Welcome to the staging ground for new communities! Each proposal has a description in the "Descriptions" category and a body of questions and answers in "Incubator Q&A". You can ask questions (and get answers, we hope!) right away, and start new proposals.

Are you here to participate in a specific proposal? Click on the proposal tag (with the dark outline) to see only posts about that proposal and not all of the others that are in progress. Tags are at the bottom of each post.

Post History

40%

+0 −1

Incubator Q&A Is Kant's categorical imperative applicable to Q&A sites like Codidact?

Interesting thought/question trying to apply a philosophical concept on the "main problem" of Q&A! Roughly translated the imperative approach is as you said "Act in a way that the maxim of you...

posted 2mo ago by Antares‭ · edited 2mo ago by Antares‭

Answer

#3: Post edited by

Antares‭ · 2024-09-01T12:05:51Z (about 2 months ago)

Copy Link

Raw

Markdown

Interesting thought/question trying to apply a philosophical concept on the "main problem" of Q&A!
~~Roughly translated the imperative approach is as you said "Act in a way that the maxim of you doing could be the general rule" (maxim being the intended purpose or results or goal).~~
So if a user comes here he surely would say "of course" to the question if he would endorse that everybody posts questions like he does/did. Because in the eyes of a user (of any human being) there is nothing inherently wrong with the way they are and behave and formulate a question. The problem is more on the receiving end which imposes standards on quality which are hard to be met by unexperienced users. Which I find arrogant, toxic and rude up and beyond (imho).
Anyone learns that asking a question is the simplest thing to do to get a piece of knowledge. Q&A sites draw heavily from that concept. This is also the reason why they are appealing to so many.
The users coming her have the intention to seek help by humans who in their eyes _offer this help_ because they provide a Q&A site, clearly indicating, that the main input is the question. Many are in need of such places of asking questions when not being able to help themselves or do not fully understand something. This is not inherently wrong in any way either. Not everybody knows everything.
But the Q&A sites actually pervert this concept, because the ones that answer, focus on the "answer" part of the Q&A. And because they form the mainstay community, they are of the opinion, they can make the rules (which is a fallacy, imho).
Answerers are more concerned in what they can provide as an answer than trying to understand what the question/questioneer wants and the intention behind it is. So, in fact all the questioneers become jesters to entertain those who want to answer things. Is that something to be endorsed by everyone and should be the general rule (in hindsight/a posteriori, after the case has happened)?
Kant's imperative would (always, imho) fail "in the situation" (a priori, before the case happened). Any answerer will not see any difficulties in imposing the sole responsibility for a question to the user in order to make his answer shine the brightest. Of course yeah, the maxim of this should totally be the general rule, right? ...
Essentially, I am of the opinion that the imperative approach does not work on an individual, momentary scale. You could try to conclude from a higher point of view, maybe in retrospective about some events (a posteriori). You can use it as a measure for those who are aware of the "true meaning and application" of such formulas and want to think about it. But it surely fails in every practical application in a "real-world scenario" if one thinks that phrase can sort out things or is something absolute to adhere to.

Interesting thought/question trying to apply a philosophical concept on the "main problem" of Q&A!
Roughly translated the imperative approach is as you said "Act in a way that the maxim of your doing could be the general rule" (maxim being the intended purpose or results or goal).
So if a user comes here he surely would say "of course" to the question if he would endorse that everybody posts questions like he does/did. Because in the eyes of a user (of any human being) there is nothing inherently wrong with the way they are and behave and formulate a question. The problem is more on the receiving end which imposes standards on quality which are hard to be met by unexperienced users. Which I find arrogant, toxic and rude up and beyond (imho).
Anyone learns that asking a question is the simplest thing to do to get a piece of knowledge. Q&A sites draw heavily from that concept. This is also the reason why they are appealing to so many.
The users coming her have the intention to seek help by humans who in their eyes _offer this help_ because they provide a Q&A site, clearly indicating, that the main input is the question. Many are in need of such places of asking questions when not being able to help themselves or do not fully understand something. This is not inherently wrong in any way either. Not everybody knows everything.
But the Q&A sites actually pervert this concept, because the ones that answer, focus on the "answer" part of the Q&A. And because they form the mainstay community, they are of the opinion, they can make the rules (which is a fallacy, imho).
Answerers are more concerned in what they can provide as an answer than trying to understand what the question/questioneer wants and the intention behind it is. So, in fact all the questioneers become jesters to entertain those who want to answer things. Is that something to be endorsed by everyone and should be the general rule (in hindsight/a posteriori, after the case has happened)?
Kant's imperative would (always, imho) fail "in the situation" (a priori, before the case happened). Any answerer will not see any difficulties in imposing the sole responsibility for a question to the user in order to make his answer shine the brightest. Of course yeah, the maxim of this should totally be the general rule, right? ...
Essentially, I am of the opinion that the imperative approach does not work on an individual, momentary scale. You could try to conclude from a higher point of view, maybe in retrospective about some events (a posteriori). You can use it as a measure for those who are aware of the "true meaning and application" of such formulas and want to think about it. But it surely fails in every practical application in a "real-world scenario" if one thinks that phrase can sort out things or is something absolute to adhere to.

#2: Post edited by

Antares‭ · 2024-09-01T12:05:21Z (about 2 months ago)

Copy Link

Raw

Markdown

~~Interesting question!~~
Roughly translated the imperative approach is as you said "Act in a way that the maxim of you doing could be the general rule" (maxim being the intended purpose or results or goal).
So if a user comes here he surely would say "of course" to the question if he would endorse that everybody posts questions like he does/did. Because in the eyes of a user (of any human being) there is nothing inherently wrong with the way they are and behave and formulate a question. The problem is more on the receiving end which imposes standards on quality which are hard to be met by unexperienced users. Which I find arrogant, toxic and rude up and beyond (imho).
Anyone learns that asking a question is the simplest thing to do to get a piece of knowledge. Q&A sites draw heavily from that concept. This is also the reason why they are appealing to so many.
The users coming her have the intention to seek help by humans who in their eyes _offer this help_ because they provide a Q&A site, clearly indicating, that the main input is the question. Many are in need of such places of asking questions when not being able to help themselves or do not fully understand something. This is not inherently wrong in any way either. Not everybody knows everything.
But the Q&A sites actually pervert this concept, because the ones that answer, focus on the "answer" part of the Q&A. And because they form the mainstay community, they are of the opinion, they can make the rules (which is a fallacy, imho).
Answerers are more concerned in what they can provide as an answer than trying to understand what the question/questioneer wants and the intention behind it is. So, in fact all the questioneers become jesters to entertain those who want to answer things. Is that something to be endorsed by everyone and should be the general rule (in hindsight/a posteriori, after the case has happened)?
Kant's imperative would (always, imho) fail "in the situation" (a priori, before the case happened). Any answerer will not see any difficulties in imposing the sole responsibility for a question to the user in order to make his answer shine the brightest. Of course yeah, the maxim of this should totally be the general rule, right? ...
Essentially, I am of the opinion that the imperative approach does not work on an individual, momentary scale. You could try to conclude from a higher point of view, maybe in retrospective about some events (a posteriori). You can use it as a measure for those who are aware of the "true meaning and application" of such formulas and want to think about it. But it surely fails in every practical application in a "real-world scenario" if one thinks that phrase can sort out things or is something absolute to adhere to.

