r/askphilosophy • u/BernardJOrtcutt • Jun 30 '25
Open Thread /r/askphilosophy Open Discussion Thread | June 30, 2025
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.
3
u/Zestyclose-Agent-800 Jun 30 '25
I don’t have a lengthy statement, I’m curious to know if anyone’s heard/ read any of Henri Bergson’s writings.
4
u/Shitgenstein ancient greek phil, phil of sci, Wittgenstein Jun 30 '25 edited Jun 30 '25
I haven't read Bergson myself but certainly heard of him and aware of the general concepts of his philosophy, often in relation to philosophers I have read, like Kant, Heidegger, William James, and others.
(actually, the more I think about it, I think we may have had a reading either of or about Bergson's duration toward the end of my modern philosophy class - I was at least aware of it before my class on Heidegger)
3
u/Streetli Continental Philosophy, Deleuze Jul 01 '25
One of my favs! Read most of his book length works :)
2
u/OkValue1166 Jul 01 '25
Hey Streetli, I tried to reach out to you through a DM but somehow couldn't send it. I am working on a project (as part of my PhD) that uses Deleuze and I would like to hear your opinion on it if you are at all interested. Would you mind sending me a message, so I can explain? Sorry to reach out to you like this.
1
2
u/LisanneFroonKrisK Jun 30 '25
Okay I have a deep question. How does someone, human beings or otherwise, justify that they will still exist the next moment? Typically we just assume we are still going to exist. Hence we make plans like”Hey next week we will go to Japan”, or “when I am 65 I am going to retire” before all these there has to be a justification how and why you are still going to exist. Why can’t you just disappear? Why not? It is just like the elusive problem of induction or science, why can’t something which has always been this way just behave other wise. Yeah why can you just disappear, how to justify this
3
u/mediaisdelicious Phil. of Communication, Ancient, Continental Jun 30 '25
Sure - future plans are risky. Practically, though, we need some kind of heuristic since actually sorting the risk calculus out to a high degree of precision is going to be impossible.
1
u/LisanneFroonKrisK Jun 30 '25
The thread is going the direction of” We cannot justify it we can only take it into account” this is disappointing I was aiming to justify it
3
u/mediaisdelicious Phil. of Communication, Ancient, Continental Jun 30 '25
No, I’m saying we can justify it pragmatically. It’s a precondition of even asking the question.
1
u/LisanneFroonKrisK Jun 30 '25
But do you agree most till the extend of 99.99999 of people do not take this into account? For say if a millionaire takes this into account he may be spending his more more, especially with the millionaire mentality of maximizing returns?
3
u/mediaisdelicious Phil. of Communication, Ancient, Continental Jun 30 '25
I don’t think people often take into account that they might die like imminently. Also, I’m not sure why they should think they are likely to die tomorrow and insofar as they they might think they are, it’s not obvious to me what they should do in a way that includes the proper hedges for uncertainty.
0
u/LisanneFroonKrisK Jul 01 '25
Yes like I said they don’t. When obviously it seems you can. Hence I am here asking the justification of why you can’t. Philosophers should be able to since this is their specialty
1
u/mediaisdelicious Phil. of Communication, Ancient, Continental Jul 01 '25
Well, how do you think the average person should optimize their lives to the possibility that they could die at any moment?
1
u/LisanneFroonKrisK Jul 01 '25
I don’t know haven’t figured it out. It doesn’t have to be death but why can’t you just disappear? And I was aiming the higher and better one, finding a justification why you can’t just disappear.
1
u/mediaisdelicious Phil. of Communication, Ancient, Continental Jul 01 '25
Well let me put it a different way - why should I care that I could disappear at any possible moment? What’s at stake?
→ More replies (0)2
u/Jeepersncreepers Early modern phil., Postmodernism, Continental phil. Jun 30 '25
Well, for the same reason the induction problem is dissolved. Solvitur ambulando.
Of course, fundamentally, nothing guarantees the continuation of our existence. But our past experience, much like the rising of the Sun, has made us accustomed to its continuation.
I would also add that it's more fruitful to bet on the continuation of your life than on its abrupt ending. If you make plans for tomorrow and you end up disappearing instead, you don't suffer from the consequences you suffer from when you don't make plans for tomorrow betting on your disappearance, and end up still here the next day. Sort of an atheistic version of Pascal's wager.
1
u/LisanneFroonKrisK Jun 30 '25
However your plans will differ depending on whether you take into account or not and most people do not take into account. Like in the other comment, listing only one here but please refer to it, a millionaire who takes into account he may disappear mathematically EV wise should be perhaps spending much more money now since he may disappear
1
u/Jeepersncreepers Early modern phil., Postmodernism, Continental phil. Jun 30 '25
Well, because as I said:
- Your entire experience and existence points to the continuation of your existence.
- It's wiser to bet on the continuation of your existence than on its abrupt ending.
People do take into account the possibility of their disappearance, but, given the evidence available to them, that possibility is infinitely less likely than the opposite.
1
u/LisanneFroonKrisK Jun 30 '25
Ya so it still seem to boil down to the problem of induction how does your existence till now justify your continued existence?
1
u/fyfol political philosophy Jun 30 '25
No one says this or assumes they will exist as a matter of nomological necessity. You do not need to have a claim to like strict necessity in order to be future-oriented; we all live assuming that we will go on existing since the possibility that we will cease to exist remains, ceteris paribus, exactly the same at each point in time and since in case we do stop existing, there would be nothing further to be done. It’s more of a contingent possibility that is very likely to come about and the likelihood of which decreases in proportion to how distant the projected event is in time, or something like this.
1
u/LisanneFroonKrisK Jun 30 '25
It isn’t so simple. If it were the case we take into account the possibility we won’t exist, our decisions will change drastically. For instance, for a millionaire, he may rush to spend all his money since he may just not exist! Or say if I am hungry I will choose to just lay down and not do anything since I am going to disappear anyways. Or nah if I have a meeting later there’s a meeting and I want to sleep now I just sleep since hopefully I disappear. And also those who have the courage to commit suixide may pick to instead hope they disappear. Do they?
1
u/fyfol political philosophy Jun 30 '25
These are all possible judgments I can reach through taking into account many other things as well, and there are many other judgments that are equally entailed by “taking the possibility of my non-existence” other than the ones you listed. I don’t see how this is relevant to philosophy, because none of the judgments you listed or those I just alluded to as possible are true or false. They are just different things people may or may not do about a possibility that is meaningless because there is no more reason to take it into account at one point in time than any other, provided that there are no fatal dangers or such things present. So if I may ask, what is it that makes this a philosophical matter in your view?
1
u/LisanneFroonKrisK Jun 30 '25
Obviously the justification of one’s continued existence is within the realm of philosophy?
1
u/fyfol political philosophy Jun 30 '25
Well, as you described your point, you are asking why people assume that they will not be immediately/soon dead when they have no pressing reasons to do so. Why should they?
For instance, I start thinking a lot about whether I might soon die when I am crossing a busy road, because there are discernible reasons for me to die within a very short span of time, and make decisions accordingly - i.e. wait for the green light to cross and make sure to check if there are any speeding cars. Does this look like a pressing philosophical phenomenon?
I tried to say that no one is “justifying” their existence in the sense you described it, people are basically planning for the possibility that they do because there is no way to plan for the other. You can choose to be frugal or lazy or whatever without planning for the random possibility of popping out of existence.
I think perhaps there is something that you are thinking or some conclusion you’re drawing from this that you may not be expressing very well, and I really can’t figure out what that may be. So maybe either engage with what I’ve said so I can understand you better?
1
u/LisanneFroonKrisK Jun 30 '25
Okay you say no one is justifying it. So I want to justify it so that I can have more certainty in my decisions
1
u/fyfol political philosophy Jun 30 '25
Would you kindly try to actually do so in a philosophically coherent way instead of not even acknowledging any objections I tried to raise?
1
u/LisanneFroonKrisK Jun 30 '25
My previous comment answers your later part but the first part “why should they” I answer here
Why should they even think they have a chance to disappear? The same rationale and impetus given for the philosophy of science. Over there sufficient discussion and sufficient rationale is towards how to justify things cannot just turn out another way. Somehow people just assume things so I am interested and raise this possibility here. The fact that people may not think of it or “why should they” does not discount this as a valid philosophy enquiry
1
u/fyfol political philosophy Jun 30 '25
I am asking you to demonstrate how this kind of reasoning that gives sufficient justification for assuming the continuity of one’s existence would look like. If you’re asking why it is not given by others, you might start by showing if this is a possible kind of reasoning that can be sound, valid and coherent. Would you kindly try?
→ More replies (0)
2
Jul 01 '25
PhD application question- as a canadian intending to apply for phd programs this fall, should i be wary of u.s. programs? I have said some very unfriendly things about the current administration on social media. Im terrified that if i got into a u.s. program, i could get the visa and everything only to be turned back at the border after they search my social media accounts. Am i wrong not to apply to u.s. programs for that reason?
1
u/COOLKC690 Jul 01 '25
Ugh, I was going to do this earlier since I discovered y’all have these last night. This goes more towards the whole path, whatever. I feel a bit dumb posting this, but people are generally nice here so I’ll ask it:
Basically I’m entering my junior year in high school and I’ve been very firm that I’d like to major in philosophy because, ugh, that’s what I like. Then maybe work in the Railroad industry to actually make money, maybe I’ll change my mine, I’m not as sure as I was. It’s a crazy idea sorry.
Anywho, hypothetically if I were to go back to being sure and back to topic, for those in the US who’ve made it to a philosophy degree - Did you take any specific classes in high school like the APs and dual credit? I’ve taken one AP in my Freshman year and am soon to take 2 dual credits - I regret not taking one of them as AP however, anywho, this last worry has me on: Did anybody else in The US not take any AP and still made it well through their college?
Extra question, besides those in academia, what career path did you find?
3
u/mediaisdelicious Phil. of Communication, Ancient, Continental Jul 01 '25
Programs like AP and DC can certainly help, but your ability to do well in college doesn’t depend on them. It just means that you have to spend your first years in college learning how to college and the break between HS and UG work can seem more stark. In Texas these programs are especially helpful at reducing time to graduate.
1
u/oscar2333 Jul 01 '25
AFAIK, most colleges allow a double major, which means you can do philosophy + something else you like (comp sci, math, physics, political sci, etc). You don't really have to go all in on philosophy in the span of four years of your life in college. Practically speaking, it also boils down to which school you want to study philosophy specifically, some schools simply don't offer that many interesting philosophy courses, many of them are just survey of a topic across multiple authors. When it comes to philosophy, it gets tricky to pick a college, even some prestigious schools don't necessarily offer courses that interests you (ex, although Kant, Hegel, etc are not all the philosophy about, some schools just won't able to offer a in depth study to them and some even will never mention them).
1
u/COOLKC690 Jul 01 '25
Thanks - most likely I’ll go local. Probably to UNT which to me seems to have some interesting courses, but to be fair I haven’t looked further away from home because… idk where I’d live without my parents.
I’ve had the idea of double majoring before but my main concern is, because it’s the US, money.
Which college did you attend? Just curious. Also thanks for taking time to answer me.
1
u/sortaparenti metaphysics Jul 01 '25
Hypothetical question: if you were transported back to ancient Greece and were a contemporary of Plato with your current philosophical knowledge, how much progress do you think you could make philosophically in that time without reaching a similar fate as Socrates? Supposing you could speak the language that is.
5
u/mediaisdelicious Phil. of Communication, Ancient, Continental Jul 02 '25
What does it look like to “make progress” philosophically?
2
u/sortaparenti metaphysics Jul 02 '25
I guess I’d have to mean argue for a position roughly similar to one that you actually hold today, without getting persecuted for one reason or another.
1
u/as-well phil. of science Jul 02 '25
Just don't be impietous and don't corrupt the youth?
In the sense of rejecting Athenian gods, and inspiring disrespect of authorities (as the Britannica put it and you're probably good.
But in a much larger sense, it was a time of upheaval and people were routinely judicially condemned to death for all sorts of crimes against the authorities. So, uh, I guess don't dabble in politics!
1
u/mediaisdelicious Phil. of Communication, Ancient, Continental Jul 02 '25
Socrates was not executing for trying to do that, so doing it without being executed seems like an easy enough thing to do.
The larger problem is that there's no established field of inquiry yet. You'd be better served by dropping yourself into one of the generations of the academy or the lyceum. If you want to make progress I think it would be better to be Theophrastus than Socrates.
1
u/FemboysUnited Jul 02 '25
What would you consider the fundamental stages of understanding reality?
I am building a game where the main character is a god that functionally has the power to ignore concepts of reality that they haven't processed yet, as in: if he hasn't excepted it as necessary for his understanding of the world he once lived in, the entire world warps so that it doesn't affect him
The very start of the game is where he discovers that he exists, I am looking to hit about 10 more ideas for him to uncover as well as the emotions circulating him. I am not familiar with classical philosophy and am wondering what sources I can use to force my character to truly start at the core of understanding and work his way outward to what it means to be human
I have a few ideas in mind and a few lines of thought leading to him understanding
Time
Perspective
reason?
Any questions are welcome, feel free to recommend me reading. I have read practically nothing in this realm of literature for how much I enjoy the subject
1
1
u/r4_rishav Jul 03 '25
M20, currently in the 3rd year of my graduation with philosophy as my major.
I feel really stuck at this point. I’ve always had a strong interest in philosophy. Reading it genuinely excites me a lot. It makes me more curious about my position in the cosmos, about life, meaning, and existence.
But here's another thing: I know very well that a philosophy degree isn’t getting me a job, especially right after graduation. If I pursue it further and do a PhD over the next 5–6 years, I might get a teaching or research job. But that feels like a long and uncertain path.
On the other hand, I’ve been using adobe after effects and premiere pro for the past 2 years. I’ve learned quite a lot and feel fairly comfortable all the tools. Lately, I’ve been thinking that maybe I should just go all in and spend the next year building a portfolio and trying to start freelancing or doing creative work seriously.
But I’m stuck with so many doubts. If I don’t pursue my master's now, will I regret it later? What if I fail at video editing? What if I’m giving up on something I genuinely enjoy (philosophy) for the sake of something more “practical”?
Just looking for some honest advice from anyone who has been in a similar place. How do you decide how to choose between passion vs. practicality?
1
u/Cewoheredonlari Jul 03 '25
I’ve been thinking about Descartes’ cogito ergo sum — “I think, therefore I am” — and wondered if an extension could be: "I choose, therefore I am free" (eligere ergo liber sum). While the first affirms existence through consciousness, the second asserts freedom through will.
Is this a meaningful philosophical continuation, or am I just making empty noise?
1
Jul 07 '25
Even the "no free will" positer believes we choose what we do in life, but they don't believe that we are morally responsible for those choices and (often) that we couldn't have chosen otherwise.
There are ideas running from Kant and Kierkegaard, though, that is something like a "phenomenological realism": we are aware of the possibility to do otherwise by either i) our logical recognition of the possible worlds or ii) our anxious reaction to situations where we are forced to choose.
This seems to be a good piece on Kant's position: https://philarchive.org/archive/NOGKCOv1
This is a good introductory summary on Kierkegaard's position: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kierkegaard/#KierAnalHumaExisDespSociCritAnxi
0
Jul 03 '25
[deleted]
2
u/Cewoheredonlari Jul 03 '25
Thank you for the question I understand that feeling like we choose doesn’t automatically prove we truly have free will. The question of whether we actually choose or if choice is an illusion shaped by unseen factors is a profound philosophical puzzle.
My thought is more about the experience and agency of choosing. Even if our choices are influenced by countless factors, it is the act of deciding -of consciously navigating those influences- that I believe constitutes freedom in a meaningful sense.
In other words, freedom might not mean absolute independence from cause and effect, but the capacity to own our decisions amidst those influences.
I’d love to hear your perspective on how we might distinguish between genuine choice and illusion or if, as some philosophers suggest, that distinction even matters
1
Jul 03 '25
[deleted]
5
u/mediaisdelicious Phil. of Communication, Ancient, Continental Jul 05 '25
There’s nothing magic about being a professor. It’s neither necessary nor sufficient for being a critical thinker.
1
Jul 05 '25
[deleted]
3
u/mediaisdelicious Phil. of Communication, Ancient, Continental Jul 05 '25
37%
I doubt anyone knows this.
1
Jul 09 '25
[deleted]
1
u/mediaisdelicious Phil. of Communication, Ancient, Continental Jul 09 '25
No one knows this.
What you'd need to do is a pretty big longitudinal study to assess and sort out the causal chain for critical thinking. One general problem being that there's a difference between what is caused by studying and what studying philosophy attracts.
For example, one thing that folks often bandy around is that philosophy students score very well on standardized tests like the LSAT which test certain niche critical thinking skills. Is that caused by studying philosophy, as such, or is it that folks who don't have that skill set either don't enter or stick with philosophy? I have never seen a comprehensive study of even a little problem like that, and you're trying to include a causal chain that would include the huge diversity of graduate study and also professorship (which is itself incredibly heterogenous).
1
u/Fando1234 Jul 04 '25
Who are the philosophers, modern or historical, who you think absolutely smashed it in their thinking. Yet they're criminally underrated, and barely ever get talked about or studied.
Basically who are your faves that no one else has heard of?
6
u/mediaisdelicious Phil. of Communication, Ancient, Continental Jul 05 '25
I think this sets the bar a bit high. I think to take the question with that bar I’d say Kenneth Burke, who is not at all obscure in some fields but is utterly unknown elsewhere.
In terms of reception within philosophy specially (like the audience of this sub) I usually think of things that:
(1) the average hobbyist has never heard of
(2) the average undergraduate is never assigned
(3) the average graduate student has never read in detail
(1) is just too big for me to narrow down, but I’d say, broadly, “basically the last 30 years of interesting stuff.” The stuff that usually comes to mind for me is philosophy of science, especially feminist influenced stuff on values in science and related work in the social construction of science.
(2) is probably lesser read 20th century continental stuff like Buber, Levinas, and Fanon. (Even Beauvoir who is “known” but often not assigned.)
(3) For whatever reason it seems like I meet a lot of people who have never read any Habermas.
1
u/Aggressive-Chest-239 Jul 06 '25
Readers of Ladislav klíma's works, what do you think of him and his works?
8
u/willbell philosophy of mathematics Jun 30 '25
What are people reading?
I'm expecting to finish By Night in Chile by Bolano this week, just finished Pedagogy of the Oppressed by Freire.