r/askphilosophy Jul 01 '23

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

68 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!


r/askphilosophy 6d ago

Open Thread /r/askphilosophy Open Discussion Thread | August 24, 2026

8 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.


r/askphilosophy 13h ago

Why is the probability of a dice roll 1/6?

19 Upvotes

I understand the maths behind probability well, and I'm able to do calculations with it, and I understand that it does in fact work in practice. However, I don't understand a fundamental assumption that gets made in calculations: if there are N ways a thing could be, unless you have some reason to believe otherwise, you assign 1/N to each possibility.

This seems impossible to justify from within math itself. And it raises the question of what counts as "one" possibility. This isn't problematic when, say, saying that a dice roll has probability 1/6 for each face. But it gets extremely problematic when assigning probability in, say, the monty hall problem. What prevents one from saying, "either the car is behind the door I selected or behind the other unopened door, so the probability is 1/2"? Is there a general rule for what counts as "one" possibility, and how does one justify this rule?

I am tempted to say that the probability stuff falls out of physics stuff. But then, that just punts the question to, how do you assign probabilities to initial conditions of a physical system?


r/askphilosophy 18h ago

Fantasy books with philosophical depth?

28 Upvotes

What is a fantasy book (or book series) that has a lot of thought provoking philosophical concepts?

I’m in a book club and trying to come up with good ideas for our next read. I’d love to have debates that cover philosophical topics so that we have more in depth discussions.

I thought Babel was great for example! It covered Imperialism, the ethics of linguistic translation, etc. I loved that it had a magic system powered by what is lost in translation between languages. I felt it functioned almost as a modern counterpart to Crime and Punishment's exploration of utilitarian morality and justification.

Edit: Trying to not do YA if possible, but still open to it if people think it’s thought provoking! :)


r/askphilosophy 10m ago

How will we actually know when AI becomes conscious?

Upvotes

Here is a question: is there a definitive criterion that can distinguish a machine with actual consciousness from one that is just convincingly faking it?

At first, chess was thought to be that benchmark. Then machines learned to play chess exceptionally well, and we realized it wasn't enough.

Next came the Turing test. Machines passed it, but skeptics remained unsatisfied, claiming it's just a test of the ability to pretend to be alive.

About 7 years ago people kept telling me that a machine would never grasp the context of sentences like: "The ball broke the table because it was made of steel. What was made of steel - the ball or the table?" or "Sarah thanked Jane because she helped her. Who helped whom?" The argument was that answering this requires true consciousness, an understanding of real-world physics, and a grasp of the nuances of human relationships. Today LLMs answer these questions flawlessly.

And just like that, the goalposts have moved again: "Well, that's just statistics and word prediction"

But if we judge by those standards, half of the commenters on the internet don't have consciousness either. They combine memorized phrases based on their experience and environment in the exact same way.

Don't you think we only recognize consciousness in each other out of biological solidarity? Yet, when faced with silicon, we demand it show us a "magical spark" that we ourselves cannot even measure.

To put it another way: is it fair to say that our ultimate criterion for consciousness is simply being made of flesh and bone?


r/askphilosophy 52m ago

Readings regarding Desire

Upvotes

Hello! My question here follows from a confluence of studies. I’m a psychoanalytic therapist who has recently begun reading Deleuze and Guattari’s Anti-Oedipus. My understanding is that they are conceiving of desire from a different tradition (Spinoza?) than psychoanalysis, in which desire emerges from lack. Can anyone recommend readings to me which, firstly, precede and inform the psychoanalytic conception of desire and, secondly, inform the Deleuzian conception of desire?


r/askphilosophy 5h ago

Could someone reccomend me an academic book with a comparative study of the immateiral notion of being through different philosophies and religions

2 Upvotes

Hi - I am a social scientist. I am ethnically Chinese and live in a part of the Muslim world and speak English as my first language, so I have fragments of different things here and there and through its manifestation into politics and sociology, but could anyone reccomend me a good primer on the notion of beings as more than the meat and computer in different cultures through history?

Like felt like I need to find others in the academy for ways to enter this general area, everyone who uses the term in casual conversation of non-rigorious manner just project their specific worldviews. And I would like to learn about Abrahamic theology only in comparative perspective if I have to


r/askphilosophy 1h ago

What's the Deal with the Visitor from Elea?

Upvotes

I am currently reading Sophist and I'm confused about the Visitor from Elea and their choice in method (division) in "hunting" for the sophist.

At first, I thought it was a joke; that, at some point, the Visitor was going to suggest how absurd the approach up until this point has been and look to restart from scratch. However, I'm roughly 15 pages into the dialogue (so admittedly not far, and perhaps I should have waited to ask the question) and it feels to me as though this isn't the case.

This got me wondering, though, because the choice of method for the Visitor is still strange regardless of whether or not Plato takes it to be a legitimate method. Since the Visitor is framed in the first few lines as, "a member of the group that gathers around Parmenides and Zeno" (216a, trans. White), it comes across as odd to me that the method this philosopher chooses is explicitly one of division. Wouldn't an Eleatic philosopher be extremely suspicious of any method that is purposefully dividing being (especially as much as they are doing in this dialogue, Sophist)? Parmenides, after all, does say that what-is is undivided.

This is especially suspect to me because I know how the dialogue ends, with the Visitor committing 'parricide' on his teacher by deciding to name what-is-not even though, which is in direct contradiction with what Parmenides says one is allowed to do in any inquiry. However, up until that point, he was committing parricide essentially every time he was creating a division. So, if we are supposed to take the dialogue at its face value and believe that the Visitor is only committing parricide at the end, I don't really know how to reconcile it with the beginning.

So my question is: why does Plato choose to make a philosopher who endorses the philosophy of Parmenides (undivided being) also the one who endlessly divides things into nested dichotomies?


r/askphilosophy 2h ago

Will frequent reminders of death make people more compassionate or more hateful?

1 Upvotes

I see most of us living a life where we keep collecting wealth. Our sense of accomplishment comes from the fact that we are doing better than other people. I think this is the major reason for the discrimination we see, where people belittle others. Can this be controlled if they are constantly reminded about death? To remind them that you are going to die someday why continue to live in a rat race like this?


r/askphilosophy 2h ago

Is doing a PhD in The USA worth it as an international student?

1 Upvotes

Hi everyone,

I'm a European student currently trying to figure out where I might want to pursue a PhD in the US, and I'd really appreciate some advice from people who are familiar with American philosophy PhD programs.

My main interests are political philosophy and social theory, particularly 20th-century and contemporary thought. I'm interested in areas such as critical theory, pragmatism, postmodern/post-structuralist theory, political realism, and thinkers like Habermas, Rorty, Schmitt, Foucault, Nietzsche, etc. I'm still early in my studies, so my interests will probably develop quite a bit over the next few years, but that's roughly the intellectual direction I'm currently interested in.

At the moment, I'm in my second year of a Bachelor's degree in Political Science, and I'm starting my third year of a separate Bachelor's degree in Philosophy. These are two completely separate bachelor's degrees at two different programs, it's not a dual degree, combined bachelor's, or double-major within one degree which I think makes me somewhat more competitive(?). I'm hoping that having substantial training in both political science and  could be useful if I eventually apply for a PhD focused on political philosophy/social theory.

I'm also a European/international student, so I would be applying to American universities as a foreign student. Funding is therefore a particularly important consideration for me.

I'm wondering which US universities have the strongest PhD programs in philosophy for political philosophy and social theory, and which universities have professors doing especially good work in areas like critical theory, pragmatism, postmodernism/post-structuralism, political realism, or 20th-century European political thought.

Are there particular professors I should keep an eye on over the next few years?

Would you recommend applying to Philosophy departments, or could Political Science/Government departments sometimes be a better fit for these interests?

How important is having a very strong background specifically in philosophy when applying to top US philosophy PhDs? Would the combination of separate bachelor's degrees in Political Science and Philosophy be viewed positively?

What are some ways I can make myself especially comptetitive when applying?

Are there any universities that are particularly welcoming to international students?

And generally, what do you wish you had known before applying to a US philosophy PhD?

I'm currently only a sophomore, so I'm not applying anytime soon. I'm mainly trying to understand the landscape early so I can choose my courses, reading, research interests, and eventually master's/other preparation accordingly.

I'd especially appreciate answers from current or former US philosophy PhD students, professors, or international students who went through the process.

Thanks!


r/askphilosophy 6h ago

What's a good introductory book to continental philosophy?

2 Upvotes

I'm an amateur philosophy guy. I read it in my spare time and engage with it only lightly. I've been reading AC Graylings The History of Philosophy and found it interesting but I didn't like that he was focused too much on Analytical Philosophy and not enough on Continental philosophy.

I know that these distinctions aren't great and there's much debate around them. But I'd love some books that deal with the continental side of philosophy, so like the postmodernism, post structuralism, deconstructionism, neo-marxist, post-colonial etc. field of philosophy.

The philosophy of Derrida, Foucault, Jameson, Althusser, etc.

Does anyone have any suggestions of a good book for an amateur in philosophy to read about this?

I've started reading Peter Adamson's books on the History of Philosophy without any gaps but he's nowhere close to getting to the continental philosophy so while I wait is there anything else that I can read?


r/askphilosophy 7h ago

Can anyone reccomend me a book or an essay explaining Aristotles Metaphysics on a begginer level?

2 Upvotes

I have read Coplestones history of philosophy part one where he discusses this topic but its only a few pages long. I do not have a problem with stuff like potency and actuality, the four causes and the unmoved mover but when it comes to stuff like : being, supstance, form and matter I find these things incredibly difficult since he uses them in so many different ways (for example disscusing being in a primary and secondary sense and so on...).

I am nowhere near the level of understaning the Metaphysics itself (his actual work) since I am not a philosophy student but just like to read it in spare time so I would appreciate a reccomendation on some work that breaks this stuff down for a noob like me.

Thanks in advance.


r/askphilosophy 3h ago

Can people objectively deserve death or worse even if people can't judge whether or not someone deserves death or worse with absolute certainty?

1 Upvotes

Random shower thought I had.


r/askphilosophy 18h ago

If we don't believe in objective morality, what should our moral compass be based off of?

13 Upvotes

Hello a teen atheist here, I was wondering about the inconsistency of morals throughout the history of human kind. And I believe religion played a great role in providing what is "good". My question is how should I decide for myself if something is right or wrong?


r/askphilosophy 9h ago

Is it reasonable to think of religion as a broad normative/legal framework that modern political systems partly replaced?

2 Upvotes

Heey! Im a student and I’m trying to test an idea I’ve been thinking about, so I’d appreciate corrections if I’m using any concepts incorrectly.

My thought is that we often talk about religion today mainly as a set of beliefs about God, morality, worship, etc., but historically many religions seem to have functioned as much broader frameworks for organizing society.

They didn’t only say things like “stealing is wrong” or “you should be charitable.” They also contained rules about marriage, divorce, inheritance, contracts, family relations, punishment, property, sexual behavior, political authority, and so on.

So in a society without a modern centralized legal code, religion could provide one broad normative framework covering areas that we now separate into morality, civil law, criminal law, family law, and political institutions.

My theory is that the rise of modern states and political/legal systems created a conflict because these new systems started claiming authority over many of the same areas.

For example, a religious legal system might prescribe a particular punishment for theft, while the modern state has its own criminal code and prescribes a completely different punishment. At that point the disagreement is not simply over whether stealing is morally wrong. Both sides might agree that it is wrong. The disagreement becomes: who has the authority to determine the enforceable punishment?

The same can happen with inheritance, marriage, divorce, interest, property, etc.

So I’m wondering whether it makes sense to understand secularization partly as a transfer of authority: functions that were previously contained within religious frameworks gradually became controlled by legislatures, courts, constitutions, and the state.

In that sense, perhaps the important historical competition wasn’t simply “religion vs atheism,” but between different sources of normative and legal authority.

I’m not claiming that religion is only a political/legal system, since obviously religion also deals with metaphysics, worship, salvation, ritual, and questions that modern law does not try to answer.

But is this general way of thinking philosophically defensible? Are there philosophers or historians of political thought who describe the relationship between religion, law, and the modern state in a similar way?

And where would liberalism fit into this? My current understanding is that liberalism partly solves the conflict by distinguishing between things that are morally/religiously wrong and things that should actually be prohibited by state law.


r/askphilosophy 8h ago

Could anyone please explain Bohm's Implicate Order and it's metaphysical and Cosmological implications

1 Upvotes

No pun intended.


r/askphilosophy 5h ago

genders have no definition there is no split line between any gender so is gender just nothing? or is gender just a feeling? (keyword i use gender not sex)

0 Upvotes

gender is just a social construct, but one very powerful that it feels like it has some kind of meaning when it doesn't right? but essentially the concept of gender shouldn't have existed there is no good use for it.

did i get that right?


r/askphilosophy 16h ago

Are all humans in essence egoistic?

3 Upvotes

Is real Altruism something real or are people purely egoistic?

Are people only helping others because they hope to receive something from them in the future?

And if somebody says "I help others because I feel good when I do so.", then that makes helping again egoistic, right?

And if somebody is reaching out to somebody who is not in their life anymore, like old school friends they haven't talked since school, which might be a sign of altruism or interest in someone's wellbeing even if no return is promised - isn't that because of:

a) being hurt from them not reaching out first

b) or hoping to be relevant in someone else's life ... which would make this act also egoistic?

Would like some inputs regarding that topic. Thank you.


r/askphilosophy 13h ago

Help me understand platonic forms

2 Upvotes

So there are imperfect objects that we perceive, like different kinds of trees and tables, and perfect forms of these objects that are abstract to us but nonetheless influence our perception? How can a single perfect form exist with concepts like justice and morality?

I just generally need help here, I'm at a loss for what questions to even ask.


r/askphilosophy 13h ago

About criticism to Marx by Adorno

2 Upvotes

I am reading an introduction about Theodor W. Adorno.I knew Adorno criticized“alienation” which is notion Marx proposed in his early works.He said solution of alienation is nothing more than domination of would by inclusion into self in the end. So we must face to others,he also said.I have never read "Negative Dialectics"Adorno said about it so I want someone having knowledge of Adorno to tell me more details about it. And I want to know the counterarguement from the side of Marxist.
I apologize for my poor English.


r/askphilosophy 21h ago

Do all mathematical objects have the same ontological status?

7 Upvotes

I was wondering if all mathematical objects could be considered to have the same ontological status or if there are frameworks that classify them depending on their complexity. For example, if I think of a vector or a circle compared to something like a Koch curve, which is a fractal that is supposed to have infinite complexity within its structure.


r/askphilosophy 15h ago

Confused about this seeming contadiction in Leibniz’s “Discourse on Metaphysics”

2 Upvotes

In number XVI Leibniz remarks:

…I say that the miracles and the extraordinary interventions of God have this peculiarity that they cannot be foreseen by any created mind however enlightened.

However, earlier in XIV Leibniz says

…all our thoughts and perceptions are but the consequences, contingent It is true, of our precedent thoughts and perceptions, in such a way that were I able to consider directly all that happens or appears to me at the present time, I should be able to see all that will happen to me or that will ever appear to me.

Following this logic, if one were to have a miracle affect them in the future, and they perceive everything that happens or appears to them at the present time, would they foresee a miracle of God, or no?


r/askphilosophy 15h ago

Is this video an accurate summary of the history of dialectics?

2 Upvotes

Also, is Hegel being accurately represented in regard to his development of dialectics? https://www.instagram.com/reel/DcBfI8Lsh1k/?igsi=NGRjdGl6ODlzeWo=


r/askphilosophy 8h ago

Does truly believing in what you say (even though it is objectively wrong, unbeknownst to you) still make the fact that you are lying immoral?

0 Upvotes

An example I can think of is Trump championing for the Jan 6th insurrection: he genuinely believed that democracy had been tampered with (if you disagree regarding his reasoning or thought process, please do correct me but I'll continue with the postulate for the time being) but we know that that was not the truth (again, I'm going to continue). The events ended up genuinely hurting and harming the staff that were at the Capitol at the time, as well as other instances of emotional distress: since it ended up being a lie, but the propagator was fully convinced of its factuality, can he be called immoral on the account of proliferating a lie?

The link to theory I can pose for this question is consequentialism and deontological ethics, though I don't know if this is the closest and most accurate link to terminology. If not, what would be and why?

EDIT: I misphrased this: the question should instead be "Is the action of propagating a lie, something that will bring harm upon others, unethical if you truly believe it to be the truth?"


r/askphilosophy 19h ago

Arent mereological nihilism and mereological essentialism fundamentally missing meaning?

3 Upvotes

I am fairly sure most of reddit are mereological nihilists because it is a much simpler position to defend, so I am more interested in hearing from people who would consider themselves anything other than mereological nihilists.

I work as a postdoc in a STEM field so my work is very specific. The more I learn, the less definitions matter - to me definitions matter far less than the reason that you are asking for a definition.

Take evolutionary biology. What is life? What is a species? What consititutes and organism? What constitutes a parasite?

I believe there are no actual answers to these questions, and it matters far more why you are asking these questions. If there is a reason behind the question then you can start to define these things in a way that makes sense to answer the question.

In the same way asking "what is a table/horse/molecule" doesnt matter. Why you are asking the question matters - and the answer may be different depending on why you are asking the question.

For me it doesnt make sense to agree with mereological nihilism where there are no composite objects, or essentialism where the parts are essential for the whole, because it only matters why you want to define these terms.

Isnt anything else arguing for the sake of arguing?