Guidelines - evaluating 'philosophical content' and category placement
Hi @Baden and others.
This is a follow-up to my discussion with @javi2541997
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/15407/kundera-poetry-and-unbearable-nostalgia/latest/comment
'I guess it depends on what you mean by 'philosophical content' Amity
Javi - I am not the one who wrote the rules of this forum. :sweat:
I fully consider poetry as a topic of philosophy. But, according to the rules, I think I would have to write the thread in a different manner. I wanted to share my astonishment with that quote of Kundera and share other poems with the rest. But maybe, it is not that philosophical. If I had tried to place the thread on the main page, I guess the moderators would have placed it in The Lounge, anyway.'
My response:
I think you could have placed it under 'Philosophy of Art' without any objections. But who knows? Even that is debatable. I'll move this to 'Feedback' so as not to derail your thread!
***
Should the Guidance be revisited to include Category placement advice? Or has this already been done elsewhere? What is considered 'philosophical content' ? All threads are not of the 'argumentative' type. Perhaps this needs to be revised:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/480/site-guidelines/p1
This is a follow-up to my discussion with @javi2541997
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/15407/kundera-poetry-and-unbearable-nostalgia/latest/comment
'I guess it depends on what you mean by 'philosophical content' Amity
Javi - I am not the one who wrote the rules of this forum. :sweat:
I fully consider poetry as a topic of philosophy. But, according to the rules, I think I would have to write the thread in a different manner. I wanted to share my astonishment with that quote of Kundera and share other poems with the rest. But maybe, it is not that philosophical. If I had tried to place the thread on the main page, I guess the moderators would have placed it in The Lounge, anyway.'
My response:
I think you could have placed it under 'Philosophy of Art' without any objections. But who knows? Even that is debatable. I'll move this to 'Feedback' so as not to derail your thread!
***
Should the Guidance be revisited to include Category placement advice? Or has this already been done elsewhere? What is considered 'philosophical content' ? All threads are not of the 'argumentative' type. Perhaps this needs to be revised:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/480/site-guidelines/p1
b) Able to write a thoughtful OP of reasonable length that illustrates this interest, and to provide arguments for any position you intend to advocate.
Comments (70)
Even though there are categories, I am glad that these don't show up on the front page. It allows for a blurring of the many aspects of philosophy. As regards to the lounge, my own understanding is that it allows for discussion which is slightly off key from philosophy itself. All in all, let's hope that it allows for the broadest discussion of philosophy.
The philosophy of the arts may be seen as of lesser importance than that of the sciences. I see this as extremely problematic and hope that the way in which all of the categories show up on the front page allows for as little bias as possible in multidisciplinary thinking on this site.
Yes, thanks. I was thinking of deleting this thread because of a strong sense of déjà vu. I've been here before and it's made little difference. Nobody is all that bothered. I agree it's difficult but not impossible. You seem to manage just fine! :smile:
Under 'Categories':
1. The Lounge - Hang out, blether, talk about kittens
2. General Philosophy - It's philosophy but it doesn't fit any of the specialisms
3. Philosophy of Art - Visual art, literature, music, etc. What makes something a work of art? Is there more to artistic taste than personal preference? What makes music meaningful?
Quoting Jack Cummins
The Lounge: News, politics, cultural - sharing what we are currently listening to (music) and watching (TV/films) but not what we are reading. The latter is placed under 'Learning Centre > Books and Papers. This means it is privileged to be a Main Page thread.
Other more specific threads like @javi2541997's - may well be characterised as 'hanging out' but blethering about pussy cats? Come on!
Quoting Jack Cummins
Yes, it's not in-your-face obvious but you can hover over the title and a box will appear showing the category. Your 'How 'Surreal' are Ideas?' > General Philosophy; 'Tragedy or Pleasure'> Philosophy of Art.
Quoting Jack Cummins
I think the main difference, for me, is between a narrow or re/stricted definition of 'philosophy' with a preference for logical/rational argumentation (a prescribed way of writing an OP) and those with a looser way of exploring thoughts and where they might lead (creative).
And that's fine, right up until a judgement call (by posters/mods) to dismiss the importance of the latter, move to the Lounge, before the ideas can even percolate. Why the rush? What difference does it make when they can be placed/ kept in 'General Discussion' at the very least.
I think I've said more than enough. Making a mountain out of a molehill. I never learn :roll:
Hanging out? What does it mean? Sorry, you used too English slang that I hardly followed your comment.
Javi, you are more than capable of using google, online dictionaries to read the different meanings.
Quoting Amity
Yep, but I trust you more than Google and other online sites. When I interact with you, I am having a conversation with a native speaker. This is obviously better than Google.
OK. To provide even more specific context - 'Hanging out' as related to your OP's final paragraph.
This imagined setting made it more informal. In that respect more 'Lounge' material.
Cool. At least you agree with me that we still can learn interesting things in an informal context or 'Lounge' material. :grin:
But I'm done. Spent enough time here. Thanks.
Philosophy itself may be about making a mountain out of a mole hill. On this site, if may be more about what is seen and what is forgotten. The lounge is useful, and I do look at it personally, but it may be the more hidden than most live aspects of philosophy debates.
I have created a few topics in the lounge and see this as worthwhile when the areas of discussion are more generic rather than about philosophy as such. Nevertheless, it all remains so arbitrary and unpredictable as what is important is so changeable. What may be lounge discussion may be the heated debates of philosophy in the future. This applies to the aspects of politics and contemporary life which may may be the raw aspects of philosophical concerns. The lounge areas may be live aspects of the generation of future topics at the core of philosophy.
I don't think we can learn anything worthy from Donald Trump and 2024 U.S. Elections threads. But that's just my opinion, and I don't want to force you to think like me, obviously.
Thank you both for your interesting thoughts and opinions.
I tend to find them more interesting threads - they explore, more or less in practice, the nature of politics, value, truth and social policy. I get less from threads on perception or reality.
Richard Rorty said that 'the purpose of philosophy is not to discover timeless truths, but rather to provide better ways of living and understanding.' This opens things up. Philsophy seems to be one of those subjects where the framing is wide or narrow depending upon one's biases.
Here is a short and famous piece he wrote on poetry and philosophy.
https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poetrymagazine/articles/68949/the-fire-of-life
I haven't read much, if anything, by Richard Rorty. However, I find myself in agreement with the quote. Looking further at the role and aim of philosophy:
Quoting Britannica - Richard Rorty [my bolds]
Yes. It does depend on what you think philosophy is about. I prefer the broader, more expansive outlook, so as to appreciate and enjoy a fuller life. TPF does provide that opportunity and I think its inclusion of more literature, e.g. the 'Short Story and Poetry' events, says much for it. Not sure whether that is continuing... @Baden?
Nevertheless, its Guidelines still seem to privilege a certain form and style of philosophical writing i.e. argumentative. Perhaps I'm wrong...
Quoting Tom Storm
This is beautiful and so sad given that it took imminent death to realise that he wished he'd spent more of his life with verse. To live more fully. He said that his thoughts hadn't turned to religion or philosophy (even his own) but what had been of use and comfort was 'Poetry'. When 'memories are amply stocked with verses' it's like having close friends nearby.
I appreciate this and now keen to know more about his philosophy. I think it must have provided sustenance to him and others as a way of looking at life. Perhaps it is written poetically?
Thank you, Tom, for a meaningful post :sparkle:
Anyway, the germ of some possible philosophical content in the OP is probably this bit:
Quoting javi2541997
If Javi had made a brief argument as to how and why this is an important part of the appreciation of literature, that would have been enough to make it belong unambiguously on the main page, in my opinion.
I agree. My intention was not to debate but to share poems where we could feel that 'unbearable nostalgia' that Kundera talked about in his novel. For this reason, I thought The Lounge was the correct place for the thread because I am honest and I admit that I didn't put in a high philosophical effort.
Yes. I understand. It's difficult to know where it would best fit. The PoA category has a variety of threads. Some I noted with titles like 'Beautiful Structures' or 'Beautiful Things' are not of the argumentative type.
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/2678/beautiful-things/p1
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/3112/beautiful-structures/p1
So, if not there, where else would you suggest?
Quoting Jamal
Yes, but I think he wasn't in that theoretical frame of mind. He primarily just wanted to share poems, thoughts or recommendations - just as he does in the Main Page 'Currently Reading' thread.
From his OP:
Isn't that 'philosophical' enough? It could have led to more...but hey, that was up to @javi2541997 and I need to accept that...I suppose :sparkle:
It certainly would be if explicated and developed, because it's a good thought.
