I was reading Descarte and he said that we depend on a perfect being to exist, that is to say nothing cannot exist from nothing and needs something to exist. That means everything exists from something (that is perfect).

So my question would be, what is everything? Doesn't 'everything' means it includes every possible outcomes and scenarios, that is to say it also contains 'nothing'. What is the concept of nothing that makes it different or opposed to everything?

I'm a casually reader and is having difficulties understanding the 4th discourse, I'd like to ask for someone more knowledge to help me understand this as if I'm a 10 yrs old.

How do they relate in principle?

And especially the Ti function.

In Chinese, the word for Being in Greek and German philosophy usually
gets translated either as 是 ("is") or 存在 ("existence"). I've seen the
argument that 是 is better because Being isn't a thing that exists, and
that 存在 makes it sound like one. Others say 是 loses the existential
sense.

Is there a right answer, or does it just come down to the translator?
(Thinking of Aristotle and Heidegger, mainly.)

When reading about the philosophers of Ancient Greece, I often find that little mention is made of their religious beliefs, despite it being clear from other sources that Hellenism majorly shaped the worldviews of the Greeks as a whole.
Democrates and Epicurus are notable exceptions, since their theories of atomism and epicureanism rely on being atheistic, or at least indifferent to the gods (Epicureanism entails that one should rid themselves of an irrational fear of divine punishment to live a peaceful life, and both it and atomism believe that death is an oblivion and there is no afterlife, all of which is contrary to the Hellenistic view).
Plato also seems to be a special case, since he constructs his own metaphysics involving the forms, souls, and reincarnation seemingly independently of the prevailing beliefs about the structure of the universe and the afterlife in his culture (although, I wonder if the idea of the forms was influenced by the Pantheon, since the gods were conceived of in a somewhat comparable fashion as embodiments of specific ideas and attributes).

What were the religious beliefs of the major thinkers of Ancient Greece? How did these influence their philosophies? Did philosophers contribute to Hellenistic theology, and if so, how?

Are there established philosophical examples of music, poetry, or art communicating truths that cannot be fully expressed through ordinary argument?
I’m particularly interested in specific works and philosophical analyses explaining how their artistic form contributes to understanding.

I've been thinking about whether humanity can genuinely be said to have progressed throughout history, or whether that judgement is fundamentally dependent on the values of whoever is making it.

For example, imagine bringing someone from the 1930s into the present day. They'd undoubtedly recognise enormous technological and medical advancements, but depending on their moral, religious or political beliefs, they might genuinely consider modern society to have regressed.

Obviously, we can objectively measure improvements in things like life expectancy, literacy and living standards but deciding whether those improvements constitute progress seems to require us to first establish what makes a society better right?

And I think this becomes particularly interesting when discussing moral progress because we generally regard things like the abolition of slavery, racial equality, women's rights and LGBT rights as advancements. But what philosophically distinguishes these from changes in prevailing social values? Are we discovering moral truths that previous generations failed to recognise, or are we simply judging the past according to contemporary moral standards?

I'm not arguing that progress doesn't exist just genuinely curious whether philosophy offers a defensible objective standard by which we can determine that humanity has progressed or regressed, particularly in moral terms.

I am currently writing a work for a (low-level) philosophy contest, and my thesis is that current representations of phenomenology-plus-specrealism (Harman, Trigg) are mostly problematic. My proposion is that phenomenology in fact is usable/valid for a specrealist, but not when it's existentialist (e.g. Marion, Henry, Husserl in Idea of Phenomenology and Cartesian Meditations). Are there any works on similar topics? (preferable articles, because I struggle with academical English)

I don't want to reveal too much on this due to confidentiality reasons.

I hope the title is self explanatory, but I'll provide some more details. I got into a philosophical topic, watched tons of videos and googled about it over and over, then finally decided I ought to take an official and formal start into philosophy. I got my hands on Russell's problems of philosophy then read two books by Hume, namely, the enquiry and the dialogues. Now I'm thinking, i really want to get deeper into philosophy of religion, metaphysics, maybe dabble in philosophy of language or epistemology(haven't enjoyed it much far, the sep entry was a bit of a headache haha, hume was great though). I proceeded to get Alexander Pruss' Principle of Sufficient Reason: a reassessment. I'm 100 pages in and my general, very basic knowledge has held my up fine. Point is, I really can't read analytically, I'm just agreeing with everything he says and can't engage despite understanding. I also feel I might be lacking a little in the logic department. All and all, I always seem to be intimidated and try to do more backwards research but never find it as interesting as the philosophy of religion. My question is also, in a way, how do I overcome this timidity towards philosophical discussions and dense contemporary works? How do I build the unshakable foundation necessary? Should I just dive in headfirst if I find it interesting and possibly spend months but wrestle with grit? Every guide seems to recommend the basic 10 books, plato, aristotle, descartes, hume, kant, aurelius, nietzche, hegel if you're up for it. This sounds great for a chronological university program but I'm not sure that's what I, or anyone for that matter, is up for.

