Should the significantly neurodivergent or autistic not post questions on Stack Exchange? I have evidence that points that I shouldn't. Please help me [closed]

Question

A philosophy of life is any general attitude towards, or philosophical view of, the meaning of life or of the way life should be lived. Wikipedia

A philosophy of life is an overall vision or attitude toward life and the purpose of it. Human activities are limited by time, and death. But we forget this. We fill up our time with distractions, never asking whether they are important, whether we really find them of value. First Google Query

I have read: https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/help/on-topic && https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/help/dont-ask I tried to see where my post could have been included in them but due to my mental challenges I have a very hard time with this format at teaching.

I have been diagnosed by professionals as being on the autism spectrum. I have plenty of other diagnoses too. I also have plenty more undiagnosed. I am trying to ask with all that I can what I think are good questions in what I think is the right place to ask them. I seem to be failing in popularity and Stack Exchange has hinted toward that point to me also.

Some people get me just fine. Some people are fascinated by my point of views. More understand me to be a genius. Then there are people who I can't seem to communicate with for some reasons. Most of those people find something like a grammar mistake, something small then tell me they have proof that everything I was trying to say was wrong. I Really feel bad for these people to be trapped in such an existence. They seem intelligent enough. They have rather nice abilities. Yet they seem to enjoy finding the smallest thing that in their eye that I'm wrong about to argue over. I sense that they just want to be right about something, about anything. But I wouldn't include that as a potent reason for communication. Why would someone choose to live life this way?

[To move on along: You can skip to the last paragraph, this is just for character building (and a stab at explaining some of my philosophy at life)]

So I've asked a handful of questions in the past few days. I keep getting upvotes and downvotes. Downvotes have taken the lead. Each of my posts at the moment are curiously at -2 each. Then each of the three posts have also been voted Closed.

To reiterate: All of my posts where closed - I don't understand why. Then people seem to not like my question - I don't understand why.

The Three Posts

• 1stWhat's the psychology behind why COVID-19 has such an effect on people
• 2ndIs my ability to soon do something that I think should have been done long ago statistical evidence this world somehow revolves around me?
• 3rdWould you say that I've developed my own personal branch of science by the ability to be functional alone?

The first & third got closed, and stating at the top of them: "This question is off-topic. It is not currently accepting answers." I with all my ability still think they are on topic and useful in philosophical growth. Did they only read my post's title? or did they read my post too? I would think they could get it that I'm abnormal.

The first post has this too inside the Closed Box "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."

I can't understand how this relates to my post.

On my first post I wrote this: "Coming near to the conclusion, I'm conscious that this is the Philosophy Stack Exchange. I couldn't think of a better place to answer this question. Simultaneously -> I wish asking this question to include (I don't acknowledge limitations to answers) answers as a philosophical tone/style and to answer the 'meta' of the question. I can expect many types and styles of answers and I feel there are many valid answers to this question."

Also I would think my post to be related to the definition of "Philosophy at life" above.

Are these not strong enough arguments? Am I still off course? I'm not strongly motivated by death, and at the moment I have trouble seeing people's philosophy for their meaning at living. To me Humans are very silly. Smart, logicalish, but very silly.

Part of my philosophy at life is to keep pushing my consciousness/tolerance/compassion/all of these things and more, then with what I gain I put that newfound power (with all the extra gain from investing) back into growing more of it, then apply this in a loop. To gain power to experience more of life and help people along the way .I have enormous tolerance and compassion, beyond normal people. And I keep growing. People that I talk to in person acknowledge in words that there is something different about me. I've even had complete strangers tell me they believe in me. Then for people who I've been around don't argue with negative emotions with me, then 5secs later they'll make a negative emotional statement to another person. I have other experiences I could share to support this if I felt like anyone would enjoy talking with me about. Though I acknowledge that something seems to control destiny. I don't know what it is.

Could my philosophy (I know I haven't explained much of it but I've explained some positive effects of it) be worth exploring if it has such powerful function? What would be the point in studying your philosophy rather then mine if what I say is true about my philosophy and it is so powerful in allowing growth. Is life just a popularity contest (It's safe to be limited by what is popular alone?)? If so then how could there be so many problems in the world? To me that is strong potential evidence that it isn't safe. I believe that philosophy and the practice of living that philosophy should make them ENORMOUSLY STRONG. Like how I state myself being. I find it curious why I haven't met another of me.

I would think it's evident alone that I would/do bring a very potent way at looking at life. But perhaps experiencing a different way of life is not what philosophy is about?

If we neurodivergent cause more frowns then smiles, and there was no way we could change any time soon, is that ethical?

[Edit] Are there established ethical rules that state I should or not? Is there a branch of philosophy dealing with my question?

Answer 1

First, I wouldn't edit your question down at all. It's an expression of your struggles using the site, and I think it's instructive to people who aren't neural atypical. There's a certain presumption among normies that if something doesn't fit their ability to process atypical linguistic structure, that the problem is with the structure, and not their lack of flexibility processing.

