Preaching/Propaganda section?

Can we just make a section for all the preachers and the propaganda people who aren’t here for any kind of discourse other than to spread an agenda and convert people?

To whom are you implying?

The bigots need a home, and it would only be polite to just give them a nice, well organized section of the site so that one can easily find all the social hierarchy/power/nobility/racist stuff in one place.

I mean, I’m just sayin…

We could let Magnus moderate it.

Anyone who self identifies as a person who has an agenda to spread.

So you mean all people of action rather than people of inaction/non-action sorts?

Words like, “all”, “none”, “always”, “never” etc are almost never true.

Avoid the question with banalities…okay.

It’s the truth. How am I avoiding the question by responding to it? Are you being intentionally obtuse? Do you really not know what I mean?

How does this…

answer this…

I thought I was pretty clear with the post. I’m talking about people who are pushing an agenda instead of having an honest discourse.

Would the statement, “Utilitarianism is the only coherent moral system” qualify as preaching? What principle distinguishes that statement from the statement, “Racial Nationalism is the only coherent social system” as of a different kind, i.e. the former isn’t preaching and the latter is?

Not that I don’t understand what you’re getting at, I just think it’s virtually impossible to police in the way you’re suggesting.

Slight historical aside: as I understand it, the reason iloveopinions was created was as a (somewhat facetious) attempt at the same distinction you’re suggesting. If you want to discuss, there was ILP, if you want to pontificate, there was ILO. But that was facetious because it was really a way of saying, “you aren’t doing philosophy, you’re stating your opinion”.

I thought that personal philosophies are opinions based on people’s adopted life choices.

There’s a little equivocation here. I would argue that “philosophy” is more a way of engaging with ideas than a set of ideas. A personal philosophy can be deeply unphilosophical, I hope you’ll agree.

Which is why I say that ILP is for discussing, rather than pontificating/preaching.

What is the discussion supposed to amount to…nothing but intelligent chat?

What more do you expect? If you’re here trying to convert people or change lives, your time might be better spent volunteering.

Idle intelligent chat is not enough. I expect people to come up with alternative ideas and ideals on how one ought to live, rather than hash and rehash what some dead guy insinuated in aphorisms.

I think that’s exactly right. There is plenty of shite old philosophy that we don’t talk about much anymore outside of academic niches. But at the time those dead guys were writing, what they were doing was com[ing] up with alternative ideas and ideals on lots of things, including how one ought to live.

But I don’t think that’s different from anything I’ve said, is it? When I say “discuss”, I mean the coming up with alternatives, and also the good faith consideration of the alternatives that others come up with, the comparison and evaluation of your alternatives with theirs on some objective criteria.

Contrast that with preaching, which is intended to be a one-way interaction: they reveal to you some truth, impervious to reasoned responses. Even if that truth is about how one ought to live, I would not call that philosophy.

What’s your agenda here? :sunglasses:

Props and preaps

At what point does one cross the line from philosophizing into preaching and propaganda?

Should one respond to comments that are obvious attempts at trolling?

The one sided thing I totally understand - however - what about those threads where people are only interested in reading and not responding?

Correct me if I am wrong, but I am not seeing a clear enough distinction here.