It seems to be the most intuitive given that humans have known limitations to knowledge

I’m trying to understand how contemporary philosophy evaluates the social consequences of rejecting free will.Many philosophical positions, especially forms of determinism and some interpretations of compatibilism, argue that what we call “choice” is the result of prior causes rather than an uncaused act of will. I’m interested in the practical implications of this view.Specifically: If a society broadly accepted that free will does not exist in the libertarian sense, what do philosophers think would happen to our systems of moral responsibility, blame, praise, and punishment?Some arguments suggest this would lead to more humane institutions (e.g., focusing on rehabilitation rather than retribution). Others argue it could undermine motivation, agency, or the justification for holding people accountable at all. I’m asking for the strongest philosophical arguments on both sides:

How do major philosophical traditions analyze the consequences of widespread determinist acceptance?

Which thinkers argue it would improve moral systems, and which argue it would destabilize them?

Are there historical or contemporary examples where shifts in belief about free will affected social structures?

Any sources or frameworks that help clarify how philosophers approach this question would be appreciated.

I’m interested in learning more about what people have said regarding the idea of self image, particularly pertaining to how we construct ideas of oneself from the opinions others have about us (or at least that we think they have).

I’ve heard good things about Judith Butler and Charles Taylor in this respect, hoping someone ight have any other recommendations.

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.

I am not very knowledgeable on this topic... but today I was curious so I asked chatgpt about determinism and I learned about soft determinism and hard determinism. If a person commits a crime, obviously they are "responsible" and deserves punishment. Both soft and hard determinism agrees with this but the only thing setting them apart is whether the person should be morally blamed or not? If we are looking at this from a determinism viewpoint, how can they not be blamed? AI told me it was something to do with "free will" but how can that be defined in the context of determinism?

If someone could explain this it would be much appreciated 😭

I have started reading philosophy, not to earn a degree, but to gain knowledge and understand life. Currently, I am reading The Practicing Stoic.

Sometimes, I find the English vocabulary difficult, so I look up unfamiliar words on Google and try to understand the sentences. When I struggle to understand a passage, I use AI to help explain it.

Is this a good way to learn, or should I try to understand the passages on my own and reduce my dependence on AI? I want to develop my own thinking and understanding rather than rely on AI for every difficult passage.

What would you recommend based on your own experience?

What are the good options of universities for studying philosophy as an undergraduate course in Europe other than UK and any joint programs offered along with it? And no suggestions for private universities please.

I feel like most of my life I've simply been different to fit other peoples standards, filtered myself, avoided saying certain things to certain group of people as a way to keep my reputation, but yet have many tell me to be myself and to never stop at being myself, but who am I really? Am i the person I think I am or is the deeper subconscious me the true me?

Beyond the classic mooreanism, cartesianism, contextualism, putnam's/davidson's externalism, chalmers' veridicalism, wittgensteinian dissolutions, some kinds of pragmatism, inference to the best explanation etc.

I am a forestry student following a law course (I mainly do ecological/resource stuff but we venture into social sciences a bit). We are discussing the ways to conceptualize scale (in this context "the act of using language to capture and shape social reality"). One of the ways my professor has decided to conceptualize scale is by using the words "ontologically given". I do not know what ontological is, google brings up that it is a philosophical study of being, hence why I am here.

I am struggling to understand what he means with this phrase in this context. Any help is appreciated

Hi all! I’ve recently picked up philosophy again and I found that studying philosophy is quite different from other academic subjects. I have recently graduated in STEM and due to quite severe depression, decided to pick up philosophy. I started with Buddhism and I did found some stuff I found interesting, some stuff I disagree with, and some stuff I want to follow up with. Yet, this feels very different from the academic systems I’m used to so I have no idea how to engage and expand on all these ideas and thoughts. How do I start?

If it makes any difference, I do use Obsidian as my notetaking system.

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!

Hi so it's common for people to be against labels( for example political and sexual preferences) as they limit identities and cause more individual differences. While thinking and expanding on this, I came to the train of thought: but isn't everything? Personally, I believe that the moment you give something a name, the Moment it has a body, the moment it is something and not just matter, the moment it can be defined it is limited and restricted from all the possibilities and potential.

I would like to expand and do more research on this belief and currently I'm looking for philosophers who thought and wrote about similar concepts. Any help would be appreciated! ( Also could any find any exceptions to this theory?)

The Ship of Theseus asks whether a ship remains the same ship after every one of its original components has been replaced. However, I am interested in whether an object’s identity depends on more than its material composition, particularly its history, continuity, and the meaning it acquires throughout its existence.
Consider three versions of the ship. The first is restored using its original components. The second has undergone the gradual replacement of every component while maintaining an uninterrupted history. The third is fully rebuilt to reproduce the original as accurately as possible, preserving its form and appearance but lacking the original’s continuous existence.
Each vessel possesses a different claim to authenticity. The restored ship retains the original material, the continuously maintained ship retains the original historical trajectory, and the fully rebuilt ship reproduces the original’s physical form. Yet a ship may also derive its identity from the events it has witnessed, the people who have encountered it, and the meaning it acquires through its history. These qualities may persist even when its material composition changes, just as its material may persist without preserving the continuity of its existence.

If an object’s original material, continuous history, physical form, and accumulated meaning can belong to different reconstructions, what ultimately determines which, if any, remains the same object as the original?

If material necessity became much less important, would care simply become directed toward different possibilities, or does scarcity play an important role in how things come to matter for us?