When is Philosophy Not Philosophy?

Question

For my first time responding to a question on stack exchange, I answered this question: What is the name for the fallacy when the very act of making a statement contradicts its truth? I will post my 'answer' in a moment, but first want to say that it was 'deleted' by a 'meta-user' who incidentally has 393 Answers to 1 Question asked. User name virmaior . The reason given through a link clinked here to a user help page there that said my answer did not 'fundamentally answer the question' which, fundamentally makes no sense to me on a site that is supposed to about about philosophy. Philosophy, As in ""PHILOSOPHY OF LIFE” - THIS EXPRESSION SAYS ABOUT AS MUCH AS “THE BOTANY OF PLANTS." — Being and Time, Martin Heidegger Anywho, my question is: WHY WAS MY ANSWER ERASED? See if you can answer.

Here is what I answered:

I think in the literary-philosophical tradition this might be covered more... incidentally, This probably won't be formatted as cleanly as other posts (my first post by the way) just wanted to share on this because this is a topic that I care about, that feeling that by saying the thing you have somehow lost ground on the topic, in the realm of 'if you have to ask, you'll never know' or the Nietzsche quote I'm quite fond of: "Wit is the epitaph of emotion." I think Helene Cixous speaks of this in 'The Laugh of the Medusa' and her books on 'severed heads' where she speaks of what our writing (the future, writing, inevitably feminist writing for the one who pays their dues to reality) must DO. The formerly secret writing, scribbled in 'scribbled secret notebooks' as Kerouac and the unfeminist but revolutionary beats had it, all toward some surface light that without comprehensive identity bakes the ungerminated seed. Self-germinated, opened, and hungry for nourishment, not un-filtered and taking on water to capsize and drown and sunlight to burn and fall down.

I've also variously approached this type of thing from the perspective of Modernist upagainst PostModernism in the deeper understanding of what Jeffrey Perl refers to (Joyce, Elliot) as the Paleo Modernists and William Carlos Williams and the NeoModernists in his lectures 'Literary Modernism: The Struggle for Modern History' and his book 'Skepticism and Modern Enmity: Before and After Eliot'. Eliot is a radical dressed in conservative clothing, who believes all statements are true, to some degree, in SOME context. Whereas Williams believes we must adhere to classical forms and can only approach reality. One believes we are already there (hoping someday to be) and the other believes (deep down) we probably never will be but that mustn't stop us from trying. These debates are especially relevant today when technology has overwhelmed public policy and talk of philosophy is excluded from public debate because the main stream never touches its feet to the underground river that is so much deeper than the sandbars of reality we dare not wade away from. But this is rather an esoteric subject as the subject itself denotes speaking of its truth is the difficult thing... To con(wish)vey - TOGETHER / WAY - Where the point is what is what HITs both parties, or what makes them bounce off of each other? ? . . .

"I have heard the mermaids singing, each to each.

I do not think that they will sing to me." - The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock

"The question isn't whether you're paranoid

It's whether you're paranoid ENOUGH." - Strange Days (1995)

"I always think everything could be a trap -- Which is why I'm still alive." - The Princess Bride (1987)

"Morpheus: No, what happened, happened and couldn't have happened any other way.

Neo: How do you KNOW?"

Pause for dramatic effect.

COMMENTS:

Interesting thoughts. But what does this have to do with the question? – Eliran H 3 hours ago

I am trying to work out what it has to do with the question as well. I only discovered term 'Continental Philosophy' this year, learning that apparently there are two 'schools' right now (apparently.. in words, in books, in places other than spoken of right now... but then, now, spoken right now, so yes, more than apparently, now) Analytic/Continental - I identify Continental, think this is reflected above (look into it?). Found some in book curr. reading 'Early Twentieth Century Continental Philosophy' in the section 'Enveloped in a Nameless Voice: Foucault’s “The Thought of the Outside” – Scott Thomas Smith 52 mins ago

i.e. and slightly out of context: We believed that language acted both as the connection of a given word to the future and as memory and recitation connected to the past. We believed, in other words, that language was prophecy and history, both the eternal and the visible body of truth, both the form of words and the breath that animates them. Instead, according to Foucault, “language is nothing but a non-formal and streaming murmur, its force is in its dissimulation. That is why it is one with the erosion of time; it is depthless forgetting and the transparent void of waiting” – Scott Thomas Smith 49 mins ago

This does not appear to be an answer to the question. – virmaior♦ 14 mins ago

I am unable to even VOTE that this response be undeleted because it was deleted by a metauser. And I'm assuming other people viewing the question can not either. I also have no way to contact the person who deleted it.

