When I read some of the things on this forum, I'm like "yuck too clean, too thoughtless". I guess that's just me. — Wheatley

I know what you mean, but I think it's unavoidable in philosophy. The ideas are what's important, not the style, although that in itself is probably debated within philosophy.

Maybe you're describing something that's more often used in creative writing. Can you write philosophy in the style of Ulysses?

Did you go "yuck" when you read this?

Did you go "yuck" when you read this? — jamalrob

Not at all.

know what you mean, but I think it's unavoidable in philosophy. The ideas are what's important, not the style, although that in itself is probably debated within philosophy. — jamalrob

It also depends on what you are trying to do with your philosophy. Messiness can get in the way of clear communication, which is bad. But some ideas are crude and need time to develop, I guess you can call developing your ideas as a "messy process".

Maybe you're describing something that's more often used in creative writing. Can you write philosophy in the style of Ulysses? — jamalrob

I was wondering if there could be creative philosophy, but that's just speculation. But no, not really. I was just commenting on my own style of writing.

I also have never read Ulysses. :sweat:

It also depends on what you are trying to do with your philosophy. Messiness can get in the way of clear communication, which is bad. But some ideas are crude and need time to develop, I guess you can call developing your ideas as a "messy process". — Wheatley

Yes.

Some of the clear, well-argued posts here can seem too self-satisfied, as if they're done thinking and now it's just a matter of convincing people. No doubt we all do that. A minority of members, who are less prideful or more willing to take risks, take a messier approach. They change their mind mid-discussion and fire out half-formed ideas. That can be good, but not always.

I'm probably in the first camp. To me, messy often means wishy-washy. Maybe it's a matter of taste.

A minority of members, who are less prideful or more willing to take risks, take a messier approach. They change their mind mid-discussion and fire out half-formed ideas. That can be good, but not always. — jamalrob

Yeah, I see that too. And then there are some discussions that are so dysfunctional, you have people yelling at each other with constant accusation of misrepresentation and misunderstanding and dishonesty. It makes me wonder how are these people are communicating at all. Amazing.

There are always battles to be fought, and sometimes we fight for ideas.

I see what you mean. I just wish people would calm down a bit. Philosophy doesn't have to replace politics. :smile:

It is fascinating. It's as if we have several voices in our head saying contradictory things, often at the same time. We can actually see real life cases with people who have multiple personality disorder. Some people can have more than 6 personalities. Sometimes they don't even know what each other is thinking. But sometimes they do.

As for the general topic, I don't know but, I used to be able to handle obscure prose much better back when I was finishing my studies. But now I go back to Kant and Peirce, for example, and I often don't have much to go on. Conversely, if I read Schopenhauer, James or Russell, I think I can follow what they say quite well. But it's as @jamalrob says, it's a matter of taste.

There's also the problem that we often have ideas which we cannot express adequately into words, to convey the impressions we have. We may hint at it, use examples to try and isolate this X feeling, but we fall short.

Then again, maybe contradicting myself, it's better to say something even if a bit messy, than to say precisely nothing. Within limits.

Yeah, I see that too. And then there are some discussions that are so dysfunctional, you have people yelling at each other with constant accusation of misrepresentation and misunderstanding and dishonesty. It makes me wonder how are these people are communicating at all. Amazing. — Wheatley

Then you must not have studied the classics. Was it Plato who complained about the incompetence of his fellow students? The budding philosophers at the Academy were at each other's throat at times, so I was told.

Then you must not have studied the classics. Was it Plato who complained about the incompetence of his fellow students? The budding philosophers at the Academy were at each other's throat at times, so I was told. — Caldwell

Interesting. I guess there are different ways to go about philosophy. :ok: