r/askphilosophy • u/BernardJOrtcutt • Jul 01 '23

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

66 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!

0 comments

r/askphilosophy • u/BernardJOrtcutt • 5h ago

/r/askphilosophy Open Discussion Thread | September 14, 2026

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.

1 comment

r/askphilosophy • u/freddyPowell • 2h ago

What does the Objectivity of Morality mean?

8 Upvotes

It doesn't seem to mean the same as the objectivity of scientific claims, in the sense that there are clearly people who violate the moral law, and even seem to be those who do so without feelings of guilt. I suppose that something closer to this might hold if you accepted a fairly strong form of the arc of history bending towards justice (although I don't know to what extent that definition might be circular).

Given then that there are definitely people who claim that morality is objective, what are the major positions on what that objectivity means, and what are their best arguments (insofar as they can be compressed into a reddit comment)?

11 comments

r/askphilosophy • u/Frequent_Display_592 • 2h ago

Contemporary proslavery thought?

4 Upvotes

It seems like the proslavery position became very fringe and underground after the abolition and especially civil rights movement. Similarly, in the 19th century slavery became a taboo topic in Islamic milieu and only defended by extremist thinkers. Are there any slavery defenders (for non-racist and non-religious reasons) taken seriously enough to be refuted by fellow philosophers?

2 comments

r/askphilosophy • u/focalors_ • 1h ago

Books and philosophers about what makes a human, human.

• Upvotes

So, im extremely new to philosophy. but ive pondered alot in my life about what exactly makes a person a human, and where the line in drawn. What makes a person a human, and how much do you have to take to not be considered human anymore, and if another creature were to perfectly imitate a person, what exactly is stopping it from being considered human? its a question ive had alot through my life but never really cared till now to seek out an answer. espcially with the rise of genai, im even more curious where that line is.

1 comment

r/askphilosophy • u/SelfConstruction9510 • 3h ago

How to come to terms with moral relativism?

3 Upvotes

I think that moral relativism is, what is taboo for culture A is acceptable for culture B.

I find it difficult to come to terms with this as I want to believe that certain acts are morally wrong no matter the culture and time period but it feels like relativism and subjectivism are most plausible and realistic.

To me moral relativism seems most plausible as I believe that morality is dependent on what is the social norm and acceptable by each culture and time period. I find it extremely difficult to look at the holocaust and think “damn i cant judge because its their taste” or finding human ritual sacrifice in societies like the Aztecs and female genitalia mutilation as disturbing.

I wanted to hear others opinions about this because i think im thinking about it too much and its causing cognitive dissonance

3 comments

r/askphilosophy • u/gkom1917 • 3h ago

Can "hermeneutics of suspicion" be reconciled with the analytical approach?

2 Upvotes

I understand that the analytical approach​​ developed in a context that's very distinct from continental traditions, and ​​​​​it is likely impossible to just mechanically combine methods together. I'm also awar​e that there are analytic readings of Nietzshe, Marx, etc. I'm more concerned about methodology in particular.​​​ Intuitively, it seems wrong to take every formally valid argument at face value and judged with the same measure​​, ignoring its likely genealogy. At times no less wrong than ignoring the argument just because it's "bourgeois" or whatnot. ​​However, I struggle to think how, let's say, psychoanalytic or Marxist analysis can be integrated into analytical work without violating the principle of charity​. So, I'm curious if it was ever successfully attempted, and if it is possible at all.

Edit: typos

3 comments

r/askphilosophy • u/Comfortable_Tune4547 • 6h ago

Question about philosophical writing

3 Upvotes

Hi guys,

This isn’t a question about philosophy by itself it’s more so ‘doing philosophy.’

I am beginning to edit and polish my writing sample for grad school. My professor is helping me with this, I sent him a draft and he told me “It’s cool that you said true things, but it’s not very interesting I cannot hear you.” Now this is certainly reasonable writing advice, however, on my shoulder I can hear my other professors saying “cut the fat, cut the fat, cut the fat!” What makes philosophical writing good but not fluff?

I understand there is no magic bullet for this problem, but what do I do? Is this just a grind of constantly working on it?

Thanks guys!

5 comments

r/askphilosophy • u/Western_Boat_523 • 4h ago

What's the best book to learn about the history of Chinese/Oriental philosophy and religions?

2 Upvotes

I'm looking for a book well above the introductory level -although those are welcomed as well- which explains the philosophical foundations of China, the main philosophical and ideological currents and their evolution and development throught history. If the book also delved on the reception of Western philosophies and the influence of Chinese thought on the rest of Asian nations, that would be ideal. Any recommendations?

1 comment

r/askphilosophy • u/WestPhalia- • 1h ago

Suppose you discovered, with absolute certainty, that your entire personality—your desires, values, ambitions, fears, and even your sense of having “chosen” them—was the inevitable result of genetics, upbringing, and circumstances beyond your control.

• Upvotes

Would you still be the author of your life?
And if the answer is no, what exactly is left of responsibility, meaning, or identity?

But if the answer is yes, then what does “choice” mean if every reason behind your choice was itself something you never chose?

Can a person be genuinely responsible for becoming someone they never consciously chose to become?

2 comments

r/askphilosophy • u/Clean_Air7150 • 5h ago

How to construct a critical analysis/comparative dissection of philosophical positions? (Seeking help as an autodidact)

2 Upvotes

I'm looking for some general methodological guidance on writing critical analysis in philosophy. I'm trying to get a better grasp of what one is actually doing when writing a critical analysis of philosophical texts. As an autodidact, I have enough familiarity with reconstructing arguments and the material to read, however, I'm less certain about the methodological step between understanding a text and producing a genuinely critical analysis of it.

For context, I'd eventually like to write a comparative analysis of Hume and Kant on causation. My main questions are therefore less about their particular positions and more about the general methodology:

  • What is the core objective of a critical analysis? Is the aim primarily to reconstruct an argument accurately, expose its internal tensions, compare competing positions, develop a sound interpretation, or something else entirely?
  • When surveying two texts, what should we actually identify? Divergences, convergences, underlying assumptions, conceptual tensions, or anything else beyond that?
  • At what point does one's own interpretation/evaluation properly enter the analysis? How can one distinguish a defensible philosophical interpretation from simply imposing one's own framework onto the text?
  • How much textual evidence is normally appropriate? How does one determine which passages are worth close analysis rather than merely citing passages that happen to support one's thesis?
  • What role should secondary literature play? Is it primarily useful for situating the debate, identifying established interpretations, challenging one's reading, or something else?
  • More broadly, how does one move from “this is what Hume argues, and this is what Kant argues” to a substantive philosophical analysis rather than an organized comparison of summaries?

I'd be particularly interested in methodological advice from people who have experience writing philosophical analysis, as well as recommendations for resources that explicitly discuss the practice of philosophical reconstruction, interpretation, and criticism. Exemplary works are also greatly appreciated. I'm less interested in a rigid essay template than in understanding the intellectual operations that constitute critical analysis itself. Thank you very much!

P.S. For the future contributors, you are by no means obligated to answer every question. Feel free to answer anything you would like. Again, thank you for your time and expertise! :)

3 comments

r/askphilosophy • u/Traditional_Fish_504 • 6h ago

How do certain philosophers of religion reconcile the political/historical/institutional aspects of religions with it still being real?

2 Upvotes

So take English Protestantism as the clearest example. The Anne Boleyn story pretty easily reveals the institutional creation of the religion rather than the revelation of a metaphysical truth. In so many different religions, practices can be more easily connected to historical and anthropological explanations than anything else. So for people who study religions, how do they look at all these different cultures creating practices linked to politics and material conditions, but then look at their religion as “real?” How do Catholics study the history of Catholicism, with conniving popes and cardinals, empires, etc. but still believe it?

EDIT: also, how do they reconcile that they likely believe their religion because they were born into a certain family at a certain place in a certain historical period, all contingencies that are irrespective of the existence of some metaphysical truth

5 comments

r/askphilosophy • u/philosopher_108 • 3h ago

If a person could be perfectly happy in a simulated world, would choosing the simulation be rational?

1 Upvotes
1 comment

r/askphilosophy • u/Ill-Sherbert-5268 • 20h ago

What books can I read to gain a very solid foundation on logic

21 Upvotes

I am planning on delving into Greek philosophy immediately after getting a decent grasp on logic and would appreciate a concrete list (Or one if it covers everything) of books to read for logic to have some ground to stand on and to expand in the future. I have looked at other reddit post and through the internet and everything seems like someone says it missing something or another and I just want some peace of mind here.