Quoting Amity
It's because it's non-theoretical that it probably doesn't belong in a philosophy category.
Quoting Amity
Yes, that thread is something of an anomaly, though I'm happy with where it is.
I agree. It was a promising start. Unfulfilled.
Quoting Jamal
'Theoretical' was a bad choice of words on my part - I meant 'argumentative'.
Philosophy includes 'intellectual conversation' - as per Rorty above - no? It's not always about theories and debate. But hey, I agree, the thread is nothing more than a sharing of poems.
Quoting Jamal
Yeah. I wonder why :chin: :razz:
If started by anyone else other than the site owner, then it 'probably' would have been moved!
The privilege of power, huh?! :smile:
I don't think so. If I recall correctly, I started it because there had been one on the old forum, and if anyone else had done it that would've also been fine.
Understood. Back at the start...but now things have changed. Anyway, I'm moving on. It's been good to talk and gain other points of view. Thanks :sparkle:
Not to be unkind to Mr. Rorty - or you - but his explication is very far from my thoughts about, or experience of, poetry.
I agree. Many times I've been steered in new philosophical and scientific directions by posts on that thread.
So? I don't share Rorty's views and, as I have said elsewhere, I have little interest in poetry. But I am interested in what others think, particularly influential philosophers.
I knew you don't have much interest in poetry, which is why I was surprised by your comment. Rorty's explication of poetry reminds me of an atheist trying to give an open-minded and sympathetic explanation of religion without really having any idea what it's about.
You say "So?" Hey, you brought the whole thing up.
I only said 'so?' because you didn't explain your comment. Now you have explained it. :wink:
Quoting T Clark
That's a good line. But does this imply that Rorty has poetry wrong and therefore can't really be valuing it properly? Or are you saying that his way of understanding and valuing poetry is different to yours?
I think Rorty's explanation of poetry shows he has no real grasp of how it works or what it does. As I noted, he seems like he wants to be open-minded about something he doesn't really think is very important. He says a couple of things in this article that made me laugh:
This is such bullshit. He claims poetry is important and then explains it away as nothing significantly different from other types of intellectual endeavor. And this made me groan:
This is so arrogant and pompous - to claim that we are, that he is, somehow intellectually and spiritually more advanced than Plato and Aristotle (or for me, Lao Tzu).
But this is too small a matter and too big a subject for me to venture much further.
I'm returning to this with an apology to @javi2541997 if I've made this too personal and critical. I've enjoyed very much participating in his thoughtful and engaging thread. Thank you :sparkle:
I still think that it has 'philosophical content'. I disagree about the requirement for an 'argument'.
Framing it in terms of how it fits into an appreciation of literature shifts focus away from the concept and sense of 'unbearable nostalgia'; how it can be shown via poetry and reflection.
This can help us understand the human experience. This is achieved as it stands, with no argument.
'Philosophical content' lies in the poems with experience and thoughts intertwining. The impact and compact nature of verse can speak for itself. For some.
***
Richard Rorty - dying from pancreatic cancer - picked out a few poems from memory:
Quoting Poetry Foundation - The Fire of Life
Interesting to consider how the dying might turn to poetry to find comfort. Rorty's comment about giving it more attention might remind some of Socrates' turn to verse before his death.
No worries, Amity. Please, don't think I got upset with you because I didn't. I appreciate the value that you gave to my thread. I love literature and I enjoy sharing comments and feedback here. But it is true that my thread is not philosophical enough. My aim is not even debate with others but trying to read more poems that can make me feel that 'unbearable nostalgia' that Kundera referred to in his novel.
Poetry may have a bit of philosophical content per se, but I mainly focused on nostalgic poems. These have a lot of art but not philosophical content. If I feel nostalgia reading a poem it is just a personal emotion of mine that escapes from rational thinking...
The thread is doing the work I was expecting, so everything is fine. :smile:
Thank you. You raised interesting questions and I've enjoyed the discussion here :sparkle:
His use of the extended sense of poetry is in line with the way the term was used prior to its modern restrictive sense. Poetry comes from the Greek term poiesis ???????. It means to make.They were makers of images, of stories, of what he calls the "paths of the imagination". They were the principle educators of the Greeks. The makers of the puppets that cast shadows on the walls of Plato's cave.
Modern translators must make the choice to render their works in verse or prose.
Quoting T Clark
Rorty does not claim that we are intellectually and spiritually more advanced. Perhaps there are other reasons why Plato was not able to acknowledge our finitude.
In the Apology Socrates acknowledges the possibility of our finitude.
(40c).
In the Phaedo and elsewhere, however, rather than acknowledging our finitude he tells stories of the afterlife, obscuring the possibility of our finitude. This was not because of a limit of Plato's intellectual or spiritual abilities, but a limit of what could in his time be freely acknowledged. Rorty argues that things had changed by the time of Shelley.
I think you're trying too hard to make Rorty not look like a putz. I'm not a poetry snob at all, but I can see that poetry does something different than other sorts of written works and other artistic works in general.
I've only read a little of Rorty but I don't have anything against him, at least till now.
This is an odd argument. We're not talking about how "poetry" was used was 2,500 years ago, we're talking about how it is used now. I don't think poetry as it is currently understood is better than prose or any other art, but it's different. It does different things. It's clear Rorty doesn't get that.
Quoting Fooloso4
I think what he wrote speaks for itself.
Quoting Fooloso4
Many (most?) people today don't "acknowledge our finitude." I'm not even sure what that means. I guess it's a code word for being an atheist. What hubris.
I think we've gone outside the intended scope of this thread. It would be an interesting subject for a new one. I'll put it on my list.
His extended use of the term extends back to the Greeks.
If might be helpful if you tell us how you think the term is proper used today.
Quoting T Clark
In the short piece you referenced Rorty says:
What does he get wrong here?
Quoting T Clark
Its ability to speak and our ability to listen are two different things. He does not:
Quoting T Clark
What makes it significantly different is that these writers:
This is a tip of his hat to Wittgenstein who said:
(Culture and Value)
Quoting T Clark
If we are to allow what he says to speak for itself, we need to get what he said right.
What he says is (emphasis added):
We are now more able than Plato was to acknowledge our finitude.
Far fewer people today believe in an afterlife. Whether or not one does, we are able to question such assumptions freely in the West.
Quoting T Clark
As to the scope of this thread, from the OP:
Quoting Amity
As with many threads the scope expands. I am addressing your attack on and what I take to be your misunderstanding of this little piece by Rorty.
Yes indeed. To clarify, the quote is from javi in reply to me. Sorry, I didn't format our conversation as clearly as I should have. Now edited. It was the first part of the OP.
Your clear, civil and intelligent explanations have helped consolidate my understanding. They provide a stark contrast to the personal attack made against Rorty in one of his final reflections.
Time to let it go, now, I think. Thanks to all :sparkle:
Quoting Fooloso4
Indeed. Would you say this is an advance in human thinking or is this too value laden?
Really? Fascinating as this is, we're now taking it well beyond Feedback.
I think you know that, bad boy. :brow:
As I noted, if you want to start a new thread, I will participate.
It certainly is a change but I am hesitant to call it an advance. What follows from this change? I don't think there is a single unified response to either believing or rejecting finitude.
So, you attack Rorty and retreat. You make claims about poetry but will not say what you think is the proper use of the term poetry, It is not up to me to start a new thread so you can defend your unsubstantiated claims.
I've re-read this, especially the part I underlined. It seems that the problem might lie in the category heading 'Philosophy of Art'. This seems to require the inclusion of a philosophical argument. I can understand the reluctance and difficulty of placing your thread there. And as much as 'The Lounge' is an interesting hang-out for blethers, your thread - and similar - deserves more than that, in my opinion.
I can't remember but I think I mentioned the category of 'Aesthetics' earlier. This too has its problems and paradoxes but I think it is broader and can include the 'emotions' and experience of ' nostalgia' you find in the contemplation of poems.
***
Quoting Amity
@Jamal et al - I'd be interested to hear your views on using 'Aesthetics' as a category or sub-category? It seems broader in scope with non-argumentative approaches as to what we find beautiful and valuable in human experience. Also, our aesthetic experience, response or attitude to works of art, including objects and nature.
I haven't delved into the intricacies of Aesthetics but I found this substantive and helpful article.
A few excerpts from: https://www.britannica.com/topic/aesthetics
[quote="Britannica - Aesthetics;https://www.britannica.com/topic/aesthetics/The-role-of-imagination"]Recent work in aesthetics, to some extent inspired by the seminal writings of Sartre and Wittgenstein, has devoted considerable attention to the study of creative imagination. The hope has been to provide the extra ingredient in aesthetic experience that bridges the gap between the sensory and the intellectual and at the same time shows the relation between aesthetic experience and the experience of everyday lifean enterprise that is in turn of the first importance for any study that seeks to describe the moral significance of beauty. [...]
