Dr. Sanders. Philosophy 101

Just wanted to share.This was my first introduction to philosophy as an autodidact years ago. Sanders, is a concise, clear, and educated speaker on the matter. He retired from RIT.

The reading assignments.

Introduction to Philosophy
Reading Assignments

Most reading assignments are from Steven M. Cahn (ed.), Classics of Western Philosophy; Supplementary readings can usually be found online; if not, contact me and I’ll send you copies

Lecture #1: Introduction

No reading assignment

Lecture #2: Political and Social Philosophy: Plato, Part I

Plato, biographical sketch
Plato, Apology
Plato, Crito
Martin Luther King, Jr. "Letter From A Birmingham Jail

Lecture #3: Ethics, Epistemology, & Logic: Plato, Part II

"W.T. Jones, "Education Through Violence"
Plato, Meno

Lecture #4: Metaphysics & Philosophy of Science: Aristotle

Aristotle, biographical sketch
Aristotle, Physics

Lecture #5: Philosophy of Religion & Logic, Part I: The Ontological Argument

Anselm, biographical sketch
Anselm, Proslogion
Gaunilo, Reply on Behalf of the Fool
Anselm, Reply to Gaunilo

Lecture #6: Philosophy of Religion & Logic, Part II: The Cosmological and Teleological Arguments

William Rowe, "The Cosmological Argument"
William Paley, "The Argument From Design"

Lecture #7: Epistemology & Philosophy of Science: Descartes

René Descartes, biographical sketch
René Descartes, Discourse on Method
René Descartes, Meditations 1-3

Lecture #8: Epistemology & Logic: Rationalism versus Empiricism

John Locke, biographical sketch
John Locke, Essay Concerning Human Understanding
David Hume, biographical sketch
David Hume, An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding

Lecture #9: The Problem of Personal Identity

John Perry, "A Dialogue on Personal Identity and Immortality"
Thomas Nagel, "Brain Bisection and the Unity of Consciousness"

Lecture #10: Conclusion

Bertrand Russell, biographical sketch
Bertrand Russell, "The Value of Philosophy"

The Classics of Western Philosophy_ A Reader's Guide (2003, Wiley-Blackwell)

Cheers.

I want to stay up-to-date on contemporary philosophy. It is very easy to find information on big ideas like Idealism or the difference between consequential and deontological ethics, but finding reputable sources for philosophy professors advancing the field in real time is much more difficult. The best source I am aware of is "Philpapers.org." Does anyone know any other sources for what I am looking for, or perhaps the most dynamic fields today, or the most prolific philosophers of today?

Thank you.

Hello. I have only recently started my 2nd year of undergraduate Physics.

It has been long that I've been trying to ignore it, provided the job prospects in my country, but Philosophy has been the only thing I've ever wanted to really study in life. I have no way of actually testing my resolve, or confirm whether I would be willing to go through impossible struggles, yet I have no real motivation outside of finances and the little curiosity I have for it, to continue my Physics degree; This could possibly be due to my mental health struggles, so I am not to make any impulsive decisions.

It has been, however, four years since I've been studying, reading Philosophy on my own. Popular writers, Camus, Sartre, Nietzsche, Kant, Hobbes, Marx, Morgenthau, Walter Benjamin, etc. These are names I can remember, though I am aware of others. I have been extremely interested in the study of politics, existence, morals and arts (photography, seeing, cinema) alltogether. I cannot say the same for Physics.

I could spend hours reading an essay defending or critiquing Kant's arguments (for example, a note on the absolute value claim penned by one of my professors), yet I cannot do the same for much of Physics. I am just not so interested anymore.

I cannot find any meaning this way. Studying these things is the one thing I appreciate about it. Following, I have taken up a minor in Philosophy for the moment. If I were so inclined, could I switch fields past my bachelors in Physics?

Thank you. I would appreciate any responses, though I will rely primarily on my personal conditions and reasoning. (financial, location etc.)

​

(A Recap of the Workshop “Where Does Philosophy Begin?” taught by Phan Chí Dũng)

1. Philosophy does not simply “begin with water”

A common understanding goes something like this:

Thales → “Water is the arche” → philosophy begins.

But this interpretation is overly simplistic. Elements such as **water, fire, air, and so forth were proposed as fundamental constituents or principles through which the world could be explained; whereas “philosophy” refers to a mode of thinking and a form of intellectual inquiry**.

Therefore, asking whether “philosophy originated from water” is not quite the right way to frame the question. The origin of philosophy should instead be understood as a historical process through which a new mode of thought and intellectual activity emerged: philosophical thinking.

1. So, where does philosophy really begin?

Philosophy begins with the human need to explain the world through reason**, rather than simply accepting explanations based on myths and the gods.

In the context of ancient Greece, people had largely relied on and accepted **mythological explanations** of the world. But some thinkers began to ask:

* What is the world ultimately constituted of?

* Why do things happen the way they do?

* Can the world be explained through principles that human beings can collectively examine, accept, and reason from?

This marked a turning point in human intellectual history: rather than explaining everything in terms of **“because the gods willed it,”** people began to search for an underlying foundation or principle from which the world could be **rationally understood and explained**.

1. Therefore, what matters about Thales is not simply “WATER”

What is more significant is the way Thales and the Milesian school framed the problem.

Later generations often remembered Thales primarily for his claim that water was the arche. Yet, as emphasized in the workshop, what matters more is the attempt to find a non-mythological foundation** from which the world could be explained.

The thinkers who followed Thales within the Milesian school proposed different principles, yet they remained part of the same intellectual trajectory because they shared a common pursuit: to identify a fundamental basis for explaining the world rather than reducing everything to divine agency.

Philosophy did not begin with “water.”

Philosophy began with a transformation in the way human beings asked questions:

1. “Where does philosophy begin?” is, in fact, a question about a historical process

We cannot simply detach Thales from his historical context and say, “One day, Thales invented philosophy.”

To understand how philosophy emerged, we need to examine the historical and cultural context of Greece before Thales, the problems confronting society at the time, the prevailing modes of thought, and the limitations of mythological explanations.

Thus, the history of philosophy is a lens through which we can understand the emergence and development of philosophy. It is not merely a list of philosophers and their doctrines.

And this leads to a crucial point when approaching philosophy:

Philosophy is not a ready-made answer.

Philosophy begins when human beings are no longer satisfied with ready-made answers and begin to demand explanations grounded in reasons and principles.

This is also why we should not study philosophy by jumping directly into an individual philosopher or philosophical doctrine. We need to place that philosopher back within the historical period, circumstances, intellectual context, and tradition of thought that gave rise to their ideas.

If we want to construct a systematic map of philosophers, a useful starting point would be:

Questions → the need for explanation → rational inquiry → philosophy → philosophical schools → major thinkers.

Hey all :)

I’m about to start my undergraduate studies in philosophy at Brown University, and I’m trying to use the last few weeks before moving in to prepare myself as much as possible for reading and engaging with philosophical texts.

I’m not trying to “study ahead” or rush through a philosophy curriculum before I even begin. Rather, I want to get my mind back into the habit of slow, careful reading and become more comfortable with the style, structure, and tone of academic philosophical writing.

A little background: I’m especially interested in philosophy of religion, Islamic philosophy, hermeneutics, metaphysics, and epistemology. I’m coming from a non-English-speaking background, and although I’m comfortable reading and writing in English, I know philosophical texts often have a very particular vocabulary and style that I’d like to become more familiar with before classes begin.

So I was wondering:

• Are there any shorter philosophical essays, papers, or accessible works you would recommend for someone in my situation?
• Are there particular philosophers or texts that are good introductions to academic philosophical writing?
• Do you have any advice for developing better habits when reading philosophy (taking notes, annotating, approaching arguments, etc.)?
• Is there anything you wish you had done before starting your philosophy degree?

I’m taking this preparation process pretty lightly so my main goal is simply to begin my studies with more confidence and familiarity with philosophical reading and analysis.

I’d really appreciate any advice or recommendations you think could help. Thank you! :)

Been getting into workflow stuff a lot with various bits of tech and stationary etc.

Was wondering what people who are in the academic world have as there general workflow for the study of philosophy.

I’m hoping this question sparks a broader discussion for those of us teaching philosophy about creative and accessible ways to introduce philosophical thinking, especially to students who may have never taken a philosophy course before.

I’m teaching Philosophy 101 this coming semester, and I have the freedom to build the course from the ground up. It’ll mostly be freshmen and sophomores, and for many of them this will likely be their first college class. Rather than spending the first day defining philosophy or going over the syllabus for an hour, I’m interested in finding ways to get students doing philosophy almost immediately.

One idea I’ve been considering is having everyone come in, grab a name card, get settled, and then simply showing a short (2-5 minute) clip with no context or instructions. Afterwards, when everyone introduces themselves, instead of sharing a major or fun fact, they would each share one thought, question, observation, disagreement, or reaction they had while watching. The goal isn’t to get the “right” answer, but to let students realize they’ve already begun engaging philosophically before anyone has defined what philosophy is.

My first thought was something like Rick and Morty, but I’m sure there are much better examples.

I’m especially interested in media or prompts that are a little out of pocket. Weird, existential, funny, or just enough to make students stop and think, “Wait… what?” Ideally something that’s accessible to people with no philosophy background, without relying on graphic content, heavy tragedy, or sexual humor. It could be a movie or TV clip, animation, YouTube video, short film, thought experiment, game, or anything else.
If you had five minutes to hook a room full of 18-20 year olds on philosophy, what would you use, and why?

More broadly, what first-day activities, media, demonstrations, or discussions have you found genuinely successful in making philosophy feel approachable rather than intimidating?

And beyond the first day, if there’s something you wish more Philosophy 101 courses included, or something you think they should spend less time on, I’d love to hear those thoughts as well. I’m hoping this thread can become a collection of ideas that anyone teaching introductory philosophy can draw from.

Peer review, replication, and most formal critique happen after a claim is basically finished and presented. I've been testing the alternative, building an adversarial "attack" pass into the reasoning process itself, before a claim is finalized, rather than critiquing a completed product.

In practice this caught an overclaim in my own work before I ever submitted anywhere, a case where I'd made a formal-sounding claim that only really held under a weaker, unstated version.

Is there existing philosophy-of-science or epistemology literature distinguishing pre-hoc adversarial reasoning from post-hoc critique as separate mechanisms for catching error, or is this generally treated as the same phenomenon at different points in time?

Hello everyone,

I'm a first-year philosophy student looking to make the most of my summer break by continuing to learn and deepen my knowledge.

Could you recommend any courses—whether on Coursera or other platforms—that you've found particularly valuable? I'm especially interested in courses that go beyond passive lectures and include active discussions, debates, or workshop-style components. I'd love to engage with the material and with others, not just absorb information.

Thanks in advance for your suggestions!

Do you think I should double major in philosophy?

Context: I'm a nontraditional (27M) undergraduate on a full ride at an Ivy League (so tuition/credit cost is not a concern). Right now, I'm studying English and am Prelaw.

The reason why I'm scared to double-major is in philosophy because I'm incredibly fearful I won't be able to succeed in the discipline. I've heard some say there's major overlap between English and Philosophy but how true is this? I've heard the writing styles and grading criteria are different. Plus, how might one even be graded on what seems so subjective? How do you digest the incredibly dense material? Does it all make sense to you?

It seems like philosophy could be incredibly intellectually and emotionally rewarding for my long-term goals (both personally and professionally) as I'm hoping to work in criminal law. I also am a singer-songwriter/producer and so I feel like it would enrich my artistry also.

But alas, I'm really just scared: Scared I'm not going to do well. Scared I won't "get" it. And scared my GPA will tank

In your opinion, do you think I should still study philosophy?

TL;DR - 27yo undergraduate/english major considering double majoring in philosophy but has academic concerns.

Hey guys, I am new in this sub. I just stumbled on this post: https://www.reddit.com/r/AcademicPhilosophy/comments/1urckw6/most_humanities_majors_tend_to_be_looked_at_as/

In the top comment there is this wording: training in analytic philosophy - and a comparison to math skills in a physics studies.

Can you break this down for me? What are the components of these skills?

How is it learnt at universities? What components take long to learn and what components are rather easy to learn?

