Benthams main problem isn’t his writing style or arguments. It’s that he is a caricature of philosophy. He takes a few simple axioms, turns them in an elaborate argument for something ridiculous and refuses to deviate from those axioms regardless of how insane the conclusion is. And because he has the arrogance of a guy studying philosophy in his early 20’s, he’s not open to criticism. He prioritizes turning ethics in to a math problem over reality. The map is more important than the territory.
Yes, I would say that's the main problem. The adverbial one is how you lose people. And I totally respect your disagreement about not breaking it up. Fighting with an editor is often good thing. I will be posting a response to your post tomorrow and I appreciate you taking the time to read it.
I appreciate it! Your version deletes a lot that is in my article, so it's a bit hard to precisely haggle over which edits are worth it. I don't like breaking it up into two different pieces because I find readers are never interested in reading a two part series, and the article wasn't that long.
Benthams main problem isn’t his writing style or arguments. It’s that he is a caricature of philosophy. He takes a few simple axioms, turns them in an elaborate argument for something ridiculous and refuses to deviate from those axioms regardless of how insane the conclusion is. And because he has the arrogance of a guy studying philosophy in his early 20’s, he’s not open to criticism. He prioritizes turning ethics in to a math problem over reality. The map is more important than the territory.
Thanks. Though I like my version better.
So you're not going to engage? I'm just trying to elevate the discourse.
I will try to incorporate some of the writing suggestions--e.g. about adverbial clauses.
Yes, I would say that's the main problem. The adverbial one is how you lose people. And I totally respect your disagreement about not breaking it up. Fighting with an editor is often good thing. I will be posting a response to your post tomorrow and I appreciate you taking the time to read it.
I appreciate it! Your version deletes a lot that is in my article, so it's a bit hard to precisely haggle over which edits are worth it. I don't like breaking it up into two different pieces because I find readers are never interested in reading a two part series, and the article wasn't that long.