5

I'm not sure if these kinds of questions would be tedious. For instance, my current belief about emotions and reason is that different emotions motivate reason to proceed in a specific direction, and that it is then useful to compare the conclusions you get from the reasoning under the influence of different emotional states. So since I'm not arrogant enough to think that I was the first one to develop this hypothesis, and unless it turns out to be trivial or degenerate (e.g., pointlessly vague, contradictory, etc), would it be appropriate to ask where to turn in academic philosophy to learn more about the topic?

|
  • 2
    I would only add to my answer below that if you're looking for answers and can't find a way to ask your question in such a way that it fits for the site, you can always talk it over with us in chat. :-) – stoicfury Jun 23 '14 at 17:54
10

In general we prefer academic-style questions about known philosophers and that have definite answers. However, we do certainly accept questions that are more personal as long as they remain sufficiently focused. What we don't like is:

  • Questions that show no research effort or thought from the asker (show us that you've thought about it)
  • Questions asked with no context provided (why is this a problem for you?)
  • Questions that contain unnecessarily large amount of text and/or dive this way and that without staying focused on the main topic (our time is valuable, we don't want to waste it reading long rambling expositions)
  • Questions that are posed in a way that ask or open up too many sub-questions simultaneously (even if they are on-topic). If too many sub-questions exist (which is frustrating because they need to be answered first in order to answer the primary question), the question should be narrowed and/or the sub-questions asked in their own post prior.

In short —

Ask questions that focus on a specific philosophical issue you've encountered rather than espousing a whole library of ideas, in addition to asking the question provide what prompted you to come to such a question, and try to keep it as short as possible. Oh, and use the formatting tools well! You'd be surprised how more attractive (enticing to read) a block of words can be with the right formatting and headers.

|
2

In general we prefer academic-style questions about known philosophers and that have definite answers. However, we do certainly accept questions that are more personal as long as they remain sufficiently focused. What we don't like are questions that show no research effort or thought from the asker (show us that you've thought about it). We don't like questions asked with no context provided (why is this a problem for you?). We don't like questions that contain unnecessarily large amount of text and/or dive this way and that without staying focused on the main topic (our time is valuable, we don't want to waste it reading long rambling expositions). We don't like questions that are posed in a way that ask or open up too many sub-questions simultaneously (even if they are on-topic). If too many sub-questions exist (which is frustrating because they need to be answered first in order to answer the primary question), the question should be narrowed and/or the sub-questions asked in their own post prior. In short, ask questions that focus on a specific philosophical issue you've encountered rather than espousing a whole library of ideas, in addition to asking the question provide what prompted you to come to such a question, and try to keep it as short as possible. Oh, and use the formatting tools well! You'd be surprised how more attractive (enticing to read) a block of words can be with the right formatting and headers.

|
  • 2
    This is an example of a text wall that no one wants to read. (Same text as my other answer) – stoicfury Jun 23 '14 at 17:52
  • 4
    I like your performatively bad example :) But by upvoting it I'd contribute to bury the good example. I guess we should downvote the bad example to oblivion - now, this is a conundrum! – DBK Jun 23 '14 at 23:00

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .