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 Serendipper » Sun Mar 11, 2018 7:40 am

Urwrongx1000 wrote: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 like that. Well said! Reminds me a Jesus railing against the pretentious sophists of his day:

24 Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel.
25 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye make clean the outside of the cup and of the platter, but within they are full of extortion and excess.
26 Thou blind Pharisee, cleanse first that which is within the cup and platter, that the outside of them may be clean also.
27 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men's bones, and of all uncleanness.
28 Even so ye also outwardly appear righteous unto men, but within ye are full of hypocrisy and iniquity.

33 Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?


So my threads are like a net, waiting to catch some of them.

Follow me and I will make you fishers of men. :D There's that Judaeo-Abrahamic propensity you were on about earlier :evilfun:
Serendipper
Thinker
 
Posts: 908
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: Content Producers

Postby Serendipper » Sun Mar 11, 2018 7:56 am

encode_decode wrote:
WendyDarling wrote:Gloominary has released several topics that are on the fresher side and Joker, aka Zero_Sum, has several current events topics threaded. Prismatic is adding material in the Religion section, otherwise, it's real slow around ILP regarding newer ideas.

I do wonder why it is slow around here at the moment.

Because James is gone? :confusion-shrug:

I'm not sure if I've ever started a thread here :confusion-scratchheadblue: Idk, it's more of an incentive for me if I feel I'm helping someone else and I have a hard time helping myself... like the roofer whose own roof leaks.
Serendipper
Thinker
 
Posts: 908
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: Content Producers

Postby Serendipper » Sun Mar 11, 2018 8:30 am

Urwrongx1000 wrote:
Silhouette wrote:How can it be a waste of time to be a leader and produce content?

It's more a waste of time when there's no interaction, or that you have to wait 10 or 20 years, before your content receives the adequate attention.

Yep, that's the problem. 90% of what I say is not replied to and I feel I may as well type directly into the recycle bin.

And replying is a rule!

2.2 Arguments should be made in good faith: no trolling. If a moderator sees a poster presenting an argument and dismissing any counterpoints without engaging them, or suspects someone of presenting arguments purely for the sake of inflaming debate or annoying other posters, a warning may be issued. http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 1&t=175550

I would say more, but I have to make this post iphone/ADD compatible :occasion-clown:
Serendipper
Thinker
 
Posts: 908
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: Content Producers

Postby Silhouette » Sun Mar 11, 2018 4:27 pm

Interesting quote from the musician, Branford Marsalis, about the students that he teaches - I think it applies here and probably in general too:

"What I've learned from my students? Is that students today are completely full of shit. Much like the generation before them, the only thing they are really interested in is you telling them how right they are and how good they are".

Now, if it can be said that this applies here too, and even in general - why?

I'm hesitant to claim it to be a recent phenomenon, if it is in fact applicable to any significant degree at all. I think the tendency for people to claim something as new is often merely because they've only recently noticed it. Obviously things do change over time, but it's easy to assume that subjective experience is reflective of objective experience - at least when you're just going on a hunch and/or you haven't already examined things as objectively as you can without confirmation bias. People like to be the first to know something new and share it, which no doubt goes back to new resource finding in earlier periods of human civilisation. But in older situations such as that, your subjective experience of a new resource is of an object whereas the subjective experience of new trends in behaviours and attitudes is of other subjects who are only truly known unto themselves. The straw men you hear these days are just embarrassing, but they're not surprising due to the fundamental attribution error combined with what I have just described about a tendency for people to assume their subjective experience maps objective experience to the degree that they think it does. You see a feminist doing something stupid and all of a sudden, it's a new trend amongst feminists...

What I do think is new is the need for instant gratification. I don't think this is the fault of newer generations, it's just what they've grown up into. We're rich now, and businesses have figured out how to abuse certain psychological tendencies in people to grab their attention away from the competition and to buy into what they're offering instead. I say we're rich, there's not much you need to be far richer than most - internet and mobile phone is all you really need to be drawn into a spiral of chasing instant gratification. This is actually where we all wanted to get to: this level of richness is what older generations were all trying to achieve - and now we have it we're realising it's more complex than we probably assumed and has downsides as well as upsides. I think the upsides are more than the downsides, but the downsides negatively affect - amongst other things - the realm of intellectual thought.

With the rise of "alt-right" and conservative demagogues in reaction to a rise in institutionalised social authoritarianism masquerading as "leftism" (a contradiction in terms if there ever was one, but hey, it's caught on now so what can you do?), and immediate access to all their content, it's easy to latch onto their arguments, ideas, or at least their attitude, and think you've found something new that you want to show off to others.

