Mind Literature Positioning

Literature Positioning (mind-literature-positioning)

A Mind paper earns its place by making a move in an ongoing debate. Positioning is not throat-clearing — it shows the reader (and the referee) the exact disagreement you enter and why your thesis matters. Mind referees are specialists; engaging a weak or dated version of your target view is the fastest route to rejection.

When to trigger

• Drafting or revising the introduction and the "what I add" paragraph
• A reader said you "attack a strawman" or "ignore the obvious reply already in the literature"
• You need to distinguish your thesis from the closest existing positions
• Choosing which figures and papers actually define the debate you enter

How Mind wants the literature engaged

1. Enter a live debate, not a citation pile. Identify the specific disagreement or open puzzle your thesis addresses, and the works that constitute it (the canonical statement plus the strongest current defenders).
2. Target the strongest version. Engage the best, most charitable formulation of the view you oppose — ideally its proponents' own words. Refuting a weak version persuades no one.
3. Name the gap precisely. Not "little has been said" — say what is conflated, assumed without argument, or left unexplained, and why your thesis fixes it.
4. State your move as a position in the debate. "X is standardly held because of argument A; A fails / equivocates / overgeneralizes; so X should be replaced by X′."
5. Place the closest competitor. Identify the nearest existing view and say exactly how yours differs — referees will ask "isn't this just Y's position?"

Engaging across the field (Mind is general)

Anti-patterns

• A "literature dump" with no organizing disagreement
• Attacking a strawman or an outdated formulation of the target view
• Hiding the nearest competing position, or claiming false novelty ("first to argue")
• Self-citation that breaks anonymity (Mind is triple-anonymous — see mind-submission)

Positioning pass for Mind

Use this as a second-pass capability check. First lock the target thesis, argument map, objection sequence, and dialectical payoff; then test whether the manuscript addresses analytic-philosophy reviewers who expect a precise thesis, live objection, argument structure, and contribution to an active debate.

• Primary move: Map incumbent conversation, unresolved tension, this manuscript's delta, and the sibling-venue omission a referee might notice.
• Decision ledger: return claim / evidence / blocker / next edit rows so the next pass can patch the manuscript directly.
• Neighbor test: compare against Philosophical Review for broader top philosophy, Nous for analytic breadth, Ethics for normative/political theory; if the neighboring outlet has the stronger audience claim, recommend re-routing before polishing.
• Verification floor: before submission-ready advice, re-open resources/official-source-map.md for volatile rules and name the one unresolved fact that could change the recommendation.

Output format

【Debate】the live disagreement / puzzle you enter
【Key works】the 3–6 that define it (canonical + strongest current)
【Target view】the best version of what you oppose
【Gap】what is conflated / assumed / unexplained
【Move】how your thesis changes the debate
【Closest competitor】and how yours differs
【Next】mind-thesis-and-argument

Supplementary resources

• ../../resources/external_tools.md — PhilPapers, SEP, JSTOR for finding the defining works
• ../../resources/official-source-map.md — Mind scope and quality-only criterion