Draft talk:The Theater Principle

What needs to be added and finished about the article to move it to the mainspace? New editor, so I need some assistance into getting this article into mainspace ready tip-top shape haha!

I also have no idea how to properly format the references.

Update: If article is suffient, please change the title! And edit accordingly, Thank you!

@Tyler087h Hi Tyler!

On talk pages, please sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking on the sign button: on the toolbar above the edit panel. You can also indent successive talk page comments using one more colon (:) for each line. Thank you.

If you need help with references you can check Help:References and Help:Manual of style. OR you can find an article that you think has nicely formatted refs and peek under the hood to see how it's done (that's kinda how I learned it).

As for the article itself, there are two areas I would like to offer feedback on:

1. The topic itself, at a first glance, seem a bit sketchy. Typing "The Theater Principle" into the search engine does not give me a long list of reputable sources. Neither The Conversation or the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy seem to have anything to say on the topic. PhilPapers DOES have one publication on it (the one you cite here) but it seems to be A) self published and non-peer reviewed and B) not written by an academic philosopher. The fandom ref you have is very short and tells me nothing about the principle other that this is the brainchild of one Lashon Byrd. You have a number of refs here written by this gentleman. "American polymath?" I don't mean to be insulting, but... where the f@ck did that come from? Is he going around calling himself a polymath? That paper you linked from PhilPapers is laughably bad. It's nonsense. And so I'm going to go ahead and guess that this ISN'T real philosophy. "The Theater Principle relies heavily on metaphor and subjective interpretation" well, actually I would say it JUST IS A METAPHOR. Nothing else. Not particularly original either. As Shakespeare wrote: "All the world’s a stage, And all the men and women merely players; They have their exits and their entrances;".
2. The tone of the article is a bit inconsistent. This is more of style thing. I like how you offered a balanced examination, but this is not an academic website we are running here (though we DO like good refs). Stuff like "This article will critically analyze The Theater Principle, examining its implications, potential pitfalls, and areas of skepticism." is very dry, as is "The Theater Principle presents an intriguing metaphorical framework for understanding human experience, but its interpretation and application require careful scrutiny and skepticism. By critically analyzing its implications and potential pitfalls, we can gain deeper insights into the complexities of existence without succumbing to irrational beliefs or unwarranted conclusions." You can have a bit of fun here Tyler, and let you opinions loose. If you think something is garbage, then say so.

I have to go to work but I will write more in about 12 hours. Must elaborate on what I wrote. Peace, brother. - Rairyu75 (Talk) 08:11, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

I am of the opinion that this article is not worthy of our Main space (but that's just, like, my opinion maaaaaaaaan)

@Tyler087h Right, finally back from work.

Before I begin I would like you to not be put off by what you are about to read here. I wouldn't have gone to the effort to write all this just to be mean. I get that you put effort into this, and if people criticize something we worked hard on, we will feel personally attacked. But every criticism here is a criticism of this draft and not of you as an editor. As an editor you have only been here for a short while, but I can already tell that you are a polite and good faith user, who wants to contribute to the Main space. Such people are rare on the internet, and I hope you stick around.

But yeah, I've got problems with this draft. We'll be at this for a while, so pour yourself a drink. I do love the sound of my own voice sight of my own words.

Assessing the popularity of a topic is not easy. We can't just go up to every person on planet earth and ask them if they have heard of a certain concept. But most of the time, if an idea is very popular, it's popularity will leave behind some clues. "The Theatre Principle" has no such footprint. No articles in the Washington Post or the Associated Press, no videos on the official YouTube channel of the BBC, no best selling books by that name. If there is a popular hashtag of it on Twitter (I'm not calling X, ffs) I haven't found it. Is there a Wikipedia article on it? No. Hats and t-shirts with "The Theater Principle" printed on it? People raving about it on TikTok? Feckin' something, like.

Nope. This is a fringe idea. And I don't mean fringe as in "some academics will seriously talk about this." I mean fringe as in "neither academics, nor laypeople have heard of this." As far as I can tell, this idea DOES NOT EXIST. It does not exist, except in the mind of the man who created it.

Okay, so... no one knows about this thing except for the man who made it. Your refs from Fandom, The Good Men Project and PhilPapers tell me that this man is called Lashon Byrd. Now if you don't mind, I will whip a philosophy paper out of my ass:

Fernandez-Beanato, D. Feng Shui and the Demarcation Project. Science & Education 30, 1333–1351 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-021-00240-z

This paper was published in Science & Education. I can tell it's a real academic journal because if I go it's website I will see that it's editor in chief is a professor from Oxford. I can tell that the author, Damian Fernandez-Beanato, is a real scholar in the field of philosophy, because on his website, when he makes the claim that he has a PhD in Philosophy, I can click on a link that will take me to his damn thesis. All 299 pages of it. As for this paper on Feng Shui, even a layperson like me can see that he took into consideration the work of his predecessors, the many philosophers who wrote about the same topics he writes about. You will see all the references in that paper, Tyler. I can recognise the name of Hanson, Pigliucci, Lakatos, Khun and Popper. In philosophy (in any academic field, really) whatever you are about to write about has probably already been written about, and people would expect you to have read the works of others before opening your mouth. If you are bringing completely new ideas to the table, you would still consider, analyse and refute the arguments of others.

By contrast, Lashon Byrd's paper displays none of these qualities. Was this published by a serious journal? No. Does he have an academic track record? No. Has he done his homework? No. This "paper" is two pages long and does NOT have a list of references. No mention of other philosophers or their works. No arguments either, presumably there would be some premises and conclusions identifiable within the body of the text if there were such things contained within it (if there are, I sure as shit didn't find any). This is NOT PHILOSOPHY.

Another example of a species that were unfortunately recast are the Synapsids. These creatures lived before the dinosaurs and were the dominant species of their time. Though they have contributed to the evolution of mammals such as us primates, they lacked what was required for the next arc. As a result, extinction, though in a less brutal and abrupt way unlike dinosaurs. But what arose from the ashes, are what conquered the arc the Synapsids were unable to, the dinosaurs. This could be connected to the theory of modern evolution.

"What is this, r/im14andthisisdeep?" I thought to myself. So I googled this gent's name some more, and if this is the same Lashon Byrd as the one IMDb then my hunch was correct. This is literally a sixteen year old, self-labelled "polymath" (again, are there any academics/journalists calling him that? I sure as shit didn't find any) who wrote a "best selling book" with a whooping three Amazon reviews. This GUYS IS A NOBODY.

And so, Tyler... if this idea does not exist. If no one has heard of it. If it isn't real philosophy. If it was made by a nobody.

Then why should we have an article on it?

Yours faithfully, - Rairyu75 (Talk) 20:50, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Well mate, it does come off as if you're hating on the young man, just saying, he's pretty remarkable and has been referred to as a polymath by numerous journalists and first-rate publications, like the AV club. Definitely not a nobody lol, his work is great and he's pretty acclaimed, very accomplished, the guy has genuine accolades. As for the philosophy, dude... it's brand new give it some time I'm pretty sure he's working on developing it as we speak. And if you actually read some of it such as "the cast tenet" it's legitimately some good shit that I even use in my daily life. As for his book, it's a bestseller in the sense it's been generally well-received and is available in bookstores and libraries across the globe, he wrote it when he was 11, he explicitly states his debut is not his proudest nor best work. And my friend don't use his age against him, the young man is truly remarkable especially for his age, come on dude, I read his articles and holy shit. He's a stoic, he could care less about fame, what you or anyone else thinks of him dude, he's dedicated to the advancement of humanity, not to appease to well, "nobodies" like you, with all due respect dude I don't want to attack you. But he's definitely a notable person, your words only prove it... and the philosophy will develop and grow over time, it was found in October 2023 my man. Good day to you.

The real, - Tyler087h (Talk) 20:18, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

I do however want to say thank you for the compliment above. Anyways, yeah man don't be biased or spiteful, the bloke is undeniably notable and has notable works under his belt. I'm sure he's pushing boundaries and going against the grain as he usually does, proving you don't need to have formal credentials or graduate university, or anything other than an idea and determination to create philosophical works. It's indeed original, it has nothing to do with sir William, other than brief semantics lol. Anyone doing something different, unique, will encounter detractors and animosity, respectfully please don't add to that mate, it seems as if you were. Rationalwiki seems open to new ideas, so I thought it may be a good idea to create an article on one, of an idea I like and want to see continuously thrive. And the bloke is undeniably successful, notable, do your research, I truly appreciate people like him, and want to see him continue to do his thing and add to human history. I guess the topic may be too soon to have an article though, and that's perfectly fine, I look forward to the continued success of him and his works.

The real, - Tyler087h (Talk) 20:50, 5 April 2024 (UTC)