The question: “ What is the logical function of “and/or”?

was closed with the excuse:

“While this question may be related to philosophy or occur in a philosophical context, the question itself doesn't seem to be about philosophy, and is therefore not a good fit for our site.”

What it really meant to say is: “While this question may be related to philosophy or occur in a philosophical context, the question[er him/her/thems]self doesn't seem to [be academically associated with] philosophy, and is therefore not a good fit for our site.”

This is not a strawman argument. You guys just didn’t want to own up your disgusting bigotry. I know this first hand: I attended liberal arts with a philosophy major so their you have it. I know how the vast majority of you think about the rest of society. I know that your lack of academic or practical self-worth can only be justified if you can at least assert to that what you are doing is not something anyone can do. So you constantly try to fight people out of your ranks to justify why what you are doing is so important.

The same is true with your choices of words in your publications even when talking about the most trivial matters in the most trivial light making up new words (not concepts!) (e.g. “das Man”, right because we didn’t have “közember” or ordinary man): Half self-justification, half alienation of the ordinary man. (I’m not saying, say, the law doesn’t do the exact same thing to rip people of off their rights by making up magic spells that you either know or the judge will act like they don’t understand what you plead, but at least they know they are merely technicians of the law while philosophy tries to appear as though the highest and deepest of academic intellect merely out of a minority complex).

The ordinary man won’t sys “das Man” just ordinary man, now he obviously is unable to discuss the very sane reality described by some dude.

It is a good way to get government funding and grants: Pose like you have something no else has and can do what no one else can. But Stackexchange is not a site for bigotry (see CoC rule 3.)

In fact, new user must be, if at all, interacted with with additional care and welcoming. This may include, as implied by its very existence, the editing of a question by another.

If merely seeming like is what the crux of the inquiry is not whether or not something in essence is what it is, in this case a question of theory, the maybe you should rename your site philology and discuss not the subject matter of philosophy, but its self-aggrandizing academic community. So people won’t come here ask and answer questions about subject matters of philosophy or theorem on anything, and then a true, democratized, non-bigot, open discourse (questions and answers) may ensue in its place.

And then you can also care about form over substance.

See also:

Why was this question about logic migrated to the mathematics SE?

Because of bigotry.

Is defining scientific concepts a part of philosophy?

No, because you couldn’t form the question as thematized by philosophers of science and technology. Leave this to the professional philosophers.

Close reason for 'blatantly off topic' / 'philosophical problem unclear'

Oh-oh, some stats on bigotry.

What’s up with this cargo cult style of answers?

Here is one of you who calls out the result of your behavior merely for the wrong reason and blatantly hypocritically: The “average street people” must emulate your style so that “the question itself doesn't seem [not] to be about philosophy, and [] therefore [be found] a good fit for [y]our site”. With emphasis on your site. It’s not your site when Stackexchange (1) allowed me to register and (2) asserted that I was worthy of 100 reputations here for stuff I did elsewhere. It is our site, not your site as a matter of policy, and of course, it is your site very much so as a matter of practical reality so long as you can you kick everyone out who doesn’t look like they belong. The good reason to call out the “faux academic style” is because it looks at the form and not the substance. Why hypocritical? Because our wannabe friend from liberal arts always wished to make it in the big league of arguments (law school) and he never succeeded so he just picks up on what preaches that “[i]t’s not enough to put in endless qualifications in your answers[; t]hey also have to be the right qualifications”, but manages to ridiculously put the words “Exhibit A” with bold styles typical of contract law and motion practice which functions as an extension to the main text where a subordinate document of, at times, several dozens of pages, may be cited, but he has no clue. He just saw it from the cool kids from law school, looked it up in a dictionary, and thought it can be used as an example put on display which he could argue he meant in that exact dictionary sense it’s just clear he didn’t from the same style (both bold type font, capitalized identifier, alphabetic identifier instead of a number, why not Exhibit 1, because most of the time lawyers used letters and not numbers there) so our friend uses this terminology cluelessly while lamenting about the “street people” trying to look like philosophers merely because you would kick them out if they walked in in flip-flops, while he himself is trying to look pose to belong to yet another academic-philosophy admired group of intellect: Lawyers. How pathetic?

Should this site be restricted to academic answers only?

Here we go! Finally not just beating around the bush. Did you know that I blew the minds of all the leadership of my philosophy faculty the first 2 weeks in university only to get the question. “Where did [I] got my philosophy education” from the faculty head in awe merely to be responded a nameless (will be a “das School” for you to understand) school, and never tell them I read exactly zero pages of any single academic or academically recognized discussion of philosophy before getting into your ranks and putting down an individual music philosophy. Does that make me more? No, the fact that I was able to pull that off makes your community exactly as worthy as you feel when you wake up in the middle of the night while others pioneer legal arguments to protect the most vulnerable in society, solutions to make nuclear fusion work and give a shot to the well-fare of the entirety of our species and the rest around us, and computer scientist realize that our collective belief about freedom of will and actions with a moral value are a societal fiction as the same cognition may be achieved in language models that we possess basically resolving one of your most important mysteries, and core inquiries about ourselves doing your job.

Mystified at why a bunch of my questions have been closed

This guy clearly demonstrated that he is not an academic of philosophy. You can say “leave this to us, we know better the answers to the most important questions to your own being” which is sorta ridiculous and sad, but when you do that, should there be a genuine attempt to actually answer those questions of the “street [das Man]”? Clearly, the academically recognized stuff is alienating in language enough for the “street people” not to (want to) understand, fine, you guys just talk among each other. But then they turn to you in your hobby free time for answers because you successfully fooled them into believing that you know better, and now you send them away. So then they come back after picking up this and that, try to rephrase their questions, step on the tip of their toes for you, and then you complain that they speak faux academic. So which one is it? Because more often than not (U.S. excepted) it is them who pay their tax for your faculty to run so you either do some commonly understandable stuff with any social value, or at least not be so arrogant when they come to you and ask that you answer. Because it’s SE. and if the same question comes up again, you can just point them the previous answer so you will not be bothered later, plus you can justify why to get all those funds and grants which for this arrogance should be paid back with usury.

So which one is it? Do you answer those fundamental questions to all of us, or do you not? Make your call.

  • 7
    You may be surprised to learn that only a tiny fraction of close votes is done by people who actually have been trained academically in philosophy, not to speak of how few are an active part of academia. Also, I would not expect a reasonable answer on this post as it basically is a rude, lengthy rant. And last but not least, it is not necessarily the people but the StackExchange format and its structural demands that kind of push the site into that direction.
    – Philip Klöcking Mod
    Oct 11, 2022 at 16:18
  • It definitely is “a ride, lengthy rant”, my response in kind to getting closed on a question clearly within the scope of discourse on logic and natural language philosophy only to when I had something to throw in, I just looked at my last experience with you, and realized it’s pointless. You can refer to the rest of the non-mod or non-core user base, but let me tell you: On law.SE there is a hardcore user base who is policing this kind of behavior. We are there to reopen these questions. And then there is your moderator discretion to single-handedly reopen. Oct 11, 2022 at 16:23
  • I only saw one question reopened out of the list of the particular user. Also: The close in this case clearly didn’t come from your users as a custom explanation was submitted. I mean, seriously, what sort of explanation is that it didn’t “seem like” philosophy!? Only mods can give custom close reasons. And you had been complained to about the same reason. Oct 11, 2022 at 16:25
  • This close reason is here for quite a long time now. It is custom for the site but established in the system for years.
    – Philip Klöcking Mod
    Oct 11, 2022 at 16:28
  • “ And last but not least, it is not necessarily the people but the StackExchange format and its structural demands that kind of push the site into that direction.” Absolutely not. The more natural language the question is formatted the higher the likeliness that another “ordinary [das Man]” (with whom I rather associate myself then those who had the flagrancy to call their fellow humans that) will find them and thereby create content useful for the future user to find through search engines and end up on the site. It will generate more engagement, and growth. But that can, of course, … Oct 11, 2022 at 16:28
  • …make us realize how barely any universal and unique value is the output of this branch of academia actually is: The core fear of philosophy as a whole and pretty much everyone in it as we all very well know. Oct 11, 2022 at 16:29
  • “It is custom for the site but established in the system for years. ” And you think that is a legitimate reason? That the ordinary man doesn’t use your lingo? If so, once again, let’s rename this philology, you guys have fun with your Nietzsche’s and Heidegger’s, and let us — and those truly open to discuss some stuff import to everyone on this roasting ball of sh— spiraling into the void. Oct 11, 2022 at 16:32
  • 1
    As German, I'd ask you not to throw pseudo-technical terms. "das Man" is a bad mixup of a German article (the wrong one, no less) with an English word. It is either "der Mensch" or classically "man". There is no problem with natural language, there is a problem with questions that are either too broad or assuming some premises that are not mentioned or not even intelligible. StackExchange is simply not a good format for discussion. It's not like we'd like the situation as it is but as has been written time and again, this site is a bad venue for doing philosophy.
    – Philip Klöcking Mod
    Oct 11, 2022 at 16:34
  • “ As German, I'd ask you not to throw pseudo-technical terms. "das Man" is a bad mixup of a German article (the wrong one, no less) with an English word.” epochemagazine.org/15/… Ask one of your idols: Martin Heidegger: Sein und Zeit. (English title for non-German speakers: Being and Time) Oct 11, 2022 at 16:36
  • It’s a little embarrassing when snobbery is mixed with a lack of actual substance. You guys missed the looks of my question, and when I use a SINGLE term of your lingo, you don’t recognize yourself in the mirror. Yeah, it annoys the hell out of me, too. There was absolutely no reason to introduce that terminology. And yes, it did butcher the German language, but it merely stood in this conversation to make a point about how wrong it is when it merely (clearly) serves the purpose to alienate the ordinary people from make inquiries into the subject matter of philosophy. Oct 11, 2022 at 16:41
  • 2
    Can't help when English people can't read German. Heidegger is far from being an idol. His philosophy is idiosyncratic and has many flaws. And "das Man" is a term he invented meaning "the term "one" like in "one does not do things like that", which is a term that berefts humans of their individual Being".
    – Philip Klöcking Mod
    Oct 11, 2022 at 16:42
  • Since I expect that you will delete that comment, I took a screenshot to put it in the above discussion-starter (as the tag suggests) to stand there as the prime example of what I am talking about. Oct 11, 2022 at 16:43
  • Has it ever crossed your mind someone just was a bit overly hasty in closing?
    – Philip Klöcking Mod
    Oct 11, 2022 at 16:44
  • That is what the mods are for, and a well-nurtured policy reenforced that we are here, indeed, to let the “ordinary [das Man]” ask their little minds like myself. That’s a core value of law.SE. I invite that you visit over there and observe how ferocious a number of users can get when meany people try to close questions that relates to the law, the legal process, legal education and seeking legal advice. What you as a mod can do is (1) set forth a new policy that we are here for the “ordinary [das Man]” and not to alienate them, and answer questions; (2) you can delete that close reasons; and… Oct 11, 2022 at 16:48
  • 2
    You can accuse me of not understanding anything as much as you want - sorry for not recognising a mutilated reference to one term in a book I read a decade ago - this does not change that this is a StackExchange site that has to follow the StackExchange model and that this is simply a poor base to discuss philosophical questions. You can ask questions on philosophy in layman terms any time as long as they are clear and specific enough to require less than an essay to be answered. You know what's worst? I actually would have reopened your question if you just flagged and asked for a review.
    – Philip Klöcking Mod
    Oct 11, 2022 at 20:16

2 Answers 2


There is too much hasty closing of questions on this site, to be sure. Others have made the same observation. On the whole I would say that any question that already has some answers, particularly upvoted answers, or an accepted answer, should not be closed.

Sometimes a question may not be answerable because it is worded so badly that it is unclear, but I don't think questions are closed just because they are not expressed in academic language, or any particular language. Sometimes questions are little more than requests for a definition, and sometimes they are so broad that the only reasonable response is: go and read this article in the Stanford Encyclopedia.

The site is hardly about philology though. I suppose part of the issue is that philosophy is such a broad subject that almost anything could qualify. Also, the literature of philosophy is so huge that two people may study philosophy and yet find that they have read completely different authors and completely different subjects and have few interests in common. I suspect that sometimes questions get a downvote or a close vote from people because the question is simply not interesting to them.

  • 2
    I'd like to add that the more philosophical literature you know, the broader the question appears since you feel you should address all the relevant positions on the matter...but yeah, there are a lot of hasty close votes. Not done by me I might add. They mostly are done by people who probably or quite obviously never studied philosophy in an academic context.
    – Philip Klöcking Mod
    Oct 12, 2022 at 5:57
  • That's a generally humble answer, and justifiably introspective. Two things though that are materially incorrect: "I don't think questions are closed just because they are not expressed in academic language" there is a custom-to-the-site close reason "[which has been] here for quite a long time now", the very reason at bar "[w]hile this question may be related to philosophy or occur in a philosophical context, the question itself doesn't seem to be about philosophy, and is therefore not a good fit for our site.” I would make the wild guess it was preworded because there was a moderatorial… Oct 12, 2022 at 18:09
  • …need for it, and it remained because it was found useful. The other thing: "go and read this article in the Stanford Encyclopedia" this is not a problem. Ideally, a legal system is a closed system (it's not in practice), for the same input (facts), the same out come is provided based on the code (as in law, statute etc.) of the system (not a computer, but a government, judicial, administrative etc.). So ideally, when we answer there, we are pretty much required to just cite the applicable code (statutory or decisional law). There is nothing wrong with gathering the information from these… Oct 12, 2022 at 18:12
  • …source, summarize them, and cite the article. Or even cite longer texts from them. It is not the issue here. Nor is the divergent nature of the language used for philosophy because the layman will speak a "street [das Man]" language which will be understood not only the street people, but those using specialized language. Simply, the close reason should go, and it should be set forth that rules be liberally construed so as to allow the most questions salvageable to be answered, be edited, if one prefers, or give advice—if not, just leave it if there is a substantial possibility of salvaging. Oct 12, 2022 at 18:15

If you think academic philosophy is useless, that we're not answering important questions, etc. then why are you even posting here? Go post on some SE where you think you'll get worthwhile answers.

I checked up on that "why was this question migrated" example, for example, and your portrayal of what went wrong there is so off the mark it's absurd. Even if it was some sort of bigotry, there's no tangible evidence of that, just your conspiracy-theory radar going off. Well, we know very well how reliable conspiracy theories are so good luck and have fun improving the future of humanity going that route...

Addendum. Gatekeeping is a widespread problem online, not just with respect to philosophy here (or on other websites), but with respect to plenty of other topics besides. Don't humblebrag like you're defending "the common folk" while complaining about having to deal with gatekeepers just like lots of other "common folk" have to, also. For Hell's sake, I posted a technical discussion of liar-type sentences to r/logic (IIRC) and they shunted it out on the grounds that I used too many parentheses in the text. I tried posting one of my wonky derivations of the well-ordering lemma on r/mathematics and they were like, "Since you used deontic logic in the derivation, it doesn't count," and I appealed the decision to the entire site (all Reddit, not just the subreddit) on the grounds that special logics are currently a feature of new-wave set theories (e.g. Hamkins' use of modal logic) and nothing came of it. Did I go on some BS harangue about the evils of r/logic or r/mathematics? No. I still disagree with them but I also think it would be a better idea to try to get my work peer-reviewed, perhaps, than just whine online over and over again.


You must log in to answer this question.

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