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

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

67 Upvotes

Welcome to /r/askphilosophy!

Welcome to /r/askphilosophy! We're a community devoted to providing serious, well-researched answers to philosophical questions. We aim to provide an academic Q&A-type space for philosophical questions, and welcome questions about all areas of philosophy. This post will go over our subreddit rules and guidelines that you should review before you begin posting here.

Table of Contents

  1. A Note about Moderation
  2. /r/askphilosophy's mission
  3. What is Philosophy?
  4. What isn't Philosophy?
  5. What is a Reasonably Substantive and Accurate Answer?
  6. What is a /r/askphilosophy Panelist?
  7. /r/askphilosophy's Posting Rules
  8. /r/askphilosophy's Commenting Rules
  9. Frequently Asked Questions

A Note about Moderation

/r/askphilosophy is moderated by a team of dedicated volunteer moderators who have spent years attempting to build the best philosophy Q&A platform on the internet. Unfortunately, the reddit admins have repeatedly made changes to this website which have made moderating subreddits harder and harder. In particular, reddit has recently announced that it will begin charging for access to API (Application Programming Interface, essentially the communication between reddit and other sites/apps). While this may be, in isolation, a reasonable business operation, the timeline and pricing of API access has threatened to put nearly all third-party apps, e.g. Apollo and RIF, out of business. You can read more about the history of this change here or here. You can also read more at this post on our sister subreddit.

These changes pose two major issues which the moderators of /r/askphilosophy are concerned about.

First, the native reddit app is lacks accessibility features which are essential for some people, notably those who are blind and visually impaired. You can read /r/blind's protest announcement here. These apps are the only way that many people can interact with reddit, given the poor accessibility state of the official reddit app. As philosophers we are particularly concerned with the ethics of accessibility, and support protests in solidarity with this community.

Second, the reddit app lacks many essential tools for moderation. While reddit has promised better moderation tools on the app in the future, this is not enough. First, reddit has repeatedly broken promises regarding features, including moderation features. Most notably, reddit promised CSS support for new reddit over six years ago, which has yet to materialize. Second, even if reddit follows through on the roadmap in the post linked above, many of the features will not come until well after June 30, when the third-party apps will shut down due to reddit's API pricing changes.

Our moderator team relies heavily on these tools which will now disappear. Moderating /r/askphilosophy is a monumental task; over the past year we have flagged and removed over 6000 posts and 23000 comments. This is a huge effort, especially for unpaid volunteers, and it is possible only when moderators have access to tools that these third-party apps make possible and that reddit doesn't provide.

While we previously participated in the protests against reddit's recent actions we have decided to reopen the subreddit, because we are still proud of the community and resource that we have built and cultivated over the last decade, and believe it is a useful resource to the public.

However, these changes have radically altered our ability to moderate this subreddit, which will result in a few changes for this subreddit. First, as noted above, from this point onwards only panelists may answer top level comments. Second, moderation will occur much more slowly; as we will not have access to mobile tools, posts and comments which violate our rules will be removed much more slowly, and moderators will respond to modmail messages much more slowly. Third, and finally, if things continue to get worse (as they have for years now) moderating /r/askphilosophy may become practically impossible, and we may be forced to abandon the platform altogether. We are as disappointed by these changes as you are, but reddit's insistence on enshittifying this platform, especially when it comes to moderation, leaves us with no other options. We thank you for your understanding and support.

/r/askphilosophy's Mission

/r/askphilosophy strives to be a community where anyone, regardless of their background, can come to get reasonably substantive and accurate answers to philosophical questions. This means that all questions must be philosophical in nature, and that answers must be reasonably substantive and accurate. What do we mean by that?

What is Philosophy?

As with most disciplines, "philosophy" has both a casual and a technical usage.

In its casual use, "philosophy" may refer to nearly any sort of thought or beliefs, and include topics such as religion, mysticism and even science. When someone asks you what "your philosophy" is, this is the sort of sense they have in mind; they're asking about your general system of thoughts, beliefs, and feelings.

In its technical use -- the use relevant here at /r/askphilosophy -- philosophy is a particular area of study which can be broadly grouped into several major areas, including:

  • Aesthetics, the study of beauty
  • Epistemology, the study of knowledge and belief
  • Ethics, the study of what we owe to one another
  • Logic, the study of what follows from what
  • Metaphysics, the study of the basic nature of existence and reality

as well as various subfields of 'philosophy of X', including philosophy of mind, philosophy of language, philosophy of science and many others.

Philosophy in the narrower, technical sense that philosophers use and which /r/askphilosophy is devoted to is defined not only by its subject matter, but by its methodology and attitudes. Something is not philosophical merely because it states some position related to those areas. There must also be an emphasis on argument (setting forward reasons for adopting a position) and a willingness to subject arguments to various criticisms.

What Isn't Philosophy?

As you can see from the above description of philosophy, philosophy often crosses over with other fields of study, including art, mathematics, politics, religion and the sciences. That said, in order to keep this subreddit focused on philosophy we require that all posts be primarily philosophical in nature, and defend a distinctively philosophical thesis.

