[Serious] Generally speaking, is philosophy a worthwhile subject of study?

[John 6IX Breezy]

I know I tend to write wordy posts but it's not about trying to impress anyone... far from it, as mostly I see it as a flaw; it's my own tendency to ramble combined with, similar to what you said, anticipating questions/objections and/or not wanting to be misunderstood. I dream of being more concise, and not over analysing things, but it's generally a losing battle

Keep in mind even the best writers ramble—it's a consequence of how the mind thinks. The trick is simply to do a second draft. That's when you make it sound like you knew what you were going to say all along.

[emjay]

I know I tend to write wordy posts but it's not about trying to impress anyone... far from it, as mostly I see it as a flaw; it's my own tendency to ramble combined with, similar to what you said, anticipating questions/objections and/or not wanting to be misunderstood. I dream of being more concise, and not over analysing things, but it's generally a losing battle

Keep in mind even the best writers ramble—it's a consequence of how the mind thinks. The trick is simply to do a second draft. That's when you make it sound like you knew what you were going to say all along.

Nice in theory but usually I find redrafting doesn't actually help me that much because each pass just ends up creating more let's say 'explanatory gaps' that I neurotically/compulsively feel the need to fill. My posts for instance usually have a lot of 'and/or's etc, neurotically trying to pre-empt anticipated questions/objections, but where each pass reading through it or redrafting it, creates more of those needs, so doesn't really help... leaving the only options really to either start from scratch or make do as it is.

So pretty much the only way I think I can make things more concise is either to find that elusive perfect sentence that covers all its bases in the shortest/simplest possible form, which granted is always very satisfying if you do find one, or just to be less anticipatory in the first place... which is difficult if you're one, like me, with a tendency to overthink/dwell on things.

[John 6IX Breezy]

So pretty much the only way I think I can make things more concise is either to find that elusive perfect sentence that covers all its bases in the shortest/simplest possible form, which granted is always very satisfying if you do find one, or just to be less anticipatory in the first place... which is difficult if you're one, like me, with a tendency to overthink/dwell on things.

That's an interesting observation. I do think the solution is to shift your thinking from an anticipatory position to a conversational one.

By anticipating a question you end up having a conversation alone instead of allowing others to be inserted into it. (Which really only happens in writing; it's harder to anticipate a face-to-face conversation.)

This also means you run the risk of biasing your questions, answering ones that serve your position, and avoiding ones that don't. So perhaps realizing that your best thinking can only emerge in response to other minds, can reduce the need for anticipation, and welcome objections more.

[emjay]

So pretty much the only way I think I can make things more concise is either to find that elusive perfect sentence that covers all its bases in the shortest/simplest possible form, which granted is always very satisfying if you do find one, or just to be less anticipatory in the first place... which is difficult if you're one, like me, with a tendency to overthink/dwell on things.

That's an interesting observation. I do think the solution is shifting your thinking from an anticipatory position to a conversational position.

By anticipating a question you end up having the conversation alone instead of allowing other people to be inserted into it. (Which really only happens in written exchange; it's harder to anticipate and dominate a realtime face-to-face conversation.)

This means you run the risk of biasing your questions (creating ones that serve your position). So perhaps realizing that your best thinking can only emerge in response to other minds, can help reduce the need for anticipation, and allow for a more natural exchange.

It's mainly the medium for me... ie I know a forum is real time in a sense but in another it's very staggered time, and that time inbetween posts, combined with it being a lot harder to read people in the sense of read their emotional state as you would face to face, bar the odd few emoticons we have at our disposal, just makes it so easy to overthink/misconstrue/dwell on things etc.

A lot of people have often said they think I have Aspergers Syndrome, including someone who used to babysit me when I was young and who's own son has Aspergers... which you could read either as being an authority on the subject but also as potentially biased... I don't know if I do or not, but I do know I have a lot in common with some of my friends that do... such as taking things too literally, obsessing over little details, and having difficulty understanding nuance/context.

