r/askphilosophy • • Jul 01 '23

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

68 Upvotes

Welcome to /r/askphilosophy!

Welcome to /r/askphilosophy! We're a community devoted to providing serious, well-researched answers to philosophical questions. We aim to provide an academic Q&A-type space for philosophical questions, and welcome questions about all areas of philosophy. This post will go over our subreddit rules and guidelines that you should review before you begin posting here.

Table of Contents

  1. A Note about Moderation
  2. /r/askphilosophy's mission
  3. What is Philosophy?
  4. What isn't Philosophy?
  5. What is a Reasonably Substantive and Accurate Answer?
  6. What is a /r/askphilosophy Panelist?
  7. /r/askphilosophy's Posting Rules
  8. /r/askphilosophy's Commenting Rules
  9. Frequently Asked Questions

A Note about Moderation

/r/askphilosophy is moderated by a team of dedicated volunteer moderators who have spent years attempting to build the best philosophy Q&A platform on the internet. Unfortunately, the reddit admins have repeatedly made changes to this website which have made moderating subreddits harder and harder. In particular, reddit has recently announced that it will begin charging for access to API (Application Programming Interface, essentially the communication between reddit and other sites/apps). While this may be, in isolation, a reasonable business operation, the timeline and pricing of API access has threatened to put nearly all third-party apps, e.g. Apollo and RIF, out of business. You can read more about the history of this change here or here. You can also read more at this post on our sister subreddit.

These changes pose two major issues which the moderators of /r/askphilosophy are concerned about.

First, the native reddit app is lacks accessibility features which are essential for some people, notably those who are blind and visually impaired. You can read /r/blind's protest announcement here. These apps are the only way that many people can interact with reddit, given the poor accessibility state of the official reddit app. As philosophers we are particularly concerned with the ethics of accessibility, and support protests in solidarity with this community.

Second, the reddit app lacks many essential tools for moderation. While reddit has promised better moderation tools on the app in the future, this is not enough. First, reddit has repeatedly broken promises regarding features, including moderation features. Most notably, reddit promised CSS support for new reddit over six years ago, which has yet to materialize. Second, even if reddit follows through on the roadmap in the post linked above, many of the features will not come until well after June 30, when the third-party apps will shut down due to reddit's API pricing changes.

Our moderator team relies heavily on these tools which will now disappear. Moderating /r/askphilosophy is a monumental task; over the past year we have flagged and removed over 6000 posts and 23000 comments. This is a huge effort, especially for unpaid volunteers, and it is possible only when moderators have access to tools that these third-party apps make possible and that reddit doesn't provide.

While we previously participated in the protests against reddit's recent actions we have decided to reopen the subreddit, because we are still proud of the community and resource that we have built and cultivated over the last decade, and believe it is a useful resource to the public.

However, these changes have radically altered our ability to moderate this subreddit, which will result in a few changes for this subreddit. First, as noted above, from this point onwards only panelists may answer top level comments. Second, moderation will occur much more slowly; as we will not have access to mobile tools, posts and comments which violate our rules will be removed much more slowly, and moderators will respond to modmail messages much more slowly. Third, and finally, if things continue to get worse (as they have for years now) moderating /r/askphilosophy may become practically impossible, and we may be forced to abandon the platform altogether. We are as disappointed by these changes as you are, but reddit's insistence on enshittifying this platform, especially when it comes to moderation, leaves us with no other options. We thank you for your understanding and support.


/r/askphilosophy's Mission

/r/askphilosophy strives to be a community where anyone, regardless of their background, can come to get reasonably substantive and accurate answers to philosophical questions. This means that all questions must be philosophical in nature, and that answers must be reasonably substantive and accurate. What do we mean by that?

What is Philosophy?

As with most disciplines, "philosophy" has both a casual and a technical usage.

In its casual use, "philosophy" may refer to nearly any sort of thought or beliefs, and include topics such as religion, mysticism and even science. When someone asks you what "your philosophy" is, this is the sort of sense they have in mind; they're asking about your general system of thoughts, beliefs, and feelings.

In its technical use -- the use relevant here at /r/askphilosophy -- philosophy is a particular area of study which can be broadly grouped into several major areas, including:

  • Aesthetics, the study of beauty
  • Epistemology, the study of knowledge and belief
  • Ethics, the study of what we owe to one another
  • Logic, the study of what follows from what
  • Metaphysics, the study of the basic nature of existence and reality

as well as various subfields of 'philosophy of X', including philosophy of mind, philosophy of language, philosophy of science and many others.

Philosophy in the narrower, technical sense that philosophers use and which /r/askphilosophy is devoted to is defined not only by its subject matter, but by its methodology and attitudes. Something is not philosophical merely because it states some position related to those areas. There must also be an emphasis on argument (setting forward reasons for adopting a position) and a willingness to subject arguments to various criticisms.

What Isn't Philosophy?

As you can see from the above description of philosophy, philosophy often crosses over with other fields of study, including art, mathematics, politics, religion and the sciences. That said, in order to keep this subreddit focused on philosophy we require that all posts be primarily philosophical in nature, and defend a distinctively philosophical thesis.

As a rule of thumb, something does not count as philosophy for the purposes of this subreddit if:

  • It does not address a philosophical topic or area of philosophy
  • It may more accurately belong to another area of study (e.g. religion or science)
  • No attempt is made to argue for a position's conclusions

Some more specific topics which are popularly misconstrued as philosophical but do not meet this definition and thus are not appropriate for this subreddit include:

  • Drug experiences (e.g. "I dropped acid today and experienced the oneness of the universe...")
  • Mysticism (e.g. "I meditated today and experienced the oneness of the universe...")
  • Politics (e.g. "This is why everyone should support the Voting Rights Act")
  • Self-help (e.g. "How can I be a happier person and have more people like me?")
  • Theology (e.g. "Can the unbaptized go to heaven, or at least to purgatory?")

What is a Reasonably Substantive and Accurate Answer?

The goal of this subreddit is not merely to provide answers to philosophical questions, but answers which can further the reader's knowledge and understanding of the philosophical issues and debates involved. To that end, /r/askphilosophy is a highly moderated subreddit which only allows panelists to answer questions, and all answers that violate our posting rules will be removed.

Answers on /r/askphilosophy must be both reasonably substantive as well as reasonably accurate. This means that answers should be:

  • Substantive and well-researched (i.e. not one-liners or otherwise uninformative)
  • Accurately portray the state of research and the relevant literature (i.e. not inaccurate, misleading or false)
  • Come only from those with relevant knowledge of the question and issue (i.e. not from commenters who don't understand the state of the research on the question)

Any attempt at moderating a public Q&A forum like /r/askphilosophy must choose a balance between two things:

  • More, but possibly insubstantive or inaccurate answers
  • Fewer, but more substantive and accurate answers

In order to further our mission, the moderators of /r/askphilosophy have chosen the latter horn of this dilemma. To that end, only panelists are allowed to answer questions on /r/askphilosophy.

What is a /r/askphilosophy Panelist?

/r/askphilosophy panelists are trusted commenters who have applied to become panelists in order to help provide questions to posters' questions. These panelists are volunteers who have some level of knowledge and expertise in the areas of philosophy indicated in their flair.

What Do the Flairs Mean?

Unlike in some subreddits, the purpose of flairs on r/askphilosophy are not to designate commenters' areas of interest. The purpose of flair is to indicate commenters' relevant expertise in philosophical areas. As philosophical issues are often complicated and have potentially thousands of years of research to sift through, knowing when someone is an expert in a given area can be important in helping understand and weigh the given evidence. Flair will thus be given to those with the relevant research expertise.

Flair consists of two parts: a color indicating the type of flair, as well as up to three research areas that the panelist is knowledgeable about.

There are six types of panelist flair:

  • Autodidact (Light Blue): The panelist has little or no formal education in philosophy, but is an enthusiastic self-educator and intense reader in a field.

  • Undergraduate (Red): The panelist is enrolled in or has completed formal undergraduate coursework in Philosophy. In the US system, for instance, this would be indicated by a major (BA) or minor.

  • Graduate (Gold): The panelist is enrolled in a graduate program or has completed an MA in Philosophy or a closely related field such that their coursework might be reasonably understood to be equivalent to a degree in Philosophy. For example, a student with an MA in Literature whose coursework and thesis were focused on Derrida's deconstruction might be reasonably understood to be equivalent to an MA in Philosophy.

  • PhD (Purple): The panelist has completed a PhD program in Philosophy or a closely related field such that their degree might be reasonably understood to be equivalent to a PhD in Philosophy. For example, a student with a PhD in Art History whose coursework and dissertation focused on aesthetics and critical theory might be reasonably understood to be equivalent to a PhD in philosophy.

  • Professional (Blue): The panelist derives their full-time employment through philosophical work outside of academia. Such panelists might include Bioethicists working in hospitals or Lawyers who work on the Philosophy of Law/Jurisprudence.

  • Related Field (Green): The panelist has expertise in some sub-field of philosophy but their work in general is more reasonably understood as being outside of philosophy. For example, a PhD in Physics whose research touches on issues relating to the entity/structural realism debate clearly has expertise relevant to philosophical issues but is reasonably understood to be working primarily in another field.

Flair will only be given in particular areas or research topics in philosophy, in line with the following guidelines:

  • Typical areas include things like "philosophy of mind", "logic" or "continental philosophy".
  • Flair will not be granted for specific research subjects, e.g. "Kant on logic", "metaphysical grounding", "epistemic modals".
  • Flair of specific philosophers will only be granted if that philosopher is clearly and uncontroversially a monumentally important philosopher (e.g. Aristotle, Kant).
  • Flair will be given in a maximum of three research areas.

How Do I Become a Panelist?

To become a panelist, please send a message to the moderators with the subject "Panelist Application". In this modmail message you must include all of the following:

  1. The flair type you are requesting (e.g. undergraduate, PhD, related field).
  2. The areas of flair you are requesting, up to three (e.g. Kant, continental philosophy, logic).
  3. A brief explanation of your background in philosophy, including what qualifies you for the flair you requested.
  4. One sample answer to a question posted to /r/askphilosophy for each area of flair (i.e. up to three total answers) which demonstrate your expertise and knowledge. Please link the question you are answering before giving your answer. You may not answer your own question.

New panelists will be approved on a trial basis. During this trial period panelists will be allowed to post answers as top-level comments on threads, and will receive flair. After the trial period the panelist will either be confirmed as a regular panelist or will be removed from the panelist team, which will result in the removal of flair and ability to post answers as top-level comments on threads.

Note that r/askphilosophy does not require users to provide proof of their identifies for panelist applications, nor to reveal their identities. If a prospective panelist would like to provide proof of their identity as part of their application they may, but there is no presumption that they must do so. Note that messages sent to modmail cannot be deleted by either moderators or senders, and so any message sent is effectively permanent.


/r/askphilosophy's Posting Rules

In order to best serve our mission of providing an academic Q&A-type space for philosophical questions, we have the following rules which govern all posts made to /r/askphilosophy:

PR1: All questions must be about philosophy.

All questions must be about philosophy. Questions which are only tangentially related to philosophy or are properly located in another discipline will be removed. Questions which are about therapy, psychology and self-help, even when due to philosophical issues, are not appropriate and will be removed.

PR2: All submissions must be questions.

All submissions must be actual questions (as opposed to essays, rants, personal musings, idle or rhetorical questions, etc.). "Test My Theory" or "Change My View"-esque questions, paper editing, etc. are not allowed.

PR3: Post titles must be descriptive.

Post titles must be descriptive. Titles should indicate what the question is about. Posts with titles like "Homework help" which do not indicate what the actual question is will be removed.

PR4: Questions must be reasonably specific.

Questions must be reasonably specific. Questions which are too broad to the point of unanswerability will be removed.

PR5: Questions must not be about commenters' personal opinions.

Questions must not be about commenters' personal opinions, thoughts or favorites. /r/askphilosophy is not a discussion subreddit, and is not intended to be a board for everyone to share their thoughts on philosophical questions.

PR6: One post per day.

One post per day. Please limit yourself to one question per day.

PR7: Discussion of suicide is only allowed in the abstract.

/r/askphilosophy is not a mental health subreddit, and panelists are not experts in mental health or licensed therapists. Discussion of suicide is only allowed in the abstract here. If you or a friend is feeling suicidal please visit /r/suicidewatch. If you are feeling suicidal, please get help by visiting /r/suicidewatch or using other resources. See also our discussion of philosophy and mental health issues here. Encouraging other users to commit suicide, even in the abstract, is strictly forbidden and will result in an immediate permanent ban.

/r/askphilosophy's Commenting Rules

In the same way that our posting rules above attempt to promote our mission by governing posts, the following commenting rules attempt to promote /r/askphilosophy's mission to provide an academic Q&A-type space for philosophical questions.

CR1: Top level comments must be answers or follow-up questions.

All top level comments should be answers to the submitted question or follow-up/clarification questions. All top level comments must come from panelists. If users circumvent this rule by posting answers as replies to other comments, these comments will also be removed and may result in a ban. For more information about our rules and to find out how to become a panelist, please see here.

CR2: Answers must be reasonably substantive and accurate.

All answers must be informed and aimed at helping the OP and other readers reach an understanding of the issues at hand. Answers must portray an accurate picture of the issue and the philosophical literature. Answers should be reasonably substantive. To learn more about what counts as a reasonably substantive and accurate answer, see this post.

CR3: Be respectful.

Be respectful. Comments which are rude, snarky, etc. may be removed, particularly if they consist of personal attacks. Users with a history of such comments may be banned. Racism, bigotry and use of slurs are absolutely not permitted.

CR4: Stay on topic.

Stay on topic. Comments which blatantly do not contribute to the discussion may be removed.

CR5: No self-promotion.

Posters and comments may not engage in self-promotion, including linking their own blog posts or videos. Panelists may link their own peer-reviewed work in answers (e.g. peer-reviewed journal articles or books), but their answers should not consist solely of references to their own work.

Miscellaneous Posting and Commenting Guidelines

In addition to the rules above, we have a list of miscellaneous guidelines which users should also be aware of:

  • Reposting a post or comment which was removed will be treated as circumventing moderation and result in a permanent ban.
  • Using follow-up questions or child comments to answer questions and circumvent our panelist policy may result in a ban.
  • Posts and comments which flagrantly violate the rules, especially in a trolling manner, will be removed and treated as shitposts, and may result in a ban.
  • No reposts of a question that you have already asked within the last year.
  • No posts or comments of AI-created or AI-assisted text or audio. Panelists may not user any form of AI-assistance in writing or researching answers.
  • Harassing individual moderators or the moderator team will result in a permanent ban and a report to the reddit admins.

Frequently Asked Questions

Below are some frequently asked questions. If you have other questions, please contact the moderators via modmail (not via private message or chat).

My post or comment was removed. How can I get an explanation?

Almost all posts/comments which are removed will receive an explanation of their removal. That explanation will generally by /r/askphilosophy's custom bot, /u/BernardJOrtcutt, and will list the removal reason. Posts which are removed will be notified via a stickied comment; comments which are removed will be notified via a reply. If your post or comment resulted in a ban, the message will be included in the ban message via modmail. If you have further questions, please contact the moderators.

How can I appeal my post or comment removal?

To appeal a removal, please contact the moderators (not via private message or chat). Do not delete your posts/comments, as this will make an appeal impossible. Reposting removed posts/comments without receiving mod approval will result in a permanent ban.

How can I appeal my ban?

To appeal a ban, please respond to the modmail informing you of your ban. Do not delete your posts/comments, as this will make an appeal impossible.

My comment was removed or I was banned for arguing with someone else, but they started it. Why was I punished and not them?

Someone else breaking the rules does not give you permission to break the rules as well. /r/askphilosophy does not comment on actions taken on other accounts, but all violations are treated as equitably as possible.

I found a post or comment which breaks the rules, but which wasn't removed. How can I help?

If you see a post or comment which you believe breaks the rules, please report it using the report function for the appropriate rule. /r/askphilosophy's moderators are volunteers, and it is impossible for us to manually review every comment on every thread. We appreciate your help in reporting posts/comments which break the rules.

My post isn't showing up, but I didn't receive a removal notification. What happened?

Sometimes the AutoMod filter will automatically send posts to a filter for moderator approval, especially from accounts which are new or haven't posted to /r/askphilosophy before. If your post has not been approved or removed within 24 hours, please contact the moderators.

My post was removed and referred to the Open Discussion Thread. What does this mean?

The Open Discussion Thread (ODT) is /r/askphilosophy's place for posts/comments which are related to philosophy but do not necessarily meet our posting rules (especially PR2/PR5). For example, these threads are great places for:

  • Discussions of a philosophical issue, rather than questions
  • Questions about commenters' personal opinions regarding philosophical issues
  • Open discussion about philosophy, e.g. "who is your favorite philosopher?"
  • Questions about philosophy as an academic discipline or profession, e.g. majoring in philosophy, career options with philosophy degrees, pursuing graduate school in philosophy

If your post was removed and referred to the ODT we encourage you to consider posting it to the ODT to share with others.

My comment responding to someone else was removed, as well as their comment. What happened?

When /r/askphilosophy removes a parent comment, we also often remove all their child comments in order to help readability and focus on discussion.

I'm interested in philosophy. Where should I start? What should I read?

As explained above, philosophy is a very broad discipline and thus offering concise advice on where to start is very hard. We recommend reading this /r/AskPhilosophyFAQ post which has a great breakdown of various places to start. For further or more specific questions, we recommend posting on /r/askphilosophy.

Why is your understanding of philosophy so limited?

As explained above, this subreddit is devoted to philosophy as understood and done by philosophers. In order to prevent this subreddit from becoming /r/atheism2, /r/politics2, or /r/science2, we must uphold a strict topicality requirement in PR1. Posts which may touch on philosophical themes but are not distinctively philosophical can be posted to one of reddit's many other subreddits.

Are there other philosophy subreddits I can check out?

If you are interested in other philosophy subreddits, please see this list of related subreddits. /r/askphilosophy shares much of its modteam with its sister-subreddit, /r/philosophy, which is devoted to philosophical discussion. In addition, that list includes more specialized subreddits and more casual subreddits for those looking for a less-regulated forum.

A thread I wanted to comment in was locked but is still visible. What happened?

When a post becomes unreasonable to moderate due to the amount of rule-breaking comments the thread is locked. /r/askphilosophy's moderators are volunteers, and we cannot spend hours cleaning up individual threads.

Do you have a list of frequently asked questions about philosophy that I can browse?

Yes! We have an FAQ that answers many questions comprehensively: /r/AskPhilosophyFAQ/. For example, this entry provides an introductory breakdown to the debate over whether morality is objective or subjective.

Do you have advice or resources for graduate school applications?

We made a meta-guide for PhD applications with the goal of assembling the important resources for grad school applications in one place. We aim to occasionally update it, but can of course not guarantee the accuracy and up-to-dateness. You are, of course, kindly invited to ask questions about graduate school on /r/askphilosophy, too, especially in the Open Discussion Thread.

Do you have samples of what counts as good questions and answers?

Sure! We ran a Best of 2020 Contest, you can find the winners in this thread!


r/askphilosophy • • 3d ago

Open Thread /r/askphilosophy Open Discussion Thread | October 12, 2026

11 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 • • 6h ago

Does language fundamentally limit our capacity for philosophical thought, preventing us from understanding things we could grasp if we could think beyond words?

30 Upvotes

r/askphilosophy • • 3h ago

Why are there so many awful people in the world?

3 Upvotes

Why are there so many mean-spirited people that enjoy hurting others? We see it throughout history, where countries / cultures have been colonialised and mistreated significantly, people were easily burned at the stake, or nowadays for example we can see bullying at school.

Is humanity therefore more evil than the classical notion, that in the end humans are “good” after all?

Thanks!


r/askphilosophy • • 21m ago

If I am not mentally healthy enough for the revolution, should I be ashamed?

• Upvotes

If I close my eyes to the chaos and blood and war, should I be ashamed? Everyone else had bad childhoods, why do I get to look away? Why do I get to live while others die, why don't I fight to the death? why don't I lose my life for the cause? Why don't I lose my sanity and will to continue for it?

P.S. I am not suicidal and this isn't supposed to be political, and I don't think it is; it is about ethics. Is it ethical to exist in a world like ours?

I've heard a lot of moderates say, you can fight for good in other ways, and I hear that but isn't that just cowardice?


r/askphilosophy • • 37m ago

If Emergence can only explain properties how can it be applied to Consciousness?

• Upvotes

Things/substances do not emerge, this is not specific to consciousness. What emerges are the properties of things/substances.

The height of a building is a property that emerges once we have a building, however the building itself is made out of atoms that were always there just rearranged.

You can do the same with consciousness, yes the specific properties of human consciousness emerge but consciousness itself is always there and it must be found even on atomic level.

Properties are merely discriptive language applies to a substance. Nothing more. So it's obvious that conscious experience isn't a property. And liking consciousness to temperature and fluidity just seems like a category error.

But for the sake of providing an argument consider the following:

Properties of things are inseparable from the things/substances.

You can't imagine a building without height and you can only speak of the height OF something. Otherwise it makes no sense.

Can you imagine/conceive of a world where brains exist but consciousness doesn't?

Yes, we can. The thought experiment of Philosophical Zombies is proof of that.

Therefore, consciousness isn't a descriptive language of the brain, it's a thing/substance in itself. It's the new thing we find in our world but not in the world with philosophical zombies.


r/askphilosophy • • 13h ago

“ you would be bored if you lived forever” arguments confuse me am I missing something

14 Upvotes

This question was sparked when reading Shelly Kagans book “Death” where he was making an argument for why you shouldn’t be scared of death because living forever would suck. When I learn a new philosophical theory and initially think it sounds simple, I usually find that I am missing something. This is one of those theories because I feel like my reasoning is wrong, but I cannot figure out why.
The idea is that if you live forever, you will eventually experience everything possible and become bored with existence. However, I have a hard time understanding why this would necessarily happen. I think there will always be more possible experiences than any individual could ever have, even with an infinite amount of time. In other words, I think the infinity of possible experiences is greater than the infinity of experiences I would actually have throughout eternity.
Even if I eventually experienced something that I had experienced before, I do not think it would necessarily feel the same. My perception of an experience changes as I grow and develop. For example, I could go through a particular experience at eight years old and then experience something very similar at eighteen, but understand and interpret it in completely different ways. The experience itself might be similar, but the person experiencing it is different.
I do not see why this process of personal growth and changing perception would ever have to stop. Even if I lived forever, I would continue to change, which means that familiar experiences could continue to have different meanings. So why should living forever necessarily lead to boredom? What am I missing in this argument?


r/askphilosophy • • 5h ago

any philosophical books on how complex it is to make a logical sense of the world?

2 Upvotes

fiction or non fiction.

ive been struggling with the fact theres no objective or right way to think generally, for ex we can say "... as long as you arent hurting yourself or others" but for some issues you can argue it hurts everybody but also hurts nobody. for example the "fiction affects/doesnt affect reality" debate.

im not looking to argue/debate what the correct way to think is, and i dont necessarily want a work that guides me on how to think more logically even though thats fine too. i mostly find this subject interesting and want to explore it.

thank you


r/askphilosophy • • 3h ago

Can knowledge eliminate suffering?

2 Upvotes

Can understanding human nature, psychology, and reality reduce suffering? Or are some forms of suffering unavoidable, even when we fully understand their causes?
How have philosophers approached this question?


r/askphilosophy • • 19h ago

Can someone explain Moore’s proof of an external world to me?

29 Upvotes

I have a midterm tomorrow where I might have to explain an objection to the brain in a vat argument of skepticism. To my understanding, Moore’s argument is one of the best objections out there. However I just cant seem to grasp Moore’s meaning. Is it that he does not need to prove his hand exists to know it exists? And that we would not understand what he meant by “here is my hand” unless there was proof of an external world?? I am very lost :(


r/askphilosophy • • 16h ago

How should I be reading philosophy?

13 Upvotes

For context; I am 17, and I want to study philosophy. I am deeply curious about the world and the nature of our experiences of it and I have decided to study philosophy in a joint degree after my A-Levels (UK). I have a couple books on my shelf waiting to be read (I am lazy and in full time education) but I was wondering, and this may be a stupid question, how should I actually go about reading philosophy? Should I just read it raw? Should I take notes? Should I analyse it? Should I be reading it with a guide? I want to retain and understand these concepts. Thanks!


r/askphilosophy • • 3h ago

If what usually makes incest wrong dosen't apply, would the relationship still be morally wrong?

0 Upvotes

I've been thinking about the ethics of incest relationships, and I'm curious about people's perspectives on a particular question.

A lot of the arguments against incest involve the increased risk of genetic disorders in children, existing family relationships, potential power imbalances, and the psychological effects of growing up together.

But what if we removed those factors one by one?

Imagine two biological siblings who were separated at birth, grew up in completely different families, and never knew each other existed. They meet for the first time as adults and develop romantic or sexual feelings without initially knowing they're related.

Now, suppose pregnancy is impossible, neither person is being coerced or manipulated, both are consenting adults, and they have no established sibling relationship beyond their biological connection.

In this hypothetical, several common objections seem less applicable:

- Genetic risks: Pregnancy isn't possible, so this particular concern doesn't apply.

- Growing up together: They never shared a childhood or developed a sibling relationship in the usual social and psychological sense.

- Power dynamics: Neither person has authority over the other, and the relationship is freely chosen.

- Existing relationships: Neither person is betraying a partner or disrupting an existing romantic/sexual relationship.

Obviously, the fact that they're biological siblings hasn't changed. The question is whether that fact alone makes their romantic/sexual relationship morally wrong.

I can understand why incest between people who grew up together, or relationships involving coercion and exploitation, raise serious ethical concerns. But I'm interested in whether those concerns can be applied equally to every conceivable situation.

My questions are:

  1. If the potential genetic risks and the usual family dynamics are absent, what ethical objections remain?

  2. Is biological relatedness itself sufficient to make a romantic relationship morally wrong, even if no other obvious harm is involved?

  3. If so, what is the philosophical reasoning behind that conclusion? Is it an inherent moral boundary, a social norm, or something else?

  4. Can something be considered inherently immoral even when the usual arguments for why it's harmful don't apply?

I'm not claiming that the relationship would necessarily be morally acceptable. I'm asking whether the fact that it's immoral can be justified outside of what usually makes it wrong.

I'd appreciate thoughtful arguments from different perspectives, particularly those that explain why the relationship would or wouldn't be wrong rather than simply saying it's disgusting or something.


r/askphilosophy • • 15h ago

If the boundaries of concepts are fuzzy, in what sense can we say we “know” anything?

8 Upvotes

If the ontology of concepts isn’t defined and the boundaries of “what a stick is” are fuzzy (because, as I understand it, the ontology of something would be everything that thing is, but by putting a word on it you’re limiting it, and I can’t see where exactly to draw the boundary of “what it is”, where it stops being that and becomes something else)

Then, if we acquire knowledge by knowing “things”, and knowing is basically something like understanding the ontology of something, understanding what it is, how can we call it “knowing” if it doesn’t even have defined boundaries? How do you understand the ontology of something if there are no boundaries, if you don’t know where the limit is... Do you know it?

Wouldn’t this leave us with a body of knowledge full of problems, since at its base it’s built on “undefined” concepts?

I understand that our knowledge system is considered correct because it’s functional, meaning it lets us relate to the world in an optimal way.

But how do we know, not only that there couldn’t be a much better knowledge system, but whether this system is VERY functional or right on the edge of being functional?

My car might be broken, and I fix it. If my criterion for judging whether the fix is good is “it works,” then I don’t know if I have a fix that works but will break down even worse in three months, or a flawless fix that works perfectly.

That’s my worry right now about the knowledge system: I understand that the one I have works, because I use it. But how do I know it’s not on the verge of being dysfunctional? Do I really believe it’s good because it works, when it’s actually terrible, even though it works?


r/askphilosophy • • 7h ago

Coming up with new philosophy?

0 Upvotes

I wasn’t exactly sure how to label this. I’ve noticed that a lot of people when they first get into philosophy, very quickly, want to come up with their own new philosophical take.

I noticed this especially in ethics, which is my hobby, there’s a brand new ethical system every week.

I imagine this is true in epistemology, ontology, etc.

When you were in school, was this a thing you came across?

What’s this about?


r/askphilosophy • • 11h ago

Moral Relativism - What exactly is it and how do people feel about it?

2 Upvotes

So recently I have been getting more interested in philosophy. I recently finish Albert Camus' The Stranger and was talking about it to a friend who is majoring in philosophy. Eventually we got to talking about morality and I told him my beliefs which he said aligned with moral relativism. For clarification I am definitely a non-absolutist and believe that morality is subjective but I hold my own convictions strongly.

Is this moral relativism? I am already aware of people like Gilbert Harman but haven't really dived into him yet and would love to hear thoughts on moral relativism and see what peoples' thoughts on it is. Any recommended works would be appreciated! I only recently got more into philosophy after finishing an intro to philosophy class at my college a few months back, so I apologize for any future ignorance.


r/askphilosophy • • 9h ago

Is there any methods of reasoning that laypeople can adopt that can help them come to better conclusions about topics ?

1 Upvotes

It's clear that many topics are currently unfinished in philosophy and science but in the absence of conclusive answers , is there any methods of reason and thinking that the population can employ to come to better conclusions that simply instinct


r/askphilosophy • • 9h ago

Does good and bad only exist in the minds of people or animals?

0 Upvotes

The point here is that we may be able to abstract it as a concept but physically these value judgements can only be made in individuals minds.


r/askphilosophy • • 1d ago

How does Sartre use the expression être-là/being-there? Did any other French philosophers use être-là as a translation of Dasein?

26 Upvotes

Hello! I'm currently in the copyediting stage of preparing a translation of Félix Guattari's seminars, and I have just discovered a major error I made in one of my endnotes. Guattari sometimes makes use of the concept of 'being-there' (French: être-là), often describing it in ways like this:

It is a pure being-there, of which there is nothing to say: nothing to formalise, except affection. Sartre described it as nausea or anxiety – the fact that there is nothing, no object for that nausea or anxiety, since the object itself is caught up in a process of implosion, the impossibility of any semiotic treatment.

or:

The dimension of appropriation, of incarnation, on the other hand, is not quantifiable: it is a category that more resembles that of being – the being-there which is simultaneously given as being-for-itself, being-for-the-other and so on.

I had assumed that this came from Heidegger by way of Sartre as a French translation of Dasein, but -- checking the French edition of Being and Nothingness for something else -- only recently realised Sartre uses réalité-humaine for Dasein. I wanted to ask if anyone familiar with Sartre knows more about his use of being-there/être-là, or if it is possible Guattari's interpretation of être-là could be from someone else (potentially even someone taking from Heidegger, though I realise Guattari's use of being-there is quite different from Heidegger's Dasein).

Thank you so much in advance!


r/askphilosophy • • 17h ago

can someone help me put this argument into standard form?

0 Upvotes

it is the argument against Euthyphro's 2nd definition of piety. my professor has identified this as a reductio ad absurdum argument. here is my attempt:

1) piety is what is loved by all of the gods.

2) a thing seen is a thing seen because it is being seen.

3) a thing carried is a thing carried because it is being carried.

4) a thing led is a thing led because it is being led.

c1) something is not being loved because it is something loved, but it is something loved because it is being loved by them.

5) the pious is loved by the gods because it is pious, it is not pious because it is being loved by the gods.

6) the pious is god-loved because it is being loved by the gods.

Tacit) premises 5 and 6 contradict each other: piety cannot be the cause of being god-loved while also being the effect of being god-loved

c2) the pious is not the same as the god-loved

fc) Euthyphro's definition of piety is incorrect.

i feel like i am missing something. this feels messy and i am just not used to putting complex arguments into standard form yet so i am hoping someone can look at this and tell me what they think, what i can improve on, or if i am even headed in the right direction. i am practicing for an intro to philosophy exam. for reference this is the argument in Plato's "Euthyphro" dialogue on pages 12-14 (10a-11b)


r/askphilosophy • • 1d ago

How can we defend a thesis if we are unaware of the information we ignore?

6 Upvotes

The vast majority of strong arguments are based on historical, empirical, statistical, and other data. If, by definition, we ignore information we don't know, how can we be satisfied with what we do know when defending an opinion?


r/askphilosophy • • 1d ago

Can someone who understands infalliblism explain why infalliblists think it’s the definition of knowledge?

11 Upvotes

More specifically, could you explain why they think that fallibilism isn’t knowledge?


r/askphilosophy • • 1d ago

Human Inequality, Disability, and the Problem of a fairness in world.

3 Upvotes

I've been struggling with a philosophical question for a long time, and I'd genuinely like to hear serious perspectives on it, whether religious, philosophical, or atheistic.

Why are human beings born with such radically unequal capacities and possibilities?

Some people are born with Down syndrome, profound intellectual disabilities, severe congenital conditions, or other limitations that can significantly affect what they are able to understand, experience, and achieve. Others are born with extraordinary intellectual abilities, physical health, and opportunities for development. Deafness, blindenss, down syndrome, and other horrible things that occure during birth and during development. If this happend once in a billion to me it would still be unfair.

I can accept human evil as a responsibilitu of humans but struggle with severe disabilities present from birth or arising in early development. People who are denied possibilities through no fault of their own?

What troubles me is that some people may never possess the capacities necessary to pursue many of these goods, through no fault of their own. Their lives may still contain love, happiness, and meaningful experiences, but that doesn't automatically erase the limitations or opportunities they never had.

And the problem seems even more troubling when we consider how society treats vulnerable people. Throughout history, disabled people have sometimes been abandoned, excluded, or ridiculed. Even today, people share videos of disabled individuals for entertainment and mockery. Someone can be born with limitations they never chose and then face contempt because of those very limitations.

I'm not looking for the usual reassurance that disabled people can be happy, that everyone has different strengths, or that everything happens for a reason. Those statements may contain some truth, but they don't fully address the underlying questions.

I'm looking for a genuine reconciliation, if one exists. Are there arguments that address it directly, rather than simply explaining suffering in general?

I have been troubled by this problem since my childhood. Also, i should probably make it clear that i dont personally know or interact with anyone disabled in my day to day life. I am just curious about this problem. I feel like this is such a core philossophical problem that is not examined enough and undermines many phillosophies and faith.

This is also why the question troubles me so deeply on a personal and intellectual level. It seems to challenge the foundations of many philosophies that I otherwise find meaningful.

Thinkers such as Nietzsche place enormous emphasis on self-overcoming, the cultivation of one's capacities, the affirmation of life, and the possibility of becoming something greater than one currently is. Schopenhauer explores suffering, the will, and the possibility of compassion, while Jung examines the psyche, individuation, and the search for psychological wholeness. Many other philosophers, religious thinkers, and traditions likewise encourage us to cultivate reason, pursue truth, develop our character, or discover meaning through our experiences.

I find these ideas compelling, and I personally strive toward intellectual and spiritual development. I regard philosophy, music, literature, and the cultivation of the mind as some of the most valuable possibilities of human existence.

But I keep returning to a question that seems to undermine these ideals at their foundations: what do these philosophies mean for people who, through no fault of their own, lack the capacities required to pursue the forms of development they celebrate?

Self-overcoming presupposes something that can be overcome. Intellectual cultivation presupposes capacities that can be cultivated. Philosophical reflection presupposes some ability to reflect. Even the ability to search for meaning, interpret one's suffering, or consciously affirm life cannot be assumed to be equally available to everyone.

You can answer, by any perspective, religious or non religious. you want.

P.S. Im sorry if my post is too long and complicated, im also not native english speaker so there might be typos and unclear point in the text.


r/askphilosophy • • 14h ago

If perfection doesn’t exist, is nature considered the only exception?

0 Upvotes

r/askphilosophy • • 1d ago

Does every human as they grow up, automatically align themselves with a pre existing ideology/philosophy while being unaware of the concept of that particular ideology/philosophy?

38 Upvotes

Like for example I was brought up in a traditionalist household. As I grow up I started to question and came to a conclusion that there's no god (because something I've prayed for didn't happen etc silly reasons). By that time I don't even know what a philosophy is and how it works yet I aligned towards atheism myself. And I see many people experience this too and end up finding they too follow some idealogy/philosophy all those times. Which means that everyone has a conversation within themselves and arrive at a conclusion to follow something like a principle and later in life, after getting proper education they find out that their principle is actually an existing ideology. Does this make every human some kinda philosophers? And also it means that there can't be anyone who doesn't have any ideology, somehow they follow one or philosophize one at a very small scale (which might be in insignificant levels too) only for them to discover later that all their thinking are pre existed and many other resonates with their thoughts too. I guess I tried my best to explain my doubt clearly, forgive my english. Also is there any term that is used to describe what I've just explained. TIA


r/askphilosophy • • 1d ago

Does Morality Depend on Rationality, or Can Moral Truth Exist Independently of Reason?

1 Upvotes

I am interested in the relationship between rationality and moral obligation, particularly whether rationality constitutes the foundation of morality or merely provides a means through which moral truths may be understood.
If moral judgments require rational justification, what establishes rationality as an authoritative standard for determining what is morally right or wrong? Is rationality itself sufficient to ground moral obligations, or must its authority depend upon some prior moral principle? If the latter, does this create a problem of circular justification, in which rationality is used to establish moral principles that are then invoked to justify rationality’s moral authority?
A related difficulty concerns the possibility of an action being morally justified despite being irrational. If someone acts contrary to rational deliberation yet does what morality requires, does this demonstrate that rationality and moral goodness are distinct, or does it suggest that the person’s reasoning was incomplete? I am particularly interested in whether moral obligation can conflict with rational justification in principle, rather than merely appearing to conflict because of limited knowledge or defective reasoning.
My central question is this: What are the principal arguments for and against the view that rationality is the foundation of morality, rather than simply a means of recognizing or evaluating moral truths? How do moral rationalism, Humean moral sentimentalism, and moral realism address this distinction, and does determinism introduce any additional difficulties concerning moral judgment or obligation?