6

This question is better addressed in meta as its not really a question about Philosophy but about the 'friendliness' of the site. There are biases on this site; as many other sites will have; for example, I find myself frustrated by the inordinate attention that questions around mathematics enjoy, whereas there are many more important topics to discuss or ...


6

Multiple questions in general should be separate; you can always link between them to bring a bit more coherence. Even in the case where one question builds on another, it can be useful to have individual questions so that their answer sets will be independent and voted on separately. Like any other general rule, though, there are definitely some edge cases ...


6

Stack Exchange sites are rarely an appropriate place to "try out" new or eclectic theories. Like Wikipedia, Stack Exchange sites are only meant to be secondary sources, quoting and linking to the primary sources of knowledge. Maybe on occasion people will in the process of answering a question give some new novel insight or pose a question that leads to a ...


5

Mi Yodeya does this with their purim-torah-in-jest tag for a few days each year. Not being Jewish, I cannot say how well said tag is accepted, but as someone who wanders past their SE every now and then, I enjoy their efforts. One reason I think Purim Torah works so well is that the answers appear to take the questions dead seriously, so the satire comes ...


5

I think one should not try to develop a kind of commentary for the whole book. But what seems fine to me and in fact a very good idea is trying to ask questions based on the text that adress all points you consider in any sense problematic. What seems hard to do otherwise would be finding the amount of text necessary to make the question comprehendable, ...


5

Take a look at some of the questions on meta which address the issues you raise. Note that a new user is not necessarily an amateur philosopher. We have new users who are already familiar with philosophy who fit right in rather quickly. The issue here primarily is with people who are new to philosophy and unaware as to how to phrase their question or narrow ...


5

Phil SE exists because the "work from first principles only" paradigm DOES NOT WORK! It is the nature of humans to be blind to their own unexplored pre-conceptions. We NEED other humans to help us identify, and critique, the assumptions we hide from ourselves. This is a process of dialog, with others both interactively, and by research into prior ...


4

Welcome to the site. :) First of all, thanks for taking an honest effort to try to improve your question-asking here, that's a kind of "meta" cognition we don't see very often in newcomers. :) Before I address your questions, you should note that we have a steadily growing but still fairly small community of people here; even pretty good questions will max ...


4

So, I've only done some basic investigations. First of all, there is an issue with correlations with user score. The way the database works is that there are separate tables for users and posts. Each post has a user id, and each user has a score. You can cross-reference the tables, but you wont get the score at the time of posting, only their score now. Of ...


4

Personally, I think that the question is a good question and I've voted to reopen it. At the same time, to an extent I understand what Joseph means in his comments (or at least I can understand what I would mean if I raised his specific objection to the question). A lot of the time there are questions that come to SE sites like this one that have a lot of ...


4

Just as we are not here to do philosophy, StackExchange, in general, and Philosophy.SE, in particular, is not a good place to learn a subject. StackExchange has a very concisely defined purpose: Developing a database that gives objectively "correct" answers to a given question in a given subject. Correct should here be understood as appropriate according to ...


4

I mean you're kind of right that good questions and good answers go together, but if you want to say that good questions are good because of their answers, then that's problematic. It doesn't give space to poor questions with answers better than they deserve (super lazy questions, very basic questions which could've been easily answered had the OP read a ...


4

As unsatisfactory as it might be, I think the only correct answer here is "it depends". Generally, I would deem it a kind of reference-request. It should be tagged accordingly. Now, whether it is acceptable or not depends a lot on how the question is worded and framed. If, for example, you know that you ask for an epistemological or an ethical concept, you ...


4

The reason your question attracted downvotes is already explained here on meta and in the comments: The title question has nothing to do with the body of the question The body of the question mixes a quote by Curry, something about mere points of views and something about truth and provability. The three have nothing inherently to do with each other, yet ...


4

Philosophical questions and questions about philosophy are hard to disentangle at times, but as a rule of thumb, it is definitely more correct to say that the site is indeed suitable for questions about philosophy, with a given textual context. That's not because we dislike philosophical discussion or original ideas, but because these simply do not fit well ...


3

There's no such facility in StackExchange...


3

No. Or maybe to be more specific, we can only answer questions based on "how they are phrased." And when questions are worded in ways that invite open-ended answers or belie deep ambiguities about what would constitute a good answer, these questions should be placed on hold until clarified into something that can be answered. If clarification is ...


3

If the question hadn't been closed as "unclear", I would have closed it myself as "too broad". The main problem is — as Jon Points out — that you are trying to stimulate discussion rather than get an answer to a specific question. It's ok to ask questions that are based on your own ratiocinations rather than strictly those that arise from the study of ...


3

The first problem I have with the question is it doesn't define terms very well. In particular, I consider mechanical life a contradiction in terms on the order of "married bachelor". From a practical point of view, robots are tools and their value is directly proportional to their usefulness to people. People are a totally different class of entity and it ...


3

The hardest part of this type of question is avoiding the XY-Problem. In other words: When you are an expert of some sort in a very specific discourse/problem, you normally think in terms of intuitions that are above and beyond the foundational texts and three steps ahead which you have to demonstrate step by step. Your main task, therefore, is twofold: Be ...


3

You have enough reputation to participate and create chat rooms. https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/help/privileges That is the easy part. The problem might be to encourage others to participate. If you create a chat room send me a notice and I will stop by.


3

As a native English speaker the word "problematization" sounds odd. So does "problem building". Rather than define such words find a simpler way to ask the question. You have also referenced Ghandi, Kierkegaard and Maslow. I would quote something from Kierkegaard (since this is a philosophy site) and ask how Kierkegaard might answer the question which I ...


3

Sorry for the very short answer, which is due to my limited time available, but a question to that effect has already been asked and answered here: What essential properties make us human?


3

We should all be ready to clarify our questions at all times. You can preempt clarification requests by writing it as clearly as you can and including links to resources that explain more. Compound nouns in particular should be given definitions or links because they very often have meanings that are not just the sum of their parts. But if you just call ...


3

It's impossible to do philosophy without inciting arguments. Philosophy is meant to convince people of the 'rightness' of given ideas through the process of argumentation. If you do not get some argumentational pushback, then you are not doing philosophy. You are reciting ideology: preaching to the choir (as it were). If no one is arguing, no one is ...


3

I guess there is no written rule against this as it is an unlikely event, more typically happening with blatantly off-topic spam. It is also generally good to open separate questions rather than mixing fundamentally different questions in the same post, so there cannot be a general rule to not make multiple posting in a short time. But when there is a big ...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible