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

[Tegularius]

Philosophy like art has no objective quality for you. Without the appreciation for objective value, we create our own value. The philosophy I'm concerned with opens the mind to objective values so earthly consideration can be put into an objective rather than subjective perspective.

Yes! we create our own values because we can't find any "objective values" anywhere on earth or in the cosmos. No known culture ever discovered a single objective value, that is, one that is external to us, not one as subjectively identified. Since you're so enlightened, having spoken only of objective values in the abstract, do tell what they are instead of always talking the same BS which hasn't changed by one iota throughout the years. Even Simone, Plato, Einstein...all your favorites couldn't come up with a single example. Until you reify those objective values as objective entities, your objective value psychosis will only loop endlessly in a brain proving it has nothing more to offer than broadcasting the same commercial over & over again.

[Nick_A]

Why keep referencing "objective values" without ever clearly and succinctly defining them?

And I still say that the cows you happily chew on are vastly more sentient, bonded and sensate than the foetuses you so vigorously defend - unless free healthcare is required to keep the foetuses alive, in which case that's tough luck.

It is too early here to discuss Plato's forms if we cannot determine whose lives have value and why.

If you cannot define objective values for the forum then the thread has no basis.

Please stop evading.

There is something offensive and even threatening about striving to transcend opinions. Doing so raises the question of a conscious Source or the form of the Good. It denies the superiority of cave life and relies on subjective definitions for value. A seeker of truth does not accept the superiority of subjective opinion and is drawn to experience their source. Being content with defending subjective definitions of value, it cannot concern you.

[Sy Borg]

That's a pretty determined piece of wriggling!

I note that you are above the need to explain yourself. Thus, you are above forums, where one must explain oneself for a productive exchange of ideas to occur. It seems you have transcended the form and are now ready find yourself flock of evangelist Christians to follow you, or maybe start your own little Gurdjieff group! Let's face it, you have no interest in exchanging ideas; you just want to implant your own.

All this seems a lot of trouble just to avoid explaining what "objective value" is supposed to mean. Why not just explain it?

Never mind, this document makes everything more clear: http://gurdjiefffourthway.org/pdf/controversial.pdf

Gurdjieff surrounded himself with competent, intelligent and cultivated people. Nevertheless, it must be admitted that practically no one dared to defy, contradict, criticize or lead him into an argument, or even react to the humiliations which he forced occasionally his disciples to bear.

... Storr reproached Gurdjieff on a number of his pronouncements which contradicted accepted scientific knowledge:

"Gurdjieff’s arrogance and disregard of established experts were extra-ordinary. When he visited the caves of Lascaux, he told J.G. Bennett
that he did not agree with the Abbé Breuil’s dating of the rock paintings at thirty thousand years ago because he had concluded that the paintings
were the work of a brotherhood that existed after the loss of Atlantis some seven or eight thousand years ago . . . He said that he had invented
a special means of increasing the visibility of the planets and the sun and also for releasing energies that would influence the whole world situation.
Gurdjieff’s complete disregard for science and for the views of generally accepted experts is narcissistic in the extreme." (13)

[chewybrian]

Philosophy like art has no objective quality for you. Without the appreciation for objective value, we create our own value.

Of course art is subjective. We can imagine some sort of perfect forms in our minds that can never be achieved. We could judge art on that basis, like how close you seem to get to drawing a perfect circle, but that isn't what most art is about, is it? Rather the artist has a subjective idea, sentiment or feeling that he tries to convey and inspire in the observer or listener. They may in fact be moved, yet perhaps not in the direction intended by the artist. The intended meaning and the perceived meaning are both subjective.

The philosophy I'm concerned with opens the mind to objective values so earthly consideration can be put into an objective rather than subjective perspective.

No such animal. Lots of zealots think they have objective philosophical truth, but it's only opinion. Truth is that a certain mix of chemicals will produce TNT. Philosophy is whether you should use it to make train tunnels or kill people. You can make a case for both or neither depending on circumstances and your opinions.

For example, the question of abortion is impossible to discuss without first discussing if life has an objective value and whose life has value. Without this beginning it is just the typical argument over opinions. Some prefer to transcend opinions to experience the value of life and what would be the human response to it.

This only amounts to saying that the discussion needs to begin by admitting that you have the key to objective truth, that you are the sage and we are the sheep who need you to enlighten us. It's silly. Everyone's opinions are based on their perception of the objective facts. Clearly, as there is so much disagreement, some or all of us must be getting some or all of the facts wrong. The real philosopher will admit that they are just as likely as the next guy to getting things wrong. We always have work to do. We can always improve. The people who fold their arms and decide they have all the facts are the most dangerous.

[Nick_A]

That's a pretty determined piece of wriggling!

I note that you are above the need to explain yourself. Thus, you are above forums, where one must explain oneself for a productive exchange of ideas to occur. It seems you have transcended the form and are now ready find yourself flock of evangelist Christians to follow you, or maybe start your own little Gurdjieff group! Let's face it, you have no interest in exchanging ideas; you just want to implant your own.

All this seems a lot of trouble just to avoid explaining what "objective value" is supposed to mean. Why not just explain it?

Never mind, this document makes everything more clear: http://gurdjiefffourthway.org/pdf/controversial.pdf

Gurdjieff surrounded himself with competent, intelligent and cultivated people. Nevertheless, it must be admitted that practically no one dared to defy, contradict, criticize or lead him into an argument, or even react to the humiliations which he forced occasionally his disciples to bear.

... Storr reproached Gurdjieff on a number of his pronouncements which contradicted accepted scientific knowledge:

"Gurdjieff’s arrogance and disregard of established experts were extra-ordinary. When he visited the caves of Lascaux, he told J.G. Bennett
that he did not agree with the Abbé Breuil’s dating of the rock paintings at thirty thousand years ago because he had concluded that the paintings
were the work of a brotherhood that existed after the loss of Atlantis some seven or eight thousand years ago . . . He said that he had invented
a special means of increasing the visibility of the planets and the sun and also for releasing energies that would influence the whole world situation.
Gurdjieff’s complete disregard for science and for the views of generally accepted experts is narcissistic in the extreme." (13)

IN a recent work, Henri Nouwen emphasizes the essence of spirituality in a most succinct fashion: "To whom do we belong? This is the core question of the spiritual life. Do we belong to the world, its worries, its people and its endless chain of urgencies and emergencies, or do we belong to God and God's people."


Putting the same idea into a Platonic form Secular people only react from the lower parts of the collective human soul. Opening to the higher parts which are connected to higher consciousness is blocked by the force of negative emotions. Secular Man cannot understand spiritual Man until he can get out of his own way long enough to open to his higher parts. For some reason secular Man condemns what he cannot understand

You are a good example of getting in your own way and keeping yourself chained to the earth. Knowing that this is the case and secular negativity denies the quality of philosophy that leads to anamnesis, I have proposed a semi private thread for those who have felt the human connection to higher consciousness and would like to share what it means in an absurd world. "Who am I". This is the purpose of philosophy. Such people do not need your negativity and dedication to condemnation. If I can find three or four people willing to discuss why we all know nothing as Socrates did, then we may find the inner path to remembering the purpose of Man within a conscious universe. If it can't be done that's OK. No harm no foul.

[Nick_A]

Chewy

This only amounts to saying that the discussion needs to begin by admitting that you have the key to objective truth, that you are the sage and we are the sheep who need you to enlighten us. It's silly. Everyone's opinions are based on their perception of the objective facts. Clearly, as there is so much disagreement, some or all of us must be getting some or all of the facts wrong. The real philosopher will admit that they are just as likely as the next guy to getting things wrong. We always have work to do. We can always improve. The people who fold their arms and decide they have all the facts are the most dangerous.

It is the opposite. The type of discussion I propose assumes like Socrates, we all know nothing. There are no causes in the world simply because the world is an effect. If we all know nothing, the best we can do is to ask questions that arouse conscious contemplation.

