Do we need our own sanctuaries?

[Cognisant]

This forum has an agnostic status quo, we can't just discuss matters upon a nihilistic premise because to do so we have to first outline that premise, then all those who disagree with it will want to have their say and the thread gets derailed.

It's tiresome isn't it?

I've got more to say, but if I create a new thread it's going to get attached to the "people as objects" thread (as it would essentially be a continuation of that thread) but the reason I'm thinking of creating a new thread is because I want to get away from the influences that derailed the old one.

Maybe there should be a subsection or something where nihilists can discuss nihilistic matters in peace, or maybe can I define a thread as nihilistic and reasonably expect mods to boot out people who don't respect that, I'm happy for the subjectivists to go off in their own little corner where I can't disturb their discussion of theological matters, y'know fair's fair, what's good for gander is good for goose.

 

[Solitaire U.]

Maybe you could start an "Ask Cognisant a nihilistically themed question" thread.

But I do understand where you're coming from. Very frustrating to have a technically-oriented topic on, say, "the successful dissemination of political propaganda" deteriorate into a donkeys vs. elephants argument.

 

[Minuend]

People have different opinions.

Dill with it

 

[Duxwing]

People have different opinions.

Dill with it

He's frustrated because those who respond to his queries ignore the stated assumptions in his posts. For a similar example, imagine someone starting a thread about the question of whether LASER or MASER technology is superior in directed-energy weapon applications, and then a pacifist interrupting the ensuing discussion with an argument against war: although the pacifist may have a point, in the context of the thread, any arguments against war are irrelevant because the OP takes the necessity of such a weapon as an axiom, and axioms, by their very nature, are assumed for the sake of the argument.

Threads have topics, "dill with it".

-Duxwing

 

[Minuend]

