Page 1 of 2
the shame
Posted: Sat Apr 15, 2023 4:51 pm
by Advocate
If philosophy Now had any legitimacy it would have someone consistently watching it's forums and would tap anyone with a good idea to write an article instead of relying on credentials or whatever they do instead.
Re: the shame
Posted: Sat Apr 15, 2023 4:55 pm
by Flannel Jesus
What makes you think people have good ideas in the forums? What makes you think that, if such a person did have a good idea, they'd be any good at writing an article about it?
To the contrary, "legitimacy" and "credentials" seem to go hand in hand to me. I wouldn't want medical journals publishing papers by people who don't have the credentials for medical research.
Re: the shame
Posted: Sun Apr 16, 2023 4:31 am
by Advocate
[quote="Flannel Jesus" post_id=635709 time=1681574158 user_id=22452]
What makes you think people have good ideas in the forums? What makes you think that, if such a person did have a good idea, they'd be any good at writing an article about it?
To the contrary, "legitimacy" and "credentials" seem to go hand in hand to me. I wouldn't want medical journals publishing papers by people who don't have the credentials for medical research.
[/quote]
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.
Re: the shame
Posted: Sun Apr 16, 2023 4:34 am
by Advocate
[quote=Advocate post_id=635783 time=1681615873 user_id=15238]
[quote="Flannel Jesus" post_id=635709 time=1681574158 user_id=22452]
What makes you think people have good ideas in the forums? What makes you think that, if such a person did have a good idea, they'd be any good at writing an article about it?
To the contrary, "legitimacy" and "credentials" seem to go hand in hand to me. I wouldn't want medical journals publishing papers by people who don't have the credentials for medical research.
[/quote]
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?
[/quote]
Re: the shame
Posted: Sun Apr 16, 2023 4:40 am
by Iwannaplato
Advocate wrote: ↑Sun Apr 16, 2023 4:31 am
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.
A person who wants to be included in a journal has a couple of options: send the journal a proposal for an article or send an article. Have you done this? If you decide to send something to them, I would suggest something more than the short posts you generally write as OPs. Pick a topic, write an essay and see if you get any feedback. Often they don't have time, but sometimes they do take time to explain what doesn't fit their profile, what you might need to improve. If you keep sending articles/essays to journal, eventually some kind editor will give you feedback. Follow the advice if it doesn't feel compromising. And, of course, perhaps one of the articles/essays will get accepted directly. It won't however if no initiative is taken. Undiscovered geniuses do need to take some initiative, generally. They cannot expect to be tapped, though it might happen.
Also, it is important to read the journals. Find ones that write about topics you are interested in and also where the articles have styles that are somewhat similar to how you write. They all tend to have niches. If you send them writing that clearly doesn't fit their profile, it shows you have little interest in what they are doing, since you probably haven't even read their work. In pretty much any publishing field you have to wade through a long set of rejections. REjectiions, rejections, before you find an editor who likes what you wrote. Then you get one reference. Your next cover email can refer to what got published by you already. Then they take you a bit more seriously. It's work. Pouting is much less effective than it might seem, regardless of fairness. And when you make it as a published philosopher you may find yourself not very interested in scouring Philosophy Now to find people to help.
What are you willing to do to come closer to what you want?
Re: the shame
Posted: Sun Apr 16, 2023 5:11 am
by Advocate
[quote=Iwannaplato post_id=635786 time=1681616421 user_id=3619]
[quote=Advocate post_id=635783 time=1681615873 user_id=15238]
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.
[/quote]A person who wants to be included in a journal has a couple of options: send the journal a proposal for an article or send an article. Have you done this? If you decide to send something to them, I would suggest something more than the short posts you generally write as OPs. Pick a topic, write an essay and see if you get any feedback. Often they don't have time, but sometimes they do take time to explain what doesn't fit their profile, what you might need to improve. If you keep sending articles/essays to journal, eventually some kind editor will give you feedback. Follow the advice if it doesn't feel compromising. And, of course, perhaps one of the articles/essays will get accepted directly. It won't however if no initiative is taken. Undiscovered geniuses do need to take some initiative, generally. They cannot expect to be tapped, though it might happen.
