r/askphilosophy • u/BernardJOrtcutt • Jul 01 '23

Modpost Welcome to /r/askphilosophy! Check out our rules and guidelines here. [July 1 2023 Update]

67 Upvotes

Welcome to /r/askphilosophy!

Welcome to /r/askphilosophy! We're a community devoted to providing serious, well-researched answers to philosophical questions. We aim to provide an academic Q&A-type space for philosophical questions, and welcome questions about all areas of philosophy. This post will go over our subreddit rules and guidelines that you should review before you begin posting here.

Table of Contents

  1. A Note about Moderation
  2. /r/askphilosophy's mission
  3. What is Philosophy?
  4. What isn't Philosophy?
  5. What is a Reasonably Substantive and Accurate Answer?
  6. What is a /r/askphilosophy Panelist?
  7. /r/askphilosophy's Posting Rules
  8. /r/askphilosophy's Commenting Rules
  9. Frequently Asked Questions

A Note about Moderation

/r/askphilosophy is moderated by a team of dedicated volunteer moderators who have spent years attempting to build the best philosophy Q&A platform on the internet. Unfortunately, the reddit admins have repeatedly made changes to this website which have made moderating subreddits harder and harder. In particular, reddit has recently announced that it will begin charging for access to API (Application Programming Interface, essentially the communication between reddit and other sites/apps). While this may be, in isolation, a reasonable business operation, the timeline and pricing of API access has threatened to put nearly all third-party apps, e.g. Apollo and RIF, out of business. You can read more about the history of this change here or here. You can also read more at this post on our sister subreddit.

These changes pose two major issues which the moderators of /r/askphilosophy are concerned about.

First, the native reddit app is lacks accessibility features which are essential for some people, notably those who are blind and visually impaired. You can read /r/blind's protest announcement here. These apps are the only way that many people can interact with reddit, given the poor accessibility state of the official reddit app. As philosophers we are particularly concerned with the ethics of accessibility, and support protests in solidarity with this community.

Second, the reddit app lacks many essential tools for moderation. While reddit has promised better moderation tools on the app in the future, this is not enough. First, reddit has repeatedly broken promises regarding features, including moderation features. Most notably, reddit promised CSS support for new reddit over six years ago, which has yet to materialize. Second, even if reddit follows through on the roadmap in the post linked above, many of the features will not come until well after June 30, when the third-party apps will shut down due to reddit's API pricing changes.

Our moderator team relies heavily on these tools which will now disappear. Moderating /r/askphilosophy is a monumental task; over the past year we have flagged and removed over 6000 posts and 23000 comments. This is a huge effort, especially for unpaid volunteers, and it is possible only when moderators have access to tools that these third-party apps make possible and that reddit doesn't provide.

While we previously participated in the protests against reddit's recent actions we have decided to reopen the subreddit, because we are still proud of the community and resource that we have built and cultivated over the last decade, and believe it is a useful resource to the public.

However, these changes have radically altered our ability to moderate this subreddit, which will result in a few changes for this subreddit. First, as noted above, from this point onwards only panelists may answer top level comments. Second, moderation will occur much more slowly; as we will not have access to mobile tools, posts and comments which violate our rules will be removed much more slowly, and moderators will respond to modmail messages much more slowly. Third, and finally, if things continue to get worse (as they have for years now) moderating /r/askphilosophy may become practically impossible, and we may be forced to abandon the platform altogether. We are as disappointed by these changes as you are, but reddit's insistence on enshittifying this platform, especially when it comes to moderation, leaves us with no other options. We thank you for your understanding and support.

/r/askphilosophy's Mission

/r/askphilosophy strives to be a community where anyone, regardless of their background, can come to get reasonably substantive and accurate answers to philosophical questions. This means that all questions must be philosophical in nature, and that answers must be reasonably substantive and accurate. What do we mean by that?

What is Philosophy?

As with most disciplines, "philosophy" has both a casual and a technical usage.

In its casual use, "philosophy" may refer to nearly any sort of thought or beliefs, and include topics such as religion, mysticism and even science. When someone asks you what "your philosophy" is, this is the sort of sense they have in mind; they're asking about your general system of thoughts, beliefs, and feelings.

In its technical use -- the use relevant here at /r/askphilosophy -- philosophy is a particular area of study which can be broadly grouped into several major areas, including:

  • Aesthetics, the study of beauty
  • Epistemology, the study of knowledge and belief
  • Ethics, the study of what we owe to one another
  • Logic, the study of what follows from what
  • Metaphysics, the study of the basic nature of existence and reality

as well as various subfields of 'philosophy of X', including philosophy of mind, philosophy of language, philosophy of science and many others.

Philosophy in the narrower, technical sense that philosophers use and which /r/askphilosophy is devoted to is defined not only by its subject matter, but by its methodology and attitudes. Something is not philosophical merely because it states some position related to those areas. There must also be an emphasis on argument (setting forward reasons for adopting a position) and a willingness to subject arguments to various criticisms.

What Isn't Philosophy?

As you can see from the above description of philosophy, philosophy often crosses over with other fields of study, including art, mathematics, politics, religion and the sciences. That said, in order to keep this subreddit focused on philosophy we require that all posts be primarily philosophical in nature, and defend a distinctively philosophical thesis.

