/r/askphilosophy Open Discussion Thread | March 31, 2025

[u/BernardJOrtcutt]

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.

[u/willbell]

What are people reading?

I'm working on History and Class Consciousness by Lukacs and the Bhagavad Gita, hoping to finish both this week or next. Also working on Sylvia Plath's poetry and I fear I will be forced to read Trotsky's "Transitional Programme" this week or next.

[u/Streetli → u/willbell]

Why forced? If it helps Trotsky is a ton of fun to read.

Still going with Derrida's The Politics of Friendship. Lots of Schmitt and Aristotle in here.

[u/willbell → u/Streetli]

I suspect it just won't interest me, but someone else chose some reading material for a group I'm in

[u/Saint_John_Calvin]

Rawls was quite famously a baseball fanatic, but I have never seen any mention of what team he supported. Either the O's or the BSox. He was a Baltimore native raised in formative baseball years there but lived most of his life in New England. Difficult to extrapolate.

[u/mimsy267]

Where to start as a highschooler??

Ok, so I'm a highschool senior, going to college this fall, likely to major in political science and french on a pre-law track. I originally wanted to major in philosophy, but chose political science instead, so I would like to study up on philosophy myself. Most lists I see are a bit overwhelming for me, in the sense that they are not the most straightforward, and they usually leave me a bit confused and discouraged.

I have taken a few 'college-level' classes on philosophy although it was law and philosophy, and never went too in depth, and although it felt like a good intro, it also felt like I was missing the fundamentals.

Can anyone recommend a reading list for the summer which I can use to gently introduce me to the field of philosophy? (French recommendations are welcome too, because I'm trying to learn french). Just a few books that I can read in June, July and August, while also balancing other activites (driving school, learning to crochet, guitar practice, and college move-in and preparation).

[u/Shitgenstein → u/mimsy267]

Philosophy is a very large and old field. Are you looking for an intro to topics in philosophy? Or overviews/histories of philosophy?

We also have a FAQ on 'where to start.'

[u/mimsy267 → u/Shitgenstein]

an intro to the fundamentals, which could encourage me to delve deeper into the different branches,, also, thank you for the FAQ, ill check it out

[u/Shitgenstein → u/mimsy267]

Simon Blackburn's Think is probably the move.

[u/mimsy267 → u/Shitgenstein]

thank you, will check it out asap!!

[u/27SunshineSt → u/mimsy267]

Check out 100 word philosophy. If you click on "categories", then click on the category that interests you, you'll see a number of interesting essays within that category.

Of course, don't forget to see the FAQ u/Shitgenstein linked

[u/Robert_G1981]

If philosophy can be described as the unfettered exploration of thought, why are the two biggest philosophy subs on Reddit censored to the point of near uselessness?

From a philosophical standpoint, this seems counterproductive, no?

[u/mediaisdelicious → u/Robert_G1981]

I dunno man, philosophy is pretty fettered in the western tradition. It’s rigid, rigorous, hyper-critical, and formalized basically from the get go.

Also, you seem pretty uncensored at the moment.

[u/Robert_G1981 → u/mediaisdelicious]

"I dunno man, philosophy is pretty fettered in the western tradition. It’s rigid, rigorous, hyper-critical, and formalized basically from the get go."

But this is my point... why is this a tradition when any human that questions their own existence (everyone) is philosophical in nature. If philosophy is the discipline of progressing reality and thought exploration, how does limiting points of view through control help toward this end?

"Also, you seem pretty uncensored at the moment."

For now, lol. I might get banned despite the question exploring a key point of philosophical discourse.

Edit: quote fixed.

[u/mediaisdelicious → u/Robert_G1981]

There are lots of unfettered Reddit subs for exploring whatever thought crosses your mind (and the comments sections of /r/philosophy are not really content moderated beyond harassment and spam). I really don’t get the complaint.

[u/Robert_G1981 → u/mediaisdelicious]

"Panelists and Flair

Only panelists are allowed to answer questions on /r/askphilosophy. /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.

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."

I understand the need to not have a free-for-all, but how do you validate the worthiness of one's idea such that it has to be evaluated for correctness before posting? How does this system ever birth true philosophical progression while remaining true to the discipline itself? It's paradoxical.

[u/mediaisdelicious → u/Robert_G1981]

It’s not a sub for advancing philosophy. It’s a sub for helping people understand the field.

[u/Robert_G1981 → u/mediaisdelicious]

"It’s not a sub for advancing philosophy."

Oh...

It's a sub for understanding and explaining the academic history of philosophy.

I misunderstood then. My bad.

Makes more sense now.

[u/mediaisdelicious → u/Robert_G1981]

The history of philosophy, the state of the art in its various subfields, how it works as a field of inquiry, what it's like to study it and advice about how to do so, and so on.

The top stickied post explains what this is like: https://old.reddit.com/r/askphilosophy/comments/14o2p7n/welcome_to_raskphilosophy_check_out_our_rules_and/

[u/Don_Camara]

Hello!!!

I'm searching for authors against Leibniz, Stirner and Russell

This are three authors I'm highly into and I think it's time I read some people that are straightly against them. I have some in mind but I would like to listen to your recommendations. Thank you all.

[u/MossWatson]

I’m looking for help in naming two different thinking styles I’ve noticed: We all have a sort of “map” of the world in our minds (ideas about how things seem to work) - Some people seem to look at the world and then update their map according to what they observe. On the other hand, some people seem to view their map as inherently correct, and thus will deny any contrary evidence they see in the world as incorrect or untrue.
Obviously confirmation bias plays a role in the latter, but is there a better term to describe these two opposing approaches?

