Content Producers

This is the main board for discussing philosophy - formal, informal and in between.

Moderator: Only_Humean

Forum rules
Forum Philosophy

Re: Content Producers

Postby encode_decode » Wed Mar 14, 2018 5:55 pm

Serendipper wrote:Ok, I'll get the defib paddles while you do the mouth-to-mouth :D

Somehow, that does not sound so fair :lol:
    Neosophi | HOME | FORUM

    Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony
    (James S Saint)


    It’s not that truth itself is being eroded per se, it’s that fragmental falsification appears to be increasing.
    (Anomaly654)


    Mind is an ever changing dimension that is bound to reality, logic and emotion.
    (Myself)
    User avatar
    encode_decode
    Philosopher
     
    Posts: 1180
    Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2017 4:07 pm

    Re: Content Producers

    Postby Serendipper » Wed Mar 14, 2018 6:10 pm

    encode_decode wrote:
    Serendipper wrote:Ok, I'll get the defib paddles while you do the mouth-to-mouth :D

    Somehow, that does not sound so fair :lol:

    :lol:

    Ok, alright, I'll split the cost of the chapstick with you :D

    Maybe start by breathing some life into Wendy 8)
    Serendipper
    Philosopher
     
    Posts: 1129
    Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

    Re: Content Producers

    Postby encode_decode » Wed Mar 14, 2018 6:15 pm

    Serendipper wrote:Maybe start by breathing some life into Wendy 8)

    OMG, I dont know what to say.
      Neosophi | HOME | FORUM

      Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony
      (James S Saint)


      It’s not that truth itself is being eroded per se, it’s that fragmental falsification appears to be increasing.
      (Anomaly654)


      Mind is an ever changing dimension that is bound to reality, logic and emotion.
      (Myself)
      User avatar
      encode_decode
      Philosopher
       
      Posts: 1180
      Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2017 4:07 pm

      Re: Content Producers

      Postby Serendipper » Wed Mar 14, 2018 8:24 pm

      encode_decode wrote:
      Serendipper wrote:Maybe start by breathing some life into Wendy 8)

      OMG, I dont know what to say.

      Get people talking more is what I'm saying, especially the women who aren't as active.
      Serendipper
      Philosopher
       
      Posts: 1129
      Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

      Re: Content Producers

      Postby encode_decode » Wed Mar 14, 2018 9:00 pm

      Serendipper wrote:Get people talking more is what I'm saying, especially the women who aren't as active.

      I knew what you were saying I just did not know how to respond - Wendy is fairly active compared to other females around here - she is also one to observe before she attacks(so to speak). I have found some real depth in her posts, I guess it comes down to the way they are read - I find Wendy to be pragmatic too and who can blame her since she probably sees not enough being done. I am not trying to offer some big defense of Wendy here as she sure can defend herself but I have seen her make an effort in the past by making original posts and getting some pretty stupid answers in return.
        Neosophi | HOME | FORUM

        Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony
        (James S Saint)


        It’s not that truth itself is being eroded per se, it’s that fragmental falsification appears to be increasing.
        (Anomaly654)


        Mind is an ever changing dimension that is bound to reality, logic and emotion.
        (Myself)
        User avatar
        encode_decode
        Philosopher
         
        Posts: 1180
        Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2017 4:07 pm

        Re: Content Producers

        Postby pilgrim-seeker_tom » Thu Mar 15, 2018 2:55 am

        Just finished reading this thread ... feels like some sincere/genuine chatter.

        Here's the image that popped into my head:

        A bus load of philosophers.jpg
        A bus load of philosophers.jpg (100.28 KiB) Viewed 4319 times


        Evolution of Being is marching forward ... the bus load of philosophers is attempting to map the route. The bus is moving ... ergo ... there must be a bus driver/leader.

        The 'leader' is not a single individual ... though as the simpletons we are ... we have a need to ascribe leadership to a single individual. pooey!
        "Do not be influenced by the importance of the writer, and whether his learning be great or small; but let the love of pure truth draw you to read. Do not inquire, “Who said this?” but pay attention to what is said”

        Thomas Kempis 1380-1471
        User avatar
        pilgrim-seeker_tom
        Philosopher
         
        Posts: 1858
        Joined: Sun Dec 17, 2006 11:16 am

        Re: Content Producers

        Postby Urwrongx1000 » Thu Mar 15, 2018 4:05 am

        WendyDarling wrote: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.

