"Why is philosophy no longer loved to-day? Why have her children, the sciences*, divided her inheritance, and turned her out of doors, like another Lear, with ingratitude unkinder than the winter's wind?"**
The second branch of Open Philosophy is accessibility as it pertains to comprehension, as opposed to publishing. All too often the meat and potatoes of philosophy is lost on the general public for any number of reasons. The most fixable of these is the use of language.
Some (if not most) philosophers are in the business of creating language. This can be appropriate, however, a lot can be lost in over complicated florid language. Let's start with a term like "qualia." Qualia can be a tough to define term, but its existence is necessary for a huge chunk of discussions in the philosophy of mind. The term qualia refers to the personal experience of any given moment.
Let's say I am looking at a red ball. While looking at the red ball I know what it is like for me, Tim, to experience looking at a red ball. In contrast, a digital camera could be "looking" at a red ball but it would not have the cognizance to say "I am a camera looking at a red ball." Experiencing what it is like to experience something is qualia. Thomas Nagel wrote a fantastic essay on qualia, even though the term was coined after his essay was published it is a good read.
Having to define a concept like qualia every time you are talking about qualia would be a trying task. I am not going to propose that philosophers stop inventing words. As new concepts arise so will new terms to describe those new concepts - so it goes in slang and science. However the muddying up of philosophical thought with unnecessary language is just unfortunate.
A lot of this boils down to the fact that philosophers are notoriously bad writers. This is not the only case, I would argue. With a tinge of condescension often amateur and tenured philosophers alike are guilty of over complicating concepts.
The crux of the issue for me is this: When writing philosophy you must use language as a tool of conveyance for your concept. In doing so you must use the most appropriate means possible. You would not use a Hummer to transport an apple, or a bike to transport a cheetah.
That is what the accessibility of open philosophy is. That is the goal for the website that this is a precursor to.
Next up, open money plausibility.
*All of the sciences as we know them: biology, mathematics, psychology, and so on, were all considered a branches of philosophy before they were accepted as academic fields of their own.
**Will Durant The Mansions of Philosophy 1929
Tuesday, June 30, 2009
Thursday, June 18, 2009
Open Philosophy: Publishing
It has been too long since my last post, but some cancerous family news and my recent engagement have kept me from publishing here; fear not, I have still been working and you can expect to see more posts more regularly.
---
To begin again, the problem that plagues open access publishers is the same that will plague open access philosophers. As highlighted in my previous post, it all comes down to the money. The very idea of Open Access publishing sounds crazy in the wake of so many factions of print media choosing closed access online publication over traditional print media or Open Access media due to record losses in profit.
I have been struggling with how open access publishing works. In the end I have had to accept that while working towards Open Access publishing solutions is not in vain, I will not be able to solve the problem by myself any time soon. Amidst this realization I wondered: what is the philosophical question that we are dealing with here?
Well, it is sort of an ethical question I believe. As a publisher/author interested in concept of "Open Accessibility" you must walk the line of fiscal success and your pride and duty as a publisher. That is to say, you must find out the exact point in which the financial burden of livelihood outweighs your urge/want/need/duty to publish. In addition, to what extent are you willing to cede compensation for accessibility to your published work?
Simply put, as a publisher/author you must analyze first: financial responsibility vs. creative duty/need - and then: compensation vs. accessibility.
One would assume that if you are a publisher or author already, you are in the business because of your passion to create, so the first question can be a relatively easy one, depending on how much of your life you have dedicated (or plan to dedicate) to the profession.
The second question becomes more sticky and complicated. Publishing as a business is like others of its kind where you start off with meager beginnings most of the time. The amateur publisher is usually getting no compensation what-so-ever and so publishing in an open access journal or forum (such as blogspot) can create much needed recognition among those who haunt such places. Indeed, I have heard of quite a few book deals of late who were once bloggers. The benefits of just throwing yourself out there in an Open Access forum have many benefits for little or no investment when it comes to the emerging author/publisher.
That being said, for an established author or publisher this question is not as easy to answer. The question of financial responsibility vs. creative/need or duty can morph into a question of expected standard of living vs. creative duty/need. This is where the real tough question is. It is easy for an amateur like myself to champion Open Access publishing as I have nothing to lose. But where is there compromise between the established author and myself? How can we bridge this chasm?
In a Wired article this month, Clive Thompson proposes that not only the way we publish must change, but also the way we read. In his article The Future of Reading, he cites the success of Wark's book Gamer Theory which was published in print as well as in an open access forum, CommentPress. CommentPress allows for a sort of technological immersion into the reading experience; the combination of the act of reading and the book club. As one reads the book online they can participate in various forums that discuss the topics of the book and, invariably, related tangents. It is this sort of Open Access publishing that lends itself directly to the concept of Open Philosophy.
The nature and purpose of written philosophy is discussion, sites such as CommentPress can only facilitate the accessibility of philosophy to the professor, student, and curious individual alike. Secondly, as it is now, publications in philosophy tend to centralize around whatever topic happens to be the most "sexy" at the time, these types of forums can facilitate such discussion and possibly diversify the the trends of philosophy altogether.
But, I shouldn't get ahead of myself. After all, it is at this point merely speculation.
In my previous post, I did not mean to say that professional philosophers are only in it for the money, I meant more to focus on the fact that Open Access publishing can potentially destabilize a large chunk of a philosopher's income. A good salary as a doctor of philosophy is not easy to come by, and while some are involved in the racket of requiring students to purchase their overpriced text books in the college bookstore, others publish/edit journals, or write books as a way of extra means. CommentPress is awesome, but it is not the end all be all solution to the problem. It is however a light at the end of the tunnel.
---
To begin again, the problem that plagues open access publishers is the same that will plague open access philosophers. As highlighted in my previous post, it all comes down to the money. The very idea of Open Access publishing sounds crazy in the wake of so many factions of print media choosing closed access online publication over traditional print media or Open Access media due to record losses in profit.
I have been struggling with how open access publishing works. In the end I have had to accept that while working towards Open Access publishing solutions is not in vain, I will not be able to solve the problem by myself any time soon. Amidst this realization I wondered: what is the philosophical question that we are dealing with here?
Well, it is sort of an ethical question I believe. As a publisher/author interested in concept of "Open Accessibility" you must walk the line of fiscal success and your pride and duty as a publisher. That is to say, you must find out the exact point in which the financial burden of livelihood outweighs your urge/want/need/duty to publish. In addition, to what extent are you willing to cede compensation for accessibility to your published work?
Simply put, as a publisher/author you must analyze first: financial responsibility vs. creative duty/need - and then: compensation vs. accessibility.
One would assume that if you are a publisher or author already, you are in the business because of your passion to create, so the first question can be a relatively easy one, depending on how much of your life you have dedicated (or plan to dedicate) to the profession.
The second question becomes more sticky and complicated. Publishing as a business is like others of its kind where you start off with meager beginnings most of the time. The amateur publisher is usually getting no compensation what-so-ever and so publishing in an open access journal or forum (such as blogspot) can create much needed recognition among those who haunt such places. Indeed, I have heard of quite a few book deals of late who were once bloggers. The benefits of just throwing yourself out there in an Open Access forum have many benefits for little or no investment when it comes to the emerging author/publisher.
That being said, for an established author or publisher this question is not as easy to answer. The question of financial responsibility vs. creative/need or duty can morph into a question of expected standard of living vs. creative duty/need. This is where the real tough question is. It is easy for an amateur like myself to champion Open Access publishing as I have nothing to lose. But where is there compromise between the established author and myself? How can we bridge this chasm?
In a Wired article this month, Clive Thompson proposes that not only the way we publish must change, but also the way we read. In his article The Future of Reading, he cites the success of Wark's book Gamer Theory which was published in print as well as in an open access forum, CommentPress. CommentPress allows for a sort of technological immersion into the reading experience; the combination of the act of reading and the book club. As one reads the book online they can participate in various forums that discuss the topics of the book and, invariably, related tangents. It is this sort of Open Access publishing that lends itself directly to the concept of Open Philosophy.
The nature and purpose of written philosophy is discussion, sites such as CommentPress can only facilitate the accessibility of philosophy to the professor, student, and curious individual alike. Secondly, as it is now, publications in philosophy tend to centralize around whatever topic happens to be the most "sexy" at the time, these types of forums can facilitate such discussion and possibly diversify the the trends of philosophy altogether.
But, I shouldn't get ahead of myself. After all, it is at this point merely speculation.
In my previous post, I did not mean to say that professional philosophers are only in it for the money, I meant more to focus on the fact that Open Access publishing can potentially destabilize a large chunk of a philosopher's income. A good salary as a doctor of philosophy is not easy to come by, and while some are involved in the racket of requiring students to purchase their overpriced text books in the college bookstore, others publish/edit journals, or write books as a way of extra means. CommentPress is awesome, but it is not the end all be all solution to the problem. It is however a light at the end of the tunnel.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
