Essays

I second this tbqhwy OP

Start with the Greeks and wrap your head around some core concepts like Logic and reasoning

also your argument about how people look at information different is essentially a marxist point of view, you might want to read up on that too

I agree with the people saying nicely that this stuff isn't interesting or new. you just have more reading and learning to do.

i know, but in these first two im just making a solid foundation to build my viewpoints on. Also, in the essay on identity politics I think I definitely do raise a new point that the people having this debate don't acknowledge. Thanks for the feedback though, I'll be sure to read up more on language philosophers.

I also think this makes some of these ideas more accessible, relevant, and relatable for readers who are not into philosophy.

you establish a weak premise from a weak base of knowledge, weak in terms of the kind of point it is, weak in terms of originality (I'm not saying it alone is a virtue, but you're just reinventing the wheel, less well than those that came before,) and weak in terms of establishment, and then spin it into something that doesn't necessarily follow

why are we to believe people think differently because they have different information, or they process it differently? what if people have divergent goals due to genetics. what if people experience inherent gain on agenetic level by subconsciously omitting information types, or certain styles of thinking? what if some people literally don't even think, and just want to kill each other and get lots of sex? (this seems pretty common.)

what extent does instinct rule us, and how does that differ between individuals where it differs, is that something the individual controlled, or is it genetics? CAN people even change? (most psych literature says no.)

you don't address any of these. it's not apparent you've ever considered them.

then you tie it into a hasty x thus y conclusion.

it's obvious you have a shallow knowledge base. there's nothing wrong with that. it's how we identify weaknesses and move on. but until you acknowledge that it's one of your fundamental weaknesses, insisting that "I built a solid foundation" when you did not, you won't be able to improve.

when we say read more, we literally mean read more. like, read nonstop, four hours a day, for seven more years, and you'll realize how insufficient everything is. you shouldn't be confident. never be confident.

also, there's no such thing as accessible ideas. there are only incomplete ideas that make idiots feel safe and secure, because their brain is tired.

Heidegger agrees :)

of course there are plenty other factors and things I didn't account for (most of the time deliberately: I assume some things because determinism basically kills all conversations ever). I also know that I'm not knowledgable at all.

you can't talk about what you're talking about credibly without understanding

1. bureaucratic processes
2. moral hazard
3. neurology
4. political systems and its history
5. human evolutionary incentives
6. a little bit of linguistics
7. genetics
8. sky's the limit

you can write a better article on a more focused topic with less knowledge, but your topic is quite broad.

if you want a good idea of how to focus on narrow topics with your same mindset, try reading neoreactionary writers. if you want something broad, the way you seem to be aiming for, you can give someone like moldbug a try, but to develop broad ideas takes hundreds of pages.

start smaller.

determinism kills certain schools of thought that ramble on aimlessly. determinism is where quite a few schools of thought begin. basically, anything neurological begins with determinism

I'm not saying you should start with grand theory, or that you should account for everything. but you're writing about a very broad topic without having established a very specific set of criteria to make a larger point.

if you wanted to make a point about gaps in human cognition, for example, you could relay some brief information about the limited number of objects a normal human olds in working memory, give a concrete example of failure, explain that it isn't trainable, and THEN bring it to a political example.

that would be an example of solid, focused, writing, that assumes the reader is otherwise well read o nthe subjects (so that you don't have to name drop a bunch of things,) whle simultaneously having the potential to bring a new idea to light without needing to reconfirm an entire theoretical framework.

that also just makes it readable.

maybe you could petition gookmoot to start a composition/rhetoric board.

you might also consider high school debate (for all its flaws.)

I see what you mean. I'm mostly writing to a target audience of tumblristas and edgelords, to try to make a synthesis of their thesis and antithesis (hope i didnt butcher Hegel too much there). So it wasn't really aimed at a philosophical/academic audience, which would explain why everybody who actually knows anything thinks it's shit.

>We live in a world that everybody experiences in the same way
REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE how do you know?? HOWWW??

this is also why i deliberately avoid referencing Lockes singular concepts and composite concepts. I try to convey them, but I don't want to explicitly mention them to not overcomplicate things for a new audience.

sorry man, just an assumption for the sake of being able to make a half decent argument. I wouldn't want to have to write a 1000 page book on skepticism to base my stuff on (yet) so I'm just assuming some things that 99% of people would assume without second thought.

>plenty has been said about it already, and I’m absolutely not an expert

should have left off here fambly

>You and I can both agree that 2+2 = 4. This is a perfectly logical statement that everyone will come to. How can peoples internal systems differ when such integral components such as logic are universal?

Lack of information. You and I both have all the relevant facts about "1", "2", "+" and "=", we don't have close to all relevant knowledge about "the universe" or "the meaning of life". Lacking the perfect knowledge to definitively answer such questions, we reach instead for intuitions and feelings, which are idiosyncratic to our temperaments.

analytic writing won't appeal to those types of people for the very reason they're on tumblr. they're idiots. logic is an iq intense process. they shirk it because they're incapable. there's no better way to teach them than there is to run a ps4 on a gameboy. it's a hardware issue.

also, don't ever read hegel. just don't.

you either write for retards, or you don't. you can't go using locke, AND hegel, AND neurology in a single 4 paragraph essay, not even if you're writing for geniuses.

focus your content to what you know. your essay is on a wild goose chase.

it's not a good assumption. and you don't make a good argument with it.

like I said, use a single concrete example of neurology, or something, to reinforce a SINGLE idea. that's a good single subject essay, if you structure it well.

you're not a genius. you're a high school student. don't write grand theory. everyone can tell your age.

if you want to write a grand theory where every intellectual point reinforces the other, it will literally require hundreds of pages, and you're having trouble uggling 5 paragraphs. work up to it

What I mean is, that at some point everybody has sufficiënt data on issues such as wealth distribution, or whether minorities are oppressed, and then the argument becomes philosophical. But neither party realizes that and they just keep on giving endless amounts of data for their point, without realizing that no data is going to convince the other side. But if both parties do realize it, you can take the argument into the abstract, which is actually constructive. This is why I aim the essays at a broad audience: I want to teach people this. I think it's quite relevant, with BLM and feminism going in a weird direction

I didn't read Hegel :P I read the book "History of philosophy" which gave me a relatively okay idea of what kinds of philosophy are out there.

I also have a relatively high IQ and I started thinking about this stuff because of some MRA youtube videos :P I hope there are at least some people there who could find it interesting!

people keep repeating information because it gets them what they want, be it social status for saying the right thing, a passing grade, etc.

people know they won't convince the other side. they don't care. argumentation is fundamentally an extension of war. they don't want to be constructive. tehy want to kill someone.

mistake umber 2. you're using a process that you read about second hand, then presuming to educate others on the issue.

without meaning to be rude, no one cares what you think. even if you have a high iq, you're just a kid, and it shows. you have no idea what's out there.

focus your writing down to getting the ability to write four or five paragraphs well. don't presume to go beyond your ability.

I'm only engaging with this because I like helping people with their composition skills. I have no interest in your actual ideas, and I doubt anyone else here does.

>that at some point everybody has sufficiënt data on issues such as wealth distribution, or whether minorities are oppressed

Possibly but we've not reached anything like that point yet.

>without realizing that no data is going to convince the other side.

This is because humans don't reach conclusions thru logic, they reach conclusions
thru intuition and then use logic and reason to provide plausible excuses for why they believe the way they do. Why? Because that's what people do, or more specifically, because that's what the "narrator" we call our "train of thought" or "sense of self" does: it confabulates reasons for why we do the things we do in order to preserve a chronology of events and preserve the illusion of control.

>But if both parties do realize it, you can take the argument into the abstract, which is actually constructive.

So you want to imagine a future state where concepts such as these are as uncontroversial as "1+1=2"? As a kind of thought experiment? Well then I would expect the general consensus to lead various states to enact legislation to "fix" whatever problem it was (and presumably they would have sufficiently infallible knowledge to actually fix the problem and not make things worse as state interventions tend to). It would be seen on a par with public education or healthcare.