Regardless, I'd like to ask the general question of the title of this thread in terms;
A) If true, are you looking for higher quality content?
B) If false, disregard. — Shawn

As is the case in the world in general, in regards to most everything, we're always hoping for high quality, but never expecting to find it, because it is rare. How we respond to the rare occurrence of higher quality is what is pivotal, because not expecting to find it leaves us vulnerable to shock and a wide variety of other emotional responses which may happen.

So you might ask questions like the following. Do you recognize quality as such? Do you recoil in shock at its occurrence? Do you attack it aggressively in fear of the power that superlativeness has over you? Are you humbled by quality?

All these are considerable issues for anyone seeking higher quality, and the key is a person's ability to recognize the occurrence of higher quality. Anyone who actually believes that higher quality is possible ought to have clear criteria as to how to recognize its occurrence. Otherwise its all subjective and simply emotional responses to differences, producing the condition of 'my content is always the higher quality content'.

The alternative, is to start from a fair and unbiased position of 'all content is fundamentally equal in quality'. This makes quality attributable to something other than content. Then we can look at the numerous different features of writing, allowing for the reality that each person has one's own preferences as to which of the different features higher quality is being looked for. Consequently, the meaning of 'higher quality' would differ according to one's preferences.

So you might ask questions like the following. Do you recognize quality as such? Do you recoil in shock at its occurrence? Do you attack it aggressively in fear of the power that superlativeness has over you? Are you humbled by quality? — Metaphysician Undercover

Interesting. I find myself asking how do we even recognise high quality given the divergent levels of understanding and education between members? Not to mention some people's dogged prosecution of certain beliefs. I generally associate high quality with pellucid English sentences that state things elegantly and simply. But that's my bias. This could also indicate my unwillingness or inability to engage with more complex ideas. :wink:

I generally associate high quality with pellucid English sentences that state things elegantly and simply. — Tom Storm

So this is a specific type of form which you believe to be of a higher quality than others. Can I ask why you believe that this type of writing, rather than some other type like Platonic dialectics for example, or other types of less pellucid language used by modern philosophers, would constitute higher quality philosophy?

I answered that already in the next part. For heaven’s sake man , read carefully- how are you going to break open Heidegger with such scant regard for meaning? :razz:

I think it's you who needs to read more carefully, I asked "why" do you feel that this personal preference of yours constitutes a higher quality? I didn't ask why it is your personal preference. Generally we distinguish between things which we like due to personal preference, and things which we like due to higher quality. Personal preference does not equate with higher quality for most of us.

Generally we distinguish between things which we like due to personal preference, and things which we like due to higher quality. Personal preference does not equate with higher quality for most of us. — Metaphysician Undercover

That's a humdrum!

I asked "why" do you feel that this personal preference of yours constitutes a higher quality? — Metaphysician Undercover

I was being sarcastic in an unhelpful way. Sorry.

When I enjoy content I tend to value it more, regardless of its actual merit. I am not a philosopher, so I'm not sure how I would ascertain 'higher quality' in a substantive way. Best I can do is tell if something is riffing off fallacies and banalities. And I am more likely to value a contribution if I can understand the position being articulated on account of clear English and coherent conceptual framing.

Anyone who actually believes that higher quality is possible ought to have clear criteria as to how to recognise its occurrence. — Metaphysician Undercover

Fair. Do you have such a criteria or can you imagine one?

Having a robust familiarity with the philosophical literature being referred to and using citations and quotations appropriately strikes me as an obvious but banal example.

No, we don't want to see more high quality stuff. Quality is too demanding, too burdensome, hard to produce, often tedious to read. We don't have to go for absolute slop, but let's be sensible: sitting down at the mighty Mac and turning out refined, insightful, elegant, and witty text is a major drain on one's ever-diminishing intellectual resources. I could be brilliant, but then I would be too exhausted to appreciate the adulation which fallow philosophers would shower on me.

Enough about the flight to quality! — Bitter Crank

:up:

Besides, I always like when some new member starts something like "I was introduced to Ayn Rand and liked it. It's so true. What do you guys think of her?".

And then just enjoy the replies with popcorn.

When I enjoy content I tend to value it more, regardless of its actual merit. — Tom Storm

That, I would say, is the subjective nature of "value". It appears tp me like we are always seeking to objectify our systems for evaluation, but we can never completely rid ourselves of that subjective aspect.

Best I can do is tell if something is riffing off fallacies and banalities. And I am more likely to value a contribution if I can understand the position being articulated on account of clear English and coherent conceptual framing. — Tom Storm

I can see why being able to understand what is written would be a primary concern when judging for quality, but wouldn't this be more like a prerequisite thing? Not being able to understand the material would exclude it from the category of being judgeable (as to quality), and clear understanding would mean it's easily judgeable. So this would be a type of preliminary judgement, judging the judgeability.

Fair. Do you have such a criteria or can you imagine one? — Tom Storm

I'm considering this question right now. I never really thought about judging the content on TPF before, maybe this is a subject which has come up because of the short story competitions where members are asked to judge pieces of work. I am not naturally inclined toward making such judgements. To me, this is like judging the quality of individual people. Who is a higher quality person than another? We are all different in unique ways, having a mix of good characteristics and bad. Judgement of the overall quality of the person would require a formula for summing up the good and bad. And some characteristics would have to be weighted as more important than others. That's a very difficult subject.