-3

I have lost count at the number of erratic and irrational votes on my questions, it probbaly numbers in the 1000s by now. e.g.

Does anyone claim freedom toward death is not for me, but for others?

How is this pushing a personal philosophy? It is clearly worded in the site remit.

The THOUSANDS

Is it that I'm not using enough jargon?

Have the rules changed on that changed? Because the front page just seems composed of attempts at new arguments for age old problems.

  • 3
    Possible duplicate of Unncessarily harsh voting behaviour – curiousdannii Aug 5 at 5:10
  • 4
    Erratic voting corresponds with erratic thinking. I think I had this to say to others before: No matter whether some thought culminating from extensive reading and connecting several conceptual dots makes perfect sense to you, the hard part (for actual philosophers as well, btw) is expressing the thought so that all the context and the implicit connections are made explicit so that everyone can follow the thought. Your edit history shows exactly how this "making explicit" gradually made the post more and more contextualised and comprehensible without changing the underlying idea. – Philip Klöcking Aug 5 at 19:45
  • sorry btw, i'm too irritable and pugnacious. – another_name Aug 7 at 23:59
2

I'm new to this site, and didn't vote. Don't think I have sufficient rep for down votes to matter. This is based on what I've seen on other sites...


Some people vote based on their personal beliefs (eg, hermeneutics), not the merits of the post. In those cases, it's hopeless, unless you're willing to frame your posts according to the prevailing beliefs. I'm new to this site, so don't know what it's like here, but I would expect a solid argument against freewill would acquire a fair number of down votes because it challenges a core assumption about agency. However, if it could be framed in terms of something innocuous, the reception could be different.

Your question appears to contain a double-whammy. It potentially challenges beliefs about both freedom and death, so I'd expect down votes to be inevitable. I'm not sure how the question could be reframed, but it's probably too late for that.

At this point, your main option is to try to address any concerns people raise in comments. After editing, respond to the comments to let people know you've addressed their concerns so they can consider revising their vote. Some people down vote to encourage revision, and they do retract their votes, or even switch to up votes.

I do find your difficult to understand. Here are some points that can be improved:

  • A quote or explanation of what "freedom toward death" is referring to.
  • A brief summary of the book, or link to one, for those who haven't read it or who need a refresher.
  • What does "key for authenticity" mean? What does "authenticity" mean in this case?
  • Refrain from using the word "obvious". Err on the side of explaining why you think what you do. Something that is "obvious" should be self evident. If that were so, there would be no need to ask a question in the first place.
  • Maybe some grammar issues? Otherwise, there are strange phrases I can't parse, like "this freedom is me". Would that mean that I am the mortal embodiment of freedom?
  • Similarly for Levinas. A summary explanation or link of what you understand of him.
  • Brief explanation of the "other".
  • "my freedom is for others" – ????
  • "my authenticity would not fall foul of that" – ???
  • that's fair imho – another_name Aug 7 at 22:19
  • @another_name edited to include points you can consider improving in your question – xiota Aug 7 at 22:33
  • 1
    hm yeah ideally all those points... i guess my standards are too low. – another_name Aug 7 at 22:58
  • 1
    @another_name Writing good questions is tough. Questions should really get more points for upvotes than they do. You'd be golden if you could "explain it to a sixth grader". – xiota Aug 7 at 23:08

You must log in to answer this question.

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