Meh

~~~~ Minuend

 

[Absurdity]

Perhaps if you specifically state the rules for the thread (this is a nihilist thread and things must be discussed from this perspective) or the necessary assumption (assuming nihilism to be correct...), then anyone who goes off topic could be ignored or potentially booted. A meta-OP, if you will.

Oh and don't forget to say pretty please

 

[Minuend]

What's the point of starting a thread at all if you have already decided to close your ears for any input that differ from your own. Whether it is a religious topic or not.

Censorship is not particularly appealing to me.

 

[Cognisant]

It's not censorship, people can still quote me in their own threads, I'd just like to have an intelligent conversation without Da Blob or whoever butting in every so posts with thread derailing rubbish.

The intent isn't to censor anybody, it's just to make certain people easier to ignore.

 

[Duxwing]

What's the point of starting a thread at all if you have already decided to close your ears for any input that differ from your own. Whether it is a religious topic or not.

Censorship is not particularly appealing to me.

No argument can be made without axioms; ergo, for the sake of any argument, some must be taken, whatever they may be.

-Duxwing

 

[Solitaire U.]

Perhaps if you specifically state the rules for the thread (this is a nihilist thread and things must be discussed from this perspective)

That's like declaring the thread open season for trolls and derailers.

then anyone who goes off topic could be ignored or potentially booted.

In other words, anyone who begs to differ would be silenced. Would require a police force to enforce (do we have one of those?).

Pure agreement equates to a dead thread. Differing opinions equate to growth. A public forum isn't really a suitable vehicle for the former. Better an essay or personal blog.

 

[Absurdity]

What's the point of starting a thread at all if you have already decided to close your ears for any input that differ from your own. Whether it is a religious topic or not.

Censorship is not particularly appealing to me.

Because the differing opinion is not relevant to the topic being discussed. If I went into a thread on programming languages and laid out my Neo-Luddite manifesto I'd be off topic and probably booted from the thread. Perhaps there is a place for that discussion (god knows where) but it isn't in that particular thread. More philosophically-oriented threads shouldn't be an exception.

 

[Absurdity]

That's like declaring the thread open season for trolls and derailers.

Then they should consult Rule No. 1: Don't be a nuisance.

In other words, anyone who begs to differ would be silenced. Would require a police force to enforce (do we have one of those?).

Ignoring someone requires no enforcement.

Pure agreement equates to a dead thread. Differing opinions equate to growth. A public forum isn't really a suitable vehicle for the former. Better an essay or personal blog.

Differing opinions within the scope of the thread provides for meaningful growth. Even the multiplication of cancer cells could be considered "growth."

 

[MissQuote]

Perhaps separating Philosophy and Faith into two separate subforums would be a solution?

As Duxwing said, axioms tend to be necessary to most discussions where ideas are attempting to be shared.

There is a difference between having an idea on a subject and having an opinion on a subject, as well. To clarify my previous statement.

 

[Absurdity]

There is a difference between having an idea on a subject and having an opinion on a subject, as well.

Basically what I was grasping at but couldn't put into words. Thank you MissQuote

 

[Cognisant]

Perhaps separating Philosophy and Faith into two separate subforums would be a solution?

Hell yes!

Pure agreement equates to a dead thread. Differing opinions equate to growth. A public forum isn't really a suitable vehicle for the former. Better an essay or personal blog.

I don't want pure agreement, just partial agreement so I can debate particulars, instead of having to repeatedly defend the foundational premise.

 

[The Gopher]

Maybe you could start an "Ask Cognisant a nihilistically themed question" thread.

But I do understand where you're coming from. Very frustrating to have a technically-oriented topic on, say, "the successful dissemination of political propaganda" deteriorate into a donkeys vs. elephants argument.

... I think I may be guilty of de-railing this despise only one post in that thread *goes to check*

Hell yes!


I don't want pure agreement, just partial agreement so I can debate particulars, instead of having to repeatedly defend the foundational premise.

The only problem is if you hang around with like minded people too much you tend to think you are right Although as long as it is done because you want to argue particulars not because you want to avoid or ignore the other topic I am sure it's fine.

 

[Cavallier]

Perhaps separating Philosophy and Faith into two separate subforums would be a solution?

Hell yes!

Done. I renamed the original "Philosophy and Faith" subforum to just "Faith" and created the new subforum as "Philosphy".

Edit:

I am considering moving around the old threads but I'm to lazy right now.

 

[Nick]

I wish we had a more 'Tree like' structure with threads here on intpF.

Instead of a liner way of one response after another, each response could branch off from the original topic and have its own subset of discussions.

 

[Holy shit this makes sens]

Where art thou other threads. Philosophy has a soul occupant apparently.


This is just another realization of the stupid subjectivity in the way of everything right now. an out cry to be understood.

My vote is for constructionist Debate and Records Systematic democracy

 

[Holy shit this makes sens]

Exaltation PHILOSOPHY GOT ITS OWN BOARD!!

So, How will we approach this honor. With sensibilities. logical fallacy + other discerning topics to be forbade, on a Sticky post for Rules.. Of the board!

Constructivism. We make categories of topics, and rational conclusions made in the thread. we can agree on things with polls more.

We create discourse, and as Cognisant was saying Discourse Cohesion.

 

[Cognisant]

And my thread is the first and only thread on that board!

FLAWLESS VICTORY (for how)

 

[Holy shit this makes sens]

And my thread is the first and only thread on that board!

FLAWLESS VICTORY (for how)

People want the board to go well you got the reserved spot of the first thread as never going to be about the actual thread that gets there. Itll be preparation for the beginning of our time. So considering your thread is about keeping on thread topic... kind of ironic. PERFECT WIN -1 :-P

 

[MissQuote]

My idea was accepted... ?

 

[Holy shit this makes sens]

There is a difference between having an idea on a subject and having an opinion on a subject, as well. To clarify my previous statement.

So what should a thread look to present.

An Idea > Grounds for the Idea/Grounds of the idea = Matter at hand

vs a hypothesis, how Should we handle the matter.


>>>Does this board have an objective?
an objective meaning would need a contemporary usage. We must forward understanding of philosophy and retract our notions of knowledge. This board therefore has very anonymous motives for any person to post a thread in this board is dealing with something in a world this board will never address.

So i suggest in an effort to distinguish our selves from the political, history and technology boards we address all circumstances and variables anonymous of their origin in the world and discourse. As to say We must not pull from other discourses than our own. Philosophy

 

[Duxwing]

So what should a thread look to present.

An Idea > Grounds for the Idea/Grounds of the idea = Matter at hand

vs a hypothesis, how Should we handle the matter.


>>>Does this board have an objective, objective meaning contemporary usage. We must forward understanding of philosophy and retract our notions knowledge. This board therefore has very anonymous motives for any one person to post a thread.

So i suggest in an effort to distinguish our selves from the political, history and technology boards we address all circumstances and variables anonymous of their origin in the world and discourse. As to say We must not pull from other discourses than our own. Philosophy

In all seriousness, is English your first language? If so, then do you suffer from a disability or other difficulty (dyslexia, "word salad," poor education, recalcitrant keyboard)? I don't want to paint you as negligent if you're just having technical difficulties of one sort or another, but your posts are oftentimes rendered muddled by your fundamental grammar and syntax errors. Seriously, my eyes hurt!

-Duxwing

 

[Montresor]

Interruption:

Would like to congratulate everybody here on your achievement today.

I support the great schism.

 

[Duxwing]

Interruption:

Would like to congratulate everybody here on your achievement today.

I support the great schism.

I second my support! Three cheers for @Cognisant! Hip hip, hooray!

-Duxwing

 

[EyeSeeCold]

I don't want pure agreement, just partial agreement so I can debate particulars, instead of having to repeatedly defend the foundational premise.

You merely state the premise(s) to be accepted for the following discussion or debate, then. I thought this was what the Formal Debates forum was for?

Either way, split topics for Faith and Philosophy doesn't change anything of what you seem to be concerned with. People are still free to discuss philosophical ideas, as well as debate their opinions on philosophy.

Perhaps if you specifically state the rules for the thread (this is a nihilist thread and things must be discussed from this perspective) or the necessary assumption (assuming nihilism to be correct...), then anyone who goes off topic could be ignored or potentially booted. A meta-OP, if you will.

The only problem is if you hang around with like minded people too much you tend to think you are right Although as long as it is done because you want to argue particulars not because you want to avoid or ignore the other topic I am sure it's fine.

Agree with the above quoted posts.

 

[Montresor]

split topics for Faith and Philosophy doesn't change anything of what you seem to be concerned with.

Except for maybe keeping the faith mongers away

 

[EyeSeeCold]

Except for maybe keeping the faith mongers away

where nihilists can discuss nihilistic matters in peace

People can still disagree and argue with the fundamentals of a nihilistic topic without advocating a faith. Which is why stating initial premises is more important than having split topics.

Also, it's not the Nihilism subforum, it's the Philosophy subforum. Topics are open for philosophical discussion and debate, and not just for complacency with one's own nihilism.

 

[MissQuote]

I like the idea of the two forums being split whether anyone talks about nihilism ever or not.

In a way it seemed like having the two together implied that they were dependent on each other, that Philosophy implied Faith and Faith implied Philosophy. While the two subjects often mesh they are not necessarily dependent on each other... I think. Maybe they are? Maybe there should be a topic about whether philosophy and faith are interdependent or separate sates capable of being contemplated without involving the other.

 

[Montresor]

I think you've had enough ideas for one day Miss

 

[MissQuote]

That stuff about periods get to you?

 

[Montresor]

Just don't blow a fuse is all I'm saying.

 

[MissQuote]

I'll try really hard to be humble and not mention my backache from here out.

 

[Holy shit this makes sens]

I like the idea of the two forums being split whether anyone talks about nihilism ever or not.

In a way it seemed like having the two together implied that they were dependent on each other, that Philosophy implied Faith and Faith implied Philosophy. While the two subjects often mesh they are not necessarily dependent on each other... I think. Maybe they are? Maybe there should be a topic about whether philosophy and faith are interdependent or separate sates capable of being contemplated without involving the other.

Bump

everything is true its just a puzzel, and we make the pieces. some people don't make any because information is valuable. we can make sense of them and philosophize the projection of society.



(im socially repressed)

 

[Montresor]

That stuff about periods get to you?

Actually I hadn't read that yet, so I wasn't really sure what you were talking about or how to reply.

I've read it now.

I actually didn't mean anything at all by those comments. I was just, sort of like, saying hey you had a great idea for the forum today, maybe bring up your next one tomorrow?

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

Done. I renamed the original "Philosophy and Faith" subforum to just "Faith" and created the new subforum as "Philosphy".

Edit:

I am considering moving around the old threads but I'm to lazy right now.

Can the two... actually be separated? Or at least some sort of semi-official differentiation between the two provided to ensure that:

1. Too much work isn't created for mods and admin.
2. Limits are actually recognized and no one gets their panties in a bunch.

If they aren't moved, what prevents "Faith" from continuing on as the original Faith & Philosophy?

I specifically ask because I know I'm one of the... uh... accused, and because I'm obsessed with systems, which inherently encompasses... everything.

It's tiresome isn't it?

Can't one just simply ignore the posts that they feel don't apply or aren't interested in...?

 

