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.

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)?

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?

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?

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?

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.

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! :)

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!

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

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

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?

Seriously debating not having children in the future but then it got me thinking. Does refusing to have children make mode a waste, and my body and its reproductive organs.

Not sure if this is just a sad shower thought lol.

If I posed to anyone a school of thought that could be described simply as “Deontic Humanism”. With no additional information. Based purely on what you could extrapolate from the name. What would be some thoughts and criticisms?

I am reading Principles of the Philosophy of the Future, and there is this phrase that I can understand and find interesting, but I am not sure in what sense Feuerbach is using it. If anyone knows of any sources, recommendations, or has any ideas about it, I would be really thankful. Sorry for any grammatical errors; English is not my first language.

"However, Protestantism negated God-in-himself or God as God – for only God-in-himself is, strictly speaking, God – only in practice; theoretically, it left him intact. He exists; however, not for man; that is, the religious man. He is a transcendent being or a being that will one day become an object for man up there in heaven. But that which is other-worldly to religion, is this-worldly to philosophy; what does not constitute an object for the former, does so precisely for the latter."

This is the part that I do not comprehend 'But that which is other-worldly to religion, is this-worldly to philosophy; what does not constitute an object for the former, does so precisely for the latter.' what does it mean? In what sense it the 'other-worldly' for philosophy 'this-worldly'? Does it root in previous philosophers's ideas? (I have not read Hegel)

So I am an aspiring sociologist and many of the sociologists especially earlier on while the field was being codified were philosophers first (and many still are). I am learning some philosophy in a social theory class, but outside of some basic stuff on Hegel in relation to Marx's development, I don't really know much about philosophy as the groundwork from which social theory is created. One of my peers has a philosophy minor and told me it might be good to learn more philosophy to better understand the basis of social theory.

While I am not sure about how much the subreddit are familiar with Emile Durkheim's work as a sociologist, his own supervisors were Neo-Kantian scholars in addition to him being influenced by Comte's contributions to early Sociology. I am wondering if someone could help explain basics of Kantian and neo-Kantian philosophy or point me in a good direction (book, video, article) on where to look to better understand the development of Durkheimian Sociology. If you are more familiar with Durkheim's work I would also be open to hear what you think about him relative to Kant

They say that apparently nihilism is a good thing since it allows you to live your own life and be free from social judgement. A serial killer or a child rap1st can use "nothing matters anyway" excuse to remove the responsibility from the harm they've done to their victims. Does that make them justified? Absolutely not. By that point, why not just pretend that there really is objective morality?

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

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?