...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. — Pfhorrest

That is your interpretation of a particular guidance advice given to students, already discussed and dismissed.

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'. — Amity

I wrote the OP. I am clarifying for you what it was about. It was not about just applying the project management triangle to philosophy writing. It was about making an analogy between that original project management triangle, and some thoughts I had about that writing advice about “stupid, lazy, and mean”. That, like you can only achieve two out of “good, fast, cheap”, you can likewise only reach two out of “stupid, lazy, and mean”.

In either case, the tradeoff in management is due to deadlines, materials and skills. For writing a philosophy book you can take as long as you like and only be finished when you personally are satisfied with the quality.

As for the audience, assuming you are targeting a specific audience then there will be pros and cons to different stylistic considerations. However, you can always just write the contents of one book in two books for different audiences; a scholarly work and a popular work, or then just move all the scholarly stuff to footnotes and appendix.

You seem to be setting up a false dichotomy that something has to be sacrificed. This simply isn't a theme in philosophy, nearly all philosophers wrote how they thought good writing was; some wrote short and concise cause they thought "get to the point" is what's good, other's wrote thousand page tomes that took decades, and a rich mix of theater and fiction as well as oral debate. There's simply no tradition of philosophers lamenting having to choose between quality considerations.

You do have to choose an audience, even if it's just yourself, as @I like sushi and @Amity and others have mentioned, but this is rarely achieved by sacrificing quality, rather it's the creative challenge of writing to get your audience interested and keep them interested in what you want to share, as you want to share it.

I understood your OP.
I discussed your OP.
I disagreed with your OP.

That is all from me.

You seem to be setting up a false dichotomy that something has to be sacrificed. This simply isn't a theme in philosophy, — boethius

Exactly this.

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 ? — Amity

Biased criteria written by someone trying to maintain the pseudo elitism of professional philosophy.

Biased criteria written by someone trying to maintain the pseudo elitism of professional philosophy. — A Seagull

Interesting take. What makes you think that is the aim of the author ? There is an awareness of the possibility of bias at the end of article.

A light is being shone on that category of philosophy professor who is aiming for a broader audience.
So, the list and explanations centre round the differences in requirements between popular v scholar.

It is pointed out that any professor should be careful and cause no harm by damaging public trust. With a perceived high social and intellectual status it is important to do as they preach. With power comes responsibility and duties.

Questions are posed at the end:

Do these criteria make sense? Are these criteria perhaps biased towards political philosophy/theory and (applied) ethics, the areas in which I work most?

Full disclosure: If these criteria survive the typically-smart-and-sharp discussion on this blog, I’ll use them to assess a particular book in a follow-up post. — Robeyns

There follows 58 substantial, thoughtful comments and replies.

whatever you do, just make sure it's translated to french

whatever you do, just make sure it's translated to french — darthbarracuda

:cool:

But why pick on them ?

stupid "those who don't really understand what we're trying to say"

lazy "those who don't really care what we're trying to say"

mean "those who don't really like what we're trying to say"

On understanding:

I believe one of our strongest desires in life is to feel understood.
We want to know that people see our good intentions and not only get where we’re coming from but get us. — Lori Deschene

https://tinybuddha.com/blog/the-best-thing-to-say-to-someone-who-wont-understand-you/

stupid "those who don't really understand what we're trying to say"

lazy "those who don't really care what we're trying to say"

mean "those who don't really like what we're trying to say" — Pfhorrest

I don’t see any reason why all three of these cannot be addressed, in parallel, whilst writing.

The first just means to be as clear and concise as you can.

The second means to be interesting rather than giving a dry scholarly block of info.

The third means to address possible dislikes regarding the style, content and views expressed.

As I said initially, it is about ‘interest’ and ‘value’. It is certainly harder to catch the interest of someone who isn’t well versed in the subject matter, previously saw it as unimportant, and generally has a strong dislike for the subject matter. Assuming they’ve at least picked up the book and started to read, even though there is nothing to indicate they would, it is then a matter of presenting as quickly and clearly as possible why they should read further or not (express the value of the topic and build intrigue and interest).

All three, as stated, can be addressed at once. Nothing leads me to believe that only TWO at most can be addressed at a time.

Maybe you meant something else? I’m sure authors focus more or less on each of these three depending on the subject matter and the scope of people they are hoping to reach. If you just meant ‘we can’t please everyone,’ I agree. We can certainly widen our net though and catch the attention of more people if we wish to.

All three, as stated, can be addressed at once. Nothing leads me to believe that only TWO at most can be addressed at a time. — I like sushi

Oh for goodness sake, commonsense * would tell you people can be all that and more at any given time.
Depending.

I think I read somewhere* that this commonsense is what grounds Forrest's thinking ? So why no application of it here ? Why this continual grrriiiind...

* I've been lazily skimming and not taking notes.
If my understanding is wrong, I am sure that I will be corrected.

It makes sense to fish. If someone is convinced there’s a big fish to catch I’m willing to let them guide me to the right spot.

I’m presenting to commonsense interpretation because I assume there may be more to what Phf meant beyond this.

Note: Everything is a grind ;) sometimes there is a happy reward at the end ... but usually not!

there may be more to what Phf meant beyond this. — I like sushi

Yes. There is plenty beyond and behind this triangle.

In addition to the 3 'wants' already outlined * there could be hidden interpersonal psychological aspects at play.
Do I hear groans ?

I wonder if the article I linked to above on 'understanding' is useful in any way ?

Just another perspective...

Everything is a grind — I like sushi

A grind is a grind is a grind.
The needle can get stuck in the groove...

* Edit to add Forrest's 3 'wants':

"It’s more that I would like to reach anybody who has any of those three vices.
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