Is the anonymous aspect of philosophy Q&A a good or bad thing,or both?

Question

Pls explain your A to this philosophy Q. "Explain", in philosophy based on reason, usually means to give reasons in support of your answer.

I assumed, bec Iasked the Q here, that it would be understood that the Q is about this Q&A forum, the YA Q&A formated forum where most participants are anonymous. I see now there are exceptions, some people, braver souls than I, do post under their names. Notwithstanding the exceptions, the Q still remains valid bec there is no way to prove it either way w/o extra-ordinary means like actually meeting the person in the flesh. Since few of us expect that to happen, we are in a virtual world of the internet where names & avatars are just that. Aside from self-descriptions in your profiles on your YA homepage,your Q&A is the only available source of info about you. &many have opted out from providing a look-see to the public/audience. So we still remain virtual, whether we like it or not, in this forum which means the Q is a fair one. Somebody has tried to broaden the scope of my Q,which is their right, but the topic is the issue of anonimity of the participants in the philosophy category.

It is not the general problem of anonimity known in philosophy circles as the epistemological "problem of other Minds." If you edit your A in response to these added details pls do so w/o editing the remarks you have already made bec doing so would lose its logical reference to those remarks and the readers would have trouble understanding the added details by me, the anonymous Q-asker.

If you appreciate the effort I put into my Q's please star my Q. I feel that too many are being too stingy about starring the Q's, not just mine but any Q worthy of stars.

Answer 1

I think anonymity gives a certain amount of freedom to ask and answer openly and truthfully, which would otherwise be restricted due to self-consciousness or other reasons. On the other hand, it removes accountability and therefore there is no sincere ownership to any question asked or answer given.
I therefore believe that it works both ways.

Answer 2

You beg another question: What aspect of philosophy is NOT anonymous?

It could be argued that the written books that make up the bulk of what is often considered to be philosophical work are far more anonymous that even our questions and answer in this forum. After all, in a book the only interplay that can occur between author and audience in one-directional.

Letters and magazine articles are more analogous to what we do here, but even there can be found large rifts of time between interactions which we do not suffer through. If you want something LESS anonymous than what we do here, you will probably have to go to actual conversations.

But that raises the question of whether even this lets you know much about a person. You know MORE, undoubtedly, but does that make it non-anonymous? If you live long enough (and have enough friends) you are likely to experience a kind of jamais-vu where someone who you THOUGHT you knew does something completely out of the range of your expectation. And perhaps so completely that it calls into question all your previous knowledge - if they can do this, did you ever REALLY know them?

And if you don't really know one person, do you really know any of them? It would not be to difficult to argue that the loose estimates by which we tend to categorize people have very little resemblance to the actual person... or nobody would ever surprise us, no? People are so vastly complicated that some do not even consider psychology and sociology to be sciences.

A Jungian mask is just as easy to hide behind as an avatar, no? I would say that whether or not anonymity is good or bad, it just IS, and is unavoidable to boot. What non-anonymous basis would you have to judge it?

Bottom line: It is better, I think, that the anonymity that is always present in every relation be obvious - as it is in this forum - than to allow people to persist in their delusions of knowing what they do not really know.

Answer 3

Since I write and answer under my real name, (for I have nothing to hide) I guess I'm not qualified to answer.

Answer 4

I'm not sure I fully understand your question, but here's my answer. Any answer that I provide to any question can be broken down into that which is based on experience and/or that which is based on logic. In no way is the logical aspect of my answer dependent upon my identity. My logic is either sound or unsound and my conclusions, therefore, are either valid or invalid. My identity cannot matter in this respect.

However, who I am does ultimately matter. My experiences shape who I am and affect my perception of all sorts of matters. In this sense, knowing me would provide you with some insight into what I think is important and why I think it important, or vice versa, and help you evaluate and assess that portion of an answer that isn't based in logic.

I hope this is helpful. Have a great 2008!

Answer 5

if you meant the anonimity of the real persons behind those avatars, for me,is a bad thing. i dont believe in being anonymous, it takes away all the respect and credibility(in some cases) of the person. It is like not being genuine and true to your answers or questions you are posting here at this forum.

if you noticd, my avatar is my real picture and my email address is my real email address..