New philosophy site.....

[UndercoverElephant]

For those who may be interested, the first issue of an online philosophy e-zine is now available, called Esophy. It is an attempt to offer new perspectives in philosophy, which I think is quite a challenge.

I am partly plugging it because I am one of the contributors, with an article titled "science and pseudoscience".

http://esophy.com/

I'm happy to discuss further any of the issues raised in the article.

Geoff

 

[CFLarsen]

For those who may be interested, the first issue of an online philosophy e-zine is now available, called Esophy. It is an attempt to offer new perspectives in philosophy, which I think is quite a challenge.

I am partly plugging it because I am one of the contributors, with an article titled "science and pseudoscience".

http://esophy.com/

I'm happy to discuss further any of the issues raised in the article.

Geoff

Why don't we start with the fundamental question:

Does the e-zine Esophy exist?

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Re: Re: New philosophy site.....

Why don't we start with the fundamental question:

Does the e-zine Esophy exist?

Yes, it exists. Unless you're the one person who believes that reality isn't real.

 

[CFLarsen]

Re: Re: Re: New philosophy site.....

Yes, it exists.

Prove it. Philosophically, that is.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Re: Re: Re: Re: New philosophy site.....

Prove it. Philosophically, that is.

Prove that reality is real?

That's easy. It's true by definition. Reality is what is real. That's what it means. I've tried explaining this to our resident denier-of-reality. Materialists say reality is made of matter. Idealists say it is made of mind. Dualists say it is made of both and neutral monists say it's made of something which is neither. Only LG claims it isn't real.

I'd really rather not turn this into a LG-bashing thread though.

Why don't you check out the article? You'll find plenty to respond to I suspect, given that you are CFLarsen.

 

[CFLarsen]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: New philosophy site.....

Prove that reality is real?

That's easy. It's true by definition. Reality is what is real. That's what it means. I've tried explaining this to our resident denier-of-reality. Materialists say reality is made of matter. Idealists say it is made of mind. Dualists say it is made of both and neutral monists say it's made of something which is neither. Only LG claims it isn't real.

I'd really rather not turn this into a LG-bashing thread though.

Why don't you check out the article? You'll find plenty to respond to I suspect, given that you are CFLarsen.

Well....if you can define your way out of any problem, why all this fuss about philosophy?

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: New philosophy site.....

Well....if you can define your way out of any problem, why all this fuss about philosophy?

You can certainly conclude that some philosophical problems are non-sensical by definition, and this is one of them. You can ask "is matter real?", you can ask "are minds real?", you can ask "are the things studied by science real?", but only if you have a deficient grasp of the English language can you end up asking the question "is reality real?".

Why are you spamming my thread with this? I was hoping people would respond to the article or make some comments about the site.

www.esophy.com

If you want to talk about realism and anti-realism could you do it somewhere else please, because it has got nothing to do with this thread. Go and play with lifegazer or something.

 

[Peskanov]

Geoff, the page seems to have problems in both of the web browsers I am using right now: Omniweb, and internet explorer for MacOSX.
I can only read the shaman article, and a few pages more.

I suggest using a more tested hmtl scheme; aesthetics are good, but readability comes first.

 

[phildonnia]

I suggest using a more tested hmtl scheme; aesthetics are good, but readability comes first.

They may be trying to screen out visitors whose minds are not open enough to appreciate page-transitions.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Geoff, the page seems to have problems in both of the web browsers I am using right now: Omniweb, and internet explorer for MacOSX.
I can only read the shaman article, and a few pages more.

I suggest using a more tested hmtl scheme; aesthetics are good, but readability comes first.

Comment passed on to the site admin.

 

[CFLarsen]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: New philosophy site.....

You can certainly conclude that some philosophical problems are non-sensical by definition, and this is one of them. You can ask "is matter real?", you can ask "are minds real?", you can ask "are the things studied by science real?", but only if you have a deficient grasp of the English language can you end up asking the question "is reality real?".

But if we can answer this fundamental question by merely declaring it to be true, then why can't we similarly also answer any philosophical question by declaration?

Why are you spamming my thread with this? I was hoping people would respond to the article or make some comments about the site.

I am not spamming your thread. I am asking fundamental questions about philosophy. Surely, that can't be a problem?

If it is, put me on ignore. But I don't think that is the proper philosophical way to deal with tough questions. Do you?

If you want to talk about realism and anti-realism could you do it somewhere else please, because it has got nothing to do with this thread. Go and play with lifegazer or something.

Philosophy does not have anything to do with realism?

 

[UndercoverElephant]

I am not spamming your thread. I am asking fundamental questions about philosophy. Surely, that can't be a problem?

It is only a problem because it has nothing to do with the thread. I have no problem with you asking these questions, I am just wondering why you have chosen to do it here.

Philosophy does not have anything to do with realism?

Of course it does.

This is sort-of connected to the article, but only by accident.

http://esophy.com/scienceandpseudoscience.html

In both the above cases there are claims about the nature and history of the physical world rather than the more obviously metaphysical claims of various groups of spiritualists or philosophers who are also sometimes accused of creating pseudo-science. However, both are still identifiable as pseudo-science because they are uniformly rejected by the non-religious and non-political scientific community. That community rejects it because they perceive it as being driven by a metaphysical, political or religious ideology rather than by an attempt to find "the truth" about reality i.e. the scientific community generally sees itself as being free from these sorts of ideological constraints.

 

[scribble]

Will you be contributing the email you got from God with all the answers to all your questions in it?


At that point, I'd be glad to read.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

OK. I give up.

 

[Darat]

Don't give up Geoff, I've been looking at the site and when I get a chance over the weekend I'll read the article you recommended.

Do have to second the comment someone else made about the usability - the site makes you work to find something, that's generally not a good thing if you want the site to be popular.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Don't give up Geoff, I've been looking at the site and when I get a chance over the weekend I'll read the article you recommended.

Do have to second the comment someone else made about the usability - the site makes you work to find something, that's generally not a good thing if you want the site to be popular.

All feedback appreciated. The site only went online yesterday so there's bound to be some problems.

 

[Thomas]

http://esophy.com/

Nice Geoff,

It got me thinking of a site I made in the mid-90ies I called "A century of western philosophy". It was quite popular in it's days, but mainly because I spammed it all over philosophy IRC channels in quit and join messages

However, and this is the point, what people liked about it was that I had a section where you could look up philosophers from the 20th century and get the best available info on the them, rated with stars. Maybe that would be something if you got the time for it. I called it a meta-portal, because everything had to be portals in the mid-90ies, hehe, so I made a meta-portal concerning philosophy. A philosophy portal about philosphy portals.

Anyway, I agree with folks concerning the technology used on the site. When we look apart from the compatibility issues, the transitions is a bad idea as well I think. When you have seen them once they tend to become annoying rather than pleasing in a regular surfing situation. Speed and stability!