You get that I’m just using the terms from that mnemonic right? I’m not actually thinking “gotta make this easy for the stupid people” or anything like that. Just trying to make it as accessible as I can. I think in terms of people I care about like my parents or my girlfriend when I’m imagining particular people trying to read this. (And they definitely don’t already agree with me, especially not my parents).

To return to the topic:

I propose that like the famous Project Management Triangle (“good, fast, cheap — pick any two”), in practice we can at best write for an audience that is any two of these things, but not all three at once. — Pfhorrest

In my response so far, I am trying to 'get' how this analogy works.
First by going through the 3 points and your 'wants' to see the fit, if there is a fit.

Currently, my thoughts are that this is too narrow an outlook. Boxing the writing process in to a one dimensional triangle ?

a one dimensional triangle — Amity

Triangles are necessarily two-dimensional.

I stand corrected. Thanks.
Boxed in to a 2 dimensional triangle.
More to come on this Triangle.

True, but every argument starts with premises the reader is expected to likely agree with, otherwise it can’t get off the ground at all. A good philosophical argument starts with something trivially agreeable and derives something controversially substantial from it. That it is what I mean to do. — Pfhorrest

Yes, I would agree arguments start at premises (though it's possible some will disagree even here).

My point is that isms are not premises. If you don't want to cite people who represent either the ism you have issue with or the ism you are agreeing with, then you need to build the arguments, positive or negative, from scratch. This is a laborious process.

Referencing previous thinkers is a shortcut, but requires the work of citation for it be readable; otherwise, I am not sure you understand or interpret the thinker or the ism in question the same way I do; and, even if I did assume that, I can't tell exactly where you're agreeing or disagreeing with that thinker or school.

For instance, in our previous discussion, you mentioned the word pragmatism; I asked if you were talking about pragmatism the philosophical tradition or just "being pragmatic" in a colloquial sense, to which you replied the philosophical school, to which I inquired which thinker you were closest, to which you said it didn't matter, to which I replied it did, to which you replied you liked Pierce but found Lock redundant. This is interesting to know and I can't possibly tell your position on pragmatism by just seeing the word. It would be even more interesting to see a citation of Locke and a citation of Pierce that you feel is representative of this redundancy. I would be then far more informed of what you're talking about.
More interesting still if you found a citation that represented the error or incompleteness of these thinkers you intend to extend or correct.

If a reader has not read Locke and Pierce, now they've gotten the value of a choice citation and interpretation and at least have something concrete to represent those thinkers and "pragmatism" in their minds.

This is a lot of work, you have to read all the pragmatists to be confident you are doing a good job.

You can forego citation by building the arguments you want to take form pragmatism from scratch. However, likely you will want to read all the pragmatists to be sure you are making the best representation.

Either way, you can then move onto the next step of reading all of the, at least recommended, direct criticism of these arguments you are reformulating or citing.

This attitude of “don’t talk back just do what I say” is tiresome. — Pfhorrest

You are misunderstanding the nature of advice.

Nor I, nor any of your other advisers here, want you to "do what we say". We don't care what you do. You ask advice, we provide our advice, you use it or you don't. There's simply no point in trying to "prove our advice is wrong"; if it's wrong, don't use it. Now, it's constructive to try to understand the advice better (so to better to decide to use it or not), but it's not constructive to argue with advice of this kind; you're just tiring your advisers and making them lose interest, which only harms yourself.

I am here asking people I expect to be my peers to help point me at details like that, that would be useful to include and that I have missed. You neither demonstrated what would be useful about mentioning them nor provided any particular details to include. — Pfhorrest

I'm not writing your book for you.

It also wouldn't help you if I provided you those details, as a few details about some thinkers is not a substitute to understanding those thinkers. My advice is not to quickly search for some citations so that you can cosmetically sprinkle them into your book and give the illusion you have grappled with all the nuance and life force those thinkers bring to bear; my advice is to actually do that grappling.

I am not posting about my book here to “show off my genius” or something like you seem to think. Quite the contrary, I am posting about it hoping that both those less educated than me will tell me what’s difficult to follow so I can try to write better there, and those MORE educated than me will tell me what I’ve missed. You basically told me THAT I missed something, but didn’t say anything actionably specific about what it was. — Pfhorrest

You simply underestimate the task you have set yourself.

Implying you've written novel philosophy without also claiming you are "more educated than us" is exactly the claim that you can show off your genius by your mastery of philosophical concepts without a need for training, education and work: just raw natural talent.

I brought up names of authors that I recommend you cite. Reading books and citing critical passages relevant to your arguments is entirely actionable.

If you are going to write a book with the intention that it's taken serious, you must be more educated about it's subject matter than us, otherwise it's effectively we that is writing the book for you.

Yes, experienced authors ask for feedback on their writing, but it's not to make content and intellectual changes, but simply to cut and clarify, which is very minor compared with the major restructuring you are now engaged in.

