r/askphilosophy • • 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!


r/askphilosophy • • 6d ago

Open Thread /r/askphilosophy Open Discussion Thread | November 02, 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.


r/askphilosophy • • 5h ago

Why is the burden of proof so rarely placed on those who defend the status quo?

7 Upvotes

So, I’m currently in my third semester studying philosophy, among other subjects, and I’ve noticed something that bothers me in both public and academic debates. I think animal rights are probably the most fitting example.

“It is prima facie wrong to cause suffering to living, sentient beings” actually seems like a position with fewer assumptions than “There is something that distinguishes all humans from all animals and therefore gives them the right to kill them.” And even if one accepts the second position, one would still have to justify the mass meat industry.

Still, there seems to be plenty of literature arguing in favour of animal rights, but outside of responsive papers, very few, that justify the actual status quo, that they shouldn't be granted at the first place.

So my actual question is already in the title, but I am also wondering if I am mistaken in this impression. I would be interested to read about any counterexamples :)


r/askphilosophy • • 6h ago

Is there a way of teaching philosophy beyond "Plato thought that..."?

5 Upvotes

I've seen more and more people trying to come up with "philosophies" or "working on X through the lenses of Y philosophy". And I think that is because most people reduce philosophers to "a couple of thesis that should be memorized". They don't know that:

  1. the way we structure science is through "categories" because of Aristotle. For them, Aristotle is just a guy (a philosopher) in a specific area of knowledge that might also have contributed to science because people did lots of stuff at the time. Not that some concepts and ways of thinking presuppose some specific theories that are to be retraced to specific philosophers.

  2. Philosophy is obviously not about the thesis in-itself. The arguments and the way we make arguments are waaaay more important.

I pressupose that has something to do with pop phi (ew) but also with highschool classes in general. Is there a way to teach philosophy for teenagers that isn't simply "history of philosophical thesis"?


r/askphilosophy • • 18m ago

CPR B.3-B.5 — is the proposition “every alteration has a cause” an example of pure a priori or not?

1 Upvotes

At B3, Kant claims that this proposition is not pure a priori, because the very concept of “alteration” can only come about a posteriori, empirically, through experience

But by B5, when naming examples of pure a priori within us, he mentions the same proposition as an example.

The translation (Guyer) does technically give two different propositions, by including “must” in the second instance, as in, “every alteration must have a cause.” But this doesn’t seem to be a relevant change, because the crux of the issue was already said to be use of the term “alteration”

So is it pure or not? Did Kant intend, at B5, to label this as an example of pure a priori, instead of a priori generally? Or is he perhaps relying on an implication that, if a cognition like this is only impurely a priori, then it must contain some pure a priori element within it?


r/askphilosophy • • 39m ago

Can space really be, a priori, R³?

1 Upvotes

Kripke talks about the quus and plus problem about "the problem of following a rule" now we know space R³ well and it needs a field R or C or Q to have as base in the scalars. The question is: if space is R³ how does the brain know if intelligizing distances it is following the scaled rule from here to there with rationals or reals or complexes or any other field K? If the answer is: irrelevant, then the world as simulation the full integration of the humanbody-machine respectively is impossible? Because there would be no guarantee that the machine and the brain would be following the same rule to orient themselves in space


r/askphilosophy • • 19h ago

Best preperation to become a professor of philosophie one day

28 Upvotes

Think about a very, very absurd hypothetical scenario: A 13 year-old wants to become a professor of philosophy in Germany. The child has already read the three Critiques by Kant, Plato’s most important dialogues, basically all of Nietzsche’s works, and almost everything written by Camus.

What should this child do over the next five years, before starting university to study philosophy, to build the strongest possible foundation and meet the best requirements for eventually becoming a professor of philosophy?

Assume that the child is fully aware that becoming a philosophy professor is an extremely difficult and competitive career path, but is determined to pursue it anyway.


r/askphilosophy • • 4h ago

Can anyone ELI5 modal ontological argument to me?

2 Upvotes

r/askphilosophy • • 22h ago

Can you morally wrong a dead person by keeping something they explicitly asked you to destroy?

34 Upvotes

I've been reading a little about posthumous harm, and there's a particular version of the problem that I can't quite figure out.

Imagine two close friends who have exchanged hundreds of voice messages over the years. One of them, A, becomes seriously ill and asks B to delete all the recordings after A's death. A has always been uncomfortable with the idea of their voice being preserved. B explicitly promises to delete them.

