How do we tell when we're asking questions without answers?

Question

How do we tell when we're asking questions without answers?

I think this is what I've been doing, intransingently.

https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/40937/how-do-atheists-discuss-the-incarnation-as-word

They don't, it's nonsense to try and make sense of divine attributes. History of religion.

https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/40931/how-can-the-american-dream-exist

This is not answered explicitly by philosophers rather than social scientists. The american dream is too obviously an ideological or at best literary idea.

Did Adorno retain anything from Heidegger's Being and Time?

You could ask what important points did he retain, but that's subjective. Both discuss Descartes, what else do you want to list?

---

So, I should apologise, and ask about the best way to tell what has an answer, before asking

Answer 1

A great question has a single correct topical answer.

That doesn't mean it isn't subjective, but it shouldn't be vague, personal or opinion-oriented.

Substantial philosophical context combined with a narrow problem in your reading are the keys here.

"Answerable" questions are specific issues derived from your study that can be answered by further topical research -- and are scoped narrowly so they can be answered in a few paragraphs.

The question should, in other words, explicitly specify a narrow and largely-objective criterion for a correct answer -- ideally which centers around some specific problem or "blocker" you're encountering in your study of philosophy (reading, summarizing, comparing philosophical works and writers.)

Answer 2

Questions do not need to have a definitive answer in order to be asked on Stack Exchange sites.

From the guidance (here)[https://stackoverflow.blog/2010/09/good-subjective-bad-subjective/]

1..."How?" and "Why?" has more lasting value than a bunch of product-feature bullet points or a giant enumerated list, no matter how extensive. In contrast, the bad subjective questions let answerers get away with hit-and-run answers that maybe provide a name and a link -- but fail to provide any sort of adequate explanation, context, or background.

This suggests that question which simply ask for book recommendations and such should not simply have one answer, or a list, but a personal (inevitably opinion-based) explanation as to why one thinks those books are best.

2.Great subjective questions tend to have long, not short, answers. The best subjective questions inspire your peers to share their actual experiences,...

There is no need for questions to be scoped narrowly as great subjective questions have long, not short answers. This point also advises adding the extremely personal and opinion-based element of personal experience into the answer, so even questions about how one applies a certain philosophy would not be too subjective (although my personal preference would be not to touch such questions).

3. ...There is always more than one right way.

A great question need not have " a single correct topical answer." As the SE guidance explicitly states. The presentation of different points of view will assist the philosophical student far more than someone trying to present everything as the only way.

5.Great subjective questions insist that opinion be backed up with facts and references. Opinion isn't all bad, so long as it's backed up with something other than "because I'm an expert", or "because I said so", or "just because".

"Philosopher x said...", because I'm an expert and I know such things is clearly not a great answer according to these guidelines, nor is simply referring to other "experts". Questions of the sort, what did philosopher x mean by... would only invite good subjective answers if they invite interpretations based on fact. Questions which invite opinions based on facts (by which most of the world means science) would be good subjective questions.

It is absolute nonsense to suggest that a site must be little more than an elaborate index for the SEP in order to fit the rules of SE sites. There are thriving sites like Academia.SE, World-building.SE, Seasoned Advice.SE, Parenting.SE etc..., the list goes on. All are based partly or in some cases entirely, on opinion backed up by facts a tried and tested combination which most of the academic community have been using for centuries.

If people don't want a site that tackles philosophical questions (even the vague, more than one answer types) and provide a ranges of viewpoints backed up by facts then that's fine (it's a democratic community after all), but can we please stop this charade that crops up every time this sort of question is is asked that our hands are tied and this is the way it must be because the SE rules make it so. They clearly do not.