Hi, welcome. We love new members to share their ideas.
After all no one would be what they are if it wasn't for an Other.

Welcome! I look forward to reading some of your work

I really like this board so far and I do intend to contribute but I am also interested in meeting people that might want to join the discussion on my yahoo forum Undiscovered Country. If you are interested please introduce yourself and what your main interest in philosophy is. The reason I started my group is because I do not want my book to remain only my point of view without input from those that might be affected by my analysis and conclusions.

Maybe my book will have no impact or never be published. But if it is published I do not want it to simply be viewed as glorifying my own ego. Anyway even if you are not interested in joining my group I still would appreciate introductions.

so does your book have a focus? I can't imagine it is just on pure philosophy. That is way too broad of a topic.

Now my book does have a focus. The focus is on what philosophers contribute to society.

There is another writer on this board that seems to be writing a similar book to mine but seems to be making an argument for deism. From what I gather from his website the conflict between the secular and theistic world view can be resolved through Deism.

Although I might prefer Deism to theism my book isnt focused on a particular ism.

To quote one of my responses to my cousin on my group

My book isn't about my philosophical position. It is about philosophy. Philosophy doesn't have positions. Only ideologies have positions. Philosophy isn't about debate or issues. Philosophy is about advancing society by teaching people how to think outside ideologies and belief systems.

I think that is the crux of my book. Challenging ideologies position in our society. Pointing out that our society could move forward much more easily if we didn't rely on authorities or experts to think for us.

A great philosopher once wrote that philosophy always disturbs the peace. But I am not sure how determining what philosophy IS or should be is not, meta-philosophically speaking, nevertheless a position.
At any rate, I look forward to discussing this and other topics in the forums themselves.
Welcome to Philforum!
Regards,
John

No one reads books... If you want to communicate, this is the place... The world is flooded with books after all, good books, good ideas, classy stories, good scholarship... What do you have that is worth keeping a couple of book ends from true love??? I can write here, and turn back a few pages and say: Wow, did I really write that??? And I can turn back a few pages and see my growth and the maturation of my thoughts on certain subjects... When one produces an artifact out of art, there must be some commanding reason for it... Is that book essential to your survival, or to the survival or your nation or species??? Because if you can survive without it, survive without writing another book no one has time to read, or a place to put, then you are only adding to the general clutter. Nothing is preferable to the immediacy of conversation in this great Salon of ideas...I have lots of books, and I love them all like my children, but this is better yet... I guess it was Husserel who said: People should think... He published quite little, and revised often... Never lock yourself out of growth without a key... Here is a dynamic relationship at work... Keep your head down, your gloves up, stay light on your feet, and bob and weave... Don't forget to jab... Get your distance and if some one gets inside, then own them...As Anni Defranco said: we barely have time to react in this life, let alone rehears... React first, master that, and then act only when you are certain of the consequences...

---------- Post added 06-07-2010 at 09:15 AM ----------

Seriously??? You are going to write a book about what philosophers contribute to society... Like the man said about his son: He is studying to become an astronaut; He is taking up space... There is your contribution... People only do philosophy until the philosophers shows up... None so far have been any good at it and some of the best have been complete failures at life and relationships, which is the very evidence the world needs that their philosophy was worth spit...

Yes this place is really cool that is why I joined. And yes I do want to contribute to the conversations here as well.
No one reads books? Not sure I can agree with that. Although I do agree there is a lot of anti-intellectualism. I'm not trying to promote intellectualism but philosophy which is the seeking of wisdom.



I'm not sure I agree that most books are good ideas or good scholarship either. Most popular nonfiction books esp ones that break down how society works or can be improved are based on accepted ideologies.



I certainly do not want to cling to hubris that my book is going to go down as noble peace prize winning gift to mankind. On the other hand it is my intention that my writing is a significant contribution to mankind.

I am only human the best I can do is use my passion and intellect to create something that inspires people to at least attempt to create a better society. If I fail then I fail.You can not succeed if you are afraid of failing.



Yes I agree. Which is why I am doing my best to make a contribution not just to achieve something for me.



I feel the same way you do. I have joined group after group sharing my ideas. I have not published anything yet. This would be my first book presuming I get published




---------- Post added 06-07-2010 at 09:15 AM ----------


I don't think I can wait to act until I am certain of the consequences.



No I'm not really going to write a book on what philosophers contribute. I am sure that has been done.

I'm not sure what the rest of your point is here.

Do you really think NASA is a waste of time?
Or are you trying to compare astronauts to rock stars? Where people who dream about becoming one are wasting their time because most people fail it and those who actually achieve their dream contribute nothing to our society?

I do not think I could agree to any of those points as being true.

The last quote implies everyone is a philosopher and therefor philosophy isn't a discipline. And anyone claiming to be a philosopher is full of hot air. If that is true why are you on this board? If you do not respect philosophy why quote Husserel? Or are you trying to imply that all the great philosophers have already spoken?



Not sure I can agree with that either. Van Gogh cut off his ear. Nietzsche went insane. And Sartre was a womanizer and worse. He had no concept of a healthy relationship. I still think Van Gogh contributed to art and society as a whole. Half of the best artist have shown signs of insanity.

Philosophy is no better. This is because how our society treats our artist musicians and philosophers. As a society we have less respect for our creative people then we do for our intellectuals. This is the problem.

We define success as achieving what the majority people value. Sanity is defined as functioning in a sick society. We define thinking as choosing which ideology to defend. So far none of this works. The true definition of insanity is to keep trying the same thing and expecting different results. And that is how our society is built.