You say there is no objective art. perhaps a real artist would know by experience what objective art is and give the rest an inkling of the difference between subjective and objective art without the usual condemnations and opinions of the habitually denying mind

[Steve3007]

For some reason secular Man condemns what he cannot understand.

When we read that a person is a Buddhist, Marxist, or any other groups we define as "collectives, it is easy to judge beliefs by the group. According to some I am a long nosed, Armenian/Russian, white supremacist. I am seen as white so by definition I am a white supremacist.

You complain above about other people condemning what they don't understand and placing you in a collective when they don't know you, and judging you by the proposed characteristics of that collective. And yet, here is a small sample of some of your own condemnations of the people you're not interested in understanding, and your herding of them into large, vaguely defined collectives, to be satirized by placing your own words into their mouths:

Here's one of your many satires of people you collectively refer to as "the educated" (which apparently includes anyone with a degree). This is you satirically telling me what this particular collective will do to me if I'm not one of them.

If it wasn't for your racism and refusal to admit it, peace and love would dominate the world. But you represent what has ruined it so it is the obligation of the academic community to eliminate you in one way or another. You know you cannot argue with the educated since they have degrees proving they are smarter than you. Get on your knees and beg forgiveness. It may work but your racism is hard to forgive. As a long nosed white Aries male I am obligated to resist.

Here's a common theme of yours, related to your rants about Marxists and liberals (you don't generally bother to make a distinction between the two), telling the world (and specifically me) that we want the government to think for us:

Don't think as an individual. Let the government think for you. It is for your own good. The Great Beast will love you.

Sounds like you prefer the government to think for you. Fair enough. Most people will feel the same way.

Based on? Nothing other than the fact that I've disagreed with you.

And a bit more of the satire. This time mentioning one of your favourite demon universities (Harvard):

Harvard grows anti white racism. Scapegoats rotate and it seems that white people are in fashion. You think covid was rough. You may have to be vaccinated against the germ of white supremacy. Biden will demand it You want another? OK.

And another of your favourite collectives, the, as always vaguely defined group that you like to refer to as "liberals" (the contemporary US English word for left-wingers):

The liberal mind as represented by Judas, is limited to one level of reality.

All who disagree with you are told that they have one of these "liberal minds". When I confronted your hypocrisy before, your reply was more irrelevant satire of what I'd said, because you couldn't deal straight with what I'd actually said.

---

You've got a long way to go if you want to setup the private echo chamber as you mention here...

I have proposed a semi private thread for those who have felt the human connection to higher consciousness and would like to share what it means in an absurd world. "Who am I". This is the purpose of philosophy. Such people do not need your negativity and dedication to condemnation. If I can find three or four people willing to discuss why we all know nothing as Socrates did, then we may find the inner path to remembering the purpose of Man within a conscious universe. If it can't be done that's OK. No harm no foul.

...and the first step is to acknowledge your own hypocrisy. Until you do that, you may mind find that this like-minded group you set up bars you at the door. Look at the above small sample of quotes and ask yourself if you really want to join a club that would accept someone like you as a member. (I know you like Marx, so I thought you'd enjoy that one.)

[stevie]

... What is square one or the essential question serving as the foundation for conscious philosophical contemplation concerning the question of meaning? Where to begin in an absurd world? If philosophy as the love of wisdom is dead, will the essence of Man follow and become a reactive machine serving the Great Beast or society itself? I would like to be one of the minority still capable of serving the purpose of philosophy.

As long as there is evolution of humankind there is philosophy. As long as continuous change prevails and humankind is not gone extinct there will be evolution and thus philosophy.
Why call the world "absurd"? Because changing appearances don't match one's (intellectual) expectations? Philosophy may serve the purpose to investigate into the ground of one's expectations and if no ground can be found then maybe the world appears just as it is but not "absurd". Who knows?

[Nick_A]

There is a kind of nastiness that has become common for the secular mild. It openly opposes the spiritual mind which is also part of the philosophical mind described by Plato. It also intimidates the younger mind beginning to awaken. It proves that what I have been proposing is a necessity to keep consciousness alive in the world. Jacob Needleman describes the problem in his book "What is God."

