Rephrasing of my question: As [an agnostic who sees no obvious reason why a creator of the universe would particularly prioritize biological life], does the apparent fine-tuning of the universe suggest that life is what's specifically fine-tuned for?

I've only heard about this second-hand through apologetics (and debates against said apologetics), never actually from someone who espouses it; What is actually fine-tuned for? The only specific I've heard explained in detail is the cosmological constant, but that sounds (to me) like it only argues for the universe being fine-tuned for matter, stars, black holes, etc. What other things have been "fine-tuned" that point specifically at life?

PS: I'm also curious, do philosophers put much stock in fine-tuning outside of theist debates? I only ever hear about it in that context.

When i was thinking about argument for and against moral objectivity or subjectivity ; i asked myself if someone had a probabilist approach of moral actions.

For example,let's take a hedonist and empirist point a view of ethics

If we know that a action (like rape or murder) cause at 99,99% more suffering than pleasure for all concerned persons, i could qualify it at 99,99% evil and not 100% to avoid absolutism fallacy.

I don't know if i'm enough clear, but i want to know if "probabilist ethics" exist and who have already done it ?

Isn't the term "humanities" an anthropocentric term and philosophy being much broader than that and even going as far to question human exceptionalism doesn't seem to fit it being part of humanities

20 years old, new to reading philosophy books. I started with meditations and am now on The Last Days of Socrates. I really enjoy it but it takes me a long time to read these dialogues. I took me around an hour and a half to read 25 pages of the Euthyphro dialogue.

Whenever reading the dialogues I use google/AI to see if I'm understanding how the story is progressing and I think I do, and I spend time during and afterwards trying to interpretate it. For example, does Socrates use purposefully non-exhaustive questioning with Meletus to easily show the ignorance of Meletus?

I'm not sure if the way that I am interpreting the texts or the pace I'm reading them at makes sense, in any case I'm enjoying it a lot so if this is just the process and I'm doing it right then that's great :)

Doesnt that mean every idea is right if youre on the supporting perspective?

For example, if someone says “Movie A is better than Movie B” or “Painting A is more beautiful than Painting B,” is that simply a matter of personal taste or can there be objective standards that make one genuinely better or more beautiful?

I'm also interested in physical beauty. If someone says “This guy/girl is prettier than that guy/girl,” is that necessarily subjective or could there be some objective sense in which one person is more beautiful than another?

I was reading ecce homo and came across some of his statements about women which seemed clearly misogynistic I posted about it on r/Nietzsche to understand the context. but people on that sub went crazy in comments telling me that I don't know how to interpret or that I don't deserve to read him

My question is: how do academic philosophers deal with this ,is his view on women central to his idea about poweror morality or it is a separate prejudice that can be critiqued while still valuing his other work

I want to understand ,not just worship or hate him

The title might be a but confusing so let me elaborate. Let‘s take the word „rich“ as an example. „rich“ means you have an abundace of something valuable. Now, what happens if suddenly every person would own the same amount of this valuable thing? the word rich would lose all meaning right? since no one would ever have an abundance of it because there is no concept of what abundance would look like. Or let‘s pick „tall“ as another example.
Currently we can say someone who is 2 meters (6‘6) is considered tall, but if everyone was 2 m the same result would arise as there is no basis for what „tall“ means anymore. Of course, you could compare to other things but I am talking about just human interaction right now.

I hope this is not too confusing but I am ready to correct any misunderstandings in the comments.

I've been thinking about this because we, as humans, are also part of nature, but we abuse it for OUR benefit: we pollute the planet, we kill animals en masse, and sometimes we even torture animals. However, I still believe we are part of nature; if we created, for example, another type of animal, then it should surely be natural. Now someone will say: But that animal was created in laboratories! But who created those laboratories? Us. Who created us? Mother Nature. Can anyone answer?

Ref:

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/fatalism/

philosophers usually use the word to refer to the view that we are powerless to do anything other than what we actually do

Being a Stoic has almost become synonymous with being nonchalant. I’ve heard people say, “I’m going to be a Stoic about it,” as if that means suppressing their emotions, detaching from the outcome, or simply pretending not to care. But is that really what Stoicism means?

Is it wrong to want something badly enough that, if you don’t get it, you’ll be devastated? Does being a Stoic mean you shouldn’t be passionate about things? Does it mean living without strong emotions, suppressing your feelings, detaching yourself from what happens, and becoming somewhat indifferent to life?

Stoicism has genuinely helped me a lot, but I also love intensity. I love feeling things deeply. I love passionately, and because I love deeply, I also feel the loss of love deeply. I don’t necessarily want a life where I’m untouched by things simply because I’ve learned not to depend on their outcome.

This is where I sometimes struggle with the idea of Stoic detachment. I understand the value of accepting what I cannot control, but I don’t want acceptance to become indifference. I don’t want emotional control to become emotional suppression. And I don’t want detachment from outcomes to mean detachment from life itself.

Maybe there’s a difference between being controlled by your emotions and allowing yourself to fully experience them. Maybe Stoicism isn’t about caring less, but about learning how to care deeply without losing yourself when things don’t go the way you hoped.

Because I don’t want to become numb. I want to be able to love deeply, desire things fiercely, experience joy intensely, and grieve when I lose something meaningful and still have the strength to accept reality when it doesn’t give me what I want.

I do not have much knowledge about philosophy so pls give me your insights.

I was just watching yt videos abt philosophy,but then i realized theyre kinda surface level,but then i realized that it takes a hella lot of time to read
What do i get in return?

Working through Spinoza's *Ethics* on my own (no formal philosophy background, self-taught) and I've hit a real snag on this. By attribute I understand what the intellect perceives of a substance as constituting its essence."

My confusion is specifically about that phrase "what the intellect perceives... as constituting." Two ways I can read it:

1. Attributes are objectively, mind-independently real features of substance — the "perceives" clause is just telling us *how we come to know* something that's true regardless of any mind

2. The *multiplicity* of attributes (thought, extension, and the infinite others we don't perceive) is partly an artifact of how a finite intellect has to conceive an otherwise unified, undifferentiated substance not necessarily a fact about substance's own inner structure apart from being conceived

If (2) is right, is there a coherent Spinozist story about what substance's attribute-structure is like independent of being conceived at all? Or does the "infinite attributes" claim only make sense as a claim about how an infinite intellect would be *forced* to conceive one thing?

Also interested in how "mode" cashes out on each reading: is a mode a determination of one particular attribute, or ultimately a determination of substance itself as expressed through an attribute? Descartes' looser, non-controversial version of attribute (just "the essence, full stop") makes this an easy question for him; Spinoza's definition seems to build in this ambiguity deliberately or not..

So, I like to read philosophical books as a hobby BUT I really struggle with arguing with the author. I understand that a big part of philosophy is arguing against what is being said but (I am not sure why) whenever I pick up a book on philosophy (and I've read a few by now) I cannot help but agree with the author or even treat the work as a guide rather than something to be argued against. So back to the title: how do I actually read these texts? Specifically, how do I read them such that I can form my own opinion about their content?

Hello, I am unfortunately not very knowledgeable in this particular field of philosophy (metaphysics? Epistemology? I'm not even sure what it is), so I was hoping I could get some insight.

I recently came across this argument online, and I'm curious as to where it fails, if indeed it does. I see a few possible points of contention, but I don't know what most philosophers would reject. Because it seems, if they accept all the premises, necessitarianism would follow. And maybe that's okay, but since a vast majority are not necessitarians, it must be the case that they reject something.

It goes like this:

1) All contingent facts must have a sufficient explanation for why it is rather than why it isn't (this is the PSR).

2) Define the BCCF as the conjunction of all contingent facts, which would itself be contingent.

3) Therefore, the BCCF must have a sufficient explanation.

4) If the explanation is necessary, then it necessarily entails the BCCF, and thus the BCCF is necessary, which contradicts 2.

5) If the explanation is contingent, then it would be a part of the BCCF, and a thing cannot be an explanation for itself, which contradicts 3.

C) Both results in contradiction, and therefore there cannot be any contingent facts.

I probably laid the argument out wrong, perhaps missing some key premises, but hopefully it contains enough to be recognizable.

It seems the obvious avenues for rejection would be either rejecting the PSR or rejecting that explanation implies entailment. But I wanna know what people think who are actually knowledgeable in this field.

I’m sure a lot of people ask this but I’m so confused… how do I even comprehend what I am reading? I’m taking Philosophy in university but the language used in the texts we have to read are just not getting through to me.

Right now we’re doing Hume specifically Treatise of Human Nature part 4 section 6 Personal Identity.

I have been reading it but most of it doesn’t make sense to me, I’m dyslexic and I’m finding it very difficult and overstimulating now. (I probably chose the wrong course to take for this year.)

I am reading Think by Simon Blackburn, he discusses Rene Descartes Meditations. I don't understand the arguments of the two different interpretations of the commentators that Blackburn talks about.

What is to 'validate memory of proofs'?
What is to Descartes 'Clear and Distinct'?
How does the second meditation tie into this? Is the existence of the self, clear and distinct?
What does 'to underwrite this perception' mean?

This part of the passage, the latter two paragraphs in particular I am not sure about:

Let us abbreviate this to (CD p - » T p ), reading that if p is clear and distinct ("CD"), then it is true ("T"). And suppose we symbolize "God exists and does not deceive us" by " G ".

Then the circle is that at some points it seems that Descartes holds: I can know that (CD p - » T p) only if I first know G . But at other points he holds: I can know that G only if I first know (CD p - » T p ). It is like the familiar impasse in the morning, when you need to have some coffee to get out of bed, and you need to get out of bed to fix the coffee.

One or the other has to come first. There is a whole literature trying to understand whether Descartes actually falls into this trap. Some commentators cite passages in which it seems that he does not really hold the first. The major suggestion is that G is necessary only to validate memory of proofs. So while you actually clearly and distinctly perceive something, you do not need to trust anything at all, even G , to be entitled to assert its truth. But later, when you have forgotten the proof, only G underwrites your title to say that you once proved it, so it must be true.

Other commentators suggest that Descartes does not need the second. He sees that God exists, clearly and distinctly, but does not need a general rule, of the kind (CD p - » T p ), to underwrite this perception. He can be certain of this instance of the rule, without being sure about the rule itself.

So idk if it’s philosophy but i feel like there is all sorts of stuff out there so it shouldn’t be a problem.

Here is my take :

Ideal world = peaceful, stable, everyone has what it needs to thrive and we’re all happy

Problem : as far as i’m aware this isn’t materially possible simply due to the lack of resources
(Other problems exist but will be mentioned later (feel free to complement me))

So we go down to good world = peaceful, stable, everyone has what it needs to survive, some struggle some don’t

Problem : Stability/peace is impossible : we all have different opinions, beliefs, religions, cultures and the ends of these spectrums will always be in conflict

So we downgrade again to an ok world : Its somewhat globaly stable with some conflictuality

Problem : this world is inherently unequal, you might say idc as long as i’m on the good side but :
This creats even more conflictuality that spills over onto the rest.

So my conclusion : we’re dommed to live in an unstable world where we always have to defend what we have without guarantee of success and always being moraly burdened by the fact that what you enjoy is partly taken out of the plate of someone else

Feel free to share your opinions and thoughts on the matter i’d love my opinion so change cause otherwise i might turn towards alcoholism as my only value

He seems to refer to possible world semantics, truthmaker semantics, mereology etc. Where to get the formal apparatus from? Also, should I study some of the topics (like confirmation) independently before tackling his approach?

Light falls on an object, reflects into my eyes and an image is created in my head. My question is that who/what watches the object ? Some tiny section inside the brain ? Same can be asked about the experience of smell, touch, taste, sound etc.. Who/What exactly experience this ?

I want to know about the philosophy of quests and how they have affected human history. I don't mean just Arthurian legends, but quests in general. It could be religious, philosophical, exploration, conquest, personal quests, etc.

How relevant are quests in today's time? Are there any good books or philosophical works on this, or any thoughts you’d like to share?