do my arguments justice so I'd rather post nothing.

Perhaps if i'm really intrigued by a post i'll manage to reply..

davej

davej

Perhaps if there were a "Question of the week/month" sticky where some strict guidelines about the type of replies allowed were enforced?

This doesn't necessarily mean that all posters should be referencing Descartes or Wittgenstein, rather each post should add something meaningful to the discussion.

It will be nigh on impossible to prevent poor responses across the whole forum, but having at least one thread where a higher degree of thought is expected (and enforced) might be feasable. I feel I would be much more likely to contribute if i knew my arguments would be taken seriously in at least one thread.

davej

Trebor

As a complete beginner to the subject of philosophy i feel like i am letting the forum down by posting what are only passing thoughts. i am really interested in this subject but do not see myself doing it in collage. i am going to get myself some of the books that have been recommended to me but it could take some time to become well versed in the subject.

From reading the threads that are already here it is clear to see that there are people who have studied this subject. Would it be possible for an introduction to philosophy? kind of like an e-learning version of the basics that could be put up. this way new readers could read said thread and be able to understand the basics that are required of them to make a post.

DadaKopf

Thanks Trebor, you've reminded me of a few important things I forgot to say.

As Sartre once said that existentialism meant people could philosophise about a wine glass. For what was a detailed, rigorously developed (and wrong!) philosophy, existentialism was all about bringing philosophy back to everyday life, through which we could examine our existence.

It's OK for people who haven't studied philosophy, or subjects with a philosophical component, to contribute to conversations by making considered responses with reference to their own expertise, or to 'real world' evidence (current affairs, history, life experiences etc.).

It's through becoming enamoured with these kinds of questions that feed the philosophical drive. It's how I got into it.

But those who do know about philosophy should accept their duty to explain the relevant ideas to the newbies, to, if possible, frame their ideas within a philosophical context for their benefit, and to consider their posts to be on a par with the one who learned about that stuff.

And since philosophy is about asking questions, please, noobs, ask posters what they mean if you don't understand!

It's a tall order, but it's fair inclusive.

As for ideas, to get those interested involved, how about Simu makes a "Philosopher of the Week/Month" thread. It would be a sticky post that contains a biography and summary of this guy's/gal's, or aspects of this guy's/gal's philosophy. Those who want to join in the debate would be encouraged to read the readings about the guy/gal and that would provide everyone with concepts and terminologies to engage in philosophical debate.

Hopefully, by the end of it, regulars will have built up a stock of ideas the way they should: through philosophical debate!

simu

And since philosophy is about asking questions, please, noobs, ask posters what they mean if you don't understand!

Yes, I'll put something in the charter about that. And, for everyone using the forum, if you don't understand someone else's post, i think it would be a good idea to ask them to clarify what they meant instead of just skipping that particular post - hopefully, this would encourage people to express themselves more clearly and improve the overall quality of debate.

Keep the ideas coming!

I'll start another thread on the "philosopher of the month"-type thread a few people have suggested.

watty

Originally posted by ecksor
<snip> I was thinking of refusing to do the assignment based on the objection that complex numbers don't exist and wondering if hilarity would ensue ...
<snip>

Grasp a too short transmitter aerial and then tell me complex numbers don't exist (after you get treatment for burns will do).

Admittedly when doing Mathematics, they usually don't tell you what they are for.

On a philosphical note, you might sit back, listening to music and feel "life" and the Universe is an illusion. Till the weekend when you hit the wrong "nail" with a hammer fixing the fence.

Fysh

Personally, I find this an interesting forum but so far threads have meandered too far from the philosophical aspect. I know I've been guilty of contributing to this in threads which have scientific backgrounds, but I do think that threads have to be constrained somewhat, and that while we don't want to scare off any newbies interested in learning more, we should try and filter out "fluff" respones, ie those which contribute nothing to the debate or which are so vague that they can be interpreted in several different ways, thereby removing their value in terms of philosophical discussion.

Personally, I'm opposed to quoting songs/poems/books/films/whatever unless the relevant argument is inherently expressed in the quote, or the poster then goes on to expand this. For want of a better example (and i don't mean this in a harsh way) in one of the threads discussing the nature of time someone posted a load of Pink Floyd lyrics. Which are very nice, and evoke a certain feeling rather well. But which, in the context of the discussion on the thread, contribute nothing of worth. There was no real acknowledgement of anything anyone else said.

This is kind of annoying, because for me at least it prompts a similar reaction to the one I'd give if, in the middle of a conversation with a few friends in a pub, someone wandering past suddenly interrupted us to offer a gem of wisdom which had nothing to do with what we were talking about.

I'm not by any means saying that someone who doesn't have a degree in Philosophy should refrain from contributing (my own personal experience in it is pased solely on reading books on it in my spare time), just that when people post it should either in some way (however small) help to develop one or more previous ideas expressed in the thread, or request an expansion of an idea expressed in some other post.

The Philosopher of the Month thread sounds like a really good idea, a nice way to keep the forum active and encourage ongoing learning (which should be an interest for anyone keen on philosophy).

Edited to correct typos because I'm a bit daft like that

DadaKopf

Sure, a quotation is fine as part of an argument. A quotation isn't a substitute for an argument.

ecksor

Originally posted by watty
Grasp a too short transmitter aerial and then tell me complex numbers don't exist (after you get treatment for burns will do).

You got burned by a complex number? I think you missed the joke ...

Admittedly when doing Mathematics, they usually don't tell you what they are for.

I'm aware of the engineering applications. That doesn't mean that that's what they're "for" any more than they were created for answering questions about the prime counting function or any of the many other areas in which they pop up. I think this would be better off on the relevant thread though.

simu

I updated the charter just now. I'm hoping this will give people a better idea of what to expect of this forum and how they should post here. I'm hoping to get the philosopher of the month going soon as well.