More and more, as I see it now, this heartless way of thinking about God and ultimate reality dominates the mind of the contemporary world. For God or against God, “belief” or “atheism,” it makes no difference unless the inner yearning— or whatever we wish to call the cause and source of the “second breathing” — is there. And it can so easily be there, just as it can so easily be covered over and ignored, perhaps for the rest of one’s life. God or not God, “belief” or “science” — it also makes no real difference for my personal life unless the call of the Self and its need to “breathe” is heard and, ultimately, respected. Not only can thought about ultimate reality make no difference to the world or to my personal life unless we hear and respect the call of the Self, but such empty thought can bring down our personal and collective world, even our Earth itself. When thought races ahead of Being, a civilization is racing toward destruction.

Can the call of the self survive the nasty intimidation of the secular world or are sufficient efforts there to open the mind regardless of the effects of these spirit killers? The danger of course is that the young are so spiritually hungry that they easily fall victim to charlatans.

“The greatest responsibility of all: the transmission of the mystery.” —Basarab Nicolescu

True, but where do we find people with the quality of being necessary for the transmission of the mystery? Not me. People like me can be involved in small groups raising ideas but once aroused where do they go.

I see efforts like I proposed must bomb out when secularism is dominant. It can only be possible underground. The essence of philosophy must move underground for the sake of the young and a human future

[stevie]

There is a kind of nastiness that has become common for the secular mild. It openly opposes the spiritual mind which is also part of the philosophical mind described by Plato. It also intimidates the younger mind beginning to awaken. It proves that what I have been proposing is a necessity to keep consciousness alive in the world. Jacob Needleman describes the problem in his book "What is God."

More and more, as I see it now, this heartless way of thinking about God and ultimate reality dominates the mind of the contemporary world. For God or against God, “belief” or “atheism,” it makes no difference unless the inner yearning— or whatever we wish to call the cause and source of the “second breathing” — is there. And it can so easily be there, just as it can so easily be covered over and ignored, perhaps for the rest of one’s life. God or not God, “belief” or “science” — it also makes no real difference for my personal life unless the call of the Self and its need to “breathe” is heard and, ultimately, respected. Not only can thought about ultimate reality make no difference to the world or to my personal life unless we hear and respect the call of the Self, but such empty thought can bring down our personal and collective world, even our Earth itself. When thought races ahead of Being, a civilization is racing toward destruction.

Can the call of the self survive the nasty intimidation of the secular world or are sufficient efforts there to open the mind regardless of the effects of these spirit killers? The danger of course is that the young are so spiritually hungry that they easily fall victim to charlatans.

“The greatest responsibility of all: the transmission of the mystery.” —Basarab Nicolescu

True, but where do we find people with the quality of being necessary for the transmission of the mystery? Not me. People like me can be involved in small groups raising ideas but once aroused where do they go.

I see efforts like I proposed must bomb out when secularism is dominant. It can only be possible underground. The essence of philosophy must move underground for the sake of the young and a human future

Is your thread rightly placed in "General Philosophy" or shouldn't it be better placed in "Philosophy of Religion, Theism and Mythology".

[Sy Borg]

That's a pretty determined piece of wriggling!

I note that you are above the need to explain yourself. Thus, you are above forums, where one must explain oneself for a productive exchange of ideas to occur. It seems you have transcended the form and are now ready find yourself flock of evangelist Christians to follow you, or maybe start your own little Gurdjieff group! Let's face it, you have no interest in exchanging ideas; you just want to implant your own.

All this seems a lot of trouble just to avoid explaining what "objective value" is supposed to mean. Why not just explain it?

Never mind, this document makes everything more clear: http://gurdjiefffourthway.org/pdf/controversial.pdf

Gurdjieff surrounded himself with competent, intelligent and cultivated people. Nevertheless, it must be admitted that practically no one dared to defy, contradict, criticize or lead him into an argument, or even react to the humiliations which he forced occasionally his disciples to bear.

