Yes, Prolegomena is much friendlier.

Ironic, innit? Same guy…..700-odd page book on very complicated subject with a short simple title, mere 5-page essay on roughly that same subject, greatly simplified, but with a title damn near a foot long.

This doesn't quite capture my view, and I think it belittles the study of the philosophical tradition. — Jamal

My apologies for not adequately capturing your view, I will leave that to you then. It was also not my intention to belittle your viewpoint. I think yours is a very conservative way of viewing philosophy, and that is valuable and valid. Mine is a more liberal view. I do not believe my view invalidates your view, nor does your view invalidate mine. I think they are both viable approaches to the field of philosophy. Fair if you disagree, its an opinion of mine.

I think yours is a very conservative way of viewing philosophy, — Philosophim

Well I've never been called that before!

Since, as I pointed out, the study of the tradition is not the worship of texts but is part of an effort to take thinking in new directions, I don't see how it can be described as conservative. On the contrary, the conservative way of doing philosophy is to follow what seems obvious to you, such that you think you don't need to refer to the work that's been done on the topic (whatever it might be). In my opinion this lacks the engagement with the philosophical conversation and the self-critical attitude necessary to think original thoughts.

But you do you, as they say :up:

On the contrary, the conservative way of doing philosophy is to follow what seems obvious to you, such that you think you don't need to refer to the work that's been done on the topic (whatever it might be). — Jamal

I think what philosophim is getting at is the inherently academic structure to your approach (these are the thinkers, they have directed the history of thought), while they are trying to do it entirely themselves with no restraints or references to celebrities. This is part of the reason why i tend to avoid the "liberal" and "conservative" dichotomies unless I'm referring to ideas in politics, otherwise i feel either one of the terms is confusing. There's also "liberal usage" and "conservative usage", but i rarely use those terms when talking to other people.

I'm not arguing in favor of either of your approaches, as i agree with both of them in spirit; I appreciate the formal philosophy of the university to the extent that it gives me some reference, and i also appreciate free-wheeling creativity if it's not pissing me off or trying to sell me some lies.

I am a snotty troll occasionally. — Jamal

I did say “amusing”

Neitzsche was someone who broke the mould in some ways, but sadly I think too many recently have tried to mimic his approach instead of doing how he instructed--to rise above and discover yourself beyond yourself. — I like sushi

that's an interesting way to look at what he was calling for, because it usually gets simplified into "self-overcoming", which re-inforces the self-help mentality of changing yourself to fit the logic of success and productivity, but that's not really what Nietzsche was getting at...i think getting to know yourself better has more relevance to what Nietzsche was actually promoting. For me, he's probably the philosopher i've had the most fun exploring so far, I intend to eventually read english translations of everything [available] that he wrote...and even reading it all again...

Writing about philosophy: what are the basic standards and expectations?[/quote]
Who is your intended audience?

A habilitation committee at a university?
The editor of Philosophy Now?
The editor of Reader's Digest?
People who post a lot on Twitter?
People at an online philosophy forum?
Your family at a dinner table?
Who?

For what reason are you trying to present your philosophical thoughts to some particular audience?


If you skip these questions, you're implying some universalizing, generalizing, absolutizing theme to your argument that might actually run counter to the argument you're explicitly making.

If you skip these questions, you're implying some universalizing, generalizing, absolutizing theme to your argument that might actually run counter to the argument you're explicitly making. — baker

not if i'm also just trying to learn about the subject matter myself; i never meant to imply that writing something for others is an emergency, even though i do have vague interest in it. Part of the issue is that the audience is much more vague as someone without a university position or who isn't a student. I don't like twitter/x and social media culture in general.

Part of the issue is that the audience is much vague as someone without a university position or who isn't a student. — ProtagoranSocratist

Then such is the predicament of the would-be philosopher.

Then such is the predicament of the would-be philosopher. — baker

But you're not really engaging with main thing i'm wondering. You're bringing up status and philosophy as a carreer as having influence over the writing and fame making: how do those effect the attention given to a text? Which philosophers gain recognition without university assistance? Sometimes I conclude "none", but this is just an assumption.

I think what philosophim is getting at is the inherently academic structure to your approach (these are the thinkers, they have directed the history of thought), while they are trying to do it entirely themselves with no restraints or references to celebrities. — ProtagoranSocratist

If you take the sides of the coin to their landed ends, yes. Jamal isn't fully stating that only academic structures should be considered, and I'm not saying you shouldn't be familiar with the subject material you're trying to write about. Depending on your personality you may wobble on one side of the coin over the other, but keep the coin spinning at all times.

