Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Philosophy Club

[gad-fly]

I am afraid that I am writing in your thread because I am feeling so despondent about using the forum at the moment. It may seem that I am happy because I create loads of threads but it is only because it seems hard to create a thread which lasts more than a few days. However, it is not simply that people are only interested in the top 5 but that threads which are years old or over 50 pages long are often the ones which are being replied to most.

The problem as far as I see is about how often it is only a couple that threads which are getting lots of responses, often in response to someone who appears provocative or annoying. I wonder if this is what drives many people away, as it makes the forum seem like a clique. I do read a lot of threads which I don't reply to and what seems to be happening is that people are discussing similar discussions in various threads, as if they are in little houses or in different tongues, like the Tower of Babel. It all seems fragmented. I have stuck around and do still try to find worthwhile interaction but others may simply give up on the site entirely.

It appears your concern is on popularity and attention. The page on Most Popular Topics "lists some most popular topics from the last week, by month and from all time."

It is normal for "provocative or annoying" threads to grab more attention than serious ones. None can beat the former to invite casual passing comment off the cuff. Example: No second chance against Life is full of Opportunity. Pick any side and you can argue till you drop. Serious threads, on the other hand, demands the window of thoughtful deliberation which you cannot find here, now and into the future. The latter must be the loser. I recall Thomas Hardy's title: Far from the maddening crowd.

Look from another angle. Forget popularity. Admittedly many threads are trivial. and some are junk merely by reading the title, but there are always some once in a while to freshen your perspective, like prodding you to a direction which you would not consider to take in the first place. Indeed, this is what I find the forum useful.

[JackDaydream]

I am afraid that I am writing in your thread because I am feeling so despondent about using the forum at the moment. It may seem that I am happy because I create loads of threads but it is only because it seems hard to create a thread which lasts more than a few days. However, it is not simply that people are only interested in the top 5 but that threads which are years old or over 50 pages long are often the ones which are being replied to most.

The problem as far as I see is about how often it is only a couple that threads which are getting lots of responses, often in response to someone who appears provocative or annoying. I wonder if this is what drives many people away, as it makes the forum seem like a clique. I do read a lot of threads which I don't reply to and what seems to be happening is that people are discussing similar discussions in various threads, as if they are in little houses or in different tongues, like the Tower of Babel. It all seems fragmented. I have stuck around and do still try to find worthwhile interaction but others may simply give up on the site entirely.

It appears your concern is on popularity and attention. The page on Most Popular Topics "lists some most popular topics from the last week, by month and from all time."

It is normal for "provocative or annoying" threads to grab more attention than serious ones. None can beat the former to invite casual passing comment off the cuff. Example: No second chance against Life is full of Opportunity. Pick any side and you can argue till you drop. Serious threads, on the other hand, demands the window of thoughtful deliberation which you cannot find here, now and into the future. The latter must be the loser. I recall Thomas Hardy's title: Far from the maddening crowd.

Look from another angle. Forget popularity. Admittedly many threads are trivial. and some are junk merely by reading the title, but there are always some once in a while to freshen your perspective, like prodding you to a direction which you would not consider to take in the first place. Indeed, this is what I find the forum useful.

I was having a bad day when I wrote the post on your thread. Really, I see the forum mostly as a place to exchange and share ideas. I admit that I do look at the part which has popularity but, deep down, it isn't really important at all. On the other philosophy site which I use rather than threads being ranked according to popularity it is done on the basis of most viewed. I am sure that there is no ultimate criteria for assessing threads because what interests one person will not be of interest to others.

I am sure that it is also not important how many replies a person receives and is really about meaningful exchange of ideas. I do get this, so I am grateful for the forum. It can be disheartening when threads fizzle out really quickly and you know about this from the way the threads fade from the 5 at the top. It is probably best to ignore this too and make the best use of the forum, and appreciating it for what it is. I do find that reading and writing on it help me think about ideas and often I feel that I learn as much from threads which I read but don't write anything on at all. Even with reading ones which seem less serious some good posts can be found. Also, it is about posts rather than just thread quality, especially as some people write many fantastic posts but rarely ever start threads. It is about style of choice and I just happen to enjoy inventing thread topics, and accept that it is hit and miss as far as some which take off and some that don't, like snakes and ladders.

[gad-fly]

Really, I see the forum mostly as a place to exchange and share ideas.

On the other philosophy site which I use rather than threads being ranked according to popularity it is done on the basis of most viewed. I am sure that there is no ultimate criteria for assessing threads because what interests one person will not be of interest to others.

some people write many fantastic posts but rarely ever start threads. It is about style of choice and I just happen to enjoy inventing thread topics, and accept that it is hit and miss as far as some which take off and some that don't, like snakes and ladders.

Agreed that forum is the platform to exchange ideas, but a philosophy forum should be focused on serious idea, hence philosophy forum. Make the forum popular by opening it to all ideas: funny, stupid, simplistic, idiotic, and what have you. Accept titles like " What is human?", "Is good really good?" "What makes you happy?', "I am fine. Thank you", and so on. Make the title attractive to viewers. Entice them to reply, casually off the cuff. It is free anyway. But don't pretend to be and call it a philosophy forum, since you may scare people away with the term "philosophy", especially those looking to let off steam.

Assessing and ranking post is altogether another issue, which I am opposed to be applied here. So is personal interest in one post against another, which is none of the forum's business. What is important is to keep it fit and proper. A jelly bean jar should contain jelly beans, but not marbles and metal beads. The adverse consequence: none will dare fetch a handful into his mouth.

Nor is hit or miss the issue. Indeed, i would even suggest that reporting on the volume of viewers, somewhat like promotion and snake in the bag, be skipped. The forum is not a business looking for clients.

[JackDaydream]

Really, I see the forum mostly as a place to exchange and share ideas.

On the other philosophy site which I use rather than threads being ranked according to popularity it is done on the basis of most viewed. I am sure that there is no ultimate criteria for assessing threads because what interests one person will not be of interest to others.

some people write many fantastic posts but rarely ever start threads. It is about style of choice and I just happen to enjoy inventing thread topics, and accept that it is hit and miss as far as some which take off and some that don't, like snakes and ladders.

Agreed that forum is the platform to exchange ideas, but a philosophy forum should be focused on serious idea, hence philosophy forum. Make the forum popular by opening it to all ideas: funny, stupid, simplistic, idiotic, and what have you. Accept titles like " What is human?", "Is good really good?" "What makes you happy?', "I am fine. Thank you", and so on. Make the title attractive to viewers. Entice them to reply, casually off the cuff. It is free anyway. But don't pretend to be and call it a philosophy forum, since you may scare people away with the term "philosophy", especially those looking to let off steam.

Assessing and ranking post is altogether another issue, which I am opposed to be applied here. So is personal interest in one post against another, which is none of the forum's business. What is important is to keep it fit and proper. A jelly bean jar should contain jelly beans, but not marbles and metal beads. The adverse consequence: none will dare fetch a handful into his mouth.

Nor is hit or miss the issue. Indeed, i would even suggest that reporting on the volume of viewers, somewhat like promotion and snake in the bag, be skipped. The forum is not a business looking for clients.

You are replying to a post I wrote a couple of weeks ago but at the moment I even feel ashamed to be part of the forum, due to one thread which has been going all weekend. I probably don't need to name it and in some ways but I would say that it is not what I consider to be a philosophy thread, even if it is backed up with endless quotes from all kinds of sources. In some ways I wish that I had not ever written in at all, and I am a fool to be logging on reading it.

Really, at the moment, I think that I would be better if I was reading my books alone than having partaken in the thread. If I was logging on to the forum for the first time and read it I would probably not log in again ever. There is probably no point in me saying that I will not use the site again because I am a bit compulsive but I may go away from it until the particular thread fades. The trouble is it may go one to be that goes on for about 100 pages

.I am so glad that I do have TPF forum as well because it does seem that seem that the genuine philosophy discussions often do stand out above those which are just inflammatory opinions, and that is probably because it has about 300 or 400 regular contributors. At times like this, I am not surprised that many people don't stick around on this site for long, because it may be that they feel as miserable about some past threads, like I am feeling now. I am thinking of joining 'Philosophy Now' forum because it may have some worthwhile discussions, serious ones, but with a little humour because there doesn't seem to be any here, or certainly none at the present time.

