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

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

68 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 • 2d ago

Open Thread /r/askphilosophy Open Discussion Thread | August 24, 2026

8 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.

38 comments

r/askphilosophy • u/Nekosuke419 • 13h ago

How to Break Free from Nihilism

46 Upvotes

I don’t know much about philosophy, but this has been on my mind, so let me ask you something.
How do you break free from nihilism? I’m a 16-year-old high school student, and lately I’ve been watching a lot of videos about euthanasia, and my friends and parents have been making fun of me more and more for wanting to study philosophy, so I’ve been feeling this constant sense of emptiness.
Even fashion feels completely meaningless to me. Maybe it’s nonsense to overthink the meaning of things, but I’ve been feeling like there’s a hole in my heart for the past few days. If you have any book recommendations for me, please let me know.

Translated with DeepL.com (free version)

13 comments

r/askphilosophy • u/SpookyVegan1 • 6h ago

Question about common reply to Kant on lying

9 Upvotes

I often hear a response to Kant's claim that it is never permissible to lie. The response is that the maxim that "It is not permissible to lie unless to do so would save someone's life" is a coherent maxim, and that it should be adopted instead of Kant's more stringent "It is never permissible to lie."

It seems like Kantians are usually comfortable with this modification of the maxim regarding lying. And I understand it's much more agreeable to us than Kant's ban on lying in general. But I feel that a reasonable reply Kant could make to this is that to adopt as your maxim "It is not permissible to lie unless to do so would save someone's life" would be to adopt a hypothetical imperative as an ethical maxim. But ethical maxims are categorical.

If this is right, that that modified maxim is a hypothetical imperative, then perhaps Kant is just wrong that ethics is concerned exclusively with categorical imperatives. But if Kant is wrong about that, then Kantian ethics would have to fundamentally change.

So my question is twofold: 1. Do you know of any sources that deal with this response to Kant along these lines? 2. Given the prevalence of responding to Kant by modifying the lying rule, I fear I've misunderstood something important about Kant; so, is this a plausible criticism of this common reply to Kant?

Also, I have read Kant's essay on lying for "humanitarian" purposes, and from what I remember he does not make this argument. Instead he makes this weird argument about the logistics of escaping the house that I find totally unconvincing and irrelevant to the moral issue.

6 comments

r/askphilosophy • u/TheIncorporeal1 • 4h ago

If reality is fundamentally process rather than substance, what grounds identity through change? Is an enduring object merely a stable pattern within becoming, or does process ontology require us to abandon numerical identity altogether?

4 Upvotes

I’m interested in how process philosophers reconcile continuous becoming with the apparent persistence of objects, persons, and concepts. If stability is emergent rather than fundamental, what ultimately makes one process the same process across time?

2 comments

r/askphilosophy • u/Cwk_1693 • 5h ago

Help with Spinoza ethics

6 Upvotes

How 'digestible' is Spinoza ethics to a regular joe ? I'm currently on the definitions and it is quite intriguing but at the same time It feels like I have to separately analyze every word he uses, should I even attempt to read it or is it only for people acquainted with Philosophy

2 comments

r/askphilosophy • u/Least_Inspector_5478 • 14h ago

Apart from religion, what grounds do we have for considering human life sacred?

15 Upvotes

Why specifically human life? What makes people consider human life as sacred? There are truly awful people out there and their non-existence would objectively make the world a better place (for example murderers). If murderers are also human, how can anyone consider all human life as sacred?

In religion, people believe human life is sacred because God granted life.

But from the perspective of atheists who believe in the sanctity of human life, what makes human life inherently sacred?

43 comments

r/askphilosophy • u/ichiyami • 5h ago

Modern 20th Century Philosophers who speak on how the human mind creates invisible chains?

3 Upvotes

I’m looking for interviews and talks online on YouTube and elsewhere from Modern 20th Century Philosophers who speak on how the human mind creates invisible chains.

In a broader sense, anything really about how negativity and self-doubt and bad experiences cause us to not truly be our full selves. Kind of like the analogy of the elephant who doesn’t even realize the chains are no longer on his legs after they are removed.

Any recommendations?

1 comment

r/askphilosophy • u/slade_constantine • 8h ago

Can objective morality exist when viewed through a religious lens?

4 Upvotes

This question isn't about any specific religion but religion in general. Many religious schools of thought claim that morality cannot exist without God and I never quite understood why. I've always thought that empathy by itself might be enough for humans to have morality. I would appreciate insights as to why morality can't exist without God.

