So I just mentioned in today’s IPA stream about possibly using Skool for help writing academic papers for those with little or no experience, as with myself. Than said that it’s a good idea, and Ryan said he actually has a lecture he had on the topic he could use. So like/comment if that is something you’d be interested in and/or if you have some ideas for it. For me, a mini to full course on it would be interesting, but even just 1-3 lectures would be helpful. I’d be interested in: — ofc having some sort of lecture(s) or even a mini/full course on it (possibly explaining the process and how long it takes for different kinds of papers/journals, how to help your chances of getting published, a list of good journals and how to know which you should publish in, how to know if your idea is worth writing on or if it’s an overly saturated topic or whatever, how to find (and take notes/cite) relevant papers to pass the bar for academic rigor to be published, how to get feed back from philosophers, how to possible work with a philosopher for them to co-author or even just helping edit/finalize it and what that entails, be especially focused for those who aren’t college for a field for active academics, etc) — community feedback on in progress papers (from other Skool students or possibly Than/Tim, potentially from Ryan or other academics if they can/want to) where we discuss general good prose, relevant papers/sources to use, etc. May also be cool to possibly have a Skool tab for those to talk about various papers they’re working on and anything related to this, though the tabs we already have may be better… kinda depends on how easily they get buried by other discussions people start. — It would be very cool to run an IPA stream with Than/Tim and possibly a Skool academic reviewing community papers… like going over: • fully published papers and whatever interesting implications, impact for the field, etc or whatever they want to talk about (possibly doing several papers in a stream if one paper doesn’t have enough to talk about for a full stream)

Yo guys, Michael will be hosting the Q&A tomorrow! Bring your questions! As you can tell via the picture below, Mike is VERY excited :)

Tim & Than are currently filming the upcoming course addition this weekend! Stay tuned for ESSENTIAL course work that will give you a firm foundation to build your philosophical understanding upon.

Just a reminder to all of you looking to grow on social media to join our MONTHLY content creation call tomorrow - July 21st @ 1:00pm EST 😎🔥 Pic related

Wanted to share a "win" moment that happened this week. As background, I've been engaging in evangelism/outreach/apologetics online in a game known as VRChat for over 4 years now. If you know, you know. If not, well, think of it as a pocket of condensed internet culture combined with never ending debauchery and the worst of human inclinations. A place that desperately needs Jesus. But who doesn't desperately need Jesus? Regardless, I attended my first ever Wednesday live-session on Objection Handling this week. It happened to include a special appearance from Big Jon Steel. Not only was it super educational and helpful, but Tim mentioned a principle on engaging others that stuck with me. It was how we shouldn't allow ourselves to be derailed by questions when it's the other person's burden to substantiate their argument. Seeing it played out in practice and the various strategies to stay focused was super helpful. Cue the very next night, when I'm world hopping and come across a deconstructionist who hosts his very own "anti-Bible studies" and creates video content on the matter. We end up engaging and the conversation quickly becomes about Deuteronomy 22:13-21 (stoning a woman who is not a virgin on her wedding night). To avoid bloating this post with details, I essentially present the position that the law is not meant to be read as a code or strict, explicit rules but functions more as a legal treatise full of judicial wisdom. He pushed back with classic responses as "nuh uh" and "you're adding to the Bible", and then waved his flag of moral outrage that this is an unjust and disproportional law. I asked him to substantiate his conclusion that this was morally wrong, because all he was doing up to that point was making the assertion that it's immoral and wrong and asking us to just accept it. And it happened. He agreed to demonstrate how he came to that conclusion. I kid you not, the very next words to immediately come out of his mouth were: "Do YOU think this is ok?" It felt surreal that I was already being given the opportunity to practice one of the key principles I had learned the night before! I simply stood my ground, refused to answer, and emphasized that what I think has no bearing on how he reasons to his conclusion. He pushed back in all kinds of ways, like saying that I was "running" because I was afraid to answer. I stayed firm, and that created a turning point in the conversation.