The Philosocom Codes for Better Communication -- Professional Ethics (And the Site's Subcategory on Communication)
Updated: Apr 11
(The Directory on Communication:
****************************
A Guide to the Site's Communication Style
This article delves beyond the typical article here. Consider it a philosophy article, but one that reveals the core principles guiding the communication style behind Philosocom content. It's a meta-Philosocom analysis, if you will.
I've developed it through the study of professional settings, and realized that being more professional is the way to go in order to nurture my vision for a respective space and discourse. That I attempt to do while trying to stay clear, at the same time, from the philosophy of safe spaces.
As the founder of Philosocom, my aim is to bridge the gap between writer and reader by fostering clear communication, reduction of coercion and the avoidance of intentional subtext. The point is to allow an effective platform where ideas are exchanged without the intentional need to reduce psychological safety. I want my readers to enjoy high quality philosophy articles without the necessity to derail anything into petty conflicts which waste so much of our energies, and sometimes, our mental health as well. I'm here to spread insight, not ill.
As someone on the autism spectrum, expressing myself, especially in the realm of philosophy, can be challenging. Philosophical discourse often demands intricate language, but delivering the message effectively is equally crucial. Additionally, human relations heavily depend on the "chemistry" between people, and the same applies in philosophical discourse as well.
And since the best way to solve a conflict is to avoid it, I'm not going to socialize with readers as much as I used to in the site's earlier years. No. I'm going to focus on providing the content I believe you deserve by choosing to be a visitor.
Here at Philosocom, the philosopher, a rational being by merit or by training, holds the responsibility to communicate precisely. That is while eliminating the need for readers to rely on outside interpretations. This concept of the "external interpretator" can often fall prey to the authority fallacy. Expertise doesn't guarantee immunity from being proven wrong. Then, why not cut the need for a "middle man"?
For instance, I once challenged a teacher's claim that democracies and republics are mutually exclusive. Their position of authority didn't negate their misconception.
Therefore, my mission extends beyond crafting philosophical content. It also involves ensuring its accessibility, minimizing reliance on future "experts," or those who may simply claim expertise. I value your time, you value your own time. I take some portion of time from you, and I have no desire to aimlessly waste it. Instead, I wish to make the best of it, giving you the additional value you may seek.
A Guide to My Approach
Philosocom serves as a platform for my and my writers' philosophical explorations. These articles document our thought processes, presenting ideas that I believe hold merit, but are not necessarily infallible. Hence why I may use volunteers to review them and provide their own feedbacks. As such, They are open to scrutiny and revision, reflecting the ever-evolving nature of philosophical content towards a clearer understanding of reality.
Let's now delve into the "points/codes" that guide this site's communication. They are not absolute truths, but rather evolving guidelines, constructed and de-constructed dynamically through self-questioning.
1. A Quest for Continuous Improvement: My pursuit of knowledge extends beyond the content itself. I strive to refine my writing, website functionality, and communication style for a clearer and more engaging experience. All my articles are subject to renovation, in order to reduce the immorality that is misinformation and fake news. Furthermore, working towards becoming a more logical being allows me to make Philosocom content more logical as well.
2. Openness to Correction and Growth: Like Socrates' famous statement, "I know that I know nothing," I embrace the possibility of being wrong, and do not deem it an "attack" on my character.
Arguments deserve to be refined, and misconceptions deserve to be corrected. Recognizing and acknowledging errors isn't a contradiction on the path to greater philosophership. Instead, it's a worthy opportunity for both myself, my writers, and the readership to learn more on reality.
As such, apparent contradictions might simply indicate aspects I haven't yet considered. However, due to my tendency for burnout, I may not always have the energy to engage in extensive debates. I do not do it because I like it. I do it to learn. Your understanding and tolerance are appreciated.
3. Commitment to Truth: Philosocom is not a haven for misinformation. Any unintentional errors will be rectified, and I hold myself accountable for my words, as a professional should. Similarly to the guru, the public philosopher's role is to illuminate, and intentional deception undermines this very purpose. You read philosophy to learn about reality, not to be indoctrinated. Hence one of the differences between philosophy and ideology.
4. Humility in the Pursuit of Knowledge: After devising and teaching myself the Drug Lord Fallacy, I am simply a human being who's driven by a desire to comprehend the world and share my insights. I don't intend to be arrogant even if I may seem so to some of you. In reality, I view my readers as equals deserving of respect. Even if our communication attempts aren't always successful, I remain relentlessly committed to fostering a respectful dialogue. What good is a professional philosophy if it doesn't get enforced by the very one/s who devised it?
5. Honesty and Ethical Conduct: Deception and manipulation have no place in philosophy, giving it an advantage over journalism. Just as I despise evil acts, I strive for honest discourse in my interactions with you. I've no desire to waste your time with lies, and I've no desire to waste my energies being lied to.
6. Freedom of Choice: Reading Philosocom is entirely voluntary. Respecting your autonomy means accepting your right to disengage at any point. Your desires lie beyond my control, and that's perfectly alright. People have the right to pursue any interests they'd like, with little to no strings attached. Hence why emotions are often weakness, in what I describe as the Rubinshteinic theory on content.
7. Mutual Respect: My autism, Israeli nationality, disability, and my inability to orthodoxically work, should not hinder a foundation of mutual respect. I've no desire for ad-hominem "attacks" and try myself to use ad-hominem as well. For a better world we should not enable the very behaviors we condemn, by doing to others what was done on us. That is known as "The Silver Rule". For a better exchange of ideas, we should follow "The Golden Rule"
8. Offering Help: Philosophy's essence lies in aiding those who seek it. My goal is not to force my ideas upon anyone. I hope you, the reader, are captivated by the desire to explore, not compelled by obligation. This applies even to my loved ones. I only want to help to those who are willing to be helped, and philosophy is the most practical when it is used to help those in need.
An Invitation to Engage
Thank you for taking the time to delve into the methodological mechanism behind Philosocom. Your thoughts and perspectives are valued here. To engage in further discussion, feel free to create a user account and leave your comments directly on the articles.
For a productive and enriching dialogue, I kindly request that all comments adhere to the following guidelines, that you can find in the site's rule for commenters.
These guidelines may be subject to change in the future. However, I tried my best to make them basic, in order to allow a legitimate and fair freedom of speech which any philosophical discourse deserves.
