-2

I've had so many of my questions closed. 100? Maybe a little shy. I won't list questions, at least while people have consistently closed my questions without giving reasons. Just the latest example of this: how is this off-topic (mostly off-topic closes):

What good is philosophy that is not clearly reasoned?

  • 1
    lack of clarity is an issue sometimes. duplicates come up. likewise not knowing enough to ask a focused question (though these are also consistently left open when asked by other users). but... the opinion based / off topic question closes seem to me, and i mean this as politely as i can be, to be someone with a vision – user25714 Jul 4 '17 at 15:16
  • are people just closing questions that don't have answers on wikipedia? – user25714 Jul 4 '17 at 15:19
  • 2
    Can you clarify a bit? Is the question "why is this specific question closed" (if so maybe mention that in the headline) or is it rather: "can I get guidance on how to write good questions for this site in general?" – Joseph Weissman Jul 4 '17 at 16:17
  • 2
    Very quickly on that individual question -- the formulation is not particularly NPOV; please remember we have an ethos similar to Wiki's, so consider narrowing the frame and indicating what exactly is the specific, narrow problem you're having in your study of philosophy that you would like someone here to help you with -- indicating more fully what you've been reading or studying can help answerers find out an appropriate level to approach the concern and provide a great explanation – Joseph Weissman Jul 4 '17 at 16:20
  • @JosephWeissman that's two good comments, thanks. apologies for the somewhat bitter question, i'll return to it in a few days have been away – user25714 Jul 8 '17 at 15:05
4

I would like to add another point that is too long for a comment.

I understand your efforts and continuous rejection produce frustration. I think this has something to do with your inexperience in expressing your thoughts in written format.

Oftentimes, there is a good philosophical intuition behind your questions and I think that you know that and become so frustrated as they seemingly are not seen or ignored.

The real reason for the closed threads is rather the package than its content, if you like. Obviously, you frame your intuitions in a way that is completely understandable and intuitive for you, but hard tho comprehend for others.

It is kind of ironic in context of the example, but I really think you should try to learn to introduce into your thought and contextualize it, so that it can be followed by people having a completely different background. In effect, this is what most so-called obscure philosophy didn't care about, therefore, oh, the irony.

Positive feedback: Give introductory remarks and contextualize your thought after, most importantly, having clarified for yourself what exactly your thoughts are. The second recurring theme is that your contexts are again your personal opinions instead of concise philosophical positions. You will have to learn to omit these, because it will let your questions look like subjective reflections and personal philosophy.

Others cannot be expected to dive deep into your mindset, you will have to find a way to express your thoughts in a way compatible to theirs.

3

The off-topic reason for a close does give a specific reason for the closure. When you click on close and choose the off-topic reason this comes up:

enter image description here

which lets you go further and explain why exactly the question is off-topic. For the question you gave as an example, the reason given was the "pushes a personal philosophy" reason. This can also be seen by going to your question and looking just above the comment boxes:

enter image description here

It even says "The users that voted to close gave this specific reason". So, at least to me, it seems like you shouldn't be so focused on the phrase "off-topic", as you are in this question and your comment on the question; more so, you should be asking "why is this pushing a personal philosophy?" if you still disagree with that assessment of the question.

I wrote a comment on the question after I voted to reopen it but that was before I saw that you had made a meta-question about it. I will repost what I wrote in the comment:

I'm voting to reopen this question. The actual questions that are being asked are "Why are some philosophical arguments difficult to follow?" and "Can a willful lack of clarity be justified?" and those, I do not think at all, are "pushing a personal philosophy" which is the reason it was put on hold. However, maybe the reason that people voted to put it on hold is because of the framing of the rest of the text in the question, because you are saying "I can't see what obscure style can do." I don't know, maybe you can try to reframe the question in a more neutral way.

And as a side note, I have to agree with Joseph that there's something off about the tone of this question. The title of the question is not a question, it has nothing to do with the question that is being asked, it is just the start of your first sentence. That isn't a very good way to introduce a question, at least I don't personally think so. I think that it, as well as some of your questions (and I'm absolutely not saying you are the only person who does this) come off as conversational, while this site is explicitly designed to not be a forum. Questions that are focused and get straight to the point, written with correct grammar, spelling and punctuation, and don't come across as someone who is writing the words out just as they're thinking them are often a lot better received by the community than the opposite. I'm not saying this applies to the specific question you listed, I already said what I think about it (the issue is the framing) but I think in the past you've asked questions that look more like you're thinking through the question at the same time you're typing it and it comes across more so as a statement than a question. I'm not saying this applies to all of your questions.

You must log in to answer this question.