Answer 1

In my experience, virmaior has a very narrow view on what qualifies as philosophical and what qualifies as a good answer.

Good. That's the point of what we're doing here.

There are lots of Internet forums for discussing philosophy. The point of StackExchange sites is to have a way of easily getting answers to technical questions that are the right size - big enough to address the issue at hand, short enough that there's nothing distracting.

And this site if very welcoming to different ways of thinking - but as a community we've mostly agreed to be aggressive in constraining how those thoughts are expressed.

Answer 2

TL;DR

The task is pointing out the content that is philosophy and how it relates to content of the question that is philosophy. Everything else should be omitted. If this is fulfilled, I would let every question, answer and source count.

Basically, that's exactly how academic philosophy works. And why some works on e.g. Ayn Rand and William James are considered philosophy, while the primary texts may not, while other primary texts are directly considered as philosophy. It needs work to point out the content that in fact is philosophy and to omit the rest without making it nonsense. That is what makes it possible to make it fit to frameworks that are developed in and as philosophy.

Argumentation

We're not here to share a good time and some more or less good thoughts, but to establish a database of questions and answers on sources that are philosophy, not philosophical. I will try to make clear what I mean with this destinction.

Basically, every sentence can have philosophical aspects as there may be aspects of physics, chemistry, and who knows what else. This does not make it philosophy, physics and chemistry.

Otherwise, we would end up with the comment of @mobileink (the first part) from here:

You forgot that great philosopher Donald Duck. Not to mention others like Stalin, Mao, all of the Kardashians, my dear old dad, Charlie Chaplin, Kim Jung Un, Idi Amin, etc. etc.

The point is that philosophy only is what focuses on what is specifically philosophical. Therefore, not every reflection on a certain topic is philosophy, however philosophical some thoughts may be.

That's how it works with sources that are considered to be philosophy as well as with questions and answers in this SE. Everything that is not specifically needed to understand the philosophical content of the question or the answer is superficial and not philosophy. Every source that is not concentrating on the specifically philosophical content that you want to have sourced is not a source in philosophy. Or you do have to point it out, no matter how hard a time it will be.

Otherwise, we could simply link (or copy) the script of The Matrix Trilogy and say "Go get it" as an answer.

But what is "philosophical"?

Well, we already have this question adressed in the help center in form of philosophical topics and it matches with those present in Mirriam-Webster's and the Oxford Dictionary:

• epistemology — the nature of knowledge and learning
• ethics — the nature of the right thing to do
• metaphysics — the nature of being and reality
• logic — the nature of reasoning and inference
• aesthetics — the nature of feelings and artistic sentiment
• history of philosophy — the domains and personalities in the past associated with philosophy
• applied philosophy — the more specific disciplines where philosophical methods are applied, such as logic and argumentation, the philosophy of language, political and social philosophy, psychoanalysis, theology, economics, the philosophy of science and mathematics, etc.

Basically, it is about (applying) methods that explore the use of language in thinking and the inferences made in between them. Therefore, logic is always involved to some extend and philosophical systems establish certain uses of language (technical terms, definite concepts etc.) and apply them in several fields afterwards. It involves reflecting on what one exactly means by uttering the proposition 'x' and when it is appropriate to do so at all.

By this, another level of understanding what it means to perform a certain act is reached, making them 'a better person' as well, as the understanding of actions has an effect on the understanding in general (aesthetic component or the aspect of 'living philosophically') and vice versa. Because you can't understand what a concept means if you did't have an experience of a token of it first ("armchair philosophy"). In this sense, to understand how to use language right you have to have lived as a full human being first (idea of the kantian 'world citizen'). Or to say it with the words of William James:

That is what makes him a good philosopher; he was a real human being.

But this isn't philosophy. It is called 'living'. It is more of a precondition than the thing itself.

Of course scientists do define their concepts and make inferences as well. And that's exactly where they are open to philosophy, as this is the philosophical part of their doings.

Aside regarding @virmaior (as it is part of this discussion)

He has been asked to be a moderator here, specifically because of his knowledge and practice, regarding both philosophy as academic discipline as well as the mechanics and meaning of an SE network in general.

