are ILPers actually interested in the pursuit of.......

[Peter Kropotkin]

I notice that many ILPers offer up youtube video's in place of actual
philosophy, you know instead of words that state a position or sum up a position....

I find it incredible lazy to offer up video's as philosophy instead of the
writing down one's philosophy with words, real live honest goodness words.....

but as important.. it doesn't take any real pursuit of knowledge to simply post
a video instead of stating one's words... all it takes is searching youtube to
find a video that supports one's biases or prejudices.... that doesn't require
any thinking or reflection... all it takes is simply posting a video that supports
one's position....

how lazy can one get? and more importantly, how is posting a video supporting
one's position really qualify as "philosophy"? .......

so please, for the love of tomatoes, someone explain to me how posting
youtube video's qualify as "philosophy?"

and just as importantly, how does posting youtube video's engage in the
search for knowledge? when all everyone post is video's supporting
a bias or superstition or a previously held prejudice?

there doesn't seem to be any real engagement with actually searching for knowledge
or the truth... so how does posting a video engage in seeking knowledge or the truth?

Kropotkin

[Dan~]

ILP rules support the idea of using your own words almost entirely.
But i see no harm in posting good videos.
It's the bad videos which i feel don't belong.
Videos are easier than reading for me.
I like audio files too.

[obsrvr524]

_
Heaven forbid that anyone offer actual video evidence to back up their argument.

Why not also forbid any references to evidence? Why not just allow people to only state their case - over - and over - and over ....

That does seem to be the consensus of those who like to lie for their cause - such as the OP author - too lazy to provide evidence of his claims.

I can understand that he feels disadvantaged by those willing to go to some trouble to expose the truth. Intellectually dishonest and lazy people are that way.

Note I provided no evidence - so this should not offend anyone.

[attano]

I notice that many ILPers offer up youtube video's in place of actual
philosophy, you know instead of words that state a position or sum up a position....

I find it incredible lazy to offer up video's as philosophy instead of the
writing down one's philosophy with words, real live honest goodness words.....

but as important.. it doesn't take any real pursuit of knowledge to simply post
a video instead of stating one's words... all it takes is searching youtube to
find a video that supports one's biases or prejudices.... that doesn't require
any thinking or reflection... all it takes is simply posting a video that supports
one's position....

how lazy can one get? and more importantly, how is posting a video supporting
one's position really qualify as "philosophy"? .......

so please, for the love of tomatoes, someone explain to me how posting
youtube video's qualify as "philosophy?"

and just as importantly, how does posting youtube video's engage in the
search for knowledge? when all everyone post is video's supporting
a bias or superstition or a previously held prejudice?

there doesn't seem to be any real engagement with actually searching for knowledge
or the truth... so how does posting a video engage in seeking knowledge or the truth?

Kropotkin

Just a very personal answer to this.
First off, yes, I can be incredibly lazy - most often I am.

Regardless, posting a video is not necessarily different from posting a quote from some book, referring to an article in wikipedia, a journal, a newspaper, and so on... Is that worse than paraphrasing someone else's view in one's own words? It depends, I guess.
If one wants to comment on the video, and not using it to support "bias, superstition and prejudice", presenting the matter of contention in its own pristine form can't take so much away from truth, in my view. By the way, a priori it is also unclear how come processing some video through written text would unmake that "bias, superstition and prejudice", instead of surreptitiously introducing some different or additional one. Moreover, a video specifically has a layer of information, possibly perception-base, that goes above and beyond the written word. Apparent examples can be found in movies, Bergman's works are philosophically 'dense', yet they do not necessarily speak a lot.

All that said, it is also maybe worth considering the opposite view, which is if the written (or spoken) word is the only legitimate way for the pursuit of truth, And I guess that is is just some myth, which has never had a lot of credit after all, starting with Plato.

[Magnus Anderson]

_
Heaven forbid that anyone offer actual video evidence to back up their argument.

Why not also forbid any references to evidence? Why not just allow people to only state their case - over - and over - and over ....

That does seem to be the consensus of those who like to lie for their cause - such as the OP author - too lazy to provide evidence of his claims.

I can understand that he feels disadvantaged by those willing to go to some trouble to expose the truth. Intellectually dishonest and lazy people are that way.

Note I provided no evidence - so this should not offend anyone.

While I agree that Peter Kropotkin rarely (if ever) debates (on rare occasions, he can be seen presenting simple arguments but they never develop into a debate), I also agree that referencing videos (or any other type of source) constantly, without presenting any kind of argument, is not a good thing. It's pretty lazy, actually. It's something you can do on a new site (or a blog) but a philosophy forum should revolve around debates.

[Peter Kropotkin]

I don't need to provide evidence or make arguments for my post because
because it was clearly meant as a opinion piece... I hold that using video's
as philosophy is wrong because..... that is nothing more then expressing
an opinion about using video's....I personally hold that the use of
youtube video's is not philosophy and shouldn't be used as philosophy,
is quite clearly and obviously meant to be an opinion........

I quite clearly and just as obviously hold a bias against video's..
mainly because I cannot hear them as I am hearing impaired....
so, video's don't do me any good.... and I am rather surprised that
no one caught the fact that this thread was meant to be and clearly
was an opinion piece to express my own personal opinion that video's
aren't philosophy.....

which leaves out any possible rebuttal to this opinion....you can quite
clearly hold that video's are philosophy... and in my post, I even asked
for someone to provide me with some sort of opinion as to why or
why not video's are philosophy....

I wasn't looking for or even ask for an argument about philosophy and
the use of video's... I was asking for another opinion about the use of
video's....

Kropotkin

[Magnus Anderson]

I don't need to provide evidence or make arguments for my post because
because it was clearly meant as a opinion piece

Someone posting a video in an effort to back up their opinion is most definitely better than someone merely sharing their opinion.

[Peter Kropotkin]

Peter Kropotkin"]I don't need to provide evidence or make arguments for my post because
because it was clearly meant as a opinion piece"

M: Someone posting a video in an effort to back up their opinion is most definitely better than someone merely sharing their opinion.

K: but most here offer us video's in place of arguments...the video is the evidence
and they rarely ever post any type of defense for that video...if the video were meant
to be PART of the defense, that is one thing, but it rarely is.. it is quite often the entire
argument...and that is wrong, in this one person views or opinion...

Kropotkin

[encode_decode]

pursuit of what? if you are referring to some sort of philosophical goal(does this even make sense?) in the sense that anyone here has any ambition to reach the end of any particular mental journey they are on then I would say that it seems not. I have come across a few here that want to convert me or you to their style of thinking without considering any errors that their own thinking may contain. A lack of introspection is what I have observed along with a too quick type of willingness to disagree from the point of view of already settled thoughts(thoughts that the people I am referring to have not even wondered why they have settled on these thoughts in the first place). I have also observed a lot of thoughts from any given person that do not compliment the rest of their thoughts - indicating fragmented thinking.

I by no means accuse everyone here of "poverty of contemplation".

Videos? fuck videos unless they fit perfectly into what any given individual is trying to get across - I have witnessed but a few times: that I have seen videos fit well into discourse

[Meno_]

encode\/decode says:

"by no means accuse everyone here of "poverty of contemplation".


That's fairly obvious, and should feel grateful for that.








And do.