Content Producers

More like 1 woman per 100 men, 1 female thread per 100 male threads.

I agree professional and academic philosophy has its limitations where philosophy-proper is now incestuous and bastardized. But I believe there are some good bits from it.

However I believe those interested in philosophy should familiarize themselves with the philosophy-greats [giant shoulders] of the past from East, West & everywhere and apply what is learned where necessary. I have covered a wide area of Philosophy from the East and West, i.e. 2 years full time on Buddhism, 3 years full time on Kant, nearly 3 years full time on Islam, and other areas. At present on the side, I am trying to master Heidegger’s philosophy.

My current philosophical project is
‘Understanding and How to Prevent, Reduce and Eliminate ALL Evils in the World’
with current emphasis on religious-based evils, thus my posting in the religious section.

I asked earlier;
“It would be helpful if you can show some examples of your high quality work and approach in your postings. So far, I have not read of any of ‘high’ standard from you.”

No, it averages out to 1 female thread to every 25 male threads going back three months which is not as bleak as 1 per 100.

I’m not attacking, but just coaxing. You said you wanted to resuscitate, so pucker up :smiley: I don’t know the other women by name; just Wendy.

An admin from a garden forum has been emailing for years trying to attract members, so I go there and post, but he doesn’t reply, so I leave. I mean, if I wanted to talk to myself, I can do that at ILP :laughing: I’m just saying if you want to keep members, you have to engage them, mouth to mouth, until the community is up and going.

Why do you think that is?

That reminds me of my trying to learn to play guitar. I could copy anything, but couldn’t create anything myself, so I gave up music because I’m not a musician and no amount of copy-catting will change that. But I am philosophical and require none of that indoctrination to be so.

What did Otto Weininger mean when he said “The genius is a man who knows everything without having learned it.”?

I’ve gotten plenty of insights and observations like that. One reason that I don’t share them is because I don’t respect/trust many of the consumers. Pearls before swine. That harkens to my point about leadership and quality of followers. Both should be high. There should be a high quality of leader/producer, and high quality of follower/consumer. Excellent craft at preparation, followed by exquisite taste of critique. One without the other is incomplete.

Agreed, leaders don’t like to be led, in general. But nobody is a leader 100% of a time. Are leaders “born”? No, leaders appear over time, as a result of maturity, growth, and age. Nobody follows/respects children, or infants. So leaders are not “born”. And everybody takes turns at leading/following, to some degree. Maybe one person is 90% leader/10% follower while another is 10% leader/90% follower.

That’s a good analogy. Some of the best music I’ve heard over the last 10 years, is relatively unknown, or completely unknown. In fact, this week, I’ve been searching for an old song I heard once that is just amazing, and I can’t find it anywhere online. Perhaps some of the best music of humankind has been lost in obscurity, produced and listened by very few people. Like a genius musician sharing music with only a few select friends.

It’s a controversial point, to link political ideologies with biology, because of Nazism and the 20th Century. But it is pretty evident and obvious, outside the popular indoctrination and system.

FC is one of the ‘religious’ thinkers, and has little capacity, if any, for Philosophy. Him and his ilk is a little religious cult.

I couldn’t say, but there have been multiple.

Life, and philosophy, seems to thrive on competition/disagreement.

I would like to disagree more. The problem is, so very original, “new” ideas to disagree upon. Few perspectives are truly unique. Philosophy involves the incorporation of the popular, modern discourse. So the popular ideas/disagreements is not enough to entice above-average thinkers.

To simply ignore the historicity of philosophy is bad philosophizing.
To maintain intellectual integrity and efficiency one need to do a literature review in quest for knowledge of any kind. Then thereafter one can decide to accept what is acceptable and reject the useless [to one self].

Note the purpose of an essential literature review is to ensure you don’t waste time inefficiently inventing the wheel.
It is a possibility you could spent your whole life e.g. 50-60 years on a certain thesis only to discover someone has already done exactly the same thing! What a waste and that is intellectual ‘stupidity’ for not doing a literature review.

What I’m saying is that indoctrination doesn’t make a philosopher; not that one should specifically ignore anything, but let the test be what is enjoyable. If you like absorbing high poppycock-content cocktails, then go for it, but philosophical nuggets are needles in haystacks with that method of reinventing the wheel since many have already been down that path and built upon and condensed the knowledge therein.

I don’t need to read the entire works of Mart Twain to know that reading healthbooks may cause one to die of a misprint.

It’s funny you mention efficiency when your suggestion is to vacuum up everything and sort it out later.

But that is reinventing the wheel. Why waste 2 years studying Buddhism when you could spend a couple months studying Alan Watts and learn more about Buddhism than the Buddhists, as well as Hinduism, Christianity, Atheism, and be lightyears ahead of someone with their nose diligently held to the Sutras, Vedas, Bible, or Dawkins.

Most of the understanding of Eastern philosophy is the grueling undertaking of merely conceptualizing the nonexistent self, and that’s not a function of knowledge-absorption, but more a function of futility realized from countless hours pondering. So Buddhism has almost nothing to do with knowledge, but more to do with changing your whole paradigm, worldview, method of thinking… well it’s like being born again.

It’s not too likely that someone would spend 50 years pioneering work that someone else had done, though it reminds me of the time I came to the conclusion that the Europeans had the advantage of horses and domesticated animals to explain their success compared to the Native Americans when someone informed me that I sound like Jared Diamond who had already made a movie about it. Of course, I don’t consider it a waste of time, but a compliment, and it surely didn’t take 50 yrs to arrive at the conclusion, but just dawned on me one day.

“All originality is undetected plagiarism.” - William Ralph Inge, and I have no clue who that guy is.

Not necessarily!

What did the first philosopher do?

In many ways, people do pick their companions. Even on this forum, there are people to choose to philosophize with or against, or not at all.

There are flaws in everything, no such thing as a ‘perfect’ position. But there are better/superior ones, than others.

I’ve noticed the same. But it becomes quickly apparent when a person actually is smarter than others: better arguments, reasoning, articulation, poise, positions, etc.

The problem is much deeper. First people would need to deeply investigate the differing conceptions of freedom. Is it a matter of physical constraint, or mental? Are people free “from” laws, or free “to” act? There are many perversions of freedom, precisely in the way that people believe themselves free when they’re not. Or that somebody in a jail cell may believe he is “free”. Free in what sense? Free in relation to whom? Is freedom relative?

Isn’t freedom a function of power? The more powerful an individual is, the more he is capable of doing? Is freedom a matter of capability? Is a cripple less free than normal people?

Very moralistic…

I don’t really care a great deal to “prove myself” in terms of high value content, as it would undermine my current status. I can repeat what I’ve said before. But I’m not going to show you where exactly, and what exactly, it was before. If you like to take my word for it, I’ve already said somethings on this forum that did cause many people to re-think their (false) presumptions, about existence, about everything.

The more you become involved in philosophy, you will marvel at how wrong common people are, and about “common sense” sorts of things.

I mean, people used to believe earth is flat, and that the earth is the center of the universe? Has humanity really “progressed” from this falsity? Or has humanity masked its error, and is prone to falling backward into the same errors of the past?

How many humans today believe themselves the center of existence? (Solipsism/Autism)

Nope.

1 per 100, at least. It’s probably much worse. Take all the threads or posts on this forum, ever created. What is the ratio? 1000:1

It’s like inventing an automobile. Most of the work is already done. The product already exists, and is mass-produced. Average people don’t need to know engineering. Average people don’t need to know much mechanics at all. They simply drive the cars produced for them. The same applies to philosophy, thoughts, and ideas. Many of the ideas have been “thought up” long ago. People don’t realize that their thoughts are copies, of copies, of copies. People don’t realize that ‘original’ or ‘new’ content can be very difficult to find, or more difficult to produce in the first place. Just as you DO need to be an engineer to create new models of cars. You can learn and copy the old models. But for something new, you have to be innovative. And is something new really an improvement?

If something is done well, mastered, then it dominates and rises in popularity. So it is with modern ideologies, propaganda, indoctrination, religions, etc. These are ancient ideas, re-formed, reworded a million times or more.

So when I talk about content producers and production, this is what I mean. It does require specialization.

A philosopher is to an idea: as an engineer is to a car.

Count it out. When I went back three months on active topics a few days ago, that’s the tally, like it or lump it.

Yeah some folks are impossible, but we need the impossible to have the possible, I suppose.

Maybe we should play devil’s advocate with each other rather than arguing what we really believe. That might be good training.

A long time ago, back before people pissed me off so much (ie before the internet), I used to say there is no such thing as a stupid person and I could learn something from anyone. I miss that guy… another victim of social media :confused:

I think freedom is relative. The person in prison is free from worrying about surviving because they get 3 squares per day, a warm bed, and friends to play cards with. I’ve seen guys who can’t handle it on the outside and deliberately commit a crime just to go back.

I don’t think anyone can be absolutely free because if they were free from worry then they’d be bored and wanting excitement, so they’re not free from boredom. There is no way to have it all. If you’re big and strong, then you’re not small and nimble.

Pray tell, what is it which gives us women away, textually speaking? I would really like to know.
Aside from that, I do not believe that your second statement is an example of your first.

As Wendy said:

Currently, there are only five women frequenting this site with any regularity while there are close to twenty men so it’s no wonder why there is less content from women.

This is true. Statistics speak for themselves.

I might also point out that perhaps/possibly, Wendy herself, has began more threads than many other men have in ILP.
The reason which I generally or much more than just generally do not start threads is because I do not have the time nor do I want to be tied down to responding to many posts.

Also, it can be because we women go to work and then come home and continue to “go to work”. Very often men go to work, come home and then get on the internet and do whatever. I may be wrong here but…

My initial quote was not, necessarily, about finding women philosophers here in ILP but out there somewhere in the Universe at large albeit I do realize that your existent philosophical world is here.

Still nobody really producing content around here…

I guess when you’re the top dog, when you race a car miles ahead of everybody, then your only competition is yourself.

I have a lot of content to push, but lacking the proper audience for it. I need a small group of amateurs that can at least appreciate the artform of philosophy.

???

I keep posting new, original stuff

New disproof of omnistates
New proof that we collectively hallucinate reality from platonic forms
New proof that the above new proof solves ethically as being the only one hallucinating your own reality…

In fact, I’ve been in the front lines of philosophy for years, taking the hits and coming out better…