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 • 1d ago

Open Thread /r/askphilosophy Open Discussion Thread | October 19, 2026

5 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.

18 comments

r/askphilosophy • u/Square_Butterfly_390 • 47m ago

How to argue against Emergence?

• Upvotes

I find the claim: "it is absurd to believe consciousness can possibly emerge from non conscious stuff." Very intuitive.

But every time I find myself trying to justify this I'm at a loss. Here's some things I've heard that have not convinced me:

1:Emergence is not a thing anywhere in reality/ everything that emerges emerges in consciousness.

2:Consciousness should be assumed as primary because it is the prerequisite for all our knowledge and perception.

3:Anything religion based.

I'm not saying these arguments are wrong, I'm saying maybe there is something I'm missing, or they are not as strong as the intuition is. I'm open to the possibility that the initial claim is wrong. I'm mainly asking about alternative arguments.

1 comment

r/askphilosophy • u/BeneathCertainty • 3h ago

If joining a hive mind genuinely made people happier, would resisting assimilation still be morally preferable?

4 Upvotes

Hive minds have a pretty poor reputation in sci-fi and fantasy circles. They are portrayed as hostile counterpoints to those who hold individuality as sacrosanct.

But what if a hive mind genuinely improved the lives of those who joined it?

For the purposes of this thought experiment, imagine a collective consciousness whose members can share thoughts, emotions and memories.

The members retain at least some sense of personal identity. They remember their names, personality and their memories from before assimilation, but they experience a degree of mutual understanding that ordinary humans cannot achieve.

As a result, they become happier, more empathetic and less lonely. Misunderstandings and interpersonal conflicts become less common because members can directly experience one another's perspectives.

Let's say these benefits are genuine, rather than the result of manipulation or artificial euphoria.

The hive mind does not actively become hostile to those who live outside it, nor does it seek to forcibly assimilate them, except in situations where someone is actively threatening the hive.

Would preserving one's individuality still be morally preferable to joining such a collective?

Would refusing assimilation be a legitimate example of self-expression, even if remaining independent meant experiencing more loneliness and suffering?

And if the collective genuinely believed it was improving people's lives, would it have any moral justification for encouraging or pressuring others to join?

I suppose the real question is the following: is individuality truly the only way to experience what humanity has to offer or can a collective consciousness offer an equally meaningful, perhaps richer, form of existence?

1 comment

r/askphilosophy • u/nonesense_creator • 1h ago

Are women not equal to men?

• Upvotes

I have this friend of mine who considers himself a philosopher and actually we had so many deep talks together . He has this idea that women are not worthy enough as men , i tend to stand against his idea but he’s too skeptical about this matter . What can i say to him in a philosophical manner ? I mean he’s absolutely wrong yeah?

Ps:
The reason he brings is something like , in the ancient times , women tend to not do complicated stuff and men mostly did such things , and as time went by this passed on to them somehow genetically.

5 comments

r/askphilosophy • u/RoundDolphin • 1h ago

Can virtues ever be separated from actions?

• Upvotes

My impression of virtue ethics is that it focuses on good personal traits rather than good actions, but I find it difficult to understand how virtues can ever be separated from specific actions.

  1. I think the only way to discover a person's virtues is to look at their actions. For example, a courageous person is a person who shows courage, and a merciful person is a person who shoes mercy. If so, then it seems judgement about good actions must precede judgements of character.

  2. Even if you did find someone who embodied many virtues, that doesn't mean they won't be deficient in others. Consider a criminal who is brave and loyal, who is at the same time cruel and shortsighted. It seems to me that identifying 'good persons' can't actually teach us much about specific virtues, much less guidance on how to live our lives.

  3. Of course we can learn much from virtuous people on their specific virtues, and it is reasonable that living like happy and accomplished people would help us become happy and accomplished. But that's like taking up smoking because the oldest person in the world smokes, for example. There doesn't seem to be much analysis beyond immediate intuition, and there doesn't seem to be much imperative force behind it because it's all conditional on you wanting to be more like the role models (unless you adopt teleological reasoning) and at that point virtue ethics seems to kind of blend with moral antirealism. Is that really all there is to virtue ethics?

1 comment

r/askphilosophy • u/DoloDots • 5h ago

Does greater intelligence and complexity actually make one form of life more significant than another?

2 Upvotes

I've been thinking about how extraordinarily complicated human existence has become compared to that of other animals, and whether any of that added complexity actually makes our lives fundamentally more significant.

Humans have developed civilizations, economies, governments, religions, technology, philosophy, and elaborate ideas about success and purpose.

But when we break much of this down to its basic functions, we're still organisms navigating our environments, pursuing interests, forming relationships, acquiring resources, avoiding threats, reproducing, and eventually dying.

Other animals do many of these things as well, sometimes through surprisingly sophisticated behaviors of their own.

I'm not suggesting that human intelligence and civilization are meaningless, or that our differences from other animals are insignificant. Those differences are real, and some are enormous. I'm questioning whether greater sophistication actually establishes greater fundamental worth, rather than simply producing different and more elaborate ways of living.

Consider a hypothetical alien civilization.

Imagine discovering beings millions of years ahead of humanity. Their intelligence, technology, culture, and understanding of existence surpass ours to an extent we can barely comprehend.

Would their existence be fundamentally more important or valuable than ours simply because they're more advanced?

If not, why would our greater sophistication establish that our existence is fundamentally more important than that of other animals?

And if the answer is yes, what exactly makes greater intelligence or complexity translate into greater intrinsic worth?

I'm also interested in distinguishing between things mattering to a living being, things mattering to others, and the stronger claim that a life possesses greater worth independently of anyone's evaluations.

My suspicion is that humans may be mistaking the extraordinary complexity of our lives for evidence of some greater fundamental significance. But I'm interested in whether there's a defensible philosophical argument connecting the two.

What, if anything, justifies moving from "this being is more sophisticated" to "this being's existence is fundamentally more significant"?

1 comment

r/askphilosophy • u/Acrobatic-Window5483 • 14h ago

Historical philosophers' texts interesting for hardcore analytic philosophers?

12 Upvotes

So I confess to being one of those "philosophy began with Kripke/Lewis" folks. When I read historical texts, I generally analyze the arguments and approach them as if they were a part of the contemporary debate, and thus interpreted they always seemed to me to be implausible. Most of Plato's dialogues or Spinoza's Ethics for example, looked totally intelligible but just completely unconvincing. And I get that the principles they accepted made a lot of sense in their intellectual context. That just doesn't seem to me to anyhow influence the plausibility of the arguments now, when they are evaluated as getting at the truth.

But after reading some of the analytic takes on the greats (like Yablo on Descartes, Langton on Kant, van Inwagen on early Wittgenstein, Kripke on late Wittgenstein), I realized that the problem is very probably in me not in the fact that the texts are historical. 1) I may be approaching wrong authors or wrong texts when it comes to the argumentation I'm interested in 2) I may be engaged in very confused exegesis which would explain the uncharitable conclusions.

So my question is, which historical philosophers' texts match the style of argumentation that may interest someone who's heavily into contemporary philosophy?

10 comments

r/askphilosophy • u/Daneofthehill • 1h ago

Questions on Aristotle's justification of ethics

• Upvotes

My questions:

  1. Is my reconstruction of Aristotle’s foundational argument correct?
  2. Does the argument depend on four claims/assumptions that remain contestable or under-justified?

Aristotle sees ethics grounded in a teleological account of human nature via his function argument.

Function argument: In Nicomachean Ethics I.7, Aristotle asks what function (ergon) is distinctive of a human being. Nutrition and growth are shared with plants; perception is shared with other animals. He proposes that what remains is activity involving reason. It identifies rational activity as the characteristic for human beings.

He then applies a general idea: a thing performs its function well when it performs it in accordance with its proper excellence. A good lyre-player plays the lyre well; a good human being performs human activity well. So, the human good is activity of the soul (psychē, the principle of life) in accordance with reason and virtue (aretē) over a complete life. That is Aristotle’s route from human function to eudaimonia.

Foundational assumptions:
1 - Human beings have a characteristic function. Aristotle argues for it by analogy with organs and crafts, but the argument depends on accepting that human life has such a function.
2 – For anything with a function, its good consists in performing that function well. The lyre-player analogy illustrates this evaluative principle; it does not prove that it applies to human life.
3 - Rational activity is distinctively human, but why that identifies it as the human function seems a leap.
4 - It seems obvious that playing the lyre well is better, but why would being strong or courageous in the same way obviously mean an improved version of "activity of the soul in accordance with reason"?

I really like Aristotle's account, but I am just not sure I see the moves as being forcing or conclusive, and by extension I am now wondering what that means for MacIntyre's After Virtue.

EDIT: typo.

1 comment

r/askphilosophy • u/SirIssacMath • 11h ago

How much background do I need before reading all three volumes of Derek Parfit's On What Matters?

