Renaming the "Skeptic vs. Proponent Discussions" subforum

I understand the intention of reclaiming the word ‘skepitc’ But that ship has probably sailed and for the sake of search engine relavence, should be kept in some form. I’d be interested in examples of posts that depart from the original ideals of skepticism.

On a related note, it would be nice to reclaim ‘philosphy’. For the ancients philosphy was a commentary on how might live a considered, worthwhile life. It was for every man and it was useful. Compare that with the precious introspection and obtuse inaccessible academic wordplay that passes for philosophy today, and you realise the original skeptics had less to put up with.

You are a curious creature, Malf. Why do my avocados keep going bad, any ideas ?

Under materialism, life has meaning and is worthwhile. I think what you are referring to is that the sort of meaning you hope for is not to be found under materialism. Similarly, the sort of meaning I hope for is not to be found under idealism. However, I hope I am tolerant and sensitive enough not to put down idealism because of that.

Linda

Oh, life can be worthless under certain kinds of Idealism. I'm referring specifically to what [modern] Materialists in general claim about their position - there's no free will, no transcendent values/morals, and it all ends in oblivion.

Some Idealists believe similarly, or at least [hold] 1-2 out of those three negations of worthwhile life. (I don't think you need all three personally.)

It does get a bit tricky, because the ancient Greeks and Asians at least had different ideas of "matter" and "materialism". I guess I could say Mechanistic-Materialism, or Reductionist-Materialism means life is worthless. Similarly Mechanistic-Idelaism where we all dissolve into the One Mind would also make life worthless, at least as we usually define a life of worth.

edit: Note I told Bernardo I think his own reading of the free will question didn't seem to offer the possibility of a meaningful life but this was years ago so not sure he still holds to that view.

And it just went further and further away from those concerns in the 20th century, but that's as much the fault of anglo-saxon analytic philosophy (which itself had little use for "precious introspection") as continental philosophy.

Indeed, this is what Brittanica.com has to say ...

Introspection
PHILOSOPHY AND PSYCHOLOGY

By 1940 both the concept of dualism and the word introspection had largely disappeared from scientific psychology in the United States, where behaviourism, which rejected the significance of consciousness, ruled.

Indeed, this is what Brittanica.com has to say ...

I suspect, as David Ray Griffin as argued, that the Church wanted Matter to be dead and all spirituality to rest with God in Heaven. And so science/philosophy bent itself in that direction.

But it arguably goes deeper, to the very way we think about the world and the way things seem "obvious" to us precisely because we are the descendants of those who had political reasons to think of the world in a certain way.

You are a curious creature, Malf. Why do my avocados keep going bad, any ideas ?

Do not remove the stems under any circs. Do not buy avocados without stems, or that look overly handled.

Preferably buy direct from your local grower

Do not remove the stems under any circs. Do not buy avocados without stems, or that look overly handled.

Preferably buy direct from your local grower

I didn't know that, Malf, thanks !  I've never seen avocados with stems in a British supermarket. 50% of the avocados I buy
have some dark/black on the inside or a kind of grainy dotted discolouration when I open them and I have to very carefully try to scrape out the areas which look to be dodgy.

Last question. Can one of these discoloured avocados make someone ill ? I love them BTW didn't used to but as I got older I became less sceptical that they were good. Apologies to the mods/thread.

I very much agree with you. However, I think skeptics will be treated as hostile challengers no matter how sweet the name.

Linda

On the latter, you're probably right. My intention was that we collectively should try to move towards a less confrontational style. Not just in naming, but in setting a direction for the forum.

On the latter, you're probably right. My intention was that we collectively should try to move towards a less confrontational style. Not just in naming, but in setting a direction for the forum.

Moving towards a less confrontational style is desirable. But of course that depends on how both sides behave. If people behave in such a way as to provoke as much confrontation as possible, they are really not entitled to complain when  confrontation is the result.

On the latter, you're probably right. My intention was that we collectively should try to move towards a less confrontational style. Not just in naming, but in setting a direction for the forum.

I very much agree that a less confrontational style (which potentially could be influenced by naming), would go a long way towards making this forum more interesting and useful, as well as contributing towards a general inclination to do good (to counteract what seems to be a marked decline in public discourse generally/globally). However, as long as some of the major proponent players on this forum insist on the "Stuck on Stupid" perspective, it will take more than a name change to change the culture.

Linda

However, as long as some of the major proponent players on this forum insist on the "Stuck on Stupid" perspective, it will take more than a name change to change the culture.

 
Really?  This seems a shockingly ignorant thing to say.