dfindley

Hey ;O) I actually turned to Wikipedia for a cursory review of the 'Academy', which was primarily historical. We remember the term traces back to Plato's school of philosophy, the 'Academy'. The institution has evolved since then, through the Hellenistic period, the Renaissance, the Enlightenment.. what exactly the 'Academy' is in any context is probably largely determined by the contemporary, relevant culture. The Catholic Church and Scientific Method have probably been the most influential. American Bureaucracy and social-liberal culture probably exerts a lot of influence. What is the Academy, exactly? Who sets the standard? ...and I understand that peer-review is an important factor in academia -- a sort of formalized 'Dialectic' -- but to presume that individuals are discouraged to think or publish for themselves, I think, is in poor taste. Individuals are, after all, the primary drivers in the intellectual pursuits. 1 -- I don't know. that point hasn't ever been a real dwelling point for me. I thought (maybe day dreamed,) all sorts of different responses. 2 -- I tend to be very idealistic when I think of a career in academia. Unfortunately I get the impression that it is more and more resembling early Christian monastic schools. It is not the Church but the social-liberal and bureaucratic culture, and the mass of plebes that flock to it and swell its ranks. It is corrupt when it begins to emphasize 'points' 'scores' 'ranks' 'grades' as standards for success. These things can have their value, but the real significance lies in progress and innovation. When the latter is just blatantly ignored in favor for the prior, then I think we can say that the contemporary American 'Academy' has fallen into corruption. And, in my recent experience e-mailing maybe a couple dozen departments, academic philosophy may very possibly suffer it the most. No, I don't want to blog :OP

.....primarily the ones that would accept an application with only a single letter of recommendation..... Most schools I emailed wouldn't budge on that standard.

Right. Yes, I understand exactly. The spectre of mental illness haunts me, and I live daily questioning the extent of my sanity. All I can say in my defense ia that I put my love and trust to reason, and I will admit I am wrong when warranted. On the other hand it is evil for you to assume mental illness without having looked to the work itself. You, or someone, would must clarify the several errors in my work, and explain point by point why it is not as strong, philosophically, as nietzsche, heiddegger, Marx, sartre, schoppenhuer etc. Of course that would burden one with the task of actually doing philosophy, which none of you really seem so inclined to do.

If it is really your work that you developed on your own without collaboration, write it up immediately and submit it to s peer-reviewed journal. Submissions are often blind reviewed, and if you are genuinely innovative there is a good chance they will recognize it. You don't need permission. The only problem would be if they say the project was a collaborative effort, in which case they need recognition -- because it is valuable intellectual property. You could be sued or have your reputation ruined. Its up to you. It sounds though that you are a weak person. You should already know you don't need permission and that journal submissions are given blind reviews. You are your own scientist and you don't need another to tell you when you are ready to think for yourself. You must find strength within yourself to do the right thing, and to do it well. Good luck,

... I just thought that my writing sample really was that good. I mean, it's a novel -system-of philosophy, with original concepts that don't just break the mold but might prove historically significant in a big way. If you can develop original work that is potentially -historical- in context, how can you not expect to get your foot in the door? and for that matter, what do you care for grades? Obviously they are no reflection of my potential. I think that in order to garner a better appreciation for my application, you would need to evaluate the significance of my work as it stands for itself. Notice that -philosophy- actual has never even entered into discussion here. All I hear are comments about 'stats'. besides, I am somewhat skeptical that there are many -if any- exceptional students with work that will even remotely compare to mine in terms of potential and historical significance. maybe others can take that as a challenge and show me otherwise? I really want to see.

Right. So I have been looking for other writing samples that I can gauge the quality of my competition. Not like I amount to anything in the first place, anyways. I'm encouraged by what I have seen, and I have a lot of confidence in my work besides, but I'm still curious. What was yours?

Anyways, (not that it matters, apparently,) this was my statement; For the Admissions Committee; I’m presenting my application in hopes of earning an academic proficiency in the history of philosophy with your department. The centerpiece of the application is my book, Metaphysics of Being and Nothingness, which stands as the culmination of my philosophical endeavors as an undergraduate student from the University of Memphis. However proud I am to have developed a novel system that, I believe, carries the tradition of German philosophy forward into the contemporary period, it lacks the strength that an otherwise well-educated doctor of philosophy could breathe into it. The fundamental structure of the system is entirely coherent, but needs to be substantiated further with greater academic expertise. I begin the book by drawing 'Being' and 'Nothingness' (phenomenal, noumenal,) out in respect to Schelling's logical dynamism A / -A , as the most rational approach towards the noumena. I then use Parmenides' work to outline the contrast of the duality. The result is an effective 'sublimation' of 'Nothingness', that it earns its positive interpretation in contrast to the nihilist's negative interpretation. Nothingness, approached via this specific A / -A logical dynamism, is then delivered in apotheosis. Understood in terms of Parmenides' 'True Being', it is the basis of my metaphysic, and is the foundation of a primordial duality 'Being' and 'Nothingness', from which I understand dialectic. Following the Hegelian template for doing genuine philosophy (i.e. as systemic philosophy,) I develop a novel philosophical model, including chapters on natural philosophy (physics,) consciousness and evolution, man and teleology, politics, ethics, and spirituality. However I believe my work is original enough to warrant its own independence as a system, I still need to continue to develop it in respect to the history of philosophy that lies before it, and fit it into greater context. My second chapter, Physics, is the result of a considerable amount of meditation and layman’s study into the field of physics. I am particularly proud of my Foundational Principles (which are essentially Eleatic,) the decisive elaborations on the natures of Space and Time, and my notion of Space-Time Dialectics, from which I draw the conclusion (E=ST). I am eager to continue my study of natural philosophy, but with a focus on developing the more foundational aspects of the system. My interests in the philosophy of science, quantum physics, and theoretical systems (mathematics,) in general are something that I can continue to explore aside from my formal studies. My third chapter, Man, reintroduces man as a culmination of material processes and metaphysical dialectic in respect to a general teleology, in the same spirit as Schelling or Hegel. It was also in large part inspired by Sartre’s thesis that the ontology of conscious has its root in Nothingness, (however our interpretations of Nothingness may differ.) Frankly, however having read many important books and articles and tutorials on this particular tradition, I am far from professionally competent. It is absolutely necessary that I rectify that -- and I will be happy to continue to explore the tradition alone or under the supervision of faculty members. The fourth chapter, Politic, aims to establish a socio-political body in league with the dialectical developments outlined in previous chapters. Expressed in a more Nietzschean context, the role of government can be informally described in terms, ‘For the Overman’. Public education is prioritized as primary, and a fair socio-economic system is taken for granted as a matter of course. These premises stem naturally from the system – and have far-reaching implications – but the context in which I deliver them is less than adequate. I am very much looking forward to an expansive study into the history of political philosophy, as well as contemporary analyses of modern and historical structures, (social, political, cultural,) that I might present my work in a more impressive context. I’d also like to incorporate a central thesis that Liberal Democracy can only thrive when a vast abundance of resources are available to it – a thesis that will involve a study of the history of political systems, de facto, and for which the study of the history of political philosophy can only serve for peripheral context. The fifth chapter, the Moral-Ethical, presents an original sort of dogmatic naturalism that stresses that true morality lie in cooperating with Nature’s design, and the dialectical movements implicit within it. It is directly inferred from the political philosophy that comes before it. The distinction between the moral, ethical, and political are all rendered asunder— ‘morality’ is disregarded as opportunism, and the political-ethical are consolidated. The sixth chapter, Spirit, introduces an ‘experiential transformation’ that is a culmination of my experiences with Eastern philosophy. In a sense, perhaps it can be considered a phenomenological introduction to the immediacy of Being and Nothingness. I consider it the beginning of my work into, for lack of a better term, the ‘Phenomenology of Spirit’. I am hesitant to call it ‘transcendental phenomenology’. I have very, very little experience in the study of Phenomenology as a means of doing philosophy, and I am very much looking forward to delving into the work of historical masters of the Phenomenological approach. My work on the ‘Phenomenology of Spirit’ may perhaps be my most undeveloped, and I enjoy thinking about its potential. Again, though, however proud I am of my work thus far, I still see it as in its infancy. The book is poorly written, poorly organized, and the arguments poorly substantiated. In complete earnestness am I sincere in my prospective studies, that after years’ worth professional study and research, I might have earned the proficiency I desire to deliver my magnum opus. I do understand that my GPA and GRE are quite average, and I hope to prove an exception to typical admission standards, that perhaps the evaluating committee will see the same potential in my work as I do myself. Accompanying this letter, you will also find my current work re-tooling my Physics, (Foundational Principles,) which I have undertaken for re-submission to the Gravity Research Foundation. Thank you, David William Findley

How is it you can speak with so much authority? And then, further, how has it come about that graduate school for philosophy has become a job-- instead of an opportunity for blossoming philosophers to study, research, and refine their craft? How reliable are stats, really? Because I hated my medieval ethics professor, because my modern philosophy professor was a complete fuck-ass, are the 'scores' that they gave really a reflection of either my capacity or my work ethic? What you're telling me is that committees evaluate you as a professional student less an actual philosopher. In fact, you're telling me that no matter how decent your work in philosophy is looking, it won't matter at all unless you're an exceptional student. I hope the authority with which you speak and the values that you project as standard give you a big boner as it inflates your sense of self You're corrupt and you make me sick so give the fellowship to the kid comparing Daoist and Kantian ethics you crooked hack

I have a diamond in my bowels.

[edited for vulgar content]

[Edited for vulgar content] Hmm : O) I wonder why most schools seem to emphasize the writing sample over the GPA? I wonder, at bottom, which is more important?

I'm applying to Yale, mit, nyu, Hong Kong, Hopkins, michigan, and ucla. I can't afford to apply to nyu or mit, so I just sent my book with a cover letter and am going to see if they 'encourage' me to go through with the application process/fee. I've seen some mean applications from others, though they must have been masters students. Think these schools might be receptive to my work? ...

Hi, Of course these applications mean life to us, and we would bleed for acceptance -- maybe looking at our fellow submissions will ease our minds a bit? I have a 3.4 gpa , even worse major gpa, average gre, (80% 50% 50%), but I've also self published my book "metaphysics of being and nothingness" which you can find on amazon.com. I'm hoping that my book will illustrate my potential as a philosopher. My metaphysics are awesome, my physics (or natural philosophy) really has a lot of hope, and I incorporate a spirituality that I look forward to expressing in the phenomenological tradition. Really has lots of potential. But obviously my poor grades, poor gpa, and lack of recommending letters (I only have one) make me uneasy. But how many 4.0 students they accept end up with a poor dissertation about something trivial, inconsequential, or even just lame or stupid? I can only afford to apply to 4-5 schools. Most ( almost all) won't even consider my application without three recommending letters. So.... what does your application look like?