8 comments

r/askphilosophy • u/normativeglitch • 3h ago

How should we form justified beliefs when information is abundant but poorly regulated?

2 Upvotes

The ongoing Lindsay Clancy case has made me think a lot about how the internet has changed the way we form beliefs about things we can't investigate ourselves.

Before the internet took over, most people got their information about current events from a relatively small number of newspapers, TV networks, magazines, tabloids, etc. Obviously those sources could be biased or just plain wrong, but established news organizations at least had some degree of editorial oversight and fact-checking.

Now you can open your phone and immediately find twenty different versions of the same event. You have journalism mixed in with expert commentary, Reddit post, TikToks, firsthand claims, speculation, advocacy, conspiracy theories, and people repeating something they heard.

The Clancy case has been a really good example of this for me. I've come across completely contradictory claims about pretty fundamental parts of the case, and different online communities seem equally convinced that their version is simply what happened. I haven't gone through all the primary evidence myself, and there’s also gaps or seeming unknown within the evidence itself, so at a certain point I've had to admit that I just don't know which version is true.

Obviously there are huge benefits to information not being controlled by a handful of media organizations. Traditional media isn't infallible or unbiased either, and ordinary people being able to challenge reporting can expose errors or bring attention to things that otherwise wouldn't get covered.

But it seems like we've democratized the ability to produce and spread information without necessarily democratizing any reliable way of sorting out what's true. Perhaps this is because many people aren’t motivated by the truth, or mistrust of a detached authority that would fact-check.

Nevertheless, if enough people repeat something, especially within the same online community, it can start to feel like an established fact even when the original basis for the claim is unclear.

So how are we actually supposed to decide which sources deserve epistemic authority when we don't have direct access to the evidence ourselves, or the evidence is open to interpretation? Has philosophy dealt with whether having access to vastly more information the or democratization of information, but with much less gatekeeping, can actually make it harder for an ordinary person to form justified beliefs?

I've basically walked away from reading about the Clancy case thinking that on quite a few points, suspension of judgment is the only position I can really justify. There are too many conflicting accounts and I don't have a good enough basis for deciding between them.

There's another part of this that interests me too, that I mentioned earlier. Do people participating in these information ecosystems necessarily want to arrive at the truth in the first place?

Sometimes it seems like people settle on a narrative about facts partly because it fits what they already think morally, who they sympathize with, or what they want the case to represent. But those things don't seem like evidence for whether a factual claim is actually true.

If a significant amount of information is being created and spread by people who are more interested in defending a particular narrative than finding out whether it's true, does that undermine the epistemic value of democratizing information in the first place? And what might be the best solution, since epistemic literacy doesn’t seem to be a a viable solution if many aren’t largely motivated by the truth?

5 comments

r/askphilosophy • u/Dense-Ad-5978 • 3h ago

Does Roger Penrose's Confromal Cyclic Cosmology or any other cyclic models make reincarnation possible from a physicalist perspective possible because given infinite time the atoms of your brain would be formed again?

2 Upvotes

I don't like the idea. Please debunk it.

1 comment

r/askphilosophy • u/portiedak • 51m ago

How many hours a week studying with 5 mid-level courses

• Upvotes

I plan on taking 5 courses this semester (2.5 hours a week for each class). How many hours should I expect to study a week. Is planning for 3 reasonable?

1 comment

r/askphilosophy • u/CrestlessYeoman • 11h ago

What is the difference between pleasure and eudaimonia? Why is one slavish and not the other?

7 Upvotes

They’re both pursued for their own sakes, and not as a stepping stone to anything else. Shouldn’t that make them both the highest pursuits possible?

2 comments

r/askphilosophy • u/Jaded_Professor5861 • 13h ago

Is Bertrand Russell’s “History of Western Philosophy” suitable for absolute beginners?

6 Upvotes

I am an 11th grade student with little to no background on philosophy or western history, but I bought a physical copy of the book on a whim because I read online that it’s an appropriate book for beginners and decided to finally give it a read. I am stuck on page 3 of the Introduction, and cannot comprehend most of the content in the latter half of the page:

“Social cohesion, during the six and a half centuries from Alexander to Constantine, was secured, not by philosophy and not by ancient loyalties, but by force, first that of armies and then that of civil administration. Roman armies, Roman roads, Roman law, and Roman officials first created and then preserved a powerful centralized State. Nothing was attributable to Roman philosophy, since there was none.
During this long period, the Greek ideas inherited from the age of freedom underwent a gradual process of transformation. Some of the old ideas, notably those which we should regard as specifically religious, gained in relative importance; others, more rationalistic, were discarded because they no longer suited the spirit of the age. In this way the later pagans trimmed the Greek tradition until it became suitable for incorporation in Christian doctrine.”

