Although, like I said, I think it's counterproductive and a waste of time to write for "mean" readers. — jamalrob

Well, no it isn't always the case that it is counterproductive or a waste of time.
If 'mean' is defined as @Pfhorrest suggests:

“Mean” in that if they understand you at all it will be in the least charitable way, so you need to unambiguously explain exactly what you do and don't mean so you can't be misinterpreted.

'If they understand you at all' - is key.

It is one of the most difficult things to apply the principle of charity when you are reading something against or attacking your whole being. Like an omnivore reading Peter Singer's 'Animal Liberation'.

Some people don't want or care to understand. It would mean they might have to change their way of thinking or lifestyle.

If posters or authors give up writing a response or persuasive text because of potentially 'mean' readers, then ignorance and lack of understanding persists.

Know your audience but don't just play to those who clap...

Thanks for enlightenment :sparkle:


Thanks for welcome back :smile:

Writing advice presupposes knowing what the goal is, as I like sushi suggested @Pfhorrest try to decide, which, from what I understand, led to this post. — boethius

Indeed. Knowing what the goal of any piece of writing is most helpful. The intention of the author is...what ?

From what you say, the OP seems to be following on from another conversation ?
I've been out of the loop for a while...

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

Who is this 'we' and who is the 'audience' ?
The part of writing guidelines for a student paper you appear to have referenced is only that - small.

I am interested in this 'famous Project Management Triangle', first I've heard of it. Before likening it to writing for an audience, I need to understand it better. As things stand, I am not convinced.

Here are a few of my questions:

If a philosopher paper is a project, what are the aims, how is it managed ?
What are the characteristics or constraints ?
What are the criteria for success ?

I would suggest some constraints are time, scope and intelligence of a student.

The 'stupid, lazy and mean' in the 3rd guideline (see link) is only there to help envisage the worst case audience to convince.
This to encourage clear writing. To elaborate qualitatively.
The end product an 'A' in academia.
http://www.mit.edu/~yablo/writing.html

To imagine in general that an audience has such negative characteristics is to miss the point. It also shows a lack of respect.

In sum, I disagree with the proposal of the OP:
'The Philosophy Writing Management Triangle'.

In philosophy we are taught a mnemonic to help ensure our writing will be as clear, concise, and unambiguous as possible: to write for an audience assumed to be “stupid, lazy, and mean”. — Pfhorrest

Also taught to reference quotes to give context.

From : 'Guidelines on writing a philosophy paper'.

3. Be concise, but explain yourself fully

http://www.mit.edu/~yablo/writing.html

I certainly think it would be a shame if people put in the amount of time and effort they have for Prof. Pigliucci only to be disappointed again.

Live and learn, as they say.

In the meantime, thank you to everyone who did put time and effort in. As a member of the peanut-munching crowd, it was appreciated. — Artemis

It is not likely that I will put in similar effort in future.

Indeed, it is an ongoing puzzle why I still participate in any philosophy forum.
So very tiresome...all efforts seem to disappear down a deep, dark hole.

Best Wishes.

*

very short and more-or-less open-ended , or, very short and specific questions are best to start with. — tim wood

give our guest the space? — tim wood

We modelled the format from the way it was done on the previous site, but, yes, we'll likely introduce word limits on questions and maybe reduce the number of OPs in future. — Baden

I suppose this should really go in the Feedback section.
I think that the format is problematic.

If there is to be a Guest Speaker, would it not be best for that person to suggest suitable format.
For example, Massimo seems to prefer a single thread with a general topic.

He has suggested trying again in the future some time, with just one thread and a more general topic. — jamalrob

If Massimo started the discussion, I think people would have sense and show courtesy ?
A single thread would be easier to moderate...

Then again, if this type of posting persists from the likes of @ovdtogt
''If that's what stoicism means it is total crap."

Is there a way to pre-moderate ?

*

From the Fox and the Grapes ?
'The moral of the story is that you often hate what you can't have.'
I don't hate anyone.
Not even when they don't live up to my expectations.
It is what it is, as they say...

we put a lot of effort into this and did our best to make it work. And I'm proud of all of us and the community as a whole for trying. :clap: — Baden

Yes indeed.
And Massimo must be pretty pleased too. All that free publicity...

*

*

:sad:

'There is no member with that name.'

But we will always have the concept :wink:

Mismatch of expectations I think. I'm guessing we need a word limit. — fdrake

When I first heard of the Guest Speaker event, I didn't know what to expect
If anything, I thought that the Guest would 'speak' first and then choose questions from the audience.

