The Symposium

amazon.com/Regarding-Pain-Others-Susan-Sontag/dp/0374248583

Le chat mort-vivant ...

chat and cat are the same word. :-)

actually, the title would be more ironic in French.

Because my cart is your horse and your horse is my cart.

The problem with speaking as a character AND a narrator is that people can't easily tell which I'm doing and when.

Too many people seem to think that we can have SOME discussion-style questions, so when we're talking about clear rules about closure, we end up with anything but.

Avoiding closure is MY suggestion to that problem, but regardless, I think it's more important that a problem exists and we solve it clearly and consistently.

Even if the decision is not #1, if #2 happens, and a decision is made, I'll be happy.

@CodyGray To be clear, there are two positions I've taken. 1) That we shouldn't close questions. Because I personally don't mind the discussion-style questions, and I doubt that there are enough academics on this site to justify catering to their preferences exclusively.

@CodyGray 2) That we should simply decide one way or the other if we're going to be allowing discussion-oriented questions or not.

Is meaning in language nothing more than a circuitous tautology of definitions?

@Ruben i still dont understand that [question]; it's okay that you havent gotten an undergrad or a minor let alone a finishing degree. if you have a question, and want reasoned, rational thought laid into it, bring it to phil.se and we will sort it out for you. if it belongs somewhere else with better experts we'll tell you, but if its one of ours we'll dissect it, tell you whats wrong with the question and give you an answer

So figure out what the site is about.

Sorry, again I'm not sure if by asking I add something to this debate, but I believe I might be the sort of serious non-academic from a field not too far away (psychology), who might be more numerous than serious academics (I think many scholarly philosophers may at first find Q&A foreign).

Please be advised: good questions are as important to philosophers as good answers. When you ask a question be prepared to get advice from the community to clarify your assumptions and better define your terms.

Answers that are terminologically secure, not shallow or pretentious, that show an understanding of the questioner's level/tradition/culture and do not treat him or her dismissively, that can either be included in accepted canons of philosophical discourse or are such as to be focused on abstract reasoning and widely accepted methods of argumentation and be precise in that they rigorously adhere to the demands of the original question

Not to go all Area 51 on you, but you should come up with example questions that are good, and questions likely to be asked that are bad

Stop this debate know and focus on the phrase

'mature and considered philosophical analysis'

(Ami is a man)

I'm pretty sure every site starts with the plan "well we'll allow some of them, but they'll be pretty rare", and before they know it it becomes "why is the entire front page filled with terrible questions?", and then it's too late

i wont say the community doesnt want that, but i will say (sorry to hammer home on bad memories) #1 & #2 killed atheism.se

@Joe The problem with allowing "some of them" is new users get confused, and when their question gets closed they get upset. "You allowed that other question, what's wrong with mine?"

@Joe, it would look like these guys: forums.philosophyforums.com

2) Not strictly answerable questions that can provoke interesting arguments from response to response and even allow room for people to contribute original remarks and go out on a (rigorous and eloquent) limb occasionally

oh thanks

OK I think there should be three groups of questions to be encouraged and let through. 1) Questions that are not strictly answerable (like sentience) but which can provoke interesting approaches/bibliographical information from different traditions in philosophy (e.g. from analytic as well as continental experts) - i.e. community-wiki types

This is why I just think questions should never be closed; let the community decide fluidly what is accepted and what isn't. It's annoying when I can't answer a question that quite frankly IS a philosophical question, just because there's five stodgy people

It's MUCH EASIER to close a question than it is to reopen one.

@JosephSpiros, in private beta I saw questions with +5, -5 in votes

I think there are more laymen present in this SE than in others.

There are "questions" on other StackExchange sites (such as StackOverflow) that also aren't worded very well as questions, but if a reasonable question can be inferred from them, then a good answer will state what is assumed to be the real question and answer that. It might not be the best solution, but it's not a bad solution.

I wouldn't use answerability as a criterion. This will confuse us. I would use this instead: The question contains terminology that is (irreperably) ambiguous/idiosyncratic/nonsensical

how about leading questions?

questions with unstated assumptions

I'm still a little lost as to why we can't simply /not close/ questions, and just downvote/upvote as we think they're interesting/answerable/etc.?

@Ruben, I think we'll all agree we're talking long term goals here

Such questions should be given room to breathe

"Do not all charms fly at the mere touch of cold philosophy? There was an awful rainbow once in heaven: we know her woof, her texture; she is given in the dull catalogue of common things. Philosophy will clip an angel's wings, conquer all mysteries by rule and line, empty the haunted air, and gnome mine unweave a rainbow." -John Keats

@EdwardBlack that question is so .... incredibly broad. You basically asked for a listing of all modern military philosophy.

On the other hand, I do recommend reading... mmm, Dreyfus

and asking questions about his aguments against AI

While that might be tedious to read, you don't have to read it, you can even downvote it, but don't close it as subjective just because the person is assuming a point of view.

I'd absolutely apply that criterion to most of the theology questions.

I simply think that it's possible for some questions to be answered without any reference to existing literature, and still be useful answers

which is what we want surely, as opposed to "y is x" + comments saying "you're wrooong!"

a truthful and definitive answer could for example start with "according to the x-theory of y, y is x"