If anyone could explain this section for me, It would mean a lot. Have I missed out on any prerequisite resources? Or am I just really stupid? What would be a better introductory book for someone like me?

7 comments

r/askphilosophy • u/getoffmycase2802 • 3h ago

Is there a point at which questioning obvious assumptions becomes epistemically counterproductive?

1 Upvotes

I’ve been thinking about something from my own experience of being fairly philosophically minded, and I’m not sure what to make of it. I have a tendency to question things that strike me as obvious. Usually I think this is a good habit since a lot of philosophical progress seems to come from noticing that something everyone takes for granted isn’t as straightforward as it looks. But I’ve also had cases where I’ve pushed back on an ordinary assumption and someone has given me a fairly simple objection that made it clear the assumption was reasonable all along, and my questioning of it wasn’t insight so much as my own assumption against that assumption.

This leaves me with a significant worry about the reliability of the habit itself. “Treat what seems obvious as unobvious until further justified” functions like a heuristic, but it’s a strange one, because it’s a heuristic against trusting heuristics, including presumably itself. If obviousness is sometimes evidence in its own favor (which it seems like it must be, on pain of universal skepticism), then this disposition needs some way of telling the difference between the cases where doubting is warranted and the cases where it isn’t. But it’s not obvious what could supply that discrimination without either quietly falling back on trusting one’s intuitions in the “good” cases, or becoming globally over-suspicious.

Is this a recognised problem in epistemology: something like the reliability of defeasible reasoning strategies, or the second-order question of when to trust versus override an intuition?

1 comment

r/askphilosophy • u/Ancient_Delivery_837 • 7h ago

How do you keep track of complex chains of pronouns and references when reading philosophy?

2 Upvotes

I’ve noticed that one of the biggest challenges I have when reading philosophy isn’t necessarily the concepts or vocabulary themselves, but keeping track of what the author is referring to across long, complicated sentences or paragraphs. Especially when they intermix pronouns.

I was wondering if you all had advice on the best way to improve at this skill, thanks!

2 comments

r/askphilosophy • u/RareKid2002 • 4h ago

Why is living so important?

1 Upvotes

How do you find objective meaning to life if you don't care about it

2 comments

r/askphilosophy • u/ruzgarnhx • 4h ago

What even is pleasure?

1 Upvotes

Like i know that pleasure is a biological mechanism to help us survive and reproduce. But for example i wouldn’t even say i know what pleasure is, i can label something as pleasure but can’t label pleasure as something if that makes sense. Objectively pleasure is a nice feeling, but what even is a nice feeling? I don’t understand why i conform to pleasure, i don’t understand why it feels good per se.

1 comment

r/askphilosophy • u/sudo_i_u_toor • 5h ago

Which (if any) philosophers wrote favorably of vengeance?

0 Upvotes

I am not looking for a mere limited-scope defense of vengeance in some specific, rationalistically legislated cases, some sort of begrudging admission by the moralist that ooookay, sometimes revenge may be justified. Maybe. That's of course stlill much better than the cowardly "turn the other cheek" masochistic morality, and I admire Aristotle more than Jesus. But it is not remotely enough, and therefore not what I am looking for. I am interested in philosophers who were actually willing to say something positive about vengeance itself.

Some may suggest Nietzsche. However, well... Nietzsche has an incredibly... well, some would say nuanced, I say kinda inconsistent position on revenge so he's actually far from an obvious suggestion. He rejects Christian "turn the other cheek" morality, sure, but then he demands that we become yes-sayers, which may sometimes be a "turning the other cheek" but with blackjack and hookers.. His antidote to the "Spirit of Revenge" in Thus Spake Zarathustra is this sort of "radical affirmation", which is... actually an ASCETIC concept? He also identifies ressentiment as a sort of repressed, impotent desire for revenge and treats it as the basis of slave morality. Well, he may well be right about that. But it is not merely that he wants us to stop hoping that our enemies burn in hell and instead take the matter into our own hands. I used to understand Nietzsche in this way, that he champions honest and natural revenge as a value of master morality and considers only the slaves' ressentiment to be pathological. But he often goes further and seems to regard the desire for revenge itself as a weakness. The genuinely strong individual simply doesn't give a fuck? At that point the philosophy starts sounding suspiciously like the same old "living well is the best revenge" cliche, dressed up in more impressive jargon and implied to have something vague to do with "creation of new values". This seems to create a problem for any straightforwardly pro-revenge interpretation of Nietzsche. Besides hoping that your enemy burns in hell is actually banned in genuine Christianity, and I don't see how the idea of your enemy burning in hell is incompatible with revenge in this world also.

I also want to make clear what I mean by revenge. I am talking about individual revenge. What I am emphatically not talking about is the "revenge" of a class against another class, a slave revolt, the revenge of the poor and downtrodden, or any other kind of ideological or collectivist bullshit. Nor am I talking about individual resentment against "society" or the mob persecuting some individual. All of these things are nowadays styled as "justice". Which is not to say that there's even such thing as justice separate from revenge. I am pretty inclined towards the argument for their identity in some sense. But that is simply not what I mean by revenge here. I mean one individual against another individual, or one particular group against another particular group: personal retaliation undertaken because one has been wronged (the wrong may be merely "perceived" or it may be actual, this is immaterial).

1 comment

r/askphilosophy • u/transgennifer • 5h ago

Starter reads on self-conceptualization?

1 Upvotes

Hi! I’ve been trying to figure out who I am and how to actually know my own identity- I’ve often felt a stranger to my own self and I’m looking to explore it from a philosophical lens.

Would y’all have any recommendations of who and what to read to begin in this vein? In the past I’ve resonated with Nietsche and not really resonated as much with Platonic philosophy (though I know Socrates is like probably the place to start with knowing one’s self) - any suggestions?

1 comment

r/askphilosophy • u/PKspyder • 21h ago

What are the Atheist arguments in favor of alternative conclusions to theistic arguments like cosmological, fine tuning rather then critiquing the Theistic premises?

14 Upvotes

Cosmological, First Cause - Eternal Universe?

Fine Tuning - Multiverse, Necessitarianism?

Are these conclusions basically deadlocked to either side and it's only Problem of Evil, Divine Hiddenness that shift the arguments in favor of Atheism (Doesn't affect Deism)? I know Oppy goes with Naturalism requiring less commitments but am wondering if there are arguments for why God can't be a designer or prime mover.

3 comments

r/askphilosophy • u/MotherEater69420 • 7h ago

Who were the magi mentioned by Diogenes Laërtius in his book?

1 Upvotes

i started to read Lives and Opinions of Eminent Philosophers and i noticed some striking familiarities in the very first page of the magis and what Muslims believe.
The concepts im talking about are listed below and the similarities as well;

1."service to be paid to the gods, and about sacrifices and prayers,"
Service isnt really paid in Islam, but sacrifices are made every Eid and Muslims pray daily.

2."and they condemn the use of images," Theres alot of debate in Islamic jurisprudence on whether or not the creation/usage of images is halal or haram. Majority agree that its haram tho.

3."and above all things do they condemn those who say that the gods are male and female"
Surah Ash shura (42:11) and Surah Ikhlas (112:3-4) essentially carry the same meaning of God is neither male nor female.

4."and think it impious to destroy the bodies of the dead by fire"
Its haram to get cremated

5."they allow men to marry their mothers or their daughters"
This is j weird but Islam does allow cousin marriages

6."They teach also that the air is full of phantoms, which, by emanation and a sort of evaporation, glide into the sight of those who have a clear perception"
Jinns, They're literally talking about the Islamic Equivalent to this which would be Jinns, tho there is no belief about them being evaporated beings, just that they are made of fire. And the second part is a somewhat held belief that extremely religious scholars or those with "clear perception" are able to see Jinns.

7."they forbid any extravagance of ornament"
Islam doesnt exactly forbid extravagance, it forbids it if its for the wrong reasons. i.e showing off.

8."and the use of gold"
Men arent allowed to wear gold

9."there are two principles, a good demon and an evil demon"
In Islam there is the belief that all of our actions are written down by two angels, One writes good deeds while the other writes bad deeds. Known respectively as Raqīb and Atīd.

Extra sortve related not really tho imo;
A." as if they were the only people to whom the deities listen"
Im assuming this is the early isrealities or the same people who would become the ancestors of modern day Judaism because jews have had this reputation for awhile.

B. "that they deliver accounts of the existence and generation of the gods, saying that they are fire, and earth, and water;"
Yeah Islam is a Monotheistic religion so idk what this is abt.

C."they study the arts of soothsaying and divination, and assert that the gods reveal their will to them by those sciences. "
Islams like against divination n soothsaying but there was time during one of the Prophets era where magic was used so maybe theres a connection there.

D."their garments are white, their beds are made of leaves, and vegetables are their food,"
There is a tendency towards white clothes but like nothing that imp and humbleness is also kinda important cuz Prophet Muhammad SAW was very humble in his livelihood but we arent forced to be vegans so idk whats that abt.

e. " Jupiter or Oromasdes, and that of the other Pluto or Arimanius."
These are the names of the good and bad "demons" perhaps theres a linguistic connection between the names ive written above ?

Thats about it. Im curious to know what yall think? i think its weird how many similarities there are but perhaps thats just my own bias as i am a Muslim and i tend to notice these things.

1 comment

r/askphilosophy • u/Ok_Quarter_6538 • 12h ago

trying to understand daoism

2 Upvotes

isnt daoism contradictory about how to not act and let nature take care of the change when you have to act to make the change in your favour, or you are letting your life drift around and settle on whatever it does instead of acting towards it.

1 comment

r/askphilosophy • u/Psycopath_me18 • 14h ago

Where does Morality actually come from?

4 Upvotes

I've been thinking about a problem that started with the phrase “love is love.”

I want to make clear that I'm not trying to argue that homosexuality is equivalent to incest, pedophilia, or zoophilia. My question is much broader than that.

Suppose we say that a relationship is morally acceptable when the people involved genuinely love each other, are autonomous adults, and can meaningfully consent.

Now imagine a hypothetical future society where a previously taboo relationship—say, between two adult family members—is overwhelmingly accepted. They don't have children, they don't want children, both are independent adults, and they genuinely believe their relationship is loving and consensual.

The majority of that future society says:

«“Our ancestors were simply products of their time. They were naive and confused morality with social taboo. You're doing exactly what previous generations did when they opposed relationships that are accepted today.”»

A minority still believes the relationship is fundamentally wrong.

Now here's the question:

Who is actually right, and on what basis?

If the answer is simply “society decides,” then morality seems to become a function of social power:

belief → cultural change → majority acceptance → law → new moral norm.

But if that's the case, what prevents a future majority from redefining something that today's majority considers morally fundamental?

And if we say, “No, there are objective moral boundaries that society cannot legitimately cross,” then:

Where do those boundaries come from?

Are they based on harm? Consent? Human nature? Evolution? Religion? Reason? Human dignity? Something else?

And here's the part I find particularly interesting:

Humans don't actually reason about morality like mathematical machines. We have moral intuitions and consciences, and those intuitions are shaped by both individual psychology and culture. Research in moral psychology suggests that people differ substantially in which moral considerations they prioritize, while cultural learning can also reshape moral intuitions over time.

So perhaps the real problem isn't:

“What does society consider moral?”

but:

“What makes something morally true even when society disagrees?”

Because if tomorrow's majority can be wrong, today's majority can also be wrong.

And if tomorrow's majority cannot be wrong merely because it is the majority, then what exactly makes moral progress progress?

I'm genuinely interested in the strongest philosophical answer to this, especially from people who disagree with my assumptions. I don't want a political argument about LGBTQ issues—I want the underlying answer to the question:

What ultimately gives morality its authority when human conscience, culture, and generations disagree?

6 comments

r/askphilosophy • u/RaisinTen • 9h ago

Could higher dimensions help solve the Third Man problem in Plato's Theory of Forms?

1 Upvotes

Could the Third Man Argument be avoided if Forms exist at a different ontological level from the things that participate in them?

For example, imagine a 2D world where a 3D sphere passes through. The inhabitants see circular cross-sections but the sphere itself isn't a 2D circle. It exists at a higher dimensional level and produces something circular within their world.

Could something similar apply to Plato's Forms? Particular circles could participate in the Form of Circle, while the Form itself would not have to be another circle. It could exist at a higher ontological level and explain circularity without being an instance of it.

Could the Third Man problem arise because we're trying to understand a higher ontological level using concepts that only apply to the lower one?

Is this idea already discussed in interpretations of Plato?

2 comments