It's a really complicated issue. We have both subjective and objective criteria at play. 'Ulysses' by James Joyce could be a masterpiece in the history of literature, but really few people are able to finish it. We have instead 'Fifty Shades of Grey' as one of the best-selling books of the decade. Content can be objectively great, but I think we are not educated to go deep into things, we are educated to give value to what is useful and/or entertaining. Of course we have really quality posts in this platform with lots of votes, but we can also see some really bad written peaces with very high support. For their readers, that was useful, even if the author spent just five minutes to think and write about it. Can we say that a high voted/bad written post has intrinsic quality? While we try to think about this, however, I will always prefer to give the people the power of curation that have some 'experts' deciding for us. Everyone should decide what is useful for them. Maybe we should try to make the better pieces more available to them. We need more pop philosophy like your posts and less obscure academics.
PD: excuse my possible English mistakes, it's not my mother tongue.
I completely agree we need accessible philosophy. And yes, Steemit is also great in that nobody can decide what is quality and what should be made available. That doesn't mean that a certain type of quality, decided on by certain users with similar interests / ideas about quality, shouldn't be made more visible, accessible.
But you're absolutely right, it's a complicated issue. Great to meet you, and gather some thoughts here!
And don't worry about English mistakes, it's also not my mother tongue!