Sorry not to be of more help gentlemen - I don't know if I mentioned this on the boards but I'm in the middle of moving flat atm and things are quite hectic. Once this coming week is out I can be more hands on.

Jeremy Taylor wrote:

Okay lots of suggestions.

I was trying to come up with the best title for the forum, but was unsure of what that would be. We could add a description instead of changing the title?

That's a Great idea. Having Classical Theism in the title a great positive as that term already has certain definite connotations thanks to Feser and Davies, yet most online Philosophy of Religion blogs/message boards tend to focus on the then Theist Personalist side. We might even say ‘Classical Theism and Metaphysics’ to emphasise that former’s including a whole specific metaphysical back-drop which is also under discussion. To put it somewhat crudely the cross-over been Classical Theism and modern Philosophy of Religion is our biggest ‘selling-point’ from the causal web-browser’s perspective, so I think we should stress this angle.

EDIT: Okay, once more Scott has beat me to the reply.

I would perhaps not be inclined to use the phrase Traditional Religion in the title as opposed to description if only because people might associate it with a specific stance in Catholicism re the Vatican Councils.

Jeremy Taylor wrote:

Letting those at Dr. Feser's blog know about the place is a good idea, although I am guessing most regulars already do. Other than that, generating discussion would probably get more people joining and contributing. I would guess, ultimately, we want people joining who have just googled us. Maybe a forum title that would fit a broad google search for religious philosophy and discussion?

I was thinking about this earlier too. The main (probably not very helpful) conclusion I came to was that people ought to share links around on the Reasonable Faith message boards and that Thomist Facebook page someone mentioned in the post on Ed's blog. In terms of publicity the first steps are always the hardest.

May be in the future we could look into conducting interviews with various figures?

Jeremy Taylor wrote:

I have access to articles from many journals. If we were sharing through private messages or something then there would be no problems sharing them. I would be a little hesitant about uploading them publically to the forum though..

I concur. Since there’s a lot of public material available too perhaps we should have a Resources thread in each sub-section of the Philosophy linking to various materials?
 

Last edited by DanielCC (6/27/2015 6:07 pm)

Scott wrote:

iwpoe wrote:

Well, whatever the language, all I was trying to flag was something I think we can all agree with, namely that philosophically everyone here he is more sympathetic to a position that is largely continuous with something like what Plato and Aristotle were doing as opposed to something more like what Descartes, Hume, Kant, or Ayer were trying to do.

Doesn't "classical" already cover that? I'm not sure "Classical Theism" doesn't work fine as a title all by itself, but if something about philosophy has to be added, why not just "Classical Theism and Philosophy"? The adjective "classical" can, but need not, be taken to modify both of the nouns that follow it.

"Classical Theism and Philosophy" sounds good to me. It's short, covers everything without struggling, and sounds half-decent.

I like Scott's suggested title. And although I see Daniel's point, shouldn't there be something about religion in the title? I suppose theism implies religion, but I think it should emphasised that discussion of religion that might be more theological or cultural, not just strictly philosophical, is welcome.

I agree resource thread(s), perhaps a couple for major areas (Thomism. Platonism, etc), would be a good idea. 

Jeremy Taylor wrote:

I like Scott's suggested title. And although I see Daniel's point, shouldn't there be something about religion in the title? I suppose theism implies religion, but I think it should emphasised that discussion of religion that might be more theological or cultural, not just strictly philosophical, is welcome.

Yeah. Okay.

Scott wrote:

Is "Classical Theism, Philosophy, and Religion" too unwieldy?

Seems fine.
 

Well, then, we may have a winner.