When is a deliberate suspension of one's judgment regarding the mental ability and/or personality of the individual listener the best choice, if ever?

Thats called lateral thinking. If you practice it well you will never be want of anything. Best wishes )

This thread isn’t supposed to be about me or my book, but whatever, if that’s all anyone wants to talk about... — Pfhorrest

I’ve got that, but it’s attached to the subject obviously - but certainly not greatly important to aspects of writing.

I terms of ‘style’ there are, as Frank pointed out, no hard rules (and as Orwell states in his last point - ‘break any or all these rules rather than write something barbarous’). Something I proposed once on another forum was writing the same section in several different styles alongside each other. The initial idea was more of an exercise in writing, but then I started to consider that it may actually serve as use to reader in that it would allow them to compare and contrast how the same thing can be said in many different ways and assess, in their own mind, what combinations work for them and could work for others - in a sense it wasn’t about ‘expressing’ my ideas, but more about the reader having an active interest in seeing how an idea can be expressed in different ways.

In terms of the OP if you have someone who is either very knowledgeable about the subject matter (anti-stupid), extremely studious and persistent (anti-lazy), or extremely charitable and open to interpret your words in various ways (anti-mean). None of these things matter a great deal if there is no interest - the exception being with ‘anti-stupid’ because greater knowledge of a subject would require a degree of active interest.

I would never suggest that there are certain set rules, but there are certainly things to be avoided. I believe the biggest hurdle for any writer is getting past the idea that they are trying to be understood by the reader (I would even say this is the case in philosophical writing too, although for obvious reasons a more subtle problem). I imagine we can all agree that any philosophical work that we’ve read has never been met with our full agreement - this is the KEY point in regards to ‘being understood’. As long as we find use/value in part of what is being expressed THROUGH the authors words that is all that matters to us (of course this isn’t to say we ignore the intent of the author because our interest in what is written is partially driven by the authors declarations of intent - and they have to fulfill them enough to satisfy the readers interpretation of said ‘intent’).

An example of ‘quality’ (in terms of Grice) I like to refer to Kant’s words from The Critique of Pure Reason. Other than his text being a kind of go-to read for people interested in philosophy, there is something brutally honest (‘quality’) he states early on. First the subject matter is clear - he posed a question to the reader (not literally a ‘?’ though).

In the preface to the first edition:

... Abbe Terrasson writes indeed that if we measured the size of a book, not by the number of its pages, but by the time we require for mastering it, then it could be said of many a book that it would be much shorter if it were not so short. On the other hand, if we ask how a wide-ranging whole of speculative knowledge that yet coheres in one principle can best be rendered intelligible, we might be equally justified in saying that many a book would have been clearer if it had not tried to be so very clear. For though the aids to clarity be missed with regard to details, they often distract with regard to the whole. The reader does not arrive quickly enough at an overview of the whole, and bright colours of illustrations hide and distort the articulation and organization of teh system, which, after all, matter most if we want to judge of its unity and solidity.

The main point here I personally have to drill into my head, over and over, is “... many a book would have been clearer if it had not tried to be so very clear.” I’m a whore for tangental thought and often go off-road without realising it (I have a feeling I could be doing it in this very post? Haha!)

My emphasis in a final draft would always be focused on what is compelling to the reader, what is of interest for the reader, and whether or not I’ve managed to express this without stating it explicitly - no one likes to be told what to think and how to think it. People come armed to the project with their own ideas and speculative thoughts ready and willing to bounce them off what they find.

The adeptness of the reader shouldn’t be a concern for the author. The adeptness of the author should be the concern of the author. The hardest thing is understanding who would find use/value in what you’ve written and whether or not you reach them quickly enough before they lose interest (the later is a great problem when the subject of concern is highly technical and requires copious background knowledge beforehand). So-called ‘philosophical works’ that I’ve found easier to digest are usually quite dated (Rousseau and such) and usually they’re focused more on what would now be categorised as ‘Social Sciences’ and/or ‘Psychology’, but there are more modern works that do a very tasty job of creating a fuller, yet less detailed, picture (Russell’s ‘A History of Western Philosophy,’ and more recently something I read the other year that makes use of combining History with Philosophy, Herman’s ‘The Cave and The Light’ which has a stronger narrative form than Russell’s work).

I wouldn’t say people read philosophy for ‘fun,’ but it is an act of self-cultivation that can certainly be uplifting. Because philosophy doesn’t have an ‘end goal,’ per se, it is a difficult subject to frame for the layman so buttressing it up against something else (be this history, motorbikes or keep fit) helps to spread the net wider. The whole scope of philosophy is, in my mind, completely at odds with day-to-day living, but certain magnification of ‘parts’ of philosophy do readily slot into day-to-day living. A project hoping to reach the general public the is infused with a complete overview of the philosophical endeavor is likely doomed to failure unless it can wrap itself around more obvious aspects of human life that connect with human activity in a visceral manner.

Anyway, sorry if I’m being a tangent monster - it’s not my intention! I guess what I believe is that what my ideas are and what I want to say are not necessarily of any particular interest to the reader. My focus, once I have my ideas and what I want to say lain out, then my focus should shift to the reader’s perspective - what they may or may not find fruitful and how turning up or down the contrast here or there would balance the work enough to be an engaging read that the reader can work with rather than the reader being a passive receptacle for what I believe is important and interesting.

I like writing :)

I’m not just directly applying that same triangle though, but making an analogous one. — Pfhorrest

This thread is about style generally through, not about my book in particular. — Pfhorrest

The old saying that it's not what you say but how you say it is ultimately wrong. It's what you say. There is no good way, for example, to serve a shit sandwich, dress it up as you may. — Hanover

Do you think the substance of the OP and proposal is a 'shit sandwich' ?
Does the analogy work ?

The adeptness of the reader shouldn’t be a concern for the author. The adeptness of the author should be the concern of the author. — I like sushi

I would say both should be considered.

My focus, once I have my ideas and what I want to say lain out, then my focus should shift to the reader’s perspective - what they may or may not find fruitful and how turning up or down the contrast here or there would balance the work enough to be an engaging read that the reader can work with rather than the reader being a passive receptacle for what I believe is important and interesting. — I like sushi

For an exploratory process such as this this thread seems to be, it is necessary to engage the reader from get go.
We don't yet know what might be fruitful.

The audience is a mix of talents and qualities. Various stages of 'at readiness'.
I have found it an enjoyable read. It is a writing project managed not just by one main writer but by everyone who cares to join in.

Every analogy/aphorism has its opposite.

‘Too many cooks spoil the broth’ doesn’t hold up against ‘Many hands make light work’. The ‘ulitmate’ truth is context dependent. As a rhetorical means to emphasis a point/position they serve some purpose.

Tend to agree with the poster who mentioned that logic applies more to advertising for the many as opposed to wisdom for the few.

Simplicity, let's face it we all want things done as easy as possible. That covers 'stupid' and 'lazy'.

And yes logic should have a 'point' so to speak. Clear, concise, useful, and of blatant utility. The 'mean' either benefit from it or do not.

I'd say it's more of having to reach the following three: the simple, the stubborn, and the uninformed.

I would say both should be considered. — Amity

Well, yeah! I was trying to emphasis the flaw in being overly concerned with the quality of the audience rather than the quality of the writing in this case - wasn’t crystal clear because I got a touch carried away with that post :)

I’m much ‘happier’ to focus on myself as being the ‘lazy,’ ‘mean,’ and ‘stupid’ writer because I can at least attempt to do something about that directly.

Many famous philosophers were miserable communicators" is not an argument against good writing tips (unless you want to argue that they were great because they were miserable communicators). — SophistiCat

This definitely warrants discussion too, but my main point is that many philosophers have been pretty clear that their goal isn't to be "concise and simple", some wrote for themselves, some a select few, others embraced different degrees of obscurantism, mysticism and "make you think" provocation.

Then there is all the fictional forms as well, that can certainly be argued is a more effective means to "reach the people" even if there is no "novel philosophy" in it; a la Voltaire, Hesse, et al.

Transposing philosophical ideas into a fictional work is a pretty standard writing method, precisely to free oneself from the burden of "disambiguating" everything so as to make something more readable.

Regardless of the genre ("philosophy", philology or fiction), several counter considerations can be made to "simple and concise".

If we interpret "simple and concise" as a sort of analytic "aloof and emotionless" then the argument can easily be made that it's not only a counter productive style to reach a wide audience, as the work is boring, but the philosophical argument can also be made that the human experience as well as human capacity to reason is simply not analytic in an abstract sense but very emotional and intuitive; therefore, trying to remove emotion and intuition is simply off the mark.

If we interpret "simple and concise" to mean "not challenging", then we may not only fail to rouse the curiosity of the reader but also fail to convey the argument. If an argument is not completely clear (due to complicated sentences, qualifications and diction), it requires serious thinking to "get it", and that experience is richer and more memorable than a "pre-chewed" version of the same thing.

