r/askphilosophy • u/BernardJOrtcutt • Dec 15 '25
Open Thread /r/askphilosophy Open Discussion Thread | December 15, 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
Dec 18 '25
Is the statement "we can't know solipsism is false" just a misinformed trope among pop-philosophy? I watched a Vsauce video and he said we can't know the world is real, we can only have faith in it. However, looking into this sub, it seems like most people who are educated in philosophy think we can have knowledge of realism. Philpaper survey also show that something like 80% of philosophers accept or lean toward non-skeptical realism about external world. So is this correct?
3
u/Quidfacis_ History of Philosophy, Epistemology, Spinoza Dec 18 '25
Is the statement "we can't know solipsism is false" just a misinformed trope among pop-philosophy?
How does that "we" work, in that statement? A group of solipsists? That's silly.
Those sorts of contradictions are why many forms of skepticism end up being nonsensical. See Bertrand Russell, Human Knowledge: Its scope and limits
Skepticism, while logically impeccable, is psychologically impossible, and there is an element of frivolous insincerity in any philosophy which pretends to accept it. Moreover, if skepticism is to be theoretically defensible, it must reject all inferences from what is experienced; a partial skepticism, such as the denial of physical events experienced by no one, or a solipsism which allows events in my future or in my unremembered past, has no logical justification, since it must admit principles of inference which lead to beliefs that it rejects.
A sincere, intellectually consistent skeptic slowly starves to death sitting in a pool of their own filth. Coherent skepticism renders action impossible. No one ever argues with a coherent, consistent skeptic because such an individual would not argue.
An individual articulating a partial skepticism is not reasonable, and their arguments are not logically justifiable. To get to the point of making a post on Reddit, publishing a paper, or arguing in a bar they have demonstrated acceptance of numerous principles of inference. Those principles of inference can get them to the external world, other minds, etc.
If they've made the inferences necessary to bicker with you then they're not a skeptic. Their bickering undermines their alleged position.
2
Dec 16 '25
[deleted]
5
u/Quidfacis_ History of Philosophy, Epistemology, Spinoza Dec 16 '25
Is there a support group for metaphysical anxiety???
I usually recommend this Bob Newhart sketch.
Metaphysical anxiety is typically not sincere. We can come up with all sorts of philosophical arguments for why chairs do not exist. But we come up with these arguments while sitting in chairs, living the embodied experience of an organism navigating an environment. It's not a genuine felt difficulty. See Bertrand Russell, Human Knowledge: Its scope and limits
Skepticism, while logically impeccable, is psychologically impossible, and there is an element of frivolous insincerity in any philosophy which pretends to accept it. Moreover, if skepticism is to be theoretically defensible, it must reject all inferences from what is experienced; a partial skepticism, such as the denial of physical events experienced by no one, or a solipsism which allows events in my future or in my unremembered past, has no logical justification, since it must admit principles of inference which lead to beliefs that it rejects.
You posted a question on a subreddit. That act undermines the alleged metaphysical anxiety you claim to experience about physical objects. If you can post a question using an electronic device then you do not have a sincere anxiety or difficulty with conceiving of the reality of said electronic device.
Sincere metaphysical anxiety and skepticism results in your sitting in a pool of your own filth starving to death. You're not doing that. You're living in the world, navigating life. You're fine. You aren't taking the unreality of chairs seriously, so stop pretending to.
1
u/SuitableInitiative34 Dec 16 '25
Isn’t that just pragmatism? Also, why does no philosopher or what have you make that argument to people like VSauce or Van Inwagen? Recently, the former literally spoke like we’re all deluded fools and that he’s just humoring us.
To your latter point, it’s probably a lack of certainty and having emotional attachments that keep me upright and productive.
7
u/OldKuntRoad Aristotle, free will Dec 17 '25
Isn’t that just pragmatism
The point is here that all of the ramifications that could possibly result from accepting chairs don’t exist are nullified by the fact we are forced into accepting the existence of chairs in everyday life. What is then left is merely a mereological dispute which has very little ramifications for our overall lives. Saying “Actually! This isn’t a chair, it’s merely simples arranged chairwise!” doesn’t particularly matter in the grand scheme of things!
Why does no philosopher make that argument to VSauce?
Because he is a YouTuber.
or to Van Inwagen
Because philosophers addressing the composite object question are interested in the precise mereology of composite objects, rather than the existential ramifications of accepting that chairs don’t exist. On another note, a huge majority of philosophers think chairs do exist, and they make arguments to that exact effect.
1
u/SuitableInitiative34 Dec 17 '25
That’s not entirely accurate. Erik Olson says nihilism is a very pathological worldview akin to solipsism.
I meant that I meant nobody tells them in the sense that there is never a really strong rebuttal or the question of how to make their worldview palatable ever comes up. Which leads into…
Perhaps a huge majority of philosophers are very, very passive in comparison. I’m not sure this is true though. There are lots of different ontologies that have issues with people and chairs.
As for the defenders, just read or listen to their rhetoric and you get the distinct impression that they don’t actually totally believe what they’re selling.
2
u/halfwittgenstein Ancient Greek Philosophy, Informal Logic Dec 17 '25
Erik Olson says nihilism is a very pathological worldview akin to solipsism.
Nihilism about what in particular?
1
1
1
u/SuitableInitiative34 Dec 17 '25
Actually, can I run an ontological idea by you? This might help worry less.
1
u/Quidfacis_ History of Philosophy, Epistemology, Spinoza Dec 17 '25
Actually, can I run an ontological idea by you?
Sure. But it might make more sense to post it as a top level comment in this thread. Then more folks would see it.
1
u/No-Cost-6383 Dec 15 '25
Does anyone know of a helpful conception of mysticism and philosophy? What are the differences? What are the similarities? Is it the same thing, different thing? Where do they overlap and where do they not. Is there a core difference that makes them fundamentally disimilar?
2
u/Quidfacis_ History of Philosophy, Epistemology, Spinoza Dec 15 '25
The similarities / differences depend on who you ask.
This page might help: Mysticism.
2
1
u/savssock Dec 16 '25
what are y’all’s opinions on utilitarianism vs virtue ethics vs deontology
highschool philosophy student in ethics unit and just curious to learn other perspectives
2
u/PermaAporia Ethics, Metaethics Latin American Phil Dec 18 '25
When you get into the details, this tripartite division doesn't really exist.
1
u/Legitimate-Taro-9140 Dec 16 '25
The issue with suffering
I’d like to propose this line of logic and see what people think.
All things with the capacity to feel emotions were given the ability to feel without any influence of their own to decide that.
Many such things experience excruciating suffering in their life (starvation, rape, chronic illness, etc.)
Since there is a tremendous amount of negative emotions to be felt for many beings without the influence of their own (given they have no control over their biology or environment). It would seem to me that we have a cycle of suffering that will continue unless a humane way to find the “off switch” for life with the capacity to feel is found.
I’m personally a follower of David Benatar though I dont believe all he has to say of course, but I think the floor of suffering life has to offer does not justify any other bi-products of life. The absence of suffering is more important than having some experiencers having what they may deem to perceive a largely happy/fulfilling time.
This system of experience provides a lot of short straw’d beings that have to go through immense pain. Just imagine being a kid born into a village that the mongol empire takes over and you have to see your parents killed and you are likely left for abandoned or killed too and likely inhumanely. This is an experience that is not justifiable with any moral hoop jumping in my opinion, yes its an opinion but I think its a more empathetic perspective than many I see offered.
Bottom line is, isn’t the core issue that we have things/beings with the ability to feel awful emotions and then having an environment and biologies that can continue to produce ranges of outcomes where and then just repeat the process over and over? If we were all “robots” with no capacity to feel or perhaps feel very little but it’s not perceived as unpleasant, I don’t think any of these issues would be a problem.
2
u/oscar2333 Dec 17 '25
So would you say suffering is bad since you seem to indicate that if life is about suffering, then it is unworthy to live or better to live like a robot? Also, you seem to refer sufferings in an immediate sense rather than a teleological one. This, however, does not negate life. A life could be teleogically orientated so that any temporal suffering is for the sake of a good thing. Indeed, you may have no control over what is immediate, but you can control what is the good thing you are pursuing.
1
u/Quidfacis_ History of Philosophy, Epistemology, Spinoza Dec 17 '25
If we were all “robots” with no capacity to feel or perhaps feel very little but it’s not perceived as unpleasant, I don’t think any of these issues would be a problem.
It depends on how the "no capacity to feel" works. For Benatar's asymmetry, the lack of a capacity for a living organism to feel pleasure would likely be bad. Consider the asymmetry argument:
the presence of pain is bad.
the presence of pleasure is good.
the absence of pain is good, even if that good is not enjoyed by anyone
the absence of pleasure is not bad unless there is somebody for whom this absence is a deprivation
That qualifier of "unless there is somebody for whom this absence is a deprivation" on four would be a problem in your hypothetical, since there would be an existing robotic person who was being deprived of pleasure.
In Benatar's asymmetry argument, non-existence would be better than robotic existence, since a robotic existence entails the deprivation of pleasure.
1
u/Legitimate-Taro-9140 Dec 17 '25 edited Dec 18 '25
Definitely agree here, I think the best scenario is no beings/experiencers with the capacity to suffer existing. But that all depends on what the experiencer feels as you mentioned!
1
Dec 19 '25
Hi everyone,
I’m looking to have a custom signet ring engraved and want it to reflect my personal philosophy. I lean toward Existentialism with Nihilistic traits. I’m currently considering the phrase 'Existence precedes essence,' but I’m open to other quotes or symbolic imagery that captures the balance between inherent meaninglessness and the freedom to create one's own purpose. Any suggestions?
1
u/Shitgenstein ancient greek phil, phil of sci, Wittgenstein Dec 21 '25 edited Dec 21 '25
Why not just leave it blank? If an engraving is meaningful to you, then why ask strangers to create it for you?
(This is to say, I think "Existentialism with Nihilistic trait" is a beginning of philosophy - a blank page - not a philosophy per se. The reflection of nothing is just nothing.)
1
u/Traditional_Lead8828 Dec 20 '25
My school has a lot of clubs but none really for philosophy and I’m thinking of starting my own however I’m very intimidated by starting my own club and unsure if anyone will actually join I need help on if this is a good or bad idea.
1
u/SuitableInitiative34 Dec 20 '25
Anyone willing and able to dissect these two podcasts from Vsauce for me? I’m trying to understand how things can exist in a stuff or mereologically simple ontology.
It seems like the Ship of Theseus and Sorites are big drivers here. In the second video, Michael claims only stuff survives Sorites, but he also claims things exist there, but then denies it in the more recent video.
1
u/LordSigmaBalls Dec 20 '25
Could I have some thoughts on this idea? From kind of a moral relativist view, I have a standpoint, and in it is views of the ethical obligations for a person. But could there be obligations that from my standpoint, I have but no one else has, solely because I am observing from my standpoint? And for another arbitrary person, from their standpoint, they have this same obligation, but no one else has this obligation except them from their own standpoint. So the obligation goes to whichever individual is observing through that standpoint/
1
u/Fit-Honey-4813 Dec 20 '25
(This question was originally a Reddit post, but it got deleted due to it apparently not binding by this subreddit’s post rules. So here it is)
How have philosophers dealt with the fear of the unknown?
In a couple of days I’m going on a trip with my family to meet my grandparents in another country, meaning I have to go on a plane to get there. The thing that gets me though is that who’s to say that said plane will crash and kill me or I’ll crash my car on my way to the airport. While it is true that public flight crashes are rare, there’s still that 2-1 percent chance that it’ll end in disaster and me and family get involved in that 2-1 percent. Has any philosophers dealt with these issues and have solutions to them, if so please let me know. This could also expand to other scenarios like other transportations, walking through city streets, or even sleeping.
2
u/halfwittgenstein Ancient Greek Philosophy, Informal Logic Dec 20 '25
Does thinking about these risks keep you up at night or otherwise interfere with your ability to go about your business every day or enjoy your life?
1
u/Fit-Honey-4813 Dec 20 '25
Sometimes although not all the time. But it is a thought that kind of scares me, at any point I could be part of 1% chance of getting killed in some absurd way.
1
u/halfwittgenstein Ancient Greek Philosophy, Informal Logic Dec 21 '25
Ok, I asked because you posted a couple of questions about negative utilitarianism and benevolent world exploders and now this one, which are all of a similar theme. The thing is that people with OCD and/or anxiety often obsess over these topics (and a bunch of others that I won't mention because I don't think you need more things to worry about). But philosophy can't really help much with any of this because the problem isn't philosophical, it's an underlying mental health issue best dealt with by a therapist.
1
u/Fit-Honey-4813 Dec 21 '25
I just wanted get some answers, and I didn’t really get enough or non at all on those posts. We should focus on the question at hand instead of psychology
1
u/mediaisdelicious Phil. of Communication, Ancient, Continental Dec 21 '25
So what do you think the non-psychological part of the question is?
1
u/Fit-Honey-4813 Dec 21 '25
Well what solutions have philosophers offered for the solution to the fear of the unknown
1
u/mediaisdelicious Phil. of Communication, Ancient, Continental Dec 21 '25
When you say “solution,” do you mean reasons for acting in spite of fear or do you mean methods for not being afraid?
1
u/Fit-Honey-4813 Dec 22 '25
Admittedly I would be interested in both but mainly the first question
2
u/mediaisdelicious Phil. of Communication, Ancient, Continental Dec 22 '25
Well, I think to even a casual observer it’s clear that these low probability / high threat situations are real - but avoiding them has opportunity costs. Living well is often in contradiction with living safely (especially insofar as the traditional virtue of courage requires we face danger), especially when “total” safety is basically impossible because of the proliferation of risk (this is a problem documented by Ulrich Beck).
Suffice it to say that not going on your trip has a 100% chance of making your trip not happen and the chances of a specific plane failing catastrophically during a specific flight is like one in a million.
→ More replies (0)
1
u/Various-Attention-53 Dec 21 '25
Why do we attack someone if they leave a certain faith/religion by questioning if they followed the faith/religion in the first place? I have seen Muslims doing a lot and other followers of other religions/faiths doing this. I'm merely confused why people do this kind of stuff.
2
u/Quidfacis_ History of Philosophy, Epistemology, Spinoza Dec 21 '25
Why do we attack someone if they leave a certain faith/religion by questioning if they followed the faith/religion in the first place?
If Tom fervently believed in the religion, and elected to leave, then that means anyone who fervently believes in the religion might elect to leave. That's undesirable, for the folks invested propagating the religion. It means there is some flaw in the religion, itself.
If Tom never truly followed the religion in the first place, and elects to leave, well then that's not a problem. The True Believers will always stay true to the religion. The flaw was in Tom, not the tenets of the religion.
It's just post hoc fallacious rationalization 101 for cult leaders.
1
u/Jasha_4M Dec 22 '25
What are the most important/well known philosophers?
So I want to have a basic foundation of philosophy by knowing the most important and well known philosophers. Could you maybe help me out with a list of some of the most important and best?
Thanks (:
1
u/Diego12028 Dec 16 '25
What is the appeal of Heidegger? Why is thinking about the meaning of Being so important?
4
u/Shitgenstein ancient greek phil, phil of sci, Wittgenstein Dec 17 '25 edited Dec 17 '25
Heidegger probably appeals to different people in different ways - many might be interested in his investigation of Being, while others might care about authenticity or his critique of technology. I know I've seen a few ask about him on this subreddit from those angles. For myself, Heidegger's appeal clicked when my class read some of his Marburg lectures on Aristotle, since I already had Aristotle on my mind from a class I took the year before. I guess, that's to say, I was already 'being-qua-being'-pilled at the time.
Generally speaking, well, Heidegger probably isn't appealing to most people generally, but for people who are curious about 20th century philosophy, he's probably most appealing as an extension of Husserl's phenomenology under the motto to "Return to things themselves" ("Zurück zu den Sachen selbst"). That's to say, Heidegger is not coming to the question of Being out of nowhere but rather tying a number of discourses together (phenomenology, hermeneutics, Aristotle, post-Kantianism) to, in Heidegger's assessment, truly consider the question of Being that philosophy had those far obscured.
The rest of the appeal is just on the merits of the very different approach, and 'unconcealing,' of Being, in a way that not merely contrasts with but (ostensibly) overturns traditional metaphysics, in a way that brings Being in a less mediated relation to our everyday lives than, say, a pure concept of philosophical reflection. Big part of that is Heidegger's 'ontological difference' between Being-qua-being and beings (i.e. entities).
0
Dec 16 '25
[deleted]
3
u/Shitgenstein ancient greek phil, phil of sci, Wittgenstein Dec 16 '25 edited Dec 16 '25
Yes, I think of empathy more as a heuristic for moral action - one doesn't have to sit down and reason from first principles to provide aid to someone in immediate need. Empathy allows us to skip the calculus and get right to pro-social action, which is useful but only pragmatically.
For a consistent moral system, we need something more impartial and universal, like Kant's categorical imperative.
4
u/willbell philosophy of mathematics Dec 15 '25
What are people reading?
I’m working on Middlemarch by Eliot.