Submit an article for publication
Everyone,
We are now seeking submissions of original philosophical articles for publication on our articles site. You can post your submission by sending a private message to one of the editors, and you can include the article as an attachment or as text. If you prefer, you can post your article in this thread as an attachment.
The articles should be of high quality and should be written for a general educated readership. If the topic discussed requires specialized knowledge, we expect a basic introduction in the article. All academic and topical articles will be considered as long as they contain philosophical content. All submissions will be reviewed by our editorial staff.
We look forward to receiving your submissions!
Editors:
@Hanover, @jamalrob, @Baden, @Michael, @Benkei
We are now seeking submissions of original philosophical articles for publication on our articles site. You can post your submission by sending a private message to one of the editors, and you can include the article as an attachment or as text. If you prefer, you can post your article in this thread as an attachment.
The articles should be of high quality and should be written for a general educated readership. If the topic discussed requires specialized knowledge, we expect a basic introduction in the article. All academic and topical articles will be considered as long as they contain philosophical content. All submissions will be reviewed by our editorial staff.
We look forward to receiving your submissions!
Editors:
@Hanover, @jamalrob, @Baden, @Michael, @Benkei
Comments (64)
Is it only articles you're looking to publish? How about philosophical poems, short stories, dialogues, etc? Would things like that also be acceptable?
For the articles, do you have any parameters in terms of length, structure, and so forth that you're looking for? Thanks!
We'll be setting up a thread here on the forum for artistic work, and we don't intend to publish poems or stories on the Articles site, at least to begin with. Our vision is of a philosophical journal tackling issues in academic philosophy, but one that is accessible to educated lay-people and sometimes relevant to topical concerns. If we do decide to publish poetry or stories in the future it will be in the context of a site that has built up a solid archive of substantial philosophical articles.
As for length, between around 2000 and 5000 words is good, but that won't be strict: the first article, published two days ago, is over 6000 words, and I can imagine shorter pieces being sometimes suitable too.
Some time ago (must be over a year) I typed "Yet another mind-body hypothesis" in.
Not really sure if it's appropriate as an article here (might need a cleanup for one), but there is material for discussion (and it has pictures :)).
I suppose the gist of it is that, regardless of realism idealism substance-dualism physicalism panpsychism whatever, some of these problems may be inherently intractable, and so accounting for them seems more fruitful than trying to explain them away.
So what happened ?
I have more questions about this, here:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/4858/critical-thinking-and-creativity-reading-and-writing
' This forum might be a good place to start developing writing skills in argument.
Here's an example. It also reconstructs arguments in to logical structure. Premises and Conclusions.
How great is that !?
http://articles.thephilosophyforum.com/the-argument-for-indirect-realism
How interesting would it be to ask the author about the whole philosophical process.
From initial idea, reading, note taking to end product.'
----------
Understanding the whole process would be invaluable.
We have book discussions regarding interpretation and understanding what we have read. The content.
Why not conversations On Writing ?
I would be interested to hear about how we progress from critical reading, thinking to creatively writing.
Including the practical aspects of note-taking. How do writers tackle writing articles such as the above ?
Is there a reason why there aren't more articles ?
Any authors who would care to share the process so that others might try....'
We're seeking submissions of original articles you can PM to us for consideration. Please do not submit anything published elsewhere.
Moreover, what about rights to ideas conveyed via normal forum conversations?
Greylorn
The terms and conditions of this site are described here: https://thephilosophyforum.com/page/terms-of-service
I don't think we can offer you more by way of a legal opinion that you could rely upon.
I found a similar idea, as a learning resource, here:
https://1000wordphilosophy.com/about/
'1000-Word Philosophy: An Introductory Anthology is a constantly-growing collection of original essays on important philosophical topics. These essays are introductions rather than argumentative articles. Each essay is as close to 1000 words (while never going over!) as the author can get it. A 1000-word essay takes between five and ten minutes to read.'
Copyright issues are made clear:
'All essays are original contributions to 1000-Word Philosophy and are published with permission from the authors, unless otherwise noted. Contributing authors retain any and all copyright interests in their individual works. 1000-Word Philosophy holds copyright to the collective work. Please do not reproduce this work in part or in full without appropriate attribution.'
Can something similar not be done here ?
You mean in terms of the making the copyright clear? I imagine so. We'll need to look into it as we develop the article section, which has just recently been put back up. Cheers. :up:
Quoting Amity
Can something similar not be done here ?
Quoting Baden
No. Not just the clarity on copyright. It elaborates on why people might want to contribute; it motivates.
It discusses acceptance rates, style and more. See 'Submissions':
https://1000wordphilosophy.com/submissions/
I think the inclusion of essays as an 'ideal introduction' for beginners would be welcome on TPF.
I wish you and the team well with your continuing efforts:
Quoting jamalrob
[ Request to mods: please remove the thread I started:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/8327/on-the-articles-section. No need to double up, thanks ! ]
I can make a change to the template so that the copyright on articles shows the author instead of The Philosophy Forum as it does now. I'm not sure what else we can do regarding copyright.
1000wordphilosophy.com looks great, but personally I don't think we need to restrict articles to 1000 words.
I agree.
Just as you said:
Quoting jamalrob
Quoting Amity
Why? If you like the 1000wordphilosophy project, why not just put a link in Resources section? What would be the point of attempting to reproduce the same thing here?
Besides, I think you vastly overestimate our resources. 1000wordphilosophy apparently solicits their articles from professional philosophers. There are hardly any professionals participating on this forum.
Yes. I could and might still link it there.
It wasn't about reproducing it here but as an additional initiative or component to the Articles section.
Quoting SophistiCat
Quite possibly but then again it is the Articles section calling for more indepth stuff.
What if one of my articles is more or less 35000 words long? XD
Should I reduce it to what? 10000 is enough?
I thought only Twitter and Facebook engaged in this kind of censorship!!!! Why not post all articles and let the readers rate their worth????
The more it is denied any audience!!!!
[b][i]DISCLAIMER:
I only submited my article for publication, but the editors still have not contacted me about it, even though, I said - to them - that even if it wasn't approved, I would like a response.[/i][/b]
I thought you didn't take my article proposal seriously and so I just decided to send it to the e-mail address that you gave me. If there was any misunderstanding, I apologize.
Quoting jamalrob
Thank you. :smile:
This is a work of friend of mine who lives and works as an architect in Romania.He published his work at a small publishing house in Iassy, Romania. He requested me to help him make his book visible on specialized sites since he doesn't speak English; he would like comments and validation of his work on any level.Following is a copy of a summary of his book.
Quantum mechanics at work. "The smaller a volume of space is, the more energy it contains."
Both are counter-intuitive, and yet absolutely true.
Provided I live that long, and this site does, too.
Hey so, I don't know how to attach files in this forum.
But if you could visit my medium account (sorry to be "marketing" my work this way), some of my stuff is free to read, if you like any of those articles, feel free to publish them? Or if you have any suggestions as to how we can best communicate on this please let me know.
https://giorgivachnadze.medium.com/
https://www.academia.edu/42097007/A_Phenomenological_Critique_of_Existential_Feeling_Affect_as_Temporality
https://www.academia.edu/41670442/A_Phenomenological_Critique_of_Mindfulness
https://www.academia.edu/41358275/Husserls_Challenge_to_Merleau_Pontys_Embodied_Intersubjectivity
https://www.academia.edu/44497152/Personal_Construct_Theory_as_Radically_Temporal_Phenomenology_George_Kelly_s_Challenge_to_Embodied_Intersubjectivity
It was read. We decided no. Sorry for the delay.
Thanks for the answer.
So please note, that on January 3 or thereabouts, of 2022, if I live to see that day, I'll submit an article here.
I shall leave it to you to determine if this a is threat or a promise. (Haha, so to speak.)
I remember.. someone who seemed so sure that god did not exist.. which got me wondering.. What did he mean by the word - GOD.. because.. with out a clear definition.. the word could mean anything.. I needed to ask him.. what is the word you use referring to.. for the sake of clarity ?
It is what the word represents that is important.. not the word itself.. We need to ask.. is it a symbol.. a metaphor or a noun.. according to your understanding..? If it is a symbol.. what does it represent..? Does it represent something that we can experience.. i.e. ..Like experiencing a transformation of our consciousness to a higher level.. or is it a metaphor that expresses our perception of the underlying unity of all things.. the Infinite and Eternal.. the foundation of all things.. mysterious in its complexity.. far beyond our comprehension..?
Since we know.. for a fact.. there are things way beyond our understanding.. and things that we can never know..How could any one believe they KNOW God doesn't exist.. ?
Unless they mean... .They do not believe that THIER UNDERSTANDING of the word GOD... exists.. which is another thing entirely.. and seems a very strange position to take.... Why not just change their understanding..?
That there are things that will always be beyond human understanding.. is a FACT.. not a belief.. This was proved by Kurt Godel's Incompleteness Theorem .. and many great physicists also reached that same conclusion.. The universe appears TO BE so strange and goes far beyond the way we can think.. The picture that cutting edge physics paints is.. the universe appears to be a living entity.. just and teeth and bones are living.. yet appear life-less. CONCLUSION - W e are not even close to understanding the big picture.. and we never will...
All living things have a limited understanding.. and we are no different.. Just because the world.. as we experience it.. is beyond the comprehension of a door-mouse.. it doesn't mean our world does not exist.. it just means.. the door mouse brain has its limitations.. IT CANNOT DETECT THE EXISTENCE OF THE COMPLEXITIES OF OUR WORLD.. OR UNDERSTAND OUR KNOWLEDGE AND OUR SCIENCE... JUST AS WE CAN'T DETECT SOMETHING ELSE EXISTING.. THAT IS FAR ABOVE US (metaphorically speaking.. of course)
EVIDENCE OF A HIGHER STATE OF CONSCIOUSNESS.. TO THE DOOR-MOUSE.. WOULD BE US.. because our existence goes far beyond the mouse's understanding.. so it cannot make sense of it..
Try explaining the internet to a door-mouse.. it will just look at you wide-eyed.. and go.... "DUH! .... NOTHING LIKE THAT COULD EVER EXIST".
BUT WOULD HE BE RIGHT... OR WRONG..?
“Not only is the Universe stranger than we think, it is STRANGER THAN WE CAN THINK.” - said Werner Heisenberg
As Heinz Pagels, a theoretical physicist explains: “The visible world is the invisible organization of energy.” - "This UNTHINKABLE void converts itself into the plenum of existence - a necessary consequence of physical laws. Where are these laws written into that void? What "tells" the void that it is pregnant with a possible universe? It would seem that even the void is subject to law, A LOGIC THAT EXISTS PRIOR TO SPACE AND TIME.”
”Mind and intelligence are woven into the fabric of our universe in a way that ALTOGETHER SURPASSES OUR UNDERSTANDING.” wrote Freeman Dyson
Albert Einstein said - "To sense that behind anything that can be experienced there is SOMETHING THAT OUR MIND CAN NOT GRASP and whose beauty and sublimity reaches us only indirectly and as a feeble reflection, this is religiousness. In this sense I am religious."
“God is a metaphor for THAT WHICH TRANSCENDS ALL LEVELS OF INTELLECTUAL THOUGHT. It's as simple as that. The Ultimate, Unqualified Mystery is BEYOND HUMAN EXPERIENCE” - Joseph Campbell, Thou Art That: Transforming Religious Metaphor
-
Interesting. I don't think anyone's really tackled such a niche topic before.
Thanks Josh. On the face of it, something like a critique of mindfulness might have some potential, and personally I'm interested in phenomenology, but ideally, articles should be accessible to intelligent and curious lay-people, those who aren't familiar with the literature.
Stream-of-consciousness style writing isn't all that bad, but it's not suitable for a serious philosophical article. There might be very interesting and useful ideas in your post, but they're not likely to see much daylight given their dressings. My advice is to pick a single idea that you think is important and that you wish to defend, and start a thread that introduces the idea and gives a supporting argument. Making a series of posts to defend the premises of your article's titular conclusion is probably the best way to give it air-time and critical attention.
Could you expatiate on why my article was rejected - simply for a better assessment if it was my demerit during the development process, or if it was something from the administration -?
Publishing in such journals may be difficult if the author is not in academia. This has been discussed elsewhere in the forum. Good luck.
Thanks for the answer.
A few of the reasons:
(1) The argumentative style was overblown, lots of grandstanding.
(2) you talked around points without making them clearly. Say what you'll say, say it, then tell us you've said it. Tell us why what you're writing about matters.
(3) the essay was poorly formatted and layed out on the page. - eg your use of whitespace+linebreaks and numbered lists in p 1->6.
(4) the philosophical content touches on an obvious case of the naturalistic fallacy without addressing it. If you're going to do something like naturalise morality, you need an answer to why it's not the fallacy.
(5) You'd previously submitted it as the original post of a thread.
A few sections aren't arguments or clear intuition pumps, eg. the "life-egoism" graph on p2 does not clearly relate to any of the argument before or after it. If it only clearly relates to you it's not good communication.
I'll provide more examples of the points if you like.
How ironic is the fact that you were the spokesman chosen - by you - to explain why my article was denied. Your ego was so frail, that you felt obliged, in some way, to prove to me - and to yourself - that somehow, you still have power. Again, you prove me correct, and you, wrong.
Quoting fdrake
That is called "romanticism" and was used extensively by the majority of philosophers between the 18th and 19th centuries. If a reader of my article fails to interpret the vision being presented there, he should not be reading a philosophy article; let alone be in a philosophy forum.
Quoting fdrake
The individuals who have "read" my article most likely do not know how the creation and structuring of thought works in an article. If they don't happen to know, Hegel had already created the three divisions of the demonstration of an argument:
[i]Thesis;
Antithesis;
Synthesis.[/i]
And in my article, I made it a point to make this division explicit for the reader by using subtitles for each part of the argument.
Quoting fdrake
Jamalrob specified to me that the formatting was not important given the fact that if approved, a whole new formatting would be directed to the article, so I let me write and structure the article in a way that seemed most appealing and academic to me.
Quoting fdrake
It is these points of dubious tendency that make me discourage having my writings published here.
The naturalistic "fallacy", here, in your "justification", proves vacant of support and foundation.
Quoting fdrake
The discussion had taken place without the knowledge that it was necessary to publish it - the article - in the specific section for articles.
The rules and guidelines are not explicit and are left in the background. Anyone unaware of how the forum works - like me, when I decided to post the article - would have no idea what the rules are for submitting an academic text.
Quoting fdrake
I am grateful if you can give me more material to show to others how the intellect of the forum administration is biased, impartial, and incapable of plurality of thoughts. Feel free to submit more.
I don't know why you or some others are concerned about their articles being accepted for the actual articles section because we can read your article anyway. Also, a couple of people have submitted articles by link. So, really by the time any were put into the section of articles most people would have read them already.
About a month ago, Hippyhead had ideas that the whole site should be altered with the articles being the main one. I strongly disliked this idea because I thought that it would set up a system where the people with accepted articles would be seen as of higher rank. I said to Hippyhead that I didn't like the whole idea of article submissions because it set up a power dynamic of people having their work accepted or rejected.
So, what I am saying is that I don't think that you need be concerned about your article not being 'accepted' because it is on the site. People have only to log into the Section on Articles Submitted and your article on Egoism is there, waiting to be read. Also, on my phone, the font is clearer than the one in the official articles section.
:up:
To be fair, the passive aggressive reason I chose to relay these points now was that I was lenient with you over another mod issue, and I felt you were rude with me for it. It was a nice confluence of no one wanting to do it and me having a shitty reason to do it. I am, however, relaying honest feedback to you (and it's not just mine). If you decide to use that feedback to improve the article, I guess you win!
Quoting Gus Lamarch
If you seemed willing to address the issues I've highlighted I'd be more willing to provide you with further feedback. The essay has structural problems; why are you arguing what you're arguing? Tell us! And tell us why it matters! It should be relatively easy to tell what you're arguing about and why it matters, from the essay, even if I don't understand the terms' intricacies. You need to give readers a desire to buy in to study your work, you get closer to that by being clear.
Quoting Gus Lamarch
One vital part of a discussion paper which advances an argument is anticipating common counterarguments against your claims. As I understood the major thrust of your article, it runs something like: (1) Human values derive from an inherent structure called the ego (2) This inherent structure characterises these values (3) It is a perversion (of modern civilisation) not to adhere to the values derived only from the inherent structure. What is good is explained in terms of an inherent structure of the ego; at face value an appeal to nature. I'm not saying it's necessarily a bad thing to do that, I'm saying that you should be aware that that would be a common way of dismissing your argument. Addressing this point would strengthen your argument considerably.
It's quite like why Anscombe devoted a lot of words to Hume's fork, and introduced the concept of relative bruteness in order to make room for her ethics. She knew what mattered to her enemies, and why it mattered to them.
