Interesting, I've found that I agree with you 75% of the time or so on the art stuff, but someone like 180 Proof is someone I've disagreed with a lot (just by reading, not by interaction). If anything, maybe that just throws a further layer of complexity unto the issue. I agree with x, who disagrees with y, who agrees with z, who sort of agrees with x, who doesn't love y, etc. Complexity of disagreement.

I'm curious if anybody here feels like there are other people here who generally agree with them on more or less their whole philosophical view? And if so, who? — Pfhorrest

But anyway, I highly doubt this. Even the people I tend to agree with most are people I still have differences with. I seem to remember you and I having a conversation in which I mentioned the fact that I agreed with you a lot (on an issue, probably artistic), but I felt that that made discourse boring. I can see how this thread might be a little bit of a response to that. But it's kind of true. Disagreement fuels the fire of discussion, no? I guess the ideal is situations where there's "shades" of disagreement, but within the shades there's a sort of "general color" of alignment of ideas.

If anything, maybe that just throws a further layer of complexity unto the issue. I agree with x, who disagrees with y, who agrees with z, who sort of agrees with x, who doesn't love y, etc. Complexity of disagreement. — Noble Dust

Yeah, that's generally what I experience here. Although, not so much the thing about non-commutative agreement, but agreement and disagreement on different topics. That's sort of what I'm wondering about in this thread... does anyone find that they have a kind of general agreement with anybody, more than just this piecemeal agreement on one thing here or there?

Disagreement fuels the fire of discussion, no? I guess the ideal is situations where there's "shades" of disagreement, but within the shades there's a sort of "general color" of alignment of ideas. — Noble Dust

Yeah, that's the thing. I perceive the spectrum of philosophical opinions in two main camps, that I actually visualize as literally black and white: religious, statist, capitalist, generally authoritarian and hierarchical opinions in the "white" camp; and nihilist, relativist, subjectivist, egotist, solipsist, etc, opinions in the "black" camp. I consider myself opposed to both of them, off of that spectrum. And I see plenty of other people mixing and matching "black" and "white" opinions on different topics (most frequently, being black or white about reality and the opposite color about morality), and occasionally having opinions off of that spectrum on some topics too. But I've almost never seen anybody who seems "over here" with me, in the same area of the broader, multidimensional spectrum. (That's actually a big reason why I started writing my Codex: when studying philosophy, I was unable to find any known and named philosophical stance that broadly fit my own views, only piecemeal agreement on this topic with this guy and that topic with that guy, so I figured I had something new that deserved to be written down).

I'm wondering if everybody perceives themselves as all alone with nobody of the same "general color" as them, or if everybody else feels like they're in good company with like-minded people who just have "shades of disagreement".

It's the people who nearly agree with us we can't stand :wink:

There's a large benefit (in fun packets) to trying to see how a reasonable person would accept the view of your opponent (except for psychokillers and what not).

This brings some interesting stuff into view, like how a conflict is constituted. Is it just a conflict over semantics (Chalmers has a test for that)? Or is it an emotional conflict at base (any conflict over naturalism usually is)? Or is it a matter of knowledge gaps (climate change conflicts)?

I haven't debated anything with you, but we could try picking one of your favorites and you change your side to your opponent's. Or not. You can do it on your own too.

I can only think of one person here who I feel is generally in the same philosophical camp as me overall, 180 Proof, with whom I can only recall one disagreement on one topic — Pfhorrest

I don't recall any disagreement with 180, but that doesn't mean my little pup tent is in the same campground.

I like @csalisbury. Comes up with a lot of interesting stuff I dig. Plenty of others too, but that's enough lovefest for one thread.

It's the people who nearly agree with us we can't stand :wink: — bongo fury

I have noticed that, especially in politics, where right-wing people disagreeing with me feels trivial, because of course they do, while other left-wing people disagreeing with me actually hurts. I think it may be related to the Uncanny Valley effect: someone sufficiently different is just an Other, but someone who's a lot like us but slightly off is just... sick somehow, disgusting.

I haven't debated anything with you, but we could try picking one of your favorites and you change your side to your opponent's. Or not. You can do it on your own too. — frank

On most topics I'm not even sure which position would be "the opposite", since I can usually identify two positions that differ from me on a given topic in different equally dramatic ways. I usually wound up at my stance on a given topic after trying out a bunch of different opposing views and not finding any of them a comfortable fit.

I can only think of one person here who I feel is generally in the same philosophical camp as me overall, 180 Proof, with whom I can only recall one disagreement on one topic — Pfhorrest

I don't recall any disagreement with 180, but that doesn't mean my little pup tent is in the same campground. — praxis

That's why I mentioned that second part about him laying out his whole philosophy in my other thread. There are lots of people who I can't recall much disagreement with, but don't really know what else the rest of their philosophy is about.

if you like my posts, you'll love my new patreon. exclusive content, some skin pics. Affordable monthly costs. Sometimes I'll post my roommate's netflix password on an exclusive snapchat.

@Pfhorrest I don't think I've met anyone here who has the same global system as me (probably because I'm a little volatile and can't put one together) I've met a lot of people whose sensibilities I feel in tune with. @Baden @fdrake @unenlightenedcome to mind. There was also someone here I vibed with a lot who isn't here any more, 'tgw'. These are the posters whose way of thinking I trust - and when they venture out and follow their train of thought wherever it goes, I'm eager to follow. I might agree or disagree, but I trust them to weigh those disagreements and respond thoughtfully, and vice versa.@Molierehelped me understand Kant. @StreetlightXcomes to mind too. He helped me understand a lot when I was cutting my teeth and, though we've since come to disagree on some things, I really enjoy sparring with him, or discussing what we still agree on.

if you like my posts, you'll love my new patreon. exclusive content, some skin pics. Affordable monthly costs. Sometimes I'll post my roommate's netflix password on an exclusive snapchat. — csalisbury

How much to get a tattoo of your face on my face? Let's start a trend.

I agree too much. I wish I disagreed more, that way I would be able to respond to a replies to me more often than I do now.

I’ve found philosophical discussions alienating. Can’t figure out a good reason why

I'm wondering if everybody perceives themselves as all alone with nobody of the same "general color" as them, or if everybody else feels like they're in good company with like-minded people who just have "shades of disagreement". — Pfhorrest

That's an odd wish, from my point of view, to have a camp of people that agree with you on everything. But you strike me as an opinionated fellow, with a definite position on everything, so I can kind of see how you would expect all water to flow to the same level. I like to think of myself as too much of a chameleon to be the same color with anyone (though I am probably deluding myself).

I think it may be related to the Uncanny Valley effect: someone sufficiently different is just an Other, but someone who's a lot like us but slightly off is just... sick somehow, disgusting. — Pfhorrest

Intraspecific competition is the most vicious.

I'm curious if anybody here feels like there are other people here who generally agree with them on more or less their whole philosophical view? And if so, who? — Pfhorrest

I don't even agree with myself much of the time, especially my own "whole philosophical view" ... but positions you & I often take, Pfhorrest, do line-up or complement one another more often than not. I feel more or less sympatico with Maw, StreetlightX, Baden, Bitter Crank, Banno, and a handful of other refugees from the old, now-defunct, PhilosophyForums site.

I have learned a lot here but I don't really belong,
When I have tried to contest matters in view of what most interests me, it is not interesting to others.
It is rare when people are not talking past each other, on this forum or in Life.

That's an odd wish, from my point of view, to have a camp of people that agree with you on everything. But you strike me as an opinionated fellow, with a definite position on everything, so I can kind of see how you would expect all water to flow to the same level. I like to think of myself as too much of a chameleon to be the same color with anyone (though I am probably deluding myself). — SophistiCat

It's not so much of a wish, as a wonder.

But yeah, sometimes it is a wish too. I have very well-defined positions now, but I have moved through many different positions over the course of my life and education, and it wasn't until I got out here in the metaphorical wilderness of seemingly-uncharted or at least little-traveled territory that I found myself no longer having fellow-travelers going down the same path as me.

It seems like off on other paths I used to be on, or those I intentionally avoided, there are still big happy groups, who may be shouting across the divides at each other, but all have each others' backs to assure each other they're on the right path too.

While being out here by myself, when everyone in every direction is shouting "wrong way!", even though it looks clearly to my mind that their ways are wrong, it still makes me heart ask "is this the wrong way?" And it's comforting when someone else thinks so too.

Disagreement fuels the fire of discussion, no? I guess the ideal is situations where there's "shades" of disagreement, but within the shades there's a sort of "general color" of alignment of ideas. — Noble Dust

Yeah, that's the thing. I perceive the spectrum of philosophical opinions in two main camps, that I actually visualize as literally black and white: religious, statist, capitalist, generally authoritarian and hierarchical opinions in the "white" camp; and nihilist, relativist, subjectivist, egotist, solipsist, etc, opinions in the "black" camp. — Pfhorrest

I thought I would share, in elaboration, that I also see 2 or 4 other broad camps of philosophies, mixing and matching and tempering these black-and-white poles in different ways. In an old version of my Codex, that was going to be a dialogue, I planned to have four (or possibly six) characters representing those broad perspectives as my interlocutors, so maybe I'll just dig out some old descriptions of them:

Tina was what you might call a "preppy": an upstanding all-American citizen with excellent grades from a private college-preparatory school, and even better grades here at the university. She was by far the cleanest, most well-mannered, organized, and best prepared of all my friends. As a business-law major with eventual political aspirations, she knew where she was going in life and had mapped out how to get there, and she wasn't going to let "sex, drugs, and rock 'n' roll" get in her way. This disciplined and dedicated attitude was in fact the only thing which really held our friendship together, as I shared a similarly clean lifestyle (unlike most of my other friends), but beyond that our differences of opinion were vast. Had it not been for our adjacent seating in a class on Philosophy of Law, I doubt we would ever have met.

You see, quite unlike myself, Tina was an avowed theist and statist who happily supported the mixing of church and state; though she did so with the best of intentions, of course. While I could mostly agree with her on what she would consider "moral" issues of lifestyle choice, our thoughts quickly diverged on the question of why those choices were superior; and especially on whether they should be choices at all, or rather mandatory as she would prefer.

For Tina, faith in her religion was the core of her entire outlook on life. She believed the Christian Bible was the absolute, literal truth, handed down from God himself; that it contained all the answers to life's most important questions; and that a morally legitimate state ought to enforce its law here on Earth. To deny the legitimacy of the Bible was to attack the foundation of her entire philosophy; to her, it was tantamount to declaring the world a meaningless, amoral chaos. In Tina's worldview, faith in her sacred text was the only hope of escaping such nihilistic despair, and the only hope of finding truth and goodness in the world.

[...]

Frank was about as different from Tina as you could possibly imagine. He was a "punk" with a mohawk and piercings, who smoked like a chimney and drank like a sailor. He had never declared a major when his parents sent him here to school, and he had finally dropped out last fall after three grueling years of barely slacking his way through classes. He had stayed in town rather than return home to face Mom and Dad's wrath, and had been couch surfing in the local punk community ever since they had cut off his rent.

But for all his academic failings, Frank was far from stupid. In fact he was quite bright, and read plenty of philosophical literature in his own free time; his favorite place to sleep was at the local anarchist book store. He only faltered in school for lack of effort, not for lack of talent. He didn't care where he was going in life and saw no point in jumping through so many hoops to reach a destination that was ultimately meaningless. You see, Frank was not only a self-professed atheist and anarchist, but a complete nihilist, a solipsist, and an egoist, who thought everything was exactly as Tina faithfully held it wasn't — meaningless and amoral — and he thought her a deluded fool for believing otherwise.

[...]

This line of argument was common for John, who as something of an overachiever had always looked down on average folk as ignorant and backward, especially after his mistreatment as an unpopular "geek" in his youth. Driven to prove himself, anything less than perfect scores on any test he took were simply unacceptable to him, and so he pushed himself forward even harder than Tina did. He was a skilled computer programmer and something of a mathematical genius by now, but he applied his efforts here at the university to the more practical major of aerospace engineering with the ultimate goal of helping pioneer mankind's expansion to other worlds beyond the Earth.

[...]

Quite the contrary, Jackie was an easy-going social butterfly in most respects, who somehow was friends with just about everyone, no matter how different they might be from her or each other. Though no slouch at other subjects, she preferred to dedicate her life to art, music, and generally making beauty wherever she could. Here at the university primarily for self-enrichment, she was majoring in art history, about which she was quite passionate. Her passion for beauty was exceeded only by her passion for social justice; like Frank, she was very anti-establishment, but whereas his expression thereof was to ignore the law or break it out of spite, she was a revolutionary socialist who sought to inspire a democratic uprising and drastically reform society for the better. Being the archetypal "hippy", her ultimate goal in life was to help return everyone to a quiet rural life style, where they could live in touch with the land and with their families and each other. She thus disagreed with John quite vehemently on many issues, though she was tactful enough that it did not compromise their friendship.

[...the rest are unfinished notes to myself never worked into proper narrative or dialogue...]

Jackie point out that Tina is a transcendental realist and an austere moralist - objective but not phenomenal in both factual and normative matters - and thus she is a fideist. Because she is internally liberal but not critical, she is externally critical but not liberal: "We don't have to answer to you, we're right, so do/think as we say".

John point out that Frank is a solipsist (thus implicitly an empiricist) and an egoist (thus implicitly a hedonist) - phenomenal but not objective in both factual and normative matters - because he is a skeptic. Because he is internally critical but not liberal, he is externally liberal but not critical: "Think and do whatever you want, but we're all equally wrong".

John considers himself to be rejecting fideism without buying into nihilism. On factual matters he leans more toward Tina's side of things, affirming the existence of a mind-independent reality, but rather than Tina's transcendental realism, John's factual position is partly phenomenalized — (factual) materialism, the position that only things which have some empirical impact are real, though they have an existence beyond that appearance as well. Because he fails to distinguish between facts and norms, and because norms per se have little or no empirical presence, on normative matters he leans more toward Frank's side of things, skeptical of all normative claims, but rather than Frank's egoism, a concern about populism leads John's normative position to be partly objectivized — a meritocratic individualist, he views morality as a personal matter for each individual to pursue on his own, with no obligation on anyone else except as they be persuaded to accept by contract.

But Jackie contests that John goes too non-objective in his rejection of morality, and he doesn't go phenomenal enough in his rejection of transdendence, seeming to equate pure empiricism with solipsism; the latter of which, combined with a sense of elitism in reaction to his concerns about populism, leads him dangerously close to fideism about factual matters, in the form of scientism, or at least so Jackie claims.

But John flatly denies his adherence to scientism, though he still shows inklings of it in his distrust of popular opinion; and when pushed by me, he concedes there are undue traces of transcendence implied in his (factual) materialism as stated.

Jackie too considers herself to be rejecting fideism without buying into nihilism. On normative matters, she leans more toward Tina's side of things, affirming the existence of a morality beyond personal desires, but rather than Tina's austere moralism, Jackie's normative position is partly phenomenalized — (normative) materialism, the position that only things with some impact our quality of life are morally relevant, though they have moral relevance beyond just the pleasures and pains they induce. Because she too fails to distinguish between facts and norms, and because facts per se have little or no normative import, on factual matters she leans more toward Frank's side of things, skeptical of all factual claims, but rather than Frank's solipsism, a concern about elitism leads Jackie's factual position to be partly objectivized — a social constructivist, she views reality as something of a "collective dream", a social fiction existing only as a power relation between groups, most properly defined by majority consensus.

To this, John retorts that Jackie goes too non-objective in her rejection of reality, and she doesn't go phenomenal enough in her rejection of austerity, seeming to equate pure hedonism with egoism; the latter of which, combined with a sense of populism in reaction to her concerns about elitism, leads her dangerously close to fideism about normative matters, in the form of communism, or at least so John claims.

But Jackie flatly denies her adherence to communism, though she still shows inklings of it in her distrust of private enterprise; and when pushed, she concedes there are undue traces of austerity implied in her (normative) materialism as stated.

[...and these notes might have been turned into two other characters instead of pinned on me...]

Somewhere in here, Frank tries to pin down my position, and paints me as a "scientistic-communist": a materialist in both the factual and normative senses, supporting a form of earthly authority in the form of panels of experts checked only by each other and dictating what is right to the masses. I set him straight, by disclaiming the transcendent aspects of both senses of materialism, and the authority of experts to dictate what is right.

In response Tina tries to pin me down instead, and paints me as an "individualist idealist", supporting a society of independent people each pursuing their own ideals of truth and goodness unhindered by the nay-saying of anyone who might want to call them wrong. I set her straight too, by affirming the need for some kind of mutual criticism grounded in common experience. — an old, incomplete version of the Codex circa 2008-2018

So basically you've got:

- 1. The fideistic archetype

- 2. The nihilistic archetype

- 3. The scientistic/libertarian "silicon valley brogrammer" archetype, who is like a tempered version of 1 about descriptive matters and like a tempered version of 2 about prescriptive matters

- 4. The constructivist/Marxist "social justice warrior" archetype, who is like a tempered version of 2 about descriptive matters and like a tempered version of 1 about prescriptive matters

- Someone like 3 about descriptive matters and like 4 about prescriptive matters

- Someone like 4 about descriptive matters and like 3 about prescriptive matters

I don't know that I necessarily look out for agreement among other so much as shared approaches or shared concerns. The thing I value most with others are questions of the kind: 'what about X?' or 'what impacts would taking Y into account have on this?': forging connections, extending the field of inquiry, bringing something new to the table - this kind of thing is far more invaluable to me than agreement which, at its limit, might lead to nothing more than silence.

he thing I value most with others are questions of the kind: 'what about X?' or 'what impacts would taking Y into account have on this?': forging connections, extending the field of inquiry, bringing something new to the table — StreetlightX

Agreed, that was what I found more enjoyable about my time studying philosophy at university.

I arrange the forum into a few tendencies.

There's the Wittgenstein monster.
There's the libertarian keyboard warriors.
There's the leftist keyboard warriors.
There's the mystics.
There's the denizens of the shoutbox/Lounge.
There's the weirdo continental metaphysics people.
There's outright bongclouds.
There's the "learn math better" machine.
There's the first fumblings in philosophy group, who are mostly new posters.
A related group to the above, the Personal Theory of Everything group.
There's the Pierce advocacy group.

We're missing a few we had at the old place. At least they're not represented much any more.

There was the jaded academic tendency.
There were the logic bots.
There was the Heidegger/destruction of metaphysics fanboy club.

And there are the ever present lurkers.

Edit: I forgot the "Interminable discussion of god therapy group"

I'm curious which if any of those groups you'd put me into (and who else might be representative of the others).

None really. You don't fit well into any of them.

That pleases me. :)

So basically, if you think there's someone else on this forum who's "got it", give them a shout out here, let them and us all know. — Pfhorrest

I've been in agreement or near agreement with you most of the times I've read your posts. And, which is even more important, when I've disagreed with you, I've still thought you pretty reasonable.

I think an issue is that there is a tendency to only then reply to someone when you do disagree. "Like buttons" could give us a more accurate idea of whose ideas are garnering agreement.... Buuuut that would be undesirable for other reasons.

There's only one person I've ever met whom I'm basically 100% in agreement with, and I married that guy. :joke:

I've been in agreement or near agreement with you most of the times I've read your posts. And, which is even more important, when I've disagreed with you, I've still thought you pretty reasonable. — Artemis

That's nice to hear! I can't remember having any disagreement with you, and I think I remember us agreeing some times too.

I think an issue is that there is a tendency to only then reply to someone when you do disagree. "Like buttons" could give us a more accurate idea of whose ideas are garnering agreement.... Buuuut that would be undesirable for other reasons. — Artemis

I've adopted something I saw @180 Proof doing, which was replying with approving emojis in lieu of a "like" button. :up: :clap: :100: