2

I have recently asked a question about Physicalism and if there are any useful thought experiments against the concept , like Mary's Room and Searle's Chinese Room ; I think it was Jobermark who replied 'I refuse to answer this question , I want to rant and rave about it , it is evil'. I commented this reply is not very helpful and gave a downvote. He later replied it is also not helpful to not have a sense of humor. The way his replies were put didn't seem humorous , more antagonistic. Like trying to intimidate me into giving up. I have recieved a lot of criticism on these sites for my contravertial questions and responces yet I still plod along trying to hopefully promote some useful idea.

  • 2
    Can you provide links to specific posts and comments? Even if they are deleted, I will be able to see them. – stoicfury Oct 24 '14 at 9:24
  • I wrote the question I just mentioned 'About the philosophy of Physicalism'. This is a specific post just a few days ago. The seemingly negative responces where by Jobermark. He says later the question is from a religious bias and I never mentioned religion; all I asked is if there where any thought experiments like Mary's room that are against physicalism. Is the 'MARY'S ROOM' thought experiment from a religious bias? I was actually afraid a bit to look back at these posts and see the responses. – user128932 Oct 26 '14 at 3:15
  • 1
    So, the editor-contributor Jobermark has a "big reputation" does he? What is he known for? Personally, I have not found his questions or solutions very helpful. He might try easing his own "anti-Christian" bias by a simple re-reading of the Gospel of John and the New Testament at-large. Or, perhaps Revelation, Chapter 13 would serve as a start. If he has read such at all. Much good has come from Christianity and will yet follow. Perhaps time will tell. In the meantime, it could be that some other line of work might pose better (more life-enhancing) possibilities for Jobermark. – Darcy Davis Nov 29 '14 at 21:10
1

You need a thicker skin. Philosophical questions, especially ones which have some baring on or implications for religious ontology, easily invoke emotional responses (and I do not mean just from theists). That's the nature of the beast.

It might be asserted that philosophy is an egotistical endeavour to begin with, so small wonder that philosophers might be a little above average in the ego department. A lot of the discipline of thinking has to do with getting a perspective on your own ego and feelings.

Do people try to intimidate others into giving up? I would agree that they do, but I don't think there's much to be done about that that doesn't involve throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

Finally, there's the issue of projection, particularly with regard to people who champion positions opposed to your own. We all have some nastiness in us but tend to see it more easily in people we don't like. Unless someone slights you in some direct way ("You're an idiot..."), don't presume their attack is intended to hurt you, only your position. Even if it is intended to hurt you, this is the best presumption to make. Going back to the discipline of thinking, part of why ad hominem arguments are not acceptable is that they inevitably involve some form of arbitrariness tangential to the point at hand. Don't take the bait!

  • 1
    More blunt than the way I put it but basically spot on, esp. the last part. Assume they are attacking your position, not you, and even if you can't assume that, find comfort in the reality that you are being affronted by a random stranger on the internet who is (almost certainly) of no consequence to you. And, if they are in fact violating some etiquette policy or otherwise, that they will probably get banned. – stoicfury Oct 30 '14 at 3:12
4

From that question you mention, it seems jobermark posted an answer to the question which you did not like. The first sentence was originally not very tactful ("I refuse to answer this question. I consider it evil. And I want to rant about that.") and probably are the cause of his downvotes. But other than that, when you read the rest of the answer it seems reasonable. He did alter the first sentence since you've posted this META question and it reads fine now. From this question alone I see no issue with the current state of things.

Do you have other examples you want to point out? Otherwise, I would encourage you to not take people's comments and criticism to heart. While some people have more tact than others, in the end I think most people here are good, honest people, and are not deliberately trying to insult you or make your time here miserable — they are at worst just offering their opinions but more often than not they are also trying to help you and other users learn things.

Perhaps we can have you chat with jobermark here so you can reach an understanding?

  • 1
    Thank you for your consideration. Jobermark did imply my question had a religious bias , when that is not true. Does the 'Mary's Room' thought experiment have a religious bias? It is just about 'qualia' and if they exist? I know nobody is trying to insult me although some have called some of my questions useless or something to that effect. I do suggest more diplomacy at reviewing other peoples questions. Regarding 'making my time here miserable' well I have gotten a few positive reviews and that is certainly encouraging.. – user128932 Oct 27 '14 at 10:04
  • 5
    @user128932 it was news to me that it has some religious bias. I thought the "I refuse to answer" your question thing was bizarre. There's no point in saying things like that. When I refuse to answer questions... I don't post answers to them. – virmaior Oct 29 '14 at 14:21
  • If it helps, also note that not all of any given respondent's emotional reaction is at you personally. My problem is with insisting upon dichotomy on certain subjects, over dualism or anything more subtle, and making unnecessary dichotomy an essential part of the question. Once you find a given 'deep' philosophical position detrimental to your world, you will see it over and over again. It is hard to answer the fifty-sixth time as though it were the first. – jobermark Nov 2 '14 at 19:03
  • 3
    Not all writers are 'stoic philosophers'. Diplomacy should be the default or assumed tactic when communicating. Wasn't Wittgenstein extremely emotional or 'passionate' as they say when he analysed or argued about a problem. Kurt Godel , that great logician got very paranoid and starved himself. Cantor the mathematician had a break down. Many intellectuals are high strung.. – user128932 Nov 14 '14 at 3:31
  • @user128932 That does not mean you should follow their (ultimately self defeating) examples. – c69 Dec 19 '14 at 6:29
  • One major flaw with these websites is they are not question and answer sites , more like question and FINAL answer sites. If a question is deemed 'acceptable' it is given a great final answer that is supposed to be the final word on the subject , unless some other user gives their final answer. And there is not supposed to be any debate on the answers. If a user editor says their answer in a way that seems patronizing the question will respond, and the user editor will see this as a challenge meriting more lack of diplomacy. The questioner will respond to that and you get an endless debate. – 201044 Dec 8 '15 at 10:00
  • So if you want these websites to avoid endless debates that are a bad learning environment and waste time and energy and money you should have rules to curtail any type what seems to be of patronizing behavior by various user editors and don't advertise these sites to 'anybody' on the internet. As many user editors have complained about the quality of received questions. I suggest a complaint system for user editors that actually does something. I know various statements can be tagged as unhelpful or non-constructive or abusive , but that doesn't seem to stop condescending behavior. – 201044 Dec 8 '15 at 10:08

You must log in to answer this question.

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