Interesting thought/question trying to apply a philosophical concept on the "main problem" of Q&A!
Roughly translated the imperative approach is as you said "Act in a way that the maxim of you doing could be the general rule" (maxim being the intended purpose or results or goal).
So if a user comes here he surely would say "of course" to the question if he would endorse that everybody posts questions like he does/did. Because in the eyes of a user (of any human being) there is nothing inherently wrong with the way they are and behave and formulate a question. The problem is more on the receiving end which imposes standards on quality which are hard to be met by unexperienced users. Which I find arrogant, toxic and rude up and beyond (imho).
Anyone learns that asking a question is the simplest thing to do to get a piece of knowledge. Q&A sites draw heavily from that concept. This is also the reason why they are appealing to so many.
The users coming her have the intention to seek help by humans who in their eyes _offer this help_ because they provide a Q&A site, clearly indicating, that the main input is the question. Many are in need of such places of asking questions when not being able to help themselves or do not fully understand something. This is not inherently wrong in any way either. Not everybody knows everything.
But the Q&A sites actually pervert this concept, because the ones that answer, focus on the "answer" part of the Q&A. And because they form the mainstay community, they are of the opinion, they can make the rules (which is a fallacy, imho).
Answerers are more concerned in what they can provide as an answer than trying to understand what the question/questioneer wants and the intention behind it is. So, in fact all the questioneers become jesters to entertain those who want to answer things. Is that something to be endorsed by everyone and should be the general rule (in hindsight/a posteriori, after the case has happened)?
Kant's imperative would (always, imho) fail "in the situation" (a priori, before the case happened). Any answerer will not see any difficulties in imposing the sole responsibility for a question to the user in order to make his answer shine the brightest. Of course yeah, the maxim of this should totally be the general rule, right? ...
Essentially, I am of the opinion that the imperative approach does not work on an individual, momentary scale. You could try to conclude from a higher point of view, maybe in retrospective about some events (a posteriori). You can use it as a measure for those who are aware of the "true meaning and application" of such formulas and want to think about it. But it surely fails in every practical application in a "real-world scenario" if one thinks that phrase can sort out things or is something absolute to adhere to.

#1: Initial revision by

Antares‭ · 2024-09-01T12:03:28Z (about 2 months ago)

Copy Link

Raw

Markdown

Interesting question!

Roughly translated the imperative approach is as you said "Act in a way that the maxim of you doing could be the general rule" (maxim being the intended purpose or results or goal).

So if a user comes here he surely would say "of course" to the question if he would endorse that everybody posts questions like he does/did. Because in the eyes of a user (of any human being) there is nothing inherently wrong with the way they are and behave and formulate a question. The problem is more on the receiving end which imposes standards on quality which are hard to be met by unexperienced users. Which I find arrogant, toxic and rude up and beyond (imho).

Anyone learns that asking a question is the simplest thing to do to get a piece of knowledge. Q&A sites draw heavily from that concept. This is also the reason why they are appealing to so many.

The users coming her have the intention to seek help by humans who in their eyes _offer this help_ because they provide a Q&A site, clearly indicating, that the main input is the question. Many are in need of such places of asking questions when not being able to help themselves or do not fully understand something. This is not inherently wrong in any way either. Not everybody knows everything.

But the Q&A sites actually pervert this concept, because the ones that answer, focus on the "answer" part of the Q&A. And because they form the mainstay community, they are of the opinion, they can make the rules (which is a fallacy, imho).

Answerers are more concerned in what they can provide as an answer than trying to understand what the question/questioneer wants and the intention behind it is. So, in fact all the questioneers become jesters to entertain those who want to answer things. Is that something to be endorsed by everyone and should be the general rule (in hindsight/a posteriori, after the case has happened)?

Kant's imperative would (always, imho) fail "in the situation" (a priori, before the case happened). Any answerer will not see any difficulties in imposing the sole responsibility for a question to the user in order to make his answer shine the brightest. Of course yeah, the maxim of this should totally be the general rule, right? ...

Essentially, I am of the opinion that the imperative approach does not work on an individual, momentary scale. You could try to conclude from a higher point of view, maybe in retrospective about some events (a posteriori). You can use it as a measure for those who are aware of the "true meaning and application" of such formulas and want to think about it. But it surely fails in every practical application in a "real-world scenario" if one thinks that phrase can sort out things or is something absolute to adhere to.

Communities

Post History