I'm really sorry, I just can't stop arguing badly about everything. Hope I'm not offensive.

Is this question OK to ask? I've been part of this community.

  • 1
    I will close this question, as Philosophy.Meta is for discussions about content and/or mechanics of Philosophy.SE. However, I hope you will find my answer helpful, which is more an extended comment rather than a real answer.
    – Philip Klöcking Mod
    Sep 4 '17 at 15:21

I am caught in a dilemma here:

As a moderator, I will (have to!) close this thread, as it is not discussing contents or mechanics of Philosophy.SE.

As a person, I nevertheless feel obliged to address this, as it is a recurring pattern already discussed several times before.

Firstly, you do not have to apologise. I feel you are just trying to learn the mechanics and adapt. That's ok. What is important is taking advice seriously and not repeating the same patterns over and over again.

Secondly, you are not alone in your struggle. There have been users in the same position and there will be others.

Now, it may be a stretch (if so, I will have to apologise), but my feeling is that you are standing at a crossroads and you can basically choose between two options:

Either you take the hard way, working yourself through complicated, sometimes exhausting reads and/or thoughts, or you continue to have good intuitions that are released into the world prematurely, as it were, and by this, alienate people.

This is not about philosophy only, this is a general remark. Your mind seems to look for and try to apply similarities and links all the time. This is a sign of intelligence. But it also seems to do so in a way that is uncontrolled and faster than you consciously can manage, like a hiccup (or several) in between. Now, the main problem is that intelligent does not necessarily mean intelligible. And if all this is just put together into sentences, you may have a vague understanding or hope that it makes sense (expressed in questions), but nobody can understand how this would make any sense. And that brings us to the hard part.

When dealing with 'other minds', you will have to be careful to reverse-engineer the hiccup-jumps, to stay in the picture, and give every intuition a garment of reason and language. Regarding philosophy, this is even harder than elsewhere, as we use a lot of technical definitions and very particular understandings of words, therefore simply throwing your understanding of something into the ring does not work, as it can be totally different from the original author's understanding and use.

Therefore, before using coined terms to illustrate an intuition, you will have to go through actually reading and understanding what it originally was used for and how it was defined. Then, you will hopefully be able to use analogies even more powerful - and point out where they end (as this is part of the game as well). This does not have to be a university course; most of the older texts are publicly available, reasonably well translated.

Only then, you will have a common ground, a shared sphere where everyone plays the same (language-)game, and then you will be able to express your thoughts in a way comprehensible to others.

Anyway, I do not in any way want to have this sound elitist or anything, it is just that I think this is really a major problem for philosophy in general and this site in particular. Even professional philosophers sometimes argue for hours about how the other's position does not make sense, only to realise later that one of them (or both) had basic misconceptions about a fundamental concept involved in their argument or just jumped to conclusions that in no way were justified by anything other than a (however well educated) intuitive guess.

  • 1
    what a kind answer, thank you. i have had a few accounts, but am definitely trying to learn and conform to the rules and expectationso of the site cheers
    – user28474
    Sep 5 '17 at 19:02