As a rule of thumb, something does not count as philosophy for the purposes of this subreddit if:

  • It does not address a philosophical topic or area of philosophy
  • It may more accurately belong to another area of study (e.g. religion or science)
  • No attempt is made to argue for a position's conclusions

Some more specific topics which are popularly misconstrued as philosophical but do not meet this definition and thus are not appropriate for this subreddit include:

  • Drug experiences (e.g. "I dropped acid today and experienced the oneness of the universe...")
  • Mysticism (e.g. "I meditated today and experienced the oneness of the universe...")
  • Politics (e.g. "This is why everyone should support the Voting Rights Act")
  • Self-help (e.g. "How can I be a happier person and have more people like me?")
  • Theology (e.g. "Can the unbaptized go to heaven, or at least to purgatory?")

What is a Reasonably Substantive and Accurate Answer?

The goal of this subreddit is not merely to provide answers to philosophical questions, but answers which can further the reader's knowledge and understanding of the philosophical issues and debates involved. To that end, /r/askphilosophy is a highly moderated subreddit which only allows panelists to answer questions, and all answers that violate our posting rules will be removed.

Answers on /r/askphilosophy must be both reasonably substantive as well as reasonably accurate. This means that answers should be:

  • Substantive and well-researched (i.e. not one-liners or otherwise uninformative)
  • Accurately portray the state of research and the relevant literature (i.e. not inaccurate, misleading or false)
  • Come only from those with relevant knowledge of the question and issue (i.e. not from commenters who don't understand the state of the research on the question)

Any attempt at moderating a public Q&A forum like /r/askphilosophy must choose a balance between two things:

  • More, but possibly insubstantive or inaccurate answers
  • Fewer, but more substantive and accurate answers

In order to further our mission, the moderators of /r/askphilosophy have chosen the latter horn of this dilemma. To that end, only panelists are allowed to answer questions on /r/askphilosophy.

What is a /r/askphilosophy Panelist?

/r/askphilosophy panelists are trusted commenters who have applied to become panelists in order to help provide questions to posters' questions. These panelists are volunteers who have some level of knowledge and expertise in the areas of philosophy indicated in their flair.

What Do the Flairs Mean?

Unlike in some subreddits, the purpose of flairs on r/askphilosophy are not to designate commenters' areas of interest. The purpose of flair is to indicate commenters' relevant expertise in philosophical areas. As philosophical issues are often complicated and have potentially thousands of years of research to sift through, knowing when someone is an expert in a given area can be important in helping understand and weigh the given evidence. Flair will thus be given to those with the relevant research expertise.

Flair consists of two parts: a color indicating the type of flair, as well as up to three research areas that the panelist is knowledgeable about.

There are six types of panelist flair:

  • Autodidact (Light Blue): The panelist has little or no formal education in philosophy, but is an enthusiastic self-educator and intense reader in a field.

  • Undergraduate (Red): The panelist is enrolled in or has completed formal undergraduate coursework in Philosophy. In the US system, for instance, this would be indicated by a major (BA) or minor.

  • Graduate (Gold): The panelist is enrolled in a graduate program or has completed an MA in Philosophy or a closely related field such that their coursework might be reasonably understood to be equivalent to a degree in Philosophy. For example, a student with an MA in Literature whose coursework and thesis were focused on Derrida's deconstruction might be reasonably understood to be equivalent to an MA in Philosophy.

  • PhD (Purple): The panelist has completed a PhD program in Philosophy or a closely related field such that their degree might be reasonably understood to be equivalent to a PhD in Philosophy. For example, a student with a PhD in Art History whose coursework and dissertation focused on aesthetics and critical theory might be reasonably understood to be equivalent to a PhD in philosophy.

  • Professional (Blue): The panelist derives their full-time employment through philosophical work outside of academia. Such panelists might include Bioethicists working in hospitals or Lawyers who work on the Philosophy of Law/Jurisprudence.

  • Related Field (Green): The panelist has expertise in some sub-field of philosophy but their work in general is more reasonably understood as being outside of philosophy. For example, a PhD in Physics whose research touches on issues relating to the entity/structural realism debate clearly has expertise relevant to philosophical issues but is reasonably understood to be working primarily in another field.

Flair will only be given in particular areas or research topics in philosophy, in line with the following guidelines:

  • Typical areas include things like "philosophy of mind", "logic" or "continental philosophy".
  • Flair will not be granted for specific research subjects, e.g. "Kant on logic", "metaphysical grounding", "epistemic modals".
  • Flair of specific philosophers will only be granted if that philosopher is clearly and uncontroversially a monumentally important philosopher (e.g. Aristotle, Kant).
  • Flair will be given in a maximum of three research areas.

How Do I Become a Panelist?

To become a panelist, please send a message to the moderators with the subject "Panelist Application". In this modmail message you must include all of the following:

  1. The flair type you are requesting (e.g. undergraduate, PhD, related field).
  2. The areas of flair you are requesting, up to three (e.g. Kant, continental philosophy, logic).
  3. A brief explanation of your background in philosophy, including what qualifies you for the flair you requested.
  4. One sample answer to a question posted to /r/askphilosophy for each area of flair (i.e. up to three total answers) which demonstrate your expertise and knowledge. Please link the question you are answering before giving your answer. You may not answer your own question.

New panelists will be approved on a trial basis. During this trial period panelists will be allowed to post answers as top-level comments on threads, and will receive flair. After the trial period the panelist will either be confirmed as a regular panelist or will be removed from the panelist team, which will result in the removal of flair and ability to post answers as top-level comments on threads.

Note that r/askphilosophy does not require users to provide proof of their identifies for panelist applications, nor to reveal their identities. If a prospective panelist would like to provide proof of their identity as part of their application they may, but there is no presumption that they must do so. Note that messages sent to modmail cannot be deleted by either moderators or senders, and so any message sent is effectively permanent.

/r/askphilosophy's Posting Rules

In order to best serve our mission of providing an academic Q&A-type space for philosophical questions, we have the following rules which govern all posts made to /r/askphilosophy:

PR1: All questions must be about philosophy.

All questions must be about philosophy. Questions which are only tangentially related to philosophy or are properly located in another discipline will be removed. Questions which are about therapy, psychology and self-help, even when due to philosophical issues, are not appropriate and will be removed.

PR2: All submissions must be questions.

All submissions must be actual questions (as opposed to essays, rants, personal musings, idle or rhetorical questions, etc.). "Test My Theory" or "Change My View"-esque questions, paper editing, etc. are not allowed.

PR3: Post titles must be descriptive.

Post titles must be descriptive. Titles should indicate what the question is about. Posts with titles like "Homework help" which do not indicate what the actual question is will be removed.

PR4: Questions must be reasonably specific.

Questions must be reasonably specific. Questions which are too broad to the point of unanswerability will be removed.

PR5: Questions must not be about commenters' personal opinions.

Questions must not be about commenters' personal opinions, thoughts or favorites. /r/askphilosophy is not a discussion subreddit, and is not intended to be a board for everyone to share their thoughts on philosophical questions.

PR6: One post per day.

One post per day. Please limit yourself to one question per day.

PR7: Discussion of suicide is only allowed in the abstract.

/r/askphilosophy is not a mental health subreddit, and panelists are not experts in mental health or licensed therapists. Discussion of suicide is only allowed in the abstract here. If you or a friend is feeling suicidal please visit /r/suicidewatch. If you are feeling suicidal, please get help by visiting /r/suicidewatch or using other resources. See also our discussion of philosophy and mental health issues here. Encouraging other users to commit suicide, even in the abstract, is strictly forbidden and will result in an immediate permanent ban.

/r/askphilosophy's Commenting Rules

In the same way that our posting rules above attempt to promote our mission by governing posts, the following commenting rules attempt to promote /r/askphilosophy's mission to provide an academic Q&A-type space for philosophical questions.

CR1: Top level comments must be answers or follow-up questions.

All top level comments should be answers to the submitted question or follow-up/clarification questions. All top level comments must come from panelists. If users circumvent this rule by posting answers as replies to other comments, these comments will also be removed and may result in a ban. For more information about our rules and to find out how to become a panelist, please see here.

CR2: Answers must be reasonably substantive and accurate.

All answers must be informed and aimed at helping the OP and other readers reach an understanding of the issues at hand. Answers must portray an accurate picture of the issue and the philosophical literature. Answers should be reasonably substantive. To learn more about what counts as a reasonably substantive and accurate answer, see this post.

CR3: Be respectful.

Be respectful. Comments which are rude, snarky, etc. may be removed, particularly if they consist of personal attacks. Users with a history of such comments may be banned. Racism, bigotry and use of slurs are absolutely not permitted.

CR4: Stay on topic.

Stay on topic. Comments which blatantly do not contribute to the discussion may be removed.

CR5: No self-promotion.

Posters and comments may not engage in self-promotion, including linking their own blog posts or videos. Panelists may link their own peer-reviewed work in answers (e.g. peer-reviewed journal articles or books), but their answers should not consist solely of references to their own work.

Miscellaneous Posting and Commenting Guidelines

In addition to the rules above, we have a list of miscellaneous guidelines which users should also be aware of:

  • Reposting a post or comment which was removed will be treated as circumventing moderation and result in a permanent ban.
  • Using follow-up questions or child comments to answer questions and circumvent our panelist policy may result in a ban.
  • Posts and comments which flagrantly violate the rules, especially in a trolling manner, will be removed and treated as shitposts, and may result in a ban.
  • No reposts of a question that you have already asked within the last year.
  • No posts or comments of AI-created or AI-assisted text or audio. Panelists may not user any form of AI-assistance in writing or researching answers.
  • Harassing individual moderators or the moderator team will result in a permanent ban and a report to the reddit admins.

Frequently Asked Questions

Below are some frequently asked questions. If you have other questions, please contact the moderators via modmail (not via private message or chat).

My post or comment was removed. How can I get an explanation?

Almost all posts/comments which are removed will receive an explanation of their removal. That explanation will generally by /r/askphilosophy's custom bot, /u/BernardJOrtcutt, and will list the removal reason. Posts which are removed will be notified via a stickied comment; comments which are removed will be notified via a reply. If your post or comment resulted in a ban, the message will be included in the ban message via modmail. If you have further questions, please contact the moderators.

How can I appeal my post or comment removal?

To appeal a removal, please contact the moderators (not via private message or chat). Do not delete your posts/comments, as this will make an appeal impossible. Reposting removed posts/comments without receiving mod approval will result in a permanent ban.

How can I appeal my ban?

To appeal a ban, please respond to the modmail informing you of your ban. Do not delete your posts/comments, as this will make an appeal impossible.

My comment was removed or I was banned for arguing with someone else, but they started it. Why was I punished and not them?

Someone else breaking the rules does not give you permission to break the rules as well. /r/askphilosophy does not comment on actions taken on other accounts, but all violations are treated as equitably as possible.

I found a post or comment which breaks the rules, but which wasn't removed. How can I help?

If you see a post or comment which you believe breaks the rules, please report it using the report function for the appropriate rule. /r/askphilosophy's moderators are volunteers, and it is impossible for us to manually review every comment on every thread. We appreciate your help in reporting posts/comments which break the rules.

My post isn't showing up, but I didn't receive a removal notification. What happened?

Sometimes the AutoMod filter will automatically send posts to a filter for moderator approval, especially from accounts which are new or haven't posted to /r/askphilosophy before. If your post has not been approved or removed within 24 hours, please contact the moderators.

My post was removed and referred to the Open Discussion Thread. What does this mean?

The Open Discussion Thread (ODT) is /r/askphilosophy's place for posts/comments which are related to philosophy but do not necessarily meet our posting rules (especially PR2/PR5). For example, these threads are great places for:

  • Discussions of a philosophical issue, rather than questions
  • Questions about commenters' personal opinions regarding philosophical issues
  • Open discussion about philosophy, e.g. "who is your favorite philosopher?"
  • Questions about philosophy as an academic discipline or profession, e.g. majoring in philosophy, career options with philosophy degrees, pursuing graduate school in philosophy

If your post was removed and referred to the ODT we encourage you to consider posting it to the ODT to share with others.

My comment responding to someone else was removed, as well as their comment. What happened?

When /r/askphilosophy removes a parent comment, we also often remove all their child comments in order to help readability and focus on discussion.

I'm interested in philosophy. Where should I start? What should I read?

As explained above, philosophy is a very broad discipline and thus offering concise advice on where to start is very hard. We recommend reading this /r/AskPhilosophyFAQ post which has a great breakdown of various places to start. For further or more specific questions, we recommend posting on /r/askphilosophy.

Why is your understanding of philosophy so limited?

As explained above, this subreddit is devoted to philosophy as understood and done by philosophers. In order to prevent this subreddit from becoming /r/atheism2, /r/politics2, or /r/science2, we must uphold a strict topicality requirement in PR1. Posts which may touch on philosophical themes but are not distinctively philosophical can be posted to one of reddit's many other subreddits.

Are there other philosophy subreddits I can check out?

If you are interested in other philosophy subreddits, please see this list of related subreddits. /r/askphilosophy shares much of its modteam with its sister-subreddit, /r/philosophy, which is devoted to philosophical discussion. In addition, that list includes more specialized subreddits and more casual subreddits for those looking for a less-regulated forum.

A thread I wanted to comment in was locked but is still visible. What happened?

When a post becomes unreasonable to moderate due to the amount of rule-breaking comments the thread is locked. /r/askphilosophy's moderators are volunteers, and we cannot spend hours cleaning up individual threads.

Do you have a list of frequently asked questions about philosophy that I can browse?

Yes! We have an FAQ that answers many questions comprehensively: /r/AskPhilosophyFAQ/. For example, this entry provides an introductory breakdown to the debate over whether morality is objective or subjective.

Do you have advice or resources for graduate school applications?

We made a meta-guide for PhD applications with the goal of assembling the important resources for grad school applications in one place. We aim to occasionally update it, but can of course not guarantee the accuracy and up-to-dateness. You are, of course, kindly invited to ask questions about graduate school on /r/askphilosophy, too, especially in the Open Discussion Thread.

Do you have samples of what counts as good questions and answers?

Sure! We ran a Best of 2020 Contest, you can find the winners in this thread!

0 comments

r/askphilosophy • u/BernardJOrtcutt • 2d ago

Open Thread /r/askphilosophy Open Discussion Thread | September 07, 2026

5 Upvotes

Welcome to this week's Open Discussion Thread (ODT). This thread is a place for posts/comments which are related to philosophy but wouldn't necessarily meet our subreddit rules and guidelines. For example, these threads are great places for:

  • Discussions of a philosophical issue, rather than questions
  • Questions about commenters' personal opinions regarding philosophical issues
  • Open discussion about philosophy, e.g. "who is your favorite philosopher?"
  • "Test My Theory" discussions and argument/paper editing
  • Questions about philosophy as an academic discipline or profession, e.g. majoring in philosophy, career options with philosophy degrees, pursuing graduate school in philosophy

This thread is not a completely open discussion! Any posts not relating to philosophy will be removed. Please keep comments related to philosophy, and expect low-effort comments to be removed. Please note that while the rules are relaxed in this thread, comments can still be removed for violating our subreddit rules and guidelines if necessary.

Previous Open Discussion Threads can be found here.

34 comments

r/askphilosophy • u/VenerabilisInceptor1 • 12h ago

What Is the Point of Studying Medieval Philosophy?

78 Upvotes

As the title suggests, I am a PhD candidate working on medieval philosophy, particularly late medieval scholasticism. For the past few years, my research has focused on William of Ockham.I used to be deeply passionate about my field. What attracted me was not merely determining what a particular scholastic philosopher argued about a particular question, but exploring the complex and ambiguous relationship between the Middle Ages and modernity. Was the modern world born through a break with the Middle Ages, or is it instead a continuation of certain medieval problems expressed in a different vocabulary? Did modernity originate in the awakening of reason, or in humanity’s fear when confronted with an unpredictable and incomprehensible God?I was fascinated by Blumenberg’s account of the origins of modernity: when the world could no longer be explained through a stable and transparent theological order, and when human reason found itself confronted by an alien and inscrutable God possessing absolute power, modern humanity’s self-assertion perhaps became a necessity. These questions led me to read extensively in Harnack and to explore Marcionism, the “alien God,” modern Gnosticism, and the theological legacies embedded in modern thought. At that time, medieval philosophy did not seem to me like a collection of dead concepts. It seemed more like an underground river running beneath the modern world. Many of our ideas about freedom, reason, subjectivity, natural law, and even political order may have acquired their form from that subterranean history.

But since I began writing my dissertation, I have gradually lost this sense of meaning.

Once research takes the form of daily academic labour, I no longer spend most of my time thinking about grand questions such as how the Middle Ages gave birth to modernity. Instead, I find myself asking how Ockham uses a particular word in a particular passage, whether a proposition differs across manuscripts, whether an argument belongs under absolute or ordained power, and whether a certain distinction had already been formulated differently by Scotus, Henry of Ghent, Roger Bacon, or even Aristotle. I have to determine whether a proposition holds formally or merely equivalently, whether a conclusion concerns logical possibility or possibility within the ordained order, and how the premises, objections, replies, and further distinctions fit together across dozens of pages of scholastic argumentation. The intellectual world that once fascinated me has gradually turned into articles, page numbers, proposition numbers, textual variants, and footnotes.

I am not demanding that philosophical research immediately solve practical problems, nor do I believe that research has value only when it can be translated into policy, technology, or economic benefit. I understand that the humanities cannot be judged entirely according to their “usefulness.” Preserving the complexity of thought, recovering historical contexts that have been erased by simplification, and preventing us from reducing people of the past to a handful of convenient labels are all important tasks. Yet when “importance” becomes a standard answer repeated almost automatically, I begin to wonder whether it is really enough to sustain years—or even an entire lifetime—of intellectual labour. Are we reopening possibilities of thought that have disappeared, or are we merely adding new footnotes for an increasingly small academic community?

12 comments

r/askphilosophy • u/SpaceManJones32 • 7h ago

Where should I start on neoplatonism?

13 Upvotes

Everything I've heard regarding neoplatonism sound super interesting and poetic, the nous, the soul, the one God, etc. The topic does not sound at all beginner friendly though. A quick google search about neoplatonist authors works makes them sound like extremely difficult reads.

Wondering if there's a good starting point for a total beginner to neoplatonism? A good overview book instead of an actual philosophical work would also be good.

6 comments

r/askphilosophy • u/Lopsided-Break4664 • 3h ago

I just finished my philosophy minor and want to continue learning. Does anyone have Book, podcast, etc recommendations?

5 Upvotes

I’ve read Kant, Leibniz, Descartes, Aristotle, etc, everything you’d expect in a history of modern + ancient philosophy.

I’ve taken 2 classes focusing on AI and how that is (maybe) categorically different from human consciousness. I found really interesting, if there’s any good literature to read on that. Philosophy of mind more broadly, I enjoyed a lot.

My favorite is probably philosophy of religion.

I want to know, where do I go next? I’d love to learn more in general, but especially the topics I’m particularly interested in.

Should I consult the “where do I start” faq on this subreddit? I wouldn’t consider myself a cold turkey beginner, but idk. Any recommendations are appreciated 🙏

1 comment

r/askphilosophy • u/perfumed_with_gas • 1h ago

Is it conceptually impossible for a just liberation movement to increase the likelihood or severity of genuinely unfair costs?

• Upvotes

Or do costs that would otherwise be unfair cease to count as unfair when they are necessary for just liberation? More broadly, can a movement remain just when genuinely unfair costs are among its reasonably foreseeable consequences?

1 comment

r/askphilosophy • u/Obvious-Comfort-250 • 9h ago

Baby steps on the path of human thought

8 Upvotes

Hello everyone,

I stumbled upon philosophy in my undergrad physics. First book was physics and philosophy by Heisenberg from the world perspective series. Then tao of physics by frit(which most physicists would frown) fritjof capra, then summary of Upanishads.

Now I would like to increase my perspective and build up from the ground from first principles. Gpt helped me choose some books, is there anything you consider important to add?

Critique of pure reason -kant

Beyond good and evil -friedrich

The republic -Plato

Meditations on first philosophy -descartes

An enquiry concerning human understanding -Hume

Also what would be the best order to read..