If you understand why an accusation of the naturalistic fallacy doesn't apply to your article, don't spend your time arguing with me about it, put it in your article.
The quality of my article had already been brought up by the comments in the discussion about it. The point is that I would like to "make it official" in the forum, as a mere symbol of "registration".
However, as I found in the refutation of the administration's arguments, the forum is biased, and contrary to the plurality of ideas. It was great that these points were made explicit.
I hope that less people are deluded by the false proposal to leave their thoughts public, that this forum sells to its users.
The forum itself is very good. It is its structuring compounds that rot it from the inside out...
Quoting Jack Cummins
More than 10 articles have been submitted for approval by the administration since the "articles" tab was created. However, the only one to be "accepted" and published was- as expected - written by one of the administrators ...
If this future to the forum was to be adopted, it would perish.
Quoting fdrake
You, as you normally do, completely ignored my last answers about why I use the "romantic" style to write my works:
(1): The search for understanding what the writer wants to pass on, is the total and unique responsibility of the reader. I do not write a guide for lazy children who are unable to read a text, and do not seek to interpret its true meaning behind the words recorded there.
(2): The article, and more importantly, the subject discussed in it, must be exclusively important to its writer. The article, after being finalized, exists and is published. It will be captivating and seek its readers, among those who truly seek to study and reflect on the subject treated in it. The text is a record of information, not sharing it. The transfer of knowledge and ideas arises from the spontaneous interaction of another individual with the content of the article.
(3): The text must be a reflection of the writer himself and therefore must be clear to its own writer; the text must be objective so that the writer can more easily express himself;
What you, like everyone else, decide not to understand, is the point that my writings are not for others, but for me. The text exists, therefore, obviously that it can be read by someone else. If that other individual is interested and seeks to reflect, or even refute my view, great! The last thing I want, are the opinions of those who do not want to understand what I say. The point of having it published in the "articles" sections is only that it has the potential of being read by those who want to read it.
Quoting fdrake
Quoting fdrake
I have to say anything else for this bit?
Quoting fdrake
My article does not exist to defend itself against attacks. It exists to express a hypothesis supported by an in-depth studies in history, language and culture:
[i]You write a work;
The work is attacked;
You write a defense for your work.[/i]
Do you understand now, how the philosophical dialogue between writers is built?
It's 2 am where I am, so I am becoming ridiculous reading and writing on this site at this time. So, I have just read what you have written quickly, so I apologise for that.
However, what my thoughts are is that I know that you are writing in the tradition of the romantic philosophers but I am not sure that the way that they write would be accepted nowadays. The whole academic culture has changed. I am certainly not saying it is better.
One reason why I prefer creative writing to academic writing is the whole way in which research is seen, and it is a lot worse in other disciplines from philosophy. In some disciplines absolutely every sentence has to be backed up by some research study. We are not talking about merely avoiding plagiarism but about having to find a study as evidence in order to make a point at all. It is as if the author is not allowed a personal voice at all. So, philosophy and this forum offers so much relative scope really.
The other thought that I have is that there is a big difference between writing for oneself and writing for others. When I write in my notebooks alone that is usually my writing for myself but I know that it probably needs to be different if I was to present it to others. I have not ever submitted for publication, but I think that getting writing published is tough.
Anyway, I won't go on because I am not sure that you will think much of my answer, and I really am tired, so good night. Also, I am not sure that this dialogue will help either of us in the eyes of anyone on the forum.
Posting an essay here as an OP seems not to be unusual. So there must be a need for recognition beyond simple participation on a forum.
You're a joke for a moderator...
It seems your ego is really resentful of your argumentative defeat in our last discussion.
But so be it: - To say that this forum has administration is as ridiculous as to say that Man is altruistic!
About decade ago I published it at some philosophy forums. After that, I had made to my article some recent changes.
Can I publish it here?
I'm not a moderator, but I don't see why not. I'd be interested.
The aching of your head is the aching of your inner mental magical world. Not of yourself. A pain in the ass would be pain of yourself, yourself being your body. You experience pain inside as you experience vision as being in the outer world, or phantom pain in the ass (would be rather rare though...). Doesnt take away the fact that pains no nice. Head ache is a way for the inner world to tell you something. That it has thought enough for example.