The rest of your post reads like a shallow attempt to “take me down a peg” from some hubris you supposed I have, and isn’t worth responding to. — Pfhorrest

You should read my words more carefully.

I simply explain the difficulty of the task in front of you.

Setting the goal of writing novel philosophy on important subjects is the most extreme intellectual task that you can possibly set for yourself, short of something completely impossible such as factoring thousand digit numbers in your head. Your choice is either to accept that difficulty and commit to the time, discomfort and effort it will require to (maybe) attain, or to deny that and be an amateur not taken seriously, or to abandon your goal.

Your method of not doing the required work and believing somehow we on the forum will do the work for you, is not a good method as you have been able to verify.

something completely impossible such as factoring thousand digit numbers in your head — boethius

It is not impossible!! I just factored 10**1000 as 10**500 x 10**500 in my head.

It is not impossible!! I just factored 10**1000 as 10**500 x 10**500 in my head. — A Seagull

I say numbers, and you give me one number. At least put in the effort and provide numbers.

You can forego citation by building the arguments you want to take form pragmatism from scratch. — boethius

This is what I’m doing. I never expect the reader to always be familiar with some prior philosophy already. I always try to build up all of the arguments from scratch. I only mention other philosophers to show that I am aware when an idea is not original. Half the time, the ideas I’m putting forward were original to me, and I later became aware that others had already written on the same topic.

In the case of Pragmatism, I had my own version of something like the Pragmatic Maxim, and was later told by someone I shared that thought with about Pragmatism, and read up about it, and found Peirce closest to my own thoughts. I’m not trying to defend exactly Peirce or anyone else though, so going into depth about them would just be pointless showing off that doesn’t advance the purpose of my writing.

Sushi was previously accusing me precisely of “showing off”, so just going into unnecessary depth on everything that I know about every philosopher I mention would just be more of that. I mention the details I think are necessary to mention to make the point I’m making, and no more. If you think there’s an important detail I’m omitting that’s relevant to a given point I’m making, TELL ME what it is. Don’t just tell me I’m missing something and leave me guessing as to what.

Nor I, nor any of your other advisers here, want you to "do what we say". We don't care what you do. You ask advice, we provide our advice, you use it or you don't. There's simply no point in trying to "prove our advice is wrong"; if it's wrong, don't use it. Now, it's constructive to try to understand the advice better (so to better to decide to use it or not), but it's not constructive to argue with advice of this kind; you're just tiring your advisers and making them lose interest, which only harms yourself. — boethius

You seem too quick to impute argument where there is none. If I ask for more detail on a critique, that’s not arguing. If I say I don’t think a particular critique is worth acting on and why, that’s not arguing. It sound like the only response you want is “ok I’ll do that” or else silence, and you take anything else as “argument”. That’s exactly where the “don’t talk back just do what I say” attitude comes across.

It also wouldn't help you if I provided you those details, as a few details about some thinkers is not a substitute to understanding those thinkers. My advice is not to quickly search for some citations so that you can cosmetically sprinkle them into your book and give the illusion you have grappled with all the nuance and life force those thinkers bring to bear; my advice is to actually do that grappling. — boethius

See, here you are assuming that because I have not mentioned something I am not aware of it. I have studied a lot of philosophy. Not the most that can possibly be studies, I don’t think I know more about it than absolutely everybody else about every facet of it, but enough to have what seem to be novel thoughts about it that take into account lots of priority work. I‘m not looking for cosmetic citations to sprinkle in, that is exactly the kind of useless advice I don’t want. I want any substantive omissions I might have made to be pointed out to me by people whose education may cover bits and pieces mine didn’t. Instead, you at least just point me in the broad direction of some more studying you think I need to do, without explanation of what it is in that reading will be relevant to my writing. Like I shouldn’t ever write a single word down until I have memorized absolutely every book ever written. Nobody does that.

If I thought this was something good enough for academic publishing, I wouldn’t be here. I’m trying to do the best I can in the circumstances I find myself in. Saying it’s just not good enough and to go study more is no help at all. Saying where specifically and why so I can focus on improving in.

You’re saying, essentially, be absolutely perfect or give up. And you won’t even name a specific flaw that makes it short of perfect. I’m sure they are there, but how will I get rid of them if you won’t say where they are?

It is not impossible!! I just factored 10**1000 as 10**500 x 10**500 in my head. — A Seagull
I say numbers, and you give me one number. At least put in the effort and provide numbers. — boethius

You just don't get it, do you!

Sushi was previously accusing me precisely of “showing off”, so just going into unnecessary depth on everything that I know about every philosopher I mention would just be more of that. I mention the details I think are necessary to mention to make the point I’m making, and no more. If you think there’s an important detail I’m omitting that’s relevant to a given point I’m making, TELL ME what it is. Don’t just tell me I’m missing something and leave me guessing as to what. — Pfhorrest

I’m pretty sure you’re confusing someone else’s words with mine there. I did comment that people don’t want to be told what you know, that was where the ‘high school’ remark came in - different audience type.

