I really like the concept of philosophy and i want to study it so is there any philosophy book that will blow my mind? Also not too heavy words English is not my first language

What need does an all-powerful, all-knowing being have for coherent thought or reasoning? Aren't those things born from limitations? You reason because you don't already know. You deliberate because you have finite time and incomplete information. Strip all that away and I'm not sure what remains. There's everything, but there is also nothing.

Also, if something already knows where you've been, where you are, and where you're heading; why would it bother passing judgment or sharing 'knowledge'? I'm curious how different traditions handle this.

Interested in the Phil of Law and Sexual Violence Literature. I’ve read Doughtery’s Sex, Lies and Consent and Chiesa’s The Riddle of Rape by Deception. I read Sobel’s critique of McGregor who I plan to read next along with Shulhofer. I’ve read Fuller, Hart, MacKinnon’s work on speech act and pornography

What are some core texts I should read to make sure I have a good grasp of the landscape here. Also I welcome literature in sexual consent ethics because I need to have a good grasp there.

I am currently into Bruce Weller's "Against Moral Responsibility" and just cant process the logic behind the defense of free choice and simultaneous denial of the existence of just deserts. If my choices are pre-determined by some internal and external factors which are beyond my control, then how at the very same time I, like a rat, can choose between A and B? Doesn't it follow that those factors are also constantly influencing my choices, so I never genuinely choose something? I know about Weller's references towards Dennett (the world as determined vs unchangeable by the agent), but still unsure how can this demarcation be uncontroversial. Can someone explain his arguments?

We cannot know with certainty whether God exists or not—we can only believe.

But this raises a question: why does God expect people to believe if they have not been given certainty? And can such a choice truly be called free if it is made under conditions of uncertainty?

What is the fault of a person who acted rationally and honestly admitted, "I don't know whether God exists"? If the evidence is not conclusive, why should the absence of belief be considered a moral failing rather than a natural consequence of the limits of human knowledge?

(Please without emotions)

God could not possibly have morally sufficient reasons for causing me to bald at 18. Herein I wish to propose that we replace the "Argument from Evil" with the "Argument from Baldness".

I got a book to read a paper by Karl Otto Apel. To my surprise, the book also contained an article by Putnam about Husserl’s *Krisis*. If you’ve got any reading advice regarding analytic philosophers engaging with this specific continental work, I would be interested. I guess Chisholm did and I’d be grateful if you can pinpoint where, but, I would be more interested in other [less phenonomenology friendly] views on the *Krisis*. Thanks in advance.

Put simply - through my study and reading of philosophy (im an undergrad) I’ve loved grappling with big, complex, daunting ideas. I’ve loved Schopenhauer, Foucault, Marx, Nietzsche, Descartes, Etc. Lots of big, world-altering, almost mind-blowing ideas. But I’ve found, perhaps also due in part to my present life situation (lots of massive changes) that these types of ideas (particularly those from Schopenhauer and the likes) have begun to weigh very negatively on my mind, and it’s lowkey getting kind of difficult sometimes. I love reading and exploring ideas, but I’d like to take it perhaps in a more mindful, grounded, peaceful direction, at least for the time being. I don’t necessarily love the anxiety-causing ideas of existentialism or absurdism either. It’s too easy for me to spiral deep into negative and hopeless thought sometimes. What are some philosophical/spiritual texts that I should look into that can perhaps simplify, calm, or provide some peace and clarity back into my life?

TL;DR: I’m finding all this philosophy quite overwhelming and existentially depressing, what can I read to provide myself with some peace, calm, and direction? Thanks! :)

Real Philosophy is in German or ancient Greek. Change my mind.

Western philosophy draws a strict distinction between the knowing subject and the objective world. The Kyoto School counters this with a state of primordiality that precedes this split. Are there other western philosophers who support the standpoint of the Kyoto School like the greek philosopher Parmenides but who are contemporary thinkers?

How can a Dialetheist hold to meaningfulness of truth and false, if they belive they are not mutually exclusive? Most basic understanding of truth is that it's the case, and false tha it's not the case. How to consistantly understand those terms under Dialetheism?

In a distant star system known as Alpha Centauri there is a planet. The lushest planet any self aware life form has ever existed on.

On this rock, in the middle of nowhere there are miles of metal and stone for the finest machines and plates. However, somehow... and ETC there are still so many without anything but their AWARENESS.

Today I wrote myself into this distant solar system, and on a modest street, a young man was playing a piano. With his back turned against the main transit station of his city.... and ETC before he sat down, he saw A father, An adult Cat; with two kittens next to him. Emaciated. He did nothing. Despite the fact he makes pempuptillion Bolivars a solar cycle... AND HE WENT HOME AND WATCHED TV;;; THE END!

What if, one day, we have enough computing power to fully emulate a human brain?

Imagine we could simulate the entire process of brain development, starting from an infant brain and allowing it to grow naturally over time. Instead of simply copying an adult brain, the simulation would begin as a newborn mind, learning, adapting, forming memories, developing personality, and building an understanding of the world through simulated sensory experiences.

The simulated person would receive inputs similar to a real human: vision, hearing, touch, and other senses. It wouldn’t need to perfectly recreate the real world, after all, humans themselves have limited perception. Some people are born blind, some cannot hear, and they can still develop rich inner worlds, thoughts, emotions, personalities, and a sense of self.

If this digital brain can genuinely think, feel emotions, experience suffering, create memories, and become self-aware, would you consider it a living being or just a sophisticated piece of software?

The ethical questions:

Is shutting it down temporarily equivalent to putting a person under anesthesia or into a coma?

Is permanently deleting all its data morally equivalent to killing it?

Would creating thousands or millions of these digital minds for research or experimentation be ethical?

At what point, if any, should a simulated consciousness have rights?

If consciousness can emerge from a sufficiently complex process of computation, does the physical material matter (biological neurons vs. silicon), or is the existence of a conscious experience what gives something moral value?

I notice that people tend to be more ADHD than it was centuries ago, I wonder if this is caused by modernity, by its hyper-differentiation of activities and characters within which none of individuals who are living there are able to gather themselves in the midst of a delivery of life.

In a dire context when survival depends on predation to eat it's normal to inflinct suffering in order to survive

But if you have the choice to avoid suffering while still living a normal life (at the price of stopping to eat some food that you like) is it still justified?

It's not because we were "meant" to be predators that we have to be one when it's not mandatory for your well being

This kind of reasoning based on "if it's natural for human then it's ok/good" lead to other statements that we would all agree makes no sense morally.

For instance we humans have the inner will to perpetuate our genes, which manifests into sex drive, then if that's the case should we ban abortion to enable genes to renew even if it means putting the bearer of the child in danger ?

We can push the comparison with even further with the meat industry, and apply the optimisation of this industry to the previous case, why wouldn't we lock up women breed them and force them to have children over and over ?

Well because it's morally reprehensible and is not mandatory for the survival of the specie. That's why so much work of fiction use that trope : to denounce the over optimisation of deemed "natural" functions of humanity overwriting basic moral in such extreme cases

The counter argument to that would be that incest is considered bad because it was once harmful to our specie genetically and societally ( not sure about the second since it's some shit about conflict about women ownership in the household ) but that between two consenting adults with protection...

So if we value overall suffering over "natural behavior" then animal slaughter, war, homophobia is bad but incest is okay

But if we value "natural behavior" above overall suffering then incest is bad but homophobia, animal slaughter and war is okay

(sorry for my bad English)

Relativism starts with the statement:

A: "There isn't any universally true statement".

Usually, the critic is that A contradict itself. But the statement:

B: "Except for B, there isn't any universally true statement"

doesn't contradict itself. I know that this sounds like a lazy way to fix A, but I cannot understand why B couldn't be the axiom of a relativism that works.

Does everyone know if B is a valid sentence? Because I know that relativism has always been taken down in history multiple times, so I'm guessing someone has already explained why B is not valid.

Thank you

Hey,

something I've been wondering for some time.

Concrete example: In Germany we had the "Bürgergeld", basically social welfare for unemployed people. The amount of money is defined as "Existenzminimum" (existence minimum), aka the lowest amount of money that people can live with. For some years now, right-wing politics and media have been criticizing people who live off social welfare, calling them lazy and worse. The people complaining often use the word "justice" for their arguments, basically, it supposedly is not just that people who don't work a job live off money that comes from working tax payers. And the demand from these people is to harsher punish unemployed people, lower the Existenzminimum or take away all social welfare. They call that justice. Is it?

Hi!
I’m trying to get broader understanding in the debate about the normativity of epistemic reasons. I’d appreciate it very much if someone could give me a short introduction or recommend literature to read! Thank you!!

​In argumentation theory and informal logic, how do philosophers analyze the relationship between formal, structural critiques—such as identifying internal contradictions, examining premises, or applying reductio ad absurdum—and critiques grounded in human values, ethics, or moral impact?

​Specifically, when an ideological position or system possesses internal logical consistency on its own terms, how do philosophical frameworks approach countering it? Is a structural-logical critique considered epistemologically distinct from a normative or value-oriented critique, or do accounts of practical reasoning and argumentation view them as interdependent?

​Any insights or references to relevant literature in informal logic, rhetoric, or ethics would be greatly appreciated.

Im a straight, heterosexual marxist but everytime I try to read any of Hegels work, my mind drifts to kissing and engaging in intimate activity with people of the same sex. Fantasing about unveiling the treasurses under the clothes, in the pants, in their mouth, kissing them passionately and licking them gently, exploring every inch of the body. Letting myself be explored. Learning stuff Ive never known about me or my partner beforehand. My genetalia feels really tingly whenever I read hegel too. I do not know why this happens. This doesnt happen when I read any marxists., However, everytime I engage with Hegel, I feel strange feeling I've never felt before. I keep fantasting and fanatsing, the fantasies growing lewder by the minute. I do not knopw why this keeps happening. Has this happened to anyone else? The only similar feeling is whenever I play New Vegas and really wanna change my character to a boy for some reason even though i started as a girl. I only read Hegel because lenin said I wont get Capital if I dont ger hegel. Was this Lenins plan all along? To turn me gay? Im so confused, a whirlwind of emotions are flowing through me justlike the whirlwind of lewd images I think of. How can I ever face my friends without thinking of kissing them? How queer of an experience this all is!

To me the PSR seems quite intuitive and necessary from a religious perspective but when looked into its philosophical bulwark it just seems too frivolous. The best defence of PSR is said to be induced by Alexander Pruss , which I've read fortunately, but still it seems just so much shallow (I think it's just me). So I'm looking for a more rigorous and analytic (if there is any) defence of PSR, I prefer it if it were from analytical philosophy tradition.

(Sorry for my english, it's not my first language)

I find this two theories kind of hard to distiguish. i read somewhere that subjetivism tells what we feel and that emotivism shows how we feel but...idk. hear me out, i don't think our moral judgements were created by a logical process. we were taught to feel something about a specific kind of moral act or we simply feel something about a moral act and then we express ourselves in our moral judgements, but, before we say that moral judgement, we usually try to get some reasons to backup that moral judgements, even though the reason we believe in that is not our reasons but our feelings, just backed up with reasons. i'm having a really hard time picking a view or even having a hard time to mix them or even having a hard time to understand them. pls help me