Do you feel like you're wasting your time being here?
Don't get me wrong with the title of this thread. I mean, with recent threads like, 'are you happy' or 'the wrong question', I feel as though some people might be looking for more high quality philosophy or are simply enjoying their time, be it wasted or not, whilst being here.
Regardless, I'd like to ask the general question of the title of this thread in terms;
A) If true, are you looking for higher quality content?
B) If false, disregard.
Regardless, I'd like to ask the general question of the title of this thread in terms;
A) If true, are you looking for higher quality content?
B) If false, disregard.
Comments (39)
No, I think it's great for testing my beliefs and learning from others. And seeing pig pics.
Generally, I think that this forum is a great interactive way of learning. Of course, there are times when the threads going are of lesser personal interest than others and there is so much scope for creating threads. I discovered this forum over 2 years ago, and when I look back on it I think that I have done as much reading, writing and thinking as I did on my undergraduate course.
And, there is some fun as well. When the Shoutbox moved onto the front page I wondered what it was. But, now, I see it as a lighter side and more informal, and with the story threads as being complementary. There are also so many different voices from people of all kinds of backgrounds, so I find it to be such a useful learning resource and enjoyable too.
What is the pursuit of understanding in your opinion? To me it sounds very vague.
So, are you looking for higher quality content as per the OP?
Broad, but not vague. For me, everyone on here shares a common love of thinking and expressing thought, albeit across a very broad spectrum of subjects. Hopefully there is enough diversity that everyone can find something to his taste. I'm leery to some extent of standards of quality, as Schopenhauer was, as they can easily lead to stultification. The mods seem to manage all that handily.
Not higher quality per se, but content that expands on my own interests.
There is also very high-quality content here and some which are not very good. But my options are rather limited and I find that many posters here are very good and interesting.
Their presentation and treatment I can dislike, like, or be amazed at. It is the newness of insight that impresses me, but interestingly only the first time I encounter it. After the first encounter with it and digesting it and making it my own, I am not impressed if someone serves it up again.
Talk about the quickness of declining value of marginal utility. That's my middle name.
There are pet theories, however, that I cherish always.
As stated, the content is also high quality and thought-provoking so that's great as well.
No, I think the quality of content on here is more than reasonable. There are interesting discussions and plenty of knowledgeable members.
I would like to see more high quality stuff, such as more essay or book reading groups, like we did in the beginning. But I realize Im not leading by example, as I hardly contribute to the philosophy discussions these days. Seems I could only keep that up for a few years.
I have pending a Locke's Essay reading group, probably will cover 3-4 different chapter, but I've still to finish it again. but am not too far from it.
I was going to ask the same thing; but, the current festive atmosphere ought not be disturbed so I digress.
I'm looking forward to inviting a philosopher if possible or starting up a reading group.
Anyone else want to have a reading group also?
If you got nothing out of it, it would be a waste of time, for sure, but then how long would anyone participate in anything they got nothing at all out of?
Quoting Jamal
If only all of us were as wise as you; but then that would mean the death of PF.
To be serious, the wish for higher quality content is the wish that this site should approximate to academia; and I see academia as being, in general, rather narrow and normatively constricted. I like to encounter as diverse a range of views as possible, no matter how whacky or "folksy' they might seem, because thereby I can understand humanity better.
I'm not concerned with the greats. All that characterizes them is their originality, and genius. I do enjoy as of recent more of the analytic and academic philosophers. They seem to be on well grounding that is fun to entertain and provides a nice relief from all the hogwash and wallowing.
I learnt before joining this forum that it would serve mainly as a place to hone my writing and reading in a more critical way. That is all.
I resemble this. I will admit, with all it's flaws, tpf is the best site that a thinker can test his ideas on others who are, more or less, philosophically minded. But if a person really wants to improve his philosophical acumen, he would undoubtedly resort to the source material of the greats, hence a "stepping stone".
"Do you feel like you're wasting your time being here?"
What is "wasted time"?
No, we don't want to see more high quality stuff. Quality is too demanding, too burdensome, hard to produce, often tedious to read. We don't have to go for absolute slop, but let's be sensible: sitting down at the mighty Mac and turning out refined, insightful, elegant, and witty text is a major drain on one's ever-diminishing intellectual resources. I could be brilliant, but then I would be too exhausted to appreciate the adulation which fallow philosophers would shower on me.
Enough about the flight to quality!
You got what you were craving for @Jamal! :grin:
I don't live in a philosophical community, as the academics do, (though an academic department can be very limited) and there are few people locally who have the faintest interest in philosophy. Reading and thinking about stuff on my own is a bit stultifying after quite a short while. So engagement with other people is crucial.
I think that the screen medium and the endless material tends to lead to me scrolling through stuff without really taking any of it in, and I find myself doing that here, too. But scrolling through stuff here is better than doing the same thing on the more popular sites. That is guaranteed to be a waste of time.
