...don't show it to bury the baby before it is born Baden. — Bitter Crank

Completely honest criticism is what any aspiring writer should want before anything else. Writing is not some special profession where you don't have to be good and everyone should just pat you on the back for trying. If an apprentice carpenter builds a chair that looks like it's going to fall apart the moment someone sits on it, he gets told it's a piece of crap and to start again. And that's how he gets good and we all get to sit around without hurting our asses. Same with writing. It's not something everybody can just do or that shouldn't be taken seriously. It's a skill and it's hard and you're not doing anyone any favours by pulling punches on their apparent ability or lack thereof.

That's sounds OK. My suggestion simply is that if you want to be a writer, try to maintain, first and foremost, a consistently high level of quality in everything you write, including your posts here. That type of discipline will bleed positively into your work.

Also, I'd recommend against trying to write a "philosophical novel". It's likely to come out contrived, derivative and unengaging. Better off to just write on something, anything that means a lot to you and maybe it'll turn out philosophical enough for others. (On the other hand, doing it just as a mental exercise or form of therapy for yourself if that's all you want might be a good learning experience. Personally, I find writing very therapeutic.)

My book that I started about World war one was using the war and conscription to argue against anyone having responsibility to their society or parents but rather the reverse About the futility of sacrifice. The integrity of self. About the pointlessness of suffering. About fear and mental health related to existential anxiety. — Andrew4Handel

If you're going to engage on the mammoth task of writing any novel, never mind a philosophical one, you should probably begin by at least demonstrating an ability to construct some well-formed paragraphs in your posts here or no-one with any sensitivity to the rhythms of the language as expressed by any decent author will be able to get past the first page of your proposed project. I know I wouldn't if it were written like the above. In other words, in order to write a work of any kind, even of the most modest kind, you have to be able to write.

The mods might resist the urge to paint anyone who challenges their decisions as always being one of those "free speechers" who are against any kind of moderation — Jake

That only gets brought up with those who specifically raise free speech issues themselves. Often these posters haven't read the guidelines or don't understand the nature of moderated forums. The quote then is just a handy general reminder and is not necessarily meant personally with regard to whatever poster it's directed at.

The mods are people — Jake

I have my suspicions that at least one of us is some kind of alien virus, but generally speaking that's true.

...a job with fairly low entry requirements. — Jake

Yes, strictly speaking you don't even have to be human to qualify.

Mods make mistakes as we all do. — Jake

Indeed, and our lax entry requirements may be a case in point.



Just don't post a picture of jamalrob's secret watchtower or there may be consequences not preceded by a friendly warning. :eyes:

I'm leaving this here as a closed example of how not to write an OP. Please analyze the issue first yourself; show you understand it and make an effort by taking an actual reasoned position before you throw your meat out to the dogs.

(e.g. https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/4866/is-kant-justified-in-positing-the-existence-of-the-noumenal-world/p1)

(+"Magnificent sperm" and "Magnificent spermatogenesis" = zero results).

The female process of ovulation is portrayed as "wasteful" and "unproductive" (since a woman has all the eggs she will ever have at the beginning of her life, and "loses" them during menstruation), whereas the male process of spermatogenesis is "magnificent" and "productive" (since a man produces millions of sperm every day). The inconsistency is obvious: why is a woman's menstrual cycle seen as wasteful but a man's production of millions of sperm every day not? — darthbarracuda

Anything I've ever read on this has tended towards describing the production and loss of sperm in negative terms as wasteful and women's production of eggs in positive terms as frugal. And I've never seen value-laden adjectives like "magnificent" used in any modern academic scientific context referring to the male reproductive processes.

Testing my intuition/memory, I went to Google Scholar and Googled "wasteful sperm".

There were seven results. Here's an example:

"The concept of "wasteful" sperm is not new to biologists. It is well known that only a tiny fraction of mammalian sperm are used at fertilization."