My very first comment was directed at the lack of depth. I said something along the lines of focus in on one particular area.

I have studied a lot of philosophy. Not the most that can possibly be studies, I don’t think I know more about it than absolutely everybody else about every facet of it, but enough to have what seem to be novel thoughts about it that take into account lots of priority work. I‘m not looking for cosmetic citations to sprinkle in, that is exactly the kind of useless advice I don’t want. I want any substantive omissions I might have made to be pointed out to me by people whose education may cover bits and pieces mine didn’t. — Pfhorrest

Novel thoughts addressed to laymen probably won’t work because they won’t recognise it as novel. The old ‘show don’t tell’ rule of thumb might be worth considering. A great deal of what you’ve learnt may seem too trivial to mention - for the laymen this is needed, but a very difficult thing to get across because we often neglect to mention the very things the reader needs to understand (a Glossary can help, but the terms would still need to be divulged within the main body of text in a memorable manner).

I always try to build up all of the arguments from scratch. I only mention other philosophers to show that I am aware when an idea is not original. — Pfhorrest

I have not seen arguments written from scratch.

Half the time, the ideas I’m putting forward were original to me, and I later became aware that others had already written on the same topic. — Pfhorrest

The reason to seek out where these "original to me" ideas have been discussed before is to scrutinize their formulation (maybe someone not only thought of the idea but had made it better and more precise) and, more importantly, with a writer or textual reference you can then much better search for who has criticized that argument.

This is the critical process to do serious philosophy.

In the case of Pragmatism, I had my own version of something like the Pragmatic Maxim, and was later told by someone I shared that thought with about Pragmatism, and read up about it, and found Peirce closest to my own thoughts. I’m not trying to defend exactly Peirce or anyone else though, so going into depth about them would just be pointless showing off that doesn’t advance the purpose of my writing. — Pfhorrest

On this point, you did not provide your formulation from scratch of your pragmatic maxim, nor cited Pierce. It's these gaps that need to be filled one way or another, otherwise it's no longer possible to follow your argument as there is critical information missing. If you look carefully at your writing there is lot's of these gaps that need either an argument from scratch, a citation or then simply stating a new assumption.

Sushi was previously accusing me precisely of “showing off”, so just going into unnecessary depth on everything that I know about every philosopher I mention would just be more of that. — Pfhorrest

From what I followed, @I like sushi was simply stating that demonstrating familiarity with some philosophical concepts is not interesting reading. It should be clear where you are going with your arguments. I did not see Sushi "accuse you of showing off", but please cite it if I missed it.

See, here you are assuming that because I have not mentioned something I am not aware of it. — Pfhorrest

I say that: if you don't cite authors you mention, myself and other readers simply cannot get much insight to your relation to those authors. It is simply adding confusion.

If your mentioning of an author or ism is only to "give credit" and it adds nothing but confusion to the reading of the book, then it's best to simply provide that credit outside the book in an introduction.

I have studied a lot of philosophy. Not the most that can possibly be studies, I don’t think I know more about it than absolutely everybody else about every facet of it, but enough to have what seem to be novel thoughts about it that take into account lots of priority work. — Pfhorrest

Key word "what seems like novel thoughts". The reason to put in a lot of work to find and then really get into where those thoughts are not novel, is that you will benefit from those existing arguments and debates about it. You can then either simply reference those formulations if you see no need to improve them or then reformulate them.

If I thought this was something good enough for academic publishing, I wouldn’t be here. I’m trying to do the best I can in the circumstances I find myself in. Saying it’s just not good enough and to go study more is no help at all. Saying where specifically and why so I can focus on improving in. — Pfhorrest

This is where you need to engage with what Sushi has been saying. We still do not know exactly your goal with the book or audience.

As it stands, your goal is to write "novel philosophy"; this is a serious project. If you're goal was less ambitious, the task will be less hard.

You’re saying, essentially, be absolutely perfect or give up. — Pfhorrest

This is not what I am saying. I'm saying if you persevere you can attain your goal; I have only added to that, it's a difficult goal to attain and will require a lot of time, effort and work.

I have not seen arguments written from scratch. — boethius

I think you have not read much of it then. I’ve seen very little indication that you’ve read anything at all of it.

The reason to seek out where these "original to me" ideas have been discussed before is to scrutinize their formulation (maybe someone not only thought of the idea but had made it better and more precise) and, more importantly, with a writer or textual reference you can then much better search for who has criticized that argument. — boethius

I have done that.

On this point, you did not provide your formulation from scratch of your pragmatic maxim, nor cited Pierce. It's these gaps that need to be filled one way or another, otherwise it's no longer possible to follow your argument as there is critical information missing. If you look carefully at your writing there is lot's of these gaps that need either an argument from scratch, a citation or then simply stating a new assumption. — boethius

Where in the text I say “pragmatism”, I say what argument I am calling that.

Also, I do have a reference to Peirce in the current version anyway.

If you look carefully at your writing there is lot's of these gaps that need either an argument from scratch, a citation or then simply stating a new assumption. — boethius

It would help if someone would point out where it looks like that, because that would be some kind of oversight or just careless writing. I am intended to spell everything out from scratch.

I say that: if you don't cite authors you mention, myself and other readers simply cannot get much insight to your relation to those authors. It is simply adding confusion. — boethius

You were complaining that I DIDN’T mention someone nonspecific in a nonspecific part of one essay. You talk like if I had studied that vague general area I would necessarily have included mention of whoever you’re thinking of wherever you’re thinking. But I have studied, and I’m not psychic, so unless you say what writing of whom is relevant to what part of my writing, I don’t know if you’re talking about someone I just didn’t think was relevant to mention or maybe something I actually haven’t studied.

Key word "what seems like novel thoughts". The reason to put in a lot of work to find and then really get into where those thoughts are not novel, is that you will benefit from those existing arguments and debates about it. You can then either simply reference those formulations if you see no need to improve them or then reformulate them. — boethius

If I have a thought that, after a pretty extensive study of philosophy, seems novel to me in light of everything I’m aware of having gone before, how can I know that it is not novel without someone telling me, or somehow being certain that I have read absolutely everything that there is to read?

The latter is impossible, and impractical to ever try to approximate, especially since this isn’t my paid full-time job, so I can only rely on someone letting me know if the thoughts I think are novel actually aren’t. By refusing to even comment on those particulars, you’re effectively saying “come back when you’ve read absolutely everything there is to read”.

We still do not know exactly your goal with the book or audience — boethius

I have clarified that already. Primarily people like I was 20 years ago. People interested in philosophy, including those not yet very familiar with it, who I expect will not find what they are looking for in the existing corpus of it, because after a decade of study I still hadn’t.

@Pfhorrest You might find watching the first few minutes of this useful in terms of how to grab people’s attention and offer relatable material: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=NNnIGh9g6fA

I think you have not read much of it then. I’ve seen very little indication that you’ve read anything at all of it. — Pfhorrest

We had a whole conversation about the Greek and pragmatism thing. I'm using this existing conversation as examples of problems.

I have done that. — Pfhorrest

Then why are you asking us about what's novel or not?

Just tell us the authors made arguments to about yay high and explain how you've gone higher.

Where in the text I say “pragmatism”, I say what argument I am calling that. — Pfhorrest

That's what prompted our conversation about pragmatism, your use of the word pragmatism. Go back to that conversation if want to see where it appeared in your text and if you're interested in doing work to improve your understanding.

Also, I do have a reference to Peirce in the current version anyway. — Pfhorrest

So you added a reference to Peirce based on our discussion, but are maintaining that I didn't read any of your book and that you had never used the word pragmatism that prompted me to ask how you were using that term?

It would help if someone would point out where it looks like that, because that would be some kind of oversight or just careless writing. I am intended to spell everything out from scratch. — Pfhorrest

Then, as I've already suggested, spell everything out from scratch and don't use any references at all. Just make a introduction or "further reading" epilogue. If the references are not needed for the arguments to work, then they just add confusion.

You were complaining that I DIDN’T mention someone nonspecific in a nonspecific part of one essay. — Pfhorrest

I am not complaining. Your book does not matter to me and I have no personal motivation that you make it better along my criteria.

You're the one asking for advice, so I am simply providing that advice. You can leave your book the way it is for people to appreciate it or not.

But if you ask advice, presumably to improve it, I am giving the advice that if you reference an ism or an author, and that reference is critical content then you should provide a citation so that we the reader have clearer idea of what you're referencing. If it's not critical content, then it's just adding confusion as the reader now doesn't know what you mean by the reference and if it's important going forward.

But I have studied, and I’m not psychic, so unless you say what writing of whom is relevant to what part of my writing, I don’t know if you’re talking about someone I just didn’t think was relevant to mention or maybe something I actually haven’t studied. — Pfhorrest

You're on the "build everything from scratch" approach now. Which is fine, but then build everything from scratch, verify that no ism or reference is needed to understand. Or are you now saying the pragmatism reference was the only confusion of that kind, it's fixed now and I won't find anything else of that kind?

But I have studied, and I’m not psychic, so unless you say what writing of whom is relevant to what part of my writing, I don’t know if you’re talking about someone I just didn’t think was relevant to mention or maybe something I actually haven’t studied. — Pfhorrest

I gave you the example of the ancient Greeks, or pragmatism.

It's us the reader that aren't psychic and know what you know. So, if references then citations representing those references is what I recommend. But you've already said citations aren't critical, and everything is built from scratch, so then these sorts of confusions shouldn't appear.

If I have a thought that, after a pretty extensive study of philosophy, seems novel to me in light of everything I’m aware of having gone before, how can I know that it is not novel without someone telling me, or somehow being certain that I have read absolutely everything that there is to read? — Pfhorrest

Then post a thread about what you think the novel parts are, if you've studied extensively it should be easy to identify and explain: "that based on these assumptions developed by these authors, I make this argument that goes further".

By refusing to even comment on those particulars, you’re effectively saying “come back when you’ve read absolutely everything there is to read”. — Pfhorrest

Why introduce the strawman of "everything"; no where do I say read everything there is to be read.

I say seek out the authors formulating or critiquing arguments you are using. If you want to improve your book, then (whether you include reference or buildup from scratch) it's a time-saving device to find the best existing formulation of an argument as well as it's best criticism (so that you are certain you are using as good or better formulation that adequately addresses the best criticism).

If you don't want to improve your book, then stop asking advice.

If you want to improve your book, then what I would expect is that it will take you much longer to forego this mention research and to think of all the ways your arguments can be undermined and to then fill all those gaps (you claim don't exist?). By all means though, if you disagree prove me wrong.

The latter is impossible, and impractical to ever try to approximate, especially since this isn’t my paid full-time job, so I can only rely on someone letting me know if the thoughts I think are novel actually aren’t. — Pfhorrest

No where did I say "follow this advice and tomorrow your book will be better". You obviously have time to discuss on the forum, so you could put some of that time putting in research work to improve your book. If it takes ten years, it takes ten years.

Or are you asking "how do I improve my book considering I won't be spending much time doing so".

I have clarified that already. Primarily people like I was 20 years ago. People interested in philosophy, including those not yet very familiar with it, who I expect will not find what they are looking for in the existing corpus of it, because after a decade of study I still hadn’t. — Pfhorrest

Thanks for clarifying, I did not catch the original clarification.

Yes, why not just make a thread and state what the missing part is that you didn't find and have addressed in your book?

If you want your book to clearly add novel ideas to philosophy and be completely accessible to someone unfamiliar with philosophy, this is an even more enormous task, than just the novel objective which I have been addressing. Again, doable, but will take time and effort to achieve. Your criticism of my criticism seems to be "I don't have that kind of time! what do you expect from me!". No problem with not having time, but I don't see why I would reformulate my advice to be doable without the required time.

Wow. Still a lot going on here about that book.
So, rather than continue with the Triangle topic, I decided to take a look at the Summary.

http://www.geekofalltrades.org/codex/summary.php

Looks like a lot of time and effort has gone into a wide scope of philosophy. But as to its quality and if it meets the goal of the author, that would seem to be an open question.

The thread title is about a tool which focuses on 3 constraints with regard to a quality product.
Philosophy Writing Management where there are apparent trade offs in 1.Time 2. Cost and 3.Scope.

This is likened to the problems of reaching an audience who are imagined to be 1. Stupid 2. Lazy or 3. Mean.

From what I have read so far, there has been a significant amount of time spent on this writing project of enormous scope.

This can be seen as a cost to the individual/s concerned.
Is it worth it ? Is the book likely to achieve its aims ?
Will you find something 'new' here that is not already in the existing corpus ? Does that matter ?

What matters is the work in progress. It is a learning process.
I applaud the effort and energy required.
If it doesn't reach certain standards of quality, as in citing the sources of study and research, that can and should be remedied.

I think I will leave it there.
It's a bit like Groundhog Day. Fascinating but time consuming.
I hope the end product benefits from all contributions.
Best wishes.

If I have a thought that, after a pretty extensive study of philosophy, seems novel to me in light of everything I’m aware of having gone before, how can I know that it is not novel without someone telling me, or somehow being certain that I have read absolutely everything that there is to read? — Pfhorrest

If your 'pretty extensive study of philosophy' included a literature review this should have helped identify any gaps.

A good literature review doesn’t just summarise sources – it analyses, synthesises, and critically evaluates to give a clear picture of the state of knowledge on the subject.

https://www.scribbr.co.uk/thesis-dissertation/literature-review/

Your goal as stated: to reach an audience of

Primarily people like I was 20 years ago. People interested in philosophy, including those not yet very familiar with it, who I expect will not find what they are looking for in the existing corpus of it, because after a decade of study I still hadn’t. — Pfhorrest

What is it that you think beginners are looking for ?
A general overview in an introduction to philosophy.
A particular author or entry point which grabs their attention, specific interest or concerns.
New to them but not usually to the field of philosophy.
Already plenty on the market. But always room for more.

I think there is a tension between your various aims.
Perhaps this is where the aspect of sacrifice might have to enter the picture. For example, re-evaluate the Scope.
A talk to beginners is not likely to succeed if overwhelmed by a heavy weight corpus - A Codex Quaerentis.

But I see that similar suggestions have been offered before by I like sushi, boethius, jkg20 et al.

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/7547/the-codex-quaerentis/p2

Why don't you take on board the specific advice:
'Pick your audience rather than trying to cater to all (it won’t work).'

You might find watching the first few minutes of this useful in terms of how to grab people’s attention and offer relatable material: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=NNnIGh9g6fA — I like sushi

Excellent.

Never mind the Triangle.
Here's something about creating a good quality product.
Considering:

...the case of philosophy professors who are writing a book that is explicitly aimed at a broader audience, and who may or may not also have written scholarly articles on the topic of their popular-philosophy book. Which quality-criteria should that book meet?... — Ingrid Robeyns

There follows discussion of 6 criteria:
1. Trust
2. Accessibility
3. Arguments
4. Not for profit
5. Plagiarism
6. Noblesse oblige

https://crookedtimber.org/2013/07/15/what-makes-a-popular-philosophy-book-a-good-book/

Your thoughts ?

Though I agree with these points, the list and explanations seem more motivated as an admonition to professors to not do "bad public philosophy" because it's profitable (tell groups what they want to hear and not take known criticism seriously) than they are as practical.

The article would be better title "moral considerations for popular philosophy writing".

However, the blame on "bad professors" is I think misplaced. Chomsky follows this list, but he is not welcome on mass media. Ok, he's still widely read and has a large base, but he was already famous from a time when he could speak on mass-media. A new author of philosophy doesn't have that benefit, and the choice is to conform to a roll on a stage (left, right or centrist; we know what lines the mass-media wants to hear) or then be an "internet heretic".

Fortunately, as the elite pursue this strategy through mass media consolidation and control, media institutions that built up prestige and reputation over literally centuries throw it frivolously away to support the war du jour without critical analysis and so rapidly lose legitimacy; we're now in a phase that being an internet heretic is no longer primary career ending and a living can be made in heretical writing in itself. There's large heretical ecosystems both on the right and the left.

Of course, the collapse of trusted information sources (because they have de-earned that trust) means for society at large zero scrutiny of incompetent and corrupt management, loss of faith in all institutions generally, precipitating a chaotic destabilization phase of American Empire, election of Trump to neatly consolidate these trends for us so that they are trivial to see and analyse ... and an easily avoidable global pandemic, certainly in its severity if not the outbreak itself, which represents the transition from an incompetent and corrupt elite entrenching and enriching themselves without any unifying vision and strategy for the future -- but things seeming to continue as normal due to sheer momentum of hundreds of years of managerial traditions -- to this new phase of rapid collapse where those institutions are simply no longer fit for purpose and all managerial accountability measures have been removed from the system meaning nothing will be rectified and problems will start to merge into and amplify each other until a radical change (of one form or another).

So, public discourse shifting to a non-institutional internet based discussion where people believe what they want to believe and no person or institution is viewed as widely legitimate by actual people (it is only the elite who continue to believe the old institutions mean a tenth of what they used to mean) has massive consequences.

However, regardless of view of who's to blame and where things are going, from the point of view of the individual author today, it's simply a fact that this internet DIY "influencer" path is available. Indeed, it's starting to merge anyways with traditional publishing in that authors are more and more expected to do all those influencer things such as blogging, youtubing, tweeting, engage in controversy and being edgy, and so on. It's not one and the same yet, so authors can lean heavily one way or another; in the case of non-political writing it is simply a style, commercial or just personal question, but in the case of political writing it's a self-censorship vs institutional support question, which has serious implications on what and how one writes depending on one's political ideas. When there's accomplished authors that crazily are admitted (even by the mainstream media) to being among great intellectuals of our time (such as Noam Chomsky mentioned above) or then writers that are fired from the Times (Chris Hedges), and simply completely ignored henceforth by those "Journals of Record", a new author has zero chance other than by completely conforming.

All this to say, we are back to a pamphleteer time and pamphleteering is a different thing than conventional book publishing, in terms of form, style, resources to work with, promotional activity, as well as level of engagement available.

So, public discourse shifting to a non-institutional internet based discussion where people believe what they want to believe and no person or institution is viewed as widely legitimate by actual people (it is only the elite who continue to believe the old institutions mean a tenth of what they used to mean) has massive consequences. — boethius

Yes. For sure, there has been a shift away from institutions to a more open conversation with consequences relating to trust, one of the first things discussed:

The reader has to be able to trust the author that she has done the research needed to be able to write a book on this topic...
...it makes a difference whether the author is also a professor, since the general public tends to grant professors the status of an expert on the topics they are writing about. — Robeyns

I tend to trust any writer who has clearly done the research and cites sources, or further reading, professor or not.
I am glad that philosophy has become more accessible, even with any accompanying problems. People will nearly always believe what they want to believe in any case.

we are back to a pamphleteer time and pamphleteering is a different thing than conventional book publishing, in terms of form, style, resources to work with, promotional activity, as well as level of engagement available. — boethius

Where is the evidence for this pamphleteering philosophy?

