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

[gad-fly]

HH.2. Before posting a new topic, search the forum and see if that topic already exists.

i cannot help wondering if any one of us bother about this rule at all. I would very much appreciate if at least one of you can confirm doing so. Indeed, my appreciation would extend to his tenacity to undertake what I would consider 'mission impossible'.

On average, roughly one new post emerges in this forum every day. How can new philosophical titles, let alone their content, be created at this break-neck speed? Note that the titles/topics are supposed to be serious, thought-provoking, and so on, if other rules are followed.

The effect: The forum is accumulating sediment with time, like the ocean floor. Layers upon layer, up to a kilometer deep. The ocean floor will not be touched and disturbed, except the very top layer which will soon be covered up.

[JackDaydream]

HH.2. Before posting a new topic, search the forum and see if that topic already exists.

i cannot help wondering if any one of us bother about this rule at all. I would very much appreciate if at least one of you can confirm doing so. Indeed, my appreciation would extend to his tenacity to undertake what I would consider 'mission impossible'.

On average, roughly one new post emerges in this forum every day. How can new philosophical titles, let alone their content, be created at this break-neck speed? Note that the titles/topics are supposed to be serious, thought-provoking, and so on, if other rules are followed.

The effect: The forum is accumulating sediment with time, like the ocean floor. Layers upon layer, up to a kilometer deep. The ocean floor will not be touched and disturbed, except the very top layer which will soon be covered up.

There are rules about creating new topics and you are right that they are being created almost daily. The issue though may be that if one exists and it is about 50 pages long, I would not have to plough my way through reading it all, unless the discussion was as good to read as a book and often these long threads are extremely repetitive, going round in circles over one point, like a tangent. Also, it may be that a topic is looked at but from a specific angle or in relation to one point. Even though a thread on a topic exists in some shape or form the topics are broad and don't cover the entire subject, just as new books are written to tackle new areas.

Even now, I would have thought that this thread should not be here in the top 5 about philosophy and should be in the one on feedback. Also, even this thread is more or less a repeat of the forum reform one, but certainly isn't a topic for philosophy discussion unless it were approached with the view that people should not talk about that which has been spoken about previously, which makes no sense as new people join.

[chewybrian]

HH.2. Before posting a new topic, search the forum and see if that topic already exists.

i cannot help wondering if any one of us bother about this rule at all. I would very much appreciate if at least one of you can confirm doing so. Indeed, my appreciation would extend to his tenacity to undertake what I would consider 'mission impossible'.

On average, roughly one new post emerges in this forum every day. How can new philosophical titles, let alone their content, be created at this break-neck speed? Note that the titles/topics are supposed to be serious, thought-provoking, and so on, if other rules are followed.

The effect: The forum is accumulating sediment with time, like the ocean floor. Layers upon layer, up to a kilometer deep. The ocean floor will not be touched and disturbed, except the very top layer which will soon be covered up.

I think there is a forum rule about asking a philosophical question unless you are posting in the lounge or the feedback section, which seems like the spot for this thread. The other irony is that you posted a thread "The Philosophy of Science forum" that seemed to be nothing but a rebuttal to the "Religion of Science" thread (they are both on the hot topics page at the moment). That thread certainly could have been a reply to the other thread rather than an alleged new idea.

I'm not picking on you and I'm not bothered, but only pointing out that it is easy to accidentally violate the forum rules. I don't see this re-starting of threads as a serious problem, as long as folks are genuine. The only real problem I've seen here is a few preachers who try to go back to the same topic over and over with new threads that amount to the same topic. They seem to give up after a while, but they drown out discussion at times. However, another thread about free will or whatever is just a chance for new people to participate in that discussion rather than trying to dredge up a 20 page thread from 4 years ago that inevitably drifted into some side topic anyway.

[gad-fly]

I think there is a forum rule about asking a philosophical question unless you are posting in the lounge or the feedback section, which seems like the spot for this thread. The other irony is that you posted a thread "The Philosophy of Science forum" that seemed to be nothing but a rebuttal to the "Religion of Science" thread.

Thank you and JackDaydream for pointing out. I agree that this thread may fit into the feedback section. This was indeed my initial intention, but the issue carries much more significance than feedback. In General Philosophy, it says ". . . topics that does not fit into one of the other categories."

Posting a new topic is like building the foundation of a philosophical structure. Replies, comments, and argument are building blocks forming the superstructure. It makes no sense to bury it and start building a similar new structure. Not only that, but we would end up like that doomed man pushing the rock up the Atlas Mountain only to have it rolled down, to start all over again. What is his name?

On the Philosophy of Science Forum, I would like to have discussed there rather than here, if you like.

[JackDaydream]

I think there is a forum rule about asking a philosophical question unless you are posting in the lounge or the feedback section, which seems like the spot for this thread. The other irony is that you posted a thread "The Philosophy of Science forum" that seemed to be nothing but a rebuttal to the "Religion of Science" thread.

Thank you and JackDaydream for pointing out. I agree that this thread may fit into the feedback section. This was indeed my initial intention, but the issue carries much more significance than feedback. In General Philosophy, it says ". . . topics that does not fit into one of the other categories."

Posting a new topic is like building the foundation of a philosophical structure. Replies, comments, and argument are building blocks forming the superstructure. It makes no sense to bury it and start building a similar new structure. Not only that, but we would end up like that doomed man pushing the rock up the Atlas Mountain only to have it rolled down, to start all over again. What is his name?

On the Philosophy of Science Forum, I would like to have discussed there rather than here, if you like.

I definitely agree that deciding which category to put a thread in is extremely difficult and it's probably because the problems of life don't fall into neat categories. With the the first thread, yours and mine, it's unfortunate that there are overlaps but it is significant that each of them is in a different one of the three categories, so when they fall from grace into the main threads they will go off into independent lives of their own, for better or worse.

With the issue of the overlap in areas of the thread it is likely that there being 3 which tackle similar issues it may be that each received different replies. My own was not really meant to be about science specifically but it appears that is the direction it may head if it lives at all. Really, mine was based on some thoughts which I was having and I planned to put it on the other forum site which I have been using, but, somehow, I ended up putting it here instead.

Your post here does at least give people a chance to stop and think before posting. Your thread on forum did enable me to really stop and reflect on how I was making too many threads. I haven't stopped writing them but my own rule is that I definitely avoid having more than 1 in the 5. But, as for how long they survive, that is another matter. It may be like the shelf life of a book, when new books come out others fall into the background.

Most people would like to write a classic or even a thread which goes on for a long time rather than about a week. But, perhaps this doesn't really matter and the importance is to have some kind of meaningful discussion on some thread, whether it is one's own or someone else's. Often, I find it harder to have lengthy exchange on others' but that is because threads go off in unpredictable directions, depending on the various people involved. Sometimes, if too many people are writing on one it is like a disharmony of voices, and some getting drowned or lost altogether.

[gad-fly]

Your post here does at least give people a chance to stop and think before posting. Your thread on forum did enable me to really stop and reflect on how I was making too many threads. I haven't stopped writing them but my own rule is that I definitely avoid having more than 1 in the 5. But, as for how long they survive, that is another matter. It may be like the shelf life of a book, when new books come out others fall into the background.

Most people would like to write a classic or even a thread which goes on for a long time rather than about a week. But, perhaps this doesn't really matter and the importance is to have some kind of meaningful discussion on some thread, whether it is one's own or someone else's. Often, I find it harder to have lengthy exchange on others' but that is because threads go off in unpredictable directions, depending on the various people involved. Sometimes, if too many people are writing on one it is like a disharmony of voices, and some getting drowned or lost altogether.

Today I can see three new posts out of five by the same person. Perhaps Forum Reform may impose the restriction of no more than 1 in 5. The rule: No new post from you unless you can find none under your name in the top five. What do you think? It would help more serious posts being drowned out by marginal topics.

"The importance is to have meaningful discussion." I disagree. Not here. Fine if in a social group, or a boxing room with punch bags to let off steam, but not what I am here for.

[JackDaydream]

Your post here does at least give people a chance to stop and think before posting. Your thread on forum did enable me to really stop and reflect on how I was making too many threads. I haven't stopped writing them but my own rule is that I definitely avoid having more than 1 in the 5. But, as for how long they survive, that is another matter. It may be like the shelf life of a book, when new books come out others fall into the background.

Most people would like to write a classic or even a thread which goes on for a long time rather than about a week. But, perhaps this doesn't really matter and the importance is to have some kind of meaningful discussion on some thread, whether it is one's own or someone else's. Often, I find it harder to have lengthy exchange on others' but that is because threads go off in unpredictable directions, depending on the various people involved. Sometimes, if too many people are writing on one it is like a disharmony of voices, and some getting drowned or lost altogether.

Today I can see three new posts out of five by the same person. Perhaps Forum Reform may impose the restriction of no more than 1 in 5. The rule: No new post from you unless you can find none under your name in the top five. What do you think? It would help more serious posts being drowned out by marginal topics.

"The importance is to have meaningful discussion." I disagree. Not here. Fine if in a social group, or a boxing room with punch bags to let off steam, but not what I am here for.

The person who wrote the 3 threads is new to the forum, so probably didn't stop and think about the issue of the 5. I didn't really stop and think about it fully for some time. It is when you become aware of your own dropping so quickly that it sinks in. The person who used to write many in a week hasn't written any for some time now.

I find that I do get some meaningful discussion, particularly if people are able to talk about ideas in books rather than simply their opinions. I definitely don't want fierce arguments. Life has too much conflict as it is. But, I do struggle between deciding what to share and what not to share because in some ways aspects of the philosophy quest are fairly personal. If one shares some really personal aspects and they get attacked by others it can be painful, although I may be more sensitive than some others here. But, it is likely that many people would not choose to write on sites like this because they prefer to keep their ideas as fairly private.