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

[Robert66]

I'm curious about the thread "Preaching is not allowed". (A locked thread, sadly.)

As users of the forum we are meant to abide by these rules, among others:

'All new threads posted must contain some kind of philosophical argument or philosophical question.

The majority of any OP in the on-topic sections must be mostly arguments, evidence, and/or questions, not assertions.

Do not post new threads that only contain a series of bare assertions or otherwise contain mostly ipse dixit.'

But what if a forum user felt so sure of the philosophical ground they stood upon that they believed their view on a subject was incontrovertible?

What if they held such really strong views on taxation, for example? Would it not be appropriate to start a thread with a title such as 'Taxation is violent robbery', and open with these statements:

'Generally speaking, taxation is violent robbery that makes the rich richer.

The government owns you, and the rich own the government.

It is not corrupted. This is by design.

Using violence to make the rich richer is a feature of big government, not a bug'.

?

[AverageBozo]

You probably noted that those rules are rarely followed. The thread was likely closed out of frustration.

[Gee]

I'm curious about the thread "Preaching is not allowed". (A locked thread, sadly.)

<snip>

But what if a forum user felt so sure of the philosophical ground they stood upon that they believed their view on a subject was incontrovertible?

What if they held such really strong views on taxation, for example? Would it not be appropriate to start a thread with a title such as 'Taxation is violent robbery', and open with these statements:

'Generally speaking, taxation is violent robbery that makes the rich richer.

The government owns you, and the rich own the government.

It is not corrupted. This is by design.

Using violence to make the rich richer is a feature of big government, not a bug'.

?

If the forum user "felt so sure of the philosophical ground", then there should be some evidence or at least a logical argument that supports the user's opinion. Otherwise, it is just an opinion.

In philosophy, an opinion must be supported in order to actually be a philosophical opinion. Just like in science a theory must be supported in order to actually be a theory. If they are not supported, then it is just preaching your opinion, which has no verifiable value.

Gee

[JackDaydream]

@Robert66
Preaching seems to be so much about telling others about what they should believe in a forceful way. I have spent so much time in trying to overcome this, and it is with such relief that I come to a forum where is opposed to 'preaching' . Of course, each person may have their own ideas about 'truth', but it may be that listening to others is so important...Also, within philosophy, reason may be a major aspect of understanding.

[Pattern-chaser]

My understanding of 'preaching' is that the guilty party would be expounding their One and Only Truth. Exclusive truth is what is 'preached'. On this basis, preaching should not be allowed, wouldn't you* say?

* - "You" refers to the reader of this post, not to a particular poster.

[chewybrian]

My understanding of 'preaching' is that the guilty party would be expounding their One and Only Truth. Exclusive truth is what is 'preached'. On this basis, preaching should not be allowed, wouldn't you* say?

* - "You" refers to the reader of this post, not to a particular poster.

Scott GE Morton Nick_A

I think preaching is a bit like pornography, as in the idea that you know it when you see it, but setting up the gutters of the bowling alley proves rather difficult. I think you defined it fairly well. I would say that I see it when someone redirects all discussion back to their one and only truth. It's fine that we all have a hobby horse or two, or a favorite corner of philosophy that interests us, but if you can't discuss anything without dragging it back to your one and only important thing, then you might be a preacher.

I don't see preaching in Scott's taxation thread. Though maybe he came on a bit strong, he is apt to say "what do you think?" instead of "case closed".

I see a couple examples from Morton and Nick. Morton is apt to turn everything into a black and white dichotomy of Ayn Rand style freedom vs. a communist gulag. He seems to find no middle room for helping the poor and such, and every argument seems to turn back to this stance, and he allows no dissent from his one truth. Nick turns everything back to discovering the truth of some divinity that we all have allegedly forgotten. Everything seems to funnel back to this, and anyone who disagrees is deemed to be a part of the great unwashed beast of masses who have yet to see the light.

Beyond those two examples, I can't recall anything else that rises to the level of preaching. I think we should allow pretty broad discretion on this, to make sure that dissenting views can be heard, and that seems to be what is happening.

[Robert66]

I don't see preaching in Scott's taxation thread. Though maybe he came on a bit strong, he is apt to say "what do you think?" instead of "case closed".
...
I think we should allow pretty broad discretion on this, to make sure that dissenting views can be heard, and that seems to be what is happening.

I think what you write is quite fair, chewybrian. I just reacted to a situation which I find annoying (and in a way absurdly humurous). Am I out on a limb here? If someone started a philosophy website, laid down some ground rules, reinforced those rules with a locked topic - no discussions -, and then proceeded to blatantly break those rules, isn't that like a preacher in the pulpit commanding the congregation to "Do as I ay, not as I do"?

[chewybrian]

I don't see preaching in Scott's taxation thread. Though maybe he came on a bit strong, he is apt to say "what do you think?" instead of "case closed".
...
I think we should allow pretty broad discretion on this, to make sure that dissenting views can be heard, and that seems to be what is happening.

I think what you write is quite fair, chewybrian. I just reacted to a situation which I find annoying (and in a way absurdly humurous). Am I out on a limb here? If someone started a philosophy website, laid down some ground rules, reinforced those rules with a locked topic - no discussions -, and then proceeded to blatantly break those rules, isn't that like a preacher in the pulpit commanding the congregation to "Do as I ay, not as I do"?