Basically, in true, real-time face to face conversation, most of this is not a problem, and in something like Discord where it's more real-time conversation-like than this, but still text chat, it's less of a problem but still, ultimately that's part of why it takes so much out of me to have long conversations here. It's makes me miss days gone where we actually had Skype chats around here... atheist and theist just chatting together on Skype, just a whole different kind of conversation.

[highdimensionman]

In terms of the philosophy of Pseudo randomness like with Rule 30 cellular automata you could be expressing the impact of higher dimensional effect on lower dimensional binary sort of.
This is my point there could be more study on the nature of generating randomness and how these methods relate to dimensional analysis to see if we can't find some good axioms or at least guides regarding the nature of randomness.
Another Point is can we find a possible model where we can peer closer and with this good modelled dataset peer better though more noisy more tiny scales to gain concise data.
This venture is probably a 100-200 year long issue at least, hopefully we get as far as nature allows not end up stuck through lack of exploration or understanding which requires furthering of philosophy.
Simply refining trodden paths doesn't get you closer to more global optimal's always. There is no magic 42 like answer. As humans we move forward by further developing new and tweaked underlying truths. Institutionally this doesn't change fast shall we say kind of like over centuries and millennia in many areas of thought. However we had not managed to extend our minds so much before with machines. It's not about how fast you can interface with machines it's about the quality of underlying truths we can find working with the space such machines can provide.
If we cling to much to trodden paths we may not progress very well in new territories and where reality just won't fit our assumptions.
If we try exploring every path we can think of it wouldn't be very efficient either.
We need to develop in our optimal use of avoidance and exclusion as problem complexity increases which is not the same as ignoring all but the trodden path but still well thought out mental focus is required.
Many people in many paths of life disregard some philosophical and new perspective debates however whether or not they were right to do so on a given occasion is a very hard question.

[LadyForCamus]

*raises hand*

…


*puts down hand*

[brewer]

Well, lets see, I used physics, chemistry, medical and mechanics today and also provided some human and animal comfort.

What did philosophy provide me?

[The Grand Nudger]

Ignoring that those things are themselves products of philosophy, you didn't have a single thought..at all, while you did that? You made no inferences, you acted out on no value system, and..I guess, learned nothing whatsoever?

I think you're setting yourself up in an impossible and wildly unrepresentative dilemma. I think..especially here, in the context of this forum "philosophy" as a pejorative is used as a term for some specific view that is understandably shit on - but it's a ludicrous baby/bathwater situation that isn't at all representative of what you actually do, who you actually are, and where your interests lie. At the bottom of it all, just as a human being, you're patently incapable of not "doing philosophy". We think about things, and can't even help but do so. There's no off button.

[Belacqua]

Institutionally this doesn't change fast shall we say kind of like over centuries and millennia in many areas of thought.

Sometimes they say that for real change to come, the current generation of scientists has to die out.

[brewer]

Ignoring that those things are themselves products of philosophy, you didn't have a single thought..at all, while you did that?  You made no inferences, you acted out on no value system, and..I guess, learned nothing whatsoever?

I think you're setting yourself up in an impossible and wildly unrepresentative dilemma.  I think..especially here, in the context of this forum "philosophy" as a pejorative is used as a term for some specific view that is understandably shit on - but it's a ludicrous baby/bathwater situation that isn't at all representative of what you actually do, who you actually are, and where your interests lie.  At the bottom of it all, just as a human being, you're patently incapable of not "doing philosophy".  We think about things, and can't even help but do so.  There's no off button.

I really don't care.

This thread asked what I thought, I gave my thought (post #21), it could have been left alone but the 'philosophers' couldn't help themselves and pushed my button.

I'm sure that I practice philosophy all the time in some form or another, just not the type that shows up here.

I'll continue on just as content with my life and thoughts, the same as prior to this shit that doesn't really amount to a hill of beans IRL. It's sad that you, in particular, thinks it's that important.

I notice that you've continuing to not reply directly to me and an confident that you have the ability to do so.