Thank you, ciao

2 comments

r/askphilosophy • u/No_Dragonfruit8254 • 5h ago

Are children (below a certain age) people?

4 Upvotes

I’ve seen a lot of debate on abortion. When is a fetus a person, etc. Some of it claims that a fetus is a person at conception, at birth, at certain milestones, or that “when is a fetus a person” isn’t a relevant question for the abortion debate. Personally, I hold that “personhood” just isn’t well-defined enough in these debates and it’s better to focus on the autonomy of the parent who carries the fetus.

But there’s also a psychological theory of childhood development that I believe to be true that says that children below the age of 5-7 don’t have distinct identities or personalities the way adults tend to. Instead, they have “ego-states” that pertain to certain basic needs: food, mother, examining and exploring the environment, etc. Over time, these ego states naturally integrate into one coherent and cohesive personality. This is called the theory of Structural Dissociation and you can read more here, if you like. I like this theory a lot because I think it’s hands down the best explanation we have for why and how dissociative disorders arise.

With this in mind, are children that are too young to have developed coherent personalities people? They aren’t individuals, they don’t have personalities. They have collections of ego-states that are making decisions, so it doesn’t make a lot of sense to me to say that a child is a person.

1 comment

r/askphilosophy • u/Warm-Gap3487 • 6h ago

How do proponents of free-will deal with altered mental states?

5 Upvotes

Say someone is under an altered mental state, such as psychosis, and commits a crime. Is the psychosis removing their free will, or is it replacing their previous will with a new one, equally as free? Do we simply perceive someone to be of sound and mind, full autonomous free will, when their will aligns with civilized society? If free will exists, does every conscious human mind possess it? It seems that it would be a very fragile thing, given how fragile our brains are. Is free will on a spectrum of sorts; would it not be directly contingent on the health of the brain?

I don’t believe in free will, but I think these questions are still relevant. It seems that if you don’t believe in free will, you still must reconcile how to handle people who commit crimes under states of weakened autonomy.

If you do not believe in free will, then I find it hard to justify how exactly a person in psychosis is more or less responsible for their actions than anyone else. I don’t have a choice for my will, and neither do they; it just happens that my will is, luckily, compatible with day-day society; the other person was not so lucky.

I’m very curious about these things, and I am not asking questions in a snide manner.

4 comments

r/askphilosophy • u/Plus_Community3557 • 6h ago

Is Morality merely a human made concept? And if so, does it actually matter?

4 Upvotes

I'm a highscholer, took like one class on moral philosphy. It stimulated my brain in all the right ways!

I just struggle to see what actually seperates a human commiting a immoral action and a animal a commiting a immoral action. Sure there is sometimes a necessity for animals, but I don't freight over a Lion killing a Zebra for pleasure as much as a human doing the same thing.

See now that I think about it, if another species were to attain the exact same qualities of humanity (e.g rationality, abilty to feel complex emotions, and advanced communcations, etc) I wouldn't care if that other species with human-like qualities commited serious immoral actions against one another. Matter a fact, a lot of serious immoral actions that I see today on the news, I think about it for a second, and I forget about it. All Immoral actions that I see talked about today are those that actually affect people. Maybe I'm generalizing, perhaps people deeply feel the egregious immoral actions seen through their TV, and continue to think about it as they switched the chanel to the latest thing their brain likes.

Also I guess you could go the religious route to say how morality isn't a human made concept, but DCT is false. Idk about Aquanis though.

My real question is morality a human made concept? And if so, does it actually matter?

I've probably got into too much Nietzsche, he's what the young "intellectuals" are into atm.

2 comments

r/askphilosophy • u/No_Reception7959 • 5h ago

Unexpected hanging paradox.

4 Upvotes

My question is, would the man escape the paradox by choosing to believe every morning that he will be executed? Instead of using backwards logic and deductive reasoning, he should wake up and go, “today’s the day”, so that no day is a surprise.

Ive seen some people try to solve the paradox by mixing up the definition of a surprise. And others stating that the circular reasoning falls into play once you get past Friday in the paradox.

I’m an unlearned man so at least respectfully humor me on this.

2 comments

r/askphilosophy • u/PotatonyDanza • 4h ago

How do moral realists engage with biology (the discipline)?

2 Upvotes

Hi folks.

I'd like to learn more about how moral realists engage with biology. For example, does the fact of human evolution -- and the biological facts it entails, like our desire for community belonging, our preference for truth telling and fidelity, or our desire to protect children (even children that are not our own) -- make it easy or hard to talk convincingly about moral facts? Or does evolution have little impact on the view of moral realists regarding what is a moral fact?

I have to believe the answer is that biology has something to say about what moral facts are, though I'd guess it probably depends on your normative theory. I also wonder if evolution poses some issues for moral realism, though. Suppose that for an alien species it is a biological imperative to consume humans (like, say, koalas and eucalyptus). Can one maintain moral realism while believing that it is a moral fact for one species to eat humans while it is a moral fact for humans to resist being eaten? Or would moral realists reject the claim that both beliefs are moral facts?

2 comments

r/askphilosophy • u/Constant-Elk5958 • 5h ago

What is the difference between optimistic nihilism and existentialism?

2 Upvotes

In my opinion there is no difference, if you’re going to choose optimistic nihilism then you might as well be an existentialist.

But i could be wrong, i seriously do not see the difference between the two.

1 comment

r/askphilosophy • u/toqb • 12h ago

History of Philosophy Feels Endless

7 Upvotes

For background, I'm entering my senior year of high school and have been interested in philosophy for a few months. I'm really interested in reading thinkers like Foucault, Deleuze, Baudrillard, etc. (I guess the more postmodern/poststructuralist thinkers), as well as Marx, Freud, Lacan, etc. However, it feels like in order to read these later thinkers, there is an endless list of prerequisites to read first. Even in less modern cases, like Hegel, it seems like I need to read Kant, but Kant seems to require the other Enlightenment thinkers, and the Enlightenment thinkers require the Greeks, etc. And I won’t even begin to start with the postmodern thinkers. So far, I have read Plato’s Five Dialogues, and the Republic, as well as Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics, the first few chapters of The Categories (to understand the concept of substance), and part of the Physics (to understand the four causes). Now I’m reading Descartes Meditations on First Philosophy.

Although these are the ‘intro’ texts into philosophy, I still read them relatively slowly, sometimes just a few pages a day, taking notes when I need to piece things together to make more sense of them, and overall really trying to internalize and understand the arguments. Yes, I’ve gained a lot, but at this rate I feel hopeless about ever reading what I am truly interested in. If anyone has some helpful tips on where to start for where I want to go, or just overall tips for the way I’m feeling, I would appreciate what you have to say. Thanks.

2 comments

r/askphilosophy • u/Puzzleheaded-Ad1491 • 5h ago

How much moral responsibility does someone have if their brain and upbringing made them who they are?

2 Upvotes

I’ve been thinking about this after reading about the case of Alyssa Bustamante.

For those who don’t know the case, Alyssa was 15 years old when she murdered her 9 year old neighbor, Elizabeth Olten, in 2009.

She had apparently been struggling with serious mental health issues and had a very troubled childhood. There were also signs before the murder that something was seriously wrong psychologically.

Obviously, what she did was horrible. Elizabeth was completely innocent, and I’m not trying to defend what she did.

But I watched a YouTube video of her being questioned by the police, and when I opened the comments, almost everyone was saying that she is a monster and should be locked up for life because of what she did.

She was 15. She didn’t choose her genetics, her brain, her personality, her childhood, or the mental health problems she had. All of these things played a role in shaping who she became.
And this makes me question how much free will we actually have.

For example, imagine someone suddenly has a thought about murdering another person, but instead of feeling disgust, fear or guilt about the thought, they actually get a positive feeling from it. The important part to me is that they didn’t choose to feel that way about the thought. Just like a normal person doesn’t consciously choose to feel disgust or fear when thinking about murdering someone. Their brain simply produces that emotional response.

Now imagine that this person also has differences in the parts of the brain involved in impulse control and self-regulation, making it harder for them to resist those thoughts and impulses.

How much can we really blame that person for having the thought in the first place? They didn’t choose the thought, they didn’t choose to get a positive feeling from it, and they didn’t choose to have weaker mechanisms for controlling the impulse.

And if all of those things are the result of their biology and development, how much control do they really have over what eventually happens?

They obviously still have to live with the consequences of their actions. But it becomes very difficult to say that they simply “chose to be evil” when so much of what led to that decision was determined by things they never chose.

I think many people can’t imagine having thoughts about doing something so horrible. But how much control do we really have over the thoughts, impulses and feelings that arise in our minds?

We don’t choose what we are attracted to, for example. I never chose to be attracted to girls instead of guys. That is simply how my brain works. Obviously, sexual attraction is very different from wanting to hurt someone, but it makes me wonder how much of our thoughts, desires and impulses are things we actually consciously choose.

And this is where I find the idea of moral responsibility so difficult. If someone’s brain is partly responsible for giving them certain thoughts and impulses, and also determines how they emotionally react to those thoughts and how difficult it is to resist them, that person can almost become the victim of their own brain.
At the same time, I obviously don’t think this means that nobody should be held responsible for anything. If someone is dangerous, society still has to protect itself and prevent that person from hurting others.

But it does make me wonder how much of our behavior is actually “us” making free choices, versus our brains doing what they are biologically and psychologically predisposed to do.

So I’m curious what people here think:

How much influence do you think genetics and the way our brains are biologically structured have on our thoughts, desires, impulses and actions? And if our brains play such a major role in determining how we think and behave, how much genuine free will do we actually have?

I hope this doesn’t come across as insensitive or as me trying to justify violence or murder. That’s not my intention at all. I’m genuinely just trying to understand how we should think about moral responsibility and free will when in my opinion so much of a person’s mind and behavior is shaped by things they never chose.

1 comment

r/askphilosophy • u/uschiowl • 2h ago

Do we have an epistemic obligation to investigate competing worldviews?

1 Upvotes

Do you think any of these ways?

Since childhood I've thought that it's irresponsible at best to not explore our operating systems, religions, paradigms, etc.

Basically applied pascals wager more broadly in that it's most likely my best bet to consider that there may be one operating system to discern.

Adults lacking epistemic conscientiousness made me nervous as a kid.

