1

It's about my question and comments of virmior.

my replies to her/his comments are:

  1. S/he said that s/he Can't understand how this is an example of realists asserting that universals have spatiotemporal existence. But ,as I described in it and I suppose that the causation problem between physical and non-physical ,e.g., mind and body or mathematical objects and people learning math, is hard to accpet since many people accept it at least in philosophy, if universals are kind of abstract thing, i.e., without spatio-temporality, it seems impossible for them to be a causal relata.

  2. I believe most of philosophy major or having philosophy backgrounds people understand what I meant.

  3. I can't understand what he/she said.

  4. Also, "the causal rule between physical things or particulars" is not too hard to understand for those who are in philosophy major or have enough philosophical background as far as I know.

So, replying to his/her comments, I wonder if I have to describe all things including all the sort of basic things.

But I think it is hard to accept that all the people who read my question could understand my philosophy question just by reading mine, unlike my math question about analysis or algebra.

  • Providing motivation and context is an important part of indicating what effort you have made so far, and goes a long way towards demonstrating philosophical interest and importance. It will help improve the chances of getting a great answer if you are sharing your research, i.e., what in particular you have been reading that's made this an interesting or important problem in your study of philosophy, what hypotheses you have formed and what your research has uncovered so far – Joseph Weissman Apr 7 '16 at 15:56
1

I'm not following some of what you're saying here, and I'm not sure if you're understanding what I'm saying there. I didn't want to focus on it, but I think one aspect is that there's a language barrier that's causing trouble.

In your title here, you state:

Do I have to describe all the facts concerning my question?

but that has nothing to do with why I put your question on hold. So I'm not sure why that's the title of your question here on meta.

  1. S/he said that s/he Can't understand how this is an example of realists asserting that universals have spatiotemporal existence.

I can't really understand the English you're using in your question (or here) at several points. Here, you start with a "this" but I don't know what you're referring to with that this. In your question, you have a place where you say "for example" but follow with something that is not an example. I assume this would make sense with the expression you're translating from Korean but it just doesn't work in English.

  1. I believe most of philosophy major or having philosophy backgrounds people understand what I meant.

I can't speak for "most of philosophy major(s)" but I have a BS, MA, MPhil, and PhD (all in philosophy, in addition to a double major in undergraduate), several publications in philosophy, experiencing teaching philosophy at multiple universities (to both native and non-native speakers of English), and I don't understand what you mean at several points.

  1. I can't understand what he/she said.

I agree that we're not understanding each other, but I think this is a language issue.

  1. Also, "the causal rule between physical things or particulars" is not too hard to understand for those who are in philosophy major or have enough philosophical background as far as I know.

As I said before, I don't know what "the causal rule between physical things or particulars" is supposed to mean. I'm not even quite sure what things it might mean. I don't know Korean so saying it in Korean wouldn't help much, but if you also happen to know Japanese, French, or German, please try expressing it in one of those languages.


But more to the point is that I closed your question because as far as I can tell it falls under the "personal philosophy" close reason.

A "personal philosophy" close reason is (on my interpretation) applicable when any of the following are met:

  1. What is being called "philosophy" in the question is something completely outside of the norms of philosophy.

OR

  1. When the question is merely asking us to confirm or disconfirm an argument the OP makes.

I believe your question is within the norms of philosophy in terms of topic (universals, realists vs. nominalists on the nature of causation). So not 1.

Where I think it delves in to "personal philosophy" under 2 is that it seems like you're giving an argument that you think is definitive and asking us to rebut it. I use the word "seems", because while your English is good enough in general, there are still errors, and the best sense I can make is that you're making what you take to be a definitive argument and then adding at the end a question to the effect of "refute my argument."


If I might suggest a way of rewriting your argument that I think is on topic. I would suggest the following:

I've been studying about Universals. I'm rather inclined to the nominalist position. I don't see how realists about universals can make sense of causation.

For instance, how would they account for say the blueness that appears in litmus paper in the presence of bases? For the nominalist, it's just what happens. For the realist, how do they provide a sufficient causal story about blueness in this sort of instance?

To me that captures the legitimate part of your question and presents it more as a question rather than a solution with a question appended on the end.

If that's what you're meaning to ask, please feel free to use that wording. If not, please continue trying to make clearer what you wanted to ask while trying to understand the rules of SEs in general and philosophy.SE in particular.

  • First, sorry for my rudeness and thank you for editing and trying to understand what I said. You are so kind and nice. I just didn't understand your intend exactly, really sorry for that point. I just thought that despite my bad English, most of you understand what I want to ask. And I think it would be more clearer using "Causal law" than using "rule". It's my misuse of words. Again, really sorry for my rudeness. – Darae-Uri Apr 8 '16 at 15:20

You must log in to answer this question.

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