Preaching/Propaganda section?

[Mr Reasonable]

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?

[WendyDarling]

To whom are you implying?

[Mr Reasonable]

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.

[Mr Reasonable]

To whom are you implying?

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

[WendyDarling]

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

[Mr Reasonable]

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

[WendyDarling]

Avoid the question with banalities...okay.

[Mr Reasonable]

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?

[WendyDarling]

How does this...

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

answer this...

So you mean [edited out all] people of action rather than people of inaction/non-action sorts?

[Mr Reasonable]

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.

[Carleas]

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".

[WendyDarling]

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

[Carleas]

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.

[WendyDarling]

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

[statiktech]

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

[WendyDarling]

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.

[Carleas]

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.

[Otto_West]

To whom are you implying?

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

What's your agenda here?

[Fixed Cross]

Props and preaps

[encode_decode]

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.

[statiktech]

I expect people to come up with alternative ideas and ideals on how one ought to live

Oh, you mean the type of stuff that might be addressed in an intelligent conversation?

[WendyDarling]

I expect people to come up with alternative ideas and ideals on how one ought to live

Oh, you mean the type of stuff that might be addressed in an intelligent conversation?

Not in idle chat, no. If you have no beliefs, no ground zero viewpoints, then you have no skin in the game and all you offer is idle chitchat back-n-forth amounting to nothing.

[Carleas]

If you have no beliefs, no ground zero viewpoints, then you have no skin in the game and all you offer is idle chitchat back-n-forth amounting to nothing.

I'm not so sure about this. Socrates took basically that approach, and there seems to be agreement that what he did amounted to something (evidenced by the fact that he is being mentioned nearly 2500 years after his death).

But I think I can see where you're coming from. I want to call it "sincerity": discussion has to be in some sense sincere to be valuable. Socrates might not have been taking a position, but I don't think his method was insincere. One can play devil's advocate sincerely, in an attempt to explore and better understand an idea or belief, and one can express a truly held belief insincerely. Do you agree with that?

[WendyDarling]

Socrates was probably sincere in having his fun taking the others down a peg or ten. Philosophy seems to be a lot about ego rather than sound ideas. You can be sincere in being a horse's ass. I think you must start with your own beliefs and bring those beliefs against opposition and see if they hold water or modify them to hold water or become enlightened through vigorous debate to eventually adopt alternative beliefs. When egos are involved, some would rather remain in their own dumdumville.

[Carleas]

But isn't it legitimate to say that I don't know the answer, but I know that you don't know the answer either? I think that's a more accurate characterization of what Socrates got up to.