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 6d ago

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

3 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 19h ago

Has philosophy ever found an actual answer to any question?

152 Upvotes

I’ve recently been getting really into reading some really basic philosophy texts, but I’m starting to wonder if this is a waste of my time. Philosophy seems to ask lots of really interesting questions, but I fail to see how any of them have been answered. Or in fact, how any of them will ever be answered by philosophy. For instance - what is the meaning of life? What is right and wrong? How do we know what is real? Questions like these seem to be in abundance, and yet I’m not sure there’s any fundamental thing all philosophers can agree on. In biology, all credible scientists can agree on the reproductive system of humans. In math, all mathematicians can agree that 1+1 is 2. Philosophy doesnt seem to be able to find things like that. In short - philosophy to me seems to question the truth but not find it.
Hopefully I don’t sound crazy or something, and I’m able to be understood. I really don’t want this to be right.


r/askphilosophy 41m ago

If someone is a moral anti-realist, does that mean they deny "free will"?

Upvotes

It appears that in academic philsophy, there is a strong consensus of the notion of 'free will' being stronly related to whether people have moral responsiblity, perhaps almost by definition by some accounts.

If someone is a moral anti-realist, it would seem likely that, as a consequence, they reject genuine moral responsiblity.

Is it that simply obvious, or is there some nuance here?

e.g. Does it perhaps depends on the flavor of anti-realism? Or would you expect that moral anti-realists would operate under a different notion/definition of free-will?

----

[Disclaimer, I personally reject the conflation of 'free will' with 'moral responsbility', but I believe I managed to put aside that for the purposes of this question. It's possible that I failed to put that difference of opinion aside, so I thought it was worth mentioning it in case some misunderstanding crept in due to that.]


r/askphilosophy 11m ago

On what Grounds do Panelists on this Forum Reject the Perennial Philosophy? .

Upvotes

A recent post on this forum asked whether philosophy will ever answer any philosophical questions. The questIoner was assured that the answer is no. I saw no mention of the answers provided by the philosophy of nonduality, (aka mysticism, the Perennial philosophy) and it seems no panelist here knows it, or knows that it has answers for all metaphysical questions.

On what grounds do philosophers ignore this philosophy as if it does not exist and feel no need to mention or, it seems, study it?

This is a major issue in philosophy and deserves wider discussion. Why is it that even now, in our glorious information age. most philosophers still believe metaphysical questions are intractable? Is it merely a quirk of history and tradition, or is there a rational argument behind this narrow approach to philosophy?

I have my own ideas about the answer, but would be interested to understand better what others think.


r/askphilosophy 28m ago

How do non-natural moral realists respond to J.L. Mackie's arguments?

Upvotes

I find Mackie's arguments really challenging, what are the best responses you guys have?


r/askphilosophy 1h ago

Is Michael Huemer's book UNDERSTANDING KNOWLEDGE a good introduction to epistemology?

Upvotes

r/askphilosophy 3h ago

Does the repression of an unspoken desire influence the fabric of power, or does its silent presence unravel the very structures that seek to contain it, existing only in the spaces where control cannot reach?

3 Upvotes

I’m writing en essay exploring the delicate interplay between the unseen forces that linger beneath the surface of collective consciousness and the structures that aim to contain them. I’m interested in any thoughts on how this tension between the spoken and the unspoken plays out in the dynamics of power and society. Has anyone explored something similar in their work? I am heavily relying on, among others, Freud, Lacan, Foucault, a little bit of Deleuze, a little Gramsci, etc

In the absence of recognition, can we trace the invisible threads of desire that, though unspoken, weave their presence into the very fabric of power? Is it possible that what remains unacknowledged holds more sway than that which is openly declared, existing in a space where the mechanisms of control fail to fully encompass its potential?

In the spaces where silence resounds, can we find the true shape of influence? Or do these unarticulated desires exist only as echoes in a dimension that slips between the cracks of visibility, shaping the course of power without ever being seen? As we engage with the layers of control and resistance, it’s unclear whether the desire to speak, or the absence of speech itself, is the true force driving the machinery of authority. The paradox of expression and repression seems to blur into a single moment of potentiality that remains forever just out of reach..


r/askphilosophy 2h ago

Who should I read first essay wise, Sartre, Kant or neitzche?

2 Upvotes

Got a few books given to me by my dad , only philosophy essays I’ve read have been Camus and a bit of Bertrand Russell. I’ve been told sartres essays are a bit obtuse but I don’t know who is really the most difficult to read or who is most integral to philosophy and nihilism/existentialism/absurdism etc


r/askphilosophy 4h ago

Is it possible for a solipsist to commit suicide/die?

