get serious
get serious
If Philosophy Now was serious about philosophy they'd be drawing regularly from this forum for topics and authors.
-
- Posts: 1524
- Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2007 1:10 am
- Location: Augsburg
Re: get serious
Huh? It's because they are that they don't.
Re: get serious
[quote=mickthinks post_id=480916 time=1605976048 user_id=59]
Huh? It's because they are that they don't.
[/quote]
You're saying they host a philosophy forum that doesn't have philosophical value?
Huh? It's because they are that they don't.
[/quote]
You're saying they host a philosophy forum that doesn't have philosophical value?
-
- Posts: 1524
- Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2007 1:10 am
- Location: Augsburg
Re: get serious
No. I believe I have a reasonable grasp of what "value" means in this context, but I can't make sense of what the "philosophical" qualifier is doing there.
The forum has value; to me, to others, and to the magazine, I think.
The forum has value; to me, to others, and to the magazine, I think.
Re: get serious
[quote=mickthinks post_id=480918 time=1605976541 user_id=59]
No. I believe I have a reasonable grasp of what "value" means in this context, but I can't make sense of what the "philosophical" qualifier is doing there.
The forum has value; to me, to others, and to the magazine, I think.
[/quote]
If this forum is philsophically meaningful, why would they Not draw from it? You said that wouldn't be serious, which indicates this forum isn't a serious place to draw from.
No. I believe I have a reasonable grasp of what "value" means in this context, but I can't make sense of what the "philosophical" qualifier is doing there.
The forum has value; to me, to others, and to the magazine, I think.
[/quote]
If this forum is philsophically meaningful, why would they Not draw from it? You said that wouldn't be serious, which indicates this forum isn't a serious place to draw from.
-
- Posts: 1524
- Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2007 1:10 am
- Location: Augsburg
Re: get serious
Again, I believe I have a reasonable grasp of what "meaningful" means in this context, but I can't make sense of what the "philosophical" qualifier is doing there.
The forum has value. That value doesn't adhere to everyone who posts here, nor to everything that is posted. A much higher standard is set for contributions to the magazine than is set for contributions to the forum.
I don't understand why this is proving so hard for you to reckon with, dude!
The forum has value. That value doesn't adhere to everyone who posts here, nor to everything that is posted. A much higher standard is set for contributions to the magazine than is set for contributions to the forum.
I don't understand why this is proving so hard for you to reckon with, dude!
Re: get serious
[quote=mickthinks post_id=480921 time=1605977865 user_id=59]
Again, I believe I have a reasonable grasp of what "meaningful" means in this context, but I can't make sense of what the "philosophical" qualifier is doing there.
The forum has value. That value doesn't adhere to everyone who posts here, nor to everything that is posted. A much higher standard is set for contributions to the magazine than is set for contributions to the forum.
I don't understand why this is proving so hard for you to reckon with, dude!
[/quote]
A much more academic standard is in no sense a higher one. In any case, i said to draw from, not to copy and paste as is. And there's the matter of finding people who can write good articles as well, not just drawing from things that have been said here.
Again, I believe I have a reasonable grasp of what "meaningful" means in this context, but I can't make sense of what the "philosophical" qualifier is doing there.
The forum has value. That value doesn't adhere to everyone who posts here, nor to everything that is posted. A much higher standard is set for contributions to the magazine than is set for contributions to the forum.
I don't understand why this is proving so hard for you to reckon with, dude!
[/quote]
A much more academic standard is in no sense a higher one. In any case, i said to draw from, not to copy and paste as is. And there's the matter of finding people who can write good articles as well, not just drawing from things that have been said here.
-
- Posts: 1524
- Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2007 1:10 am
- Location: Augsburg
Re: get serious
But I have said nothing about a more academic standard. It's like you are arguing with yourself. Whatever turns you on, I guess.
Re: get serious
[quote=mickthinks post_id=481020 time=1606002843 user_id=59]
But I have said nothing about a more academic standard. It's like you are arguing with yourself. Whatever turns you on, I guess.
[/quote]
The only thing higher about the standards used to choose their posts is in an academic sense. Or more to the point, the "legitimacy" of the author, which is no standard at all.
But I have said nothing about a more academic standard. It's like you are arguing with yourself. Whatever turns you on, I guess.
[/quote]
The only thing higher about the standards used to choose their posts is in an academic sense. Or more to the point, the "legitimacy" of the author, which is no standard at all.
-
- Posts: 1524
- Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2007 1:10 am
- Location: Augsburg
Re: get serious
The only thing higher about the standards used to choose their posts is in an academic sense.
I can't even parse this sentence. I have no idea what it is trying to say.
If you were hoping to catch the eye of the magazine's talent scouts as an author with "legitimacy", I think you need to raise your game a bit, and I don't mean "raise" in an academic sense.
I can't even parse this sentence. I have no idea what it is trying to say.
If you were hoping to catch the eye of the magazine's talent scouts as an author with "legitimacy", I think you need to raise your game a bit, and I don't mean "raise" in an academic sense.
Re: get serious
[quote=mickthinks post_id=481100 time=1606050619 user_id=59]
[i][color=#005000]The only thing higher about the standards used to choose their posts is in an academic sense.[/color][/i]
I can't even parse this sentence. I have no idea what it is trying to say.
If you were hoping to catch the eye of the magazine's talent scouts as an author with "legitimacy", I think you need to raise your game a bit, and I don't mean "raise" in an academic sense.
[/quote]
a) Academically, the authors and subjects that are choosen are "higher" than the average discourse here in their forums, but philosophically they are not higher. In other words, academic thought suffers from certain un-philosophical constraints.
b) I said nothing about myself, nor is legitimacy a valid criteria for higher thought. I'm a better thinker than most of their authors but a worse author than most of their thinkers.
[i][color=#005000]The only thing higher about the standards used to choose their posts is in an academic sense.[/color][/i]
I can't even parse this sentence. I have no idea what it is trying to say.
If you were hoping to catch the eye of the magazine's talent scouts as an author with "legitimacy", I think you need to raise your game a bit, and I don't mean "raise" in an academic sense.
[/quote]
a) Academically, the authors and subjects that are choosen are "higher" than the average discourse here in their forums, but philosophically they are not higher. In other words, academic thought suffers from certain un-philosophical constraints.
b) I said nothing about myself, nor is legitimacy a valid criteria for higher thought. I'm a better thinker than most of their authors but a worse author than most of their thinkers.
-
- Posts: 1524
- Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2007 1:10 am
- Location: Augsburg
Re: get serious
I'm a better thinker than most of their authors ...
Aaah, now I understand what this is about. Why not come out and say what you mean? : "If Philosophy Now was serious about philosophy they'd be seeking contributions from me."
My answer would still be same.
Aaah, now I understand what this is about. Why not come out and say what you mean? : "If Philosophy Now was serious about philosophy they'd be seeking contributions from me."
My answer would still be same.
Re: get serious
[quote=mickthinks post_id=481166 time=1606073290 user_id=59]
[i][color=#005000]I'm a better thinker than most of their authors ...[/color][/i]
Aaah, now I understand what this is about. Why not come out and say what you mean? : "If Philosophy Now was serious about philosophy they'd be seeking contributions from me."
My answer would still be same.
[/quote]
You first mentioned me, i didn't. If there is an ego problem here it isn't mine. Also you specifically took only the part of what i said that was most succeptible to negative interpretation, which encompasses several logical fallacies.
[i][color=#005000]I'm a better thinker than most of their authors ...[/color][/i]
Aaah, now I understand what this is about. Why not come out and say what you mean? : "If Philosophy Now was serious about philosophy they'd be seeking contributions from me."
My answer would still be same.
[/quote]
You first mentioned me, i didn't. If there is an ego problem here it isn't mine. Also you specifically took only the part of what i said that was most succeptible to negative interpretation, which encompasses several logical fallacies.
Re: get serious
[quote=Ginkgo post_id=481175 time=1606076172 user_id=7624]
[quote=Advocate post_id=480914 time=1605975653 user_id=15238]
If Philosophy Now was serious about philosophy they'd be drawing regularly from this forum for topics and authors.
[/quote]
There are at least two authors from this forum that have had articles published in Philosophy Now magazine. Namely, uwot and myself.
[/quote]
Oh. Good.
[quote=Advocate post_id=480914 time=1605975653 user_id=15238]
If Philosophy Now was serious about philosophy they'd be drawing regularly from this forum for topics and authors.
[/quote]
There are at least two authors from this forum that have had articles published in Philosophy Now magazine. Namely, uwot and myself.
[/quote]
Oh. Good.