This is a successful philosophy discussion, mostly with StEmperorAugustine. There's a brief discussion about dishonesty, then an extended discussion about whether people's interests are objective or subjective. PDF. (I cropped out some irrelevant parts. Depending on the software you use to view the PDF, you may see whitespace for partial-page removed sections. It's not broken.)
And this is a discussion about eating, calories and fatness. It was kind of a mess between JustinCEO and CallmeBigPopper (it's instructive to see what people do wrong in discussions and consider what you would do differently – and then actually test yourself in discussions), but then I wrote some good explanations at the end which everyone agreed with and which I wanted to share. PDF.
this is what i imagine it's like to have brain cancer of the mind.
From the "JustinCEO and CallmeBigPopper" discussion PDF linked in the post above.
> DD was the intellectual leader of this discussion community from around 1996-2006. FYI he is the one who initially argued for **ideas about not eating when you're not hungry being a key to dealing with food well**. He also **defended high calorie processed foods like hot dogs as being healthy**.
What does *hungry* and *dealing with food well* mean in this context?
What does *being healthy* mean in this context?
Where can I read more about this position that DD, JM, and ET hold on this issue?
PS: Why does copy pasting from the PDF result in something that looks lika a cryptic message (see the copy paste output of the first sentence below)?
First sentence from above quoted text when copy pasted:
*DD ZDV WKH LQWHOOHFWXDO OHDGHU RI WKLV GLVFXVVLRQ FRPPXQLW\ IURP DURXQG 1996-2006.*
#14027 Look at discussion archives to read more. http://curi.us/ebooks and yahoo and google groups sites.
Don't know about the PDF issue but you can get a text file at http://fallibleliving.com/resources/145-fallible-ideas-discord-log-page
> Look at discussion archives to read more. http://curi.us/ebooks and yahoo and google groups sites.
I can't recall having read anything on this issue in any of the stuff I read on the ebooks site. But I haven't read anything from the BoI PDF yet so I'll make sure to start there.
> Don't know about the PDF issue but you can get a text file at http://fallibleliving.com/resources/145-fallible-ideas-discord-log-page
Ah, great. Thx.
Follow up on my #14027 & #14029 posts.
I started reading the BoI Discussion PDF (BoI PDF) from http://curi.us/ebooks yesterday after anon's recommendation (#14028) on my previous questions above (#14027).
I started by searching the BoI PDF: "eating". This in turn lead me on a great deal of tangents (physics, liberalism, scientism etc in the PDF).
This, going off in tangents, is a behaviour that I often end up doing. I have, for now, totally dropped my initial question, but I am still learning about new ideas (in a more passive way though - reading instead of engaging with questions). Is it a bad approach to learning philosophy?
There is nothing wrong with dropping your initial question if you found a more interesting problem to solve.
Philosophy is meant to be fun, it is not meant to be some curriculum someone set for you to follow, be it a University or Elliot Temple.
As Popper said, the only way to do philosophy is to fall in love with a problem.
>There is nothing wrong with dropping your initial question if you found a more interesting problem to solve.
> Philosophy is meant to be fun, it is not meant to be some curriculum someone set for you to follow
I agree. But there are better and worse approaches. I should be more aware of when and why I move to other questions. If it is because the question is just not too interesting to me, I think that's not a problem. If it is because I requires some more thinking put into it and I just evade, then I think I should find better ways of dealing with this.
This time it was that I found other things that I found more interesting - for now at least.