[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 1.55 MB, 1200x1698, 1634503140855.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
19243455 No.19243455 [Reply] [Original]

I wish to learn how to write philosophical essays. What books can help me to achieve that?

>> No.19243471

>>19243455
Read a lot of philosophical essays.

>> No.19243558

>>19243471
What are some essays I could use as models?

>> No.19243742

>>19243558
Essayists that are thematically related to your field. Intellectual currents move in traditions and if you want to be a successful essayist you may need to sit within an intellectual tradition. Reading books on form and style may be necessary unless you're a natural.

>> No.19243904

>>19243455
what kind of philosophy are you writing about?

>> No.19244039

>>19243904
I don't have any specific field of philosophy in my mind, but I would say that I intend to write historically-oriented articles and not analytically-minded ones. Basically, I want to write your standard essays without having to deal with limitations on style and content.

>> No.19244832

>>19244039
Creativity only prospers under limitations.

>> No.19244887

>>19244039
Then you need to focus on getting good at telling stories. Academics often use the crutch of a pre-established format (intro, thesis, main body/analysis, conclusion), but as a chad freeballing iconoclast, you’ll want to learn how to get your point across without relying on a boring format.
Don’t forget to think about organization, too, since a well organized narrative helps keep the reader’s attention and maintains focus on the point you’re trying to make.
I don’t know of any books that will help. Read as much as you can, and when you come across pieces that grab your attention and inspire you, pay attention to how the author has structured their narrative. Start by copying other people’s tactics, eventually youll figure out what works for you.

>> No.19244980

>>19244039
It sounds like you’re not interested in writing philosophical essays, meaning essays about the problems of philosophy. Rather you want to write “philosophical” essays, meaning something vague and dilettante-ish. You sound like you lack the discipline that serious scholarship requires, and like many dilettanti you call your laziness creativity. You are not constrained from creating greater works by usual academic standards, you are only being asked to do hard work. I’m writing this because the humanities attract this kind of student often, and you need to understand that the field of philosophy requires research as rigorous as any STEM field.

>> No.19245900

>>19244980
>insufferable faggot, the post

>> No.19246021

>>19244980
>serious scholarship
Cringe.

>> No.19246325

>>19244980
>He still has trust in academia

>> No.19246540

>>19243455
For writing? The best thing to do is read a lot. If you want input on things I'd suggest going back to school or something. I'm considering that since I'd like to write about philosophy as well.

>> No.19246811

>>19244980
People are mad but you're 100% right. Most people who complain about their ideas not being accepted by mainstream academia neither have ideas nor the means to present them in any real way.

>> No.19246896

>>19244832
as a screenwriter who can't write anything interesting that requires less than 1000 dollar budget for the whole film, I can tell you that is total bullshit
>Hey, write a compelling and original story, but only one of the actors can talk because the chick is a bimbo who can't remember her lines, also we have to shoot all 90 minutes of finished film in only 6 days so there can't be too many set or location changes. No car shots either as the male actor doesn't drive and obviously we can't afford a flatbed, we might be able to get away with some exterior shots of a car or some voice-over, but unless you have a direct hook up for a luxury car it will have to be the director's 6 year old Toyota Camry

>> No.19247314

>>19244832
Patently false in the context of academic studies. You are literally forbidden from using literary devices and are forced to use cliché phrases like "In this essay, I will present two modest arguments for X position".

>> No.19247334

>>19244980
>you are not constrained from creating greater works by usual academic standards
You don't know what you are talking about, larper. Go to any academic philosopher and ask them if the shorter writings of Hegel, Carlyle, or Nietzsche would get published in a major philosophical journal, like Phil Review, Analysis, or Mind. Hint: They wouldn't because they don't follow the extremely rigid standards set up by the editors.

>> No.19247337

>>19244887
Thank you for this reply, it is very appreciated.

>> No.19247448

>>19247334
Not the anon you were responding to, but this is an asinine comparison. Analysis and Mind are fortresses of analytic philosophy, of course their editors wouldn't like Hegel or Nietzsche. Phil Review too, but maybe to a lesser degree. Hegel could definitely be published in a phenomenology journal today. Also, these larger non-historical tracts are simply not published in journals, but something like University of Indiana press or even OUP would take some weirder ones depending on your reputation and other output.

>> No.19247728

>>19247448
The question of whether a so-called "analytic" journal would accept to publish the work of a "continental" thinker is irrelevant to me. I wanted to make a point regarding the rigidity of stylistic rules the editors of those "analytic" journals have put in place. These restrictions are not only present in analytic circles, they are fully present in other fields as well. You only have to take a look at any of the journals dedicated to more historical approaches to philosophy, say, the Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy, to realize that these standards are nearly universal across the English-speaking academic world. Unfortunately, you have failed to demonstrate an adequate level of reading comprehension, since you tried to make your point with regard to "larger non-historical tracts" when I went out of my way to specifically reference *shorter* writings, that is, essays, articles, pamphlets, and so forth. Nevertheless, if you wish to keep pressing the point that Hegel would surely get published in a "continental " journal (whatever that means), then I will keep bringing up examples of great philosophical work that would likely not be published in standard avenues (e.g. Carlyle, Nietzsche).

>> No.19248273

>>19247728
Both Carlyle and Neetzsche would get published.

Not the guy you were responding. You have no idea what you're talking about.

>> No.19248301

>>19244980
You're correct.

Philosophy (analytic) in my school gives out the third lowest set of grades (average GPA of 2.8 or something).

English lit gives out 3.6 and is the 4th or 5th easiest.

Pseuds will always be pseuds.

>> No.19248545

>>19248273
>>19248273
>Both Carlyle and Neetzsche would get published.
I had professional philosophers tell me they wouldn't. Unless by "get published" you mean something completely different from what has been assumed in our discussion.
>Not the guy you were responding. You have no idea what you're talking about.
You didn't give any explanation as to why you think that, so your opinion is worthless

>> No.19248549

>>19247728
I'm not sure what exactly you're trying to prove here. You want to restrict the scope of your claim to shorter academic publishing, which would naturally be subject to the tastes of referees, and then claiming that authors not known for shorter works would have a hard time in this format. This is true, but the inference on your end is apparently that academic standards impede certain types of works, which does not follow at all. The problem is, you've arbitrary excluded the works which would contradict your inference from the discussion. Papers are subject to stricter rules than books, and to write books, you write papers. Your track record will allow you to break new ground provided you've made it clear that you're not a complete pseud. I've seen some really strange passion projects get put into print.

>would surely get published in a "continental " journal (whatever that means)
I have to comment on this. Stop being obtuse, you know exactly what I mean. Do I have to list all the journals that specialize in phenomenology or post-Kantian thought? Theres literally a journal called "Continental Philosophy Review". You should let Springer know you're confused by the existence of their publication, maybe they can help you, but I can't.

>> No.19248556

>>19244980
>idiot thinks philosophical means necessarily modern academicism

>> No.19248570

I have been facing this exact dilemma: either write my theses in a ''free'' form, filling it with a remarkable and potent rhetorical prose, or follow a more academic, ''scientific'' form.
Of course that with the latter form it is much easier to attain success in recognition and publication than the former.

>> No.19248629

>>19248549
>I'm not sure what exactly you're trying to prove here. You want to restrict the scope of your claim to shorter academic publishing
Why do you keep digging this hole for yourself? Read the OP, I never "restricted" anything.
>which would naturally be subject to the tastes of referees, and then claiming that authors not known for shorter works
You can take anyone figure from the history of philosophy who wrote short works of a non-standard format, and guess whether they would be able to get published if they presented their manuscript as we find it today.
>but the inference on your end is apparently that academic standards impede certain types of works, which does not follow at all.
This is more rhetorical legerdemain on your part. Prestigious journals almost always have very strict rules with regard to how their papers ought to be written. Their acceptances rates are extremely low. This is likely not due to mere grammatical errors in the submitted pieces.

>> No.19248662

>>19246896
They didn't say the limitations had to be that limiting, the saying's true to a degree.

>> No.19248719
File: 68 KB, 600x600, they hated jesus.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
19248719

>>19244980
Based post.

Why are so many people seething at this?

>> No.19248781

>>19248629
>"you tried to make your point with regard to "larger non-historical tracts" when I went out of my way to specifically reference *shorter* writings, that is, essays, articles, pamphlets, and so forth."

From your post. This is a restriction by any functional definition of the word. You're saying that you will admit some examples and not others based on stipulations you set out ahead of time. If you want to tell me this isn't a restriction just because you didn't use that exact word, that is a very pedantic use of language.

>You can take anyone figure from the history of philosophy who wrote short works of a non-standard format, and guess whether they would...

So what though? This is an anachronistic non-issue. People in Hume's time could just as easily complain that the days of Scholasticism were gone and that the Summa could never be published "today". Scholastics could lament the fact that nobody published dialogues anymore like the good old days. Just because certain conventions exist for publishing at different times does not mean that there isn't room for work to be done anyway. Nothing of value is learned from pursuing this line of thought.

>Prestigious journals almost always have very strict rules with regard to how their papers ought to be written. Their acceptances rates are extremely low.

This is all true, and again I ask, so what?

>> No.19248785

>>19247337
No problem anon

>> No.19248827

>>19248781
I don't believe this conversion will bring much fruit if it is continued. Some of your points are valid and I can see where you're coming from, but I think we should stop here.

>> No.19249007

>>19243558
David Hume's Essays are basically the gold standard. John Ruskin too

>> No.19249076

>>19248827
As you wish

>> No.19249592

>>19247314
Ok, go write something good with complete and absolute freedom. Once you've failed come back here and tell me I'm right.

>> No.19250185

>>19246811
Living in a college town I saw this again and again. The truth about modern academia (and this will really make people seethe) is that it accommodates a wide range of thinkers. Even in the US where, for example, analytic philosophy is the standard there is a continental phil expert on every faculty (and continentals achieve fame and success such as the Pittsburgh Hegelians and Brian Leiter). The content of their ideas is not what is preventing these people from being published. These people affect radical ideas and fringe movements to frame their identities as outsiders. The dilettante believes that a good essay is the result of a remarkable personality, not of research and hard work.

>> No.19250869

>>19248662
Then it's just a shit platitude and shouldn't be repeated

>> No.19251053

>>19246896
>as a
Stopped there.

>> No.19251061

Montaigne

>> No.19251179

Can't believe no one has recommended smoking weed and writing stream of consciousness.

>> No.19251349

>>19243455
go to school. try writing shit and have your professors review it. write shit on actual philosophical discussion forums (not this dumbass board). get feedback. review, revise. improve.

>> No.19251546

>>19251179
Piss off degenerate.

>> No.19251583

>>19251546
Straight-edges on 4chan? Now I've seen everything.

>> No.19251726

>>19244980
>You are not constrained from creating greater works by usual academic standards, you are only being asked to do hard work.
It’s not hard work though. It’s soulless conformity to uninspired people that have money. I bet you lick your bosses boots and volunteer for overtime just to prove how much of a good worker you are.

>> No.19251829

>>19251726
>soulless conformity
Lol. Is using a shovel to dig a hole soulless conformity? These conventions emerged because they are effective.

>> No.19251865

>>19251829
Yes, now go do mindless construction labor while I pay you nothing and fuck your wife.

>> No.19251881

>>19243455
Learn Logic to a very high degree. Copi's introduction to logic should do the trick then learn rethoric. Classical rethoric for the modern student should work. GL

>> No.19251912

>>19251583
Stream-of-consciousness is just another word for effortless nonsense. It's literally not the art of writing.