Every analogy/aphorism has its opposite.

‘Too many cooks spoil the broth’ doesn’t hold up against ‘Many hands make light work’. The ‘ulitmate’ truth is context dependent. As a rhetorical means to emphasis a point/position they serve some purpose. — I like sushi

Yes, that is clear. It depends on context.
Getting the balance right is tricky.
I am not sure that the triangle diagram is included for rhetorical purposes, is it ?
It seems like a model too neat so as to slot an already prepared 3 point idea in place.

I’m much ‘happier’ to focus on myself as being the ‘lazy,’ ‘mean,’ and ‘stupid’ writer because I can at least attempt to do something about that directly. — I like sushi

What ? All three at once ?! :wink:

I enjoyed your mean post - love the lazy passion and getting stupidly carried away.

The whole scope of philosophy is, in my mind, completely at odds with day-to-day living, but certain magnification of ‘parts’ of philosophy do readily slot into day-to-day living. A project hoping to reach the general public the is infused with a complete overview of the philosophical endeavor is likely doomed to failure unless it can wrap itself around more obvious aspects of human life that connect with human activity in a visceral manner. — I like sushi

This is where I think it’s so difficult to make the transition from technical writing to mainstream publishable content. I think you’ve outlined the issue perfectly. I’ve thoroughly enjoyed reading books on physics by Carlo Rovelli, having little background in physics myself, because of the direct human experiences that he describes in relation to the concepts. Philosophical paradigm shifts are similarly difficult, in that you need to start where people are at in their lives, and then take them on a journey of discovery, without bogging them down in the technical nature of the process. You need to keep bringing your audience back to connect with real human experience, mainly because they’re unlikely to read the whole lot in one sitting - so they need to feel not too far from the everyday (or at least from humanity), even as you take them ‘deep into the woods’.

I’m reminded of Joseph Campbell’s descriptions of the Hero’s Journey.

Philosophical paradigm shifts are similarly difficult, in that you need to start where people are at in their lives, and then take them on a journey of discovery, without bogging them down in the technical nature of the process. — Possibility

I’m reminded of Joseph Campbell’s descriptions of the Hero’s Journey. — Possibility

How can you know where readers are at in their lives before you start the philosophical narrative ?
Do you mean in a general sense - what is happening in our society - the challenges involved ? Eternal problems ?

How does it remind you of the Hero's Journey?
I haven't read it, so what would make me want to delve in ?
Is everyone a Hero ?

I am saying that perhaps it is just not possible to reach the absolute worst audience, and trying to do so requires sacrifices in aspects that would otherwise have helped to reach other segments of the audience. — Pfhorrest

I was trying to emphasis the flaw in being overly concerned with the quality of the audience rather than the quality of the writing — I like sushi

Yes. I think it unfortunate that the description 'stupid, lazy and mean' as used in a particular Guidelines article ( or 'verbally from multiple old professors' ), has taken root and influenced someone's mental state or attitude so much. It seems obsessive...

I am pretty sure I read that 'How to Write a Philosophical Paper' years ago. I didn't take this advice so very seriously. Indeed, it made me smile. Great idea - like imagining the audience naked if you are a bit nervous at public speaking.
It served its purpose at the time and in those circumstances.

However, to continue to think in those 3 terms I would find negative, narrow and generally not helpful.

Why would anyone want to 'reach the absolute worst audience' or even those with 2 out of 3 of the qualities ?

Why would anyone want to 'reach the absolute worst audience' or even those with 2 out of 3 of the qualities ? — Amity

It’s more that I would like to reach anybody who has any of those three vices. I want to spell things out as slowly, simply, and easily as possible for people who find the subject difficult. I want to be clear, to people who feel defensive, that I am not meaning the horrible thing they jump to the conclusion that I mean, but something much more agreeable. And I want to get through all that as quickly as possible so it doesn’t drag on longer than necessary and bore people away before they can get through it all.

But both of those first two things take words to do, which thus sacrifices the third thing. So you could get back the third thing by instead sacrificing one of the first two things... or the other. But one way or another it seems like you can’t do all three of those at once.

It’s more that I would like to reach anybody who has any of those three vices. — Pfhorrest

First off:
Why do you use the word 'vice' ?

This definitely warrants discussion too, but my main point is that many philosophers have been pretty clear that their goal isn't to be "concise and simple", some wrote for themselves, some a select few, others embraced different degrees of obscurantism, mysticism and "make you think" provocation. — boethius

That may be so, but I don't see the relevance of bringing up the fact that some philosophers did not write well as an objection to an admonition for philosophers to write well. Also, the advice is, obviously, not to be simple at the expense of depth or concise at the expense of scope. Rather, it is "as simple as possible, but no simpler," etc.

If we interpret "simple and concise" to mean "not challenging", then we may not only fail to rouse the curiosity of the reader but also fail to convey the argument. If an argument is not completely clear (due to complicated sentences, qualifications and diction), it requires serious thinking to "get it", and that experience is richer and more memorable than a "pre-chewed" version of the same thing. — boethius

Yeah, no, I have zero respect for this snobbery.

A vice is a negative quality. What else would you call them?

That may be so, but I don't see the relevance of bringing up the fact that some philosophers did not write well as an objection to an admonition for philosophers to write well. — SophistiCat

You're not getting my point. Writing well according to whom?

It seems pretty obvious to me that the general goal in writing and the audience must be specified to start to give advice as what is writing well and what's not.

All you're doing is deciding you know what good philosophy is and good writing.

I am simply pointing out there is a large variation in how people self-evaluate as well as what "philosophy as such" has decided to label important philosophy.

Yeah, no, I have zero respect for this snobbery. — SophistiCat

Again, all you're saying is you don't like obscurantist or mystical leaning philosophy and styles.

I'm simply pointing out those styles exist and presumably the writers of those styles thought it was a good idea, and presumably, for them, "writing better" would have been writing even more obscuristly and mystically.

If the OP said "all I like and respect is dry analysis, how should I write in the analytical tradition" then I think "simple, concise and disambiguated" is good advice. The OP does not say so, just talking about philosophy in general, and so some goals and audience need to be specified. The OP doesn't even specify "proper, philosophical prose" and so philology, biography, poetry, theater, screen play, journalism and genres of fiction are all forms and varying styles to consider if the intent is to reach an audience.

If no goal and audience is specified, then I'll simply sit here and point out the rich diversity of styles in philosophy: from the way of the old master to not even writing anything but having inspired dialogues to long complicated tomes to novels.

One of my favorite poems, by Lewis Carroll — Frank Apisa

I do think that Lewis Carroll is under appreciated as a philosopher. Perhaps this is because his writings are more a satire of philosophy than a philosophy of satire. (Though I daresay that the Mad Hatter or one of his friends would say that they were the same thing.)

For example. his: 'What I say three times is true' ; 'you are nothing but a pack of cards' and his grin which can exist independent of a face are deeply meaningful and philosophically significant.

How can you know where readers are at in their lives before you start the philosophical narrative ?
Do you mean in a general sense - what is happening in our society - the challenges involved ? Eternal problems ? — Amity

In a way, it refers to the general assumptions we make about how the world works - the language and concepts humans are most comfortable using to describe our interactions with reality. It also refers to the problems we commonly recognise in our day to day lives, which remind us that how we conceptualise reality isn’t quite as accurate as we need it to be: how our uncertainty about morality, free will, consciousness, the origin of life and the universe relate to ordinary experiences such as eating breakfast, driving to work, arguing with a colleague, etc.

How does it remind you of the Hero's Journey?
I haven't read it, so what would make me want to delve in ?
Is everyone a Hero ? — Amity

Joseph Campbell’s book “Hero With a Thousand Faces” is quite a heavy-going book suggesting underlying threads tying all human mythology together, such as Jung’s archetypes. One such thread is that of the Hero’s Journey, where someone goes on a quest (to solve a problem) and finds themselves in a strange and unfamiliar land. They struggle to acclimatise to this strangeness, but soon recognise that it’s better or more accurate or more ‘real’ than where they came from in particular ways, and begin to feel more ‘at home’ there. But they remember their quest, and realise for whatever reason that staying there doesn’t help those they left behind. So eventually they return home, but they bring back with them not only new skills or secrets or solutions they needed to complete their quest, but also a ‘way’ to reach this better, more accurate or more ‘real’ world. But back home, they realise that we’re not ready to make this journey collectively. We need more heroes willing to embark on the journey and bring back more secrets and solutions that we’re still not quite ready to integrate, except to solve a specific problem that threatens us right now.

It’s more that I would like to reach anybody who has any of those three vices. I want to spell things out as slowly, simply, and easily as possible for people who find the subject difficult. I want to be clear, to people who feel defensive, that I am not meaning the horrible thing they jump to the conclusion that I mean, but something much more agreeable. And I want to get through all that as quickly as possible so it doesn’t drag on longer than necessary and bore people away before they can get through it all.

