oops --mea culpa.

rebecca

oops --mea culpa.

rebecca

aww shucks. I was just starting to like you, and then you went and said that.

I don't know what road you are talking about, since you never say, but I hope that truth and understanding are at the end of that road, whatever that road is. Don't you?

I am beginning to notice a difference between arguing philosophy and engaging in philosophy.
For this purpose I will view philosophy as if standing on a road, from my perspective the road stretches to a vanishing point in the distance.

I want to distinguish between my position on the road and the view down the road.
It seems that quite often we are arguing from our position on the road.
I'll define this as arguing philosophy.
I define engaging in philosophy as attempting to move down the road, extending the vanishing point .
By this view, philosophy is never perfected, yet , always moving down the road.
Do you see the difference I am suggesting.?
Are we more often, arguing "A" philosophy, rather than engaging in philosophy?
If you are interested, use this thread to demonstrate and explore the difference.

My ideal forum is a place where enthusiasts gather to share their enthusiasm first, and arguments later. Philosophy is a specialty interest.

Great post. I suggest a balance. Are we seeking answers? Or is the journey itself the destination?

A mortal beings in a world like this, we probably can't help wanting some kind of working solution or general response to the problem/gift of existence. It matters whether we think there is a god, afterlife, universal ethics, etc. It's hard for us to be completely neutral on such matters.

But once one has something worked out along this line, one can play with ideas that enrich, a multitude of perspectives. It seems to me that all real friendship is based on an ability to open oneself to the perspective of the other. One must put aside one's isms, at least a little bit. But friendship is difficult when we are dealing with nothing but words on a screen. Empathy and affection are what motivates us to bend. And yet here we are strangers who mostly won't even show our faces to one another..and perhaps with good reason..perhaps faces betray too much. It's easier to drag out real or imagined credentials. It's easier to talk sh*t.

My ideal forum is a place where enthusiasts gather to share their enthusiasm first, and arguments later. Philosophy is a specialty interest. It's nice to find others who read the books one loves. It's nice to talk about grand issues. I used to wonder why this forum was not more populated. I see now that it's no fault of this particular forum but a fault of internet forums in general. Live conversation is balanced by empathy, affection, the living presence of the other...and even the possibility of getting kicked in the stomach for a malicious statement....:flowers:

I used the road and the vanishing point to try and portray what you are saying about the search for answers, working solutions and the journey.
I think it is all of those things, the balance, as you say, is important.
Every working solution is a fixed point along the road, we should always remain open to ways to move those solutions down the road.

There are many different people on this forum. Some of us are more light hearted, seat of the pants kind of people, while others are very academic and exacting. There is ( ideally ) a balance between the two that can be very productive when we try to understand each other.
So true, what I hear you say about the difficulty of this, but I think we can do that, we should give each other the benefit of the doubt, as we are easily misunderstood.

I think that if the issue requires being exact, then you should be exact about it. If not, then not. If you are adding up a column of figures in order to answer the question, how much money there is in your account, I would advise being exact. If, on the other hand, you are leaving a tip for a waiter, and you think that fifteen percent is right, then you can go over or under by a little bit. You can be lighthearted about it. In logical matters, lightheartedness is not recommended.

Exactly correct sir.
This makes a good example of the balance between the persons here.
You are far more exact and academic than I am, when I assume, or get lazy, or otherwise fail to be exact in my descriptions, I know that you will call me to task. I learn from this ( slowly, very slowly). That has a great value to me, it requires that I give you the benefit of the doubt, else I might think you dense, which you are not.
Books can't do for me what is done in my discourse with someone like you.
Don't ever think I don't place a high value on your time spent arguing, discussing with me.

Only I don't see what it has to do with a balance between persons. It has to do with having an appropriate approach toward what you are dealing with.It is the mark of an educated man to look for precision in each class of things just so far as the nature of the subject admits. ~ Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics

Not all intelligent men are educated, not all educated men are intelligent.
I'm using "intelligent" loosely here.
The appropriate approach for an educated man may differ from the appropriate approach for an uneducated man.
That these two find a balance of communication seems vital to me.
If we were writing a text book here ,the level of precision required would be much higher, of course. But we are not writing a text book.
What is important here, is that we understand and respect each other well enough to facilitate an exchange of thoughts and ideas.
That doesn't require that I become academic ,only that I learn to communicate with the academic, and that the academic learn to communicate with me.
That is a balance of responsibility between persons.

If you want to write a textbook later feel free.

But Aristotle was not saying that only educated men should approach a problem appropriately. He was setting the educated man as a standard for how we should all think. He was not being relativistic about it.

Sure, I can understand that.

What I'm essentially saying ,though, is that the internet is not the dark tent of academia, it has changed all of that forever.
Do you not think you have some responsibity to help bridge the gap that often appears here between the academic and the intelligent "common man?

Indeed. And that is just what I think I am doing on this forum. Why don't you think that is what I am doing? That is exactly why I don't discuss only strictly philosophical subjects, but political and social subjects as they come up. And I try to apply critical thinking to them just as I do to a problem like free will, or knowledge. It is disappointing for me that you doubt that is what I am doing.

Are we engaging over philosophy? IMO it must be easy to understand. I mistrust definitions, prefer down to earth filosofie.

European spelling

a lot of philosophy consists of trying to define words you think you know the meaning of.