Since it's read in FAQ that this QA is about logical reasoning, I'd like to hear your opinion how the following question fits this QA.

In a nutshell, the question is:

What is the difference between variants of understanding of a term and variants of its manifestation in reality?

  1. Consider a term Political Correctness. Suppose that there is only one meaning for this term: not to do something that can offend someone. So there seems to be only one understanding of this term.

  2. Suppose now that Dalai Lama takes part in some cooking show where he is in jury. When asked to evaluate skills of cooks he denies doing this saying that his beliefs didn't allow to do this. By doing this he avoids offending cooks.

  3. On the other hand, an average non-buddhist Australian would consider evaluation of cooks' skills as normal thing. These can be called as buddhist and australian variants of the term's manifestation.

  4. Is this a variant of understanding of the term of or variant of its manifestation in reality or both? In general, what is the difference between (a) variants of understanding of a term and (b) variants of its manifestation in reality?

  • I'm having trouble understanding why you would place this on the meta. In general, the meta is for questions relating to the content or features of the main site. If you are asking if something is off or on topic for the main site, can you please clarify? Jul 27, 2011 at 7:15
  • I ask if the above question is on topic for this QA, isn't it clear? Jul 27, 2011 at 7:17
  • 1
    Oh, you say this now - it's late, and I should clearly go to bed. Yes, it's very clear - I'm sorry. Jul 27, 2011 at 7:18
  • Ok - for my 2 cents before I go to bed: the idea is a good one for this site. I like to think that the authors of questions have a large influence on how the answers go - so when you ask this question, I encourage you to ask it in a way that leads to a definitive answer, or definitive perspectives. As stated, this question feels very open, and debate seems the likely outcome. This is not a discussion site, but a Q&A site. And debate is not encouraged. Does that make sense (not to offend you, but because I am off to sleep)? Jul 27, 2011 at 7:21
  • Yes, this certainly has sense but the problem is if I would narrow question it could be trivial to answer. But I think that somehow this could be narrowed. Jul 27, 2011 at 7:25
  • 1
    If you can clearly specify the context of the question, and formulate it in a closed way so as to invite serious and well-researched answers I think this is okay. (It is a bit loose or 'casual' as you have expressed it here; providing theoretical context will improve this.)
    – Joseph Weissman Mod
    Jul 27, 2011 at 22:23

1 Answer 1

  • I find this particular question very appropriate for philosophy.SE. It's all about language use and meaning.

  • I find the simple introductory description of this site ("Philosophy - Stack Exchange is for those interested in logical reasoning.") is extremely misleading, inaccurate, and narrow. I think there is a great place for logic and reasoning here, but if that were the only subject allowed, it would be a Logical Reasoning.SE, not philosophy. Looking around on this site, I see no other defining characteristics other than the name 'philosophy' and 'logical reasoning'.

  • Why was this down-voted? Seems like a reasonable position to hold. I agree that the description of this site is somewhat misleading, and that is, after all, what the OP's question is about — whether the question fits within the Philosophy Q&A as defined as logical reasoning.
    – stoicfury
    Jul 30, 2011 at 16:52

You must log in to answer this question.

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