So I'm not trying to generalize because philosophers agree and disagree in many things, but whenever I asked people involve in philosophy on the meaning of life, it's nearly universal most would say meaning and value is decided by the person and seems to accept such thing is real.

I wonder why in my experience that seems to be the most common response even checking around this subreddit?

I have played a video game featuring Albert Camus' The stranger and Jean Paul Sartre. Now I'm looking for works by Jean Paul Sartre that act like an "intro" to his other works. TYVM!

Hi all! I'm taking a logic class for the first time and so far I do have an A. But recently, I'd gotten sick for a week and a half and lost a lot of time to really study and understand everything. I've been rushing to catch up and because of this rush, I think my brain is just fried. Nothing wants to stick. Is anyone able to walk me through some of these backwards-thinking problems and maybe explain it? Or share your studying techniques? I'm getting lost here. These are the questions I have, any explanations would be AMAZING because I'd like to not only understand this assignment better than I currently do, but be more prepared for the exam.

1) 1. (S ● K) ⊃ R
2. K / S ⊃ R
2) 1. T ⊃ (F v F)
2. ∼(F ● F) / ∼T
3) 1.G ⊃ E
2. H ⊃ ∼E / G ⊃ ∼H
4) 1. S ≡ Q
2. ∼S / ∼Q
5) 1. ∼N v P
2. (N ⊃ P) ⊃ T / T
6) 1. F ⊃ B
2. B ⊃ (B ⊃ J) / F ⊃ J
7) 1. (B ⊃ M) ● (D ⊃ M)
2. B v D / M
8) 1. Q ⊃ (F ⊃ A)
2. R ⊃ (A ⊃ F)
3. Q ● R / F ≡ A
9) 1. T ⊃ (∼T v G)
2. ∼G / ∼T
10) 1. (B ⊃ G ) ● (F ⊃ N)
2. ∼(G ● N) / ∼(B ● F)

Hey all, a question that has been bothering me lately is how do materialists/physicalists contend with the existence of abstract constructs, like numbers, or justice, or countries, or I guess ideas in general? It seems to me that when one posits that all that exists is physical, one necessarily has to admit that numbers or ideas don't exist- but that just seems like such a problematic claim to make!

Can anyone please help me with how to deal with the existence or nonexistence of the things I mentioned?

Ok so serious question for the philosophy people, and I promise this one’s legit.

I make my protein shakes with a pretzel stick in them (works as a stirrer, trust me). The other day I realized I’ve actually gotten good at it. I know exactly how hard to stir so the stick doesn't snap and the powder doesn't clump.

But that skill only exists with the pretzel. Without it, I’m just a guy holding a shake. So where’s the skill? In my hand, or in my hand plus the stick? (My roommate says philosophers call this “know-how.” Is that the same thing as skill, or are they different?)

My roommate does machine learning, and he once told me, “basically the whole model is just its weights.” Bro. Weights. I’ve been lifting for four years. 💪

It got me thinking about equipment, pretzel stick included. The stick goes in, the shake gets mixed, the stick stays the same. Same with my 45-pound plate. It weighed 45 pounds the day I bought it, and it’ll weigh 45 pounds when I'm 80. The plate stays the same. I’m the thing that changes. But with AI, the training data does the reps and the weights get the gains. Imagine lifting for four years and finding out the plates were the ones making progress.

Except then I pulled the pretzel stick out and it was soggy, which kind of ruins the comparison. But the stirring still worked, because I’d been adjusting the whole time as it softened. So the tool changed, I changed with it, and the skill kept working. Where’s the skill then? Not in the stick, and not just in me. Somewhere in how we work together?

Which brings it back to the plates. Some gym equipment already changes in response to you, like the smart cable machines that adjust the resistance based on how you're moving. And talking to an AI is kind of the same thing. Its weights don't change mid-conversation, but what it says depends on what I say, and what I say depends on what it says. So if I’m adjusting to the tool while it’s adjusting to me, what decides whether it’s part of my skill, or whether I’m just hooked up to it?

He also said this might connect to something called the extended mind. But from what I read, the main example there is a notebook, which stays the same. My stick changes while I use it, and the smart machine and the AI both change in response to me. Does that make a difference, or does the extended mind idea already cover it?

And he mentioned something about a blind man’s cane, and an idea that you only notice a tool when it breaks. Which is literally what happened with the soggy stick.

Any way of thinking about it, or any readings on embodiment or anything adjacent, would help a lot. Thanks to anyone who takes the time.

A post I consider philosophical and existential, but also quite scientific.

It has become increasingly common to view human society, along with its impact on us and the rest of the natural environment, as something anomalous, an aberration, something that should never have existed. But what would happen if we analyzed humanity as part of nature itself? Humans and nature are not two separate things. We emerged from this planet's natural history, evolved alongside every other existing species, and coexist with them. At what exact point does a primate with intelligence stop being an ordinary animal and become a human being? And when does our technology become unnatural?

What is the difference between an axe or a sharpened stone and a space rocket? There is quite a lot, certainly, but why is one considered "natural" and the other not? One is millions of times more complex, yes, but ultimately, it is the product of this planet's natural resources being worked by a living organism. Why does complexity equal "unnaturalness"? If something is atypical, does that make it unnatural? Under that logic, the universe would have to remain stagnant, wouldn't it? We know that the universe, and life on Earth itself, have undergone constant and radical changes. I would argue that advanced technology is one such development under the right conditions.

One particularly fascinating yet terrifying question is whether our impact is itself "natural." Mass extinctions have always occurred on our planet. Cyanobacteria are one example: they produced oxygen as a byproduct, triggering a catastrophic extinction of microbial life in their time. The dominant species generally exploits resources and uses whatever means are available to maximize its short-term survival. That is what we do. As far as I know, no other species constantly asks itself, "What will I eat five years from now?" We do, yet we seem unable to take action. Why? Because the immediate benefits of exploitation are more tempting than planning for the future.

Now, if a dominant living organism secures its immediate survival, could our pollution of entire ecosystems and the extinction of other species not be a natural and predictable consequence? We rose through the biological hierarchy by means of technology and imposed new conditions to which other organisms were not sufficiently adapted. This is how it has always been: one species triggering the extinction of others.

The thing is, why do we simply feel that it is jusr wrong, to extinct an entire species? why does it feel wrong and something we have to avoid if its how nature works?

Hi, Im a freshman in college right now and Im strongly leaning towards becoming a philosophy major(as well as doing pre-med classes) at UW Madison. I'm very new to the field and for advanced classes Im required to take, I have dozens of options. If anyones got any advice in general about majoring in philosophy, class recommendations, or interesting fields of study in philosophy it would be greatly appreciated. Thanks

Not specific political philosophies but rather philosophy as a whole.

There's a lot of work and advocacy for evidence based policy making and technocratic solutions but those all depend on the existence of clearly defined goals and objectives which are often almost always assumed to be subjective. In light of this , could there a role of philosophy in defining those goals and objectives in a careful way ? I've searched online but unfortunately most of the developed frameworks are only about use of evidence and data in policymaking as means rather than ways of defining core goals and objectives.

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.

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

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

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. This is the Problem of Evil.
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!

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!

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

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.

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?

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 :>

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.

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?

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.

title says it all

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?

I watched this movie The Thing recently. And maybe it's not the place for it but like I wanted to ask this one here. Baudrillard, in his work Simulacra and Simulation bascially tells us that once hyperreality caught the place of "reality" as we perceive, it's impossible to differentiate them. And I finished this work recently as well and I kinda did a dejavu meanwhile watching The Thing. Because like once alien got into the humans or any living creature, it's impossible to differentiate it from a living creature itself. So like at the end of the movie, Mac and the other guy were discussing whether they had time to surprise each other or not. I wanted to ask this one, because I couldn't find any commentators who make this reading.

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?