*

I wonder if we are all waiting for Massimo to complete the conversation, or perhaps he is waiting to assess level of interest... — Amity

Update from @fdrake
"Seems Prof. Pigliucci is more busy than he thought and doesn't have much time to reply to anything, unfortunately."

Disappointing.
To say the least.

I think there will be separate forum wide threads for each discussion with the guest. — fdrake

Updated to:

That just means whoever wants to start a discussion on that can do so somewhere else in the forum. — Baden

It is unfortunate that this doesn't seem to be happening, for whatever reason.

Perhaps it would have been better for any Guest Speaker Questioner to start the forum-wide thread ?
Or a moderator ? Admin ?

Thoughts, anyone ?

Hi sushi,

First off, thanks for your discussion with Massimo Pigliucci, here:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/7176/limitations-of-science-and-the-use-of-philosophy

I am not at all familiar with your chosen topic, so had difficulty following the discussion.
However, I probably would have questions - and I would be surprised if others didn't have something to contribute.

It seems that it is up to forum members to start a parallel thread - this doesn't seem to be happening.

Because the site permissions are defined by category, they don't allow us to separate the intro discussion from the OP question discussions (which we had to keep exclusively for the questioners and for Prof. Pigliucci), so you can't comment in the main introduction thread anymore. But you can certainly start other discussions that comment on the issues in those threads (they just have to be in a different category). — Baden

That just means whoever wants to start a discussion on that can do so somewhere else in the forum. — Baden

I wonder if we are all waiting for Massimo to complete the conversation, or perhaps he is waiting to assess level of interest...

Either way, perhaps it would have been better for any Guest Speaker Questioner, i.e. you, to start the forum-wide thread ? Or a moderator? Admin ?
Thoughts welcome. Here:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/7166/discussions-about-stuff-with-the-guests

I’m just open to seeing if some can ignite interest in me. — I like sushi

In Stoicism ? How would it fit in with your views re phenomenology?

Panpsychism is very much like a religious belief — I like sushi

What I am more interested in are the implications of holding such beliefs and how they might compare with Stoicism as an 'Art of Living'. Philosophy as a way of life.

Thanks for taking the time to reply.
Just a reminder of the Massimo Pigliucci article to which you are referring:
https://platofootnote.wordpress.com/2016/09/20/on-panpsychism/

You have raised good points for a discussion on panpsychism; it could even be the basis for a TPF article or an essay :cool:

I don't have much knowledge about panpsychism or how it would affect my way of life if I did.
I was concerned that you might be misrepresenting Massimo Pigliucci with your:

Pigliucci has made a whole lot of assumptions about panpsychists ('New Agers') rather than engaging with panpsychism as a philosophy. — bert1

You are not alone in raising objections to his view. No great surprise there !
However, even if he makes assumptions about panpsychists and is dismissive, it isn't the case that Massimo doesn't engage with panpsychism as a philosophy.

I found this:
https://footnotes2plato.com/2019/07/28/panpsychism-a-brief-reply-to-massimo-pigliucci/

Yes, I noticed the googled Vermont/American excerpt too.
NB - I think you forgot to use the quote function.

https://www.rep.routledge.com/articles/thematic/stoicism/v-1/sections/oikeiosis

Oikeiōsis is an affinity founded on the shared rationality of the entire human race. The doctrine thus helped to foster Stoic cosmopolitanism and other widely admired humanitarian stances (see §18). Seneca (§1), for example, reminded his readers of their moral obligations even to their slaves.

Conversely, however, the oikeiōsis doctrine also encouraged a hardening of attitudes to non-rational animals, with which humans were judged to stand in no moral relation at all. — Routledge

[ my bolds ]
This can't be right :chin:
The ancients must have cared for their animals. Marcus wouldn't be Marcus without his horse !
http://capitolini.info/scu03247/?lang=en

Okeiosis

from discussion: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/7206/the-art-of-living-not-just-for-stoics

Could almost be part of the song lyrics in

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious

Sorry, but if we “appropriate” (oikeiosis) the concerns of others" aren't we expanding our circles of concern?
And isn't that the problem we are facing at the moment in regard to poverty and deprivation and environmental degradation? Instead of expanding our oikeiosis we seem to be contracting it.
— ovdtogt

Yes. I have difficulty understanding this concept as well. — Amity

OK, I think I better understand the concept of 'Okeiosis' and the 'contraction of circles' having read this:

In Hierocles' other ethical work, On Appropriate acts (of which only fragments survive), he outlined a theory of duty based on concentric circles.