I support free speech, but this includes my own free speech to point out flaws in line with the tyranny of logical argument. For example, my "new thing" that I've found that I want to show off to others is not really new at all. It revolves around the inversion of leftism that has occurred and is remarkably simple, but I don't see anybody else pointing it out - so I take it upon myself to do so. For example, how is it "liberal" (deriving from the Latin "of freedom") to be enforcing e.g. affirmative action? Take its opposite: authoritarianism. How is such enforcement not instead authoritarian? The movement is literally getting authority to prevent freedom.... and it's called "liberal". Liberalism is associated with new reactionary movements against Conservativism. Conserving the way things are and traditions presupposes a lack of freedom, a lack of Liberalism to do otherwise - often for good reason, but not always and certainly not indefinitely. Freedom to move on from old ways is the whole purpose of Liberalism - but what then when new ways have to be enforced to happen at all? The newness is still the goal, but the freedom from conservativism is now the enforcement of a new way to conserve - as opposed to supporting the freedom to deviate.

Seeing as everyone has forgotten or overlooked things such as this, I don't get to be told how right I am or how good I am. I've even violated the need for instant gratification by not keeping my response short. If I was speaking about my thoughts out loud, assuming I had an engaging delivery of such thoughts, I could potentially get away with extended explanation, but listening can be a lot more passive and less active than reading. It seems to me like the preferred format has turned away from text and towards video. Conversational format is also a lot more natural than an exchange of monologues - people want to respond before you've even completed a thought: another factor that works against deep thought that takes time to lay out. This is particularly the case for those suffering from the decline in attention spans. It used to be the case that you had to have a long attention span just to get into intellectual thought, but now with the incorporation of those without attention spans, you can seemingly get a lot more attention by posting little and often rather than making each post count and putting a lot of thought into it. As such I should really have cut my response short a long time ago...
User avatar
Silhouette
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3227
Joined: Tue May 20, 2003 1:27 am
Location: Existence

Re: Content Producers

Postby Serendipper » Mon Mar 12, 2018 5:44 am

Silhouette wrote:As such I should really have cut my response short a long time ago...

Yeah man, no way that's fitting onto a 4in screen. My view of mobile devices has always been like crutches: something to limp-along on until reunion with adequate workstation for the convenient and proper dispensation of poppycock rather than eternal relegation to the likes of sidewalk chalk memeing for the sake of mobility (new stuff), but maybe that's too sensible aka boring to delay the gratification of dispatching a quick one-liner instead of waiting for the proper equipment necessary to exercise the noodle by putting thought into a reply. These machines are really dumbing us down.

What I do think is new is the need for instant gratification.

Stefan has become somewhat notorious for talking at length about r/k selection where the propensity to eat one's seed crop out of lack of delayed gratification differentiates the "planners" from the "mass-breeders" and the phenomenon is in fact as old as the hills.

I think the upsides are more than the downsides, but the downsides negatively affect - amongst other things - the realm of intellectual thought.

Yes and it rubs me wrong that businesses and websites have kowtowed to the dictates of the herd in the quest for profits which seems yet another disadvantage of capitalism since every product and service exists for the behest of milking the big hump in the middle of the iq curve regardless of sense or sensibility. My last phone bill seriously looked like a coloring book which is absolutely without sober explanation since paper bills do not have to be digitally displayed (probably some woman who typically couldn't stand the furniture to be in the same spot for more than a week who also required some justification for her job. I wish those types would be paid to go to the beach to coddle their compulsions with sand castles rather than meddling with my life and being congratulated for it.)

"liberal" (deriving from the Latin "of freedom")

That's interesting.

liberal (adj.)
mid-14c., "generous," also "nobly born, noble, free;" from late 14c. as "selfless, magnanimous, admirable;" from early 15c. in a bad sense, "extravagant, unrestrained," from Old French liberal "befitting free people; noble, generous; willing, zealous" (12c.), and directly from Latin liberalis "noble, gracious, munificent, generous," literally "of freedom, pertaining to or befitting a free person," from liber "free, unrestricted, unimpeded; unbridled, unchecked, licentious."
https://www.etymonline.com/word/liberal

It reminds me of a scholar:

Old English scolere "student," from Medieval Latin scholaris, noun use of Late Latin scholaris "of a school," from Latin schola (see school (n.1)). Greek scholastes meant "one who lives at ease." https://www.etymonline.com/word/scholar

So, liberal, scholar, gentlemen were describing the same person of leisure and means with time to contemplate the charming irrelevancies of life in lieu of having to actually drudge for survival which, of course, leaves them completely out of touch with the plebs.

The movement is literally getting authority to prevent freedom.... and it's called "liberal".

I suppose the creation of laws are consistent with being nobly born. Someone has to milk the herd.

Conserving the way things are and traditions presupposes a lack of freedom, a lack of Liberalism to do otherwise

It presupposes a good and bad whereas liberalism is solely the intolerance of intolerance wherein everything is moral except the act of defining anything to be immoral. They are indeed antipodal and boil down to the answering of one fundamental question: do you believe in universal and absolute right and wrong or do you not?

Of course, if your worldview is absent of a fundamental right and wrong, then you're not going to want people void of moral compasses to be armed. Since the ends justify the means, liberals tolerate creations of laws that restrict freedom if it means protection whereas conservatives generally protect themselves and their moral compass, so no drinking on sunday or sticking your tallywacker where it doesn't belong.

It seems to me like the preferred format has turned away from text and towards video.

1000s of years of listening to stories vs well, however long the majority of people have been able to read. Reading filled a niche necessary to bring about video, but has been since antiquated by the vastly superior conveyance of information that is audio (heck, I'm listening to youtube while I write this). Otherwise textbooks would have sufficed without a professor needing to explain what's contained in the book.
Serendipper
Thinker
 
Posts: 908
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: Content Producers

Postby Urwrongx1000 » Mon Mar 12, 2018 3:14 pm

encode_decode wrote:You speak of reason, yet you offer me no reason for your opinion on my standards being very low.

:-k

If you want to search through ILP for good content then I'm certain you'll cross many of my previous threads. My homework is done. You're welcome to pursue any points in my threads, if you want to test Reason.
Urwrongx1000
Thinker
 
Posts: 949
Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2017 5:10 pm

Re: Content Producers

Postby Urwrongx1000 » Mon Mar 12, 2018 3:18 pm

WendyDarling wrote:Gloominary has released several topics that are on the fresher side and Joker, aka Zero_Sum, has several current events topics threaded. Prismatic is adding material in the Religion section, otherwise, it's real slow around ILP regarding newer ideas.

Gloominary has a standard: young, idealistic, socialistic perspective. He maybe intriguing to other young people, but not me. I've countered many of his socialistic agendas already. He doesn't respond as though his core beliefs (about socialism) can change. So there are personal reasons behind his agenda. But socialism is "easy", philosophically. It's not that interesting.

Zero_Sum is running the same old game.

I can't speak for Prismatic' threads, but religion is also another dead-end. 99.9% of religious disciples share the same dogmatic principles, clinging to (Abrahamic) God.
Urwrongx1000
Thinker
 
Posts: 949
Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2017 5:10 pm

Re: Content Producers

Postby Urwrongx1000 » Mon Mar 12, 2018 3:23 pm

WendyDarling wrote:Life seems to be more agenda driven in this technological age than ever before, philosophers are following suit rather than broaching expectations.

I think that philosophers are trying too hard to shape public perceptions of current events, that they too are caught up in the demanding times with a sense of a larger responsibility to all of humanity rather than operating independently of the current cultural climate. Philosophy itself has become entrenched in a media driven sense of responsibility for common man's every perception, to save the unsavable. Philosophers of today have become town criers.

A lot of the louder voices are selling-out fast, to Modernity, to gain popularity. What's popular, is politics, and the "SJW" agenda, leftist-liberalism. But very few thinkers are really digging deep into the core of the ideologies. This signals that everybody is deeply set into their dogmas and institutions, without really caring to know them, let alone change them. People are apathetic, representing lack of leadership and inspiration (lack of genuine, quality, high artforms).

High artforms are the pinnacle in terms of inspiring a large amount of people, and then fundamentally, western civilization. In previous centuries, European inspiration and high art was more obvious. The architecture of Gothic Cathedrals. Holy wars, crusades, ideologies worth killing for. These are lacking in the modern era. Nihilism in the 20th Century gutted-out most of the ideologies that inspire people to kill each-other, along with the threat of nuclear annihilation of the human specie.
Urwrongx1000
Thinker
 
Posts: 949
Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2017 5:10 pm

Re: Content Producers

Postby Urwrongx1000 » Mon Mar 12, 2018 3:26 pm

encode_decode wrote:Philosophers tend to work backward from a deliberate, desired future

You're mixing up the religious mindset with philosophy.