Second, you have to expect that your needs aren't going to be met by a forum that tries to navigate the difference between original philosophical discourse and strictly construed Q&A that might be characterized as little more than copying passages out of dictionaries and encyclopedias. There's a fine art to balancing the requirements, and there's a tension because some members of the community presume their logic to navigate that threshold is the only logic (and good luck trying to persuade such people their logic isn't sophisticated enough).

I'll respond directly to your post:

There is a difference between a question that asks philosophical questions, and a question about philosophy. The former is expansive and engages in what might be considered first principles and metaphysical speculation, and might be typified by questions like 'How do you know the universe is deterministic?'. This a perfectly legitimate philosophical question. But to answer it requires in certain normative speculation in regards to formulating first principles such as does one presume physicalism or dualism or accept the coherence of idealism with physicalism. The latter type of question is circumscribed about the idea that there exists a canon of work that should be taken as at least semi-authoritative on such questions, and that responses to such questions should be rooted in that canon. This has the practical effect of screening out general opinion from expert opinion and avoids certain forms of argumentation that are counterproductive for the site.

What's the psychology behind why COVID-19 has such an effect on people

This is a philosophical question because there exists no canon of expert opinion to appeal to. This is why this is a question that gets closed or is better suited for The Philosophy Forum. Here, the emphasis is on asking questions that are at least partially subscribed by the canon. Plus, no concept in your question, psychology, pandemic, or covid-19 is strictly speaking narrowly within the scope of philosophy. In fact, 'the psychology behind' at best is peripheral to questions of the philosophy of mind, and is very explicitly a question of psychology.

Would you say that I've developed my own personal branch of science by the ability to be functional alone?

This question is somewhat grounded within the canon because the philosophy f science clearly addresses what makes a branch of science, but the question is somewhat malformed within the philosophy of science because sciences are sociological projects, and so it's somewhat meaningless to say any one person can develop a branch of science. On this ground alone, it's certainly possible to advocate for closure. My personal preference as an educator is to leave such questions open, institute the maximum principle of charity and reformulate the question, and answer such questions in such a way to educate the questioner in regards to the conceptual coherence or other flaws in terms of well-formation. But many contributors simply find your questions hard to comprehend because they weave your personal experience into the concepts, or are otherwise uninteresting to their own interests. One leading contributor routinely votes to close because they admit questions are uninteresting.

You'll find in me no small critic of the current libertarian currents in the administration of this site. Two of the three administrators closed a question of mind calling it off-topic when the topic is widely relevant to a type of philosophy to the point it has it's own article in a recognized encyclopedia of philosophy. But this is a community of volunteers run by volunteers, and there's a certain negotiated set of expectations regarding what constitutes the boundary between 'philosophy questions' and 'questions about philosophy'. And to successfully use this site and respect both the fabric of the community and your fellow users, you'll have to circumscribe your needs. You can use the Meta site to argue for a change in culture, you can vote for new system administrators, but until you figure out how to use the mechanism of Q&A here, you'll continue to be challenged by closure. And so we're clear, this site is largely, but not completely, used and run by normies.

So, when you are in Rome, you have to do what the Romans do. In the case of your question, that means asking questions in a Q&A format, which means asking after other's philosophies rather than asking about your own. It doesn't mean that you can't develop your own philosophy, but rather you have to do so by playing by the set of rules that the normies have laid out, particularly because the majority of sysadmins aren't neural atypicals.

So, the best way to do that is to wrap your mind around this post: Friends, we are not philsophers. Whether or not you agree with it (and I do only somewhat), it was written by the most senior sysadmin, and embodies the politically dominant philosophy on what constitutes acceptable Q&A.

Answer 2

I give my perspective on the importance of accommodating neurodiversity here: Do IQ tests measure intelligence? Note it applies both ways, it's about everyone understanding we don't all have to think the same.

You probably didn't know we just had a covid thread before your question on that, and it was the most actively voted on thread I have seen in my time on here: Is it ethical to convince someone to get vaccinated? So this topic is going to get extra scrutiny. Personally I thought it a valid question for the site, though not well phrased or concise. I commented about the 1919 flu getting a very different reaction. More anthropology/psychology question than philosophy, though. That is clear right?

The world revolving around you just seems garbled. Why would a natural language-into-code program imply that? You don't sound like you've done reading on things like solipsism, to be able to ask the question you have clearly. Monocentrism I have also heard used for non-narcissist focus only on a persons own view. Maybe read: Is there anyway to prove things happen/exist if I'm not aware of them? It also sounds like you want to rehash Logical Positivism. And haven't read about Godel. If you want to propose new ideas, it's incumbent on you to find if they, and/or the reasons they don't work, are already out there. Otherwise it's a waste of everyone's time. The question sounds like it's from a teenager who hasn't matured enough to understand the world doesn't revolve around them. It's perfectly understandable, just dreary, and lacking in imagination.

I commented on your 'personal science'. That just doesn't fit this site. It seems like you aim at an equivalent of the Hilbert Programme. There is no mileage in that, it's a mirage.

Read the guidance on asking questions here. Note, this is not like the coding SE, it has it's iwn culture & rules which have developed over time for good reasons. To engage effectively, understand what they are.