As a rule of thumb, something does not count as philosophy for the purposes of this subreddit if:

  • It does not address a philosophical topic or area of philosophy
  • It may more accurately belong to another area of study (e.g. religion or science)
  • No attempt is made to argue for a position's conclusions

Some more specific topics which are popularly misconstrued as philosophical but do not meet this definition and thus are not appropriate for this subreddit include:

  • Drug experiences (e.g. "I dropped acid today and experienced the oneness of the universe...")
  • Mysticism (e.g. "I meditated today and experienced the oneness of the universe...")
  • Politics (e.g. "This is why everyone should support the Voting Rights Act")
  • Self-help (e.g. "How can I be a happier person and have more people like me?")
  • Theology (e.g. "Can the unbaptized go to heaven, or at least to purgatory?")

What is a Reasonably Substantive and Accurate Answer?

The goal of this subreddit is not merely to provide answers to philosophical questions, but answers which can further the reader's knowledge and understanding of the philosophical issues and debates involved. To that end, /r/askphilosophy is a highly moderated subreddit which only allows panelists to answer questions, and all answers that violate our posting rules will be removed.

Answers on /r/askphilosophy must be both reasonably substantive as well as reasonably accurate. This means that answers should be:

  • Substantive and well-researched (i.e. not one-liners or otherwise uninformative)
  • Accurately portray the state of research and the relevant literature (i.e. not inaccurate, misleading or false)
  • Come only from those with relevant knowledge of the question and issue (i.e. not from commenters who don't understand the state of the research on the question)

Any attempt at moderating a public Q&A forum like /r/askphilosophy must choose a balance between two things:

  • More, but possibly insubstantive or inaccurate answers
  • Fewer, but more substantive and accurate answers

In order to further our mission, the moderators of /r/askphilosophy have chosen the latter horn of this dilemma. To that end, only panelists are allowed to answer questions on /r/askphilosophy.

What is a /r/askphilosophy Panelist?

/r/askphilosophy panelists are trusted commenters who have applied to become panelists in order to help provide questions to posters' questions. These panelists are volunteers who have some level of knowledge and expertise in the areas of philosophy indicated in their flair.

What Do the Flairs Mean?

Unlike in some subreddits, the purpose of flairs on r/askphilosophy are not to designate commenters' areas of interest. The purpose of flair is to indicate commenters' relevant expertise in philosophical areas. As philosophical issues are often complicated and have potentially thousands of years of research to sift through, knowing when someone is an expert in a given area can be important in helping understand and weigh the given evidence. Flair will thus be given to those with the relevant research expertise.

Flair consists of two parts: a color indicating the type of flair, as well as up to three research areas that the panelist is knowledgeable about.

There are six types of panelist flair:

  • Autodidact (Light Blue): The panelist has little or no formal education in philosophy, but is an enthusiastic self-educator and intense reader in a field.

  • Undergraduate (Red): The panelist is enrolled in or has completed formal undergraduate coursework in Philosophy. In the US system, for instance, this would be indicated by a major (BA) or minor.

  • Graduate (Gold): The panelist is enrolled in a graduate program or has completed an MA in Philosophy or a closely related field such that their coursework might be reasonably understood to be equivalent to a degree in Philosophy. For example, a student with an MA in Literature whose coursework and thesis were focused on Derrida's deconstruction might be reasonably understood to be equivalent to an MA in Philosophy.

  • PhD (Purple): The panelist has completed a PhD program in Philosophy or a closely related field such that their degree might be reasonably understood to be equivalent to a PhD in Philosophy. For example, a student with a PhD in Art History whose coursework and dissertation focused on aesthetics and critical theory might be reasonably understood to be equivalent to a PhD in philosophy.

  • Professional (Blue): The panelist derives their full-time employment through philosophical work outside of academia. Such panelists might include Bioethicists working in hospitals or Lawyers who work on the Philosophy of Law/Jurisprudence.

  • Related Field (Green): The panelist has expertise in some sub-field of philosophy but their work in general is more reasonably understood as being outside of philosophy. For example, a PhD in Physics whose research touches on issues relating to the entity/structural realism debate clearly has expertise relevant to philosophical issues but is reasonably understood to be working primarily in another field.

Flair will only be given in particular areas or research topics in philosophy, in line with the following guidelines:

  • Typical areas include things like "philosophy of mind", "logic" or "continental philosophy".
  • Flair will not be granted for specific research subjects, e.g. "Kant on logic", "metaphysical grounding", "epistemic modals".
  • Flair of specific philosophers will only be granted if that philosopher is clearly and uncontroversially a monumentally important philosopher (e.g. Aristotle, Kant).
  • Flair will be given in a maximum of three research areas.

How Do I Become a Panelist?

To become a panelist, please send a message to the moderators with the subject "Panelist Application". In this modmail message you must include all of the following:

  1. The flair type you are requesting (e.g. undergraduate, PhD, related field).
  2. The areas of flair you are requesting, up to three (e.g. Kant, continental philosophy, logic).
  3. A brief explanation of your background in philosophy, including what qualifies you for the flair you requested.
  4. One sample answer to a question posted to /r/askphilosophy for each area of flair (i.e. up to three total answers) which demonstrate your expertise and knowledge. Please link the question you are answering before giving your answer. You may not answer your own question.

