3

e.g.

When someone profits from injustice, is life less meaningful?

What can make death not a bad thing?

What is "high art"?

Personally, I feel I am being closed too often, not vice versa. I have let my normally good standards slip over the past two or three days, but the fact someone is already trolling me about that says a lot about the site and how friendly it is.

3 Answers 3

3

I noticed I was among the five to vote to close the latter two questions, so I feel I should explain myself here, especially given your concerns about the site as a whole.

I voted on the basis of the latter two being opinion-based (which was the majority view of the closers in both cases). With the Death Question, to me it seems too open-ended and that it will solicit discussion rather than a strict Q&A, since one can answer from far too many perspectives on the matter (typical of opinion-based questions). The High Art question has the same issue in my opinion.

I don't think your questions are nonsense at all, actually I think quite a few are overall good philosophical topics (the Death Question being one of them), but I've closed a few because they don't fit the format of this site, a Q&A site and not a discussion site. Agreed, philosophy at its heart is about discussion and dialogue, but that's not how Philosophy.SE functions. Philosophy.SE is much narrower in its focus, given the SE format.

It's also why while I may close your questions, but I'll never downvote them. It's strictly an issue of the rules, not that they are nonsense or bad topics. I'd vote to reopen them quickly if they were modified such that they fit the Q&A format (for example, if the Death Question was narrowed enough so that someone could answer say, from the perspective of Hellenistic Philosophy, and it would be the definitive answer and not simply one out of many plausible answers).

3
  • if the question were too broad, then i would have thought i'd be able to find some answers quite easily through google. i couldn't, so assumed that there wasn't much literature on it. and anyway, to limit it to one group of philosopghers wouldn't be what i meant by asking the question
    – user67675
    Commented Nov 5, 2023 at 11:09
  • 2
    @prof_ghost Well it's too broad for Philosophy.SE, which doesn't necessarily mean it can be easily answered either (like through a Google Search). I can understand not wanting to edit it in the way I suggest, since that's not your original intention. My suggestion was just the first idea that came off the top of my head. I'm sure there's other ways as well.
    – Hokon
    Commented Nov 5, 2023 at 17:52
  • 1
    ok sorry i don't necessarily see the difference i guess :) cheers!
    – user67675
    Commented Nov 5, 2023 at 18:21
2

I like two of your questions. I do not know anything about the other. My answer to your first question is yes. I equate injustice to disvalue or loss of meaning. To the second, death per se is not a bad thing - it is natural and inevitable. A good death would end a meaningful life. We are then on to what is meaning? Both of these questions relate to meaning which connotes value. As to your site concerns, I think that I have posted some questions that are too general and apparently unsupported by scholarship. I also misunderstood that this site is not really about debate, although a lot of debate seems to go on. Some people seem to prefer commenting to answering. In my view, the best philosophical questions are general and fundamental.

1
  • 2
    I think folks misuse the comments (myself included) to bypass needing the provide definitive answers and engage in debate. In reality, comments should be to help clarify a question, and ideally, once a question gets a proper answer most if not all comments can be removed. And I’d agree . . . the nature of this site excludes some of the most important questions in philosophy.
    – Hokon
    Commented Nov 8, 2023 at 16:44
1

Your questions aren't nonsensical. They're metaphysically speculative instead of fact-oriented. The difference is as follows:

  • What did Kant believe according to neo-Kantians about the rational metaphysics of Descartes in the Critique of Pure Reason?
  • What do you believe is a the best metaphysics?

The former question is essentially a question that draws on definitional and encyclopedic information and resources. Many Kant scholars have read CPR, and one can find entries in the WP, IEP, SEP, and EoP on Kant and transcendental idealism. This is a question that asks a fact about philosophy. This is descriptivist. "Philosophy is..."

The latter question is a question that asks someone to deliver their personal views on philosophy. This invokes personal views and normativity. This is prescriptivist. "Philosophy ought to be..."

This is the fact-value distinction. Of course, someone who is highly knowledgable about Kant does introduce normativity by way of selecting interpretations, references, and might even drop a comment or two about personal views, as long as there is a measure of epistemic humility.

So, take a look at your three questions, and ask yourself, are they questions about facts? or questions about values? If they obviously fall in the latter category, then they are not nonsensical, just ruled out of bounds by the community.

5
  • thephilosophyforum.com has no problems, btw, with speculative discussion if you need an outlet for that.
    – J D
    Commented Nov 22, 2023 at 21:05
  • i don't ask many metaphysical questions, but i see your point, and the questions do not tend to ask about a specific philosopher (though those that do fare no better)
    – user67675
    Commented Nov 23, 2023 at 19:28
  • 1
    @prof_ghost I think the most important thing to ask yourself is "am I benefiting by participating in this society?", and if the answer is yes, then persevere. Philosophy may have the lowest bar of admission, but it has the highest criteria to satisfy, and in that sense never take rejection personally. Simply ask yourself, what must I do to find consensus? Inevitably, you will move forward on the journey, which for the record, in this metaphor has no destination. Kaizen.
    – J D
    Commented Nov 23, 2023 at 20:20
  • consensus? i am not sure
    – user67675
    Commented Nov 23, 2023 at 20:22
  • 2
    The consternation caused by bickering is a symptom of emotional truths, and not of truths of reason. Therefore, the goal of the well-adjusted thinker is to perfect a quietist perspective, not because it wins arguments (which ultimately it does by accommodating diversity of thought), but because it allows you to rise above the fray. That is, according to D.T. Suzuki what enlightenment entails: floating a few inches off the ground everywhere you go.
    – J D
    Commented Nov 23, 2023 at 20:27

You must log in to answer this question.