But both of those first two things take words to do, which thus sacrifices the third thing. So you could get back the third thing by instead sacrificing one of the first two things... or the other. But one way or another it seems like you can’t do all three of those at once. — Pfhorrest

I want to make some observations here that I think you might be missing. There is a difference between writing for an audience who feels obligated to read your communication, and writing for one that doesn’t. You’ll notice that most of us who gave you reasons why we didn’t continue to wade through your writing cited things that correspond to the three ‘vices’ you describe. It seems natural to me that they would feel offended by a derogatory description of their attitude, even though it wasn’t your intention to label anyone here in this way.

These three ‘vices’ as you call them are a description not of those reading, but of the attitude an author needs to assume when they revise or edit their own work. It’s a tool to ensure clarity and conciseness, and particularly to ensure that those who need to read it all the way through aren’t steaming under the collar while they do so.

Unlike your lecturers and the parents/staff I write for, however, those of us on this forum feel no obligation to read what anyone has written. So when they get bogged down in the technical terms, get offended, impatient or confused (which we all do at some stage unless it’s our own writing that we’re reading), they have no satisfactory answer to the question “Why should I continue?” So they waver, and eventually they stop.

You gave them a reason to start reading by your discussions on this forum, but you need to continually refer in your writing to reasons why they should persist when it gets difficult. It helps to also acknowledge when it’s about to get technical or unclear, and offer a quick ‘layman’s’ version so those who either already get what you’re saying, or don’t have time to get into the details and are prepared to take your word for it at this time, can skip to something more intriguing. Likewise, making an attempt to understand and sympathise with a dissenting position, rather than give all the reasons why you’re against it, will go a long way towards engaging readers who aren’t already on your side of the debate.

It helps to also acknowledge when it’s about to get technical or unclear, and offer a quick ‘layman’s’ version so those who either already get what you’re saying, or don’t have time to get into the details and are prepared to take your word for it at this time, can skip to something more intriguing. — Possibility

One of the main things I was hoping to get was feedback on exactly where people got stuck like this, so I could know where I need to change it, take slower smaller steps, give more examples, clarify what I do or don’t mean, etc.

Likewise, making an attempt to understand and sympathise with a dissenting position, rather than give all the reasons why you’re against it, will go a long way towards engaging readers who aren’t already on your side of the debate. — Possibility

That is exactly why I reordered the opening essays. Instead of starting off attacking the biggest opponents first and then their usual opponents in turn, before explaining where I stand between them, now I start with an overview of my whole general philosophy and the ways it agrees with other general philosophies. Then the places I think those other philosophies take those shared premises and each reach different wrong conclusions from them, and how I think it’s possible to reconcile the premises of all those different philosophies without reaching any of their mutually contrary wrong conclusions. Only then do I start going in to all the different possibilities of wrongness thereby avoided.

One of the main things I was hoping to get was feedback on exactly where people got stuck like this, so I could know where I need to change it, take slower smaller steps, give more examples, clarify what I do or don’t mean, etc. — Pfhorrest

That is exactly why I reordered the opening essays. Instead of starting off attacking the biggest opponents first and then their usual opponents in turn, before explaining where I stand between them, now I start with an overview of my whole general philosophy and the ways it agrees with other general philosophies. Then the places I think those other philosophies take those shared premises and each reach different wrong conclusions from them, and how I think it’s possible to reconcile the premises of all those different philosophies without reaching any of their mutually contrary wrong conclusions. Only then do I start going in to all the different possibilities of wrongness thereby avoided. — Pfhorrest

The problem is that the focus of your writing is on argument and debate. So you’re either preaching to the choir, or you’re trying to engage ‘stupid, lazy and mean’ readers. It doesn’t surprise me that you’re failing to obtain constructive criticism on anything other than style. I’ll be honest with you, there aren’t many people on this forum who have sufficient humility to point out where they didn’t understand, didn’t follow or didn’t have the patience to persist with specific parts of a formal argument.

As a reader, you’re only giving me two possible responses: agree or disagree. Where’s the journey? You’re not taking me anywhere except where I either have already been or have no interest in going. When you title an essay ‘Against Fideism’, for instance, what sort of readers are you expecting to attract, and how long do you expect them to persist?

As a challenge, have you ever tried arguing convincingly in support of Fideism? It’s an exercise in imagining perspective. In fiction, the most convincing and entertaining villains are those whose defence of their actions would be based on sound and valid reasoning, rather than simply being ‘evil’ or ‘wrong’. This is not something we’re often comfortable doing once we’ve settled on a position. Being able to say ‘I can see how that makes sense from your perspective’ without following it with ‘but you’re wrong’ allows us to encourage a dissenting reader to join us in looking at the bigger picture without engaging them strictly as an opponent.

That is, again, exactly what I reorganized to do. Instead of starting off with attacks, I start off with the most boring uncontroversial common sense that almost everybody probably already agrees with, and the promise that after elaborating on the implications of that I expect to arrive at a position that almost everybody probably already disagrees with.

And that means both the reader AND their regular opponents who they probably jump to the conclusion I am. I expect a fideist to jump to the conclusion that I am a nihilist, but they hey look I’m also against nihilism, and vice versa. Hoping that if I can make clear that I neither agree with their usual opponents nor with them, I can intrigue them as to what other possibility I think there is.

In the reorganized Commensurablism, before any of the Against essays, I also lay out how I expect both of those sides get to where they are from the places we agree. Using my technical definitions of these terms for short here:


I expect the fideist reasons:

Not nihilism (and I agree)

Not nihilism = Objectivism (and I agree)
Objectivism = Transcendentalism (here I disagree)
Transcendentalism => Fideism (and I agree)

also

Not nihilism => Not cynicism (and I agree)
Cynicism = Criticism (here I disagree)
Not criticism = Fideism (and I agree)

Therefore fideism (here I disagree)


And I expect the nihilist reasons:

Not fideism (and I agree)

Not fideism = Criticism (and I agree)
Criticism = Cynicism (here I disagree)
Cynicism => Nihilism (and I agree)

also

Not fideism => Not transcendentalism (and I agree)
Transcendentalism = Objectivism (here I disagree)
Not objectivism = Nihilism (and I agree)
Therefore nihilism (here I disagree)


I then proceed in the various Against essays to distinguish those things I think they equate with each other, and why I am against one side of that equation but not the other.

That is, again, exactly what I reorganized to do. Instead of starting off with attacks, I start off with the most boring uncontroversial common sense that almost everybody probably already agrees with, and the promise that after elaborating on the implications of that I expect to arrive at a position that almost everybody probably already disagrees with. — Pfhorrest

There is basically nothing uncontroversial in philosophy. If you're purpose is to do serious philosophy then you need to seek out the opposing point of view. provides stylistic reasons for doing so, but there is also the philosophical reason for actually knowing who you're criticizing.

This is the main problem with your book, in my opinion. You make brief sketches of "isms" and reject one and accept another, without demonstrating you really know the content of those systems, schools and authors.

For instance, my first critique on your question of "what's new here" was to point out core ideas that went back to ancient Greece. You responded to my criticism by first arguing with it (which you have done with everyone offering you advice, which is just tiresome), then eventually you accepted it and integrated it by mentioning "oh, some Greeks thought about these things"; but that's simply not serious: which Greeks? what did they say? what did they get right, wrong, miss entirely?.

If you want to carry out your "this ism vs that ism" program, you need to demonstrate real expertise with all the authors involved and their critics (assuming your goal is to be taken seriously by "philosophers").

You need to seek out the best representation of every opposing view and point to where exactly you differ. This takes citing authors. Citing is the only way to make your approach serious, as it not only demonstrates you've read the key authors who represent these opposing views best, but also shows you've found the critical difference in their own words. In short, that you've done a serious amount of work that I can now benefit from. As it is, you're book simply asks the reader to go find out for themselves that your representation of different isms checks out.

Your entire approach on this forum betrays that you don't have this expertise. It should not be us that tells you what ideas you have that are totally novel, it should be you the author that has more knowledge of your subject than we the reader, and so can just tell us what's new and explain why it's new (why previous thinkers got so far but no further).

Why you're in this position, if I had to guess, is that you've gotten "the gist" of a lot of philosophies and you've elaborated your own series of opinions on these world views and parsing all this is quite impressive to the people you know; so, you have extended this experience to the expectation that we here on the forum will likewise be impressed. However, the small group of people you know that are impressed or then are opponents you feel "like, I have no problem arguing with", is not representative of the entire history of philosophy. To contend with "philosophers" is to address the greatest thinkers that have ever lived of all humanity of all history that we have a record of. It's not comparable to people you feel clever discussing with.

If you think university is a "smart place" and that therefore if you can hold your ground among students then you can hold your ground among philosophers, quickly calculate how many university students have existed and compare that to the list of people humanity has decided are "philosophers", or then at least contenders for such a title. In writing a "philosophy book" it is this small list of people you are replying to and addressing; it is unlikely you have encountered anyone remotely close in thinking and arguing capacity, and building up the understanding to be able to image how these philosophers would criticize you if they were in the room is not a trivial task easily dispensed with lines like " I start off with the most boring uncontroversial common sense that almost everybody probably already agrees with".

Underestimating your opponents isn't how serious philosophical arguments are elaborated, but rather much closer to how dating profiles are written of explaining what you're into, in hopes those that already agree want to get even closer to you and like you, even love you.

To be serious, you need to "get into those opposing world views" and really appreciate their subtle brilliance, agility and cunning, give them the respect they are due, understand why reasonable and learned people adopt these views, then study their history and stock their every move—perhaps even flatter them as Possibility suggests to draw them closer—only to lunge, suddenly, and deal the precise and fatal blow from which there is no recovery. But do not think for a second that there will be no reposte, equally quick, equally sharp, equally daring, and it may be you that is mortally stabbed in the critical moment, left wondering what went wrong as you lay on the floor clenching your heart while your spirit fades from you; or, sadly more often, too frightened to carry out the deed when the danger gets close, and so slink off into a corner to nurse your play things, certain that had you made the engagement you would have certainly prevailed.

But if you persist, then after, usually a long series of defeats, these philosophical bodies may start to pile up around you and you can cry into the desert: "Is there no one else!", and then maybe, maybe you could condescend to write a book about your adventure.

If you aren't interested in such a commitment, then just call your book "diaries of a freshman" and call it a day.

A vice is a negative quality. What else would you call them? — Pfhorrest

We are talking about an imagined audience here, right ? One that you keep in mind as you write. It is a strategy which helps you to write better if you think of them as 'sad, lazy or mean'.

When it comes to real life, reaching out and getting through to an audience, people need first of all to be attracted or seduced by an author or book. Reasons to read.

I, for one, am unlikely to be persuaded or trust someone who thinks in terms of 'vice' with all its moral connotations. Even if that is not what you intend, that is what comes over.

It’s more that I would like to reach anybody who has any of those three vices.
1. I want to spell things out as slowly, simply, and easily as possible for people who find the subject difficult.
2. I want to be clear, to people who feel defensive, that I am not meaning the horrible thing they jump to the conclusion that I mean, but something much more agreeable. And
3. I want to get through all that as quickly as possible so it doesn’t drag on longer than necessary and bore people away before they can get through it all. — Pfhorrest

I have numbered the points to help relate to the 3 'vices':

1. The 'stupid' - a derogatory term for those who lack knowledge, experience and who find the subject difficult.
So, the target audience here is who ? Not academic peers but those new to philosophical ideas. There will be different qualities, a broader range to consider: age, comprehension levels.
Why would they be attracted ? What is your goal ?
To explain your new ideas, to share your personal journey, to survey the wonder of the whole field of philosophy?

I would suggest that instead of imagining your audience as 'stupid', you think in terms of an individual. You don't need just to spell things out in terms of difficult concepts, you need to set them on fire. Make philosophy an adventure. Your ideas prompting a desire to know more...

2. To be continued...
I'd like to hear your thoughts on 1. first. Thanks.

A Seagull
412
One of my favorite poems, by Lewis Carroll
— Frank Apisa

I do think that Lewis Carroll is under appreciated as a philosopher. Perhaps this is because his writings are more a satire of philosophy than a philosophy of satire. (Though I daresay that the Mad Hatter or one of his friends would say that they were the same thing.)

For example. his: 'What I say three times is true' ; 'you are nothing but a pack of cards' and his grin which can exist independent of a face are deeply meaningful and philosophically significant. — A Seagull

Indeed!

Here are a few quotes from Carroll that further show your point:

"I can't go back to yesterday - because I was a different person then."

"Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast."

"'But I don't want to go among mad people,' said Alice. 'Oh, you can't help that,' said the cat. 'We're all mad here.'"

"Who in the world am I? Ah, that's the great puzzle."

"Begin at the beginning," the King said, very gravely, "and go on till you come to the end: then stop."