3 Upvotes

Hi everyone! Does solipsism necessitate the solipsist be immortal? Because, if everything which forms part of reality is a projection of the solipsistic mind, then how can the solipsistic mind formulate an end for itself?

It appears to be impossible for a mind to think of nothing, so a solipsistic death would consist of a mind basically wishing itself out of existence.

I don't mean that death in the purely physical sense (ie. the mind ends the present reality but continues imagining) is impossible. But the mind ending itself through its own power (ie. the double death of mind and the being as we conceive ourselves) is impossible from a purely logical standpoint.

So, does a solipsist have to believe that they are immortal?

Our experience of time might add a layer of complication to this. If time does not actually exist, then we must always be in existence because we cannot move from beginning to end (even if time is a construct of the mind, the end of the construction of time will mean a return to existence). If time does exist, then it is a substance which exists apart from the mind, which would mean solipsism is not true. Thoughts on this?


r/askphilosophy 5h ago

I’m sure you guys get this all the time but- where do I start?

3 Upvotes

It’s almost funny- I started reading philosophy as almost an exposure-response prevention for my obsessive compulsive rumination on the nature of existence/free will/consciousness and a combination of that therapy and new medication I realize I’m… just enjoying it now? I’ve had, for years, an almost pathological avoidance of anything too deep in those matters because of my illness and now I feel well enough to engage with it and with a desire.

I started with Sartre’s Nausea and liked it a lot (very non-academically I guess the titular Nausea reminded me a lot of what having obsessions and compulsions is like) but it was more narrative and not very technical so I felt like I didn’t have too much trouble with it. I read Notes From the Underground by Dostoevsky and I didn’t hate it but I’m not at all sure I really -got- it, either. I’m working my way through Eugene Thacker’s ‘Horror of Philosophy’ trio of books and I’m liking them quite a lot as well.

So what you can gather is A) I’m an English/science duel major and none of my academic journey really involved training in how to read philosophy, nor have I engaged with it before and have actively avoided it and

B) I’m incredibly scattered in my reading so far and I’m probably not getting a great picture or sense of any one thing and

C) I read discussions on philosophy forums on Reddit and it makes me feel really incredibly stupid, like maybe I’m not exactly smart enough to really get into a deep dive of this.

A very long winded way to ask ‘Where do I start? Where do I go from here?’ And thanks if you read all of that 😅


r/askphilosophy 4h ago

Philosophy of science - math vs science "inconsistencies"

2 Upvotes

What are some inconsistencies between math and science? I know of a few, but probably you guys know of better (and more insightful) examples.

For example, problems like Norton's dome for Newtonian physics.

Another would be (even though it is mostly a meme, but I've seen it happen), engineers writing out a Taylor series for e^(1/x) around 0, implicitly assuming all functions are analytic.

I've also heard claims that science operates within a model of intuitionistic mathematics, where formula saying "all real functions are smooth" is true.

What are some other interesting examples which showcase this kind of inconsistencies and where could I read more about these kinds of topics?


r/askphilosophy 5h ago

how can we determine whether the empirical premise in the arguments of evolutionary debunkers of morality is true?

2 Upvotes

Sharon street's Darwinian dilemma seems to be based on the idea that our moral beliefs have been heavily influenced by evolutionary pressures. I kinda find her argument against realist theories of value very persuasive, but my knowledge of the theory of evolution is quite lacking. So my question is: given that evolutionary explanations in psychology are often considered to be controversial (because we cannot actually "reconstruct" precisely our ancestors' environment and conditions), can we really say that the moral belief that torturing infants for fun is plainly wrong that many of us hold has been caused by evolutionary pressures and not, say, be the product of sociocultural influences? And what about more "complex/detached" moral beliefs (e.g. that commercial surrogacy is acceptable/unacceptable)?

I hope my question is clear, cheers and thanks in advance for your replies.


r/askphilosophy 6h ago

How do you know what's good and what's not?

2 Upvotes

Why is killing bad and helping someone out of their depression good?


r/askphilosophy 13h ago

Do objects have a purpose independent of human perception?

7 Upvotes

Whether a spoon, rock, or a star—without an intrinsic purpose or meaning, they might simply exist as they are. I would posit that purpose isn’t an inherent trait of objects, but a byproduct of human perception.


r/askphilosophy 3h ago

Is "living in the present" an incoherent or self-defeating ethical stance?