Beginning with the self and then our immediate family, Hierocles outlined how humans can extend their oikeiôsis towards other human beings in widening circles, such as our ethnos and eventually the entire human race. The distance from the center acts as a standard by which we may measure the strength of our ties and therefore our duties towards other people.[9] 

Hierocles argued that there was an ethical need for a "contraction of circles", to reduce the distance between the circles as much as possible and therefore increase our familiarization with all of mankind (while still retaining the strongest affinity within our immediate circle).
— Wiki

1 is it good for me? — ovdtogt

And how do you know what is 'good' for you ?

For anyone joining in:
Just want to clarify the words quoted are not mine but Massimo's.
Edit: thanks @ovdtogt for editing :smile:

Sorry, but if we “appropriate” (oikeiosis) the concerns of others" aren't we expanding our circles of concern?
And isn't that the problem we are facing at the moment in regard to poverty and deprivation and environmental degradation? Instead of expanding our oikeiosis we seem to be contracting it. — ovdtogt

Yes. I have difficulty understanding this concept as well.
Did you watch the Athens TED video ? Linked to here:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/7089/discuss-philosophy-with-professor-massimo-pigliucci/p1

At about 11 mins in, Massimo talks about role ethics.
There's a transcript here:
https://singjupost.com/stoicism-as-a-philosophy-for-an-ordinary-life-massimo-pigliucci-transcript/

...These three sets of roles are related in the following way: your basic role as a human being trumps everything else. Everything you do, you should ask yourself first: Is this good for humanity? If it isn’t, don’t do it. It’s a simple test. You will end up doing much less, by the way, if you follow this, as we saved you energy. — Massimo Pigliucci

I don't think this is a realistic or pragmatic way of thinking.
Yes, we must think of the environment, humanity etc.
However, before anyone can even begin to think along these lines, don't they first have to look to themselves ?
Know Thyself.

I think we are coming to the realization that
'Together we stand. Apart we fall.'
The survival of our civilization now depends on how capable we are of cooperation to head off the negative forces of climate change and migration. — ovdtogt

Therein lies the nub of it. How 'capable' are we, as humans ?

From @MPigliucci's article:
.

..since we are capable of thinking generally and abstractly we realize that there is no difference between ourselves, our closest family and friends, and human beings who happen to live on the other side of the planet. We therefore “appropriate” (oikeiosis) the concerns of others, in what the 2nd century Stoic Hierocles described as “contracting” circles of ethical concern: — Massimo Pigliucci

Any thoughts on these Stoic 'circles of ethical concern' ?
How do they compare or conflict with other philosophical or socio-political views of life ?

Yes, pretty much :cool:
Any part cooler for you than any other ?

I enjoyed the inclusion of 10 quotes from the Meditations re the issue of metaphysics.
( not sure what translation/edition @MPigliucci uses but it's different to mine )
It highlights the flexibility of thought amongst the ancient Stoics:

These quotes most certainly do not establish that Marcus was agnostic. We can tell that he wasn’t from other bits of the Meditations (e.g., I.17 and II.11). But they do establish beyond reasonable doubt that the ancient Stoics themselves were fine with the possibility that they got their metaphysics wrong, and still saw no reason to reject their ethics.[8] — Massimo Pigliucci

@bert1
I noticed your post in the Guest Speaker: Introduction to Massimo Pigliucci thread:

I like to ask him about his critique of panpsychism. I'll figure out a question in the next few days.
https://platofootnote.wordpress.com/2016/09/20/on-panpsychism/ — bert1

It would be interesting to hear what your question(s) would have been.

'The Art of Living - The Stoics on the Nature and Function of Philosophy' - by John Sellars.
From the back cover:
'Sellars argues that the conception of philosophy as an 'art of living', inaugurated by Socrates and developed by the Stoics, has persisted since antiquity and remains a living alternative to modern attempts to assimilate philosophy to the natural sciences. It also enables us to rethink the relationship between an individual's philosophy and their biography.'

Now, I'm not exactly sure about any 'attempts to assimilate philosophy to the natural sciences'.
However, it made me wonder about what any 'Science of Living' might entail from a Stoic point of view.

In my search, I found this enlightening article by @MPigliucci which starts:

Stoicism is a philosophy of life that has been around for 23 centuries, and in the past several years has seen a resurgence of interest throughout the world.[1] Like any philosophy of life (or, for that matter, religion), it has two fundamental components: a metaphysics (i.e., an account of how the world works); and an ethics (i.e., an account of how we should behave in the world).[2] — Massimo Pigliucci

So, what is the Stoic 'account of how the world works'. For that you have to read on.
It is a clear and critical discussion about contemporary science, the Cosmos, panpsychism, the Gods...

https://thesideview.co/articles/the-stoic-god-is-untenable-in-the-light-of-modern-science/

Understood, thanks for clearing that up.

you can't comment in the main introduction thread anymore. But you can certainly start other discussions that comment on the issues in those threads (they just have to be in a different category). — Baden

Oh. OK. So, will that be organised by the mods, or whoever, as @fdrake suggested earlier:
'I think there will be separate forum wide threads for each discussion with the guest.'