Philosophy starts with no future. The future is unknown. Philosophy focuses on premises and core principles. If premises are flawed then conclusions cannot be trusted, no matter how accurate they are. Philosophy starts with the premise and works toward the conclusion.

It is religion where people start with conclusions, with Desires, and works backward toward the premise. Justifying their desires, as they go. Acting first, thinking second.

Philosophy thinks first, acts second.
Urwrongx1000
Thinker
 
Posts: 949
Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2017 5:10 pm

Re: Content Producers

Postby Arcturus Descending » Mon Mar 12, 2018 3:37 pm

Urwrongx1000


I'd prefer young intelligent females, but, they're non-existent in philosophy.


You probably will not be finding them. Why? Because you do not *see* them within your own existent philosophical world.
Joseph Joubert ~~

It is better to debate a question without settling it than to settle a question without debating it.


The aim of an argument or discussion should not be victory but progress.


“We love repose of mind so well, that we are arrested by anything which has even the appearance of truth; and so we fall asleep on clouds.”


You have to be like the pebble in the stream, keeping the grain and rolling along without being dissolved or dissolving anything else.
User avatar
Arcturus Descending
Consciousness Seeker
 
Posts: 15112
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 5:15 pm
Location: A state of unknowing

Re: Content Producers

Postby Urwrongx1000 » Mon Mar 12, 2018 3:46 pm

Serendipper wrote:If you are leader and content producer, then problem solved? :confusion-shrug:

I don't mind leading and producing. I just don't want to be the one to do it 100%.

Like when you are the Driver, all the time, sometimes you want somebody else to drive.


Serendipper wrote:Can you lead lions? It seems as if instead of being doctor to the sick, you want to doctor the healthy. If anyone needs leadership, it's this stinking lot :lol:

With strong enough reasoning, you can lead anybody and anything.


Serendipper wrote:What attracts the degenerates?

Degenerates love areas where they can speak loudly and verbalize all their illnesses. Philosophy is attractive because philosophers and their consumers, thinkers, are the best listeners. Degenerates latch onto anybody willing to listen. So degenerates are attracted to a philosophy forum where they will be listened to.

It's like homeless people, crazies, and bums on the street, ranting about god, that they are jesus christ, the second coming. They will latch onto anybody who listens to them. Most people, appropriately, ignore them. But the same happens online, and in forums. In this philosophy forum, the avenues can get clogged up with shit. People are ranting and raving, spewing inanity, nothing worth listening to. But that is the price of 'liberal' environments, without strict rules and regulations. And it is the cost of "free speech".

What needs to be done is, the degenerate voices shouted down and driven away, or into silence, to make way for those who have something worth saying, something valuable.


Serendipper wrote:Yeah I was born into it. I know what you're saying... I'd like to stumble upon a congregation of Asian Buddhists or Indian Hindus just to switch it up, but I've found no such group. Every group is christian or anti-christian.

Religion and genealogy go hand-in-hand. So people are fundamentally, biologically attached to their ideologies.


Serendipper wrote:Maybe at the onset of an argument you should define your terminology. Semantics is often a stumbling block to discussion.

Everybody should be defining what they say and mean, extensively. That doesn't really happen around here. I've seen countless arguments, a majority of threads, where disputes and misunderstandings occur based on flawed definitions that each participant has not spelled out, but easily could have, from the beginning. That's amateur and mediocre. Philosophers have to be adept at spelling out definitions and clarifying differences, the reasons why people define concepts differently (almost certainly caused by differences of experience throughout life).


Serendipper wrote:Well it's like that discussion you and I had about "freedom = free from laws". You seemed determined to assert the overarching validity of that statement even if it meant shooting down my objection that "freedom" must be defined differently than what most people imagine it to mean.

Most folks associate freedom with not being attacked by random roving gangsters and it's law and order that mostly-guarantees that freedom, but if you define freedom as being free from law, then you're going to be right by definition, but wrong by every other definition and popular conception.

I just wanted a "oh yeah, good point", but instead you seemed to pound the table harder and dig in. So maybe people don't want to debate you because it's a game they have no shot at winning. You will always find some way of skirting the statement, "oh yeah, good point!" At least throw people a bone.

The problem is that people can believe they are free, when they really are not.

