Recently there has been some controversy about the academy posting requirements, all revolving around the word quality. So how would you know what is quality philosophy compared to what isn’t quality philosophy? If you had to judge the worthiness of a post to the Academy, what criteria would you apply in deciding yes-no to a post?
Whether the person showed any understanding whatsoever of the difference between logic and rhetoric. But that would require the people judging to have a keen understanding of the difference.
I think the best we can do is just to say that quality is doing what you do in philosophy, better than the average. For example: You apply the tools/methods you use more carefully. You consider possible objections more thoroughly. You have a better awareness of what exactly the point is that you’re trying to make. —Everything that you are doing anyways in philosophy, just better than the average. I think you would be going astray by wanting strict criteria for what counts as quality in philosophy…
What counts as ‘better’, you want to ask? (Or something like that). --Are you familiar with Aristotle, and what he had to say about the person with practical wisdom or phronesis? …A person with practical wisdom, for Aristotle, knows what to do in certain situations in a way that cannot be reduced to general truths. Recognizing quality in philosophy cannot be reduced to general truths. (And this is the point of the thought-experiment that I’ll repost below). Many people think something like this is what goes on in ethics, as well. They think that you simply cannot come up with a list of rules for what counts as ethical behavior. And that if you approach dilemmas with a list of rules to apply, you will get it wrong often enough.
Anyways, I went on about this more, here: viewtopic.php?f=7&t=179839
Quality is, in this situation, intuitive and subjective. Someone who is well-read in philosophy would recognize a quality post. However, I don’t think that there is any criteria that can be written down and used to rubber stamp YES-NO on a post.
I agree with the last two out of three sentences. That’s a surprisingly good ratio for us.
Better than average seems like a pretty workable game plan. A good place to start anyway.
Oh god this is actually a really good answer.
To give a positive answer to the question in the subject line, the highest quality philosophy is that which asks the most of us, assumes the least about what we perceive, has the most sound logic and most importantly has the best ability to predict. Anything about aesthetic attachments such as the word count requirements or paragraph length are about effective communication, not actually quality of the philosophy.
Regarding the rules of the Academy, a couple of them are detrimental to quality philosophy or at least the ability to communicate it in an effective way. Minimum word counts in particular are an obstruction. If someone posts a treatise but has one critical logical flaw that undermines the whole thing, or someone has a question about one aspect to clarify so they can make a longer post that better addresses the arguments, it would be ridiculous to require that they pad out this simple statement to 500 words before they are allowed to respond.
Striking out second-person pronouns is also detrimental to the ability to properly discuss branches related to subjectivity of experience. When trying to logically show that experiences, sensations and other things are subjective, you must necessarily address the thoughts of the person or people you are discussing with in order to show them how other people think differently, and how you are performing your analysis. Similarly, when two people are in a moral conflict, you must also address the person you are conflicting with and your valuation of them. To do otherwise is to evade the issue with the person you are trying to persuade to your view. It should be considered insulting when anyone deliberately discusses these things through needless indirection because it an implicit statement that you cannot handle the thinking about yourself with regards to how yourself acts, thinks and judges things.
In essence, maintaining the requirement of “formal writing” in these particular manners is a crutch for staving off certain forms of poor thinking at the cost of also making it harder to discuss certain forms of good thinking at best, and a way to shut down valid if not sound dissent at worst.
OK. But if we are trying to get on the same page, how do we decide what “better” means? How do we decide what is above average as opposed to just average? Is this just a case of two opinions? An appeal to authority? If I say a post is quality, and you disagree, what is the test?
SIATD, Is logic then the only criteria for what constitutes a ‘quality’ post?
phyllo, If there is no criteria for judgement, then do we accept appeal to authority (well-read in philosophy)?
Mo,
Isn’t that just applying self-imposed criteria to your own work? If I should apply everything you mention to any particular post and in my judgement, feel confident that it is ‘quality’ philosophy, and you should disagree, as I asked Typist, what is the test?
In general we would do that, and to be fair we would have a panel of qualified judges/experts who would theoretically produce an unbiased decision. That’s not possible in the case of The Academy. To get some kind of fair, higher quality forum off the ground, a set of rules is put in place which will discourage low quality posts - high word count, proper citations, no second person pronouns, etc. Those rules don’t guarantee high quality but they serve as a barrier to low quality.
tentative,
I hate to have to repost what I’ve written in three separate places only for you to continue to ignore it. It’s specifically addressed to your concerns. We are likely in agreement that there is no strict test to determine what counts as quality philosophy. The difference between us is that I’ve posted arguments to the conclusion that you shouldn’t care, or think you need a strict test—and that a strict test is actually a bad thing. I’ve also made an argument that popularity or consensus is not a sign of quality philosophy. The only way that quality philosophy has ever been distinguished (and never perfectly) has been by something like the analogue of Aristotle’s phronemos—an experienced, well-read, practiced and trained judge, using his/her perception, in such a way that cannot be reduced to generalizable truths or a set list of requirements.
So, if you could read and address my arguments here viewtopic.php?f=7&t=179839
…And do that before you continue to demand a strict test, that you also want to argue doesn’t exist. Here’s a new idea: Even if we aired on the side of inclusiveness for all borderline cases in the Academy forum… we’d still achieve the purpose of the Academy quite easily.
phyllo… the problem with word counts, and second person pronouns, and so on… is that they actually exclude good philosophizing—such as every single thing that Plato wrote, and Socrates said. Or, for that matter, anything you’ve ever written here. And that’s a problem.
I think, for the academy, it’s more about making sure effort goes into the posts and that well thought out ideas aren’t responded to with one liners.
…whether or not a fundamental conceptual question has been presented and answered through a reasonably rational, reasoning process. Of course reasonable language usage and originality would add points.
In this case, tent asked the conceptual question.
I answered the question (not merely responded) perhaps with a reasonable answer.
But note that I have not used any reasoning process. I merely stated an answer.
Thus this would not qualify as “quality philosophy” regardless of how accurate the given answer might be.
To make it a “quality philosophy” candidate, I would have to explain, perhaps step by step, why “quality philosophy” should refer to reasoned answers to conceptual questions.
I think you could expand upon that by saying that the kinds of questions that can be answered so simply probably aren’t the right questions for that area.
Well, I’m in good company (or bad company if Plato/Socrates is not to your taste). 
An above average post on this topic would recognize that this problem has already been solved, and is already in use in the vast majority of publications in all types of media, and has been for hundreds of years. An editor decides what “better” is, and if readers/listeners/watchers don’t agree, they turn the page, pick up another book, change the channel etc.
A better than above average post on this topic would recognize in a clear minded manner that there is little to no chance forum culture will ever understand what everybody else in other media already understands and does.
A truly excellent post would recognize this reality in a spirit of cheerful good humor, accept forum land for what it is and always will be, and then proceed to tell readers in a snotty superior manner why they are all wrong, Wrong, WRONG!
Haha… =D>
Your giggles are wrong, Wrong, WRONG!
Yeah…
…snicker… 
When will you recognize that most moderators do not want to take on the job of unpaid editor? And that most posters do not want to be edited without getting some significant benefit?