Everywhere you look those with any power seem to follow only one rule. If it makes sense don't do it. And everyone else simply complies with what they are told are the rules built around this... afraid of the alternative. If you don't think then someone has to do this for you. The alternative is that we all become philosophers.

Obviously as a whole our society rejects this alternative. I am writing a book to show the consequences this has already had and the consequences this will lead to for the future of man kind. You can lead a man to enlightenment but you can't make him think.

So like philosophers before me I can not assume what ever contribution I make will affect society in a positive move forward in my lifetime.

Maybe my thoughts will only make a contribution a 100 years later. I really do not think that I am that ahead of my time. But I do think that it is crucial that I say what I have to say.

And if I am wrong then let mankind learn from my mistakes. If I have nothing to contribute then so be it. It is not for me to decide.

---------- Post added 06-07-2010 at 07:12 PM ----------




Hello John
It is nice to meet you. Just to clarify I am not using my book to justify my idea of what philosophy IS or should be. I guess if I were this would technically be a position on philosophy itself. It is and interesting question though. I think when I stated that it is not the goal of philosophy to take a position I meant only what is meant when taking a stand in a debate.

I guess you can use philosophy to shore up ideologies.
Right now this is about all philosophy is used for in our society aside from just entertainment to those who enjoy it.

I further claim that our society tends to make major decisions on how society should work based on ideologies. To me issues are irrelevant without values. But values of ideologies are worthless because most values in ideologies fail to work outside those ideologies. The values that do work independent of any ideology that thought them up actually will work better when not constrained by ideology or public opinion.

I am arguing the best way to get good values to base a society on is philosophy. So philosophy in our society should be more valued than it is. Just as Science should be more valued than it is compared to religion in answering questions.

Religion brings up far more questions than it can answer and the main point of religion is not to answer questions but to stop people from asking questions.

The main point in ideologies is to do the same thing.

According to Religion and Ideology we do not need more questioning or seeking we need more obedience. Now even science has fallen in line with behaviorism as the main tenet of human nature. Which serves the purpose to help social engineers keep people in line when religion fails to.

What we need is more philosophers to eat more fruit from the tree of knowledge and share this fruit with many people as possible. We need philosophers and scientist to work together to rebuild the tower of Babel and this time to work on communication so the project can continue until we reach the heavens.

So, do you have a history of bi-polar syndrom??? I mean, another sort of philosopher, Dr. Johnson talked in his day about how difficult it was for each succeeding generation to learn what the generation past had learned and then to add to it...And we have become so specialized in our knowledge just because no one, no philosopher can have more than a general knowledge... And I have read Will and Areal Durrant in his, and their massive endeavor on history, and he was a philosopher with a love of philosophy, and to both of them it was a life's labor; so I would ask: what is it you are willing to devote your life to, and do you comprehend the meaning of the word, devotion...

Samual Johnson was hell on cant, and so am I... All that junk about eating at the tree of knowledge might be some kind of code in the Carolinas, but almost everywhere else it is pure cant, and if you want to make sense you will have to talk sensibly... People read philosophy, and discuss philosophy, and two things make philsophers, in my opinion, and one is knowledge which almost anyone can own with effort, and the other is insight which only the fortunate own... With that said, I will stand aside and let you have your goals, but you better be better than your cant reveals...

I would recomend: The Scientific Background to Modern Philosophy, selected readings, Edited by Michael R. Matthews... There are a handful who at at the tree of knowledge hoggut...Might be a good place to start unless you are planning to start at the wrong end..

Um are you serious? Code in the Carolinas? Nc isnt my birth place or where I grew up. I have no roots here. The tree of knowledge is a biblical reference. Theism teaches that knowledge is sin. So I was making a dig there at theism nothing to do with North Carolina. I have also lived in NY, Michigan, Md, Ohio, Indiana etc Did you find any codes for those places? Bipolar? So now your a psychologist as well?

Ok if I cant get any serious takers here I will stop posting to the thread. This was just supposed to be an introduction thread anyway. Although I would love to hear what your theory of Can't is. Sounded like an incoherent rant to me.

Anyway maybe you were just joking around? I will check out your suggestions to see if there is anything serious in your thoughts I can use. Just out of curiosity alone I will look into these things. Wouldn't be surprised if you made them up.

Did I forget to say welcome??? Well welcome, and beware of the dog... Look up cant in the dictionary... That is code for: Look up cant in the dictionary..

I too am an aspiring writer. I have written a private eye novel. Just sent if off to the private eye writers of America competition again, this must be six years running now. Each year I've attempted to improve the novel. Otherwise, I've submitted just this May and June two philosophy articles to two different journals, The Philosophical Review, and the other the Kritike on line journal; and had a paper I wrote early last year appear in the March 2013 edition of the Review of Metaphysics. The published paper's title is: "Beyond Kant and Hegel, in Answer to the Question: 'How Are Synthetic Cognitions A Priori Possible?'" It presents the premise to an argument that I've advanced in answer to the challenge of Immanuel Kant. My own site can be accessed by doing a search for causal arguments on the internet. The title of my answer to Kant is: Causal Argument for the Existence of a Supreme Being.

It's an actual philosophical argument. So it goes against the idea that philosophy is only the study of how to think.

Philosophy is still a quest to answer and discuss the larger questions. Those cosmological questions can never be divorced from the idea of what philosophy is. The very attempt to define philosophy by stating what it is, or is not, is a limitation imposed on philosophy; and I like to look at philosophy as completely unrestricted ... in the same way that I look at art. There are no rules in art. There should be no rules in philosophy, aside from making your point clearly, and concisely, so others can understand the position that you're advocating.

Welcome to the forum, but this is belated, considering that I just recently signed on to this forum.