You're not wrong, as it is ironic at least and perhaps hypocritical if you want to look at it that way. I guess it's just not an extreme example of preaching (which I have seen here), so it didn't get to me as much. The real preachers have their own one (unproven and unproveable) truth to which they always quickly return, They don't even seem to be able to consider other ideas that don't conflict with their 'truth', much less those that do. Their goal is to turn every discussion back to their preferred stance, even if it is unrelated to the topic.

A philosophy site should allow a lot more freedom in what can be said than most other places. As would be philosophers, we should ideally be a bit more careful about what we say as well. Above all, we should be open to the idea that we might be wrong, that perhaps it is even likely that we are wrong most of the time. Of course, the preachers don't have this capacity to really consider new ideas and therefore, perhaps, to learn.

[gad-fly]

The real preachers have their own one (unproven and unproveable) truth to which they always quickly return, They don't even seem to be able to consider other ideas that don't conflict with their 'truth', much less those that do. Their goal is to turn every discussion back to their preferred stance, even if it is unrelated to the topic.

A philosophy site should allow a lot more freedom in what can be said than most other places. As would be philosophers, we should ideally be a bit more careful about what we say as well. Above all, we should be open to the idea that we might be wrong, that perhaps it is even likely that we are wrong most of the time. Of course, the preachers don't have this capacity to really consider new ideas and therefore, perhaps, to learn.

I fully support preaching not allowed here. As a boundary imposed on this forum, it is no more restrictive than no smoking in my home for any visitor.

Why should a philosophy site allow more freedom? On the other hand, should all sites allow more freedom? The degree of freedom allowed should be appropriate to the site.

Your description against the real preacher is sadly missing. They don't seem to be able? It depends on the person, including you. Nor can I find anything wrong with the preacher and preaching. No thanks, I may say, but not get lost. I may even say: Carry on. I am touched.

[JackDaydream]

@Robert66

The worst aspect of this forum may be that if someone comes up with some outrageous idea or obnoxious opinion their thread will probably be the one that attracts attention and discussion. Personally, I come to this forum with a view to philosophy discussion, but it is so extremely competitive.

At the moment, I am just about holding in but I am sure that my threads will soon fade because others' will be seen as interesting and mine as boring. As someone who doesn't see life in black and white, it does make me consider not bothering to participate on a site like this, because my threads and posts are probably seen as wishy washy. I come to philosophy, and its many questions with an open mind, but I realise on a site like this those who preach and have extreme views will be heard and that someone like myself, even though I am trying to write philosophy, will be thrown into the rubbish bin as insignificant entities, in comparison with those who have more striking opinions.

[Robert66]

'A philosophy site should allow a lot more freedom in what can be said than most other places. As would be philosophers, we should ideally be a bit more careful about what we say as well. Above all, we should be open to the idea that we might be wrong, that perhaps it is even likely that we are wrong most of the time.'

Whole lotta shoulds.

I can count on one old woodworker's hand the number of users here doing what they should. Including none from the admin department.

And I agree with you. I would even add a should to the list: try to read and understand a post before responding.

Thanks chewybrian - you made the count.

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

What if they held such really strong views on taxation, for example? Would it not be appropriate to start a thread with a title such as 'Taxation is violent robbery', and open with these statements:

'Generally speaking, taxation is violent robbery that makes the rich richer.

The government owns you, and the rich own the government.

It is not corrupted. This is by design.

Using violence to make the rich richer is a feature of big government, not a bug'.

?

If that was the entire OP, then I think it may be preaching and more importantly I think it would be a violation of Rule H.4 of the Forum Rules.

If a member believed the OP to be rule-breaking, and replied to it, then the replying member would also be in violation of the rules, namely Rule G.

[AverageBozo]

@Robert66

The worst aspect of this forum may be that if someone comes up with some outrageous idea or obnoxious opinion their thread will probably be the one that attracts attention and discussion. Personally, I come to this forum with a view to philosophy discussion, but it is so extremely competitive.

At the moment, I am just about holding in but I am sure that my threads will soon fade because others' will be seen as interesting and mine as boring. As someone who doesn't see life in black and white, it does make me consider not bothering to participate on a site like this, because my threads and posts are probably seen as wishy washy. I come to philosophy, and its many questions with an open mind, but I realise on a site like this those who preach and have extreme views will be heard and that someone like myself, even though I am trying to write philosophy, will be thrown into the rubbish bin as insignificant entities, in comparison with those who have more striking opinions.

JD, your threads are neither preachy nor boring.

[gad-fly]

If that was the entire OP, then I think it may be preaching and more importantly I think it would be a violation of Rule H.4 of the Forum Rules.

If a member believed the OP to be rule-breaking, and replied to it, then the replying member would also be in violation of the rules, namely Rule G.

As said earlier, I fully support no preaching here.

It can help a lot to clarify what is NOT PREACHING. A strong view, for example, is not. Nor is it by arguing on only one side of the argument, as long as it leaves room for others to follow on the other side. Unbalanced, but tolerable. Neither is assuming a position on the argument.

It is a thin line, bordering in favor of the potential preacher. I know. Not only that, but they also have plenty of room to preach elsewhere. Go on.