It has been a descision of the community(managers), therefore judging from an outside perspective before carefully reading into the purpose of this site and the characteristics of both SE and philosophy as an academic discipline seems to be arrogant to me.

Opening threads like this one alone shows that it is always open to discussion and the community how things should be handled for him, not personal opinion. Therefore, cool down, think about how being a SE narrows what and how something can be asked and answered and if there is something left, ask it in the meta discussion, just as the OP did.

Answer 3

Any answer to that question would propose a name or at least cogently argue against doing so. This one does not. How much more reason is needed?

People do not want to experience your search for an answer unless you get to one. It is singularly unhelpful to people who actually read the question.

Answer 4

Yes, I deleted your answer to that question, because it is not a good answer within the bounds of the discipline we call philosophy. But worse than that, it's hard to see how it's an answer at all to the question " What is the name for the fallacy when the very act of making a statement contradicts its truth?"

In your answer, you never once state a name for the fallacy. Moreover, it's not clear what most of what you wrote has to do with that question. Yes, continental philosophy says many interesting things, but how does that name the fallacy? Yes, there's a chart of the etymology of "convey" from google, but what does that have to do with the question? Then there's a quote from the Matrix but again, how does that answer the question?

Probably a major feature at work is a misunderstanding of SEs in general and the philosophy one in particular. the Stack Exchange model is primarily suited to answering technical questions like "how do I get this DIV to float and scroll correctly?" or "help me with my MS SQL query" or "I'm getting this error from my mail server." These questions have successful and unsuccessful answers. Successful ones get selected and upvoted; unsuccessful ones get downvoted. Things that do not answer the question get downvoted and deleted.

The philosophy.SE is first and foremost an SE. So it follows the same pattern. The difference being it's for questions about philosophy.

---

Separately, it looks like you're passing the line of rudeness in your comment interaction with a user ("But instead you make an ass out of ...", "Are you illiterate?" )...

Answer 5

I hope this helps by providing a specific explanation with reference to your exact words. Please understand that this is a constructive exercise and no one is trying to put down your thoughts. With a little effort in enhancing your answer, paired with some patience and feedback from the community, you'll be posting answers in no time.

incidentally, This probably won't be formatted as cleanly as other posts (my first post by the way) just wanted to share on this because this is a topic that I care about, that feeling that by saying...

This statement is a tangential expression of your thoughts. Perhaps limit these additional phrases and focus on answering the question. If you would like, add an asterisk and a footnote so it doesn't disrupt the center of your statement.

you have somehow lost ground on the topic,

I am unclear who you are addressing and what you are referring to.

in the realm of 'if you have to ask, you'll never know' or the Nietzsche quote I'm quite fond of: "Wit is the epitaph of emotion." I think Helene Cixous speaks of this in 'The Laugh of the Medusa' and her books on 'severed heads' where she speaks of what our writing

I believe you are trying to imply that the original question is analogous to these quotes. Is that accurate?

However, the context is a bit lost due to the preceding sentences and these quotes could benefit from an additional explanation of why the philosophers took those positions and made those statements.

where she speaks of what our writing (the future, writing, inevitably feminist writing for the one who pays their dues to reality) must DO.

I am unsure what this means. Perhaps you can explain it more clearly? What does the sentence in the parentheses mean?

The formerly secret writing, scribbled in 'scribbled secret notebooks' as Kerouac and the unfeminist but revolutionary beats had it, all toward some surface light that without comprehensive identity bakes the ungerminated seed. Self-germinated, opened, and hungry for nourishment, not un-filtered and taking on water to capsize and drown and sunlight to burn and fall down.

This is very poetic and I believe you are trying to demonstrate a "beat-like" communication. I think that you are trying to call upon the Beat movement's propensity for non-conventional, arhythmic and syncopated word association and juxtaposition. Is that accurate? Again, without context the reader is left without a reference to decipher from.

I've also variously approached this type of thing from the perspective of Modernist upagainst PostModernism in the deeper understanding of what Jeffrey Perl refers to (Joyce, Elliot) as the Paleo Modernists and William Carlos Williams and the NeoModernists in his lectures 'Literary Modernism: The Struggle for Modern History' and his book 'Skepticism and Modern Enmity: Before and After Eliot'.

