I often get stuck in thinking how to put discussions of ideas into categories. Part of the problem may be that there are complex interplays between the various aspects of philosophy, such as art, science and metaphysics. There are divisions but they are far from absolute.

Even though there are categories, I am glad that these don't show up on the front page. It allows for a blurring of the many aspects of philosophy. As regards to the lounge, my own understanding is that it allows for discussion which is slightly off key from philosophy itself. All in all, let's hope that it allows for the broadest discussion of philosophy.

The philosophy of the arts may be seen as of lesser importance than that of the sciences. I see this as extremely problematic and hope that the way in which all of the categories show up on the front page allows for as little bias as possible in multidisciplinary thinking on this site.

I often get stuck in thinking how to put discussions of ideas into categories. Part of the problem may be that there are complex interplays between the various aspects of philosophy, such as art, science and metaphysics. There are divisions but they are far from absolute. — Jack Cummins

Yes, thanks. I was thinking of deleting this thread because of a strong sense of déjà vu. I've been here before and it's made little difference. Nobody is all that bothered. I agree it's difficult but not impossible. You seem to manage just fine! :smile:

Under 'Categories':
1. The Lounge - Hang out, blether, talk about kittens
2. General Philosophy - It's philosophy but it doesn't fit any of the specialisms
3. Philosophy of Art - Visual art, literature, music, etc. What makes something a work of art? Is there more to artistic taste than personal preference? What makes music meaningful?

As regards to the lounge, my own understanding is that it allows for discussion which is slightly off key from philosophy itself. All in all, let's hope that it allows for the broadest discussion of philosophy. — Jack Cummins

The Lounge: News, politics, cultural - sharing what we are currently listening to (music) and watching (TV/films) but not what we are reading. The latter is placed under 'Learning Centre > Books and Papers. This means it is privileged to be a Main Page thread.
Other more specific threads like @javi2541997's - may well be characterised as 'hanging out' but blethering about pussy cats? Come on!

Even though there are categories, I am glad that these don't show up on the front page. — Jack Cummins

Yes, it's not in-your-face obvious but you can hover over the title and a box will appear showing the category. Your 'How 'Surreal' are Ideas?' > General Philosophy; 'Tragedy or Pleasure'> Philosophy of Art.

The philosophy of the arts may be seen as of lesser importance than that of the sciences. I see this as extremely problematic and hope that the way in which all of the categories show up on the front page allows for as little bias as possible in multidisciplinary thinking on this site. — Jack Cummins

I think the main difference, for me, is between a narrow or re/stricted definition of 'philosophy' with a preference for logical/rational argumentation (a prescribed way of writing an OP) and those with a looser way of exploring thoughts and where they might lead (creative).
And that's fine, right up until a judgement call (by posters/mods) to dismiss the importance of the latter, move to the Lounge, before the ideas can even percolate. Why the rush? What difference does it make when they can be placed/ kept in 'General Discussion' at the very least.

I think I've said more than enough. Making a mountain out of a molehill. I never learn :roll:

Other more specific threads like javi2541997's - may well be characterised as 'hanging out' but blethering about pussy cats? Come on! — Amity

Hanging out? What does it mean? Sorry, you used too English slang that I hardly followed your comment.

'Hang out' as per the category description of 'Lounge' Not my words!

Javi, you are more than capable of using google, online dictionaries to read the different meanings.

I know what 'hanging out' in English means, but I did not get it in the context of posting threads here. Fine, I get it now.

Javi, you are more than capable of using google, online dictionaries to read the different meanings. — Amity

Yep, but I trust you more than Google and other online sites. When I interact with you, I am having a conversation with a native speaker. This is obviously better than Google.

OK. To provide even more specific context - 'Hanging out' as related to your OP's final paragraph.

Since I am very sentient to these poems, I ask you if you know anything similar to them, and I will very much appreciate it if you want to join me this windy Friday in Madrid to read nostalgic poems and drink sake.

This imagined setting made it more informal. In that respect more 'Lounge' material.

:up:

Cool. At least you agree with me that we still can learn interesting things in an informal context or 'Lounge' material. :grin:

That isn't the point. We can learn 'interesting things' anywhere in TPF.
But I'm done. Spent enough time here. Thanks.

Philosophy itself may be about making a mountain out of a mole hill. On this site, if may be more about what is seen and what is forgotten. The lounge is useful, and I do look at it personally, but it may be the more hidden than most live aspects of philosophy debates.

