Well if that's how you feel then why request new "Rules" and why feel so "Encumbered"?

If you feel someone doesn't have sound reasoning then just talk to someone else. What's so hard about that?

What's up with becoming a dictator concerning how everyone has to express their philosophical ideas on a dating site?

Even your "logic" in this very thread doesn't even seem sound to me.

That's just my view of course.

I supposed we'd have to call in a "Logic Referee" to decide whether it's more logically sound to just enjoy conversations with people as they normally converse, or whether it's more logically sound to demand that eveyone think like Michael.

Do we have any "Logic Referees" around to make the call?

How do we resolve this?

James,

Your rant was all about the first response which held the OP as if it were written in it that proof was required.

Read the OP. It said nothing of 'proof' nor proving anything.

What grounds your rant? What reason do you have to go on and on like you just did concerning me and your ideas of what you think I am trying to do? Where is your substance for that?

I wrote nothing of the sort, and your rant is a fine example of whay the rule needs to be established.

What reason do you have for writing this about me?



Where did you see that in this thread?



This is false beyond belief, and is against the regular forum rules anyway...

1.)... You can discuss the message or topic, but not the messenger - NO EXCEPTIONS!




This is an acceptable form of conversation to you?



Who said it did?

More personal remarks about me...













Jeez...

Do I really need to elaborate here on why the need for the request is present?

I'm the one who is having a rant?

In the OP you state:



Well, what's a "groundless claim" other than a claim that hasn't been sufficiently proven to have some validity?



Again, I ask, who's ranting here?

You start a thread requesting rules of how people must present their philosophical ideas and you feel encumbered by the current format?

That's not a rant?

Seriously, if you want to engage in more rigorous philosophical discussions why not just seek out a web site that's dedicated to philosophy?

Typically you won't get very far by walking into a non-alcholic café and complaining that they have no beer.

Abra, I love ya. But you do go WAY beyond what is normally being said in many discussions, perhaps on purpose . . . good ole shotgun effect.

I have this same problem with other posters. I think a single thing would alleviate this. Instead of writing a thousand word essay on what you think someone means, ask, just ask what people mean. I dont know just a thought, it does not really bother me, I just respond to the parts of your post that are accurate to my meaning and in my response try my best to reestablish my meaning especially if I looked back and realize Ive been vague.

Creative, the problem I tend to see with many of your posts that elicit such a response is vagueness, which is great if you want responses that are all over the place (for creativity's sake a great thing), but not so great when you want a specific message.

If I where to post a topic about changing forum rules I would submit an example.

Even now on page two, I have no idea what you would add as a rule to quell this issue that would make sense.

Providing warrant for substantiation is not a matter of being 'right' or 'wrong' as has been applied to me and my intent below.



Substantiate your claim! Encumberment.



Asking a philosophy forum to follow standard philosophical protocol can be considered a 'rant' I suppose by some. To me, it just makes sense.



This is a philosophy forum, it should have a philosophical format. Religion has a religious format. Sex has sexual content. Politics...etc.

It is perfectly reasonable to want a philosophical construct to a philosophy forum... one would think.

well i just think everyones forum pic should be naked from the waste up
wheres that rule, ay?

Rules?.

I agree, I still don't know either.

Way I see it, creative is trying to keep those out of the forum that are interested, but, like me, don't have the means of proper language to express themselves.
There are so many threads I'm reading, and would like to respond to, but I don't have the words, and creative would lock me out of the few I do have thoughts and words for.

It's a direct response to the very position and proclamation that you made in the OP.



What is a "Groundless claim" other than a claim which has no supporting proofs?

You're basically demanding that everyone's claims be supported by proofs.

Otherwise in what sense could their claims be said to be "Groundless"?

From my point of view you don't even seem to understand things when they have been clearly substantiated anyway.

As far as "encumberment " is concerned, you ask,...



As far as I know you're the only one who has groundless thoughts.

I'm not encumbered by groundless thoughts, nor does it bother me if other people aren't able to demonstrate logical reasons for their thoughts.

So I am not encumbered by anything.

I'm happy with the forums just the way they are.

I'm not out to prove anything, nor do I demand that other people prove anything. Although some people seem to be obsessed by a need to prove something. I suggest that you appear to be one of them. I'm not making this as a personal comment. It's just based on this very thread. In the OP you've taken the position that you feel that groundless claims have no place in philosophy and that you feel encumbered by groundless thoughts. To me, if you feel encumbered by this then I'd say that constitutes an obsession. Of course, I confess that this is just a personal perspective. It's not a philosophical assertion. I don't need to prove it, it's a personal perspective, and nothing more.

I'd suggest that you shouldn't let things like this bother you. That's how I deal with things that encumber me. I just let go of them.

Who cares how other people think? Just enjoy people for however they approach the topic. If you feel their claims are "groundless" and their conversation doesn't interest you then just move on to the next person at the party.

What's wrong with that?

Exactly. What kind of a rule could there be?

No "Groundless thoughts" permitted in the philosophy forum?

Who decides what constitutes a "groundless thoughts"?

How much proof must be given for a thought before it is considered not to be "groundless"?

What's the difference between demonstrating that a thought is not "groundless" and proving that it is grounded in logical reasoning?

And do we then dismiss everyone who has intuitive ideas that can't be proven (like solipsism)

In fact, if we dismiss everything that can't be proven ("Groundless thoughts"), then the forums would just sit here idle with pure white blank space and no discussions, because when it comes to philosophical notions no one can prove anything.

All we can do is offer reasons why we feel the way we do, which in some cases may very well be based on pure intuition.

Even the Greatest philosophers in all of history based a lot of their philosophies on intuition.

Aristotle, for example, believe that all things would naturally come to rest because being at rest was the most natural state he thought.

It turns out he was dead wrong. His idea was entirely based on his own intuition. In fact, most Greek Philosophers worked almost intirely on intuition.

Regarding ambiguity in formal language...

What does the following sentence mean?

"I like her cooking."

Although it is a remarkably simple claim, it could be interpreted in a variety of ways.

I like the fact that she cooks.
I like what she cooks.
I like for her to cook.
I like the fact that she is cooking.

Philosophical discussion should get to the underlying meaning beneath a claim, this requires the identification of the prior grounds upon which the claim rests it's validity. Moreover, it should require that the meaning be clarified through the employment and consistent use of the concepts of justification, substantiation, and warrant. Those things, when in use, automatically establish grounds for claims. The validity of a claim can either rest upon directly following an accepted premise as in an inductive argument, or it can cohesively embrace all known examples of evidence through a deductive style of contemplation.

That provides the groundwork for a meaningful philosophical discussion, and constitutes the difference necessary to enable this to be actualized. It is not about being 'right' or 'wrong' to me. It is about making logical sense based upon what is known. Validity is all about grounds.

If one cannot say, "I have reason to believe.", one should not say "I believe." That is the very basis of philosophy.

I have seen so many cases here where the poster dismisses the relevancy of philosophical thought during what is supposed to be a philosophical discussion. Am I the only one who finds that to be absurdly inappropriate?

If philosophy and philosophical thought hold no value to one, then why bother to participate in a philosophical discussion, only to later dismiss the relevancy of philosophy itself when faced with the difficult contemplations that are often posed by it's use?

Awe, poor baby.

I know a lot of your thoughts are indeed based on both intuition and experience that cannot be put into words or described in terms of known physics.

That's doesn't make them any less valid.

Also there is nothing logically inconsistent in any of the philosophical thoughts that you've ever shared with me. You may not be able to 'ground' them in terms of physics or provable facts, but I think you've expressed quite well your intuitive "grounds" which has always impressed me.

Intuition is not to be dismissed lightly.

I think sometimes people forget that these are dating site forums(and free ones at that). Whilst there are some very intelligent people that post here, it is not a high brow site in general.

Something i may add to such discussions myself may not be backed up with any actual proof or solid grounding, and if nobody finds what i say interesting or useful(as is often the case) they are free to ignore it. But dont start telling me that my thoughts and opinions are not valid, because you think they are groundless.

Many people are much more well read and educated on philosophical subjects than i am, but at the end of the day, none of us really know anything, so all our thoughts are as equal as eachother.

I agree. And so when you talking with someone you ask questions that lead to that goal.

If you find that isn't fruitful then either they have no underlying meaning to their claims, or there is a failure of communication, or you simply refuse to accept their reasoning and/or intuition.

In all three of these cases it's up to you to decide whether or not to continue conversing with them.

Why do we need new forum rules for that? If a conversation isn't panning out, just drop it and pick it up with someone else.

What's so hard about that?

Again, I would suggest that if you are seeking debate that ultimately lead to conclusions that cannot be denied, then these forums are probably not your best choice for that. You should seek out a philosophy club that holds refereed debates.

If that's what you yearn for then why not fullfill that desire and go for it?

naw. i'm in favor of less rules not more rules.
let them show their wily intelligence openly and without restraint!

I agree without any need to have your claim substantiated.

I would even go further than this and suggest that even the well-educated professional philosophers understand that when they discuss various philosophies they do so within the limitations of the unsubstantiated premises upon which those particular philosophies are built.

Like you say, in the end none of us know anything with any real certainty. Your guess is as good as mine.

Philosophy, is nothing more, than an exchange of ideas. People believe in what they believe. What you assert here, destroys the very idea of discussion.

Now, i see what you're saying..to a point..yes, it would be nice to understand why a person has a certain view, however, forcing a person to give proof..well, then it isn't philosophy.

I have been doing this for a long time, and there is one solid piece of advice.

Read and (honestly) ponder why a person may have formed an opinion, or have a certain belief. This can be a big help, in the forming of ones own opinion. That is after all truly what philosophy is about.

Trying to understand the beliefs of others will only do one of three things.

Reinforce your own beliefs/opinions

alter/augment your own

or perhaps, change your mind.

There is no losing situation there. Only information, for ones own mental growth, that is what philosophy is about, right?

I am firmly against adding rules which would only stifle discussion. I'm pretty sure we will not be doing that. We have enough rules to ensure civil conversation, beyond that, i see no need for the suffocation of others. Just my .02.

It is about embracing and preserving the very essence of philosophy, not the condemnation of those, like me, who are still learning.

I agree with everything except the statement in bold.

If you had added, "for certain", I would have conceded that certainty is relative to functionality. However as the statement stands I cannot in good faith agree on a purely philosophical basis.




Yup, I am for less as well.
Or lack thereof . . . I agree!

My main problem with religious discussions on this forum is that people's sensitivity to having there beliefs examined is protected, this forum is about science and philosophy where no belief is protected, all ideas are subject to examination as long as the idea and not the person is what is examined . . . .

Just as we have examined creatives idea here and now. I find the idea is not what is at fault, the idea is a good one. Now coming to an implementation that does not fall into one of the very pitfalls that have already been mentioned . . . . yea I do not see one.

I have moderated forums, owned web sites, moderated game servers, and judged debates, and I have to say that making rules that do more good then harm is a tough job!