I'm not arguing in favor of either of your approaches, as i agree with both of them in spirit; I appreciate the formal philosophy of the university to the extent that it gives me some reference, and i also appreciate free-wheeling creativity if it's not pissing me off or trying to sell me some lies. — ProtagoranSocratist

Exactly. I hope Jamal and I have been able to show you different approaches that can be used depending on your needs and wants in exploring philosophy. Enjoy exploring regardless!

Which philosophers gain recognition without university assistance? Sometimes I conclude "none", but this is just an assumption. — ProtagoranSocratist

I’m here assuming that by “university assistance” you’re referring to holding a doctorate in philosophy, and the networking that then goes hand in hand with it.

While a higher education in philosophy certainty can help, there are examples of philosophers who “shook the world”, so to speak, that don’t fit this model. From a quick online search:

In ancient times, there was Diogenes (ancient cynicism), Epictetus (ancient stoicism), and Socrates (on whom the Academy was founded). In more recent times, there was Hume (never graduated from a university), Nietzsche (did not obtain a doctorate), Whitehead (had no advanced training in philosophy), and Wittgenstein (his higher education was not in philosophy). And Easterners have their own, such as Confucius.

In many a sense, it can be likened to being a good and successful artist: education in the arts certainly benefits but education of itself does not determine who the talented artists are, and some have no degrees in this field. Like him or not, Salvador Dali comes to mind (he was expelled twice from the academy and never completed his degree). Likewise can also be said with the good, historically important novelists.

All this to illustrate that the philosophical knowledge which higher education has to offer in no way equates to the philosophical understanding required to become a significant philosopher. But, again, this is not to then deny the importance of knowledge in the field.

the networking that then goes hand in hand with it. — javra

this is really the only thing that matters in all of this, making the connections needed so that other people "carry your torch" so to speak. In some ways fame is pretty insignificant and not worth it, but those who come up with ideas they want to share usually want a little bit of recognition for it, even if it's just in the form of having some conversations with people who read their book. The mechanics behind all this are what interested me in making this discussion.

this is really the only thing that matters in all of this, making the connections needed so that other people "carry your torch" so to speak. In some ways fame is pretty insignificant and not worth it, but those who come up with ideas they want to share usually want a little bit of recognition for it, even if it's just in the form of having some conversations with people who read their book. — ProtagoranSocratist

Are you saying this is the only thing that matters to you or to the subject at hand as laid out in the OP?

Plenty of fluff out there that gets far more fame than the meaningful stuff via our modern-day meme-transferring online networking. Which, to me, is a pretty big shame. Lotuses that get drowned out in filth on account of the filth having far more connections.

------------

For other people to “carry your torch”…

A proposal I don’t yet think is possible to debunk: philosophy either aims at exhibiting deeper truths or else it is utter sophistic BS purporting to do the same but with ulterior egotistic motives.

While the expressions of these deeper truths might be “yours”, this due to you being the creator of these expressions, the deeper truths themselves are as much yours as is the solid earth beneath our feet, which is to say they’re no more yours than anyone else’s. A philosopher might want for others to carry “the” torch of the deeper truths they desired exhibited to the world, but this wouldn’t be “their” torch, for deeper truths (which thereby apply to many if not all) are not something people fabricate and can thereby claim ownership of. (The latter, fabricated truths, commonly go by the term “lies”.)

I’m guesstimating, and maybe nitpicking, but maybe instead of “carry your torch” you intended that a philosopher would like for others to “carry the torch”? This just as the Olympic torch that gets carried from place to place doesn’t belong to any one originating person.

In the context of fame of either the individual or the ideas they were promoting, the thing I'm analyzing is what unites the timeless philosophers, for lack of a better term.

For example, you mention this interesting issue:

A proposal I don’t yet think is possible to debunk: philosophy either aims at exhibiting deeper truths or else it is utter sophistic BS purporting to do the same but with ulterior egotistic motives. — javra

If I had to guess, philosophers who really took the content they were writing very seriously (like Plato) are the ones who have lasting fame. I'm thinking about how to tell the difference between the sophistic BS and the "deeper truth" philosophers, I'd appreciate if you elaborated because I don't know what you mean entirely. I think some deeper truths tend to get brushed aside either because people don't want to hear them or don't understand their importance. What makes a truth more important than another truth?

It is true that a lot of writers in general acquire fame through lying and sophistry, and while they're using guaranteed money-making formulas, much of the content those people write will be forgotten by people who take ideas seriously centuries (or even decades) later. The figurative torch, whether it's phrased as "the torch" or "your/my torch" is what's important to the writer. If only money is important to the writer, then the ideas themselves may not have the lasting interest, even if they can be identified as rhetorical tools.