"If you don't know where you are going, any road will take you there."

the problems we commonly recognise in our day to day lives, which remind us that how we conceptualise reality isn’t quite as accurate as we need it to be: — Possibility

Thanks for this. Common problems are a useful place to start.
The attempt to find solutions or comfort in challenging times is one we can all relate to.
The accuracy of what we know or think we know is so relevant right now. Just as it has been historically. Others have taken similar journeys. Why do some find it difficult to follow paths proven to be successful in terms of improving wellbeing?

Joseph Campbell’s book “Hero With a Thousand Faces” is quite a heavy-going book suggesting underlying threads tying all human mythology together, such as Jung’s archetypes. — Possibility

Well. Probably not for me right now. I have taken to light and quirky reading to ease my mental discomfort.

They struggle to acclimatise to this strangeness, but soon recognise that it’s better or more accurate or more ‘real’ than where they came from in particular ways, and begin to feel more ‘at home’ there. — Possibility

Interesting parallels to how people have had to adapt to a new reality in this corona virus crisis. Instead of escaping to work, holidays or visiting friends and family, we are physically at home out of necessity. However, the constraints can bring a new awareness of how being at home with ourselves involves a different way of thinking, being and doing. It can be freeing...

There is basically nothing uncontroversial in philosophy. — boethius

True, but every argument starts with premises the reader is expected to likely agree with, otherwise it can’t get off the ground at all. A good philosophical argument starts with something trivially agreeable and derives something controversially substantial from it. That it is what I mean to do.

You responded to my criticism by first arguing with it (which you have done with everyone offering you advice, which is just tiresome) — boethius

This attitude of “don’t talk back just do what I say” is tiresome. I’m not just going to blindly attempt to guess at what someone wants me to do without first talking to them and making sure I understand what they’re saying and that it is well-justified. In your case, all you mentioned was that the ideas trace back to non-specific ancient Greeks, and I didn’t see the value in just mentioning that in passing in the text; it didn’t seem to provide anything that would be of value to the reader, to be more of just a “by the way” aside along the path to the point being made.

then eventually you accepted it and integrated it by mentioning "oh, some Greeks thought about these things"; but that's simply not serious: which Greeks? what did they say? what did they get right, wrong, miss entirely?. — boethius

I am here asking people I expect to be my peers to help point me at details like that, that would be useful to include and that I have missed. You neither demonstrated what would be useful about mentioning them nor provided any particular details to include.

I am not posting about my book here to “show off my genius” or something like you seem to think. Quite the contrary, I am posting about it hoping that both those less educated than me will tell me what’s difficult to follow so I can try to write better there, and those MORE educated than me will tell me what I’ve missed. You basically told me THAT I missed something, but didn’t say anything actionably specific about what it was.

In contrast, another commenter pointed out that my “logic of moods” has prior work by an author I’d never heard of, who is now on my reading list to be looked into when I can.

Which ancient Greeks do you think I have not read yet? (I probably have). Which details of their work do you think need mention in the place you were critiquing? I can’t very well just start writing everything I know about ancient Greek philosophy there in the hopes of satisfying your critique, and I obviously already wrote every detail I thought was relevant to that passage before, so if you think some other details need mentioning that I didn’t think warranted inclusion, I need you to say which.

Instead, you seem to just assume I am completely unfamiliar with the entire broad area you mention, like if I just go study that (again) I will see what it is that I need to include. But I already studied plenty in that area, and included what I thought was relevant, so I need you to tell me: what in particular did I miss and why is it relevant to mention there?

It should not be us that tells you what ideas you have that are totally novel, it should be you the author that has more knowledge of your subject than we the reader, and so can just tell us what's new and explain why it's new (why previous thinkers got so far but no further). — boethius

In the book, I say when I think I am making a novel addition and where I am aware of previous thinkers having had the same ideas before. What I am asking from the forum is both whether any of the ideas I thought were new actually have previous work I’m not familiar with (from readers more educated than me), and whether the previous work I am mentioning is new to the reader (from readers less educated than me).

The rest of your post reads like a shallow attempt to “take me down a peg” from some hubris you supposed I have, and isn’t worth responding to. (Honestly, a lot of the harshest criticism seems to be from people who seem to think I think I’m smarter than I should think I am, when I’m here specifically hoping that other people at least as smart as me will help me to be better than I am. In the book itself I’m trying to be as humble and self-debasing as I can, not making bold proclamations of indisputable truth but just saying what seems like a strong argument in this or that direction and why it seems strong to me, trying to show sympathy to every position and then gently explain where and why I diverge. Yet apparently that is also a fault, so I need to both be bolder and more assertive and also better realize how dumb I really am and go git gud before I open my mouth?)