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF00171502

Googling "wasteful eggs" got me no relevant results. Nor did "wasteful ovulation".

The rest of her attribution of political content/motive to metaphor is open to debate, but the bare fact that positive or negative connotations regarding the sex-specific host of a biological process can be extracted from a metaphor used to explain that process does not establish the validity of such attribution... To put it mildly.

It's not a warning. You haven't done anything to require being warned. It's simply that some of those who express similar concerns to the ones you previously expressed never get used to the idea of being moderated, and so are never comfortable here.

Oh, I know very well that questioning the mods is not tolerated... — Athena

If questioning the mods were not tolerated, there wouldn't be a feedback category. Plus, the guidelines specifically state that mods can not only be questioned, but censured and their decisions overturned.

In a democracy... — Athena

It's not a democracy, it's a community with rules which overall work quite well in maintaining standards. But again, read the guidelines, and please note therein:

"If you feel from the get-go that their [the guidelines] very existence impinges on your right to free speech, this is probably not the place for you."

We knew you would. :wink:

It's hurtful to get deleted without an explanation. — Janis

Sorry about that part btw. We're not out to hurt anyone's feelings. It's a simple matter of practicality that we often don't have time to write explanations. I deleted four other OPs at the same time I deleted yours and I didn't have time to explain why to everyone.

Why in the world would a moderator take it upon himself to delete it without an explanation and a way to rectify it — Janis

We just don't have the manpower to personally teach people the basics of writing OPs tbh. We've written a few instructions in the guidelines on the front page:

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/480/site-guidelines

And you can also just look around the site to get a better feel for how things work. So, of course, feel free to try again as @fdrake suggested.

@Janis I deleted it. It contained no philosophy or anything discernibly scientific etc. It consisted of a claim that someone made an important discovery, you wrote compiled some books about it and an invite to ask you for more information. That's not the type of thing we do here. The general idea for an OP is you set up an issue for discussion and take a position on it.

Here is an example of a basic, acceptable OP from the front page:

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/4614/is-our-dominion-over-animals-unethical/p1

The type of thing you wrote (which was peek-a-boo-ish as @StreetlightX mentioned) might be more acceptable as a Shoutbox post.

Does thus automatically set the stage for a need for immigration? — frank

Certainly having a fertility rate below the replacement level leaves you with the clear choice of either heading off a demographic cliff when your highest-spending, highest-earning, and highest-taxed age groups begin to decline and your fastest growing group becomes financially-draining retired folks (e.g. as in South Korea http://english.hani.co.kr/arti/english_edition/e_business/696800.html ) or allowing your population to be replenished by new arrivals, particularly those from areas with higher fertility rates. The smart money is on the latter option. Relatively liberal immigration policies make a lot of long-term economic sense.

If the theory is right then the simple rule might be that, whenever the Quote function fails, try it again with the text selected from top to bottom and see if that fixes it. — andrewk

I'll try it. Willing it to fail now, so I can potentially eliminate that possibility. :nerd:

The quote button btw appears wherever I release the mouse button after highlighting text as long as I don't release it in the text box or on the main menu at the top of the page in which case it seems to appear as near as possible to the release point outside those two areas.

I've also had difficulty with the quote function at times. But directional dragging doesn't seem to be the issue in my case. Or at least both directions are currently working fine with my Win 10, Chrome v71 system.

Well, we haven't revived it yet but I'll keep you posted.

No worries, Amity. And if you do come up with an article, run it by us. :up:

I fixed it. It was just a missing square bracket.

My method has been to write the first lines, which usually just pop into my head, and then pull on that thread and see where it goes. Not much help as advice I guess.

...a short philosophical essay on ''Creativity' — Amity

Well, we could certainly do with more philosophy on the imagination and creativity. It's a neglected area. I'm more likely to come up with the short story though.

