> [!multi-column] > >> [!note] ideas/future projects >> >> ```dataview LIST WITHOUT ID file.link FROM #paper/idea WHERE !contains(file.folder, "templates") SORT file.ctime ASC > [!multi-column] > >> [!note] events >> >> ```dataview LIST WITHOUT ID file.link FROM #conference OR #event WHERE !contains(file.folder, "templates") AND (startDate >= date(now) OR endDate >= date(now)) SORT startDate ASC > [!multi-column] > >> [!note] current papers >> >> ```dataview LIST WITHOUT ID file.link FROM #paper/current WHERE !contains(file.folder, "templates") SORT file.ctime ASC # Scratch Pad Therapy Chats ### Summary Prompt ``` <instructions> You are tasked with creating an exhaustive, granular, and professional-level summary of a given philosophical text. Your summary must be detailed enough to serve as a standalone resource for academic philosophers, capturing every concept, argument, and implication present in the original text. <requirements> 1. **Summary Scope and Depth**: - Provide a minimum of 5000 words. - Include every idea, argument, and discussion without omission, down to the smallest details. - Prioritize depth and clarity over brevity. Leave no potential questions unanswered. - Define and thoroughly explain all technical terminology. 2. **Structure and Organization**: - Follow the exact structure of the original text, using its headings, subheadings, and logical order. - Use major sections, subsections, and sub-subsections to mirror the text’s organization. - Present content as bullet points, with nested bullets for sub-points. 3. **Content Details**: - **Introduction**: - Explain any key terms, concepts, or background knowledge required to understand the text. - **Main Body** (for each concept, argument, or discussion): - Provide a full explanation, breaking down complex ideas into constituent parts. - Include at least three quotes per major idea, each 4–5 sentences long, formatted as block quotes with page or chapter references. - Analyze the author’s reasoning, explaining every step of their argument. - Explore all implications and applications, no matter how minor. - Draw explicit connections between ideas within the text. - Compare and contrast with relevant philosophical perspectives from other thinkers, citing specific examples. - Thoroughly examine any thought experiments, examples, or analogies, explaining them in detail. - If a “discussion” or “argument” is referenced, include its full content rather than a brief mention. 4. **Example of Expected Detail Level**: Replace vague statements with granular detail. For example: **Instead of:** - "Frischhut challenges traditional views on temporal experience." **Provide:** - "Frischhut challenges traditional views on temporal experience in several key ways: 1. **Rejection of the ‘specious present’ theory**: - **Traditional view**: Experience spans a ‘specious present’ of short duration (e.g., a few seconds). - **Frischhut’s argument**: - a) The ‘specious present’ leads to paradoxes in how we perceive change. - b) Example: If the present spans 3 seconds, how do we perceive changes occurring within that period? - **Quote**: ‘[Insert 4–5 sentence quote with reference]’. - **Implication**: Our experience of time must be more granular than previously thought. 2. **Proposal of a ‘punctual present’ theory**: - Frischhut’s view: Time is experienced as a series of instantaneous ‘nows.’ - **Key arguments**: - a) This resolves paradoxes in the ‘specious present’ theory. - b) It aligns with moment-to-moment subjective experience. - **Potential issues**: - a) How does this account for perceived continuity in experience? - b) How does this relate to the minimum discriminable time unit in perception? - **Quote**: ‘[Insert 4–5 sentence quote with reference]’. - **Implications**: Consequences for theories like presentism and eternalism. 3. **Reinterpretation of duration perception**: - Traditional view: Duration is perceived directly as an extended present. - **Frischhut’s argument**: - a) Duration is a cognitive construction, inferred from memory and expectation. - b) Supporting evidence: Psychological time perception illusions (e.g., oddball effect) and neurological studies on time perception. - **Quote**: ‘[Insert 4–5 sentence quote with reference]’. - **Implications**: Challenges to traditional temporal theories and alternative interpretations." Continue this level of detailed breakdown for every concept, argument, and implication in the text. <end-goal> Produce a comprehensive and standalone summary that mirrors the original text’s structure and explores its content with unparalleled depth and granularity. This summary should fully meet the needs of a graduate-level philosophy course and eliminate the need for additional clarification. </instructions> ``` ### Retain original Text So, rewrite this for me with these ideas in mind. Please try to retain as much of the [[original wording]]/phrasing/vocabulary as possible; that is, only change/remove things from the text when it is necessary to