Why You Are Here

Statistically said, the most ILP members are here because of TALK, not because of philosophy.


Rank| Subforum |____ Title of the Thread _____| Views | Replies |
_ 1 | Off Topic |___ Word Association III ______|683894 | 16332 |
_ 2 | Off Topic |Official: Post a Picture of Yourself |363784 | 3886 |
_ 3 | Off Topic |
What are you doing? __| 344239 | 10532 |
_ 4 | Off Topic | A thread for mundane ironists | 274281| 5683 |
_ 5 | Off Topic |
My lack of posts | 253065 | 52 |
_ 6 | Off Topic |
Introduce yourself here | 214709 | 1592 |
_ 7 | S/G&E |
The Feminization of Man | 212223 | 3002 |
_ 8 |
P&M |
“Mental” Illness …
| 158080 |
2650 _|
_ 9 | Philosophy |Will machines completely replace | 139380 | 2162 _|
______________________ all human beings? _______________________

Rank 1-6) Off Topic subforum: 2,133,972 views, 38,077 replies.
Rank 7-9) Other subforums: ___ 509,683 views, _ 7,814 replies.

I wonder what would happen were all the non philosophical chat removed from the forum
Would anyone actually notice and if they did would they want to leave or would they stay

You are seldom posting in the subforum “Off Topic” (now called: “Non Philosophical Chat”). Right?

All first 9 ranks: 2,643,655 views = 100%; 45891 replies = 100%.
Ranks 1-6 (off topic subforum): 2,133,972 views = 80.72%; 38,077 replies = 82.97%.
Ranks 7-9 (other subforums): ___ 509,683 views = 19.28%; _ 7,814 replies = 17.03%.

This seems to be according to the Pareto distribution again. :wink:

I’m with you on that one.

Throughout my life I’ve found that discussing Philosophy person-to-person to be a waste of time. Average, normal people, aren’t really interested in philosophical discussions, no matter how relevant or important the content maybe. This is because the average person is not learning or knowing about his/her own, meaning in life, but rather enacting it out. Average people are “too busy living” to examine their own lives. Thus their self-perception, self-consciousness, self-knowledge, self-identity is lacking. This is how people take sides in politics and religion. “My side is right, your side is wrong” the why and how is lost to the individual who holds the position. So average people go about their lives, holding views, opinions, values, that 1) they may not even know and 2) be completely wrong about. And even if they are wrong, and you could convince them, it won’t mean that they change these wrong opinions, but rather that they would find another means and route to justify their incorrect position.

There have been times where I out-reasoned another guy, a co-worker, in front of a female co-worker, embarrassing him. Instead of learning a lesson, however, all he did is build resentiment and become vindictive. So I learned that it is a waste of time to reason with a fool. “He will only hate you for it.” There are ways to convince and persuade people without resentment. And that is by leading them rhetorically so it feels as-if they come to the right/correct conclusion “on their own”. Plato employed this through the “Socratic Method”. You don’t “prove the idiot, moron, fool wrong” in front of a crowd. Instead you lead him to the point where, no matter what s/he answers or responds, must do so in a way that exposes what they originally believed as false. Then they have no choice except to resign and concede defeat, or, claim the conclusion as their own, as-if they were responsible for discovering it.

I’ve experienced all of these firsthand. So I’ve come to the conclusion that online forums, seeking out like-minded people, about philosophy, is the surest route. In other words, if philosophy cannot be discussed here, on forums designed specifically for it, then where else can it? You can try to discuss philosophy person-to-person, but as mentioned, will probably waste your time. If average people and humanity wanted philosophy, then they too, would seek it out where it ought to be found, and that means places where philosophers congregate, or ought to congregate.

Academic philosophy, colleges, universities, is another option but a lesser one, as academia is political and interested in its own advancement and institutionalization. This is why I never pursued a ‘formal’ or academic end to philosophy. Academic philosophy is restricted, limited, and stunted. It has no freedom, which real philosophy can provide, outside all institutions. To think freely, is one of the highest goals. To truly ‘own’ your own mind, to have “your own thoughts” instead of merely being a follower or a tool to others, and especially to other, long-dead thinkers. How much of what an intelligent person knows, a very knowledgeable person, his or her own thoughts? It could be very little, or even nothing at all.

