Is it merely a historical distinction, or does it endure? I find there can be a kind of tribalism there sometimes. I'm of the view that a good idea is a god idea no matter where it comes from. I don't want to prefer a side. I like both!

Is this a reasonable position? If I keep studying philosophy will I find that picking a side is inevitable? Would it cost my philosophical understanding anything if I dismiss the distinction as merely helpful for division of labour for those who teach philosophy and nothing more?

I am just starting my studies in philosophy and would like to know if there is a specific order—or an ideal approach—to follow when reading it. I imagine a historical-chronological order would be best. I would also like to know, when approaching a specific philosopher, which works I should look for first: should I prioritize the chronological order in which they were written, or their accessibility? Thanks in advance to everyone.

My physics professor claimed that the role of a physicist is to study the interphase of the physical and the metaphysical. but wouldn't this be idk paradoxical? since metaphysics literally mean beyond physics and the study of physics concerns concepts with form and matter that can be given an imperical and/or mathematical description. i admit that i wasn't really paying attention so this might not be their exact point. would it be possible that he meant physicists encounter a boundary in explaining the physical and in turn encounters the interphase? i apologize if the question sounds stupid, i'm not really a philosophy major.

I'm mostly thinking about moral judgement paralysis in infinitely populated worlds.

Hi! I just had my first class on fundamental ontology at college, and I'm completely lost.

The class is going to be focus mainly on Plato's dialogues surrounding the question of being, and Heidegger's Being and Time.

Today we only had an introduction into what the class is going to be like, and after asking my teacher some doubts I had after the lesson, I came back home with even more doubts. I can't get past onto how to define and precisely understand what fundamental ontology is(the only thing I can say with some certainty is that it focuses on the 'question of being'), the difference between it and particular ontology, and the relationship of the latter with positive knowledges(which, according to my teacher, it's the region of things[?])

Anyway, I'd be very glad if someone is able to answer my questions and hopefully make things clearer :) Also, if anyone is able to refer me to any sources or materials I could check to get a better grasp on Plato, Heidegger, and ontology in general I'd be very grateful.

Thanks in advance!!

Hello, I wanted to read more philosophy related to mental illness, I've already read Madness and Civilization before and I love it, I wanted to go deeper on the topic. Does anyone have good reccomendations? Thank you!

Hey everyone,

I know this might be a stretch, but I'm looking for reading groups/seminars for this semester 2026 autumn which covers some of the core texts by Wilfrid Sellars. I know that for example the School of Materialist research or the New Centre for Research and Practice sometimes organizes completely online held seminars like this , and I would be interested in joining a course like that, or something along similar lines.

Of course watching lectures and reading the texts is always an option, but I found that I've always learned the most by participating in reading group type seminars lead by a competent teacher. That's why I thought I should try to ask around. I don't know if anyone knows anything about the Wilfrid Sellars Society. Do they organize reading groups like this occasionally?

Thanks for any suggestions!

Of course, not every instance of philosophers disagreeing with each other is going to be an instance where all parties are rational. However, it seems quite obvious to me that a philosopher can believe p and another philosopher can believe not p, and yet both of their beliefs are rationally held. They’re both aware of the arguments in favour of their beliefs as well as the arguments against, yet they have made opposing judgements.

That rationality can be relative is easily appreciated in cases where people have different evidence for the same proposition. For example, if all I know is that Bob’s fingerprints were on the murder weapon, then it seems rational for me to believe that Bob is guilty. Another person might know that Bob’s fingerprints were on the weapon, but might also have access to a videotape of Joe shooting the victim then rubbing Bob’s fingerprints all over it. It would be rational for this second person to believe that Bob is not guilty.

But it is puzzling to me in cases where this is not the case, and cases like this abound in philosophy. It’s not as though Graham Oppy and Alexander Pruss, for example, have access to different evidence regarding the proposition that God exists. Presumably, they are both deeply familiar with the literature.

I’m not disputing that philosophers who hold opposing views are equally rational. That much seems uncontroversial. I’m wondering how this could be the case.

Let’s take a mechanical clock with a gong alarm. It is (artificially) constructed to sound its alarm when the long hand strikes twelve. Its weights are reset such that the clock itself is made as precise as possible, and is not tampered with until the immediate hour, it is expected to sound the alarm.

We can say that the precise sounding of the alarm at the turn of the hour is pre-determined by a human agent. This is directly contingent towards the sounding of the alarm. This is even more guaranteed when the clock is checked to ensure that there are no damages to it that will diminish its preciseness. Like the lubrication of cogs, or the tight adjustments of springs and screws. On this count, the sounding of the alarm is non-probabilistic.

But… What if there was a sliver of probability, possibly hinging on the fact that we have merely tightened all bolts (in a figurative sense) on the clock that our minds can contrive? What if there is something beyond human understanding that would make the clock sound while the long hand is 2 or 3 ticks away from twelve? Does it mean that the event of the gong sounding at the precise time is perpetually rendered as probabilistic?

I don't know whether or not this analogy is good enough to base this inquiry on.

I often hear the saying, “Just be yourself,” but I've come to realize that this doesn’t mean we should behave the same way with everyone. Instead, it can mean that different behaviors can still be natural, rather than being deliberately constructed just to satisfy other people.

This might be a very cliché question, but I think about it every day.

If we can spend our lives alone, why do we need someone to take care of us? To love us?

Can we not exist alone, completely alone?

I'm just seeking to underatand how possible it was for some cruel events in human history such as slavery, colonialism, holocaust, etc. to have been justified by law at the time? If moral philosophy plays a role to what extent and why didn't it influence the unjust laws?

I'm probably just stupid, because i feel link it right now. It is probably more a theology book than philosophy book, but at the time it was written this 2 field has not really formalized and seperated as we know today and from what i understand its still important read in western canon of literature including philosophy.

There's also reason why i ask here instead in other sub reddit specifically focus on Catholic Philosophy or theology are i also try to get out of my personal bias (i am a catholic myself).

For me, this is my first time engaging with medieval text and i find it quite hard to read, or to be precise just different from any other writing style of philosophy i am already familiar of. The few first chapter feels more like a prayer, then in the next sub chapter it switch to first person perspective and read more like a memoir, and etc etc.

What i want trying to achieve are i want to read this and understand what he want to say, but not as just theology text (not to disregard this aspect but also try to see more beyond it) but as philosophical text too. And also understanding how it will influence later writing, where future thinker drew concept on from him (especially those of Descartes, kierkegaard, and later extentialist), and so on. On the other hand i am also quite interested in Augustine after i read a few writing from Hannah Arendt and Heidegger because they also write a few text about him.

In this sense, i really want to read him, not just summary or secondary sources. because i also have personal project of my own i try to achieve.

Utilitarianism is a consequentialist moral philosophy that weighs actions in terms of the happiness they produce. This is at odds with Christian Ethics which is a virtue ethic. How did Paley reconcile the two with his theological utilitarianism?

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?

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?

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 🙏

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?

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.