I would like to see the philosophy forum rules altered a bit in such a way that it would allow the initiation and further development regarding the philosophical thought of a discussion to be realized, embraced, and appreciated for what it is supposed to be. It would surely help the 'spirit' of philosophy to be able to stand up in a forum which boasts the name.

Shouldn't that be a given?

Am I the only one who feels encumbered by groundless thoughts? Moreover, aren't both philosophy and science all about that? When a claim is in question, the one making a claim should be required to provide some actual substance, if and when asked, that logically supports the claim or response in question. That way those grounds can be evaluated by those participating.

Without that the nature and importance of philosophy is murdered by ungrounded claims. Groundless claims do not belong in a philosophy forum. If one cannot say "I have reason to believe.", then one should not say "I believe.", at least not in a philosophy forum...

That is the antithesis of philosophy... groundless claims.

While I get your point, I think the one thing you're missing here is that this is not a college classroom. People like to discuss things, whether their point is "true" or "valid" is beside the point, really. If they were being graded, then perhaps but as it is, these are casual discussion boards. People are entitled to their thoughts and beliefs, whether you like or agree with them, or whether they choose to take the time to prove them.

So, in my opinion, for the purposes of the discussion boards here, no. Noone should be REQUIRED to prove anything. If you choose to think that makes them liars or untrustworthy or stupid or anything else, that's your problem, in essence.

Hi,

I stongly agree with you.

Anyway, don't let it bring you down.
People just are how they are, mostly stupid a-holes.
Life is like that, anywhere else, too.
Not merely on this site.

You just have to take the spoon in your hand
and shovel whatever comes your way.

Regards,
Osku

if one had to prove every concept before discussing it

we would be set back in the modernization department decades if not centuries

discussion of an idea leads to the reality of the possibilities

but hey...........

How do I prove, or undermine, an idea that is my own?

How do I prove my believes that are solely my own?

The moment you tell me how to, I will.

or...the possibility of the reality!!


Maybe I am not clearly understanding the point that the OP is attempting to make...

I see the discussion of philosophy similar to the development of a hypothesis/theory...a series of thoughts that have the possibility to be realized on a certain level...yet, have to be tested and developed to play out...and philosophy is generally not "hard scientific facts"...at least my basic understanding...

scientific discovery starts with a theory or hypothesis, no?

I also see philosophy as the "art" side of science...

I am not sure how someone would provide "evidence" as to the reality of a possibility or the possibility of a reality of a philosophical ideology...

then, like I said earlier, perhaps I am not understanding the original post...

I would understand your query, but it lacked the substance to understand the problem. could you elaborate? I think the forum rules are stifling you a lil there.


jk.

I think its clear most people do not understand philosophy.

I'll be the first to admit, I failed it in college

And you know I do not really have an issue with people who are curious but never really developed the skills. As long as they are willing to understand the nature of, the limitations with, and the failures of there arguments and will read the links I set forth that explain why.

However at the end of the day when a realist and a idealist get into a philosophical debate I never hold my breath on consensus.

Well, my understanding of the question was that the OP wanted to revise the forum rules so that everyone had to provide proof of every word they wrote. My reply was based on that understanding and that I thought this was a more casual setting, not a classroom. I may have misunderstood the question, but my understanding was not that he was asking a question re: philosophy, per se, but on the forum itself.

However, that is only my opinion, I do not have links to facts backing up my understanding of the way the forums work.

One of the beauties of philosophy is to hear different ones. I likes mah freedums.

Creative

Groundless thoughts? You must have been referring to me..lol J/k

I hate to say it but what is groundless to you may not be to others so there is a conflict right there in the perception of groundless.

I never find your posts groundless, above my head sometimes but never groundless.

ah...that is one of the beautiful things that I love about philosophy...is the ability to learn from the teachers...the masters...and a true philosopher, IMO, is one who loves to teach, as well as to learn...

I did not fail philosophy in college, I took many courses and did very well in them, however...I am always learning, always seeking for clarification and understanding...

so,I am not an expert...I am very much a beginner in many areas of philosophy...

I love it when others ask questions...because many times, I am hesitant to ask them in the middle of a discussion...

Philosophy, in my understanding, has not to be based on something someone said before me and therefore can be proven with links, other peoples words and such.

If I do have my own philosophy, do how do I provide links for something that only may exist in my head?

I would say links are not required; however illustrating the soundness of ones premises before concluding that a particular thing is true would be a good start. I rarely see that here.

I am also a bit confused by the OP. I would only ask that he specify the exact wording of the change.

ie. What would creatives forum rules look like?

How do I illustrate the soundness of something that as of yet only exists in my head?
Something that does exist, but I don't know the words for it yet.
The words might come as the 'plot' unravels, but unless I'm able to talk about it without restriction of this or the other rule will never come to light?

Prove philosophical ideas?

Where in all of history has any philosophical idea ever been proven?

The ancient Greeks had two very different schools of though:

1. The universe is a continuum and all is one with no "real" separation exists between anything.
2. The universe is made of discrete particles separated by empty space (the atomic theory).

One could argue that neither of these philosophies have yet been proven today. Or, one could take the stance that Quantum Mechanics has finally proven that #2 is correct.

Ironically, the mathematical community continues to treat mathematics and the number line as a continuum. They believe that "philosophically" everything can be divided ad infinitum without restraint in spite of Zeno's philosophical proof that this would be impossible.

Who's right? Quantum Physicists and Zeno? Or Mathematicians?

They can't both be right. The ultimate reality of the world can't be both a continuum and discrete simultaneously. At least not in the same physical sense.

If we were going to require proof for everything we'd have to toss out modern mathematical formalism as it now stands and embrace the observational evidence that the world is not a continuum but breaks down at the quantum level to behave in some strange discrete manner via "quantum leaps" than we can't even comprehend.

What is it that you think you can "prove" in a philosophical sense?

The logic you offered in your last thread didn't hold water anyway. Your so-called logical constructs were all flawed and demonstrated to be so. You finally had to resort to smearing the semantics of a word beyond all recognition of the original meaning of the word in an attempt to try to claim that your original semantic assertion must hold true. Yet even that didn't pan out for you because if your broad semantic definition of your word was accepted then many of the other assertions that you had made during your argument would collapse.

It's impossible to prove anything. Especially a fundamental premise. They don't even prove fundamental premises in mathematics. All of mathematics is based on unproven axioms that are just stated as fundamental 'truths' not to be argued with, for the sake of moving forward.

All philosophy is done this way. You just state the unprovable premises that you would like to build upon and then try to move forward from that point. However, no matter what you deduce from that point forward it can always be questioned by simply questioning your original unproven premise.

Your search for absolute truth is a personal obsession of yours. There is no such thing in actual philosophy. We can't know anything with absolute certainty. You can't disprove solipsism for example. All you can do is reject it based on a purely intuitive notion that you'd prefer not to believe it. It is a perfectly logically sound philosophy.

It's impossible to disprove it. And it's just as impossible to prove it. Yet solipsism is a valid logically sound philosophy.

Since when does any philosophy need to be proven?

All we can do is give our best reasons for favoring a particular philosophy. Also intuitive reasons hold as much water as logical reasons unless they can show to be logically flawed, which is often impossible to do (just like with solipism).

If we demanded proof for every view no one would have anything to say, including yourself. Based on your last thread your logical constructs are highly lacking in logical consistency anyway. If you're out to prove something good luck with that.

You don't even seem to be aware that even professional philosophers begin with unproven premises that they request be held as self-evident. Yet everyone may not agree with their so-called self-evident premises. This is the way philosophy is done. Nobody proves anything in philosophy in any absolute undeniable sense.

You seem to be out to want to prove your unprovable premises. You'll just start a lot of threads that will go on for eternity whilst you argue endlessly for your unprovable premises and other people reject them. You'll always end up going down the semantic drain. It's unavoidable. It's the nature of philosophy.

One of the world's greatest scientists and Nobel Prize winners has recognized this, yet you seem to disagree with him.

"We cannot define anything precisely! If we attempt to, we get into that paralysis of thought that comes to philosophers, who sit opposite each other, one saying to the other, 'You don't know what you are talking about!' The second one says 'What do you mean by know? What do you mean by talking? What do you mean by you?', and so on." - Richard Feynman

It's no joke Michael, this is the nature of philosophy. You can't prove any philosophy. All you can do is try to share your reasons for favoring a particular idea the best you can. And that works best when you are open to accepting the views of other people even if their views are entirely intuitive.

If you're out to prove something you shouldn't even be on a public discussion forum. You should go to a professional philosophy department at a university and see how far you can get. I think you'll quickly discover that what you believe to be "ultimate proof" will be picked apart by the other philosophers like vultures dining on the carcass of a dead skunk.

I suggested in your last thread that you should have been a mathematician because you seem to always be out to prove your assertions. You took that comment to somehow be personally offensive. However, isn't this thread proof positive that this is precisely what you are obsessed with?

You've just proven to us via this thread that you are indeed out to prove something.

We're here to exchange ideas and to offer reasons why we don't necessarily see things the same way as someone else. Or maybe to get a new ideas from someone else. Sometimes it may seem like an 'argument'. But it's not meant to be an argument in the sense that one person is absolutely rigth and the other person is absolutely wrong. It's simply meant to share the reasons why we see problems with the other view and prefer our own view.

In fact, a person can't be absolutely wrong unless they first claim to be absolutely right. It seems that this is precisely what you want to do. You want to claim that your ideas are absolutely right and cannot be refuted.

That's ridiculous.

The sharing of ideas doesn't become offensive until someone says to someone else, "It's impossible to think like you do! You're only kidding yourself if you think that way!".

That's when it's no longer a sharing of views but instead it has become an outright accusation that one person is absolutely right and the other person is absolutely wrong. That's absurd.

Yet this is what you seem to be demanding. You are demanding that people must prove their views or be put down as being absolutely wrong. You're out to make assertions and prove that no one can deny them. That's not going to fly on a public forum on a dating site. It won't fly at a university either. I can tell you that right now.

The so-called 'logic' that you presented in your last thread didn't hold water anyway. Even within that thread you claimed that you were working out your thoughts as the thread progressed. Clearly even you didn't have all holes in the dike of absolute truth plugged up, and it finally collasped on you into a flood of semantic gobbledygook.

If you're out to prove something go to a university and see how far you get trying to prove your ideas to professional philosophers.

Asking a dating web site to make a forum rule that everyone must prove their ideas using irrefutable logic is the most absurd request I can imagine. Even professional philosophers wouldn't be allowed to post here if that was the rule.

No one could ever date again.

It is not about 'proving' everything one writes. It is about examining the reasons which which support the thought. Philosophy involves the identification and elaboration of the underpinnings that give thought it's substance. It is about what establishing the prior beliefs that ground one's opinion, and how logical that development can be shown to be. It is all about gaining a greater depth of understanding.

There are conversation forums which do not embrace nor require that type of criticism in thought.

This is supposed to be a philosophy forum.

Encumbered? If you disagree with someone's logic just pass that person by and talk to someone else. What's so encumbering about that?



No. Philosophy is not science. It can't possibly use the scientific method of 'observation' because it's impossible to 'observe' many philosophical concepts.




What would this have to do with changing forum rules?

Are you asking for mods who would be "Logic Referees?"

That would be an intense forum.

You should join a philosophy club where they have refereed debates!

I doubt you'd be able to set that up on a dating forum that was originally designed for the casual sharing of ideas.

If you long for a refereed philosophical debate you should seriously join a phiolosophy club. Surely there must be some in your area.

Trying to get a dating site to become an official refereed philosophy forum would be quite an ambitious goal.

There are also forums on the Internet that are dedicated entirely to philosophical discussion. Go try to prove your assertions there and see how far you get.