        More like 1 woman per 100 men, 1 female thread per 100 male threads.
        Urwrongx1000
        Philosopher
         
        Posts: 1126
        Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2017 5:10 pm

        Re: Content Producers

        Postby Prismatic567 » Thu Mar 15, 2018 7:24 am

        Urwrongx1000 wrote:
        Prismatic567 wrote:You are,
        A Slave to One's own Expectation = Sufferings!
        viewtopic.php?f=1&t=193871

        I believe you lacked experience and wisdom.
        If you have enough experience and wiser you ought to know the limitation of such a forum which is opened to all sort of people who are not expected to have certain minimal standard of philosophical qualifications to join. As such one should expect a range of qualities [the good, the bad and the ugly] on the contents posted.

        If you want high quality philosophical contents you should join a forum or group whose members are professional philosophers or have expertise in philosophy where you can post your philosophical papers for peer review.

        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.

        As for me I am here to express my views within the rules of this forum. It is up to anyone to use there discretion to participate in responding.

        On the contrary, the "academic" or "professional" philosophers are a lot worse than those on this forum, and other forums. I've been inside the walls of academia. That "philosophy" is built on pure theory and conjecture. Dusty tomes. Tombs. Dead philosophies, discussed until the end of time. They are lifeless catacombs, filled with the living-dead.

        The philosophy I've always aimed for, always, is living philosophy. Flesh and blood philosophy. Real wisdom.

        Here's the thing. If any human on this planet had a genuine interest in Philosophy, then they would be here, or have passed through here already. So my threads are like a net, waiting to catch some of them.

        Those who are honestly philosophical, will come here without instruction, without being led. They will have come of their own accord and determination.

        Because they "love philosophy".
        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."
        I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
        Prismatic567
        Philosopher
         
        Posts: 1907
        Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

        Re: Content Producers

        Postby WendyDarling » Thu Mar 15, 2018 8:04 am

        Urwrongx1000 wrote:
        WendyDarling wrote: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.

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

        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 AM OFFICIALLY IN HELL!

        I live my philosophy, it's personal to me and people who engage where I live establish an unspoken dynamic, a relationship of sorts, with me and my philosophy.

        Cutting folks for sport is a reality for the poor in spirit. I myself only cut the poor in spirit on Tues., Thurs., and every other Sat.
        User avatar
        WendyDarling
        Heroine
         
        Posts: 7097
        Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2010 8:52 am
        Location: Hades

        Re: Content Producers

        Postby Serendipper » Thu Mar 15, 2018 9:29 am

        encode_decode wrote:
        Serendipper wrote:Get people talking more is what I'm saying, especially the women who aren't as active.

        I knew what you were saying I just did not know how to respond - Wendy is fairly active compared to other females around here - she is also one to observe before she attacks(so to speak). I have found some real depth in her posts, I guess it comes down to the way they are read - I find Wendy to be pragmatic too and who can blame her since she probably sees not enough being done. I am not trying to offer some big defense of Wendy here as she sure can defend herself but I have seen her make an effort in the past by making original posts and getting some pretty stupid answers in return.

        I'm not attacking, but just coaxing. You said you wanted to resuscitate, so pucker up :D 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 :lol: 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.
        Serendipper
        Philosopher
         
        Posts: 1129
        Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

        Re: Content Producers

        Postby Serendipper » Thu Mar 15, 2018 9:35 am

        WendyDarling wrote:
        Urwrongx1000 wrote:
        WendyDarling wrote: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.

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

        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.

        Why do you think that is?
        Serendipper
        Philosopher
         
        Posts: 1129
        Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

        Re: Content Producers

        Postby Serendipper » Thu Mar 15, 2018 9:44 am

        Prismatic567 wrote: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.

        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."?
        Serendipper
        Philosopher
         
        Posts: 1129
        Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

        Re: Content Producers

        Postby Urwrongx1000 » Thu Mar 15, 2018 10:06 am

        Silhouette wrote:If I have an idea, which has reached a critical point, I have to test it - there is no self-consciousness, it's like being pregnant in the sense that it's gonna come whether you like it or not. There is no sense of duty or fairness either, just urgency. But just as much as inspiration hits me suddenly, it doesn't hit me reliably and often not at the right time. I will often be at work or away from a personal computer and the urgency has died out before I get the chance to write it down. You get what you're given when you get it, sorry.

        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.


        Silhouette wrote:In theory. I don't think leaders like to be led unless they are sure they've already gained respect and are interested in leading someone else into a leadership role in order to enhance their own leadership.
        But none of this is really relevant unless you feel under-appreciated and are resentful that people aren't following you, and you long to be a leader but in vain. Natural leadership just happens - you don't plan who to lead and how, lions or otherwise, but you might be likened to a lion by others if you emerge a leader. Doesn't matter if you aren't likened to one though.

        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.


        Silhouette wrote:I guess, although I think it's more to do with numbers, and the availability of shallow content that seems deep to the shallow. It's the same as saying there's no good music anymore, because it's so drowned out by the hordes of loudest easy-option takers. Everything loses it's specialness when it's opened up to the masses. It's like a philosophy class, in my experience - there's always at least that one guy who has incessant inane questions and comments to offer, and too much of the class is taken up addressing him instead of moving onto something interesting and potentially outside the box.

        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.


        Silhouette wrote:This is a very under-appreciated truth, one side of a political debate will rail on the other as though they were absolutely wrong and themselves absolutely right, when really it's mostly all been pre-determined by biology and they're both perfectly valid in expressing their values. This is why I support free speech - silencing one group invalidates a whole avenue of valid ingenuity that too often benefits everyone in ways completely underestimated by the other side.

        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.


        Silhouette wrote:It's been my displeasure to be dismissed by a once reasonably respected contributor to this forum, FC, on the grounds that I don't find it sufficient to derive knowledge from second-hand sources and as such I don't place a huge amount of value on reading up on the works of others - though of course I open my ears and listen out for interesting inspiration when I can. My approach is far moreover to attempt to derive it myself from as fundamental principles as I can identify - to make conclusions my own and as solid as I can from start to finish. His parrot, UrGod, tried his hardest to discredit some such conclusions in another thread, and only shut up once I found some quotes for him from another source.

        I am reminded of a quote, not that the fact that it's a quote legitimises it at all but I think there's something to it, by Eleanor Roosevelt: "Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people". I am with you when it comes to being against the "He said it" approach to "philosophy", and also the "feeling of being right" and the plagiarised re-iteration of the ideas of others like you see on youtube.

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


        Silhouette wrote:What was/were your name(s) in previous rodeos btw?

        I couldn't say, but there have been multiple.
        Urwrongx1000
        Philosopher
         
        Posts: 1126
        Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2017 5:10 pm

        Re: Content Producers

        Postby Urwrongx1000 » Thu Mar 15, 2018 10:54 am

        Serendipper wrote:If there are so few of us then it would seem to behoove us to learn to get along because unfortunately we do not have the luxury of picking the ideal companions with whom to share our passions.

        And I need someone to disagree with me because if they didn't disagree, then I wouldn't have anything to talk about. But I don't want them to disagree because they're a dogmatic blockhead. Essentially, I share the problem that vexes all of humanity: how to have all good and no bad.

        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.
        Urwrongx1000
        Philosopher
         
        Posts: 1126
        Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2017 5:10 pm

        Re: Content Producers

        Postby Prismatic567 » Fri Mar 16, 2018 7:03 am

        Serendipper wrote:
        Prismatic567 wrote: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.

        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."?
        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.
        I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
        Prismatic567
        Philosopher
         
        Posts: 1907
        Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

        Re: Content Producers

        Postby Serendipper » Fri Mar 16, 2018 9:49 am

        Prismatic567 wrote:
        Serendipper wrote:
        Prismatic567 wrote: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.

        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."?

        To simply ignore the historicity of philosophy is bad philosophizing.

        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.

        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].

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

        Note the purpose of an essential literature review is to ensure you don't waste time inefficiently inventing the wheel.

        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 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.

        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.
        Serendipper
        Philosopher
         
        Posts: 1129
        Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

        Re: Content Producers

        Postby encode_decode » Fri Mar 16, 2018 3:56 pm

        Prismatic567 wrote:To simply ignore the historicity of philosophy is bad philosophizing.

        Not necessarily!

        What did the first philosopher do?
          Neosophi | HOME | FORUM

          Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony
          (James S Saint)


          It’s not that truth itself is being eroded per se, it’s that fragmental falsification appears to be increasing.
          (Anomaly654)


          Mind is an ever changing dimension that is bound to reality, logic and emotion.
          (Myself)
          User avatar
          encode_decode
          Philosopher
           
          Posts: 1180
          Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2017 4:07 pm

          Re: Content Producers

          Postby Urwrongx1000 » Sat Mar 17, 2018 6:33 pm

          Serendipper wrote:If there are so few of us then it would seem to behoove us to learn to get along because unfortunately we do not have the luxury of picking the ideal companions with whom to share our passions.