[gad-fly]

I probably don't need to name it and in some ways but I would say that it is not what I consider to be a philosophy thread

Which? Send me a private message if you like. I shall keep it private.

[Sy Borg]

You can name it, Jack. This isn't YouTube or Reddit. You are can to express displeasure with how things are being done. I only take exception when complaints about the forum or how I mod interferes with philosophical (or would-be philosophical) threads. I am mindful that people can arrive at the forum via Google and, ideally, one hopes they find interesting conversation rather than fighting.

[JackDaydream]

You can name it, Jack. This isn't YouTube or Reddit. You are can to express displeasure with how things are being done. I only take exception when complaints about the forum or how I mod interferes with philosophical (or would-be philosophical) threads. I am mindful that people can arrive at the forum via Google and, ideally, one hopes they find interesting conversation rather than fighting.

It's the thread on 'What is a woman?''What is so bad about it is that it hints at transgender issues but not spelling them out in the post. The direction of the thread has gone in towards that way, with one poster, who must have posted about half of the posts, which are mostly quotations from books and it is not always clear why the quotations have been introduced. In usual cases, the person who has written the outpost tries to steer the conversation but in this instance when the out poster has stepped into the topic all he has said has been more about the inner and outer aspects of being a woman ot a man.

At least, there have been some comments which challenge transgender bullying, such as yours. Really, I think that the issues of gender, LGBTQI+, sexism etc is a an important topic but it needs to be handled with care because it is many ways an extremely sensitive one. I have thought of starting one in the past but decided against it because I thought it would become a mess. But, the thread which has developed is one of the most muddled I have ever seen and it has only been going for a couple of days.

I do wonder what people who read it online must think, especially if they are questioning their gender or if they are women. The title is not even about gender as such, but what is a woman, and without the title being clarified by its author it is open to sexist interpretations. It is hard to know what will happen on the thread now that it has gone from the top 5, whether it can turn into any meaningful critical debate or not. The threads are discussion debates, but it is worth seeing them as how they read as well because they are written texts which are seen by the public across the world and I do wonder to what extent people who are writing them think about this, especially as this is not some chit chat site but a philosophy one.

[Sy Borg]

I do wonder what people who read it online must think, especially if they are questioning their gender or if they are women.

My usual response is to shrug. I am so accustomed to misogyny and homophobia in philosophical circles that I take it as a given.

The most famous and influential philosophers lived in patriarchal times, and there has also been a tendency towards purity, which is toxic, as evidenced by 20th century fascism, 21st century neo-fascism, and the totalitarian societies based on Marxism. Some examples of the misogyny of old philosophers below (noting that misogyny and homophobia tend to be close cousins, racism too):

Aristotle:
"The female is as it were a deformed male."
"The relation of male to female is by nature a relation of superior to inferior and ruler to ruled."

Kant
"Man should become more perfect as a man, and the woman as a wife."
"A learned woman might just as well have a beard, for that expresses in a more recognisable form the profundity for which she strives."

Nietzsche:
"Woman! One-half of mankind is weak, typically sick, changeable, inconstant... she needs a religion of weakness that glorifies being weak, loving, and being humble as divine: or better, she makes the strong weak—she rules when she succeeds in overcoming the strong... Woman has always conspired with the types of decadence, the priests, against the 'powerful', the 'strong', the men-"

Hegel
"Women are capable of education, but they are not made for activities which demand a universal faculty such as the more advanced sciences, philosophy and certain forms of artistic production."

Schopenhauer
"Women exist in the main solely for the propagation of the species."
"[Women are] the second sex, inferior in every respect to the first."
"A woman who is perfectly truthful and not given to dissimulation is perhaps an impossibility."

The irony is that the philosopher most loved by the starter of that transphobic thread is Plato, who was one of the first to suggest equality:
"If women are expected to do the same work as men, we must teach them the same things."

However, he also said:
"The man who acquits himself well in war should be given…more liberal opportunities to sleep with a wife."

However, I don't see the forum member who usually relies on quotes to be misogynist, homophobic or even transphobic. He is just a stickler for accuracy and so he is essentially saying, "Strictly speaking, based on biological factors, transwomen are not women" which, of course, misses the point. Still, we all tend to have our angles, and he likes to see things through the prism of science.

For me, the issue is that sexual display behaviour - so useful in other species - is toxic when combined with patriarchy, eg. foot binding in Imperial China.

[JackDaydream]

I do wonder what people who read it online must think, especially if they are questioning their gender or if they are women.

My usual response is to shrug. I am so accustomed to misogyny and homophobia in philosophical circles that I take it as a given.

The most famous and influential philosophers lived in patriarchal times, and there has also been a tendency towards purity, which is toxic, as evidenced by 20th century fascism, 21st century neo-fascism, and the totalitarian societies based on Marxism. Some examples of the misogyny of old philosophers below (noting that misogyny and homophobia tend to be close cousins, racism too):

Aristotle:
"The female is as it were a deformed male."
"The relation of male to female is by nature a relation of superior to inferior and ruler to ruled."

Kant
"Man should become more perfect as a man, and the woman as a wife."
"A learned woman might just as well have a beard, for that expresses in a more recognisable form the profundity for which she strives."

Nietzsche:
"Woman! One-half of mankind is weak, typically sick, changeable, inconstant... she needs a religion of weakness that glorifies being weak, loving, and being humble as divine: or better, she makes the strong weak—she rules when she succeeds in overcoming the strong... Woman has always conspired with the types of decadence, the priests, against the 'powerful', the 'strong', the men-"

Hegel
"Women are capable of education, but they are not made for activities which demand a universal faculty such as the more advanced sciences, philosophy and certain forms of artistic production."

Schopenhauer
"Women exist in the main solely for the propagation of the species."
"[Women are] the second sex, inferior in every respect to the first."
"A woman who is perfectly truthful and not given to dissimulation is perhaps an impossibility."

The irony is that the philosopher most loved by the starter of that transphobic thread is Plato, who was one of the first to suggest equality:
"If women are expected to do the same work as men, we must teach them the same things."

However, he also said:
"The man who acquits himself well in war should be given…more liberal opportunities to sleep with a wife."

However, I don't see the forum member who usually relies on quotes to be misogynist, homophobic or even transphobic. He is just a stickler for accuracy and so he is essentially saying, "Strictly speaking, based on biological factors, transwomen are not women" which, of course, misses the point. Still, we all tend to have our angles, and he likes to see things through the prism of science.

For me, the issue is that sexual display behaviour - so useful in other species - is toxic when combined with patriarchy, eg. foot binding in Imperial China.

Yes, it is true that there is so much homophobia and transphobia on sites. I had never been on a forum until just less than 2 years ago when I was rather surprised by the way such threads pop up. Generally, I try to stay away from such threads, or write 1 or 2 comments. Somehow, I got sucked into this thread and spent most of the weekend on it, which was a bit stupid.

Yes, the person who wrote all the quotes wasn't really sexist but I got irritated because he kept putting them, and each time he did I was getting emails on my. I can be a bit ridiculous to the point where I get up in the night to read them, and sometimes reply. So, I didn't sleep much over the weekend, but looking back it does see.

I will try not to get up in the night to read the thread though because I am not a good sleeper anyway and I am more likely to overthink if I haven't slept. Mind you, I did something worse while using the TPF about s year ago. I was replying to a post and left the tap running in the bath and it flooded really badly, to the point of making the electrics downstairs go out temporarily.

[Sy Borg]

I was replying to a post and left the tap running in the bath and it flooded really badly, to the point of making the electrics downstairs go out temporarily.

That was life telling you to re-adjust your priorities!

[gad-fly]

Aristotle:
"The female is as it were a deformed male."
"The relation of male to female is by nature a relation of superior to inferior and ruler to ruled."