I can easily think of political writers who were only trying to make money, but what are recent examples of pop philosophers who are merely using rhetorical tricks to gain attention and make a quick profit? IMO, the original greek sophists are a little more interesting (like Protagoras), because they were more explicit in talking about using speech or writing as a smoke-in-mirrors project, and going for effect instead of trying to question how we think of things or improve moral reasoning.

What makes a truth more important than another truth? — ProtagoranSocratist

The amount of evidence that supports it.

Every philosophical idea without evidence is just as valid as every other idea without evidence.

It is true that a lot of writers in general acquire fame through lying and sophistry, and while they're using guaranteed money-making formulas, much of the content those people write will be forgotten by people who take ideas seriously centuries (or even decades) later. — ProtagoranSocratist

Yeah, I think we should be taking what others say with a grain of salt when saying what they say it is how they make a living, instead of seeking truth.

The amount of evidence that supports it. — Harry Hindu

well that can be arranged ;) Especially when everyone has billions of talking points and facts at their fingertips...

I'm thinking about how to tell the difference between the sophistic BS and the "deeper truth" philosophers, I'd appreciate if you elaborated because I don't know what you mean entirely. I think some deeper truths tend to get brushed aside either because people don't want to hear them or don't understand their importance. What makes a truth more important than another truth? — ProtagoranSocratist

Well, to start off, what I was saying is that there is philosophical fluff that drowns out the good quality non-fluff philosophy in today's connected world. Fluff, then, is not sophistic BS but merely superficial and in due degree inconsequential. Examples of fluff can be readily found in the self-help department, such as in, for example, "How the Buddha would Date" (from best recollections): utterly superficial and forgettable philosophy that nevertheless sells. But not necessarily sophistic BS. The sophistic BS part was a separate issue to me: pivoting on the issue of ego and its desires for fame, fortune, power, etc. by mimicking (but not emulating) what good faith philosophers do

As to what makes a truth more important than another: the more trivial the truth (e.g., the truth that up is not down), the less important its exhibiting to the public at large is. Conversely, the more exhibited truths light the way in places of darkness (i.e., bring understanding into places previously replete with unknowns and thus filled with displeasing uncertainties), the more important these truths become.

I can easily think of political writers who were only trying to make money, but what are recent examples of pop philosophers who are merely using rhetorical tricks to gain attention and make a quick profit? — ProtagoranSocratist

I now had to look up the darned book: If the Buddha Dated: A Handbook for Finding Love on a Spiritual Path In truth, never read it. Got it as a present from someone who did. It looks, sounds, and feels like fluff to me, so ... I presume it is. But it does have a lot of good reviews and plenty of sales. Will it be forgotten in a hundred years? Most likely.

Conversely, the more exhibited truths light the way in places of darkness (i.e., bring understanding into places previously replete with unknowns and thus filled with displeasing uncertainties), the more important these truths become. — javra

if i am ever to write philosophy, with my real name on the cover, that's exactly what i would like to do, even though it might never happen just because i have so many interests...

So I guess pop philosophy something that an academic would not call philosophy, like political rhetoric and self-help? I'm a little disappointed as I was hoping that you would maybe come up with something you regard as shallow and sophistic in formal, modern day philosophy...but this an issue inherent to wanting to separate true philosophy from false philosophy, more or less.

I'm a little disappointed as I was hoping that you would maybe come up with something you regard as shallow and sophistic in formal, modern day philosophy. — ProtagoranSocratist

Ever heard of the book "Biocentrism: How Life and Consciousness are the Keys to Understanding the Universe"? (Wikipedia reference). This I've read. It's got some interesting points, with empirical evidence and all, but, philosophically, it is very shallow and at least borders on utilizing sophistic rhetorical strategies. This is a prime example, to me at least, of modern day philosophy that ain't all that philosophically astute.

Another good example of the same is: "A Universe from Nothing: Why There Is Something Rather Than Nothing" by Lawrence M. Krauss

I still think this is an excellent list of guidelines, and you shouldn't change this original draft as it's very well written, and doesn't appear to have any grammar mistakes that can confuse readers.

However, it's definitely not perfect: @Jamal already pointed out potential issues with totally separating arguments from the person speaking, but here's a couple of other things I think should be scrutinized as well:

Try to nail the definitions down as soon as possible. — Philosophim

This is actually poor form in a lot of contexts; all writers of books other than dictionaries and text books know that they rely on the readers to have a partially-shared understanding of the words used in the book already. The meanings/understandings that the readers already possess are just as valuable as your desire to create meaning or coin new terms.

