Untitled

[Language-Gamer]

I've come to carry very little on whether others agree with me on philosophy or whether I can convince them. Mostly, I'm interested in working on my own system, although I don't (usually) mind giving explanations of what I think or why I think as I do.

Is this good or bad or what?

[Booger]

I hope it's okay 'cause I'm totally with you.

[HIJ]

I hope it's okay 'cause I'm totally with you.

He doesn't care!

[FNB - Former non-believer]

You should also consider if what you believe is true. (maybe you do already) As for working on your own system that is probably what most people are doing here anyway.

[Mae]

It's not a problem in that if you care too much what others think of your philosophy, you will always find someone who thinks you are completely wrong.

But I do think it is important to care what others think to a certain degree. When you truly realize how easy it is to trick yourself, and how biased your own thinking is in favor of seeing things the way you want to see them, it is a very humbling experience. This should always be something we are concerned with, and others can help us see this in ourselves. This is obviously very important if you are creating your own system.

[ParaclitosLogos]

I don´t care. : )

[aleph naught]

I've come to carry very little on whether others agree with me on philosophy or whether I can convince them. Mostly, I'm interested in working on my own system, although I don't (usually) mind giving explanations of what I think or why I think as I do.

Is this good or bad or what?

I think it's bad. I'd like to believe that my philosophical views are largely motivated by common sense, which means I should generally be able to convince people.

[kurros]

I've come to carry very little on whether others agree with me on philosophy or whether I can convince them. Mostly, I'm interested in working on my own system, although I don't (usually) mind giving explanations of what I think or why I think as I do.

Is this good or bad or what?

I think it's bad. I'd like to believe that my philosophical views are largely motivated by common sense, which means I should generally be able to convince people.

Yes, I'd say the only way to avoid becoming a crackpot is to care if you can convince other people of what you are saying. Obviously you don't have to be able to convince everyone, but if you can't convince anyone then I think it is a problem.

[Mrlondondude]

I think you should talk with people about what you are using philosophy for. Like what is your objective?

[wonderer]

I've come to carry very little on whether others agree with me on philosophy or whether I can convince them. Mostly, I'm interested in working on my own system, although I don't (usually) mind giving explanations of what I think or why I think as I do.

Is this good or bad or what?

I think it's bad. I'd like to believe that my philosophical views are largely motivated by common sense, which means I should generally be able to convince people.

Yes, I'd say the only way to avoid becoming a crackpot is to care if you can convince other people of what you are saying. Obviously you don't have to be able to convince everyone, but if you can't convince anyone then I think it is a problem.

Yeah, it fails to take advantage of the benefits of critical peer review.  It's pretty much a recipe for crackpottery.

[Harvey]

There's nothing wrong with working on your own system, however as others have stated I think it depends on how far "out there" you go in your thinking. If you completely lose touch with peer review then that's bad. However, if what you mean is that your primary focus is not to change someone else's view but to take criticism (etc) in helping your focus to improve your own ideas, then that's good. I find that to be my own approach. Although, I like philosophy mostly to gab. It's a way to relieve boredom.

[Language-Gamer]

To clarify, I don't mind hearing people's criticisms or reading papers against my views, but if someone will Moorean shift my argument, then that doesn't bother me much.

Does that clear up and defuse the crack pottery charge?

Oh, and I think if we were to take it seriously, then we should submit our philosophical ideas and arguments to philosophers and journals (or be able to point to examples of philosophers who are well regarded and hold similar views), because it's not like we are going to get anything special around here that should lead us to believe we are getting many (any?) of the benefits from peer review that we are supposed to get.

I don't mind giving examples of where someone might Moorean shift and the later implications, if anyone is interested.

Also, sorry for being that guy who keeps editing his post.

[ParaclitosLogos]

I've come to carry very little on whether others agree with me on philosophy or whether I can convince them. Mostly, I'm interested in working on my own system, although I don't (usually) mind giving explanations of what I think or why I think as I do.

Is this good or bad or what?

I think it's bad. I'd like to believe that my philosophical views are largely motivated by common sense, which means I should generally be able to convince people.

Yes, I'd say the only way to avoid becoming a crackpot is to care if you can convince other people of what you are saying. Obviously you don't have to be able to convince everyone, but if you can't convince anyone then I think it is a problem.

Convincing others is easy, even if your are a crackpot with bad arguments . Hitler was very convincing, and, a crackpot, for example, so, it might be that here we have a counterexample of the necessary link between acrackpottery and rethorical acumen.

[innerbling]

Convincing others is easy, even if your are a crackpot with bad arguments . Hitler was very convincing, and, a crackpot, for example, so, it might be that here we have a counterexample of the necessary link between acrackpottery and rethorical acumen.

Yes especially when peer pressure is on the side of bad arguments thus "peer review" is often in the real world just peer pressure and will leave the budding philosopher, scientist, whoever in a hole of "Asch conformity".

[H.H.]

I've come to carry very little on whether others agree with me on philosophy or whether I can convince them. Mostly, I'm interested in working on my own system

Do you believe that you are sufficiently competent to develop your own system? The only way to know is to submit whatever system you work out for review, analysis, and criticism. It seems to me that doing philosophy and working out a belief system are entirely different endeavors, and may even be mutually exclusive.

"The philosopher’s logical tranquility is thus in essence no other than the boors’. They differ only as to the point at which each refuses to let further considerations upset the absoluteness of the data he assumes."