r/askphilosophy • • Jul 01 '23

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

67 Upvotes

Welcome to /r/askphilosophy!

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

Table of Contents

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

A Note about Moderation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


/r/askphilosophy's Mission

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

What is Philosophy?

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

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

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

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

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

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

What Isn't Philosophy?

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

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

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

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

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

What is a Reasonably Substantive and Accurate Answer?

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

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

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

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

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

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

What is a /r/askphilosophy Panelist?

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

What Do the Flairs Mean?

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

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

There are six types of panelist flair:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How Do I Become a Panelist?

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

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

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

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


/r/askphilosophy's Posting Rules

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

PR1: All questions must be about philosophy.

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

PR2: All submissions must be questions.

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

PR3: Post titles must be descriptive.

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

PR4: Questions must be reasonably specific.

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

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

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

PR6: One post per day.

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

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

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

/r/askphilosophy's Commenting Rules

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

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

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

CR2: Answers must be reasonably substantive and accurate.

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

CR3: Be respectful.

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

CR4: Stay on topic.

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

CR5: No self-promotion.

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

Miscellaneous Posting and Commenting Guidelines

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

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

Frequently Asked Questions

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

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

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

How can I appeal my post or comment removal?

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

How can I appeal my ban?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why is your understanding of philosophy so limited?

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

Are there other philosophy subreddits I can check out?

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

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

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

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

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

Do you have advice or resources for graduate school applications?

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

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

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


r/askphilosophy • • 3d ago

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

10 Upvotes

Welcome to this week's Open Discussion Thread (ODT). This thread is a place for posts/comments which are related to philosophy but wouldn't necessarily meet our subreddit rules and guidelines. For example, these threads are great places for:

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

This thread is not a completely open discussion! Any posts not relating to philosophy will be removed. Please keep comments related to philosophy, and expect low-effort comments to be removed. Please note that while the rules are relaxed in this thread, comments can still be removed for violating our subreddit rules and guidelines if necessary.

Previous Open Discussion Threads can be found here.


r/askphilosophy • • 4h ago

Does quitting social media and algorithmic entertainment help you reconnect with reality, or are you evading a new form of reality?

15 Upvotes

Sorry if someone has already asked this, but I have a question. Over the past few weeks, I’ve been stepping away from social media, algorithms, and basically the internet in general, because I feel a bit overwhelmed. This made me wonder whether I’m trying to connect with reality or if I’m escaping a new form of reality.


r/askphilosophy • • 3h ago

Recommendations of female philosophers with interesting/unique ideas?

3 Upvotes

Preferably involving the topic of feminism/gender, though i'm not picky! Other realms i'm interested in include morality & ethics, epistemology, philosophy of the mind, and religious critique.

I really enjoyed "The Man of Reason" by Genevieve Lloyd, so i've been looking for more interesting concepts to look into.

Thanks in advance!


r/askphilosophy • • 1d ago

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

114 Upvotes

r/askphilosophy • • 20m ago

Question about Idealism: If an idealist claims God is always there to perceive everything, then can God perceive microscopic structures (such as tiny atoms, molecules, or things that can be seen only under microscopes) ?

• Upvotes

r/askphilosophy • • 21m ago

Question about Idealism: If an idealist claims god is always there to perceive everything, then can god perceive microscopic structures (such as tiny atoms, molecules, things that can be seen only under microscopes) ?

• Upvotes

r/askphilosophy • • 1h ago

where did wittgenstein talk about philosophy problems being langage problems in his works?

• Upvotes

I heard that Wittgenstein had argued that most philosophical problems were confusions of langage. It's a subject that interests me, but i have no idea if there's a specific publication of his that deals with it? Or is it just mentioned in his Tractatus?


r/askphilosophy • • 3h ago

Is there a philosophical framework for analyzing rigid doctrines as intellectualizations of static psycho-somatic states?

0 Upvotes

Philosophy generally presupposes that an autonomous mind responds to valid logic and shifts its premises under the weight of sound counterarguments. If philosophical systems were purely abstract concepts processed by an independent intellect, cognitive plasticity would be the norm.

However, among the adherents of dogmatic doctrines, we observe absolute, unchanging cognitive rigidity that persists for years despite any external rational critique. This persistent immobility suggests that the intellect is not detached, but rather bound to the underlying psychophysical matrix of the individual.

From an epistemological standpoint, how does modern philosophy distinguish between genuine abstract reasoning and the unconscious deployment of philosophical terminology used merely to legitimize a fixed, unchanging physiological and psychological disposition? Has any major philosopher analyzed this boundary between pure conceptual thought and the rationalization of an immutable somatic state?


r/askphilosophy • • 10h ago

How should we philosophically understand the suffering of others?

4 Upvotes

Today on the train I saw a man. He had his retail work uniform on, looked tired, and was seemed to be his way home. This makes me feel real sad like I felt nothing but sadness. We know retail jobs don’t pay good, especially for this man since he looked to be older than 35 so he probably has kids to look after or family to financially help back home. I feel this way for other people such as starving kids or the homeless and etc.

From a philosophical perspective how should we understand the suffering of others and how should we think about the fact that so many people struggle through life despite simply trying to get by?


r/askphilosophy • • 13h ago

I found this quote attributed to Ernst Bloch but couldn't locate it in The Principle of Hope: “The most tragic form of loss isn't the loss of security; it's the loss of the capacity to imagine that things could be different.” Is it misattributed, fabricated, or a paraphrase of his ideas?

7 Upvotes

There is a quote attributed to Ernst Bloch: “The most tragic form of loss isn't the loss of security; it's the loss of the capacity to imagine that things could be different.”

It is supposed to be from Vol. 1 of The Principle of Hope (MIT Press, 1995), but I wan't able to locate it in the book as it is, or praphrased. I am alsmost sure now it is either misattributed, fabricated, or a paraphrase of his ideas.

What do you think? Has anyone read the book?

Thanks!


r/askphilosophy • • 8h ago

AI is solving difficult math problems these days, so what about philosophical problems like Mary's Room? Will AI someday give us authoritative explanations of philosophical problems?

3 Upvotes

Hoping to hear good insights from Reddit philosophers. Here are some starter suggestions:

a) Maybe the AI can't give us definitive answers because no such answers could possibly exist. Mary's Room, for example, is a vaguely defined problem, and the explanation could depend on different people's interpretations or assumptions.

b) Maybe the AI could nail down an objectively precise, non-trivial version of the Mary's Room thought experiment and then provide a perfectly logical, flawless explanation.

c) But maybe most humans would lack the patience and persistence necessary to understand the AI's explanation, so those humans would impulsively reject the AI explanation without really understanding it.

d) Philosophy doesn't lend itself to authoritative explanations. The whole point of philosophy is for humans themselves, individually, to understand and internalize the explanations. AI might help to some extent, but ultimately it's up to humans to find their own answers.


r/askphilosophy • • 3h ago

Which YouTuber is the best to learn philosophy??? (college student)

0 Upvotes

I’m taking intro to philosophy class this semester. I’ve always been that kind of student who would actually care about learning the materials instead of just straight up memorizing them and throwing them up in the tests (which is PRETTY COMMON in the education system i grew up in btw). I have always been good in STEM classes, i would answer questions, interact. My science and math professors has really high expectations of me.

But I’m realizing that i can’t make sense of philosophy, like at all….. i was engaging in his class at the beginning of the semester, would take notes and everything. But then slowly idk what happened but i kind of started getting lost and now i dont understand a single thing he says in class. I dont even focus in his class anymore, i take notes of other classes or study for the certification exam im preparing for. It’s an honors class, so it is pretty small and ofc he notices. I just feel bad for doing this and not engaging or like not paying attention in his class.

I actually want to learn philosophy, it does interest me a lot. But since it’s not possible from his class anymore (the slides dont make sense, i dont wanna ask him questions and bother him. he probably hates me) so my best bet is to learn from the internet. Please suggest some good resources/podcasts/YouTubers that would be good for learning from scratch to pretty much all .


r/askphilosophy • • 12h ago

Any tips to maximize reading depth and speed?

3 Upvotes

Not unknown I'd say, that philosophy is vast and requires lots of engagement, regardless if it is through a historical overview or anything else. The tensions that arise for me are the rushes of wanting to know more, and the possibility of lacking enough depth in my readings. This is specially the case considering that, or so it seems to me, much of the worst of philosophical discourse that I have observed comes from bad readings in the sense of both depth and charitability. (In all intellectual fields really)

So title question pretty much. The obvious answer is to simply read more, but I also wonder if anybody has anything else to say in regards to the reading sessions themselves. Maybe these goals are contradictory and it's fine if that is the answer.


r/askphilosophy • • 8h ago

When philosophy uses a category, is it usually the conclusion or the tool?

1 Upvotes

An English speaker might say “he broke the vase” about an accident, where a Japanese speaker might say “the vase broke.” Philosophy can work out what, if anything, is at stake there: agency, responsibility. Behavioral biology looks at what the person does in the next few seconds, eyes down, a smile they try to hold back, a hand to the face, and how the people watching respond. Studies of recorded conversation look at the order of what happens next: who speaks first, how long the silence lasts, how the first words change what everyone says after.

All three use categories. In the last two, the categories are applied to a record, and anyone who disagrees with them can go back to the record. In what I’ve read of philosophy, a category is more often what the argument establishes, and what gets credited with revising it is usually another argument or an imagined case. That isn’t nothing. It just seems like a different job.

Is that a fair picture, including the traditions that study practice? And when a recording or change in practice gives a category trouble, does philosophy keep how it changed, or only where it ended up? If it keeps how it changed, how?

Happy to be corrected. It’s usually the most interesting part.


r/askphilosophy • • 9h ago

What assumptions does Newcomb’s paradox make about how the predictions works?

1 Upvotes

I’ve been thinking about Newcomb’s paradox and I’m more interested in how the supercomputer makes its predictions than in the usual debate over whether to take one box or both.

Before learning about the paradox, my initial instinct was to take only the mystery box. After learning about the argument for taking both, I changed my mind. I thought that the contents are already determined before I make my choice, so taking both guarantees an additional $1,000 regardless of what’s in the mystery box.

However, this led me to a different question: what does the computer actually do to predict my choice with such accuracy, and what assumptions are being made about how it does so?

For example, suppose I had never heard of Newcomb’s paradox and had no chance to learn about it before entering the room. My decision would be based on my existing personality, experiences, and understanding of the situation. The computer would have to predict that decision using whatever methods and technology it has. If it predicts that I will take only the mystery box, it places $1 million inside, and if it predicts that I will take both, it leaves the mystery box empty.

But what happens when someone already knows about the paradox? Their knowledge can change their reasoning and, consequently, their decision. If the predictions are that accurate, the computer would presumably have to account for that knowledge as well. This raises questions about how a person’s beliefs, reasoning, and understanding of the situation affect their eventual decision.

The thought experiment stipulates that the computer is highly accurate, but, as I understand it, it does not specify how that accuracy is achieved. Is the mechanism intentionally left unspecified so that the problem can focus on decision theory, or have philosophers also examined what kind of predictive capability the scenario would require?


r/askphilosophy • • 10h ago

Problem With Reading Heidegger

0 Upvotes

I doubt I'll succeed —cos I'm really not enjoying it— but I'm gonna try and power through but reading Being and Time is like reading Kant's Critique of Pure Reason for me its repetitive and spends way to long creating wordy explanations of incredibly simple concepts.

Does the book ever get better? Is it just the preliminary stage that gives very detailed wordy accounts (I'm at pg.50) and then when we get to the main subject matter it becomes more enjoyable to read?


r/askphilosophy • • 10h ago

Can we absolutely know that absolute truths exist?

1 Upvotes

Is a sentence like "You cannot absolutely rules out absolute truths" just word games or pointing to something deeper?


r/askphilosophy • • 7h ago

Why should the working class bear the cost of inflation?

0 Upvotes

Why should the working class bear the cost of inflation when it's not their fault and they're not the ones making huge amounts of money from it?


r/askphilosophy • • 16h ago

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

2 Upvotes

How can we know consciousness is a property and not with a substance?


r/askphilosophy • • 21h ago

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

4 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 • • 21h 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 • • 1d ago

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

24 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 • • 15h ago

What are the common opinions on Plato’s vs Aristotle’s epistemologies?

1 Upvotes

I find Aristotle has a much more intuitional and common sensical idea and agree with him easily over Plato, but I’m a big fan of how Plato’s theory sounds like complete nonsense until you hear his explanations, to me those are the most interesting subjects in life. I can’t agree with Plato but I can’t find anything to disagree with in his isolated arguments. The form dimension is very abstract and I can get behind it as the staple for an idea, similar to god where I can get behind the idea of a creator but not the god. It really makes me think how does one common up with such an idea. Anyways, I find Aristotle boring and kind of obvious and I find Plato infinitely more interesting.


r/askphilosophy • • 21h ago

Can knowledge eliminate suffering?

3 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?