Yes, I was giving advice specifically regarding academic writing, which would cover the article in question. As for "creative writing" per se, a different beast altogether. I don't know what I would say to someone about writing a short story or a poem, for example. Maybe, just read a lot in that genre and then write as authentically as possible. I think it's also useful @Pattern-chaser to make a distinction between genre and style. I'd see creative writing and academic writing as being different genres, but style can vary not only across but within genres. Alan Watts is, I guess, someone who writes engagingly and interestingly in his particular genre. Maybe it's just that his style reflects that of creative writing more than drier academic writing.

If you Google "Paul Baden book" you'll see the names of some of the stuff I self-published. I recently unself-published though, so I could submit my stuff to outlets that don't accept previously published work. So, it's presently unavailable. But I'll happily PM you a copy of my short story collection of you like.

(Unfortunately, if you just Google 'Paul Baden', one of the top results is some guy caught up in a sexual harassment case. That is emphatically not me. :monkey: )

Reviving the short story competition seems a good idea to me as long as admins are allowed to participate. :up:

I agree. I've written four books of fiction. None of which followed those rules because art is a different deal. But you can be creative within the confines of just about any text type to a degree.

You mean more than usual... ? What happened?

Is there a reason why there aren't more articles? — Amity

1) They need to be pretty good to be published.
2) We don't promote the articles section enough.
3) It takes a fair degree of commitment and effort to write a philosophical article.

I would like to see more articles up there though, so let this discussion serve as a call for them. The official editorial team (for whatever that's worth) is me, @jamalrob, @Michael, @Benkei and some dude called @Hansover or @Hanover or something. Anyone wanting to have an article published can PM it to any of us for consideration.

Why not conversations On Writing ? — Amity

Good idea.

I think there comes a time to take head out of books. Use what you have learned or experienced to start thinking/writing for self. I am still working on that one... — Amity

Well, you are an author, of fifty posts. And at its most basic, the process is no different to what you've been doing thus far. It's having something to say on a topic and saying it. It's only that the more you want to say, the more organization comes into play. How you write becomes as important as what you write. So, it becomes more like having (or finding) something to say, deciding how to say it, and saying and resaying it until it satisfies (along with certain recognizable writing conventions) your vision of how it should be said. So, as for writing, you are doing it already, but there are, as you suggested, strategies for approaching the creation of longer texts.

I would be interested to hear about how we progress from critical reading, thinking to creatively writing.
Including the practical aspects of note-taking. How do writers tackle writing articles such as the above ? — Amity

Here's one path you could make use of in writing a philosophical article:

1) Formulate a rough thesis

What is it in general that you want to say? What angle do you want to take on what? What would be a one-line summary of your article? (In @jamalrob's (the author of the article you mentioned) case, the basic thesis is argumentative and the argument is "Indirect realism is wrong")

2) Research.

Your rough thesis can direct your research. Look for information on the background and context of the issue you want to discuss in order to further understand the arguments surrounding it. Then focus on the arguments themselves, both for and against, and their key proponents. Make use of highlighting and note-taking on the texts you examine.

3) Finalize your thesis.

Are you able to gather enough information to make the case you want to make? Having read more about the issue, do you even still want to make that particular case? Here's your chance, now that you're more information-rich, to modify your approach and hone in on what you really want to say. Once you are sure of that then write your thesis out in a way that satisfies you and can serve as the fundamental basis of the rest of your work.

4) Plan your article.

The basic structure of most academic articles is going to be along the lines of:

Introduction
Say something about the background/context of your argument, state your thesis, provide an overview of your article etc.

Body
Present your argument paragraph by paragraph (consider subdividing into sub-sections for longer articles).

Conclusion
Sum up the reasons for your argument as you've presented it in the body.

Within that framework, organize your approach. Most of the hard work will be done in the body section where you decide on the major reasons/evidence for your thesis and the counterarguments you'll present and refute.

5) More research.

Take what sources you have and match them up to your plan. The likelihood is that now you've thought more about the details of the overall structure of your essay, you'll need to dive back into the literature to shore up your thesis in places.

6) Write your article.

Write according to your plan, being flexible enough to make changes where necessary while retaining the overall vision of what you want to say (stick to your thesis).

7) Revise.

Edit, proofread and so on.

Sorry @Willows but the "interesting stuff" super-category is not to be interpreted as "random stuff". It's for serious politics/current affairs/science etc. Random stuff that pops into your head can remain in the Shoutbox, or if you really think it merits an OP (this doesn't imo) elsewhere in the Lounge.

Put another way, the only thing that can ever be "proved" (or at least demonstrated as scientifically likely using an appropriate confidence interval) are the average tendencies towards particular behaviours of the sample and the limited larger population reflecting the same/similar conditions/context of/to the sample.

Statistics can prove that a group or race of people are more likely do something - crime or not — Josh Alfred

Generally what such statistical studies measure are the behaviours of a contextualized group of a larger group e.g. Black [larger group="race"] men [contextual factor 1] between the ages of 20 and 30 [contextual factor 2] in urban areas [contextual factor 3] in America [contextual factor 4] and so on. The argument then centres over the degree that the results can or should be generalised. And those who carry out such empirical research are usually conservative in such generalizations (realizing that each level of context reduces, for obvious reasons, what can sensibly be said in a decontextualized way about the larger group) whereas those with a political agenda are usually very liberal in their interpretations often because reason for prejudice is not something they can discover scientifically but something they are actively trying to find justification (however feeble) for creating. Your comment suggests the strategy works.

He has a high IQ at a particular set of skills... — Jake

You don't get to have a high IQ at your own set of particular skills. IQ is by definition a standardised form of measurement. You either score well or you don't. Best you could say is Trump had the right kind of intelligence/acumen for thriving in the real estate business.

It's no more mysterious than driving a car and being aware you're driving a car. Who's driving the car and who's observing the car being driven? You, in both cases, because the word "you" refers to the subject of actions and awarenesses of different forms that can sometimes (and very often do) occur simultaneously.

What are your thoughts about this incredible idea? — Wallows

It appears to be part of a project of hyper-instrumentalization and depersonalization of social reality through an attack on individuality and personhood (I guess a reaction to trends of individualism afforded by cross-cultural mass-communicative media), the potential effect of which is a huge mass of people who become so conditioned they end up thinking they're voluntarily making decisions on the basis of being good citizens whereas the actual motivation is fear. So, fear and anxiety of the social dressed up as harmony with and love for others. A dictatorship's dream.

Malicious authoritarian garbage turned up to eleven. — StreetlightX

:up:

Hasn't it been pretty uniform in manner and policies since the ruling of )the communist party? — Wallows

Absolutely not. Modern China is run officially as a socialist market economy, but is effectively (according to many) a form of state capitalism. A far cry from Mao. Deng Xiaoping is the major figure you need to know about here. But Asia, in general, does it differently: The "democracy" of Singapore has been run by the same political party since it secured self-governance in 1959, governance in Japan has been monopolized (with only two very brief interludes) by the LDP since 1955, the current government in Thailand is a military dictatorship that's hardly any different in practical terms to the "democracy" that came before it, and so on.

Or maybe consider doing something you're good at? :kiss:

The Democrats ideal 2020 strategy is to continuously paint Trump as impeachable while never actually impeaching him, the attempt which (unless Trump does something to alienate significant numbers of Republicans) would certainly fail. That way they retain the high moral ground while eroding Trump's support among independents who are likely to be turned off by a partisan impeachment process (which may give fresh wings to the anti-establishment image Trump played on so well to get himself elected in the first place).

President Pence is a very scary idea so please, be very careful what you wish for and strive for litigiously. — ArguingWAristotleTiff

:up:

You're welcome, @Wallows :up:

This is going around in circles... — S

Yes, it is. Let's leave it at that