This comment Originally prompted by AGENT SWARMS latest on non-philosophy :
It is becoming my experience that what ever is posted on the Internet becomes an kind of ‘automatic common propriety’, perhaps kind of similar to the problem the music industry encountered starting about 20 years ago. Of course it is a standard curtesy to give credit to originating authors but I am beginning to see that while obligatory, it is not mechanically nor ethically required. It is the nature of this type of media, I suspect, that Information is fluid, and in this fluidity often misses (deliberately or not) the site for the sake of the presentation of information. The impetus I think, oddly enough, comes from the struggle and competition for ideal identity, To assert oneself as an originator of an idea.
Perhaps we are witnessing a type of transitional phase that is revealing the determinative nature of existence, in that what occurs is ideas seems to end up associated with people by a sort of strange rhythm that defies the aggregate of individual assertions and plays for ideal notice.
One presently can only wonder: For, I have encountered a return on notions also; indirect but seemingly obviously stemming from my originating idea. Yet I would have no way of proving or finding the route by which my idea was usurped into discourses of other already theoretically and or socially affluent, already established in the skills required of our modern age for a kind of ‘web dexterity’, if you will, by people who are taking advantage of the brisk and fluid pace of our modern media.
Yet, it seems the ethics of this stream overrides the traditional curtesy for siting originating authors because as I just said, the standard seems to be more and more the information itself for the sake of a universal human soursed use, where the ethics arises out of such use, ends as opposed to means.
I risk being taken advantage of even here, since philosophically this might be seen to be actively justifying its motions; which is to say, arguing that the truth is given up for the sake of the real, the one for the multiple, as an automatic and axiomatic real operation. Badiou even argues that one need not withdraw, albeit, arguing for his own position as he either lives in the past or preys on the peasant congregants.
The only option for philosophers with integrity, that is, those who do not tow the ideological party line of realism, is to withdraw their ideas from this (un)ethical stream.
Hence I do little different than those so skilled in exploitation, if I might be so bold and maybe ignorant, by calling for a divergence in philosophy.