b) Able to write a thoughtful OP of reasonable length that illustrates this interest, and to provide arguments for any position you intend to advocate.
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
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
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.Even though there are categories, I am glad that these don't show up on the front page. — Jack Cummins
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
Other more specific threads like javi2541997's - may well be characterised as 'hanging out' but blethering about pussy cats? Come on! — Amity
Javi, you are more than capable of using google, online dictionaries to read the different meanings. — Amity
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.
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. — javi2541997
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
[my bolds]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
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
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
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
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
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? — Amity
Yes, but I think he wasn't in that theoretical frame of mind. He primarily just wanted to share poems, thoughts or recommendations — Amity
just as he does in the Main Page 'Currently Reading' thread — Amity
It certainly would be if explicated and developed, because it's a good thought. — Jamal
It's because it's non-theoretical that it probably doesn't belong in a philosophy category. — Jamal
Yes, that thread is something of an anomaly, though I'm happy with where it is. — Jamal
If started by anyone else other than the site owner, then it 'probably' would have been moved!
The privilege of power, huh?! :smile: — Amity
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
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. — T Clark
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
You say "So?" Hey, you brought the whole thing up. — T Clark
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? — Tom Storm
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
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
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
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
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
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.