Natural language is very permissive. It allows us to construct sentences and questions that are 100% grammatically correct on the surface, yet don't actually make sense when you look closely at how the words work.

For example, English grammar allows me to turn an adjective or verb into an abstract noun and ask: "How do a sprinter's moving legs generate running?" or "Where does the speed go when a car stops?" Grammatically, those questions have the exact same structure as "How does the liver generate bile?"

It feels like checking whether a question is a grammatical illusion should be the very first step in philosophy, before anyone spends decades debating answers to it.

How do working philosophers actually test for this?

Hi folks!

I'm a high school student studying philosophy, and I'm looking for advice on how to become a better philosophical thinker THINKER. thinker being the key term. I genuinely find philosophy interesting, and I really like the ideas it explores.

but but but, I find the actual process of doing philosophy quite difficult. I often struggle with philosophical readings and find it hard to fully comprehend what an author is arguing, but even when I understand the general idea, I struggle to take it further and critically engage with it.

My biggest problem is that I can't seem to come up with original ideas or thoughts of my own. When I'm given a claim, a question or a stimulus, I often don't know where to begin. I struggle to identify implicit assumptions, recognise the philosophical issue or tension at the heart of an idea, develop objections, or construct arguments beyond the most obvious observations. I can understand and appreciate someone else's reasoning when it's explained to me, but generating my own thoughts and arguments feels like a completely different skill, and I often feel as though I'm missing something fundamental about how to approach philosophy.

Our exam involves responding to an unseen stimulus, which could be a short text excerpt or an image. We're expected to identify and unpack a philosophical issue raised by the stimulus, explicitly connect it to the core theme question, “What is a human being?”, construct a structured argument using different philosophical perspectives or thinkers, and critically evaluate those perspectives. Knowing what the exam requires is one thing, but actually being able to do it independently is another.

I'm also on a bit of a time crunch because my exams are next week, so I need to prepare for those in the short term, but putting the immediate exam stress aside, I genuinely want to develop these skills in the long run. I don't want to simply memorise philosophers' arguments or learn a formula for answering exam questions; I want to learn how to think for myself, generate ideas, question assumptions and engage meaningfully with philosophical problems. For those of you who study or teach philosophy, how do you actually learn to think philosophically and critically? How do you generate your own ideas rather than just understand and repeat other people's? How can I practise identifying assumptions, developing counterarguments and finding deeper philosophical questions in an unfamiliar stimulus? And how do you approach dense philosophical texts so that you can understand and critically evaluate them? I'd really realy really appreciate any practical advice, exercises, resources or insights from people who struggled with this when they first started. I find the subject genuinely fascinating, and I want to get better at it, but right now I feel quite lost about how to bridge the gap between being interested in philosophy and actually being able to do it.

thankss

I've already read the Wikipedia article on it, but I'd really appreciate it if someone elaborated on the fundamentals of longtermism and what academic philosophers think of it as an ethical stance.

I’m in a mental health facility and only have access to the books I brought with me and the small library on site. One of these books is the LOA volume of Ezra Pound’s poems and translations, including the latter of the Four Confucian Classics. His Wikipedia mentioned they are “non literal”, and as much as I adore his translations of Chinese poetry, I am aware that they are not entirely accurate and some of his ideas about translation are considered outdated. I will definitely read them regardless, but should I read more “literal” translations at some point to get a full picture of things his version might be missing? Any feedback is appreciated.

When I was reading The Sublime Object of Ideology, I recall seeing a passage that said something to the effect that Ideology, being an unconscious fantasy, was something to be worked through, the same way that a psychoanalyst works something through with a patient. Does Zizek think that Ideology is something irrational, or perhaps something that is faith-based (in the sense that Kierkegaard uses faith, i.e. a thing which is believed without or beyond reason)?

It seems to especially contrast with epistemic skepticism. Is there a good reason for why it developed and the rationale behind the principle ?

I'm a philosophy undergrad current working on my senior capstone project. In short (and apparently metaphysically incorrect) I'm looking at prenatal genetic information ethics around balancing a parent's right-to-ignorance and their obligation ensure the health/safety of the future child.

When I met with my philosophy advisor (who is also not the professor leading the senior capstone class, therefore he had not seen my argument/topic before I had reached out. This meant that I had already done most of my research and had some parts written) he explained to me that I need to reformat my argument as "Obligation to future child" is metaphysically wrong, as it is impossible to have a directed obligation TO/Towards a non-existent entity.

The argument goes from "Parental obligation to ensure the health of their future unborn child" to "The indirect/impersonal parental obligation to not create a child who is below a certain health threshold". This seems somewhat fair, as I think I was basically arguing for a form of impersonal obligation (Parental obligation towards the amorphous possible future child) via a mix of causal and voluntarism backing theories around parental obligation. Specifically my idea was that obligations attached to being a future parent appear once a couple has voluntarily taken up the project of bearing a child, but only have obligations towards A born child (aka whoever ends up being born at the end of this process), and reasonable obligations towards any fetus they decide to bring to full birth (they can turn away from this project at any time, or the particular fetus at any time, as I want to ensure the right to abortion was permissible within my framework). This makes it so the parents have obligation towards the health of A born child, it frees them/covers off against the ideas that genetic testing doesn't benefit any particular person (usually you ignore/abort a fetus with a disease rather than curing it)). While voluntary taking up is necessary for obligations, there is also a causal element in that the parents are the ones creating the child that I think are important, the obligation stems from being causally connected, but during prenatal and natal stages the obligations are voluntary because the project is voluntary.

However, due to this metaphysical wrench thrown in my plans, this no longer seems like an argument I can make, as parental theories backing/my argument is based on can't apply as they are centered around directed obligation towards a specific existent someone, and my idea of an "obligation to A born child" doesn't work because its a directed obligation to a non-existent someone.

Unfortunately, a medical situation has forced my advisor to take medical leave for the rest of the year, and had to cancel day of our second meeting where he was going to help me work through how to reword my arguments and what research was now invalid for me to us + what other research I now had to look into (The Non-Identity Problem). I also still have this gut feeling, even having looked into the non-identity problem that my above argument (obligation to A born child, whoever ends up being born) seems possible and defendable, but I'm not knowledgeable enough in this field.

Any advice or ideas would be deeply appreciated! As I've had to stop actually writing my paper to now sorting out this metaphysical wrench my professor has thrown into my gears (and then walked away without helping /lh)

TLDR: My argument was about a parental obligation towards whatever child ends up being born, but this doesn't metaphysically work due to the non-identity problem. I'm now trying to figure out how to reword my argument and what research/backing I now need to do with this (somewhat slight) direction change

Benefiting from your Doubt: The Ethical Implications of Corporate Surveillance in API-based Fraud Detection.

What changes should I apply? I haven’t made a philosophical paper before.

What else should I consider when writing the title?

Hello everyone, I'm new to philosophy, and it’s my first time posting on this forum, so if there are any errors, please let me know! From the title, you can assume I recently read Rebecca Kukla's article on the Language of Sexual Negotiation. I wanted to discuss and share my thoughts on it, especially with the recent attention to these themes (finally!!). In the article, Kukla argues about the insufficiency of consent in relation to the pragmatics of language. Her main problem is that consent may not be a positive interaction; for example, she references Rae Langton's work on silencing and the difference between a request, which often creates a sense of obligation, and an invitation, which expresses a wish to share an experience without being coercive. This eventually leads her to the conclusion that though communication is important, so is the environment or conditions in which this communication is expressed. Following this, my question is: where does the responsibility lie when communication does fail? When I say this, I mean that since it depends on context, if the interaction was interpreted differently by both parties, who should take responsibility, or should both? My other question is in reference to Kukla's mention of invitations. Can invitations create pressure or a feeling of obligation rather than diminish the power imbalance usually responsible?

suppose most people in a country don’t like some tiny minority. they vote for a party that promises to go after them and that party gets a supermajority. the elections are completely fair, nobody’s votes are suppressed and everyone can still say whatever they want about the party.

then the government passes laws against that minority, like banning their religion or taking away their right to vote. it’s not some dictator doing this against the will of the people, the majority actually wants this.

obviously that’s wrong, but would that country still count as a democracy? because technically it’s just doing what most people voted for right?

I apologize as I am sure this must be a very basic, beginner question, but its screwing with me.

I lately have been interested for my own discipline, to take up stoicism (actual stoicism, not the "repress all your emotions" thing) and I know it to be a virtue ethics, where virtue is the only good as only it can lead to eudaimonia, also on Epicureanism which I am not sure but I think also considers virtues good for pleasure.

But the thing is, if what is good is located in myself and not in the world or external events, then what is bad about people being homeless, or people being stolen from, or assaulted, or people living in horrible conditions, or working in bad conditions? Shouldn't the solution according to such systems of virtue ethics (stoicism in particular) to just tell them to become virtous, rather than changing their situation?

I am aware one of the four main virtues is "justice" but still .... the virtue itself seems to be the goal rather than its external effects.

So that is my question.

I found my rabbit in a not 100% healthy state last week, I took her to the vet, where the consultation alone cost me over £50 even when on their plan that gave me a discount, combined with the antibiotics which was also discounted I spent over £80; today, when I took her back to the vet, because she wasn't all the way healthy yet, not only was I given more antibiotics for her but also eye drops, and between the consultation, antibiotics and eye drops, once again all discounted for me, it cost me another £117; in total, I spent nearly £200 on her medical care.

Obviously I don't believe this is what I should have done, but what I can't get out of my head is that I could have just easily replaced my rabbit with a healthy baby one for £40, one fifth of what I spent on my rabbit's healthcare. Because I can't get this out of my head, I need to talk about it with other people, and I figured there must be philosophers who have explored this kind of thing. What do they have to say?

My question comes from the intuition that if it is true that consciousness and matter are separate, when matter disgregates, then consciousness keeps existing as nothing happened. This would entail some afterlife of some sort (either heaven/hell or rebirth or a neutral place for everyone or idk).

Does this make sense or am I making up things?

I’ve been thinking about whether something becomes morally right simply because society accepts it.
Consider cheating in exams.
Suppose an entire society once believed cheating was morally wrong. Over time, people change their minds, and eventually everyone accepts cheating as normal. Nobody objects to it, nobody gets punished, and in this hypothetical, there are no harmful consequences.
Would cheating then become morally right, or would it merely stop being considered wrong?
I also wonder what would happen if everyone forgot that cheating had ever been considered wrong. Would that change its moral status, or only people’s perception of it?
My thinking is that legal rules, ethical standards, and moral beliefs are influenced by previous generations, their knowledge, and their way of thinking. These standards can change over time.
However, I don’t think majority acceptance automatically proves that something is right. At the same time, the fact that people have believed something for centuries doesn’t necessarily prove that it’s objectively right either.
So I’m considering two possibilities:
Humans create moral standards, and these standards change as human values change.
Some moral truths exist independently of human beliefs, and humans can discover or misunderstand them.
Can both possibilities be true in different ways? And how could we distinguish between a moral rule humans created and a moral truth that exists independently of us?
I’m genuinely interested in counterarguments. I’m not claiming to have the answer; I’m trying to understand the problem.

I'm looking for a range of philosophical views on this ethical dilemma! 

If you know someone (A) has been lied to by B, and you maintained that lie for B, what are the ethics of then wanting to tell A the truth when your motive is to hurt or get revenge on B? 

OR If not tell them directly, point A in the direction of the truth but to not directly tell them 

So, i have this assignment to do a phenomenological reading of an upanisad.

yeah i have read hussrel’ ideas , his methods of reduction. but still i m not able to do it.

any comments will help much

So to be honest I made this with ChatGPT, which I know is bad for philosophy but didn’t know where else to look for a personalized list for my skill level and interests, I’m 18 and never read a philosophy book besides the stranger, I’m currently reading “a little history of philosophy” by Nigel Warburton, and really interested in potentially doing a philosophy major in college, currently on a gap year and traveling Europe and whenever I talk to people about philosophy like at the bar where I talked with a group from my hostel for 4 hours, we always end up talking about free will, albert camus, plato, nietszche, plato, etc

^ I’ve heard from alex o connor to pick books baaed on what you’re already hearing about a lot but not sure how true that is

But is this a good reading list? Or should I do something entirely different

Stage 1: Foundations
A Little History of Philosophy — Nigel Warburton
Five Dialogues — Plato
The Problems of Philosophy — Bertrand Russell
On Liberty — John Stuart Mill

Stage 2: Developing Philosophical Knowledge
Logic: A Very Short Introduction — Graham Priest
Meditations on First Philosophy — René Descartes
Analects — Confucius
Mortal Questions — Thomas Nagel

Stage 3: Challenging Primary Texts
An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding — David Hume
Nicomachean Ethics — Aristotle
On the Genealogy of Morality — Friedrich Nietzsche
The Ethics of Ambiguity — Simone de Beauvoir
Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals — Immanuel Kant

​

Pain and attachment give meaning its weight. Meaning becomes an organising structure, eventually producing the felt need to preserve itself as though it were necessary for existence?

Or perhaps existence appears to require meaning when the experienced necessity for meaning is itself an outcome of pain, attachment, and the structures built around them.

The mechanism that once organised experiences become something experience is organised to protect?

​

I've been thinking about how much of what we do is motivated by the fact that our time is limited. We often put things off, but at the same time, deadlines, aging, and the awareness that life won't last forever can push us to finally get things done.

If humans were immortal, I wonder whether we would become even more prone to procrastination. If there were always more time, would there ever be a real reason to do something now rather than a hundred years from now? Maybe the absence of a deadline imposed by mortality would make it harder to find a sense of urgency or decide what really matters.

On the other hand, perhaps immortality would simply change our relationship with time rather than make us less productive.

I'm curious whether anyone has explored this idea philosophically. Is the finitude of human life necessary for us to give our actions a sense of urgency or meaning, or could an immortal person develop other reasons to act without constantly postponing things?

Und wenn ja, wieso? Spielen die Umstände eine Rolle? Ich habe das Argument gelesen, man würde eine Beziehung zerstören. Aber ist die nicht schon zerstört, wenn ein Part sich dazu entschließt zu betrügen? Was hat die Dritte, unbeteiligte Person damit zutun? Sie erzeugt ja nichts, was nicht schon vorher da gewesen wäre. Sie macht es nur sichtbar, oder nicht? Macht es einen Unterschied, ob der Fremdgänger es aktiv plant oder es im Affekt passiert? Macht es einen Unterschied, ob er verführt wurde?

Und ganz allgemein zum Thema Fremdgehen. Sollte man als Dritte die betrogene Person informieren, wenn man die Möglichkeit dazu hat? Sollte man als Fremdgänger selbst es beichten oder zusätzliches Leid durch Schweigen ersparen? Ist es egoistisch, zu beichten um das eigene Gewissen zu beruhigen?