It was a response to this:

Before I even knew what philosophy was, I was looking for something. Something fundamental. I didn’t know what to call it.

When I discovered philosophy, I thought that that field was the place where I would find what I was looking for, and that that was the name of what I was looking for: a philosophy. The right one.

I didn’t find it. But I found lots of partial attempts at it, and partially successful attempts at it, and generally, altogether, most of the parts of it. They just needed to be shaped and polished a bit, assembled together in the right way, and a few gaps filled in.

That’s what my book is meant to be: the thing I came to philosophy looking for, but never found. And it’s targeted at people like me from 20 years ago, who are looking for the same thing I was, and who have just learned that something called “philosophy” is where something like that may be found, but don’t yet know the first thing about it. — Pfhorrest

Put that in your intro then and dump the other opening because it doesn’t work (I would recommend you change one of the iterations of ‘something’ though).

I don’t quite follow your line of thinking here?

For starters wars and conflicts around the globe have dramatically decreased over the past century. You’ve made a sweeping statement that has no supporting evidence.

Men tend to be more aggressive (speaking statistically - but the difference isn’t huge). So that would possibly back up your claim. Given that there have been very few women leaders and that currently we’re living in one of, if not the, most peaceful period of modern history (last 500 years or so) I don’t see how this indicates women would’ve made any significant difference if they were in positions of leadership or not - Thatcher still went to war and so did Elizabeth I, but that isn’t a true reflection of who they were only the problems they were faced with in the times they lived.

If you have, as you say, ‘no understanding or data’ regarding how women run a country in anyway different from a man (if you had the data it would only represent a small slice of reality) and then say you’re ‘very much sure’ either way seems a little preposterous don’t you think?

I don’t honestly think having men or women in leadership makes any significant difference, yet during our current time it does have a societal impact on countries where equal opportunities are not currently present. In the far future I doubt anyone will care much about whether or not their leader is male or female, and I think that attitude is fairly well established in many modern societies already.

Oh right ... this is about history! Have fun :)

This person will interest you if you haven’t come across her already:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lynne_Kelly_(science_writer)

I understand what you’re saying. You should listen to the advice given to you. Our lives and interests sound relatively similar.

I’ve always done things the hard way. Jumping in the deep end has benefits, the thing I‘ve learnt more and more, in terms of completing a project, is that jumping in the deep-end does nothing in terms of productive work (but it certainly expands personal experience and learning). They are NOT the same thing though.

I challenge you to write what your book is about in 200 words only. Try several ways of doing this, including writing with the assumption that your audience knows how you think and has your knowledge, writing with the assumption they know nothing about philosophy and don’t really care to, or write it like it’s a narrative laced with analogies and symbolism.

If you are as persistent as you say keep failing and enjoy failing.

Understand, like everyone here I am talking mostly to myself. No one cares what I write, because in reality they only care about how they can make use of what they read.

If you’re really looking for what you say you’re looking for I’m here. We can do it privately or publicly, doesn’t matter either way to me. I want what you say you want. We can pick something to write about and feed of each other (tell each other what stands out for good/bad reasons, etc.,.)

I wasn’t being impatient? Just said that in relation to your other post where you made explicit your waxing and waning on this project.

You sound like you have the right attitude as does your gf. She’s meant to encourage you and support you. I’m not here to support you and encourage you in anything like the same manner.

Again, I’m not the one asking for a critique, but you are? I gave a quick example of how to engage with the reader quickly. Given that you missed the point of it I’ll make this clearer ...

1) Gist sentence about subject matter.
2) Pose a problem to the reader and hint/show ‘value’ - things like ‘many people,’ ‘but,’ and ‘although’. Why should the reader care?
3) Questions make the subject more concrete and actively engage with the reader - rather than passively absorbing words.
4) Avoid long lists, especially in an introduction to the subject matter.
5) State position as clearly as possible before explaining why you have this position.

When I said ‘high-school’ I meant that in such essays you are writing to show comprehension. If you’re writing a book/essay you’re writing for your audience and given the subject matter you have to address the audience differently because the audience is different.

I’m still unsure what your aim is. You seem to be writing something that is an introduction to philosophy, an educational resource, your own personal philosophical view, and a critique of philosophy in general. If it’s educational (textbook) then terms like ‘I’/‘we’/‘us’ should be avoided as much as possible. I don’t need to know about your personal story or journey; I don’t care (in terms of a educational piece of writing.

If you’re going for something more like ‘Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance’ though, I’d certainly go into more personal detail.

The thrust of what I’m saying is that I don’t know who this is for and I not convinced you do yet either. I’m getting mixed messages due to how it is lain out. The ‘set up’ matters a lot because people like to know what they are getting themselves into.

My own critique of my critique here would be to say I should really give positive feedback too. I like a lot of the content because I’ve looked at your essays before. I judged you to be someone less concerned with compliments and more likely to take criticism seriously if it was straight up - if you were a student it would be a different matter and I’d likely use a more ‘encouraging’ tone.

What do you mean? ;D

You probably just need a tonne more persistence and the resolve to finish a project (which will be flawed regardless of how much you try to perfect it). Even then you may feel that it was all in vain ... so what? Move on and do something else.

A collection of essays is a collection of essays. Try writing something about one particular topic in depth first. Very few people, if any, start bu writing a 500 page piece. They start small, perfect their craft, and more than likely end up writing something substantial that leaves their original ideas in the dust.

If no one cares what you write and you cannot find the experience you want take this on as the primary challenge of your life right now - think about the how and why you cannot find what you want here, or elsewhere, and deal with that first.

I’ve tried to set up groups online before where the aim was for people to write between 1000-2000 word mini-essay on a given topic and then exchange critique (including layout, presentation, style, and/or content). You won’t find anyone here willing to this, but you will find critique from others on writing forums (not here because people don’t care really, they just want to be ‘heard’ for the most part not ‘help’ - who can blame them, look at the majority of the content on this site).

I’m more than willing to start off something that can be of mutual benefit. Maybe start by writing something that is just 500-1000 words. The less you have to work with the more you can get out of it.

Have you abandoned this now? Do you understand what I’m pointing out in terms of presentation?

Note: To repeat; nothing to do with the content. The point being if you’re not engaging with your target audience then the content doesn’t matter because no one will be willing to read further.

If you want critique of your ‘ideas’ that won’t happen until you improve how to present them. It’s bloody hard work, and for the most part the process won’t be particularly rewarding or fun because you’ll have to cut away swathes of yourself as you refine and remake how you think/articulate to the point where you can be your own audience rather than simply throwing ideas at a wall without considering at better technique to make them stick.

Sometimes the fault is mostly with the reader and sometimes the fault is with the author. There is always some fault in both. You have to be honest with yourself and with your audience. Very few people will just pick something up and read it start to finish. People may select something at random, but they decide relatively quickly whether or not they are going to continue reading or move on.

The narrower your target audience the harder it will be to judge the impact of your words. If you’re writing for academia then you need to study academic writings in your area of interest. If there is no ‘area of interest’ and what you have is ‘original’ you just have to accept the fact that it’s not ‘original’ but simply ‘unwanted’. That doesn’t have anything to do with the ‘value’ of your writing though.

Note: You may find it both interesting and useful to look at literary theory, and to research different forms and styles of writing - maybe practice writing the same thing for different audiences (for early teens, adults, students, teachers, professionals, amateurs, intellectuals, etc.,.)

What are you talking about and why should I care?

I’m here to read and to sometimes write. I don’t expect to have in depth discussions online because they are rare. Occasionally I come across something interesting.

I usually come here, or elsewhere, because I’ve articulated a thought and want to see if I can get any feedback. I understand that this, like many other similar sites, is s social site primarily not an academic environment.

I’m not particularly sure I have been, or ever will be, interested in philosophy in any special sense. I like to think, I like to write and I like to read.

This gives some more depth to it:

https://durkheim.uchicago.edu/Summaries/forms.html

His definition of religion was this:

"a unified system of beliefs and practices relative to sacred things, i.e., things set apart and forbidden—beliefs and practices which unite in one single moral community called a Church, all those who adhere to them."

There is a term that still carries some weight today, but is used in many different ways - ‘religiosity’. Durkheim believed all humans possessed ‘religiosity’ (which doesn’t exactly mean we’re all ‘religious’ in the common sense of the word, but that we have certain social propensities that shape our behavior - be these moral beliefs or cultural traditions/habits).

There was a guy on Sean Carroll’s podcast talking about psychedelics recently ... ah! It’s on youtube too:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=SOEHWbl3KFc

Most of the guests are fascinating.

https://www.britannica.com/topic/truth-philosophy-and-logic

My personal take on this - and, to be clear, it is MY take on phenomenology - is that to refer to phenomenon within the framework of a phenomenological investigation as either ‘singular’ or ‘plural’ is against the main principle of phenomenology as a act of investigating consciousness withdrawn from the naturalistic world.

Of course, if you’re talking at natural phenomenon (meaning in the scientific naturalistic sense - via research and experimentation - then that’s fine as far as I can see).

Terhe cluod piboslsy eisxt smoe mianeng whitin aniaitwg rleveoietn togurrh aclipitopan, ctrconoatien, dciteodan and, pilmraiy, htnaimuy.

I’m assuming you’ve read Eliade’s ‘The Sacred and The Profane’? The most telling concept held within that small work for me is ‘hierophant’.

For the hell of it I may as well splash my notes here (they are rough notes!):

The introduction points out the “ganz andere” (wholly other) that is literally indescribable. We are forced to resort to mere analogies - here I would say all words and phraseologies are actually just “analogies” of a special flavour, and that through the written word we come to make words “sacrosanct” and withdraw from experience by making forts preservable and physical form through writing.
1
Hierophany*- as act of manifestation of the sacred. Etymologically the “hierophant” Is the conduit between the mundane and the sacred (The profane the sacred). For instance The shaman acts as a spirit guide “psychopomp” - essentially as the hierophant/guardian; someone who helps articulate the “ganz andere”.

*For a better understanding of “hierophant” think of the production team for a movie and the audience - the “hierophany” being the movie bridging between the two and making the two one. The production of a movie never to be seen, or of a audience gathered to view nothing is meaningless - there is no movie production without the concept of an audience just as there is no audience without the concept of gathering to share a common experience.

The “sacred world” comes prior to the “profane world”. In the charting and mapping of the environment an understanding of it - a meaning content - is manifested. The “meaning” is more “real” than the physicality, and through meaning and correspondence the “physical” underlying ontological existence becomes known by withdrawal from the “cosmologically sacred” (the meaning). As reality holds firm to our understanding, as meaning becomes “factual” so the “sacred” is desecrated and both the “sacred” and “profane” explode into distinct types of being (within this is the ‘crypto-religious’ behavior of profane man - connecting to the term “nostalgia”.)

Orientation is the same as construction. In such manners are “things” held to be, and in such a manner things possess meaning - the hunting site, the butchery of the animal, the home (or sleeping spot) - physically ground memory. It is through memory all experience “announces” itself; memory is something of the “mediator”, the “hierophant” of being (neither here in the now, embedded in the past nor future possibles.) In fact through refinement of memory grows an ever broadening and infinite scope for “knowledge of”; often through analogy. Such “orientation” or “construct”, of or about the cosmological condition, is edified with a group by a sacred object - and if broken then the community too breaks unable to distinguish the object from the cosmological abstraction of “reality” simply because the hierophant means all avenues and without it there is merely naught but nihilism (no orientation; therefore no meaning or purpose.) The death of the shaman, or “religious” figure, can have a similar effect (kings and queens, heroes and heroines, etc.,.)

The building/altar constructed upon a location of a successful hunt or fortunate circumstance - birth, victory, etc.,. Here, or at least in the homestead, man creates a representation of the cosmos. Within their own confines the ability to manage and perfect their habits/habitat takes on a new and lasting effect due to the control established within the confined space (a kind of “godhood” is taken on). The value of such abodes are brought about by entwining use to memory through a positive funnel - the “good narrative”, of hunt or other success, rounds a positive cosmological representation with which man commands his immediate position and solidified a point of orientation. The point of origin explodes into existence upon the physical world as an actual grounded place, thus giving the impression of “absolute” and bringing about the manifestation of limitations and a bounded existence: man is both imprisoned and free to explore. The world (weltanschauung) is transformed from more approximate bounds into acts of precision brought out by making finite “within” the infinite.

It was to set up a means of understanding consciousness and cognition apart from, but not in opposition to, the naturalistic attitude. Heidegger latched onto the problem of temporality with some vigour, and some success. The underlying point of Husserl’s phenomenology was consciousness, and he was very much opposed to psychologism.

It’s clear enough to me that Heidegger did good work in highlighting, and explicating, some of Husserl’s points, but overall I don’t see the route he took as being anything like Husserl’s primary concern.

As for proof? Heidegger proved nothing? He created, cleaved to, one important aspect of Husserl’s phenomenological project. Both were obtuse and I think it’s fair to say they both probably opposed the idea of reaching a ‘conclusion’ - a ‘conclusion’ is not something a method does, just like science (as a project) doesn’t have a ‘conclusion’ per se. Some went with Husserl and some went with Heidegger. I think it’s probably reasonable to say that more went with Heidegger, but that more recently there has been increasing interest in Husserl - particularly when it comes to the cognitive neurosciences.

This might help to lubricate the discussion:

https://www.iep.utm.edu/prop-log/#SH3b

Examples of problems in the text:

It may be hopeless, but I'm trying anyway.

Instantly turned off. That is no way to engage the reader. Essentially you just said, what I’m about to say is most probably useless (whether it is or it isn’t doesn't matter). It would be better to start with a ‘gist’ sentence.

Trying to succeed, trying to live a meaningful life, trying enjoy myself, trying to do the right thing. Trying to empower and enlighten myself and others, to bolster and support the right institutes of governance and education, that will best promote justice and knowledge, helping bring ours wills and our minds into alignment with what is moral and what is real, respectively. Trying to understand what it even means for something to be moral or for something to be real, by understanding the language we use to even discuss any of this, be it descriptive language making claims about reality, or prescriptive language making claims about morality — and to understand all that that entails about logic, mathematics, rhetoric, and the arts, as they shape our use of such language.

Too much, too many ‘trying’ broken up by a needlessly long sentence doing the same thing - listing. People don’t like to read lists.

Note: You’ve still not given me a anchor. No question or clear problem revealed.

Maybe that endeavor is hopeless. Maybe life is meaningless, all social institutes are incorrigibly corrupt, justice and knowledge are impossible, the mind and will (if there even are such things) powerless to grasp what is real or what is moral, if anything is actually real or moral at all, if it even makes any sense to try to talk about such things. Maybe that's all hopeless. But just in case it's not, I think we stand a better chance of succeeding at that endeavor, should success be at all possible, if we act on the assumption that it's not hopeless, and we try anyway.

One key word ‘But’. It comes far too late after two long lists spattered with terms that don’t encourage the reader (eg. ‘hopeless,’ ‘maybe,’ ‘trying,’ ‘powerless’).

And here’s a clunky part:

That general philosophical view is the underlying reason I will give for all of my more specific philosophical views: everything that follows does so as necessary to conform to that broad general philosophy, rejecting any views that require either just taking someone's word on some question or else giving up all hope of ever answering such a question, settling on whatever views remain in the wake of that rejection.

That’s one sentence!? Fair enough if you were outlining some specific point of import and selecting your words carefully and economically to get the thrust of your point across ... but you weren’t.

Note: I write like this too often enough. I try my best to edit as I write, but in reality editing some time after you’ve written your original piece with a highly self-critical attitude will improve both your ability to edit as you write and leave less work later on.

It could be that you’re looking at your writing as a set of ideas instead of a piece of writing. Forget what you’re saying and focus on how it reads. Pick up any pop-science/philosophy book and analyse how they open their subject matter up and the kind of questions they pose.

Examples from my shelf (four books picked at random):

‘In her book, Philosophy in a New Key, Susanne Langer remarks that certain ideas burst upon the intellectual landscape with tremendous force...’

We know this person has studied something and also setting up a potential ‘But...’ (Opening Chapter directly after preface)

‘All states, all powers, that have held and hold rule over men have been and are either republics or principalities.’

The subject matter is clear and there is a hint of ‘But...’ (Opening chapter after dedication)

‘Greek and Roman mythology is quite generally supposed to show us the way the human race thought and felt untold ages ago.’

Preempting an obvious ‘But...’ (Opening sentences of Intro)

‘The extraordinary interest aroused all over the world by Rudolf Otto’s Das Heilige (The Sacred), published in 1917, still persists.’

I sentence that displays both subject matter and the value of the coming content. (Opening sentences of Intro)

Your first few lines sound like the start of a novel as do the lists.

I would start something like this:

Throughout the history of human civilization we have found ourselves struggling with numerous questions, be these intellectual, moral and/or socially concerned. Even today a great many people will be asking themselves what the point is, or holding to some way of life based loosely on the life and thoughts of people long dead - be this Epictetus, the slave, Christ the Savior, or Albert Camus’ and his ‘absurd’ view of human existence. But is there really a ‘best’ way to live our lives? Should we cut our own uniques paths through time or live by the ideals set out by others? How should we live?

Yeah, but it’s a noun not a verb. I understand perfectly well how talking about ‘time’ is a tricky matter. The use of Da-sein is prelimarily vague, consistently attached to the spine of the discussion, and then ends in a philosophical shrug.

It is lucid in places once you hammer through the pages (not ‘Da-sein,’ just the general problems outlined).

... As ways in which human beings behave, sciences have this being’s (the human being’s) kind of being. We are defining this being terminologically as Da-sein. Scientific research is neither the sole nor the most immediate kind of being of this being that is possible. Moreover, Da-sein itself is distinctly different from other beings. We must make this distinct difference visible in a preliminary way. Here the discussion must anticipate subsequent analyses which only later will become truly demonstrative.

Da-sein is a being that does not simply occur among other beings. Rather it is ontically distinguished by the fact that in being this being is concerned about its very being.

... And because the essential definition of this being cannot be accomplished by ascribing to it a “what” that specifies its material content, because its essence lies rather in the fact that it in each instance has to be its being as its own, the term Da-sein, as a pure expression of being, has been chosen to designate this being.

Da-sein always understands itself in terms of its existence, in terms of its possibility to be itself or not to be itself. Da-sein has either chosen these possibilities itself, stumbled upon them, or in each instance already grown up in them. Existence is decided only by each Da-sein itself in the manner of seizing upon or neglecting such possibilities...

I could go on. The tail chasing continues, as it does throughout the book. Like I mentioned in a previous post here it is easier to just skip to the last paragraphs before bothering with the needless word salad.

If the interpretation of the meaning of being is to become a task, Da-sein is not only the primary being to be interrogated; in addition to this it is the being that always already in its being is related to what is sought in this question. But then the question of being is nothing else than the radicalisation of an essential tendency of being that belongs to Da-sein itself, namely, of the pre-ontological understanding of being.

Then there is the summary of the opening sections:

8. The Outline of the Treatise

The question of the meaning of being is the most universal and the emptiest. But at the same time the possibility inheres of its most acute individualisation in each particular Da-sein (* authentic: bringing about standing-within the there). If we are to gain a fundamental concept of “being” and prescription of the ontologically requisite conceptuality in all its necessary variations, we need a concrete guideline. The “special character” of the investigation does not belie the universality of the concept of being. For we may advance to being by way of a special interpretation of a particular being, Da-sein, in which the horizon for an understanding and a possible interpretation of being is to be won. But this being is in itself “historic,” so that its most proper ontological illumination necessarily becomes a “historical” interpretation.

The elaboration of the question of being is a two-pronged task; our treatise therefore has two divisions.

Part One: The interpretation of Da-sein on the basis of temporality and the explication of time as the transcendental horizon of the question of being.

Part Two: Basic features of a phenomenological destructuring of the history of ontology on the guideline of the problem of temporality.

The first part consists of three divisions:

1. The preparatory fundamental analysis of Da-sein.
2. Da-sein and temporality.
3. Time and being.

...

Da-sein is itself is a place-holder, or a ‘possibility’. There is no filling in for this place-holder and he ends with a number of questions and throughout the work certainly throws up some interesting, albeit needlessly obtuse, observations and ideas.

I’m not saying this in a dismissive manner I just found too much of his writing in B&T to be extraneous.

All of it. The structure and layout is not engaging. Reread what I’ve said, I;ve told you this already. Failing that, hire a professional to get some feedback.

Precisely! It is interesting to see how many voted ‘no’ simply because they saw ‘Communism’.

A democratic capitalistic system would be good too without human error or greed. It’s a no brainer, but certainly an interesting example of hoodwinking someone into the wrong answer by uses common biases against them.

I’m not asking for critique of my critique. Take it or leave it. I’m only responding because there is potential - for what, I’m still unsure because I have no idea what you’re going to do with this.

Communism is perfect in theory, but terrible in practice. And it's terrible in practice because a) it was bankrolled by capitalism from the beginning, b) egalitarianism is false, c) human nature doesn't accord with it.

Main reasons. — h060tu

You repeatedly ignore the OP. Hello? Wake up!

The OP states this. Read the OP. If you’re making up your own hypothetical be explicit in doing so.

I wouldn’t worry about it. Heidegger didn’t even know what he meant by Dasein, he just fooled many into thinking he did actually mean something by burying it under layers of obscure and pointless text.

That said, he does explore some interesting ideas. I just don’t buy into most of it because he seems - to my eyes - to have hijacked a slice of phenomenology from Husserl and ignored the its main endeavor.

Note: my opinion, but I’ve yet to see anyone show quotes prior to B&T that explicate what he meant by Dasein - there is no consistency on this in B&T as the term changes to suit the subject matter in focus throughout the work.

So what? Explain. Governments are related to humans directly whereas events in the world are related indirectly. If there is no human error do you think different governmental systems would act differently? If so show me why you think this.

Again, the OP removed human error! It’s irrelevant what system of government exists if humans never er.

I'm also trying to be humble in my presentation — Pfhorrest

Yes, because it’s for the ‘layman’. If you’re dumbing down the text you’re addressing philosophers so you shouldn’t be writing a philosophical piece - pick your audience rather than trying to cater to all (it won’t work).

You absolutely have to grab your reader early on. It is not ‘combative’ to present a problem and to say something someone says is wrong - that is telling the reader why your piece of writing is of value.

that is not a productive way to change anyone's mind about anything. — Pfhorrest

That’s another problem. People don’t read things to have their mind changed. You present a problem they care about, offer a better solution (a brief explanation of the solution) and then investigate it at length (warts and all).

I don't even intend to, properly speaking, argue in a persuasive way that you the reader ought to change your mind in this way or that. Instead, I intend merely to state what it is that I think, and why I think it, and leave it to you to consider the merits of those thoughts and my reasons for them, and what if any impact that ought to have on your own view of the world. I am merely presenting my worldview here for you to try on for size, and see how you like it. — The Codex Quaerentis: Introduction

Who cares? What’s the point? What are you selling? Pose some questions for the reader to ponder (a great many pop-science books do this because it engages interest in the reader by interacting with them.

That is basically like saying I have some opinions about life. That is the nebulous part I was talking about. You hinted at relativism earlier on but never explicitly mentioned it - that would’ve anchored the reader a little.

Look here:

The core principles I will outline have immediate implications about what kinds of things are real, what kinds of things are moral, the methods of attaining knowledge, and the methods of attaining justice, which will each be covered in their own essays. Those positions then raise immediate questions about the nature of the mind and the will, and the legitimacy of educational and governmental institutes, which will again each be covered in their own essays. All of that requires a framework of linguistic meaning to make any sense of, which will be covered in its own essay, along with attendant essays on the related topics of logic and mathematics, and rhetoric and the arts, each covering different facets of communication in more detail. And with all of that in place, we finally have the background to tackle the most practical questions of enlightenment, empowerment, and leading a meaningful life, each of which will be covered in its own essay as well.

But before any of that that, I must first address the nature of philosophy itself. As I will elaborate, I see philosophy as the most central field of study, bridging the most abstract of topics like language, math, and the arts, to the physical and ethical sciences that in turn support the development of all the practical tools used to do the jobs of all the world's various trades. It is in light of that far-reaching pragmatic role of philosophy that I will begin my approach to the subject.

This would turn off the majority of your readers. You tease your reader by building up then evade. The reader still has no reason to continue nor any knowledge of what they’re reading or of any potential value for themselves. You’ve just constructed a huge barrier between the writing and your reader (note: not YOU and your reader; you don’t matter to them at all).

If you think my points aren’t valid hire a professional editor to look at your work and see if they echo what I’ve said. I’m certain they would.

Note: to repeat, this has nothing to do with the philosophical content.

The hypothetical in the OP implies this, not me.

In a governmental system where there is no human error the system would work flawlessly. The parameters for success or failure of a social system is wholly dependent upon humans.

The answer clearly ‘yes’ because of this:

In this scenario human error and greed is removed. — TheDarkElf

Any system would work in this scenario, communist or otherwise.

Agreed. It’s incredibly useful to write/speak what you think.

I hear just as much bleating from both sides. Nothing new.

Have fun.

ANY form of government is perfect if everyone agrees to it. Therefore there is no ‘perfect’.

Anyway, Communism like Democracy, is hardly an iron cast item. There are many flavours. Your view seems rather superficial, is it? If not explain why would should care about your opinion.

I’ll have to look into Barrett more.

Cut the autobiographical tone then (cut the ‘I’). No one cares who you are or what your views are. People read to explore not to be shown what you know, why you know it or what ideas you have to share.

If it’s for your own purposes, great! If written for others to read, it’s poorly thought out possesses little structure for the reader to grab onto (nothing of any immediate interest or concern - present a clear problem/argument EARLY). It might help to start at the end to garner interest/curiosity by showing the reader the potential use of the problem/argument.

You start off by literally showing us what you know. It is exactly the style of writing reminiscent of high school students. You’re not writing for teachers. We don’t care about what you’ve learnt we’re reading for US.

Note: I am not critiquing the content only the presentation. Your intent isn’t clear - meaning you’ve not presented the reader with a problem to engage with or offered up critique of your given topic (which is nebulous at best).

Who are you writing for? Who is your audience?

Giordano Bruno is an interesting figure. Francis Yates’ scholarly work on him is pretty interesting if you’re interested in this area.