Look at a person, a stranger. It could very well be that 90-100% of “what they know”, their knowledge, is not theirs at all. But rather they have inherited it, institutionalized, and been forced upon them. They can very well be a mental slave to another. And that other doesn’t even have to be alive. Just as judeo-christians are slaves to a (dead) god. If a person must serve another, then why not the living, before the dead?

However the point remains, with philosophy there is hope, that you or any other can at least begin to own your own thoughts. To discover their sources, and understand, what you are responsible for versus what others are responsible for. Whether you had anything to do with the process of your own knowledge, or whether you received it from various sources: your parents, your family, your friends, your television, your movies, your media, your society, your history books, your institution, etc.

My experiences have led me to some conclusions. Being ‘right’ is not enough. Being correct, reasoned, logical, rational, are all not enough. Because even if you are right, and there’s almost no way to prove you wrong, doesn’t mean people will agree with you or trust you. Because somebody who is too Righteous, and unlikable, will compel others away. This is why many egotistical thinkers and intelligencia of the distant past, are rejected and unpopular while they were alive, but then taken quickly after they died. People do not want to serve an unlikable persona, no matter how ‘right’ you are.

This is where the Artistry comes in. A philosopher could persuade and convince the masses of practically whatever you want. Because philosophy predates politics. Politicians have the same ability and skill. They can convince and seduce people of almost anything. But politicians are not concerned with truth, meaning, values, and philosophy. Politicians are focused almost entirely on power, and gaining it throughout society, by attempting to control society, and the people within. The primary objective of philosophy and philosophers, is more truth, more wisdom, and more knowledge. Thus the aims of philosopher and politician are divergent.

To persuade and convince people, usually fools and incompetents, is no great feat. Thus it doesn’t really matter if you’re ‘Right’ or whether you can persuade, seduce, and convince others even when you’re ‘Wrong’. For philosophy, the greater truths are the point. So what is wisdom them, in the context of knowledge? Knowledge is empty until you begin to guess whether what you know is true or false. If what a person knows is false then it is obviously dangerous, a liability. If what a person knows is true then it is an asset. Thus wisdom represents an application of judgment, true or false, over knowledge. True knowledge versus false knowledge. And this requires Judgment. Judgment requires Morality. Thus wisdom requires Morality.

Much of knowledge cannot be deemed true or false, without empiricism and realism, without applying and enacting knowledge directly against the world, existence. To put theory into practice. To merge the ideals, with the real.

My main purpose of posting in this forum at present is not to show what I have learned nor to learn any thing new [if there is something new, that is fine]. As far as learning new knowledge within philosophy I undertake that responsibility myself instead of relying on others. These days with the internet it is much easier without having to buy all the necessary books from bookstores.

In philosophy there is a lot of grounds to cover which besides Western Philosophy also include Eastern and other philosophies. The average human like me has limited memory capabilities. Therefore to ensure what is learned is kept afresh the most effective approach is to participate in a discussion forum like this. This is the main purpose why I am here.

To promote effective discussion, I believe it is critically necessary to present one’s philosophical CV and such facts should not be labelled as show off nor boasting. Presenting one’s philosophical CV is a very common thing within the philosophical community as such information do facilitate effective discussions.

At present* not everyone has a strong proclivity for philosophy-proper, but if one has such philosophical propensity, one should go all out at it.
*In the future, all if not at least the average person must develop a high Philosophy-Quotient as a member of Team-Human and this will be facilitated and enabled with new technology.

The 80% are the effect of the 20%. So, the 80% are here because of the 20%. :sunglasses:

So you are not here to learn, or to produce, but rather to reinforce your pre-established beliefs. That sounds like a Fundamentalist position, like a Christian who has a fixed ideal of God, that comes to strengthen her conclusions. However, even reinforcing your preconceived ideals is a learning experience. It is another type of learning, perhaps without you even being aware of it.

Exactly, the 80% are consumers and they are here to seek out the 20%, the producers.

Production in Nature is rare. Consumption is the norm. It is rare to “move things forward” or to “progress” in life, Evolution. And progress requires conflict, competition, overcoming adversity, etc.