...it is not only art that stirs our emotions in the act of aesthetic attention: the same is or may be true of natural beauty, whether that of a face or of a landscape. These things hold our attention partly because they address themselves to our feelings and call forth a response which we value both for itself and for the consolation that we may attain through it. Thus we find an important philosophical tradition according to which the distinctive character of aesthetic experience is to be found in distinctively aesthetic emotions.
We can share, enjoy, and read poems together. But again, my aim was not to discuss the content of Kundera's views. I am currently reading a novel by him, and I am very hyped. The main character, Agnes, is melancholic, so am I. After reading the chapter where she reads Goethe's poetry, I felt like it was interesting to share it here. The thread even went unnoticed for two days. It is obvious that it is not philosophical enough. I only invited the users to share similar poems in the thread.
I really appreciate how you value my thread, Amity. But youand Ineed to understand that the forum has standards and all.
Aesthetics is cool. It comes under philosophy of art, and we have a category for that. There's no requirement for elaborate argumentation; there just has to be some philosophical meat. More than just a mention of an idea.
As @javi2541997 has just said, his aim was not really to discuss the aesthetic ideas, but to share his appreciation with others, so the Lounge was the right place for it. But as I said, I likely would not have removed it from the philosophy of art category if it had originally been placed there.
Quoting javi2541997
That goes without saying.
Take pleasure in it while you have the chance, for a storm is brewing on yonder horizon.
Twas ever thus. Life and an appreciation of it goes on. No matter the weather. Cheers :sparkle:
I don't know how likely other are to agree, but I think philosophy of mind would be a perfectly legitimate category for a wide ranging discussion of how and why poetry affects us as it does, and what that can tell us about the nature of our minds. What is special about the ways that we can use poetry to communicate with each other?
At first I didn't get, and was a bit put off by, Rorty's use of "compression" in referring to poetry. But now perhaps, I have a sense of what Rorty meant. I'm thinking instead of compression there is (or at least can be) a minimalism to poetry, in that often what we might call the poetry itself is a few lines taking up part of a page. But perhaps compressed within those few lines is something with an ability to show us a part of ourselves or the world that we hadn't previously recognized.
That being said,
this is just something that popped into my head,
and not feeling sufficiently well read,
I doubt I'll write that OP before I am dead. :joke:
Regarding:
Quoting Amity
Jamal clarified this:
Quoting Jamal
So, how much philosophical meat is baked in the pie. The OP, apparently, needs to be justified as philosophy - its relevance for a particular category made clear.
Quoting wonderer1
Yeah, well. I think poetry, or poetic expression, could probably fit into any category dealing with the human body, mind and soul. Interactions at any level. It's not boxed in, is it?
***
Aesthetics - the aesthetic mind - holds its fascinations. There's been plenty written about it:
5 Aspects of the Aesthetic Mind: Exploring its Meaning and Significance - Renee Speaking
https://reneespeaking.com/aesthetic-mind-meaning/
The Aesthetic Mind - Hardback - Elisabeth Schellekens, Peter Goldie - Oxford University Press
***
Quoting wonderer1
Yes, it could well be that. Or written by a creative someone moved by an experience but who can't be arsed writing a complete descriptive essay. A magical encapsulation. Catch a falling star and put it in your pocket. An emptying of a rhythmic, chiming mind.
Quoting wonderer1
An OP I will never write
Too much trouble
Too much strife :monkey:
:broken:
"And when they've given you their all
Some stagger and fall, after all it's not easy
Banging your heart against some mad bugger's wall."
- From Outside the Wall, Roger Waters
The space with Michael
I see him in the car carrier on the floor, on the night I rode around with Jeff.
Jeff was looking for Patty, with a rage which was a mystery to me then and now.
Again, I see Michael in the car carrier on the floor,
and that I need to prevent Jeff from drunkenly stepping on Michael as I yank Jeff back.
That image is flickering though,
from Michael,
to Patty in terror,
to what I can see of Jeff as I grab him from behind,
and back to Michael...
I see Michael lying on his back on my lap. Here I can linger for awhile.
Here the view is always worth the pain.
I watch Michael as he looks at my hand,
and somehow I know how to move my fingers in a way that tells him,
"I am here with and for you."
I see Michael in Patty's arms.
He is near a year old.
As Patty approaches though the crowd of strangers Jeff reaches out to take his son from his wife,
but Michael has spotted me,
and reaches out to be held,
by me.
But there is so much emptiness in this space now.
Thirty eight years,
and I only see bits and pieces of one.
Many of the bits are so faded,
amidst those that seem indelible in this space.
I'm assuming 'The space with Michael' is written by you. Perhaps inspired by 2 of your posts - related to 'How might 'metaphysical imagination' be used?' in @Jack Cummins' thread 'How Surreal are Ideas?' where you spoke of being unwilling to share an extremely personal experience. Then managed to express this PTSD in another discussion: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/929238
The poem creatively encapsulates your story.Quoting wonderer1
It reminded me of other creative writing by TPF members. And, annoyingly, I couldn't find them.
First, you need to sign in to see the category 'The Symposium', under this lies 'Short Stories'.
https://thephilosophyforum.com/categories/40/short-stories
Here you will find @Jamal's sticky'Show Us Your Fiction!' and other stand-alone stories and ideas. The ones that stayed in my mind were: @Benkei's 'Letter from Oslo, @Tobias 'Eden by Night' and @Jack Cummins - 'Flash Fiction and Writing Prompts'
There was also an active Lounge thread - @Baden's 'Get Creative!' - but last post was 10 months ago.
And under another category'Article Submissions', I found my thread, started 6yrs ago! https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/4858/critical-thinking-and-creativity-reading-and-writing/p1
I think it was here that @ArguingWAristotleTiff suggested the revival of the Short Stories Competition. Now, changed to 'Literary Event', including micro-stories and poems. With thought-provoking feedback and discussions. Pretty damned fab :fire:
Anyway, no wonder I'm having a sense of déjà vu!
I'm so impressed by the way Jamal, Baden and others created and encouraged space for creativity in a philosophy forum. The way it encouraged writing, reading and reflecting.
I addressed this Feedback thread to @Baden and also enquired about the 'Literary Event'. I'm not sure how to interpret his lack of response - or anything from other mods. Perhaps there was a team meeting behind the scenes...
Having the Symposium as a Main Category was a good idea. There, the Shoutbox is stickied and also appears Top of the Main Page. Like the Lounge, another chattering place for the community.
There's plenty opportunity for creativity but hell, the pieces are scattered all over the place...buried so deep to be invisible and even if read, later responses don't surface. Can't there be a dedicated place to bring this all together and be more accessible?
Just sayin'. I suppose I'm concerned that the enthusiasm for creative expression is dwindling. And that there is a return, a move back, to pure philosophy and strict ways of writing. Perhaps, I'm wrong and best to 'let it be'.
Let it Be - the Beatles
When I find myself in times of trouble
Mother Mary comes to me
Speaking words of wisdom
Let it be
And in my hour of darkness
She is standing right in front of me
Speaking words of wisdom
Let it be
Let it be, let it be
A-let it be, let it be
Whisper words of wisdom
Let it be
[...]
And when the night is cloudy
There is still a light that shines on me
Shine until tomorrow
Let it be
Sorry, I missed the second bit. For the first bit, I think @Jamal explained the general approach well. We both value art and creativity highly (e.g. much of the time my main interest is art and trying to create it, though I do oscillate between that and work and more philosophical stuff), but the forum is set up to prioritize philosophical content on the first page, so that means less-philosophical content may be put in the lounge.
To me, that's not a value judgement: "Less-philosophical" does not equal "worse" in a general sense, but logically it equates to a lower priority overall on a philosophy forum. Otherwise, we would need to redescribe / rename ourselves.
For the literary event part, I think once a year makes it more special. However, I encourage creative activity year round. The "Get Creative" thread is part of that and anyone can write a short story any time and post it in the category set up for that.
Quoting Baden
Understood. However, as I have argued, creativity does have an important place in philosophy and should have a dedicated space.
Quoting Baden
Well, I think giving it a lower priority is a value judgement. There's no need to change the name of the forum. That would be ridiculous.
Quoting Baden
OK, thanks. So, around December time? Looking forward to hearing more, later.
The 'Get Creative!' thread is only a small part along with the other parts. All well hidden in the Lounge/ Symposium. Most newcomers would be unaware of their existence. Even oldies haven't posted there for some time.
[b]I've been thinking about where they might be gathered, sensibly, under a useful and accessible philosophy category.
Has anyone considered 'Philosophy of Creativity'? That would be a place where we could discuss the value of creativity (theory) AND also give expression to it (practice). Telling and Showing its worth.[/b] @Jamal, other mods, anyone?
Quoting Academic.oup - The Philosophy of Creativity
Also, this: https://philosophyterms.com/philosophy-of-creativity/
Ah, I didn't realise you were no longer Admin or involved in any potential revision of Guidelines. People do admin all the time without having any expertise in the field - thinking NHS :wink: But, yeah, other reasons...
Glad you're still a mod! and relaxing into your creative spirit :party:
Thanks Amity,
I'm going to take a few days off from TPF, but I saw you had responded and I greatly appreciate it.
Mods are still involved in decisions about guidelines. But only admins can create new categories or edit acoounts etc.
Thanks for the update and information about who can create new categories.
It would still be interesting to hear thoughts/considerations of The Philosophy of Creativity. For example, how it differs from Philosophy of Art. But I'll leave it here for now. At risk of a severe headache...
@fdrake - you're an Admin, I should have addressed questions to you.
Sorry :yikes:
That's ok. I agree with Jamal. The referenced post reads like a personal reflection on a poem. Which is a bit like a book review.
A couple of sentences about, say:
1) why the structure of poems ought to engender a feeling of unbearable nostalgia
2) or how they might do that
speculations of that flavour linked to the poem would give the OP contestable arguments about poetry and aesthetics. As it stands it could've been a review in the Currently Reading thread, and thus Lounge.
Compare: "I like vanilla ice cream, vanilla ice cream is so refreshing. The purpose of ice cream is to bring on an incredible sense of refreshment and pleasure." to "Vanilla ice cream is a sweet and refreshing flavour, which makes it the best ice cream to eat on days of rest and celebration. Like at the beach with family and friends. There seem to be analogies of food flavour profiles to expected properties of events in which they are consumed...The enjoyment of a food is this optimised when eaten in a scenario that reflects the food's properties in (specified way)."
Not that the above is as pleasing to read as @javi2541997's post.
Quoting fdrake The 'Currently Reading' thread is not in the Lounge, as I explained earlier. Jamal responded calling it an 'anomaly', giving historical reasons for it not being there.
Indeed, it seems funny to some that this and the Shoutbox are on the Main Page, despite 'philosophical content' not being their main focus or aim. I understand their attraction for the spirit of community. However, for me, it's problematic when it comes to fairness and consistent application of the rules. And differing ideas of what is philosophically valuable.
However, my questions re Philosophy of Creativity might be better posed in a separate thread, away from Feedback. A deeper discussion might be possible. However, right now I'm not up for starting or maintaining a thread.
Thank you :sparkle:
Yeah, I know that was a bit strange, but at the time I didn't care. Glad to hear the surprise was pleasant.
:smile:
I was thinking that writing that down might help me get out of the mental state I was in. I can't say it worked as I was hoping it might, but you responding with Let It Be was very helpful. I can't think of any song that could have been better for me to have in mind at the time.
Quoting Amity
Thanks for the pointer. There is much to TPF that I haven't explored.
Yes. It probably takes more than a single poem to work wonders on a troubled mind.
However, it is effective. And you know that it's about more than you. There's the writer-reader relationship. I read it and felt the persisting, personal pain of the past and present...how memories can fade but yet flashbacks won't let you forget. It's mental.
Quoting wonderer1
They say that time heals...
It made me think of war-time PTSD. And the WWI soldier/poets.
https://www.historyhit.com/culture/influential-poets-of-world-war-one/
I noted the contribution by a war-time nurse, Vera Brittain, who wrote her experiences into a poetry collection describing how little recognition the women at the front received.
This 'lack of recognition' is part of the pain. I've just listened to an audio book, 'The Women' by Kristen Hannah. It tells the story of a young nurse who served in the Vietnam War. How badly the soldiers and nurses were treated by the public - and some family - on return.
The use of drugs and alcohol - the process of recovery. I don't think such events can ever be forgotten but life moves on...it's mental. War. What is it good for...? Now, there's a question...
Quoting wonderer1
Yes, well. The 'hidden' is sometimes worth looking for...