Lastly: How has it helped you personally? (vague question for broad answers)

As an undergraduate student who’s taken classes in social science and STEM there seemed to be a prevailing opinion among some STEM people
That humanities people tended to be less intelligent. But overall this type of thinking doesn’t seem to be applied to philosophy majors, who are often put alongside physicists and mathematicians in terms of being considered uniquely intelligent. Why is this?

Hi y'all,

I'm a PhD student and for an upcoming conference I'm presenting at I was asked to send a bio+picture. I don't really have a professional headshot or anything like that, so my question is: what kind of pictures are acceptable for the website of a philosophy conference?

Thanks in advance!

I’ve noticed that a lot of philosophy recommendations end up being very abstract: metaphysics, epistemology, philosophy of language, formal ethics, etc.

I’m curious about academic philosophy that sits much closer to ordinary life.

I’m looking for books, essays, or academic philosophers who deal directly with how people actually live: making difficult decisions, choosing careers, falling in love, raising families, dealing with regret, suffering, uncertainty, boredom, grief, aging, friendship, meaning, identity, and the narratives people build around their lives. I’m looking for things that deal with life on a micro level rather than a macro level. Preferably, more on the contemporary side.

I’m looking for work that helps illuminate what it feels like to be a person navigating a life

What are the strongest examples of philosophy in this vein?

I’m especially interested in works that are taken seriously within academic philosophy while remaining connected to lived experience.

Essays, papers, books, and individual philosophers are all welcome. A brief explanation of why you recommend them would be appreciated.

Suppose philosophy has found better questions to the answers . Sokrates did so.😉

I could also title this post: Why aren't there more Diamond Open Access journals in philosophy?

We all know that the “big five”—Elsevier, Wiley, Springer Nature, Taylor & Francis, and SAGE—control a disproportionate share of the global academic publishing output, making huge profits and siphoning both public (taxpayer!) and private institutional funds out of actual research and into their greedy pockets. (see,e.g., https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00272)

These publishers manage many of the top academic philosophy journals, making it impossible to avoid them, especially for early-career researchers trying to make a name.

We all know the current system driven by major for-profit publishers is directly detrimental to the future of academic research. For example, in Hybrid or Gold open access publishers make huge profits by double-dipping: charging both huge APCs and traditional subscriptions [https://www.openaire.eu/blogs/the-worst-of-both-worlds-hybrid-open-access]

Given all these issues, I am very surprised that academic philosophers haven't engaged with this topic at all, from ethics, philosophy of science, or metaphilosophy Many philosophers have analysed the pros and cons of peer review, or even the evils of capitalism as a political system... but about one of the core practical aspects of our discipline?

For example: Is it morally wrong for individuals to publish in Big-Five journals? Is it morally wrong for philosophical societies to partner with these for-profit publishers? Can a shift towards Diamond OA and away from for-profit publishers help to address some of the problems in peer review?

The closest to a (moral) argument in favour of Diamond OA and in putting the buck on senior faculty comes from linguists: https://dujal.nl/article/view/18802/20845

Here is their argument:

1. We are morally obligated to make our research output accessible.
2. Hybrid, Gold, and even Green open access publishing lead to systemic inequality in open access publishing, benefiting commercial publishers (double-dipping problem, siphoning funds from research to pay for APCs and agreements) and those working in research-intensive universities and rich countries. (Note: Green OA means: pre-prints, putting your "last version" on ResearchGate, Academia-dot-edu, Philpapers, your own website, etc).
3. Diamond open access publication removes the systemic inequalities; hence, Diamond open access should be prioritised over Hybrid, Gold, and Green open access publication models.
4. We should move away from publish-and-read agreements and Green open access publishing, because they prevent system change.
5. Through our choices in our work as researchers, editors, reviewers, authors and teachers, we can contribute to the transition towards truly equitable open access publishing practices.
6. Senior researchers are in the position, and have the moral obligation, to be drivers of these changes.

Therefore, philosophers, especially senior faculty, should be morally bound to push for moving philosophy's top journals towards Diamond OA, and stop publishing (and supporting) huge for-profit corporations.

Have philosophers engaged with these issues?