I imagine that when I have been a member for years, I will have experienced times when it gets boring and times when it isn't. Nothing is forever - except death and taxes, I suppose.
:up: (Was the "fallow" intentional or a typo?)
Quoting unenlightened
I agree, but one must be at least competent enough to comprehend what is being presented.
But an emphatic no to the time wasting based on the number of times chatting with people here has changed how I act IRL for the better.
Examples:
( 1 ) Learning about emotivism here years ago has helped out talking with some very angry people ranting about injustices in their lives.
( 2 ) I've gotten a lot better at taking on much different points of view from my own engaging here over the years. A steelman Devil's Advocate is good practice for empathy. This has helped me process strong disagreements with others.
( 3 ) In line with processing strong disagreements, a distinction I've practiced thinking in terms of here is one between opinions expressed with words and those expressed in actions. People can believe diametrically opposed things and act in the same way; makes the words matter less.
( 4 ) In line with making the words matter less, playing about with arguments for years has helped me both notice and construct my own rhetorical dark arts. Noticing and making emotional appeals, knowing when to smooth concepts over to make a point despite not fully committing to them. Lying and noticing lying with skill, to put a fine point on it.
I guess it's what is to be expected from learning though. Most events along the path are run of the mill, you do not notice their incremental effects.
As is the case in the world in general, in regards to most everything, we're always hoping for high quality, but never expecting to find it, because it is rare. How we respond to the rare occurrence of higher quality is what is pivotal, because not expecting to find it leaves us vulnerable to shock and a wide variety of other emotional responses which may happen.
So you might ask questions like the following. Do you recognize quality as such? Do you recoil in shock at its occurrence? Do you attack it aggressively in fear of the power that superlativeness has over you? Are you humbled by quality?
All these are considerable issues for anyone seeking higher quality, and the key is a person's ability to recognize the occurrence of higher quality. Anyone who actually believes that higher quality is possible ought to have clear criteria as to how to recognize its occurrence. Otherwise its all subjective and simply emotional responses to differences, producing the condition of 'my content is always the higher quality content'.
The alternative, is to start from a fair and unbiased position of 'all content is fundamentally equal in quality'. This makes quality attributable to something other than content. Then we can look at the numerous different features of writing, allowing for the reality that each person has one's own preferences as to which of the different features higher quality is being looked for. Consequently, the meaning of 'higher quality' would differ according to one's preferences.
Interesting. I find myself asking how do we even recognise high quality given the divergent levels of understanding and education between members? Not to mention some people's dogged prosecution of certain beliefs. I generally associate high quality with pellucid English sentences that state things elegantly and simply. But that's my bias. This could also indicate my unwillingness or inability to engage with more complex ideas. :wink:
So this is a specific type of form which you believe to be of a higher quality than others. Can I ask why you believe that this type of writing, rather than some other type like Platonic dialectics for example, or other types of less pellucid language used by modern philosophers, would constitute higher quality philosophy?
I think it's you who needs to read more carefully, I asked "why" do you feel that this personal preference of yours constitutes a higher quality? I didn't ask why it is your personal preference. Generally we distinguish between things which we like due to personal preference, and things which we like due to higher quality. Personal preference does not equate with higher quality for most of us.
That's a humdrum!
I was being sarcastic in an unhelpful way. Sorry.
When I enjoy content I tend to value it more, regardless of its actual merit. I am not a philosopher, so I'm not sure how I would ascertain 'higher quality' in a substantive way. Best I can do is tell if something is riffing off fallacies and banalities. And I am more likely to value a contribution if I can understand the position being articulated on account of clear English and coherent conceptual framing.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
Fair. Do you have such a criteria or can you imagine one?
Having a robust familiarity with the philosophical literature being referred to and using citations and quotations appropriately strikes me as an obvious but banal example.
:up:
Besides, I always like when some new member starts something like "I was introduced to Ayn Rand and liked it. It's so true. What do you guys think of her?".
And then just enjoy the replies with popcorn.
That, I would say, is the subjective nature of "value". It appears tp me like we are always seeking to objectify our systems for evaluation, but we can never completely rid ourselves of that subjective aspect.
Quoting Tom Storm
I can see why being able to understand what is written would be a primary concern when judging for quality, but wouldn't this be more like a prerequisite thing? Not being able to understand the material would exclude it from the category of being judgeable (as to quality), and clear understanding would mean it's easily judgeable. So this would be a type of preliminary judgement, judging the judgeability.
Quoting Tom Storm
I'm considering this question right now. I never really thought about judging the content on TPF before, maybe this is a subject which has come up because of the short story competitions where members are asked to judge pieces of work. I am not naturally inclined toward making such judgements. To me, this is like judging the quality of individual people. Who is a higher quality person than another? We are all different in unique ways, having a mix of good characteristics and bad. Judgement of the overall quality of the person would require a formula for summing up the good and bad. And some characteristics would have to be weighted as more important than others. That's a very difficult subject.