Looking forward to reading more of his input. Wishing I would have paid closer attention to the due dates... — creativesoul

Yes, the fact that there are 5 distinct and diverse discussions. Who knows, it could result in an avalanche of thought-provoking stuff - and all done carefully and with a civil tongue.

As to due dates, there weren't any clear cut dates set out at the start.
What difference do you think that would have made to you, or others ?
Would you have written out a question in the format of an OP ?
What issues would it have covered ?

We can all still comment in the main Introduction thread, as far as I am aware.
( Perhaps @Baden can confirm ? )
Therefore, making it even more of a collaborative communication :cool:
Or a total mish-mash :wink:

Regarding candidates withdrawing, I'm not sure, but I would think, that if they won and refused to take office, it would trigger a by-election and it would not be included in the number of seats for the party which they represented. — Punshhh

Candidates who have been withdrawn from their respective parties and are still on the ballot paper seemingly have the status as Independents. Therefore, it is misleading the public who wish to tactically vote for the original party, as stated.

It is totally bizarre that we have this situation...

The "working class", deprived neighbourhoods ( traditional Labour heartlands) who have fallen for the lies and snake oil salesmen, will shrug this off. — Punshhh

Yes. I find this totally shocking as presented in the following article:

https://www.theguardian.com/news/2019/dec/03/anywhere-but-westminster-vox-pops-understanding-uk-political-landscape

Stupid, stupid, stupid people. I despair :sad:

The first book I listed is a fiction, presenting an emperor musing on the best kind of Empire to shape. — Valentinus

Thanks for further explanation.
Of the 3, the first sounds most like my cuppa tea.

Memoirs of Hadrian, Marguerite Yourcenar.
According to wiki:
The book takes the form of a letter to Hadrian's adoptive grandson and eventual successor "Mark" (Marcus Aurelius). The emperor meditates on military triumphs, love of poetry and music, philosophy, and his passion for his lover Antinous, all in a manner similar to Gustave Flaubert's "melancholy of the antique world."

Great reviews on goodreads site. This really appealed to me until I read this from academic Mary Beard:

..Hadrian is the kind of political leader whose behaviour seems distinctly recognisable, whose ambitions and conflicts we can almost share.
That feeling of familiarity has been boosted by Marguerite Yourcenar's fictional, pseudo-autobiography of the emperor, Memoirs of Hadrian. Published in 1951, and once hugely popular (it now seems to me rambling and frankly unreadable), it took the modern reader inside Hadrian's psyche - presenting the emperor as a troubled and intimate friend, in much the same way as Robert Graves made the emperor Claudius a rather jolly great-uncle.  — Mary Beard

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2008/jul/19/history
[ my bolds ]

Hmmm. Do you think this simply reflects the annoyance of a serious historian towards a fictionalised account. A misrepresentation; putting words put into Hadrian's his mouth that weren't his. And then any subsequent requotes by readers...fake.

It can't be 'frankly unreadable' if so many have read it !

Yes, well. Not a great surprise. Everything is Labour's fault, or Corbyn's in particular.
Despicable given the family's request:

Early on Monday, as the day’s front pages emerged covering a proposed Tory crackdown on those freed after serving sentences for terrorism, Merritt’s father David tweeted saying: “Don’t use my son’s death, and his and his colleague’s photos – to promote your vile propaganda. Jack stood against everything you stand for – hatred, division, ignorance.” — Guardian

----------

On a more practical, or tactical, note.
Question about voting, and potential wasted votes.

Nine candidates have either withdrawn from campaigning or had support from their party withdrawn after the close of nominations.
3 Tories, 3 Lib Dems, 1 from Labour, SNP and Brexit.

However, these candidates remain on the ballot papers in their constituency.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_United_Kingdom_general_election

Excuse my ignorance but:

I presume if voters place an X at their name, this will be a wasted vote ?
What action, if any, is being taken to inform voters of this at the local level.
It will be too late for any postal voters.

Some tactical voting sites have not changed their recommendations accordingly.

Yes, I understand that we tend to choose books related to our interests.
I have sometimes lived dangerously :naughty: and gone for the opposite to my usual :gasp:

I was asking @Valentinus why his books were oddly related.