Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Synthesis]

Scott, although I am sympathetic with your intentions, reality suggests that the best you can hope for is as much freedom as is possible. Top down management only works for the few, and then only until they trash the place.

All experience must include the bad with the good, otherwise, you will end up with what you see on television.

[-1-]

This has been the best managed philosophy site of those with general admittance of members.

Your plea may be true, but empirical studies made on this site prove the opposite of your claim, Synthesis.

[Burning ghost]

How to have a productive philosophical conversation?

Converse with people who are philosophically productive.

[ErnestSantiago]

Most importantly, you need to listen as well as you can to the other people in the discussion. Many people talk too much and listen too little. Ironically, if you talk too much, you will have a lot of trouble expressing yourself. If you listen well, you can express yourself better because you can tailor your response to what the person has already said. Additionally, if you listen to others intently, they will likely return the favor. If you do not listen to them and just try to talk over them, then they will likely do the same to you.

[Intellectual_Savnot]

I would say the best advice comes from A West Side Story. "Stay cool, boy"
If the responder seems red hot, just play it cool, you might have missed something.
If the poster seems red hot, it remains true.
If you can help it, be a cool boi. Best discussion comes from a cooled tongue that can release hot knowledge and ideas, keeping its cool the while. As long as we play it cool, nobody gets offended and everything stays right in the world. Neato, see you later, intellectuals!

[Scruffy Nerf Herder]

Definitions:

Understanding and appreciating definitions is a huge part of having productive philosophical conversations.

What is a definition? What makes a definition good? What does it mean for a definition to be "wrong" or "right"? What kinds of definitions can there be? I'll tackle them in order and leave them up to any other interested parties to answer.

-A definition is a way of agreeing upon which connotations for a word are acceptable/useful in a given dialogue. There are different kinds of definitions, and in stark contrast to one popular belief it is not at all useful to be slavish to dictionary definitions and they are not the "right" definitions.

-A definition becomes good when it is useful. It is terribly context dependent, because language is this confusing quagmire and in all different situations where people communicate a variety of goals and expectations will come into play. E.g. a dictionary definition is important to understand because it facilitates understanding in conversations between people who aren't specifically working towards something with a common understanding in mind, "go get the spatula" is of course supposed to be very straightforward. However, that gets turned on its head when a situation comes up where two academics are sharpening themselves on one another with dialogue like "query: must all objects have properties"; dictionary definitions are not only a source of confusion but detrimental there.

-There is no hard rule for what is the wrong or right definition for something. A word is merely a sound and we supply the meaning, the same sound in another language can communicate entirely different ideas.

-When you break it down, the possible kinds of definitions are really diverse and quite fascinating.

*A real definition is the kind of definition that attempts to describe some concrete thing for what it is. These kinds of definitions can be quite elusive and often an exercise in futility (a real definition isn't useful in the case of this thread) because there are so many subjects that can't be broken down into concrete and tangible terms, e.g. "what is virtue".

By contrast where they really are put to good use is when everyone in a discussion is agreeing that "yes, that is a bar of gold".

*A dictionary definition is concerned with one or more primary ways in which a word is used in the common vernacular. Slang terms don't often end up in a dictionary because they simply aren't prevalent enough to have a reasonable possibility of being present in conversation virtually everywhere a language is in use.

*A stipulative definition is the most context dependent kind of definition as it is a hypothetical meaning being given for a word in order to illustrate something only within that particular discussion. Such a definition is often offered along these lines: "let's assume for the sake of discussion that all dogs are red, now if all dogs were red..."

*A descriptive definition is what it sounds like. It is any definition which is chiefly concerned with giving an adequate description of something.

Let's say we needed a definition for George Washington. A definition such as "George Washington was an American president" would be quite unfit for a discussion in which one participant was asking who George Washington was. There have been numerous American presidents over the span of several lifetimes.

What a perfectly descriptive definition needs is to be both extensional and intensional. For it to be extensional means that there must be no actual counterexamples, and for it to be intensional means that there must be no possible counterexamples either. Only certain things are capable of possessing a perfectly descriptive definition because having an intensional definition can turn out to be an astringent requirement.

I've neglected to mention the two other primary kinds of definitions because they are used in much more rarefied contexts.

The principle of charity:

From the wiki page on this principle-

"In philosophy and rhetoric, the principle of charity or charitable interpretation requires interpreting a speaker's statements in the most rational way possible and, in the case of any argument, considering its best, strongest possible interpretation. In its narrowest sense, the goal of this methodological principle is to avoid attributing irrationality, logical fallacies, or falsehoods to the others' statements, when a coherent, rational interpretation of the statements is available. According to Simon Blackburn "it constrains the interpreter to maximize the truth or rationality in the subject's sayings.""

This is a vastly underappreciated and underutilized principle. Making an effort to understand your interlocutors in the best possible light is not only courteous but it's absolutely essential for avoiding the ever present stagnation of such difficult discussions when you are working with viewpoints that are at odds. Naturally this involves avoiding red herrings, being inquisitive about the other's position and cultivating a habit of posing queries and opting for the Socratic Method as opposed to falling in love with your own propositions so much that you're only interested in leveling criticisms toward others.

[jayisathey]

thank you so much for this website if anyone could reply with another post similar to this that would be very helpful. My girlfriend is very smart and loves to talk about philosophy but I know nothing about it and it frustrates them I can't talk fluidly like they can so im looking for any kind of tips that would help me learn as much as I can about philosophy!

[Burning ghost]

thank you so much for this website if anyone could reply with another post similar to this that would be very helpful. My girlfriend is very smart and loves to talk about philosophy but I know nothing about it and it frustrates them I can't talk fluidly like they can so im looking for any kind of tips that would help me learn as much as I can about philosophy!

Just think about how sexy she’ll find you once you say something that surprises her.

Motivation is key

Note: Beware! If you go too far into philosophical discourse you may lose all interest in intimate relationships from time to time

[NickGaspar]

In order for a philosophical conversation to be productive, it first needs to serve the actual purpose of Philosophy.
Philosophy, defined by the etymology of the word, is the Intellectual endeavour of using knowledge to produce wise claims (theoretical frameworks) about the world and expand our understanding.
Aristotle first defined the Philosophical Method and Logic( enabling and fueling the scientific revolution to this day) by identifying the 3(out of 6) fundamental steps necessary for all philosophical inquiries.

1. Epistemology. Before constructing a theoretical framework on a subject of our interest, It's necessary to get familiar with what is currently accepted as knowledge and the method by which it was acquired.

2. Psysika(modern science). The evaluation of what we accept as knowledge is essential. Science is an important second step in helping us identify which knowledge claim from our epistemology is more credible and which one should have a foundational role in our inquiry.

3. Metaphysics. In Greek, what we do after we are done with our physika(science). It's the processes of using the best available knowledge we acquired through the previous steps to form our philosophical hypotheses.

4.5.and 6. the application of our new hypotheses on various branches examined by philosophy like Aesthetics, Ethics and Politics and their evaluation of how they might have expanded our understanding in those areas.

@. Repeat the steps by classifying and feeding our results back to the method.

Most of our philosophical conversations tend to lack all epistemic foundations, with the only goal in mind.... to offer support to a specific unfounded presumption , rendering the whole process a useless pseudo philosophical endeavour.
Unfortunately our end results is rarely founded on credible object knowledge and has zero epistemic value or wisdom to offer.

[Fellowmater]

this is nice, I hope everyone gets to read and understand this

[Scruffy Nerf Herder]

this is nice, I hope everyone gets to read and understand this

Thanks. Myself and other really were trying to come up with reasonable and useful answers.

[Alan Masterman]

You mean I can't call my opponent a cross-eyed prune or a commie ratbag...? Honestly, where is the space for Churchillian oratory these days...

[gad-fly]

In order for a philosophical conversation to be productive, it first needs to serve the actual purpose of Philosophy.
Philosophy, defined by the etymology of the word, is the Intellectual endeavour of using knowledge to produce wise claims (theoretical frameworks) about the world and expand our understanding.
Aristotle first defined the Philosophical Method and Logic( enabling and fueling the scientific revolution to this day) by identifying the 3(out of 6) fundamental steps necessary for all philosophical inquiries.

1. Epistemology. Before constructing a theoretical framework on a subject of our interest, It's necessary to get familiar with what is currently accepted as knowledge and the method by which it was acquired.

2. Psysika(modern science). The evaluation of what we accept as knowledge is essential. Science is an important second step in helping us identify which knowledge claim from our epistemology is more credible and which one should have a foundational role in our inquiry.

3. Metaphysics. In Greek, what we do after we are done with our physika(science). It's the processes of using the best available knowledge we acquired through the previous steps to form our philosophical hypotheses.

4.5.and 6. the application of our new hypotheses on various branches examined by philosophy like Aesthetics, Ethics and Politics and their evaluation of how they might have expanded our understanding in those areas.

@. Repeat the steps by classifying and feeding our results back to the method.

Most of our philosophical conversations tend to lack all epistemic foundations, with the only goal in mind.... to offer support to a specific unfounded presumption , rendering the whole process a useless pseudo philosophical endeavour.
Unfortunately our end results is rarely founded on credible object knowledge and has zero epistemic value or wisdom to offer.

Very well said. Sad to say, the caliber of your post is rare to find here. I hope you are still around.

"Philosophy, defined by the etymology of the word, is the Intellectual endeavour of using knowledge to produce wise claims (theoretical frameworks) about the world and expand our understanding." In layman term, this accord with my broad definition of it as "serious thought", which is far from adequate.

By end result, I take you to mean the production of "wise claims . . ." If so, I cannot agree more. The Philosophical Method is an exercise in frustration, not the pursuit of happiness. Be warned.

I am not about to flatter you, but we need more like you here.

[NickGaspar]

In order for a philosophical conversation to be productive, it first needs to serve the actual purpose of Philosophy.
Philosophy, defined by the etymology of the word, is the Intellectual endeavour of using knowledge to produce wise claims (theoretical frameworks) about the world and expand our understanding.
Aristotle first defined the Philosophical Method and Logic( enabling and fueling the scientific revolution to this day) by identifying the 3(out of 6) fundamental steps necessary for all philosophical inquiries.

1. Epistemology. Before constructing a theoretical framework on a subject of our interest, It's necessary to get familiar with what is currently accepted as knowledge and the method by which it was acquired.

2. Psysika(modern science). The evaluation of what we accept as knowledge is essential. Science is an important second step in helping us identify which knowledge claim from our epistemology is more credible and which one should have a foundational role in our inquiry.

3. Metaphysics. In Greek, what we do after we are done with our physika(science). It's the processes of using the best available knowledge we acquired through the previous steps to form our philosophical hypotheses.

4.5.and 6. the application of our new hypotheses on various branches examined by philosophy like Aesthetics, Ethics and Politics and their evaluation of how they might have expanded our understanding in those areas.

@. Repeat the steps by classifying and feeding our results back to the method.

Most of our philosophical conversations tend to lack all epistemic foundations, with the only goal in mind.... to offer support to a specific unfounded presumption , rendering the whole process a useless pseudo philosophical endeavour.
Unfortunately our end results is rarely founded on credible object knowledge and has zero epistemic value or wisdom to offer.

Very well said. Sad to say, the caliber of your post is rare to find here. I hope you are still around.

"Philosophy, defined by the etymology of the word, is the Intellectual endeavour of using knowledge to produce wise claims (theoretical frameworks) about the world and expand our understanding." In layman term, this accord with my broad definition of it as "serious thought", which is far from adequate.

By end result, I take you to mean the production of "wise claims . . ." If so, I cannot agree more. The Philosophical Method is an exercise in frustration, not the pursuit of happiness. Be warned.

I am not about to flatter you, but we need more like you here.

Its always so good meet people who have the intellectual foundations that allow them to appreciate knowledge, wisdom and most importantly Logic.
-"The Philosophical Method is an exercise in frustration, not the pursuit of happiness. Be warned. "
You proved that my post is not rare type after all. Great demarcation statement.
Most people use Philosophy as an "authority figure" in there attempt to justify comforting beliefs, existential and epistemic anxieties and personal death denying ideologies. This is what drives me away from "philosophical" discussions.

[gad-fly]

"Philosophy, defined by the etymology of the word, is the Intellectual endeavour of using knowledge to produce wise claims (theoretical frameworks) about the world and expand our understanding." In layman term, this accord with my broad definition of it as "serious thought", which is far from adequate.

By end result, I take you to mean the production of "wise claims . . ." If so, I cannot agree more. The Philosophical Method is an exercise in frustration, not the pursuit of happiness. Be warned.

I am not about to flatter you, but we need more like you here.

Its always so good meet people who have the intellectual foundations that allow them to appreciate knowledge, wisdom and most importantly Logic.
-"The Philosophical Method is an exercise in frustration, not the pursuit of happiness. Be warned. "
You proved that my post is not rare type after all. Great demarcation statement.
Most people use Philosophy as an "authority figure" in there attempt to justify comforting beliefs, existential and epistemic anxieties and personal death denying ideologies. This is what drives me away from "philosophical" discussions.

I maintain that "The Philosophical Method is an exercise in frustration, not the pursuit of happiness."

Regrettably you would be driven away by what most people use philosophy . . . I would not, even with a maddening crowd. To be so is to accept self-imposed defeat before the battle, unless the battle is not worth fighting for.