/phi/?

[None !t8z4AZR6.g No.6852974]

Should 4chan create a board separate from /lit/ dedicated to philosophical thinking and discussions?
Discuss.

[Anonymous No.6852980]

>>6852974
That would be fantastic.

[Anonymous No.6852993]

please
and send all the religion threads there as well

[Anonymous No.6852996]

What's the point?

The /phil/ board will just be shit anyway and it will in no way improve the quality of this board.

[Anonymous No.6852999]

It would certainly increase quality across the board having them separated, but I worry that both boards would just end up being so slow that you never get any good discussion.

[Anonymous No.6853001]

That would be nice, but who do we petition for that? The faceless cohort of strangers who run the site now?

[Anonymous No.6853017]

>>6852974
social sciences /scs/?

could include history and art discussion since /ic/ is just drawfags

[None !t8z4AZR6.g No.6853022]

>>6852996
Why would it be shit? And the proposition for a separate /phi/ board has nothing to do with improving /lit/, it's about creating the appropriate board for deeper conversations.
>>6853001
https://www.change.org/start-a-petition
If we could get enough signatures (say, a large percentage of /lit/'s current traffic), I'm sure the mods and admins would notice.

[None !t8z4AZR6.g No.6853036]

>>6853017
Either that or an "Arts & Humanities" board, which would probably be a better option. Separate history/social sci boards would probably be even slower than a /phi/ board.

[Anonymous No.6853046]

>>6853036
i can get onboard w that

heh

[Anonymous No.6853049]

I've been shouting for a blue random board since 1993

[Anonymous No.6853050]

>>6852974
The problem with boards is that eventually they create a uniform idealism. This board has been shilled to hell and back for a long time now. They end discussion by drowning it in content.

Any real philosophic thought is hidden anyway. Philosophy has an exoteric and esoteric side to it, in the sense that authors often hide secret meaning in their works.

[None !t8z4AZR6.g No.6853080]

>>6853050
In principle, yes, but if we were to have a board exclusively on philosophy, I doubt that the users would allow pure ideology to command it. The idea behind a new space like /phi/ is exactly to avoid uniform thought - it should, at least in theory, be a place for discussion free from ideological dogmatism.

[Anonymous No.6853087]

>>6852974
no

literary inquiries are philosophical in nature. a lit board with phil ban by design turns into /r/books

if you want lit without philosophy (=substance), you'd fit right in there

[Anonymous No.6853088]

>>6853022
>it's about creating the appropriate board for deeper conversations.

But that's not going to happen. You can create all the boards you want to try and improve conversation of any topic, but it's ultimately the people that browse here that determine quality and you can't change that by making a new board.

[Anonymous No.6853090]

>>6853087
this tbh

[None !t8z4AZR6.g No.6853092]

>>6853087
Au contraire; my suggestion isn't because I enjoy books and don't want to engage in discussions about their substance, it's the exact opposite: I would like to discuss substance without the need for literary works as a basis.
>>6853088
Only time will tell. Should there be a /phi/ board, the users wouldn't be the same group, but a fraction of it. And we can only hope that fraction is going to be a better group.

[Anonymous No.6853103]

>>6853092
>Should there be a /phi/ board, the users wouldn't be the same group, but a fraction of it. And we can only hope that fraction is going to be a better group.

Why do you think the group would get even smaller? A new board is going to get a lot of attention and you will see an influx of people from other board go there. It won't just be a fraction of /lit/ that migrates too it.

[Anonymous No.6853105]

How many times are we going to have this thread? Search the fucking archives---no, it is not a good idea, contrary to what you or anyone else might think. The discussions that people on here have about philosophy are already of embarrassingly weak---WEAK---quality in comparison to, say, what went on years ago (Isabelle Hupbert, D&E, stan, quentin etc.)

[The cats No.6853108]

absolutely. It could quarantine the christposters off of other boards and it will prevent all of the bullshit stoned teenager "philosophy" topics made by idiots from other boards.

[Anonymous No.6853122]

>>6853108
Ah how optimistic--quarantine the "christposters off of other boards! Did it not occur to you that the Christian tradition have figures with philosophical inclinations too (Aquinas, Augustine, Kierkegaard, etcetc.)? Most, then, would be completely justified in posting christposts on the philosophy board, if there was one (not that I'm in favor of this, seeing how distasteful all the christposting is).

You're essentially babbling and restricting things without having a sharp definition of what constitutes philosophy.

[Anonymous No.6853149]

>>6853105
>quentin
Yeah right m8
>Isabelle Hupbert
Literally no one uses the shitty images he made


I'm also Atheist and don't mind the christposters, in fact they contribute to philosophical discussion considering Onto-theology, no to a /phil/ board.

[Carpocrates !!U54hziLbHNQ No.6853156]

>>6853122
He's saying the christposters would be quarantined on /phil/ you twat.

[Anonymous No.6853170]

>>6853036

we really need that to be honest.

/tv/ doesn't care about film, all they care about is underage actresses, series and feet.

/ic/ doesn't care about the visual arts, all they care about is their drawings.

/sci/ doesn't give a shit about the social sciences, you'll just get called "sjwtumblretc" and redirected or hit with a snide remark about not finding a job

/lit/ doesn't actually care about philosophy, it's just profiling, one-upping and boasting with knowledge

>>6853087

why would discussion about philosophical books be banned? it's just thinly veiled philosophy or political threads appear here all the time that are obviously not literature related