[loveofreason]

I think I'm the mod originally guilty of combining the two, for two reasons: firstly because it was just too much work trying to decide where a thread belonged - the discussions almost inevitably contained elements of both; secondly - as stated above, from a systems, synthesis, non-dualist and meta-patterns perspective - the two are inseperable.

I do accept though, that academic discourse can be limited to a particular framework, with its own language and memetic lineage, and it's fair to expect to be able to discuss something from within such a specialised 'sanctuary'. I'm dubious that it will work in reality unless the collegial members of a pure philosophy board hit the ignore button pretty damn hard... I'm sure we've all noticed particular posters wouldn't recognise or respect a legitimate boundary if it hit them.

That said, the next recourse is actually complaining about repeat offenders. We can deny posting privileges to a particular board if it's warranted.

*salutes*

 

[Etheri]

Can't one just simply ignore the posts that they feel don't apply or aren't interested in...?

Yes and no. I often quickly read over posts that don't seem as interesting, while i'll thoughtfully read posts that I think will hold more value to me. Obviously this is entirely subjective.

It works decently, but in longer threads it gets very hard. You need to be selective to read the thread at a decent pace, but at the same time you need to actually read enough and pay attention so that you grasp the important points that are made. This is all obvious. The hard part is that people constantly refer to eachothers posts in various diffrent ways (quotes, mentions, neither of these). A thread is often a mix of serveral conversations through eachother, and simply not reading some parts can make the whole illisible.

 

[Cavallier]

I have been thinking about seperating out the two for a long time. I feel that, not unlike many of the posters here, most if not all philosophical discussions are being disrupted by various obsessive members who turn them into "God vs No God" discussions utterly ignoring the original OP.

I think that the INTP forum is better than that. We really don't have to sink into plebian muckraking oblivion. I'd like to try something new here. I think that we are perfectly capable of discussing philosophical ideas that DON'T involve religion or the defense/offense of God. (Whoever you may think he/she/it is) Those discussions will be in the Philosophy Subforum.

That doesn't mean of course that we can't keep discussing religion and how religion relates to philosophy as the two are often very tightly tied. It also doesn't mean we can't continue to fight endless bloody battles over Theism/Athiesm/Humanism. However, those battles and the more parlor room style discussions will be kept to the Faith Subform.

I guess that means I've volunteered to take on the responsability of maintaining those subforums. But, if it turns out to be too much of a pain, if you lot can't keep your blood lust tamped down, then I'll snap those two forums back together and wash my hands of it. Let's call this a test run shall we?




EDIT: I'll try parsing out those threads from the Faith forum today to. Consider it under construction.

 

[Duxwing]

I have been thinking about seperating out the two for a long time. I feel that, not unlike many of the posters here, most if not all philosophical discussions are being disrupted by various obsessive members who turn them into "God vs No God" discussions utterly ignoring the original OP.

I think that the INTP forum is better than that. We really don't have to sink into plebian muckraking oblivion. I'd like to try something new here. I think that we are perfectly capable of discussing philosophical ideas that DON'T involve religion or the defense/offense of God. (Whoever you may think he/she/it is) Those discussions will be in the Philosophy Subforum.

That doesn't mean of course that we can't keep discussing religion and how religion relates to philosophy as the two are often very tightly tied. It also doesn't mean we can't continue to fight endless bloody battles over Theism/Athiesm/Humanism. However, those battles and the more parlor room style discussions will be kept to the Faith Subform.

I guess that means I've volunteered to take on the responsability of maintaining those subforums. But, if it turns out to be too much of a pain, if you lot can't keep your blood lust tamped down, then I'll snap those two forums back together and wash my hands of it. Let's call this a test run shall we?




EDIT: I'll try parsing out those threads from the Faith forum today to. Consider it under construction.

Yay! Thank-you!

-Duxwing

 

[Cognisant]

I have been thinking about seperating out the two for a long time. I feel that, not unlike many of the posters here, most if not all philosophical discussions are being disrupted by various obsessive members who turn them into "God vs No God" discussions utterly ignoring the original OP.

Likewise I'm sure myself and others are guilty of interrupting spiritual discussions in exactly the same way, I mean if people what to have a debate over who or what Jesus is and represents, they don't need SpaceYeti or I interrupting with "just a man", likewise if I want to discuss the implications of mind uploading or robots with feelings I don't appreciate people jumping in to say I must be wrong because I'm not accounting for the soul.

I'm not saying these discussions (was Jesus just a man? Is mind uploading impossible?) shouldn't happen, just that they should happen in their own threads, not in the proverbial margins of every other thread remotely related.

That's sensible isn't it?

 

[Agent Intellect]

I don't want pure agreement, just partial agreement so I can debate particulars, instead of having to repeatedly defend the foundational premise.

There has been a forum for just such discussions for a long time.

Nobody uses it.

 

[Cavallier]

^Agreed. However, the subforum you pointed to allows for Formal Debates of all sorts. I felt it would be nice to have Philosophy subform just for philosophy that did not require a circular "yeah but what if God" discussion. As for the lack of use, I suspect people are mostly scared away by the idea of it being "formal". Makes people think they are required to wear a metephorical Top Hat.

Noddy puts it best:

I think it's a good idea too, but I think I'd be scared to participate. Are there any reliable places online that have clear descriptions of formal debate rules?

I just wanted a better defined space in which we could discuss philosophical ideas that don't devolve into God/No God debates. In my book it was that or more BanHammer. I wanted to avoid the BanHammer and wrist slaps for the seemingly endless religous derailings that take place here.