Offline
Jeremy Taylor wrote:
I like Daniel's idea of sharing and discussing essays, though I would think many contemporary essays have a copyright (as much as I don't really think intellectual property should exist) that means they aren't allowed to be broadly shared, so we would have to focus on older ones.
Though, I assume that if a university is sharing PDFs publically, they have the proper permissions to do so. So, linking to those PDFs on those sites probably fine.
Last edited by John West (6/26/2015 7:06 pm)
Offline
Certainly any PDF that a university has publically shared would be welcome.
Offline
Btw no problem if other people have already decided against this but I thought it was better to have the Philosophy section split into separate sub-sections e.g. General Metaphysics, Philosophy of Religion, Ethics and Non-Western Philosophy.
Jeremy Taylor wrote:
I like Daniel's idea of sharing and discussing essays, though I would think many contemporary essays have a copyright (as much as I don't really think intellectual property should exist) that means they aren't allowed to be broadly shared, so we would have to focus on older ones.
Yes, this concerned me slightly at first. I don't think it would be cause for concern in as much as it would only be a few people sharing said essays between themselves privately; if it was a case of making putting PDFs downloaded from a pay site up online I agree it definitely wouldn't be advisable. If philosophers and journals consent to allowing persons to download material from their archives for free then this kind of low level data sharing seems inevitable (of course it's most academic philosophers actually get access to a lot of material in the first place). Of course you're right to say there's lots of material available from straight from individuals' websites.
John West wrote:
DanielCC wrote:
Things are a bit busy for me at present but I'd definitely still be up for it. Made we should wait till we've a few more people involved though? Of course it would be necessary to ask around and reach a decision re the choice of book beforehand otherwise we'd all end up going off into our specialist subjects and leaving others perplexed.
It's up to you. My only input is that it ought to be about classical theism. Several others here are almost certainly better informed about classical theist-related and philosophy of religion literature than me.
One of the things you said you wanted to accomplish was to get more people reading authors like Scotus, right?
It may be worth checking the old scholastic bookshelf for ideas, too.
Okay, so for books I'm leaning towards that Gerson. As I said we'll wait till we've a couple more people interested and see what the group feeling is towards choice of book.
For Scotus, something like Frank & Wolter's Duns Scotus: Metaphysician or the De Primo Principio would be good choices as both are quite short and represent a distillation of the Subtle Doctor’s thought on certain issues. Rightly or wrongly I would shy away from primary texts at first if only because they’re often even more complex than modern Analytic commentary. Again if people think otherwise I’m happy to go with it.
Offline
Jeremy Taylor wrote:
I also agree we shoud separate this forum from Dr. Feser's combox, partly because we don't want to take away from his thriving combox discussions. This should be a place for wider Classical Theist and traditiona religious orientated discussion, and for discussing things that would be clearly off topic in a particular comboxes of Ed's. If people want to discuss Ed's articles close to when they are released, that should still be doe at Ed's combox.
Can we comprimise?
I only recomend tying us to Ed (and as many other simmilar places as we can) as an early marketing effort. I don't care long term.
The worst possible thing for a new forum is to get very few new members- things stagnate and die quickly because the place just feels dead. Can we mention ourselves in the combox for a few months until registrations totally dry up and *then* uncouple oursleves?
I add that if any of you have friends, aquaintences, or other places *like Eds* that might be/have people we want, do your best to bring them in. I've invited a few professor friends of mine. It's a world of differnece between a fourm that has a lot of excited contributors and one that has 2 - 5 regulars. I've done both.
Last edited by iwpoe (6/27/2015 4:40 am)
Offline
DanielCC wrote:
Btw no problem if other people have already decided against this but I thought it was better to have the Philosophy section split into separate sub-sections e.g. General Metaphysics, Philosophy of Religion, Ethics and Non-Western Philosophy.
I agree structurally but not at first. You don't want 20 empty forums when you have have 5 full ones. It's like going to a resturant that looks empty. It just frightens people away.
Offline
DanielCC wrote:
Yes, this concerned me slightly at first. I don't think it would be cause for concern in as much as it would only be a few people sharing said essays between themselves privately; if it was a case of making putting PDFs downloaded from a pay site up online I agree it definitely wouldn't be advisable. If philosophers and journals consent to allowing persons to download material from their archives for free then this kind of low level data sharing seems inevitable (of course it's most academic philosophers actually get access to a lot of material in the first place). Of course you're right to say there's lots of material available from straight from individuals' websites.
How about we just say that, when it comes to books, if anyone is *looking* for anything and is having *difficulty* paying for it, then they should contact me in private.
The legal aspect is not worrisome on our level, but I wouldn't want to simply post links to all of Feser's books here publicly when we're all coming from there and participating there. It's bad form.
Last edited by iwpoe (6/27/2015 4:46 am)
Offline
iwpoe wrote:
DanielCC wrote:
Btw no problem if other people have already decided against this but I thought it was better to have the Philosophy section split into separate sub-sections e.g. General Metaphysics, Philosophy of Religion, Ethics and Non-Western Philosophy.
I agree structurally but not at first. You don't want 20 empty forums when you have have 5 full ones. It's like going to a resturant that looks empty. It just frightens people away.
Oddly I was thinking along similar ‘advertising’ lines but came to the opposite conclusion. My thoughts were since a lot of the weight would fall on the Philosophy Section it'd better to have it split up as that way people would see immediately there's a range of conversations going on. Also it adds a nice professional look.
(It’s no big deal either way as I said)
Anyway I’ve long mini-essay type post on universals to unleash on the world later. Until then.
Offline
DanielCC wrote:
iwpoe wrote:
DanielCC wrote:
Btw no problem if other people have already decided against this but I thought it was better to have the Philosophy section split into separate sub-sections e.g. General Metaphysics, Philosophy of Religion, Ethics and Non-Western Philosophy.
I agree structurally but not at first. You don't want 20 empty forums when you have have 5 full ones. It's like going to a resturant that looks empty. It just frightens people away.
Oddly I was thinking along similar ‘advertising’ lines but came to the opposite conclusion. My thoughts were since a lot of the weight would fall on the Philosophy Section it'd better to have it split up as that way people would see immediately there's a range of conversations going on. Also it adds a nice professional look.
This is also true. I say let's see what content we get over the coming week or two and *then* split into different forums. That way we don't have a huge schema with no content.
DanielCC wrote:
Anyway I’ve long mini-essay type post on universals to unleash on the world later. Until then.
My big project right now is classic Platonism (i.e. in the ancient tradition) and the Forums, but I don't study or write like an analytic Philosopher so we'll see if any of you can bear it. I hope I can hook up with you on the tail end since universals and forms bear relation but aren't the same.
Last edited by iwpoe (6/27/2015 4:55 am)
Offline
iwpoe wrote:
My big project right now is classic Platonism (i.e. in the ancient tradition) and the Forums, but I don't study or write like an analytic Philosopher so we'll see if any of you can bear it.
As long as arguments are explicit, logically valid, and claims are justified, I wouldn't care if you wrote in villanelle.
Offline
Can we add ancient philosophy, or something like it into the title somewhere?