Here are your first clear references, but the point you are trying to make is lost again in some side thoughts. Perhaps a more in depth introduction to the writers you are referring to, their styles and how they relate to the core part of the original question would make it clearer. The relationship is regarding the connection of culture and semiotics and how in the early 20th century they began to reform due to changes in global travel, communication, and politics. Again I can only infer this, but if it is accurate, you might want to practice rewriting your ideas so that someone without specific knowledge on the subject can still understand it.

Answer 6

Many of the answers in this meta are from those who are moderators, have high rep, and (maybe) are philosophers by profession. I would like to share an opinion as an amateur who reads for personal interest and enjoys this forum as it currently functions.

The root of the problem is the opinionated nature of philosophy

This stack exchange, like all the others, are offshoots of Stack Overflow, a forum where answers to questions are a lot more straightforward. By its very nature, philosophy produces a wider range of opinions and broader questions. This ambiguity makes it difficult to establish forum rules that work as smoothly as other more empirically-grounded stack exchanges. Your question has come up before and you just have to accept that the restrictive rules are designed with a specific purpose in mind.

This is a Q&A forum with specific rules

Like any community, there are norms and expectations about proper function. If you don't like the rules, this forum is not for you. It doesn't make you "wrong". The purpose is not artistic expression, free expression of ideas, experimental philosophy, rants, blogs, and so on. There are many other resources online for this.

The purpose (in theory) is to produce high-quality answers to well-formed questions as detailed in the help center. In practice, this is obviously difficult, especially with a community this small with a wide and diverse range of opinions. However, thus far, this forum has provided me with countless sources of reading material and pointed me in the right direction numerous times for me to form my own opinions. Sometimes I have to filter through less quality responses that have upvotes but I have not found a better resource anywhere online.

I feel quite privileged to be able to ask complex questions and have others spend the time to provide detailed, sourced responses.

The purpose of moderators is to curate higher quality answers; don't take it personally or feel singled out

A few years ago, I finally saw a question I was confident enough to answer. I got carried away and wrote a 2000 word response with 15+ references. virmaior deleted my post (after back and forth in the comments) for the following reasons:

1. Too detailed. Fair enough.
2. It looks like a college philosophy essay, not a SE answer. I wasn't sure if this was an accusation of plagiarism but I took it as a compliment since I'm self-taught.
3. I took about 1600 words before I actually got to the real answer to the question. Fair enough, though I would say some of the detailed background was necessary.

Was I angry about the deletion? Sure - I put at ton of work into my response. Probably around 5 hours with all the editing. But it was on me. virmaior was just doing his job. He said he would undelete it if I spent some time editing it down. I never got around to it.

Use the comments to improve your answer

The comment section is an opportunity for others to ask you questions to clarify your answer and improve its quality. Use this to your advantage. If your question gets deleted, ask the meta how it could be improved to reach the community standards.

virmaior is one of many moderators

virmaior may be too restrictive for my tastes (as he has every right to be), but so what? There are many other moderators on this forum that balance that out. Philosophy itself is a field with a wide range of opinions on many different matters so it is not surprising that this forum reflects it.

The correct way to voice your opinion on how to improve this forum

Can there be improvements to how this forum is run? Sure. But the correct approach is to ask clear question on the meta that attempt to identify a problem and/or provide possible solutions or alternatives.

You are also allowed to question the way the forum functions (that is the purpose of the meta stackexchange). For example, here is a question that addresses some of your concerns (answered by virmaior no less). The help center very clearly states the purpose of the website and should be read before posting here. If you find it unclear, indicate that in the meta!

Answer 7

Interesting answers aren't always the best answer. Could be as much due to frustration as it is with a low quality answer that doesn't answer the question.

For what it's worth, I would like to read more like this, but only if the question stipulates that they are interested in more open answers.

Answer 8

In my experience, virmaior♦ has a very narrow view on what qualifies as philosophical and what qualifies as a good answer. Unfortunately, he has a lot of power here.

I've had my own issues with this user in the past :

• Should opinion-based questions always be allowed on the philosophy board?
• Must every answer contain a source? Which kind of sources are accepted and why?

Just when I thought I'd give this community another try (today), he deleted yet one more of my answers for some arbitrary (and IMO nonsensical) reason :

• I recently deleted the following answer

Unfortunately, this behavior seems to be supported by other moderators (eg. stoicfury♦).

I expect more from philosophy.SE, frankly, and I'm not inclined to engage in any activities in this community as long as such behavior among moderators persists!