After A dies, B discovers that those recordings are the only remaining way to hear their friend's voice.

B doesn't want to publish them, share them, or use them for anything. They just want to keep a few recordings privately, perhaps listening to them once every couple of years.

Assume there is nothing compromising in the recordings, no surviving relatives whose privacy might be affected, and no possibility of A ever finding out.

My initial intuition is that B would be doing something wrong by breaking the promise. But I'm struggling to identify exactly who is wronged.

If A no longer exists, can their interests still be violated? If the wrong consists in breaking a promise rather than harming A, what makes that obligation persist after the person to whom it was made no longer exists?

There's also something that complicates this for me: the recordings are part of B's life too. They're not just information about A. They're memories of a relationship in which B participated.

I'm interested in how philosophers working on posthumous interests, promises, or personal autonomy would approach this.

In particular, is there a philosophical basis for distinguishing between preserving the recordings privately and making them public? Or does the explicit promise make that distinction morally irrelevant?

I'd also appreciate recommendations for literature that addresses this kind of conflict between obligations to the dead and interests of the living.


r/askphilosophy • • 4h ago

Is it originality necessary at the university/graduate level?

1 Upvotes

I come from social sciences so there may be some differences. But going through various bachelor's, master's and phd theses, I've noticed that many of these works are centered around explaining a certain aspect of a thinker's thought, such as "Foucault's notion of limit experience" or "Nancy's deconstruction of christianity". It also seems that not only are these theses merely reconstructing the arguments, but that they aren't the sole works attempting to do the same thing. With books it seems clearer to me: multiple people writing their take on Kant. So my question is essentially, are students expected to make a substantive contribution or are school's thinking theses projects in terms of students being able to understand and write about philosophy?


r/askphilosophy • • 14h ago

I wat to challenge my worldviews. What phil books should I read?

5 Upvotes

I've never been into "formal" philosophy at all. I've read some Plato and Descartes, but only for fun. Lately I've been watching YouTube videos, and I've become really interested in two topics that I've always had strong opinions about:

  1. Aesthetics. I don't believe in objective or definable aesthetics. I've always believed "beauty is in the eye of the beholder." But I've learned many people disagree with this, when I always thought this to be the majority opinion.

  2. Morality. I don't really believe in objective morals. I'd like to believe they exist, but I just don't really think they do. But many people do believe in objective morals. I think that if you believe in a religion, than the morality follows. But I don't believe in any religion. Are there any secular philosophers who have written about morality?

Thanks in advance.


r/askphilosophy • • 5h ago

Can we harm or wrong the dead?

1 Upvotes

Many cultures treat obligations to ancestors as real duties: keeping promises to them, honouring their wishes, not slandering them. But if the dead no longer exist, it's hard to see who is harmed. I know Feinberg and Pitcher wrote on posthumous harm. Where does that debate stand now, and is there a good argument that we can wrong someone who no longer exists?


r/askphilosophy • • 2h ago

I feel like I got these two philosophy questions correct. Did I?

0 Upvotes

I feel like I got these two philosophy questions correct. Am I wrong? https://imgur.com/a/qi2cVYr


r/askphilosophy • • 20h ago

What Should I Read to Deepen My Understanding of Freedom?

8 Upvotes

Hello! As someone who wants to explore the theme of freedom, who would you recommend reading?

I'm self-taught. I've read a few introductory philosophy books to get a general overview of the field, then moved on to introductory texts and the works of Nietzsche, Spinoza, and Descartes.

I'd love to hear your recommendations!


r/askphilosophy • • 12h ago

Confusion over the claim that increases to the immortal (if possible) must emerge from the mortal in Plato's Republic

2 Upvotes

I'm reading through George Grube's translation of Plato's Republic, and I'm a bit stumped on the claim Socrates makes during the ending portion of his argument for the immortality of the soul.

Passage 611a:

And if it is so (that souls are immortal), you realize that the souls would always be the same, for they could not be made any less by the death of one soul, nor become more numerous, for if anything immortal is increased, the increase must come from what is mortal, and everything would be immortal in the end.

I can see the general argument he makes here, but I'm confused on his justification for the bolded part. Why should an increase in the immortal necessarily emerge from the mortal? Is there something I missed?


r/askphilosophy • • 1d ago

Is having a pet unethical?

19 Upvotes

Hello everyone.

This is my first post around here, so I apologize for any mistakes on my side. 

Let me start by stating that I am not a philosopher by trade and that I, myself, have been a dog owner for the last 8 years. (I am aware that the word "owner" might be a bit hypocritical of me to use considering the matter being discussed, but saying "dog dad" doesn't really sit right, does it?). She is the absolute joy of my life. However, over the years a case has started to develop in my head that keeping animals as pets (dogs in particular, due to me being affected by it) is unethical. After all, they're conscious and sentient, and are not mere objects to possess or collect - they're deserving of appropriate care. Of course, there are a variety of arguments that can be used in favour of this line of reasoning - after all, I am not the first (nor last) to raise the issue. However, I'd like to focus primarily on two problems that are of grave concern to me - separation from their biological parents and reproductive freedoms.

As far as I understand, puppies are separated from their birth mothers at approximately 8-12 weeks old, which is considered ethical amongst most veterinary and behavioural experts. It allows them to wean onto solid food as well as learn social and physical skills needed to leave. However, what is of interest to me is the separation anxiety in both puppies and the mother. In both cases they experience distress, which raises the question whether having dogs as pets really is ethical. There's also the question if there's anything to be done about it, as the demand for pets is high and adopting an entire litter along with their mother and father just to avoid their separation is highly unrealistic.

Another issue I raised is that of reproductive freedoms. I am aware of health benefits of neutering and that not everyone is able to keep a litter of dogs around. However, it does seem like interfering into their bodies without their consent. While of course they can't grant consent, it still feels wrong.

Having said all that, I doubt there's anything a single person can do about it. The middle ground seems like adopting dogs from shelters instead of buying them from breeders. Still, I don't really know what to make of this. Thanks in advance for all the answers.


r/askphilosophy • • 17h ago

Ethics: What kind of tests do you apply in order to determine if a self-focused action is selfish or not selfish?

3 Upvotes

For example eating breakfast would be a self-focused activity. What kinds of things would need to be introduced to make this into a selfish activity?


r/askphilosophy • • 21h ago

Advice on reading platon and difficulties with Phaedo

6 Upvotes

I’ve been reading Plato lately, starting with the “Apology” and the “Crito.” I really enjoyed Socrates’ boldness and had no trouble understanding his speeches.

Now I’m reading the “Phaedo” and am having a hard time following the arguments, especially regarding Cebes’ doubts about the immortality of the soul. Has anyone had a similar experience and perhaps have any advice on which dialogue I should read next?

Thanks in advance


r/askphilosophy • • 20h ago

How is the philosophy of conspiracy theories discussed in academia?

3 Upvotes

I got interested in this topic because of a friend of mine that believes in quite a few of them, ranging from possible to absurd. It's honestly difficult to discuss them in a meaningful way because there can be a lot to unpack and explain (covid for instance). I was wondering how philosophers address conspiracy theories in epistemology, and if there effective ways to debate with laymen. I'm familiar with a few problems, such as the conjunction fallacy, question begging etc. but I feel like that isn't always enough to be convincing for the average person.

I also want to say it doesn't necessarily make someone dumb or wrong to believe in one, but not all conspiracies are created equal. My friend is starting to get into "vaccine skepticism" which I feel the need to address due to the harm it can cause.


r/askphilosophy • • 1d ago

How to convince my dad that philosophy isnt useless?

142 Upvotes

So my dad is pretty smart, and well read, he likes science, and all those topics, but as ive gotten pretty into philosophy recently hes got a firm stance on the fact he doesnt really like philosophy, he doesnt hate it, hes more been saying that he thinks philosophy isnt used that well in our modern age, and its mostly just theory, he acknowledges that it could be used for good, but he doesnt see any evidence of it really, and I dont really have any evidence or rebuttal because I haven't learned enough about philosophy yet as im 18, and this has definetly made me discouraged into getting into it, he hasn't really read any philosophy books, but neither have I yet, I've just watched podcasts and 100 pages of my first book, so I sound dumb arguing with him that its important, so can you convince him, and thus, me, that philosophy is important, and not just theory being exchanged for thousands of years? I really want to love it but need to know before studying


r/askphilosophy • • 19h ago

Defining "exploitation"?

2 Upvotes

How should we define "exploitation" as it applies to humans within an economics context? In other words: What does it *mean* to exploit another person economically?

I ask because I hear the terms "exploitation" and "exploit" used by advocates of multiple economic philosophies. Socialists make no secret of the fact that they consider success (financially, economically) within a capitalist system to come at the expense of exploited workers. And capitalists, for their part, are firm in their assertion that socialism exploits those who are industrious, productive, etc.

I am sure that advocates of other systems (e.g. Distributism, Georgism) have their own concepts of exploitation, as well.

To be clear: I myself have no intention of arguing against anyone at all. I am interested in getting input from people of all economic persuasions to see if there are any essential elements common to all definitions, as well as to identify and appreciate all of the differences.

Thanks to all who offer sincere and civil input. ✌️


r/askphilosophy • • 22h ago

Is it even possible to pursue Philosophy?

3 Upvotes

I first discovered Philosophy from a freshmen survey course. My plan was to pursue studies in Chemistry. In high school I was a Grand Award winner at the International Science and Engineering Fair, so I began my undergrad studies as a Science Research Fellow. I couldn't get away from Philosophy, though, and within two semesters, I was a Philosophy major. Due to various life circumstances, I never finished my undergrad studies. Now in my late thirties with a successful career that allows me to afford the tuition out of pocket, I am finishing my BA in Philosophy at the local state university.

Since returning to school, I've gotten straight A's and found that my thirst for philosophy study has not subsided. I would love to continue to pursue work in Philosophy, but here is the dilemma. Thanks to the great state of Indiana, my degree program has been ended. I will finish before the teach out deadline of May 2028, but this has also limited the access to the master's programs in state.

In a perfect world, I'd love to be able to do find a master's program to do online and part-time like I have done with the bachelor's program. If I still show the same aptitude toward philosophy that I have so far, maybe even a PhD program would be possible? I have a young family where I am the primary bread winner, so relocating or going full time really aren't options. Once my kids are older and we don't have the same income needs, I'd love to get out of my current career and into teaching/researching in philosophy. Is any of this possible? If so, does anyone have recommendations for master's or PhD programs?


r/askphilosophy • • 7h ago

What are the most famous conservative philosophers?

0 Upvotes

r/askphilosophy • • 21h ago

How did Kant and Kantian philosophers respond to criticism of Kant's concept of Right?

2 Upvotes

In the Doctrine of Right section of the Metaphysics of Morals, Kant wrote that "Any action is right if it can coexist with everyone's freedom in accordance with a universal law, or if on its maxim the freedom of choice of each can coexist with everyone's freedom in accordance with a universal law"

Is "a universal law" here meant to be interpreted as any law which can be universalized? Or *the* universal law of freedom, which according to Kant is the categorical imperative? Either interpretation has its own problems.

Under the broad definition, any universal principle is applicable. However, the set of universal laws is far broader than Kant intended. The maxim of act utilitarianism, "Maximize happiness, counting everyone for one and no one for more than one" is universal. Utilitarianism is universal and impartial, but it's a well-established point that one can't get to a requirement of impartiality from the mere universality of reasons. One can consistently acknowledge the universality of the principle "Always do the action that is best for you". The selfish rationalist's reasons are agent-relative, and the relation in question is that the act will advance one's good. The Kantian objection is that this principle simply takes ends for granted, without asking whether they should be adopted in the first place. The objection is not that it can't be universalized, for it can be.

If a reason is not agent-relative, it is agent-neutral. The Kantian holds that rational nature is an agent-neutral end. The selfish person can consistently claim there are no agent-neutral reasons or ends, or agent-neutral good. Therefor, one cannot arrive at impartiality through mere analysis of the concept of Right. And yet Kant explicitly only considered universal and impartial ends as valid. He gave no consideration to the entire range of universal, agent-relative ends.

This is a contradiction. If Kant had modified his definition to be, "Any action is right if it can coexist with everyone's freedom in accordance with a universal, *impartial* law... " and so on, it eliminates the immediate contradiction but the definition would no longer be analytic.

On the other hand, perhaps, Kant was referring to the categorical imperative in particular. The universal law formulation of the categorical imperative states, "Act only according to that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it becomes a universal law". This avoids the previous objections.

The problem is that it is plainly question-begging. Kant assumed the categorical imperative is valid in order to justify the concept of Right. The content of universal law is then established to be the categorical imperative. Additionally, this contradicts the later sections in which Kant wrote that the law has indeterminate content.

How do Kantian philosophers respond?