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

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

69 Upvotes

Welcome to /r/askphilosophy!

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

Table of Contents

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

A Note about Moderation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

/r/askphilosophy's Mission

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

What is Philosophy?

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

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

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

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

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

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

What Isn't Philosophy?

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

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

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

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

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

What is a Reasonably Substantive and Accurate Answer?

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

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

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

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

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

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

What is a /r/askphilosophy Panelist?

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

What Do the Flairs Mean?

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

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

There are six types of panelist flair:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How Do I Become a Panelist?

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

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

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

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

/r/askphilosophy's Posting Rules

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

PR1: All questions must be about philosophy.

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

PR2: All submissions must be questions.

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

PR3: Post titles must be descriptive.

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

PR4: Questions must be reasonably specific.

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

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

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

PR6: One post per day.

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

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

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

/r/askphilosophy's Commenting Rules

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

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

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

CR2: Answers must be reasonably substantive and accurate.

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

CR3: Be respectful.

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

CR4: Stay on topic.

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

CR5: No self-promotion.

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

Miscellaneous Posting and Commenting Guidelines

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

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

Frequently Asked Questions

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

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

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

How can I appeal my post or comment removal?

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

How can I appeal my ban?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why is your understanding of philosophy so limited?

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

Are there other philosophy subreddits I can check out?

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

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

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

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

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

Do you have advice or resources for graduate school applications?

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

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

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

0 comments

r/askphilosophy • u/BernardJOrtcutt • 5d ago

Open Thread /r/askphilosophy Open Discussion Thread | October 12, 2026

12 Upvotes

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

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

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

Previous Open Discussion Threads can be found here.

24 comments

r/askphilosophy • u/W1ader • 5h ago

Is there a meaningful distinction between scientific description and explanation?

8 Upvotes

Someone on the Alex O'Connor subreddit suggested I ask this here.

Alex has argued that science can describe what happens and how it happens without necessarily explaining why it happens. In a discussion with Sabine Hossenfelder, he proposed a hypothetical scenario in which we discover a perfect mathematical formula describing and predicting an unusual phenomenon: playing a trumpet causes a light somewhere to change colour and intensity according to the notes being played.

Alex then asks:

"I kinda feel like it doesn't explain anything. Like it predicts what's going to happen and it describes mathematically what I'm observing, but in what sense do you mean to say that I have at least partly explained what's happening?"

He makes this point twice, arguing that a mathematical formula describing and predicting a phenomenon doesn't feel like it explains anything at all. He also places strong emphasis on the need to keep asking why these things happen. I'm interested in whether the distinction he's drawing is philosophically defensible.

My initial objection is that it seems to conflate an explanation being incomplete with it not being an explanation at all.

Imagine someone asks why a car is moving so fast. I could explain the mechanics of how the engine produces motion, say that the driver pressed the accelerator, or explain that the driver is speeding because they're late for a flight. These answers address different aspects of the same situation, but I don't see why any of them should disqualify the others from counting as explanations. Nor does the fact that we can keep asking why invalidate the answers we've already established.

What makes Alex's argument particularly confusing to me is that he's a committed agnostic atheist, so I don't think it's fair to assume he's simply presupposing divine intentionality behind reality. Yet if he isn't asking for a purposeful explanation, I'm struggling to understand what kind of "why" he has in mind. And even if we did appeal to divine intention, I don't see how that would resolve the problem. We could still ask why God intended things to be that way, or why God exists at all. What makes that kind of explanation fundamentally different in this respect?

I'm aware that scientific explanations have limitations. For example, explaining the biological and evolutionary basis of love or the perception of the colour blue wouldn't necessarily help someone who has never experienced them understand what they feel like. But I'm not sure why this means the scientific explanation fails to explain anything, rather than simply addressing a different aspect of the phenomenon.

My question is: Is there a philosophically defensible interpretation of Alex's argument under which his distinction between scientific description and explanation holds up? What kind of explanation is he asking for, and what would it need to provide that a scientific explanation cannot?

2 comments

r/askphilosophy • u/tuxsometwo • 3h ago

Do we even have a choice? (determinism + science)

4 Upvotes

I've recently been afraid of something. What if we don't have a choice at all? Like, every particle move since the Big Bang was unavoidable so that would mean everything that happened and will happen is unavoidable.
That being said, I ask again: Do we even have a choice?

2 comments

r/askphilosophy • u/ingathuse • 4h ago

Where to Find Argumentative Papers to Read?

4 Upvotes

Hello there, I'm an undergraduate student. I'm taking a philosophy course as part of my college requirements. I do not plan to major in philosophy as my intended major is STEM-related. Nevertheless, I want to do my best in this course as I enjoy the logic required in deductive arguments as well as the interesting topics my class discusses. I'm not the best at the type of thinking required in philosophy yet (e.g. pushing back on premises, finding discrepancies among them), so I want to improve on this by reading argumentative papers (argument reconstruction + evaluation). Hopefully this does not sound like a self-help post.

Once again, I would like to reiterate that I am looking to read argumentative papers so I understand the prose and the structure. While I have found guidelines for how to write a paper, reading examples improves my writing. Thus, my question is Where do you find argumentative papers to read for a beginner philosophy writer? Or would it be more preferable if I simply read more philosophy in general instead of trying to fit this mold? Am I going about this the wrong way? I'll take any suggestions.

Thank you for the help. I appreciate it. Please let me know if any more information is required.

6 comments

r/askphilosophy • u/WanderingWrackspurt • 11h ago

Why love anyone when its essentially guaranteed pain?

13 Upvotes

Now this may not be the most philosophical question ever, but i need help :(

Ive recently gone thru a breakup ( its been a couple of months) and atp its not even about her, but i just keep thinking what the point of love is.

I have this one elective at college, which is the only humanities related subject ive studied in a long while. the professor talked about disenchantment, and how knowledge can make you less happy, and essentially "ignorance is bliss", and he says that he wishes he knew less, as now he doesnt have that amount of joy he used to. he even said that he watches horror movies to sleep better, because they give him a sort of thrill that he knows for sure is fictional, a little bit of enchantment to the mind, and i kept thinking how this guy was full of bs, but i kinda have different thoughts now.

Now ive been watching this one show on yt, that i used to love, and ive seen it many times. seeing it again now after the breakup and ive realised how.. real the show is. it involves a divorce, which i never understood, but i do now, and its nothing short of horror now

Coming to the point, in the show, the girl divorces the guy because his priorities in life changed, he became less adventurous and more family centric. earlier i wouldve treated this normally, but now it is insane to me. Because think about it, you could be in a happy marriage for a decade(if youre lucky that is) and one day it your wife tells you shes not happy and that youve changed?!

People change all the time! the person you fell in love with today will NEVER be the same person tomorrow. then how can you EVER have happiness?

Suppose just for a second, that everything you liked about a person just changes and its all gone. because all humans change, and all changes are equally likely (perhaps not, but close enough?)

why live like this? is love not just a curse?

I mean nietzche would just say that since love is pain, its great! but i see it as maybe deeper than that. pain that you can learn from is good, but this is the sort of thing that pushes you in thru the greed of happiness.. and by the time youve left youre broken.

is there any piece of philosophy about this?

4 comments

r/askphilosophy • u/littletitmouselittle • 8h ago

How do you get into philosophy, without sounding so pseudo?

4 Upvotes

I’m not new to philosophy, I started reading Camus, Nietzsche, Dostoyevsky, WHATEVER stupid starter literature books there are! at around 12, of course I didn’t understand anything deeper than simple concepts. and of course I’ve read more now… Recently I’ve been wanting to go deeper since it all seemed fun, I think about ““philosophical“” topics a lot, every day, but they all are so very shallow and it’s all just to boost my ego I suppose. I’m interested in phenomenology so I got a Husserl book. How do I not seem so shallow and superficial when trying to get anything out of these thoughts or books? Is it all just trial and error? Is it something personal that can’t be fixed by a concept or rule I guess? I don’t have anyone to talk about my thoughts too either, so it’s not really a possibility to get real constructive criticism from real people.

3 comments

r/askphilosophy • u/_Momo97 • 1h ago

Is restricting permissible topics in public spaces a limitation of freedom of speech?

• Upvotes

Note: I had to edit this post because the original version ironically included a request for personal opinions, which is not permitted under this subreddit's rules.

Freedom of speech is often understood as the freedom to express one's views. However, many public spaces, including online communities, allow discussion only within a specific range of topics, while permitting those same topics to be discussed elsewhere.

How does philosophy distinguish between freedom of speech as a general right and the rules governing speech in particular spaces?

Does restricting which topics may be discussed in a particular space constitute a limitation of freedom of speech, even if people remain free to discuss those topics elsewhere? If so, can such restrictions be philosophically justified, and what principles could justify limiting what people are allowed to discuss in a particular space?

1 comment

r/askphilosophy • u/astrophil3 • 2h ago

What is the most profound outlooks on vengeance you’ve heard or read?

0 Upvotes

Title.

1 comment

r/askphilosophy • u/Chemical_Swimmer_892 • 15h ago

What is everything? Are Everything and Nothing seperate things?

3 Upvotes

I was reading Descarte and he said that we depend on a perfect being to exist, that is to say nothing cannot exist from nothing and needs something to exist. That means everything exists from something (that is perfect).

So my question would be, what is everything? Doesn't 'everything' means it includes every possible outcomes and scenarios, that is to say it also contains 'nothing'. What is the concept of nothing that makes it different or opposed to everything?

I'm a casually reader and is having difficulties understanding the 4th discourse, I'd like to ask for someone more knowledge to help me understand this as if I'm a 10 yrs old.

2 comments

r/askphilosophy • u/crz11111 • 17h ago

Should "Being" be translated as 是 or 存在?

7 Upvotes
In Chinese, the word for Being in Greek and German philosophy usually
gets translated either as 是 ("is") or 存在 ("existence"). I've seen the
argument that 是 is better because Being isn't a thing that exists, and
that 存在 makes it sound like one. Others say 是 loses the existential
sense.

Is there a right answer, or does it just come down to the translator?
(Thinking of Aristotle and Heidegger, mainly.)
1 comment

r/askphilosophy • u/Successful_Pie2223 • 1d ago

What was the relationship between religion and philosophy in Ancient Greece?

18 Upvotes

When reading about the philosophers of Ancient Greece, I often find that little mention is made of their religious beliefs, despite it being clear from other sources that Hellenism majorly shaped the worldviews of the Greeks as a whole.
Democrates and Epicurus are notable exceptions, since their theories of atomism and epicureanism rely on being atheistic, or at least indifferent to the gods (Epicureanism entails that one should rid themselves of an irrational fear of divine punishment to live a peaceful life, and both it and atomism believe that death is an oblivion and there is no afterlife, all of which is contrary to the Hellenistic view).
Plato also seems to be a special case, since he constructs his own metaphysics involving the forms, souls, and reincarnation seemingly independently of the prevailing beliefs about the structure of the universe and the afterlife in his culture (although, I wonder if the idea of the forms was influenced by the Pantheon, since the gods were conceived of in a somewhat comparable fashion as embodiments of specific ideas and attributes).

What were the religious beliefs of the major thinkers of Ancient Greece? How did these influence their philosophies? Did philosophers contribute to Hellenistic theology, and if so, how?

5 comments

r/askphilosophy • u/Sarah_1027 • 1d ago

How do we know whether a belief is actually true or just something we’ve believed for so long that it feels true?

9 Upvotes
6 comments

r/askphilosophy • u/chrislynk • 21h ago

Can art or music deepen philosophical understanding beyond words?

4 Upvotes

Are there established philosophical examples of music, poetry, or art communicating truths that cannot be fully expressed through ordinary argument?
I’m particularly interested in specific works and philosophical analyses explaining how their artistic form contributes to understanding.

1 comment

r/askphilosophy • u/MajesticCounter4174 • 14h ago

Is human progress objectively real, or is it ultimately subjective?

1 Upvotes

I've been thinking about whether humanity can genuinely be said to have progressed throughout history, or whether that judgement is fundamentally dependent on the values of whoever is making it.

For example, imagine bringing someone from the 1930s into the present day. They'd undoubtedly recognise enormous technological and medical advancements, but depending on their moral, religious or political beliefs, they might genuinely consider modern society to have regressed.

Obviously, we can objectively measure improvements in things like life expectancy, literacy and living standards but deciding whether those improvements constitute progress seems to require us to first establish what makes a society better right?

And I think this becomes particularly interesting when discussing moral progress because we generally regard things like the abolition of slavery, racial equality, women's rights and LGBT rights as advancements. But what philosophically distinguishes these from changes in prevailing social values? Are we discovering moral truths that previous generations failed to recognise, or are we simply judging the past according to contemporary moral standards?

I'm not arguing that progress doesn't exist just genuinely curious whether philosophy offers a defensible objective standard by which we can determine that humanity has progressed or regressed, particularly in moral terms.

3 comments

r/askphilosophy • u/Intelligent-Fox6255 • 15h ago

Are there any works which are both pro-phenomenology, pro-specrealisy and anti-existentialism?

1 Upvotes

I am currently writing a work for a (low-level) philosophy contest, and my thesis is that current representations of phenomenology-plus-specrealism (Harman, Trigg) are mostly problematic. My proposion is that phenomenology in fact is usable/valid for a specrealist, but not when it's existentialist (e.g. Marion, Henry, Husserl in Idea of Phenomenology and Cartesian Meditations). Are there any works on similar topics? (preferable articles, because I struggle with academical English)

I don't want to reveal too much on this due to confidentiality reasons.

1 comment

r/askphilosophy • u/Tinnersho • 15h ago

Jungian functions and epistemology

1 Upvotes

How do they relate in principle?

And especially the Ti function.

1 comment

r/askphilosophy • u/mshko_table • 1d ago

When is someone qualified to get into dense, academic, contemporary, 20/21st century philosophy? Should one pay mind to chronology?

20 Upvotes

I hope the title is self explanatory, but I'll provide some more details. I got into a philosophical topic, watched tons of videos and googled about it over and over, then finally decided I ought to take an official and formal start into philosophy. I got my hands on Russell's problems of philosophy then read two books by Hume, namely, the enquiry and the dialogues. Now I'm thinking, i really want to get deeper into philosophy of religion, metaphysics, maybe dabble in philosophy of language or epistemology(haven't enjoyed it much far, the sep entry was a bit of a headache haha, hume was great though). I proceeded to get Alexander Pruss' Principle of Sufficient Reason: a reassessment. I'm 100 pages in and my general, very basic knowledge has held my up fine. Point is, I really can't read analytically, I'm just agreeing with everything he says and can't engage despite understanding. I also feel I might be lacking a little in the logic department. All and all, I always seem to be intimidated and try to do more backwards research but never find it as interesting as the philosophy of religion. My question is also, in a way, how do I overcome this timidity towards philosophical discussions and dense contemporary works? How do I build the unshakable foundation necessary? Should I just dive in headfirst if I find it interesting and possibly spend months but wrestle with grit? Every guide seems to recommend the basic 10 books, plato, aristotle, descartes, hume, kant, aurelius, nietzche, hegel if you're up for it. This sounds great for a chronological university program but I'm not sure that's what I, or anyone for that matter, is up for.

10 comments

r/askphilosophy • u/Tasty_Squash_4030 • 19h ago

Is falliblism the dominant theory in the scientific realism/anti realism discourse ?

1 Upvotes

It seems to be the most intuitive given that humans have known limitations to knowledge

7 comments

r/askphilosophy • u/OWNTHEKILLCAM • 1d ago

Determinism is fully accepted as the truth by everyone, what happens?

5 Upvotes

I’m trying to understand how contemporary philosophy evaluates the social consequences of rejecting free will.Many philosophical positions, especially forms of determinism and some interpretations of compatibilism, argue that what we call “choice” is the result of prior causes rather than an uncaused act of will. I’m interested in the practical implications of this view.Specifically: If a society broadly accepted that free will does not exist in the libertarian sense, what do philosophers think would happen to our systems of moral responsibility, blame, praise, and punishment?Some arguments suggest this would lead to more humane institutions (e.g., focusing on rehabilitation rather than retribution). Others argue it could undermine motivation, agency, or the justification for holding people accountable at all. I’m asking for the strongest philosophical arguments on both sides:

How do major philosophical traditions analyze the consequences of widespread determinist acceptance?

Which thinkers argue it would improve moral systems, and which argue it would destabilize them?

Are there historical or contemporary examples where shifts in belief about free will affected social structures?

Any sources or frameworks that help clarify how philosophers approach this question would be appreciated.

11 comments

r/askphilosophy • u/Legitimate_Tale_734 • 10h ago

When does pure logic become nonesense, and when does nonesense become logic?

0 Upvotes
7 comments

r/askphilosophy • u/Ghostfxce__ • 2d ago

Does quitting social media and algorithmic entertainment help you reconnect with reality, or are you evading a new form of reality?

83 Upvotes

Sorry if someone has already asked this, but I have a question. Over the past few weeks, I’ve been stepping away from social media, algorithms, and basically the internet in general, because I feel a bit overwhelmed. This made me wonder whether I’m trying to connect with reality or if I’m escaping a new form of reality.

12 comments

r/askphilosophy • u/SufficientAsk9212 • 1d ago

Readings on self image and exterior perception

1 Upvotes

I’m interested in learning more about what people have said regarding the idea of self image, particularly pertaining to how we construct ideas of oneself from the opinions others have about us (or at least that we think they have).

I’ve heard good things about Judith Butler and Charles Taylor in this respect, hoping someone ight have any other recommendations.

1 comment

r/askphilosophy • u/creameater82 • 1d ago

Can someone explain to me moral responsibility?

0 Upvotes

I am not very knowledgeable on this topic... but today I was curious so I asked chatgpt about determinism and I learned about soft determinism and hard determinism. If a person commits a crime, obviously they are "responsible" and deserves punishment. Both soft and hard determinism agrees with this but the only thing setting them apart is whether the person should be morally blamed or not? If we are looking at this from a determinism viewpoint, how can they not be blamed? AI told me it was something to do with "free will" but how can that be defined in the context of determinism?

If someone could explain this it would be much appreciated 😭

3 comments

r/askphilosophy • u/chrollo_Lucilfer54 • 1d ago

Seeking Guidance on Reading and Understanding Philosophy

2 Upvotes

I have started reading philosophy, not to earn a degree, but to gain knowledge and understand life. Currently, I am reading The Practicing Stoic.

Sometimes, I find the English vocabulary difficult, so I look up unfamiliar words on Google and try to understand the sentences. When I struggle to understand a passage, I use AI to help explain it.

Is this a good way to learn, or should I try to understand the passages on my own and reduce my dependence on AI? I want to develop my own thinking and understanding rather than rely on AI for every difficult passage.

What would you recommend based on your own experience?

3 comments