I have created a few topics in the lounge and see this as worthwhile when the areas of discussion are more generic rather than about philosophy as such. Nevertheless, it all remains so arbitrary and unpredictable as what is important is so changeable. What may be lounge discussion may be the heated debates of philosophy in the future. This applies to the aspects of politics and contemporary life which may may be the raw aspects of philosophical concerns. The lounge areas may be live aspects of the generation of future topics at the core of philosophy.

We can learn 'interesting things' anywhere in TPF. — Amity

I don't think we can learn anything worthy from Donald Trump and 2024 U.S. Elections threads. But that's just my opinion, and I don't want to force you to think like me, obviously.

Thank you both for your interesting thoughts and opinions.

I don't think we can learn anything worthy from Donald Trump and 2024 U.S. Elections threads. — javi2541997

I tend to find them more interesting threads - they explore, more or less in practice, the nature of politics, value, truth and social policy. I get less from threads on perception or reality.


Richard Rorty said that 'the purpose of philosophy is not to discover timeless truths, but rather to provide better ways of living and understanding.' This opens things up. Philsophy seems to be one of those subjects where the framing is wide or narrow depending upon one's biases.

Here is a short and famous piece he wrote on poetry and philosophy.

https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poetrymagazine/articles/68949/the-fire-of-life

Richard Rorty said that 'the purpose of philosophy is not to discover timeless truths, but rather to provide better ways of living and understanding.' This opens things up. Philsophy seems to be one of those subjects where the framing is wide or narrow depending upon one's biases. — Tom Storm

I haven't read much, if anything, by Richard Rorty. However, I find myself in agreement with the quote. Looking further at the role and aim of philosophy:

Because Rorty did not believe in certainty or absolute truth, he did not advocate the philosophical pursuit of such things.

Instead, he believed that the role of philosophy is to conduct an intellectual “conversation” between contrasting but equally valid forms of intellectual inquiry—including science, literature, politics, religion, and many others—with the aim of achieving mutual understanding and resolving conflicts. — Britannica - Richard Rorty

[my bolds]

Yes. It does depend on what you think philosophy is about. I prefer the broader, more expansive outlook, so as to appreciate and enjoy a fuller life. TPF does provide that opportunity and I think its inclusion of more literature, e.g. the 'Short Story and Poetry' events, says much for it. Not sure whether that is continuing... @Baden?
Nevertheless, its Guidelines still seem to privilege a certain form and style of philosophical writing i.e. argumentative. Perhaps I'm wrong...

Here is a short and famous piece he wrote on poetry and philosophy.

https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poetrymagazine/articles/68949/the-fire-of-life — Tom Storm

This is beautiful and so sad given that it took imminent death to realise that he wished he'd spent more of his life with verse. To live more fully. He said that his thoughts hadn't turned to religion or philosophy (even his own) but what had been of use and comfort was 'Poetry'. When 'memories are amply stocked with verses' it's like having close friends nearby.

I appreciate this and now keen to know more about his philosophy. I think it must have provided sustenance to him and others as a way of looking at life. Perhaps it is written poetically?

Thank you, Tom, for a meaningful post :sparkle:

It probably doesn't fit in Philosophy of Art, but I might not have moved it to the Lounge if it had been placed there originally, because I just like to see threads about art, literature, etc.

Anyway, the germ of some possible philosophical content in the OP is probably this bit:

that's precisely what I feel when I read poems: Unbearable nostalgia — javi2541997

If Javi had made a brief argument as to how and why this is an important part of the appreciation of literature, that would have been enough to make it belong unambiguously on the main page, in my opinion.

If Javi had made a brief argument as to how and why this is an important part of the appreciation of literature, that would have been enough to make it belong unambiguously on the main page, in my opinion. — Jamal

I agree. My intention was not to debate but to share poems where we could feel that 'unbearable nostalgia' that Kundera talked about in his novel. For this reason, I thought The Lounge was the correct place for the thread because I am honest and I admit that I didn't put in a high philosophical effort.

It probably doesn't fit in Philosophy of Art, but I might not have moved it to the Lounge if it had been placed there originally, because I just like to see threads about art, literature, etc. — Jamal

Yes. I understand. It's difficult to know where it would best fit. The PoA category has a variety of threads. Some I noted with titles like 'Beautiful Structures' or 'Beautiful Things' are not of the argumentative type.
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/2678/beautiful-things/p1
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/3112/beautiful-structures/p1
So, if not there, where else would you suggest?