Also, it is important to read the journals. Find ones that write about topics you are interested in and also where the articles have styles that are somewhat similar to how you write. They all tend to have niches. If you send them writing that clearly doesn't fit their profile, it shows you have little interest in what they are doing, since you probably haven't even read their work. In pretty much any publishing field you have to wade through a long set of rejections. REjectiions, rejections, before you find an editor who likes what you wrote. Then you get one reference. Your next cover email can refer to what got published by you already. Then they take you a bit more seriously. It's work. Pouting is much less effective than it might seem, regardless of fairness. And when you make it as a published philosopher you may find yourself not very interested in scouring Philosophy Now to find people to help.
What are you willing to do to come closer to what you want?
[/quote]
That people with good ideas have to dilute their genius with practice of social acceptance is the problem, not a solution to the problem. A civilized society or a journal serious about philosophy would eagerly seek out such ideas and insist on publicizing them.
Re: the shame
Posted: Sun Apr 16, 2023 5:11 am
by Iwannaplato
Here's the PH message to authors from the website....
https://philosophynow.org/authors
For Authors
If you are interested in writing an article for Philosophy Now please read the notes below first.
Articles
Philosophy Now welcomes articles on any aspect of philosophy (including historical surveys, introductory pieces on philosophers or schools of thought, and original philosophical writing) provided they are written in a lively, readable and non-technical style. We are looking for clear and accessible philosophical analysis that ideally engages with the ongoing debate in the relevant area, or at least takes account of what has already been said in it. Book reviews are also welcome. So are humorous articles.
Naturally the style required by a magazine such as Philosophy Now is utterly different to that required by the scholarly journals. So if you are thinking of contributing an article to Philosophy Now please read a copy of the magazine (either online or offline) to get an idea of the sort of thing we’re after, and do please cast an eye over the points below. Philosophy Now receives a vast number of unsolicited articles every year – so many that we can only accept about one in fifteen and we have a backlog awaiting consideration. Therefore, unless an article meets our basic requirements listed below, it has virtually no chance of being published.
1. Philosophy Now is a magazine designed to appeal to the general educated public. The majority of our readers have had no formal training in philosophy and contributors should write with them in mind.
2. Articles should be self-contained; it shouldn’t be necessary for readers to look up references in order to follow what is being said. The one exception to this rule is for articles which form part of a debate conducted within the magazine.
3. Jargon: We’re against it! If the use of technical terms is unavoidable, please include a brief explanation of their meaning within your article.
4. To help ensure maximum clarity, please ask an intelligent, educated friend who knows no philosophy to read your article before you send it to us and, if necessary, modify it in the light of his/her comments.
5. Articles should be between 1000 and 3500 words long, while book reviews should be of less than 1500 words. Please indicate the exact number of words and include a short (50 word) abstract (just for filing purposes, not for publication).
6. By sending us an article you give us the right to publish it in the paper and digital editions of Philosophy Now and also to republish it in paper and digital collections of past issues, including in translation and via syndication. Authors retain copyright in their contributions and subject to the permission of Anja Publications (which shall not be unreasonably withheld) may publish their contributions elsewhere, so long as Philosophy Now is acknowledged as the place of first publication.
7. Unfortunately we are not able to pay authors for articles. However, all contributors whose work is published will receive a year’s free subscription to Philosophy Now.
8. Wherever possible, articles will be vetted by referees competent in the relevant area of philosophy. However, the decision of the Editors to accept or decline papers for publication is final, arbitrary, frequently unjust and utterly irrevocable.
Contributions should be emailed to the following address, with the text of the article in the body of the email itself or attached as a Word document (but not a PDF):
editors@philosophynow.org
Re: the shame
Posted: Sun Apr 16, 2023 5:20 am
by Iwannaplato
Advocate wrote: ↑Sun Apr 16, 2023 5:11 am
That people with good ideas have to dilute their genius with practice of social acceptance is the problem, not a solution to the problem. A civilized society or a journal serious about philosophy would eagerly seek out such ideas and insist on publicizing them.