... Storr reproached Gurdjieff on a number of his pronouncements which contradicted accepted scientific knowledge:

"Gurdjieff’s arrogance and disregard of established experts were extra-ordinary. When he visited the caves of Lascaux, he told J.G. Bennett
that he did not agree with the Abbé Breuil’s dating of the rock paintings at thirty thousand years ago because he had concluded that the paintings
were the work of a brotherhood that existed after the loss of Atlantis some seven or eight thousand years ago . . . He said that he had invented
a special means of increasing the visibility of the planets and the sun and also for releasing energies that would influence the whole world situation.
Gurdjieff’s complete disregard for science and for the views of generally accepted experts is narcissistic in the extreme." (13)

IN a recent work, Henri Nouwen emphasizes the essence of spirituality in a most succinct fashion: "To whom do we belong? This is the core question of the spiritual life. Do we belong to the world, its worries, its people and its endless chain of urgencies and emergencies, or do we belong to God and God's people."

That exemplifies the problem I have with Christianity. The choice is treated as binary - one is either of society or of God. This binary is false, akin to claiming that one may eat vegetables or one may eat meat, with no other choices, eg. fruits, nuts.

The obvious fact is that we all belong to the Earth. We are as much parts of the Earth as any other animal, any rock, any pool of water. A less obvious fact is that the Earth, making up about 0.03% of the solar system's mass can be thought of as part of the Sun, basically a lumpy part of the heliosphere.

Scaling in, we are part of the biosphere, seemingly a transformational part, like blue-green algae.

Scale in further and we are chordates, sharing with them consciousness shaped by brains.

Further down, we are part of the great class of mammals, sharing with them parenting and rearing of young, with associated tenderness and ferocity.

We are, of course, part of our society; it's impossible not to be. All one can do is maintain a healthful distance.

We are part of a neighbourhood and of a family.

All of us belong to all of these.

But this won't satisfy you. Too objective. The thinking of the Great Beast yadda yadda. Subjectively, to whom or what do I feel I belong? All of them, with the focus shifting, depending on circumstances and inclination.

To whom or what do you belong? Do you deny belonging to the collectives listed above? Do you feel that you are above membership of "lowly" animals and celestial objects?

Putting the same idea into a Platonic form Secular people only react from the lower parts of the collective human soul. Opening to the higher parts which are connected to higher consciousness is blocked by the force of negative emotions. Secular Man cannot understand spiritual Man until he can get out of his own way long enough to open to his higher parts. For some reason secular Man condemns what he cannot understand

In truth, you have absolutely no idea whatsoever what secular people are like. Here you are simply speaking out of your backside, making assumptions about people who you cannot understand.

When "secularists" speak, you rarely pay attention, and when you do you invariably misunderstand or misrepresent us. You cannot imagine the spiritual lives that we can enjoy, unencumbered by superstition. In that your attitude is akin to Descartes, who chopped up living dogs because he believed that they did not feel anything, and only reacted mechanistically.

It is a complete failure of empathy on your part. Zero empathy.

You are a good example of getting in your own way and keeping yourself chained to the earth. Knowing that this is the case and secular negativity denies the quality of philosophy that leads to anamnesis, I have proposed a semi private thread for those who have felt the human connection to higher consciousness and would like to share what it means in an absurd world.

That is, you seek a thread where you can preach. Given that preaching is sensibly against forum rules, there will obviously be no private or semi-private thread permitted. You need a blog.

Again, you have no idea what I think or how my private mind works. None. Zero. And your guess are miles off the mark, as usual.

,"Who am I". This is the purpose of philosophy. Such people do not need your negativity and dedication to condemnation. If I can find three or four people willing to discuss why we all know nothing as Socrates did, then we may find the inner path to remembering the purpose of Man within a conscious universe. If it can't be done that's OK. No harm no foul.

Disagree.

