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 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.
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.