No amount of clarifying terms and definitions would solve such a problem.
Urwrongx1000
Thinker
 
Posts: 949
Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2017 5:10 pm

Re: Content Producers

Postby Urwrongx1000 » Mon Mar 12, 2018 3:47 pm

Serendipper wrote:Follow me and I will make you fishers of men. :D There's that Judaeo-Abrahamic propensity you were on about earlier :evilfun:

Could be a coincidence.
Urwrongx1000
Thinker
 
Posts: 949
Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2017 5:10 pm

Re: Content Producers

Postby Urwrongx1000 » Mon Mar 12, 2018 3:49 pm

Serendipper wrote:Yep, that's the problem. 90% of what I say is not replied to and I feel I may as well type directly into the recycle bin.

And replying is a rule!

2.2 Arguments should be made in good faith: no trolling. If a moderator sees a poster presenting an argument and dismissing any counterpoints without engaging them, or suspects someone of presenting arguments purely for the sake of inflaming debate or annoying other posters, a warning may be issued. viewtopic.php?f=1&t=175550

I would say more, but I have to make this post iphone/ADD compatible :occasion-clown:

It's been mentioned already.

The popular agendas dominate the public arena, not necessarily ideas with philosophical content.

Perhaps popularity itself, is part of the problem. Philosophy is rarely popular. Or rather, philosophy becomes popularized over time, as it becomes watered-down (from old or dead philosophers) and then dolled out to the masses.

Today's politics is the "new philosophy" from 100-200 years ago.
Urwrongx1000
Thinker
 
Posts: 949
Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2017 5:10 pm

Re: Content Producers

Postby Urwrongx1000 » Mon Mar 12, 2018 4:05 pm

Silhouette wrote:Interesting quote from the musician, Branford Marsalis, about the students that he teaches - I think it applies here and probably in general too:

"What I've learned from my students? Is that students today are completely full of shit. Much like the generation before them, the only thing they are really interested in is you telling them how right they are and how good they are".

Now, if it can be said that this applies here too, and even in general - why?

I'm hesitant to claim it to be a recent phenomenon, if it is in fact applicable to any significant degree at all. I think the tendency for people to claim something as new is often merely because they've only recently noticed it. Obviously things do change over time, but it's easy to assume that subjective experience is reflective of objective experience - at least when you're just going on a hunch and/or you haven't already examined things as objectively as you can without confirmation bias. People like to be the first to know something new and share it, which no doubt goes back to new resource finding in earlier periods of human civilisation. But in older situations such as that, your subjective experience of a new resource is of an object whereas the subjective experience of new trends in behaviours and attitudes is of other subjects who are only truly known unto themselves. The straw men you hear these days are just embarrassing, but they're not surprising due to the fundamental attribution error combined with what I have just described about a tendency for people to assume their subjective experience maps objective experience to the degree that they think it does. You see a feminist doing something stupid and all of a sudden, it's a new trend amongst feminists...

That harkens back to the point about "world = humanity". A majority of the world's population live inter-connected in such a way as to be completely subjective. People are out-of-touch with "objectivity" or "the world outside humanity". Therefore people latch onto, becoming dependent towards, the rare ones who are most objective with their ideologies. It's a matter of "he said" what and when.

It's also why much of "academic" philosophy revolves around quoting dead philosophers and their philosophies. "He said it". It's never a matter of immediate personal accountability. Saying things now, and immediately explaining all the whys and hows. Like how modern ideologues can only go so far explaining their own ideologies. They don't even know all of why and how they think what they do.

People repeat what others are saying. So you have to trace it all back to their sources. That requires digging into the past. Then you will discover that most of what is said today, was said 1000 years ago. But the words have changed slightly, re-ordered, rephrased, to make it seem as though it's new now, when it's not. So it is a very genuine challenge to discover "new" ideas, thoughts, and perspectives.


Silhouette wrote:What I do think is new is the need for instant gratification. I don't think this is the fault of newer generations, it's just what they've grown up into. We're rich now, and businesses have figured out how to abuse certain psychological tendencies in people to grab their attention away from the competition and to buy into what they're offering instead. I say we're rich, there's not much you need to be far richer than most - internet and mobile phone is all you really need to be drawn into a spiral of chasing instant gratification. This is actually where we all wanted to get to: this level of richness is what older generations were all trying to achieve - and now we have it we're realising it's more complex than we probably assumed and has downsides as well as upsides. I think the upsides are more than the downsides, but the downsides negatively affect - amongst other things - the realm of intellectual thought.

Content producers are very valuable in philosophy, because philosophical ideas and writing is not immediate. It takes a lot of time, testing, and challenging, to develop 'good' or strong philosophical ideas. At the very least, philosophers should be able to know the flaws of positions as they are pushed from the beginning. Any good philosopher knows how to Doubt, how to critique and criticize, how to disprove the premises.