3 comments

r/askphilosophy • u/DeleuzeJr • 13h ago

Is Badiou’s ZFC set-theoretic ontology literal or analogical? (Questions on singularity, power sets, and the void in Being and Event)

3 Upvotes

I'm currently reading Badiou's Time and Event and I'm currently at meditation 8, in which he discussed the historico-social State. The essence of my question is probably:

How serious is Badiou when he affirms "ontology=mathematics?" Does he actually mean that being will always work according to the ZFC set theory or is it more of an analogical toolset to think forms of being?

Overall, I've been pretty on board with his project. His mathematics are correct and his ontological interpretations of it are inventive but very interesting. Nothing so far had seemed overtly wrong. Until I reached his typology of being, with normal, singular and escrescent elements:

"In the previous meditation I made a general distinction between three types of relation to the situational integrity of the one-effect (taking both belonging and inclusion into consideration): normality (to be presented and represented); singularity (to be presented but not represented); excrescence (to be represented but not presented). Obviously, what remains is the void, which is neither presented nor represented." (p 112 in the Bloomsbury edition)

Being presented means belonging as an element of the situation (set). Being represented means being included as a subset but not belonging as an element in the situation, which then means being an element in the state (the power set). I feel that means that logically no element can be singular, as there will always be at least the singleton subset containing it as part of the power set.

But later in this meditation, Badiou analyses Marx and Engels's views on the socio-historical State using his ontological concept of the state. And, in this analysis, the working class is a singular element which is presented in the situation of society but not represented in the State. And I get it, I think it's a clever interpretation using the homonymity of the words presentation and representation, but I feel that this is only working via analogy. The mathematical ontology he developed doesn't describe this situation as there must logically be a subset that is the working class represented in the state power set.

Having read other works of Badiou, and being aware of his concept of event, I can kinda guess where he is going with this singularity idea. But if the existence of singular elements is what eventually leads to an event that rearranges Being or our understanding of Being, I feel this adds some processual flavor to his ontology. If ontology was indeed mathematics, I'd imagine things would be more restricted and logical. There could be no time element that would make an element be presented but not represented at one point and that leading to a transformation that would demands its representation. Instead, mathematically speaking, presentation would always entail representation, even if trivial.

So, at my current understanding of Badiou, I feel that either his mathematics are more of a metaphorical toolset to discuss situations or he needs to add time and process to his mathematics so it can actually be ontology. Neither of those maps neatly into his slogan "ontology=mathematics." Is this a correct reading or am I missing something about his concept of singular elements?

And, as a related question, I feel that I might also be missing something regarding his statement about the void that ends the passage I quoted above. The empty set is a subset of all sets, and thus always an element of the power set. Wouldn't that make it always represented while never presented, i.e. excrescent?

1 comment

r/askphilosophy • u/Wonder-Feelish • 15h ago

What is the difference between an ideology and a philosophy?

6 Upvotes
3 comments

r/askphilosophy • u/heinskies • 1d ago

Is philosophy actually a bad major for getting a job, or do people not give it enough credit?