6 Upvotes

Edit: I'm doing some independent research, would any of these be best to read first:

  1. Ethical Theory: Classical and Contemporary Readings by Pojman
  2. Shafer-Landau's Ethical Theory: an Anthology
  3. Shafer-Landau's The Ethical Life: Fundamental Readings in Ethics and Moral Theory

--------------------------------

I'm interested in reading all three volumes of Derek Parfit's On What Matters, but I'm wondering if I have enough background to get the most out of them.

For some context, I'm in my early 30s, not a philosophy student, and graduated with a degree in mathematics and I'm an actuary. So basically I have no formal education in philosophy. I read philosophy purely out of personal interest.

Most of the philosophy related books I've read in case that helps:

  • Think by Simon Blackburn
  • Philosophy of Science: A Very Short Introduction by Samir Okasha
  • Theory and Reality: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Science by Peter Godfrey-Smith
  • An Introduction to Political Philosophy by Jonathan Wolff
  • A New History of Western Philosophy by Anthony Kenny
  • Knowledge, Reality, and Value by Michael Huemer
  • Understanding Knowledge by Michael Huemer
  • The Fundamentals of Ethics by Russ Shafer-Landau
  • Ethical Intuitionism by Michael Huemer
  • Philosophy of Language: A Contemporary Introduction by William G. Lycan
  • One World Now: The Ethics of Globalization by Peter Singer
  • Galileo's Error by Philip Goff

I understand that On What Matters is a much more demanding work, and I'm fine with taking my time going through it. I'm just wondering whether there are important gaps in my background that I should address first.

Would you recommend reading anything specific before Volume One or in between the volumes?

I just want to make sure I have enough background to properly understand and engage with the text rather than constantly feeling like I'm missing something.

I'd appreciate any recommendations, especially from people who've read all three volumes. Thanks!

5 comments

r/askphilosophy • u/grig0lz • 20h ago

Does “empty space” exist without matter, or is space just the relations between objects?

23 Upvotes

Hi everyone! I’m a design student (not a physicist, so please bear with me) working on a university research project about the concept of “non-places” and “non-space”. Most of what I’ve found comes from philosophy, architecture and anthropology, and I’d like to understand how physics approaches the same ideas.

These are the questions I’m stuck on:

  1. Does space exist on its own, even if there were no matter in it, or is space just a way of describing the relations between objects (the old Newton vs Leibniz debate)?
  2. Is “empty space” really empty? I’ve seen mentions of the quantum vacuum and the Casimir effect but I don’t understand them.
  3. Some physicists suggest space might not be fundamental but “emergent”. What does that mean in simple terms?

If you can point me to accessible books, articles or lectures (I don’t have a strong math background), I’d be really grateful. And if my questions are badly phrased or based on wrong assumptions, please tell me, that’s useful too!

Thanks in advance!

6 comments

r/askphilosophy • u/Ok_Eagle4596 • 21h ago

What books act as an intro to philosophy?

23 Upvotes

Now, this is a common question, my apologies, but I'm a teenager and wanna get into philosophy, but what's the best book to get into philosophy before going into singular philosophies. Something like an intro to everything, I got a bit overwhelmed by so many suggestions on the wiki. Much appreciated everyone.

16 comments

r/askphilosophy • u/smuroveye • 4h ago

Torbjörn Tännsjö and total hedonistic utilitarianism: is the argument presented in "It's Getting Better All the Time" serious?

1 Upvotes

Hello! I'm fairly new to ethical theory but currently taking a food ethics course. One of the assigned readings was the Tännsjö article I mentioned in the title. I genuinely can't tell whether this is a Modest Proposal situation or an actual representation of his views. Does he really think that? Are his other works similar? Is he crazy? Or is it some kind of satire I'm not fully understanding?

Thank you in advance to anyone who knows about this guy, I'm really lost on how I should interpret the article.

1 comment

r/askphilosophy • u/El_Capitan_182 • 10h ago

What is the consensus in philosophy about the simulated world?

3 Upvotes

I am an atheist and I find this dilemma whenever I think about the existence of the universe:

  1. The universe exists
  2. We know simulations exist (video games)
  3. We know of a real life example of simulated space and time where a simulated world (video game) began to exist and was made out of nowhere.

Think of Rockstar games and its Grand Theft Auto Vl game which is about to launch in a few days; this simulated world was created, its entire space and time was simulated and now will exist in a virtual world.

So my question is this: what is the philosophy consensus about the simulated word. We are either a real world or a simulated one because we know this universe exists.

If we are a simulated world, then what does philosophy has to say about this?

1 comment

r/askphilosophy • u/LandOfGreyAndPink • 14h ago

What do spoonerisms, malapropisms, and the 'bone apple tea' phenomenon tell us about the relation of thought to language?

6 Upvotes

For clarification, spoonerisms and malapropisms refer to incorrect, often silly or humourous, uses of words. The 'bone apple tea' / BAT thing is something I discovered through Reddit and its r/BoneAppleTea sub. There, a BAT is defined as 'the mistaken use of a **real, dictionary-defined word or phrase** in place of another **real, dictionary-defined word or phrase** that sounds similar, resulting in a nonsensical, sometimes humorous utterance.'

An example of a BAT is found here: https://www.reddit.com/r/BoneAppleTea/comments/1x9kq0c/rear_wired/

The image shown in the post is about someone saying that a brain was 'being rear wired' (as opposed to re-wired). How would a philosopher account for such errors, and more importantly, what do these errors tell us about thought and language? In the example just given, is the writer actually thinking that the brain is being wired 'from the back' (so to speak), as opposed to being wired again? If so, what might that involved (a brain being wired from the back)?

TIA.

3 comments

r/askphilosophy • u/Rare-Skirt4622 • 5h ago

Why do people think about free will?

1 Upvotes

Just as the term "worm" can encompass both caterpillars and earthworms, and "fish" can include everything from skipjack tuna to jellyfish, the concept of "will" covers a variety of meanings—ranging from legal intent to medical directives. "Free will" presumably delineates a specific subset within this broader category, yet no one knows exactly where those boundaries lie. Water is defined as H2O because H2O represents the quintessential form of water. The definition of what constitutes "free will" ought to be determined by the general public—otherwise, there would be no justification for using that specific term. However, the general public lacks the deep familiarity with science or philosophy required to establish such precise boundaries. Consequently, it is impossible to define exactly what "free will" refers to.

Doesn't that settle the matter?

Is the concept of "free will" truly worth the effort of writing an entire book about it?

3 comments

r/askphilosophy • u/Dizzy_Hat_5444 • 12h ago

Clifford vs Tentative belief?

3 Upvotes

Hi guys,
I’m currently researching for a first-year uni paper where I have to analyse Clifford’s “The Ethics of Belief” argument against a contemporary, unsettled issue/question. I chose to do the question of whether AI poses an existential threat to humanity.

I know that Clifford says it is wrong always, everywhere and for anyone to believe anything upon insufficient evidence, but I feel like the examples he uses to justify this are all ones where the possible impact is immediate, and there was evidence all along. Obviously for AI existential risk there is still insufficient evidence to make any claim for certain, so does this mean Clifford would straight up argue it is morally wrong to believe in the possibility of AI posing an existential threat to society? I’m sure he has some writing/opinion on tentative beliefs that could be catastrophic, especially because he believes that our beliefs directly impact others (if we dismissed the possibility of AI being such a threat then we would probably end up causing more harm than if we acted upon a belief formed from insufficient evidence, right?)

I think I am going to argue that Clifford’s emphasis on being careful about what information you choose to believe is valid, but his overall argument is too strict and does not allow for things like circumstance to be taken into account. I also feel like his one blanket statement doesn’t account for the individual value of a belief (A rumour being spread seems far less to hold far less value/risk than the possibility of AI killing us all, but I think I might be straying away from his actual point..)

Apologies for the long post, I’d love to hear what anyone thinks or if anyone has any information that would be helpful, I’d really appreciate it!

2 comments

r/askphilosophy • u/DenseButterscotch179 • 7h ago

Is Giving Everyone the Same thing Equivalent to Equality?

0 Upvotes
2 comments

r/askphilosophy • u/justin200600 • 23h ago

Has any philosopher denied that the principle of non-contradiction is intuitively self-evident?

15 Upvotes

Has any philosopher throughout history explicitly denied that the principle of non-contradiction (PNC) is intuitively compelling or self-evident to the intellect? I'm not asking whether the PNC is intuitively compelling or self-evident to the intellect?

I'm not asking whether the PNC is logically or ontologically true, or whether philosophers have rejected its universal validity.

I'm asking specifically whether any philosopher has denied its immediate intuitive compellingness, regardless of its truth.

If so, could you provide references to their actual writings?

14 comments

r/askphilosophy • u/interestingtheorist • 19h ago

What exactly is metalogic?

6 Upvotes

What exactly is metalogic?

How can I improve myself in this topic?

4 comments

r/askphilosophy • u/FelixFelicissimae • 1d ago

Is there a word that refers to the opposite of a fetish (in the Marxist sense)?

31 Upvotes

From what I understand (and tbh I could be wrong) a fetish is an object or some sort of commodity that obscures the existence of the hands that touched it previously, the laborers/workers necessary for it to exist.

However, I’m trying to describe something that REVEALS the existence of the hands/people that touched it. Like: a fingerprint on a ceramic pot, a coin that’s been rubbed smooth, a wooden beam that’s still got pencil marks.

Is there a word or phrase (preferably based in existing philosophical material) that encapsulates this idea?

Thank you very much!

17 comments

r/askphilosophy • u/Haunting_Program_309 • 11h ago

PDF In Priority and Prejudice: The Epistemology of Salience and Attention by Jessie Munton

1 Upvotes

Hi everyone,

I need to read chapters 4, "Ignorance," and 5, "Inquiry," of Jessie Munton's book, In Priority and Prejudice: The Epistemology of Salience and Attention. I would've purchased the book, but the hardcover is around $100, and the digital is $80. Would anyone be willing to share a PDF of the book or these chapters, or know where I can find them online?

Much appreciated if you could. Thank you!

1 comment

r/askphilosophy • u/Spirited_Ability_918 • 17h ago

Descartes Number of Substances?

3 Upvotes

Hey quick question since I cannot find a straight answer.

I'm trying to understand Descartes substance dualism where there are two finite substances (mind+body), but there are a lot of sources that say he believes in an infinite amount of individual substances and mind+body are just finite categories.

Any help would be greatly appreciated

2 comments

r/askphilosophy • u/Nice-Fisherman-6110 • 15h ago

What to read after the myth of sisyphus?

2 Upvotes

I’ve just finished this book, after reading the stranger first. I’m wondering how to continue this journey. The myth of Sisyphus was so insightful, as I picked it up in the middle of an existential crisis and feeling like my life has no meaning. I was surprised how well he put my thoughts into a coherent framework of metaphors. Even though I totally get what he‘s saying, there’s still this dread inside of me, that I’m going to die, it seems to follow me wherever I go. I’m wondering if I should read demons next, as it was discussed in this book. Any recommendations?

2 comments

r/askphilosophy • u/PINEAPPLEShi • 17h ago

The meaning of Weakness in Derrida's "Force and Significance"

2 Upvotes

I have been rereading Derrida's "Force and Significance" paper and am puzzled by the use of "weakness" therein. From what I have noted (I may have missed another example) it occurs in two sections.

First, in the introductory comments, where he writes "The force of our weakness is that impotence separates, disengages, and emancipates. Henceforth the totality is more clearly perceived, the panorama and the panoramagram are possible" (p. 5, Writing and Difference 1978 edition).

Second, in the midst of what I call the conclusion. This is where my confusion really comes from. The first use occurs during the brief discussion of the metaphor of light and dark, "Which suffices to say that the metaphor of the 'fall' deserves its quotation marks. In this heliocentric metaphysics, force, ceding its place to edits (i.e. the form which is visible for the metaphorical eye), has already been separated from itself in acoustics. How can force or weakness be understood in terms of light and dark" (p. 27, same edition) Slightly lower down, while discussion Husserl, he asks the following question "And why the force of weakness which dissimulates in the very act by which it reveals? If this 'dialectic' of force and weakness is the finitude of thought itself in its relationship to Being, it can only be articulated in the language of form, through images of shadow and light" (27-28, same edition).

Where does this idea of weakness come from? Is it a specific reference to one of the texts? Is it an oddity of the English translation?

In the two cases that are examined, weakness seems to me inconsequential. In the first case, Derrida is combining reflections on the nature of metaphysics drawn from Plato's Republic and (I think) Boethius. The explanatory note simply links all this to the metaphysics of presence which Derrida would later critique. However, where is weakness in this discussion. Would weakness be light or dark (on the next page, he implies that force is darkness, but leaves weakness inaccessible). Would weakness be the weakness of the man who leaves the cave, or the weakness of the men who stay within it? Further down, in the discussion of Husserl, the "force of weakness" seems to refer simply to failure. Is there a failure implicit in the "heliocentric metaphysics?" He seems to want to say that this is a reduction from the dialectic (or perhaps constitutive negation) of force and writing that he proposes at the top of page 27, but I don't see a connection.

Alternatively, is weakness a non-specialized usage in this case?

Is there another Derrida essay that is more directly about weakness that could be helpful for illuminating this problem?

1 comment