I still cannot even imagine any "perfect" premises. Every single premise possible, that humanity has ever developed, can be overturned. There are no absolute truths.

Regarding immediate gratification, I know that Modern people want the products of a strong philosophy and ideology, without putting all the work in themselves. They want to latch onto Ideology X or Ideology Y, feel that it is right, and then claim it for themselves. For example, people are quick to identify as "liberal" or "conservative" based on these same generalities. People want to be right, but don't necessarily care to know how or why they are right. The feeling of "being right" is reason enough.


Silhouette wrote:With the rise of "alt-right" and conservative demagogues in reaction to a rise in institutionalised social authoritarianism masquerading as "leftism" (a contradiction in terms if there ever was one, but hey, it's caught on now so what can you do?), and immediate access to all their content, it's easy to latch onto their arguments, ideas, or at least their attitude, and think you've found something new that you want to show off to others.

I support free speech, but this includes my own free speech to point out flaws in line with the tyranny of logical argument. For example, my "new thing" that I've found that I want to show off to others is not really new at all. It revolves around the inversion of leftism that has occurred and is remarkably simple, but I don't see anybody else pointing it out - so I take it upon myself to do so. For example, how is it "liberal" (deriving from the Latin "of freedom") to be enforcing e.g. affirmative action? Take its opposite: authoritarianism. How is such enforcement not instead authoritarian? The movement is literally getting authority to prevent freedom.... and it's called "liberal". Liberalism is associated with new reactionary movements against Conservativism. Conserving the way things are and traditions presupposes a lack of freedom, a lack of Liberalism to do otherwise - often for good reason, but not always and certainly not indefinitely. Freedom to move on from old ways is the whole purpose of Liberalism - but what then when new ways have to be enforced to happen at all? The newness is still the goal, but the freedom from conservativism is now the enforcement of a new way to conserve - as opposed to supporting the freedom to deviate.

Seeing as everyone has forgotten or overlooked things such as this, I don't get to be told how right I am or how good I am. I've even violated the need for instant gratification by not keeping my response short. If I was speaking about my thoughts out loud, assuming I had an engaging delivery of such thoughts, I could potentially get away with extended explanation, but listening can be a lot more passive and less active than reading. It seems to me like the preferred format has turned away from text and towards video. Conversational format is also a lot more natural than an exchange of monologues - people want to respond before you've even completed a thought: another factor that works against deep thought that takes time to lay out. This is particularly the case for those suffering from the decline in attention spans. It used to be the case that you had to have a long attention span just to get into intellectual thought, but now with the incorporation of those without attention spans, you can seemingly get a lot more attention by posting little and often rather than making each post count and putting a lot of thought into it. As such I should really have cut my response short a long time ago...

Yeah, people want talking-points. They don't necessarily want the "thinking" involved. You could challenge and press simple-minded people, as you indicate. You could force them into contradictions and expose foolishness. They won't necessarily appreciate it though.

This applies to the point of matching 'right' leadership with 'right' followers, or right production to right consumption. A content producer needs appropriate content consumers. If people are low-minded, simple, stupid, then you waste time by reasoning to them and explaining yourself. Lower content deserves low explanation and justification. Dumb it down.

If you find the right audience then the content can be fully extrapolated and divulged.
Urwrongx1000
Thinker
 
Posts: 949
Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2017 5:10 pm

Re: Content Producers

Postby Urwrongx1000 » Mon Mar 12, 2018 4:09 pm

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%?

It's as simple as that.
Urwrongx1000
Thinker
 
Posts: 949
Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2017 5:10 pm

Re: Content Producers

Postby WendyDarling » Mon Mar 12, 2018 5:15 pm

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.
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: 6905
Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2010 8:52 am
Location: Hades

Re: Content Producers

Postby Silhouette » Mon Mar 12, 2018 10:14 pm

Urwrongx1000 wrote:I don't mind leading and producing. I just don't want to be the one to do it 100%.

Like when you are the Driver, all the time, sometimes you want somebody else to drive.

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.

Urwrongx1000 wrote:With strong enough reasoning, you can lead anybody and anything.

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.

Urwrongx1000 wrote:Degenerates love areas where they can speak loudly and verbalize all their illnesses. Philosophy is attractive because philosophers and their consumers, thinkers, are the best listeners. Degenerates latch onto anybody willing to listen. So degenerates are attracted to a philosophy forum where they will be listened to.

