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!

I only know of Philosophy books in my native language but I’d like to know those of other countries’ must-read books as well. Could be anything and not just in the academe, well I’m really interested in majoring despite the employment scare lol. I would also love to expand my knowledge about it.

Thanks in advance!

so i came across this video in which a woman was very rightfully criticising aristotle, plato, nietzsche, rousseau and other philosophers for turning a blind eye towards women's struggles sometimes insulting them for doing so but still acknowledging their accomplishments. i feel like she has every right to do that as a woman but it got me thinking.

Let's say hypothetically that pet ownership gets completely outlawed in the near future (btw pls pls pls don't think that I'm comparing women to pets, im just stating a hypothetical that may help us see why some acts and ideas become immoral in the future) because society has agreed that deliberately restricting the autonomy of any living creature in any way is an inhumane practice.

Now let's say I, as a cat owner (of our time) publish undeniable scientific evidence that proves the theory of the bicameral mind which moves the needle forward of our understanding of psychology and philosophy significantly but when people read about my work and my life in the future they would think of me as an completely immoral man partaking in animal cruelty because i own a cat (which was considered completely normal in my time). This would result in my work getting scrutinized because some of my actions which were considered completely normal and moral in my time are not looked through the same lens in the near future (again I'm not AT ALL saying that the subjugation of women is okay and normal pls this is just a hypothetical)

So like am i a bad person for thinking this way? i might be completely wrong in this and come off woefully ignorant and deranged, that's why I'm asking ig.

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.

Not sure if philosophy is the right place to insert this question in. Humans are an evolution from primitive cells and things that are usually considered 'natural'. Going by the same you can say that we are 'natural'. We consider an anthill natural because it is made by 'natural' causes. Using the same analogy, even the buildings we make, the books we write and everything considered 'artificial' or 'man-made' is natural.I may be wrong at any point making the whole thing fall on its own head and if I am please correct me. Thank you!

Has some philosopher ever looked at the mechanism of choice up close and decided if free will exists or not? Maybe a phenomenologist?

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!

From my understanding, Chalmer's P-Zombie was meant to be an argument against physicalism explaining how one can have all the physical activity of a conscious being without needing qualia, yet it's undisputed according to him we have qualia.

My question is that since we can only ever access our own qualia, how can we know for sure others aren't potentially P-Zombies? I say for sure it seems unanimous that there's no P-Zombies among us by philosophers and especially those in the field of consciousness.

I know Chalmer's answer was Psychophysical Laws and how all correlation must accompany the accompanied qualia, yet I wonder if one were to question physical activity if one can use that to be skeptical?

I know this sounds like the Problem of Others Minds, which base on what I read it was an interesting thought experiment before which many don't really question other minds exist and seems largely not seen as a problem as we further the mind. And I also know the different arguments on the plausibility of P-Zombies metaphysically and even nomologically reading some of the sources from Stanford Encyclopedia.

And I'm aware this sounds like solipisism which has it's own problems that the question of P-Zombies seems irrelevant.

I'm not saying P-Zombies walk among us, but I also know that I'm missing something to have the same certainty many in the field clearly exhibit.

Imagine a machine, this machine gives you pure bliss. All the heroin and orgasms and food your senses can handle. A heavenly Sodom and Gemorrah. But, for one man to use their copy of the machine, other men have to suffer. Perhaps it needs the blood of children, perhaps the poor have to work in dangerous conditions to feed the machine, the specifics do not matter. What matters is that this machine is so amazing at producing utility, it always produces more utility than is lost. On what grounds could a Utilitarian call this evil and disturbing? And how can we apply this to real life like first world nations exploiting third worlders, such as your clothes or phone being made be kids?

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?

I really need help deciphering what the hell the man means by this:

"The indicative thinks something as actual (the identity of thinking

and the actual). The subjunctive thinks something as thinkable

371A 156

The grammar of indicative and subjunctive really contains the most

aesthetic concepts, and occasions just about the highest form of

aesthetic enjoyment (it borders on the musical, which is the highest)

And the hackneyed proposition cogito ergo sum holds true of the

subjunctive. It is the subjunctive's life-principle (one could therefore

really present the whole of modern philosophy in a theory about

the indicative and the subjunctive, for it is indeed purely subjunc-

6S1 H LE

tive)."

For example, is an ancient chinese warlord a bad man for fighting his peers? Is a roman soldier evil for burning villages in Gaul and taking slaves? What of more modern people like british administrators in India or Spanish slavers in the caribbean?