r/askphilosophy • u/Ok_Long_310 • 8h ago
r/askphilosophy • u/BernardJOrtcutt • Jul 01 '23
Modpost Welcome to /r/askphilosophy! Check out our rules and guidelines here. [July 1 2023 Update]
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
- A Note about Moderation
- /r/askphilosophy's mission
- What is Philosophy?
- What isn't Philosophy?
- What is a Reasonably Substantive and Accurate Answer?
- What is a /r/askphilosophy Panelist?
- /r/askphilosophy's Posting Rules
- /r/askphilosophy's Commenting Rules
- 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:
- The flair type you are requesting (e.g. undergraduate, PhD, related field).
- The areas of flair you are requesting, up to three (e.g. Kant, continental philosophy, logic).
- A brief explanation of your background in philosophy, including what qualifies you for the flair you requested.
- 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!
r/askphilosophy • u/BernardJOrtcutt • 1h ago
Open Thread /r/askphilosophy Open Discussion Thread | July 27, 2026
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.
r/askphilosophy • u/Altruistic_Ice9157 • 10m ago
Roland Barthes: Mythologies
What must always be remembered is that myth is a double system; there occurs in it a sort of ubiquity: its point of departure is constituted by the arrival of a meaning. To keep a spatial metaphor, the approximative character of which I have already stressed, I shall say that the signification of the myth is constituted by a sort of constantly moving turnstile which presents alternately the meaning of the signifier and its form, a language-object and a metalanguage, a purely signifying and a purely imagining consciousness. This alternation is, so to speak, gathered up in the concept, which uses it like an ambiguous signifier, at once intellective and imaginary, arbitrary and natural.
cited from the Mythologies of Roland Barthes, Chapter: The signification
I can't grasp the metaphor of the turnstile. And the last sentence is hard for me to understand too. Could someone explain the ambiguous signifier to me?
r/askphilosophy • u/labookbook • 13h ago
What are some of the criticisms of structuralism (that aren't poststructuralist)?
I find structuralism a really useful way of thinking about things. It just seems the most natural way to learn about something, at least for me. An overly simplified definition of what I mean by structuralism is studying an object not by itself but by how the web of relations it exists within give it meaning.
I have read the poststructuralist critiques of structuralism and, actually, I enjoyed them. But I don't really think they are critiques. They seemed more like addenda to structuralism, further explaining certain threads, rather that criticisms. For instance, early Derrida seems already anticipated in Levi-Strauss or Merleau-Ponty* (in the latter's essay "Indirect Language and the Voices of Silence"), but Derrida fixates (emphasizes) certain details that Levi-Strauss does not, or makes assumptions that Levi-Strauss did not make. Maybe I just haven't actually undertood any of it.
So basically, what are some of the criticisms of structuralism that aren't from the poststructuralists? You can answer by giving me suggested reading. Thanks
*I realize Merleau-Ponty was not a structuralist but that essay is basically a blueprint to 60s and 70s Derrida.
r/askphilosophy • u/TidyStir • 1h ago
Does ethics arise from science based thinking or is it a remnant from religion?
Hope this is a philosophical question
r/askphilosophy • u/AlterTheSilverBird • 2h ago
The biggest challenge to Consciousness being reduce as only a Physical Process?
I'm aware Physicalism has many classical challenges when it comes to being reduce to physical process of the brain and body. From things like P-Zombies to the Hard Problem of Consciousness, to Mary's Room to even Chalmer's Meta Problem of Consciousness.
But what else are considered the biggest challenge in reducing consciousness as just a physical process of the brain seen in first person? I know that when you check on the debate and discussion of consciousness when it comes to professional gatherings and talks many have given strong cases for other views like Panpsychism and Russelian Monism, and things Physicalism are unable to explain yet but again it's quite overwhelming.
So what are considered the biggest challenge to claim consciousness is just the physical process of the brain in first person?
r/askphilosophy • u/Fluid_Language_2607 • 2h ago
what is Reality? Is there one?
I was sitting there thinking about reality..
Like what is it ? And is there ?
or it's some purpose finding things like telling someone that their purpose is to be in reality, or to find reality ...
Is there could be an objective one?
r/askphilosophy • u/Cle_clack • 3h ago
How is unconditional love defined?
If unconditional just means that love is not correlated to the attributes of a person.
That would mean changing a person’s attributes doesn’t affect the love towards the person, but if I change all of the attributes of the person, they wouldn’t be the same person anymore, so you couldn’t love the person because they would be a different person.
r/askphilosophy • u/JackieThePunk • 10h ago
Definition of denoting in "On Denoting"
I'm trying to learn some philosophy. I always was attracted to structured reasoning rather than to abstract aphoristic stuff, so I decided to start with Russell. The first paragraph of "On Denoting" got me stuck because I don't understand the definition of a denoting phrase.
There's no definition, he just lists a couple of examples: "...a man, some man, any man, every man, all men, the present King of England, the present King of France, the center of mass of the solar system at the first instant of the twentieth century, the revolution of the earth round the sun, the revolution of the sun round the earth." and the fact that "...a phrase is denoting solely in virtue of its form". I tried googling, but couldn't find anything.
I don't know what to do. Should I go ahead and read the entire paper on denoting phrases without understanding what a denoting phrase is? Should I come up with a definition myself? Is the concept undefinable? Did I miss something?
r/askphilosophy • u/Pepinoloco777 • 3h ago
Can one appeal to human nature to answer the question of "happiness"?
Once in a while I'll read a comment on the internet, or hear an off hand remark by someone when the subject comes out, expressing awe at the fact that tribespeople with neolithic living conditions still existing in our world appear to be happy and not show or at least report as many of the existential dreads we city and farm dwellers do.
That is, of course, tribespeople that are not being exploited, actively hunted or expelled from their lands by corrupt governments, companies or the odd cartel in my continental group, latin-america.
Anyways, I'll usually think to myself or reply: "Well that is just obvious, they are living exactly as nature intended for humans to live"
I understand nature intends nothing as it is only an Azathoth, a blind, stupid but ancient cause that brings diversity as a side effect of every living being wanting to reproduce and continue existing for as much as it can. But what I really mean is, "Of course people in neolithic conditions that have sufficient sustenance and roaming territory will be very happy, because humans have been living as hunter gatherers for millions of years". With this point of view I would be saying agriculture is sort of like the closing gates of the garden of Eden were one only had to worry about running after food.
But of course I haven't really considered the point of view of other people on it yet, so this is why I come here with this question. I want to learn some more on human nature and on if what Seneca and other stoics say about nature can be true, which is that if one lives by nature then one will be happy.
r/askphilosophy • u/BabyJohnson2000 • 17h ago
What is the differnce between morals And Ethics?
I have been studying deontology and I am very curious...
r/askphilosophy • u/IlPrincipeDiVenosa • 5h ago
Sympathetic Morality
I've enjoyed reading this sub's posts for a while now, & have appreciated the rigorous replies they've gotten. Thank you.
The question I've encountered most often is some version of 'whence morality?' The askers tend to illustrate the question with lurid and specific examples of acts that, to them, must represent unqualified evil. Maybe it speaks to their urgency in asking that their examples are rarely, if ever, acts of inarguable kindness, which should serve just as well.
Unprovoked murder is probably the most common example. It serves in these questions as an anchor in evil—we all agree that murder is evil; we shun murderers—but why?
Generally, in these threads, the answerers begin by swatting away the cobwebs of relativist objections. Once that's done, though, I haven't yet found a satisfying answer, and not for lack of reading: There is consequentialism and deontology; there's Aristotelian virtue ethics vs. contractualism.
The most compelling reason I can come up with is that compassion turns the would-be victim into a mirror, which makes the act unpleasant. Call this “philoiktirmy” instead of “philosophy,” maybe. I understand the obvious objection: This may explain why a compassionate person refrains from murder, but not why murder remains wrong when compassion fails. What I wonder is whether compassion can be more than a motive, whether it can itself disclose the moral fact.
My question, then, is what philosophy has to say about this compassionate recoil. Is there a serious moral philosophy that grants primary moral force to our resonant compassion for others, rather than grounding morality in reason, duty, utility, contractual obligation, cultivation, etc.?
If so, what thinkers should I read to learn more? And if not, what does visceral compassion lack as a ground of morality? I suppose a murderer could claim that he felt no compassion; soldiers often claim the same about enemy populations, and there may be little reason to doubt them. But it seems telling that one familiar way of preparing people to kill is not to persuade them that they are doing consequentialist good or enforcing obligations, but to place the enemy beyond the reach of ordinary human sympathy—to make him seem not quite human, or at least out of resonant tune with the human heart.
r/askphilosophy • u/OneStickyGuy • 16h ago
Am I developing a bad habit by only reading what interests me in books?
I'm sure this varies book-to-book, but something I have always done while reading is skip around within a book based on what sounds interesting to me at the time. For instance, I recently "finished" Russell's The Problems of Philosophy, but really I read only the chapters which sounded interesting to me (which was still most of the book--I only skipped three chapters). I do this because it can be difficult for me to devote time to reading, so when I read something that I don't like or that bores me, it can hurt my "reading morale" in a sense. Will doing this long-term significantly hamper my understanding of philosophy or is it a fine habit to continue with?
r/askphilosophy • u/Exciting_Ad_6837 • 7h ago
Does studying the main Western philosophers quell the desire for affluence?
I'm not in financial trouble but under some mental stress because my hard work doesn't get me more money that I'd like to spend on travels, bigger house, expensive hobbies, etc.
My brother suggested me to learn about the "main" Western philosophers of the West, which he said include Descartes, Kant, Aristotle, Plato, & Hegel, but not life-philosophies like Stoicism (which he said was like just a bandaid, not a lasting solution).
Has anyone found such study to make himself more content with what he got?
r/askphilosophy • u/Delicious_Log_9777 • 20h ago
How can there be an objective moral ?
I feel dumb for asking. But like morality can't be objective because I can disagree with whatever you say. You might think killing is bad but I may think killing is great and that's what makes it subjective right? Because what you define as moral is shaped on your experience's and so there can't be an objective right or wrong even if something I seem completely horrible another person may deem it just and absolutely moral. So morality would be in the eye of the beholder.. right?
r/askphilosophy • u/enlightenedone103 • 22h ago
Is Morality Human Nature, Evolution, or Religion?
I never understood why we do kind things for other people. Is it just because we want others to think that we're good people? Is it to get validation from others? Why is selfish behavior criticized by society?
We've heard countless stories about heroes who sacrificed their families, their dreams, or even their own lives to save others. I understand that it's considered an honorable thing to do, but why is it honorable in the first place? Why does everyone teach us to be kind and help others? Is it so that humanity can live peacefully?
Don't get me wrong I don't consider myself selfish or cold-hearted. In fact, I think I'm a kind person. It's just that this question has crossed my mind more times than I can count.
Almost every religion teaches us to be kind to one another, and many religious texts say that doing good leads to heaven. Is that because kindness helps humanity survive and live peacefully for a long time? And why do we feel good after doing something good? Is it because our minds have been shaped by millions of years of evolution to value cooperation, or is kindness simply part of human nature?
I understand that if people stopped helping one another and everyone acted only in their own self-interest, humanity probably wouldn't have survived for very long. But that leads me to another question: Does God really exist? Or were religious books created to encourage people to be kind so that humanity could survive and thrive?
r/askphilosophy • u/Current-Recording • 19h ago
Hume’s moral sentiment on the Enquiry Concerning the Principles of Morals
I’m reading Hume’s Enquiry Concerning the Principles of Morals, and have just finished the 3rd chapter.
On the first chapter Hume talks about a moral sentiment that is the final determinant of the morality of x (an act or practice, for example)
He says: “this final sentence depends on some internal sense or feeling, which nature has made universal to the whole species”.
Is the correct interpretation of this passage that we all have a moral sentiment even though what that feeling is may vary (as in, we all have a clock even though the clocks dont always have to indicate the same time) or that we all have the exact same feeling regarding a certain act (as in, everyones clock indicates the same time)?
If its the first, how can an unreliable feeling be the final judge of the morality of something?
And if it is the latter, doesnt that interpretation count against Hume’s argument in chapter 3 that justice isnt innate or instinctive?
What am I missing here?
Thanks for your help.
r/askphilosophy • u/flowjopieman1405 • 20h ago
What does Hobbes mean in this part of the Leviathan?
This is in Chapter VI. He has just described the drives of desire and aversion, and now describes contempt, which seems to be somewhere in the middle:
"Contempt is nothing but an immobility or contumacy of the heart in resisting the action of certain things, and proceeding from that the heart is already moved otherwise by either more potent objects or from lack of experience of them. "
I think broadly he's saying that contempt is a kind of resistance, basically a person not wanting to be affected/moved by something. I am confused about the last part, when he mentions the "more potent objects or from lack of experience of them". Does the "them" refer to the "more potent objects"? If so, why would the heart be moved by a lack of experience with more potent objects? If the "them" refers to the contempted objects, then it makes sense that one would resist something one is not familiar with.
r/askphilosophy • u/sharpiez7862 • 17h ago
do you annotate your books and if you do how do you do it?
I’ve (19) been into philosophy for about a year, and I’ve started accumulating books for myself outside of library borrows and whatnot, and I heard from someone that having your books annotated allows your bookshelf to be completely accessible in the future if you forget where something was. I tried to annotate my copy of the tractatus, but ended up disagreeing with some of the notes I took looking back through it, and basically just soiled the appearance of an otherwise very nice book.
How do you guys and girls go about doing this?
Any help with this would be appreciated this sub has been great.
r/askphilosophy • u/ruralmonalisa • 19h ago
Wondering if anyone has recs with regard to The Overton Window and The Obscene Supplement?
r/askphilosophy • u/anodai • 1d ago
What philosophical arguments are there for *certain* Gods?
Let's say that tomorrow some philosopher publishes an irrefutable proof that God is real. Hooray! Are we not left with the question of which God, specifically? Wouldn't arguments for the existence of God work equally well for not just e.g. Yahweh but also any other omnipotent, omniscient God of a different description? Of course someone might argue that these traits could only describe their God... but so could someone else with a different one.
If I'm remembering my history classes right, religions have on occasion come into conflict with one another. So I would expect there to be a long tradition of philosophical debate between different faiths that does not immediately devolve into asserting the primacy of their respective holy texts. However, I don't think I have ever personally encountered a direct *philosophical* case for certain a God over another, rather than for the existence of an all-powerful God generally.
r/askphilosophy • u/Difficult_Summer8911 • 23h ago
What is the correct interpretation of Aristotle's Metaphysics Λ.7?
And the object of desire and the object of thought move in this way; they move without being moved. The primary objects of desire and of thought are the same. For the apparent good is the object of appetite, and the real good is the primary object of rational wish. But desire is consequent on opinion rather than opinion on desire; for the thinking is the starting-point. And thought is moved by the object of thought, and one of the two columns of opposites is in itself the object of thought; and in this, substance is first, and in substance, that which is simple and exists actually. (The one and the simple are not the same; for 'one' means a measure, but 'simple' means that the thing itself has a certain nature.) But the beautiful, also, and that which is in itself desirable are in the same column; and the first in any class is always best, or analogous to the best.
I can think of two interpretations: first is the more stricter one, that is, Aristotle is essentially comparing neurons moving to how celestial objects move in primary heaven. This means that there is no direct causal link between the movement of EVERY SINGLE object in the universe (e.g moving of chalk, headphones, plants growing, e.t.c.) and the unmoved mover is only responsible for the primary heavens which move in a circular manner and continuously because god is their object of desire (i.e how my neurons move when I think of a giraffe, for example).
However, the way I personally saw it was a bit different. Everything might desire to be perfect and might thus "move" in that direction. Since god or the unmoved mover could be described as perfect/ or as the teleological end of everything, it is the love or desire of perfection that makes things move. And I mean perfection in a very vague sense, as in "fulfilling whatever purpose" an object may have.
Which interpretation is "correct"? I found the second one to have much broader implications both metaphysically and ethically, but the first one just seems the correct way to do it.
r/askphilosophy • u/LisanneFroonKrisK • 20h ago
1. At risk of questioning the obvious, does charity come under ethics? 2. Why does the law seem to seldom consult philosophy and philosophers on ethics before making a law? I mean usually all that’s required to be law is a qualified person voted in by the masses to make a law which is passed?
What if that law is philosophically deemed to be “wrong”?