the shame

[Advocate]

[quote=Iwannaplato post_id=635798 time=1681619719 user_id=3619]
[quote=Advocate post_id=635796 time=1681619141 user_id=15238]
This is the age old battle between idealism and pragmatism. A long as people keep bowing to pragmatism, things can never get better. We can do better, is the point. Stop suggesting working within currently existing frameworks which are entirely insufficient. That was the starting point of this post, it is not an answer to it.

Philosophy wouldn't have to continue arguing things that have been argued for thousands of years if we would Not do things the way you suggest, as has always been required in modern times to no avail
[/quote]
False dichotomy. Any idealist knows they have to actually do something. You can pursue all sorts of idealist ideas and analyses while finding ways to reach people.

You are not putting any effort in beyond posting in an online philosophy forum. You assume you have to dilute your ideas to get any more readers. You assume you will be rejected. You don't look for alternatives for publishing yourself or for getting published.

If you don't like Philosophy Now, then it shouldn't even be a topic.

Get off your ass and do something.

You conflate idealism (in the non-philosophical sense) with never doing anything practical. You should just be discovered. Tapped.

If you started this thread saying that there are limitations on what gets published and actually gave examples, offered some critique of PN, that could be a discussion.

But it's so obvious that you think they have failed because they haven't come and invited you in.

But you don't respect them. You're not interexted in their kind of philosophy OR it wouldn't be diluting your genius to give them some of your writing. You wouldn't assume they will reject you.

And you'd be actively finding places to publish your work, if that's what you want.

Jesus, the options for publishing now are unbelievably diverse. All you need is some tiny, tiny % of the world's English reading population to find you interesting. 30 years ago the options were miniscule compared to now.
[/quote]

This post is not about me, it's about how dumb a publication or a person must be to have a wealth of relevant resources right under their fingers and not use them. And before you go saying the wealth of potential publication channels counts as the same. It does not. Most of what gets published is inane, including in philosophy, because publications standards throughout the industry fail by the same standards as does Philosophy Now.

And you're still talking in circles because i said publication channels should seek out the best, not have it prove itself to them, and your responses amounts to "nuh-uh".

Things the way they are Is Not Good. Publication channels should be actively pursuing the best, not submissively vetting the ordinary that happens to also be garbed in relevant academic or social frivolity.

[Advocate]

[quote=Iwannaplato post_id=635799 time=1681619968 user_id=3619]
[quote=Advocate post_id=635797 time=1681619367 user_id=15238]
Defense of the stairs quo is nearly never righteous.
[/quote]
Really, we should never defend anti-slavery laws?

You are defending the status quo.

Here's the status quo: you want something and it's other people's fault that you don't get it. So in the name of idealism you're not going to do shit.
You assume that if you take any responsibility for finding a solution, you are compromising yourself. You assume that to get published you have to dilute your genius. You assume that you cannot possibly learn anything from anyone. And this is all pristine because you don't actually try to find out if any of it is true. A virgin lamenting the state of sex these days.

That's your status quo. And you are defending it.

I'll check in a few years to see how well your pragmatism is working for you.
[/quote]

Your responses have increasingly been an attack on anyone who doesn't accept things as they are, in complete disregard for the fact that they way things are isn't working.

[Advocate]

[quote=Iwannaplato post_id=635800 time=1681620353 user_id=3619]
And nothing I have suggested entails you compromising yourself. Unless having the confidence to show people your ideas is compromising. Write exactly what and how you want to write, but present that writing to people. If they expect you to change something you don't want to, don't. I've had editors tell me to change things and I refused and got published - it wasn't philosophy, but this can happen in any field. Stick to your idealism related to style and content. But actually get off your ass and show your stuff to people.

You may think it is some noble ideal that demands you get discovered, but it comes off as fear of rejection from people you claim not to respect. If you don't respect them, then the rejection will be water off a duck's back. Move on to the next outlet or publish yourself.

Or keep up with your current pragmatic approach. Tell the world that you should be tapped. See if [i]that[/i] pragmatic approach works. It's not pragmatism vs. idealism. It's what pragmatic approach do you take to reach readers with your idealism. Right now you have a pragmatic approach. You seem to think it is a good one or at least a noble one. Great.
[/quote]

Even if everything you've said is true, that says nothing about the meaningful content being left on the table. You're not even responding to the OP, you're just Uncle-Tomming your way through some elaborate conservative propaganda intended to diminish and confuse rather than illuminate. Please stop responding.

[Iwannaplato]

And note: since Advocate here write pithy short summations, he could submit a collection of these to PN. No dilution.
He could also see if other online jounals might publish him...
https://leiterreports.typepad.com/blog/ ... rnals.html
https://libguides.du.edu/c.php?g=131579&p=2774089
https://www.google.com/search?q=online+ ... e&ie=UTF-8

Here's another approach....
One guy wrote an article in PN on aphorisms
https://philosophynow.org/issues/153/In ... _Aphorisms
He could find that guy's email or email him through PN and say, hey, look, I write aphoristic philosophy. I am not sure how to publish this stuff. Do you have any suggestions? Perhaps he'lll brush Advocate off, perhaps he'll make some suggestions. There are many, many others one could try this with.

Another approach would be to find something Advocate likes himself and contact the writer, comment on his work - probably they'll be thrilled since few care about philosophy, then ask if he can send some of his stuff to that writer.

Anyone who doesn't feel like dialogue with an editor would be contaminating could read the suggestions in this link...
http://www.phil.bilkent.edu.tr/index.ph ... 20articles.

For Advocate and others one can start their own philosophy blog...
https://www.philosophyetc.net/2008/04/h ... -blog.html

And note there is a link there for Philosophy Carnival that reprints articles from philosophy blogs
http://philblogposts.blogspot.com/

To get an idea of what philosophy blogs are like...
https://feedly.com/i/top/philosophy-blogs

One could consider Twitter if one is of an aphoristic bent like Advocate....
https://www.highexistence.com/13-brilli ... n-twitter/
(that's not specifically a list of philosophical twitter accounts but some are; there are thousands more)

[Flannel Jesus]

Academic credentials prove compliance, indicate knowledge, and say nothing of understanding. Besides which, the gatekeepers were themselves chosen by others who were shoehorned into position by social acceptance more than expertise, and so forth since always. Credentials are not expertise, and many are credentialed who are idiots in their field as much as those who are not credentialed who are experts. And that's the case for philosophy more than for any other discipline.

And also, why do you imagine not knowing whether someone is a good writer is reason to reject them as a potentially good writer?

Despite all your criticisms, it's clearly the case that the medical establishment as it is is many orders of magnitude more effective now than in the pre-science era, and it's getting more and more effective every year.

I don't think I said anything about rejecting anyone. "Not looking at the forums to find writers" isn't the same thing as "rejecting writers because they are from the forums". Rejection is an active choice, whereas simply not looking in a particular place is pretty passive.

Have you written an article and submitted it for review, and been rejected?

[Iwannaplato]

Have you written an article and submitted it for review, and been rejected?

Doing that would be the pragmatic approach and he is an idealist. Don't you know about the thousands of years old battle between the pragmatists and the idealists????? (of course, if you do, it's because, like him, you actually read the idealists who managed to be pragmatic enough to spread their ideas).

And FJ, are you nuts, you are just supporting the status quo and demanding he dilute his genius. It's all there in that word 'submit'.

He should be tapped.

They should find him and tap him.

In any case, I put some suggestions for other thing he and any others could do if they wanted, in my previous post. Of course, this would require tainting oneself and not waiting to be tapped, which is a great insult.

But the thread is called 'the shame' and this is my shame.

[FlashDangerpants]

What makes you think people have good ideas in the forums?

Ahem, allow me introduce you to Advocate's masterful epic of forum logic first published at this very site:

a) There is such a thing as a false Scotsman
b) There is such a thing as a true Scotsman
c) The end

Why oh why PN is there nobody plundering your forum for these gems of genius?

[Iwannaplato]

What makes you think people have good ideas in the forums?

Ahem, allow me introduce you to Advocate's masterful epic of forum logic first published at this very site:

a) There is such a thing as a false Scotsman
b) There is such a thing as a true Scotsman
c) The end

Why oh why PN is there nobody plundering your forum for these gems of genius?

Yes, I've criticized some of Advocates OPs. But to his credit that's on the low end of them. My guess is that his work is not quite at the genius level he thinks it is. But, in a way, that doesn't matter. If he gets off his ass and starts approaching people, he may learn over time how to improve, or given the internet, find a popular home somewhere. The 'waiting to be tapped' is not a great strategy however morally correct it may or may not be.

[FlashDangerpants]

What makes you think people have good ideas in the forums?

Ahem, allow me introduce you to Advocate's masterful epic of forum logic first published at this very site:

a) There is such a thing as a false Scotsman
b) There is such a thing as a true Scotsman
c) The end

Why oh why PN is there nobody plundering your forum for these gems of genius?

Yes, I've criticized some of Advocates OPs. But to his credit that's on the low end of them. My guess is that his work is not quite at the genius level he thinks it is. But, in a way, that doesn't matter. If he gets off his ass and starts approaching people, he may learn over time how to improve, or given the internet, find a popular home somewhere. The 'waiting to be tapped' is not a great strategy however morally correct it may or may not be.

Do people with NPD often look for helpful suggestions from us plebs? We exist to provide either rounds of applause or tea and sympathy as the situation demands.

[Agent Smith]

"What?!"

"Yes, as per my calculations we must enter the creature's anus and travel up its rectum and through its guts and only then, only then can we secure our freedom!"

"The hell I will! I'm not going up anybody's anus!!"