This is a brilliantly executed take-down of a poisonous ideology...
Everyone should read this. — Baden

Enough said. Will do. Making my way there...slowly but unsurely...
The Intro is certainly a draw:

This essay argues that radical individualism is less a coherent political philosophy than a theatrical pose that conceals its reliance on collective institutions, rationalizes inequality and rebrands domination as personal freedom. By examining its philosophical roots and public champions we expose a paradox at its core: the celebration of liberty through authoritarian means.

We focus on three figures: Elon Musk, Donald Trump and Jordan Peterson. — Moliere

I hope all authors are being patient. There's a whole world of reading in this event. It's only the 4th.

I'll come back and say more later. — Baden

I look forward to that. I barely touched this. It deserves more attention and discussion. So impressive.

This paper is substantive, a work of passion and intellect. In a way, it is a love story.
Philosophy meets Literature and marry in the most unique and fascinating manner. Well-structured with advice given to the reader on the important passages.

We follow the deflation of reason, from holy images of divine angels to calculation (premises to consequences) to Hume's well-known “reason alone can never be a motive to any action of the will.”
[The author provides reference numbers but there is no list or biography at the end.]

Reason, a defining aspect of the self, plays a role in psychology, even as the self is brought to its knees in eliminative materialism. Where is the joy?

The author observes:

One can hardly rejoice in a calculator, much less see it as divine.

We move from modern philosophy to the author painting a richer picture of reason. The author's goal is clearly stated:

Good philosophy requires us to question our presuppositions. A consideration of the earlier view of reason can bring to light some of the hidden assumptions that give modern thought its unique shape. To make this contrast all the more stark, we shall not use one of the great pre-modern philosophers of mind for our comparison. Rather, we shall look to the greatest poet of the Middle Ages—and perhaps any age—to Dante Alighieri and his Divine Comedy, following his pilgrimage through the afterlife as far as the top of Mount Purgatory.

Here, I raise my head in anticipation and bow in frustration. Dante. Poetry. Mount Purgatory.
All of this has intrigued me but I have never followed it through. For whatever reason or emotion.
The challenge presents itself again...

Why Dante?
The author gives reasons for the choice. The reader also catches a hint, a rosy tint of personal attraction.

Finally, whereas today we are apt to see “love” as something irrational, and perhaps just one element of “a good life,” Dante sees love as the central thread running through the human experience (and indeed the entire cosmos). Dante’s vision, which sees reason primarily engaged within the context of love, and finding its purpose in love, offers us the most vibrant possible contrast to highly deflationary views such as eliminative materialism.

Love. The different kinds, nature and duration. From foolish recklessness (irrationality) - a low kind of passion to the highest. Perhaps, they are all 'irrational 'in the sense of not being understood or analysed by reason. Love is a complex quality we can feel but not count.

As Robert Solomon puts it, "most people are quite incoherent if not speechless about producing reasons for loving a particular person" (2002: 12). If asked “Why do you love her?” we may simply reply with "I don't know. I just do." If, however, we are asked “Why do you hate her?" or "Why do you admire her?", it would not be satisfactory to answer with "I don’t know, I just do." Alan Soble remarks that "[reasonless] hate looks pathological, and we would help someone experiencing it to get over it" (2005: II). We expect people to be able to give reasons for hating or admiring another person. When people are unable to give reasons, we suspect that their hatred or admiration is inappropriate. — Psychology Today - The Rationality of Love

Dante's love for Beatrice is central to his life experience and writings. How may it be described?
Rational or irrational? What matters is the feeling, the influence and inspiration. We catch a sense of it:

After Beatrice’s death, Dante withdrew into intense study and began composing poems dedicated to her memory. The collection of these poems, along with others he had previously written in his journal in awe of Beatrice, became La Vita Nuova, a prose work interlaced with lyrics.
Dante describes his meetings with her, praises her beauty and goodness, describes his own intense reactions to her kindness or lack thereof, tells of events in both their lives, and explains the nature of his feelings for her. La Vita Nuova also relates of the day when Dante was informed of her death and contains several anguished poems written after that event. In the final chapter, Dante vows to write nothing further of Beatrice until he writes “concerning her what hath not before been written of any woman.”
The promise is fulfilled in the epic poem The Divine Comedy, which he composed many years later. In that poem, he expresses his exalted and spiritual love for Beatrice, who is his intercessor in the Inferno, his purpose in traveling through Purgatorio, and his guide through Paradiso. — Florence Inferno - Beatrice and Dante

This paper is too full for me to follow in a single post. However, I need to share some of this beautifully sustained writing. To glimpse, to understand the images of love in the pilgrimage, even if I don't appreciate the role of God.

Love runs throughout the Pilgrim’s entire journey, from the “primeval love” that erected the Gates of Hell (37), to “the Love that moves the sun and the other stars” at the end of the poem.(38) In the discourses on love that occupy the center of the poem, the Pilgrim comes to understand love, and so to understand love’s relation to the rational soul and the role of reason in human life.

I enjoy being introduced to 'synteresis', briefly explained. Is this the same as natural intuition?
A practical morality? Without need for a process of reasoning?

The Pilgrim possess synteresis, an innate knowledge that the good is preferable to evil (and truth to falsity). However, as he attempts to climb the hill under his own power he is forced back by the three beasts representing sin. His mounting terror only subsides when he is greeted by the great Roman poet Virgil, who tells the Pilgrim that he will be leading him on a tour through the afterlife—through Hell and Purgatory, before Beatrice, the great love of Dante’s life, leads Dante through Heaven.(26)

Even with this internal 'power' - or perhaps because of it - terror can still take over our will. Do we, then, need recourse to external entities? Or immaterial ghost-like figures giving us reason to go on?
Do we need purification? Will and intellect cleansed?

In Conclusion:

It is appropriate then that the Paradiso is the most philosophical of the three books, since it is only after this regeneration that Pilgrim is prepared to learn about the nature of man and the cosmos. Here, we see a marked contrast with the empiricist ideal, where there is only “the evidence” and “the analysis one can derive from it.” Yet, for the last leg of the journey, Dante must be led by Beatrice, by ecstatic eros and divine illumination. He must be drawn outside himself, beyond his finitude. He must, in a new term Dante coins for the poem, be “transhumanized.”(49) This is not a knowing we can strive for. We can only prepare ourselves to accept it as a gift. Thus, Dante’s most important lesson to us might be that such a gift can only be accepted freely. That is, it is only when we acknowledge our rational appetites, our desire for Goodness and Truth, that a proper ordering of our loves and true freedom is possible.*

Interesting to me is how the Beatrice of Dante's early life (now long deceased) continues to lead 'by ecstatic eros and divine illumination'. What kind of love is this? Imagined? Obsession?

I appreciate the drawing out from inner feelings to some kind of truth or knowledge. A transformation.
The author suggests that this is a divine gift.

Dante's word 'transhumanised', so very different from our current concerns re transhumanism, or is it?

Transhumanism is a philosophical and intellectual movement that advocates the enhancement of the human condition by developing and making widely available new and future technologies that can greatly enhance longevity, cognition, and well-being — Wiki - Transhumanism

If life is all about enhancing the human condition, to reach a state of wellbeing, then maybe future technologies will serve humanity better...than poetry and religion?

Thus, Dante’s most important lesson to us might be that such a gift can only be accepted freely. That is, it is only when we acknowledge our rational appetites, our desire for Goodness and Truth, that a proper ordering of our loves and true freedom is possible.*

Perhaps. The joining of philosophy and literature, love and passion, wisdom and care - it all sounds pretty good. I'm not so sure that we all desire the absolute ideals of 'Goodness and Truth'.
Nor that such a 'proper ordering' is possible. And what is 'true freedom'?

An awesome essay from this author. I've only joined in some of it. Tripping and tripped, a delight.
I apologise for relying too much on quotes. A sign of a lazy mind, indeed. I will never get to heaven.

I note that there is no longer a need to sign in to read the essays. A good move. To make them easily accessible and highlight the June event.

The short stories were once public too, and nobody complained. I made them private because I, and I think hypericin, were trying to get our stories published in magazines. — Jamal

I complained of the change to 'private' and the need to sign in to read them. I remember well your reasons and wonder if /why this is no longer a concern.

***
As for:

Authors are supposed to be kept anonymous until 16th June.
— Amity
Nothing to do with author anonymity. The only difference is that non-members of TPF can view the essays — hypericin

My quote is taken out of context. It was in reply to Jamal:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/991864

***
Finally:

Although Baden and @Amity were against it, they did not give any reasons beyond speculation that some participants might be relying on the fact that the category is members-only. But I don't think this is a realistic possibility, and nobody with such a concern has spoken up. — Jamal

Mostly, I was surprised at the initial action taken without warning or explanation. I've already mentioned that in relation to your long-standing decision/position to make them private.

Nobody is suggesting that we should be a 'secret society'. Indeed, I am in favour of increased access to the forum.

I simply don't appreciate sudden decisions to change without prior consideration to other participants.
The initial lack of communication is why questions needed to be asked.

Now answered. Perhaps the event can move on.

This is becoming ridiculous. I vote with my feet. I am out of here.

what's wrong with making them publicly available? — Moliere

I am not inclined to pursue a debate, right now. I've better things to do.

If any participants want to keep their essays off the internet, I can once again restrict them to members-only, which is the default for the Symposium. — Jamal

Please discuss the issue amongst yourselves and come to a democratic decision, then let me know. — Jamal

Authors are supposed to be kept anonymous until 16th June. Nobody is likely to discuss it here.

A question you missed:

Why couldn't hypericin simply take his essay along to his group? — Amity

Or share them via email, whatever?
All of this for one poster on one occasion?

If any participants want to keep their essays off the internet, I can once again restrict them to members-only, which is the default for the Symposium. — Jamal

I am amazed that you did this. I thought that it was your idea to make it members-only so that you had to sign in to read them. Thus, keeping them 'private' so that you could still publish them elsewhere.

So, if you have changed your mind about that, then why not make them available as all the other posts and discussions?

It would have been good to have been given due warning and explanation before you took the action.

Yes. But I want to know why they went AWOL.

Sorry but I don't understand what just happened. The whole event vanished as I was posting a reply.

How have the essays been made public?
Why was it necessary?
Why couldn't hypericin simply take his essay along to his group?
Why no warning or explanation given?

The Insides and Outsides of 'Reality': Exploring Possibilities — Author

Intriguing title. First, I'd like to ask, "What are the Insides and the Outsides of Our Selves?" because doesn't our reality consist of their interaction. Our minds, thoughts, feeling and emotion reacting to the external world, and vice versa. The inter-relationship of inner and outer selves with others and events. Sometimes an imbalance occurs. After all, when do we ever achieve real stasis, an unchanging state of equilibrium.

Ideas of quantity and quality pass from one sphere to another. But no matter the name of the field or discipline, there can still be dialogue. As you suggest, 'exploring possibilities'.
It seems you wish to limit this to a dialogue between science (quantum physics) and philosophy.
I wonder why you don't poke into the perhaps more fascinating world of psychology.

Consensus is one measure, but even that may be called into question by shared delusions. However, he also refers to the science fiction writer, Philip K Dick's view that 'reality is that which, if you stop believing in it does not go away'. Leaving aside the nature of impermanence, Dick's argument does hold as an important marker — Author

You don't say why it holds as an 'important marker'. As for 'shared delusions', some might call them 'hallucinations'.
Your Brain Hallucinates Your Conscious Reality | Anil Seth | TED
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lyu7v7nWzfo
***
I don't want to derail from your essay focus, but let's take a quick peek into both philosophy and psychology:

In writing about virtual worlds in Reality +: Virtual Worlds and the Problems of Philosophy, philosopher David Chalmers offers some methods by which we can tell what is real. He outlines five ways: reality as existence, reality as causal power, reality as mind independence, reality as non-illusoriness, and reality as genuineness. — Psychology Today

Back to the Dick quote. From the same article:

Reality as mind independence: “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn’t go away,” said Philip K. Dick. A better explanation, Chalmers offers, is perhaps “Reality is that which doesn’t depend on anyone’s mind for its existence.” But as we’ve seen in Anil Seth’s TED talk, apparently, we are all hallucinating the same reality. So who is to say the reality exists outside of our collective consciousness? The characters in our favorite television shows are not necessarily real, and they don't necessarily go away when you turn the TV off. But perhaps we can agree that they wouldn't exist if it were not for our ability to conjure up the character in the first place. — As above

There are many positions on understanding reality, including realism, idealism, materialism and phenomenonalism. — Author

So many -ism's.

An idealist interpretation of quantum physics has been challenged byDonald Hoffmann(2025). He takes on board the questionable issue of there being an absolute objective reality, but is wary of lopsided thinking.

What is 'lopsided thinking'? Uneven, skewed, prejudiced...yes, of course.

He suggests a possible interface between subjectivity and objectivity, involving 'trying to solve the hard problem of consciousness by building a theory in which the underlying reality emerges from a vast network of interacting agents and their experiences. — Author

How on earth...where do you begin... but you decide to digress. How frustrating not to say more.
Express your thoughts on the matter.

Colin Stott(2025) has pointed to MacMurray's claim that Western academic philosophy has 'dug itself into a hole', through ignoring embodiment as an aspect of perception. Stott suggests that this involved taking 'fundamental conceptual pairings, such as subjective/objective, thought/action, individual/society, theory/practice and severed them...' — Author

Yes, yes, yes. It is a severance related to theories of theories built on sands of speculation. Either/Or.
With some philosophers sticking their heads and heels in. Black/White. Continental v Analytic philosophy.
Do they not realise that visions and feelings are the start of notions and concepts.
Divisions join inside and outside the real world. Parts of the whole.
Without the feeling of the absurd, where would 'absurdism' be?

What about the kind of reality found in a natural common-sense or practical rationality which sees no value in theory unless translated into practice. What use 'thought' without 'action'? Is writing a theory sufficient?

Yet, despite the partiality of observation, and thinking, it is possible to build a composite picture. But, even then, as Hoffman argues, it is not possible to go beyond human subjective experience entirely as a framework of complete objectivity. Of course, there is the potential of AI, I guess, but that is likely modelled on anthropocentric models and understanding. — Author

How is it possible to build a composite picture of reality? Do you mean that the interaction of an external event with an inner experience creates an image of the moment as reality?
I'm reminded of the word 'Gestalt'. I think that is a way of looking at reality that is holistic. The whole is more than the sum of its parts. Not sure.

This exploration is most worthwhile. The process starts with reading and then questioning.
Seeking. I understand the need to rest. Ascending Everest needs a plentiful supply of oxygen.
Brain cells die within minutes if bereft. That is reality.

Also, as a closing remark, it is worth bearing in mind the possible limits of quantum physics and the linguistics of science. As Strassler(2025), claims 'The language we use in physics obscures some of our most beautiful and fascinating discoveries.' — Author

It isn't only in physics. Sometimes, language in philosophy can make foreigners of us all...

Thanks for a thought-provoking essay. Another step along the way. Have a good day :cool:

My Soul is like the Dead Sea

“My soul is like the Dead Sea, over which no bird is able to fly; when it has come midway, it sinks down, exhausted, to death and destruction.” – (Kierkegaard, A Fragment of Life)

The reader is sucked in. Already, like a bird attempting to fly over this salty sea of words. A bird flapping in hopelessness. Flight or fight. Either/Or? Neither. Facing the challenge in the hope of understanding.

Persevering with the existential theme of life's negativity, the emptiness and the implicit question asked: "How best to live life...to find happiness?"

Prior to the quote, Kierkegaard writes:

How dreadful boredom is — how dreadfully boring... I lie prostrate, inert; the only thing I see is emptiness, the only thing I live on is emptiness, the only thing I move in is emptiness.
[...]
And what could divert me ? Well, if I managed to see a faithfulness that withstood every ordeal, an enthusiasm that endured everything, a faith that moved mountains; if I were to become aware of an idea that joined the finite and the infinite. But my soul’s poisonous doubt consumes everything. — Kierkegaard

What diverts but a story of ideas and feelings. Some kind of faith in thinking beyond the usual.
To a strange world of perception, perhaps magic.
The author leads on in a mystery to be slowly savoured:

I see her, oh ex nihilo ad nihilum, slithering, grasping for life—yet always finding nothing. Every solid she touches is liquefied; every liquid solidified. She is a walking contradiction: the prey which is its own predator. She has walked the common path undisturbed, and exactly this wellness has made her sick: normality is a paved road—it is comfortable to walk, but no flowers grow on it 1. She has no flower to call her own, and the chasm in her heart has grown to large: she rips herself apart, just to sew herself back together. I betrayed her for a while. I led her up the long steps to the door of indifference. I illuminated the true immeasurable fruitlessness of her life: I made her one of the Συμπαϱανεϰϱώμενοι. The greatest sacrifice one can give is to die; for her, it is to live. — Moliere

Captivating images of someone, a soul-mate? She slithers from nothing to nothing. I think of the Garden of Eden, the snake and Eve. But no, although longing for life, there is a nothing, no tree of knowledge, no forbidden fruit.
Who is the 'I' who narrates? Who betrayed her (another inner self?). How? By leading her astray. Up the garden path...'to the door of indifference'. What kind of 'indifference'? The special Stoic kind or the common garden variety?

The Συμπαϱανεϰϱώμενοι. Not sure what this means. I found:

The Symparanekromenoi is a Greek expression coined by Kierkegaard, translated as “Society of Buried Lives”. It is an expression used to designate the kind of people Kierkegaard would like to write for, convinced that they would share his views, a society of individuals who are living lives that are spiritually entombed.

So, 'she', the counterpart of (presumably a 'he'?) has become captive, her spirit caged?
'The greatest sacrifice one can give is to die; for her, it is to live.'
I don't understand this. Does she want to die because she is in a prison of existential angst? She would sacrifice her own wish to please...who? Can she die to live again? A resurrection of the spirit?

What part does the 'I', the narrator play? God?
And then, the author gives us a break, a poem. Of resilience. Life and Death, Life and Death.
A forever circling battle. On any given day.

The narrator continues with his plan. What she must understand to live upright, facing what lies before her. To not be defeated. To fight the battle of good and bad. Who will win? Are there any winners in life?
If death is seen as the inevitable loss, then I guess not.

The most divine thing a person can do is fight a battle they cannot win to remain undefeated:it is time for the red sun to seep out of her pupils. Today, she shall become brutality to avoid immorality. To avoid pain and failure is to necessitate both — Moliere

The red sun seeping. The heat of a righteous anger under intense pressure?
How does being brutal avoid immorality?

Next up, Nietzsche on great pain burning slowly. Apparently, it compels certain philosophers to go down, deep, deep, down. To turn from:

trust, everything good-natured, everything that would interpose a veil, that is mild, that is medium—things which formerly we may have found our humanity.” – (The Gay Science, Preface, Section 3, p. 36) — Moliere

Why? How?

The author describes a process of transformation, using fantastical images. Absurd strangeness.
And idealistic. 'She' taking up her post as Equanimity, no more Calamity. Almost vampiric in the squeezing of life blood from her old self.

...She shall never despise nor complain ever again: she shall take up her post, needing no oath or witness, doing diligently what she was designed to do with an Mainländerian sense of purpose. Her purpose is inscribed on her heart, but to know it she must lose her fear of tearing off her face and she must drown in that abyss. — Moliere

Wow.
Now, a bit from Marcus Aurelius. One of my heroes who I don't recognise here:

“If you do the job in a principled way, with diligence, energy and patience, if you keep yourself free of distractions, and keep the spirit inside you undamaged, as if you might have to give it back at any moment—if you can embrace this without fear or expectation—[if you] can find fulfillment in what you’re doing now, as Nature intended, and in superhuman truthfulness (every word, every utterance)—then your life will be happy. No one can prevent that.” – (Meditations, Book III, p.33) — Moliere

My own translation is from Meditations, Book 3, section 12 - Martin Hammond, p21.
There is no mention of 'superhuman' and no conclusion that your life will be happy. But you 'will lead a good life'. Perhaps they are one and the same...but, I feel that plenty can stop you from being happy but leading a good life is pretty much up to you. Hmmm...thought-provoking.
I guess my beef is that I don't see Marcus as an existentialist. He adheres to Stoic principles of which 'indifference' is one. However, he engages at a high level of engagement as Emperor of Rome. His actions appear to contradict Stoicism.

And now, we have Socrates 'Know Thyself':

“Nosce te ipsum”: there has been no more useful of a proverb; and there is no price too great to be able to live with oneself. So she faced the legions; she took the blows; she bled the blood; she adapted; she became stronger—an unrecognizable version of herself. The first battle was her thoughts; the second was her actions; and the third was her habits. Until finally, there it was: the thumping chest. She lifts the heavy lid, and there is a heart—branded with the word “εὐδαιμονία”. — Moliere

What does it take or mean to know yourself, when there are so many competing selves?
If your self becomes 'unrecognisable', how much has changed?
The myth of finding the Greek word 'εὐδαιμονία' in a chest, in your heart...
The word is not 'happiness' but the state or process of a spirit seeking wellbeing.

So, yes, engaging thoughts, observing behaviour and daily habits. Will they achieve happiness?
If they are captive, engraved in stone...probably not. But who knows?

“velle non discitur” – (The World as Will and Representation, p. 294) — Moliere

The author ends with words from Schopenhauer.
I am not well-informed. However, I think it relates to Seneca's idea that the will can't be taught.

All humans have some degree of will and quite a bit of egoism. The will of the powerful in politics affects many. It is about having morals. To do what is best. First, do no harm.

One man's happiness is...

***
Reading, reflecting and responding to a piece of philosophy writing.
Hoping to understand. We can only do our best. Thank you for sharing. :sparkle:

I will return to this stunningly beautiful, original piece of art, over and over. The creative joy in delightful characters - peripatetic philosophers - adventuring and arguing along the way. From start to finish, funny with strong images in words and wow, the illustrations...fantastic. So much to take in...more later.

This is what I had hoped for but could not imagine for the Philosophy Writing Challenge. The mix and the magic of Bubbles and Styx, my heart and mind lift and my nose snorts in hiccups of laughter.

The eternal friendship, enjoying the day from sunrise to sunset. Lingering, licking wonderful questions.
Thanks for the ice-cream with the cherry on top. The view of the ocean and deep waters. :cool: :clap: :heart:

I like this one a lot, very readable and compelling. Not a dry survey, we take a brief and personal trip with the author on a search for meaning. — hypericin

I agree - I love the quick jaunt through history from the ancients to moderns. A personal pic of mostly male thinkers pondering the question:

What Does It Mean to Be Human? — Moliere

Interpretations and comparisons concisely summarised, leaving the reader wanting more.
The author always questioning definitions and where meaning can be found. A snappy, critical appraisal of individual, social, traditional and ethical responses.

The only woman, unknown to me, got my attention. Her views are refreshing, including the ecosystem.Thanks for the introduction even if, as in the other eras, another thinker could have been mentioned for balance:
1963 – present - Joanna Bourke
I like the pertinent summary. The nature of man. What it means to be a man ( as opposed to a woman?)

What these philosophers are discussing is the nature of man. Because they use the word ‘human’, we may take a leap of faith and assume they include female humans. The meaning of the words ‘human’ ‘mankind’ and ‘man’ are being defined and their subject described in very narrow terms. Then each philosopher, with one exception, goes on to burden his subject with a blanket function, purpose, task and ultimate goal. All men are this; all men should do thusly; all men must aspire to that. — Moliere

A male bias in e.g. existentialism and absurdism is clear enough. I love the author's use of 'leap of faith'. It reminds me of the scorn of Camus (absurdism - absurd man) as he attacks the 'philosophical suicide' of existentialists in The Myth of Sisyphus. I laugh at the term 'the absurd hero'. What does it mean to be 'absurd'? Another story full of meaning, meaning nothing. From nothing to nothing.

Then the fun turn to:

What does it mean to be a lettuce? Can't help but think of the UK's unfortunate spell of Trussism. A banjo, a word. Stringing us along in a song and dance.

Perhaps no existence has a meaning beyond its simple, stark reality. Perhaps meaning is a human idea that cannot be made universal. — Moliere

Is it in the quest itself, the process of thinking, creating, providing, writing that we find meaning?
For some, it is found in caring relationships; love, hope and courage.
For others, carrying a burden is what makes humans human.
We each have our mountain to climb. Even Maslow.
Being and becoming the best we can be in the circumstances.
A mole making a mountain.

Excellent references to explore. A lot of work in this essay but lightly shared. Not a great burden to read. I learned about stuff I didn't know and some long forgotten. Thanks for the stimulation.

Edit: can't access the reference: file:///C:/Users/tomes/Downloads/286-Article%20Text-521-1-10-20210719-1.pdf

I don't even know if I'll finish in the month — Moliere

That's OK. The essays aren't going anywhere, are they? Take as much time as you need to fulfil your stated commitment to provide in-depth responses to authors. Most admirable.

I am simply pointing out that you don't have to 'reserve comments until after June' when the party will be all but over. People moving on...
After the 16th June, your comments can be a light 'starter' before the main meal. Get the juices flowing.
I'm sure everyone will appreciate you sitting down at the table. Relaxing in good cheer :party:
And, quite frankly, I don't know how you will be able to resist! :love: :kiss:

But enough about you. There are stories to read...and they're damned good! As you know...

to give me time, and just because it feels right. — Moliere

Blethering bleuter :roll:

I'm reserving my comments for after June, but will still follow through with my promise to give every submission a proper response. — Moliere

Everyone will know who is who and what they wrote after the guessing game on the 15th and the reveal on the 16th June, no?

So, you can start commenting then. Puzzled :chin:

To read offline, I've downloaded the essays to Word. Thought I'd share, in no particular order:

List of 13 essays with approx. word count (excl. references and biography)

Technoethics: Freedom, Precarity, and Enzymatic Knowledge Machines (3,400)

The Frame Before the Question (850)

What Does It Mean to Be Human? (1,240)

Wittgenstein's Hinges and Gödel's Unprovable Statements (2,365)

Bubbles and Styx In: Pondering the Past (2,055)

The Insides and Outsides of 'Reality': Exploring Possibilities (715)

Dante and the Deflation of Reason (5,220)

Cognitive Experiences are a Part of Material Reality (1,640)

The Authoritarian Liberty Paradox (5045)

Part 1 & Part 2 (5,810)

The importance of the Philosophical Essay within philosophy (2,490)

An Exploration Between the Balance Between State and Individual Interests (2,595)

My Soul is like the Dead Sea (730)

(Note to authors: If I've got any terribly wrong, Ooops! please PM @Moliere)

:cool: :clap:

I'm good with adding a PF Essay tag in addition to the title of the paper so that it's easily discernable without clicking on the sub-forum — Moliere

Thanks, Moliere, for adding the PF Essay tag to all the essays. It helps.

As it is, I just wish to focus on the essays and appreciate them for what they are. — Jack Cummins

:smile: That is the spirit and a great attitude to bring to this new event. Experience in the Literary Activity has shown just how distracting other issues can become. Some, of course, need to be swiftly addressed as valid concerns. We can then progress and enjoy the juicy bits: reading, reflecting and responding. With respect, a sense of fun and perspective.

I think those essays will produce some of the best discussions we've had for a long time, — Jamal

:up: Encouraging words. I agree and look forward to getting stuck in. Probably not as full on as in the Literary Event. We will see...

They cover a wide range of philosophical areas so you could just pretend lots of high quality OPs suddenly appeared at the same time. The idea that they might overwhelm the front page only applies if they're on the same topic (or if they're not philosophy, like the fiction competitions). — Jamal

Yes. I like that way of looking at the essay 'dump'. It is a bit of an overwhelm. Not really what I was expecting, I appreciate that it might prove problematic to some.
Any essay is open to the challenge for not being 'philosophy'. In that case, readers can post their feedback in the individual essay thread. The author can reply later.

An opportunity to remind readers of the OP:

A separate discussion thread will be posted 'Meet the Authors'. A list of authors will be provided for the 'guessing game'.

After the authors are revealed on June 16th the authors can:
1. Respond to the comments and feedback.
2. Join in the general discussion, compare and contrast other essays. Note: authors, as readers, can comment on specific essays before this

From the Guidance:
10) Members please carefully read the essays before offering thoughtful feedback. A more open-ended conversation will take place in the 'Meet the Authors' thread that will be created on June 15th.
— Moliere

Now to settle down and read some. Later...

Thank you for this well-presented OP. — Joshs

To clarify, this is not an OP. It is part of the Philosophy Writing Challenge - June 2025.
https://thephilosophyforum.com/categories/55/phil-writing-challenge-june-2025

It is an essay whose author will be identified later. To keep anonymity, Moliere has posted all 13 entries in his name.

maybe with a prefix like [PF Essay]. — hypericin

I'm good with adding a PF Essay tag in addition to the title of the paper so that it's easily discernable without clicking on the sub-forum — Moliere

There is no need. — Amity

Given a response to one of the essays, I've changed my mind. I didn't appreciate how they would be read and responded to by others. { I'm not sure I even like individual essays being strung out like that}

See : https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/991451

But, hey, I'm tired and a bit overwhelmed at 13 PF posters taking time and energy to respond so brilliantly to the Challenge! I did not expect that when all this started.
Thanks to everyone concerned. :fire: :love:

It sounds a bit cumbersome to me. — Baden

I agree. There is no need. Keep it simple. The plan is good to go! :up: :cool:

:smile:

Looking forward to June 1st...

Good luck to everyone! :cool: :flower:

What I am listening to at the moment is 'Songs of Surrender' by U2, which is a compilation of reworking of many of their songs. — Jack Cummins

Thanks for sharing that. I didn't know of it. You are right. Music does help. Topic for an essay? :wink:
Here's - One (Songs of Surrender)

I am hoping to submit still but fearful of the essay getting lost because I have to type it onto the pms directly, due to software problems. Actually, what I am writing is far from finished as I have been struggling with a lot of stress since coming out of hospital. I am hoping that what I am writing will come together sufficiently for me to submit. It is over 500 words but I don't wish it to be too long and get lost. I will give myself time until the closing date. If it gets lost on the system I will use my handwritten draft as a potential thread instead. — Jack Cummins

I hope your essay writing goes well and you don't become too anxious about it.
It's not worth worrying over or becoming fearful of it getting lost. This was just a hiccup.
It should work just the same as the short story activity.
If you keep a copy, then all will be well.
If all goes tits up, all will be well.

Take care! :pray: :flower:

PS I too am a bit stressed, but needs must put things into perspective. And breathe...
Pick a fave from your music list...and chill...dance and let it be... :sparkle:

Thanks for the Happy wishes and the reminder:

8)Deadline for submissions is May 31st 23:59 GMT
9) All entries will be posted on June 1st. — Moliere

I think some essays have been removed from my PM — Moliere

Your honesty is admirable in sharing the difficulties encountered in hosting a new TPF challenge.

I hope the problem of 'lost submissions' can be addressed quickly.

@Baden and other previous hosts of TPF Activities/Challenges might share their experience and knowledge of this part of the process. Support always welcome. Perhaps best via PM?

Great to know that people have already submitted. Unfortunate that some anonymity has been lost.
I think it would be best for anyone concerned to contact @Moliere via PM.

Best wishes.

let's just see what chat gpt has to say about that... — flannel jesus

Hah! I'll leave that up to you and your creative questioning...

It might even be on the path to disappearing... — flannel jesus

No, nay, nivver ! :scream:
As long as TPF survives. All is well. :wink: :cool:

GPT 4-o understands my obscure Lacanian-ish cartoons. Also, got "The Lark" right, which confused everyone here except maybe @Amity. I've warmed to having philosophical conversations with it. — Baden

You called? :smile:

I'd like to read what GPT4-o had to say about your story The Lark, and any others.
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/15637/the-lark-by-baden
And how much enjoyment and fun involved? Wherein lies the challenge?
Pooter inpoot/outpoot. Fair enough. Up to a point.

Until our brains curl up and die. When our surprising, personal power in myth, mystery and magic disappear. In a puff of smoke. I don't want to talk to the Borg. I don't know how.
I, not Borg. But still interested. What did you ask it?

This kinda deflates me. I hope to submit something to the Philosophy Writing Challenge in June.
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/15749/philosophy-writing-challenge-june-2025-announcement/p1

How many people seeking to read, research, find voice in self and others will turn to AI when writing e.g. a philosophy essay?
I'm already receiving help whenever I google the name of a philosopher or a philosophy.
AI-generated answers pop-up. Leading to other resources.

It would be so easy to use summaries of second-hand materials. I agree they can provide useful background information. They can help get you started. But you only really get to know someone by reading their writing, carefully and closely. And have a dialogue, a dance, a conversation, posing questions. Even then, there will not be a full understanding. But, hey, isn't it the process that counts?

That's what I love about the TPF Literary Activity. Just look at the amount of individual thinking.
Engaging brain, mind, energy expended, feeling, empathy, connecting but not as a Collective.

With this new philosophy event, reading the personal views/arguments, proposals/persuasion of TPF participants will be fascinating. Then the discussions and feedback. Show casing. Creative 'battles'. Engagements of war, peace, hate and love, reason/emotion - and all things in between.
All the diverse ways of thinking, imagining and writing - should be a bit of a lark, no? :chin:

I think I've said all I ever want to on the subject.
Now, to get on with my heavenly creation. Peace :pray:

You are saying that rule 4 should have read "must fall under the broad category of philosophy writing"? — RussellA

I am saying that rule Guideline 4 and other aspects of the OP can be improved upon. I was involved with this and it was done quickly to meet the deadline. I have a suggestion to make.
Perhaps a re-write. Along the lines of:

4) Must fall under the broad category of philosophy writing. The title and topic are chosen by the author. The philosophical viewpoint can be academic or less formal. Even if philosophical argumentation and logical soundness lie at the core of philosophy, this is a chance to widen the creative scope. See Resources, Learning Centre for helpful information.

Any useful 'philosophy writing' resources that have been offered throughout both this thread and the original can be collected and placed in the Learning Centre, then a link provided.

I think this would make the OP less cluttered. The Edit removed. The Guidelines easier to read.
The Resource thread would also be readily available for any further events.

All thoughts and suggestions welcome.

To clarify, this event is about 'Philosophy Writing'.
So, that is the 'broad category'. Here's something that might clarify, perhaps inspire:

...philosophy teachers sometimes present too narrow a picture of what counts as philosophical writing. We teach our students to write short response papers and longer philosophical essays, all through the lens of argument analysis. But philosophical writing can be much richer than argument analysis and essays, much more than a well-structured argument and a thesis statement.

Even a cursory look at the history of philosophy will reveal a wide variety of philosophical forms and approaches to writing philosophy, only some of which fall into the paradigm of philosophical essays that most students are commonly taught to pursue in their own philosophical writing. Think of the philosophers in the history of philosophy, for example, who have written in the following styles and forms:

Essays
Journal articles
Books
Treatises
Diaries / personal journals
Letters
Aphorisms
Poetry
Dialogues
Blog posts

Although students may be exposed to these alternative forms of philosophical writing in the materials they are required to read in a typical Introduction to Philosophy class, very seldom are they encouraged to experiment with these alternative forms in their own writing. When, for example, was the last time, if you are a philosophy teacher, that you required your students to write a philosophical poem or to keep a daily journal? If you are or were a philosophy student, have you been asked to write your own philosophical dialogue or a series of aphorisms to capture the essence of your thoughts on a particular topic or philosophical issue?
[...]
Naturally we want to help train our students to do the type of writing that they will be expected to do throughout the rest of their academic and professional careers, boring as that writing may be. It’s worth noting, however, that the philosophers who made the biggest impact on the history of philosophy were often those philosophers who broke with traditional forms (especially those of their teachers) and developed their own styles of writing.

Think, for example, of the stylistic differences between the following philosophers, each of which I consider to be a linchpin or a turning point in the history of philosophy, or at least a philosopher with a radically unique style:...

[ inserts of photos and names]

What a philosophical and literary tragedy it would have been if each of these philosophers had been constrained to writing only the kind of uninspired, hegemonic philosophy essays we require of our students!

For me, part of the joy of reading the great philosophers is immersing myself in their literary style and gestalt, not merely in their premises and conclusions—seeing the world and all of reality through their own unique eyes, following the free-flowing nature of their thoughts like water running downstream to its inevitable conclusion based not just no differing conclusions but on differing personalities, styles, linguistic quirks, and individual perspectives—all while bucking the trend of philosophical writing.

I want students to immerse themselves not only in philosophical argumentation but in the drama of philosophy and in its many beautiful forms of writing for their own sake, all in the interest of helping students experiment with their own writing and acquire their own voice that they will carry with them and keep developing over the course of their entire lives.g as it had been previously known. — What Counts as Good Philosophy Writing

So, the vision is a widening of the scope of philosophy writing, even if philosophical argumentation and logical soundness lie at the core. It's an experiment and, hopefully, an enjoyable experience. Get quirky!
Or, at least, find your wings and "Fly, baby, fly!" :cool: :sparkle: :flower:

All this suggests that this writing challenge is looking for a philosophy essay rather than philosophy writing. — RussellA

This is an unfortunate interpretation of the challenge deliberately entitled:

Philosophy Writing Challenge - June 2025. — Moliere

***

Moliere does conclude by saying "Resources were requested for help on what exactly an academic philosophy essay should look like, and provided by Amity so I've appended them here: — RussellA

Yes. The OP was edited because some requested help, specifically with writing 'academic philosophy'.
Only one kind of philosophy writing.

***

Must fall under the broad category of a philosophical essay.

The key word is 'broad'. With 'essay' to be regarded in its widest meaning, as an attempt:

The word essay derives from the French infinitive essayer, "to try" or "to attempt". In English essay first meant "a trial" or "an attempt", and this is still an alternative meaning. The Frenchman Michel de Montaigne (1533–1592) was the first author to describe his work as essays; he used the term to characterize these as "attempts" to put his thoughts into writing.

***

The philosophical viewpoint can be academic or less formal. — Moliere

I think this is clear enough?

I hope this helps. However, perhaps the OP could be improved to lessen confusion. @Moliere?

Yes, but I am not sure about "with or without a definite conclusion". — RussellA

Thank you for questioning.

A philosophy essay is about making a claim and then defending it. — RussellA

I agree that an academic philosophy essay tends to have this formal structure and aim. And I look forward to reading contributions like this.

However, this June event is wider. It is about philosophy writing.

There must be a conclusion, such as "I have argued that J.J.C. Smart’s criticisms of rule utilitarianism are correct" — RussellA

Yes. This is a conclusion at the end of one kind of academic essay. It states what has been done. It gives a summary of the main points of the argument. It reinforces the initial claim.
And, yes, it is a closed conclusion.

However, other essays and philosophy writing do not have the aim of providing a definitive answer. Their conclusions are open-ended.

It depends on the question or issue being discussed or analysed; its complexity and the creative imagination of the writer.

I immediately think of Plato and his Dialogues. They tend to be an exploration of ideas or concepts from different perspectives. The questioning process is seen as more important than arriving at a fixed answer. I think The Symposium is a good example, where the reader is engaged along with the participants.
We can be pleasurably puzzled...by Love.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symposium_(Plato)

The reader is encouraged to think on...perhaps own beliefs being challenged.

I'm hard put to find a rebuttal. — Vera Mont

Have you tried Google Scholar? You can type in your topic or a concept in the Search box:
https://scholar.google.com/

Or:

...here I will focus on how to find your way with a new research question, and in particular, how to find sources.

First Steps
The first step in doing philosophical research is to hone your question and research terms. This is important because databases can only search the terms that you provide, they cannot search based on what you really meant to search for. You’ll want to know the terms that philosophers working on that question use, so that can more easily find some initial sources. A few ways you can get started:...
[...]
Once you’ve got your sense of the debate, and you know some keywords, it is time to look for articles. There are two basic strategies for finding articles.

Following the Conversation
The first is to look to the bibliographies of the sources you’ve found (including the secondary literature). Philosophy is a conversation - philosophers are typically writing in response to the ideas and arguments of other philosophers. This means that following the references can help you find work by other philosophers on the same questions you are interested in.

Heading into the databases
Your other option is to search the databases using your keywords. The primary databases for Philosophy are Philosopher’s Index, and PhilPapers...
Philosopher’s Index is an EBSCO database, which means that you search not only philosophy articles, but articles in other disciplines at the same time — Jeff Maynes - How to Do Research in Philosophy

I don't think I can write an academic essay. — Vera Mont

Well don't!
Philosophy writing is wider and brighter. It still needs a structure like any story but that you can do.
For some reason, I was thinking of the hunger and appetites of a reader.

I've referenced only one philosopher on the subject, which has not been of general interest to philosophers, and I'm hard put to find a rebuttal. — Vera Mont

Even better and more satisfying to read something fresh like a Red Riding Hood.
Read and listen to Roald Dahl:
https://childrens.poetryarchive.org/poem/little-red-riding-hood-and-the-wolf/

One philosopher might be more than enough to chew through :wink:
Rebuttals can come from anywhere, no? Bang, bang! :scream:
Play around with the topic in the Arts, Literature, Music...Science...

Make believe. From the innocence of childhood, playing games...to the treachery of adulthood.
Cher - Bang bang (my baby shot me down) 1966 [2:47]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KfyBHZc9rK4

Remember, it's all a story...with or without a definite conclusion. Open ended...for further exploration.
Philosophy is a Conversation. Here, writers and readers can be in close dialogue or a wild dance!

Have managed to reduce my "how to write a philosophy essay" down to eight pages. Have starting researching, which gave me my plan. A bit more research then starting to write. Am learning, which is the main thing (using ??? for anonymity) — RussellA

Wow. You have been busy! :sparkle:

Yes. Learning not only about the essay topic but 'how to write an academic philosophy essay'. :up:
Seems like a well-balanced and ordered outline for a 2,000 word essay.
10% each for Intro and Conclusion. The remaining 1600 words split equally between the 4 paragraphs in the Main Body (400 each). Would it be better to call them Sections? :chin:

Each paragraph relating to a key point that you have decided relevant and ties in with the title.
I read somewhere that academic paragraphs are usually 200-300 words long, but I think it depends on the individual. As long as it works and there is a logical flow or story leading to the Conclusion!

A great way to maintain focus during the writing process. And then, there's the revising and editing. :cool:

Hey there! It's the last day in March. Only 61 days to go. :monkey: :smile:

8) Deadline for submissions is May 31st 23:59 GMT
9) All entries will be posted on June 1st. — Moliere

You continue to raise interesting questions and perspectives. I hope your essay is progressing well. Update?

Thanks for the advice. It does help. — Vera Mont

Glad to help. A pity I don't take my own advice. I am struggling. I feel out of my depth. But your invigorating writing keeps me going. Thanks.

The fascinating, complicated, up-and-down craziness of humanity. Religion, art, science, and philosophy are all products of that curly ball of gray fluff in our heads. And they're all connected by skinny electric wires covered in myelin, as well as by evolutionary and cultural roots and words, so many ambiguous words! Dividing them into clearly distinct categories is a Solomonian task. — Vera Mont

Yeah, them damn categories, theories and consequences.
It is a challenge when it comes to their analysis and synthesis, even in an 'ickle TPF essay.

Here's one Critical Thinking Model:

In order to help you develop your critical thinking, you can use the critical thinking model, developed by Plymouth University (2006).
The model is does not need to be used in a linear way, or as a prescriptive set of instructions.
It should be used to trigger and encourage a questioning approach to your studies.
It can be applied to many different academic scenarios, such as interpreting assignment briefs, reading sources, developing arguments and problem solving. — Ulster University - Critical Thinking, Analysis and Synthesis

***

(Socrates was dead wrong, btw: a miserable life is worth examining for possible improvement; a happy one doesn't require analysis. If it ain't broke, keep your mitts off of it!) — Vera Mont

Well, there's another juicy topic to consider...

I come alive on European beer. — Vera Mont

European beer, huh? Tariffs, tariffs, tariffs...

I once fought the Atlantic courtesy of Stella Artois... *nostalgic sighs*

To all would-be, perhaps, maybe, definite participants - "We Can Do This!" :party: