Jeremy Taylor wrote:

I think logic could be contained in the philosophy forum

Since my main interest in logic is mathematical, I'm not sure I agree. But I was actually just being sarcastic.

-----
Anyway, I look forward to some of those substantive, non-administrative threads that were mentioned.

Well, how much demand could there be with only 25 registers? If one person is enough, then let me put in my bid for a logic forum, which is at least as closely related to philosophy and classical theism as some of the extant forums.

Scott wrote:

Well, here's me: I don't think we need any new subject headings; I think we need to get rid of some. I think the forum would be fine with "Philosophy," "Religion," and maybe a third catch-all heading for stuff that doesn't fit neatly into either, perhaps called "Stuff That Doesn't Fit Neatly Into Either."  (Or just "General." Or something.)

Maybe sub-categorize the rest under "General", or something.
 

Etzelnik wrote:

To paraphrase iwpoe, I am willing to guarantee that the history section will have high quality content, even if I have to generate it my damn self.

To be clear, I'm just playing advocatus diaboli to make sure the addition is properly justified. What I've observed is that we started as the "Classical Theism, Philosophy, and Religion" forum,  and are now the "Classical Theism, Philosophy, Religion, Classical Liberal Education, Arts and Literature, and Politics" forum discussing adding History.

I'm fine with operating along those lines in regards to politics, but it still remains an awkward super-imposition to view philosophy or religion in the same light. A discussion of, say, the effects of the Pelopponesian and Thirty Years wars on classical philosophy and religious tolerance respectively, cannot be truly described as a philosophical or religious discussion.

A similar but opposite problem is (for example) people worrying about posting substantive philosophical or religious comments related to a thread in History, or what have you, but hesitating because the forum has become so over-departmentalized that they worry it's off-topic.

Besides, the deliberate man ought to be able to discern for himself that appropriate section for his questions.

I know where to put my example post. You know where to put it. But one of the first reasons someone mentioned a separate forum was for precisely for people who are new to the philosophy and theology and wouldn't know where to put the post.. 

DanielCC wrote:

Good idea Etzelnik, an Historical Scholarship section does sound a useful addition – after all discussion of the greater cultural backdrop in which Classical and Scholastic thinkers moved is bound to crop and doesn't really fit into any of the pre-existing forums (of course the forum would cover more than just that). Providing no one has any objections to this shall it be brought to be?

Perhaps we can fold it into one of the pre-existing forums. Where the history can't be directly related to a philosophical or religious discussion, ought we to have a special place for discussing it? If it can be directly related to a philosophical or religious discussion, then we can simply include it one of those forums. I agree that historical context is important. On the other hand, Plato's beard.

Incidentally, I don't think we need to be too strict about who posts what in which forum. Clearly some organization is desirable. But does it really matter if someone posts a theological query in the philosophy section? So what if they do. It's a forum visited by people, not a filing cabinet.