It sounds like you
know what is going to happen, know that to be accepted you have to 'dilute your genius'
think they should come to you and won't even bother to send them ideas
haven't looked at a wide range of options for publishing - there are all sorts of journals out there, including online
You just want people to come to you, recognize your greatness, and invite you in. I think the odds of this being successful are incredibly small. I noted above that if you feel like you would have to compromise too much, then you can ignore any advice you get. But this isn't enough for you.
Perhaps you are content not getting what you want as long as you can feel unjustly overlooked.
It is painful to try and not succeed, so I have sympathy. And while you may think you are focused on justice, it comes off as something who is not willing to even try. It comes off as a young man's refusal to do anything with a lot of expectations for what other people should do for you.
IOW entitled, very entitled.
Another way to approach this would be to start a blog or poscast. IOW self-publish. Find connections with other blogs and podcasts where you have something in common. Then people without the middle-man of journal can find you. You get a bid audience, this also could be leveraged to get published by others.
But posting your short posts here...I don't think it's going to be enough. If you think it is, great. If you think it should be but won't be, well you can look at that and reevaluate after more years of not being discovered.
Re: the shame
Posted: Sun Apr 16, 2023 5:22 am
by Iwannaplato
And note: they want articles in non-techincal language. IOW it does not have to be an academic style article.
Re: the shame
Posted: Sun Apr 16, 2023 5:24 am
by Iwannaplato
And shit Advocate....you are just assuming you know how they should do their work.
They get incredible numbers of submissions.
IOW people who actually bothered to send them something. They can barely keep up with the submissions related to people who actually took the time to send them something. But they should set that task aside. Ignore some of the people who take the time to send them a submission and wade through the posts on PN and find you.
You don't realize just how rude your pouting is here.
It's the incel of philosophy publishing attitudes.
Re: the shame
Posted: Sun Apr 16, 2023 5:25 am
by Advocate
[quote=Iwannaplato post_id=635792 time=1681618803 user_id=3619]
[quote=Advocate post_id=635788 time=1681618280 user_id=15238]
That people with good ideas have to dilute their genius with practice of social acceptance is the problem, not a solution to the problem. A civilized society or a journal serious about philosophy would eagerly seek out such ideas and insist on publicizing them.
[/quote]It sounds like you
know what is going to happen, know that to be accepted you have to 'dilute your genius'
think they should come to you and won't even bother to send them ideas
haven't looked at a wide range of options for publishing - there are all sorts of journals out there, including online
You just want people to come to you, recognize your greatness, and invite you in. I think the odds of this being successful are incredibly small. I noted above that if you feel like you would have to compromise too much, then you can ignore any advice you get. But this isn't enough.
Perhaps you are content not getting what you want as long as you can feel unjustly overlooked.
It is painful to try and not succeed, so I have sympathy.
Another way to approach this would be to start a blog or poscast. IOW self-publish. Find connections with other blogs and podcasts where you have something in common. Then people without the middle-man of journal can find you. You get a bid audience, this also could be leveraged to get published by others.
But posting your short posts here...I don't think it's going to be enough. If you think it is, great. If you think it should be but won't be, well you can look at that and reevaluate after more years of not being discovered.
[/quote]
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
Re: the shame
Posted: Sun Apr 16, 2023 5:29 am
by Advocate
[quote=Iwannaplato post_id=635795 time=1681619095 user_id=3619]
And shit Advocate....you are just assuming you know how they should do their work.
They get incredible numbers of submissions.
IOW people who actually bothered to send them something. They can barely keep up with the submissions related to people who actually took the time to send them something. But they should set that task aside. Ignore some of the people who take the time to send them a submission and wade through the posts on PN and find you.
You don't realize just how rude your pouting is here.
It's the incel of philosophy publishing attitudes.
[/quote]
Defense of the stairs quo is nearly never righteous.
Re: the shame
Posted: Sun Apr 16, 2023 5:35 am
by Iwannaplato
Advocate wrote: ↑Sun Apr 16, 2023 5:25 am
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
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.
Re: the shame
Posted: Sun Apr 16, 2023 5:39 am
by Iwannaplato
Advocate wrote: ↑Sun Apr 16, 2023 5:29 am
Defense of the stairs quo is nearly never righteous.
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.
Re: the shame
Posted: Sun Apr 16, 2023 5:45 am
by Iwannaplato
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 that 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.