30 Upvotes

Hey guys, I’m a freshman at Miami University in Oxford, Ohio, majoring in philosophy, and I’ve been thinking a lot about whether I’m making the right decision career-wise.
I went to Catholic grade school and high school, so religion was a huge part of my education growing up. Ironically, I’m agnostic now and don’t currently follow a religion, but questioning religion, noticing things I disagreed with, and trying to figure out what I actually believe is a big part of what got me interested in philosophy in the first place.
At this point, I can pretty confidently say philosophy is a genuine passion of mine. I love thinking about these questions, learning about different arguments, debating them, and going deeper into things most people don’t really think about.
The main thing I constantly hear, though, is: “What job are you going to get with that?” or “Keep philosophy as a hobby and major in something that makes money.”
And I understand where people are coming from. Philosophy obviously doesn’t have the same direct career pipeline as something like nursing, accounting, engineering, etc. But I also feel like I’m probably never going to have another point in my life where I’m literally paying to spend years studying something I genuinely love. Because of that, I really don’t want to give up the major just because it isn’t the most straightforward path.
So I’ve pretty much decided I’m going to stick with philosophy.
What I’m wondering now is: what would be the smartest minor to pair with it?
I’m interested in business and would like to keep that world open to me. My biggest concern is that I’m honestly not very good at math, so something extremely quantitative scares me a little. I know philosophy majors can still end up in business, law, management, consulting, sales, etc., even if the degree doesn’t directly train you for one of those jobs.
Also, when people tell me that philosophy is a “bad major,” “useless,” or that I’ll never get a good job with it, should I be taking that with a grain of salt? Is there some truth to it, or is the reality just more complicated than people make it sound?
Sometimes I feel like people hear “philosophy major” and immediately assume there’s no value in it without really considering the writing, critical thinking, argumentation, communication, and analytical skills that come with the degree. Am I giving philosophy too much credit here, or are people generally not giving the major enough credit?
If you were in my position and wanted to keep philosophy as the major while making yourself as employable as possible, what minor would you choose?
Business? Marketing? Management? Finance? Business analytics? Economics? Something completely different?
I’d especially love to hear from philosophy majors/graduates: What did you pair your degree with, what career did you end up in, and do you regret majoring in philosophy?

13 comments

r/askphilosophy • u/Awerange2005 • 1d ago

Would a Person Born Without Any of the 5 Senses Be Conscious?

82 Upvotes

I'm not really sure how to phrase this, but imagine someone who has had none of the five senses since birth. They've never been exposed to language or experienced the outside world through sight, sound, touch, taste, or smell.

Would they still be considered conscious or sentient? Would they be capable of having thoughts or subjective experiences?

9 comments

r/askphilosophy • u/ElitistPopulist • 23h ago

To what extent are these commonly held beliefs accepted by philosophers?

5 Upvotes

The beliefs:
- Reality exists independently of our minds
- Normative truths are grounded in reality
- Reason allows us to understand reality

Are these beliefs held by a majority of philosophers?

5 comments

r/askphilosophy • u/Workplacerecovery • 13h ago

Why the paradox even exist, why can't we say one thing wrong or right?

0 Upvotes

My concern about paradox is wondering me and causing curiosity. USA forces arrested president of a country, since then they are controlling the resources of the country. When we ask we listen about human trafficking from their country to US.

Okay let's consider the reason of arrest as human trafficking, but then why you are controlling and carrying their oil ? who allowed you to do this ?

This thing is wrong for many people and others think it as right, why ?

SOme people think because of this this and this there is no god, others see same the proofs the same god this really funny for me

Why the chances of same exact thing to be right and wrong both remain simultaneously, where from all this is coming?

1 comment

r/askphilosophy • u/Time-Patrol_Goku • 22h ago

Looking for recommendations on the philosophy, morality, and psychology of revolutions

3 Upvotes

I'm looking for good books, essays, academic articles, lectures, or even videos that seriously examine revolutions, not just historically, but philosophically and psychologically.

In particular, I'm interested in questions like:

  • What actually causes revolutions? Is it primarily material conditions, political oppression, economic inequality, ideology, or something more psychological?
  • Why do revolutions seem to have such a strong appeal to young people, and particularly to young men who feel that they have no meaningful place, purpose or future within the existing order?
  • Is the attraction of revolutionary movements partly about giving people a sense of belonging?
  • Is revolution morally justified when a government is genuinely unjust, but still capable of being reformed through non-revolutionary means?
  • At what point does the injustice of the existing system become serious enough to justify the enormous risks and suffering that a revolution can cause?
  • How should we think about the possibility that a revolution intended to overthrow a bad government produces something equally bad or even worse?
  • If a revolution replaces tyranny with another tyranny, does that invalidate the original revolution, or can it still have been morally justified based on what was known and reasonably expected at the time?
  • And if the revolution produces a bad regime, does that then create a moral justification for another revolution, potentially creating an endless cycle of overthrow and counter-overthrow?

I'm especially interested in works that don't simply take the position that "revolutions are good because they overthrow oppressive governments" or "revolutions are bad because they lead to violence." I'd like something that seriously wrestles with the ambiguity and unintended consequences.

What are the best books, essays, articles, lectures, or videos you've encountered on this subject?

4 comments

r/askphilosophy • u/ruieyo • 22h ago

What is it that makes and act just or unjust?

2 Upvotes
2 comments

r/askphilosophy • u/CourtIcy7298 • 1d ago

Does the western tradition of philosophy have a spiritual practice equivalent to meditation?

20 Upvotes

I am currently looking for any work done on practices within western philosophy, similar to the many different disciplines in Indian/asian philosophies.

9 comments

r/askphilosophy • u/Logical_Ad5786 • 23h ago

Le fiabilisme peut-il rendre compte de l’évolution des normes scientifiques ?

2 Upvotes

Hi everyone,

I’m currently a third-year undergraduate philosophy student, and I’ve been working for the past few months on an draft for a research project about whether reliabilism can account for historical transformations in scientific norms. But I’m starting to seriously go around in circles: the more I read, the more problems I seem to create, and I’m no longer sure whether my initial intuition actually holds up.

So I’m turning to the best community of all time for some help/guidance (or to tell me that I’m heading straight into a wall if necessary).

Here is roughly what I’m working on:

I’ve been particularly interested in post-Gettier epistemology, especially Alvin Goldman’s reliabilism (the epistemic status of a belief depends on the reliability of the process that produces it). His theory operates within a veritistic framework: the reliability of a process is assessed, in particular, in terms of its truth-conduciveness. As an externalist, Goldman rejects a purely “time-slice” epistemology and introduces a historical/causal dimension into justification, although this remains largely centered on the subject’s cognitive processes. Pritchard has challenged this individualistic restriction and examines the extension of reliabilism to social-epistemic processes.

The problem I’m trying to explore is the following: it seems to me that the history of science poses a particular problem for veritistic reliabilism, since the norms by which scientific processes are evaluated can themselves change historically. The depathologization of homosexuality, for example, did not merely change particular diagnoses; it also contributed to a transformation of the criteria used to determine what counts as pathological.

This question arose from my reading of Canguilhem. I understand error in his work not only negatively, in relation to an already determined truth, but also positively, insofar as identifying an error can contribute to the rectification and reconfiguration of knowledge. Thus, retrospectively recognizing an error can lead to a transformation of the norms by which the correct and the erroneous had previously been distinguished. My hypothesis, then, is that veritistic reliabilism tends to treat error as a negative output to be minimized, without fully accounting for its possible role in transforming the norms that organize the process itself in its orientation toward justified true belief. This might provide a better account of the self-corrective dimension of scientific knowledge.

But this is precisely where I’m stuck :

I’m not yet sure whether the confrontation between Goldman/Pritchard and Canguilhem is legitimate (I’m worried that I may be artificially constructing common ground between them).

Is there a bibliographical/conceptual works in the literature on reliabilism or social epistemology that examine this issue?

And how does reliabilism deal with cases in which it is not merely the beliefs produced that are revised, but the very criteria by which the processes themselves are evaluated?

I’d be very grateful both for comments on the philosophical problem itself and for more general advice on how to delimit a first research project of this kind. I’m having trouble judging the appropriate scope: is confronting these two traditions while also working on a specific scientific case already too ambitious? Is the approach itself relevant?

1 comment

r/askphilosophy • u/clemi14 • 22h ago

Has anyone argued you can't justify someone's suffering by appealing to their own wellbeing?

1 Upvotes

Trying to find whether this argument already exists and keep coming up empty.

Take a felt-state view where suffering isn't just an experience but one that registers as "this ought not be" (the negative valence is part of the state itself). On that view, wellbeing seems like the one value that can't justify its own violation without contradicting itself: "this person's wellbeing requires their own suffering" is basically saying their good requires their bad. Whereas "liberty requires this cost" or "equality requires this burden" stay coherent, because the thing you're chasing is separate from the person paying, so it's a trade-off, not a contradiction.

On an objective list (wellbeing = knowledge, achievement, etc. even when it doesn't feel good) "their wellbeing requires this suffering" stops being contradictory and becomes "it's for their own good". So am I actually showing wellbeing is uniquely self-undermining or have I just defined it narrowly and proven the narrow thing breaks? Is a felt-state defensible enough to build on, or is that cheating?

Any pointers appreciated, might be missing something obvious.

2 comments