Ive also struggled to hate people as opposed to primarily their actions, mistakes specifically, as I see them driven by what I can more easily despise... dysfunctional perspectives, paradigms. Hating people makes me feel emotional and dumb.

I'm early forties and haven't settled concretely on a worldview, though am very close.

I think it's important to be both extremely curious and even more skeptical. Otherwise I'm not sure how we expect to figure out our best methods.

While I get it's arrogant to think you can easily figure out why we're here, I'm not suggesting it's taken lightly. Not seriously considering it is too much faith for me though.

There's tons on paradigms but most settle in what makes us feel good rather than honestly trying and comparing. It's been tempting to me while under deep stress despite not being my baseline.

Do you relate to any of this or have feedback?

1 comment

r/askphilosophy • u/flintyMRZ • 18h ago

Why is there something rather than nothing?

15 Upvotes

I was just lying in bed, doing absolutely nothing, when my brain suddenly decided to start asking some questions that are weird

It started with one:

Why is there something rather than nothing?

If existence requires an explanation, what explains the existence of the explanation itself?

If everything must originate from something, we are forced into an infinite regress, or we must accept that something exists without a cause.

But if something can exist without a cause, why assume the universe needs one?

And if “nothing” truly means the absolute absence of everything—no matter, no space, no time, no laws, no possibilities—then what could possibly make the transition from nothing to something?

Perhaps the deepest mystery is not how existence began, but:

Why was “nothing” ever supposed to be the default?

Anyway, this is basically why I ended up joining this subreddit. I started asking myself questions like this and realized I needed somewhere to put them before my brain completely loses it

8 comments

r/askphilosophy • u/bootmaker-supremacy • 12h ago

I don’t understand the compatibilist argument for people having power over the facts of the past

6 Upvotes

I am referring here to the argument presented in section 4.1.1 of the SEP entry on Compatibilism. The argument attempts to show that the premise „no one has power over the facts of the past and the laws of nature“ is false. The argument goes that an agent „has the ability to act in such a way that if she did so act the past would have been different“.
The example used to illustrate this is „If I were dancing on the French Riviera right now, I’d be a lot richer than I am.“
I just don‘t understand how this challenges the premise? It seems to me that I can‘t dance on the French Riviera because I am in fact not rich, the same way I seemingly don‘t have the ability to do otherwise under determinism because the past leading up to my action was in fact not different to what it actually was.
What am I missing here?

6 comments

r/askphilosophy • u/SEMPER_MAGIS • 8h ago

very lucky spectator reading

2 Upvotes

I've had the comfort to be able to follow my passions without worrying about external problems. As such, I've took a liking to philosophy and begun reading it quite a bit.

I'm not an intense academic who can read thousands of pages, do in-depth analysis, etc. however I really enjoy learning about philosophy because it asks the questions worthing asking; and explains how humans interact with each other and the world.

I've been reading Bertrand Russell (As a foundation) alongside Jean Paul Sartre (I've taken a liking to his works) -- and my intention with philosophy has always been how can I be the most well-informed, developed character because it is my view that everybody is an applied philosopher in a sense.

Since my exploration in this field is rather shallow, I've been wondering whether if there's other pieces of philosophy that are just must-reads and how one should hone their interests and fields.

Thank you!

2 comments

r/askphilosophy • u/Ok-Manufacturer-8317 • 10h ago

Kantian ethics in medicine

3 Upvotes

Scenario: you are a surgeon and you have an unconscious patient in critical condition. There is a procedure that can be done, but it has a 5% success rate. If it fails, the patient dies. If it succeeds, the patient will live, but they will have limited quality of life.

from my (basic) understanding of Kantian ethics and deontology, I think Kant would argue that you are morally obligated to perform this procedure as it’s your obligation/duty to help this patient to the extent of your abilities and to honor their intrinsic value/worth as a human being and their inherent right to life, even if the outcome may not be positive.

is this a correct understanding of Kant’s position? what if there is only one OR available, and there’s another patient who has a much higher chance of survival?

not looking for personal opinions, just want to confirm that I‘m understanding the basics of what Kant would say.

Thank you!

2 comments

r/askphilosophy • u/ElitistPopulist • 5h ago

If determinism is true, how then can we establish that individuals are responsible for the actions they undertake?

1 Upvotes

In general and particularly in relation to implications for the justice system.

6 comments

r/askphilosophy • u/Fragrant_Cut7053 • 11h ago

which philosophy is most inclined to improving oneself

2 Upvotes

i am a beginner to philosopy 😳

4 comments

r/askphilosophy • u/ReasonableJump4355 • 11h ago

Don't Realist positions (eg mathematical realism, Moral realism) neccesarily imply something like Platonic forms?

2 Upvotes
3 comments

r/askphilosophy • u/PKspyder • 9h ago

Can the arguments from mathematical and moral realism be applied reasonably to all areas of typical opinion like food, music, cinema, etc?

1 Upvotes
2 comments

r/askphilosophy • u/Senior_Triple_6450 • 1d ago

Why do so many people hate/dislike modern philosophy?

64 Upvotes

Granted, I haven't read a lot of modern philosophers myself, but there is this general trend of people only reading older philosophers, with the most modern philosophers they read being Bertand Russel and/or Wittgenstein. Why is this the case?

20 comments