The Philosocom Codes for Better Communication
Updated: Jun 5
This article is going to be a bit different. See it as a philosophy article, but one that presents the philosophy, Philosocom strives to follow as a blog. A meta-Philosocom article, per se!
The point of this article is to better explain to you, my communication as a philosopher, in order to avoid as many stigmas and incorrections as possible, that will lead to unfortunate miscommunications (or misunderstandings between writer and reader).
As an Asperger's, communication isn't always easy, and that may be especially true when it comes to philosophizing. Philosophizing, or the production of philosophy-based content, may require not only a complex language, but also one that will deliver its message effectively.
As a rational being, the philosopher is best suited to deliver his words effectively without requiring the reader to rely on external interpretations.
An "external interpretator" refers to one who claims to be an authority, or expert, on a specific philosopher's writings/teachings. The problem with this concept, comes from the authority fallacy, which argues that the existence of a person as an authority or expert, does not mean that he or she is always right.
An example: I once disproved a teacher's claim at school, that democracies and republics are necessarily different things. The fact that said teacher was wrong, didn't, of course, make them right just because they were a teacher.
Therefore, before my eventual demise, I must not only write philosophy, but also write it in a way that people will understand, with little-to-no need to depend themselves on future experts (or those who claim to be experts, of course).
I do not like the academy, and I do not want it to have exclusivity, or the "final say" on my writing. I believe it is essentially a corporation, or business, that strives to earn revenue, and grant grades, degrees, and jobs to students, rather than be an open forum for discussion, wonder, and critique. I wonder, if some of you can testify to what I claimed?
Let's begin with the points/codes. Take note, they are not absolute truths, but simply guidelines that are prone to change (as much of reality, is prone to change and logical doubt):
(The points can be applied to the writings of the blog's guest writers, too, but only generally, as they are just external contributions from the unaffiliated):
* The articles on Philosocom are discoveries, recordings, or outcomes of my thoughts. I do not pretend that these findings are absolutely correct. However, they do strive to be correct. This means that even though they strive to be true, they can be proven wrong, too.
* In the name of better contribution, I strive to improve in any possible and reasonable way I can. This may apply not only to writings but also to things related to the site itself, to my behavior while communicating, and, of course, to having clearer, better communication.
* I may stand corrected, even by myself, when it comes to certain arguments, that I realize to be incorrect. The philosopher must have an open mind, because a current impression, isn't necessarily knowledge ("I know that I know nothing," said Socrates).
That's also because, said content does not pretend to be the truth, but simply strives to be one. Admitting one's mistake is not hypocritical.If you happen to see an oxymoronic-like contradiction, then it should be an indication that I was wrong or that I am unaware of it, yet. Also, I might disagree when a counterargument is presented.
You need to convince, which in return might lead to a discussion. Since I suffer from chronic fatigue, a form of medical condition, I might not always have the energy to argue. Please try to understand and tolerate.
* This means that I will not purposefully deceive through misinformation. Philosocom is not a fake news site by intention, and if it happened to have provided misinformation, then it was done purely by mistake. I must stand corrected, and likewise, I must take responsibility for my public actions. The aim of the philosopher is to help, and purposefully deceiving, is purposefully hypocritical.
* I am not in love with myself, and ultimately, I am just a human being who wants to better understand this world and share my findings with you. Arrogance, condescension, and so on, if felt, are incorrect impressions of my writings, as I do not see myself as superior to any of my readers.
We are equals here, and thus, I strive to develop equal respect upon contact. Such communication might not necessarily succeed between either side, but I will attempt to have it, regardless.
* The honest philosopher is not a bad person. An evil person might have hidden motives, might be purposefully dishonest/sketchy, and will even resort to actively scamming people. I despise such acts of evil, and wish to avoid them in general, as I do with you.
* There are no reading-based commitments. This is a voluntary operation, which means anyone can read and leave without having strings attached. I should respect the desire of any of my readers, to stop reading Philosocom altogether, simply because their desires are not within my field of authority; they're in your hands.
* I expect to be treated as an equal as well. The fact that I'm autistic, from Israel, disabled, and unemployed as a result, should not get in the way of equal treatment. That applies, of course, vice versa.
* As a philosopher, my goal is not to torment, but to help those who want to be helped.It would be foolish and rude of me to force my writing on anyone. I hope that my readers will come and read out of desire, and not because they feel forced. That applies even for my family members.
I appreciate your time. If you'd like to comment on this article, you can create your own account by signing up and simply writing your comment.
Thus far, my only requests on the matter, are to be respectful, and not spam. I might change it in the future, since nothing/very little is certain, but I think that these requests are appropriate and reasonable.