"What is going on? What is real?" are the major questions of philosophy, of which "Who am I?" is a subsidiary question. Your views reflect your lack of interest in that which is not part of your schema, different to you. This kind of divisive thinking is encouraged. There are a number of vested interests that benefit of societal peewees like us focusing on our differences rather than trying to uncover the secret jiggery pokery that goes on in high places.

It's not bread and circuses needed to distract people today, it's social media and fighting.

[Sy Borg]

Is your thread rightly placed in "General Philosophy" or shouldn't it be better placed in "Philosophy of Religion, Theism and Mythology".

Good point, and done! Thanks.

[Nick_A]

That's a pretty determined piece of wriggling!

I note that you are above the need to explain yourself. Thus, you are above forums, where one must explain oneself for a productive exchange of ideas to occur. It seems you have transcended the form and are now ready find yourself flock of evangelist Christians to follow you, or maybe start your own little Gurdjieff group! Let's face it, you have no interest in exchanging ideas; you just want to implant your own.

All this seems a lot of trouble just to avoid explaining what "objective value" is supposed to mean. Why not just explain it?

Never mind, this document makes everything more clear: http://gurdjiefffourthway.org/pdf/controversial.pdf

Gurdjieff surrounded himself with competent, intelligent and cultivated people. Nevertheless, it must be admitted that practically no one dared to defy, contradict, criticize or lead him into an argument, or even react to the humiliations which he forced occasionally his disciples to bear.

... Storr reproached Gurdjieff on a number of his pronouncements which contradicted accepted scientific knowledge:

"Gurdjieff’s arrogance and disregard of established experts were extra-ordinary. When he visited the caves of Lascaux, he told J.G. Bennett
that he did not agree with the Abbé Breuil’s dating of the rock paintings at thirty thousand years ago because he had concluded that the paintings
were the work of a brotherhood that existed after the loss of Atlantis some seven or eight thousand years ago . . . He said that he had invented
a special means of increasing the visibility of the planets and the sun and also for releasing energies that would influence the whole world situation.
Gurdjieff’s complete disregard for science and for the views of generally accepted experts is narcissistic in the extreme." (13)

IN a recent work, Henri Nouwen emphasizes the essence of spirituality in a most succinct fashion: "To whom do we belong? This is the core question of the spiritual life. Do we belong to the world, its worries, its people and its endless chain of urgencies and emergencies, or do we belong to God and God's people."

That exemplifies the problem I have with Christianity. The choice is treated as binary - one is either of society or of God. This binary is false, akin to claiming that one may eat vegetables or one may eat meat, with no other choices, eg. fruits, nuts.

A good example of why philosophy according to Plato must die. Man is dual natured and the cause of the hypocrisy of the human condition, His essence has a lower part that is animal and arose from the earth and also a higher part that descended from above. They are connected by the third force which has been taken over by imagination. Man can "feel" his origin but in most cases dies a dust to dust. Plato explained this in the Chariot analogy but we never hear of it indicating again that philosophy is dying. It will be up to. the young in the future to remember the purpose and value of philosophy. But without philosophy they will be tweeted to death and how can kids learn what their hearts are calling them to from spiritually dying adults?

The obvious fact is that we all belong to the Earth. We are as much parts of the Earth as any other animal, any rock, any pool of water. A less obvious fact is that the Earth, making up about 0.03% of the solar system's mass can be thought of as part of the Sun, basically a lumpy part of the heliosphere.

Your lower parts arose from the earth which you seem to associate yourself with. You are yet to experience your higher parts

Scaling in, we are part of the biosphere, seemingly a transformational part, like blue-green algae.

Scale in further and we are chordates, sharing with them consciousness shaped by brains.

Further down, we are part of the great class of mammals, sharing with them parenting and rearing of young, with associated tenderness and ferocity.

We are, of course, part of our society; it's impossible not to be. All one can do is maintain a healthful distance.

We are part of a neighbourhood and of a family.

All of us belong to all of these.

But this won't satisfy you. Too objective. The thinking of the Great Beast yadda yadda. Subjectively, to whom or what do I feel I belong? All of them, with the focus shifting, depending on circumstances and inclination.

Yes the essence of animal Man includes the energies of all animal life on earth

To whom or what do you belong? Do you deny belonging to the collectives listed above? Do you feel that you are above membership of "lowly" animals and celestial objects?

No, they are all part of our lower centers

Putting the same idea into a Platonic form Secular people only react from the lower parts of the collective human soul. Opening to the higher parts which are connected to higher consciousness is blocked by the force of negative emotions. Secular Man cannot understand spiritual Man until he can get out of his own way long enough to open to his higher parts. For some reason secular Man condemns what he cannot understand

In truth, you have absolutely no idea whatsoever what secular people are like. Here you are simply speaking out of your backside, making assumptions about people who you cannot understand.

When "secularists" speak, you rarely pay attention, and when you do you invariably misunderstand or misrepresent us. You cannot imagine the spiritual lives that we can enjoy, unencumbered by superstition. In that your attitude is akin to Descartes, who chopped up living dogs because he believed that they did not feel anything, and only reacted mechanistically.

Secularism is binary reason by definition There are times when I experience triiune or conscious reason and then the difference. When I experience triune reason I try to did it more often

It is a complete failure of empathy on your part. Zero empathy.


Acting melodramatic is not empathy

You are a good example of getting in your own way and keeping yourself chained to the earth. Knowing that this is the case and secular negativity denies the quality of philosophy that leads to anamnesis, I have proposed a semi private thread for those who have felt the human connection to higher consciousness and would like to share what it means in an absurd world.

That is, you seek a thread where you can preach. Given that preaching is sensibly against forum rules, there will obviously be no private or semi-private thread permitted. You need a blog.

We already have a one one oe board so why not a philosophy board? We have philosophy boards of everything under the sun so why not a philosophy board? Since philosophy is dead it is useless.

Again, you have no idea what I think or how my private mind works. None. Zero. And your guess are miles off the mark, as usual.

You are a secularist who cannot understand a universalist. It is rather obvious.

,"Who am I". This is the purpose of philosophy. Such people do not need your negativity and dedication to condemnation. If I can find three or four people willing to discuss why we all know nothing as Socrates did, then we may find the inner path to remembering the purpose of Man within a conscious universe. If it can't be done that's OK. No harm no foul.

Disagree.

"What is going on? What is real?" are the major questions of philosophy, of which "Who am I?" is a subsidiary question. Your views reflect your lack of interest in that which is not part of your schema, different to you. This kind of divisive thinking is encouraged. There are a number of vested interests that benefit of societal peewees like us focusing on our differences rather than trying to uncover the secret jiggery pokery that goes on in high places.

These are questions of pop philosophy One easily recognizes it when it assumes the corrupt human essence is capable of judging what is real. Modern philosophy denies that like Socrates we know nothing. It is too insulting to contemplate.

It's not bread and circuses needed to distract people today, it's social media and fighting.

[Nick_A]

Is your thread rightly placed in "General Philosophy" or shouldn't it be better placed in "Philosophy of Religion, Theism and Mythology".

Good point, and done! Thanks.

Proof that philosophy is dying. Is philosophy religion, theism or mythology. No, they can be included in philosophy. Since we don't know what it is we don't know where it belongs.

[Steve3007]

Is your thread rightly placed in "General Philosophy" or shouldn't it be better placed in "Philosophy of Religion, Theism and Mythology".

Good point, and done! Thanks.

I don't really see why it should go in the religion section. It's one of many topics that have been started on the subject of what philosophy is, or what it should (in the opinion of the OP) rightfully be regarded as, so if there was a category called "meta-philosophy" I'd say those sorts of topics should go in there. They're a bit like the old new headline cliché "talks about talks" that international diplomats have when they're not yet read to talk to each other but are ready to talk about the process of talking to each other, and what that process, if it ever happened, should consist of.

So maybe the closest of the categories available would be metaphysics and epistemology. But I'm not suggesting moving it again. At the end of the day it doesn't really matter where it is.