-
13 votes
-
Repeatedly clicking the first link on Wikipedia ends up at "Philosophy" 97% of the time
27 votes -
The American Aristotle
2 votes -
In Nyaya philosophy only some debates are worth having
8 votes -
Introduction to the Upanishads - The Essence of Vedic Philosophy
5 votes -
Do chairs exist?
2 votes -
Food, beauty, mind
6 votes -
The Fruitful Death of (Some) Modal Collapse Arguments | with Joe Schmid
2 votes -
He taught a Ta-Nehisi Coates essay. Then he was fired.
12 votes -
About meanings that make absolutely no sense
7 votes -
Developing ethical, social, and cognitive competence
3 votes -
Physicists face stagnation if they continue to treat the philosophy of science as a joke
10 votes -
It’s a good thing I don’t care what you think -- How reception shapes philosophy articles
3 votes -
Don’t farm bugs
11 votes -
How Foucault was shielded from scandal by French reverence for intellectuals
6 votes -
Blade Runner and personal identity
7 votes -
Why relativism is the worst idea ever
6 votes -
One Tenth of a Second
5 votes -
The problem with consequentialism
5 votes -
Anger management
8 votes -
Ethical behaviourism and the moral risks of human-robot relationships
4 votes -
Our need to get drunk in company may be innate
4 votes -
The power of concepts under authoritarianism: The life of Arendt’s banality of evil in Turkey
6 votes -
Jean-Paul Sartre: Exalting Black thought and living existentialism
2 votes -
Philosophy has made plenty of progress
5 votes -
Social constructs: An introduction
13 votes -
Shaping the artificial intelligence revolution in philosophy
2 votes -
Are plants animals like any other?
5 votes -
How much should we trust technology?
7 votes -
The ‘great danger’ of technology according to Martin Heidegger
3 votes -
An essay on nothing
4 votes -
The Selfish Fallacy
11 votes -
Scientists and economists sold Karl Popper’s ‘falsification’ idea to the world. They have much to answer for
7 votes -
The private language argument
3 votes -
Can you be a good billionaire?
15 votes -
Arguing: Good and bad faith
4 votes -
What pro wrestling can teach us about the quest for truth
3 votes -
This is the only possible world
4 votes -
A first lesson in meta-rationality
7 votes -
The principle of explosion
6 votes -
How can I better engage Tilderinos on my philosophy posts?
I wouldn't say Tildes is wholly uninterested in philosophy, that is certainly not the case. You're a smart bunch full of intellectual curiosity! I have been making an effort to share more...
I wouldn't say Tildes is wholly uninterested in philosophy, that is certainly not the case. You're a smart bunch full of intellectual curiosity!
I have been making an effort to share more philosophy articles on ~humanities for some time now. They always get a few votes, but discussion is not as common. This is in no way a complaint about our users, philosophy is often highly specific and long-form, and it is hard to predict if a long article will eventually pay off for you.
Generally, philosophy posts that are related to technology, computer science, consciousness/AI, and, to a lesser degree, social change, attract more attention. But there are not as many of those (and I'm personally interested in other stuff too...).
As I said, the purpose of this post is not to complain. I believe the lack of participation in certain topics reflects the size of our community, our most common interests, and our repertoire.
With that in my mind, I would like to know how could I better engage our community in discussions about philosophy. Apart from the themes I mentioned, what are you interested in or curious about?
I could make an effort to include a short introduction or conversation starter on every post, but I'm not sure what is the sentiment regarding that (would that be considered/labeled as noise?). Besides, I'm not a philosopher or anything of the sort, just a layman with a lot of philosophy websites on my feed. So my guess is as good as everyone else's.
It would be awesome if we had a ~humanities.philosophy someday, but I wonder if that is realistic at all...
12 votes -
The appeal to emotion fallacy
6 votes -
You don’t need an identity
5 votes -
What is truth? - Perspectives from Buddhism
6 votes -
Anyone interested in a philosophical logic study group?
Intermittently, for the past 15 years or so, logic has been an interest of mine. Back then I had trouble understanding exactly why certain things people said sounded so right/wrong, and how could...
Intermittently, for the past 15 years or so, logic has been an interest of mine. Back then I had trouble understanding exactly why certain things people said sounded so right/wrong, and how could I come up with proper responses.
Among others, in this time I've read one great book on informal logic (which I lost, unfortunately), quite a few articles, and studied the first chapters of the stupendous Gary Hardegree's symbolic logic.
Even though I love the subject, it is hard to sustain motivation alone. I wish to acquire a firmer grasp of logic and its applications to philosophy. Hence the suggestion of forming a study group.
It is my understanding that most Tilderinos are in STEM, especially areas surrounding computer science. So I anticipate that many users have an understanding of logic that greatly surpasses my own. Because of that, for some, a philosophical logic study group may seem too elementary to be of any value. Others may find it interesting to approach logic from a philosophical point of view.
In any case, the idea is to start from scratch. Besides the ability to read and write in the English language, no previous knowledge is required. No mathematics either.
I have two initial proposals.
1. An Illustrated Book of Bad Arguments
This one is ideal for a light, relaxed approach.
This awesome book describes 19 common logical fallacies using accessible language, with clear examples and suggestive illustrations. Not very technical, and a lot of it is well-known territory if you have an interest in logic. One chapter for each fallacy, each chapter is one page long. A great conversation starter.
2. Symbolic Logic: A First Course, by Gary Hardegree
I would choose this one myself. Hardegree is a wonderful teacher.
This book is one of the best teaching materials I have ever known, and surprisingly superior even to paid alternatives. A more proper introduction to logic. Hardegree is an excellent teacher, introducing concepts with precision in accessible language. The progression is smooth, you never feel that the exercises are either too easy or too hard. And there are plenty of exercises (with answers!) which are great for self-study.
We could start with either one of these books and follow from there. Just meeting once a week (or maybe biweekly) to discuss the chapter or chapter section we studied in that period.
I understand a lot of people like to do that kind of stuff on Discord, so that's a possibility.
5 votes -
If the age-old theory of soulmates is but a theory, why are so many inclined to believe in it?
5 votes -
The fact/opinion distinction
4 votes -
What is truth?
2 votes -
Cancel culture and critical race theory
8 votes -
Semantics and understanding
3 votes