implement the improvements I have just outlined. ### Style Guide **Instructions:** **Your Task:** rewrite the text so that emulates the [[writing style]] described in the style guide. Ensure that you: - **Focus Solely on Style:** Concentrate on replicating the specific stylistic elements outlined, without altering the [[original content]] or introducing new ideas. - **Maintain Content Integrity:** Stay strictly within the scope of the provided material, neither adding new arguments nor omitting existing ones. - **Use Affectless Language:** Avoid value-laden adjectives and emotive expressions; maintain a dry, straightforward, and objective tone throughout. - **Avoid Unnecessary Formatting:** - Do not use bullet points, numbered lists, or tables. - Limit the use of subheadings; use them only if they are part of the [[original plan]]. - **Avoid Generic Phrases:** Do not use clichés or overly general academic expressions. --- **Detailed Style Description:** - **Tone:** Analytical, affectless, maintaining clarity throughout. The writing is dry and straightforward, avoiding emotive or value-laden language. - **Vocabulary:** Uses precise and neutral terminology relevant to the subject matter, avoiding [[unnecessary jargon]] and value-laden adjectives. - **Sentence Structure:** - **Complex Sentences:** Employs complex sentences with subordinate clauses to convey nuanced ideas. - **Punctuation:** Makes strategic use of colons and semicolons to connect related thoughts. - **Stylistic Features:** - **Neutral Language:** Avoids value-laden adjectives (e.g., 'seminal', 'groundbreaking'). - **Precise Definitions:** Provides clear definitions of [[key terms]] when necessary, without unnecessary elaboration. - **Critical Examination:** Engages with different perspectives in a balanced manner, highlighting strengths and weaknesses without introducing personal bias. - **Avoidance of Emotive Language:** Steers clear of emotive expressions and maintains an objective tone throughout. --- **Annotated Examples of the [[Writing Style]]:** 1. **Example 1: Introducing and Critiquing a View** *"Although thinking of sounds as properties is not a new idea, the novelty of a view recently put forward by Jason Leddington lies in its 'treating sounds as properties of events rather than objects' (2019, p. 624). In this paper, I give some reasons as to why we might want to resist this idea, and argue that sounds are best thought of as temporally extended properties of objects."* - *Notes:* Begins by situating the discussion within existing literature; uses precise language without value judgments; clearly states the purpose and thesis. 2. **Example 2: Structured Argumentation** *"In §1, I outline the reasons that Leddington gives as to why Property should be preferred over two other accounts of what sounds are. In §2, I argue that the case for events as the bearers of sound properties rather than objects is, at best, ambiguous, and that there are good reasons for wanting to include objects amongst the things we hear..."* - *Notes:* Clearly maps out [[the structure]] of the paper; uses affectless language; paragraphs are of appropriate length. 3. **Example 3: Engaging with Counterarguments** *"Against [[the idea]] that objects are heard, Leddington says: 'strictly speaking, objects do not make sounds—events do. The static bell is silent; striking it elicits sound' (ibid.). However, static objects being silent need not be taken as evidence that we do not hear objects at all—it could just as easily be understood as revealing that we only ever hear objects when they are doing something..."* - *Notes:* Presents opposing views and responds to them; maintains an objective and analytical tone; 4. **Example 4: Avoiding Value-Laden Language** *"Even if we accept Leddington's reasons for thinking Property superior to its competitors, we might still ask why we should accept [[the idea]] that events rather than objects are the bearers of sounds."* - *Notes:* Avoids adjectives like 'seminal' or 'groundbreaking'; maintains neutrality; focuses on analysis rather than praise. 5. **Example 5: Proper Paragraph Structure** *"To begin, here are two reasons for wanting an account of audition which does allow for the hearing of objects. First, just as Casati et al. argue that it does not seem, experientially, as if we hear both a sound and a source, neither is it phenomenologically obvious that auditory awareness of the participants of events is any less direct than awareness of their activities: I can hear how hard the striking is, but also that [[the object]] being struck is large and metallic. Second, such a position coheres with an even wider range of ordinary language statements than Property. It is just as natural to say 'I heard the bell' as it is to say 'I heard the ringing'."* - *Notes:* Paragraph is of sufficient length; sentences are connected logically; maintains a neutral and analytical tone. --- ## testteed ![[attachments/general.alfredsnippets]] ![[attachments/LLM.alfredsnippets]]