Philosophy is dead, or, my Jediism is what you need to believe, or else.

Kyrin Wyldstar wrote: So I have been told by several senior members of this temple tonight, including a Knight and a pastor that philosophy is dead

Were those the actual words or an interpretation of them? Because if the claim is really that the practice of philosophy is not appropriate for Temple forum discussions, then that's one thing. But if the statement was reflecting something else, such as the frequent debates over *how* someone argues or finding the balance between respect for others and expressing our own individual wills, then that's a different discussion. Trying to have it under the guise of debating whether or not hypothetical scenarios are beneficial is only going to obscure the matter even more.

Most of what we engage in here at the Temple is philosophy, to me, following the standard definitions of philosophy as literally the love of wisdom and the pursuit of it through the investigation of our mental processes. (In case that simple definition is lacking, more detailed definitions can be found here: https://www.philosophybasics.com/general_whatis.html). That's the *what* of philosophy, and I'd argue that it is essential to the aims of the Temple and perfectly in line with the work that we are doing in the IP, in particular.

The *how* of philosophy defines the style in which these investigations are carried out, and as this is a Temple, and not merely an academic setting or internet debate forum, I think it's reasonable to have parameters on the philosophical debates that keep them focused on the Temple's purpose and reflecting the defined ethos of the organization. Moderation to keep discussions - when they get emotional or when someone is going past the line of respect for other debaters - is not only entirely appropriate to me, but expected - I wouldn't waste my time here without it. If people want to do Jedi Fight Club style debates without any holds barred or any expected conformity to TOTJO's code, then someone can create one somewhere and see it where it goes, what it attracts and how well it advances one's practice. That's one potential philosophical culture, but heavy combat isn't necessary for the practice itself, and can have as many blinds spots as softer approaches. It's very easy to see someone's use of fallacies, harder to see our own.

During my time here, no one in the leadership has demanded that I conform to any version of reality apart from my own. I agreed to conform to the Temple doctrine and stated purpose and method of interaction here by virtue of joining the site (and furthermore by becoming a member)...and there's so much leeway on what that actually means that I can't even say that my conformity to that has been *demanded*. I've seen individual members belittle or dismiss other's opinions, beliefs, or experiences of reality - sometimes rudely and arrogantly. There's been a constant stream of threads - both from members and officers - that question the purpose and methods of the Temple in order to try to work through the conflicts and find a fair and balanced policy for dealing with them. It's been nothing like the kind of authoritarian environments I've been more than familiar with in the past.

So I am not seeing any elitism here. I see moderators doing their job, and a large, diverse population with very varied beliefs and individual experiences hashing out differences. Creating a good philosophical culture is a two-way street - it means that moderators have to referee with a good set of guidelines, and participants have to be willing monitor their own rhetoric for accuracy, respect, and fairness, and to avoid the kind of "traps" that are going to cause more conflict rather than conditions which help us all get to a greater understanding of Truth. Contradiction and challenge can be a vital part of that, but it's a tool that has to be used carefully - just like weapons in sparring.

In answer to your question, so long as this forum/Temple continues to be useful to my praxis and development and so long as I see good accountability and intentions from the majority of those involved, I'll continue to participate and by happy to learn from, follow, and be associated with it.

Athena_Undomiel wrote:

Arisaig wrote:

Proteus wrote: Could you please provide the quote where someone said that philosophy is dead? I'm curious.

I don't think anyone said it outright, but offhandedly. The quote provided before your post shows a philosophical question being posed, instantly to be shot down as "these people do not exist".

EDIT: In essence, they kill room for philosophy because they can't wrap their heads around the idea that we may need to talk about fake scenarios in order to discuss something.

I think this is further example of the inherent fear that causes conflict in these threads...someone interpreted a comment as a slap in the face, but that's not what it was at all. The same thing that makes Jediism work is what causes conflict among those not able to see past it....it is all open to interpretation.

Yes, but when a dialogue is killed off because someone wants to make their voice heard without having to do any work in reading or actually answering... that is when it dies.

Arisaig wrote:

Athena_Undomiel wrote:

Arisaig wrote:

Proteus wrote: Could you please provide the quote where someone said that philosophy is dead? I'm curious.

I don't think anyone said it outright, but offhandedly. The quote provided before your post shows a philosophical question being posed, instantly to be shot down as "these people do not exist".

EDIT: In essence, they kill room for philosophy because they can't wrap their heads around the idea that we may need to talk about fake scenarios in order to discuss something.

I think this is further example of the inherent fear that causes conflict in these threads...someone interpreted a comment as a slap in the face, but that's not what it was at all. The same thing that makes Jediism work is what causes conflict among those not able to see past it....it is all open to interpretation.

Yes, but when a dialogue is killed off because someone wants to make their voice heard without having to do any work in reading or actually answering... that is when it dies.

and in this response, you pull the conversation still further away from the OP...

I'm still waiting to hear from Kyrin on my response.

Athena_Undomiel wrote:

Arisaig wrote:

Athena_Undomiel wrote:

Arisaig wrote:

Proteus wrote: Could you please provide the quote where someone said that philosophy is dead? I'm curious.

I don't think anyone said it outright, but offhandedly. The quote provided before your post shows a philosophical question being posed, instantly to be shot down as "these people do not exist".

EDIT: In essence, they kill room for philosophy because they can't wrap their heads around the idea that we may need to talk about fake scenarios in order to discuss something.

I think this is further example of the inherent fear that causes conflict in these threads...someone interpreted a comment as a slap in the face, but that's not what it was at all. The same thing that makes Jediism work is what causes conflict among those not able to see past it....it is all open to interpretation.

Yes, but when a dialogue is killed off because someone wants to make their voice heard without having to do any work in reading or actually answering... that is when it dies.

and in this response, you pull the conversation still further away from the OP...

Again, re-read the original topic, do some research on what caused this thread to pop up. Because I'm keeping this on topic while others are trying to derail it. Thank you.

EDIT: But alas, this thread has become meaningless as people continue to half-handedly insult me.
Have a wonderful day.

There's a lot more going on than fear, Athena. Using hypotheticals to explore an idea isn't always about avoiding reality. Sometimes it is a way of framing a challenge without having to use specifics that someone may be emotionally tired to. It is a way to look at a problem from a point of view that isn't dependent on people defending their own positions. It is a strategy that has been used since Socrates.

There is also an underlying assumption here that challenging someone's opinion or belief is somehow defensive or done out of fear. Sometimes it is literally just a challenge to encourage further discussion. It may not have been done tactfully in this case, but the fact that some people perceive that as a threat and immediately shut it down says that there is growth need on both sides of the conversation.

Senan wrote: There's a lot more going on than fear, Athena. Using hypotheticals to explore an idea isn't always about avoiding reality. Sometimes it is a way of framing a challenge without having to use specifics that someone may be emotionally tired to. It is a way to look at a problem from a point of view that isn't dependent on people defending their own positions. It is a strategy that has been used since Socrates.

There is also an underlying assumption here that challenging someone's opinion or belief is somehow defensive or done out of fear. Sometimes it is literally just a challenge to encourage further discussion. It may not have been done tactfully in this case, but the fact that some people perceive that as a threat and immediately shut it down says that there is growth need on both sides of the conversation.

I agree and I understand the use of hypotheticals in the way that you describe.
I understand that people have different learning and communication styles but each of us on the Temple [should] in my belief, be open enough to understand that.
My fear is that such an obviously intelligent mind as Kyrin's will be lost to the Temple if there isn't a place for understanding and openness.
A challenge is not presented out of fear (every time) but Kyrin should understand that Philosophy is not dead and free thought is still welcome here....We aren't like the other organized religions and it concerns me when someone feels alienated at a Temple of Jediism. All are welcome, all are worthy, that is what needs to be understood by everyone not just Kyrin by any means.
I would still like to discuss the matter with Kyrin.

Why do so many people here think they are such experts at understanding human nature they think they can read some text and clearly identify the exact tone and intention behind the words? How many of us are confident in understanding one-another in an environment which literally strips away vocal tones and body language which are some of the most important factors in communication?

If someone told me the "tone" I was "speaking" with in this post, I would consider their presumptions incredibly arrogant. Honestly how can you know the "tone" of this post I'm writing? If you think someone is speaking in such and such a way or insinuating such and such a thing, or pushing such and such an interpretation then please just ask them. Clarify their intent, their tone, their understanding, their interpretation, don't presume to understand what people mean. Ask them.

The tone by which Akkarin is posting from is one of even speech. It has no anger, and no excitement, just a speech much like how a president might deliver their State of the Union- though not like Trump's which was full of praise and talking himself up....

Just kidding.

But, the truth is, sometimes you CAN tell Akkarin. It depends greatly upon how long you have communicated with an individual. For most of us it takes years to be able to discern someone's tone from how they type, but it is possible. I imagine that if one builds a strong relationship with their master/apprentice then it will not be difficult for them to ascertain the tone by which their master/apprentice posts. I also imagine that some of these people have interacted for so long with one another that it is not difficult for them to assign a particular tone based on the "typing patterns" of the person posting. Because there are groups within ToTJO that are very close knit.

For me, I know you and have a great deal of respect for you, but you are not one of the people I know well enough to assign "tone" to your typing. But know that there may be people amongst the group that do know you well enough to pinpoint it with fairly decent accuracy.

Very good points, Akkarin and Alethea. The reading of "tone" is very subjective and a lot depends on what the receiver is bringing to the situation as well. One can have all the best intentions in communication and still not get it across due to how the message is received. For instance, I've been trained to be extremely cautious in making "you-statements", for many very valid reasons - especially in written conversation where the person can't tell if I'm looking directly at them when I say you or using the pronoun expansively to indicate a hypothetical person. So that leaves me with the general choices of "I-statements" (which can make me sound like I'm obsessed with myself), "one" (which can make me sound pompous), or "it" (which is very creepy for those of us from the Silence of the Lambs generation.)

If there's a general culture where questioning is taken as an attack, especially due to an assumption of "tone"/intention, then the very necessary requests for clarification can further skew things in a bad direction. So much relies on there being an general atmosphere of trust and consideration for each other, so that hostility isn't the default assumption, and we allow each other the room to get it wrong sometimes.