If Javi had made a brief argument as to how and why this is an important part of the appreciation of literature, that would have been enough to make it belong unambiguously on the main page, in my opinion. — Jamal

Yes, but I think he wasn't in that theoretical frame of mind. He primarily just wanted to share poems, thoughts or recommendations - just as he does in the Main Page 'Currently Reading' thread.

From his OP:

After reading a poem, Kundera, as a narrator of the story, says: The purpose of the poetry is not to dazzle with an astonishing thought, but to make one moment of existence unforgettable and worthy of unbearable nostalgia.

Isn't that 'philosophical' enough? It could have led to more...but hey, that was up to @javi2541997 and I need to accept that...I suppose :sparkle:

Isn't that 'philosophical' enough? — Amity

It certainly would be if explicated and developed, because it's a good thought.

Yes, but I think he wasn't in that theoretical frame of mind. He primarily just wanted to share poems, thoughts or recommendations — Amity

It's because it's non-theoretical that it probably doesn't belong in a philosophy category.

just as he does in the Main Page 'Currently Reading' thread — Amity

Yes, that thread is something of an anomaly, though I'm happy with where it is.

It certainly would be if explicated and developed, because it's a good thought. — Jamal

I agree. It was a promising start. Unfulfilled.

It's because it's non-theoretical that it probably doesn't belong in a philosophy category. — Jamal

'Theoretical' was a bad choice of words on my part - I meant 'argumentative'.
Philosophy includes 'intellectual conversation' - as per Rorty above - no? It's not always about theories and debate. But hey, I agree, the thread is nothing more than a sharing of poems.

Yes, that thread is something of an anomaly, though I'm happy with where it is. — Jamal

Yeah. I wonder why :chin: :razz:
If started by anyone else other than the site owner, then it 'probably' would have been moved!
The privilege of power, huh?! :smile:

If started by anyone else other than the site owner, then it 'probably' would have been moved!
The privilege of power, huh?! :smile: — Amity

I don't think so. If I recall correctly, I started it because there had been one on the old forum, and if anyone else had done it that would've also been fine.

f I recall correctly, I started it because there had been one on the old forum, and if anyone else had done it that would've also been fine. — Jamal

Understood. Back at the start...but now things have changed. Anyway, I'm moving on. It's been good to talk and gain other points of view. Thanks :sparkle:

:up:

Here is a short and famous piece he wrote on poetry and philosophy.

https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poetrymagazine/articles/68949/the-fire-of-life — Tom Storm

Not to be unkind to Mr. Rorty - or you - but his explication is very far from my thoughts about, or experience of, poetry.

Yes, that thread is something of an anomaly, though I'm happy with where it is. — Jamal

I agree. Many times I've been steered in new philosophical and scientific directions by posts on that thread.

Not to be unkind to Mr. Rorty - or you - but his explication is very far from my thoughts about, or experience of, poetry. — T Clark

So? I don't share Rorty's views and, as I have said elsewhere, I have little interest in poetry. But I am interested in what others think, particularly influential philosophers.

Not to be unkind to Mr. Rorty - or you - but his explication is very far from my thoughts about, or experience of, poetry.
— T Clark

So? I don't share Rorty's views and, as I have said elsewhere, I have little interest in poetry. But I am interested in what others think, particularly influential philosophers. — Tom Storm

I knew you don't have much interest in poetry, which is why I was surprised by your comment. Rorty's explication of poetry reminds me of an atheist trying to give an open-minded and sympathetic explanation of religion without really having any idea what it's about.

You say "So?" Hey, you brought the whole thing up.

You say "So?" Hey, you brought the whole thing up. — T Clark

I only said 'so?' because you didn't explain your comment. Now you have explained it. :wink:

Rorty's explication of poetry reminds me of an atheist trying to give an open-minded and sympathetic explanation of religion without really having any idea what it's about. — T Clark

That's a good line. But does this imply that Rorty has poetry wrong and therefore can't really be valuing it properly? Or are you saying that his way of understanding and valuing poetry is different to yours?

That's a good line. But does this imply that Rorty has poetry wrong and therefore can't really be valuing it properly? Or are you saying that his way of understanding and valuing poetry is different to yours? — Tom Storm

I think Rorty's explanation of poetry shows he has no real grasp of how it works or what it does. As I noted, he seems like he wants to be open-minded about something he doesn't really think is very important. He says a couple of things in this article that made me laugh:

In that essay, as in previous writings, I used "poetry" in an extended sense. I stretched Harold Bloom's term "strong poet" to cover prose writers who had invented new language games for us to play — people like Plato, Newton, Marx, Darwin, and Freud as well as versifiers like Milton and Blake. These games might involve mathematical equations, or inductive arguments, or dramatic narratives, or (in the case of the versifiers) prosodic innovation...

...I now wish that I had spent somewhat more of my life with verse. This is not because I fear having missed out on truths that are incapable of statement in prose. There are no such truths; there is nothing about death that Swinburne and Landor knew but Epicurus and Heidegger failed to grasp. — Richard Rorty - The Fire of Life

This is such bullshit. He claims poetry is important and then explains it away as nothing significantly different from other types of intellectual endeavor. And this made me groan:

We are now more able than Plato was to acknowledge our finitude — to admit that we shall never be in touch with something greater than ourselves. We hope instead that human life here on earth will become richer as the centuries go by because the language used by our remote descendants will have more resources than ours did. Our vocabulary will stand to theirs as that of our primitive ancestors stands to ours. — Richard Rorty - The Fire of Life

This is so arrogant and pompous - to claim that we are, that he is, somehow intellectually and spiritually more advanced than Plato and Aristotle (or for me, Lao Tzu).

I got ya. Nicely put. Nevertheless I think I tend to sympathise with Rorty on this to some extent, but I totally see how for many his take would be anathema. Rorty is a divisive figure. My view is that what humans do is invent stories, some of these are more useful for certain functions than others, but at no point do we make contact with reality as such, we just manufacture defeasible, contingent and often poetic understandings of our situation. I can see the argument that Platonism (and its children) has been superseded (regardless of whatever wisdom there may be in Plato's broader writings). I think what Rorty is getting at is the (no doubt debatable) proposition that the quest for the transcendent is over and pointless and that poetry will do instead. Particularly if you are dying. All we really have is words and language games and we really don't know how (or if) words map on reality.

But this is too small a matter and too big a subject for me to venture much further.

Anyway, the germ of some possible philosophical content in the OP is probably this bit:

that's precisely what I feel when I read poems: Unbearable nostalgia
— javi2541997

If Javi had made a brief argument as to how and why this is an important part of the appreciation of literature, that would have been enough to make it belong unambiguously on the main page, in my opinion. — Jamal

I'm returning to this with an apology to @javi2541997 if I've made this too personal and critical. I've enjoyed very much participating in his thoughtful and engaging thread. Thank you :sparkle:

I still think that it has 'philosophical content'. I disagree about the requirement for an 'argument'.

Framing it in terms of how it fits into an appreciation of literature shifts focus away from the concept and sense of 'unbearable nostalgia'; how it can be shown via poetry and reflection.
This can help us understand the human experience. This is achieved as it stands, with no argument.
'Philosophical content' lies in the poems with experience and thoughts intertwining. The impact and compact nature of verse can speak for itself. For some.

***

Richard Rorty - dying from pancreatic cancer - picked out a few poems from memory:

Lines of Swinburne's "Garden of  Proserpine":

We thank with brief thanksgiving
Whatever gods may be
That no life lives for ever;
That dead men rise up never;
That even the weariest river
Winds somewhere safe to sea.

and Landor's "On His Seventy-Fifth Birthday":

Nature I loved, and next to Nature, Art;
I warmed both hands before the fire of life,
It sinks, and I am ready to depart.

I found comfort in those slow meanders and those stuttering embers. I suspect that no comparable effect could have been produced by prose. Not just imagery, but also rhyme and rhythm were needed to do the job. In lines such as these, all three conspire to produce a degree of compression, and thus of  impact, that only verse can achieve.
— Poetry Foundation - The Fire of Life

Interesting to consider how the dying might turn to poetry to find comfort. Rorty's comment about giving it more attention might remind some of Socrates' turn to verse before his death.

I'm returning to this with an apology to javi2541997 if I've made this too personal and critical. I've enjoyed very much participating in his thoughtful and engaging thread. Thank you — Amity

No worries, Amity. Please, don't think I got upset with you because I didn't. I appreciate the value that you gave to my thread. I love literature and I enjoy sharing comments and feedback here. But it is true that my thread is not philosophical enough. My aim is not even debate with others but trying to read more poems that can make me feel that 'unbearable nostalgia' that Kundera referred to in his novel.
Poetry may have a bit of philosophical content per se, but I mainly focused on nostalgic poems. These have a lot of art but not philosophical content. If I feel nostalgia reading a poem it is just a personal emotion of mine that escapes from rational thinking...

The thread is doing the work I was expecting, so everything is fine. :smile: