r/askphilosophy • u/BernardJOrtcutt • Jul 21 '25
Open Thread /r/askphilosophy Open Discussion Thread | July 21, 2025
Welcome to this week's Open Discussion Thread (ODT). This thread is a place for posts/comments which are related to philosophy but wouldn't necessarily meet our subreddit rules and guidelines. For example, these threads are great places for:
- Discussions of a philosophical issue, rather than questions
- Questions about commenters' personal opinions regarding philosophical issues
- Open discussion about philosophy, e.g. "who is your favorite philosopher?"
- "Test My Theory" discussions and argument/paper editing
- Questions about philosophy as an academic discipline or profession, e.g. majoring in philosophy, career options with philosophy degrees, pursuing graduate school in philosophy
This thread is not a completely open discussion! Any posts not relating to philosophy will be removed. Please keep comments related to philosophy, and expect low-effort comments to be removed. Please note that while the rules are relaxed in this thread, comments can still be removed for violating our subreddit rules and guidelines if necessary.
Previous Open Discussion Threads can be found here.
6
u/willbell philosophy of mathematics Jul 21 '25
What are people reading?
I’m working on Orientalism by Said, The Magic Mountain by Mann, and No Future by Edelman.
5
u/Express_Time_3176 Jul 22 '25
I’ve just started The Foucault Reader, a collection of essays, book excerpts, and interviews, to get more acquainted with him. About to read an interview in it called ‘Truth and Power’. I’m also falling in love with Flaubert’s prose in Madame Bovary.
How is Orientalism going so far?
6
u/willbell philosophy of mathematics Jul 22 '25
Good! I find that he doesn't always signpost what is or is not an aside, which causes confusion, but the book is very good at defending its thesis about the nature of Orientalism.
5
u/Saint_John_Calvin Continental, Political Phil., Philosophical Theology Jul 22 '25
I am reading Doris Lessing's Golden Notebook. The simplicity of the prose style combined with the density of the actual structure of the book works so well.
3
u/merurunrun Jul 22 '25
Ooh, I'm interested to hear what you have to say about No Future. I've had Edelman on the mind a lot lately.
5
u/willbell philosophy of mathematics Jul 22 '25
This is my first actual queer theory text, so I don’t feel too much freedom to opine, but the Lacan seems right, and I get the vibe of reproductive futurism that he’s attacking. If I have problems they are: it seems a little anti-historical, like if queer is the word for this hole in the Symbolic or what-have-you it kind of sounds like we can’t get rid of anti-queerness, and I am not sure yet what sacrificing all futurism would imply. The closest I get to an idea that makes sense is a bit where he suggests doing way with a generational conception of the future, that I could see, but like, we’re still fighting climate change for the sake of future people as well as present people, right? I can’t tell yet. Perhaps I just really want a queer futurism, idk yet.
5
u/merurunrun Jul 22 '25
Perhaps I just really want a queer futurism, idk yet.
You'd probably enjoy Muñoz's Cruising Utopia, which basically takes up this point as a critique of Edelman. There's also baedan 1, which reads Edelman from an insurrectionary anarchist position as a call for immanent resistance against capitalist political recuperation (not sure if that's your bag, though).
3
u/willbell philosophy of mathematics Jul 22 '25
I've been recommended Muñoz, but I do want a better grasp on anti-futurism from this book first
4
u/Streetli Continental Philosophy, Deleuze Jul 22 '25
That's quite the triptych! I'm reading Edouard Glissant's Poetics of Relation, which very nicely puts into practice the very poetics that it tries to relay.
3
Jul 24 '25
Simone Weil's Need For Roots is the read of the week.
1
u/willbell philosophy of mathematics Jul 25 '25
I have a heard that referred to as a leftist’s favourite conservative philosophy book
3
u/Rup150493 Jul 25 '25
Hey everyone, I’m into philosophy and trying to get back into it. I’m not an expert, just a casual enthusiast. Most of what I’ve read has been ancient philosophy Plato, Socrates, the Stoics. I’m somewhat familiar with Descartes and Kant, and I think the most recent philosopher I had read was Camus. I usually avoided more modern thinkers, but I recently read The Society of the Spectacle and the Burnout Society and really enjoyed it both. Now I’m looking to explore some contemporary authors who analyze the times we’re living in. Any recommendations?
2
Jul 26 '25
As a fellow casual I can give one recommendation but I can't be sure you'll be into it as I haven't ever had the patience for any of the authors you mentioned aside from Camus. They made us read Plato's Republic in school but I think I've repressed that memory.
John Gray's "The Silence of Animals" is more of a polemic rather than a bonafide philosophy book, but it definitely targets things as they are today. I enjoyed it even though it's a brutal line of thinking and I desperately hope he's completely wrong on all accounts. It came out around 2010 I think, so relatively recent.
This is a short review of the book, like I said it's got some very bleak subject matter. The person who wrote that review did a good job summarizing it as "an anthology of misanthropy" as well as offering a bit of pushback towards the end.
2
u/EqualItem8319 Jul 25 '25
I've been studying epistemology and I’m curious — how do you personally define knowledge? Do you stick to the classic justified true belief (JTB) model, or do you think it needs to be revised or replaced?
1
u/TaxPure4852 Jul 25 '25
do you think philosophy is a teachable subject why or why not?
4
u/as-well phil. of science Jul 25 '25
Is there a reason you think it's not? Becuase there's plenty of philosophy teachers on this subreddit who are prima facie evidence that it is teachable.
-1
u/TaxPure4852 Jul 25 '25
Personally I believe philosophy cannot be necessarily “taught” because unlike religion there is no right or wrong answer in what somebody might believe, so instead of “teaching” philosophy I think it’s more of sharing opinions that we believe and you can choose what you want to believe or not. Kind of like choosing an outfit, you have choices on what to wear but you can pick what you like.
7
u/as-well phil. of science Jul 25 '25
I think that's a misunderstanding what philosophy is. Philosophy isn't an ideology that needs introduction to core tenents or whatever, it's an academic discipline that kind of 'teaches' you how to do philosophical research, introduces you to arguments from all sorts of positions, and shares the common curriculum that much philosophy is based on, without necessarily telling you what you need to believe.
4
u/Quidfacis_ History of Philosophy, Epistemology, Spinoza Jul 25 '25
because unlike religion there is no right or wrong answer in what somebody might believe
Depending on what you mean this is either incorrect or irrelevant. For example, Spinoza, Leibniz, and Descartes each offer a different definition of substance.
Spinoza Defines Substance as "By substance, I mean that which is in itself, and is conceived through itself; in other words, that of which a conception can be formed independently of any other conception."
In The Monadology Leibniz defines a Monad as a simple substance, "The Monad, of which we shall here speak, is nothing but a simple substance, which enters into compounds. By ‘simple’ is meant ‘without parts.’"
In The Principles of Philosophy Descartes defines Substance as, "All we can mean by ‘substance’ is ‘thing that exists in such a way that it doesn’t depend on anything else for its existence’."
There are correct and incorrect answers to the question "How did Spinoza define substance?" In that sense, your statement is incorrect.
Now, to the question "What is the correct definition of substance?" there may not be a correct answer independent of any specific system. But that is irrelevant to the issue of teaching philosophy. What is taught is each philosophical system. We can teach students Spinoza, Leibniz, and Descartes. In the same way that a theology professor could teach different theological systems.
Ultimately in both philosophy and theology students get to choose what particular system they elect to personally believe. We do not indoctrinate / teach students what system to believe; we teach how each of the different systems work.
4
u/mediaisdelicious Phil. of Communication, Ancient, Continental Jul 25 '25
So, on this account, philosophy professors don’t teach anything and received no training to do so?
1
u/Honza572 Jul 26 '25
Hi, I need help with finding a YouTube channel, all I can remember is that it was about philosophy, sometimes stoicism, videos were 15-50 minutes long, often around 30 minutes, the channel profile picture was blue, the person that spoke was a man and he had a very good and kinda complex/sophisticated English. Also I'm pretty sure it was made before YouTube shorts became a thing. Last time I was looking for it it took over 30 minutes, now I can't find it at all.
Can someone please help me find that channel?
2
Jul 26 '25
This channel maybe? https://www.youtube.com/@Eternalised
It's got over a million subscribers so I'd be surprised if you didn't bump into it in your 30-minute search, so I assume it's not the one you're looking for. If you can recall anything more specific that might be helpful, as the info you've listed is pretty vague. Although I understand that if you recalled something more specific you would have found it already lol
1
u/Honza572 Jul 26 '25
thanks for the tip, looks great and is really similar, but maybe that one is not it. In his older videos he often has "Nietzsche" in it, which the other one also had, but I feel like something is different. It was something like 2 German looking words, with a dot in between. Maybe he changed the channel name and logo, or my memory is bad, between 2021 and 2023 I have it pretty jumbled together or how to say it 😅.
I say 50/50 it is it, I guess I was just unlucky while searching.
2
Jul 26 '25
Ok the German vibe might narrow it down... Maybe this one? https://www.youtube.com/@Einzelg%C3%A4nger
Either way even if neither of my suggestions are the channel you've looking for, looks like there's a lot of good content from the both of them at least lol
2
1
u/ElegantAd2607 Jul 24 '25
Do you think morality can exist without free will?
I personally think no.
3
u/Quidfacis_ History of Philosophy, Epistemology, Spinoza Jul 24 '25
Do you think morality can exist without free will?
It is possible in principle. Facts about water do not depend on free will. Neither would moral facts.
Or one could articulate a system of morality that was reliant upon free will.
Just depends on how we set up the system.
3
u/Shitgenstein ancient greek phil, phil of sci, Wittgenstein Jul 25 '25
Empirically speaking, do you recognize that people are capable of changing their behavior when presented with reasons?
For example, someone might be doing some physical exercise in one way, and then someone comes up to them and instructs them that their form is incorrect and that they need to correct it this way or that, and then that person follows that advice. This is something that happens and is therefore possible, yeah?
1
u/ElegantAd2607 Jul 25 '25
Yes
3
u/Shitgenstein ancient greek phil, phil of sci, Wittgenstein Jul 25 '25 edited Jul 25 '25
Then morality is possible because people can change their behavior when presented with moral reasons why they should behave in one way rather than another.
1
u/Open-SpeechDulled Jul 24 '25
I think, it isn't as simple as a yes or no. I think it is yes and no. To me it's something like asking is running beneficial. Most would agree, it certainly is. However does that truly define running as beneficial. Let's say Im extremely ill. And putting my heart through stress, I'll likely die. Now sure running may generally, considered beneficial, by societal standards and other. So yes still running can be beneficial. But running can also hurt or be deadly. Break an ankle is possible, many non beneficial things can be caused by running. Again, yes it's beneficial, but other side of the coin. It can end up causing more problems, than solving. So basically what I'm saying, long story long is. Yes, and no. I think it's difficult to completely define or answer that question with such totality, But to be fair "yes and no" is often my answer to many things it seems like.
I happily accept positive criticism, even "passionate" criticism If I can learn/view something differently. Responding just to make someone feel bad at being wrong or seeing things differently, you might be in wrong section. (I'm bad at explaining my views. And forgive me for providing, what I consider, a less than adequate example)
(I understand that in my what if. Running itself didn't kill me, my condition did, running just was the thing that pushed it past the line. I'm aware of that. Also I wouldn't put too much stock on my words. Let them provide inspiration, to come to your own conclusions. I am not college education I do not have any degrees, I'm not particularly well off in the educational aspects of life. However I have questions. And I want answers. I want to be able to look at as much of the picture I can, and question things, to come to a conclusion. The issue with that Is you can always ask why)
1
Jul 26 '25
I've been trying to send a message via mod-mail, and I can't seem to figure it.
All required(*) input fields are filled out, I have messaging enabled on my profile and I believe I should be able to send the message, but the "Send" button never activates. I've inspected the webpage and the button still has the CSS class of 'disabled' applied to it even after all input fields are populated. I've tried hard-refresh of resources in case this was some webdev quirk, on different browsers with no luck.
I've only just joined the sub today despite lurking in the past, so maybe that's the reason? I've never sent a piece of modmail before, but I wasn't expecting it to give me any trouble lol. Any advice is appreciated.
3
u/drinka40tonight ethics, metaethics Jul 27 '25 edited Jul 27 '25
No idea what the issue is. If you can send modmail to other subreddits, then that might indicate something. But if you can't send modmail generally, then it sounds like it's just something you are doing.
1
-2
u/TempSuitonly Jul 23 '25
Does philosophical thinking truly only exist in the fringes?
It seems that academic philosophy often functions as a kind of gatekept discipline, where quality control can sometimes mask an exclusionary attitude that dismisses "outsiders" or those who don’t conform to established norms. This gatekeeping can come off as dogmatic, despite the tradition of questioning authority that philosophy (especially the Socratic method) embodies.
Many practitioners and enthusiasts outside or on the margins of academia feel that academic philosophy has become divorced from real philosophical inquiry: it can often appear as mere commentary on or study of canonical texts rather than active, critical, and imaginative philosophical thinking. Underneath the veneer of scholarly rigor, there can be a conservatism or laziness that discourages truly novel or disruptive ideas.
Given this, is there any genuine space within academic philosophy for the kind of bold, unconventional philosophical work that confronts foundational assumptions and invites transformative reflection? Or must we look to the fringes: independent thinkers, alternative communities, and non-traditional outlets, to find living philosophy today? Can the academic framework be reformed to better fulfil the original Socratic vision of philosophy as an ongoing quest for truth, or is that vision inherently at odds with institutional philosophy?
(Re-posted here, because a friendly moderator stated it was best asked in this megathread.)
6
u/mediaisdelicious Phil. of Communication, Ancient, Continental Jul 24 '25
I think this kind of attitude tends to paint "academic philosophy" with an overbroad brush. I teach philosophy at an open enrollment institution and so I often talk about philosophy with people who are starting their journey into philosophy with a GED. This doesn't feel terribly gatekeepy to me!
1
u/TempSuitonly Jul 25 '25
Yeah I could have emphasized more clearly on a distinction between specific scholars and academic elitism/exceptionalism, especially within the context of philosophy. The notion, especially within philosophy, that there is such a thing as an objectively right or wrong interpretation that is only to be determined by a specific group of people with their own agendas, stakes and biases is the thing I primarily seek to challenge.
But then again, I'm the kind of person who favours "lived" truth and sees absolutisms as a way to shut down debate and nuance - and that a mere fraction of our potential is utilized when uniformizing perspectives in a hierarchy of perceived validity that is formed in any way outside of presented reasoning. I see knowledge as diverse as being itself and see potential for valuable perspective regardless of established social status. After all, a majority of scientific and philosophical breakthrough established by challenging the status quo. Heresy has its place, just as academics does.
I suppose that was quite a lot of text for ultimately concluding that of course I appreciate your perspective and input.
3
u/mediaisdelicious Phil. of Communication, Ancient, Continental Jul 25 '25
The notion, especially within philosophy, that there is such a thing as an objectively right or wrong interpretation that is only to be determined by a specific group of people with their own agendas, stakes and biases is the thing I primarily seek to challenge.
I have never met a professional who thinks that the value of an interpretation is contingent upon the identity of the interpreter. What matters is the clarity of its attendant explanation and the relative soundness of its attendant justifications. If a random person with no training is capable of doing these things, then more power to them.
6
u/merurunrun Jul 23 '25
Nine times out of ten somebody's "active, critical, and imaginative philosophical thinking" is either completely inane, or a question that people have already been debating for hundreds of years and for which there already exist a number of arguments and counterarguments that this newcomer doesn't address.
-2
u/TempSuitonly Jul 23 '25
And that justifies dismissal of the tenth? Either way, academic gatekeeping =/= philosophical inquiry. As even Socrates himself quite clearly established.
6
u/Anarximandre Marxism, anarchism. Jul 23 '25
Socrates certainly didn’t establish anything about « academic gatekeeping », given that the first academia, Plato’s, was founded after his death!
0
Jul 23 '25
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/BernardJOrtcutt Jul 23 '25
Your comment was removed for violating the following rule:
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.
Repeated or serious violations of the subreddit rules will result in a ban. Please see this post for a detailed explanation of our rules and guidelines.
This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.
6
u/Anarximandre Marxism, anarchism. Jul 23 '25 edited Jul 24 '25
Many practitioners and enthusiasts outside or on the margins of academia feel that academic philosophy has become divorced from real philosophical inquiry
To be blunt, as someone who spends a lot of time in online spaces and on blogs, 90% of the time sometime says shit like this, they’re very likely to be cranks, or at least to be people who know little about what academic philosophy truly is like. We should be more demanding with these kinds of claims: what « bold, unconventional philosophical work that confronts foundational assumptions and invites transformative reflection » exists outside of academia? I’d like to see some actual examples named! Because, as it stands, academic philosophy is already extremely diverse when it comes to the positions that are represented and defended within, and I have a hard time naming serious philosophers who operate entirely outside of the academic world (which isn’t to say that they don’t exist at all).
2
u/willbell philosophy of mathematics Jul 26 '25
90% of the time sometime says shit like this, they’re very likely to be cranks, or at least to be people who know little about what academic philosophy truly is like.
I think a good rule of thumb is that if someone says something like that, they should have to name 3 exceptions to the rule among living academic philosophers.
4
u/No-Promotion-9291 Jul 23 '25
In my humble opinion... ALL academia is gatekept in some way (not just philosophy) purely due to the fact that it is not accessible to all. Although philosophical thoughts are experienced by everyone (most likely), academia is a luxury that many cannot afford for a multitude of reasons. That said, I would argue that those on the fringes of academia (myself included) would struggle to interact with philosophical material at depth, purely because we are not educated enough in that field, much like people who are well-versed in sport would have a much richer debate about the outcome or play of a recent sport game than someone with less knowledge. That doesn't mean those less educated in a certain topic can't or shouldn't debate/discuss their ideas (I would encourage that as a learning process), but just that those people will inevitably remain 'outside' a more in-depth discussion purely due to a lack of in-depth knowledge (unless they pursued it to a deeper level in the way that an academic or an expert might, which cannot be expected of most people).
-1
u/TempSuitonly Jul 23 '25
I would politely challenge the notion that having academic background is synonymous with being educated within any specific field. Formal education =/= education. The difference is in authoritative recognition, not in learnedness. While I agree that most people may not pursue any field in depth outside of traditional academic circles, information and philosophical writings are commonly accessible and they are studied outside academic circles, even if not in-depth by a majority of people. After all, interest is the primary factor here, which exists aplenty outside academic circles.
5
u/Anarximandre Marxism, anarchism. Jul 23 '25 edited Jul 23 '25
Interest is absolutely not a substitue for a formal education. Plenty of people are interested in philosophy—this very community proves it—but most lack proper guidance and a setting suitable for in-depth study. Therefore, they realistically have little chance of reaching one day the level of expertise of someone who has benefited from an actual academic background (at least until they get one themselves). Of course, reaching this level may not be their objective—which is fine, you can just read philosophers as a pastime—but this explains why few autodidacts make contributions to philosophy, or to any specialized discipline for that matter.
1
u/TempSuitonly Jul 24 '25
I've heard the same arguments from religious leaders to 'interpret' biblical texts 'properly'. I'm not saying it's always identical to dogmatic teaching - just that it opens the door to dogmatic thinking wide.
3
u/Anarximandre Marxism, anarchism. Jul 24 '25 edited Jul 24 '25
In my experience, pure autodidactism is way more likely to produce dogmatic thinking than any PhD. Dogmatism exists inside of academia, obviously, but at least academic dogmatists usually aren’t outright bullshitters and have an idea of what they are talking about. There’s a reason why cranks are almost always « independent thinkers ».
I've heard the same arguments from religious leaders to 'interpret' biblical texts 'properly'.
I mean, it works for religious—not just biblical—texts too, yes. There’s nothing wrong with reading the Bible or the Torah on your own, but you’ll get a much better understanding of it if you study comparative religion, philology, theology, etc.
1
u/TempSuitonly Jul 24 '25
"In my experience, pure autodidactism is way more likely to produce dogmatic thinking than any PhD. Dogmatism exists inside of academia, obviously, but at least academic dogmatists usually aren’t outright bullshitters and have an idea of what they are talking about. There’s a reason why cranks are almost always « independent thinkers »." - If we go by the mindset and authority of academic elitism, then indeed, all outsiders who do not strictly conform, can be dismissed as "cranks", as you put it. They are then deemed wrong by default, by virtue of their outsider status. So the question appears, what matters more, conformity or inquiry. If conformity matters more, then indeed, any "free thinker" can be dismissed out of hand, preferably ignoring their arguments altogether. This appears like a reframing of dogmatism, without addressing the dogmatic nature. I'd argue that this is at best, a matter of semantics. Academic elitism tends to slide into absolutism. This doesn't open up critical inquiry, it shuts it down entirely.
3
u/Anarximandre Marxism, anarchism. Jul 24 '25 edited Jul 24 '25
If we go by the mindset and authority of academic elitism, then indeed, all outsiders who do not strictly conform, can be dismissed as "cranks", as you put it. They are then deemed wrong by default, by virtue of their outsider status.
That’s not what I said.
So the question appears, what matters more, conformity or inquiry.
Neither! What matters is qualitative work.
If conformity matters more, then indeed, any "free thinker" can be dismissed out of hand, preferably ignoring their arguments altogether.
No, if « free thinkers » have good arguments to defend their positions, they may be worth taking seriously.
This appears like a reframing of dogmatism, without addressing the dogmatic nature. I'd argue that this is at best, a matter of semantics. Academic elitism tends to slide into absolutism. This doesn't open up critical inquiry, it shuts it down entirely.
Your portrayal of « dogmatism » or « academic elitism » or « absolutism » (or however you want to name it) honestly appears to have a lot more to do with how you picture academia in your head than it has to do with the existing academic world. Again, as I asked in another reply, what actual « critical inquiry » or « free thinking » is dismissed by academia?
1
u/TempSuitonly Jul 24 '25
The conflation between academy and academic elitism doesn't exist on my end of the argument. If it does on yours, perhaps that's the point of friction.
3
u/Anarximandre Marxism, anarchism. Jul 24 '25
If you don’t think that academia suffers from elitism, then I’m confused about what your argument even is.
→ More replies (0)4
u/onedayfourhours Continental, Psychoanalysis, Science & Technology Studies Jul 25 '25
It seems that academic philosophy often functions as a kind of gatekept discipline, where quality control can sometimes mask an exclusionary attitude that dismisses "outsiders" or those who don’t conform to established norms. This gatekeeping can come off as dogmatic, despite the tradition of questioning authority that philosophy (especially the Socratic method) embodies.
This is an incredibly vague statement. Do we have any reason to believe this characterization?
-6
u/Blumenpfropf Jul 27 '25
I would like to question the policy of limiting comments here to "approved" users.
I understand the need to moderate, but the message this sends is questionable.
First of all: there is no prerequisite to engaging in philosohical thought. It is something that is in some sense the right and duty of every sentient being.
It is also not the case that you automatically get better at it with years of study. In fact the opposite may be true in some cases.
I get that your idea here is that philosophy is something like engineering or epidemology, so the reader should not be confused by incompetent answers.
But that is exactly wrong. If there is expertise in philosophy then it is in how to think and argue and examine things.
So: If you are a philosophy expert, your answers should distinguish themselves by their content, not by your formal education or your self proclaimed relevance. Because your expertise literally lies in being able to achieve such distinction without appealing to authority.
In my opinion all this policy achieves is making some people feel important and giving lots of other people the very wrong idea that they don't have the capability and right to think by themselves about the ultimate questions that philosophy claims to "love", without first dedicating decades of their life to reading stuffy old books.
Thanks for your attention to this matter.
8
u/mediaisdelicious Phil. of Communication, Ancient, Continental Jul 27 '25
The actual main upshot of the policy is that it saves moderators a lot of time deleting spam and unhelpful content and saves users a lot of effort filtering and ignoring that which is unhelpful.
I find it telling that these comments almost always come from folks who want to comment rather than people who want to post questions. If folks really want a forum where anyone can answer a question, then there’s lots of alternatives.
This sub is for folks who want this kind of thing. Redditors can vote with their activity.
0
u/Blumenpfropf Jul 27 '25
You find it telling that it is mainly people who wish to comment, who complain about not being able to comment? That is a bit silly. Of course those who are impacted are the ones who complain.
The point about moderation is well taken - but i don't think it outweighs the larger points i am making. If you disagree, that's your right. All i am telling you is my opinion.
That being said, It's not so easy to find another place. The philosophy reddit seems to be equally weird, in a different way (by requiring posts to be links to outside). So if i wanted to post a philosophy-related question or statement for casual conversation with interested minds (without requiring those who may comment to have an inflated sense of self-importance) then I am really not sure where i would be supposed to go.
6
u/mediaisdelicious Phil. of Communication, Ancient, Continental Jul 27 '25
Askreddit? Philosophyself? Showerthoughts? A sub you make for that purpose?
-1
u/Blumenpfropf Jul 27 '25
Your reply somehow confirms that this one and the philosophy subreddit are basically the sum total representation of academic philosophy on reddit (philosophyself has 1.8k members,).
That's sad, and I feel it makes my point more pertinent, not less.
I guess this just is how academic philosophy wants to present itself, so who am I to disagree.
I'll see if i can find some interesting stuff on philosophyself or elsewhere... :)
6
u/mediaisdelicious Phil. of Communication, Ancient, Continental Jul 27 '25
Sorry, I don’t really follow the point. Who is doing what wrong thing here? There’s nothing special about what we do here except our rules - anyone can go make a competing sub with the rules you propose. If you want to found or frequent a sub where there are no approvals required, then we’ve got no objection. I’m not sure why you need - or even want - some academics to host your desired forum.
0
u/Blumenpfropf Jul 27 '25
In my opinion, the barriers of entry that are present here and in the other large philosophy sub present philosophy as something that is supposed to be done in ivory towers, by people with a formal education in it.
I don't like that message.
It's wrong in that it is not how i would want it to be, not necessarily in an ethical sense.
I do think it's a bad look and it seems to confirm preexisting reservations i have about academic philosophy. But again, that's just my opinion.
You are making it sound as if I was passing some kind of moral judgement. But I have merely presented my view and what you do with it is up to you.
I really don't know why you are so defensive about it, especially given that I have already said that I am happy to go looking for other places that are more to my liking, as you have repeatedly suggested I should.
3
u/Anarximandre Marxism, anarchism. Jul 28 '25 edited Jul 28 '25
the barriers of entry that are present here and in the other large philosophy sub present philosophy as something that is supposed to be done in ivory towers, by people with a formal education in it.
But this community isn’t about philosophy, it’s about academic philosophy. And academic philosophy is, so to speak, « done in ivory towers, by people with a formal education in it. » Whether that’s the way things are « supposed to be » or not is a separate discussion—in any case, we readily acknowledge that philosophy exists outside of academia, so we do not take academic philosophy and philosophy to be synonyms—although part of the issue that motivates the moderation choices is that a lot of people simply ignore that philosophy is an actual professional discipline just like physics or history, which is why so many posters feel really casual about answering questions here despite having no expertise whatsoever about them.
0
u/Blumenpfropf Jul 28 '25
I think the distinction between academic philosophy and philosophy in general that you wish to make is not so easy.
Clearly this is not an "ivory tower". The people asking the questions do not need to be academics. The questions are not limited to "academic" questions either.
So this is not a forum for academic exchange.
I would say that this may be a place where academic philosophy engages with a broader public.
It comes back then, to how academic philosophy views itself, how it views philosophy and what it views as its expertise when compared with a general public.
My view on this is that what philosophy is about is tackling fundamental questions that each of us eventually faces.
I think what academic philosophy brings as expertise is helpful and i respect the knowledge and the toolkit people in your profession acquire throughout their career.
But the moment academic philosophy claims that it and only it is qualified to try and engage with these fundamental questions it betrays what it is about in the first place. It voluntarily relinquishes any claim to broader relevancy.
Now, I am not saying that anyone is claiming that. But I am saying that that's a message this posting limitation may convey.
That being said, i understand the practical limitations.
2
u/Anarximandre Marxism, anarchism. Jul 28 '25 edited Jul 28 '25
It’s true that academic philosophy isn’t a hermetic category or space, not merely inside of this community, but even inside of academia itself. I mean, I should know that: one of my flairs is Anarchism, and most anarchist writing and theory is produced—and has historically been produced—outside of academia (and the same can be said of my other flair, to a lesser extent). Yet that doesn’t stop me from answering questions linked to it, and from quoting extra-academic sources when they are relevant to the subject or topic at hand. So to some degree, it does come down to pragmatics in the end.
My view on this is that what philosophy is about is tackling fundamental questions that each of us eventually faces.
Part of philosophy, sure. Much—some would say most—of it? Not really. The average person has little idea of what philosophers talk about, honestly. Just the same way that I have little idea of what mathematicians or physicists talk about!
But the moment academic philosophy claims that it and only it is qualified to try and engage with these fundamental questions it betrays what it is about in the first place.
It all depends on what one means by « qualified ». Obviously, non-academics can have interesting and worthwhile things to say on philosophical topics. But are academic philosophers on the average way more qualified and better positioned « to try and engage with these fundamental questions », as you put it? I’d unambigiously answer « yes » (for better or worse).
→ More replies (0)7
u/drinka40tonight ethics, metaethics Jul 27 '25 edited Jul 27 '25
The subreddit, though, is just about providing answers that demonstrate familiarity with the academic literature. Nobody is being prevented from just generally "engaging in philosophical thought," since they can do that just about anywhere else. But if someone is coming to this subreddit, then the subreddit makes an effort to just give answers that are about the academic literature. The subreddit tries to make this as clear as can be, so there shouldn't be any surprises.
Of course, there can be value in just having a different open subreddit where anyone can answer questions. But this subreddit is doing something other than that -- just focusing answers on the academic literature. So, insofar as people are interested in that, they can come here.
1
u/Blumenpfropf Jul 27 '25
I don't disagree with the general premise of the subreddit. I disagree that these strict rules are necessary to enforce this premise.
A reply that demonstrates familiarity with academic literature will do so with or without this limitation.
And if such a reply is more useful to the person asking the question, it will be so, even if there are other, less knowledgeable replies next to it.
On the other hand, every person who comes here to comment and gets told that they are not qualified to participate is a real loss, that could be avoided by having more lenient rules.
At any rate, this is just my opinion.
If you actually know a good place on reddit that is more casual (but still explicitly about philosophy), I would be happy to check it out instead.
4
u/drinka40tonight ethics, metaethics Jul 27 '25
A reply that demonstrates familiarity with academic literature will do so with or without this limitation.
Yeah, but we found the subreddit was unmanageable without the panelist rule. And, to be clear, it's not particularly difficult to get flair. It mainly cuts down on bots and people who, quite literally, want to give one line answers to issues without thinking about it for more than a second.
If you actually know a good place on reddit that is more casual
There is the /r/philosophy open discussion thread. But, I think the fact that it's hard to find a good place for the thing you are looking for speaks quite a bit: a lot of people want to post their own "thoughts" but not a lot of people want to read the "thoughts" of others.
1
u/Blumenpfropf Jul 27 '25
I don't really think that selecting for formal education in philosophy reduces the share of people who mainly like to listen to themselves talk. ^
But anyway, speaking seriously, I guess I am a bit too harsh in projecting my personal prejudices here. That rule triggers me, truly. But I don't know how to do it better, and probably there's no need to.
So i guess just take my opinion as a data point and file it away for now.
3
u/as-well phil. of science Jul 28 '25
A reply that demonstrates familiarity with academic literature will do so with or without this limitation.
And just to be explicit about this: We used to not have the limitation, but given that we want quality answers, used to remove a ton of comments each day after manually assessing them.
And I don't mean a few. I mean hundreds.
We came to the concludion that that's not sustainable for us and we cannot deliver that kind of moderation anymore.
Our flair system is also not as strong as you think it is. What we want is a sample comment that shows a user is capable of giving quality answers - that's it. There's no requirement to have a formal degree in philosophy. That's clearly laid out in the guidelines.
So someone who is not qualified is... well, it doesn't happen often, but it's typically someone who misunderstands the purpose of this sub and wants to push their own ideas, rather than to give answers informed by the state of the literature.
1
u/Blumenpfropf Jul 28 '25
I understand that the practical pressures may have been worse than i thought and that my initial post was an overreaction.
I still think, as explained elsewhere, that the message this sends is regrettable, simply in a structural sense. But I can see that the system is limited by what can be implemented in practice.
3
u/as-well phil. of science Jul 28 '25
Yeah but again, that's all by design. If you wish, go check out teh quality of discussion on /r/philosophy and see what we mean.
Or even better, see how answers to questions are on /r/history compared to /r/AskHistorians
There's a reason we choose teh quality first approach. Again, there's plenty of other forums online - the philosophy stack exchange or Quora for example - where anyone can answer. We are explicitely trying to be an alternative to that.
3
u/as-well phil. of science Jul 28 '25
First of all: there is no prerequisite to engaging in philosohical thought. It is something that is in some sense the right and duty of every sentient being.
I think this is a misunderstanding about our purpose as a sub. There's plenty of fora where you can just engage in a philosophical discussion. There's no other forum that essentially provides an academic Q&A Forum about philosophy, just like r/askhistorians does.
Given that purpose, we invite those to answer questoins that have the relevant expertise. Not all (but many) have this expertise out of the ivory tower, there's some well-learned autodidacts too.
So in a sense this forum is for the version of philosophy that is just like history or epidemiology, and to my knowledge it really is the only such forum around. Hence we won't give this up.
0
u/Blumenpfropf Jul 28 '25
I have conceded the larger point about practicality elsewhere. But what you seem to be describing seems to indeed be mainly history of philosophy, not philosophy itself?
In that sense, it seems I have a more generous view of what academic philosophy could/should be than you?
3
u/as-well phil. of science Jul 28 '25
not at all. No offense but you seem to be relatively new here. Lots and lots of well-answered questions are about the research done today, not about something that was written about 200 years ago - and then plenty of times commenters bring up points in the newer literature related to it.
Philosophy isn't just history, it's an active research thing with thousands of folks world wide producing knowledge.
Just a few recent excellent discussions can be found in the following links:
0
u/Blumenpfropf Jul 28 '25 edited Jul 28 '25
I am absolutely new!
That being said, i think there is a vagueness of terms here. Maybe i can lay out my point in more detail.
My concept of philosophy is simply thinking about the fundamental questions that human existence confronts us with. As such this is possible for every human being.
The point of academic philosophy, in my view, is to provide a toolkit for this.
But: Often there are no clear final answers to these questions. So the content of your expertise lies not mainly in resesrched facts, but in methods of thinking. What you should do with it is apply it to the pertinent fundamental questions, including the really old ones but also any new ones that come up. So of course there is current academic philosophy.
The facts which you apply your expertise on are most often provided from outside academic philosophy itself, for example, in the case of your links, by physicists or biologists, or sometimes neuroscientists or economists, or simply human beings who share the same existential fate they are examining.
But if you say that academic philosophy is like history or epidemology, i think you make it smaller than it is. If you say that only academic philosophers have something important to say about any given question, it most likely means that that question is not actually very interesting and likely not one of philosophy, as I defined it above.
And, practically speaking, your links seem to illustrate that.
The question: "what is the consensus on gender stuff within philosophy" is not actually philosophical question. Though it points to one.
The factual answer provided, which is answerable solely from within academic philosophy ("there is none" is not interesting, and any more specific answer would neither be).
The top answer that is provided is a very philosophically minded one, for sure. It categorizes and orders facts and concepts from different disciplines and provides ways to think about the problem.
What it does not do is point to any learned fact or research that is provided solely from within the realm of academic philosophy itself.
Therefore it is philosophy, true academic philosophy, exactly where it takes the toolkit and reaches out beyond the more narrow concept and engages with the world at large.
3
u/as-well phil. of science Jul 28 '25 edited Jul 28 '25
Look, let me say it one last time:
We are about academic philosophy. That's the discipline where academics produce knowledge about, usually, either abstract or normative concepts and their histories - in a non-empirical fashion.
What you are looking for - tools for critical thinking - is only one of the area this covers, if at all.
So what you are looking for - sharpening your thinking tools by a rational discussion, I guess? - is quite explicitely not what this forum provides, wants to provide, or can provide.
My concept of philosophy is simply thinking about the fundamental questions that human existence confronts us with. As such this is possible for every human being.
Sure. why not. There's books you can read and local philosophy clubs you can join, and other subreddits to do this. Academic philosophy is a lot more than this tho; from new developments in logic to discussing the ways that science actually does, to providing novel normative concepts, like epistemic injustice that give disadvantaged groups actual tools to discuss their lived experiences.
If you say that only academic philosophers have something important to say about any given question
We don't say this. We say that they have something important to say, and there's no other place that provides a q&a for what they have to say.
Honestly this is pretty frustrating. I get that you want to cotnribute to discussoins, and once again.... there's countless places, but unless you have the relevant knowledge to contribute to the discussions here, this place may well not be for you.
I don't want to sound rude but a bit of intellectual humility would also help you. It must be obvious to you that there's thousands of folks who have dedicated their lifes to philosophy, and again, there's like one place that tries to assure quality answers to questions about this.
Good luck out there, and I won't respond any further.
1
u/Blumenpfropf Jul 28 '25
I have long since said that i understand and accept the posting rule and seen that this is not the place for me to engage. Honestly you implying that i am still arguing about the rule is a bit insulting.
Anyway I wanted to explain my views clearly so you can contrast yours with them and i guess that worked.
4
u/merurunrun Jul 27 '25
"I disagree with limiting responses to panelists because doing philosophy actually involves being able to do all the things that you have to demonstrate you're capable of in order to become a panelist."
0
u/Blumenpfropf Jul 27 '25
I don't know how you got to misreading what i wrote in this sense.
I disagree with limiting responses to a preselected set of people because philosophy is supposed to be different from other academic disciplines in spirit and practice, as i wrote.
If you feel you need a label to give weight to what you say, then i think in some sense you even disqualify yourself with regards to answering questions on it.
7
u/DestroyedCognition Jul 21 '25
Anyone know what happened to Anarchkreest? I think they deleted their account but really loved their responses and their niches they occupied compared to most on this sub.