- Define all vague terms.
- Do not use synonyms, for example, properties, descriptions, features, traits, characteristics are all synonyms. Only use one word throughout your work, otherwise you will confuse the reader.
- When choosing between a common word and a rare word which are synonymous use the more common word.
- Do not use jargon if there is already a popular word for the same thing, for example, intuition is the popular term for a priori.
- Put all arguments in standard form and arguments with less steps are better than arguments with several steps.
- Do not try to reach beyond the limits of human understanding, that is to say, do not speculate on the causes of brute facts. For example, it is a brute fact that causation happens, do not try to make up some theory as to why causation happens.
- All sentences should be either arguments, definitions, summaries of someone else’s arguments or explanation of an argument. It is very tempting to talk about the history of ideas or to entertain the reader with amusing facts, but what most grips the reader’s attentions is argument.
- Do not waste time trying to answer questions that a lay reader does not care about. This is called pedantry. Philosophy should concern itself with questions that the man on the street cares about, not questions that an ivory tower scholar cares about.
- The ultimate goal of philosophy should be to explain the meaning of facts. Define words or make distinctions only if they assist in the explication of facts.
- Prove everything that is not intuitive. Unfortunately the distinction between intuitive and nonintuitive cannot be drawn, thus this is the hardest rule to follow.
How does all this translate to real life? It doesn’t seem to elevate philosophy to actually have relevance to the job market.
Naturally I assume the op is mocking the efforts of those who seek to stifle philosophy. I think that in many if not all cases one has to take a step into the abyss, such to make a triumphant return to the norm with new meaning. Kinda like; obey the meaning of the op, disobey it, then return back to it.
Lol yes, capitalist don’t seem to recognise the need for a greater diversity beyond what is actually required for practical purposes. Same as above but in terms of people rather than meaning.
You say that we should not speculate on the causes of brute facts. Might not this be necessary to explain their meaning? (assuming that they have any)
If a fact is brute then by definition an explanation is impossible. The trick for a human is knowing when facts are brute and knowing when they’re not brute. Unfortunately, we can’t do any measures or experiments to determine when a fact is brute we just have to use our common sense as a guide. Sad but true.
Where did you come up with this?
My mind.
Strange how capitalism then has succeded for centuries, and communism failed in less than a lifetime?
Glad to see we’re in agreement.
I’ve said it before that there are reasons for having two words that mean roughly the same thing. If you do what you say to do then a great deal of nuance is thrown right out the window.
These seem like guidelines for a certain kind of clear Writing, regardless of the topic. Why the focus on metaphysics?
There is an implicit philosophy of language, I Think, in the guidelines. That language contains and transfers knowledge. This may seem obvious, but actually is a kind of generally not noticed metaphysics. I Think these are excellent guidelines (in general), but with that conception (and perhaps also there are use issues involved) in mind and not other conceptions of language.
I will quote the parts I am quibbling about from here on out.
Define and vague might be considered vague terms.
To me intution and apriori are not synonyms, and potentially there are philosophical differences that would lead one to choose one rather than the other. I do Think the guideline is a good one, as a guideline, but once you get down to instances, often what seem like synonyms are really not.
I don’t know what the limits of human understanding are. I can’t evaluate, in advance, the goal of an argument, mine or someone else’s, in terms of this criterion. And even if it were true that such an argument cannot demonstrate the cause of causation, the act of trying might be useful. I don’t see a reason to cut off the topic in advance - so I have a problem with the example - but then I also have a problem with the guideline in general. In a sense wouldn’t the guideline itself be beyond the limits of human understanding, or do you Think we can know now what it is possible for us to know and what is not possible for us to know?
I Think readers are gripped by tangents and digressions. Or can be.
I don’t Think the lay person on the street cares much about huge swathes of philosophy. Why limit what one focuses on by the vague criterion of what the abstractly conceived person on the street would be interested in. Why is this the only target audiance?
I am not quite sure what the meaning of facts means. Is this something different from the fact itself?
And I Think it would make any Project nearly endless. And proof, it seems to me, it raising the bar beyond any necessary level. Philosophy can be exploratory. Also proof is something that is rare outside math and symbolic logic. Make the best case you can. It can be a kind of draft. Other people will critique and counter argue and then the draft can improve, in context, with those people and perhaps also, then, in general. Proof seems off the table for most philosophy. I mean this would mean, it seems, one should not argue for free will or determinism, for physicalism or for some kind of dualism, along with a great number of other philosophical topics, including epistemological ones.