Where is the evidence for this pamphleteering philosophy? — Amity

What do you mean by evidence?

By pamphleteering, I'm simply referring to the end of Monarchy days where everything was censored so authors had to get there stuff out subversively which created a non-official chaotic parallel universe of discourse that disrupted the system; with the printing press playing the roll of the internet today.

As for the practical consideration, there's simply different options and limitations going DIY on the internet, which would result in different advice. "Getting a book published" is a different goal than reaching an audience on the internet, even if the content was the same. Whether due to self-censorship reasons above or simply not wanting to go through the hassle publishing a book, the same content could be developed over 200 blogs and 50 podcasts and 10 000 tweets, which would imply different stylistic choices even if one's arguments are the same.

What do you mean by evidence? — boethius

Support for your claim.

Support for your claim. — Amity

Which claim? As I mention above: that our time is similar to the post-printing-press pamphlateering Era, or about how it would affect writing choices?

Which claim? — boethius

This:

All this to say, we are back to a pamphleteer time — boethius

I don't understand this conclusion. Perhaps I am tired or just stupid...

Ah, it seems you have edited the explanation. It makes more sense now. Thanks.

I don't understand this conclusion. Perhaps I am tired or just stupid... — Amity

It's a historical parallel that is of course not exact. I didn't come up with it, I heard it from a historian.

There is a basic historical hypothesis that the internet is a similar disrupting technology as the printing press and culture is going through a similar transformation.

In the manuscripts era it was extremely difficult to trade in contraband literature. If you were a monk and wanted to write and copy heretical texts, you'd need to somehow organize having the supplies and time to do so. The Catholic church was constantly investigating such terrorist cells and burning books and people to keep the subversive fire well under control. To publish "officially" one needed to pass censorship, to pass censorship meant conforming to support of the institutions of church and government.

The printing press changed this dynamic, turning subversive literature from a cat and mouse game into a unstoppable tsunami. Protestant Reformation was probably impossible without a technology to actually print bibles for people to read in their own language, as well as the contraband pamphlets justifying doing so.

So, there was a first phase where subversive literature could overcome institutional oppression in a way infeasible before. In this first phase subversive literature is not "too far out there" and usually still produced by intellectuals in the system (Luther was a priest who wanted to reform Catholicism, not make a radical break with it, and certainly not an atheist).

However, as aristocratic institutions then lost legitimacy as well as their own motivation to censor effectively, there is a second phase where the dominant cultural conversation moves to this parallel pamphleteer world. There is a still a nominal "official world" of bureaucrats, courtiers, and papal bulls, but normal people don't care too much about it anymore. As more authors write and circulate pamphlets, authority is undermined further. Voltaire is probably the best example here:

He was an outspoken advocate of civil liberties, and was at constant risk from the strict censorship laws of the Catholic French monarchy. His polemics witheringly satirized intolerance, religious dogma, and the French institutions of his day.

[...]

In a vast variety of nondescript pamphlets and writings, he displays his skills at journalism. In pure literary criticism his principal work is the Commentaire sur Corneille, although he wrote many more similar works—sometimes (as in his Life and Notices of Molière) independently and sometimes as part of his Siècles.[119]

Voltaire's works, especially his private letters, frequently urge the reader: "écrasez l'infâme", or "crush the infamous".[120] The phrase refers to contemporaneous abuses of power by royal and religious authorities, and the superstition and intolerance fomented by the clergy.[121] He had seen and felt these effects in his own exiles, the burnings of his books and those of many others, and in the atrocious persecution of Jean Calas and François-Jean de la Barre.[122] He stated in one of his most famous quotes that "Superstition sets the whole world in flames; philosophy quenches them." — wikipedia - Voltaire

After the collapse of the old aristocratic and church institutions, new institutions emerged that were credible within this environment of "free speech" (governing institutions that respected free speech and no longer engaged in counter-productive censorship, as well as media institutions that built up credibility by caring about their reputation and withstanding criticism).

However, broadcast radio and television created a partial technological return to the monastic manuscript days in that access of the technology was controllable, resulting in an era of de facto censorship in that without radio and, especially, television, one was not a relevant part of the cultural conversation. The election of Ronald Reagan epitomizes this new institutional power of television.

However, Reagan only demonstrated the power of television in real power terms, and it would be unfair to say the media "elected him". Journalists standards carried over from print. It can of course be debated how stable this new institutional television based censorship system really was, but the internet rapidly destabilized it after credibility was sacrificed to support the Iraq war. The entire Iraq war and endless war on terrorism didn't pass critical scrutiny at any step, but critical questions could just be ignored; people don't stop being interested in those question, however, and the conversation moved to the internet: be it to keep following Chris Hedges, who was fired from the Times for opposing the war, or hear Chomsky's analysis or then take a few steps towards cannibalism, apparently, with Alex Jones; a completely new parallel world of discourse emerged.

The election of Trump represents the transition between the first era of institutional disruption where the world of "official" talk is at war with the subversives and still seem mostly in control, to the second era where the old official talk institutions aren't even relevant anymore. The transition can happen rapidly, as the Soviet Union best demonstrated. Time and time again the main-stream media tried to bury Trump, in every which way, and then be mystified by him polling the same or even higher. It simply didn't matter what they said anymore, the real conversation was happening in a parallel universe on the internet with various levels of Trump apologetics for every possible Trump criticism from every possible direction, to interpreting everything as some sort of 5-D chess move, to full on meme magick magicians saturating the internet with "gliffs", a hieroglyphic based magical symbol of cultural focus, to counteract the very same satanic gliff practices of the Clinton's and elite -- a frog being the key ingredient. Main stream media needing to address "Pepe" represented their surrender to internet discourse, and since then the merger of the discourse universes has started.

And that's all I have to say about that.

(jk, I'll say way more if asked to do so.)

I didn't come up with it, I heard it from a historian. — boethius

Who heard it from...
Oooh, I heard it through the grapevine :cool:

And that's all I have to say about that.

(jk, I'll say way more if asked to do so.) — boethius

I bet you have lots more where that came from.
I now want to read Voltaire, badly and bigly.
Wasn't he the one who said:
'Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.'
He would have loved Trump...and his Tweets.

the merger of the discourse universes has started. — boethius

Is there a theme tune for that ?

Who heard it from...
Oooh, I heard it through the grapevine — Amity

It doesn't seem to me a controversial topic among historians, the whole printing press and internet parallel. It's been something that has been talked about since normal people could post to the internet, indeed even before that just speculating on computer technology.

I bet you have lots more where that came from.
I now want to read Voltaire, badly and bigly.
Wasn't he the one who said:
'Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.'
He would have loved Trump...and his Tweets. — Amity

Fortunately, there has been lot's of historical analysis of these pamphleteers; it's really interesting stuff, with the same anonymity based outrage, flamewars and feuds and so on as happens today on the internet.

Is there a theme tune for that ? — Amity

The theme song is "The Joe Rogan Experience".

it's really interesting stuff, with the same anonymity based outrage, flamewars and feuds and so on as happens today on the internet. — boethius

I'd like to read examples. So far I've only got this:

https://lareviewofbooks.org/article/the-pamphleteers/

As for Joe Rogan, another first for me.
You live and learn...

Wow. Still a lot going on here about that book.
So, rather than continue with the Triangle topic, I decided to take a look at the Summary.

http://www.geekofalltrades.org/codex/summary.php

Looks like a lot of time and effort has gone into a wide scope of philosophy. But as to its quality and if it meets the goal of the author, that would seem to be an open question.

The thread title is about a tool which focuses on 3 constraints with regard to a quality product.
Philosophy Writing Management where there are apparent trade offs in 1.Time 2. Cost and 3.Scope.

This is likened to the problems of reaching an audience who are imagined to be 1. Stupid 2. Lazy or 3. Mean. — Amity

I’m glad the conversation has since moved on past my book and I don’t want to bring it back to that. But I want to clarify on the actual topic of this thread that the OP is not just applying the Project Management Triangle to philosophy—the three constraints aren’t time, cost, and scope—but rather supposing that the three difficult audiences we are advised to reach in philosophy, the “stupid, lazy, and mean”, are mutually limiting like the three constraints of the project management triangle. That you can only pick two out of three. Not that they are the same three.

—the three constraints aren’t time, cost, and scope — Pfhorrest

Not in your version perhaps. However, you seem to have changed the original ( no source citation given ) to align with your own 3 'wants' related to the 'stupid, lazy and mean'.

1. I want to spell things out as slowly, simply, and easily as possible for people who find the subject difficult.
2. I want to be clear, to people who feel defensive, that I am not meaning the horrible thing they jump to the conclusion that I mean, but something much more agreeable. And
3. I want to get through all that as quickly as possible so it doesn’t drag on longer than necessary and bore people away before they can get through it all. — Pfhorrest

The Project Management Triangle I am comparing it to is this:

( unable to copy and paste diagram here )

The original idea (and my modification) are not opposite the principle of charity but complimentary to it: be charitable, but beware that others won’t be. (Also be patient but beware that others won’t be, etc). — Pfhorrest

The original model with explanation here :
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_management_triangle