K: the key point I wish to point out here is this idea of “self help psychologies of all kinds
of varieties”

what is the goal? I mean, what is the goal of human beings? is it not to become better?
and philosophy is one means as is psychology… if the goal is to create
better human beings, then psychology is one means even if it is pop psychology…

mysticsm and occultism and psychology are all means of becoming aware…
and that is the goal on the path to our becoming human…
mysticism and occultism are just steps along the way… not steps I would
take, but steps nevertheless…as long as it is understood, that they are just
steps and not the final answers then mysticism and occultism is fine…
but they are not the final answers and not the final step…

I find in my own life I did follow the mysticism and occultism at one time,
that was just a tempory road and I moved on…because the road to being human
is a series of long roads sometime leading somewhere and sometimes not going
anywhere…sometimes we get so emotionally invested we cannot let go of something…
but to move to the next step of becoming human… we must leave one road
and take another and another and another… many roads leads us to becoming
human…

philosophical discussion is one road and mysticism is one road and occultism a road,
and even pop psychology is just another road…

what road is your road?

Kropotkin

Peter wrote: What is the goal?

The goals are different depending on the person, and understanding of what this “better” also differs from person to person. Do you think all people who attend, say, law school, have the same goals? I say no. Some want to learn the process of jurisprudence, some care about law and order, some want to be respected, and others just want to be rich. Same with philosophy. Different personal goals.
And who said that philosophy is synonymous with being a “better” person anyway? I don’t see how being a “better” person plays into philosophy. Better how and in reference to what? Sure, a philosophy professor living on college campus may think he’s a better person for spending his whole life reading and writing philosophical academic papers. Is he a better human being for knowing more philosophical theories? A new age hippie may think he is a better human being by believing he is part of eternal cosmic consciousness. Is he a better human being for it? What the hell is a “better human being” anyway? And does having “good” intentions only, qualify as being a good or better-human-being?

K: as I have to be at work in less then an hour… I’ll shall be brief and fill in the
rest tomorrow…why do philosophy? to gain Knowledge… ok, and what shall
we do with that knowledge? it is the Greeks that connected knowledge with being
better…the wise man is the knowledgable man and the one who is “better”…

At it’s heart, Philososphy is about gaining knowledge and that knowledge
must do something or it is wasted time and effort…

and this concept of “better”… this is a value and philosophy is
best with values and not with facts… better then what?
if we understand systems, better would be something that made
the system more efficient or more stable… in our system,
something that is better… is something that improves our current
system… that is better… again, words like better and improve
have certain connotations…but are they worthy goals?
I believe so… but to understand what better and improve is
will take more time then I have at the moment…

I will leave you with this… if not for the improvement of
human beings, what is the point of philosophy?

Kropotkin

As for myself, I’m here looking for a change of mind…
I have become quite depressed since loosing my faith in God, and I want (in vain?) somebody to convince me that there is a God, to convince me that when I die I don’t just stop existing…
I want to believe in God, the after life; but like Spinoza pointed out, belief by its very nature can’t be forced…

What if there is no God and all those who believe that there is, are simply mistaken?

Then wanting to be convinced that there is a God is a silly thing to want.

When dealing with things that cannot be changed, one ought to want “what is”.

Despite the specific reasons, and the individual differences, there is a definitive power that wisdom has over people.

Powerful answers to powerful questions, knowledge that can change lives. That is what people are seeking, why you are here.

Peter wrote: “What is the point of philosophy?”

Why not instead of jumping to “better” human being first finding out who or what a human being is and what his role in the universe is. Somewhere along the line a man has decided that he can be whatever he wishes and be able to justify whatever things he wants to do. So, “better” becomes relative to one’s perception of who one is, which as we can see today, can be anything whatsoever.

How often are those who spout rhetoric about “bettering humanity” or “being a better christian” genuine and honest with their convictions? Or, are they liars?

As-if philosophy must be to the benefit to all, rather than a few? If people forego hard work, gaining wisdom, then what right do others have to it?

That’s like saying, “I’m entitled to the fruits of your labors …because humanity.”

Doesn’t it come down to…who are you producing philosophy for…yourself only or others? Communication and human connectivity, sharing, are strong motivators for letting the cat out of the bag, of course, put pride and ego on top of that and you have sunken ships from loose lips or typing finger tips. Billions of individual perceptions or misconceptions mess intentions up no matter how pure they were set upon so ideas are loaded weapons to be handled by those who care.