r/askphilosophy • • Jul 01 '23

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

67 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 • • 16h ago

Open Thread /r/askphilosophy Open Discussion Thread | October 12, 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 • • 4h ago

How do I start being philosophical?

8 Upvotes

I’m a 15m and one thing I’ve always noticed about myself is how much I think. I debate everything and love mind bending questions. I’ve always wanted to try philosophizing everything in my life. I’m just curious on how everything works. If it’s not implied, not many people my age even bother trying to think past goldfish level. There really aren’t many people I can go to ask questions about philosophy. The big takeaway from this whole mumbo jumbo is how do I start becoming philosophical?


r/askphilosophy • • 7h ago

What to read next? Inexperienced with reading philosophy

11 Upvotes

I’ve been reading some philosophy lately, a lot of it is short works since I’m really bad at staying consistent with my reading, but I feel unsure of where to go next. For reference, I’ve read:

- The Metamorphosis by Kafka
- The Old Man and the Sea by Hemingway
- White Nights by Dostoevsky
- The Stranger by Camus
- Existentialism is a Humanism by Sartre
- No Exit by Sartre
- Nausea by Sartre

Lot of Sartre obviously hahaha, I like existentialism. I’m not sure if I should continue with Sartre, read other existentialists, or something else altogether. I hesitate on going to something like Being and Nothingness just because I think it might go a bit over my head, but I’m open to suggestions.


r/askphilosophy • • 2h ago

What qualifies someone to pass judgement on another person? How do we decide what's right or wrong?

2 Upvotes

r/askphilosophy • • 20m ago

Is it ethical to keep yourself alive in such a torturous life?

• Upvotes

An individual may encounter such terrible cruel torment in their life. We could possibly draw odds to show how one will experience torture. Is it ethical to subject yourself to this?


r/askphilosophy • • 38m ago

How do the means by which philosophers make a living, distribute their works, and the other nitty gritty of being in any position to influence people affect the field as a whole?

• Upvotes

My understanding is that there have been a few major models for philosophers to interact with the world: Patronage from wealthy clients, personal funds, employment in religious institutions, art, and now even the internet as a cheap way to distribute philosophy. I have to wonder, is there any sort of pattern for how the economics philosophers are wrapped in shape their works? Can you, for example, find certain patterns in religiously employed philosophers as opposed to statesmen philosophers or modern philosophers who can access and sharw information more easily?


r/askphilosophy • • 4h ago

If our values are shaped by forces we never chose, what makes our decisions genuinely our own?

0 Upvotes

​

I've been thinking about a problem concerning autonomy, desire, and the formation of the self.

We often treat self reflection as a path toward freedom: we examine our desires, decide which are worth pursuing, and attempt to change ourselves accordingly. But there's a difficulty. The standards we use to evaluate our desires are themselves shaped by biology, upbringing, culture, and previous experiences.

Suppose someone rejects the pursuit of wealth because they consider it superficial. Is this genuine autonomy, or have they simply internalized a different set of values? Perhaps they genuinely examined their motivations. Perhaps they want to feel morally superior to those who pursue wealth. The same decision could arise from very different psychological processes.

This reminds me of Nietzsche's critique of moral values and Harry Frankfurt's distinction between first order desires and higher order volitions. Frankfurt suggests that our relationship with our desires matters for freedom, but I wonder whether identifying with a desire is enough if the desire to identify with it is itself conditioned.

However, I don't think the fact that our decisions have causes automatically makes them unfree. That would assume that freedom requires being independent of causation, which may be an unreasonable standard. The problem is explaining what freedom could mean if no one creates themselves from nothing.

My question is this:

What distinguishes genuine self governance from a situation in which we simply act according to desires and values produced by forces we have internalized?

Appealing to rational reflection seems insufficient, because reasoning can rationalize existing motivations as well as challenge them. Appealing to higher-order desires seems to raise the same problem at another level: why should those desires have greater authority than the desires they evaluate?Perhaps autonomy consists not in escaping our conditioning, but in developing the ability to examine, criticize, and revise it. Yet even our standards of criticism have histories, so I'm unsure what would justify calling this process genuinely autonomous rather than simply another form of conditioning.

I'm interested in whether this problem has been adequately addressed in philosophy, particularly in debates about autonomy, free will, Nietzsche's account of drives, Frankfurt's theory of higher-order desires, and Buddhist ideas about conditioned processes and anattā.

What are the strongest existing accounts of autonomy that address this problem? And is there a serious objection to the assumption that self reflection can make us more autonomous without requiring a completely independent self?


r/askphilosophy • • 5h ago

Modal logic- looking for advice!

1 Upvotes

I want to learn modal logic for philosophical and formal purposes. However, I don't have basic knowledge of it. I haven't studied mathematics since middle school. Thus, I feel very lost and have no idea how to get started! Any advice? Book recommendations & video recommendations would also be appreciated.


r/askphilosophy • • 6h ago

If motivation internalism is true then would moral reasons by themselves be enough to have some act morally ?

1 Upvotes

Or would other things be needed as well ? Could complex moral reasoning that ethicists use really resonate with he layperson ? Given reasoning and argumentation of take a long time in philosophy from what I can decipher


r/askphilosophy • • 6h ago

If you could erase every memory of a person who hurt you, including all the lessons you learned from the experience, would choosing to do so be an act of healing or a form of losing yourself?

1 Upvotes

r/askphilosophy • • 13h ago

Could "forms" as presented by Plato be considered a posteriori synthetic judgements as presented by Kant?

3 Upvotes

Junior philosophy student here, I took history of modern philosophy last year and this semester I'm taking ancient philosophy. When learning about the different types of knowledge proposed by Kant, I was taught that a posteriori synthetic judgements are impossible, which made sense. Now that I'm learning about Plato's "Divided Line", we were discussing what exactly the final stage of understanding would look like. Could "understanding" or the forms themselves, be considered a posteriori synthetic judgements, because the predicate is a part of the subject (i.e. the Form of beauty is beautiful) and because the stage of understanding first requires the stages of imagination, belief, and thought? I hope I'm being clear, please let me know if anything didn't make sense in my question.


r/askphilosophy • • 20h ago

Texts or authors that talk about the erasing of the self, dehumanization, or alienation?

10 Upvotes

Im specifically interested in reading theory that directly or indirectly talks about the process of dehumanization and the erasing of a person's inner sense of self, specially in relation to another person's (or what this other person represents structurally or at a larger scale) overpowering of them.

So far I'm reading Hegel and authors that help better understand Hegel, as well as Lacan and Foucault.

I'd like to see other authors that have treated this topic, be it in published books or in articles. Any recommendation is greatly appreciated!

(english is not my first language so I apologize if I haven't explained myself very well)


r/askphilosophy • • 11h ago

Literature on consciousness and existance for beginners? kinda specific

2 Upvotes

I’m gonna try to keep this short and I have no background in philosophy so please bear with me.

This last year I’ve started having dreams about the experience of dying that I think are rooted in philosophical questions within myself, I don’t think they are psychological due to the nature of the dreams. In my dreams I can feel myself wither away and gradually I go from subjectively experiencing dying to the absence of experience in lack of better words. When I’m in that state it is as if there is no past nor future, I don’t feel or think anything, there is no judgment or any values, it just is. I’m fascinated by this and wonder what I can read to deepen my understanding of what it means to be conscious, or perhaps non-conscious? Or better yet, point me in a direction that covers these topics


r/askphilosophy • • 17h ago

What actually makes me the same person I was 10 or 20 years ago?

4 Upvotes

I've been thinking about personal identity lately, and I'm curious how philosophers approach this question.

I feel like I'm the same person I was as a child, even though my body, personality, beliefs, memories and priorities have changed considerably. Some of my memories have faded, my opinions have changed, and I might make very different decisions today than I would have made ten years ago.

Yet I still experience a sense of continuity. I think of my past experiences as things that happened to me, rather than to someone else.

But what actually makes me the same person over time?

Is it the continuity of my body, my memories, my personality, or something else? If all these things change gradually, is there something that remains constant underneath them, or is the feeling of being one continuous person itself part of how the mind works?

I'm not assuming that a permanent self either exists or doesn't exist. I'm interested in what arguments can support either position.

Is there a meaningful answer to what makes someone the same person throughout their life, or does the question rely on an assumption we rarely stop to examine?


r/askphilosophy • • 16h ago

Aristotle and Parmenides on Change - How is space in potency and not act

4 Upvotes

Hello everyone,

I've been trying to getting into scholastic metaphysics and started reading Scholastic Metaphysics: A Contemporary Introduction by Edward Feser. In it he goes over Parmenides and Zeno position on change not being possible; I will not go into the specifics of this dispute since I assume that those who can clear my confusion are likely already familiar with this topic.

Early on Fesser writes:

Zeno too overlooks the distinction between being-in-act and being-in-potency. The infinite number of smaller distances in the interval between two points A and B are indeed there, but only potentially rather than actually.

How can space be in potency and how does that resolve the issue?

First time posting on here, sorry if this is a dumb question


r/askphilosophy • • 10h ago

How might Maimonides’ (Rambam’s) philosophy enter into dialogue with the body of thought of Annemarie Mol, Sheila Jasanoff, Donna Haraway, and Bruno Latour regarding the relationships between reason, scientific knowledge, reality, and spirituality?

0 Upvotes

Maimonides (Rambam) sought to reconcile reason, philosophical inquiry, and religious knowledge while acknowledging the limits of human understanding. His approach raises questions that resonate with contemporary science and technology studies (STS), particularly concerning how realities are constituted, how knowledge claims acquire authority, and how rational inquiry can coexist with spirituality without reducing either to the other.

Annemarie Mol explores how different practices enact multiple, coexisting realities; Sheila Jasanoff examines the co-production of scientific knowledge and social order; Donna Haraway challenges the *god trick*—the illusion of an objective view from nowhere—through situated knowledges; and Bruno Latour investigates the everyday practices and material arrangements through which scientific facts are produced, while distinguishing *matters of fact* from *matters of concern*.

These perspectives invite us to distinguish empirically supported claims from spiritual, symbolic, and metaphysical interpretations without dismissing the latter as meaningless or assuming that every dimension of reality must be explained through scientific methods. They also challenge the opposite tendency: treating speculative narratives as established historical or scientific truths merely because they invoke alternative forms of knowledge.

The underlying question is whether the commitment to rational inquiry and spiritual understanding particular to Maimonides can be brought into a productive dialogue with contemporary critiques of scientific objectivity, recognizing both the situated character of knowledge and the importance of evidence, without collapsing epistemological plurality into epistemic relativism.

Thank you for the input.


r/askphilosophy • • 17h ago

Does repentance erase the need for punishment ?

3 Upvotes

If a serial killer who killed, say, 100 people, but was only discovered after 4 years, and when he was discovered he had completely changed to the better, becoming (metaphorically) a saint in his actions. He raises orphans and cares for the elderly and donates to the poor, and he completely regrets his old sins, should he still be punished for his murders ?


r/askphilosophy • • 12h ago

How good of a critique is Merquior's book on Foucault?

1 Upvotes

Title question; Hopefully the book is not too niche


r/askphilosophy • • 14h ago

What are the main philosophical arguments in defense of direct realism against simulation theory and idealism?

1 Upvotes

I have only read and heard the arguments on why this is not reality. I'm influenced by Kant and Vedanta too, but what disturbed me most are: 1. Arguments of Nick Bostrom 2. Currently, we are watching in a lot of research (like the Zurich University experiment on Reddit and the Turing test) that people cannot differentiate between human and AI in chat. So, I wanna know, what are the greatest arguments of great philosophies that 'this is reality'?


r/askphilosophy • • 18h ago

How is Sider's/Schaffer's answer (in "Dasgupta's Detonation") to Dasgupta's challenge to realists about naturalness not just defining epistemic value of naturalness into existence?

2 Upvotes

I don't fully understand how Schaffer's maneuver of asserting that "Scientists should aim at laws" is a part of the meaning of "should" could work. His other idea mentioned by Sider, that the gerrymandered properties are irrelevant so Dasgupta's argument just changes the subject is intuitive and plausible. But I can't see how "it is a part of what we mean by 'should'" doesn't suffer from the same problems as adding anything else into the definition of ''should''.

Is my reading of Sider right if I understand him to say that this can be done because this "Schafferian" meaning of "should" is more natural? But then if the primary dispute wasn't about why should scientists aim at laws but about why does meaning follow naturalness and not shmaturalness, Sider's maneuver appears circular.

I am not sure that this is a fatal circularity because he just wants to resist the sceptic not convince them, but I am not sure whether I got the argument right.


r/askphilosophy • • 1d ago

Why did existentialist philosophers lead relatively conventional lives?

35 Upvotes

First of all, I understand that an immediate objection one could have would be that they didn’t. I’m aware that many existentialist philosophers led unconventional lives in certain respects, particularly when it comes to their personal relationships or political commitments (Sartre comes to mind). Yet I would still argue that, broadly speaking, their lives remained markedly similar to those of their intellectual and social peers.

If existence precedes essence, and human beings are fundamentally free to define themselves through their choices, why did so many existentialist philosophers, out of millions of options, seem to pursue such predictable goals? Recognition in academia, cultural capital, some amount of money, social status (in their social group), power (broadly speaking), etc.

Of course, existentialism doesn’t require unconventionality, and choosing a conventional life is still a choice. But I find that answer somewhat unsatisfying.

Given the enormous range of possible ways to live, why did even those who reflected most deeply on human freedom end up living lives that, in most respects, resembled those of their peers in respect to their goals and ambitions? (to be fair, there may be some survivorship bias here: the philosophers we remember are those who wrote books and had them published and marketed. So they probably thought writing down stuff and garnering attention and recognition was important. Maybe the “different” ones left no record).


r/askphilosophy • • 17h ago

Harming others -- when is it immoral?

1 Upvotes

Hey all. I have a personal conundrum that I think poses an interesting ethical question. Say I want to come out as LGBT to my parents. But doing this would cause them (emotional, maybe social) harm, but is otherwise legal and tolerated by society. Is it ethical to do so?

If we apply Kant's principle of making things universal, "It is a law that no rational being does intentional harm to another rational being" seems to ring true. It's also in line with the spirit of humanity, as it were. So does that make coming out as LGBT, or doing otherwise anything of that sort that is subversive in societyz unethical?


r/askphilosophy • • 1d ago

ELI5: what is dialectical materialism?

12 Upvotes

I come across this term in Persepolis and am trying to comb through the internet to find out what it means. The only sources I can find are either too scholarly for me to understand, or come from communist, Marxist, or tankies sources with the bias that comes with it

Could someone please write an explanation that includes points explained in basic terms, historical examples, critics of the theory, and counter historical examples?

Much appreciated


r/askphilosophy • • 1d ago

Why, according to Kant, is believing in God the only way to act morally?

24 Upvotes

I've started reading philosophy books and articles with not much experience at all, so I apologize in advance for being wrong about some things.

So if I've understood correctly Kant says that in order to act according to moral law, so that all our maxims are chosen based solely on it, there must be an end associated with it, the highest good. The highest good is a state where everyone is perfectly moral and happy, and they are happy because they are moral. He says that the only way to believe the highest good is possible is to believe in the immortal soul and God. But why is an infinite progress towards the highest good in this world not a sufficient end to act morally? If I have to be involved in that kingdom of ends, isn't that selfish and goes against the moral law itself? The fact that an infinite progress is involved shouldn't be a problem either, since Kant's belief in an immortal soul implies that even on his view the progress towards the highest good is an infinite one.

Edit: Some specification: By the "infinite progress towards the highest good in this world" I mean a progress that makes the world more and more like the kingdom of ends. Whether it is possible for the world to be exactly like that seems to me like it shouldn't matter because if an infinite progress in real life is anything like in math the end goal would never be fully realized, we would just get closer to it forever.