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.

Urwrongx1000 wrote:people are fundamentally, biologically attached to their ideologies.

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.

Urwrongx1000 wrote:the rare ones who are most objective with their ideologies. It's a matter of "he said" what and when.

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.

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

Serendipper, have you had (a) previous account(s)?
User avatar
Silhouette
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3227
Joined: Tue May 20, 2003 1:27 am
Location: Existence

Re: Content Producers

Postby Serendipper » Tue Mar 13, 2018 6:29 am

Silhouette wrote:Serendipper, have you had (a) previous account(s)?

No this is my 1st and only. I'm not sure why I waited until now to sign up :-k Oh now I remember... women, friends, and work. If I did anything like this it was intermittently on a motorcycle forum in the politics section :auto-biker:

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

I arrived just in time to be in the middle of a 6-year feud between James and FC. James and I got into a spat about the existence of infinity and I think there is a language or dialect difference affecting communication between FC and I, making it difficult to understand each other. Apart from that, I don't have a huge complaint.

I don't place a huge amount of value on reading up on the works of others

"Be careful reading health books or you may die of a misprint." - Twain. Standing on the shoulders of giants is ok, but I don't want to be too wrapped-up in other philosophers' hangups. I like to do my own thinking and I think that's why I'm drawn to these interactional dialogs because it puts me in a state of deep thought.

His parrot, UrGod,

You noticed that too? I don't want to be mean; he's making good progress I think.

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 think he's arguing someone's position that he heard and thought was cool at the time rather than arguing his own ideas. It's perfectly natural in our culture and educational system which favors indoctrination over free thinking. I don't want to embarrass myself admitting what I used to argue :lol:

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,

Yeah that's pilgrim Tom's point that it shouldn't matter who said what because "appeal to authority", but I still find it interesting to know the attribution and credit should be given lest someone think it's your own work.

by Eleanor Roosevelt: "Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people".

I'll have to remember that. I'm not sure I've ever been in a debate where my diagnosis didn't take center stage. "Oh you're one of them, well they are stupid so you are wrong." It's a convenient method of dismissal.

"feeling of being right"

In defense of that, sometimes we can't articulate an intuition or suspicion.
Serendipper
Thinker
 
Posts: 908
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: Content Producers

Postby Serendipper » Tue Mar 13, 2018 6:40 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.

Women seem to lack, well, for lack of a better terminology, balls. They don't seem to "step up" and engage. Of course, that's double-edged sword since they're also more likely to admit defeat and accept correction which is the beginning of wisdom whereas men have more trouble with reproof. So it's a mixed bag and I'm unable to tell who is better-equipped to be a philosopher.
Serendipper
Thinker
 
Posts: 908
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: Content Producers

Postby Serendipper » Tue Mar 13, 2018 6:51 am

Urwrongx1000 wrote:The popular agendas dominate the public arena, not necessarily ideas with philosophical content.

Perhaps popularity itself, is part of the problem. Philosophy is rarely popular. Or rather, philosophy becomes popularized over time, as it becomes watered-down (from old or dead philosophers) and then dolled out to the masses.

Today's politics is the "new philosophy" from 100-200 years ago.

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.
Serendipper
Thinker
 
Posts: 908
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: Content Producers

Postby Serendipper » Tue Mar 13, 2018 9:23 am

Urwrongx1000 wrote:
Serendipper wrote:If you are leader and content producer, then problem solved? :confusion-shrug:

I don't mind leading and producing. I just don't want to be the one to do it 100%.

Like when you are the Driver, all the time, sometimes you want somebody else to drive.

I don't know how drive because I still feel like a newbie. How do I know I'm not singing Slayer in a Country bar? And my questions can't be answered anyway. It's always been the case that I can answer questions, but no one can answer mine.

Serendipper wrote:Can you lead lions? It seems as if instead of being doctor to the sick, you want to doctor the healthy. If anyone needs leadership, it's this stinking lot :lol:

With strong enough reasoning, you can lead anybody and anything.

You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink.

Serendipper wrote:What attracts the degenerates?

Degenerates love areas where they can speak loudly and verbalize all their illnesses. Philosophy is attractive because philosophers and their consumers, thinkers, are the best listeners. Degenerates latch onto anybody willing to listen. So degenerates are attracted to a philosophy forum where they will be listened to.