          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.


          Serendipper wrote:And I need someone to disagree with me because if they didn't disagree, then I wouldn't have anything to talk about. But I don't want them to disagree because they're a dogmatic blockhead. Essentially, I share the problem that vexes all of humanity: how to have all good and no bad.

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


          Serendipper wrote:I think people come here to build a persona. People study philosophy, not simply because it's fun, but to seem smart.

          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.


          Serendipper wrote:It could be a problem of religion. Who is it that is asking if they are free? First define the "who" and then we can decide if they are free.

          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?
          Urwrongx1000
          Philosopher
           
          Posts: 1126
          Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2017 5:10 pm

          Re: Content Producers

          Postby Urwrongx1000 » Sat Mar 17, 2018 6:44 pm

          Prismatic567 wrote: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.

          Very moralistic....


          Prismatic567 wrote: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."

          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)
          Urwrongx1000
          Philosopher
           
          Posts: 1126
          Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2017 5:10 pm

          Re: Content Producers

          Postby Urwrongx1000 » Sat Mar 17, 2018 6:45 pm

          WendyDarling wrote: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.

          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
          Urwrongx1000
          Philosopher
           
          Posts: 1126
          Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2017 5:10 pm

          Re: Content Producers

          Postby Urwrongx1000 » Sat Mar 17, 2018 6:50 pm

          Serendipper wrote: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 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.
          Urwrongx1000
          Philosopher
           
          Posts: 1126
          Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2017 5:10 pm

          Re: Content Producers

          Postby WendyDarling » Sat Mar 17, 2018 6:55 pm

          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.
          I AM OFFICIALLY IN HELL!

          I live my philosophy, it's personal to me and people who engage where I live establish an unspoken dynamic, a relationship of sorts, with me and my philosophy.

          Cutting folks for sport is a reality for the poor in spirit. I myself only cut the poor in spirit on Tues., Thurs., and every other Sat.
          User avatar
          WendyDarling
          Heroine
           
          Posts: 7097
          Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2010 8:52 am
          Location: Hades

          Re: Content Producers

          Postby Serendipper » Sat Mar 17, 2018 7:03 pm

          Urwrongx1000 wrote:
          Serendipper wrote:If there are so few of us then it would seem to behoove us to learn to get along because unfortunately we do not have the luxury of picking the ideal companions with whom to share our passions.

          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.

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

          Serendipper wrote:And I need someone to disagree with me because if they didn't disagree, then I wouldn't have anything to talk about. But I don't want them to disagree because they're a dogmatic blockhead. Essentially, I share the problem that vexes all of humanity: how to have all good and no bad.

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

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

          Serendipper wrote:I think people come here to build a persona. People study philosophy, not simply because it's fun, but to seem smart.

          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.

          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 :-?

          Serendipper wrote:It could be a problem of religion. Who is it that is asking if they are free? First define the "who" and then we can decide if they are free.

          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?

          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.
          Serendipper
          Philosopher
           
          Posts: 1129
          Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

          Re: Content Producers

          Postby Arcturus Descending » Sat Mar 24, 2018 4:25 pm

          Urwrongx1000 wrote:
          Arcturus Descending wrote:You probably will not be finding them. Why? Because you do not *see* them within your own existent philosophical world.



          It's very, very easy to differentiate females from males, textually, without any other indication of gender.

          For example, almost all (over 90%) of threads on this forum are started by men. Maybe even 95%?


          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.
          “How can a bird that is born for joy
          Sit in a cage and sing?”
          ― William Blake


          “Little Fly
          Thy summers play,
          My thoughtless hand
          Has brush'd away.

          Am not I
          A fly like thee?
          Or art not thou
          A man like me?

          For I dance
          And drink & sing:
          Till some blind hand
          Shall brush my wing.

          If thought is life
          And strength & breath:
          And the want
          Of thought is death;

          Then am I
          A happy fly,
          If I live,
          Or if I die”
          ― William Blake, Songs of Innocence and of Experience


          “No bird soars too high if he soars with his own wings.”
          ― William Blake
          User avatar
          Arcturus Descending
          Consciousness Seeker
           
          Posts: 15251
          Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 5:15 pm
          Location: A state of unknowing

          Re: Content Producers

          Postby Urwrongx1000 » Mon Apr 30, 2018 8:20 pm

          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.
          Urwrongx1000
          Philosopher
           
          Posts: 1126
          Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2017 5:10 pm

          PreviousNext

          Return to Philosophy



          Who is online

          Users browsing this forum: No registered users