Kant
"Man should become more perfect as a man, and the woman as a wife."
"A learned woman might just as well have a beard, for that expresses in a more recognisable form the profundity for which she strives."

Nietzsche:
"Woman! One-half of mankind is weak, typically sick, changeable, inconstant... she needs a religion of weakness that glorifies being weak, loving, and being humble as divine: or better, she makes the strong weak—she rules when she succeeds in overcoming the strong... Woman has always conspired with the types of decadence, the priests, against the 'powerful', the 'strong', the men-"

Hegel
"Women are capable of education, but they are not made for activities which demand a universal faculty such as the more advanced sciences, philosophy and certain forms of artistic production."

Schopenhauer
"Women exist in the main solely for the propagation of the species."
"[Women are] the second sex, inferior in every respect to the first."
"A woman who is perfectly truthful and not given to dissimulation is perhaps an impossibility."

The irony is that the philosopher most loved by the starter of that transphobic thread is Plato, who was one of the first to suggest equality:
"If women are expected to do the same work as men, we must teach them the same things."

However, he also said:
"The man who acquits himself well in war should be given…more liberal opportunities to sleep with a wife."

Excellent quotations from you to enlighten us. I can assure you that you effort is worth the trouble. Can you mention the source for easy reference? Too much work? Never mind.

I have some quotations to share too, one complimentary, and one witty:

Woman is made great in gentleness
Woman is tender and soft in her acts
Woman speaks with deep sincerities
Woman expresses herself in kind ways

Woman assures everything is alright when it is not
Woman stands for her poise though there is doubt
Woman loves passionately like there is no end to it
Woman comforts even when a situation turns worst

Woman always stood for her precious
Woman always choose to be generous
Woman never point fingers at her betrayer
Woman never says no to a pleading stranger

She is a woman who remains anonymous
She is a woman who is indeed magnanimous!

Jeline Loh Thursday, January 19, 2012

She’s Always a Woman
Billy Joel

She can kill with a smile
She can wound with her eyes
She can ruin your faith with her casual lies
And she only reveals what she wants you to see
She hides like a child
But she's always a woman to me

She can lead you to live
She can take you or leave you
She can ask for the truth
But she'll never believe you
And she'll take what you give her as long as it's free
She steals like a thief
But she's always a woman to me

Oh, she takes care of herself
She can wait if she wants
She's ahead of her time
Oh, and she never gives out
And she never gives in
She just changes her mind

She will promise you more
Than the Garden of Eden
Then she'll carelessly cut you
And laugh while you're bleedin'
But she'll bring out the best
And the worst you can be
Blame it all on yourself
Cause she's always a woman to me
Mm...

[JackDaydream]

Aristotle:
"The female is as it were a deformed male."
"The relation of male to female is by nature a relation of superior to inferior and ruler to ruled."

Kant
"Man should become more perfect as a man, and the woman as a wife."
"A learned woman might just as well have a beard, for that expresses in a more recognisable form the profundity for which she strives."

Nietzsche:
"Woman! One-half of mankind is weak, typically sick, changeable, inconstant... she needs a religion of weakness that glorifies being weak, loving, and being humble as divine: or better, she makes the strong weak—she rules when she succeeds in overcoming the strong... Woman has always conspired with the types of decadence, the priests, against the 'powerful', the 'strong', the men-"

Hegel
"Women are capable of education, but they are not made for activities which demand a universal faculty such as the more advanced sciences, philosophy and certain forms of artistic production."

Schopenhauer
"Women exist in the main solely for the propagation of the species."
"[Women are] the second sex, inferior in every respect to the first."
"A woman who is perfectly truthful and not given to dissimulation is perhaps an impossibility."

The irony is that the philosopher most loved by the starter of that transphobic thread is Plato, who was one of the first to suggest equality:
"If women are expected to do the same work as men, we must teach them the same things."

However, he also said:
"The man who acquits himself well in war should be given…more liberal opportunities to sleep with a wife."

Excellent quotations from you to enlighten us. I can assure you that you effort is worth the trouble. Can you mention the source for easy reference? Too much work? Never mind.

I have some quotations to share too, one complimentary, and one witty:

Woman is made great in gentleness
Woman is tender and soft in her acts
Woman speaks with deep sincerities
Woman expresses herself in kind ways

Woman assures everything is alright when it is not
Woman stands for her poise though there is doubt
Woman loves passionately like there is no end to it
Woman comforts even when a situation turns worst

Woman always stood for her precious
Woman always choose to be generous
Woman never point fingers at her betrayer
Woman never says no to a pleading stranger

She is a woman who remains anonymous
She is a woman who is indeed magnanimous!

Jeline Loh Thursday, January 19, 2012

She’s Always a Woman
Billy Joel

She can kill with a smile
She can wound with her eyes
She can ruin your faith with her casual lies
And she only reveals what she wants you to see
She hides like a child
But she's always a woman to me

She can lead you to live
She can take you or leave you
She can ask for the truth
But she'll never believe you
And she'll take what you give her as long as it's free
She steals like a thief
But she's always a woman to me

Oh, she takes care of herself
She can wait if she wants
She's ahead of her time
Oh, and she never gives out
And she never gives in
She just changes her mind

She will promise you more
Than the Garden of Eden
Then she'll carelessly cut you
And laugh while you're bleedin'
But she'll bring out the best
And the worst you can be
Blame it all on yourself
Cause she's always a woman to me
Mm...

Perhaps you should have put the song in the thread to try and cheer up the thread which seems to becoming even grimmer today. However, not that I am saying that I think that you bother reading the thread, and it really has developed 14 pages in a matter of days. If it becomes the most popular thread of all times with about 5000 entries, mostly from 2 pèople I think I would really depart from the site. I am just hoping that people get fed up with it, unless it has more diverse views and ideas.

[Sy Borg]

Aristotle:
"The female is as it were a deformed male."
"The relation of male to female is by nature a relation of superior to inferior and ruler to ruled."

Kant
"Man should become more perfect as a man, and the woman as a wife."
"A learned woman might just as well have a beard, for that expresses in a more recognisable form the profundity for which she strives."

Nietzsche:
"Woman! One-half of mankind is weak, typically sick, changeable, inconstant... she needs a religion of weakness that glorifies being weak, loving, and being humble as divine: or better, she makes the strong weak—she rules when she succeeds in overcoming the strong... Woman has always conspired with the types of decadence, the priests, against the 'powerful', the 'strong', the men-"

Hegel
"Women are capable of education, but they are not made for activities which demand a universal faculty such as the more advanced sciences, philosophy and certain forms of artistic production."

Schopenhauer
"Women exist in the main solely for the propagation of the species."
"[Women are] the second sex, inferior in every respect to the first."
"A woman who is perfectly truthful and not given to dissimulation is perhaps an impossibility."

The irony is that the philosopher most loved by the starter of that transphobic thread is Plato, who was one of the first to suggest equality:
"If women are expected to do the same work as men, we must teach them the same things."

However, he also said:
"The man who acquits himself well in war should be given…more liberal opportunities to sleep with a wife."

Excellent quotations from you to enlighten us. I can assure you that you effort is worth the trouble. Can you mention the source for easy reference? Too much work? Never mind.

Various sources, gad-fly. I had vague memories of these philosophers holding some misogynistic views so I just Googled them, eg. Hegel women quotes.

I found the verses about women idealised. I've known plenty of women, me included, who don't fit all that well into those ideals.

[gad-fly]

I found the verses about women idealised. I've known plenty of women, me included, who don't fit all that well into those ideals.

idealized? They make me sick. How could one human dump those not of the same gender into stereotypes worse than bugs and vermin. The only excuse is that these men lived in the dark ages.

[Sy Borg]

I found the verses about women idealised. I've known plenty of women, me included, who don't fit all that well into those ideals.

idealized? They make me sick. How could one human dump those not of the same gender into stereotypes worse than bugs and vermin. The only excuse is that these men lived in the dark ages.

I meant the nice verses that you provided.

Old philosophers were products of their time. In the future there may come a time when today's widespread acceptance of factory farming is considered to be barbaric, yet that does not mean that those who accept this barbarism lack useful insights in other areas.