It's like homeless people, crazies, and bums on the street, ranting about god, that they are jesus christ, the second coming. They will latch onto anybody who listens to them. Most people, appropriately, ignore them. But the same happens online, and in forums. In this philosophy forum, the avenues can get clogged up with shit. People are ranting and raving, spewing inanity, nothing worth listening to. But that is the price of 'liberal' environments, without strict rules and regulations. And it is the cost of "free speech".

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

What needs to be done is, the degenerate voices shouted down and driven away, or into silence, to make way for those who have something worth saying, something valuable.

Or convert them.

Serendipper wrote:Yeah I was born into it. I know what you're saying... I'd like to stumble upon a congregation of Asian Buddhists or Indian Hindus just to switch it up, but I've found no such group. Every group is christian or anti-christian.

Religion and genealogy go hand-in-hand. So people are fundamentally, biologically attached to their ideologies.

For some reason every group is christian or atheist. I guess "those who know, don't speak and those who speak, don't know" is true lol

Serendipper wrote:Maybe at the onset of an argument you should define your terminology. Semantics is often a stumbling block to discussion.

Everybody should be defining what they say and mean, extensively. That doesn't really happen around here. I've seen countless arguments, a majority of threads, where disputes and misunderstandings occur based on flawed definitions that each participant has not spelled out, but easily could have, from the beginning. That's amateur and mediocre. Philosophers have to be adept at spelling out definitions and clarifying differences, the reasons why people define concepts differently (almost certainly caused by differences of experience throughout life)
.
Yeah it's like "truth", people conflate several definitions. In some instances truth can mean "exists" or it can mean "a happening" or "a law" when really it's just a property of an observation, but no one can agree on the definitions so they argue eternally about whether it's absolute or relative.

The problem is that people can believe they are free, when they really are not.

No amount of clarifying terms and definitions would solve such a problem.

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.
Serendipper
Thinker
 
Posts: 908
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: Content Producers

Postby encode_decode » Tue Mar 13, 2018 11:14 pm

    WendyDarling

    My apologies for my late reply as I have been in hospital for the last few days.

    WendyDarling wrote:How often do folks engage in authentic conversations anymore without an agenda? Just to see what develops? And how do you gauge and incorporate high-minded thinking into everyday interactions?

    I assume when you say authentic conversation we are talking with the interests of both parties at hand or more parties if it is a conversation between more than two people. Or maybe you are saying people that are actually interested in what the other people are saying to see what develops from it, it being the conversation - instead of talking past each other. Regarding high minded thinking - I think we would lose a little of our essence if all that communication involved was high minded thinking. Obviously it is important to incorporate high minded thinking into adult conversation and to a lesser extent those who are younger, else where would we be. Soooo, I agree that high minded thinking needs to be incorporated into everyday conversation, for sure, but we also need to trust ourselves and let our hair down so to speak and be a little relaxed - incidentally you would not need to be consciously aware of your high minded thinking as it seems to come natural to you - perhaps meditate on it occasionally is what the doctor should order.

    WendyDarling wrote:What's the current common agenda?

    Assuming that you are referring to the common agenda of the human race then there is no common agenda to easily speak of - that is to say that there is a common agenda that has become so watered down that it is nearly impossible to detect it. I might have to make a thread about this and similar subjects in the future.

    It seems to me that the current common agenda is more about survival for the less rich and bragging about life for the more rich.
      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: 1177
      Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2017 4:07 pm

      Re: Content Producers

      Postby Serendipper » Wed Mar 14, 2018 5:54 am

      Someone should take ILP to the hospital :auto-ambulance:
      Serendipper
      Thinker
       
      Posts: 908
      Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

      Re: Content Producers

      Postby encode_decode » Wed Mar 14, 2018 5:49 pm

      Serendipper wrote:Someone should take ILP to the hospital :auto-ambulance:

      Or we could give it our own form of resuscitation. I use ILP as a kind of main sounding board - or at least I have in the past.

      They say that sometimes the simpler things in life are often the best . . .
      . . . and I have seen evidence of this in some of the lighter conversations that I have had here.
        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: 1177
        Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2017 4:07 pm

        Re: Content Producers

        Postby Serendipper » Wed Mar 14, 2018 5:53 pm

        encode_decode wrote:
        Serendipper wrote:Someone should take ILP to the hospital :auto-ambulance:

        Or we could give it our own form of resuscitation.

        Ok, I'll get the defib paddles while you do the mouth-to-mouth :D
        Serendipper
        Thinker
         
        Posts: 908
        Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

        PreviousNext

        Return to Philosophy



        Who is online

        Users browsing this forum: MagsJ