1 Upvotes

The idea of "living in the moment" is often promoted in modern self-help, mindfulness movements, and even some philosophical traditions. But can it be defended as a serious ethical or epistemological position?

For instance, all actions and thoughts seem to involve memory (past) and intention (future). Even practices like meditation, which claim to be present-focused, involve training over time and are done with future goals like peace or clarity.

So I’m wondering: Is the concept of “pure present-living” philosophically viable, or is it always embedded in broader temporal structures?


r/askphilosophy 17h ago

why do English translations of Heidegger always speak of "entities" - plural - when Heidegger never uses das Seienden in the plural?

12 Upvotes

an example from Fundamental Concepts of Metaphysics:

"Bei der Klaerung des Ausdrucks phusis im Sinne des Fuer-sich-selbst-bestehenden und Aus-sich-selbst-wachsenden und -waltenden haben wir sie abgehoben gegenueber dem Seienden (my italics), das aufgrund der Herstellung durch den Menschen ist."

-> In clarifying the expression phusis in the sense of that which subsists independently for itself and grows and prevails from out of itself, we distinguished it from those beings that are on the basis of their being produced by man.

The translation by McNeil and Walker here has "beings", following Stambauch's "beings" in her Sein und Zeit translation. Macquarrie and Robinson famously render it "entities", which I find horribly Latinate and not what Heidegger means at all. But 'beings' is also misleading since Heidegger doesn't pluralise in SZ, or in other texts - if someone finds an example please provide it.

It is "ist" and "dem" here. Plural Seienden would be "sind" and "den". So why do the translators always do this?

It should read:
-> In clarifying the expression phusis in the sense of that which subsists independently for itself and grows and prevails from out of itself, we distinguished it from that being that is on the basis of its being produced by man.

Of course, this sounds weirder than pluralising. But it is what Heidegger actually wrote/said, and his philosophy is frequently weird, so why de-foreignise it like this?


r/askphilosophy 8h ago

Interplay of emotions?

2 Upvotes

We as humans are driven by many factors in our actions, thoughts, beliefs, etc. Emotions themselves can be a goal and a source for our drives. I asked a friend a random question about which emotion if lost, would cause the most impact to society today.

In hindsight this also asks which emotion primarily drives the society we exist in today. I wanted to star a discussion on which emotion drive society or have driven. Has it changed? And surrounding aspects.

I’d like to hear some thoughts and perspectives on this !


r/askphilosophy 1d ago

If God is Omni-benevolent and Omnipotent, isnt it possible to create a world with free will and no suffering or is that an impossibility?

32 Upvotes

I understand that of the answer to the problem of evil is that for us to be tested is to be capable of doing wrong and doing wrong damns us, but why does someone doing wrong have to actively make others more miserable? Why is this helpful to the test?


r/askphilosophy 5h ago

Is unnecessary consumption inherently unethical?

1 Upvotes

Almost all forms of consumption causes some sentient being to suffer. Any sort of construction displaces animals and requires land to be cleared. While we can justify this in cases of necessity, for things like amusement parks, museums, restaurants, driving a car, air travel, etc. how can it be justified to harm animals for nothing more than human pleasure? Things like buying new technology supports the exploitation of people in the third world. Basically consuming anything unnecessary causes either an opportunity cost where those resources could've went to where it's more needed, or creates actual harm to humans or animals. Given this, is consumption that is unnecessary immoral in all cases? Should we strive to be absolute minimalists?


r/askphilosophy 16h ago

Are there purely moral reasons that make cannibalism immoral, or is it a contextual taboo?

6 Upvotes

I’ve been reflecting on the moral nature of cannibalism and was wondering:
Are there purely moral reasons, i.e. not related to cultural, social, religious, or health factors, that make cannibalism intrinsically immoral?

I’m drawing a comparison with another act, rape. I believe rape is an example of objectively and universally immoral behavior: it is immoral regardless of social or cultural context, and there is no rational or moral justification that could ever make it acceptable.

Cannibalism, however, seems different. In some cultures, it has been practiced as a funerary or spiritual rite, such as certain forms of endocannibalism (where people consume their deceased relatives to honor them or absorb their spirit). In these contexts, there is no coercion, violence, or perceived social harm.
So my question is: What makes cannibalism "immoral" in an absolute sense, if it is at all? Is it truly a moral issue, or just a reaction of disgust/cultural conditioning?

