"Photographs, Ideas, and Meaning" (?)‏

[fate_faith_change_chains]

<blockquote>

<p>May I post in <em>my</em> own way?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Certainly, but then don't complain about the way other contributors choose to post, in <em>their</em> own way.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>For some reason you need to attack me for commenting on careless posts and bad writing</p>

</blockquote>

<p>There was nothing remotely "attacking" in Michael's post. And by the way, this isn't the <em>philosophy of writing</em> forum. </p>

<p>But here you go : first writing lesson : clear thinking is not a prerequisite for writing clearly.</p>

[jtk]

<p>Phylo, thanks for your advice. </p>

<p>Do you have a contribution of your own to make to the OT?</p>

<p>My contribution includes the suggestion write with reasonable care and that we contribute our own ideas, rather than obsessively positioning ourselves in opposition to each other. I think we owe each other reasonably good writing, and that if we have nothing of our own to say, we say that somewhere else. </p>

[albert_richardson1]

<p>I don't have any idea what happened in the middle of my last post. Whatever it was I was saying (now lost) was the *greatest*, most insightful contribution to the topic in the whole bunch! Oh well.... :-)</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>You write that way because you want to share your thoughts with photographers, not just with your navel. The same desire to communicate honestly can be seen in occasional concise, focused, even beautiful posts by their navel's best friends.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>I wonder if I'm the only one who sees this kind of remark as being antagonistic. John, do you mean to come across to others as being so angry? I really don't want to get involved in your personal stuff, but I think it would make a better community to be less demanding about a person's manner of writing. BTW, what exactly are "their navel's best friends"? Based on proximity, shape and size, a--holes I guess. Actually, don't tell me. I truly don't care to know.</p>

[michaellinder]

<p>John:</p>

<p>I don't think I'm attacking you at all. Rather, I am disagreeing with how you choose to characterize philosophy. Let's end this by agreeing to disagree.</p>

[santaprakash]

<p>OK. Among all you pundits in the field, I stand small and humble.. a newbie trying to learn something each day..<br>

that being said, the thing that attracted me (only since very recently) to the forum to browse through discussions is the current title..<br>

To me, not withstanding the verbose definition that the originator of this thread provided earlier, the term philosophy conveys a certain sense of abstractness that can be recognized through personal interpretation and a great degree of subjectivity.. I feel this way when I read articles on the Hindu philosophy or the Tao..and I am hoping to achieve a similar experience reading discussions in this forum also..<br>

It is that aspect of the term 'philosophy' that made me come in and take a look and read and contribute where I think it makes sense and provides value..<br>

I like the fact that this forum is not all about techniques and equipment and problem solving but just about the thought, the emotion and the interpretation that goes on behind the action of photo making..<br>

And to that end, I like the name 'philosophy of photography'..</p>

[ernest-b]

<p><em>"not withstanding the verbose definition that the originator of this thread provided earlier..."</em></p>

<p>http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/philosophy</p>

[Allen Herbert]

<p >“across to others as being so angry? I really don't want to get involved in your personal stuff,”</p>

<p > </p>

<p > </p>

<p >If that is not a personal attack on another forum member I wonder what can be construed as a personal attack.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >John is a challenging controversial forum member who communicates in a direct way….if he was attacking folk in a personal way his posts would be removed. That’s how I read the way of PN. Every time I pop in to this forum he seems to me people are whining about him because of his challenging thoughts and views. Is this some sort of Borg collective where conformity of thoughts and ideas are only to be tolerated…is their some sort of Borg Queen running the show? Are we all to burst into tears when someone has different views and speaks their mind in a direct way…..is that deemed a lack of civility and personal or is about people being oversensitive having only experienced the world of academia amongst there peers.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >It might seem strange to some but John is a very popular poster for many…I’ll leave you all with this final thought.</p>

<p > </p>

<p ><strong>John Kelly <a href="../member-status-icons"></a></strong></p>

<p >This page has been visited 20453 times since January 06, 2006</p>

<p > </p>

<p > </p>

<p >Let’s talk photography and move on from discussing what we like or don’t like about personalities.</p>

[michaellinder]

<p>Ernest: Merriam-Webster is not the be-all and end-all when it comes to understanding philosophy. Indeed, the nature of philosophy is itself a widely discussed issue in philosophy.</p>

<p>Allen: I think we're getting bogged down in a pissing contest here regarding who is insulting whom and who is whining about what and who is a nonconformist and who isn't. I like you're idea. "Let's talk photography and move on . . . ."</p>

 

[ernest-b]

<p><em>"Merriam-Webster is not the be-all and end-all when it comes to understanding philosophy."</em></p>

<p>Michael, that goes without saying. However, Shanta's characterization of the most-common definitions of the word itself (used in the OP to delineate the issue being raised) as having been "verbose" seemed to require a response. </p>

<p>I had no intention to become involved in this discussion, and respectfully take leave.</p>

<p> </p>

[santaprakash]

<p>My usage of the term 'verbose' was not intended to be derogatory.. If it came across that way, I want to clarify that I did not mean it that way..<br>

I wanted to draw a contrast between the definition in the OP and how I looked at it.. that's all..<br>

so.. I think the larger question is still at hand.. do members feel the forum name should be renamed or not..</p>

[aplumpton]

 

 

<p>"....do members feel the forum name should be renamed or not" (Shanta, after Ernest)</p>

<p>Yes and no. I believe that the reflections of Ernest and others are well put. The aspect of "meaning" of photogaphy or photographs is certainly implicit in the title of the present forum. As for "ideas", that too is represented in part, although I think that mental "approaches" to making photographs needs to be highlighted in order to attract attention. We have seen such subjects before in this forum ("Adrift", "The intention of the photographer", "Square framing, centered subjects and symmetry in photographs" - the poor relatives?", etc.) but they could posibly benefit from a title which might better attract the photographer to the present forum.</p>

<p>I would suggest the following title, if it is felt there should be a change:</p>

<p>"Approaches to and philosophy of photography" (A shorter version of "Artistic approaches to and philosophy of photography"). </p>

<p> </p>

 

 

[cooltpmd]

<p>I have been around this forum for years. I think that, by far, most people use this area as a place to discuss artistic ideas and personal version of wisdom. A few use this is an area to sharpen their more formal philosophical teeth.</p>

<p>Your post is well taken, but I don't think the name is the issue. This forum is consistently torpedoed because there are purposeful ... aimed torpedoes. </p>

<p>There are a few people here that will jump you for any viewpoint they disagree with (and there are a few that disagree with anything you can/will say).</p>

<p>Its like so much of our political process today. If people simply played nice, much more would be accomplished. Change the people not the name!!!!!!! If the name must change, this forum should simply be called <strong>"A Place Where Thinking People Exchange Ideas"</strong>.</p>

[luis_g]

<p><strong>Thomas typed: "</strong> Your post is well taken, but I don't think the name is the issue. This forum is consistently torpedoed because there are purposeful ... aimed torpedoes. There are a few people here that will jump you for any viewpoint they disagree with (and there are a few that disagree with anything you can/will say)."</p>

<p> Agreed, and one can clearly see it happening in this very thread.</p>

<p> </p>