One thing I realized in the process of writing my first book was that writing is about a lot more than the word choices: it's also about structure and psychology. You structure your ideas to get your ideas across effectively (at least this is how you look at it for a non-fiction genre like philosophy), without the confusion...and minimized misinterpretation (but you can't get rid of this entirely, as some of the best writers are misinterpreted), and the psychology is needed for trying to figure out how people will respond to your text before you hit the "send" button.

However, the psychology aspect is probably the least important part of my narrative, because part of the joy of writing is in testing how publishers and casual readers of your work will receive it.

Do not waste time on philosophical reading that has poor language, definitions, or easily disproven premises. I am amazed at the amount of people who will spend hours analyzing a piece of work that is invalidated within the first opening chapter of the discussion. — Philosophim

Sure, there are some sources you should not trust for information based on snap judgements, but the way you phrase it doesn't work as a guideline...at least not for me. For example, who can really agree on examples of "poor language"? It seems rather loaded...sometimes people understand statements spoken with bad grammar better than they understand statements made with good grammar. In colloquial speech, people tend to use poor grammar and break the teacher's rules all the time. If you break the official rules of language in a clever way, sometimes people commend the creativity. Coining terms and violating grammar rules are both a process of creating new meanings. If you can't create your own meaning, then I feel sorry for you, because this is the best power that spoken words and writing can have.

Also, "proof" tends to be over-rated, and proving superiority to others doesn't have any value within itself besides the thrill of winning. Superiority doesn't hold any water in the long run, because if you do manage to impress someone so that they stick around, then in the future they'll figure out some way to best/humiliate you in front of others as well. The "easily disproven" premise is too subjective to really illuminate problems with a text. For example, me and @javra discussed books which are written for the sole intent of making money, and mostly do not have lasting philosophical teachings. One example they gave was a self-help book called "If the Buddha Dated: A Handbook for Finding Love on a Spiritual Path".

When i finally found a free copy of the book to download, I read through the introductory material: it was regurgitated nonsense on "having compassion", and i thought it was boring and uninteresting. I asked myself why she would be writing buddhist romantic advice when "the Buddha" was an ascetic, and probably wouldn't have dated anyone anyways, and as I flipped through trying to find out what a "buddha date" look like, I got my previous suspicions thrown back at me from the writer herself:

Of course, the Buddha didn’t date. No one really dated in his
time. In that culture, as in many others, it would have been
considered barbarian to have young men and women chase
after each other, left completely on their own to find mates.

But is this proof that "the Buddha" never went on a date? Is it even proof that people from that period thought about dating in a different way? Absolutely not. No, nothing has been proven here, but it doesn't even matter, as the purpose of self-help books seems to be similar to the purpose of scams. Self-help books are all about making vague promises to the reader and not making good on the promise, whereas scams tend to be about making specific promises to the mark, but still not making good on the promise.

Also, ask yourself this: so if "the Buddha" really lived in a time period where people couldn't chase after each other or find mates, then why did he comment so much on the passions, and proper/improper sexual conduct? Even modern buddhists tend to discuss sexuality in moral terms, so if people had absolutely no sexual agency in this time period, as the writer seems to imply, then how could her assertion about history have any truth to it? I don't need any proof to understand this as a statement not worth considering, just a little bit of logical deduction and firsthand experience with human sexual behavior and biases. It seems obvious that people speaking in sanskrit and pali did not use the word "date" as those languages are radically different from english, ill giver her that much...but it's still possible that ancient culture had some version of courtship described with different words.

Anyways, i digress: the truth is that proof in philosophy doesn't have much relevance, it has more relevance in science, mathematics, and the court system. It's even over-rated in the court system: sometimes the police make their own evidence by threatening suspects into making incriminating statements or confessing..."proof" is completely subject to fabrication and denial.

I still think this is an excellent list of guidelines, and you shouldn't change this original draft as it's very well written, and doesn't appear to have any grammar mistakes that can confuse readers. — ProtagoranSocratist

Thank you, that's kind. :)

One thing I wrote in the process of writing my first book was that writing is about a lot more than the word choices: it's also about structure and psychology. You structure your ideas to get your ideas across effectively (at least this is how you look at it for a non-fiction genre like philosophy), without the confusion...and minimized misinterpretation (but you can't get rid of this entirely, as some of the best writers are misinterpreted), and the psychology is needed for trying to figure out how people will respond to your text before you hit the "send" button. — ProtagoranSocratist

In terms of casual and emotional philosophy, you're completely correct. What you're often times appealing to is the context of human emotion. Its not as important to describe the dimensions of an Oak chair, and often times the writing is an interplay between the reader's mind and the writer's provided work. Such writing is never a solo enterprise, and it will likely be a unique experience for different individuals.

While I agree that philosophy can be entertaining, emotional, and subjective, what I was referencing is objective philosophy. This philosophy is not intended to be entertaining or play on the reader's imagination. It is a logic puzzle. A carefully crafted set of definitions that build into what the author will claim is a certain conclusion.

Most of your famous philosophers follow this model more closely. Its the careful construction of definitions with a particular meaning in the context of the paper that builds to a certain conclusion. In this way, the writing is not about one's own subjective interpretation. It is a carefully crafted blueprint that if followed to a T, promises a solid house. In writing like this a reader has to be very careful not to put their own intent in words that the writer is not intending. It is essential that the terminology in such writing be understood for the reader to fully understand the philosopher's point. It is this type of philosophy that requires the vocabulary be solid and understood or else the whole enterprise may fall apart.

Sure, there are some sources you should not trust for information based on snap judgements, but the way you phrase it doesn't work as a guideline...at least not for me. For example, who can really agree on examples of "poor language"? It seems rather loaded...sometimes people understand statements spoken with bad grammar better than they understand statements made with good grammar. In colloquial speech, people tend to use poor grammar and break the teacher's rules all the time. If you break the official rules of language in a clever way, sometimes people commend the creativity. Coining terms and violating grammar rules are both a process of creating new meanings. — ProtagoranSocratist

A well stated point, and you are right that 'poor language' is well, 'poorly worded in its intent'. The example you give is what I would consider well worded in intent. Good objective philosophy will have clear and unambiguous intent with its phrasing and terminology. If someone is trying to build a house, unclear vocabulary and writing are often examples of a writer who's trying to fudge their logic to get to the conclusion they want because if they don't they'll arrive at a different destination.

Also, "proof" tends to be over-rated, and proving superiority to others doesn't have any value within itself besides the thrill of winning. — ProtagoranSocratist

I agree that using a discussion to assert superiority is an indicator of an inferior individual. :D The philosophy I'm referencing is someone who is trying to build an objective solution to problems like ethics, knowledge, or ontology. The goal is not to assert personal superiority. In fact, they don't matter to the argument at all. The argument is the point itself. An offered tool and solution for others to gain wisdom for the benefit of their own life.

Let me give you an example of my own writing. This is about what knowledge is, and which inductions are most reasonable to use in your life.

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/14044/knowledge-and-induction-within-your-self-context/p1

This one is a little less fun (I'm a terrible salesperson) but fits more of the objective model I was noting where definitions and arguments must be carefully made. This is about the logic of what the universe's start had to be (Not a God argument)
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/15722/the-logic-of-a-universal-origin-and-meaning/p1

Read them if you want or not. But they are my approach as I've attempted to embody rather than describe.

While I agree that philosophy can be entertaining, emotional, and subjective, what I was referencing is objective philosophy. This philosophy is not intended to be entertaining or play on the reader's imagination. It is a logic puzzle. A carefully crafted set of definitions that build into what the author will claim is a certain conclusion. — Philosophim

ah: if that's what you're going for, you might want to read about this particular school of philosophy...

https://www.britannica.com/topic/Megarian-school

...and take some time to explore the conundrums they present.

You keep bringing up being "objective", but that's more in line with the realm of research science and mathematics. I think this is an important distinction, because philosophers rarely cite statistics to back up their claims, or use objective evidence in this manner. They use citations, and this is good, but the purpose is usually not to prove anything, philosophy citations are normally used to reference other written works as a courtesy to the reader (or not use citations at all, as is the case with tons of writers).

Logic puzzles aren't objective, it's just you presenting a made up logic because you find it to be pleasurable or interesting. A good paradox is among my favorites...

For example, consider this statement: "I am a liar". Let's say, i'm telling the truth, that i make a habit of lying, but then this would automatically reveal the statement as a lie as well, canceling it out because for once i've told the truth. But then let's say this isn't true, and i actually am an honest person...so then the statement I made about me being a liar is a lie, which confirms that i'm not honest, and the logic circle repeats again.

That's a greek paradox, but i personally think the Zeno tortoise-and-stadium example is stupid and makes weird assumptions right from the start, but that is just my opinion, and Zeno himself clearly disagreed.

I see that you want to build figurative structures based on ideas, and this is the case for all writing. The difference for each type of writing is the intent. For example, a novelist doesn't care about presenting an argument or house of ideas, they just want to please the imagination of the reader, and keep them flipping pages till the end of the story. A poet's individual poems aren't necessarily connected in the structure of their book, but each poem is a miniature structure of their own, them wanting to say as much as possible with only a few words...