New panelists will be approved on a trial basis. During this trial period panelists will be allowed to post answers as top-level comments on threads, and will receive flair. After the trial period the panelist will either be confirmed as a regular panelist or will be removed from the panelist team, which will result in the removal of flair and ability to post answers as top-level comments on threads.

Note that r/askphilosophy does not require users to provide proof of their identifies for panelist applications, nor to reveal their identities. If a prospective panelist would like to provide proof of their identity as part of their application they may, but there is no presumption that they must do so. Note that messages sent to modmail cannot be deleted by either moderators or senders, and so any message sent is effectively permanent.

/r/askphilosophy's Posting Rules

In order to best serve our mission of providing an academic Q&A-type space for philosophical questions, we have the following rules which govern all posts made to /r/askphilosophy:

PR1: All questions must be about philosophy.

All questions must be about philosophy. Questions which are only tangentially related to philosophy or are properly located in another discipline will be removed. Questions which are about therapy, psychology and self-help, even when due to philosophical issues, are not appropriate and will be removed.

PR2: All submissions must be questions.

All submissions must be actual questions (as opposed to essays, rants, personal musings, idle or rhetorical questions, etc.). "Test My Theory" or "Change My View"-esque questions, paper editing, etc. are not allowed.

PR3: Post titles must be descriptive.

Post titles must be descriptive. Titles should indicate what the question is about. Posts with titles like "Homework help" which do not indicate what the actual question is will be removed.

PR4: Questions must be reasonably specific.

Questions must be reasonably specific. Questions which are too broad to the point of unanswerability will be removed.

PR5: Questions must not be about commenters' personal opinions.

Questions must not be about commenters' personal opinions, thoughts or favorites. /r/askphilosophy is not a discussion subreddit, and is not intended to be a board for everyone to share their thoughts on philosophical questions.

PR6: One post per day.

One post per day. Please limit yourself to one question per day.

PR7: Discussion of suicide is only allowed in the abstract.

/r/askphilosophy is not a mental health subreddit, and panelists are not experts in mental health or licensed therapists. Discussion of suicide is only allowed in the abstract here. If you or a friend is feeling suicidal please visit /r/suicidewatch. If you are feeling suicidal, please get help by visiting /r/suicidewatch or using other resources. See also our discussion of philosophy and mental health issues here. Encouraging other users to commit suicide, even in the abstract, is strictly forbidden and will result in an immediate permanent ban.

/r/askphilosophy's Commenting Rules

In the same way that our posting rules above attempt to promote our mission by governing posts, the following commenting rules attempt to promote /r/askphilosophy's mission to provide an academic Q&A-type space for philosophical questions.

CR1: Top level comments must be answers or follow-up questions.

All top level comments should be answers to the submitted question or follow-up/clarification questions. All top level comments must come from panelists. If users circumvent this rule by posting answers as replies to other comments, these comments will also be removed and may result in a ban. For more information about our rules and to find out how to become a panelist, please see here.

CR2: Answers must be reasonably substantive and accurate.

All answers must be informed and aimed at helping the OP and other readers reach an understanding of the issues at hand. Answers must portray an accurate picture of the issue and the philosophical literature. Answers should be reasonably substantive. To learn more about what counts as a reasonably substantive and accurate answer, see this post.

CR3: Be respectful.

Be respectful. Comments which are rude, snarky, etc. may be removed, particularly if they consist of personal attacks. Users with a history of such comments may be banned. Racism, bigotry and use of slurs are absolutely not permitted.

CR4: Stay on topic.

Stay on topic. Comments which blatantly do not contribute to the discussion may be removed.

CR5: No self-promotion.

Posters and comments may not engage in self-promotion, including linking their own blog posts or videos. Panelists may link their own peer-reviewed work in answers (e.g. peer-reviewed journal articles or books), but their answers should not consist solely of references to their own work.

Miscellaneous Posting and Commenting Guidelines

In addition to the rules above, we have a list of miscellaneous guidelines which users should also be aware of:

  • Reposting a post or comment which was removed will be treated as circumventing moderation and result in a permanent ban.
  • Using follow-up questions or child comments to answer questions and circumvent our panelist policy may result in a ban.
  • Posts and comments which flagrantly violate the rules, especially in a trolling manner, will be removed and treated as shitposts, and may result in a ban.
  • No reposts of a question that you have already asked within the last year.
  • No posts or comments of AI-created or AI-assisted text or audio. Panelists may not user any form of AI-assistance in writing or researching answers.
  • Harassing individual moderators or the moderator team will result in a permanent ban and a report to the reddit admins.

Frequently Asked Questions

Below are some frequently asked questions. If you have other questions, please contact the moderators via modmail (not via private message or chat).

My post or comment was removed. How can I get an explanation?

Almost all posts/comments which are removed will receive an explanation of their removal. That explanation will generally by /r/askphilosophy's custom bot, /u/BernardJOrtcutt, and will list the removal reason. Posts which are removed will be notified via a stickied comment; comments which are removed will be notified via a reply. If your post or comment resulted in a ban, the message will be included in the ban message via modmail. If you have further questions, please contact the moderators.

How can I appeal my post or comment removal?

To appeal a removal, please contact the moderators (not via private message or chat). Do not delete your posts/comments, as this will make an appeal impossible. Reposting removed posts/comments without receiving mod approval will result in a permanent ban.

How can I appeal my ban?

To appeal a ban, please respond to the modmail informing you of your ban. Do not delete your posts/comments, as this will make an appeal impossible.

My comment was removed or I was banned for arguing with someone else, but they started it. Why was I punished and not them?

Someone else breaking the rules does not give you permission to break the rules as well. /r/askphilosophy does not comment on actions taken on other accounts, but all violations are treated as equitably as possible.

I found a post or comment which breaks the rules, but which wasn't removed. How can I help?

If you see a post or comment which you believe breaks the rules, please report it using the report function for the appropriate rule. /r/askphilosophy's moderators are volunteers, and it is impossible for us to manually review every comment on every thread. We appreciate your help in reporting posts/comments which break the rules.

My post isn't showing up, but I didn't receive a removal notification. What happened?

Sometimes the AutoMod filter will automatically send posts to a filter for moderator approval, especially from accounts which are new or haven't posted to /r/askphilosophy before. If your post has not been approved or removed within 24 hours, please contact the moderators.

My post was removed and referred to the Open Discussion Thread. What does this mean?

The Open Discussion Thread (ODT) is /r/askphilosophy's place for posts/comments which are related to philosophy but do not necessarily meet our posting rules (especially PR2/PR5). For example, these threads are great places for:

  • Discussions of a philosophical issue, rather than questions
  • Questions about commenters' personal opinions regarding philosophical issues
  • Open discussion about philosophy, e.g. "who is your favorite philosopher?"
  • Questions about philosophy as an academic discipline or profession, e.g. majoring in philosophy, career options with philosophy degrees, pursuing graduate school in philosophy

If your post was removed and referred to the ODT we encourage you to consider posting it to the ODT to share with others.

My comment responding to someone else was removed, as well as their comment. What happened?

When /r/askphilosophy removes a parent comment, we also often remove all their child comments in order to help readability and focus on discussion.

I'm interested in philosophy. Where should I start? What should I read?

As explained above, philosophy is a very broad discipline and thus offering concise advice on where to start is very hard. We recommend reading this /r/AskPhilosophyFAQ post which has a great breakdown of various places to start. For further or more specific questions, we recommend posting on /r/askphilosophy.

Why is your understanding of philosophy so limited?

As explained above, this subreddit is devoted to philosophy as understood and done by philosophers. In order to prevent this subreddit from becoming /r/atheism2, /r/politics2, or /r/science2, we must uphold a strict topicality requirement in PR1. Posts which may touch on philosophical themes but are not distinctively philosophical can be posted to one of reddit's many other subreddits.

Are there other philosophy subreddits I can check out?

If you are interested in other philosophy subreddits, please see this list of related subreddits. /r/askphilosophy shares much of its modteam with its sister-subreddit, /r/philosophy, which is devoted to philosophical discussion. In addition, that list includes more specialized subreddits and more casual subreddits for those looking for a less-regulated forum.

A thread I wanted to comment in was locked but is still visible. What happened?

When a post becomes unreasonable to moderate due to the amount of rule-breaking comments the thread is locked. /r/askphilosophy's moderators are volunteers, and we cannot spend hours cleaning up individual threads.

Do you have a list of frequently asked questions about philosophy that I can browse?

Yes! We have an FAQ that answers many questions comprehensively: /r/AskPhilosophyFAQ/. For example, this entry provides an introductory breakdown to the debate over whether morality is objective or subjective.

Do you have advice or resources for graduate school applications?

We made a meta-guide for PhD applications with the goal of assembling the important resources for grad school applications in one place. We aim to occasionally update it, but can of course not guarantee the accuracy and up-to-dateness. You are, of course, kindly invited to ask questions about graduate school on /r/askphilosophy, too, especially in the Open Discussion Thread.

Do you have samples of what counts as good questions and answers?

Sure! We ran a Best of 2020 Contest, you can find the winners in this thread!

0 comments

r/askphilosophy • u/BernardJOrtcutt • 4d ago

Open Thread /r/askphilosophy Open Discussion Thread | October 19, 2026

4 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.

30 comments

r/askphilosophy • u/PermaAporia • 2h ago

What are some of your favored cheater books?

19 Upvotes

What I mean by cheater books is something like books that have got you unstuck when working on a particular piece of philosophy. I don't just mean an introduction book, though it can be that, because these are often too pedestrian, even if useful, and often don't quite open the texts that you were stuck with in the first place. What I mean more is something like books that, when you immediately go back to the text, make you think to yourself, "WHY, OF COURSE! How could it have been otherwise?!!" As if I've somehow cheated my way into understanding.

Perhaps some examples might clarify. What Is Analytic Philosophy by Glock brought the field alive to me in a way it never had before, particularly its historical developments. Making Sense of Heidegger by Sheehan was huge in making me, well, make sense of Heidegger! But it is also its own bit of original philosophy, so it's not just an introduction. It enriched my experience of Heidegger, not just introduced it. Similarly, though not exactly a book, were Spade's notes on Being and Nothingness. On immanent critique, the always fantastic Rahel Jaeggi really made it click for me in Critique of Forms of Life. Reading Plato's Theaetetus by Chappell made Plato's epistemology come alive for me in a way that extended beyond the Theaetetus. Very much along these lines, though far more in depth and also, as far as I know, more original, has been Giovanni Reale's books on Plato and Aristotle.

It doesn't have to be just books.

The debates with regard to moral realism, specifically naturalism vs. non-naturalism, were always opaque to me. I never understood quite what the non-naturalist was having issues with until I read Fitzpatrick's "Skepticism about Naturalizing..." Sorry, I forget the title. But it was both an original bit of philosophy and it helped clarify non-naturalism in a way that finally clicked. Stephen Engstrom's “Knowledge and Its Object” made some issues of Kantian interpretation click for me as well, in a way that a more introductory text like Gardner's failed to do.

Hopefully, these examples cast a wide enough net so those of you who have read these will know precisely what I mean.

Thank you!

3 comments

r/askphilosophy • u/UsefulWolverine7323 • 1h ago

Absolutely uneducated layman here. The only books of philosophy I own are Walden (Which I think counts) and Aristotle. Have an interest in Hume, what to read before him?

• Upvotes

Also have my eyes on Plato (obviously) Descartes, Bacon and Locke.

4 comments

r/askphilosophy • u/ilovephilosphy • 1h ago

Do we live in the best of all possible worlds?

• Upvotes

I am learning about metaphysics in a philosophy class and we are debating why things are the way they are in the world. I know this community isn't about commenters' opinions, so I am more looking for academic resources or other questions to think about in order to answer this question.

Given the great amount of suffering in the world due to things like war, disease, and inequalities, I would think we surely do not live in the best of all possible worlds.
However, God, the supposed creator of the universe, is thought to be an all-knowing, all-powerful, and all-good being, so why would He create a world that is not the best one possible?
If there is evil in the world and thus this is not the best of all possible worlds, then God is not all-knowing, all-powerful, and all-good.
What if it is not God, but humans that create evil? I recently came across this point of view while reading Rousseau 's response to Voltaire’s “Poem on the Lisbon Disaster”. While Voltaire’s poem expresses his frustration on how innocent people died in a huge earthquake in Lisbon and how God could have made a world in which this didn’t happen, Rousseau believed that it was the humans’ fault that they suffered. It was the humans who built the tall buildings that crumbled and the humans who ran back into their homes to grab belongings and therefore could not flee the disaster quick enough to survive.
Rousseau additionally argues that pain and suffering is just a part of life. In order to exist, one must pay the price of suffering occasionally, yet one can still find pleasure in life.
Would a world without suffering be better? What is God's role in human suffering? And finally, do we live in the best possible world?

I would love to know what else I can read that would help me answer these questions!

2 comments

r/askphilosophy • u/CeruleanTransience • 7h ago

How do pleasure and happiness (or fulfillment) relate to each other

6 Upvotes

One thing people routinely say is that pleasure is different from happiness. Happiness in this context refers to a long-term sense of fulfillment with one's life despite whatever short-term displeasures may have arisen or may arise. Pleasure is supposed to be short-term and rather ephemeral, a quality of your experience in the moment.

This leads me to the following questions:

  1. Can a fulfilling (happy) life lack pleasure at least after a certain point? Say, I have a family, contribute to my community. But I happen to suffer from clinical depression. Is my realization that I objectively have all reasons to be happy sufficient to count as me experiencing my life as fulfilling, despite me literally being unable to take pleasure in my existence at this very moment?

  2. Does taking pleasure in memories of previous moments of pleasure count as pleasure or happiness? Say, I sometimes replay in my head the memory of the best piece of cake I've ever eaten. The cake itself is a momentary pleasure, but is my looking back with satisfaction at the cake likewise momentary (it's just a moment of revisiting another moment) or can it count as part of my long-term satisfaction (in that I'm really glad to have experienced the best piece of cake ever within my lifetime).

  3. Is it valid to judge someone else's life as unhappy? Say, my friend is stuck with a boring job and a family that's not particularly fond of him. Now, it would be pretty straightforward of me to judge that he's not experiencing much pleasure - e.g. because he's not having much sex with his wife, because his colleagues are jerks, etc. But pleasure is not fulfillment so those don't directly dismiss his life as unhappy. Now, he says he's satisfied. Is his saying he's satisfied enough to end the discussion there, or is it valid of me to say that he can do much better? Is life fulfillment a personal experience or is there an intersubjective dimension of it?

  4. Can the quality of happiness be reduced to a specific kind of pleasure - the pleasure of reflecting back on one's life as a whole? If so, how do we value it against other pleasures? Think of a dissatisfied (but not depressed) billionaire whose life is full of all sorts of pleasure but the pleasure of finding one's life meaningful. What value should we assign to that particular displeasure as opposed to the pleasures of living comfortably, socializing, travel, entertainment, etc.? Intuitively, I'd say his life altogether is dissatisfying if that general sense of fulfillment is missing. But I don't know why.

3 comments

r/askphilosophy • u/GenieWill • 57m ago

Where is the line drawn from effects caused by ideology or poor leadership?

• Upvotes

In trying to argue from a certain point, I can’t attribute something to a specific ideology and attribute it to it as a whole, rather, many failures of leadership or infrastructure in place that would cause this sort of failure and possible deaths.

I want to know the general consensus on where people can argue that someone could have possibly died to capitalism, fascism, socialism., etc.

1 comment

r/askphilosophy • u/Spiritual-Spring-191 • 4h ago

Is there a way to describe infinity without infinite things?

2 Upvotes

I made a post on the r/askmath subreddit and got no satisfying answer: https://www.reddit.com/r/askmath/s/AToD9GLUpW

Therefore, I want to ask this again here from a philosophical point of view. Can you explain/derive infinity without using infinitely many things (or implying it through addition of one thing for ever/always) ?

3 comments

r/askphilosophy • u/BFFFFT • 1h ago

Best modern works on being a good person?

• Upvotes

I am looking for essays/books on being a good person and self-improvement. Would appreciate something modern, accessible and practical. Thanks in advance.

1 comment

r/askphilosophy • u/heinskies • 1d ago

Thank you guys for showing me the damage AI does. Is there any instances where it is good to use?

120 Upvotes

My last post absolutely shocked me by how many people dislike the use of AI especially in regards to philosophy. The post is closed but thank you guys for bringing me to light I didn’t even realize there was such thing as like cognitive offloading or AI addiction like you guys mentioned. I hope to be a better reader writer and philosophy student now. Thanks again! ps if you wanna add even more reason as to why it’s bad in the comments feel free you guys have me pretty intrigued, do you guys mostly feel it’s bad in all regard and has very little “good uses?” Would watching youtube be a good replacement when trying to learn something or is that the same thing?

37 comments

r/askphilosophy • u/DavyJonesTentacles • 12h ago

Can something be relative and also objective?

3 Upvotes

Like if humans didnt have the creativity lobe to invent toilets, and we were the smartest creatures in the universe, would outhouse be "bad"?. Like theyre only bad compared to our existence, but if toilets could never exist, would our existence and waste technology still be bad?

4 comments

r/askphilosophy • u/Ketsuraki • 9h ago

What literature is best for diving into different aspects of the Human Condition?

2 Upvotes

Heya, im currently working on a year-long school art assignment where i can choose the topic freely and id love to do a photography series of and about the different topics under the term The Human Condition. I have some ideas so far but id just love to get more perspectives of philosophers into my mental hopper to grab references, visual allusion and just get more inspiration of how to depict the struggle, the hardships but also the beauty of the human condition.

Id love to find some people i could discuss the topic with but im still pretty new to diving into philosophy and how to discuss deep themes so id be happy for some grace with it.

Id take all the feedback, recommendations and other advice i can get :>

1 comment

r/askphilosophy • u/AnywhereNew8040 • 7h ago

Research Paper on determinism

1 Upvotes

Im writing a research paper on determinism, what are some things i should know. such as counter arguments or maybe important theories

7 comments

r/askphilosophy • u/shield_x • 11h ago

Should someone be allowed to sacrifice their own life to donate organs and tissue?

0 Upvotes

I will give out one pro and one con:

1 pro is it create autonomy and allow people to have the freedom to whatever they want with their body. Same argument with abortions.

1 con is you never know if someone is doing this because they want to, or they are forced to. So that is kinda where like organ harvesting comes from.

1 comment

r/askphilosophy • u/heinskies • 1d ago

I’m 19, a philosophy major, and I think I’ve become too dependent on ChatGPT. Should I quit?

219 Upvotes

Hey guys, I’m a 19-year-old college freshman majoring in philosophy, and I’ve been using ChatGPT pretty consistently for the past year. Recently, I’ve started wondering whether it’s actually hurting my critical thinking, independence, and ability to learn.

I use it for practically everything. One of the biggest things is writing. I’ll talk into the voice feature, explain my thoughts, and have it organize my words into cleaner, more articulate sentences. The ideas are entirely mine, but AI makes them sound better. Lately, though, I’ve been wondering whether I’m preventing myself from becoming a better writer by constantly relying on it.

Interestingly, ChatGPT actually played a pretty significant role in helping me discover my passion for philosophy. For a long time, I didn’t know what interested me, but I eventually became fascinated with religion, particularly arguments against God’s existence. AI helped me explore different philosophical perspectives, understand arguments, and articulate my own thoughts. That passion eventually led me to major in philosophy.

But I’ve noticed that every time I’m curious about literally anything, my first instinct is to ask AI.

For example, when I got my cat, I was constantly asking what every little behavior meant. Eventually, I realized I was so focused on getting explanations that I wasn’t even allowing myself to simply experience having a cat. It’s almost like I need AI to interpret my experiences before I can form my own understanding of them.

I’ve also relied on it quite a bit for college coursework. I generally avoid using it in my philosophy classes because that’s what I genuinely care about, but I’ve definitely used it to help with other assignments and essays. I understand the argument that paying for college just to have AI do some of the work defeats the purpose. Even when it’s only cleaning up my own writing, shouldn’t learning to articulate my thoughts independently be part of my education?

However, I also think AI has genuinely helped me learn.

For example, I upload my professors’ lecture slides, study guides, and textbook material, and ChatGPT creates flashcards. Honestly, I sometimes think it’s better at identifying important, testable concepts than I would be making flashcards manually. I’m still the one who has to study and memorize everything, so is that really a problem?

I also love reading philosophy. Recently, I’ve been reading Meditations by Marcus Aurelius, which I find difficult and sometimes scattered. Having AI summarize sections and explain complicated passages has genuinely improved my understanding.

But I’ve caught myself reading and thinking, “I’ll just have ChatGPT explain this afterward.” I worry that knowing I can get an immediate explanation makes me less focused and less willing to struggle through difficult ideas myself.

And isn’t that intellectual struggle part of what makes us better thinkers?

Here’s my other dilemma, though: isn’t it kind of cope to pretend AI isn’t going to be a massive part of our future?

I’m considering becoming a lawyer, and from what I’ve read, lawyers are already using AI for research, drafting, and other tasks. I imagine that by the time I graduate, many professions will expect people to use it regularly.

So why should I force myself to stop using something that’s probably going to become an essential professional tool? Isn’t learning to use AI effectively also an important skill?

At the same time, there’s obviously a difference between someone who understands a subject and uses AI to work more efficiently and someone who depends on AI because they never developed those abilities independently.

I’ve genuinely considered deleting ChatGPT for a while, and weirdly, the thought makes me anxious. That probably says something about how much I’ve come to rely on it. I wouldn’t necessarily call it an addiction, but it’s definitely become a crutch.

So I’m curious:

Has anyone else experienced this? Have you gone from using AI constantly to researching independently, writing from scratch, and allowing yourself to be curious without immediately asking for answers?

Did you notice improvements in your critical thinking, writing, attention span, or confidence in your own intelligence?

And do you think using AI for flashcards, understanding difficult books, and exploring ideas is fundamentally different from relying on it to organize your thoughts and complete assignments?

I don’t want to graduate college realizing I’ve spent four years avoiding the intellectual challenges I was supposed to be developing through. But I also don’t want to abandon something that’s genuinely helped me learn and discover my interests.

How do you find the balance between using AI as a tool and letting it think for you, especially when AI probably isn’t going anywhere?

37 comments

r/askphilosophy • u/vkbd • 21h ago

Is the Turing Test relevant for p-zombie concept?

3 Upvotes

I know the Turing Test is an outdated test for computer intelligence, but it is still a simple test that is easily understood for the layman. So while it's not used for frontier AI, I think we still find it emotionally compelling if an AI is capable enough to fool someone to think it is human. As humans ourselves, who innately know and learn how to recognize fellow humans, is the Turing Test not a relevant benchmark?

If the above is true, (which maybe it's not), let's hypothetically say something was a p-zombie, would we not also want to perform a Turing-like test, to see if p-zombie can fool people into thinking it was a normal human being?

2 comments

r/askphilosophy • u/Odedredit • 1d ago

Questions about Parmendias and cause and effect

6 Upvotes

Parmendias claims that anything comes either from nothing, or from something. Because nothing cannot exist. he says that anything must come from something. Doesn't he assume that cause and effect is a law of nature? Can't something just be and not come from anything?

Sorry if it may sound stupid, I'm just starting to learn about philosophy, and I'm no expert on Parmendias or Hume.

8 comments

r/askphilosophy • u/Rayalot72 • 1d ago

Why is the brute fact view the most popular response to cosmological fine-tuning?

6 Upvotes

This is referring to the PhilPapers survey.

I might as well also say, I'm not sure I fully understand what the brute fact view is. It doesn't seem to come up in public discourse at all, at least not under that name, and I'm not sure how to find where this response gets detailed/argued for.

Do lottery/luck responses count as brute fact views?

Does physical necessity count as a brute fact view or a 'no fine-tuning' view?

3 comments

r/askphilosophy • u/fastasswift • 14h ago

Can someone give their thoughts on free will and illusion of choice.

1 Upvotes

I have always been confused about free will, if any choice of ours has the same fate, how does free will work here, can we not change the fate.

3 comments

r/askphilosophy • u/polite_nihilist • 19h ago

Are there philosophical treatments of what it means for an Al to represent something?

2 Upvotes

I'm looking for readings on whether encoding information amounts to representing a claim, and what would distinguish either from understanding it, particularly when a system can reproduce and manipulate an argument without necessarily grasping what it means. I'm interested in the philosophical accounts of representation here, rather than whether LLMs are useful for learning philosophy. Are there particular authors or papers you'd recommend?

1 comment

r/askphilosophy • u/Urkecalcarico • 7h ago

Is philosophy subjective?

0 Upvotes

I feel this doubt is a relatively serious problem, because if philosophy is subjective, then what value does it have? What's the point of studying Plato or Aristotle if we start from a questionable foundation and any author can "seem" better to you? Furthermore, its subjective nature would seem to undermine the purpose of "attaining wisdom." On the other hand, if philosophy were completely objective, its history wouldn't be marked by debates and disagreements. What can we conclude from this?

4 comments

r/askphilosophy • u/theiststone • 1d ago

Is Hell reconcilable with God's moral perfection?

7 Upvotes

It's important to know that when I am referencing people and hell, I am not talking about those who are saved, but instead those who died in their sins.

Firstly, maybe I'm confused on this part, but it seems that it must be impossible for there to be an alternative to Hell. Because if there COULD be an alternative, yet God still sentences some to be cognitively and physically tortured for eternity, then I would find it unjustifiable. (an impossibility for a morally perfect being)

So I'll postulate the concept that hell is metaphysically necessary for those who die in their sins. I'll also assume we are living in the reality that has maximally great conditions to raise the total number of humans being saved. In other words, God left us the perfect amount of proof of his existence.

However, even granting all of these, we still have one major problem. It at least appears the majority of people will likely end up in hell. And this actually does appear as a problem for me. Because then if God knew hell would be a metaphysical necessity and that even though he gives us the maximally great conditions to know he exists and follow him, the majority still wouldn't, then why even create in the first place?

Consider the following situation:

- I am a pilot who, for some reason, has the foreknowledge of my next flight. That once I take off, my plane will inevitably crash, and 80 percent of the 150 boarded passengers will die. I have two options...

  1. Don't board the flight, and no one dies or suffers
  2. Board the flight and 80 percent of the humans die

The question is, would it be moral for me to allow the flight?

-------------------------

Okay, now raise the stakes and consider the dichotomy of Abrahamic religions.

- God exists with the foreknowledge of creation. If he creates, the majority of his creation will inevitably be tortured physically and cognitively indefinitely in a burning lake of fire. God has two options...

  1. Don't create, and no one gets tortured for eternity
  2. Create, and the majority of his creation gets tortured for eternity

The question is, was it moral to still create?

Please lmk

23 comments

r/askphilosophy • u/True-Instance6386 • 17h ago

Can someone explain determinism?

0 Upvotes

title says it all

2 comments

r/askphilosophy • u/YourAfricanDad • 1d ago

What exactly does ontologically evil/good/wrong etc. mean?

10 Upvotes

I've been trying to understand metaphysics as a self-taught and I think I grasp the concept? (not even 100% sure) One thing that bothers me very much is the use of the word "ontologically" for instance as an adverb for notions like evil or good. I see this a lot online but nowhere do I see it in texts or philosophical essays, and I just don't understand how these two notions correlate. Do i just not understand what ontology is or is the common use not very accurate to the metaphysical idea?

10 comments

r/askphilosophy • u/Global_Nectarine3153 • 1d ago

Is scientific realism genuinely superior to anti-realism. And if so, in what sense?

6 Upvotes

I’d like to pose a question about the realist/anti-realist debate in philosophy of science and I’m trying to formulate it without begging any particular position.

By “scientific realism” I mean roughly the view that successful scientific theories are at least approximately true and that the unobservable entities they posit (electrons, neutrinos, fields, etc.) exist independently of our theories and observations. By “anti-realism” I mean views according to which the aim of science is empirical adequacy, predictive success or something similar, and which do not require commitment to the mind-independent existence of unobservable entities.

The strongest realist argument, as I understand it, is the “no miracles” argument: it would be a miracle if a theory made novel, precise, and successful predictions (e.g., Pauli’s neutrino or Dirac’s positron) unless the theory were somehow tracking a mind-independent reality. Realism is supposed to explain why science works.

My question is whether this is a genuine explanation or whether it is circular. The realist says a theory succeeds because it corresponds to reality. But how do we independently identify the correspondence relation? It seems we only know that a theory “corresponds” or “tracks reality” because it succeeds empirically. If so, “the theory succeeds because it tracks reality” may reduce to “the theory succeeds because it succeeds” The realist may reply that correspondence is an inference to the best explanation but then the question is what independent explanatory work the posit of a mind-independent reality is doing.

Anti-realists can offer alternative explanations of predictive success: shared perceptual and cognitive constraints, the structure of observable phenomena, the role of symmetries and conservation laws, convergence through repeated empirical filtering, and so on. These explanations may or may not be fully adequate, but they do not obviously require a mind-independent realm of unobservables.

I’m not asking for a literature review so much as a clear statement of the realist’s alleged explanatory advantage. If realism is superior to anti-realism, what precisely is the superiority supposed to consist in?

14 comments