2

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? ? . . .

Con-Vey Etymology "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.

migrated from philosophy.stackexchange.com May 13 '16 at 0:59

This question came from our site for those interested in the study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence.

  • 1
    I gave a specific answer to the question. There are only personal philosophical theories, what type do you (personally) believe their are? "Facts are precisely what there are not, only interpretations." - Friedrich Nietzsche... – Scott Thomas Smith May 12 '16 at 23:30
  • 1
    And seriously, I only want to be included in the discussion, and I am serious about philosophy. I am trying to ADD to the discussion. This really should not be happening. I am appalled that my comment was deleted when it was entirely relevant, if a little obscure and floral in language, but, hello, you're the one who wants to be a philosopher, right? Someone asked the NAME of a [|'non-existent' fallacy|(if the riotgear mod has way)], and I put forth INFORMATION on what was actually behind the question, a theory, thinking about thinking (the definition of philosophy (love of wisdom? anybody?) – Scott Thomas Smith May 12 '16 at 23:35
  • 1
    Are you illiterate? Short answer: yes. Long answer: not nearly enough. Oh, but imagine if you could read? Then we'd make a hell of a pair. You, actually hearing the pictures on your screen like some synaesthetic Baudelaire with tendrils of a Lovecraftian space oddity and the pseudonymic possibilities of an Either/Or Kierkegaard. But instead, you make an ass out of you, me, and Forrest Gump as well. – Scott Thomas Smith May 12 '16 at 23:41
  • 1
    Oh, you deleted your comments. Darn. I'll leave mine up. I believe you said something about 'I should actually study philosophy and not just post obscure things on the internet, for that's not what philosophy is. If I actually take it seriously.' and before that you said 'we give specific answers to specific questions round these parts' and 'not espouse personal philosophies and post whatever comes into our heads'. I had this whole plan I was going to go to this site each morning and try to answer one question, look at the new ones for the day. Please let me. I would really really like that. – Scott Thomas Smith May 12 '16 at 23:46
  • This appears to be a question about how the SE works, so I've moved it to meta.philosophy.SE. – virmaior May 13 '16 at 1:00
  • "And I'm assuming other people viewing the question can not either." -- this is not true. With sufficient reputation you can view everything. Also, it is not correct that you have no way to contact the person who deleted your answer. Meta is the place to do that, or the contact link at the bottom of each page. – Keelan May 13 '16 at 9:19
  • 2
  • The rules here on Philosophy.SE seem to be even more arbitrary and nonsensical than those on SO. How anyone can tolerate this and actually think the rules make sense is beyond me. Then again, one learns from experience never to underestimate human irrationality and ignorance! – John Slegers Jul 26 '17 at 12:04
4

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.

3

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.

  • 4
    Actually, I'm not an elected moderator since we are a beta. I was asked to be a moderator by SE staff. Thank you for your support. – virmaior May 31 '16 at 13:08
  • good answer, thanks – user29495 Nov 23 '17 at 22:07
2

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.

1

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?" )...

  • I tagged this as metaphilosphy fallacy because there is no such thing as metaphilosphy. Which is the heart of the argument. 'Within the bounds of the discipline we call philosophy'... Sounds like circular logic to me... Re-mote as the possibility is, this may not be the place for me. – Scott Thomas Smith May 13 '16 at 2:47
  • Er.. I'm not saying it's metaphilosophy. I'm saying it belongs on meta.philosophy. Meta.philosophy.SE is the place to discuss complaints about philosophy.SE... which seems to be what your post is... – virmaior May 13 '16 at 2:50
  • Well you didn't answer my question as to why you deleted my answer, unless your answer is, I broke the formula by trying to do too much and caused a scene. Or are you still claiming I didn't answer the question? Is the problem that I added too much to the discussion or not enough? – Scott Thomas Smith May 13 '16 at 2:57
  • I'm most definitely still claiming that your answer there does not and did not answer the question. Please reread my answer here as to why I deleted it (particularly, the senses in which what was written was tangential at best). Then please reread the answer you gave to the question. Then please identify where you named the fallacy or where you succinctly explained in terms of logic why it's not a fallacy. – virmaior May 13 '16 at 3:00
  • Can you do what you asking me to do? – Scott Thomas Smith May 13 '16 at 3:01
  • I not only can, I in fact did.... – virmaior May 13 '16 at 3:01
  • What is your answer? – Scott Thomas Smith May 13 '16 at 3:02
  • Ahh, maybe I misunderstood you. This meta.philosophy thread is about the answer you gave to philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/30157/… . What I might answer to that question is neither here nor there. What I did in my answer here was explain why I deleted your answer there... If you want to discuss other things, I don't have the time or the interest to do so. – virmaior May 13 '16 at 3:07
  • THE RELEVANT POINT being if you don't have an answer to the question, and I offer one that you did not DISPROVE (considering it does QUALIFY as an aswer to: the question asked), then you cannot say I didn't answer the question, but merely that I broke some rule, or perhaps RELEVANT convention? If not, I ask that you un-delete my answer. – Scott Thomas Smith May 13 '16 at 3:10
  • ADDENDUM: I do solemnly vow to be 26% less fast and loose with my rambling in the future, if you would but grant me this stay of execution. I am as Isaac to your Abraham!-- Your avatar is Kierkegaard (it WAS my first answer!) - A LITTLE FAITH, sir!? – Scott Thomas Smith May 13 '16 at 3:16
  • Yes, you broke a rule. You wrote a lot but failed to answer the question ... – virmaior May 13 '16 at 3:30
  • And yet where is the God who can stop you from sacrificing me now, oh Abraham? – Scott Thomas Smith May 13 '16 at 3:35
  • Don't speak- to name the fallacy, we've done it – Scott Thomas Smith May 13 '16 at 3:37
  • 3
    @ScottThomasSmith: The site wants us to formulate clear and destinct, as well as sourced, answers to the questions asked. It is not asking for more or less philosophical reflections related to/evoked by questions. The relevance for the question, the answer itself and the way to it should be immediately obvious on the first read, otherwise the answer is a bad fit for a site seeking to be a Q & A format for a quick lookup if you have a particular question. You may be a good writer/poet, but it doesn't make the answer a good one. It is superfluous, therefore -> delete. – Philip Klöcking May 16 '16 at 0:29
1

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.

  • This is a good answer. I agree my answer was a bit sloppy. The fact that it was deleted and not answered with a comment was jarring and too abrupt for my taste. This argument is a question of structure, and I had a personality clash with the structure of this site. I may come back sometime and try again but I was a bit turned off. As I tried to state in my answer, in my original post, I had been lurking on the site for a while before I posted my 1st answer, and I may not have made clear that this answer was a big part of my personal 'project' if you will, and it covers a lot of area for me. – Scott Thomas Smith May 24 '16 at 19:16
  • Thats great, and I would encourage you to post when you want. It's all a learning experience. Thanks for posting the META site because it lets us discuss and resolve these issues. – PV22 May 24 '16 at 19:23
1

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!

0

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.

-2

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 :

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 :

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!

  • I guess my main question reading your answer is why do you "expect more" and what do you mean by that? I get that you (a) want to do philosophy (or push the life philosophy you like?) and (b) want to do it here on philosophy.SE. But I'm not convinced you're grasping what an SE is supposed to be or how the term "philosophy" is meant to be used here. – virmaior May 24 '16 at 5:05
  • @virmaior : I see you got your "doctorate in philosophy" at a Jesuit university no one outside New York state ever heard of. I guess that explains a lot. I'm sorry, but I can't take people seriously who live in the 21st century and still regard the Bible as anything but a bunch of childish, irrational nonsense written by primitive barbarians. Neither do I have much faith in the American education system. Thus, I can't take your "doctorate" seriously... at all! Anyway, all this explains perfectly why you haven't displayed any understanding whatsoever of philosophy beyond boring platitudes... – John Slegers May 24 '16 at 8:55
  • 1
    Err, that's a really confused set of remarks. Jesuits for the most strongly agree with the bible is a bunch of childish, irrational nonsense written by primitive barbarians. I'm also not Jesuit... Don't really care if you take my PhD seriously unless you're a hiring committee at a place I want to work at. – virmaior May 24 '16 at 11:17
  • 1
    @virmaior : You should care! If you care about this place becoming anything but an intellectual desert, you should really get off your high horse and be more open-minded towards approaches to philosophy other than the very narrow, barren view the Jesuits taught you. I've had more meaningful philosophical interactions in pubs than the platitudes that typically pass for philosophical discourse here on this forum. I think it's sad, really... – John Slegers May 24 '16 at 11:43
  • Err, the only class I took from a jesuit was during an MA at a different institution. It's nice that you feel had more meaningful philosophical interactions in pubs than the platitudes that typically pass for philosophical discourse here on this forum. But thanks for the tip. – virmaior May 24 '16 at 13:56
  • @virmaior : I guess I have an issue with people who treat philosophy as just an academic discipline rather than a way of life... rather than what I've refered to elsewhere as the organic trans-generational enterprise of making sense of the universe that [people] engage in on an almost daily basis (see eg. Pierre Hadot, Philosophy as a Way of Life). IMO, those who treat philosophy as just an academic discipline (= the study of philosophical theories) don't truly understand the nature of philosophy beyond the most superficial level! – John Slegers May 24 '16 at 15:02
  • 1
    Er, I don't know anyone in the discipline who treats it as just an academic discipline. If anything, philosophy is among the few academic disciplines committed to something beyond merely academic pursuits -- we think we're figuring out pretty fundamental questions. But I hear all sorts of things from people outside the discipline about what they imagine philosophy might look like (turns out for most of them it sounds like the "profound thoughts" (tm) they want others to take seriously). – virmaior May 24 '16 at 15:18
  • @virmaior : IMO, philosophy as an academic discipline has become obselete. However, as Jo Wehler explained here, philosophers don't build on empirical data and today's philosophers are unfamilar with modern science. Science made philosophy obselete as a distinct academic discipline, but professional philosophers fail to realize it because they've gotten stuck in pre-scientific models of physics and meta-physics that prevent them from realizing that their field has become obselete. – John Slegers May 24 '16 at 15:33
  • 2
    A lot has happened since I walked away. I probably will not be using this 'service' in the future, simply due to the fact that a moderator can have such power without checks and balances I feel counter that power appropriately. I have no use for this system as it stands, though know of no alternative other than Quora.com which is weak. I do find it hilarious that virmaior is explaining we should not complain about what SE 'is' because it is what it is, while said user is the one making it... what it 'is'. This is a cultural argument, and the culture is wider than this website, which is useless – Scott Thomas Smith May 24 '16 at 19:09
  • 1
    @ScottThomasSmith : I first came to philosophy.SE a year ago. I left the after just two days, mostly due to the behavior and attitude of virmaior♦. I came back twice in the months to follow and pretty much ignored it after that, until I decided to give it another chance yesterday. My patience is already fading, though, so I'm sure I won't stay long this time either ;-) – John Slegers May 25 '16 at 7:49
  • Wow. Just goes to show how views can vary. I have no problem at all with SE and find it great. The standard of philosophy is higher (imho) than on many more academic sites and there are some really good people here. There really is a sense of enquiry and although there is the usual quantity of dogma and temperament when it comes to the more sensitive topics (sorry John, but your view of the Bible would count for me) it is easily balanced by other views. I cannot think of a way to improve it. For me it's the best philosophy site on the net. The moderation system seems to work well enough. – PeterJ Apr 14 '18 at 12:04
  • @PeterJ : That this place has not helped you come to the blatantly obvious conclusion that the Bible as anything but a bunch of childish, irrational nonsense written by primitive barbarians is one of its many problems. When platitudes are confused with philosophy and real philosophy is censored, your mind is deprived from the nourishment is needs to challenge dogmas and discover wisdom! This place is to junk food what real philosophy is to "nouvelle cuisine". – John Slegers Apr 15 '18 at 17:01
  • @JohnSlegers - As this is a philosophy site I think we should conduct these discussions at a higher level. – PeterJ Apr 16 '18 at 10:18
  • @PeterJ : As I pointed out, the moderators have a very narrow & intellectually immature view on what qualifies as philosophical and what qualifies as a good answer, making any discussions at a higher level impossible. – John Slegers Apr 16 '18 at 10:28
  • @JohnSlegers - The moderation seems fine to me and no kind of problem. – PeterJ Apr 16 '18 at 10:38

You must log in to answer this question.

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