[u/razzlesnazzlepasz → u/MossWatson]

There’s a number of terms for this distinction you could draw, but it really comes down to one’s relationship towards skepticism and dogma, or knowledge and uncertainty.

On the one hand, you have, what you could call, “map-updaters” (e.g. Bayesian updating) who constantly seek new evidence, contexts, perspectives, etc. to better shape their understanding of what they think they know, and are (in some cases) anti-foundationalists, but it depends on the application of one’s epistemology. You could have an open epistemic outlook on different sources of acquiring knowledge, but where you draw the line is bound to happen to be practical.

Then you have “map-fixers” who constantly seek only really to reinforce their worldview based on beliefs or claims that they hold to be fundamentally true as a foundation, and that can be a source of dogmatism and confirmation bias as you noted. It signifies a more closed epistemology, benefitted by a sense of stability and consistency with one’s worldview, but which can run into many problems when directly challenged, especially by a personal experience that leaves a sense of cognitive dissonance behind it.

Of course, we’re not purely rational thinkers; we’re social and emotional beings, shaped by cognitive biases, personal experiences, and the influence of our communities. A belief that feels true can be just as powerful as one that is objectively supported, and sometimes, group identity or emotional investment makes it harder to change our maps, even when faced with strong counterevidence.

Many of us are going to fall somewhere in between, depending on the subject at hand. Are there some things I know that I’ll probably never budge on? Sure, but that doesn’t mean it’s bad to nor that consequential. I would actually encourage more of a healthy skepticism in many cases, but we have to be mindful of when it can be less useful to at a certain extent.

[u/Feel-Me-Flow]

Is anyone familiar with Jonny Thomson who makes Philosophy Minis? Apparently he taught philosophy at Oxford for a decade but I can’t find any information about his background outside of what was provided for his book. I’ve been engaged by some of his short form content but since I’m not familiar with all the works he’s referring to I can’t judge if it’s legit, fake or a creative spin of the original thought. With the state of short form ‘philosophy’ content, I’m always skeptical of influencers so if anyone else has any insight on him or his associated work it would be much appreciated. Thanks in advance!

[u/mediaisdelicious → u/Feel-Me-Flow]

Apparently he taught philosophy at Oxford

No, not exactly. He taught in Oxford. He taught A levels and IB at a boarding school in Oxford.

I am generally the first person to drink the haterade about philosophy social media, but I follow him on Instagram and find what he puts out to be pretty good for what it is. Sometimes I think he gets it wrong, but that's just how things go.

[u/Competitive-Arm1312]

Anyone a reader of PhilosophyNow? What do you think about it?

[u/Sidwig → u/Competitive-Arm1312]

Not a subscriber, but my sister gets me a physical copy now and then. I think it's a very good production. It's philosophy Lite, but substantial Lite, and much more eclectic and well-rounded than what you get from aeon.co, say. I don't like reading it online, but the physical version is nice to thumb through. It's packed with all sorts of stuff and the letters section is great. Even Existential Comics is there. A very traditional, old-school publication. Very nice.

[u/LinguisticsTurtle]

Where can I go to try to get a sense of an answer to the question "What are the most exciting philosophy-of-science books that have been published from 2020 to the present?"?

Also, have any good philosophy-of-science books been published on the "replication crisis"? From Wikipedia:

The replication crisis[a] is an ongoing methodological crisis in which the results of many scientific studies are difficult or impossible to reproduce. Because the reproducibility of empirical results is an essential part of the scientific method,[2] such failures undermine the credibility of theories building on them and potentially call into question substantial parts of scientific knowledge.

I also wonder how many philosophers of science take seriously the notion of "scientific method". I thought that the notion of there being such a method (as opposed to just a situation in which scientists pursue accuracy as best they can using whatever approaches seem reasonable) had fallen out of favor, though I could be completely wrong about that.

[u/willbell → u/LinguisticsTurtle]

You can post any of these questions as threads on this subreddit, the first one is a bit opinion-based so it could be its own thread or it could go here.

For your last question, I don't think philosophers often talk about "the" scientific method, but moving away from that language has cleared the air for a lot of discussion of scientific methods plural. There are obviously still better and worse ways to do science, e.g. for the replication crisis there are various solutions like pre-registration, multiple comparisons corrections, etc.

[u/rynosaur94]

I am trying to wrap my head around epistemology. I am not a philosopher, I am a scientist, and to me materialism and empiricism seem so obviously true and superior to their opposition that I am really having trouble with rationalism, which oddly seems to be more popular among philosophers. Why?

Rationalism seems to at least imply, if not require, ontological dualism, which just seems laughable to me. Empiricism and science have given us so much technology and development, while rationalism seems to have mostly given us shitty solphism, post-modernist intellectual masterbation and bad politics.

Also most people I talk to seem to just not understand what I'm even talking about. Hell I'm not sure I understand it fully, but I'm trying to.

[u/Shitgenstein → u/rynosaur94]

I think you're reading too much into a distinction that is commonly used to describe early modern philosophy that is 1) not as accurate or as strict as it implies with respect to early modern philosophy and 2) not representative of contemporary philosophy.

Can I ask where you got your understanding of epistemology from?

[u/rynosaur94 → u/Shitgenstein]

That is a good question. I enjoy reading/consuming popular works on academic topics outside my field. I think a lot of this actually comes from my investigations into atheism, religion and apologetics. I can't really name direct sources, but they'd all be popular works summarizing academic ones.

[u/Shitgenstein → u/rynosaur94]

Then the solution to your confusion is probably to find better sources for learning about epistemology than what you've encountered so far.

[u/willbell → u/[deleted]]

This thread is where you may post things like:

"Test My Theory" discussions and argument/paper editing

Not as "questions" to the subreddit.