The problem with sending people to general philosophy sites is that there is generally a lot of confusion between “philosophy” and “history of philosophy”, and the latter is more common. People tend to get railroaded into reading philosophers that’re old and prestigious, but much more confusing than a modern rehash of the same topics would be. A quick glance at philosophyforums.com confirmed my suspicion that it’s dominated by history of philosophy. If we aren’t careful to avoid that, we’ll be doing people a great disservice.
Agreed. There aren’t enough good modern rehashings of the same things. But ‘philosophy’ doesn’t seem to be the right sort of thing to start folks off on anyway.
The problem with sending people to general philosophy sites is that there is generally a lot of confusion between “philosophy” and “history of philosophy”, and the latter is more common. People tend to get railroaded into reading philosophers that’re old and prestigious, but much more confusing than a modern rehash of the same topics would be. A quick glance at philosophyforums.com confirmed my suspicion that it’s dominated by history of philosophy. If we aren’t careful to avoid that, we’ll be doing people a great disservice.
Agreed. There aren’t enough good modern rehashings of the same things. But ‘philosophy’ doesn’t seem to be the right sort of thing to start folks off on anyway.
Agreed. Let’s keep looking… or as RobinZ suggests, create it