Could we maybe perhaps have a pinned "introduction to philosophy" thread?
Like, where newcomers who are interested in general logic, intellectual works, and the like can become acquainted with the terms people here throw around casually?
Like, not to be crude or ignorant, but these terms can easily just be replaced or explained with simpler concepts, but perhaps they are only used for brevity's sake?
Here's an example from a recent post by @apokrisis
Quoting apokrisis
Again, incredible intellect. Beautiful mind and so much more.
But yeah, for us new or younger folk. It's a lot to grasp.
Not to be a reductionist (see what I did there :wink: ) but surely there are either one-worded synonyms or few-worded descriptions that perfectly substitute these words laid out by those who create other philosophies.
Now understand, I'm not the one who started this war of "this word can be better explained by this text", it is the established philosophers who disagree with one another's wording first. So. Just for some context.
In short, yeah, what is the harm in creating a pinned thread where new or novice people can question these hard and long established terms in philosophy they have difficulty grasping or understanding? :smile:
Like, not to be crude or ignorant, but these terms can easily just be replaced or explained with simpler concepts, but perhaps they are only used for brevity's sake?
Here's an example from a recent post by @apokrisis
Quoting apokrisis
As epistemology, his point is mundane. As an ontological commitment, it makes the usual idealist mistake.
Again, incredible intellect. Beautiful mind and so much more.
But yeah, for us new or younger folk. It's a lot to grasp.
Not to be a reductionist (see what I did there :wink: ) but surely there are either one-worded synonyms or few-worded descriptions that perfectly substitute these words laid out by those who create other philosophies.
Now understand, I'm not the one who started this war of "this word can be better explained by this text", it is the established philosophers who disagree with one another's wording first. So. Just for some context.
In short, yeah, what is the harm in creating a pinned thread where new or novice people can question these hard and long established terms in philosophy they have difficulty grasping or understanding? :smile:
Comments (6)
Philosophy being philosophy then takes a thousand views of what this really all means. So as a technical distinction, it will rapidly become less clear. :smile:
Surely no one these days reads a book and expects a glossary, or even references? Always quicker to google. To get with the times, we should just have AI automatically hyperlink every long word perhaps. Hover over it and get the definition. Who would have time to scroll a messy thread?
So, for instance, I appreciate and admire efforts like the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy to establish a standard of description where different thinking can be compared to each other. Such an approach is not going to illuminate what defies comparison. The latter is the motivation for many a disagreement between thinkers. Maybe there is a limit to description.
Apart from using the copious resources of the internet (SEP, IEP, Wikipedia, ChatGPT etc), you can just post a question as a new discussion, so long as there's some effort put into it. I'm not sure there's a need for a separate thread.
If people are genuinely interested they'll try to work things out by reading books and using the online resources. Since TPF is for philosophical discussion, people usually participate with some knowledge already gained elsewhere and that seems right to me.
But nothing is stopping someone from starting a discussion such as "Are ontology and epistemology really distinct?" or whatever. Or just asking someone what they mean by something.
This.. is an interesting concept, at least as my mind is able to process it. Could you go into further detail? What, truly, "defies comparison" as far as something that is not lexicographically or taxonomically similar?
Quoting Jamal
Oh, absolutely. 100%. I suppose my little odd gripe was that, some of us, prefer to, shall I say "chart our own paths", just like the greats you're familiar with assuredly did, themselves. Sure, it's a bit silly to think just anyone can do that. However, don't you feel that some philosophers did have their own personal biases and faults? I recall (not specifically) some famous philosophers made subtle (and sometimes not so subtle) references or quips or even flat out attacks on the ideas and even personal character or mannerisms of other famous philosophers. I forget who, but one brilliant mind and philosopher was apparently a Nazi-sympathizer or something of the sort? He was still a brilliant mind. And lots of people assuredly learned from him. My point is, some people like to discover things "from the ground up" without reading possibly inspirited works that may likely have personal biases that really have little to nothing to do with the concepts they speak of, as elegantly put as they are.
If that makes sense? Meaning, we shouldn't have to read an entire book by a person to garnish the "highlights", "essence", or "point" of what logical argument or case the person desired to put forth. Sure, it's great. Romantic. Even an honor, to read what the mind of one no longer present to ask questions has to say. But, that aside. Some of us believe to be human is to be biased, perhaps you believe that even yourself? Just a passing concern I had is all. You are correct, the online resources can provide all that needs to be provided. Some of us however, just prefer a more human touch and approach to things we find sensitive, important, and perhaps even imperative. You can understand that. :smile:
For the taxonomically minded, similarities suggest identity. I do that all the time. I have a penchant for it.
But whenever I dig into different texts, a lot of comparisons turn out to be the basis of a particular theory or the introduction of a meta-category by which all others can be surveyed. I get why both of those things happen. I make both of those kinds of judgements myself.
Therefore, a strictly philosophical discipline should not make either of those approaches to be self-evident.