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?
 
@Jeremy, I’m still keen on the idea of splitting the Philosophy forum into more specific sections if only General and Philosophy of Religion.
 

Last edited by DanielCC (6/30/2015 7:23 am)

John West wrote:

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.

We have a section for art and literature. We have a section for politics. We have a section for liberal education. Why not have one for history?

I get the idea that the forum is supposed to be an extension of sorts to Dr. Feser's blog, but there's enough room for the religious and philosophical material to coexist along with the general humanities. In addition, the various other topics give the forums in general a wider audience than a strictly philosophical/religious forum could possibly have. We don't have to worry about the Thomist aspect of the forum withering away, as we seem to have a solid, dedicated core. I just feel that the forum would attract more of the educated people we seek with additional subjects within the humanities represented.

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.

I can only speak for myself, but when I see a forum that is not properly ordered the first impression that comes to mind is slovenliness. That is not an impression we want to project.

John West wrote:

I was going to add to my previous post, that I think a post on Sulla would fit nicely into the Politics forum. In the meantime, perhaps post it there. edit: I should add here, that I'm under the possibly outmoded impression that careful study of historical political figures and history in general is an important part of studying politics. I say outmoded, because I recognize that many people now tend to view it as primarily a study of current affairs; I'm just not sure if that's how it is among professional students of the field.

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 or Thirty Years Wars on classical philosophy and religious tolerance respectively, cannot be truly described as a philosophical or religious discussion.

Furthermore, and in my opinion more importantly, having a smattering of historical discussion scattered about the various forums will do little to induce the educated historian to join the forum, whereas a robust and centralized history section will be an irresistible pull. As I've mentioned before, a diversity of intelligent men can only enrich the forum.

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.

Nor do we want to pounce on people simply because they asked a question about, say, the details of transubstantiation in the philosophy forum instead of the religion forum.

There's no need to pounce. The moderators can simply move it and send a polite private message to the original poster informing him that his thread was moved.

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

Last edited by Etzelnik (6/30/2015 12:54 pm)

John West wrote:

To be clear, I'm just playing devil's advocate 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, and now we're discussing adding History.

All very true, and in my opinion optimal as well. A forum can very well serve other clientele who are not it's main focus, while still retaining it's essential character. Think of it as something like Notre Dame offering physics courses (that may have been a bad example, but you get my point).

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

I think we can give pretty wide latitude within any given discussion. That's the nature of discussions. We ought to make a distinction though, between letting the Quaker spirit permeate a thread () and somebody actually starting a new thread in a fundamentally improper forum.

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.. 

 
Well, we can politely direct them to the right place then.

Last edited by Etzelnik (6/30/2015 1:15 pm)

Etzelnik wrote:

I think we can give pretty wide latitude within any given discussion. That's the nature of discussions. We ought to make a distinction though, between letting the Quaker spirit permeate a thread () and somebody actually starting a new thread in a fundamentally improper thread.

As long as it's somehow made sufficiently clear that people -- including people that aren't registered or guests right now to be able to read this -- know this is the case.

Incidentally, I don't think I've ever met a Quaker.

Etzelnik wrote:

Well, we can politely direct them to the right place then.

I guess. But it's so annoying when people keep doing that on other forums. Anyway, let's let some other people weigh in on all this.

Last edited by John West (6/30/2015 1:27 pm)