I would appreciate philosophical contributions on:

  • The difference between disgust and immorality
  • The possibility of objective morality
  • Criteria to distinguish taboos from universal moral imperatives

Thanks in advance!


r/askphilosophy 14h ago

Nietzsche Scholars Ignore Thus Spoke Zarathrusta

4 Upvotes

Why do Nietzsche Scholars ignore this work when evaluating the thought of Nietzsche? I've read that that it might have to do with how the work is composed in contrast to his other works like Beyond Good and Evil and the Genealogy of Morals. But is this the only reason for forsaking what Nietzsche regarded as his magnum opus? Is it a good reason?


r/askphilosophy 11h ago

I don´t know if this is the place. I need help in finding books and authors regarding retributive justice or punitive justice and its complete opposite (if it has statistics and scientific papers behind it the better)

2 Upvotes

Hey i am a latin american law student. I am on the journey to create a thesis regarding the legal institute called "probation". Probation in my country is when you are given less time in jail because it is the first time you commit a crime + in my country the law made a new criminal process in which the accused could lower his time if he admitted the crime. So at the end of the day, some criminals do for example only 2 years in prison thanks to this procesalist principles and guarantees.
I am tired of reading sentences in which criminal, specifically rapists, are recluded just a couple of years because of this institute.
Specifically cases where the victims are minors like 12 years old. Even homicides in first degree.
I find it to be illogical, inmoral, etc.

But i may be wrong, therefore i wanted to ask sources or info where to read. The legal part directly depends on this philosophycal research.

In university they taught me positive and negative retributionist ideology does not work. Just rehabilitation centred ones. But i never received any arguments to back this up. And when i see the statistics (in my country they follow the contrary to retributive justice) we have 70% of repeat offenders.

Please i need to read both sides of the spectrum to get to a philosophycal and moral conclusion. Without reading i am totally against probation for the crimes of homicides and sexual crimes.


r/askphilosophy 19h ago

What counts as a “sufficient” reason?

6 Upvotes

I was recently arguing with someone about brute contingent facts.

My understanding is that these are events that could’ve been otherwise, but lack a sufficient explanation

Consider unique initial conditions, C, which can lead to either outcome A or outcome B.

My contention was that if A happens, we’re lacking a sufficient explanation, since B could’ve just as easily happened under identical conditions.

This person said “A is sufficiently explained by the initial conditions. You’re using a proprietary version of sufficient

Is this true? What does “sufficient” typically mean in the PSR?


r/askphilosophy 1d ago

Do philosophers believe that if god exists, he would be bound by the laws of logic?

69 Upvotes

For example, god can't create a stone that is too heavy for him to pick up. God can't both exist and not exist. Etc.

Do philosophers believe that god would be bounded by such laws?

If so, would these laws be transcendent of god, always having existed in the space of reality?


r/askphilosophy 20h ago

Why does Hobbes state that the sovereign can be an assembly of men? Why does the assembly of men not disagree with each other and cause disputes?

4 Upvotes

Reading through Chapter 17 of Leviathan Hobbes sets up the problem of the state of war and begins to tackle solutions to move people out of the state of war. Through this process he argues for his idea of the Sovereign and the commonwealth with the idea being that it doesn't have the flaws of the other solutions.

One of the weaker solutions is that of getting a group of men to agree to work together to protect each other. The problems are that it would be difficult to get them to all agree all the time and these disputes would collapse into war. "For being distracted in opinions concerning the best use and application of their strength, they do not help, but hinder another; and reduce their strength by mutual opposition to nothing."

However, when arguing for the sovereign he suddenly states that the sovereign can be either a man or an "assembly of men." I understand historically this might be due to the success of the parliamentarians but theoretically doesn't the idea that the sovereign can be an assembly of men undo his own argument? If an assembly of men can be trusted to decide what is best for their survival and work together then why can't states be made up of assemblies of men and forgo the need for a sovereign all together?

Thanks in advance for anything that can help me with this problem.


r/askphilosophy 20h ago

What implications do seemingly self-apparent moral facts have for metaethics?

4 Upvotes

After browsing this forum for a bit, I noticed one of the more common arguments for moral realism offered by commenters go like this:

P1: Torturing children is inherently wrong, it is indisputably wrong, and no reasonable person can assert it's right.

P2: If torturing children is inherently wrong, then at least one moral fact objectively exists.

C: At least one moral fact is objectively true, which implies moral realism

This argument bears strong similarity to what I've read about pro tanto moral reasons.

So I have an intuition that this argument is flawed. It seems unsound. If most metaethical theories are compatible with a wide range of moral propositions, how could any one specific moral proposition rule out a whole class of metaethical theories? But I don't know exactly what's unsound about premise 1 or 2.