{"post_id":"il27wz","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.96,"history":"My prof said \"The liberal value system favours freedom over morality, the egalitarian value system favours morality over freedom. The conflict between these two value systems is one of the greatest, if not the greatest, social conflicts of our time\", can you expand on this? It's a translation. Favours can be translated as \"ranks\" as well, not sure which fits best.","c_root_id_A":"g3pfzw4","c_root_id_B":"g3pd690","created_at_utc_A":1599046959,"created_at_utc_B":1599044872,"score_A":190,"score_B":27,"human_ref_A":"Yes, and no.  The liberal value system favours the political conditions that reproduce individual liberty over any other principles, whereas egalitarian systems favour the political conditions that reproduce equality. The professor seems to be operating with two (debatable) hidden premises: the way that liberals describe freedom is broadly correct, and that the principle of equality is ostensibly an ethical principle before it is political. Presumably the professor is a liberal instructing on liberal political theory, because we might say that the struggle between these two poles of liberty and equality, between the protection of individual rights (\\*ahem\\* private property \\*ahem\\*) and equality is the conflict at the heart of liberal thought.  Alternatively, this is a lazy provocation based on false narratives of the Cold War.","human_ref_B":"It's enough of a big social conflict that the UN has two charters of human rights (alongside the UDHR, which is more aspirational the prescriptive): one drafted by NATO powers (International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights), the other by Soviets (Internation Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights). The former has rights relating to \"freedom\" - freedom of movement, association, speech etc etc, the latter has rights relating to basic needs - rights to work, education, adequate standards of living, enjoyment of the benefits of scientific progress. The fact these were split into separate charters (rather than being an additional combined instrument like the UDHR was) shows that even at international law is split down similar lines, which not only reflect the moral differences in your quote above, but also that this is a strongly political split.  Edit: it's probably worth noting that this makes assuptions about what you call \"morality\" - liberalism and egalitarianism really present to different political-moral systems: one where maximising \"freedom\" is the most moral outcome, one where maximising \"equality\" is the most moral outcome. I suppose describing one system as \"moral\" and the other not is an assumption about what morality is.  Edit 2: just realised i forgot to mention the actual point - the tension your prof described is basically the root ideological dispute begins the cold war, and has been the root of most countercultural\/political-revolutionary movements since the dawn of capitalism and communism, probably since the turn of the 20th century.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":2087.0,"score_ratio":7.037037037}
{"post_id":"il27wz","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.96,"history":"My prof said \"The liberal value system favours freedom over morality, the egalitarian value system favours morality over freedom. The conflict between these two value systems is one of the greatest, if not the greatest, social conflicts of our time\", can you expand on this? It's a translation. Favours can be translated as \"ranks\" as well, not sure which fits best.","c_root_id_A":"g3pg7x7","c_root_id_B":"g3pd690","created_at_utc_A":1599047089,"created_at_utc_B":1599044872,"score_A":69,"score_B":27,"human_ref_A":"your professor seems to be referring to freedom as negative liberty - not being prevented from doing things. positive liberty is the freedom to act under your own control. i'm bad at explaining things  someone working two minimum wage jobs to survive isn't being directly prevented from doing as they wish, but they certainly aren't free to live their life as they'd want to.   https:\/\/plato.stanford.edu\/entries\/liberty-positive-negative\/","human_ref_B":"It's enough of a big social conflict that the UN has two charters of human rights (alongside the UDHR, which is more aspirational the prescriptive): one drafted by NATO powers (International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights), the other by Soviets (Internation Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights). The former has rights relating to \"freedom\" - freedom of movement, association, speech etc etc, the latter has rights relating to basic needs - rights to work, education, adequate standards of living, enjoyment of the benefits of scientific progress. The fact these were split into separate charters (rather than being an additional combined instrument like the UDHR was) shows that even at international law is split down similar lines, which not only reflect the moral differences in your quote above, but also that this is a strongly political split.  Edit: it's probably worth noting that this makes assuptions about what you call \"morality\" - liberalism and egalitarianism really present to different political-moral systems: one where maximising \"freedom\" is the most moral outcome, one where maximising \"equality\" is the most moral outcome. I suppose describing one system as \"moral\" and the other not is an assumption about what morality is.  Edit 2: just realised i forgot to mention the actual point - the tension your prof described is basically the root ideological dispute begins the cold war, and has been the root of most countercultural\/political-revolutionary movements since the dawn of capitalism and communism, probably since the turn of the 20th century.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":2217.0,"score_ratio":2.5555555556}
{"post_id":"oz3j5o","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.98,"history":"If you abstain from evil deeds due to fear of retribution, are you really a good person or are you a coward? Let's say the only reason why I did not steal a handphone my colleague left lying on the table is due to fear of being caught on cctv  I do not get heavily drunk because I do not want to do something stupid  I treat waiters and service staff with respect because I do not want to be crucified on social media  Am I actually a good person? Or am I simply a coward?","c_root_id_A":"h806rix","c_root_id_B":"h7y6ooc","created_at_utc_A":1628298957,"created_at_utc_B":1628265876,"score_A":7,"score_B":6,"human_ref_A":"A few thoughts:  -\tI feel like there\u2019s a false dilemma here; acting out of self-interest may not make you a good person, but it doesn\u2019t follow that it makes you a coward. There are even some situations where acting in one\u2019s self-interest can be courageous. -\tAnyone aware of the fact that they do good only out of self-interest would surely score points in any virtue-based system for their remarkable humility. -\tSome systems hold that *everybody* does what they do for reasons of self-interest. Hobbes comes to mind (and is quoted on the page): \u201cNo man giveth but with intention of good to himself.\u201d According to this system, someone aware of the fact that they do this would be more moral than an average person, not less. -\tKohlberg\u2019s theory of moral development holds that this is a stage all of us pass through and that under normal circumstances, this is how children tend to approach morality.","human_ref_B":"Look into Plato's Gyges metaphor,it covers literally this.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":33081.0,"score_ratio":1.1666666667}
{"post_id":"oz3j5o","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.98,"history":"If you abstain from evil deeds due to fear of retribution, are you really a good person or are you a coward? Let's say the only reason why I did not steal a handphone my colleague left lying on the table is due to fear of being caught on cctv  I do not get heavily drunk because I do not want to do something stupid  I treat waiters and service staff with respect because I do not want to be crucified on social media  Am I actually a good person? Or am I simply a coward?","c_root_id_A":"h806rix","c_root_id_B":"h7xj7bk","created_at_utc_A":1628298957,"created_at_utc_B":1628255499,"score_A":7,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"A few thoughts:  -\tI feel like there\u2019s a false dilemma here; acting out of self-interest may not make you a good person, but it doesn\u2019t follow that it makes you a coward. There are even some situations where acting in one\u2019s self-interest can be courageous. -\tAnyone aware of the fact that they do good only out of self-interest would surely score points in any virtue-based system for their remarkable humility. -\tSome systems hold that *everybody* does what they do for reasons of self-interest. Hobbes comes to mind (and is quoted on the page): \u201cNo man giveth but with intention of good to himself.\u201d According to this system, someone aware of the fact that they do this would be more moral than an average person, not less. -\tKohlberg\u2019s theory of moral development holds that this is a stage all of us pass through and that under normal circumstances, this is how children tend to approach morality.","human_ref_B":"Speaking broadly: no according to deontological or virtue ethics. Consequentialism, prima facie, might give you a pass.   'Coward' may be ladened with more connotations then is useful here.  I think I get what you are going for but I'd try to express it differently.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":43458.0,"score_ratio":2.3333333333}
{"post_id":"oz3j5o","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.98,"history":"If you abstain from evil deeds due to fear of retribution, are you really a good person or are you a coward? Let's say the only reason why I did not steal a handphone my colleague left lying on the table is due to fear of being caught on cctv  I do not get heavily drunk because I do not want to do something stupid  I treat waiters and service staff with respect because I do not want to be crucified on social media  Am I actually a good person? Or am I simply a coward?","c_root_id_A":"h806rix","c_root_id_B":"h7yqe0h","created_at_utc_A":1628298957,"created_at_utc_B":1628274194,"score_A":7,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"A few thoughts:  -\tI feel like there\u2019s a false dilemma here; acting out of self-interest may not make you a good person, but it doesn\u2019t follow that it makes you a coward. There are even some situations where acting in one\u2019s self-interest can be courageous. -\tAnyone aware of the fact that they do good only out of self-interest would surely score points in any virtue-based system for their remarkable humility. -\tSome systems hold that *everybody* does what they do for reasons of self-interest. Hobbes comes to mind (and is quoted on the page): \u201cNo man giveth but with intention of good to himself.\u201d According to this system, someone aware of the fact that they do this would be more moral than an average person, not less. -\tKohlberg\u2019s theory of moral development holds that this is a stage all of us pass through and that under normal circumstances, this is how children tend to approach morality.","human_ref_B":"Being a coward and being a good person are not exclusive. However, one's actions are the ultimate expression of who one is","labels":1,"seconds_difference":24763.0,"score_ratio":3.5}
{"post_id":"oz3j5o","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.98,"history":"If you abstain from evil deeds due to fear of retribution, are you really a good person or are you a coward? Let's say the only reason why I did not steal a handphone my colleague left lying on the table is due to fear of being caught on cctv  I do not get heavily drunk because I do not want to do something stupid  I treat waiters and service staff with respect because I do not want to be crucified on social media  Am I actually a good person? Or am I simply a coward?","c_root_id_A":"h7y6ooc","c_root_id_B":"h7xj7bk","created_at_utc_A":1628265876,"created_at_utc_B":1628255499,"score_A":6,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"Look into Plato's Gyges metaphor,it covers literally this.","human_ref_B":"Speaking broadly: no according to deontological or virtue ethics. Consequentialism, prima facie, might give you a pass.   'Coward' may be ladened with more connotations then is useful here.  I think I get what you are going for but I'd try to express it differently.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":10377.0,"score_ratio":2.0}
{"post_id":"mtfzvt","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.98,"history":"Mental disorder vs. Neurodiversity In recent years there has been a push to label conditions such as ADHD or autism spectrum disorder as \"neurodiversity\" rather than a \"disorder\". Neurodiversity implying these are just different ways the brain functions whereas disorder implies that these are illnesses that are causing the brain to function incorrectly and they need to be cured or treated, but even if the majority of people have \"neurotypical\" brains, can we safely assume that is the way the human brain is supposed to function? Even with disorders that we see no benefit from at all, like retardation or downs syndrome, can we accurately describe these when all we can do is compare their behavior to neurotypical behavior and list the differences? Can we get a clear picture of what it is like to be them if we can only view it through a neurotypical lens? Is the only reason we consider these disorders to be the \"wrong\" way a brain should function is because they have little value in a society that was built by neurotypical people for neurotypical people?","c_root_id_A":"gv02hcw","c_root_id_B":"guzyjks","created_at_utc_A":1618775095,"created_at_utc_B":1618773171,"score_A":17,"score_B":14,"human_ref_A":"From what I've recently read the motivation behind the terminology shift isn't so much philosophical, but activist driven. So I'm not sure my answer is in line with this sub. On the other hand this activism does employ some newer opinions about epistemology, so maybe it is. Regardless, there is a movement behind the change, and not all parts of it are in agreement. Excerpts are taken from the link below.   Some important points to address your question:  >Several vocal autistic people and parents have complained that the  movement is made up mostly of less impaired individuals who do not  represent people with more severe problems \\[15\\].  I have also heard people comment at autism conferences that persons in  the movement are not representative of most ND adults or children, and  are not well-appointed to speak for them. My understanding is that the  argument is, broadly, parents of more severely disabled children are  keen for treatments to ease their children\u2019s condition, whereas the  neurodiversity movement is seen as anti-cure \\[13\\].   A point worth considering is whether this push to de-medicalize autism is good for the entire community.   Activist blogger Hiari, who herself has been given a diagnosis of autism, writes for the critical psychiatry site *Mad in America*. She issues another stinging critique of the neurodiversity movement \\[21\\], writing that the movement amounts to no more than:  >A  public relations campaign that emphasizes the many positive qualities  associated with some presentations of autism\u2014creativity, increased  tolerance for repetition, enhanced empathy, superior ability to master  content in specific subject areas, and exceptional memory\u2014while erasing  or minimizing the experiences of autistics who are severely disabled.  I would recommend reading through ALL of these critiques. It covers arguments from the problem of a ND\/NT false dichotomy, to the issue above, to medicalization and biological reductionsim and more.   https:\/\/link.springer.com\/chapter\/10.1007\/978-981-13-8437-0\\_21","human_ref_B":"It is important to note that neurodiversity is generally framed on a spectrum of typicality vs. atypicality, not ability vs. impairment. One can be neurotypical and impaired, or neuroatypical and unimpaired.  I would not agree with the claim that Down Syndrome categorically does not yield benefits! My experience has been that people with Down Syndrome tend to be kind and empathetic, a conclusion reinforced by Deborah J. Fidler\u2019s summary of research in \u201cThe Emerging Down Syndrome Behavioral Phenotype in Early Childhood,\u201d *Infants & Young Children* 18.2 (2005), pp. 86\u2013103.  (The term \u201cretardation\u201d is no longer used in scientific literature, presumably because of its pejorative connotations, and those familiar with the etymology know it\u2019s a tad inaccurate in most cases anyway.)","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1924.0,"score_ratio":1.2142857143}
{"post_id":"iglh13","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.97,"history":"Are mathematics inherent elements of the universe or a byproduct of the logic of the human mind? If humans did not exist as a species, would mathematics still exist as a concept? I'm having a hard time with this language game but I guess what I'm trying to ask is if math is an inherent reality of the universe or just a reflection of our brains?","c_root_id_A":"g2vsunt","c_root_id_B":"g2vj75c","created_at_utc_A":1598419492,"created_at_utc_B":1598412707,"score_A":19,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"You\u2019d likely be interested in Wigner\u2019s famous essay on the \u201cUnreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences\u201d, which highlights some of the difficulties in imagining that mathematics is somehow \u201cmerely\u201d a human construction. To cite an example which I don\u2019t believe Wigner himself actually uses but is one of my personal favorites, the \u201cpure\u201d mathematics developed by people like Reimann to describe geodesics in non-Euclidian metrics in the 1800\u2019s *for no other reason than to explore the mathematics themselves* turned out to be exactly what Einstein so brilliantly realized he needed to properly describe the structure of Spacetime in General Relativity - that is, something developed *with no intention of ever being useful in the real world* turned out, somehow, to be *astonishingly* useful in the real world anyway (this is a common theme in the history of mathematics).  Now, my personal views on this (which I\u2019m sure are not unique, although I\u2019ve yet to encounter a proper treatment of the subject which adopts them per se) are arguably platonistic; since you seem to be leaning toward the other end of the spectrum based on your comments, perhaps you\u2019ll allow me a chance to probe your intuitions a bit here and see what ground we can cover between us?  You\u2019ll forgive me, I hope, for positing a somewhat grandiose question: what does it mean to exist? Well, that depends on who you ask, doesn\u2019t it. Most respectable philosophers and scientists are naturalists, but just what constitutes the \u201cnatural\u201d tends to be somewhat hotly debated. There are the materialists, or the physicalists, who believe that only \u201cmaterial\u201d and\/or \u201cphysical\u201d things exist; which sounds nice and clean and scientific, until you get down to the business of actually ascertaining what it *means to be physical.* Is a proton physical? Or are only the quarks that make it up physical? But then, of course, those quarks cannot physically manifest without being bound up by the gluon field; is the gluon field physical? The electron field? Do these fields always and everywhere constitute physicality, or only where they take on energy values larger than the ground state? Oh, shit, speaking of which - is *energy* physical? If it\u2019s not, then how the hell does it seem to have such a prominent place in the \u201clist of things you\u2019d want to know about to understand the world\u201d if it doesn\u2019t even exist?  Among many other reasons, this is why I would place myself in the camp which is generally called Ontic Structural Realism, which is - to oversimplify a *tad* - more or less to say that existence *itself* is structural in nature, as opposed to the somewhat weaker claim of Epistemic Structural Realism, which merely says that what we can *know* about the world is limited to structural properties (this tends to be a response to \u201cthe map is not the territory\u201d style issues in science as pertain to the underdetermination of theory by data a la Quine, etc).  Now, to pose a (slightly) less grandiose question: what, really, *is* mathematics? Well, if we knew that, we wouldn\u2019t be talking about this, right? But let me suggest one possible interpretation as someone who has at least some experience with \u201chigher\u201d mathematics (that\u2019s not meant to make me sound cool, honestly I kind of sucked at it - I was always a much better philosophy student than a mathematics student, and most of my mathematics interest ultimately came down to philosophical concerns anyway):  I would suggest that mathematics is the study of *pattern, constraint, consistency* and *relation.* What I mean by that is easy to understand if you read, for example, Euclid\u2018s *Elements*. If you posit a definition for any kind of entity or entities whatsoever (e.g. a point, a natural number, a vertex, etc), then stipulate a set of rules or operations by which these entities can interact and\/or construct each other (e.g. a line formed from two points, a second natural number defined as being the successor to the first, an edge being defined as a set containing two vertices, etc), then stipulate an operation(s) by which said entities can interact and\/or be related in some way (e.g. bisection, addition, edge contraction, etc), and then apply those *constraints* upon a given set of *relations* in a *consistent* manner, you will arrive at the final result: *patterns*. A pattern is just what happens when related entities - which are entities only insofar as they are constrained in their structure (consider: is any entity whatsoever operating under no constraints? If it is, is there widespread disagreement about its plausibility as an entity and does its name tend to start conversations that you\u2019re not always inclined to finish?) - interact in the context of some larger arena of constraint which operates upon them in a consistent fashion. Therefore, ultimately, mathematics - to me - couldn\u2019t possibly *not* describe the world, as in a certain sense mathematics is the study of structure - and therefore existence - *itself*.  But hey, what do I know, I\u2019m just some fucking guy who never finished his degree because of mental health issues, so, you know. Grain of salt and all that. Still, I\u2019m going to edit this shortly to include some links to all the relevant stuff, which I highly recommend you check out. Very smart people have been thinking about this stuff for a long time, and the conversation to this day is nothing if not fascinating.","human_ref_B":"You might find some clarity from this thread in \/r\/philosophy posted yesterday.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":6785.0,"score_ratio":9.5}
{"post_id":"goji87","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.94,"history":"How to move past \"pop-philosophy' to actually understanding serious and legitimate philosophical ideas\/works? I just watched a video critiquing Sam Harris's \"The Moral Landscape\". I had no idea how inept \"intellectuals\" like Jordan Peterson and Sam Harris are when it comes to talking about philosophy. I am mostly interested in moral philosophy and as of now I generally identify myself as a Stoic, but I feel like i'm missing something. I want to dive deeper into existentialist ideas, but I want to do it properly. I have no idea what post modernism is considering Peterson seems to be way off with his interpretation of it. I don't understanding the difference between analytic vs continental philosophy even after researching a bit on it. I guess my question is, how do I study philosophy \"properly\" so I can come to understand these ideas and answer this question and better be able to call out weak pseudo philosophy when I see it?","c_root_id_A":"frgcgfy","c_root_id_B":"frg79f5","created_at_utc_A":1590159546,"created_at_utc_B":1590156727,"score_A":43,"score_B":14,"human_ref_A":"I see a lot of people saying you should take classes. I have no idea how much of an option that is for you both for reasons of cost and the current pandemic, so I'll just say you should read more and think more carefully about the resources you use. Obviously you should get off the internet and read actual books. Key texts in philosophy function as vocal points or busy intersections around which lots of other people and topics congregate, so being at least somewhat familiar with the main ideas is very helpful. Also be wary of what your sources are. SEP is your friend here, having great summaries of key figures and topics, and it has lengthy bibliographies to help you go further. For actual books, notice the publisher. Academic presses are generally putting out better stuff, since it goes through a few layers of peer review, and they filter out a lot of garbage (there are plenty of exceptions of course, but it's just something to bear in mind when starting out). The less time you spend on the internet browsing forums and YT and the more time you spend actually reading the source material, the better off you'll be. Use this subreddit for clarification about difficult issues and for finding reading recs for things you're interested in, not as a replacement for the learning itself.  As a starting book for existentialism, the Oxford Very Short Introduction series has a book on that, along with introductions to Jung, poostmodernism, ethics, philosophy and just about everything else you could possibly want. The whole series is a really great resource; affordable, quick and with a 'for further reading' section in the back.","human_ref_B":">  how do I study philosophy \"properly\"   The answer to this is the same for most other subjects: you take classes on it. You might be able to find a community college near by that offers classes. There are also courses online like Coursera, Yale University hosts free complete lecture series as part of Open Yale Courses with a Philosophy course on death.   Video lectures are fine when you know that it's by a professor of the subject rather than, like, an author like Harris or a psychologist like Peterson.  Apart from that, reading primary and secondary texts, taking lots of notes. You can submit questions to \/r\/askphilosophy.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":2819.0,"score_ratio":3.0714285714}
{"post_id":"goji87","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.94,"history":"How to move past \"pop-philosophy' to actually understanding serious and legitimate philosophical ideas\/works? I just watched a video critiquing Sam Harris's \"The Moral Landscape\". I had no idea how inept \"intellectuals\" like Jordan Peterson and Sam Harris are when it comes to talking about philosophy. I am mostly interested in moral philosophy and as of now I generally identify myself as a Stoic, but I feel like i'm missing something. I want to dive deeper into existentialist ideas, but I want to do it properly. I have no idea what post modernism is considering Peterson seems to be way off with his interpretation of it. I don't understanding the difference between analytic vs continental philosophy even after researching a bit on it. I guess my question is, how do I study philosophy \"properly\" so I can come to understand these ideas and answer this question and better be able to call out weak pseudo philosophy when I see it?","c_root_id_A":"frg6qjt","c_root_id_B":"frgcgfy","created_at_utc_A":1590156431,"created_at_utc_B":1590159546,"score_A":12,"score_B":43,"human_ref_A":"Cuck proposes a list of books in the description of the video, did you look at those?","human_ref_B":"I see a lot of people saying you should take classes. I have no idea how much of an option that is for you both for reasons of cost and the current pandemic, so I'll just say you should read more and think more carefully about the resources you use. Obviously you should get off the internet and read actual books. Key texts in philosophy function as vocal points or busy intersections around which lots of other people and topics congregate, so being at least somewhat familiar with the main ideas is very helpful. Also be wary of what your sources are. SEP is your friend here, having great summaries of key figures and topics, and it has lengthy bibliographies to help you go further. For actual books, notice the publisher. Academic presses are generally putting out better stuff, since it goes through a few layers of peer review, and they filter out a lot of garbage (there are plenty of exceptions of course, but it's just something to bear in mind when starting out). The less time you spend on the internet browsing forums and YT and the more time you spend actually reading the source material, the better off you'll be. Use this subreddit for clarification about difficult issues and for finding reading recs for things you're interested in, not as a replacement for the learning itself.  As a starting book for existentialism, the Oxford Very Short Introduction series has a book on that, along with introductions to Jung, poostmodernism, ethics, philosophy and just about everything else you could possibly want. The whole series is a really great resource; affordable, quick and with a 'for further reading' section in the back.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":3115.0,"score_ratio":3.5833333333}
{"post_id":"goji87","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.94,"history":"How to move past \"pop-philosophy' to actually understanding serious and legitimate philosophical ideas\/works? I just watched a video critiquing Sam Harris's \"The Moral Landscape\". I had no idea how inept \"intellectuals\" like Jordan Peterson and Sam Harris are when it comes to talking about philosophy. I am mostly interested in moral philosophy and as of now I generally identify myself as a Stoic, but I feel like i'm missing something. I want to dive deeper into existentialist ideas, but I want to do it properly. I have no idea what post modernism is considering Peterson seems to be way off with his interpretation of it. I don't understanding the difference between analytic vs continental philosophy even after researching a bit on it. I guess my question is, how do I study philosophy \"properly\" so I can come to understand these ideas and answer this question and better be able to call out weak pseudo philosophy when I see it?","c_root_id_A":"frhkxv0","c_root_id_B":"frg79f5","created_at_utc_A":1590181749,"created_at_utc_B":1590156727,"score_A":16,"score_B":14,"human_ref_A":"I'm no philosopher but the \"Philosophize this!\" Podcast has been very helpful for me. I've also been recommended the book \"Think\" by Simon Blackburn, but haven't started on it yet so do with that what you will","human_ref_B":">  how do I study philosophy \"properly\"   The answer to this is the same for most other subjects: you take classes on it. You might be able to find a community college near by that offers classes. There are also courses online like Coursera, Yale University hosts free complete lecture series as part of Open Yale Courses with a Philosophy course on death.   Video lectures are fine when you know that it's by a professor of the subject rather than, like, an author like Harris or a psychologist like Peterson.  Apart from that, reading primary and secondary texts, taking lots of notes. You can submit questions to \/r\/askphilosophy.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":25022.0,"score_ratio":1.1428571429}
{"post_id":"goji87","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.94,"history":"How to move past \"pop-philosophy' to actually understanding serious and legitimate philosophical ideas\/works? I just watched a video critiquing Sam Harris's \"The Moral Landscape\". I had no idea how inept \"intellectuals\" like Jordan Peterson and Sam Harris are when it comes to talking about philosophy. I am mostly interested in moral philosophy and as of now I generally identify myself as a Stoic, but I feel like i'm missing something. I want to dive deeper into existentialist ideas, but I want to do it properly. I have no idea what post modernism is considering Peterson seems to be way off with his interpretation of it. I don't understanding the difference between analytic vs continental philosophy even after researching a bit on it. I guess my question is, how do I study philosophy \"properly\" so I can come to understand these ideas and answer this question and better be able to call out weak pseudo philosophy when I see it?","c_root_id_A":"frg6qjt","c_root_id_B":"frhkxv0","created_at_utc_A":1590156431,"created_at_utc_B":1590181749,"score_A":12,"score_B":16,"human_ref_A":"Cuck proposes a list of books in the description of the video, did you look at those?","human_ref_B":"I'm no philosopher but the \"Philosophize this!\" Podcast has been very helpful for me. I've also been recommended the book \"Think\" by Simon Blackburn, but haven't started on it yet so do with that what you will","labels":0,"seconds_difference":25318.0,"score_ratio":1.3333333333}
{"post_id":"goji87","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.94,"history":"How to move past \"pop-philosophy' to actually understanding serious and legitimate philosophical ideas\/works? I just watched a video critiquing Sam Harris's \"The Moral Landscape\". I had no idea how inept \"intellectuals\" like Jordan Peterson and Sam Harris are when it comes to talking about philosophy. I am mostly interested in moral philosophy and as of now I generally identify myself as a Stoic, but I feel like i'm missing something. I want to dive deeper into existentialist ideas, but I want to do it properly. I have no idea what post modernism is considering Peterson seems to be way off with his interpretation of it. I don't understanding the difference between analytic vs continental philosophy even after researching a bit on it. I guess my question is, how do I study philosophy \"properly\" so I can come to understand these ideas and answer this question and better be able to call out weak pseudo philosophy when I see it?","c_root_id_A":"frhkxv0","c_root_id_B":"frhi2rf","created_at_utc_A":1590181749,"created_at_utc_B":1590180281,"score_A":16,"score_B":11,"human_ref_A":"I'm no philosopher but the \"Philosophize this!\" Podcast has been very helpful for me. I've also been recommended the book \"Think\" by Simon Blackburn, but haven't started on it yet so do with that what you will","human_ref_B":"You seem to like watching videos, so why not start off by watching some free courses in philosophy? There are free philosophy classes up on youtube from schools like Harvard, Stanford, and Yale.  Here's one on political philosophy: https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/watch?v=xhm55mIdSuk&list=PL8D95DEA9B7DFE825  Here's one on ethics: https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/watch?v=kBdfcR-8hEY&list=PL8E76EB832BA66E75  History of philosophy: https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/watch?v=Yat0ZKduW18&list=PL9GwT4\\_YRZdBf9nIUHs0zjrnUVl-KBNSM (there's a particular lecture on existentialism too)  Here's a class on the philosophy of death taught by Shelly Kagan (a brilliant philosopher): https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/watch?v=p2J7wSuFRl8&list=PL1132D5151BD8926A  You can learn quite a bit about modernism and postmodernism through this class on literary theory (the teacher for this one is quite good): https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/watch?v=4YY4CTSQ8nY&list=PLD00D35CBC75941BD  I'm sure you can find more if you look around online.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1468.0,"score_ratio":1.4545454545}
{"post_id":"goji87","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.94,"history":"How to move past \"pop-philosophy' to actually understanding serious and legitimate philosophical ideas\/works? I just watched a video critiquing Sam Harris's \"The Moral Landscape\". I had no idea how inept \"intellectuals\" like Jordan Peterson and Sam Harris are when it comes to talking about philosophy. I am mostly interested in moral philosophy and as of now I generally identify myself as a Stoic, but I feel like i'm missing something. I want to dive deeper into existentialist ideas, but I want to do it properly. I have no idea what post modernism is considering Peterson seems to be way off with his interpretation of it. I don't understanding the difference between analytic vs continental philosophy even after researching a bit on it. I guess my question is, how do I study philosophy \"properly\" so I can come to understand these ideas and answer this question and better be able to call out weak pseudo philosophy when I see it?","c_root_id_A":"frhhfng","c_root_id_B":"frhkxv0","created_at_utc_A":1590179953,"created_at_utc_B":1590181749,"score_A":2,"score_B":16,"human_ref_A":"There's a lot of good answers here so I'll give you a different idea. Read one author, as much as possible. Consider getting some secondary lit to start with, but overall I've gotten way more from reading deeply into one author's works compared to reading one book from several related authors.","human_ref_B":"I'm no philosopher but the \"Philosophize this!\" Podcast has been very helpful for me. I've also been recommended the book \"Think\" by Simon Blackburn, but haven't started on it yet so do with that what you will","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1796.0,"score_ratio":8.0}
{"post_id":"goji87","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.94,"history":"How to move past \"pop-philosophy' to actually understanding serious and legitimate philosophical ideas\/works? I just watched a video critiquing Sam Harris's \"The Moral Landscape\". I had no idea how inept \"intellectuals\" like Jordan Peterson and Sam Harris are when it comes to talking about philosophy. I am mostly interested in moral philosophy and as of now I generally identify myself as a Stoic, but I feel like i'm missing something. I want to dive deeper into existentialist ideas, but I want to do it properly. I have no idea what post modernism is considering Peterson seems to be way off with his interpretation of it. I don't understanding the difference between analytic vs continental philosophy even after researching a bit on it. I guess my question is, how do I study philosophy \"properly\" so I can come to understand these ideas and answer this question and better be able to call out weak pseudo philosophy when I see it?","c_root_id_A":"frg6qjt","c_root_id_B":"frg79f5","created_at_utc_A":1590156431,"created_at_utc_B":1590156727,"score_A":12,"score_B":14,"human_ref_A":"Cuck proposes a list of books in the description of the video, did you look at those?","human_ref_B":">  how do I study philosophy \"properly\"   The answer to this is the same for most other subjects: you take classes on it. You might be able to find a community college near by that offers classes. There are also courses online like Coursera, Yale University hosts free complete lecture series as part of Open Yale Courses with a Philosophy course on death.   Video lectures are fine when you know that it's by a professor of the subject rather than, like, an author like Harris or a psychologist like Peterson.  Apart from that, reading primary and secondary texts, taking lots of notes. You can submit questions to \/r\/askphilosophy.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":296.0,"score_ratio":1.1666666667}
{"post_id":"goji87","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.94,"history":"How to move past \"pop-philosophy' to actually understanding serious and legitimate philosophical ideas\/works? I just watched a video critiquing Sam Harris's \"The Moral Landscape\". I had no idea how inept \"intellectuals\" like Jordan Peterson and Sam Harris are when it comes to talking about philosophy. I am mostly interested in moral philosophy and as of now I generally identify myself as a Stoic, but I feel like i'm missing something. I want to dive deeper into existentialist ideas, but I want to do it properly. I have no idea what post modernism is considering Peterson seems to be way off with his interpretation of it. I don't understanding the difference between analytic vs continental philosophy even after researching a bit on it. I guess my question is, how do I study philosophy \"properly\" so I can come to understand these ideas and answer this question and better be able to call out weak pseudo philosophy when I see it?","c_root_id_A":"frhi2rf","c_root_id_B":"frhhfng","created_at_utc_A":1590180281,"created_at_utc_B":1590179953,"score_A":11,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"You seem to like watching videos, so why not start off by watching some free courses in philosophy? There are free philosophy classes up on youtube from schools like Harvard, Stanford, and Yale.  Here's one on political philosophy: https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/watch?v=xhm55mIdSuk&list=PL8D95DEA9B7DFE825  Here's one on ethics: https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/watch?v=kBdfcR-8hEY&list=PL8E76EB832BA66E75  History of philosophy: https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/watch?v=Yat0ZKduW18&list=PL9GwT4\\_YRZdBf9nIUHs0zjrnUVl-KBNSM (there's a particular lecture on existentialism too)  Here's a class on the philosophy of death taught by Shelly Kagan (a brilliant philosopher): https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/watch?v=p2J7wSuFRl8&list=PL1132D5151BD8926A  You can learn quite a bit about modernism and postmodernism through this class on literary theory (the teacher for this one is quite good): https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/watch?v=4YY4CTSQ8nY&list=PLD00D35CBC75941BD  I'm sure you can find more if you look around online.","human_ref_B":"There's a lot of good answers here so I'll give you a different idea. Read one author, as much as possible. Consider getting some secondary lit to start with, but overall I've gotten way more from reading deeply into one author's works compared to reading one book from several related authors.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":328.0,"score_ratio":5.5}
{"post_id":"goji87","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.94,"history":"How to move past \"pop-philosophy' to actually understanding serious and legitimate philosophical ideas\/works? I just watched a video critiquing Sam Harris's \"The Moral Landscape\". I had no idea how inept \"intellectuals\" like Jordan Peterson and Sam Harris are when it comes to talking about philosophy. I am mostly interested in moral philosophy and as of now I generally identify myself as a Stoic, but I feel like i'm missing something. I want to dive deeper into existentialist ideas, but I want to do it properly. I have no idea what post modernism is considering Peterson seems to be way off with his interpretation of it. I don't understanding the difference between analytic vs continental philosophy even after researching a bit on it. I guess my question is, how do I study philosophy \"properly\" so I can come to understand these ideas and answer this question and better be able to call out weak pseudo philosophy when I see it?","c_root_id_A":"frhywc2","c_root_id_B":"frissg0","created_at_utc_A":1590189364,"created_at_utc_B":1590208464,"score_A":3,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"Take some courses but you can also read philosophy and have discussions on Reddit or discord. We all learn philosophy slowly and it takes time. JBP and Sam Harris offer quick self-help that sounds deep but it is only an inch deep. To get that enriching deepness I recommended listening to a podcast, watching youtube vids about different interpretations (such as breadtube), and reading primary and secondary text. You can get most academic articles through your library these days or \"other\" means of assessing them.","human_ref_B":"Username relevant \/ i am biased but \"pop philosophy\" is not NECESSARILY \"bad philosophy\". Check out Philosophy Tube. They have a great video about Peterson, appealing to peer reviewed and respected academics. Contrapoints is also good, and sometimes so is Wisecrack though they're hit or miss, and sometimes more lit than phil.      If you want to know about postmodernism, then Cuck Philosophy is a great place to start. I've rec'd that channel before on this place. Check out his postmodernism FAQ, as well as videos going over Peterson in particular. He's critiqued Harris too, perhaps that's even the critique you're talking about.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":19100.0,"score_ratio":1.3333333333}
{"post_id":"goji87","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.94,"history":"How to move past \"pop-philosophy' to actually understanding serious and legitimate philosophical ideas\/works? I just watched a video critiquing Sam Harris's \"The Moral Landscape\". I had no idea how inept \"intellectuals\" like Jordan Peterson and Sam Harris are when it comes to talking about philosophy. I am mostly interested in moral philosophy and as of now I generally identify myself as a Stoic, but I feel like i'm missing something. I want to dive deeper into existentialist ideas, but I want to do it properly. I have no idea what post modernism is considering Peterson seems to be way off with his interpretation of it. I don't understanding the difference between analytic vs continental philosophy even after researching a bit on it. I guess my question is, how do I study philosophy \"properly\" so I can come to understand these ideas and answer this question and better be able to call out weak pseudo philosophy when I see it?","c_root_id_A":"frhhfng","c_root_id_B":"frissg0","created_at_utc_A":1590179953,"created_at_utc_B":1590208464,"score_A":2,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"There's a lot of good answers here so I'll give you a different idea. Read one author, as much as possible. Consider getting some secondary lit to start with, but overall I've gotten way more from reading deeply into one author's works compared to reading one book from several related authors.","human_ref_B":"Username relevant \/ i am biased but \"pop philosophy\" is not NECESSARILY \"bad philosophy\". Check out Philosophy Tube. They have a great video about Peterson, appealing to peer reviewed and respected academics. Contrapoints is also good, and sometimes so is Wisecrack though they're hit or miss, and sometimes more lit than phil.      If you want to know about postmodernism, then Cuck Philosophy is a great place to start. I've rec'd that channel before on this place. Check out his postmodernism FAQ, as well as videos going over Peterson in particular. He's critiqued Harris too, perhaps that's even the critique you're talking about.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":28511.0,"score_ratio":2.0}
{"post_id":"goji87","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.94,"history":"How to move past \"pop-philosophy' to actually understanding serious and legitimate philosophical ideas\/works? I just watched a video critiquing Sam Harris's \"The Moral Landscape\". I had no idea how inept \"intellectuals\" like Jordan Peterson and Sam Harris are when it comes to talking about philosophy. I am mostly interested in moral philosophy and as of now I generally identify myself as a Stoic, but I feel like i'm missing something. I want to dive deeper into existentialist ideas, but I want to do it properly. I have no idea what post modernism is considering Peterson seems to be way off with his interpretation of it. I don't understanding the difference between analytic vs continental philosophy even after researching a bit on it. I guess my question is, how do I study philosophy \"properly\" so I can come to understand these ideas and answer this question and better be able to call out weak pseudo philosophy when I see it?","c_root_id_A":"frhr84m","c_root_id_B":"frissg0","created_at_utc_A":1590185075,"created_at_utc_B":1590208464,"score_A":2,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"It sounds like you\u2019re off to a good start just keep asking yourself and other these kinds of questions. I suggest you read the primary sources for whatever you\u2019re interested in. Existentialism basically started with Kierkegaard and Nietzsche, so go ahead and give either fear and trembling or the gay science a go. Taking classes helps a lot because you can discuss whatever you\u2019re reading (which can be pretty dense with these guys) with the professor and classmates. Stanford encyclopedia is also excellent.","human_ref_B":"Username relevant \/ i am biased but \"pop philosophy\" is not NECESSARILY \"bad philosophy\". Check out Philosophy Tube. They have a great video about Peterson, appealing to peer reviewed and respected academics. Contrapoints is also good, and sometimes so is Wisecrack though they're hit or miss, and sometimes more lit than phil.      If you want to know about postmodernism, then Cuck Philosophy is a great place to start. I've rec'd that channel before on this place. Check out his postmodernism FAQ, as well as videos going over Peterson in particular. He's critiqued Harris too, perhaps that's even the critique you're talking about.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":23389.0,"score_ratio":2.0}
{"post_id":"goji87","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.94,"history":"How to move past \"pop-philosophy' to actually understanding serious and legitimate philosophical ideas\/works? I just watched a video critiquing Sam Harris's \"The Moral Landscape\". I had no idea how inept \"intellectuals\" like Jordan Peterson and Sam Harris are when it comes to talking about philosophy. I am mostly interested in moral philosophy and as of now I generally identify myself as a Stoic, but I feel like i'm missing something. I want to dive deeper into existentialist ideas, but I want to do it properly. I have no idea what post modernism is considering Peterson seems to be way off with his interpretation of it. I don't understanding the difference between analytic vs continental philosophy even after researching a bit on it. I guess my question is, how do I study philosophy \"properly\" so I can come to understand these ideas and answer this question and better be able to call out weak pseudo philosophy when I see it?","c_root_id_A":"frhhfng","c_root_id_B":"frhywc2","created_at_utc_A":1590179953,"created_at_utc_B":1590189364,"score_A":2,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"There's a lot of good answers here so I'll give you a different idea. Read one author, as much as possible. Consider getting some secondary lit to start with, but overall I've gotten way more from reading deeply into one author's works compared to reading one book from several related authors.","human_ref_B":"Take some courses but you can also read philosophy and have discussions on Reddit or discord. We all learn philosophy slowly and it takes time. JBP and Sam Harris offer quick self-help that sounds deep but it is only an inch deep. To get that enriching deepness I recommended listening to a podcast, watching youtube vids about different interpretations (such as breadtube), and reading primary and secondary text. You can get most academic articles through your library these days or \"other\" means of assessing them.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":9411.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
{"post_id":"goji87","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.94,"history":"How to move past \"pop-philosophy' to actually understanding serious and legitimate philosophical ideas\/works? I just watched a video critiquing Sam Harris's \"The Moral Landscape\". I had no idea how inept \"intellectuals\" like Jordan Peterson and Sam Harris are when it comes to talking about philosophy. I am mostly interested in moral philosophy and as of now I generally identify myself as a Stoic, but I feel like i'm missing something. I want to dive deeper into existentialist ideas, but I want to do it properly. I have no idea what post modernism is considering Peterson seems to be way off with his interpretation of it. I don't understanding the difference between analytic vs continental philosophy even after researching a bit on it. I guess my question is, how do I study philosophy \"properly\" so I can come to understand these ideas and answer this question and better be able to call out weak pseudo philosophy when I see it?","c_root_id_A":"frhywc2","c_root_id_B":"frhr84m","created_at_utc_A":1590189364,"created_at_utc_B":1590185075,"score_A":3,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"Take some courses but you can also read philosophy and have discussions on Reddit or discord. We all learn philosophy slowly and it takes time. JBP and Sam Harris offer quick self-help that sounds deep but it is only an inch deep. To get that enriching deepness I recommended listening to a podcast, watching youtube vids about different interpretations (such as breadtube), and reading primary and secondary text. You can get most academic articles through your library these days or \"other\" means of assessing them.","human_ref_B":"It sounds like you\u2019re off to a good start just keep asking yourself and other these kinds of questions. I suggest you read the primary sources for whatever you\u2019re interested in. Existentialism basically started with Kierkegaard and Nietzsche, so go ahead and give either fear and trembling or the gay science a go. Taking classes helps a lot because you can discuss whatever you\u2019re reading (which can be pretty dense with these guys) with the professor and classmates. Stanford encyclopedia is also excellent.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":4289.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
{"post_id":"fyb84r","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.95,"history":"Why must we imagine Sisyphus happy? Wasn't Camus being an emotional masochist to find happiness in Sisyphus's burden of absurdity? Even if Sisyphus is really happy with his burden,  why his happiness should be asserted of more values than Capaneus, who chose to continuously rebel against the burden of absurdity imposed upon himself? I think, by affirming the absurdity over suicide, Camus was certainly asserting objective value upon the obligation to exist.","c_root_id_A":"fmzbpup","c_root_id_B":"fmz7czo","created_at_utc_A":1586514347,"created_at_utc_B":1586509295,"score_A":20,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"I did a night class in existentialism past semester where we were asked this one evening, and I gave an analogy that the lecturer seemed to like.  If you were to take a similar situation, like one where you are in a chain-gang along a highway smashing big rocks into small rocks with a pickaxe, small rocks into tiny rocks etc. etc. while overlooked by a warden and team of guards, what option is left available to you that truly exercises your freedom, whilst preventing the warden from achieving his goal of breaking your spirit? It's smiling while doing it, truly enjoying yourself despite the absurdity and pure absence of reason behind your labour. We are condemned to be free in a meaningless and absurd world in a similar way to the chain-gang being condemned to their meaningless and absurd labour; laugh and be jolly in the face of your absurdity\/prison warden, and it\/they will never achieve their goal of crushing your human spirit.","human_ref_B":"Hah I like this question, absurd in itself, and made me smile.  No, I don't think we have to imagine him \"happy.\" What is happiness anyway, and why do people want to attain it so badly? It's a frequently transient emotion, that's only so beautiful because it's not forever. At least I imagine Sisyphus merely exercising his freedom to live, despite awareness of the absurdity. I also don't think Camus suggests that we have an obligation to exist\/not exist...the point is that we do exist, that fact is indisputable, so why not accept the absurdity and do something with it? Why focus on the boulder when it's such an absurd concept anyway?","labels":1,"seconds_difference":5052.0,"score_ratio":10.0}
{"post_id":"fyb84r","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.95,"history":"Why must we imagine Sisyphus happy? Wasn't Camus being an emotional masochist to find happiness in Sisyphus's burden of absurdity? Even if Sisyphus is really happy with his burden,  why his happiness should be asserted of more values than Capaneus, who chose to continuously rebel against the burden of absurdity imposed upon himself? I think, by affirming the absurdity over suicide, Camus was certainly asserting objective value upon the obligation to exist.","c_root_id_A":"fmzbyse","c_root_id_B":"fmz7czo","created_at_utc_A":1586514643,"created_at_utc_B":1586509295,"score_A":14,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"Not sure if this is explicitly mentioned by Camus, but there is also the distinction between reflecting upon life and just living life; i.e reflection on the one side and lived experience on the other.   If we reflect upon life, it will at some point appear generally similar to the fate of Sisyphus, I think. It seems meaningless, because all of our projects will at some point be erased and forgotten, either while we're still alive or at best after we're dead. Sub specie aeternitatis ('through the lens of eternity'), life is probably bound to appear meaningless. However, we don't have to carry this view with us constantly. Most of the time, especially while we are actually doing stuff, reflection is just distraction, and will make any action seem absurd. Maybe we can learn to focus on our lived experience instead and forget about the perceived meaninglessness.    That may seem like a cheap solution, to just pretend that our 'insights' mean nothing, but it seems that our reflective\/analytic mind is somehow bound to realize that anything we do is absurd, no matter how we frame it. Maybe we just have to accept this and learn to let go of thinking (reflecting\/rumination) when it is not needed.    I believe a lot of, if not most people, do this naturally. It's probably easier to perceive happiness if you don't think too hard. A 'philosophical mindset' probably makes it more difficult. Maybe the most 'complete' or honest mindset is one where you are able\/not too scared to see the absurdity, but still manage to not become nihilistic and\/or depressed and immerse yourself in what you are doing and find value in it.","human_ref_B":"Hah I like this question, absurd in itself, and made me smile.  No, I don't think we have to imagine him \"happy.\" What is happiness anyway, and why do people want to attain it so badly? It's a frequently transient emotion, that's only so beautiful because it's not forever. At least I imagine Sisyphus merely exercising his freedom to live, despite awareness of the absurdity. I also don't think Camus suggests that we have an obligation to exist\/not exist...the point is that we do exist, that fact is indisputable, so why not accept the absurdity and do something with it? Why focus on the boulder when it's such an absurd concept anyway?","labels":1,"seconds_difference":5348.0,"score_ratio":7.0}
{"post_id":"w63nbj","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.95,"history":"Is there any philosopher alive who is predicted to be as influential as Socrates, Nietzche and the likes? Just curious if there is and if not what sort of mind would need to be born in order to take another genius step forward in the field of over all philosophy?","c_root_id_A":"ihbp9hb","c_root_id_B":"ihbkmlj","created_at_utc_A":1658585788,"created_at_utc_B":1658583526,"score_A":125,"score_B":85,"human_ref_A":"Short answer: no.  Some of the most well known and influential philosophers who are still alive today (without any claim to comprehensiveness) are Kripke, Thomas Nagel, Habermas, Agamben, John Searle, Daniel Dennett and Alasdair MacIntyre. But as you can see, all of them are 80+ years old.  Edit: Maybe Judith Butler should be added to the list, but compared to the others she's such a spring chicken. And a honorary mention goes to Julia Kristeva.","human_ref_B":"No.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":2262.0,"score_ratio":1.4705882353}
{"post_id":"w63nbj","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.95,"history":"Is there any philosopher alive who is predicted to be as influential as Socrates, Nietzche and the likes? Just curious if there is and if not what sort of mind would need to be born in order to take another genius step forward in the field of over all philosophy?","c_root_id_A":"ihbp9hb","c_root_id_B":"ihbjg28","created_at_utc_A":1658585788,"created_at_utc_B":1658582924,"score_A":125,"score_B":87,"human_ref_A":"Short answer: no.  Some of the most well known and influential philosophers who are still alive today (without any claim to comprehensiveness) are Kripke, Thomas Nagel, Habermas, Agamben, John Searle, Daniel Dennett and Alasdair MacIntyre. But as you can see, all of them are 80+ years old.  Edit: Maybe Judith Butler should be added to the list, but compared to the others she's such a spring chicken. And a honorary mention goes to Julia Kristeva.","human_ref_B":"I dunno about being as big a name as Socrates or Nietzsche. But there are definetly some big names who are currently alive who have been hugely influential who stand a chance. Saul Kripke comes to mind.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":2864.0,"score_ratio":1.4367816092}
{"post_id":"w63nbj","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.95,"history":"Is there any philosopher alive who is predicted to be as influential as Socrates, Nietzche and the likes? Just curious if there is and if not what sort of mind would need to be born in order to take another genius step forward in the field of over all philosophy?","c_root_id_A":"ihbp9hb","c_root_id_B":"ihbh5l3","created_at_utc_A":1658585788,"created_at_utc_B":1658581709,"score_A":125,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"Short answer: no.  Some of the most well known and influential philosophers who are still alive today (without any claim to comprehensiveness) are Kripke, Thomas Nagel, Habermas, Agamben, John Searle, Daniel Dennett and Alasdair MacIntyre. But as you can see, all of them are 80+ years old.  Edit: Maybe Judith Butler should be added to the list, but compared to the others she's such a spring chicken. And a honorary mention goes to Julia Kristeva.","human_ref_B":"Welcome to \/r\/askphilosophy. **Please read our rules before commenting** and understand that your comments will be removed if they are not up to standard or otherwise break the rules. While we do not require citations in answers (but do encourage them), answers need to be reasonably substantive and well-researched, accurately portray the state of the research, and come only from those with relevant knowledge.  *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](\/message\/compose\/?to=\/r\/askphilosophy) if you have any questions or concerns.*","labels":1,"seconds_difference":4079.0,"score_ratio":41.6666666667}
{"post_id":"w63nbj","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.95,"history":"Is there any philosopher alive who is predicted to be as influential as Socrates, Nietzche and the likes? Just curious if there is and if not what sort of mind would need to be born in order to take another genius step forward in the field of over all philosophy?","c_root_id_A":"ihbkmlj","c_root_id_B":"ihbh5l3","created_at_utc_A":1658583526,"created_at_utc_B":1658581709,"score_A":85,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"No.","human_ref_B":"Welcome to \/r\/askphilosophy. **Please read our rules before commenting** and understand that your comments will be removed if they are not up to standard or otherwise break the rules. While we do not require citations in answers (but do encourage them), answers need to be reasonably substantive and well-researched, accurately portray the state of the research, and come only from those with relevant knowledge.  *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](\/message\/compose\/?to=\/r\/askphilosophy) if you have any questions or concerns.*","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1817.0,"score_ratio":28.3333333333}
{"post_id":"w63nbj","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.95,"history":"Is there any philosopher alive who is predicted to be as influential as Socrates, Nietzche and the likes? Just curious if there is and if not what sort of mind would need to be born in order to take another genius step forward in the field of over all philosophy?","c_root_id_A":"ihbh5l3","c_root_id_B":"ihbjg28","created_at_utc_A":1658581709,"created_at_utc_B":1658582924,"score_A":3,"score_B":87,"human_ref_A":"Welcome to \/r\/askphilosophy. **Please read our rules before commenting** and understand that your comments will be removed if they are not up to standard or otherwise break the rules. While we do not require citations in answers (but do encourage them), answers need to be reasonably substantive and well-researched, accurately portray the state of the research, and come only from those with relevant knowledge.  *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](\/message\/compose\/?to=\/r\/askphilosophy) if you have any questions or concerns.*","human_ref_B":"I dunno about being as big a name as Socrates or Nietzsche. But there are definetly some big names who are currently alive who have been hugely influential who stand a chance. Saul Kripke comes to mind.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1215.0,"score_ratio":29.0}
{"post_id":"w63nbj","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.95,"history":"Is there any philosopher alive who is predicted to be as influential as Socrates, Nietzche and the likes? Just curious if there is and if not what sort of mind would need to be born in order to take another genius step forward in the field of over all philosophy?","c_root_id_A":"ihbubq3","c_root_id_B":"ihbx0s2","created_at_utc_A":1658588086,"created_at_utc_B":1658589268,"score_A":53,"score_B":79,"human_ref_A":"Probably not. The most important figure that comes to mind is Saul Kripke, but he isn't well-known outside academia, unlike a Socrates or Nietzsche.","human_ref_B":"The likes? Socrates is pretty singular as influence goes, Plato and Aristotle being analogous. Kant or Hegel might be closer \"modern\" equivalents. Peter Singer I think is a giant in modern ethics but he works so much on the applied side I don't think you'll see future philosophers as influenced by him as future non-philosophers.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1182.0,"score_ratio":1.4905660377}
{"post_id":"w63nbj","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.95,"history":"Is there any philosopher alive who is predicted to be as influential as Socrates, Nietzche and the likes? Just curious if there is and if not what sort of mind would need to be born in order to take another genius step forward in the field of over all philosophy?","c_root_id_A":"ihbh5l3","c_root_id_B":"ihbx0s2","created_at_utc_A":1658581709,"created_at_utc_B":1658589268,"score_A":3,"score_B":79,"human_ref_A":"Welcome to \/r\/askphilosophy. **Please read our rules before commenting** and understand that your comments will be removed if they are not up to standard or otherwise break the rules. While we do not require citations in answers (but do encourage them), answers need to be reasonably substantive and well-researched, accurately portray the state of the research, and come only from those with relevant knowledge.  *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](\/message\/compose\/?to=\/r\/askphilosophy) if you have any questions or concerns.*","human_ref_B":"The likes? Socrates is pretty singular as influence goes, Plato and Aristotle being analogous. Kant or Hegel might be closer \"modern\" equivalents. Peter Singer I think is a giant in modern ethics but he works so much on the applied side I don't think you'll see future philosophers as influenced by him as future non-philosophers.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":7559.0,"score_ratio":26.3333333333}
{"post_id":"w63nbj","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.95,"history":"Is there any philosopher alive who is predicted to be as influential as Socrates, Nietzche and the likes? Just curious if there is and if not what sort of mind would need to be born in order to take another genius step forward in the field of over all philosophy?","c_root_id_A":"ihbh5l3","c_root_id_B":"ihbubq3","created_at_utc_A":1658581709,"created_at_utc_B":1658588086,"score_A":3,"score_B":53,"human_ref_A":"Welcome to \/r\/askphilosophy. **Please read our rules before commenting** and understand that your comments will be removed if they are not up to standard or otherwise break the rules. While we do not require citations in answers (but do encourage them), answers need to be reasonably substantive and well-researched, accurately portray the state of the research, and come only from those with relevant knowledge.  *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](\/message\/compose\/?to=\/r\/askphilosophy) if you have any questions or concerns.*","human_ref_B":"Probably not. The most important figure that comes to mind is Saul Kripke, but he isn't well-known outside academia, unlike a Socrates or Nietzsche.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":6377.0,"score_ratio":17.6666666667}
{"post_id":"m1hnqw","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.93,"history":"Does the way religious belief seems to depend on your location cast reasonable doubt on the veracity of religious philosophy? I think I just threw out some word salad in the title, but basically my point is that when you look at religious beliefs you find pretty quickly how much it depends on location. Arabs are almost entirely Muslims. Italians are mostly Catholic. Russians are Orthodox. Americans are Protestant (except ones descended from Ireland, Italy, Mexico, etc.)  You get the point. But also, when you look at influential philosophers you notice the same trends. Aquinas said Islam was false and Catholicism was true. Ibn Sina assured us that Catholicism was false and Islam was true. Eastern philosophers assure us that both are false and some religion local to them is true, etc.  So when looking at the surface level, I just have the feeling if I\u2019m reading Thomas Aquinas that it\u2019s just an Italian dude justifying Italian beliefs. Ibn Sina is just a Persian dude justifying Persian beliefs. If Aquinas was raised in Persia he\u2019s have been telling me how he reasoned that Islam is the true religion. If Ibn Sina was born in Rome he\u2019d be justifying the trinity to us. So I intuitively am skeptical of religious philosophy like this for these reasons. It just seems so untrustworthy and like it must not be too convincing either way if location is ultimately what determines all these people\u2019s beliefs.  Is that intuition flawed? If so, what\u2019s wrong with it and who are some philosophers who dealt with the idea that people just adopt religions of their area and almost never even consider others.","c_root_id_A":"gqgec5h","c_root_id_B":"gqgo78p","created_at_utc_A":1615390610,"created_at_utc_B":1615394523,"score_A":5,"score_B":6,"human_ref_A":"Well, couldn't you extend this logic further? If you were living in medieval Rome, you'd be asking different questions, more likely than not. Though atheism was not unheard of in at the time, to be fair.  Not only that, but questions about morality and general philosophy differ by location, but that shouldn't make us skeptical about them or discount what people are saying. Peter Singer is very much a product of his context, just as you or I am, and just as much as Aquinas. So either philosophy is virtually useless in general, or we should assess arguments largely on their own merits.   This other point is not as important, because we're outliers, but I grew up in a secular New England family, but became a Catholic. Likewise, the biggest opponents of Judaism in medieval Catholicism were often former Jews, and plenty of Catholics became Muslims. Sure, converts are often a minority, but they're evidence that religion still has horizon shifts.   I think the whole \"problem of where people are born\" when it comes to religion is more relevant as a question about divine Providence: why would God let souls be saved or lost because of where you're born? But as far as making beliefs on the issue intrinsically unreliable, I just don't see it. That's true about any beliefs, really.","human_ref_B":"I think you've made a point I wish was articulated much more often.   As a person brought up in a Muslim society, I'd like to share the response that I usually get from my peers whenever I have brought it up. Islamic theology entails an idea that there is a shared heritage between itself and most of the previous religions. Apart from the mainstream prophets such as Moses and Jesus, Islam also claims that thousands of other prophets have also been sent to deliver a similar message from the same god. However, it contests that over time that message was corrupted by the imperfect societies to which it was delivered. So *apparently* all monotheistic religions essentially worship the same god with some variations from additions\/changes over time. Except, as it goes, for Islam which was retained as pure and perfect by god. So that's one theistic response to the question of geographic lottery of faith.   In more depth, these conversations also lead to ideas such as god being fair so everyone is going to be judged based on what proximity they had to the one true religion and their reaction to it. Which is flawed for many reasons, one of which is that it presupposes that the final message of god did actually arrive to every single human being in the past and present.   A fair bit of dodging also takes place. For instance, ideas such as 'We should just be grateful that we were born in the right religion'. Which, again, makes no sense because of their own logic that god is fair and so those not born into the one true religion should not technically be at a disadvantage.   ​  Long story short, your question was whether it *casts reasonable doubt on the veracity of religious philosophy*. To which I say, it depends on who's asking. People will find all sorts of ways to make sense of the circumstances they are presented with.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":3913.0,"score_ratio":1.2}
{"post_id":"m1hnqw","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.93,"history":"Does the way religious belief seems to depend on your location cast reasonable doubt on the veracity of religious philosophy? I think I just threw out some word salad in the title, but basically my point is that when you look at religious beliefs you find pretty quickly how much it depends on location. Arabs are almost entirely Muslims. Italians are mostly Catholic. Russians are Orthodox. Americans are Protestant (except ones descended from Ireland, Italy, Mexico, etc.)  You get the point. But also, when you look at influential philosophers you notice the same trends. Aquinas said Islam was false and Catholicism was true. Ibn Sina assured us that Catholicism was false and Islam was true. Eastern philosophers assure us that both are false and some religion local to them is true, etc.  So when looking at the surface level, I just have the feeling if I\u2019m reading Thomas Aquinas that it\u2019s just an Italian dude justifying Italian beliefs. Ibn Sina is just a Persian dude justifying Persian beliefs. If Aquinas was raised in Persia he\u2019s have been telling me how he reasoned that Islam is the true religion. If Ibn Sina was born in Rome he\u2019d be justifying the trinity to us. So I intuitively am skeptical of religious philosophy like this for these reasons. It just seems so untrustworthy and like it must not be too convincing either way if location is ultimately what determines all these people\u2019s beliefs.  Is that intuition flawed? If so, what\u2019s wrong with it and who are some philosophers who dealt with the idea that people just adopt religions of their area and almost never even consider others.","c_root_id_A":"gqgo78p","c_root_id_B":"gqfq9fr","created_at_utc_A":1615394523,"created_at_utc_B":1615377225,"score_A":6,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"I think you've made a point I wish was articulated much more often.   As a person brought up in a Muslim society, I'd like to share the response that I usually get from my peers whenever I have brought it up. Islamic theology entails an idea that there is a shared heritage between itself and most of the previous religions. Apart from the mainstream prophets such as Moses and Jesus, Islam also claims that thousands of other prophets have also been sent to deliver a similar message from the same god. However, it contests that over time that message was corrupted by the imperfect societies to which it was delivered. So *apparently* all monotheistic religions essentially worship the same god with some variations from additions\/changes over time. Except, as it goes, for Islam which was retained as pure and perfect by god. So that's one theistic response to the question of geographic lottery of faith.   In more depth, these conversations also lead to ideas such as god being fair so everyone is going to be judged based on what proximity they had to the one true religion and their reaction to it. Which is flawed for many reasons, one of which is that it presupposes that the final message of god did actually arrive to every single human being in the past and present.   A fair bit of dodging also takes place. For instance, ideas such as 'We should just be grateful that we were born in the right religion'. Which, again, makes no sense because of their own logic that god is fair and so those not born into the one true religion should not technically be at a disadvantage.   ​  Long story short, your question was whether it *casts reasonable doubt on the veracity of religious philosophy*. To which I say, it depends on who's asking. People will find all sorts of ways to make sense of the circumstances they are presented with.","human_ref_B":"It does not follow that a religion is false simply because an individual is only professing it as truth due to his geographical location. One must analyse theology and truth claims within the faith itself to get that information.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":17298.0,"score_ratio":2.0}
{"post_id":"m1hnqw","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.93,"history":"Does the way religious belief seems to depend on your location cast reasonable doubt on the veracity of religious philosophy? I think I just threw out some word salad in the title, but basically my point is that when you look at religious beliefs you find pretty quickly how much it depends on location. Arabs are almost entirely Muslims. Italians are mostly Catholic. Russians are Orthodox. Americans are Protestant (except ones descended from Ireland, Italy, Mexico, etc.)  You get the point. But also, when you look at influential philosophers you notice the same trends. Aquinas said Islam was false and Catholicism was true. Ibn Sina assured us that Catholicism was false and Islam was true. Eastern philosophers assure us that both are false and some religion local to them is true, etc.  So when looking at the surface level, I just have the feeling if I\u2019m reading Thomas Aquinas that it\u2019s just an Italian dude justifying Italian beliefs. Ibn Sina is just a Persian dude justifying Persian beliefs. If Aquinas was raised in Persia he\u2019s have been telling me how he reasoned that Islam is the true religion. If Ibn Sina was born in Rome he\u2019d be justifying the trinity to us. So I intuitively am skeptical of religious philosophy like this for these reasons. It just seems so untrustworthy and like it must not be too convincing either way if location is ultimately what determines all these people\u2019s beliefs.  Is that intuition flawed? If so, what\u2019s wrong with it and who are some philosophers who dealt with the idea that people just adopt religions of their area and almost never even consider others.","c_root_id_A":"gqgo78p","c_root_id_B":"gqfuxpz","created_at_utc_A":1615394523,"created_at_utc_B":1615380644,"score_A":6,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"I think you've made a point I wish was articulated much more often.   As a person brought up in a Muslim society, I'd like to share the response that I usually get from my peers whenever I have brought it up. Islamic theology entails an idea that there is a shared heritage between itself and most of the previous religions. Apart from the mainstream prophets such as Moses and Jesus, Islam also claims that thousands of other prophets have also been sent to deliver a similar message from the same god. However, it contests that over time that message was corrupted by the imperfect societies to which it was delivered. So *apparently* all monotheistic religions essentially worship the same god with some variations from additions\/changes over time. Except, as it goes, for Islam which was retained as pure and perfect by god. So that's one theistic response to the question of geographic lottery of faith.   In more depth, these conversations also lead to ideas such as god being fair so everyone is going to be judged based on what proximity they had to the one true religion and their reaction to it. Which is flawed for many reasons, one of which is that it presupposes that the final message of god did actually arrive to every single human being in the past and present.   A fair bit of dodging also takes place. For instance, ideas such as 'We should just be grateful that we were born in the right religion'. Which, again, makes no sense because of their own logic that god is fair and so those not born into the one true religion should not technically be at a disadvantage.   ​  Long story short, your question was whether it *casts reasonable doubt on the veracity of religious philosophy*. To which I say, it depends on who's asking. People will find all sorts of ways to make sense of the circumstances they are presented with.","human_ref_B":"While others have covered the topic of religion specifically quite well already, one point I feel needs to be brought up is that our beliefs being influenced by our location or surroundings is not limited to religion.  Just as a couple of simple examples, both the fields of ethics and metaphysics differ greatly from the global West to global East, as a result of centuries of different perspectives influencing the debate. Should we just assume that because location can influence ethical and metaphysical philosophy that both of those should be thrown out entirely?","labels":1,"seconds_difference":13879.0,"score_ratio":2.0}
{"post_id":"m1hnqw","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.93,"history":"Does the way religious belief seems to depend on your location cast reasonable doubt on the veracity of religious philosophy? I think I just threw out some word salad in the title, but basically my point is that when you look at religious beliefs you find pretty quickly how much it depends on location. Arabs are almost entirely Muslims. Italians are mostly Catholic. Russians are Orthodox. Americans are Protestant (except ones descended from Ireland, Italy, Mexico, etc.)  You get the point. But also, when you look at influential philosophers you notice the same trends. Aquinas said Islam was false and Catholicism was true. Ibn Sina assured us that Catholicism was false and Islam was true. Eastern philosophers assure us that both are false and some religion local to them is true, etc.  So when looking at the surface level, I just have the feeling if I\u2019m reading Thomas Aquinas that it\u2019s just an Italian dude justifying Italian beliefs. Ibn Sina is just a Persian dude justifying Persian beliefs. If Aquinas was raised in Persia he\u2019s have been telling me how he reasoned that Islam is the true religion. If Ibn Sina was born in Rome he\u2019d be justifying the trinity to us. So I intuitively am skeptical of religious philosophy like this for these reasons. It just seems so untrustworthy and like it must not be too convincing either way if location is ultimately what determines all these people\u2019s beliefs.  Is that intuition flawed? If so, what\u2019s wrong with it and who are some philosophers who dealt with the idea that people just adopt religions of their area and almost never even consider others.","c_root_id_A":"gqes9l6","c_root_id_B":"gqgo78p","created_at_utc_A":1615348640,"created_at_utc_B":1615394523,"score_A":2,"score_B":6,"human_ref_A":"There is the distinct possibility that the apparent conformity of the great philosophers to the religion of their environs is only surface-deep, and adopted as an expediency.  (Which if true would entail that this conformity is not genuine belief.)  \"\\[T\\]hese surface teachings, however much they may vary from thinker to thinker, all have one essential thing in common: they are carefully designed to create the false appearance of conformity to the most powerful dogmas of the time, which it is too dangerous to question openly.\"  Arthur M. Melzer, *Philosophy between the Lines: The Lost History of Esoteric Writing* p. xiv (2014).","human_ref_B":"I think you've made a point I wish was articulated much more often.   As a person brought up in a Muslim society, I'd like to share the response that I usually get from my peers whenever I have brought it up. Islamic theology entails an idea that there is a shared heritage between itself and most of the previous religions. Apart from the mainstream prophets such as Moses and Jesus, Islam also claims that thousands of other prophets have also been sent to deliver a similar message from the same god. However, it contests that over time that message was corrupted by the imperfect societies to which it was delivered. So *apparently* all monotheistic religions essentially worship the same god with some variations from additions\/changes over time. Except, as it goes, for Islam which was retained as pure and perfect by god. So that's one theistic response to the question of geographic lottery of faith.   In more depth, these conversations also lead to ideas such as god being fair so everyone is going to be judged based on what proximity they had to the one true religion and their reaction to it. Which is flawed for many reasons, one of which is that it presupposes that the final message of god did actually arrive to every single human being in the past and present.   A fair bit of dodging also takes place. For instance, ideas such as 'We should just be grateful that we were born in the right religion'. Which, again, makes no sense because of their own logic that god is fair and so those not born into the one true religion should not technically be at a disadvantage.   ​  Long story short, your question was whether it *casts reasonable doubt on the veracity of religious philosophy*. To which I say, it depends on who's asking. People will find all sorts of ways to make sense of the circumstances they are presented with.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":45883.0,"score_ratio":3.0}
{"post_id":"m1hnqw","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.93,"history":"Does the way religious belief seems to depend on your location cast reasonable doubt on the veracity of religious philosophy? I think I just threw out some word salad in the title, but basically my point is that when you look at religious beliefs you find pretty quickly how much it depends on location. Arabs are almost entirely Muslims. Italians are mostly Catholic. Russians are Orthodox. Americans are Protestant (except ones descended from Ireland, Italy, Mexico, etc.)  You get the point. But also, when you look at influential philosophers you notice the same trends. Aquinas said Islam was false and Catholicism was true. Ibn Sina assured us that Catholicism was false and Islam was true. Eastern philosophers assure us that both are false and some religion local to them is true, etc.  So when looking at the surface level, I just have the feeling if I\u2019m reading Thomas Aquinas that it\u2019s just an Italian dude justifying Italian beliefs. Ibn Sina is just a Persian dude justifying Persian beliefs. If Aquinas was raised in Persia he\u2019s have been telling me how he reasoned that Islam is the true religion. If Ibn Sina was born in Rome he\u2019d be justifying the trinity to us. So I intuitively am skeptical of religious philosophy like this for these reasons. It just seems so untrustworthy and like it must not be too convincing either way if location is ultimately what determines all these people\u2019s beliefs.  Is that intuition flawed? If so, what\u2019s wrong with it and who are some philosophers who dealt with the idea that people just adopt religions of their area and almost never even consider others.","c_root_id_A":"gqgec5h","c_root_id_B":"gqfq9fr","created_at_utc_A":1615390610,"created_at_utc_B":1615377225,"score_A":5,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"Well, couldn't you extend this logic further? If you were living in medieval Rome, you'd be asking different questions, more likely than not. Though atheism was not unheard of in at the time, to be fair.  Not only that, but questions about morality and general philosophy differ by location, but that shouldn't make us skeptical about them or discount what people are saying. Peter Singer is very much a product of his context, just as you or I am, and just as much as Aquinas. So either philosophy is virtually useless in general, or we should assess arguments largely on their own merits.   This other point is not as important, because we're outliers, but I grew up in a secular New England family, but became a Catholic. Likewise, the biggest opponents of Judaism in medieval Catholicism were often former Jews, and plenty of Catholics became Muslims. Sure, converts are often a minority, but they're evidence that religion still has horizon shifts.   I think the whole \"problem of where people are born\" when it comes to religion is more relevant as a question about divine Providence: why would God let souls be saved or lost because of where you're born? But as far as making beliefs on the issue intrinsically unreliable, I just don't see it. That's true about any beliefs, really.","human_ref_B":"It does not follow that a religion is false simply because an individual is only professing it as truth due to his geographical location. One must analyse theology and truth claims within the faith itself to get that information.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":13385.0,"score_ratio":1.6666666667}
{"post_id":"m1hnqw","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.93,"history":"Does the way religious belief seems to depend on your location cast reasonable doubt on the veracity of religious philosophy? I think I just threw out some word salad in the title, but basically my point is that when you look at religious beliefs you find pretty quickly how much it depends on location. Arabs are almost entirely Muslims. Italians are mostly Catholic. Russians are Orthodox. Americans are Protestant (except ones descended from Ireland, Italy, Mexico, etc.)  You get the point. But also, when you look at influential philosophers you notice the same trends. Aquinas said Islam was false and Catholicism was true. Ibn Sina assured us that Catholicism was false and Islam was true. Eastern philosophers assure us that both are false and some religion local to them is true, etc.  So when looking at the surface level, I just have the feeling if I\u2019m reading Thomas Aquinas that it\u2019s just an Italian dude justifying Italian beliefs. Ibn Sina is just a Persian dude justifying Persian beliefs. If Aquinas was raised in Persia he\u2019s have been telling me how he reasoned that Islam is the true religion. If Ibn Sina was born in Rome he\u2019d be justifying the trinity to us. So I intuitively am skeptical of religious philosophy like this for these reasons. It just seems so untrustworthy and like it must not be too convincing either way if location is ultimately what determines all these people\u2019s beliefs.  Is that intuition flawed? If so, what\u2019s wrong with it and who are some philosophers who dealt with the idea that people just adopt religions of their area and almost never even consider others.","c_root_id_A":"gqgec5h","c_root_id_B":"gqfuxpz","created_at_utc_A":1615390610,"created_at_utc_B":1615380644,"score_A":5,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"Well, couldn't you extend this logic further? If you were living in medieval Rome, you'd be asking different questions, more likely than not. Though atheism was not unheard of in at the time, to be fair.  Not only that, but questions about morality and general philosophy differ by location, but that shouldn't make us skeptical about them or discount what people are saying. Peter Singer is very much a product of his context, just as you or I am, and just as much as Aquinas. So either philosophy is virtually useless in general, or we should assess arguments largely on their own merits.   This other point is not as important, because we're outliers, but I grew up in a secular New England family, but became a Catholic. Likewise, the biggest opponents of Judaism in medieval Catholicism were often former Jews, and plenty of Catholics became Muslims. Sure, converts are often a minority, but they're evidence that religion still has horizon shifts.   I think the whole \"problem of where people are born\" when it comes to religion is more relevant as a question about divine Providence: why would God let souls be saved or lost because of where you're born? But as far as making beliefs on the issue intrinsically unreliable, I just don't see it. That's true about any beliefs, really.","human_ref_B":"While others have covered the topic of religion specifically quite well already, one point I feel needs to be brought up is that our beliefs being influenced by our location or surroundings is not limited to religion.  Just as a couple of simple examples, both the fields of ethics and metaphysics differ greatly from the global West to global East, as a result of centuries of different perspectives influencing the debate. Should we just assume that because location can influence ethical and metaphysical philosophy that both of those should be thrown out entirely?","labels":1,"seconds_difference":9966.0,"score_ratio":1.6666666667}
{"post_id":"m1hnqw","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.93,"history":"Does the way religious belief seems to depend on your location cast reasonable doubt on the veracity of religious philosophy? I think I just threw out some word salad in the title, but basically my point is that when you look at religious beliefs you find pretty quickly how much it depends on location. Arabs are almost entirely Muslims. Italians are mostly Catholic. Russians are Orthodox. Americans are Protestant (except ones descended from Ireland, Italy, Mexico, etc.)  You get the point. But also, when you look at influential philosophers you notice the same trends. Aquinas said Islam was false and Catholicism was true. Ibn Sina assured us that Catholicism was false and Islam was true. Eastern philosophers assure us that both are false and some religion local to them is true, etc.  So when looking at the surface level, I just have the feeling if I\u2019m reading Thomas Aquinas that it\u2019s just an Italian dude justifying Italian beliefs. Ibn Sina is just a Persian dude justifying Persian beliefs. If Aquinas was raised in Persia he\u2019s have been telling me how he reasoned that Islam is the true religion. If Ibn Sina was born in Rome he\u2019d be justifying the trinity to us. So I intuitively am skeptical of religious philosophy like this for these reasons. It just seems so untrustworthy and like it must not be too convincing either way if location is ultimately what determines all these people\u2019s beliefs.  Is that intuition flawed? If so, what\u2019s wrong with it and who are some philosophers who dealt with the idea that people just adopt religions of their area and almost never even consider others.","c_root_id_A":"gqgec5h","c_root_id_B":"gqes9l6","created_at_utc_A":1615390610,"created_at_utc_B":1615348640,"score_A":5,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"Well, couldn't you extend this logic further? If you were living in medieval Rome, you'd be asking different questions, more likely than not. Though atheism was not unheard of in at the time, to be fair.  Not only that, but questions about morality and general philosophy differ by location, but that shouldn't make us skeptical about them or discount what people are saying. Peter Singer is very much a product of his context, just as you or I am, and just as much as Aquinas. So either philosophy is virtually useless in general, or we should assess arguments largely on their own merits.   This other point is not as important, because we're outliers, but I grew up in a secular New England family, but became a Catholic. Likewise, the biggest opponents of Judaism in medieval Catholicism were often former Jews, and plenty of Catholics became Muslims. Sure, converts are often a minority, but they're evidence that religion still has horizon shifts.   I think the whole \"problem of where people are born\" when it comes to religion is more relevant as a question about divine Providence: why would God let souls be saved or lost because of where you're born? But as far as making beliefs on the issue intrinsically unreliable, I just don't see it. That's true about any beliefs, really.","human_ref_B":"There is the distinct possibility that the apparent conformity of the great philosophers to the religion of their environs is only surface-deep, and adopted as an expediency.  (Which if true would entail that this conformity is not genuine belief.)  \"\\[T\\]hese surface teachings, however much they may vary from thinker to thinker, all have one essential thing in common: they are carefully designed to create the false appearance of conformity to the most powerful dogmas of the time, which it is too dangerous to question openly.\"  Arthur M. Melzer, *Philosophy between the Lines: The Lost History of Esoteric Writing* p. xiv (2014).","labels":1,"seconds_difference":41970.0,"score_ratio":2.5}
{"post_id":"m1hnqw","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.93,"history":"Does the way religious belief seems to depend on your location cast reasonable doubt on the veracity of religious philosophy? I think I just threw out some word salad in the title, but basically my point is that when you look at religious beliefs you find pretty quickly how much it depends on location. Arabs are almost entirely Muslims. Italians are mostly Catholic. Russians are Orthodox. Americans are Protestant (except ones descended from Ireland, Italy, Mexico, etc.)  You get the point. But also, when you look at influential philosophers you notice the same trends. Aquinas said Islam was false and Catholicism was true. Ibn Sina assured us that Catholicism was false and Islam was true. Eastern philosophers assure us that both are false and some religion local to them is true, etc.  So when looking at the surface level, I just have the feeling if I\u2019m reading Thomas Aquinas that it\u2019s just an Italian dude justifying Italian beliefs. Ibn Sina is just a Persian dude justifying Persian beliefs. If Aquinas was raised in Persia he\u2019s have been telling me how he reasoned that Islam is the true religion. If Ibn Sina was born in Rome he\u2019d be justifying the trinity to us. So I intuitively am skeptical of religious philosophy like this for these reasons. It just seems so untrustworthy and like it must not be too convincing either way if location is ultimately what determines all these people\u2019s beliefs.  Is that intuition flawed? If so, what\u2019s wrong with it and who are some philosophers who dealt with the idea that people just adopt religions of their area and almost never even consider others.","c_root_id_A":"gqes9l6","c_root_id_B":"gqfq9fr","created_at_utc_A":1615348640,"created_at_utc_B":1615377225,"score_A":2,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"There is the distinct possibility that the apparent conformity of the great philosophers to the religion of their environs is only surface-deep, and adopted as an expediency.  (Which if true would entail that this conformity is not genuine belief.)  \"\\[T\\]hese surface teachings, however much they may vary from thinker to thinker, all have one essential thing in common: they are carefully designed to create the false appearance of conformity to the most powerful dogmas of the time, which it is too dangerous to question openly.\"  Arthur M. Melzer, *Philosophy between the Lines: The Lost History of Esoteric Writing* p. xiv (2014).","human_ref_B":"It does not follow that a religion is false simply because an individual is only professing it as truth due to his geographical location. One must analyse theology and truth claims within the faith itself to get that information.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":28585.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
{"post_id":"m1hnqw","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.93,"history":"Does the way religious belief seems to depend on your location cast reasonable doubt on the veracity of religious philosophy? I think I just threw out some word salad in the title, but basically my point is that when you look at religious beliefs you find pretty quickly how much it depends on location. Arabs are almost entirely Muslims. Italians are mostly Catholic. Russians are Orthodox. Americans are Protestant (except ones descended from Ireland, Italy, Mexico, etc.)  You get the point. But also, when you look at influential philosophers you notice the same trends. Aquinas said Islam was false and Catholicism was true. Ibn Sina assured us that Catholicism was false and Islam was true. Eastern philosophers assure us that both are false and some religion local to them is true, etc.  So when looking at the surface level, I just have the feeling if I\u2019m reading Thomas Aquinas that it\u2019s just an Italian dude justifying Italian beliefs. Ibn Sina is just a Persian dude justifying Persian beliefs. If Aquinas was raised in Persia he\u2019s have been telling me how he reasoned that Islam is the true religion. If Ibn Sina was born in Rome he\u2019d be justifying the trinity to us. So I intuitively am skeptical of religious philosophy like this for these reasons. It just seems so untrustworthy and like it must not be too convincing either way if location is ultimately what determines all these people\u2019s beliefs.  Is that intuition flawed? If so, what\u2019s wrong with it and who are some philosophers who dealt with the idea that people just adopt religions of their area and almost never even consider others.","c_root_id_A":"gqes9l6","c_root_id_B":"gqfuxpz","created_at_utc_A":1615348640,"created_at_utc_B":1615380644,"score_A":2,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"There is the distinct possibility that the apparent conformity of the great philosophers to the religion of their environs is only surface-deep, and adopted as an expediency.  (Which if true would entail that this conformity is not genuine belief.)  \"\\[T\\]hese surface teachings, however much they may vary from thinker to thinker, all have one essential thing in common: they are carefully designed to create the false appearance of conformity to the most powerful dogmas of the time, which it is too dangerous to question openly.\"  Arthur M. Melzer, *Philosophy between the Lines: The Lost History of Esoteric Writing* p. xiv (2014).","human_ref_B":"While others have covered the topic of religion specifically quite well already, one point I feel needs to be brought up is that our beliefs being influenced by our location or surroundings is not limited to religion.  Just as a couple of simple examples, both the fields of ethics and metaphysics differ greatly from the global West to global East, as a result of centuries of different perspectives influencing the debate. Should we just assume that because location can influence ethical and metaphysical philosophy that both of those should be thrown out entirely?","labels":0,"seconds_difference":32004.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
{"post_id":"z4qmjo","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.94,"history":"Was George Orwell right about Fascist philosophy? I just read George Orwell's review of Mein Kampf, and he talks about how people want more than hedonism and safety.   \"Also he has grasped the falsity of the hedonistic attitude to life. Nearly all western thought since the last war, certainly all \u2018progressive\u2019 thought, has assumed tacitly that human beings **desire nothing beyond ease, security and avoidance of pain.\"**  \"Hitler, because in his own joyless mind he feels it with exceptional strength, knows that human beings\u00a0*don\u2019 t*only want comfort, safety, short working-hours, hygiene, birth-control and, in general, common sense; they also, at least intermittently, **want struggle and self-sacrifice, not to mention drums, flags and loyalty-parades.\"**  \"Whereas Socialism, and even capitalism in a more grudging way, have said to people \u2018I offer you a good time,\u2019 Hitler has said to them **\u2018I offer you struggle, danger and death,\"**  I felt a bit uncomfortable reading it, as I am someone who is tired of modern relativism and hedonism and do indeed want what he is accusing the Fascists of.  Would one be a Fascist for having the views?","c_root_id_A":"ixsed8l","c_root_id_B":"ixstuwf","created_at_utc_A":1669419224,"created_at_utc_B":1669427192,"score_A":86,"score_B":155,"human_ref_A":"Fascism is tricky to define because it has existed in many forms.  The points brought up by Orwell are definitely a part of it.  I haven't read that review but the quotes you listed reminded me of this letter exchange between Einstein and Freud in the early 1930's.  Einstein was asking Freud if humans can ever get past war, and Freud's response fits with Orwell's points.  Search for \"Why War\" by Einstein and Freud and it'll pop up on google.  If you're interested in learning more about fascism I would check out Umberto Eco's essay \"Ur-Fascism\".  In it, he lists 14 points that in any mixture can make fascism.  https:\/\/www.openculture.com\/2016\/11\/umberto-eco-makes-a-list-of-the-14-common-features-of-fascism.html  Also one of my favorites on that topic is \"Dialectic of Enlightenment\" by Adorno and Horkheimer.  It's their analysis of how and why the Nazis rose to power in a supposedly \"enlightened\" country, and it's still so relevant it's scary.  And for the next step if you want to purge fascist thought from your mind, read Deleuze and Guattari's work in \"Capitalism and Schizophrenia\".  It's not an easy read but it's amazing.  Long story short, if you don't wanna be a fascist believe in messy democracy not in strong leaders.  Believe in asking questions, not in following orders.  Believe in the multiplicity of life, not in rigid structures.","human_ref_B":"You are not a fascist for wanting the things you mention, indeed it sounds like George Orwell is recognising these as common\/universal human desires. However you are at risk of being exploited by fascists who offer to sell you these things at the price of others safety and happiness. Learn how to meet your own needs for struggle, danger, flags and parades without hurting others and you will be less of a target for exploitation.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":7968.0,"score_ratio":1.8023255814}
{"post_id":"z4qmjo","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.94,"history":"Was George Orwell right about Fascist philosophy? I just read George Orwell's review of Mein Kampf, and he talks about how people want more than hedonism and safety.   \"Also he has grasped the falsity of the hedonistic attitude to life. Nearly all western thought since the last war, certainly all \u2018progressive\u2019 thought, has assumed tacitly that human beings **desire nothing beyond ease, security and avoidance of pain.\"**  \"Hitler, because in his own joyless mind he feels it with exceptional strength, knows that human beings\u00a0*don\u2019 t*only want comfort, safety, short working-hours, hygiene, birth-control and, in general, common sense; they also, at least intermittently, **want struggle and self-sacrifice, not to mention drums, flags and loyalty-parades.\"**  \"Whereas Socialism, and even capitalism in a more grudging way, have said to people \u2018I offer you a good time,\u2019 Hitler has said to them **\u2018I offer you struggle, danger and death,\"**  I felt a bit uncomfortable reading it, as I am someone who is tired of modern relativism and hedonism and do indeed want what he is accusing the Fascists of.  Would one be a Fascist for having the views?","c_root_id_A":"ixsuly3","c_root_id_B":"ixsed8l","created_at_utc_A":1669427589,"created_at_utc_B":1669419224,"score_A":149,"score_B":86,"human_ref_A":"Fascism or Naziism or any form of reactionary modernism, wherever it has occurred, has been concerned primarily with ordering society according to \u201cnatural law.\u201d The people who are \u201cnaturally\u201d superior enjoy privileged social status while their \u201cnatural\u201d enemies have to be eradicated. Like nature, the human condition is fraught with danger and conflict, and so conflict between peoples is \u201cnaturally\u201d inevitable. Richard Darre was a Nazi ecologist who coined the term \u201cblood and soil,\u201d articulating the idea that certain lands \u201cnaturally\u201d belong to certain peoples. Early Nazi thought (particularly Agrarian Naziism which came to be known as Strasserism) romanticized the pastoral lifestyle where man was not in the wilderness but close enough to nature to be one with it. Inherent in this idea of nature\u2019s authority are \u201cnatural\u201d family arrangements which consist of a mom and a dad of the same race and kids. Reactionaries largely view the enlightenment and the Industrial Revolution as mistakes or at least missteps that need to be corrected. Inherent in the justification for genocide is a limited amount of natural resources that are being mismanaged, hoarded by an enemy, or otherwise untethered from the blood they supposedly belong to. Worth noting peripherally is that Hitler was a vegetarian and the Nazis committed to preserving the Finnish forests during their occupation. Pentii Linkola, an EcoFascist, viewed the holocaust as a good thing because of its success in unburdening the Earth of millions of people. The Marquis de Sade is arguably an important figure in this intellectual trajectory- at the end of the enlightenment waits the caveman, a return to the dark, an era where liberalism and socialism are proved to be failures and the weak rule the strong and impose their will upon others as was always the natural state of things, but with the infrastructure and administration of the modern state.   Eco\u2019s Ur Fascism is fine, but it should be viewed as more of an overview than a definitive scholarly text. I think it\u2019s only become so popular because everyone Googled \u201cwhat is fascism\u201d in 2015. Fascism and Naziism are unique to the cultures in which they arose. Naziism was particularly German in character as it addressed specifically German grievances and the same goes for Italy and Spain under Franco. And these ideologies arose post WW1 when everyone in Europe was collectively traumatized. America is having its own descent into \u201cFascism\u201d but we are getting something uniquely American and unique to the 21st century. It is the same phenomenon- reactionary modernism- but it is not precisely Fascism. For instance, we have the same violence and political unrest, but it is all deeply personal and individualized- our mass murderers may be killing for reasons vaguely related to what could be considered something \u201cpolitical\u201d but it is almost always a personal grievance. We do not have political assassinations, for instance. The American version functions differently but it is the same phenomenon. People call it Fascism and insist it must fit into the confines of some list created in an era of dramatically different social relations and modes of production because we are incapable of imagining anything new- good or bad.  It could be because nostalgia has so thoroughly captured public thought, or it could be that we are so unused to change, or it could be that we rely on recollections and preconceived ideas to prop up our ideas of ourselves as learned and knowledgeable to conceal a deep insecurity. Whatever the reason, to properly address \u201cFascism\u201d in its newest manifestations requires an analysis of the material, social, and cultural conditions in which it emerges.","human_ref_B":"Fascism is tricky to define because it has existed in many forms.  The points brought up by Orwell are definitely a part of it.  I haven't read that review but the quotes you listed reminded me of this letter exchange between Einstein and Freud in the early 1930's.  Einstein was asking Freud if humans can ever get past war, and Freud's response fits with Orwell's points.  Search for \"Why War\" by Einstein and Freud and it'll pop up on google.  If you're interested in learning more about fascism I would check out Umberto Eco's essay \"Ur-Fascism\".  In it, he lists 14 points that in any mixture can make fascism.  https:\/\/www.openculture.com\/2016\/11\/umberto-eco-makes-a-list-of-the-14-common-features-of-fascism.html  Also one of my favorites on that topic is \"Dialectic of Enlightenment\" by Adorno and Horkheimer.  It's their analysis of how and why the Nazis rose to power in a supposedly \"enlightened\" country, and it's still so relevant it's scary.  And for the next step if you want to purge fascist thought from your mind, read Deleuze and Guattari's work in \"Capitalism and Schizophrenia\".  It's not an easy read but it's amazing.  Long story short, if you don't wanna be a fascist believe in messy democracy not in strong leaders.  Believe in asking questions, not in following orders.  Believe in the multiplicity of life, not in rigid structures.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":8365.0,"score_ratio":1.7325581395}
{"post_id":"kr69xx","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":1.0,"history":"Whenever I want to buy a book on ancient philosophy like plato or Marcus Aurelius I quicky get overwhelmed will all the different translations and editions of the book and whenever I Google I always get different recommendations. How do I find out which edition to buy? If the question is too abstract to answer, what edition of the rebublic should I buy?","c_root_id_A":"gi7yxka","c_root_id_B":"gi91jmx","created_at_utc_A":1609879392,"created_at_utc_B":1609895349,"score_A":8,"score_B":23,"human_ref_A":"> what edition of the rebublic should I buy?  This one is easy!   I forget who wrote this (maybe \/u\/willbell remembers), but here is a very good answer:  > The most standard translation is CDC Reeve's recent one (consequently it might be more expensive) but there are multiple good literal translations of the text including the older Grube\/Reeve translation, the Bloom translation (although it is slightly divisive), and if you want to be very careful, the Loeb classics version has the Shorey translation and the Greek side-by-side. There is a public domain translation by Jowett which is just barely acceptable if you're looking for a cheap edition, but it is not academically respectable. There are other unfaithful translations such as Cornford which are generally not recommended under any circumstances. This is a good review article of recent translations some of which I didn't mention but deserve a fair hearing.  To your more general question:  > How do I find out which edition to buy?  If you're a hobbyist \/ layperson (i.e. a non-student \/ non-professional), then it probably doesn't matter!  There's not much reason to sweat over this stuff.  I know there is the urge to \"get it right,\" or whatever, but, in most cases, the differences in translations are unlikely to matter very much to a first-time reader.  Even the \"best\" translations can be misleading in the sense that the first-time reader may not get the context necessary to make sense of the words.    If you want some general rules, try these:  1. Try to stick to things that are recent.  Whenever you can, stick to editions which have been recently printed or reprinted.  If there are no recently printed or reprinted editions of a particular text, then it probably means that (1) the text is of minor importance in the field or, more rarely, (2) some classic edition is taken to be standard. 2. Try to stick to things published by either university or academic non-profit presses: OUP, Cambridge, Hackett, etc.  **There are many exceptions to this rule** (like some of the World Classics Library and even certain Penguin re-prints), but this is the kind of rule which can, at least, help you make a decision if paralyzed.  This rule has the unhappy effect of making your book purchases more expensive!  If this is a worry (and it is a reasonable worry!), then just buy Penguin editions or make a rule to buy used books always and call it a day.","human_ref_B":"Rule of thumb: Hackett Publishing Company has great translations and editions of classic philosophical works, at a reasonable price. (I\u2019m not on their payroll, I promise, but I find myself assigning their editions over and over again in my classes, because they are reliably very good without being expensive.)","labels":0,"seconds_difference":15957.0,"score_ratio":2.875}
{"post_id":"kr69xx","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":1.0,"history":"Whenever I want to buy a book on ancient philosophy like plato or Marcus Aurelius I quicky get overwhelmed will all the different translations and editions of the book and whenever I Google I always get different recommendations. How do I find out which edition to buy? If the question is too abstract to answer, what edition of the rebublic should I buy?","c_root_id_A":"gi8lcjz","c_root_id_B":"gi91jmx","created_at_utc_A":1609888175,"created_at_utc_B":1609895349,"score_A":7,"score_B":23,"human_ref_A":"I just finished reading the Alan Bloom translation for a class on the Republic and I can personally attest to it being extremely accessible. However, I also agree with the criticisms other people in the thread have with its relevancy and accuracy. Overall, I would recommend it as a good start though.","human_ref_B":"Rule of thumb: Hackett Publishing Company has great translations and editions of classic philosophical works, at a reasonable price. (I\u2019m not on their payroll, I promise, but I find myself assigning their editions over and over again in my classes, because they are reliably very good without being expensive.)","labels":0,"seconds_difference":7174.0,"score_ratio":3.2857142857}
{"post_id":"nssovk","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.96,"history":"I need book recommendations to practice critical thinking. I have a good idea about what fallacies exist on a theoretical level. But since the list of fallacies is pretty long, i find it hard to analyse ot arguments right away and look for fallacies in them.  Are there any books\/textbook that would have exercises (like In a maths text book) which require you  to analyse arguments and find logical holes\/fallacies in them.","c_root_id_A":"h0os2ie","c_root_id_B":"h0oqp7j","created_at_utc_A":1622902545,"created_at_utc_B":1622901808,"score_A":29,"score_B":13,"human_ref_A":"Analyzing arguments is only partially about logic. What you're really looking for is rhetorical analysis. Might I suggest a quick  look at Kenneth Burke? His most widely cited book is A Rhetoric of Motives. It's worth your time.","human_ref_B":"The Great Courses :Your Deceptive Mind is hand down one of the best lectures I've ever heard.  Also check out Dr. Novella's Skeptic's guide to the universe.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":737.0,"score_ratio":2.2307692308}
{"post_id":"nssovk","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.96,"history":"I need book recommendations to practice critical thinking. I have a good idea about what fallacies exist on a theoretical level. But since the list of fallacies is pretty long, i find it hard to analyse ot arguments right away and look for fallacies in them.  Are there any books\/textbook that would have exercises (like In a maths text book) which require you  to analyse arguments and find logical holes\/fallacies in them.","c_root_id_A":"h0pht9h","c_root_id_B":"h0prhwh","created_at_utc_A":1622914952,"created_at_utc_B":1622919782,"score_A":3,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"Thinking in a Blurry World by Kenyon","human_ref_B":"Stephen Toulmin\u2019s *The Uses of Argument* (1958)   Charles Hamblin\u2019s *Fallacies* (1970)","labels":0,"seconds_difference":4830.0,"score_ratio":1.3333333333}
{"post_id":"th1lo8","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.97,"history":"Philosophers who were the \"village idiot\"? So while being rather different in their philosophies, I've always seen a similarity between Diogenes and Thoreau in that they were the \"village eccentric\" in a way, living within a community that seemed both amused and bewildered by their behavior. I've always found this rather funny, and a refreshing change from the idea of a philosopher who lives tucked away in the confines of academia or surrounded by intellectuals. Are there any other philosophers who lived very much among the \"common man\", in a more traditional community setting?","c_root_id_A":"i16l5il","c_root_id_B":"i162ts5","created_at_utc_A":1647626881,"created_at_utc_B":1647619753,"score_A":38,"score_B":33,"human_ref_A":"The depiction of Socrates has always seemed to fit this theme.  I was just re-reading 'Symposium' and Socrates shows up late to the discussion because he was chilling on a neighbor's porch, deep in thought.  Everyone was kind of used to this behavior, as it was typical of him.  Indeed, one of the sentiments expressed is that Socrates is losing a bit of touch on everyday issues - he's getting cobwebs, so to speak.   But he is still loved and respected by many (not all, as we see).","human_ref_B":"Kierkegaard might take the grand prize on this one. All this is to say nothing of his broken engagement with Regine, which was a source of lots of local gossip. There were also suspicions around his authoring several pseudonymous works. He'd also basically taken a large financial inheritance and done little with it (in retrospect we can say he funded his writings, but this obviously wasn't how it was seen in the moment). He was also frequently seen taking lots of walks through the city, so he was a common sight for the locals. He'd been on track to become a pastor (and a respectably married one at that) only to throw it all away and become something of a local oddity.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":7128.0,"score_ratio":1.1515151515}
{"post_id":"th1lo8","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.97,"history":"Philosophers who were the \"village idiot\"? So while being rather different in their philosophies, I've always seen a similarity between Diogenes and Thoreau in that they were the \"village eccentric\" in a way, living within a community that seemed both amused and bewildered by their behavior. I've always found this rather funny, and a refreshing change from the idea of a philosopher who lives tucked away in the confines of academia or surrounded by intellectuals. Are there any other philosophers who lived very much among the \"common man\", in a more traditional community setting?","c_root_id_A":"i17moje","c_root_id_B":"i175t7x","created_at_utc_A":1647642285,"created_at_utc_B":1647635225,"score_A":12,"score_B":9,"human_ref_A":"Although he wasn't seen as a \"village idiot\", I think Michel de Montaigne fits this description pretty well. He was born in wealth, but spent his youth in ordinary public schools, and as a result, he always felt like he was but a common man. He was highly respected by just about everyone at the time.","human_ref_B":">Are there any other philosophers who lived very much among the \"common man\", in a more traditional community setting?  Heidegger comes to mind, he even wrote a short piece on the topic (*Why do I Stay in the Provinces*). That said, I do not know how he was viewed how he was seen by those who were around him, maybe someone else who is more knowledgeable than me could add something.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":7060.0,"score_ratio":1.3333333333}
{"post_id":"th1lo8","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.97,"history":"Philosophers who were the \"village idiot\"? So while being rather different in their philosophies, I've always seen a similarity between Diogenes and Thoreau in that they were the \"village eccentric\" in a way, living within a community that seemed both amused and bewildered by their behavior. I've always found this rather funny, and a refreshing change from the idea of a philosopher who lives tucked away in the confines of academia or surrounded by intellectuals. Are there any other philosophers who lived very much among the \"common man\", in a more traditional community setting?","c_root_id_A":"i187okq","c_root_id_B":"i1ag8t7","created_at_utc_A":1647652080,"created_at_utc_B":1647703827,"score_A":2,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"There are some interesting eccentrics among mathematicians, too  Paul Erdos - someone should write a biography","human_ref_B":"Sloterdijk has musings on this. His quite popular book 'Critique of Cynical Reason' has a very interesting take on Diogenes that you might be interested in.  Although he doesn't focus on \"village idiots\" his reflection on Diogenes and a 'Cabinet of Cynics' might be of interest to you.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":51747.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
{"post_id":"cr641f","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.98,"history":"Do I need prior knowledge in order to understand Camus' The Myth of Sisyphus?","c_root_id_A":"ex294l1","c_root_id_B":"ex24jo5","created_at_utc_A":1565965095,"created_at_utc_B":1565962601,"score_A":85,"score_B":28,"human_ref_A":"I would say no. It is pretty straight forward. You could read some Kierkegaard or Nietzsche first but I really doubt its necessary.","human_ref_B":"Some background in Absurdism would definitely help. I might also suggest reading Kierkegaard's The Sickness Unto Death before The Myth of Sisyphus, but that's just personal preference :)","labels":1,"seconds_difference":2494.0,"score_ratio":3.0357142857}
{"post_id":"cr641f","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.98,"history":"Do I need prior knowledge in order to understand Camus' The Myth of Sisyphus?","c_root_id_A":"ex294l1","c_root_id_B":"ex25zfy","created_at_utc_A":1565965095,"created_at_utc_B":1565963404,"score_A":85,"score_B":8,"human_ref_A":"I would say no. It is pretty straight forward. You could read some Kierkegaard or Nietzsche first but I really doubt its necessary.","human_ref_B":"I just finished that book a couple days ago, great book for those interested in Absurdism. I read *The Stranger* before that so that kind of laid a fictional background to the problems he attempts to address. Before I read *Myth*, I was relatively well-read on some existentialism, so that helped a bit in terms of being familiar with having a deeper understanding of some of Camus' problems with and departures from the movement. Other than that, I found it to be a relatively approachable book. If possible, become familiar with Dostoevsky, as he puts quite a bit of time aside for discussing his work, as well as Kafka (who I haven't read, but I understood that discussion okay).   I hope you enjoy it! He is definitely an idiosyncratic thinker. (Also, one important thing to note, along with many existentialists, he isn't really trying to prove anything in any philosophical-propositional manner, he is only laying out his personal thoughts on Absurdism and the like, realizing this helped me understand his position better.)","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1691.0,"score_ratio":10.625}
{"post_id":"cr641f","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.98,"history":"Do I need prior knowledge in order to understand Camus' The Myth of Sisyphus?","c_root_id_A":"ex2it3f","c_root_id_B":"ex5ge6t","created_at_utc_A":1565970184,"created_at_utc_B":1566023342,"score_A":3,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"If you are completly new in philosophy, yes. He uses terms of philosophy, that are not often used in everyday language, also he quotes often philosophers or writer who influence him (e.g Shestov Dostoyevsky, Kafka, Kierkegaard, Husserl etc etc.)","human_ref_B":"Yes and no. But more importantly, no.   1. YES: there really isn't a 20th century philosopher out there who isn't in some way responding to or rebelling from a tradition. Your reading of Camus will be greatly enriched by knowing more about the influential topics and authors mentioned in the other comments.  2. BUT MORE IMPORTANTLY, NO. The idea that you will start at some foundational point in your philosophical readings (say, Plato) and progress forward, with each step illuminating the last is absurd. You will bring that attitude to Plato, and then realize you have to study the pre-Socratics and one day you'll realize you'll need to learn ancient Greek. Even if you think there is a more proximate place to start, say Kierkegaard or Nietzsche, you will soon realize you cannot really understand them without reading Hegel, which is a lifetime of study in itself. The point is there is no best starting point from the point of view of prior *knowledge*, only a best starting point from the point of view of prior *interest*. If you are thinking of reading Camus it's because you probably know just enough about him to know he might speak to problems that interest you. That is enough to start reading ANY philosopher. It took me years of reading and re-reading to develop a reading of Heidegger, but now he is my guy. This is the other point then: you don't come to grasp the ideas of philosophers one at a time; you read Camus now, it makes some sense, some parts leave you scratching your head; then you read some other stuff, some before, some after, you come back and read Camus later, and you find new connections, understand stuff you didn't before, until one day you sort of sense you grasp Camus. The following (mis)quotation of (maybe Wittgenstein) is good to keep in mind: \"light dawns slowly over the whole.\" This effect will follow you wherever you choose to start. So start wherever you want. 3. ANNND if that doesn't convince you: The Myth of Sisyphus is easily one of the most accessible existentialist philosophical treatises. I ask anyone for proposals for an easier (non-fiction) philosophical work by Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, Heidegger, Merleau-Ponty, Sartre, Husserl, etc. If it's any proof, consider the endless interpretive issues discussed in professional circles about all the latter authors. Camus is, unlike the first three, straightforward, and unlike the last four, non-technical. (Yeah that's right was counted twice!)","labels":0,"seconds_difference":53158.0,"score_ratio":1.3333333333}
{"post_id":"cr641f","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.98,"history":"Do I need prior knowledge in order to understand Camus' The Myth of Sisyphus?","c_root_id_A":"ex30do1","c_root_id_B":"ex5ge6t","created_at_utc_A":1565978189,"created_at_utc_B":1566023342,"score_A":3,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"Camus references a lot of stuff in the book, but, frankly, a number of Camus' interpretations are either vague or unusual such that knowing what he's referring to only occasionally helps.  Just read the book as you would drive through a parking lot.    Hit a speed bump - slow down for a second, but then keep going.","human_ref_B":"Yes and no. But more importantly, no.   1. YES: there really isn't a 20th century philosopher out there who isn't in some way responding to or rebelling from a tradition. Your reading of Camus will be greatly enriched by knowing more about the influential topics and authors mentioned in the other comments.  2. BUT MORE IMPORTANTLY, NO. The idea that you will start at some foundational point in your philosophical readings (say, Plato) and progress forward, with each step illuminating the last is absurd. You will bring that attitude to Plato, and then realize you have to study the pre-Socratics and one day you'll realize you'll need to learn ancient Greek. Even if you think there is a more proximate place to start, say Kierkegaard or Nietzsche, you will soon realize you cannot really understand them without reading Hegel, which is a lifetime of study in itself. The point is there is no best starting point from the point of view of prior *knowledge*, only a best starting point from the point of view of prior *interest*. If you are thinking of reading Camus it's because you probably know just enough about him to know he might speak to problems that interest you. That is enough to start reading ANY philosopher. It took me years of reading and re-reading to develop a reading of Heidegger, but now he is my guy. This is the other point then: you don't come to grasp the ideas of philosophers one at a time; you read Camus now, it makes some sense, some parts leave you scratching your head; then you read some other stuff, some before, some after, you come back and read Camus later, and you find new connections, understand stuff you didn't before, until one day you sort of sense you grasp Camus. The following (mis)quotation of (maybe Wittgenstein) is good to keep in mind: \"light dawns slowly over the whole.\" This effect will follow you wherever you choose to start. So start wherever you want. 3. ANNND if that doesn't convince you: The Myth of Sisyphus is easily one of the most accessible existentialist philosophical treatises. I ask anyone for proposals for an easier (non-fiction) philosophical work by Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, Heidegger, Merleau-Ponty, Sartre, Husserl, etc. If it's any proof, consider the endless interpretive issues discussed in professional circles about all the latter authors. Camus is, unlike the first three, straightforward, and unlike the last four, non-technical. (Yeah that's right was counted twice!)","labels":0,"seconds_difference":45153.0,"score_ratio":1.3333333333}
{"post_id":"cr641f","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.98,"history":"Do I need prior knowledge in order to understand Camus' The Myth of Sisyphus?","c_root_id_A":"ex3o8ux","c_root_id_B":"ex5ge6t","created_at_utc_A":1565988659,"created_at_utc_B":1566023342,"score_A":3,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"The Myth of Sisyphus is better understood with a knowledge of existentialism, or the movement attempting to define life and its meaning after the \u201cdeath of God,\u201d or the proceeding of essence from existence.  For a chronological development of existentialism, I recommend first reading Schopenhauer (The World as Will...), then Kierkegaard (Trembling Sickness...), then Nietzsche (Gay Science), and then Sartre (Being and Nothingness).  With a good semblance of the ideas floating around this period, I believe you would be better able to judge Absurdism in relation to other competing ideas.","human_ref_B":"Yes and no. But more importantly, no.   1. YES: there really isn't a 20th century philosopher out there who isn't in some way responding to or rebelling from a tradition. Your reading of Camus will be greatly enriched by knowing more about the influential topics and authors mentioned in the other comments.  2. BUT MORE IMPORTANTLY, NO. The idea that you will start at some foundational point in your philosophical readings (say, Plato) and progress forward, with each step illuminating the last is absurd. You will bring that attitude to Plato, and then realize you have to study the pre-Socratics and one day you'll realize you'll need to learn ancient Greek. Even if you think there is a more proximate place to start, say Kierkegaard or Nietzsche, you will soon realize you cannot really understand them without reading Hegel, which is a lifetime of study in itself. The point is there is no best starting point from the point of view of prior *knowledge*, only a best starting point from the point of view of prior *interest*. If you are thinking of reading Camus it's because you probably know just enough about him to know he might speak to problems that interest you. That is enough to start reading ANY philosopher. It took me years of reading and re-reading to develop a reading of Heidegger, but now he is my guy. This is the other point then: you don't come to grasp the ideas of philosophers one at a time; you read Camus now, it makes some sense, some parts leave you scratching your head; then you read some other stuff, some before, some after, you come back and read Camus later, and you find new connections, understand stuff you didn't before, until one day you sort of sense you grasp Camus. The following (mis)quotation of (maybe Wittgenstein) is good to keep in mind: \"light dawns slowly over the whole.\" This effect will follow you wherever you choose to start. So start wherever you want. 3. ANNND if that doesn't convince you: The Myth of Sisyphus is easily one of the most accessible existentialist philosophical treatises. I ask anyone for proposals for an easier (non-fiction) philosophical work by Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, Heidegger, Merleau-Ponty, Sartre, Husserl, etc. If it's any proof, consider the endless interpretive issues discussed in professional circles about all the latter authors. Camus is, unlike the first three, straightforward, and unlike the last four, non-technical. (Yeah that's right was counted twice!)","labels":0,"seconds_difference":34683.0,"score_ratio":1.3333333333}
{"post_id":"cr641f","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.98,"history":"Do I need prior knowledge in order to understand Camus' The Myth of Sisyphus?","c_root_id_A":"ex4cn2t","c_root_id_B":"ex5ge6t","created_at_utc_A":1566002637,"created_at_utc_B":1566023342,"score_A":2,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"Nietzsche clearly inspired Camus but you odn't need to read him.","human_ref_B":"Yes and no. But more importantly, no.   1. YES: there really isn't a 20th century philosopher out there who isn't in some way responding to or rebelling from a tradition. Your reading of Camus will be greatly enriched by knowing more about the influential topics and authors mentioned in the other comments.  2. BUT MORE IMPORTANTLY, NO. The idea that you will start at some foundational point in your philosophical readings (say, Plato) and progress forward, with each step illuminating the last is absurd. You will bring that attitude to Plato, and then realize you have to study the pre-Socratics and one day you'll realize you'll need to learn ancient Greek. Even if you think there is a more proximate place to start, say Kierkegaard or Nietzsche, you will soon realize you cannot really understand them without reading Hegel, which is a lifetime of study in itself. The point is there is no best starting point from the point of view of prior *knowledge*, only a best starting point from the point of view of prior *interest*. If you are thinking of reading Camus it's because you probably know just enough about him to know he might speak to problems that interest you. That is enough to start reading ANY philosopher. It took me years of reading and re-reading to develop a reading of Heidegger, but now he is my guy. This is the other point then: you don't come to grasp the ideas of philosophers one at a time; you read Camus now, it makes some sense, some parts leave you scratching your head; then you read some other stuff, some before, some after, you come back and read Camus later, and you find new connections, understand stuff you didn't before, until one day you sort of sense you grasp Camus. The following (mis)quotation of (maybe Wittgenstein) is good to keep in mind: \"light dawns slowly over the whole.\" This effect will follow you wherever you choose to start. So start wherever you want. 3. ANNND if that doesn't convince you: The Myth of Sisyphus is easily one of the most accessible existentialist philosophical treatises. I ask anyone for proposals for an easier (non-fiction) philosophical work by Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, Heidegger, Merleau-Ponty, Sartre, Husserl, etc. If it's any proof, consider the endless interpretive issues discussed in professional circles about all the latter authors. Camus is, unlike the first three, straightforward, and unlike the last four, non-technical. (Yeah that's right was counted twice!)","labels":0,"seconds_difference":20705.0,"score_ratio":2.0}
{"post_id":"vw6pyh","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.96,"history":"Notable Pseudophilosophies or Pseudophilosophers What\/who are some notable pseudophilosophies or pseudophilosophers from current or recent times?  Have there existed any psuedophilosophies that have drawn widespread condemnation from the academic community?","c_root_id_A":"ifol4ip","c_root_id_B":"ifo5jha","created_at_utc_A":1657512483,"created_at_utc_B":1657504460,"score_A":218,"score_B":192,"human_ref_A":"I know it's beating a dead horse these days but I'm throwing out Jordan Peterson. Specifically though I'd focus on \"Post-modern neo-marxism\" as a term that when examined critically turns out to have no real coherent meaning. It doesn't express anything and he applies it so broadly it's hard to argue that even he seems to know what it means.  He's done some other milquetoast philosophy stuff and I've no comment about that part of his work, just the absolute incoherence of post-modern neo-marxism.","human_ref_B":"Ayn Rand is probably the most prominent example of a \"pseudophilosopher\". Her understanding of Kant is very bizarre (she views him as some kind of logic-hating religious fanatic), and her \"objectivism\" is pretty widely dismissed and excluded from academic philosophy.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":8023.0,"score_ratio":1.1354166667}
{"post_id":"vw6pyh","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.96,"history":"Notable Pseudophilosophies or Pseudophilosophers What\/who are some notable pseudophilosophies or pseudophilosophers from current or recent times?  Have there existed any psuedophilosophies that have drawn widespread condemnation from the academic community?","c_root_id_A":"ifol4ip","c_root_id_B":"ifo5fhk","created_at_utc_A":1657512483,"created_at_utc_B":1657504404,"score_A":218,"score_B":101,"human_ref_A":"I know it's beating a dead horse these days but I'm throwing out Jordan Peterson. Specifically though I'd focus on \"Post-modern neo-marxism\" as a term that when examined critically turns out to have no real coherent meaning. It doesn't express anything and he applies it so broadly it's hard to argue that even he seems to know what it means.  He's done some other milquetoast philosophy stuff and I've no comment about that part of his work, just the absolute incoherence of post-modern neo-marxism.","human_ref_B":"Although she shouldn't be totally rejected out of hand without any further discussion, the fact that Ayn Rand rarely interacted with the philosophical community or attempted to defend her positions from scholarly criticism could be grounds to label her in some part a pseudo-philosopher. From her Stanford Plato Encyclopedia entry:  >Whereas Rand\u2019s ideas and mode of presentation make Rand popular with many non-academics, they lead to the opposite outcome with academics. She developed some of her views in response to questions from her readers, but seldom took the time to defend them against possible objections or to reconcile them with the views expressed in her novels.  From this it is fair to say she was at least somewhat a pseudo-philosopher. As a result it is fair to call \"Objectivism\" in some sense as pseudo-philosophy.  Ultimately whether you consider her one would depend on whether or not you believe that a genuine philosopher should engage with the community, defend their positions from criticism, or at least present them in a way that could provide that type of argument.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":8079.0,"score_ratio":2.1584158416}
{"post_id":"vw6pyh","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.96,"history":"Notable Pseudophilosophies or Pseudophilosophers What\/who are some notable pseudophilosophies or pseudophilosophers from current or recent times?  Have there existed any psuedophilosophies that have drawn widespread condemnation from the academic community?","c_root_id_A":"ifo5jha","c_root_id_B":"ifo5fhk","created_at_utc_A":1657504460,"created_at_utc_B":1657504404,"score_A":192,"score_B":101,"human_ref_A":"Ayn Rand is probably the most prominent example of a \"pseudophilosopher\". Her understanding of Kant is very bizarre (she views him as some kind of logic-hating religious fanatic), and her \"objectivism\" is pretty widely dismissed and excluded from academic philosophy.","human_ref_B":"Although she shouldn't be totally rejected out of hand without any further discussion, the fact that Ayn Rand rarely interacted with the philosophical community or attempted to defend her positions from scholarly criticism could be grounds to label her in some part a pseudo-philosopher. From her Stanford Plato Encyclopedia entry:  >Whereas Rand\u2019s ideas and mode of presentation make Rand popular with many non-academics, they lead to the opposite outcome with academics. She developed some of her views in response to questions from her readers, but seldom took the time to defend them against possible objections or to reconcile them with the views expressed in her novels.  From this it is fair to say she was at least somewhat a pseudo-philosopher. As a result it is fair to call \"Objectivism\" in some sense as pseudo-philosophy.  Ultimately whether you consider her one would depend on whether or not you believe that a genuine philosopher should engage with the community, defend their positions from criticism, or at least present them in a way that could provide that type of argument.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":56.0,"score_ratio":1.900990099}
{"post_id":"vw6pyh","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.96,"history":"Notable Pseudophilosophies or Pseudophilosophers What\/who are some notable pseudophilosophies or pseudophilosophers from current or recent times?  Have there existed any psuedophilosophies that have drawn widespread condemnation from the academic community?","c_root_id_A":"ifp849w","c_root_id_B":"ifp9ido","created_at_utc_A":1657529115,"created_at_utc_B":1657530318,"score_A":109,"score_B":146,"human_ref_A":"My personal favorite pseudophilosopher will always be the man, the myth, the machine elf: Terence McKenna","human_ref_B":"Sam Harris is the philosophy-hating persons moral philosopher","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1203.0,"score_ratio":1.3394495413}
{"post_id":"vw6pyh","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.96,"history":"Notable Pseudophilosophies or Pseudophilosophers What\/who are some notable pseudophilosophies or pseudophilosophers from current or recent times?  Have there existed any psuedophilosophies that have drawn widespread condemnation from the academic community?","c_root_id_A":"ifp9ido","c_root_id_B":"ifo5fhk","created_at_utc_A":1657530318,"created_at_utc_B":1657504404,"score_A":146,"score_B":101,"human_ref_A":"Sam Harris is the philosophy-hating persons moral philosopher","human_ref_B":"Although she shouldn't be totally rejected out of hand without any further discussion, the fact that Ayn Rand rarely interacted with the philosophical community or attempted to defend her positions from scholarly criticism could be grounds to label her in some part a pseudo-philosopher. From her Stanford Plato Encyclopedia entry:  >Whereas Rand\u2019s ideas and mode of presentation make Rand popular with many non-academics, they lead to the opposite outcome with academics. She developed some of her views in response to questions from her readers, but seldom took the time to defend them against possible objections or to reconcile them with the views expressed in her novels.  From this it is fair to say she was at least somewhat a pseudo-philosopher. As a result it is fair to call \"Objectivism\" in some sense as pseudo-philosophy.  Ultimately whether you consider her one would depend on whether or not you believe that a genuine philosopher should engage with the community, defend their positions from criticism, or at least present them in a way that could provide that type of argument.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":25914.0,"score_ratio":1.4455445545}
{"post_id":"vw6pyh","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.96,"history":"Notable Pseudophilosophies or Pseudophilosophers What\/who are some notable pseudophilosophies or pseudophilosophers from current or recent times?  Have there existed any psuedophilosophies that have drawn widespread condemnation from the academic community?","c_root_id_A":"ifp9ido","c_root_id_B":"ifp1cey","created_at_utc_A":1657530318,"created_at_utc_B":1657523468,"score_A":146,"score_B":34,"human_ref_A":"Sam Harris is the philosophy-hating persons moral philosopher","human_ref_B":"Aleksander Dugin","labels":1,"seconds_difference":6850.0,"score_ratio":4.2941176471}
{"post_id":"vw6pyh","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.96,"history":"Notable Pseudophilosophies or Pseudophilosophers What\/who are some notable pseudophilosophies or pseudophilosophers from current or recent times?  Have there existed any psuedophilosophies that have drawn widespread condemnation from the academic community?","c_root_id_A":"ifp19rq","c_root_id_B":"ifp9ido","created_at_utc_A":1657523412,"created_at_utc_B":1657530318,"score_A":9,"score_B":146,"human_ref_A":"Some might say Robert M. Pirsig is a pseudo philosopher, given that he was for a long time more well known as a novelist than a philosopher, but he was awarded an honorary doctorate and does have some schools of thought now that use his works","human_ref_B":"Sam Harris is the philosophy-hating persons moral philosopher","labels":0,"seconds_difference":6906.0,"score_ratio":16.2222222222}
{"post_id":"vw6pyh","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.96,"history":"Notable Pseudophilosophies or Pseudophilosophers What\/who are some notable pseudophilosophies or pseudophilosophers from current or recent times?  Have there existed any psuedophilosophies that have drawn widespread condemnation from the academic community?","c_root_id_A":"ifp849w","c_root_id_B":"ifpbhiz","created_at_utc_A":1657529115,"created_at_utc_B":1657532051,"score_A":109,"score_B":117,"human_ref_A":"My personal favorite pseudophilosopher will always be the man, the myth, the machine elf: Terence McKenna","human_ref_B":"The four horseman of the r\/askphilosophy apocalypse: Sam Harris, Ayn Rand, Jordan Peterson, and Alan Watts. Laymen frequently inquire about them, and the collective sigh can be heard throughout the subreddit. Ask about any one of them, and your top reply will probably be a list of links to other posts that go into detail on how they're all charlatans.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":2936.0,"score_ratio":1.0733944954}
{"post_id":"vw6pyh","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.96,"history":"Notable Pseudophilosophies or Pseudophilosophers What\/who are some notable pseudophilosophies or pseudophilosophers from current or recent times?  Have there existed any psuedophilosophies that have drawn widespread condemnation from the academic community?","c_root_id_A":"ifo5fhk","c_root_id_B":"ifpbhiz","created_at_utc_A":1657504404,"created_at_utc_B":1657532051,"score_A":101,"score_B":117,"human_ref_A":"Although she shouldn't be totally rejected out of hand without any further discussion, the fact that Ayn Rand rarely interacted with the philosophical community or attempted to defend her positions from scholarly criticism could be grounds to label her in some part a pseudo-philosopher. From her Stanford Plato Encyclopedia entry:  >Whereas Rand\u2019s ideas and mode of presentation make Rand popular with many non-academics, they lead to the opposite outcome with academics. She developed some of her views in response to questions from her readers, but seldom took the time to defend them against possible objections or to reconcile them with the views expressed in her novels.  From this it is fair to say she was at least somewhat a pseudo-philosopher. As a result it is fair to call \"Objectivism\" in some sense as pseudo-philosophy.  Ultimately whether you consider her one would depend on whether or not you believe that a genuine philosopher should engage with the community, defend their positions from criticism, or at least present them in a way that could provide that type of argument.","human_ref_B":"The four horseman of the r\/askphilosophy apocalypse: Sam Harris, Ayn Rand, Jordan Peterson, and Alan Watts. Laymen frequently inquire about them, and the collective sigh can be heard throughout the subreddit. Ask about any one of them, and your top reply will probably be a list of links to other posts that go into detail on how they're all charlatans.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":27647.0,"score_ratio":1.1584158416}
{"post_id":"vw6pyh","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.96,"history":"Notable Pseudophilosophies or Pseudophilosophers What\/who are some notable pseudophilosophies or pseudophilosophers from current or recent times?  Have there existed any psuedophilosophies that have drawn widespread condemnation from the academic community?","c_root_id_A":"ifp1cey","c_root_id_B":"ifpbhiz","created_at_utc_A":1657523468,"created_at_utc_B":1657532051,"score_A":34,"score_B":117,"human_ref_A":"Aleksander Dugin","human_ref_B":"The four horseman of the r\/askphilosophy apocalypse: Sam Harris, Ayn Rand, Jordan Peterson, and Alan Watts. Laymen frequently inquire about them, and the collective sigh can be heard throughout the subreddit. Ask about any one of them, and your top reply will probably be a list of links to other posts that go into detail on how they're all charlatans.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":8583.0,"score_ratio":3.4411764706}
{"post_id":"vw6pyh","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.96,"history":"Notable Pseudophilosophies or Pseudophilosophers What\/who are some notable pseudophilosophies or pseudophilosophers from current or recent times?  Have there existed any psuedophilosophies that have drawn widespread condemnation from the academic community?","c_root_id_A":"ifp19rq","c_root_id_B":"ifpbhiz","created_at_utc_A":1657523412,"created_at_utc_B":1657532051,"score_A":9,"score_B":117,"human_ref_A":"Some might say Robert M. Pirsig is a pseudo philosopher, given that he was for a long time more well known as a novelist than a philosopher, but he was awarded an honorary doctorate and does have some schools of thought now that use his works","human_ref_B":"The four horseman of the r\/askphilosophy apocalypse: Sam Harris, Ayn Rand, Jordan Peterson, and Alan Watts. Laymen frequently inquire about them, and the collective sigh can be heard throughout the subreddit. Ask about any one of them, and your top reply will probably be a list of links to other posts that go into detail on how they're all charlatans.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":8639.0,"score_ratio":13.0}
{"post_id":"vw6pyh","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.96,"history":"Notable Pseudophilosophies or Pseudophilosophers What\/who are some notable pseudophilosophies or pseudophilosophers from current or recent times?  Have there existed any psuedophilosophies that have drawn widespread condemnation from the academic community?","c_root_id_A":"ifo5fhk","c_root_id_B":"ifp849w","created_at_utc_A":1657504404,"created_at_utc_B":1657529115,"score_A":101,"score_B":109,"human_ref_A":"Although she shouldn't be totally rejected out of hand without any further discussion, the fact that Ayn Rand rarely interacted with the philosophical community or attempted to defend her positions from scholarly criticism could be grounds to label her in some part a pseudo-philosopher. From her Stanford Plato Encyclopedia entry:  >Whereas Rand\u2019s ideas and mode of presentation make Rand popular with many non-academics, they lead to the opposite outcome with academics. She developed some of her views in response to questions from her readers, but seldom took the time to defend them against possible objections or to reconcile them with the views expressed in her novels.  From this it is fair to say she was at least somewhat a pseudo-philosopher. As a result it is fair to call \"Objectivism\" in some sense as pseudo-philosophy.  Ultimately whether you consider her one would depend on whether or not you believe that a genuine philosopher should engage with the community, defend their positions from criticism, or at least present them in a way that could provide that type of argument.","human_ref_B":"My personal favorite pseudophilosopher will always be the man, the myth, the machine elf: Terence McKenna","labels":0,"seconds_difference":24711.0,"score_ratio":1.0792079208}
{"post_id":"vw6pyh","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.96,"history":"Notable Pseudophilosophies or Pseudophilosophers What\/who are some notable pseudophilosophies or pseudophilosophers from current or recent times?  Have there existed any psuedophilosophies that have drawn widespread condemnation from the academic community?","c_root_id_A":"ifp849w","c_root_id_B":"ifp1cey","created_at_utc_A":1657529115,"created_at_utc_B":1657523468,"score_A":109,"score_B":34,"human_ref_A":"My personal favorite pseudophilosopher will always be the man, the myth, the machine elf: Terence McKenna","human_ref_B":"Aleksander Dugin","labels":1,"seconds_difference":5647.0,"score_ratio":3.2058823529}
{"post_id":"vw6pyh","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.96,"history":"Notable Pseudophilosophies or Pseudophilosophers What\/who are some notable pseudophilosophies or pseudophilosophers from current or recent times?  Have there existed any psuedophilosophies that have drawn widespread condemnation from the academic community?","c_root_id_A":"ifp849w","c_root_id_B":"ifp19rq","created_at_utc_A":1657529115,"created_at_utc_B":1657523412,"score_A":109,"score_B":9,"human_ref_A":"My personal favorite pseudophilosopher will always be the man, the myth, the machine elf: Terence McKenna","human_ref_B":"Some might say Robert M. Pirsig is a pseudo philosopher, given that he was for a long time more well known as a novelist than a philosopher, but he was awarded an honorary doctorate and does have some schools of thought now that use his works","labels":1,"seconds_difference":5703.0,"score_ratio":12.1111111111}
{"post_id":"vw6pyh","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.96,"history":"Notable Pseudophilosophies or Pseudophilosophers What\/who are some notable pseudophilosophies or pseudophilosophers from current or recent times?  Have there existed any psuedophilosophies that have drawn widespread condemnation from the academic community?","c_root_id_A":"ifp1cey","c_root_id_B":"ifpfus8","created_at_utc_A":1657523468,"created_at_utc_B":1657535629,"score_A":34,"score_B":60,"human_ref_A":"Aleksander Dugin","human_ref_B":"In France, Bernard-Henri L\u00e9vy is kind of a joke. He once wrote an essay where he seriously cites the work of a fictional philosopher, Jean-Baptiste Botul, and his philosophical school called botulism. He has indeed drawn \"widespread condemnation\" from academics.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":12161.0,"score_ratio":1.7647058824}
{"post_id":"vw6pyh","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.96,"history":"Notable Pseudophilosophies or Pseudophilosophers What\/who are some notable pseudophilosophies or pseudophilosophers from current or recent times?  Have there existed any psuedophilosophies that have drawn widespread condemnation from the academic community?","c_root_id_A":"ifpfus8","c_root_id_B":"ifp19rq","created_at_utc_A":1657535629,"created_at_utc_B":1657523412,"score_A":60,"score_B":9,"human_ref_A":"In France, Bernard-Henri L\u00e9vy is kind of a joke. He once wrote an essay where he seriously cites the work of a fictional philosopher, Jean-Baptiste Botul, and his philosophical school called botulism. He has indeed drawn \"widespread condemnation\" from academics.","human_ref_B":"Some might say Robert M. Pirsig is a pseudo philosopher, given that he was for a long time more well known as a novelist than a philosopher, but he was awarded an honorary doctorate and does have some schools of thought now that use his works","labels":1,"seconds_difference":12217.0,"score_ratio":6.6666666667}
{"post_id":"vw6pyh","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.96,"history":"Notable Pseudophilosophies or Pseudophilosophers What\/who are some notable pseudophilosophies or pseudophilosophers from current or recent times?  Have there existed any psuedophilosophies that have drawn widespread condemnation from the academic community?","c_root_id_A":"ifp19rq","c_root_id_B":"ifp1cey","created_at_utc_A":1657523412,"created_at_utc_B":1657523468,"score_A":9,"score_B":34,"human_ref_A":"Some might say Robert M. Pirsig is a pseudo philosopher, given that he was for a long time more well known as a novelist than a philosopher, but he was awarded an honorary doctorate and does have some schools of thought now that use his works","human_ref_B":"Aleksander Dugin","labels":0,"seconds_difference":56.0,"score_ratio":3.7777777778}
{"post_id":"vw6pyh","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.96,"history":"Notable Pseudophilosophies or Pseudophilosophers What\/who are some notable pseudophilosophies or pseudophilosophers from current or recent times?  Have there existed any psuedophilosophies that have drawn widespread condemnation from the academic community?","c_root_id_A":"ifphwna","c_root_id_B":"ifp19rq","created_at_utc_A":1657537163,"created_at_utc_B":1657523412,"score_A":24,"score_B":9,"human_ref_A":"No one mention Ben Shapiro as a pseudo historian of philosophy?","human_ref_B":"Some might say Robert M. Pirsig is a pseudo philosopher, given that he was for a long time more well known as a novelist than a philosopher, but he was awarded an honorary doctorate and does have some schools of thought now that use his works","labels":1,"seconds_difference":13751.0,"score_ratio":2.6666666667}
{"post_id":"vw6pyh","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.96,"history":"Notable Pseudophilosophies or Pseudophilosophers What\/who are some notable pseudophilosophies or pseudophilosophers from current or recent times?  Have there existed any psuedophilosophies that have drawn widespread condemnation from the academic community?","c_root_id_A":"ifp19rq","c_root_id_B":"ifq0c6n","created_at_utc_A":1657523412,"created_at_utc_B":1657547497,"score_A":9,"score_B":17,"human_ref_A":"Some might say Robert M. Pirsig is a pseudo philosopher, given that he was for a long time more well known as a novelist than a philosopher, but he was awarded an honorary doctorate and does have some schools of thought now that use his works","human_ref_B":"Stephen Hicks is one that comes to mind, but he also based his work off of Ayn Rand, who as someone else explained has a very bizzare understanding of Kant. If people are using Hicks or Rand to talk about Kant you're going to have a bad time.   Stephen Pinker is another one, mostly for his social theories. Makes me think that most of the people who I would call \"pseudophilosophers\" are also \"pseudo-everything\", from philosophy to history to economics to politics.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":24085.0,"score_ratio":1.8888888889}
{"post_id":"vw6pyh","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.96,"history":"Notable Pseudophilosophies or Pseudophilosophers What\/who are some notable pseudophilosophies or pseudophilosophers from current or recent times?  Have there existed any psuedophilosophies that have drawn widespread condemnation from the academic community?","c_root_id_A":"ifp19rq","c_root_id_B":"ifqgmfz","created_at_utc_A":1657523412,"created_at_utc_B":1657554356,"score_A":9,"score_B":14,"human_ref_A":"Some might say Robert M. Pirsig is a pseudo philosopher, given that he was for a long time more well known as a novelist than a philosopher, but he was awarded an honorary doctorate and does have some schools of thought now that use his works","human_ref_B":"In Brazil, the \u201cemperor\u201d of pseudophilosophy was\/is (as he stills is influential) the late Olavo de Carvalho (\\*1947 \u2013 \u20202022). \r   \r   He was an astrologist turned into a self-proclaimed philosopher. He had no secondary education and several controversies throughout his life. A visceral anti-communist that defended anti-intellecutalism and anti-sciencintific stances, Olavo pushed for a return to traditionalist Catholicism in Brazil reinforced by Integralism. Many journalists, academics and public figures consider him the \u201cintellectual\u201d of \u201cBolsonarism\u201d (derived from the name of the current President, Bolsonaro): the populist far-right belief in an idealized version of the country defined by the motto: \u201cGod, Homeland and Family\u201d. Guns, private property, whiteness, and the repression of dissent.\r   \r   Olavo de Carvalho discourse and behavior was borderline criminal: from obscene ad hominem arguments to accusation of perjury and defamation. He fled Brazil due to numerous allegations of receiving illegal contributions from politicians, being part of an organization that widespread fake-news during the 2018\u2019s General Elections. He moved to Richmond, VA to escape scrutiny from the Brazilian media, police and law-suits from former students, the organized civil society and other institutions.\r   \r   From the Wikipedia article, some of his controversies:\r   \r   *\u201cBasic sciences*\r   *Carvalho propagated controversial information about prominent ideas and figures of modern science. He contested ideas of physicists Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein, and mathematician Georg Cantor. He said Newton introduced a self-contradictory thesis and spread the virus of \u201cformidable stupidity\u201d. Olavo also said Einstein's theory of general relativity was plagiarized. Carvalho contradicted Georg Cantor's work on transfinite numbers, accusing him of confusing \u201cnumbers with their mere signs\u201d, seeing his work as a \u201cplay with words\u201d and a \u201cfalse logic\u201d.*\r   *He also said that there are no proofs of heliocentrism and that geocentrism was as valid as heliocentrism \u201csince you can use different points of reference.\u201d In 2018, on Facebook, he stated that he had no \u201cdefinitive answer\u201d to many \u201cquestions\u201d, such as whether the Earth is spherical or flat.*  \r   *Fetuses as sweetener*\r   *Carvalho also spread the hoax of Pepsi using cells from aborted fetuses to sweeten soft drinks.*  \r   *Climate change*\r   *Carvalho claimed that global warming is a hoax produced by a global conspiracy. He based his claims on the Climategate episode in which hackers, on the eve of the Copenhagen Conference, disseminated thousands of e-mails from University of East Anglia climatologists in order to undermine the credibility of the conference. Carvalho claimed Climategate to be the work of a conspiracy led by the Rockefeller family, the Council of Foreign Relations, the Bilderberg Club, and the New World Order, indicating them also as leaders of the \u201cglobal abortion and gay \\[\u2026\\] campaigns of the new bionic global religion, and of the Obama administration's proposal for universal control of the movement of capital.\u201d*  \r   *Health*\r   *In a 2016 Twitter post, Carvalho stated, citing Dr. Carlos Armando de Moura Ribeiro, that \u201cvaccines either kill you or drive you crazy. Never vaccinate your children.\u201d*  \r   *He falsely declared that AIDS does not pose a risk to heterosexuals, basing his arguments on journalist Michael Fumento's book The Myth of Heterosexual Aids.*  \r   *On 22 March 2020, during the COVID-19 pandemic, a disease caused by the SARS-CoV-2 virus, he stated in a livestream on YouTube that there was no confirmed case of death from the virus in the world and that the pandemic would be \u201can invention\u201d and \u201cthe most extensive manipulation of public opinion that has ever happened in human history\u201d. At that date, according to the World Health Organization, there were more than 294,000 cases of the disease and 12,784 deaths from it.*  \r   *Politics*\r   *Carvalho spread the debunked conspiracy theory that Barack Obama was not born in the United States. Furthermore, he claimed that Foro de S\u00e3o Paulo \u201cis the largest political organization that has ever existed in Latin America and undoubtedly one of the largest in the world.\u201d He also made up the fake information that a book written by Fernando Haddad, the opponent of Jair Bolsonaro during the 2018 Brazilian general election, promoted incest.*  \r   *On 17 March 2019, Carvalho criticized the presence of military personnel in Bolsonaro's administration, stating: \u201cHe didn't choose two hundred generals. Two hundred generals chose him. Those people want to restore the 1964 regime under a democratic aspect. They're ruling and using Bolsonaro as a condom \\[sic\\]. I'm not saying that it is the reality, but it is what they want. Mour\u00e3o said that they would return to power democratically. If it is not a coup, it is a coup mentality.\u201d*  \r   *Sleeping Giants started a campaign to reduce his influence on Brazilian politics and convinced advertisers to remove their media buying from his online newspaper and YouTube channel. Also, PayPal decided to cancel their contract and removed their services from his online seminars due to violation of terms of use.*  \r   *On a January 2021 interview, Carvalho falsely claimed that election fraud took place in the 2020 American presidential election, stating \u201cEverything in this election has been fraudulent.\u201d During the same interview, Carvalho falsely asserted that Joe Biden had Parkinson\u2019s disease and that Biden and Kamala Harris were working for the Chinese government.*  \r   *Religion*\r   *Carvalho advocated a revisionist view of the Inquisition, claiming it is a myth spread by Protestants.*  \r   *Litigation*\r   *In 2020, Carvalho was ordered to pay 2.8 million Brazilian reais in libel charges after accusing musician Caetano Veloso of sexual crimes against children.\u201d*\r   \r   His philosophy:\r   \r   Although Olavo de Carvalho can be labeled as a lunatic, his influence lies in two aspects: he was a good writer and had de facto philosophical knowledge misused through bad-faith. I read what he considered his \u201cmagnum opus\u201d, *The Garden of Afflictions*. Very well written in the most elitist prose of the traditional Portuguese language, it is a disjointed philosophical work that captures the broad audience by using embellished words, bad philosophy and appeal to traditionalism and the \u201cPortuguese Roots\u201d of Brazilian Culture (that he claims, was destroyed by modernists, Marxists and the general left). I believe this aspect by itself to be the reason Portuguese conservatives in Europe engaged with his thought.   In that book, Olavo argues against what he thought to be a lineage of epicureans: Marxism is a postscript to Epicurean Ethics insofar as such ethics is the substitution of theoretical reasoning for the notion of praxis and materialism. His words, not mine.\r He further develops the argument that the history of the Western Civilization is the history of the political structure of the Empire. In his view, the Empire is the attempt of different nations since the Roman Empire to unify several peoples into a single body of law to destroy the individual and impose a material, orgiastic (sic) supremacy over the rule of the mind and Catholic Metaphysics. In his courses, he attested that there is a present power struggle between \u201cCommunist Globalists\u201d and \u201cEuroasianists\u201d. On that point (Globalism), he debated Aleksandr Dugi (I can\u2019t find any English transcription). For Olavo de Carvalho, any form of scientific, empiricist, materialist, naturalist form of knowledge is wrong because in his perspective those are tools of power deployed by those that aim to take over the world.\r   \r   His main influences were: Johannes Duns Scotus, Louis Lavelle, and Eric Voegelin.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":30944.0,"score_ratio":1.5555555556}
{"post_id":"ndwdxv","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.9,"history":"Why are people against determinism? As a compatibilistic determinist myself, I\u2019m wondering what valid arguments people actually use to deny this form of determinism. From my point of view, the evidence science has given us should leave little reason to believe determinism is not true","c_root_id_A":"gydm9ds","c_root_id_B":"gyd1w5w","created_at_utc_A":1621205490,"created_at_utc_B":1621196042,"score_A":77,"score_B":43,"human_ref_A":"I think it's often as simple as believing the free will (or even *action* as such) is incompatible with determinism, and that we have better reason to believe that people act freely (or that they *act* at all) than we do to believe in the truth of determinism.  Of course, your response here is that \"the evidence science has given us should leave little reason to believe determinism is not true\".  On the contrary, though, I'm not sure that science really provides much evidence for determinism as such.  Certainly, we have evidence that, for instance, behaviour depends in some important way on the activity of the nervous system, and that the gross activity of the nervous system depends in some important way on electrochemical activity in cells, and so on.  But does any of this amount to evidence of *determinism*?  Not obviously.  So what is, then, the relationship between science and determinism?  It seems to me to be something that is maybe a theoretical virtue (e.g., physicists might prefer a deterministic theory of quantum mechanics), or a presupposition (e.g., scientists might assume determinism for purposes of conducting science), or an interpretation of science (e.g., sciences are interpreted according to deterministic laws), or something like that.  And so, giving up determinism might not be all that hard of a pill to swallow, especially if determinism is incompatible with something that is manifestly true!","human_ref_B":"If one believed that the world is fundamentally quantum mechanical and that the theory is properly formulated as indeterministic, one would be forced to deny causal determinism.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":9448.0,"score_ratio":1.7906976744}
{"post_id":"ndwdxv","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.9,"history":"Why are people against determinism? As a compatibilistic determinist myself, I\u2019m wondering what valid arguments people actually use to deny this form of determinism. From my point of view, the evidence science has given us should leave little reason to believe determinism is not true","c_root_id_A":"gyd4jb3","c_root_id_B":"gydm9ds","created_at_utc_A":1621197234,"created_at_utc_B":1621205490,"score_A":17,"score_B":77,"human_ref_A":"There's no consensus in quantum mechanics that proves determinism - in fact the leading Copenhagen interpretation is indeterministic: The wave function collapses randomly and there are no \"hidden variables\" that cause it to collapse the way it does. If you are to accept the Copenhagen interpretation you must also accept indeterminism.  That's not to say that classical interactions aren't deterministic. There's just gonna be some quantum randomness further down the causal chain.","human_ref_B":"I think it's often as simple as believing the free will (or even *action* as such) is incompatible with determinism, and that we have better reason to believe that people act freely (or that they *act* at all) than we do to believe in the truth of determinism.  Of course, your response here is that \"the evidence science has given us should leave little reason to believe determinism is not true\".  On the contrary, though, I'm not sure that science really provides much evidence for determinism as such.  Certainly, we have evidence that, for instance, behaviour depends in some important way on the activity of the nervous system, and that the gross activity of the nervous system depends in some important way on electrochemical activity in cells, and so on.  But does any of this amount to evidence of *determinism*?  Not obviously.  So what is, then, the relationship between science and determinism?  It seems to me to be something that is maybe a theoretical virtue (e.g., physicists might prefer a deterministic theory of quantum mechanics), or a presupposition (e.g., scientists might assume determinism for purposes of conducting science), or an interpretation of science (e.g., sciences are interpreted according to deterministic laws), or something like that.  And so, giving up determinism might not be all that hard of a pill to swallow, especially if determinism is incompatible with something that is manifestly true!","labels":0,"seconds_difference":8256.0,"score_ratio":4.5294117647}
{"post_id":"ndwdxv","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.9,"history":"Why are people against determinism? As a compatibilistic determinist myself, I\u2019m wondering what valid arguments people actually use to deny this form of determinism. From my point of view, the evidence science has given us should leave little reason to believe determinism is not true","c_root_id_A":"gyd4jb3","c_root_id_B":"gydmbuk","created_at_utc_A":1621197234,"created_at_utc_B":1621205523,"score_A":17,"score_B":18,"human_ref_A":"There's no consensus in quantum mechanics that proves determinism - in fact the leading Copenhagen interpretation is indeterministic: The wave function collapses randomly and there are no \"hidden variables\" that cause it to collapse the way it does. If you are to accept the Copenhagen interpretation you must also accept indeterminism.  That's not to say that classical interactions aren't deterministic. There's just gonna be some quantum randomness further down the causal chain.","human_ref_B":"Even before quantum physics, C. S. Pierce pointed out that it isn\u2019t clear that the evidence supports determinism.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":8289.0,"score_ratio":1.0588235294}
{"post_id":"ndwdxv","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.9,"history":"Why are people against determinism? As a compatibilistic determinist myself, I\u2019m wondering what valid arguments people actually use to deny this form of determinism. From my point of view, the evidence science has given us should leave little reason to believe determinism is not true","c_root_id_A":"gyfuuwv","c_root_id_B":"gyeyr8h","created_at_utc_A":1621256482,"created_at_utc_B":1621231823,"score_A":5,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":">Why are people against determinism?  Who? If you're talking about philosophers, you're mistaken. It seems very unpopular to \"be against determinism\". If you're talking about observations you've made about laypeople, this isn't a question for philosophers. This seems to be a common misunderstanding around here. With some minor caveats, one can say that questions along the lines of \"Why do people think X?\", \"Why do so many people say X, despite..\", aren't the type of questions that contemporary philosophers tend to investigate, even if X is related to philosophy. It's more in the realm of the social sciences these days.  Also, as a piece of advice, when you're asking questions where a lot of weight is carried by a specific phrase like \"the evidence science has given us\" it's always better to explicitly name (some) such evidence, instead of leaving unspoken what seems absolutely central to what you inquire about. This makes your question clearer, more specific, and avoids talking past each other. That's only general advice though, for reasons mentioned in my first paragraph, I don't think there's much to say here.  It's not my intention or job to police anyone here, but I'm honestly wondering why\/on what grounds so many people always answer this kind of question here...What I said above might be unpopular in the eyes of people asking (or wondering about) the question --naturally they want answers-- but is it really idiosyncratic? Just seems to reinforce what I think is a misunderstanding.     edit: spelling","human_ref_B":"Because it undermines freedom as a political value.  Because we're scared of admitting that we influence each others in subtle ways, which makes social outcomes very predictable.  Because free will let us believe we are still in control of our lives. It's comforting.  The reality is that freedom is just about feeling free, and institutions not oppressing people, and it was never about people following their desires, being the master of their own lives and have entire responsibility. People were already having freedom of conscience before freedom was important.  We are just afraid of being manipulated, which is why we prefer freedom and dislike determinism. We put the soul and mind on a pedestal.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":24659.0,"score_ratio":1.25}
{"post_id":"ndwdxv","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.9,"history":"Why are people against determinism? As a compatibilistic determinist myself, I\u2019m wondering what valid arguments people actually use to deny this form of determinism. From my point of view, the evidence science has given us should leave little reason to believe determinism is not true","c_root_id_A":"gydotni","c_root_id_B":"gyeyr8h","created_at_utc_A":1621206778,"created_at_utc_B":1621231823,"score_A":2,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"There is evidence within quantum theory which shows that the interactions between subatomic particles are not deterministic i.e. the same initial conditions will not always yield the same consequences. Because everything in the universe is made of these particles, it can be seen that if two separate timelines would occur simultaneously with the same initial conditions, they would inevitable diverge at some point in time. Hence, the universe is not deterministic.  You could say that the events leading to us discovering quantum theory and formulating it as such have happened in a deterministic manner, and hence the theory itself holds only if determinism is true, but this argument limits itself in the scope of human understanding. Quantum theory shows that the universe is non-deterministic regardless of whether we know it or not.","human_ref_B":"Because it undermines freedom as a political value.  Because we're scared of admitting that we influence each others in subtle ways, which makes social outcomes very predictable.  Because free will let us believe we are still in control of our lives. It's comforting.  The reality is that freedom is just about feeling free, and institutions not oppressing people, and it was never about people following their desires, being the master of their own lives and have entire responsibility. People were already having freedom of conscience before freedom was important.  We are just afraid of being manipulated, which is why we prefer freedom and dislike determinism. We put the soul and mind on a pedestal.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":25045.0,"score_ratio":2.0}
{"post_id":"ndwdxv","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.9,"history":"Why are people against determinism? As a compatibilistic determinist myself, I\u2019m wondering what valid arguments people actually use to deny this form of determinism. From my point of view, the evidence science has given us should leave little reason to believe determinism is not true","c_root_id_A":"gyeexm6","c_root_id_B":"gyeyr8h","created_at_utc_A":1621220028,"created_at_utc_B":1621231823,"score_A":3,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"Empirically, I would argue that strict physical determinism is about as close to disproven as it is possible to be.  ​  We know that quantum mechanics, for all intents and purposes, \\*acts\\* as though it is fundamentally indeterministic, and in fact can only be formulated in terms of probability functions. There are, of course, deterministic theories that are compatible with our observations of quantum mechanics, chief among them probably the Pilot Wave interpretation, but this theory involves positing a fifth nonlocal force which happens to precisely coordinate things so that for any observer, they \\*seem\\* indeterministic, while in actuality being completely determined. This view is held by a minority of physicists, and is seen by many, myself included, to be something that utterly breaks Occam's Razor for the sake of maintaining a preexisting philosophical commitment to determinism.  ​  It is very difficult to imagine any possible set of empirical results, no matter how seemingly indeterministic, in which something akin to the pilot wave interpretation, which is trivially deterministic while providing absolutely no explanatory or predictive value, could not be posited. In other words, there is no set of empirical observations that could actually, once and for all, \\*disprove\\* determinism, to someone who was really really committed to believing in it. That being said, the empirical observations we do have at hand seem to be about as close to that as it is possible to be. The very \\*definitions\\* of position and momentum of any system cease to be mathematically meaningful if we specify that both are known at the same time. Indeterminism is baked into the very core of our most successful theories of the world, in a way that is very, very difficult to get out.  ​  So, in a word, people disbelieve in determinism because current empirical evidence points as far away from determinism as it is possible to point.  ​  This is not just some wacky woo postulation either; I have a Masters in physics. Although, anecdotally, if I did believe in determinism, I would also be a compatibilist. Arguably, I still am one, as I don't think the fact that our actions are indeterministic is necessarily relevant to the fact that they are free. So maybe I'm an indeterministic compatibilist? I'm not sure haha. The point is, I think physical determinism, at least, is almost certainly false, because the available empirical evidence points overwhelmingly in that direction.","human_ref_B":"Because it undermines freedom as a political value.  Because we're scared of admitting that we influence each others in subtle ways, which makes social outcomes very predictable.  Because free will let us believe we are still in control of our lives. It's comforting.  The reality is that freedom is just about feeling free, and institutions not oppressing people, and it was never about people following their desires, being the master of their own lives and have entire responsibility. People were already having freedom of conscience before freedom was important.  We are just afraid of being manipulated, which is why we prefer freedom and dislike determinism. We put the soul and mind on a pedestal.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":11795.0,"score_ratio":1.3333333333}
{"post_id":"ndwdxv","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.9,"history":"Why are people against determinism? As a compatibilistic determinist myself, I\u2019m wondering what valid arguments people actually use to deny this form of determinism. From my point of view, the evidence science has given us should leave little reason to believe determinism is not true","c_root_id_A":"gyfuuwv","c_root_id_B":"gydotni","created_at_utc_A":1621256482,"created_at_utc_B":1621206778,"score_A":5,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":">Why are people against determinism?  Who? If you're talking about philosophers, you're mistaken. It seems very unpopular to \"be against determinism\". If you're talking about observations you've made about laypeople, this isn't a question for philosophers. This seems to be a common misunderstanding around here. With some minor caveats, one can say that questions along the lines of \"Why do people think X?\", \"Why do so many people say X, despite..\", aren't the type of questions that contemporary philosophers tend to investigate, even if X is related to philosophy. It's more in the realm of the social sciences these days.  Also, as a piece of advice, when you're asking questions where a lot of weight is carried by a specific phrase like \"the evidence science has given us\" it's always better to explicitly name (some) such evidence, instead of leaving unspoken what seems absolutely central to what you inquire about. This makes your question clearer, more specific, and avoids talking past each other. That's only general advice though, for reasons mentioned in my first paragraph, I don't think there's much to say here.  It's not my intention or job to police anyone here, but I'm honestly wondering why\/on what grounds so many people always answer this kind of question here...What I said above might be unpopular in the eyes of people asking (or wondering about) the question --naturally they want answers-- but is it really idiosyncratic? Just seems to reinforce what I think is a misunderstanding.     edit: spelling","human_ref_B":"There is evidence within quantum theory which shows that the interactions between subatomic particles are not deterministic i.e. the same initial conditions will not always yield the same consequences. Because everything in the universe is made of these particles, it can be seen that if two separate timelines would occur simultaneously with the same initial conditions, they would inevitable diverge at some point in time. Hence, the universe is not deterministic.  You could say that the events leading to us discovering quantum theory and formulating it as such have happened in a deterministic manner, and hence the theory itself holds only if determinism is true, but this argument limits itself in the scope of human understanding. Quantum theory shows that the universe is non-deterministic regardless of whether we know it or not.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":49704.0,"score_ratio":2.5}
{"post_id":"ndwdxv","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.9,"history":"Why are people against determinism? As a compatibilistic determinist myself, I\u2019m wondering what valid arguments people actually use to deny this form of determinism. From my point of view, the evidence science has given us should leave little reason to believe determinism is not true","c_root_id_A":"gyfuuwv","c_root_id_B":"gyeexm6","created_at_utc_A":1621256482,"created_at_utc_B":1621220028,"score_A":5,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":">Why are people against determinism?  Who? If you're talking about philosophers, you're mistaken. It seems very unpopular to \"be against determinism\". If you're talking about observations you've made about laypeople, this isn't a question for philosophers. This seems to be a common misunderstanding around here. With some minor caveats, one can say that questions along the lines of \"Why do people think X?\", \"Why do so many people say X, despite..\", aren't the type of questions that contemporary philosophers tend to investigate, even if X is related to philosophy. It's more in the realm of the social sciences these days.  Also, as a piece of advice, when you're asking questions where a lot of weight is carried by a specific phrase like \"the evidence science has given us\" it's always better to explicitly name (some) such evidence, instead of leaving unspoken what seems absolutely central to what you inquire about. This makes your question clearer, more specific, and avoids talking past each other. That's only general advice though, for reasons mentioned in my first paragraph, I don't think there's much to say here.  It's not my intention or job to police anyone here, but I'm honestly wondering why\/on what grounds so many people always answer this kind of question here...What I said above might be unpopular in the eyes of people asking (or wondering about) the question --naturally they want answers-- but is it really idiosyncratic? Just seems to reinforce what I think is a misunderstanding.     edit: spelling","human_ref_B":"Empirically, I would argue that strict physical determinism is about as close to disproven as it is possible to be.  ​  We know that quantum mechanics, for all intents and purposes, \\*acts\\* as though it is fundamentally indeterministic, and in fact can only be formulated in terms of probability functions. There are, of course, deterministic theories that are compatible with our observations of quantum mechanics, chief among them probably the Pilot Wave interpretation, but this theory involves positing a fifth nonlocal force which happens to precisely coordinate things so that for any observer, they \\*seem\\* indeterministic, while in actuality being completely determined. This view is held by a minority of physicists, and is seen by many, myself included, to be something that utterly breaks Occam's Razor for the sake of maintaining a preexisting philosophical commitment to determinism.  ​  It is very difficult to imagine any possible set of empirical results, no matter how seemingly indeterministic, in which something akin to the pilot wave interpretation, which is trivially deterministic while providing absolutely no explanatory or predictive value, could not be posited. In other words, there is no set of empirical observations that could actually, once and for all, \\*disprove\\* determinism, to someone who was really really committed to believing in it. That being said, the empirical observations we do have at hand seem to be about as close to that as it is possible to be. The very \\*definitions\\* of position and momentum of any system cease to be mathematically meaningful if we specify that both are known at the same time. Indeterminism is baked into the very core of our most successful theories of the world, in a way that is very, very difficult to get out.  ​  So, in a word, people disbelieve in determinism because current empirical evidence points as far away from determinism as it is possible to point.  ​  This is not just some wacky woo postulation either; I have a Masters in physics. Although, anecdotally, if I did believe in determinism, I would also be a compatibilist. Arguably, I still am one, as I don't think the fact that our actions are indeterministic is necessarily relevant to the fact that they are free. So maybe I'm an indeterministic compatibilist? I'm not sure haha. The point is, I think physical determinism, at least, is almost certainly false, because the available empirical evidence points overwhelmingly in that direction.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":36454.0,"score_ratio":1.6666666667}
{"post_id":"ndwdxv","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.9,"history":"Why are people against determinism? As a compatibilistic determinist myself, I\u2019m wondering what valid arguments people actually use to deny this form of determinism. From my point of view, the evidence science has given us should leave little reason to believe determinism is not true","c_root_id_A":"gyfuuwv","c_root_id_B":"gyf1wp4","created_at_utc_A":1621256482,"created_at_utc_B":1621234232,"score_A":5,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":">Why are people against determinism?  Who? If you're talking about philosophers, you're mistaken. It seems very unpopular to \"be against determinism\". If you're talking about observations you've made about laypeople, this isn't a question for philosophers. This seems to be a common misunderstanding around here. With some minor caveats, one can say that questions along the lines of \"Why do people think X?\", \"Why do so many people say X, despite..\", aren't the type of questions that contemporary philosophers tend to investigate, even if X is related to philosophy. It's more in the realm of the social sciences these days.  Also, as a piece of advice, when you're asking questions where a lot of weight is carried by a specific phrase like \"the evidence science has given us\" it's always better to explicitly name (some) such evidence, instead of leaving unspoken what seems absolutely central to what you inquire about. This makes your question clearer, more specific, and avoids talking past each other. That's only general advice though, for reasons mentioned in my first paragraph, I don't think there's much to say here.  It's not my intention or job to police anyone here, but I'm honestly wondering why\/on what grounds so many people always answer this kind of question here...What I said above might be unpopular in the eyes of people asking (or wondering about) the question --naturally they want answers-- but is it really idiosyncratic? Just seems to reinforce what I think is a misunderstanding.     edit: spelling","human_ref_B":"Compatibilism is the most popular position on free will in philosophy","labels":1,"seconds_difference":22250.0,"score_ratio":1.6666666667}
{"post_id":"ndwdxv","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.9,"history":"Why are people against determinism? As a compatibilistic determinist myself, I\u2019m wondering what valid arguments people actually use to deny this form of determinism. From my point of view, the evidence science has given us should leave little reason to believe determinism is not true","c_root_id_A":"gyeexm6","c_root_id_B":"gydotni","created_at_utc_A":1621220028,"created_at_utc_B":1621206778,"score_A":3,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"Empirically, I would argue that strict physical determinism is about as close to disproven as it is possible to be.  ​  We know that quantum mechanics, for all intents and purposes, \\*acts\\* as though it is fundamentally indeterministic, and in fact can only be formulated in terms of probability functions. There are, of course, deterministic theories that are compatible with our observations of quantum mechanics, chief among them probably the Pilot Wave interpretation, but this theory involves positing a fifth nonlocal force which happens to precisely coordinate things so that for any observer, they \\*seem\\* indeterministic, while in actuality being completely determined. This view is held by a minority of physicists, and is seen by many, myself included, to be something that utterly breaks Occam's Razor for the sake of maintaining a preexisting philosophical commitment to determinism.  ​  It is very difficult to imagine any possible set of empirical results, no matter how seemingly indeterministic, in which something akin to the pilot wave interpretation, which is trivially deterministic while providing absolutely no explanatory or predictive value, could not be posited. In other words, there is no set of empirical observations that could actually, once and for all, \\*disprove\\* determinism, to someone who was really really committed to believing in it. That being said, the empirical observations we do have at hand seem to be about as close to that as it is possible to be. The very \\*definitions\\* of position and momentum of any system cease to be mathematically meaningful if we specify that both are known at the same time. Indeterminism is baked into the very core of our most successful theories of the world, in a way that is very, very difficult to get out.  ​  So, in a word, people disbelieve in determinism because current empirical evidence points as far away from determinism as it is possible to point.  ​  This is not just some wacky woo postulation either; I have a Masters in physics. Although, anecdotally, if I did believe in determinism, I would also be a compatibilist. Arguably, I still am one, as I don't think the fact that our actions are indeterministic is necessarily relevant to the fact that they are free. So maybe I'm an indeterministic compatibilist? I'm not sure haha. The point is, I think physical determinism, at least, is almost certainly false, because the available empirical evidence points overwhelmingly in that direction.","human_ref_B":"There is evidence within quantum theory which shows that the interactions between subatomic particles are not deterministic i.e. the same initial conditions will not always yield the same consequences. Because everything in the universe is made of these particles, it can be seen that if two separate timelines would occur simultaneously with the same initial conditions, they would inevitable diverge at some point in time. Hence, the universe is not deterministic.  You could say that the events leading to us discovering quantum theory and formulating it as such have happened in a deterministic manner, and hence the theory itself holds only if determinism is true, but this argument limits itself in the scope of human understanding. Quantum theory shows that the universe is non-deterministic regardless of whether we know it or not.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":13250.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
{"post_id":"ndwdxv","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.9,"history":"Why are people against determinism? As a compatibilistic determinist myself, I\u2019m wondering what valid arguments people actually use to deny this form of determinism. From my point of view, the evidence science has given us should leave little reason to believe determinism is not true","c_root_id_A":"gyf1wp4","c_root_id_B":"gydotni","created_at_utc_A":1621234232,"created_at_utc_B":1621206778,"score_A":3,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"Compatibilism is the most popular position on free will in philosophy","human_ref_B":"There is evidence within quantum theory which shows that the interactions between subatomic particles are not deterministic i.e. the same initial conditions will not always yield the same consequences. Because everything in the universe is made of these particles, it can be seen that if two separate timelines would occur simultaneously with the same initial conditions, they would inevitable diverge at some point in time. Hence, the universe is not deterministic.  You could say that the events leading to us discovering quantum theory and formulating it as such have happened in a deterministic manner, and hence the theory itself holds only if determinism is true, but this argument limits itself in the scope of human understanding. Quantum theory shows that the universe is non-deterministic regardless of whether we know it or not.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":27454.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
{"post_id":"ndwdxv","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.9,"history":"Why are people against determinism? As a compatibilistic determinist myself, I\u2019m wondering what valid arguments people actually use to deny this form of determinism. From my point of view, the evidence science has given us should leave little reason to believe determinism is not true","c_root_id_A":"gyg49qw","c_root_id_B":"gydotni","created_at_utc_A":1621261070,"created_at_utc_B":1621206778,"score_A":3,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"My main issue with determinism is its reliance on causation as a fundamental predicate of its function. There is no evidence for cause and effect as having any material reality, it only appears that way through perception. Truly speaking, we can only experience reality phenomenologically, and any attempt to describe that experience as necessitated because of prior events is fundamentally drawing away from the fact that experience cannot be quantified. I much prefer fatalism as a theory in free will over determinism, despite the fact that this is unpopular. At least fatalism basically says that future events are outside of our control, which for all intents and purposes is completely true. You can't bring about a future event with necessity, it can only manifest via probability.","human_ref_B":"There is evidence within quantum theory which shows that the interactions between subatomic particles are not deterministic i.e. the same initial conditions will not always yield the same consequences. Because everything in the universe is made of these particles, it can be seen that if two separate timelines would occur simultaneously with the same initial conditions, they would inevitable diverge at some point in time. Hence, the universe is not deterministic.  You could say that the events leading to us discovering quantum theory and formulating it as such have happened in a deterministic manner, and hence the theory itself holds only if determinism is true, but this argument limits itself in the scope of human understanding. Quantum theory shows that the universe is non-deterministic regardless of whether we know it or not.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":54292.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
{"post_id":"lqjyar","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.95,"history":"Is believing in god without any arguments rational? People I know who believe in god don't even know arguments for the existence of god yet they are beliving in god. And I am sure most of christian\/muslim\/jews don't read contemporary philosphy of religion so it seems like for most of people faith doesn't work with arguments. Can they be rational?","c_root_id_A":"goiikx4","c_root_id_B":"goifnbb","created_at_utc_A":1614118106,"created_at_utc_B":1614116756,"score_A":10,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"William James and philosophers building off him have argued so, usually long these lines:  1. Belief in God is, to use James's term, a Forced Belief. This means that you can either choose to act as if God is real, or act as if she isn't. Agnosticism may be intellectually valid, but in practice an agnostic still acts as if God doesn't exist.  2. Belief in God is still an open question. That is, it has not (and perhaps can not) be conclusively proven that God does or does not exist. In other words, neither Theism nor Atheism are fundamentally irrational or disproven.  3. When these two facts, that belief in God is both a Forced Belief and an Open Question, are taken into account, it is reasonable to believe in God for pragmatic, personal, or other arational reasons.   Other people, such as Wittgensteinians and Kierkegaard-influenced philosophers, have put their own twists on this, but James' pragmatic approach is likely the most influential to arational arguments for Theism.","human_ref_B":"Believing in God without any rational arguments shifts the claim's foundations from reason to revelation. At this point it becomes quite contentious because philosophy and theology have conflicting fundamental values when it comes to beliefs and truth.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1350.0,"score_ratio":3.3333333333}
{"post_id":"pa04ro","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.92,"history":"Undergrad who failed some philosophy courses due to depression, other grades merely okayish but really passionate in philosophy and want to spend my life in research and to do a PhD. Do I have a shot? How should I achieve my goal?","c_root_id_A":"ha17blb","c_root_id_B":"ha1aruw","created_at_utc_A":1629727240,"created_at_utc_B":1629728804,"score_A":68,"score_B":130,"human_ref_A":"I would encourage you to read some of these things to get a little more background:  https:\/\/www.reddit.com\/r\/askphilosophy\/wiki\/gradschoolapps  https:\/\/bluebook.life\/2021\/08\/07\/the-typical-us-college-professor-makes-3556-per-course\/  In short, graduate school is very competitive, drop out rates in PhD programs are very high, and the job marked in academia is rather poor-- poor in a way that makes it a bad bet to think you will get a job in academia. So, it might be worth really thinking about 1) exactly what is your background in philosophy, 2) what do you think getting a PhD involves, 3) how do you view the job market in academic philosophy, and 4) if you have realistic idea about these above things, what attracts to a pursuing a career in academic philosophy?","human_ref_B":"Ah, struggling in undergrad due to depression but still wanting to pursue a PhD in Philosophy to truly master the art of depression. I admire your grit and tenacity.  On a more serious note, getting a PhD in Philosophy and doing philosophy as a career is not as... fun as many might think. I think it's worth really investigating this path before committing to it.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1564.0,"score_ratio":1.9117647059}
{"post_id":"pa04ro","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.92,"history":"Undergrad who failed some philosophy courses due to depression, other grades merely okayish but really passionate in philosophy and want to spend my life in research and to do a PhD. Do I have a shot? How should I achieve my goal?","c_root_id_A":"ha17fv9","c_root_id_B":"ha1aruw","created_at_utc_A":1629727296,"created_at_utc_B":1629728804,"score_A":28,"score_B":130,"human_ref_A":"Doing a Masters is the obvious way. But the obvious problem with the obvious way is money, depending on what country you are in.","human_ref_B":"Ah, struggling in undergrad due to depression but still wanting to pursue a PhD in Philosophy to truly master the art of depression. I admire your grit and tenacity.  On a more serious note, getting a PhD in Philosophy and doing philosophy as a career is not as... fun as many might think. I think it's worth really investigating this path before committing to it.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1508.0,"score_ratio":4.6428571429}
{"post_id":"pa04ro","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.92,"history":"Undergrad who failed some philosophy courses due to depression, other grades merely okayish but really passionate in philosophy and want to spend my life in research and to do a PhD. Do I have a shot? How should I achieve my goal?","c_root_id_A":"ha1els6","c_root_id_B":"ha17fv9","created_at_utc_A":1629730467,"created_at_utc_B":1629727296,"score_A":29,"score_B":28,"human_ref_A":"Others have said it. Very tough to get a gig doing academic philosophy even if you're top of your class. My advice: Find a good, preferably unionized job doing anything else. Steady income, reliable schedule. Don't bring work home with you. Study philosophy in your free time. It will allow for more flexibility anyway. Academic philosophy will force you to hyperspecialize, bend to market forces (if you really want an academic job), etc. Do you want to research to learn and discover and contribute to philosophy? You can do that. Some formal training helps but you don't need a PhD. Read a lot. Write. Submit to publications. Collaborate with people you find online. Some might look down on you for not being an \"academic\" but fuck them. $100k in student loans to adjunct teach for $25k a year, overworked as hell, desperate for a professorship somewhere, anywhere...not exactly the \"status\" they pretend it is.","human_ref_B":"Doing a Masters is the obvious way. But the obvious problem with the obvious way is money, depending on what country you are in.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":3171.0,"score_ratio":1.0357142857}
{"post_id":"pa04ro","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.92,"history":"Undergrad who failed some philosophy courses due to depression, other grades merely okayish but really passionate in philosophy and want to spend my life in research and to do a PhD. Do I have a shot? How should I achieve my goal?","c_root_id_A":"ha1fcyz","c_root_id_B":"ha291tf","created_at_utc_A":1629730790,"created_at_utc_B":1629743030,"score_A":3,"score_B":14,"human_ref_A":"Is your undergraduate degree completed, or do you still have more coursework to complete?  If your undergraduate degree is complete, I imagine you'll need to do a Master's (and do well in that program).  \"Merely okayish\" grades probably means that you don't have a strong piece of writing to turn into a writing sample, and that you also don't have professors who will be able to write you strong letters.  Maybe I'm wrong about these things, but you haven't given us a lot of information.  If you are not done your degree, then you want to get A and A+ grades in your remaining courses, develop good relationships with professors, and write an essay that you can turn into a writing sample.  Basically the same things you would want to do anyway.    As an undergraduate, I practically failed a couple philosophy courses (in my area, no less) because personal issues interfered with my ability to actually complete the coursework.  My other grades were A's, though, so my transcript was the weird D out of place in a sea of A's.  And so when my circumstances changed and I had grown more resilient, I had straight A+'s by the end of my degree, no trouble getting strong letters from professors (who I trusted to speak sensitively about the issues I had dealt with), etc.","human_ref_B":"Is there a way? Yes, absolutely. Should you take it? Probably not, especially if your mental health issues aren't resolved.  Literally, the last year was one of the worst for mental health in grad students. And the past few years have shown a crisis in grad student mental health. Most everyone's mental health gets worse in grad school these days, and your physical health will decline too as you move from your 20s into your 30s. So, consider these facts very carefully before embarking on grad school.  The other commenters are right. You should look into MAs first. See if the academic game is something you even want to play. If you're in the United States, I recommend looking specifically at Colorado State, Georgia State, Miami University (Ohio), Texas State, University of Houston, University of Missouri--St. Louis, and University of Wisconsin Milwaukee. Those programs are well-regarded, have track records of placing students into PhD programs, and will pay you $10-15k per year to do TA work while in the program. The MA only lasts two years, so it's not a huge commitment. And it doesn't look weird if you leave academia after an MA. The PhD is 5 years (but more likely 6 or 7), and it will feel like giving up on a dream if you get the PhD and have to leave academia (again, the mental health thing).  Best of luck, OP. But take care of your health foremost. You can always study more philosophy. You cannot get years of your life back if they make you miserable.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":12240.0,"score_ratio":4.6666666667}
{"post_id":"pa04ro","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.92,"history":"Undergrad who failed some philosophy courses due to depression, other grades merely okayish but really passionate in philosophy and want to spend my life in research and to do a PhD. Do I have a shot? How should I achieve my goal?","c_root_id_A":"ha291tf","c_root_id_B":"ha27aor","created_at_utc_A":1629743030,"created_at_utc_B":1629742309,"score_A":14,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"Is there a way? Yes, absolutely. Should you take it? Probably not, especially if your mental health issues aren't resolved.  Literally, the last year was one of the worst for mental health in grad students. And the past few years have shown a crisis in grad student mental health. Most everyone's mental health gets worse in grad school these days, and your physical health will decline too as you move from your 20s into your 30s. So, consider these facts very carefully before embarking on grad school.  The other commenters are right. You should look into MAs first. See if the academic game is something you even want to play. If you're in the United States, I recommend looking specifically at Colorado State, Georgia State, Miami University (Ohio), Texas State, University of Houston, University of Missouri--St. Louis, and University of Wisconsin Milwaukee. Those programs are well-regarded, have track records of placing students into PhD programs, and will pay you $10-15k per year to do TA work while in the program. The MA only lasts two years, so it's not a huge commitment. And it doesn't look weird if you leave academia after an MA. The PhD is 5 years (but more likely 6 or 7), and it will feel like giving up on a dream if you get the PhD and have to leave academia (again, the mental health thing).  Best of luck, OP. But take care of your health foremost. You can always study more philosophy. You cannot get years of your life back if they make you miserable.","human_ref_B":"This post resonates with me. I had similar health problems in my undergrad until relatively recently which is a long ongoing struggle. Took a 4 year BA with B+ to A average without the generalized talent for philosophy (reading commitment, writing stamina, clear and robust analytic thinking) but a definite personality bent towards philosophical thinking. I got a Bachelor of Education degree and working as an unfulfilled elementary public teacher. This summer, I\u2019ve healed to a point where my interest in philosophy finally matches a clarity of thinking (after a lot developmental trauma was shed, TMI) and I am reading philosophy again this summer to my heart\u2019s content. Considering going back to upgrade my Phil BA for Honours and then what do you all recommend? I don\u2019t have the talent and don\u2019t want to risk putting my young family into relative but perhaps long term poverty by quitting my job and trying my hand at the MA, PhD route. My tentative plan is to keep reading philosophy on the side and if I can get a sabbatical 1 year leave from my teaching job, is to get a Masters depending on how the Honours courses go.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":721.0,"score_ratio":3.5}
{"post_id":"pa04ro","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.92,"history":"Undergrad who failed some philosophy courses due to depression, other grades merely okayish but really passionate in philosophy and want to spend my life in research and to do a PhD. Do I have a shot? How should I achieve my goal?","c_root_id_A":"ha2o336","c_root_id_B":"ha2dm7d","created_at_utc_A":1629749199,"created_at_utc_B":1629744914,"score_A":9,"score_B":8,"human_ref_A":"bruh   take a break from academia and go do something else for one or two years. pick up a hobby, get good at a sport, move to a new city, get a decent job and *then* reassess. *why* do you want this? why is it *so important* for you to toss yourself into the meatgrinder? you just *need* to see your name on a published paper?   look at me: I have zero formal training in philosophy and I don't intend to stick around in academia in my current field either. and yet, I get to read all the papers and monographs I want and I find that I can hold my own pretty well with professionals. isn't that enough?   you're passionate, I believe that, but there are many other ways that are *vastly* more conducive to your happiness than the academic meatgrinder. you might think that academia is the logical way to develop your passion, but have you considered that maybe university might *kill it?*  ---  Anyway, if you *really* want to do it, I suppose applying to lots of masters programs and getting into one would be the first step.","human_ref_B":"All of the salient points have already been made, but I just want to reiterate how difficult it is to achieve an academic career even for those who *have* aced all of their courses. As I replied to someone else recently: *To do it, you need: (1) to be the absolute best of the best (are you getting like 95%? on all your assignments? Have you won awards? Scholarships?), (2) Be connected to the right academics, (3) Be willing to probably relocate to another country, (4) Have pretty good money saved up or given to you by family, (5) Be super lucky (imagine rolling a 20-sided dice. You must get exactly 20 or you won't get a teaching position, even if you did everything else right).*  It is also worth reiterating that taking a PhD in philosophy can be a very hazardous decision for your mental health, both during your studies and after you finish. Take note of the statistics posted further down in another response. Personally, my post-PhD life - and the recognition that my PhD in philosophy is actually worse than useless - is a low point in my mental health I doubt I will ever recover from. I don't want to sound melodramatic, but I'm on a path of unemployment, disappointment and depression that will eventually finish in suicide. I always respond to these sorts of posts because I don't want anyone else to finish up the same way.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":4285.0,"score_ratio":1.125}
{"post_id":"pa04ro","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.92,"history":"Undergrad who failed some philosophy courses due to depression, other grades merely okayish but really passionate in philosophy and want to spend my life in research and to do a PhD. Do I have a shot? How should I achieve my goal?","c_root_id_A":"ha2o336","c_root_id_B":"ha1fcyz","created_at_utc_A":1629749199,"created_at_utc_B":1629730790,"score_A":9,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"bruh   take a break from academia and go do something else for one or two years. pick up a hobby, get good at a sport, move to a new city, get a decent job and *then* reassess. *why* do you want this? why is it *so important* for you to toss yourself into the meatgrinder? you just *need* to see your name on a published paper?   look at me: I have zero formal training in philosophy and I don't intend to stick around in academia in my current field either. and yet, I get to read all the papers and monographs I want and I find that I can hold my own pretty well with professionals. isn't that enough?   you're passionate, I believe that, but there are many other ways that are *vastly* more conducive to your happiness than the academic meatgrinder. you might think that academia is the logical way to develop your passion, but have you considered that maybe university might *kill it?*  ---  Anyway, if you *really* want to do it, I suppose applying to lots of masters programs and getting into one would be the first step.","human_ref_B":"Is your undergraduate degree completed, or do you still have more coursework to complete?  If your undergraduate degree is complete, I imagine you'll need to do a Master's (and do well in that program).  \"Merely okayish\" grades probably means that you don't have a strong piece of writing to turn into a writing sample, and that you also don't have professors who will be able to write you strong letters.  Maybe I'm wrong about these things, but you haven't given us a lot of information.  If you are not done your degree, then you want to get A and A+ grades in your remaining courses, develop good relationships with professors, and write an essay that you can turn into a writing sample.  Basically the same things you would want to do anyway.    As an undergraduate, I practically failed a couple philosophy courses (in my area, no less) because personal issues interfered with my ability to actually complete the coursework.  My other grades were A's, though, so my transcript was the weird D out of place in a sea of A's.  And so when my circumstances changed and I had grown more resilient, I had straight A+'s by the end of my degree, no trouble getting strong letters from professors (who I trusted to speak sensitively about the issues I had dealt with), etc.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":18409.0,"score_ratio":3.0}
{"post_id":"pa04ro","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.92,"history":"Undergrad who failed some philosophy courses due to depression, other grades merely okayish but really passionate in philosophy and want to spend my life in research and to do a PhD. Do I have a shot? How should I achieve my goal?","c_root_id_A":"ha27aor","c_root_id_B":"ha2o336","created_at_utc_A":1629742309,"created_at_utc_B":1629749199,"score_A":4,"score_B":9,"human_ref_A":"This post resonates with me. I had similar health problems in my undergrad until relatively recently which is a long ongoing struggle. Took a 4 year BA with B+ to A average without the generalized talent for philosophy (reading commitment, writing stamina, clear and robust analytic thinking) but a definite personality bent towards philosophical thinking. I got a Bachelor of Education degree and working as an unfulfilled elementary public teacher. This summer, I\u2019ve healed to a point where my interest in philosophy finally matches a clarity of thinking (after a lot developmental trauma was shed, TMI) and I am reading philosophy again this summer to my heart\u2019s content. Considering going back to upgrade my Phil BA for Honours and then what do you all recommend? I don\u2019t have the talent and don\u2019t want to risk putting my young family into relative but perhaps long term poverty by quitting my job and trying my hand at the MA, PhD route. My tentative plan is to keep reading philosophy on the side and if I can get a sabbatical 1 year leave from my teaching job, is to get a Masters depending on how the Honours courses go.","human_ref_B":"bruh   take a break from academia and go do something else for one or two years. pick up a hobby, get good at a sport, move to a new city, get a decent job and *then* reassess. *why* do you want this? why is it *so important* for you to toss yourself into the meatgrinder? you just *need* to see your name on a published paper?   look at me: I have zero formal training in philosophy and I don't intend to stick around in academia in my current field either. and yet, I get to read all the papers and monographs I want and I find that I can hold my own pretty well with professionals. isn't that enough?   you're passionate, I believe that, but there are many other ways that are *vastly* more conducive to your happiness than the academic meatgrinder. you might think that academia is the logical way to develop your passion, but have you considered that maybe university might *kill it?*  ---  Anyway, if you *really* want to do it, I suppose applying to lots of masters programs and getting into one would be the first step.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":6890.0,"score_ratio":2.25}
{"post_id":"pa04ro","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.92,"history":"Undergrad who failed some philosophy courses due to depression, other grades merely okayish but really passionate in philosophy and want to spend my life in research and to do a PhD. Do I have a shot? How should I achieve my goal?","c_root_id_A":"ha1fcyz","c_root_id_B":"ha2dm7d","created_at_utc_A":1629730790,"created_at_utc_B":1629744914,"score_A":3,"score_B":8,"human_ref_A":"Is your undergraduate degree completed, or do you still have more coursework to complete?  If your undergraduate degree is complete, I imagine you'll need to do a Master's (and do well in that program).  \"Merely okayish\" grades probably means that you don't have a strong piece of writing to turn into a writing sample, and that you also don't have professors who will be able to write you strong letters.  Maybe I'm wrong about these things, but you haven't given us a lot of information.  If you are not done your degree, then you want to get A and A+ grades in your remaining courses, develop good relationships with professors, and write an essay that you can turn into a writing sample.  Basically the same things you would want to do anyway.    As an undergraduate, I practically failed a couple philosophy courses (in my area, no less) because personal issues interfered with my ability to actually complete the coursework.  My other grades were A's, though, so my transcript was the weird D out of place in a sea of A's.  And so when my circumstances changed and I had grown more resilient, I had straight A+'s by the end of my degree, no trouble getting strong letters from professors (who I trusted to speak sensitively about the issues I had dealt with), etc.","human_ref_B":"All of the salient points have already been made, but I just want to reiterate how difficult it is to achieve an academic career even for those who *have* aced all of their courses. As I replied to someone else recently: *To do it, you need: (1) to be the absolute best of the best (are you getting like 95%? on all your assignments? Have you won awards? Scholarships?), (2) Be connected to the right academics, (3) Be willing to probably relocate to another country, (4) Have pretty good money saved up or given to you by family, (5) Be super lucky (imagine rolling a 20-sided dice. You must get exactly 20 or you won't get a teaching position, even if you did everything else right).*  It is also worth reiterating that taking a PhD in philosophy can be a very hazardous decision for your mental health, both during your studies and after you finish. Take note of the statistics posted further down in another response. Personally, my post-PhD life - and the recognition that my PhD in philosophy is actually worse than useless - is a low point in my mental health I doubt I will ever recover from. I don't want to sound melodramatic, but I'm on a path of unemployment, disappointment and depression that will eventually finish in suicide. I always respond to these sorts of posts because I don't want anyone else to finish up the same way.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":14124.0,"score_ratio":2.6666666667}
{"post_id":"pa04ro","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.92,"history":"Undergrad who failed some philosophy courses due to depression, other grades merely okayish but really passionate in philosophy and want to spend my life in research and to do a PhD. Do I have a shot? How should I achieve my goal?","c_root_id_A":"ha2dm7d","c_root_id_B":"ha27aor","created_at_utc_A":1629744914,"created_at_utc_B":1629742309,"score_A":8,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"All of the salient points have already been made, but I just want to reiterate how difficult it is to achieve an academic career even for those who *have* aced all of their courses. As I replied to someone else recently: *To do it, you need: (1) to be the absolute best of the best (are you getting like 95%? on all your assignments? Have you won awards? Scholarships?), (2) Be connected to the right academics, (3) Be willing to probably relocate to another country, (4) Have pretty good money saved up or given to you by family, (5) Be super lucky (imagine rolling a 20-sided dice. You must get exactly 20 or you won't get a teaching position, even if you did everything else right).*  It is also worth reiterating that taking a PhD in philosophy can be a very hazardous decision for your mental health, both during your studies and after you finish. Take note of the statistics posted further down in another response. Personally, my post-PhD life - and the recognition that my PhD in philosophy is actually worse than useless - is a low point in my mental health I doubt I will ever recover from. I don't want to sound melodramatic, but I'm on a path of unemployment, disappointment and depression that will eventually finish in suicide. I always respond to these sorts of posts because I don't want anyone else to finish up the same way.","human_ref_B":"This post resonates with me. I had similar health problems in my undergrad until relatively recently which is a long ongoing struggle. Took a 4 year BA with B+ to A average without the generalized talent for philosophy (reading commitment, writing stamina, clear and robust analytic thinking) but a definite personality bent towards philosophical thinking. I got a Bachelor of Education degree and working as an unfulfilled elementary public teacher. This summer, I\u2019ve healed to a point where my interest in philosophy finally matches a clarity of thinking (after a lot developmental trauma was shed, TMI) and I am reading philosophy again this summer to my heart\u2019s content. Considering going back to upgrade my Phil BA for Honours and then what do you all recommend? I don\u2019t have the talent and don\u2019t want to risk putting my young family into relative but perhaps long term poverty by quitting my job and trying my hand at the MA, PhD route. My tentative plan is to keep reading philosophy on the side and if I can get a sabbatical 1 year leave from my teaching job, is to get a Masters depending on how the Honours courses go.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":2605.0,"score_ratio":2.0}
{"post_id":"pa04ro","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.92,"history":"Undergrad who failed some philosophy courses due to depression, other grades merely okayish but really passionate in philosophy and want to spend my life in research and to do a PhD. Do I have a shot? How should I achieve my goal?","c_root_id_A":"ha1fcyz","c_root_id_B":"ha2qg03","created_at_utc_A":1629730790,"created_at_utc_B":1629750152,"score_A":3,"score_B":7,"human_ref_A":"Is your undergraduate degree completed, or do you still have more coursework to complete?  If your undergraduate degree is complete, I imagine you'll need to do a Master's (and do well in that program).  \"Merely okayish\" grades probably means that you don't have a strong piece of writing to turn into a writing sample, and that you also don't have professors who will be able to write you strong letters.  Maybe I'm wrong about these things, but you haven't given us a lot of information.  If you are not done your degree, then you want to get A and A+ grades in your remaining courses, develop good relationships with professors, and write an essay that you can turn into a writing sample.  Basically the same things you would want to do anyway.    As an undergraduate, I practically failed a couple philosophy courses (in my area, no less) because personal issues interfered with my ability to actually complete the coursework.  My other grades were A's, though, so my transcript was the weird D out of place in a sea of A's.  And so when my circumstances changed and I had grown more resilient, I had straight A+'s by the end of my degree, no trouble getting strong letters from professors (who I trusted to speak sensitively about the issues I had dealt with), etc.","human_ref_B":"I can also tell all you out there that as someone who did nothing but read critical theory and understand what the fuck is going on with society, I am also currently being seemingly somewhat succesful doing 3D graphic stuff. I think for the type like here anything that is kind of on a border between technical-artistic, or technical-intellectual is good. E.g. architecture is pretty top example, my friend is an architect, and thats what is kind of in \"honest, stable job\" territory, but also ofc a great artistic and philosophical field. Then second example law of course, if you can find the fun in it.   I would also emphasize to everybody that leveling up into the $30\/hr middle class can also mean for you to still live low maintenance but with only 2days of work a week. Then you can just do anything you think worth doing, like art, or saving the planet from capitalism.   Architecture, law, trades, business, 3D art, its all available and it all has deep philosophy inside it. And if you are the type to browse this subreddit you should be talented enough for most things. Its really just biting the bullet and going through those 2-4 years of education, which to me at this point, really seem like almost a consciously established hazing ritual. Then you get those 30 bucks an hour. Thats really all the best I can say to that topic.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":19362.0,"score_ratio":2.3333333333}
{"post_id":"pa04ro","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.92,"history":"Undergrad who failed some philosophy courses due to depression, other grades merely okayish but really passionate in philosophy and want to spend my life in research and to do a PhD. Do I have a shot? How should I achieve my goal?","c_root_id_A":"ha2qg03","c_root_id_B":"ha27aor","created_at_utc_A":1629750152,"created_at_utc_B":1629742309,"score_A":7,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"I can also tell all you out there that as someone who did nothing but read critical theory and understand what the fuck is going on with society, I am also currently being seemingly somewhat succesful doing 3D graphic stuff. I think for the type like here anything that is kind of on a border between technical-artistic, or technical-intellectual is good. E.g. architecture is pretty top example, my friend is an architect, and thats what is kind of in \"honest, stable job\" territory, but also ofc a great artistic and philosophical field. Then second example law of course, if you can find the fun in it.   I would also emphasize to everybody that leveling up into the $30\/hr middle class can also mean for you to still live low maintenance but with only 2days of work a week. Then you can just do anything you think worth doing, like art, or saving the planet from capitalism.   Architecture, law, trades, business, 3D art, its all available and it all has deep philosophy inside it. And if you are the type to browse this subreddit you should be talented enough for most things. Its really just biting the bullet and going through those 2-4 years of education, which to me at this point, really seem like almost a consciously established hazing ritual. Then you get those 30 bucks an hour. Thats really all the best I can say to that topic.","human_ref_B":"This post resonates with me. I had similar health problems in my undergrad until relatively recently which is a long ongoing struggle. Took a 4 year BA with B+ to A average without the generalized talent for philosophy (reading commitment, writing stamina, clear and robust analytic thinking) but a definite personality bent towards philosophical thinking. I got a Bachelor of Education degree and working as an unfulfilled elementary public teacher. This summer, I\u2019ve healed to a point where my interest in philosophy finally matches a clarity of thinking (after a lot developmental trauma was shed, TMI) and I am reading philosophy again this summer to my heart\u2019s content. Considering going back to upgrade my Phil BA for Honours and then what do you all recommend? I don\u2019t have the talent and don\u2019t want to risk putting my young family into relative but perhaps long term poverty by quitting my job and trying my hand at the MA, PhD route. My tentative plan is to keep reading philosophy on the side and if I can get a sabbatical 1 year leave from my teaching job, is to get a Masters depending on how the Honours courses go.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":7843.0,"score_ratio":1.75}
{"post_id":"pa04ro","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.92,"history":"Undergrad who failed some philosophy courses due to depression, other grades merely okayish but really passionate in philosophy and want to spend my life in research and to do a PhD. Do I have a shot? How should I achieve my goal?","c_root_id_A":"ha1fcyz","c_root_id_B":"ha27aor","created_at_utc_A":1629730790,"created_at_utc_B":1629742309,"score_A":3,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"Is your undergraduate degree completed, or do you still have more coursework to complete?  If your undergraduate degree is complete, I imagine you'll need to do a Master's (and do well in that program).  \"Merely okayish\" grades probably means that you don't have a strong piece of writing to turn into a writing sample, and that you also don't have professors who will be able to write you strong letters.  Maybe I'm wrong about these things, but you haven't given us a lot of information.  If you are not done your degree, then you want to get A and A+ grades in your remaining courses, develop good relationships with professors, and write an essay that you can turn into a writing sample.  Basically the same things you would want to do anyway.    As an undergraduate, I practically failed a couple philosophy courses (in my area, no less) because personal issues interfered with my ability to actually complete the coursework.  My other grades were A's, though, so my transcript was the weird D out of place in a sea of A's.  And so when my circumstances changed and I had grown more resilient, I had straight A+'s by the end of my degree, no trouble getting strong letters from professors (who I trusted to speak sensitively about the issues I had dealt with), etc.","human_ref_B":"This post resonates with me. I had similar health problems in my undergrad until relatively recently which is a long ongoing struggle. Took a 4 year BA with B+ to A average without the generalized talent for philosophy (reading commitment, writing stamina, clear and robust analytic thinking) but a definite personality bent towards philosophical thinking. I got a Bachelor of Education degree and working as an unfulfilled elementary public teacher. This summer, I\u2019ve healed to a point where my interest in philosophy finally matches a clarity of thinking (after a lot developmental trauma was shed, TMI) and I am reading philosophy again this summer to my heart\u2019s content. Considering going back to upgrade my Phil BA for Honours and then what do you all recommend? I don\u2019t have the talent and don\u2019t want to risk putting my young family into relative but perhaps long term poverty by quitting my job and trying my hand at the MA, PhD route. My tentative plan is to keep reading philosophy on the side and if I can get a sabbatical 1 year leave from my teaching job, is to get a Masters depending on how the Honours courses go.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":11519.0,"score_ratio":1.3333333333}
{"post_id":"k24y9k","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.94,"history":"Karl Poppers critiques of Marx I\u2019ve seen someone say that if any Marxist read Karl Poppers critiques of Marx they would stop being Marxists. I\u2019ve only seen strawman critiques of Marx from most liberal thinkers. Could someone inform me on what Karl Poppers critiques of Marx are is there any merit to them?","c_root_id_A":"gdt84mu","c_root_id_B":"gdtav49","created_at_utc_A":1606518052,"created_at_utc_B":1606519619,"score_A":8,"score_B":12,"human_ref_A":"I copied and pasted a very summary of helpful references off a thread on the Marxists.org facebok page, in case you'd be interested and it might be helpful:  \"The Open Philosophy And The Open Society. A Reply To Dr. Karl Popper's Refutations of Marxism\" by Maurice Cornforth  Adornos contributions to the positivist dispute:  \"Positivist Dispute in German Sociology\" (https:\/\/www.amazon.com\/Positivist-Dispute-German-Sociology-English\/dp\/0435826565)  Eugene E. Ruyle wrote in his text, \"Mode of production and Mode of Exploitation: The Mechanical and the Dialectical\", that historical materialism, contrary to Popper's statement, is fully falsifiable.  150 Years of \"Capital\" and its Bourgeois Reviewers - GegenStandpunkt (https:\/\/libcom.org\/library\/150-years-capital-its-bourgeois-reviewers-gegenstandpunkt)  Proofs and Refutations, Imre Lakatos Falsification and the Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes, Imre Lakatos  Alex Callinicos - ??  Hilary Putnam, \"The 'Corroboration' of Theories,\" written in the early 1970s when Putnam was still a Marxist. http:\/\/jwood.faculty.unlv.edu\/unlv\/Articles\/PutnamVsPopper.pdf  Helena Sheehan\u2019s Marxism & the Philosophy of Science. Also there\u2019s a chapter directly dealing with it in Dialectical Biologist by Richard Lewontin and Richard Levins  Roy Bhaskar\u2019s A Realist Theory of Science has a deep criticism of the \u201corthodox philosophy of science\u201d. His main source were the Grundrisse","human_ref_B":"Popper's take was that in order to be a science, something needs to make verifiable predictions. He praises the outstanding predictions of Einstein's relativity, as it related to a solar eclipse that had happened recently.  He criticizes Marx, Freud, and Adler in this excerpt from my Philosophy of Science class. He really hated how the people of his time attributed great credibility to the ideas of these men for their apparent explanatory power, but were impossible to refute. (Much like saying 'God did it.')  https:\/\/joelvelasco.net\/teaching\/3330\/popper-conjectures\\_ch1.pdf  ​  \"It was during the summer of 1919 that I began to feel more and more dissatisfied with these three theories - the Marxist theory of history, psychoanalysis, and individual psychology; and I began to feel dubious about their claims to scientific status. My problem perhaps first took the simple form, \"What is wrong with Marxism, psychoanalysis, and individual psychology? Why are they so different from physical theories, from Newton's theory, and especially from the theory of relativity?\"  ​  I'm going to get on a soap box for a second. I see several comments dismissing Popper out of hand because \"they aren't taken seriously\". You should be engaging with the source material directly. You should read what Popper has to say, and think about it. Then you should look for what someone says about Popper, and read that. If you loved cinema, you would watch movies. You wouldn't scroll through RottenTomatoes.com.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1567.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
{"post_id":"l4c71z","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.76,"history":"Can someone explain to me why Plato's work isn't terrible? To elaborate on the title,  I understand that Plato was vital to the development of philosophy, and that he has incredible historical significance. I think that through a historical lens, all of the praise that Plato recieves is justified\u2014he was ahead of his time. That being said, I'm completely dumbfounded as to why people would ever, ever recommend Plato for the actual content of his writings, devoid of their historical context.  This is an exerpt from Republic, Book I, starting from 333e:  *Socrates: \"Then, my friend, justice cannot be a thing of much worth if it is useful only for things out of use and useless. But let us consider this point. Is not the man who is most skilful to strike or inflict a blow in a fight, whether as a boxer or elsewhere, also the most wary to guard against a blow?\u201d*   *Polemarchus: \u201cAssuredly.\u201d*   *Socrates: \u201cIs it not also true that he who best knows how to guard against disease is also most cunning to communicate it and escape detection?\u201d*  *Polemarchus: \u201cI think so.\u201d*   *Socrates: \u201cBut again the very same man is a good guardian of an army who is good at stealing a march upon the enemy in respect of their designs and proceedings generally.\u201d*  *Polemarchus: \u201cCertainly.\u201d*   *Socrates: \u201cOf whatsoever, then, anyone is a skilful guardian, of that he is also a skilful thief?\u201d*   *Polemarchus: \u201cIt seems so.\u201d*   *Socrates: \u201cIf then the just man is an expert in guarding money he is an expert in stealing it.\u201d*   *Polemarchus: \u201cThe argument certainly points that way.\u201d*  This point is later ended by the following dialogue:  *Socrates: So justice, according to you and Homer and Simonides, seems to be a kind of stealing, with the qualification that it is for the benefit of friends and the harm of enemies. Isn't that what you meant?\u201d*   *Polemarchus: \u201cNo, by Zeus,\u201d he replied. \u201cI no longer know what I did mean.\"*  Do I really need to point out how lazy and absurd this conclusion is? The relationship between a skill and an inverse skill just doesn't apply to moral values or personality traits\u2014\"justness\" is not a profession. The most introverted person is not also the best at being extraverted. The most charitable grandmother is not the best at being selfish, etc.  I don't want to harp on too long about this particular exerpt, but I think it does a good job of encapsulating the formula of the arguments in Plato's work\u2014Socrates draws shifty comparisons to prove or disprove a point, they often go completely unchallenged by the braindead strawmen that he's arguing with, and at the end they're left speechless.   There are obviously good bits here and there, but the overwhelming majority of Plato's works read  like some fantasy he had in the shower of what he *wished* would've said in an argument he had a couple of years ago and can't stop thinking about for some reason. Am I just crazy here?","c_root_id_A":"gknxjev","c_root_id_B":"gknxvj6","created_at_utc_A":1611541423,"created_at_utc_B":1611541590,"score_A":15,"score_B":101,"human_ref_A":"I agree that the passage you cited might not be Plato's \"gem,\" but it's hard to respond to \"the formula of the arguments in Plato's work\u2014Socrates draws shifty comparisons to prove or disprove a point, they often go completely unchallenged by the braindead strawmen that he's arguing with, and at the end they're left speechless\" if I don't know what dialogues you're talking about outside of the Republic. For example, Socrates lays out some pretty complicated arguments about various aspects of the soul in the *Phaedo*, some of what he says about perception is certainly useful to philosophers studying problems of the structure of the mind and representation today-it's not just of historical interest, it's a way into philosophical problems. I also personally find *some* of Socrates' more absurd remarks and arguments entertaining; another reason their absurdity fascinates me is because of the mundane historical distance they reveal between us and these texts-something that may have not been so odd to people in the ancient Academy is entirely strange to the modern reader-I think it is an exciting and specific kind of literary experience. Moreover, Socrates was recognized as a quite eccentric character in his own time, and its pretty clear Plato is touching on that in some instances (in the *Theaetetus* Socrates makes a long-winded digression about how philosophical dialectic is quite like being stripped naked and dragged into wrestling practice when one is shy to remove their clothes-the others characters make some remarks which display they were fairly puzzled by the intentions of the statement). I can't make you like Plato but I encourage you to check out some more of his works if you've only read parts of the Republic! There are certainly some topics which are no less than esoteric or mystical-poetic (or just trivial) and might not be entirely relevant to the rational thinker of our own time but other texts are so rich in philosophical insight you could hardly have an exhaustive discussion on them unless you spent a few weeks dissecting them and proposing various interpretations-no joke!!","human_ref_B":"You're going to find bullshit arguments in practically every great work of philosophy. Have you seen Descartes' proof for the existence of God in the third meditation? Gosh, what a letdown. How about when German idealists suddenly take terms like \"unity\" or \"synthesis\" out of nowhere and premises like \"Now intellect is a unity in itself\".   There's always grains of bad philosophy in the best works. Trust everyone -- it's still worthy to read. Try the *Parmenides* or *Theaeatetus* if you're feeling like *Republic* is not enough","labels":0,"seconds_difference":167.0,"score_ratio":6.7333333333}
{"post_id":"l4c71z","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.76,"history":"Can someone explain to me why Plato's work isn't terrible? To elaborate on the title,  I understand that Plato was vital to the development of philosophy, and that he has incredible historical significance. I think that through a historical lens, all of the praise that Plato recieves is justified\u2014he was ahead of his time. That being said, I'm completely dumbfounded as to why people would ever, ever recommend Plato for the actual content of his writings, devoid of their historical context.  This is an exerpt from Republic, Book I, starting from 333e:  *Socrates: \"Then, my friend, justice cannot be a thing of much worth if it is useful only for things out of use and useless. But let us consider this point. Is not the man who is most skilful to strike or inflict a blow in a fight, whether as a boxer or elsewhere, also the most wary to guard against a blow?\u201d*   *Polemarchus: \u201cAssuredly.\u201d*   *Socrates: \u201cIs it not also true that he who best knows how to guard against disease is also most cunning to communicate it and escape detection?\u201d*  *Polemarchus: \u201cI think so.\u201d*   *Socrates: \u201cBut again the very same man is a good guardian of an army who is good at stealing a march upon the enemy in respect of their designs and proceedings generally.\u201d*  *Polemarchus: \u201cCertainly.\u201d*   *Socrates: \u201cOf whatsoever, then, anyone is a skilful guardian, of that he is also a skilful thief?\u201d*   *Polemarchus: \u201cIt seems so.\u201d*   *Socrates: \u201cIf then the just man is an expert in guarding money he is an expert in stealing it.\u201d*   *Polemarchus: \u201cThe argument certainly points that way.\u201d*  This point is later ended by the following dialogue:  *Socrates: So justice, according to you and Homer and Simonides, seems to be a kind of stealing, with the qualification that it is for the benefit of friends and the harm of enemies. Isn't that what you meant?\u201d*   *Polemarchus: \u201cNo, by Zeus,\u201d he replied. \u201cI no longer know what I did mean.\"*  Do I really need to point out how lazy and absurd this conclusion is? The relationship between a skill and an inverse skill just doesn't apply to moral values or personality traits\u2014\"justness\" is not a profession. The most introverted person is not also the best at being extraverted. The most charitable grandmother is not the best at being selfish, etc.  I don't want to harp on too long about this particular exerpt, but I think it does a good job of encapsulating the formula of the arguments in Plato's work\u2014Socrates draws shifty comparisons to prove or disprove a point, they often go completely unchallenged by the braindead strawmen that he's arguing with, and at the end they're left speechless.   There are obviously good bits here and there, but the overwhelming majority of Plato's works read  like some fantasy he had in the shower of what he *wished* would've said in an argument he had a couple of years ago and can't stop thinking about for some reason. Am I just crazy here?","c_root_id_A":"gknxjev","c_root_id_B":"gko3x9i","created_at_utc_A":1611541423,"created_at_utc_B":1611544679,"score_A":15,"score_B":78,"human_ref_A":"I agree that the passage you cited might not be Plato's \"gem,\" but it's hard to respond to \"the formula of the arguments in Plato's work\u2014Socrates draws shifty comparisons to prove or disprove a point, they often go completely unchallenged by the braindead strawmen that he's arguing with, and at the end they're left speechless\" if I don't know what dialogues you're talking about outside of the Republic. For example, Socrates lays out some pretty complicated arguments about various aspects of the soul in the *Phaedo*, some of what he says about perception is certainly useful to philosophers studying problems of the structure of the mind and representation today-it's not just of historical interest, it's a way into philosophical problems. I also personally find *some* of Socrates' more absurd remarks and arguments entertaining; another reason their absurdity fascinates me is because of the mundane historical distance they reveal between us and these texts-something that may have not been so odd to people in the ancient Academy is entirely strange to the modern reader-I think it is an exciting and specific kind of literary experience. Moreover, Socrates was recognized as a quite eccentric character in his own time, and its pretty clear Plato is touching on that in some instances (in the *Theaetetus* Socrates makes a long-winded digression about how philosophical dialectic is quite like being stripped naked and dragged into wrestling practice when one is shy to remove their clothes-the others characters make some remarks which display they were fairly puzzled by the intentions of the statement). I can't make you like Plato but I encourage you to check out some more of his works if you've only read parts of the Republic! There are certainly some topics which are no less than esoteric or mystical-poetic (or just trivial) and might not be entirely relevant to the rational thinker of our own time but other texts are so rich in philosophical insight you could hardly have an exhaustive discussion on them unless you spent a few weeks dissecting them and proposing various interpretations-no joke!!","human_ref_B":">Do I really need to point out how lazy and absurd this conclusion is? The relationship between a skill and an inverse skill just doesn't apply to moral values or personality traits\u2014\"justness\" is not a profession.  Is that the point Socrates is making? After all, he doesn't appear to accept the conclusion of this argument: he doesn't think that justice is a kind of stealing. Isn't he, rather, drawing out some absurd conclusions from Polemarchus' premise that being just is a matter of being clever in a certain way?","labels":0,"seconds_difference":3256.0,"score_ratio":5.2}
{"post_id":"l4c71z","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.76,"history":"Can someone explain to me why Plato's work isn't terrible? To elaborate on the title,  I understand that Plato was vital to the development of philosophy, and that he has incredible historical significance. I think that through a historical lens, all of the praise that Plato recieves is justified\u2014he was ahead of his time. That being said, I'm completely dumbfounded as to why people would ever, ever recommend Plato for the actual content of his writings, devoid of their historical context.  This is an exerpt from Republic, Book I, starting from 333e:  *Socrates: \"Then, my friend, justice cannot be a thing of much worth if it is useful only for things out of use and useless. But let us consider this point. Is not the man who is most skilful to strike or inflict a blow in a fight, whether as a boxer or elsewhere, also the most wary to guard against a blow?\u201d*   *Polemarchus: \u201cAssuredly.\u201d*   *Socrates: \u201cIs it not also true that he who best knows how to guard against disease is also most cunning to communicate it and escape detection?\u201d*  *Polemarchus: \u201cI think so.\u201d*   *Socrates: \u201cBut again the very same man is a good guardian of an army who is good at stealing a march upon the enemy in respect of their designs and proceedings generally.\u201d*  *Polemarchus: \u201cCertainly.\u201d*   *Socrates: \u201cOf whatsoever, then, anyone is a skilful guardian, of that he is also a skilful thief?\u201d*   *Polemarchus: \u201cIt seems so.\u201d*   *Socrates: \u201cIf then the just man is an expert in guarding money he is an expert in stealing it.\u201d*   *Polemarchus: \u201cThe argument certainly points that way.\u201d*  This point is later ended by the following dialogue:  *Socrates: So justice, according to you and Homer and Simonides, seems to be a kind of stealing, with the qualification that it is for the benefit of friends and the harm of enemies. Isn't that what you meant?\u201d*   *Polemarchus: \u201cNo, by Zeus,\u201d he replied. \u201cI no longer know what I did mean.\"*  Do I really need to point out how lazy and absurd this conclusion is? The relationship between a skill and an inverse skill just doesn't apply to moral values or personality traits\u2014\"justness\" is not a profession. The most introverted person is not also the best at being extraverted. The most charitable grandmother is not the best at being selfish, etc.  I don't want to harp on too long about this particular exerpt, but I think it does a good job of encapsulating the formula of the arguments in Plato's work\u2014Socrates draws shifty comparisons to prove or disprove a point, they often go completely unchallenged by the braindead strawmen that he's arguing with, and at the end they're left speechless.   There are obviously good bits here and there, but the overwhelming majority of Plato's works read  like some fantasy he had in the shower of what he *wished* would've said in an argument he had a couple of years ago and can't stop thinking about for some reason. Am I just crazy here?","c_root_id_A":"gko3x9i","c_root_id_B":"gko1bke","created_at_utc_A":1611544679,"created_at_utc_B":1611543335,"score_A":78,"score_B":10,"human_ref_A":">Do I really need to point out how lazy and absurd this conclusion is? The relationship between a skill and an inverse skill just doesn't apply to moral values or personality traits\u2014\"justness\" is not a profession.  Is that the point Socrates is making? After all, he doesn't appear to accept the conclusion of this argument: he doesn't think that justice is a kind of stealing. Isn't he, rather, drawing out some absurd conclusions from Polemarchus' premise that being just is a matter of being clever in a certain way?","human_ref_B":"the views of plato the author is not always the same as that of socrates the character\u2014many times plato will put in purposefully questionable arguments in the mouth of socrates to invite the reader to participate in the dialogue","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1344.0,"score_ratio":7.8}
{"post_id":"l4c71z","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.76,"history":"Can someone explain to me why Plato's work isn't terrible? To elaborate on the title,  I understand that Plato was vital to the development of philosophy, and that he has incredible historical significance. I think that through a historical lens, all of the praise that Plato recieves is justified\u2014he was ahead of his time. That being said, I'm completely dumbfounded as to why people would ever, ever recommend Plato for the actual content of his writings, devoid of their historical context.  This is an exerpt from Republic, Book I, starting from 333e:  *Socrates: \"Then, my friend, justice cannot be a thing of much worth if it is useful only for things out of use and useless. But let us consider this point. Is not the man who is most skilful to strike or inflict a blow in a fight, whether as a boxer or elsewhere, also the most wary to guard against a blow?\u201d*   *Polemarchus: \u201cAssuredly.\u201d*   *Socrates: \u201cIs it not also true that he who best knows how to guard against disease is also most cunning to communicate it and escape detection?\u201d*  *Polemarchus: \u201cI think so.\u201d*   *Socrates: \u201cBut again the very same man is a good guardian of an army who is good at stealing a march upon the enemy in respect of their designs and proceedings generally.\u201d*  *Polemarchus: \u201cCertainly.\u201d*   *Socrates: \u201cOf whatsoever, then, anyone is a skilful guardian, of that he is also a skilful thief?\u201d*   *Polemarchus: \u201cIt seems so.\u201d*   *Socrates: \u201cIf then the just man is an expert in guarding money he is an expert in stealing it.\u201d*   *Polemarchus: \u201cThe argument certainly points that way.\u201d*  This point is later ended by the following dialogue:  *Socrates: So justice, according to you and Homer and Simonides, seems to be a kind of stealing, with the qualification that it is for the benefit of friends and the harm of enemies. Isn't that what you meant?\u201d*   *Polemarchus: \u201cNo, by Zeus,\u201d he replied. \u201cI no longer know what I did mean.\"*  Do I really need to point out how lazy and absurd this conclusion is? The relationship between a skill and an inverse skill just doesn't apply to moral values or personality traits\u2014\"justness\" is not a profession. The most introverted person is not also the best at being extraverted. The most charitable grandmother is not the best at being selfish, etc.  I don't want to harp on too long about this particular exerpt, but I think it does a good job of encapsulating the formula of the arguments in Plato's work\u2014Socrates draws shifty comparisons to prove or disprove a point, they often go completely unchallenged by the braindead strawmen that he's arguing with, and at the end they're left speechless.   There are obviously good bits here and there, but the overwhelming majority of Plato's works read  like some fantasy he had in the shower of what he *wished* would've said in an argument he had a couple of years ago and can't stop thinking about for some reason. Am I just crazy here?","c_root_id_A":"gko3x9i","c_root_id_B":"gko1gu4","created_at_utc_A":1611544679,"created_at_utc_B":1611543409,"score_A":78,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":">Do I really need to point out how lazy and absurd this conclusion is? The relationship between a skill and an inverse skill just doesn't apply to moral values or personality traits\u2014\"justness\" is not a profession.  Is that the point Socrates is making? After all, he doesn't appear to accept the conclusion of this argument: he doesn't think that justice is a kind of stealing. Isn't he, rather, drawing out some absurd conclusions from Polemarchus' premise that being just is a matter of being clever in a certain way?","human_ref_B":"I really think Plato is misunderstood, in that the *contents* of his writings are not at all as important as what he's really trying to tell us.  I believe strongly that what Plato tries to do in his dialogues is teach us how to be philosophers \u2013 that is, how to *do* philosophy. Philosophy is an activity that we should all engage in within ourselves - we should think thoroughly about the world and be critical. He teaches us *how to think,* and how to think for ourselves, which I think is absolutely invaluable.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1270.0,"score_ratio":19.5}
{"post_id":"l4c71z","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.76,"history":"Can someone explain to me why Plato's work isn't terrible? To elaborate on the title,  I understand that Plato was vital to the development of philosophy, and that he has incredible historical significance. I think that through a historical lens, all of the praise that Plato recieves is justified\u2014he was ahead of his time. That being said, I'm completely dumbfounded as to why people would ever, ever recommend Plato for the actual content of his writings, devoid of their historical context.  This is an exerpt from Republic, Book I, starting from 333e:  *Socrates: \"Then, my friend, justice cannot be a thing of much worth if it is useful only for things out of use and useless. But let us consider this point. Is not the man who is most skilful to strike or inflict a blow in a fight, whether as a boxer or elsewhere, also the most wary to guard against a blow?\u201d*   *Polemarchus: \u201cAssuredly.\u201d*   *Socrates: \u201cIs it not also true that he who best knows how to guard against disease is also most cunning to communicate it and escape detection?\u201d*  *Polemarchus: \u201cI think so.\u201d*   *Socrates: \u201cBut again the very same man is a good guardian of an army who is good at stealing a march upon the enemy in respect of their designs and proceedings generally.\u201d*  *Polemarchus: \u201cCertainly.\u201d*   *Socrates: \u201cOf whatsoever, then, anyone is a skilful guardian, of that he is also a skilful thief?\u201d*   *Polemarchus: \u201cIt seems so.\u201d*   *Socrates: \u201cIf then the just man is an expert in guarding money he is an expert in stealing it.\u201d*   *Polemarchus: \u201cThe argument certainly points that way.\u201d*  This point is later ended by the following dialogue:  *Socrates: So justice, according to you and Homer and Simonides, seems to be a kind of stealing, with the qualification that it is for the benefit of friends and the harm of enemies. Isn't that what you meant?\u201d*   *Polemarchus: \u201cNo, by Zeus,\u201d he replied. \u201cI no longer know what I did mean.\"*  Do I really need to point out how lazy and absurd this conclusion is? The relationship between a skill and an inverse skill just doesn't apply to moral values or personality traits\u2014\"justness\" is not a profession. The most introverted person is not also the best at being extraverted. The most charitable grandmother is not the best at being selfish, etc.  I don't want to harp on too long about this particular exerpt, but I think it does a good job of encapsulating the formula of the arguments in Plato's work\u2014Socrates draws shifty comparisons to prove or disprove a point, they often go completely unchallenged by the braindead strawmen that he's arguing with, and at the end they're left speechless.   There are obviously good bits here and there, but the overwhelming majority of Plato's works read  like some fantasy he had in the shower of what he *wished* would've said in an argument he had a couple of years ago and can't stop thinking about for some reason. Am I just crazy here?","c_root_id_A":"gknxjev","c_root_id_B":"gkod114","created_at_utc_A":1611541423,"created_at_utc_B":1611550144,"score_A":15,"score_B":22,"human_ref_A":"I agree that the passage you cited might not be Plato's \"gem,\" but it's hard to respond to \"the formula of the arguments in Plato's work\u2014Socrates draws shifty comparisons to prove or disprove a point, they often go completely unchallenged by the braindead strawmen that he's arguing with, and at the end they're left speechless\" if I don't know what dialogues you're talking about outside of the Republic. For example, Socrates lays out some pretty complicated arguments about various aspects of the soul in the *Phaedo*, some of what he says about perception is certainly useful to philosophers studying problems of the structure of the mind and representation today-it's not just of historical interest, it's a way into philosophical problems. I also personally find *some* of Socrates' more absurd remarks and arguments entertaining; another reason their absurdity fascinates me is because of the mundane historical distance they reveal between us and these texts-something that may have not been so odd to people in the ancient Academy is entirely strange to the modern reader-I think it is an exciting and specific kind of literary experience. Moreover, Socrates was recognized as a quite eccentric character in his own time, and its pretty clear Plato is touching on that in some instances (in the *Theaetetus* Socrates makes a long-winded digression about how philosophical dialectic is quite like being stripped naked and dragged into wrestling practice when one is shy to remove their clothes-the others characters make some remarks which display they were fairly puzzled by the intentions of the statement). I can't make you like Plato but I encourage you to check out some more of his works if you've only read parts of the Republic! There are certainly some topics which are no less than esoteric or mystical-poetic (or just trivial) and might not be entirely relevant to the rational thinker of our own time but other texts are so rich in philosophical insight you could hardly have an exhaustive discussion on them unless you spent a few weeks dissecting them and proposing various interpretations-no joke!!","human_ref_B":"I'm not going to try and defend Plato.  He doesn't need me to defend him, and despite having read a lot of Plato, I'm not convinced I ever know what his argument is.  However, I am going to tell you why your post is weak, and that the reason Plato seems terrible is that you aren't reading Plato well.  When I was in grad school, the good students all had one main rule: you really had to understand someone before you started making complaints about why they were wrong.  Sometimes we followed it.  When we did, it was the right thing.  When we didn't, we were being jackasses.  And we've all been there.  Let's start with some issues with your reading.  One problem with your post is that you show no awareness that Plato writes in dialogic\/dramatic form. You've assumed Socrates' argument above is a literal argument Plato is making through Socrates.  I guess I can understand why uninformed readers might believe that, but there's way too much information out there on Plato these days to still believe you can read Plato like that.  A Platonic dialogue is written in a dramatic and dialogic form, and that's not an accident.  You can't understand the \"argument\" (if there is one to be had) without knowing the dramatic context and that arguments can only be fully understood in light of that context.  When you read fiction, do you pull conversations from random characters out of a novel, and assume they are speaking with the voice of the author?  No, of course not.  Not unless you are a very poor reader.  See the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy's entry on Plato for a sometimes cautious but useful discussion of Plato's indirectness and dramatic form.  So, you can't assume that Socrates is speaking for Plato.  Then what is the point?  How do I know what Plato is saying?  That's the interesting question.  To answer that, it takes a much more careful reading of the dialogue.  And it definitely takes more work.  Another issue with your post: you missed that this particular argument, which definitely seems shaky and not at all thorough, is important because the interlocutor doesn't know how to respond to it.  And that there was a dramatic purpose in the dialogue itself in which this argument was advanced within the context of a conversation with Polemarchus, Thrasymachus, Glaucon and Adeimantus, in the port city of Pireaus (and not in Athens), in the home of a non-Athenian, on the day that the first festival of Theban god is celebrated.  I would love to give an alternative reading of this passage that takes the context into account, but it's too late here, and if I don't respond now, I never will.  And, I'm a little shaky on this particular passage. I'd need to re-read this part of the Republic, which I can't do now. But I encourage you to go back and re-read the first few books of the Republic and do some secondary reading.  C. D. C. Reeve's \"The Philosopher Kings\" does some pretty good work of going through the early books of the Republic without skipping over details.  The alternative is to stubbornly insist you shouldn't need to do any of that to understand Plato. And, then, indeed, Plato will definitely seem terrible.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":8721.0,"score_ratio":1.4666666667}
{"post_id":"l4c71z","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.76,"history":"Can someone explain to me why Plato's work isn't terrible? To elaborate on the title,  I understand that Plato was vital to the development of philosophy, and that he has incredible historical significance. I think that through a historical lens, all of the praise that Plato recieves is justified\u2014he was ahead of his time. That being said, I'm completely dumbfounded as to why people would ever, ever recommend Plato for the actual content of his writings, devoid of their historical context.  This is an exerpt from Republic, Book I, starting from 333e:  *Socrates: \"Then, my friend, justice cannot be a thing of much worth if it is useful only for things out of use and useless. But let us consider this point. Is not the man who is most skilful to strike or inflict a blow in a fight, whether as a boxer or elsewhere, also the most wary to guard against a blow?\u201d*   *Polemarchus: \u201cAssuredly.\u201d*   *Socrates: \u201cIs it not also true that he who best knows how to guard against disease is also most cunning to communicate it and escape detection?\u201d*  *Polemarchus: \u201cI think so.\u201d*   *Socrates: \u201cBut again the very same man is a good guardian of an army who is good at stealing a march upon the enemy in respect of their designs and proceedings generally.\u201d*  *Polemarchus: \u201cCertainly.\u201d*   *Socrates: \u201cOf whatsoever, then, anyone is a skilful guardian, of that he is also a skilful thief?\u201d*   *Polemarchus: \u201cIt seems so.\u201d*   *Socrates: \u201cIf then the just man is an expert in guarding money he is an expert in stealing it.\u201d*   *Polemarchus: \u201cThe argument certainly points that way.\u201d*  This point is later ended by the following dialogue:  *Socrates: So justice, according to you and Homer and Simonides, seems to be a kind of stealing, with the qualification that it is for the benefit of friends and the harm of enemies. Isn't that what you meant?\u201d*   *Polemarchus: \u201cNo, by Zeus,\u201d he replied. \u201cI no longer know what I did mean.\"*  Do I really need to point out how lazy and absurd this conclusion is? The relationship between a skill and an inverse skill just doesn't apply to moral values or personality traits\u2014\"justness\" is not a profession. The most introverted person is not also the best at being extraverted. The most charitable grandmother is not the best at being selfish, etc.  I don't want to harp on too long about this particular exerpt, but I think it does a good job of encapsulating the formula of the arguments in Plato's work\u2014Socrates draws shifty comparisons to prove or disprove a point, they often go completely unchallenged by the braindead strawmen that he's arguing with, and at the end they're left speechless.   There are obviously good bits here and there, but the overwhelming majority of Plato's works read  like some fantasy he had in the shower of what he *wished* would've said in an argument he had a couple of years ago and can't stop thinking about for some reason. Am I just crazy here?","c_root_id_A":"gkod114","c_root_id_B":"gko1bke","created_at_utc_A":1611550144,"created_at_utc_B":1611543335,"score_A":22,"score_B":10,"human_ref_A":"I'm not going to try and defend Plato.  He doesn't need me to defend him, and despite having read a lot of Plato, I'm not convinced I ever know what his argument is.  However, I am going to tell you why your post is weak, and that the reason Plato seems terrible is that you aren't reading Plato well.  When I was in grad school, the good students all had one main rule: you really had to understand someone before you started making complaints about why they were wrong.  Sometimes we followed it.  When we did, it was the right thing.  When we didn't, we were being jackasses.  And we've all been there.  Let's start with some issues with your reading.  One problem with your post is that you show no awareness that Plato writes in dialogic\/dramatic form. You've assumed Socrates' argument above is a literal argument Plato is making through Socrates.  I guess I can understand why uninformed readers might believe that, but there's way too much information out there on Plato these days to still believe you can read Plato like that.  A Platonic dialogue is written in a dramatic and dialogic form, and that's not an accident.  You can't understand the \"argument\" (if there is one to be had) without knowing the dramatic context and that arguments can only be fully understood in light of that context.  When you read fiction, do you pull conversations from random characters out of a novel, and assume they are speaking with the voice of the author?  No, of course not.  Not unless you are a very poor reader.  See the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy's entry on Plato for a sometimes cautious but useful discussion of Plato's indirectness and dramatic form.  So, you can't assume that Socrates is speaking for Plato.  Then what is the point?  How do I know what Plato is saying?  That's the interesting question.  To answer that, it takes a much more careful reading of the dialogue.  And it definitely takes more work.  Another issue with your post: you missed that this particular argument, which definitely seems shaky and not at all thorough, is important because the interlocutor doesn't know how to respond to it.  And that there was a dramatic purpose in the dialogue itself in which this argument was advanced within the context of a conversation with Polemarchus, Thrasymachus, Glaucon and Adeimantus, in the port city of Pireaus (and not in Athens), in the home of a non-Athenian, on the day that the first festival of Theban god is celebrated.  I would love to give an alternative reading of this passage that takes the context into account, but it's too late here, and if I don't respond now, I never will.  And, I'm a little shaky on this particular passage. I'd need to re-read this part of the Republic, which I can't do now. But I encourage you to go back and re-read the first few books of the Republic and do some secondary reading.  C. D. C. Reeve's \"The Philosopher Kings\" does some pretty good work of going through the early books of the Republic without skipping over details.  The alternative is to stubbornly insist you shouldn't need to do any of that to understand Plato. And, then, indeed, Plato will definitely seem terrible.","human_ref_B":"the views of plato the author is not always the same as that of socrates the character\u2014many times plato will put in purposefully questionable arguments in the mouth of socrates to invite the reader to participate in the dialogue","labels":1,"seconds_difference":6809.0,"score_ratio":2.2}
{"post_id":"l4c71z","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.76,"history":"Can someone explain to me why Plato's work isn't terrible? To elaborate on the title,  I understand that Plato was vital to the development of philosophy, and that he has incredible historical significance. I think that through a historical lens, all of the praise that Plato recieves is justified\u2014he was ahead of his time. That being said, I'm completely dumbfounded as to why people would ever, ever recommend Plato for the actual content of his writings, devoid of their historical context.  This is an exerpt from Republic, Book I, starting from 333e:  *Socrates: \"Then, my friend, justice cannot be a thing of much worth if it is useful only for things out of use and useless. But let us consider this point. Is not the man who is most skilful to strike or inflict a blow in a fight, whether as a boxer or elsewhere, also the most wary to guard against a blow?\u201d*   *Polemarchus: \u201cAssuredly.\u201d*   *Socrates: \u201cIs it not also true that he who best knows how to guard against disease is also most cunning to communicate it and escape detection?\u201d*  *Polemarchus: \u201cI think so.\u201d*   *Socrates: \u201cBut again the very same man is a good guardian of an army who is good at stealing a march upon the enemy in respect of their designs and proceedings generally.\u201d*  *Polemarchus: \u201cCertainly.\u201d*   *Socrates: \u201cOf whatsoever, then, anyone is a skilful guardian, of that he is also a skilful thief?\u201d*   *Polemarchus: \u201cIt seems so.\u201d*   *Socrates: \u201cIf then the just man is an expert in guarding money he is an expert in stealing it.\u201d*   *Polemarchus: \u201cThe argument certainly points that way.\u201d*  This point is later ended by the following dialogue:  *Socrates: So justice, according to you and Homer and Simonides, seems to be a kind of stealing, with the qualification that it is for the benefit of friends and the harm of enemies. Isn't that what you meant?\u201d*   *Polemarchus: \u201cNo, by Zeus,\u201d he replied. \u201cI no longer know what I did mean.\"*  Do I really need to point out how lazy and absurd this conclusion is? The relationship between a skill and an inverse skill just doesn't apply to moral values or personality traits\u2014\"justness\" is not a profession. The most introverted person is not also the best at being extraverted. The most charitable grandmother is not the best at being selfish, etc.  I don't want to harp on too long about this particular exerpt, but I think it does a good job of encapsulating the formula of the arguments in Plato's work\u2014Socrates draws shifty comparisons to prove or disprove a point, they often go completely unchallenged by the braindead strawmen that he's arguing with, and at the end they're left speechless.   There are obviously good bits here and there, but the overwhelming majority of Plato's works read  like some fantasy he had in the shower of what he *wished* would've said in an argument he had a couple of years ago and can't stop thinking about for some reason. Am I just crazy here?","c_root_id_A":"gkod114","c_root_id_B":"gko57g8","created_at_utc_A":1611550144,"created_at_utc_B":1611545391,"score_A":22,"score_B":7,"human_ref_A":"I'm not going to try and defend Plato.  He doesn't need me to defend him, and despite having read a lot of Plato, I'm not convinced I ever know what his argument is.  However, I am going to tell you why your post is weak, and that the reason Plato seems terrible is that you aren't reading Plato well.  When I was in grad school, the good students all had one main rule: you really had to understand someone before you started making complaints about why they were wrong.  Sometimes we followed it.  When we did, it was the right thing.  When we didn't, we were being jackasses.  And we've all been there.  Let's start with some issues with your reading.  One problem with your post is that you show no awareness that Plato writes in dialogic\/dramatic form. You've assumed Socrates' argument above is a literal argument Plato is making through Socrates.  I guess I can understand why uninformed readers might believe that, but there's way too much information out there on Plato these days to still believe you can read Plato like that.  A Platonic dialogue is written in a dramatic and dialogic form, and that's not an accident.  You can't understand the \"argument\" (if there is one to be had) without knowing the dramatic context and that arguments can only be fully understood in light of that context.  When you read fiction, do you pull conversations from random characters out of a novel, and assume they are speaking with the voice of the author?  No, of course not.  Not unless you are a very poor reader.  See the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy's entry on Plato for a sometimes cautious but useful discussion of Plato's indirectness and dramatic form.  So, you can't assume that Socrates is speaking for Plato.  Then what is the point?  How do I know what Plato is saying?  That's the interesting question.  To answer that, it takes a much more careful reading of the dialogue.  And it definitely takes more work.  Another issue with your post: you missed that this particular argument, which definitely seems shaky and not at all thorough, is important because the interlocutor doesn't know how to respond to it.  And that there was a dramatic purpose in the dialogue itself in which this argument was advanced within the context of a conversation with Polemarchus, Thrasymachus, Glaucon and Adeimantus, in the port city of Pireaus (and not in Athens), in the home of a non-Athenian, on the day that the first festival of Theban god is celebrated.  I would love to give an alternative reading of this passage that takes the context into account, but it's too late here, and if I don't respond now, I never will.  And, I'm a little shaky on this particular passage. I'd need to re-read this part of the Republic, which I can't do now. But I encourage you to go back and re-read the first few books of the Republic and do some secondary reading.  C. D. C. Reeve's \"The Philosopher Kings\" does some pretty good work of going through the early books of the Republic without skipping over details.  The alternative is to stubbornly insist you shouldn't need to do any of that to understand Plato. And, then, indeed, Plato will definitely seem terrible.","human_ref_B":">The relationship between a skill and an inverse skill just doesn't apply to moral values or personality traits\u2014\"justness\" is not a profession.  This one is important to take in historical context. Caveat: I'm basing this answer off of what I read last night in *After Virtue* by Alasdair MacIntyre, so I don't know if this lines up with contemporary scholarship.   The conception of the self and morality in Ancient Greek times circa Homer was inextricably tied to social structure and social ties. An individual is who they are because of their place in society, be that as a father, son, soldier, aristocrat, etc. These social roles were fulfilled by a set of duties and behaviours that were largely predetermined.   To quote MacIntyre: \"*The key structures are those of kinship and of the household. In such a society a man knows who he is by knowing his role in these structures; and in knowing this he also knows what he owes and what is owed to him by the occupant of every other role and status*\".   In this Homeric society, moral action and the proper fulfilment of your social roles are one and the same. There is no understanding of morality divorced from existing social bonds. Justness in this context really *is* related to your profession - a great soldier might be considered just precisely because of the fulfilment of his social role. As such, actions for the \"*benefit of friends and the harm of enemies*\" would be considered just because such actions would demonstrate your excellence in a particular role that cannot be understood apart from your social bonds.   Now, we might find this to be unconvincing and argue against it, which is what Plato is attempting to do in that example you posted. With this context of Homeric social structure and morality in mind, Plato seems to be arguing that the sort of actions that may benefit your group and harm another, such as stealing, are in fact not just because morality exists seperately from the fulfiment of particular social roles.   That being said, the skill and inverse skill argument does seem quite lazy.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":4753.0,"score_ratio":3.1428571429}
{"post_id":"l4c71z","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.76,"history":"Can someone explain to me why Plato's work isn't terrible? To elaborate on the title,  I understand that Plato was vital to the development of philosophy, and that he has incredible historical significance. I think that through a historical lens, all of the praise that Plato recieves is justified\u2014he was ahead of his time. That being said, I'm completely dumbfounded as to why people would ever, ever recommend Plato for the actual content of his writings, devoid of their historical context.  This is an exerpt from Republic, Book I, starting from 333e:  *Socrates: \"Then, my friend, justice cannot be a thing of much worth if it is useful only for things out of use and useless. But let us consider this point. Is not the man who is most skilful to strike or inflict a blow in a fight, whether as a boxer or elsewhere, also the most wary to guard against a blow?\u201d*   *Polemarchus: \u201cAssuredly.\u201d*   *Socrates: \u201cIs it not also true that he who best knows how to guard against disease is also most cunning to communicate it and escape detection?\u201d*  *Polemarchus: \u201cI think so.\u201d*   *Socrates: \u201cBut again the very same man is a good guardian of an army who is good at stealing a march upon the enemy in respect of their designs and proceedings generally.\u201d*  *Polemarchus: \u201cCertainly.\u201d*   *Socrates: \u201cOf whatsoever, then, anyone is a skilful guardian, of that he is also a skilful thief?\u201d*   *Polemarchus: \u201cIt seems so.\u201d*   *Socrates: \u201cIf then the just man is an expert in guarding money he is an expert in stealing it.\u201d*   *Polemarchus: \u201cThe argument certainly points that way.\u201d*  This point is later ended by the following dialogue:  *Socrates: So justice, according to you and Homer and Simonides, seems to be a kind of stealing, with the qualification that it is for the benefit of friends and the harm of enemies. Isn't that what you meant?\u201d*   *Polemarchus: \u201cNo, by Zeus,\u201d he replied. \u201cI no longer know what I did mean.\"*  Do I really need to point out how lazy and absurd this conclusion is? The relationship between a skill and an inverse skill just doesn't apply to moral values or personality traits\u2014\"justness\" is not a profession. The most introverted person is not also the best at being extraverted. The most charitable grandmother is not the best at being selfish, etc.  I don't want to harp on too long about this particular exerpt, but I think it does a good job of encapsulating the formula of the arguments in Plato's work\u2014Socrates draws shifty comparisons to prove or disprove a point, they often go completely unchallenged by the braindead strawmen that he's arguing with, and at the end they're left speechless.   There are obviously good bits here and there, but the overwhelming majority of Plato's works read  like some fantasy he had in the shower of what he *wished* would've said in an argument he had a couple of years ago and can't stop thinking about for some reason. Am I just crazy here?","c_root_id_A":"gko1gu4","c_root_id_B":"gkod114","created_at_utc_A":1611543409,"created_at_utc_B":1611550144,"score_A":4,"score_B":22,"human_ref_A":"I really think Plato is misunderstood, in that the *contents* of his writings are not at all as important as what he's really trying to tell us.  I believe strongly that what Plato tries to do in his dialogues is teach us how to be philosophers \u2013 that is, how to *do* philosophy. Philosophy is an activity that we should all engage in within ourselves - we should think thoroughly about the world and be critical. He teaches us *how to think,* and how to think for ourselves, which I think is absolutely invaluable.","human_ref_B":"I'm not going to try and defend Plato.  He doesn't need me to defend him, and despite having read a lot of Plato, I'm not convinced I ever know what his argument is.  However, I am going to tell you why your post is weak, and that the reason Plato seems terrible is that you aren't reading Plato well.  When I was in grad school, the good students all had one main rule: you really had to understand someone before you started making complaints about why they were wrong.  Sometimes we followed it.  When we did, it was the right thing.  When we didn't, we were being jackasses.  And we've all been there.  Let's start with some issues with your reading.  One problem with your post is that you show no awareness that Plato writes in dialogic\/dramatic form. You've assumed Socrates' argument above is a literal argument Plato is making through Socrates.  I guess I can understand why uninformed readers might believe that, but there's way too much information out there on Plato these days to still believe you can read Plato like that.  A Platonic dialogue is written in a dramatic and dialogic form, and that's not an accident.  You can't understand the \"argument\" (if there is one to be had) without knowing the dramatic context and that arguments can only be fully understood in light of that context.  When you read fiction, do you pull conversations from random characters out of a novel, and assume they are speaking with the voice of the author?  No, of course not.  Not unless you are a very poor reader.  See the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy's entry on Plato for a sometimes cautious but useful discussion of Plato's indirectness and dramatic form.  So, you can't assume that Socrates is speaking for Plato.  Then what is the point?  How do I know what Plato is saying?  That's the interesting question.  To answer that, it takes a much more careful reading of the dialogue.  And it definitely takes more work.  Another issue with your post: you missed that this particular argument, which definitely seems shaky and not at all thorough, is important because the interlocutor doesn't know how to respond to it.  And that there was a dramatic purpose in the dialogue itself in which this argument was advanced within the context of a conversation with Polemarchus, Thrasymachus, Glaucon and Adeimantus, in the port city of Pireaus (and not in Athens), in the home of a non-Athenian, on the day that the first festival of Theban god is celebrated.  I would love to give an alternative reading of this passage that takes the context into account, but it's too late here, and if I don't respond now, I never will.  And, I'm a little shaky on this particular passage. I'd need to re-read this part of the Republic, which I can't do now. But I encourage you to go back and re-read the first few books of the Republic and do some secondary reading.  C. D. C. Reeve's \"The Philosopher Kings\" does some pretty good work of going through the early books of the Republic without skipping over details.  The alternative is to stubbornly insist you shouldn't need to do any of that to understand Plato. And, then, indeed, Plato will definitely seem terrible.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":6735.0,"score_ratio":5.5}
{"post_id":"l4c71z","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.76,"history":"Can someone explain to me why Plato's work isn't terrible? To elaborate on the title,  I understand that Plato was vital to the development of philosophy, and that he has incredible historical significance. I think that through a historical lens, all of the praise that Plato recieves is justified\u2014he was ahead of his time. That being said, I'm completely dumbfounded as to why people would ever, ever recommend Plato for the actual content of his writings, devoid of their historical context.  This is an exerpt from Republic, Book I, starting from 333e:  *Socrates: \"Then, my friend, justice cannot be a thing of much worth if it is useful only for things out of use and useless. But let us consider this point. Is not the man who is most skilful to strike or inflict a blow in a fight, whether as a boxer or elsewhere, also the most wary to guard against a blow?\u201d*   *Polemarchus: \u201cAssuredly.\u201d*   *Socrates: \u201cIs it not also true that he who best knows how to guard against disease is also most cunning to communicate it and escape detection?\u201d*  *Polemarchus: \u201cI think so.\u201d*   *Socrates: \u201cBut again the very same man is a good guardian of an army who is good at stealing a march upon the enemy in respect of their designs and proceedings generally.\u201d*  *Polemarchus: \u201cCertainly.\u201d*   *Socrates: \u201cOf whatsoever, then, anyone is a skilful guardian, of that he is also a skilful thief?\u201d*   *Polemarchus: \u201cIt seems so.\u201d*   *Socrates: \u201cIf then the just man is an expert in guarding money he is an expert in stealing it.\u201d*   *Polemarchus: \u201cThe argument certainly points that way.\u201d*  This point is later ended by the following dialogue:  *Socrates: So justice, according to you and Homer and Simonides, seems to be a kind of stealing, with the qualification that it is for the benefit of friends and the harm of enemies. Isn't that what you meant?\u201d*   *Polemarchus: \u201cNo, by Zeus,\u201d he replied. \u201cI no longer know what I did mean.\"*  Do I really need to point out how lazy and absurd this conclusion is? The relationship between a skill and an inverse skill just doesn't apply to moral values or personality traits\u2014\"justness\" is not a profession. The most introverted person is not also the best at being extraverted. The most charitable grandmother is not the best at being selfish, etc.  I don't want to harp on too long about this particular exerpt, but I think it does a good job of encapsulating the formula of the arguments in Plato's work\u2014Socrates draws shifty comparisons to prove or disprove a point, they often go completely unchallenged by the braindead strawmen that he's arguing with, and at the end they're left speechless.   There are obviously good bits here and there, but the overwhelming majority of Plato's works read  like some fantasy he had in the shower of what he *wished* would've said in an argument he had a couple of years ago and can't stop thinking about for some reason. Am I just crazy here?","c_root_id_A":"gko68dw","c_root_id_B":"gkod114","created_at_utc_A":1611545965,"created_at_utc_B":1611550144,"score_A":4,"score_B":22,"human_ref_A":"Plato is the first and last philosopher I have ever read that I let off the hook for strawmanning. The reason being that, in recorded history, so few people prior to his mentor were running around asking people what things really *mean*. Could you imagine having no concept of what something really is, and suddenly you have an apparently homeless fellow taunting your intelligence? I find it hilarious, but I also find it very easy to believe because people in 2021 can't give me a definition of \"good\" or \"justice\". It doesn't strike me as odd that prior to those two thousand years of effort, the best of responses were strawmen.","human_ref_B":"I'm not going to try and defend Plato.  He doesn't need me to defend him, and despite having read a lot of Plato, I'm not convinced I ever know what his argument is.  However, I am going to tell you why your post is weak, and that the reason Plato seems terrible is that you aren't reading Plato well.  When I was in grad school, the good students all had one main rule: you really had to understand someone before you started making complaints about why they were wrong.  Sometimes we followed it.  When we did, it was the right thing.  When we didn't, we were being jackasses.  And we've all been there.  Let's start with some issues with your reading.  One problem with your post is that you show no awareness that Plato writes in dialogic\/dramatic form. You've assumed Socrates' argument above is a literal argument Plato is making through Socrates.  I guess I can understand why uninformed readers might believe that, but there's way too much information out there on Plato these days to still believe you can read Plato like that.  A Platonic dialogue is written in a dramatic and dialogic form, and that's not an accident.  You can't understand the \"argument\" (if there is one to be had) without knowing the dramatic context and that arguments can only be fully understood in light of that context.  When you read fiction, do you pull conversations from random characters out of a novel, and assume they are speaking with the voice of the author?  No, of course not.  Not unless you are a very poor reader.  See the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy's entry on Plato for a sometimes cautious but useful discussion of Plato's indirectness and dramatic form.  So, you can't assume that Socrates is speaking for Plato.  Then what is the point?  How do I know what Plato is saying?  That's the interesting question.  To answer that, it takes a much more careful reading of the dialogue.  And it definitely takes more work.  Another issue with your post: you missed that this particular argument, which definitely seems shaky and not at all thorough, is important because the interlocutor doesn't know how to respond to it.  And that there was a dramatic purpose in the dialogue itself in which this argument was advanced within the context of a conversation with Polemarchus, Thrasymachus, Glaucon and Adeimantus, in the port city of Pireaus (and not in Athens), in the home of a non-Athenian, on the day that the first festival of Theban god is celebrated.  I would love to give an alternative reading of this passage that takes the context into account, but it's too late here, and if I don't respond now, I never will.  And, I'm a little shaky on this particular passage. I'd need to re-read this part of the Republic, which I can't do now. But I encourage you to go back and re-read the first few books of the Republic and do some secondary reading.  C. D. C. Reeve's \"The Philosopher Kings\" does some pretty good work of going through the early books of the Republic without skipping over details.  The alternative is to stubbornly insist you shouldn't need to do any of that to understand Plato. And, then, indeed, Plato will definitely seem terrible.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":4179.0,"score_ratio":5.5}
{"post_id":"l4c71z","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.76,"history":"Can someone explain to me why Plato's work isn't terrible? To elaborate on the title,  I understand that Plato was vital to the development of philosophy, and that he has incredible historical significance. I think that through a historical lens, all of the praise that Plato recieves is justified\u2014he was ahead of his time. That being said, I'm completely dumbfounded as to why people would ever, ever recommend Plato for the actual content of his writings, devoid of their historical context.  This is an exerpt from Republic, Book I, starting from 333e:  *Socrates: \"Then, my friend, justice cannot be a thing of much worth if it is useful only for things out of use and useless. But let us consider this point. Is not the man who is most skilful to strike or inflict a blow in a fight, whether as a boxer or elsewhere, also the most wary to guard against a blow?\u201d*   *Polemarchus: \u201cAssuredly.\u201d*   *Socrates: \u201cIs it not also true that he who best knows how to guard against disease is also most cunning to communicate it and escape detection?\u201d*  *Polemarchus: \u201cI think so.\u201d*   *Socrates: \u201cBut again the very same man is a good guardian of an army who is good at stealing a march upon the enemy in respect of their designs and proceedings generally.\u201d*  *Polemarchus: \u201cCertainly.\u201d*   *Socrates: \u201cOf whatsoever, then, anyone is a skilful guardian, of that he is also a skilful thief?\u201d*   *Polemarchus: \u201cIt seems so.\u201d*   *Socrates: \u201cIf then the just man is an expert in guarding money he is an expert in stealing it.\u201d*   *Polemarchus: \u201cThe argument certainly points that way.\u201d*  This point is later ended by the following dialogue:  *Socrates: So justice, according to you and Homer and Simonides, seems to be a kind of stealing, with the qualification that it is for the benefit of friends and the harm of enemies. Isn't that what you meant?\u201d*   *Polemarchus: \u201cNo, by Zeus,\u201d he replied. \u201cI no longer know what I did mean.\"*  Do I really need to point out how lazy and absurd this conclusion is? The relationship between a skill and an inverse skill just doesn't apply to moral values or personality traits\u2014\"justness\" is not a profession. The most introverted person is not also the best at being extraverted. The most charitable grandmother is not the best at being selfish, etc.  I don't want to harp on too long about this particular exerpt, but I think it does a good job of encapsulating the formula of the arguments in Plato's work\u2014Socrates draws shifty comparisons to prove or disprove a point, they often go completely unchallenged by the braindead strawmen that he's arguing with, and at the end they're left speechless.   There are obviously good bits here and there, but the overwhelming majority of Plato's works read  like some fantasy he had in the shower of what he *wished* would've said in an argument he had a couple of years ago and can't stop thinking about for some reason. Am I just crazy here?","c_root_id_A":"gkocz6l","c_root_id_B":"gkod114","created_at_utc_A":1611550111,"created_at_utc_B":1611550144,"score_A":3,"score_B":22,"human_ref_A":"I don't see how the excerpt is absurd.  If someone knows how a thing is to be guarded, certainly they also have quite extensive information on how it might be stolen.","human_ref_B":"I'm not going to try and defend Plato.  He doesn't need me to defend him, and despite having read a lot of Plato, I'm not convinced I ever know what his argument is.  However, I am going to tell you why your post is weak, and that the reason Plato seems terrible is that you aren't reading Plato well.  When I was in grad school, the good students all had one main rule: you really had to understand someone before you started making complaints about why they were wrong.  Sometimes we followed it.  When we did, it was the right thing.  When we didn't, we were being jackasses.  And we've all been there.  Let's start with some issues with your reading.  One problem with your post is that you show no awareness that Plato writes in dialogic\/dramatic form. You've assumed Socrates' argument above is a literal argument Plato is making through Socrates.  I guess I can understand why uninformed readers might believe that, but there's way too much information out there on Plato these days to still believe you can read Plato like that.  A Platonic dialogue is written in a dramatic and dialogic form, and that's not an accident.  You can't understand the \"argument\" (if there is one to be had) without knowing the dramatic context and that arguments can only be fully understood in light of that context.  When you read fiction, do you pull conversations from random characters out of a novel, and assume they are speaking with the voice of the author?  No, of course not.  Not unless you are a very poor reader.  See the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy's entry on Plato for a sometimes cautious but useful discussion of Plato's indirectness and dramatic form.  So, you can't assume that Socrates is speaking for Plato.  Then what is the point?  How do I know what Plato is saying?  That's the interesting question.  To answer that, it takes a much more careful reading of the dialogue.  And it definitely takes more work.  Another issue with your post: you missed that this particular argument, which definitely seems shaky and not at all thorough, is important because the interlocutor doesn't know how to respond to it.  And that there was a dramatic purpose in the dialogue itself in which this argument was advanced within the context of a conversation with Polemarchus, Thrasymachus, Glaucon and Adeimantus, in the port city of Pireaus (and not in Athens), in the home of a non-Athenian, on the day that the first festival of Theban god is celebrated.  I would love to give an alternative reading of this passage that takes the context into account, but it's too late here, and if I don't respond now, I never will.  And, I'm a little shaky on this particular passage. I'd need to re-read this part of the Republic, which I can't do now. But I encourage you to go back and re-read the first few books of the Republic and do some secondary reading.  C. D. C. Reeve's \"The Philosopher Kings\" does some pretty good work of going through the early books of the Republic without skipping over details.  The alternative is to stubbornly insist you shouldn't need to do any of that to understand Plato. And, then, indeed, Plato will definitely seem terrible.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":33.0,"score_ratio":7.3333333333}
{"post_id":"l4c71z","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.76,"history":"Can someone explain to me why Plato's work isn't terrible? To elaborate on the title,  I understand that Plato was vital to the development of philosophy, and that he has incredible historical significance. I think that through a historical lens, all of the praise that Plato recieves is justified\u2014he was ahead of his time. That being said, I'm completely dumbfounded as to why people would ever, ever recommend Plato for the actual content of his writings, devoid of their historical context.  This is an exerpt from Republic, Book I, starting from 333e:  *Socrates: \"Then, my friend, justice cannot be a thing of much worth if it is useful only for things out of use and useless. But let us consider this point. Is not the man who is most skilful to strike or inflict a blow in a fight, whether as a boxer or elsewhere, also the most wary to guard against a blow?\u201d*   *Polemarchus: \u201cAssuredly.\u201d*   *Socrates: \u201cIs it not also true that he who best knows how to guard against disease is also most cunning to communicate it and escape detection?\u201d*  *Polemarchus: \u201cI think so.\u201d*   *Socrates: \u201cBut again the very same man is a good guardian of an army who is good at stealing a march upon the enemy in respect of their designs and proceedings generally.\u201d*  *Polemarchus: \u201cCertainly.\u201d*   *Socrates: \u201cOf whatsoever, then, anyone is a skilful guardian, of that he is also a skilful thief?\u201d*   *Polemarchus: \u201cIt seems so.\u201d*   *Socrates: \u201cIf then the just man is an expert in guarding money he is an expert in stealing it.\u201d*   *Polemarchus: \u201cThe argument certainly points that way.\u201d*  This point is later ended by the following dialogue:  *Socrates: So justice, according to you and Homer and Simonides, seems to be a kind of stealing, with the qualification that it is for the benefit of friends and the harm of enemies. Isn't that what you meant?\u201d*   *Polemarchus: \u201cNo, by Zeus,\u201d he replied. \u201cI no longer know what I did mean.\"*  Do I really need to point out how lazy and absurd this conclusion is? The relationship between a skill and an inverse skill just doesn't apply to moral values or personality traits\u2014\"justness\" is not a profession. The most introverted person is not also the best at being extraverted. The most charitable grandmother is not the best at being selfish, etc.  I don't want to harp on too long about this particular exerpt, but I think it does a good job of encapsulating the formula of the arguments in Plato's work\u2014Socrates draws shifty comparisons to prove or disprove a point, they often go completely unchallenged by the braindead strawmen that he's arguing with, and at the end they're left speechless.   There are obviously good bits here and there, but the overwhelming majority of Plato's works read  like some fantasy he had in the shower of what he *wished* would've said in an argument he had a couple of years ago and can't stop thinking about for some reason. Am I just crazy here?","c_root_id_A":"gkogrfe","c_root_id_B":"gko1bke","created_at_utc_A":1611552761,"created_at_utc_B":1611543335,"score_A":13,"score_B":10,"human_ref_A":"I think this misunderstands what's happening in the dialogue and over-estimates the ease with which you can really upset Socrates' apple cart.  It's easy enough to say you've outdone Socrates when he's not around to answer your objections, after all.  One important feature of all the dialogues is that Socrates is not merely arguing with strawmen - he's arguing with and against views that are grounded in what people believed at that time about virtue.  The whole deal of *Republic* 1 is that Socrates is sorting out the views of Polemarchus and his dad, who derive their notion of justice from certain traditional Greek viewpoints, especially as they are grounded in things like Hesiod, Homer, and Simonedes.  What Socrates is doing here would be akin to someone walking up to an every day American and trying to work out the problems of the notion of \"rights\" using their own notions as derived from, say, the US Constitution.  What the nature of virtue is ends up being a serious issue throughout Plato's corpus, and it's not always easy to tell when Socrates is offering up something he believes himself or when he is just offering up what he thinks his interlocutors must believe, given how they talk about virtue.  All of this is to say that it's easy to think that Plato is just high fiving himself in a dark corner, he's actually doing a pretty useful de-\/re-construction of some views which are, in one way or another, taken seriously.  Even so, it's easy to over-estimate how dumb these arguments are, for instance, your response here seems to confuse what Socrates is doing rather than give a good beating to it:  > The relationship between a skill and an inverse skill just doesn't apply to moral values or personality traits\u2014\"justness\" is not a profession.   Socrates is not just talking about \"skills\" here, but, more specifically, a kind of practical knowledge which is more akin to something like a \"craft\" or an \"art.\"  That is, it's a kind of know-how which you can have and put to work.  Now, maybe you think that virtues are not know-hows - maybe you think that virtues are not even knowledge.  That's fine, but do you have a good argument handy that will unproblematically defend this against Socrates?  There's a pretty good chance you don't.  So, when you say:  > The most introverted person is not also the best at being extraverted.  The most charitable grandmother is not the best at being selfish, etc.  You've jumped the gun here and just helped yourself to a conclusion in just the same way you accuse Plato of having done.  It seems like you've assumed, without justification, that \"justice\" is like \"introversion\" and then carried on the analogy into another virtue, \"charity,\" without having defined any of the words or said what kind of thing they are.  Yet, even if Socrates has his way with Polemarchus, this is Polemarchus' job in the story.  He's a kind of patsy for a really dumb argument that his aging father was making - an argument he didn't even care enough about before wandering off.  Polemarchus isn't the real competition in *Republic* 1 - that's Thrasymachus, who is anything but a pushover.  The people in the dialogues have different roles to play, as in a play, and, similarly, people in the real world are differently good at arguing.  Some existent people who claim to know stuff just don't seem to, on closer inspection.","human_ref_B":"the views of plato the author is not always the same as that of socrates the character\u2014many times plato will put in purposefully questionable arguments in the mouth of socrates to invite the reader to participate in the dialogue","labels":1,"seconds_difference":9426.0,"score_ratio":1.3}
{"post_id":"l4c71z","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.76,"history":"Can someone explain to me why Plato's work isn't terrible? To elaborate on the title,  I understand that Plato was vital to the development of philosophy, and that he has incredible historical significance. I think that through a historical lens, all of the praise that Plato recieves is justified\u2014he was ahead of his time. That being said, I'm completely dumbfounded as to why people would ever, ever recommend Plato for the actual content of his writings, devoid of their historical context.  This is an exerpt from Republic, Book I, starting from 333e:  *Socrates: \"Then, my friend, justice cannot be a thing of much worth if it is useful only for things out of use and useless. But let us consider this point. Is not the man who is most skilful to strike or inflict a blow in a fight, whether as a boxer or elsewhere, also the most wary to guard against a blow?\u201d*   *Polemarchus: \u201cAssuredly.\u201d*   *Socrates: \u201cIs it not also true that he who best knows how to guard against disease is also most cunning to communicate it and escape detection?\u201d*  *Polemarchus: \u201cI think so.\u201d*   *Socrates: \u201cBut again the very same man is a good guardian of an army who is good at stealing a march upon the enemy in respect of their designs and proceedings generally.\u201d*  *Polemarchus: \u201cCertainly.\u201d*   *Socrates: \u201cOf whatsoever, then, anyone is a skilful guardian, of that he is also a skilful thief?\u201d*   *Polemarchus: \u201cIt seems so.\u201d*   *Socrates: \u201cIf then the just man is an expert in guarding money he is an expert in stealing it.\u201d*   *Polemarchus: \u201cThe argument certainly points that way.\u201d*  This point is later ended by the following dialogue:  *Socrates: So justice, according to you and Homer and Simonides, seems to be a kind of stealing, with the qualification that it is for the benefit of friends and the harm of enemies. Isn't that what you meant?\u201d*   *Polemarchus: \u201cNo, by Zeus,\u201d he replied. \u201cI no longer know what I did mean.\"*  Do I really need to point out how lazy and absurd this conclusion is? The relationship between a skill and an inverse skill just doesn't apply to moral values or personality traits\u2014\"justness\" is not a profession. The most introverted person is not also the best at being extraverted. The most charitable grandmother is not the best at being selfish, etc.  I don't want to harp on too long about this particular exerpt, but I think it does a good job of encapsulating the formula of the arguments in Plato's work\u2014Socrates draws shifty comparisons to prove or disprove a point, they often go completely unchallenged by the braindead strawmen that he's arguing with, and at the end they're left speechless.   There are obviously good bits here and there, but the overwhelming majority of Plato's works read  like some fantasy he had in the shower of what he *wished* would've said in an argument he had a couple of years ago and can't stop thinking about for some reason. Am I just crazy here?","c_root_id_A":"gko57g8","c_root_id_B":"gkogrfe","created_at_utc_A":1611545391,"created_at_utc_B":1611552761,"score_A":7,"score_B":13,"human_ref_A":">The relationship between a skill and an inverse skill just doesn't apply to moral values or personality traits\u2014\"justness\" is not a profession.  This one is important to take in historical context. Caveat: I'm basing this answer off of what I read last night in *After Virtue* by Alasdair MacIntyre, so I don't know if this lines up with contemporary scholarship.   The conception of the self and morality in Ancient Greek times circa Homer was inextricably tied to social structure and social ties. An individual is who they are because of their place in society, be that as a father, son, soldier, aristocrat, etc. These social roles were fulfilled by a set of duties and behaviours that were largely predetermined.   To quote MacIntyre: \"*The key structures are those of kinship and of the household. In such a society a man knows who he is by knowing his role in these structures; and in knowing this he also knows what he owes and what is owed to him by the occupant of every other role and status*\".   In this Homeric society, moral action and the proper fulfilment of your social roles are one and the same. There is no understanding of morality divorced from existing social bonds. Justness in this context really *is* related to your profession - a great soldier might be considered just precisely because of the fulfilment of his social role. As such, actions for the \"*benefit of friends and the harm of enemies*\" would be considered just because such actions would demonstrate your excellence in a particular role that cannot be understood apart from your social bonds.   Now, we might find this to be unconvincing and argue against it, which is what Plato is attempting to do in that example you posted. With this context of Homeric social structure and morality in mind, Plato seems to be arguing that the sort of actions that may benefit your group and harm another, such as stealing, are in fact not just because morality exists seperately from the fulfiment of particular social roles.   That being said, the skill and inverse skill argument does seem quite lazy.","human_ref_B":"I think this misunderstands what's happening in the dialogue and over-estimates the ease with which you can really upset Socrates' apple cart.  It's easy enough to say you've outdone Socrates when he's not around to answer your objections, after all.  One important feature of all the dialogues is that Socrates is not merely arguing with strawmen - he's arguing with and against views that are grounded in what people believed at that time about virtue.  The whole deal of *Republic* 1 is that Socrates is sorting out the views of Polemarchus and his dad, who derive their notion of justice from certain traditional Greek viewpoints, especially as they are grounded in things like Hesiod, Homer, and Simonedes.  What Socrates is doing here would be akin to someone walking up to an every day American and trying to work out the problems of the notion of \"rights\" using their own notions as derived from, say, the US Constitution.  What the nature of virtue is ends up being a serious issue throughout Plato's corpus, and it's not always easy to tell when Socrates is offering up something he believes himself or when he is just offering up what he thinks his interlocutors must believe, given how they talk about virtue.  All of this is to say that it's easy to think that Plato is just high fiving himself in a dark corner, he's actually doing a pretty useful de-\/re-construction of some views which are, in one way or another, taken seriously.  Even so, it's easy to over-estimate how dumb these arguments are, for instance, your response here seems to confuse what Socrates is doing rather than give a good beating to it:  > The relationship between a skill and an inverse skill just doesn't apply to moral values or personality traits\u2014\"justness\" is not a profession.   Socrates is not just talking about \"skills\" here, but, more specifically, a kind of practical knowledge which is more akin to something like a \"craft\" or an \"art.\"  That is, it's a kind of know-how which you can have and put to work.  Now, maybe you think that virtues are not know-hows - maybe you think that virtues are not even knowledge.  That's fine, but do you have a good argument handy that will unproblematically defend this against Socrates?  There's a pretty good chance you don't.  So, when you say:  > The most introverted person is not also the best at being extraverted.  The most charitable grandmother is not the best at being selfish, etc.  You've jumped the gun here and just helped yourself to a conclusion in just the same way you accuse Plato of having done.  It seems like you've assumed, without justification, that \"justice\" is like \"introversion\" and then carried on the analogy into another virtue, \"charity,\" without having defined any of the words or said what kind of thing they are.  Yet, even if Socrates has his way with Polemarchus, this is Polemarchus' job in the story.  He's a kind of patsy for a really dumb argument that his aging father was making - an argument he didn't even care enough about before wandering off.  Polemarchus isn't the real competition in *Republic* 1 - that's Thrasymachus, who is anything but a pushover.  The people in the dialogues have different roles to play, as in a play, and, similarly, people in the real world are differently good at arguing.  Some existent people who claim to know stuff just don't seem to, on closer inspection.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":7370.0,"score_ratio":1.8571428571}
{"post_id":"l4c71z","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.76,"history":"Can someone explain to me why Plato's work isn't terrible? To elaborate on the title,  I understand that Plato was vital to the development of philosophy, and that he has incredible historical significance. I think that through a historical lens, all of the praise that Plato recieves is justified\u2014he was ahead of his time. That being said, I'm completely dumbfounded as to why people would ever, ever recommend Plato for the actual content of his writings, devoid of their historical context.  This is an exerpt from Republic, Book I, starting from 333e:  *Socrates: \"Then, my friend, justice cannot be a thing of much worth if it is useful only for things out of use and useless. But let us consider this point. Is not the man who is most skilful to strike or inflict a blow in a fight, whether as a boxer or elsewhere, also the most wary to guard against a blow?\u201d*   *Polemarchus: \u201cAssuredly.\u201d*   *Socrates: \u201cIs it not also true that he who best knows how to guard against disease is also most cunning to communicate it and escape detection?\u201d*  *Polemarchus: \u201cI think so.\u201d*   *Socrates: \u201cBut again the very same man is a good guardian of an army who is good at stealing a march upon the enemy in respect of their designs and proceedings generally.\u201d*  *Polemarchus: \u201cCertainly.\u201d*   *Socrates: \u201cOf whatsoever, then, anyone is a skilful guardian, of that he is also a skilful thief?\u201d*   *Polemarchus: \u201cIt seems so.\u201d*   *Socrates: \u201cIf then the just man is an expert in guarding money he is an expert in stealing it.\u201d*   *Polemarchus: \u201cThe argument certainly points that way.\u201d*  This point is later ended by the following dialogue:  *Socrates: So justice, according to you and Homer and Simonides, seems to be a kind of stealing, with the qualification that it is for the benefit of friends and the harm of enemies. Isn't that what you meant?\u201d*   *Polemarchus: \u201cNo, by Zeus,\u201d he replied. \u201cI no longer know what I did mean.\"*  Do I really need to point out how lazy and absurd this conclusion is? The relationship between a skill and an inverse skill just doesn't apply to moral values or personality traits\u2014\"justness\" is not a profession. The most introverted person is not also the best at being extraverted. The most charitable grandmother is not the best at being selfish, etc.  I don't want to harp on too long about this particular exerpt, but I think it does a good job of encapsulating the formula of the arguments in Plato's work\u2014Socrates draws shifty comparisons to prove or disprove a point, they often go completely unchallenged by the braindead strawmen that he's arguing with, and at the end they're left speechless.   There are obviously good bits here and there, but the overwhelming majority of Plato's works read  like some fantasy he had in the shower of what he *wished* would've said in an argument he had a couple of years ago and can't stop thinking about for some reason. Am I just crazy here?","c_root_id_A":"gko1gu4","c_root_id_B":"gkogrfe","created_at_utc_A":1611543409,"created_at_utc_B":1611552761,"score_A":4,"score_B":13,"human_ref_A":"I really think Plato is misunderstood, in that the *contents* of his writings are not at all as important as what he's really trying to tell us.  I believe strongly that what Plato tries to do in his dialogues is teach us how to be philosophers \u2013 that is, how to *do* philosophy. Philosophy is an activity that we should all engage in within ourselves - we should think thoroughly about the world and be critical. He teaches us *how to think,* and how to think for ourselves, which I think is absolutely invaluable.","human_ref_B":"I think this misunderstands what's happening in the dialogue and over-estimates the ease with which you can really upset Socrates' apple cart.  It's easy enough to say you've outdone Socrates when he's not around to answer your objections, after all.  One important feature of all the dialogues is that Socrates is not merely arguing with strawmen - he's arguing with and against views that are grounded in what people believed at that time about virtue.  The whole deal of *Republic* 1 is that Socrates is sorting out the views of Polemarchus and his dad, who derive their notion of justice from certain traditional Greek viewpoints, especially as they are grounded in things like Hesiod, Homer, and Simonedes.  What Socrates is doing here would be akin to someone walking up to an every day American and trying to work out the problems of the notion of \"rights\" using their own notions as derived from, say, the US Constitution.  What the nature of virtue is ends up being a serious issue throughout Plato's corpus, and it's not always easy to tell when Socrates is offering up something he believes himself or when he is just offering up what he thinks his interlocutors must believe, given how they talk about virtue.  All of this is to say that it's easy to think that Plato is just high fiving himself in a dark corner, he's actually doing a pretty useful de-\/re-construction of some views which are, in one way or another, taken seriously.  Even so, it's easy to over-estimate how dumb these arguments are, for instance, your response here seems to confuse what Socrates is doing rather than give a good beating to it:  > The relationship between a skill and an inverse skill just doesn't apply to moral values or personality traits\u2014\"justness\" is not a profession.   Socrates is not just talking about \"skills\" here, but, more specifically, a kind of practical knowledge which is more akin to something like a \"craft\" or an \"art.\"  That is, it's a kind of know-how which you can have and put to work.  Now, maybe you think that virtues are not know-hows - maybe you think that virtues are not even knowledge.  That's fine, but do you have a good argument handy that will unproblematically defend this against Socrates?  There's a pretty good chance you don't.  So, when you say:  > The most introverted person is not also the best at being extraverted.  The most charitable grandmother is not the best at being selfish, etc.  You've jumped the gun here and just helped yourself to a conclusion in just the same way you accuse Plato of having done.  It seems like you've assumed, without justification, that \"justice\" is like \"introversion\" and then carried on the analogy into another virtue, \"charity,\" without having defined any of the words or said what kind of thing they are.  Yet, even if Socrates has his way with Polemarchus, this is Polemarchus' job in the story.  He's a kind of patsy for a really dumb argument that his aging father was making - an argument he didn't even care enough about before wandering off.  Polemarchus isn't the real competition in *Republic* 1 - that's Thrasymachus, who is anything but a pushover.  The people in the dialogues have different roles to play, as in a play, and, similarly, people in the real world are differently good at arguing.  Some existent people who claim to know stuff just don't seem to, on closer inspection.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":9352.0,"score_ratio":3.25}
{"post_id":"l4c71z","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.76,"history":"Can someone explain to me why Plato's work isn't terrible? To elaborate on the title,  I understand that Plato was vital to the development of philosophy, and that he has incredible historical significance. I think that through a historical lens, all of the praise that Plato recieves is justified\u2014he was ahead of his time. That being said, I'm completely dumbfounded as to why people would ever, ever recommend Plato for the actual content of his writings, devoid of their historical context.  This is an exerpt from Republic, Book I, starting from 333e:  *Socrates: \"Then, my friend, justice cannot be a thing of much worth if it is useful only for things out of use and useless. But let us consider this point. Is not the man who is most skilful to strike or inflict a blow in a fight, whether as a boxer or elsewhere, also the most wary to guard against a blow?\u201d*   *Polemarchus: \u201cAssuredly.\u201d*   *Socrates: \u201cIs it not also true that he who best knows how to guard against disease is also most cunning to communicate it and escape detection?\u201d*  *Polemarchus: \u201cI think so.\u201d*   *Socrates: \u201cBut again the very same man is a good guardian of an army who is good at stealing a march upon the enemy in respect of their designs and proceedings generally.\u201d*  *Polemarchus: \u201cCertainly.\u201d*   *Socrates: \u201cOf whatsoever, then, anyone is a skilful guardian, of that he is also a skilful thief?\u201d*   *Polemarchus: \u201cIt seems so.\u201d*   *Socrates: \u201cIf then the just man is an expert in guarding money he is an expert in stealing it.\u201d*   *Polemarchus: \u201cThe argument certainly points that way.\u201d*  This point is later ended by the following dialogue:  *Socrates: So justice, according to you and Homer and Simonides, seems to be a kind of stealing, with the qualification that it is for the benefit of friends and the harm of enemies. Isn't that what you meant?\u201d*   *Polemarchus: \u201cNo, by Zeus,\u201d he replied. \u201cI no longer know what I did mean.\"*  Do I really need to point out how lazy and absurd this conclusion is? The relationship between a skill and an inverse skill just doesn't apply to moral values or personality traits\u2014\"justness\" is not a profession. The most introverted person is not also the best at being extraverted. The most charitable grandmother is not the best at being selfish, etc.  I don't want to harp on too long about this particular exerpt, but I think it does a good job of encapsulating the formula of the arguments in Plato's work\u2014Socrates draws shifty comparisons to prove or disprove a point, they often go completely unchallenged by the braindead strawmen that he's arguing with, and at the end they're left speechless.   There are obviously good bits here and there, but the overwhelming majority of Plato's works read  like some fantasy he had in the shower of what he *wished* would've said in an argument he had a couple of years ago and can't stop thinking about for some reason. Am I just crazy here?","c_root_id_A":"gkogrfe","c_root_id_B":"gko68dw","created_at_utc_A":1611552761,"created_at_utc_B":1611545965,"score_A":13,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"I think this misunderstands what's happening in the dialogue and over-estimates the ease with which you can really upset Socrates' apple cart.  It's easy enough to say you've outdone Socrates when he's not around to answer your objections, after all.  One important feature of all the dialogues is that Socrates is not merely arguing with strawmen - he's arguing with and against views that are grounded in what people believed at that time about virtue.  The whole deal of *Republic* 1 is that Socrates is sorting out the views of Polemarchus and his dad, who derive their notion of justice from certain traditional Greek viewpoints, especially as they are grounded in things like Hesiod, Homer, and Simonedes.  What Socrates is doing here would be akin to someone walking up to an every day American and trying to work out the problems of the notion of \"rights\" using their own notions as derived from, say, the US Constitution.  What the nature of virtue is ends up being a serious issue throughout Plato's corpus, and it's not always easy to tell when Socrates is offering up something he believes himself or when he is just offering up what he thinks his interlocutors must believe, given how they talk about virtue.  All of this is to say that it's easy to think that Plato is just high fiving himself in a dark corner, he's actually doing a pretty useful de-\/re-construction of some views which are, in one way or another, taken seriously.  Even so, it's easy to over-estimate how dumb these arguments are, for instance, your response here seems to confuse what Socrates is doing rather than give a good beating to it:  > The relationship between a skill and an inverse skill just doesn't apply to moral values or personality traits\u2014\"justness\" is not a profession.   Socrates is not just talking about \"skills\" here, but, more specifically, a kind of practical knowledge which is more akin to something like a \"craft\" or an \"art.\"  That is, it's a kind of know-how which you can have and put to work.  Now, maybe you think that virtues are not know-hows - maybe you think that virtues are not even knowledge.  That's fine, but do you have a good argument handy that will unproblematically defend this against Socrates?  There's a pretty good chance you don't.  So, when you say:  > The most introverted person is not also the best at being extraverted.  The most charitable grandmother is not the best at being selfish, etc.  You've jumped the gun here and just helped yourself to a conclusion in just the same way you accuse Plato of having done.  It seems like you've assumed, without justification, that \"justice\" is like \"introversion\" and then carried on the analogy into another virtue, \"charity,\" without having defined any of the words or said what kind of thing they are.  Yet, even if Socrates has his way with Polemarchus, this is Polemarchus' job in the story.  He's a kind of patsy for a really dumb argument that his aging father was making - an argument he didn't even care enough about before wandering off.  Polemarchus isn't the real competition in *Republic* 1 - that's Thrasymachus, who is anything but a pushover.  The people in the dialogues have different roles to play, as in a play, and, similarly, people in the real world are differently good at arguing.  Some existent people who claim to know stuff just don't seem to, on closer inspection.","human_ref_B":"Plato is the first and last philosopher I have ever read that I let off the hook for strawmanning. The reason being that, in recorded history, so few people prior to his mentor were running around asking people what things really *mean*. Could you imagine having no concept of what something really is, and suddenly you have an apparently homeless fellow taunting your intelligence? I find it hilarious, but I also find it very easy to believe because people in 2021 can't give me a definition of \"good\" or \"justice\". It doesn't strike me as odd that prior to those two thousand years of effort, the best of responses were strawmen.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":6796.0,"score_ratio":3.25}
{"post_id":"l4c71z","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.76,"history":"Can someone explain to me why Plato's work isn't terrible? To elaborate on the title,  I understand that Plato was vital to the development of philosophy, and that he has incredible historical significance. I think that through a historical lens, all of the praise that Plato recieves is justified\u2014he was ahead of his time. That being said, I'm completely dumbfounded as to why people would ever, ever recommend Plato for the actual content of his writings, devoid of their historical context.  This is an exerpt from Republic, Book I, starting from 333e:  *Socrates: \"Then, my friend, justice cannot be a thing of much worth if it is useful only for things out of use and useless. But let us consider this point. Is not the man who is most skilful to strike or inflict a blow in a fight, whether as a boxer or elsewhere, also the most wary to guard against a blow?\u201d*   *Polemarchus: \u201cAssuredly.\u201d*   *Socrates: \u201cIs it not also true that he who best knows how to guard against disease is also most cunning to communicate it and escape detection?\u201d*  *Polemarchus: \u201cI think so.\u201d*   *Socrates: \u201cBut again the very same man is a good guardian of an army who is good at stealing a march upon the enemy in respect of their designs and proceedings generally.\u201d*  *Polemarchus: \u201cCertainly.\u201d*   *Socrates: \u201cOf whatsoever, then, anyone is a skilful guardian, of that he is also a skilful thief?\u201d*   *Polemarchus: \u201cIt seems so.\u201d*   *Socrates: \u201cIf then the just man is an expert in guarding money he is an expert in stealing it.\u201d*   *Polemarchus: \u201cThe argument certainly points that way.\u201d*  This point is later ended by the following dialogue:  *Socrates: So justice, according to you and Homer and Simonides, seems to be a kind of stealing, with the qualification that it is for the benefit of friends and the harm of enemies. Isn't that what you meant?\u201d*   *Polemarchus: \u201cNo, by Zeus,\u201d he replied. \u201cI no longer know what I did mean.\"*  Do I really need to point out how lazy and absurd this conclusion is? The relationship between a skill and an inverse skill just doesn't apply to moral values or personality traits\u2014\"justness\" is not a profession. The most introverted person is not also the best at being extraverted. The most charitable grandmother is not the best at being selfish, etc.  I don't want to harp on too long about this particular exerpt, but I think it does a good job of encapsulating the formula of the arguments in Plato's work\u2014Socrates draws shifty comparisons to prove or disprove a point, they often go completely unchallenged by the braindead strawmen that he's arguing with, and at the end they're left speechless.   There are obviously good bits here and there, but the overwhelming majority of Plato's works read  like some fantasy he had in the shower of what he *wished* would've said in an argument he had a couple of years ago and can't stop thinking about for some reason. Am I just crazy here?","c_root_id_A":"gkocz6l","c_root_id_B":"gkogrfe","created_at_utc_A":1611550111,"created_at_utc_B":1611552761,"score_A":3,"score_B":13,"human_ref_A":"I don't see how the excerpt is absurd.  If someone knows how a thing is to be guarded, certainly they also have quite extensive information on how it might be stolen.","human_ref_B":"I think this misunderstands what's happening in the dialogue and over-estimates the ease with which you can really upset Socrates' apple cart.  It's easy enough to say you've outdone Socrates when he's not around to answer your objections, after all.  One important feature of all the dialogues is that Socrates is not merely arguing with strawmen - he's arguing with and against views that are grounded in what people believed at that time about virtue.  The whole deal of *Republic* 1 is that Socrates is sorting out the views of Polemarchus and his dad, who derive their notion of justice from certain traditional Greek viewpoints, especially as they are grounded in things like Hesiod, Homer, and Simonedes.  What Socrates is doing here would be akin to someone walking up to an every day American and trying to work out the problems of the notion of \"rights\" using their own notions as derived from, say, the US Constitution.  What the nature of virtue is ends up being a serious issue throughout Plato's corpus, and it's not always easy to tell when Socrates is offering up something he believes himself or when he is just offering up what he thinks his interlocutors must believe, given how they talk about virtue.  All of this is to say that it's easy to think that Plato is just high fiving himself in a dark corner, he's actually doing a pretty useful de-\/re-construction of some views which are, in one way or another, taken seriously.  Even so, it's easy to over-estimate how dumb these arguments are, for instance, your response here seems to confuse what Socrates is doing rather than give a good beating to it:  > The relationship between a skill and an inverse skill just doesn't apply to moral values or personality traits\u2014\"justness\" is not a profession.   Socrates is not just talking about \"skills\" here, but, more specifically, a kind of practical knowledge which is more akin to something like a \"craft\" or an \"art.\"  That is, it's a kind of know-how which you can have and put to work.  Now, maybe you think that virtues are not know-hows - maybe you think that virtues are not even knowledge.  That's fine, but do you have a good argument handy that will unproblematically defend this against Socrates?  There's a pretty good chance you don't.  So, when you say:  > The most introverted person is not also the best at being extraverted.  The most charitable grandmother is not the best at being selfish, etc.  You've jumped the gun here and just helped yourself to a conclusion in just the same way you accuse Plato of having done.  It seems like you've assumed, without justification, that \"justice\" is like \"introversion\" and then carried on the analogy into another virtue, \"charity,\" without having defined any of the words or said what kind of thing they are.  Yet, even if Socrates has his way with Polemarchus, this is Polemarchus' job in the story.  He's a kind of patsy for a really dumb argument that his aging father was making - an argument he didn't even care enough about before wandering off.  Polemarchus isn't the real competition in *Republic* 1 - that's Thrasymachus, who is anything but a pushover.  The people in the dialogues have different roles to play, as in a play, and, similarly, people in the real world are differently good at arguing.  Some existent people who claim to know stuff just don't seem to, on closer inspection.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":2650.0,"score_ratio":4.3333333333}
{"post_id":"l4c71z","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.76,"history":"Can someone explain to me why Plato's work isn't terrible? To elaborate on the title,  I understand that Plato was vital to the development of philosophy, and that he has incredible historical significance. I think that through a historical lens, all of the praise that Plato recieves is justified\u2014he was ahead of his time. That being said, I'm completely dumbfounded as to why people would ever, ever recommend Plato for the actual content of his writings, devoid of their historical context.  This is an exerpt from Republic, Book I, starting from 333e:  *Socrates: \"Then, my friend, justice cannot be a thing of much worth if it is useful only for things out of use and useless. But let us consider this point. Is not the man who is most skilful to strike or inflict a blow in a fight, whether as a boxer or elsewhere, also the most wary to guard against a blow?\u201d*   *Polemarchus: \u201cAssuredly.\u201d*   *Socrates: \u201cIs it not also true that he who best knows how to guard against disease is also most cunning to communicate it and escape detection?\u201d*  *Polemarchus: \u201cI think so.\u201d*   *Socrates: \u201cBut again the very same man is a good guardian of an army who is good at stealing a march upon the enemy in respect of their designs and proceedings generally.\u201d*  *Polemarchus: \u201cCertainly.\u201d*   *Socrates: \u201cOf whatsoever, then, anyone is a skilful guardian, of that he is also a skilful thief?\u201d*   *Polemarchus: \u201cIt seems so.\u201d*   *Socrates: \u201cIf then the just man is an expert in guarding money he is an expert in stealing it.\u201d*   *Polemarchus: \u201cThe argument certainly points that way.\u201d*  This point is later ended by the following dialogue:  *Socrates: So justice, according to you and Homer and Simonides, seems to be a kind of stealing, with the qualification that it is for the benefit of friends and the harm of enemies. Isn't that what you meant?\u201d*   *Polemarchus: \u201cNo, by Zeus,\u201d he replied. \u201cI no longer know what I did mean.\"*  Do I really need to point out how lazy and absurd this conclusion is? The relationship between a skill and an inverse skill just doesn't apply to moral values or personality traits\u2014\"justness\" is not a profession. The most introverted person is not also the best at being extraverted. The most charitable grandmother is not the best at being selfish, etc.  I don't want to harp on too long about this particular exerpt, but I think it does a good job of encapsulating the formula of the arguments in Plato's work\u2014Socrates draws shifty comparisons to prove or disprove a point, they often go completely unchallenged by the braindead strawmen that he's arguing with, and at the end they're left speechless.   There are obviously good bits here and there, but the overwhelming majority of Plato's works read  like some fantasy he had in the shower of what he *wished* would've said in an argument he had a couple of years ago and can't stop thinking about for some reason. Am I just crazy here?","c_root_id_A":"gko1gu4","c_root_id_B":"gko57g8","created_at_utc_A":1611543409,"created_at_utc_B":1611545391,"score_A":4,"score_B":7,"human_ref_A":"I really think Plato is misunderstood, in that the *contents* of his writings are not at all as important as what he's really trying to tell us.  I believe strongly that what Plato tries to do in his dialogues is teach us how to be philosophers \u2013 that is, how to *do* philosophy. Philosophy is an activity that we should all engage in within ourselves - we should think thoroughly about the world and be critical. He teaches us *how to think,* and how to think for ourselves, which I think is absolutely invaluable.","human_ref_B":">The relationship between a skill and an inverse skill just doesn't apply to moral values or personality traits\u2014\"justness\" is not a profession.  This one is important to take in historical context. Caveat: I'm basing this answer off of what I read last night in *After Virtue* by Alasdair MacIntyre, so I don't know if this lines up with contemporary scholarship.   The conception of the self and morality in Ancient Greek times circa Homer was inextricably tied to social structure and social ties. An individual is who they are because of their place in society, be that as a father, son, soldier, aristocrat, etc. These social roles were fulfilled by a set of duties and behaviours that were largely predetermined.   To quote MacIntyre: \"*The key structures are those of kinship and of the household. In such a society a man knows who he is by knowing his role in these structures; and in knowing this he also knows what he owes and what is owed to him by the occupant of every other role and status*\".   In this Homeric society, moral action and the proper fulfilment of your social roles are one and the same. There is no understanding of morality divorced from existing social bonds. Justness in this context really *is* related to your profession - a great soldier might be considered just precisely because of the fulfilment of his social role. As such, actions for the \"*benefit of friends and the harm of enemies*\" would be considered just because such actions would demonstrate your excellence in a particular role that cannot be understood apart from your social bonds.   Now, we might find this to be unconvincing and argue against it, which is what Plato is attempting to do in that example you posted. With this context of Homeric social structure and morality in mind, Plato seems to be arguing that the sort of actions that may benefit your group and harm another, such as stealing, are in fact not just because morality exists seperately from the fulfiment of particular social roles.   That being said, the skill and inverse skill argument does seem quite lazy.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1982.0,"score_ratio":1.75}
{"post_id":"lu5hfz","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.93,"history":"Is there a philosophy that just states that our purpose is to have \"fun\" ? Obviously, I mean that could be phrased more academically but I suppose that's the core. I am wondering if there is philosophies\/philosophers who think that *\"Our purpose is to have fun, whatever you find fun, do it and you fulfil your purpose of existence\"* In essence or something along those lines.   Just for curiosity sake! If there is I'd like to do more reading into but not sure how to find different branches and ideas and such so thought best here to ask   ​  Thanks in advance!","c_root_id_A":"gp4kwf9","c_root_id_B":"gp4dtzo","created_at_utc_A":1614489470,"created_at_utc_B":1614486755,"score_A":122,"score_B":53,"human_ref_A":"What you\u2019re thinking of sounds like hedonism. It essentially states that pleasure is the greatest good.  From what I understand, the school of thought began back in Ancient Greece when Arristipus developed Cyrenaic hedonism and Epicurus developed Epicurean hedonism.  One pretty notable expansion on the hedonist tradition came from Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill around the 19th century, when they developed Utilitarianism, an ethical theory that seeks to maximize pleasure and minimize pain for the greatest number of people possible.  Checking out the SEP page on hedonism is probably a good place to start and you can go from there. It might also be of interest to look up some arguments against hedonism, of which there are many.","human_ref_B":"I would look into epicureanism.  It's not word for word your definition. More like, life has pain and pleasure, and we know that we prefer pleasure. The normative conclusion is that we should seek out pleasure and avoid pain.   This often gets intereperated on the surface as some gluttony or hedonism. But its a little more nuanced.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":2715.0,"score_ratio":2.3018867925}
{"post_id":"lu5hfz","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.93,"history":"Is there a philosophy that just states that our purpose is to have \"fun\" ? Obviously, I mean that could be phrased more academically but I suppose that's the core. I am wondering if there is philosophies\/philosophers who think that *\"Our purpose is to have fun, whatever you find fun, do it and you fulfil your purpose of existence\"* In essence or something along those lines.   Just for curiosity sake! If there is I'd like to do more reading into but not sure how to find different branches and ideas and such so thought best here to ask   ​  Thanks in advance!","c_root_id_A":"gp4tatx","c_root_id_B":"gp4qsa4","created_at_utc_A":1614492872,"created_at_utc_B":1614491841,"score_A":16,"score_B":15,"human_ref_A":"first thing that comes to mind is hedonism.","human_ref_B":"Homo Ludens might be something considering looking into, \u201cHomo Ludens is a book originally published in Dutch in 1938 by Dutch historian and cultural theorist Johan Huizinga. It discusses the importance of the play element of culture and society. Huizinga suggests that play is primary to and a necessary (though not sufficient) condition of the generation of culture.\u201d","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1031.0,"score_ratio":1.0666666667}
{"post_id":"lu5hfz","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.93,"history":"Is there a philosophy that just states that our purpose is to have \"fun\" ? Obviously, I mean that could be phrased more academically but I suppose that's the core. I am wondering if there is philosophies\/philosophers who think that *\"Our purpose is to have fun, whatever you find fun, do it and you fulfil your purpose of existence\"* In essence or something along those lines.   Just for curiosity sake! If there is I'd like to do more reading into but not sure how to find different branches and ideas and such so thought best here to ask   ​  Thanks in advance!","c_root_id_A":"gp6dys5","c_root_id_B":"gp5sikr","created_at_utc_A":1614524628,"created_at_utc_B":1614510073,"score_A":5,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"Check out Alan Watts' The Joker lecture on YouTube. It's a bit long but there are shorter versions available.  You might like it, it's not really hedonism, but more fun. Like being part of a thriller movie.   You're not seeking pleasure like in hedonism, but you're enjoying the thrill of the ride, whatever that may be.","human_ref_B":"I guess we would need to unpack what we mean by 'fun'. Do we just mean instant gratification, or do we mean enjoyment in a more general sense? If we mean the latter, almost any form of consequentialism would qualify \u2013 things that increase human happiness are good, things that don't are bad. Most forms of virtue ethics would probably also qualify in some way or other \u2013 not that experiencing *eudaimonia* is the same as having fun, but the goal of virtue ethics is basically to live the good life. Being virtuous is supposed to feel good, so arguably one would in some sense or another have fun living such a life.   But it is really hard to nail down what 'having fun' means. If I work a menial job in order to afford going wake-boarding at the weekends, does that count? Or if I hate lifting weights and doing cardio, but i still do it in order to be better at something like boxing or soccer that I *do* enjoy? And there is also the question of whether we see all forms of fun as equally good. For example, in *Symposium* Plato basically argues that the pleasure derived from the love of wisdom and  doing philosophy is nobler than the pleasure derived from physical love. He does *not* argue that the pleasure derived from sex is a bad thing, just that there are *better* forms of enjoyment. So while a person might enjoy their orgies and such, Plato would argue that this is all fine and dandy, but that they would enjoy doing philosophy *more*.   There was a school in antiquity called the Cyrenaics. The idea here is basically that physical pleasure is the highest good, and that personal gratification in the now is therefore the ultimate goal of life. Other schools of thought generally weigh pleasure now against pleasures and pains in the future, but since the cyrenaics were sceptical of the persistence of identity over time the pleasure I experience *now* was more important than displeasure experienced *later*. Maybe this is the closest we get to a philosophy that gives primacy to simple-minded fun (even at the expense of long-term happiness).","labels":1,"seconds_difference":14555.0,"score_ratio":1.25}
{"post_id":"lu5hfz","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.93,"history":"Is there a philosophy that just states that our purpose is to have \"fun\" ? Obviously, I mean that could be phrased more academically but I suppose that's the core. I am wondering if there is philosophies\/philosophers who think that *\"Our purpose is to have fun, whatever you find fun, do it and you fulfil your purpose of existence\"* In essence or something along those lines.   Just for curiosity sake! If there is I'd like to do more reading into but not sure how to find different branches and ideas and such so thought best here to ask   ​  Thanks in advance!","c_root_id_A":"gp5s8jr","c_root_id_B":"gp5sikr","created_at_utc_A":1614509864,"created_at_utc_B":1614510073,"score_A":3,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"Hedonism. For a recent(ish) philosophical justification of this view see Feldman's intrinsic attitudinal hedonism, though I'm not sure if it will be too academic for what you're looking for. There's a ton of philosophical writing on hedonism and how to align it with the intuition that some things are worth doing that aren't obviously that enjoyable.","human_ref_B":"I guess we would need to unpack what we mean by 'fun'. Do we just mean instant gratification, or do we mean enjoyment in a more general sense? If we mean the latter, almost any form of consequentialism would qualify \u2013 things that increase human happiness are good, things that don't are bad. Most forms of virtue ethics would probably also qualify in some way or other \u2013 not that experiencing *eudaimonia* is the same as having fun, but the goal of virtue ethics is basically to live the good life. Being virtuous is supposed to feel good, so arguably one would in some sense or another have fun living such a life.   But it is really hard to nail down what 'having fun' means. If I work a menial job in order to afford going wake-boarding at the weekends, does that count? Or if I hate lifting weights and doing cardio, but i still do it in order to be better at something like boxing or soccer that I *do* enjoy? And there is also the question of whether we see all forms of fun as equally good. For example, in *Symposium* Plato basically argues that the pleasure derived from the love of wisdom and  doing philosophy is nobler than the pleasure derived from physical love. He does *not* argue that the pleasure derived from sex is a bad thing, just that there are *better* forms of enjoyment. So while a person might enjoy their orgies and such, Plato would argue that this is all fine and dandy, but that they would enjoy doing philosophy *more*.   There was a school in antiquity called the Cyrenaics. The idea here is basically that physical pleasure is the highest good, and that personal gratification in the now is therefore the ultimate goal of life. Other schools of thought generally weigh pleasure now against pleasures and pains in the future, but since the cyrenaics were sceptical of the persistence of identity over time the pleasure I experience *now* was more important than displeasure experienced *later*. Maybe this is the closest we get to a philosophy that gives primacy to simple-minded fun (even at the expense of long-term happiness).","labels":0,"seconds_difference":209.0,"score_ratio":1.3333333333}
{"post_id":"lu5hfz","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.93,"history":"Is there a philosophy that just states that our purpose is to have \"fun\" ? Obviously, I mean that could be phrased more academically but I suppose that's the core. I am wondering if there is philosophies\/philosophers who think that *\"Our purpose is to have fun, whatever you find fun, do it and you fulfil your purpose of existence\"* In essence or something along those lines.   Just for curiosity sake! If there is I'd like to do more reading into but not sure how to find different branches and ideas and such so thought best here to ask   ​  Thanks in advance!","c_root_id_A":"gp6dys5","c_root_id_B":"gp5s8jr","created_at_utc_A":1614524628,"created_at_utc_B":1614509864,"score_A":5,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"Check out Alan Watts' The Joker lecture on YouTube. It's a bit long but there are shorter versions available.  You might like it, it's not really hedonism, but more fun. Like being part of a thriller movie.   You're not seeking pleasure like in hedonism, but you're enjoying the thrill of the ride, whatever that may be.","human_ref_B":"Hedonism. For a recent(ish) philosophical justification of this view see Feldman's intrinsic attitudinal hedonism, though I'm not sure if it will be too academic for what you're looking for. There's a ton of philosophical writing on hedonism and how to align it with the intuition that some things are worth doing that aren't obviously that enjoyable.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":14764.0,"score_ratio":1.6666666667}
{"post_id":"z7mk3x","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.98,"history":"How did Aristotle know bees are deaf? Right at the start of the Metaphysics Aristotle says bees cannot hear. How did he know this?","c_root_id_A":"iy7a7d9","c_root_id_B":"iy7zf1u","created_at_utc_A":1669706037,"created_at_utc_B":1669726321,"score_A":2,"score_B":157,"human_ref_A":"Welcome to \/r\/askphilosophy. **Please read our rules before commenting** and understand that your comments will be removed if they are not up to standard or otherwise break the rules. While we do not require citations in answers (but do encourage them), answers need to be reasonably substantive and well-researched, accurately portray the state of the research, and come only from those with relevant knowledge.  *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](\/message\/compose\/?to=\/r\/askphilosophy) if you have any questions or concerns.*","human_ref_B":"Aristotle has tons of discussions of bees in his works on animal biology. He gained basically none of that knowledge first-hand. He asked bee-keepers for their knowledge of bee anatomy, physiology, reproduction, etc. That's how he came to know these facts about bees.  It's the same way that he came to know about how dolphins feed, for example, which is an important subject in *Parts of Animals* IV. It isn't like he stuck his head in the water to see how they feed. He's relying on a set of received knowledge from fishermen. (This was during the phase of Aristotle's life that he spent studying a lot of marine biology.)","labels":0,"seconds_difference":20284.0,"score_ratio":78.5}
{"post_id":"ncsi02","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.86,"history":"Was mathematics invented or discovered?","c_root_id_A":"gy89tb3","c_root_id_B":"gy9e81a","created_at_utc_A":1621096334,"created_at_utc_B":1621116443,"score_A":8,"score_B":10,"human_ref_A":"This isn't a philosophical answer but Stanislav Dehaene's The Number Sense speculates about the origin of number as an innate faculty and as a symbolic language to pursue further\/more exact goals. His foundation is in cog-neuro\/education, not philosophy, but I think it is valuable reading all the same.","human_ref_B":"This is a question that students pose every so often to me in the role of a lecturer in philosophy. This is what I typically say, trying to state it in a way that only appeals to things whose validity everyone can judge for themselves, even though I owe my background understanding to previous thinkers on the subject (and I am in no way an expert on the philosophy of mathematics). I won't give a definite answer to the question, although I should let you know that I myself lean towards thinking that what mathematics ultimately express is something we discover, but that the way it is expressed is invented. It is, in fact, quite uncontroversial to claim that humanity has invented many ways to express what is basically the same thing. But instead of offering a straight up answer, I'll rather say something about certain background stuff that is important for getting a clear view of the question \"was mathematics invented or discovered\"; for instance, the difference between inventing something and discovering it, and about the nature of convention (the idea that maths is invented and that it is a convention go hand in hand).   So, first, to discover something is to stumble on something that already exists. That is the easy part. The first person to set his\/her foot on the north American continent, whoever that was, discovered a continent that was already there before they saw it or thought about it. To invent something is to create something that didn't exist before, and would never have existed but for that act of creation. I think the internet is a good example. Someone had the brilliant idea that if the computers that already existed were connected by a network of wires they could communicate with each other. Such a network would probably not grow naturally but only came into being because someone first had a brilliant idea of its possibility, and then someone figured out how to make that possibility real and then by communal effort we made it real.   So, is math of the former or second kind? Let's first sort out convention, because one aspect of inventions like the internet is that the original idea about some possibility is usually too vague to have only one way to make it real. So, someone comes up with the idea to use sounds\/letters to symbolise the things we experience. But they quickly realise that, say, the fruit we now symbolise using the word \"banana\" could just as well be symbolised using the letters \"ndizi\" (that is the swahili word). The point is that the exact sound\/letters we use is completely arbitrary, but they all name the same thing. So we can invent a number of different ways to symbolise things using sounds\/letters, but they only work if we form a convention about using one particular system of symbols. If everyone uses their own system, nobody understands anyone else. So we have to agree\u2014or come to a convention\u2014about using one particular system.   Similarly we can realise the internet in several different ways. For instance, by a network of copper wires or optical fibres. It is all a question of balancing cost and effort and band-with. And we can communicate using a variety of operating systems and a variety of computer languages. But no matter the system or language, we want't to be able to convey the same thing. We want the recipient to understand our message as \"do you want to go on a date with me\" regardless of what kind of operating system or computer language we use.  What does this mean for mathematics? Well, people have invented several different ways to express quantities of objects and how different quantities of objects combine to form greater quantities. Romans used \"I\" and \"IV\" for 1 and 5, respectively, and the symbol for addition (+) in Egyptian hieroglyphs resembles a pair of legs walking in the direction in which the text is written, and minus was represented with a pair of legs walking in the opposite direction. But no matter the variety of ways to express each number or symbols used to denote addition and subtraction, they always say the same thing. It doesn't matter if you express 2+2=4 in sumerian, egyptian, roman or mayan notation, it always is the case that two objects joined with two other objects are four objects. This appears not be a matter of convention or arbitrary agreement. There simply is no way you can put two oranges in a bowl and then add two more and end up with five oranges (except by cheating). So, what is clearly a matter of invention and convention are the symbols used to express something, but what is expressed is not as easily imagined as an invention or convention. Here is appears that we discover that objects of certain quantities can only be combined in certain ways, and not in any other way. If this is true, mathematics is basically a discovery, while the system we use to express that discovery is an invention.  Now, while what I said above seems to make plausible sense about ordinary arithmetic, things are not as easy when it comes to more peripheral and advanced mathematics. How can we make as good sense of cardinal numbers, i.e. of the idea that there are many different infinite numbers that while all are infinite are still of unequal size? I don't know how to delve really deep into that issue, but the difficulty presents us perhaps with the possibility that while some mathematics are discovered other parts of mathematics are invented. I don't know what the ultimate answer is, but I at least am confident in saying that anyone answering the question \"is math invented or discovered\" will have to give us an answer about what exactly they mean by 'invented', 'discovered', 'convention' and specifically they will have to say whether they mean that the underlying ideas, and not just the way we express them, are invented or discovered.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":20109.0,"score_ratio":1.25}
{"post_id":"cf8y2s","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.89,"history":"Is it actually (not technically possible ) to study philosophy without a university education? It seems to be the case that if one tries to study on their own, they wont get any feedback from teachers and peers, they wont get any guidance on where to go, and the motivation to continue wont be great enough when the boring parts of philosophy come.   Another problem is that it is very easy to misinterpret philosophy which can cause harm like when the Nazis misinterpreted Nietzsche. Or when anyone misinterprets Nietzsche.   There isn't really a good place to discuss philosophy outside of universities and I think the elitism of universities is justified since the layman is an idiot when it comes to philosophy ( if not everything ).   I speak as someone interested in philosophy. I think I am going to minor in it when I get to university, but wanted to study it on my own but found it to be a lonely and worthless endeavor.  I want an honest answer, not some bullshit such as it is technically possible but really difficult. Is it actually possible, not formally possible. I don't want to waste my time with delusions.","c_root_id_A":"eu885yu","c_root_id_B":"eu8lug9","created_at_utc_A":1563551746,"created_at_utc_B":1563559651,"score_A":21,"score_B":45,"human_ref_A":"It's like learning to play the violin. In the beginning it's very much an apprenticeship to someone with more experience and sophistication (this is why making sure you have a good instructor & not a shitty one is important). Similarly, it's also a team activity -- you need others to learn how to make music or properly engage in philosophical conversation. There's a lot of craft to it, and you need some kind feedback in order to improve.  But, like the violin, once you've crossed a certain threshold, you no longer are *absolutely* dependent on others. You will always be *relatively* dependent, but you'll (mostly) be able to throw the ladder out after you've climbed it.  So yes -- philosophy can be done on your own. Half of philosophy just *is* sitting alone in a room reading and writing. But at the early stage, you really do need like-minded people (like-minded being important here -- not everyone has the right temperament for philosophy). The place where philosophy comes alive is in some sort of conversation with others.  Could you learn French without ever holding a conversation with another French speaker, or without ever visiting a Francophone country? Hard to say.","human_ref_B":"The philosophical \"tradition\" was that universities was a place to discuss philosophy. I was a philosophy major myself. This would be the ideal place to learn and be educated. But of course times have changed and universities are more like large institutions for creating workers for corporations. Now this is not the case for all people who go to university. Those open to the path will appreciate the intellectual capacity of those who teach and are masters within their subject. Also having a degree makes you more like a historian of philosophy. You won't be writing any original works at the undergrad level. A great deal of famous texts get left out in the university process too, but that is simply limited by the classes that are offered at the university.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":7905.0,"score_ratio":2.1428571429}
{"post_id":"cf8y2s","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.89,"history":"Is it actually (not technically possible ) to study philosophy without a university education? It seems to be the case that if one tries to study on their own, they wont get any feedback from teachers and peers, they wont get any guidance on where to go, and the motivation to continue wont be great enough when the boring parts of philosophy come.   Another problem is that it is very easy to misinterpret philosophy which can cause harm like when the Nazis misinterpreted Nietzsche. Or when anyone misinterprets Nietzsche.   There isn't really a good place to discuss philosophy outside of universities and I think the elitism of universities is justified since the layman is an idiot when it comes to philosophy ( if not everything ).   I speak as someone interested in philosophy. I think I am going to minor in it when I get to university, but wanted to study it on my own but found it to be a lonely and worthless endeavor.  I want an honest answer, not some bullshit such as it is technically possible but really difficult. Is it actually possible, not formally possible. I don't want to waste my time with delusions.","c_root_id_A":"eu8lug9","c_root_id_B":"eu886bf","created_at_utc_A":1563559651,"created_at_utc_B":1563551751,"score_A":45,"score_B":23,"human_ref_A":"The philosophical \"tradition\" was that universities was a place to discuss philosophy. I was a philosophy major myself. This would be the ideal place to learn and be educated. But of course times have changed and universities are more like large institutions for creating workers for corporations. Now this is not the case for all people who go to university. Those open to the path will appreciate the intellectual capacity of those who teach and are masters within their subject. Also having a degree makes you more like a historian of philosophy. You won't be writing any original works at the undergrad level. A great deal of famous texts get left out in the university process too, but that is simply limited by the classes that are offered at the university.","human_ref_B":"I think studying philosophy outside of a university environment falls into a few significant pitfalls.  1. Philosophy coursework at a university typically places barriers to entry based upon completing previous philosophy coursework. For example, you may have to complete an introduction to philosophy, multiple history of philosophy classes, and maybe even  ethics, metaphysics, and\/or epistemology classes before you could take an upper level course on Nietzsche. In my opinion, these barriers to entry are extremely beneficial. Philosophy tends to build on itself and no philosopher is truly standalone after Plato (and even he relies somewhat heavily on presocratics as a foil to his work). Many people who study by themselves want to jump right into a philosophical topic they find interesting, like existentialism. The problem is that you\u2019re probably going to have a bad time jumping right into Sartre, or at least you\u2019ll get MUCH less out of it.  2. In some ways, philosophy is like a trade in the sense that professionals have handed down for generations the varying interpretations of popular work. Your professors at a university (in an ideal case) are professionals who have studied these interpretations under other professionals. Therefore they are able to guide you when you don\u2019t understand a text or are misunderstanding a text. Honestly, I feel like a major part of my upper-level seminar courses on philosophy consisted of my professor correcting students misunderstanding of the text, or at least challenging the students to consider the conventional interpretation. This all occurs while the professor simultaneously supplements additional knowledge about the author\u2019s other works, influences, etc. The professor just knows so much more than you about the context and the subsequent discussions around a work of philosophy.  3. I\u2019m convinced that if you want to go further than just reading philosophy and actually *do* philosophy, you need to engage with it in a University setting. You need to get a broad understanding of what has already been said, what is controversial, and what is non controversial. The two biggest problems I saw philosophy students fall into when trying to come up with unique research projects were that their work was either unoriginal (i.e. another philosopher(s) have already written about it) or it was too ambitious and controversial to be convincingly argued. But even further, you need people experienced in philosophical work to teach you to write like a philosopher. Professors can correct your writing and let you know when you need to expand or be more succinct. Perhaps even more importantly, you can discuss your research topics with a professor; I had to throw so many ideas out because my professor was able to either tell me who already said it (and much better than I could!) or point out to me how my argument was fatally flawed.   I think there is room for studying philosophy on one\u2019s own, but I think it is probably best done through respected secondary sources than primary source reading. Primary sources in philosophy are difficult, and having professionals who can establish context and discuss interpretations is key. That being said, there are a great many awesome philosophers who have written secondary sources which provide incredible introductions to different areas of philosophy. If you\u2019re goal is just to live the examined life, I believe many of these secondary sources are accessible to just about anyone. What I don\u2019t recommend, though, is jumping right into Nietzsche because \u201cnihilism sounds cool.\u201d It\u2019s those kinds of readers that are often stereotyped and mocked by people on forums like these.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":7900.0,"score_ratio":1.9565217391}
{"post_id":"cf8y2s","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.89,"history":"Is it actually (not technically possible ) to study philosophy without a university education? It seems to be the case that if one tries to study on their own, they wont get any feedback from teachers and peers, they wont get any guidance on where to go, and the motivation to continue wont be great enough when the boring parts of philosophy come.   Another problem is that it is very easy to misinterpret philosophy which can cause harm like when the Nazis misinterpreted Nietzsche. Or when anyone misinterprets Nietzsche.   There isn't really a good place to discuss philosophy outside of universities and I think the elitism of universities is justified since the layman is an idiot when it comes to philosophy ( if not everything ).   I speak as someone interested in philosophy. I think I am going to minor in it when I get to university, but wanted to study it on my own but found it to be a lonely and worthless endeavor.  I want an honest answer, not some bullshit such as it is technically possible but really difficult. Is it actually possible, not formally possible. I don't want to waste my time with delusions.","c_root_id_A":"eu8gq87","c_root_id_B":"eu8lug9","created_at_utc_A":1563556738,"created_at_utc_B":1563559651,"score_A":11,"score_B":45,"human_ref_A":"Yes it's possible but not a route I would necessarily take. Some modern examples are Manuel DeLanda (the so-called 'street philosopher'),  who started out as a film maker and Karen Barad who was a theoretical physicist - I'm sure there are plenty of other examples. Something both my examples have in common though is that their readings of key texts are idiosyncratic - not wrong, just not necessarily the 'agreed upon' interpretation. Obviously that has its advantages as well as drawbacks.","human_ref_B":"The philosophical \"tradition\" was that universities was a place to discuss philosophy. I was a philosophy major myself. This would be the ideal place to learn and be educated. But of course times have changed and universities are more like large institutions for creating workers for corporations. Now this is not the case for all people who go to university. Those open to the path will appreciate the intellectual capacity of those who teach and are masters within their subject. Also having a degree makes you more like a historian of philosophy. You won't be writing any original works at the undergrad level. A great deal of famous texts get left out in the university process too, but that is simply limited by the classes that are offered at the university.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":2913.0,"score_ratio":4.0909090909}
{"post_id":"cf8y2s","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.89,"history":"Is it actually (not technically possible ) to study philosophy without a university education? It seems to be the case that if one tries to study on their own, they wont get any feedback from teachers and peers, they wont get any guidance on where to go, and the motivation to continue wont be great enough when the boring parts of philosophy come.   Another problem is that it is very easy to misinterpret philosophy which can cause harm like when the Nazis misinterpreted Nietzsche. Or when anyone misinterprets Nietzsche.   There isn't really a good place to discuss philosophy outside of universities and I think the elitism of universities is justified since the layman is an idiot when it comes to philosophy ( if not everything ).   I speak as someone interested in philosophy. I think I am going to minor in it when I get to university, but wanted to study it on my own but found it to be a lonely and worthless endeavor.  I want an honest answer, not some bullshit such as it is technically possible but really difficult. Is it actually possible, not formally possible. I don't want to waste my time with delusions.","c_root_id_A":"eu8h6c8","c_root_id_B":"eu8lug9","created_at_utc_A":1563556992,"created_at_utc_B":1563559651,"score_A":10,"score_B":45,"human_ref_A":"It is as possible to study philosophy without an education as it is possible to study any academic subject - math, chemistry, engineering, etc.  That is, an individual, whatever their capacity, will be able to get to some point of expertise.  Where that level is - who knows - but probably in the vast majority of cases it will fall short of whatever that same person would get by way of some formal training.","human_ref_B":"The philosophical \"tradition\" was that universities was a place to discuss philosophy. I was a philosophy major myself. This would be the ideal place to learn and be educated. But of course times have changed and universities are more like large institutions for creating workers for corporations. Now this is not the case for all people who go to university. Those open to the path will appreciate the intellectual capacity of those who teach and are masters within their subject. Also having a degree makes you more like a historian of philosophy. You won't be writing any original works at the undergrad level. A great deal of famous texts get left out in the university process too, but that is simply limited by the classes that are offered at the university.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":2659.0,"score_ratio":4.5}
{"post_id":"cf8y2s","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.89,"history":"Is it actually (not technically possible ) to study philosophy without a university education? It seems to be the case that if one tries to study on their own, they wont get any feedback from teachers and peers, they wont get any guidance on where to go, and the motivation to continue wont be great enough when the boring parts of philosophy come.   Another problem is that it is very easy to misinterpret philosophy which can cause harm like when the Nazis misinterpreted Nietzsche. Or when anyone misinterprets Nietzsche.   There isn't really a good place to discuss philosophy outside of universities and I think the elitism of universities is justified since the layman is an idiot when it comes to philosophy ( if not everything ).   I speak as someone interested in philosophy. I think I am going to minor in it when I get to university, but wanted to study it on my own but found it to be a lonely and worthless endeavor.  I want an honest answer, not some bullshit such as it is technically possible but really difficult. Is it actually possible, not formally possible. I don't want to waste my time with delusions.","c_root_id_A":"eu885yu","c_root_id_B":"eu886bf","created_at_utc_A":1563551746,"created_at_utc_B":1563551751,"score_A":21,"score_B":23,"human_ref_A":"It's like learning to play the violin. In the beginning it's very much an apprenticeship to someone with more experience and sophistication (this is why making sure you have a good instructor & not a shitty one is important). Similarly, it's also a team activity -- you need others to learn how to make music or properly engage in philosophical conversation. There's a lot of craft to it, and you need some kind feedback in order to improve.  But, like the violin, once you've crossed a certain threshold, you no longer are *absolutely* dependent on others. You will always be *relatively* dependent, but you'll (mostly) be able to throw the ladder out after you've climbed it.  So yes -- philosophy can be done on your own. Half of philosophy just *is* sitting alone in a room reading and writing. But at the early stage, you really do need like-minded people (like-minded being important here -- not everyone has the right temperament for philosophy). The place where philosophy comes alive is in some sort of conversation with others.  Could you learn French without ever holding a conversation with another French speaker, or without ever visiting a Francophone country? Hard to say.","human_ref_B":"I think studying philosophy outside of a university environment falls into a few significant pitfalls.  1. Philosophy coursework at a university typically places barriers to entry based upon completing previous philosophy coursework. For example, you may have to complete an introduction to philosophy, multiple history of philosophy classes, and maybe even  ethics, metaphysics, and\/or epistemology classes before you could take an upper level course on Nietzsche. In my opinion, these barriers to entry are extremely beneficial. Philosophy tends to build on itself and no philosopher is truly standalone after Plato (and even he relies somewhat heavily on presocratics as a foil to his work). Many people who study by themselves want to jump right into a philosophical topic they find interesting, like existentialism. The problem is that you\u2019re probably going to have a bad time jumping right into Sartre, or at least you\u2019ll get MUCH less out of it.  2. In some ways, philosophy is like a trade in the sense that professionals have handed down for generations the varying interpretations of popular work. Your professors at a university (in an ideal case) are professionals who have studied these interpretations under other professionals. Therefore they are able to guide you when you don\u2019t understand a text or are misunderstanding a text. Honestly, I feel like a major part of my upper-level seminar courses on philosophy consisted of my professor correcting students misunderstanding of the text, or at least challenging the students to consider the conventional interpretation. This all occurs while the professor simultaneously supplements additional knowledge about the author\u2019s other works, influences, etc. The professor just knows so much more than you about the context and the subsequent discussions around a work of philosophy.  3. I\u2019m convinced that if you want to go further than just reading philosophy and actually *do* philosophy, you need to engage with it in a University setting. You need to get a broad understanding of what has already been said, what is controversial, and what is non controversial. The two biggest problems I saw philosophy students fall into when trying to come up with unique research projects were that their work was either unoriginal (i.e. another philosopher(s) have already written about it) or it was too ambitious and controversial to be convincingly argued. But even further, you need people experienced in philosophical work to teach you to write like a philosopher. Professors can correct your writing and let you know when you need to expand or be more succinct. Perhaps even more importantly, you can discuss your research topics with a professor; I had to throw so many ideas out because my professor was able to either tell me who already said it (and much better than I could!) or point out to me how my argument was fatally flawed.   I think there is room for studying philosophy on one\u2019s own, but I think it is probably best done through respected secondary sources than primary source reading. Primary sources in philosophy are difficult, and having professionals who can establish context and discuss interpretations is key. That being said, there are a great many awesome philosophers who have written secondary sources which provide incredible introductions to different areas of philosophy. If you\u2019re goal is just to live the examined life, I believe many of these secondary sources are accessible to just about anyone. What I don\u2019t recommend, though, is jumping right into Nietzsche because \u201cnihilism sounds cool.\u201d It\u2019s those kinds of readers that are often stereotyped and mocked by people on forums like these.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":5.0,"score_ratio":1.0952380952}
{"post_id":"cf8y2s","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.89,"history":"Is it actually (not technically possible ) to study philosophy without a university education? It seems to be the case that if one tries to study on their own, they wont get any feedback from teachers and peers, they wont get any guidance on where to go, and the motivation to continue wont be great enough when the boring parts of philosophy come.   Another problem is that it is very easy to misinterpret philosophy which can cause harm like when the Nazis misinterpreted Nietzsche. Or when anyone misinterprets Nietzsche.   There isn't really a good place to discuss philosophy outside of universities and I think the elitism of universities is justified since the layman is an idiot when it comes to philosophy ( if not everything ).   I speak as someone interested in philosophy. I think I am going to minor in it when I get to university, but wanted to study it on my own but found it to be a lonely and worthless endeavor.  I want an honest answer, not some bullshit such as it is technically possible but really difficult. Is it actually possible, not formally possible. I don't want to waste my time with delusions.","c_root_id_A":"eu8ynla","c_root_id_B":"eu90155","created_at_utc_A":1563567684,"created_at_utc_B":1563568579,"score_A":7,"score_B":8,"human_ref_A":"Some of the more consequential  misinterpretations can be avoided just by reading the work in context. For instance, your Nietzsche example, the Nazi's largely referred to the posthumously published Will to Power. This was edited together by his sister for political purposes. Reading Nietzsche's earlier work it's easier to see how he would have (in my opinion) been disgusted by Nazism.  Podcasts, Great Courses or \"Open Course\" materials, secondary sources, and message boards like this one can help guide you. Totally doable.","human_ref_B":"What is your goal with studying philosophy? Most comments seem to assume you want to learn academic philosophy. In that case, you probably can't learn outside of university.   But are you sure that's what you actually want? Personally, I couldn't care less about writing papers or doing philosophy in an academic environment. If you want to live a more thoughtful, examined life, then you absolutely can gain a lot by studying philosophy on your own. Especially in the realm of ethics and political philosophy. Aristotle said that ethics is a *practical* science; the purpose of studying it is to guide your behavior. You don't need to know the most intricate minutia of academic ethics to use it to guide your life.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":895.0,"score_ratio":1.1428571429}
{"post_id":"a0lpw0","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.97,"history":"What philosophy or philosophers study reasons not to commit suicide?","c_root_id_A":"eaitc5o","c_root_id_B":"eajb1v8","created_at_utc_A":1543261626,"created_at_utc_B":1543275126,"score_A":8,"score_B":32,"human_ref_A":"Here are some: https:\/\/plato.stanford.edu\/entries\/suicide\/#MorRatSui","human_ref_B":"Just to clarify: the purpose of this sub is to give you academic references. If you're considering suicide as a personal decision, this isn't the place. There are many qualified folks that can help walk you through such issues. If you need help finding one, don't hesitate to ask.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":13500.0,"score_ratio":4.0}
{"post_id":"a0lpw0","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.97,"history":"What philosophy or philosophers study reasons not to commit suicide?","c_root_id_A":"eajb1v8","c_root_id_B":"eaj9ngn","created_at_utc_A":1543275126,"created_at_utc_B":1543273912,"score_A":32,"score_B":7,"human_ref_A":"Just to clarify: the purpose of this sub is to give you academic references. If you're considering suicide as a personal decision, this isn't the place. There are many qualified folks that can help walk you through such issues. If you need help finding one, don't hesitate to ask.","human_ref_B":"Schopenhauer, in *Parerga and Paralipomena*:  ​  >...religious teachers have to base their proscription of suicide on philosophical grounds of their own invention, which are however so poor that what their arguments lack in strength they have to try to make up for by the strength of the terms in which they express their abhorrence; that is to say, they resort to abuse. Thus we hear that suicide is the most cowardly of acts, that only a madman would commit it, and similar insipidities; or the senseless assertion that suicide is 'wrong,' though it is obvious there is nothing in the world a man has a more incontestable *right* to than his own life and person.  ​  This statement, however, must be taken in context. Schopenhauer's main philosophy consists of a description of and a resistance to the will to live, or at least an exaltation of asceticism, which he saw as a moral denial of the will to live. In the quoted essay on suicide, Schopenhauer is refuting the arguments against suicide while not explicitly condoning it. He makes very little explicit connection between suicide and the will to live, besides this passage from another essay:     >...there is something positive in \\suicide\\] as well: the destruction of the body. This is a deterrent, because the body is the phenomenal form of the will to live.  ​  In general, though, he saw suicide as nearly the opposite of asceticism:  ​  >...great spiritual suffering makes us insensible to physical pain: we despise it: indeed, if it should come to outweigh the other it becomes a beneficial distraction, an interval in spiritual suffering. It is this which makes suicide easier: for the physical pain associated with it loses all significance in the eyes of one afflicted by excessive spiritual suffering.  ​  In other words, while he saw asceticism as a renunciation of the will to live, or an acceptance of suffering rather than an avoidance of it, he saw suicide as a renunciation of suffering, or an acceptance of the will to live.  From *The World as Will and Representation*:  ​  >Suicide, the actual doing away with the individual manifestation of will, differs most widely from the denial of the will to live, which is the single outstanding act of free-will in the manifestation, and is therefore, as Asmus calls it, the transcendental change. This last has been fully considered in the course of our work. Far from being denial of the will, suicide is a phenomenon of strong assertion of will; for the essence of negation lies in this, that the joys of life are shunned, not its sorrows.  ​  It's a difficult concept to understand, because it seems counterintuitive that suicide complies with the will to live. And I'm oversimplifying, of course. Schopenhauer's pessimistic approach had many layers, with his repudiation of Christianity and conflicting moral claims all tied into his entire life's work. But in general, it can be argued that while Schopenhauer may not have seen suicide as morally right, he surely didn't see it as an evil or a source of shame.  ​  Sources:  Schopenhauer, Arthur. *Essays and Aphorisms*, translated by R. J. Hollingdale, Penguin Books, 1970, pp. 77\u201379.  Schopenhauer, Arthur, *The World as Will and Idea*; Vol. 1, Book IV, \u201cThe Assertion and Denial of the Will,\u201d Sec. 69. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul Limited, 1883, pp. 514-520.  Further Reading Online:  [https:\/\/ethicsofsuicide.lib.utah.edu\/selections\/arthur-schopenhauer\/  https:\/\/link.springer.com\/article\/10.1023\/A:1010080014855#citeas  ​","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1214.0,"score_ratio":4.5714285714}
{"post_id":"c12lz5","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.99,"history":"How much do academic philosophers read on average? Sorry if this a question adjacent to philosophy as per Rule 1, but out of curiosity: How much do academic philosophers read?  I've been very fortunate this summer to have the opportunity to just *read* and read a lot (or what I think to be a lot?) and it is really quite rewarding. But I've realized how much there is out there and how it would be hard to read even a slither of it.  Got me thinking. How many pages does a \"normal\" academic philosopher\\* read in say, a day? I'm interested in personal stories and stories of folks people know. Thanks for this little question.  \\*Of course \"normal\" philosophers don't exist :)","c_root_id_A":"era8f02","c_root_id_B":"era7ime","created_at_utc_A":1560637899,"created_at_utc_B":1560637413,"score_A":53,"score_B":33,"human_ref_A":"Not much. I have loads of responsibilities that don\u2019t involve reading. I wish I had time to read more. Probably the most I get to is 3-4 articles a week during these times, but I may read, for example, a chapter of a PhD student\u2019s work or skim a bit of a book or something as well. I have lots of google scholar alerts but don\u2019t get time to look at them nearly enough. When I\u2019m writing a paper, though, I\u2019ll read a lot, very quickly. I rarely sit down and read a whole article thoroughly, but I\u2019m a very good skim reader and have years of practice doing it!   So in summary, it depends. Normally not much; if I\u2019m writing a paper a lot more.","human_ref_B":"I'm still an undergrad, but I've been told by a couple friends in grad school that 2-3 articles or around 50-60 pages is the habit they've been recommended.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":486.0,"score_ratio":1.6060606061}
{"post_id":"c12lz5","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.99,"history":"How much do academic philosophers read on average? Sorry if this a question adjacent to philosophy as per Rule 1, but out of curiosity: How much do academic philosophers read?  I've been very fortunate this summer to have the opportunity to just *read* and read a lot (or what I think to be a lot?) and it is really quite rewarding. But I've realized how much there is out there and how it would be hard to read even a slither of it.  Got me thinking. How many pages does a \"normal\" academic philosopher\\* read in say, a day? I'm interested in personal stories and stories of folks people know. Thanks for this little question.  \\*Of course \"normal\" philosophers don't exist :)","c_root_id_A":"era7qql","c_root_id_B":"era8f02","created_at_utc_A":1560637534,"created_at_utc_B":1560637899,"score_A":15,"score_B":53,"human_ref_A":"I\u2019m a grad student in philosophy, and I\u2019d estimate that I probably read around 2-3 papers a day on average, if not a little bit more.","human_ref_B":"Not much. I have loads of responsibilities that don\u2019t involve reading. I wish I had time to read more. Probably the most I get to is 3-4 articles a week during these times, but I may read, for example, a chapter of a PhD student\u2019s work or skim a bit of a book or something as well. I have lots of google scholar alerts but don\u2019t get time to look at them nearly enough. When I\u2019m writing a paper, though, I\u2019ll read a lot, very quickly. I rarely sit down and read a whole article thoroughly, but I\u2019m a very good skim reader and have years of practice doing it!   So in summary, it depends. Normally not much; if I\u2019m writing a paper a lot more.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":365.0,"score_ratio":3.5333333333}
{"post_id":"c12lz5","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.99,"history":"How much do academic philosophers read on average? Sorry if this a question adjacent to philosophy as per Rule 1, but out of curiosity: How much do academic philosophers read?  I've been very fortunate this summer to have the opportunity to just *read* and read a lot (or what I think to be a lot?) and it is really quite rewarding. But I've realized how much there is out there and how it would be hard to read even a slither of it.  Got me thinking. How many pages does a \"normal\" academic philosopher\\* read in say, a day? I'm interested in personal stories and stories of folks people know. Thanks for this little question.  \\*Of course \"normal\" philosophers don't exist :)","c_root_id_A":"erahd3t","c_root_id_B":"erbkolh","created_at_utc_A":1560644033,"created_at_utc_B":1560684876,"score_A":8,"score_B":11,"human_ref_A":"I\u2019m an ABD grad student. I spend most of my time working on my dissertation (rereading things I\u2019ve already read a hundred times and editing). Besides that, I\u2019d say I read about 30 pages per day of new material on average.","human_ref_B":"Sometimes, philosophical work requires reading extremely slowly. I once took a seminar on Spinoza's *Ethics* where we spent four weeks just on the definitions and axioms in Book I.   When I read Hegel, I usually read through the entire chapter once in English or German, then go really slowly with the German line-by-line, translating or paraphrasing each sentence or paragraph and then adding a commentary in the form of an explanation, example, or summary. When doing this kind of \"scholastic\" exegesis, I might read as little as two pages a day (but produce about ten pages of notes from those two pages).  During the semester, I read about an article or two per day. Anywhere from thirty to fifty pages. When writing a paper, I will sit down over the weekend and read through a large stack of articles (ten to fifteen papers) in a burst of one or two days.  Some disciplines require you to read an extremely large amount of material in a short amount of time. Philosophy is (usually) not one of these disciplines, although some professors do teach this way.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":40843.0,"score_ratio":1.375}
{"post_id":"c12lz5","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.99,"history":"How much do academic philosophers read on average? Sorry if this a question adjacent to philosophy as per Rule 1, but out of curiosity: How much do academic philosophers read?  I've been very fortunate this summer to have the opportunity to just *read* and read a lot (or what I think to be a lot?) and it is really quite rewarding. But I've realized how much there is out there and how it would be hard to read even a slither of it.  Got me thinking. How many pages does a \"normal\" academic philosopher\\* read in say, a day? I'm interested in personal stories and stories of folks people know. Thanks for this little question.  \\*Of course \"normal\" philosophers don't exist :)","c_root_id_A":"erbcoga","c_root_id_B":"erbkolh","created_at_utc_A":1560672490,"created_at_utc_B":1560684876,"score_A":4,"score_B":11,"human_ref_A":"I'm a master's student at a program that feeds people into PhDs. On average I have 3 classes per semester, each requiring to read 2-5 articles per week, so I'd say I read 9 articles a week on average. Usually I'll do a small amount of non-required read per week, be it another article, an SEP entry, a chapter of a book, whatever. Add maybe 2 articles to the weekly 9 and that's 11 articles per week. At 23 pages per article that'd amount to about 253 pages a week and 36 pages a day. But I also don't read things as thoroughly as I think I should either, so that counts for something in terms of time to read each article.","human_ref_B":"Sometimes, philosophical work requires reading extremely slowly. I once took a seminar on Spinoza's *Ethics* where we spent four weeks just on the definitions and axioms in Book I.   When I read Hegel, I usually read through the entire chapter once in English or German, then go really slowly with the German line-by-line, translating or paraphrasing each sentence or paragraph and then adding a commentary in the form of an explanation, example, or summary. When doing this kind of \"scholastic\" exegesis, I might read as little as two pages a day (but produce about ten pages of notes from those two pages).  During the semester, I read about an article or two per day. Anywhere from thirty to fifty pages. When writing a paper, I will sit down over the weekend and read through a large stack of articles (ten to fifteen papers) in a burst of one or two days.  Some disciplines require you to read an extremely large amount of material in a short amount of time. Philosophy is (usually) not one of these disciplines, although some professors do teach this way.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":12386.0,"score_ratio":2.75}
{"post_id":"c12lz5","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.99,"history":"How much do academic philosophers read on average? Sorry if this a question adjacent to philosophy as per Rule 1, but out of curiosity: How much do academic philosophers read?  I've been very fortunate this summer to have the opportunity to just *read* and read a lot (or what I think to be a lot?) and it is really quite rewarding. But I've realized how much there is out there and how it would be hard to read even a slither of it.  Got me thinking. How many pages does a \"normal\" academic philosopher\\* read in say, a day? I'm interested in personal stories and stories of folks people know. Thanks for this little question.  \\*Of course \"normal\" philosophers don't exist :)","c_root_id_A":"erarxk7","c_root_id_B":"erbkolh","created_at_utc_A":1560651464,"created_at_utc_B":1560684876,"score_A":2,"score_B":11,"human_ref_A":"Hmmm. I have 7 or so books in reading at once right now, all related to a new theory. When I\u2019m writing a new concept, I\u2019ll spend months slowly consuming the literature. However, between the paper, I read very little. Too many other jobs tied up in the role.","human_ref_B":"Sometimes, philosophical work requires reading extremely slowly. I once took a seminar on Spinoza's *Ethics* where we spent four weeks just on the definitions and axioms in Book I.   When I read Hegel, I usually read through the entire chapter once in English or German, then go really slowly with the German line-by-line, translating or paraphrasing each sentence or paragraph and then adding a commentary in the form of an explanation, example, or summary. When doing this kind of \"scholastic\" exegesis, I might read as little as two pages a day (but produce about ten pages of notes from those two pages).  During the semester, I read about an article or two per day. Anywhere from thirty to fifty pages. When writing a paper, I will sit down over the weekend and read through a large stack of articles (ten to fifteen papers) in a burst of one or two days.  Some disciplines require you to read an extremely large amount of material in a short amount of time. Philosophy is (usually) not one of these disciplines, although some professors do teach this way.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":33412.0,"score_ratio":5.5}
{"post_id":"c12lz5","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.99,"history":"How much do academic philosophers read on average? Sorry if this a question adjacent to philosophy as per Rule 1, but out of curiosity: How much do academic philosophers read?  I've been very fortunate this summer to have the opportunity to just *read* and read a lot (or what I think to be a lot?) and it is really quite rewarding. But I've realized how much there is out there and how it would be hard to read even a slither of it.  Got me thinking. How many pages does a \"normal\" academic philosopher\\* read in say, a day? I'm interested in personal stories and stories of folks people know. Thanks for this little question.  \\*Of course \"normal\" philosophers don't exist :)","c_root_id_A":"erbcoga","c_root_id_B":"erarxk7","created_at_utc_A":1560672490,"created_at_utc_B":1560651464,"score_A":4,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"I'm a master's student at a program that feeds people into PhDs. On average I have 3 classes per semester, each requiring to read 2-5 articles per week, so I'd say I read 9 articles a week on average. Usually I'll do a small amount of non-required read per week, be it another article, an SEP entry, a chapter of a book, whatever. Add maybe 2 articles to the weekly 9 and that's 11 articles per week. At 23 pages per article that'd amount to about 253 pages a week and 36 pages a day. But I also don't read things as thoroughly as I think I should either, so that counts for something in terms of time to read each article.","human_ref_B":"Hmmm. I have 7 or so books in reading at once right now, all related to a new theory. When I\u2019m writing a new concept, I\u2019ll spend months slowly consuming the literature. However, between the paper, I read very little. Too many other jobs tied up in the role.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":21026.0,"score_ratio":2.0}
{"post_id":"c12lz5","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.99,"history":"How much do academic philosophers read on average? Sorry if this a question adjacent to philosophy as per Rule 1, but out of curiosity: How much do academic philosophers read?  I've been very fortunate this summer to have the opportunity to just *read* and read a lot (or what I think to be a lot?) and it is really quite rewarding. But I've realized how much there is out there and how it would be hard to read even a slither of it.  Got me thinking. How many pages does a \"normal\" academic philosopher\\* read in say, a day? I'm interested in personal stories and stories of folks people know. Thanks for this little question.  \\*Of course \"normal\" philosophers don't exist :)","c_root_id_A":"erarxk7","c_root_id_B":"ercfdis","created_at_utc_A":1560651464,"created_at_utc_B":1560710673,"score_A":2,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"Hmmm. I have 7 or so books in reading at once right now, all related to a new theory. When I\u2019m writing a new concept, I\u2019ll spend months slowly consuming the literature. However, between the paper, I read very little. Too many other jobs tied up in the role.","human_ref_B":"This really varies. In general, philosophers read a lot fewer articles than scholars in many disciplines, although we read them quite carefully.  The basic guidelines are these. You need to be a subject specialist in 1-2 areas, and you'll write most of your papers in those. You should read a lot in these areas, and keep current. Then when you want to write a new paper, you should read the most important existing papers on the topic and any other papers that are directly relevant to what you want to argue. Then you're ready to write.  I'm on the extreme high end in terms of what I read. I spend half of my day reading. I read at least 20-30 papers for each paper I write, and usually 50+. I only do this because I do my best work in reading and thinking through other papers.   Generally as long as you're following the basic guidelines you should not be concerned about whether you're reading too little. You should often be concerned that you're reading too much. And you should never, under any circumstances, read more quickly so you can read a larger number of papers.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":59209.0,"score_ratio":2.0}
{"post_id":"c12lz5","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.99,"history":"How much do academic philosophers read on average? Sorry if this a question adjacent to philosophy as per Rule 1, but out of curiosity: How much do academic philosophers read?  I've been very fortunate this summer to have the opportunity to just *read* and read a lot (or what I think to be a lot?) and it is really quite rewarding. But I've realized how much there is out there and how it would be hard to read even a slither of it.  Got me thinking. How many pages does a \"normal\" academic philosopher\\* read in say, a day? I'm interested in personal stories and stories of folks people know. Thanks for this little question.  \\*Of course \"normal\" philosophers don't exist :)","c_root_id_A":"erne5cq","c_root_id_B":"erarxk7","created_at_utc_A":1561050654,"created_at_utc_B":1560651464,"score_A":4,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"The philosopher (and personal hero, frankly) Derek Parfit famously read very quickly, and amidst editing manuscripts or projects he was working on, would also read papers sent to him by colleagues and write back with advice they'd requested. IIRC, a profile on him mentioned his apologising to a friend for the rare occasion on which he hadn't written back *the next day* with feedback on his paper.","human_ref_B":"Hmmm. I have 7 or so books in reading at once right now, all related to a new theory. When I\u2019m writing a new concept, I\u2019ll spend months slowly consuming the literature. However, between the paper, I read very little. Too many other jobs tied up in the role.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":399190.0,"score_ratio":2.0}
{"post_id":"rx0leh","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.95,"history":"Why is Nietzche important?  Why is he considered influential and what has he done for philosophy? If someone were to read his works where should they start?","c_root_id_A":"hrfkr9b","c_root_id_B":"hrfp0ue","created_at_utc_A":1641430922,"created_at_utc_B":1641432670,"score_A":58,"score_B":61,"human_ref_A":"Nietzsche's influence in terms of academic philosophy is most notable in the post-structuralists of the mid 20th century - Bataille, Foucault, Deleuze, etc. Most of this influence is \"methodological\" more than ideological. For instance, Nietzsche's geneological explanation for morality can be read as a sort of precursor to Foucault's description of how power affects dominant ideas about truth and morality. The very act of explaining ideas like God, morality, and popular culture in terms of power and psychology makes Nietzsche a sort of proto-Post-Structuralist, in contrast to explanations focused more on their intellectual foundations (like, for instance, Hegel's system of Dialectics).","human_ref_B":"if you want to just dive in into the primary works, *on the genealogy of morals* is a fairly good place to go. he's fairly clear in his meanings and, more than anything else by him i think, it somewhat resembles the way philosophy is usually written. *beyond good and evil* and *thus spoke zarathustra* sort of expand on the ideas found in the *genealogy*.  alternatively, if you plan on reading everything by nietzsche you could go chronologically. it's a bit of a commitment though.  as for secondary reading, i don't have much to offer. deleuze's *nietzsche and philosophy* offers an interesting reading but it's definitely unorthodox and maybe tells more about deleuze's thought than nietzsche's.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1748.0,"score_ratio":1.0517241379}
{"post_id":"rx0leh","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.95,"history":"Why is Nietzche important?  Why is he considered influential and what has he done for philosophy? If someone were to read his works where should they start?","c_root_id_A":"hrfas9l","c_root_id_B":"hrfkr9b","created_at_utc_A":1641426901,"created_at_utc_B":1641430922,"score_A":3,"score_B":58,"human_ref_A":"Welcome to \/r\/askphilosophy. **Please read our rules before commenting** and understand that your comments will be removed if they are not up to standard or otherwise break the rules. While we do not require citations in answers (but do encourage them), answers need to be reasonably substantive and well-researched, accurately portray the state of the research, and come only from those with relevant knowledge.  *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](\/message\/compose\/?to=\/r\/askphilosophy) if you have any questions or concerns.*","human_ref_B":"Nietzsche's influence in terms of academic philosophy is most notable in the post-structuralists of the mid 20th century - Bataille, Foucault, Deleuze, etc. Most of this influence is \"methodological\" more than ideological. For instance, Nietzsche's geneological explanation for morality can be read as a sort of precursor to Foucault's description of how power affects dominant ideas about truth and morality. The very act of explaining ideas like God, morality, and popular culture in terms of power and psychology makes Nietzsche a sort of proto-Post-Structuralist, in contrast to explanations focused more on their intellectual foundations (like, for instance, Hegel's system of Dialectics).","labels":0,"seconds_difference":4021.0,"score_ratio":19.3333333333}
{"post_id":"rx0leh","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.95,"history":"Why is Nietzche important?  Why is he considered influential and what has he done for philosophy? If someone were to read his works where should they start?","c_root_id_A":"hrfp0ue","c_root_id_B":"hrfas9l","created_at_utc_A":1641432670,"created_at_utc_B":1641426901,"score_A":61,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"if you want to just dive in into the primary works, *on the genealogy of morals* is a fairly good place to go. he's fairly clear in his meanings and, more than anything else by him i think, it somewhat resembles the way philosophy is usually written. *beyond good and evil* and *thus spoke zarathustra* sort of expand on the ideas found in the *genealogy*.  alternatively, if you plan on reading everything by nietzsche you could go chronologically. it's a bit of a commitment though.  as for secondary reading, i don't have much to offer. deleuze's *nietzsche and philosophy* offers an interesting reading but it's definitely unorthodox and maybe tells more about deleuze's thought than nietzsche's.","human_ref_B":"Welcome to \/r\/askphilosophy. **Please read our rules before commenting** and understand that your comments will be removed if they are not up to standard or otherwise break the rules. While we do not require citations in answers (but do encourage them), answers need to be reasonably substantive and well-researched, accurately portray the state of the research, and come only from those with relevant knowledge.  *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](\/message\/compose\/?to=\/r\/askphilosophy) if you have any questions or concerns.*","labels":1,"seconds_difference":5769.0,"score_ratio":20.3333333333}
{"post_id":"ssozm6","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.94,"history":"Is language the limit of thought?","c_root_id_A":"hwze6d9","c_root_id_B":"hwz8q0v","created_at_utc_A":1644890411,"created_at_utc_B":1644887782,"score_A":45,"score_B":35,"human_ref_A":"When you experience a memory, do you consider that thought?\r   \r   It seems like a large portion of memory has no language involved, although language can obviously play a part therein (and within any further narrative analysis of the memory).\r   \r   When you perform an action, willingly and knowingly, is language-based thought involved?\r   \r   Automated actions (driving a car, typing on the keyboard, etc) might be considered 'thoughtless' to some degree, but it is certainly possible to do a thing without any language getting involved in the process.\r   \r   When you subconsciously interpret signals sent by others, such as body language and tone, does that count as thought?\r   \r   This sort of thing could be seen as programming or conditioned response, but unconscious thought is certainly thought (language-based or not).\r   \r   When people learn through many hours of practice to reduce narrative thought to negligible levels, they no longer use much language to think; are they no longer thinking?\r   \r   Some people have no narrative or visual thought naturally. There appears to be a whole spectrum available, as far as thought is concerned, yet it can be challenging to share an individual experience accurately with others.\r   \r   Your post seems to point towards a view\/exploration of linguistic determinism somehow (but that could be me reading into it?).\r   \r   More fleshing out of the question would lead to more subtle answers (though other commenters have made good points thus far).","human_ref_B":"I\u2019d argue that any type of creative expression negates this premise, especially things like music and art.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":2629.0,"score_ratio":1.2857142857}
{"post_id":"lc51c5","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.96,"history":"Is it immoral for me to be friends with a person who has done moral wrong? Suppose I had a friend who did something morally wrong\/evil. Assuming that this person has been arrested for this act , so there's no question of legality\/hiding the crime (let's say murder), would it be immoral for me to continue this friendship? Does the type of immoral act change whether or not I should be friends with this person?","c_root_id_A":"glyirq3","c_root_id_B":"glympus","created_at_utc_A":1612418247,"created_at_utc_B":1612421010,"score_A":16,"score_B":31,"human_ref_A":"I fully agree with the other answers -- but I'll add, isn't our moral intuition \"yes, it is immoral?\" There is a fear that the interaction is somehow contaminating.  I think the moral argument is hard to make, though. We do need more details, as the other commenter mentioned -- are you enabling them, are they repentant, how do you contribute today to their life, are they somehow influencing your actions?  The largest moral risks would be harm to either you or someone else based upon the relation. How might such harm come about? The only cases I can think of are that a) they persuade you to hold evil beliefs you wouldn't otherwise hold and you act on those beliefs or become more likely to b) they persuade you to harm someone else in their stead c) they harm you emotionally, physically, or otherwise by relation.  Given that the individual is in jail, (c) seems unlikely -- I suppose they could harm you emotionally, but you could probably leave if they start to do that fairly easily. (A) and (b) are arguably more worrisome, but they hinge on your susceptibility to any negative influence and the other person's ability to persuade. If your susceptibility is high and their ability to persuade is as well, I suppose there could be risk.  This has to be counterbalanced by any benefit -- e.g. perhaps your relation to them improves their mindset and beliefs to such an extent that they become less likely to act harmfully in the future. It is impossible to decide the risk\/benefit. Given that the individual is in jail, maybe for life, one might have to consider whether merely improving their virtue\/happiness has any moral value if they are in jail for life and unlikely to affect others. If they are, say, paroled in the future maybe it could...  Finally, I suppose one could think about other parameters... perhaps we owe everyone a basic respect by virtue of their humanity, even if they do evil things, and from this perspective the individual still deserves friendship even if it entails risk. The above reasoning is fairly consequentialist. There are alternative considerations like justice -- perhaps the individual, given their background, did the best they could or knew how to do, or perhaps depending on the crime the legal system was unfair to them... in these situations, friendship might be morally good, both to them and for the sake of righting systemic injustices.","human_ref_B":"The best answer to this comes from the example of Christian ethics embodied in the life and teaching of Jesus. Yes, an atheist, is using: WWJD. I see the irony in this.  But it is only in friendship that our hypothetical friend (assuming they are not a sociopath or something) can find the space to see themself as something more than the one terrible thing they did. If that act becomes their defining feature they will (probably) walk a dark path, in friendship they can see another way. They can see that the path of forgiveness and redemption is open, but that path requires the grace of friendship be given.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":2763.0,"score_ratio":1.9375}
{"post_id":"lc51c5","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.96,"history":"Is it immoral for me to be friends with a person who has done moral wrong? Suppose I had a friend who did something morally wrong\/evil. Assuming that this person has been arrested for this act , so there's no question of legality\/hiding the crime (let's say murder), would it be immoral for me to continue this friendship? Does the type of immoral act change whether or not I should be friends with this person?","c_root_id_A":"glyjrv9","c_root_id_B":"glympus","created_at_utc_A":1612418929,"created_at_utc_B":1612421010,"score_A":7,"score_B":31,"human_ref_A":"That's a great question. Being friends with someone is usually a mutual relationship that involves respect and courtesy. Offering those things to someone isn't morally wrong imo but the problem that could still arise is enabling them.   Being nice\/friends to someone \\*supports\\* them, and that could get them thinking they especially deserve it so it encourages them to not look back. So you can see where i'm going with this. A friendship is fine, but there should be a visible sign of contempt, especially if that person may not regret it as much as they should.","human_ref_B":"The best answer to this comes from the example of Christian ethics embodied in the life and teaching of Jesus. Yes, an atheist, is using: WWJD. I see the irony in this.  But it is only in friendship that our hypothetical friend (assuming they are not a sociopath or something) can find the space to see themself as something more than the one terrible thing they did. If that act becomes their defining feature they will (probably) walk a dark path, in friendship they can see another way. They can see that the path of forgiveness and redemption is open, but that path requires the grace of friendship be given.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":2081.0,"score_ratio":4.4285714286}
{"post_id":"lc51c5","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.96,"history":"Is it immoral for me to be friends with a person who has done moral wrong? Suppose I had a friend who did something morally wrong\/evil. Assuming that this person has been arrested for this act , so there's no question of legality\/hiding the crime (let's say murder), would it be immoral for me to continue this friendship? Does the type of immoral act change whether or not I should be friends with this person?","c_root_id_A":"glyirq3","c_root_id_B":"glyx4v0","created_at_utc_A":1612418247,"created_at_utc_B":1612429742,"score_A":16,"score_B":20,"human_ref_A":"I fully agree with the other answers -- but I'll add, isn't our moral intuition \"yes, it is immoral?\" There is a fear that the interaction is somehow contaminating.  I think the moral argument is hard to make, though. We do need more details, as the other commenter mentioned -- are you enabling them, are they repentant, how do you contribute today to their life, are they somehow influencing your actions?  The largest moral risks would be harm to either you or someone else based upon the relation. How might such harm come about? The only cases I can think of are that a) they persuade you to hold evil beliefs you wouldn't otherwise hold and you act on those beliefs or become more likely to b) they persuade you to harm someone else in their stead c) they harm you emotionally, physically, or otherwise by relation.  Given that the individual is in jail, (c) seems unlikely -- I suppose they could harm you emotionally, but you could probably leave if they start to do that fairly easily. (A) and (b) are arguably more worrisome, but they hinge on your susceptibility to any negative influence and the other person's ability to persuade. If your susceptibility is high and their ability to persuade is as well, I suppose there could be risk.  This has to be counterbalanced by any benefit -- e.g. perhaps your relation to them improves their mindset and beliefs to such an extent that they become less likely to act harmfully in the future. It is impossible to decide the risk\/benefit. Given that the individual is in jail, maybe for life, one might have to consider whether merely improving their virtue\/happiness has any moral value if they are in jail for life and unlikely to affect others. If they are, say, paroled in the future maybe it could...  Finally, I suppose one could think about other parameters... perhaps we owe everyone a basic respect by virtue of their humanity, even if they do evil things, and from this perspective the individual still deserves friendship even if it entails risk. The above reasoning is fairly consequentialist. There are alternative considerations like justice -- perhaps the individual, given their background, did the best they could or knew how to do, or perhaps depending on the crime the legal system was unfair to them... in these situations, friendship might be morally good, both to them and for the sake of righting systemic injustices.","human_ref_B":"Aristotle devoted two of the ten books that comprise *The Nicomachean Ethics* to friendship and its relation to the good life. It's a delightful read. Have a look at this for a discussion on the topic of friendship and moral failure.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":11495.0,"score_ratio":1.25}
{"post_id":"lc51c5","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.96,"history":"Is it immoral for me to be friends with a person who has done moral wrong? Suppose I had a friend who did something morally wrong\/evil. Assuming that this person has been arrested for this act , so there's no question of legality\/hiding the crime (let's say murder), would it be immoral for me to continue this friendship? Does the type of immoral act change whether or not I should be friends with this person?","c_root_id_A":"glyx4v0","c_root_id_B":"glyjrv9","created_at_utc_A":1612429742,"created_at_utc_B":1612418929,"score_A":20,"score_B":7,"human_ref_A":"Aristotle devoted two of the ten books that comprise *The Nicomachean Ethics* to friendship and its relation to the good life. It's a delightful read. Have a look at this for a discussion on the topic of friendship and moral failure.","human_ref_B":"That's a great question. Being friends with someone is usually a mutual relationship that involves respect and courtesy. Offering those things to someone isn't morally wrong imo but the problem that could still arise is enabling them.   Being nice\/friends to someone \\*supports\\* them, and that could get them thinking they especially deserve it so it encourages them to not look back. So you can see where i'm going with this. A friendship is fine, but there should be a visible sign of contempt, especially if that person may not regret it as much as they should.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":10813.0,"score_ratio":2.8571428571}
{"post_id":"g9swxv","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.95,"history":"Recommendations for books to introduce someone to philosophy Hi, I am a teenager who has always been interested in philosophy and its principles, but all the books i have tried are very hard to get into, and I was wondering if you guys had any suggestions for good books to introduce someone to philosophy, thanks!","c_root_id_A":"fovkx8v","c_root_id_B":"fovlb1e","created_at_utc_A":1588103059,"created_at_utc_B":1588103246,"score_A":3,"score_B":18,"human_ref_A":"Nigel Warburton's Philosophy the basics is a great introduction book. Simple but not trivial. Can't recommend enough.","human_ref_B":"Plato\u2019s Symposium! A fun and surprisingly readable bit of ancient philosophy!","labels":0,"seconds_difference":187.0,"score_ratio":6.0}
{"post_id":"g9swxv","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.95,"history":"Recommendations for books to introduce someone to philosophy Hi, I am a teenager who has always been interested in philosophy and its principles, but all the books i have tried are very hard to get into, and I was wondering if you guys had any suggestions for good books to introduce someone to philosophy, thanks!","c_root_id_A":"fovs9fw","c_root_id_B":"fovkx8v","created_at_utc_A":1588106642,"created_at_utc_B":1588103059,"score_A":8,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"What got me into philosophy was reading Alan Watts, Hermann Hesse and books about asian philosophies like Zen, Buddhism, and especially Taoism. Then Sophie's World introduced me to more western philosophies in an easily digestible narrative.","human_ref_B":"Nigel Warburton's Philosophy the basics is a great introduction book. Simple but not trivial. Can't recommend enough.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":3583.0,"score_ratio":2.6666666667}
{"post_id":"g9swxv","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.95,"history":"Recommendations for books to introduce someone to philosophy Hi, I am a teenager who has always been interested in philosophy and its principles, but all the books i have tried are very hard to get into, and I was wondering if you guys had any suggestions for good books to introduce someone to philosophy, thanks!","c_root_id_A":"fovs9fw","c_root_id_B":"fovmzjv","created_at_utc_A":1588106642,"created_at_utc_B":1588104055,"score_A":8,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"What got me into philosophy was reading Alan Watts, Hermann Hesse and books about asian philosophies like Zen, Buddhism, and especially Taoism. Then Sophie's World introduced me to more western philosophies in an easily digestible narrative.","human_ref_B":"Fellow teen - I found Introduction to Philosophy: Classical and Contemporary Readings to be very helpful. It's mostly all primary sources with brief\/helpful explanations of each general topic\/short biographies as well as good stuff on writing philosophy in the beginning. Highly recommended although I think with anything in philosophy it's going to take a while to digest concepts\/ideas. All the best!","labels":1,"seconds_difference":2587.0,"score_ratio":2.0}
{"post_id":"g9swxv","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.95,"history":"Recommendations for books to introduce someone to philosophy Hi, I am a teenager who has always been interested in philosophy and its principles, but all the books i have tried are very hard to get into, and I was wondering if you guys had any suggestions for good books to introduce someone to philosophy, thanks!","c_root_id_A":"fovr60w","c_root_id_B":"fovs9fw","created_at_utc_A":1588106102,"created_at_utc_B":1588106642,"score_A":3,"score_B":8,"human_ref_A":"The Story of Philosophy by Will Durant is really fun to read, really dramatic language makes it more exciting. Also the Philosophize This podcast is great. Also check out Rick Roderick's lectures on youtube: 1 2 3","human_ref_B":"What got me into philosophy was reading Alan Watts, Hermann Hesse and books about asian philosophies like Zen, Buddhism, and especially Taoism. Then Sophie's World introduced me to more western philosophies in an easily digestible narrative.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":540.0,"score_ratio":2.6666666667}
{"post_id":"g9swxv","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.95,"history":"Recommendations for books to introduce someone to philosophy Hi, I am a teenager who has always been interested in philosophy and its principles, but all the books i have tried are very hard to get into, and I was wondering if you guys had any suggestions for good books to introduce someone to philosophy, thanks!","c_root_id_A":"fovmo08","c_root_id_B":"fovs9fw","created_at_utc_A":1588103900,"created_at_utc_B":1588106642,"score_A":2,"score_B":8,"human_ref_A":"Looking at Philosophy: The Unbearable Heaviness of Philosophy Made Lighter by Donald Palmer.  A great intro to Western Philosophy that summarizes all the major thinkers in 2 - 5 page chunks.  It will give you a general overview of the history of ideas, how the conversation occurred, etc.  Your local used bookstore probably has a copy.","human_ref_B":"What got me into philosophy was reading Alan Watts, Hermann Hesse and books about asian philosophies like Zen, Buddhism, and especially Taoism. Then Sophie's World introduced me to more western philosophies in an easily digestible narrative.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":2742.0,"score_ratio":4.0}
{"post_id":"g9swxv","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.95,"history":"Recommendations for books to introduce someone to philosophy Hi, I am a teenager who has always been interested in philosophy and its principles, but all the books i have tried are very hard to get into, and I was wondering if you guys had any suggestions for good books to introduce someone to philosophy, thanks!","c_root_id_A":"fovn42s","c_root_id_B":"fovs9fw","created_at_utc_A":1588104116,"created_at_utc_B":1588106642,"score_A":2,"score_B":8,"human_ref_A":"I would recommend the great philosophy channel of Kane Baker. Here you can find accessible introductions to many analytic tradition topics.  https:\/\/m.youtube.com\/user\/kanebaker91  Other other great source is the Standard Encyclopedia of philosophy, where you can find good introductions to pretty much every philosophy topic.   https:\/\/plato.stanford.edu  Finally, for some books, you can search out for any Routledge introduction to philosophy you want. Normally you would find great chapters about the most important topics in many of the analytic tradition branches.   Hope it helps","human_ref_B":"What got me into philosophy was reading Alan Watts, Hermann Hesse and books about asian philosophies like Zen, Buddhism, and especially Taoism. Then Sophie's World introduced me to more western philosophies in an easily digestible narrative.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":2526.0,"score_ratio":4.0}
{"post_id":"g9swxv","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.95,"history":"Recommendations for books to introduce someone to philosophy Hi, I am a teenager who has always been interested in philosophy and its principles, but all the books i have tried are very hard to get into, and I was wondering if you guys had any suggestions for good books to introduce someone to philosophy, thanks!","c_root_id_A":"fovs9fw","c_root_id_B":"fovq8vn","created_at_utc_A":1588106642,"created_at_utc_B":1588105652,"score_A":8,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"What got me into philosophy was reading Alan Watts, Hermann Hesse and books about asian philosophies like Zen, Buddhism, and especially Taoism. Then Sophie's World introduced me to more western philosophies in an easily digestible narrative.","human_ref_B":"I really enjoyed Plato's dialogues when I first became interested in philosophy and found them to be relatively accessible, considering I had very little prior experience with the subject. There are some great suggestions here; I want to second the CrashCourse recommendation. It is a great resource, especially when used alongside readings.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":990.0,"score_ratio":4.0}
{"post_id":"g9swxv","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.95,"history":"Recommendations for books to introduce someone to philosophy Hi, I am a teenager who has always been interested in philosophy and its principles, but all the books i have tried are very hard to get into, and I was wondering if you guys had any suggestions for good books to introduce someone to philosophy, thanks!","c_root_id_A":"fovmzjv","c_root_id_B":"fovkx8v","created_at_utc_A":1588104055,"created_at_utc_B":1588103059,"score_A":4,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"Fellow teen - I found Introduction to Philosophy: Classical and Contemporary Readings to be very helpful. It's mostly all primary sources with brief\/helpful explanations of each general topic\/short biographies as well as good stuff on writing philosophy in the beginning. Highly recommended although I think with anything in philosophy it's going to take a while to digest concepts\/ideas. All the best!","human_ref_B":"Nigel Warburton's Philosophy the basics is a great introduction book. Simple but not trivial. Can't recommend enough.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":996.0,"score_ratio":1.3333333333}
{"post_id":"g9swxv","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.95,"history":"Recommendations for books to introduce someone to philosophy Hi, I am a teenager who has always been interested in philosophy and its principles, but all the books i have tried are very hard to get into, and I was wondering if you guys had any suggestions for good books to introduce someone to philosophy, thanks!","c_root_id_A":"fovmo08","c_root_id_B":"fovmzjv","created_at_utc_A":1588103900,"created_at_utc_B":1588104055,"score_A":2,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"Looking at Philosophy: The Unbearable Heaviness of Philosophy Made Lighter by Donald Palmer.  A great intro to Western Philosophy that summarizes all the major thinkers in 2 - 5 page chunks.  It will give you a general overview of the history of ideas, how the conversation occurred, etc.  Your local used bookstore probably has a copy.","human_ref_B":"Fellow teen - I found Introduction to Philosophy: Classical and Contemporary Readings to be very helpful. It's mostly all primary sources with brief\/helpful explanations of each general topic\/short biographies as well as good stuff on writing philosophy in the beginning. Highly recommended although I think with anything in philosophy it's going to take a while to digest concepts\/ideas. All the best!","labels":0,"seconds_difference":155.0,"score_ratio":2.0}
{"post_id":"g9swxv","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.95,"history":"Recommendations for books to introduce someone to philosophy Hi, I am a teenager who has always been interested in philosophy and its principles, but all the books i have tried are very hard to get into, and I was wondering if you guys had any suggestions for good books to introduce someone to philosophy, thanks!","c_root_id_A":"fovr60w","c_root_id_B":"fovmo08","created_at_utc_A":1588106102,"created_at_utc_B":1588103900,"score_A":3,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"The Story of Philosophy by Will Durant is really fun to read, really dramatic language makes it more exciting. Also the Philosophize This podcast is great. Also check out Rick Roderick's lectures on youtube: 1 2 3","human_ref_B":"Looking at Philosophy: The Unbearable Heaviness of Philosophy Made Lighter by Donald Palmer.  A great intro to Western Philosophy that summarizes all the major thinkers in 2 - 5 page chunks.  It will give you a general overview of the history of ideas, how the conversation occurred, etc.  Your local used bookstore probably has a copy.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":2202.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
{"post_id":"g9swxv","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.95,"history":"Recommendations for books to introduce someone to philosophy Hi, I am a teenager who has always been interested in philosophy and its principles, but all the books i have tried are very hard to get into, and I was wondering if you guys had any suggestions for good books to introduce someone to philosophy, thanks!","c_root_id_A":"fovr60w","c_root_id_B":"fovn42s","created_at_utc_A":1588106102,"created_at_utc_B":1588104116,"score_A":3,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"The Story of Philosophy by Will Durant is really fun to read, really dramatic language makes it more exciting. Also the Philosophize This podcast is great. Also check out Rick Roderick's lectures on youtube: 1 2 3","human_ref_B":"I would recommend the great philosophy channel of Kane Baker. Here you can find accessible introductions to many analytic tradition topics.  https:\/\/m.youtube.com\/user\/kanebaker91  Other other great source is the Standard Encyclopedia of philosophy, where you can find good introductions to pretty much every philosophy topic.   https:\/\/plato.stanford.edu  Finally, for some books, you can search out for any Routledge introduction to philosophy you want. Normally you would find great chapters about the most important topics in many of the analytic tradition branches.   Hope it helps","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1986.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
{"post_id":"g9swxv","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.95,"history":"Recommendations for books to introduce someone to philosophy Hi, I am a teenager who has always been interested in philosophy and its principles, but all the books i have tried are very hard to get into, and I was wondering if you guys had any suggestions for good books to introduce someone to philosophy, thanks!","c_root_id_A":"fovr60w","c_root_id_B":"fovq8vn","created_at_utc_A":1588106102,"created_at_utc_B":1588105652,"score_A":3,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"The Story of Philosophy by Will Durant is really fun to read, really dramatic language makes it more exciting. Also the Philosophize This podcast is great. Also check out Rick Roderick's lectures on youtube: 1 2 3","human_ref_B":"I really enjoyed Plato's dialogues when I first became interested in philosophy and found them to be relatively accessible, considering I had very little prior experience with the subject. There are some great suggestions here; I want to second the CrashCourse recommendation. It is a great resource, especially when used alongside readings.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":450.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
{"post_id":"g9swxv","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.95,"history":"Recommendations for books to introduce someone to philosophy Hi, I am a teenager who has always been interested in philosophy and its principles, but all the books i have tried are very hard to get into, and I was wondering if you guys had any suggestions for good books to introduce someone to philosophy, thanks!","c_root_id_A":"fovmo08","c_root_id_B":"fowdgvm","created_at_utc_A":1588103900,"created_at_utc_B":1588117655,"score_A":2,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"Looking at Philosophy: The Unbearable Heaviness of Philosophy Made Lighter by Donald Palmer.  A great intro to Western Philosophy that summarizes all the major thinkers in 2 - 5 page chunks.  It will give you a general overview of the history of ideas, how the conversation occurred, etc.  Your local used bookstore probably has a copy.","human_ref_B":"I\u2019d recommend Descartes *Meditations on First Philosophy*, which is a great starting point for academic philosophy, and also rather short and to the point. The language will take some getting used to for someone who is unfamiliar with philosophy, so I\u2019d also recommend the Edinburgh Philosophical Guide to *Meditations*. It\u2019s written by an undergraduate professor of mine so I may be biased in recommending it, but the language is very clear and understandable, but it also does not sugar-coat or simplify concepts as some secondary sources do. What I like about philosophy is how the ideas need to be wrestled with in order to be understood, and a good secondary source can be thought of as a tag-team partner who can do some of that wrestling for you.   *Meditations* is a really great place to start with philosophy because it is widely considered to be the starting point for modern western philosophy. The ideas Descartes introduces are carried throughout the entire western tradition, and as such it will give you a good taste of what academic philosophy is like. Also, if you do end up pursuing philosophy later on, having read it will give you a nice head start on your peers. Also, and most importantly, it is interesting and aims to answer classic questions such as: what one\u2019s being is, what makes an object and object, and how we can know what is true.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":13755.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
{"post_id":"g9swxv","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.95,"history":"Recommendations for books to introduce someone to philosophy Hi, I am a teenager who has always been interested in philosophy and its principles, but all the books i have tried are very hard to get into, and I was wondering if you guys had any suggestions for good books to introduce someone to philosophy, thanks!","c_root_id_A":"fovn42s","c_root_id_B":"fowdgvm","created_at_utc_A":1588104116,"created_at_utc_B":1588117655,"score_A":2,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"I would recommend the great philosophy channel of Kane Baker. Here you can find accessible introductions to many analytic tradition topics.  https:\/\/m.youtube.com\/user\/kanebaker91  Other other great source is the Standard Encyclopedia of philosophy, where you can find good introductions to pretty much every philosophy topic.   https:\/\/plato.stanford.edu  Finally, for some books, you can search out for any Routledge introduction to philosophy you want. Normally you would find great chapters about the most important topics in many of the analytic tradition branches.   Hope it helps","human_ref_B":"I\u2019d recommend Descartes *Meditations on First Philosophy*, which is a great starting point for academic philosophy, and also rather short and to the point. The language will take some getting used to for someone who is unfamiliar with philosophy, so I\u2019d also recommend the Edinburgh Philosophical Guide to *Meditations*. It\u2019s written by an undergraduate professor of mine so I may be biased in recommending it, but the language is very clear and understandable, but it also does not sugar-coat or simplify concepts as some secondary sources do. What I like about philosophy is how the ideas need to be wrestled with in order to be understood, and a good secondary source can be thought of as a tag-team partner who can do some of that wrestling for you.   *Meditations* is a really great place to start with philosophy because it is widely considered to be the starting point for modern western philosophy. The ideas Descartes introduces are carried throughout the entire western tradition, and as such it will give you a good taste of what academic philosophy is like. Also, if you do end up pursuing philosophy later on, having read it will give you a nice head start on your peers. Also, and most importantly, it is interesting and aims to answer classic questions such as: what one\u2019s being is, what makes an object and object, and how we can know what is true.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":13539.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
{"post_id":"g9swxv","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.95,"history":"Recommendations for books to introduce someone to philosophy Hi, I am a teenager who has always been interested in philosophy and its principles, but all the books i have tried are very hard to get into, and I was wondering if you guys had any suggestions for good books to introduce someone to philosophy, thanks!","c_root_id_A":"fovq8vn","c_root_id_B":"fowdgvm","created_at_utc_A":1588105652,"created_at_utc_B":1588117655,"score_A":2,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"I really enjoyed Plato's dialogues when I first became interested in philosophy and found them to be relatively accessible, considering I had very little prior experience with the subject. There are some great suggestions here; I want to second the CrashCourse recommendation. It is a great resource, especially when used alongside readings.","human_ref_B":"I\u2019d recommend Descartes *Meditations on First Philosophy*, which is a great starting point for academic philosophy, and also rather short and to the point. The language will take some getting used to for someone who is unfamiliar with philosophy, so I\u2019d also recommend the Edinburgh Philosophical Guide to *Meditations*. It\u2019s written by an undergraduate professor of mine so I may be biased in recommending it, but the language is very clear and understandable, but it also does not sugar-coat or simplify concepts as some secondary sources do. What I like about philosophy is how the ideas need to be wrestled with in order to be understood, and a good secondary source can be thought of as a tag-team partner who can do some of that wrestling for you.   *Meditations* is a really great place to start with philosophy because it is widely considered to be the starting point for modern western philosophy. The ideas Descartes introduces are carried throughout the entire western tradition, and as such it will give you a good taste of what academic philosophy is like. Also, if you do end up pursuing philosophy later on, having read it will give you a nice head start on your peers. Also, and most importantly, it is interesting and aims to answer classic questions such as: what one\u2019s being is, what makes an object and object, and how we can know what is true.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":12003.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
{"post_id":"g9swxv","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.95,"history":"Recommendations for books to introduce someone to philosophy Hi, I am a teenager who has always been interested in philosophy and its principles, but all the books i have tried are very hard to get into, and I was wondering if you guys had any suggestions for good books to introduce someone to philosophy, thanks!","c_root_id_A":"fowdgvm","c_root_id_B":"fovtykn","created_at_utc_A":1588117655,"created_at_utc_B":1588107477,"score_A":3,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"I\u2019d recommend Descartes *Meditations on First Philosophy*, which is a great starting point for academic philosophy, and also rather short and to the point. The language will take some getting used to for someone who is unfamiliar with philosophy, so I\u2019d also recommend the Edinburgh Philosophical Guide to *Meditations*. It\u2019s written by an undergraduate professor of mine so I may be biased in recommending it, but the language is very clear and understandable, but it also does not sugar-coat or simplify concepts as some secondary sources do. What I like about philosophy is how the ideas need to be wrestled with in order to be understood, and a good secondary source can be thought of as a tag-team partner who can do some of that wrestling for you.   *Meditations* is a really great place to start with philosophy because it is widely considered to be the starting point for modern western philosophy. The ideas Descartes introduces are carried throughout the entire western tradition, and as such it will give you a good taste of what academic philosophy is like. Also, if you do end up pursuing philosophy later on, having read it will give you a nice head start on your peers. Also, and most importantly, it is interesting and aims to answer classic questions such as: what one\u2019s being is, what makes an object and object, and how we can know what is true.","human_ref_B":"If you're open to trying resources other than books ,  the Philosophize This! podcast by Stephen West on Spotify was what made philosophy more accessible for me prior to actually reading any key texts  They're best listened to chronologically but most episodes focus on specific philosophers if there's anyone that interests you particularly","labels":1,"seconds_difference":10178.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
{"post_id":"g9swxv","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.95,"history":"Recommendations for books to introduce someone to philosophy Hi, I am a teenager who has always been interested in philosophy and its principles, but all the books i have tried are very hard to get into, and I was wondering if you guys had any suggestions for good books to introduce someone to philosophy, thanks!","c_root_id_A":"fovwrtr","c_root_id_B":"fowdgvm","created_at_utc_A":1588108882,"created_at_utc_B":1588117655,"score_A":2,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"I would say the Platonic dialogues are pretty fun to get started with philosophy. I started my journey into philosophy reading the Euthyphro by Plato. Someone here also suggested Will Durant\u2019s The Story of Philosophy. I believe that this is an excellent overview for one to decide what philosopher and era to focus on.","human_ref_B":"I\u2019d recommend Descartes *Meditations on First Philosophy*, which is a great starting point for academic philosophy, and also rather short and to the point. The language will take some getting used to for someone who is unfamiliar with philosophy, so I\u2019d also recommend the Edinburgh Philosophical Guide to *Meditations*. It\u2019s written by an undergraduate professor of mine so I may be biased in recommending it, but the language is very clear and understandable, but it also does not sugar-coat or simplify concepts as some secondary sources do. What I like about philosophy is how the ideas need to be wrestled with in order to be understood, and a good secondary source can be thought of as a tag-team partner who can do some of that wrestling for you.   *Meditations* is a really great place to start with philosophy because it is widely considered to be the starting point for modern western philosophy. The ideas Descartes introduces are carried throughout the entire western tradition, and as such it will give you a good taste of what academic philosophy is like. Also, if you do end up pursuing philosophy later on, having read it will give you a nice head start on your peers. Also, and most importantly, it is interesting and aims to answer classic questions such as: what one\u2019s being is, what makes an object and object, and how we can know what is true.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":8773.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
{"post_id":"g9swxv","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.95,"history":"Recommendations for books to introduce someone to philosophy Hi, I am a teenager who has always been interested in philosophy and its principles, but all the books i have tried are very hard to get into, and I was wondering if you guys had any suggestions for good books to introduce someone to philosophy, thanks!","c_root_id_A":"fow3i89","c_root_id_B":"fowdgvm","created_at_utc_A":1588112331,"created_at_utc_B":1588117655,"score_A":2,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"I suggest to start from books and then, as you gain experience on the subject, move to site like the plato stanford linked numerous time and youtube channels. Plato stanford it\u2019s a detailed, good and really useful site, but it\u2019s too complicated fro beginners.  Start from Thomas Nagel - a very short introduction to philosophy, why does it all mean? Then read Samir Okasha - philosophy of science, a very short introduction. Next a book on formal logic, i suggest Pete W. Smith - an introduction to formal logic. Then Pierre Hadot - Philosophy as a way of life: Spiritual exercises from Socrates to Foucault. Then William G. Lycan - Philosophy of language a contemporary introduction. Then Theodor W. Adorno - Metaphysics : Concept and Problems. We end this journey with the icing on the cake, Plato - Parmenides.","human_ref_B":"I\u2019d recommend Descartes *Meditations on First Philosophy*, which is a great starting point for academic philosophy, and also rather short and to the point. The language will take some getting used to for someone who is unfamiliar with philosophy, so I\u2019d also recommend the Edinburgh Philosophical Guide to *Meditations*. It\u2019s written by an undergraduate professor of mine so I may be biased in recommending it, but the language is very clear and understandable, but it also does not sugar-coat or simplify concepts as some secondary sources do. What I like about philosophy is how the ideas need to be wrestled with in order to be understood, and a good secondary source can be thought of as a tag-team partner who can do some of that wrestling for you.   *Meditations* is a really great place to start with philosophy because it is widely considered to be the starting point for modern western philosophy. The ideas Descartes introduces are carried throughout the entire western tradition, and as such it will give you a good taste of what academic philosophy is like. Also, if you do end up pursuing philosophy later on, having read it will give you a nice head start on your peers. Also, and most importantly, it is interesting and aims to answer classic questions such as: what one\u2019s being is, what makes an object and object, and how we can know what is true.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":5324.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
{"post_id":"jw8ezr","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.91,"history":"What are the best books to learn philosophy from?","c_root_id_A":"gcouz42","c_root_id_B":"gcorzsw","created_at_utc_A":1605675354,"created_at_utc_B":1605673347,"score_A":44,"score_B":15,"human_ref_A":"Hot take: Let's think about philosophy differently than trying to \"learn\" it.  This is like trying to learn history, it's such a generic, vauge term that it loses its meaning past a point of assistance.  Lets ask specific questions.  What is it that's got your curiosity?  You will start down paths.  You might find what you're looking for.  The key is to stay specific so you stay focused, otherwise you will get lost in the jungle.  At some point you're going to need to ask yourself why you're doing this.  You have to be motivated to dredge through some of this stuff, what keeps you pushing?  If this is just about personal reasons like self-discovery and learning (not externally set objectives) then it's pretty hard to go wrong as long as you're getting whatever you are looking for out of it.  If someone else expects you to get  something specific out of reading philosophy maybe ask them where to start.  Just remember it's like history and there's no real wrong place to start.  You may find Ancient Greece is your thing or late 1800s Germany, but you have to figure that out on your own.","human_ref_B":"This might not be highly regarded from academic and professional philosophers but what got me started was Will Durant\u2019s \u201cStory of Philosophy.\u201d He has a way of clearly explaining difficult concepts with a writing style that I can only describe as beautifully addicting. Because of his work I can actually comprehend and appreciate the basic ideas of Nietzsche, Kant, and Spinoza.   For entertaining reading right from the source material I always found Hume, Plato (depending on the translation), Popper, and Santayana very readable and ingeniously simple.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":2007.0,"score_ratio":2.9333333333}
{"post_id":"jw8ezr","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.91,"history":"What are the best books to learn philosophy from?","c_root_id_A":"gcouz42","c_root_id_B":"gcosdf2","created_at_utc_A":1605675354,"created_at_utc_B":1605673594,"score_A":44,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"Hot take: Let's think about philosophy differently than trying to \"learn\" it.  This is like trying to learn history, it's such a generic, vauge term that it loses its meaning past a point of assistance.  Lets ask specific questions.  What is it that's got your curiosity?  You will start down paths.  You might find what you're looking for.  The key is to stay specific so you stay focused, otherwise you will get lost in the jungle.  At some point you're going to need to ask yourself why you're doing this.  You have to be motivated to dredge through some of this stuff, what keeps you pushing?  If this is just about personal reasons like self-discovery and learning (not externally set objectives) then it's pretty hard to go wrong as long as you're getting whatever you are looking for out of it.  If someone else expects you to get  something specific out of reading philosophy maybe ask them where to start.  Just remember it's like history and there's no real wrong place to start.  You may find Ancient Greece is your thing or late 1800s Germany, but you have to figure that out on your own.","human_ref_B":"I still use Philosophy for Dummies as a reference book.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1760.0,"score_ratio":11.0}
{"post_id":"jw8ezr","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.91,"history":"What are the best books to learn philosophy from?","c_root_id_A":"gcouz42","c_root_id_B":"gcou5yj","created_at_utc_A":1605675354,"created_at_utc_B":1605674797,"score_A":44,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"Hot take: Let's think about philosophy differently than trying to \"learn\" it.  This is like trying to learn history, it's such a generic, vauge term that it loses its meaning past a point of assistance.  Lets ask specific questions.  What is it that's got your curiosity?  You will start down paths.  You might find what you're looking for.  The key is to stay specific so you stay focused, otherwise you will get lost in the jungle.  At some point you're going to need to ask yourself why you're doing this.  You have to be motivated to dredge through some of this stuff, what keeps you pushing?  If this is just about personal reasons like self-discovery and learning (not externally set objectives) then it's pretty hard to go wrong as long as you're getting whatever you are looking for out of it.  If someone else expects you to get  something specific out of reading philosophy maybe ask them where to start.  Just remember it's like history and there's no real wrong place to start.  You may find Ancient Greece is your thing or late 1800s Germany, but you have to figure that out on your own.","human_ref_B":"Path of Philosophy by John Marmysz is a great introduction to most major movements and figures in philosophy.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":557.0,"score_ratio":22.0}
{"post_id":"jw8ezr","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.91,"history":"What are the best books to learn philosophy from?","c_root_id_A":"gcovc4v","c_root_id_B":"gcp01xx","created_at_utc_A":1605675613,"created_at_utc_B":1605679215,"score_A":4,"score_B":12,"human_ref_A":"Philosophy -The Basics by Nigel Warburton Easy to read book, everything is so simplified in this book This book would help you to build your foundation","human_ref_B":"Sophies World","labels":0,"seconds_difference":3602.0,"score_ratio":3.0}
{"post_id":"jw8ezr","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.91,"history":"What are the best books to learn philosophy from?","c_root_id_A":"gcosdf2","c_root_id_B":"gcp01xx","created_at_utc_A":1605673594,"created_at_utc_B":1605679215,"score_A":4,"score_B":12,"human_ref_A":"I still use Philosophy for Dummies as a reference book.","human_ref_B":"Sophies World","labels":0,"seconds_difference":5621.0,"score_ratio":3.0}
{"post_id":"jw8ezr","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.91,"history":"What are the best books to learn philosophy from?","c_root_id_A":"gcou5yj","c_root_id_B":"gcp01xx","created_at_utc_A":1605674797,"created_at_utc_B":1605679215,"score_A":2,"score_B":12,"human_ref_A":"Path of Philosophy by John Marmysz is a great introduction to most major movements and figures in philosophy.","human_ref_B":"Sophies World","labels":0,"seconds_difference":4418.0,"score_ratio":6.0}
{"post_id":"jw8ezr","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.91,"history":"What are the best books to learn philosophy from?","c_root_id_A":"gcovc4v","c_root_id_B":"gcp1uz2","created_at_utc_A":1605675613,"created_at_utc_B":1605680728,"score_A":4,"score_B":8,"human_ref_A":"Philosophy -The Basics by Nigel Warburton Easy to read book, everything is so simplified in this book This book would help you to build your foundation","human_ref_B":"As a child I picked up Sophie's World from the library, and that was what got me started.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":5115.0,"score_ratio":2.0}
{"post_id":"jw8ezr","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.91,"history":"What are the best books to learn philosophy from?","c_root_id_A":"gcp1uz2","c_root_id_B":"gcp1j9h","created_at_utc_A":1605680728,"created_at_utc_B":1605680450,"score_A":8,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"As a child I picked up Sophie's World from the library, and that was what got me started.","human_ref_B":"https:\/\/www.reddit.com\/r\/AskPhilosophyFAQ\/comments\/4ifqi3\/im_interested_in_philosophy_where_should_i_start\/","labels":1,"seconds_difference":278.0,"score_ratio":1.6}
{"post_id":"jw8ezr","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.91,"history":"What are the best books to learn philosophy from?","c_root_id_A":"gcp1uz2","c_root_id_B":"gcosdf2","created_at_utc_A":1605680728,"created_at_utc_B":1605673594,"score_A":8,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"As a child I picked up Sophie's World from the library, and that was what got me started.","human_ref_B":"I still use Philosophy for Dummies as a reference book.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":7134.0,"score_ratio":2.0}
{"post_id":"jw8ezr","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.91,"history":"What are the best books to learn philosophy from?","c_root_id_A":"gcp1uz2","c_root_id_B":"gcp1jy7","created_at_utc_A":1605680728,"created_at_utc_B":1605680467,"score_A":8,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"As a child I picked up Sophie's World from the library, and that was what got me started.","human_ref_B":"The history of Philosophy by Copleston","labels":1,"seconds_difference":261.0,"score_ratio":2.0}
{"post_id":"jw8ezr","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.91,"history":"What are the best books to learn philosophy from?","c_root_id_A":"gcou5yj","c_root_id_B":"gcp1uz2","created_at_utc_A":1605674797,"created_at_utc_B":1605680728,"score_A":2,"score_B":8,"human_ref_A":"Path of Philosophy by John Marmysz is a great introduction to most major movements and figures in philosophy.","human_ref_B":"As a child I picked up Sophie's World from the library, and that was what got me started.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":5931.0,"score_ratio":4.0}
{"post_id":"jw8ezr","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.91,"history":"What are the best books to learn philosophy from?","c_root_id_A":"gcp1j9h","c_root_id_B":"gcovc4v","created_at_utc_A":1605680450,"created_at_utc_B":1605675613,"score_A":5,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"https:\/\/www.reddit.com\/r\/AskPhilosophyFAQ\/comments\/4ifqi3\/im_interested_in_philosophy_where_should_i_start\/","human_ref_B":"Philosophy -The Basics by Nigel Warburton Easy to read book, everything is so simplified in this book This book would help you to build your foundation","labels":1,"seconds_difference":4837.0,"score_ratio":1.25}
{"post_id":"jw8ezr","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.91,"history":"What are the best books to learn philosophy from?","c_root_id_A":"gcp34wx","c_root_id_B":"gcovc4v","created_at_utc_A":1605681834,"created_at_utc_B":1605675613,"score_A":5,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"I can recommend Nagel\u2019s *What Does It All Mean?*.","human_ref_B":"Philosophy -The Basics by Nigel Warburton Easy to read book, everything is so simplified in this book This book would help you to build your foundation","labels":1,"seconds_difference":6221.0,"score_ratio":1.25}
{"post_id":"jw8ezr","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.91,"history":"What are the best books to learn philosophy from?","c_root_id_A":"gcovc4v","c_root_id_B":"gcpa1a7","created_at_utc_A":1605675613,"created_at_utc_B":1605688365,"score_A":4,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"Philosophy -The Basics by Nigel Warburton Easy to read book, everything is so simplified in this book This book would help you to build your foundation","human_ref_B":"Anthony Kenny has a great 4 part book series on the history of western philosophy","labels":0,"seconds_difference":12752.0,"score_ratio":1.25}
{"post_id":"jw8ezr","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.91,"history":"What are the best books to learn philosophy from?","c_root_id_A":"gcou5yj","c_root_id_B":"gcovc4v","created_at_utc_A":1605674797,"created_at_utc_B":1605675613,"score_A":2,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"Path of Philosophy by John Marmysz is a great introduction to most major movements and figures in philosophy.","human_ref_B":"Philosophy -The Basics by Nigel Warburton Easy to read book, everything is so simplified in this book This book would help you to build your foundation","labels":0,"seconds_difference":816.0,"score_ratio":2.0}
{"post_id":"jw8ezr","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.91,"history":"What are the best books to learn philosophy from?","c_root_id_A":"gcosdf2","c_root_id_B":"gcp1j9h","created_at_utc_A":1605673594,"created_at_utc_B":1605680450,"score_A":4,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"I still use Philosophy for Dummies as a reference book.","human_ref_B":"https:\/\/www.reddit.com\/r\/AskPhilosophyFAQ\/comments\/4ifqi3\/im_interested_in_philosophy_where_should_i_start\/","labels":0,"seconds_difference":6856.0,"score_ratio":1.25}
{"post_id":"jw8ezr","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.91,"history":"What are the best books to learn philosophy from?","c_root_id_A":"gcp1j9h","c_root_id_B":"gcou5yj","created_at_utc_A":1605680450,"created_at_utc_B":1605674797,"score_A":5,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"https:\/\/www.reddit.com\/r\/AskPhilosophyFAQ\/comments\/4ifqi3\/im_interested_in_philosophy_where_should_i_start\/","human_ref_B":"Path of Philosophy by John Marmysz is a great introduction to most major movements and figures in philosophy.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":5653.0,"score_ratio":2.5}
{"post_id":"jw8ezr","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.91,"history":"What are the best books to learn philosophy from?","c_root_id_A":"gcosdf2","c_root_id_B":"gcp34wx","created_at_utc_A":1605673594,"created_at_utc_B":1605681834,"score_A":4,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"I still use Philosophy for Dummies as a reference book.","human_ref_B":"I can recommend Nagel\u2019s *What Does It All Mean?*.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":8240.0,"score_ratio":1.25}
{"post_id":"jw8ezr","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.91,"history":"What are the best books to learn philosophy from?","c_root_id_A":"gcp34wx","c_root_id_B":"gcp1jy7","created_at_utc_A":1605681834,"created_at_utc_B":1605680467,"score_A":5,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"I can recommend Nagel\u2019s *What Does It All Mean?*.","human_ref_B":"The history of Philosophy by Copleston","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1367.0,"score_ratio":1.25}
{"post_id":"jw8ezr","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.91,"history":"What are the best books to learn philosophy from?","c_root_id_A":"gcp34wx","c_root_id_B":"gcou5yj","created_at_utc_A":1605681834,"created_at_utc_B":1605674797,"score_A":5,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"I can recommend Nagel\u2019s *What Does It All Mean?*.","human_ref_B":"Path of Philosophy by John Marmysz is a great introduction to most major movements and figures in philosophy.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":7037.0,"score_ratio":2.5}
{"post_id":"jw8ezr","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.91,"history":"What are the best books to learn philosophy from?","c_root_id_A":"gcpa1a7","c_root_id_B":"gcosdf2","created_at_utc_A":1605688365,"created_at_utc_B":1605673594,"score_A":5,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"Anthony Kenny has a great 4 part book series on the history of western philosophy","human_ref_B":"I still use Philosophy for Dummies as a reference book.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":14771.0,"score_ratio":1.25}
{"post_id":"jw8ezr","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.91,"history":"What are the best books to learn philosophy from?","c_root_id_A":"gcp1jy7","c_root_id_B":"gcpa1a7","created_at_utc_A":1605680467,"created_at_utc_B":1605688365,"score_A":4,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"The history of Philosophy by Copleston","human_ref_B":"Anthony Kenny has a great 4 part book series on the history of western philosophy","labels":0,"seconds_difference":7898.0,"score_ratio":1.25}
{"post_id":"jw8ezr","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.91,"history":"What are the best books to learn philosophy from?","c_root_id_A":"gcp1jy7","c_root_id_B":"gcou5yj","created_at_utc_A":1605680467,"created_at_utc_B":1605674797,"score_A":4,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"The history of Philosophy by Copleston","human_ref_B":"Path of Philosophy by John Marmysz is a great introduction to most major movements and figures in philosophy.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":5670.0,"score_ratio":2.0}
{"post_id":"jw8ezr","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.91,"history":"What are the best books to learn philosophy from?","c_root_id_A":"gcpa1a7","c_root_id_B":"gcou5yj","created_at_utc_A":1605688365,"created_at_utc_B":1605674797,"score_A":5,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"Anthony Kenny has a great 4 part book series on the history of western philosophy","human_ref_B":"Path of Philosophy by John Marmysz is a great introduction to most major movements and figures in philosophy.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":13568.0,"score_ratio":2.5}
{"post_id":"jw8ezr","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.91,"history":"What are the best books to learn philosophy from?","c_root_id_A":"gcou5yj","c_root_id_B":"gcpuii4","created_at_utc_A":1605674797,"created_at_utc_B":1605707383,"score_A":2,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"Path of Philosophy by John Marmysz is a great introduction to most major movements and figures in philosophy.","human_ref_B":"Start with Plato's Dialogues, that's the best option you have. I seriously wouldn't recommend Bertrand Russell's history of philosophy.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":32586.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
{"post_id":"jw8ezr","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.91,"history":"What are the best books to learn philosophy from?","c_root_id_A":"gcpwrj9","c_root_id_B":"gcou5yj","created_at_utc_A":1605708757,"created_at_utc_B":1605674797,"score_A":3,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"In my first year of undergrad, we were prescribed 'Think:  A Compelling Introduction to Philosophy\" by Simon Blackburn. It's really easy to digest and covers a broad range of pretty fundamental topics in philosophy (knowledge, the mind, the self, free will, etc). I also found it really useful in learning how to evaluate and think about an argument and the strength of various responses.  Hope that helps, dude. :)","human_ref_B":"Path of Philosophy by John Marmysz is a great introduction to most major movements and figures in philosophy.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":33960.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
{"post_id":"p6qu5n","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.96,"history":"Why is panpsychism so popular to modern philosophers? What are the best arguments for it?","c_root_id_A":"h9fop07","c_root_id_B":"h9epoay","created_at_utc_A":1629310160,"created_at_utc_B":1629294316,"score_A":33,"score_B":27,"human_ref_A":"The reason panpsychism has had a bit of a surge in popularity (I wouldn't quite say it's broadly popular) is because if you accept panpsychism the Hard Problem of Consciousness largely disappears.    That's the main driving force, for sure.  I don't think David Chalmers has *explicitly* endorsed panpsychism, but if you watch his lectures it's clear he fancies it.  If we posit as an axiom that consciousness is fundamental to the universe, the same way that matter and energy are, then there is no longer a Hard Problem. It simply follows that consciousness is embedded into the universe (or a property dualist may say it's embedded in all matter), and so complex physical structures such as human beings would naturally have complex mental structures (like consciousness).  Of course, there are complications, this is a simplification, but generally speaking that's why panpsychism is popular.  To put a button on it, it's becoming more popular because the idea that physicalism can solve the Hard Problem looks more and more unlikely.  Again, there are lots of caveats here but this is broadly the reasoning.","human_ref_B":">Why is panpsychism so popular to modern philosophers?   I don't think there's any indication it is.   >What are the best arguments for it?  The basic appeal of it is to answer the question of 'Well okay I'm convinced that the mental is other than physical, but if this is the case is it not really weird that the mental, one of the two fundamental types of substance, is present in like humans and literally nowhere else? (Or maybe like some other higher animals). And present like fully formed basically ex nihilo?' The panpsychist solution is it so say no the mental does not pop in fully formed in human minds, but rather the building blocks of it exist in everything parallel to the physical.   The main arguments are outlined in here  https:\/\/plato.stanford.edu\/entries\/panpsychism\/","labels":1,"seconds_difference":15844.0,"score_ratio":1.2222222222}
{"post_id":"p6qu5n","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.96,"history":"Why is panpsychism so popular to modern philosophers? What are the best arguments for it?","c_root_id_A":"h9foall","c_root_id_B":"h9fop07","created_at_utc_A":1629309981,"created_at_utc_B":1629310160,"score_A":5,"score_B":33,"human_ref_A":"To second u\/Voltairinede, panpsychism is *not* popular among living philosophers. It is controversial and sexy at the same time, which helped it garner much media attention, but it doesn't represent its popularity among professional philosophers.  Still, whether you sympathize with panpsychism or not, I believe that a growing debate on panpsychicism will help us understand more about the concept of consciousness.  (edit: typo)","human_ref_B":"The reason panpsychism has had a bit of a surge in popularity (I wouldn't quite say it's broadly popular) is because if you accept panpsychism the Hard Problem of Consciousness largely disappears.    That's the main driving force, for sure.  I don't think David Chalmers has *explicitly* endorsed panpsychism, but if you watch his lectures it's clear he fancies it.  If we posit as an axiom that consciousness is fundamental to the universe, the same way that matter and energy are, then there is no longer a Hard Problem. It simply follows that consciousness is embedded into the universe (or a property dualist may say it's embedded in all matter), and so complex physical structures such as human beings would naturally have complex mental structures (like consciousness).  Of course, there are complications, this is a simplification, but generally speaking that's why panpsychism is popular.  To put a button on it, it's becoming more popular because the idea that physicalism can solve the Hard Problem looks more and more unlikely.  Again, there are lots of caveats here but this is broadly the reasoning.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":179.0,"score_ratio":6.6}
{"post_id":"p6qu5n","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.96,"history":"Why is panpsychism so popular to modern philosophers? What are the best arguments for it?","c_root_id_A":"h9foall","c_root_id_B":"h9g1zqb","created_at_utc_A":1629309981,"created_at_utc_B":1629316138,"score_A":5,"score_B":9,"human_ref_A":"To second u\/Voltairinede, panpsychism is *not* popular among living philosophers. It is controversial and sexy at the same time, which helped it garner much media attention, but it doesn't represent its popularity among professional philosophers.  Still, whether you sympathize with panpsychism or not, I believe that a growing debate on panpsychicism will help us understand more about the concept of consciousness.  (edit: typo)","human_ref_B":"One of the weird things about philosophy is that views wildly unrepresentative of how philosophers generally think sometimes get wildly overrepresented in terms of the amount of attention given to them. Part of the problem is with the usual sensationalism of media and popular cultural interpretations of academic fields, which afflict philosophy no less than, say, physics or computer science. But part of the problem is also internal to philosophy: sometimes extreme positions, even though they're implausible, are useful or interesting for how they help define the scope of the debate; sometimes a new and implausible position is one it's easy to write a paper on that is more likely to get a bunch of citations as everyone else rushes to do the same thing.  I think some of that is going on here, and we shouldn't take the amount of attention that panpsychism gets -- popularly but also within the field -- to be proportional to how widely it's believed.  I think if we asked philosophers if they believe rocks have mental states, they'd tend by a fairly large margin to answer in the negative. But panpsychism is still an interesting position in some significant ways. I get the impression that a lot the semi-recent-ish interest in it comes from the ways it's motivated as a kind of biting-the-bullet defense of physicalism. Let's say you're a physicalist who believes that mental states are functional organizations of physical systems -- a pretty influential sort of belief. You'll sometimes meet people who challenge you along these lines: \"Wait, but then why don't we say that, say, a thermostat has mental states? Surely it has functional states.\" If you're committed to your functionalism and to denying that thermostats have mental states, you may be left scratching your head. So it'd be awful handy if you could just give up the latter commitment, bite the bullet, and give the counter-intuitive response: \"We *shouldn't* say that! Thermostats *do* have mental states!\" This is a pretty narrow and specific operationalization of a kind of back-and-forth between the physicalist and their critic, but in general hopefully it illustrates how the physicalist might see some benefit from biting the bullet and accepting panpsychism, i.e. since it rids them of the need to explain why human brains but not thermostats, nor indeed the arrangements of pins and balls in a bowling lane, have mental states. Philosophers can generally still find this style of response deeply troubling, yet we can still see why it would be interesting to consider, minimally for how it helps us understand the scope of the debate.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":6157.0,"score_ratio":1.8}
{"post_id":"xalqqd","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.69,"history":"Why do theists often say that God is \"outside the reach of science\"? And not just theists. A lot of people seem to think that the existence of God is not a scientific question. Well let's recall what the scientific method is. First you make and observation. Then you formulate a hypothesis to explain that observation. Then you make predictions based on that hypothesis. And then you test whether or not those predictions are accurate.  To say that a certain hypothesis is not a scientific hypothesis is to say that either the hypothesis wasn't formulated to explain an observation, or the hypothesis makes no testable predictions whatsoever, making it entirely inconsequential whether it is correct or not.  I doubt many theists would say that they propose the existence of God for no reason at all. Many of them say that they propose God as an explanation for fine-tuning, design, etc, which are observations. I also doubt that many theists would say that the existence of God is inconsequential.  So what gives? The existence of God seems like an entirely scientific question to me.  Here's a rebuttal that I sometimes hear: \"but God is immaterial. Science only deals with material entities\". This is false. Revisit the scientific method laid out above. There's *nothing* in it that prevents you from making a hypothesis about immaterial things. If such a hypothesis is posited to explain observations and makes predictions, it is a scientific hypothesis. Whether it is about material or immaterial entities is entirely irrelevant.","c_root_id_A":"inubix7","c_root_id_B":"inuanfn","created_at_utc_A":1662807793,"created_at_utc_B":1662807115,"score_A":45,"score_B":22,"human_ref_A":"I\u2019m not sure you\u2019re right in claiming that if a claim has no testable predictions, it is inconsequential whether it is correct.  For a claim to make testable predictions for us, it must be possible for us to specify a set of observations which would lead us to think the claim was true or false. This could fail to be the case even the correctness or incorrectness of the claim made an enormous difference.  Suppose proponents of the cosmological argument are correct. Then, were God to not exist, there would be no observations of any kind. But, there is no particular set of observations we can specify.  If proponents of the problem of evil are correct, then there is too much evil for the world to have been created by God. But, first, arguably moral evaluations are outside the scope of science. Second, there\u2019s a philosophical controversy over how much evil is consistent with the existence of God.  I think the catch with finding testable predictions relevant to the existence of God is these either explains everything or nothing, so there\u2019s no particular set of predictions we can specify as confirming or disconfirming, unless maybe if we allow science to deal in moral evaluations.  A possible exception to this would be the fine tuning argument, but if that is evidence of God, it is because it is evidence of a more narrow thesis - that the universe was designed for intelligent life to emerge, or something like that. And even theists can imagine a universe not like that.","human_ref_B":"I imagine the trouble here is that you are taking some kind of scientist view wherein the only questions worth asking and answering are going to be scientific ones. This is not going to be a common view held by Philosophers, for one because if true would presumably eliminate Philosophy or make it pointless.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":678.0,"score_ratio":2.0454545455}
{"post_id":"xalqqd","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.69,"history":"Why do theists often say that God is \"outside the reach of science\"? And not just theists. A lot of people seem to think that the existence of God is not a scientific question. Well let's recall what the scientific method is. First you make and observation. Then you formulate a hypothesis to explain that observation. Then you make predictions based on that hypothesis. And then you test whether or not those predictions are accurate.  To say that a certain hypothesis is not a scientific hypothesis is to say that either the hypothesis wasn't formulated to explain an observation, or the hypothesis makes no testable predictions whatsoever, making it entirely inconsequential whether it is correct or not.  I doubt many theists would say that they propose the existence of God for no reason at all. Many of them say that they propose God as an explanation for fine-tuning, design, etc, which are observations. I also doubt that many theists would say that the existence of God is inconsequential.  So what gives? The existence of God seems like an entirely scientific question to me.  Here's a rebuttal that I sometimes hear: \"but God is immaterial. Science only deals with material entities\". This is false. Revisit the scientific method laid out above. There's *nothing* in it that prevents you from making a hypothesis about immaterial things. If such a hypothesis is posited to explain observations and makes predictions, it is a scientific hypothesis. Whether it is about material or immaterial entities is entirely irrelevant.","c_root_id_A":"inujzds","c_root_id_B":"inusvsg","created_at_utc_A":1662813283,"created_at_utc_B":1662817887,"score_A":5,"score_B":10,"human_ref_A":"Well i think that the crucial point is the 'observation' ... The scientific method is grounded on 'observation' in a way or in another, that s the only way the three steps u mentioned can make sense... Observing a phenomena is grounded on 'observation'  , formulating a hypothesis is also grounded on 'observation'  and the same is true when talking about predictions , or to be exact, when talking abt testing predictions.  Thus positioning  God outside the realm of science might be due to the fact of his 'unobservable nature' !! M not making a claim that god is observable or not... what m tryin to say is that questioning whether  god is  outside or inside the realm of science , is questioning the extent to which we can think of god as an observable entity or not!!","human_ref_B":"Consider a simulated world running on a computer. Someone in the simulated world proposes that their world is dependent on a computer running for its existence, because for reasons X, Y, and Z he believes that the simulated objects cannot be a sufficient explanation for their own existence. Somebody retorts, \"but where is this computer? We've never observed this computer as another object inside our simulated world among the simulated objects. It's the same thing as asking whether simulated unicorns exist in our world.\" Then the first person replies, \"simulated unicorns would be other objects in our world. The computer I'm proposing is not another object in this world, and so is not subject to direct observation. We can only see its effects. That is, us, and all the other objects of the world, and reason from there. We're not looking for specific unicorn dropping equivalents as evidence, we're looking at all the things that be and considering the very nature of what it is \"to be\".\"  This is what is meant when we say God is not subject to scientific observation, that is, the type of falsifiability the scientific method uses. It's outside the scope of the scientific method, which is limited to observation of physical objects in our world.  Now, an older definition of science, meaning a *method* of rational reasoning, can be used for theology, and other fields. But what is usually meant by \"it's not a scientific question\" is that it's not a question answerable by the scientific method that's been really developed in the last few centuries.   And there's a few disanalogies with the computer example. A computer running a simulated world would still be a physical object in its own level of world outside the simulated one, whereas what theists mean by God (at least, what classical theists mean) is a non-composite\/complex, non-physical, eternal and unchanging principle of all being, and not just another being of a certain kind. (And there are reasons for that, but I think my computer analogy at least helps answer the original question.)","labels":0,"seconds_difference":4604.0,"score_ratio":2.0}
{"post_id":"xalqqd","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.69,"history":"Why do theists often say that God is \"outside the reach of science\"? And not just theists. A lot of people seem to think that the existence of God is not a scientific question. Well let's recall what the scientific method is. First you make and observation. Then you formulate a hypothesis to explain that observation. Then you make predictions based on that hypothesis. And then you test whether or not those predictions are accurate.  To say that a certain hypothesis is not a scientific hypothesis is to say that either the hypothesis wasn't formulated to explain an observation, or the hypothesis makes no testable predictions whatsoever, making it entirely inconsequential whether it is correct or not.  I doubt many theists would say that they propose the existence of God for no reason at all. Many of them say that they propose God as an explanation for fine-tuning, design, etc, which are observations. I also doubt that many theists would say that the existence of God is inconsequential.  So what gives? The existence of God seems like an entirely scientific question to me.  Here's a rebuttal that I sometimes hear: \"but God is immaterial. Science only deals with material entities\". This is false. Revisit the scientific method laid out above. There's *nothing* in it that prevents you from making a hypothesis about immaterial things. If such a hypothesis is posited to explain observations and makes predictions, it is a scientific hypothesis. Whether it is about material or immaterial entities is entirely irrelevant.","c_root_id_A":"inusvsg","c_root_id_B":"inuln9h","created_at_utc_A":1662817887,"created_at_utc_B":1662814224,"score_A":10,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"Consider a simulated world running on a computer. Someone in the simulated world proposes that their world is dependent on a computer running for its existence, because for reasons X, Y, and Z he believes that the simulated objects cannot be a sufficient explanation for their own existence. Somebody retorts, \"but where is this computer? We've never observed this computer as another object inside our simulated world among the simulated objects. It's the same thing as asking whether simulated unicorns exist in our world.\" Then the first person replies, \"simulated unicorns would be other objects in our world. The computer I'm proposing is not another object in this world, and so is not subject to direct observation. We can only see its effects. That is, us, and all the other objects of the world, and reason from there. We're not looking for specific unicorn dropping equivalents as evidence, we're looking at all the things that be and considering the very nature of what it is \"to be\".\"  This is what is meant when we say God is not subject to scientific observation, that is, the type of falsifiability the scientific method uses. It's outside the scope of the scientific method, which is limited to observation of physical objects in our world.  Now, an older definition of science, meaning a *method* of rational reasoning, can be used for theology, and other fields. But what is usually meant by \"it's not a scientific question\" is that it's not a question answerable by the scientific method that's been really developed in the last few centuries.   And there's a few disanalogies with the computer example. A computer running a simulated world would still be a physical object in its own level of world outside the simulated one, whereas what theists mean by God (at least, what classical theists mean) is a non-composite\/complex, non-physical, eternal and unchanging principle of all being, and not just another being of a certain kind. (And there are reasons for that, but I think my computer analogy at least helps answer the original question.)","human_ref_B":"The simplistic answer is that science deals with the created world and because God is not created, God is beyond the scope of science. This doesn\u2019t mean that science can\u2019t infer a divine being (I.e the cosmological argument for God), just that science won\u2019t prove God.   However, most theists (myself included) would argue that science is only possible because of God. Science relies on the basic presupposition that the universe is both ordered and knowable. It is these things because it was created by a logical and ordered God.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":3663.0,"score_ratio":2.5}
{"post_id":"x8tl8r","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.75,"history":"Why is believing in immaterial things unscientific? It seems like in physics you have to believe in laws which are immaterial, so why would believing in other immaterial things like the soul, ghosts or stuff like this be considered unscientific?","c_root_id_A":"inljwcs","c_root_id_B":"inkvy2x","created_at_utc_A":1662650208,"created_at_utc_B":1662639804,"score_A":25,"score_B":16,"human_ref_A":"\"Why is believing in material things unscientific? Scientists believe in things like cells, atoms, black holes, etc, but not in things like dragons, phlogiston, or ether.\"  You see the issue here? The difference has nothing to do with whether we classify a thing as material or immaterial. We don't automatically believe in all material things and disbelieve in all immaterial things! The crucial factor is whether there is sufficient evidence to believe in something","human_ref_B":"Depending on what you take \"immaterial\" to cover, some very naturalistic-minded philosophers think it's in fact scientific to believe in immaterial things. For instance, numbers.  But it is generally considered unscientific to believe in souls, ghosts, and dualistic consciousness simply because so far we have done a great job of explaining away these phenomena in physical\/natural terms. There is no satisfactory evidence for the existence of ghosts or souls, only for rumours, hoaxes, and hallucinations. It is true, however, that there is no accepted scientific model of consciousness up until now, and some philosophers think there are reasons to believe one is in principle impossible.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":10404.0,"score_ratio":1.5625}
{"post_id":"x8tl8r","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.75,"history":"Why is believing in immaterial things unscientific? It seems like in physics you have to believe in laws which are immaterial, so why would believing in other immaterial things like the soul, ghosts or stuff like this be considered unscientific?","c_root_id_A":"inljwcs","c_root_id_B":"inl4wac","created_at_utc_A":1662650208,"created_at_utc_B":1662644057,"score_A":25,"score_B":7,"human_ref_A":"\"Why is believing in material things unscientific? Scientists believe in things like cells, atoms, black holes, etc, but not in things like dragons, phlogiston, or ether.\"  You see the issue here? The difference has nothing to do with whether we classify a thing as material or immaterial. We don't automatically believe in all material things and disbelieve in all immaterial things! The crucial factor is whether there is sufficient evidence to believe in something","human_ref_B":"Every scientist uses and believes in immaterial objects: Concepts, numbers, relations, and ideas... (just to name a few). Maybe the concept \"matter\" is actually unscientific (refers to nothing really). What is matter, Energie?     If you ask why it is unscientific to believe in certain immaterial objects like souls and ghosts, there are two possible reasons.   1. It is unclear what it means (what it should refer to)   2. There is no evidence that what it refers to actually exists.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":6151.0,"score_ratio":3.5714285714}
{"post_id":"x8tl8r","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.75,"history":"Why is believing in immaterial things unscientific? It seems like in physics you have to believe in laws which are immaterial, so why would believing in other immaterial things like the soul, ghosts or stuff like this be considered unscientific?","c_root_id_A":"inljwcs","c_root_id_B":"inkp82b","created_at_utc_A":1662650208,"created_at_utc_B":1662635992,"score_A":25,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"\"Why is believing in material things unscientific? Scientists believe in things like cells, atoms, black holes, etc, but not in things like dragons, phlogiston, or ether.\"  You see the issue here? The difference has nothing to do with whether we classify a thing as material or immaterial. We don't automatically believe in all material things and disbelieve in all immaterial things! The crucial factor is whether there is sufficient evidence to believe in something","human_ref_B":"Because thats the nature of science. Science is am empirical process, meaning that it is verifiable through experimentation and observation (and as such must be repeatable in order to be verified). The scientific process cannot be used for something that is immaterial and cannot be observed or experimented upon. The laws of physics that you describe are  not really immaterial, they are concepts which came about through observation of material phenomenon which can be observed and experimented upon.  That being said, that doesn't necessarily mean that what is immaterial and  can't be examined using the scientific process is not real. The scientific process, like anything, has constraints and it can't be applied to everything that we experience and everything that is. I love my children deeply, I find beauty in the natural world and experience awe and wonder in certain arts and in various situations that I find myself in. Those are real and true in the deepest sense that something can be true but they are immaterial, they cannot be proven through the scientific process.  I think the most important thing to remember is that science (which should be thought of as a verb, not a noun) is a tool to understand the world  and it has been very successful at doing just that, but it isn't the appropriate tool for every situation and there are other tools for understanding the world as well.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":14216.0,"score_ratio":5.0}
{"post_id":"x8tl8r","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.75,"history":"Why is believing in immaterial things unscientific? It seems like in physics you have to believe in laws which are immaterial, so why would believing in other immaterial things like the soul, ghosts or stuff like this be considered unscientific?","c_root_id_A":"inkp82b","c_root_id_B":"inkvy2x","created_at_utc_A":1662635992,"created_at_utc_B":1662639804,"score_A":5,"score_B":16,"human_ref_A":"Because thats the nature of science. Science is am empirical process, meaning that it is verifiable through experimentation and observation (and as such must be repeatable in order to be verified). The scientific process cannot be used for something that is immaterial and cannot be observed or experimented upon. The laws of physics that you describe are  not really immaterial, they are concepts which came about through observation of material phenomenon which can be observed and experimented upon.  That being said, that doesn't necessarily mean that what is immaterial and  can't be examined using the scientific process is not real. The scientific process, like anything, has constraints and it can't be applied to everything that we experience and everything that is. I love my children deeply, I find beauty in the natural world and experience awe and wonder in certain arts and in various situations that I find myself in. Those are real and true in the deepest sense that something can be true but they are immaterial, they cannot be proven through the scientific process.  I think the most important thing to remember is that science (which should be thought of as a verb, not a noun) is a tool to understand the world  and it has been very successful at doing just that, but it isn't the appropriate tool for every situation and there are other tools for understanding the world as well.","human_ref_B":"Depending on what you take \"immaterial\" to cover, some very naturalistic-minded philosophers think it's in fact scientific to believe in immaterial things. For instance, numbers.  But it is generally considered unscientific to believe in souls, ghosts, and dualistic consciousness simply because so far we have done a great job of explaining away these phenomena in physical\/natural terms. There is no satisfactory evidence for the existence of ghosts or souls, only for rumours, hoaxes, and hallucinations. It is true, however, that there is no accepted scientific model of consciousness up until now, and some philosophers think there are reasons to believe one is in principle impossible.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":3812.0,"score_ratio":3.2}
{"post_id":"x8tl8r","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.75,"history":"Why is believing in immaterial things unscientific? It seems like in physics you have to believe in laws which are immaterial, so why would believing in other immaterial things like the soul, ghosts or stuff like this be considered unscientific?","c_root_id_A":"inkp82b","c_root_id_B":"inl4wac","created_at_utc_A":1662635992,"created_at_utc_B":1662644057,"score_A":5,"score_B":7,"human_ref_A":"Because thats the nature of science. Science is am empirical process, meaning that it is verifiable through experimentation and observation (and as such must be repeatable in order to be verified). The scientific process cannot be used for something that is immaterial and cannot be observed or experimented upon. The laws of physics that you describe are  not really immaterial, they are concepts which came about through observation of material phenomenon which can be observed and experimented upon.  That being said, that doesn't necessarily mean that what is immaterial and  can't be examined using the scientific process is not real. The scientific process, like anything, has constraints and it can't be applied to everything that we experience and everything that is. I love my children deeply, I find beauty in the natural world and experience awe and wonder in certain arts and in various situations that I find myself in. Those are real and true in the deepest sense that something can be true but they are immaterial, they cannot be proven through the scientific process.  I think the most important thing to remember is that science (which should be thought of as a verb, not a noun) is a tool to understand the world  and it has been very successful at doing just that, but it isn't the appropriate tool for every situation and there are other tools for understanding the world as well.","human_ref_B":"Every scientist uses and believes in immaterial objects: Concepts, numbers, relations, and ideas... (just to name a few). Maybe the concept \"matter\" is actually unscientific (refers to nothing really). What is matter, Energie?     If you ask why it is unscientific to believe in certain immaterial objects like souls and ghosts, there are two possible reasons.   1. It is unclear what it means (what it should refer to)   2. There is no evidence that what it refers to actually exists.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":8065.0,"score_ratio":1.4}
{"post_id":"58p8ti","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.86,"history":"If Life Is Meaningless Why Do Anything? I think if I found the answer to this question I'd stop procrastinating and actually go out and do stuff.  I just feel that there is no point in being successful or happy or anything because it passes and repeats. Life is just life no matter what form, and thus I don't see the meaning or difference in changing it. I could be on the street or in a mansion, it will be the same life. This also may be called laziness.   I guess my question is: What motivates you, knowing that life is meaningless?","c_root_id_A":"d92a1y0","c_root_id_B":"d92b543","created_at_utc_A":1477083365,"created_at_utc_B":1477084916,"score_A":4,"score_B":21,"human_ref_A":"I like the answer u\/Euthalius gave a lot, but to add on to it, if life is meaningless as you say, that doesn't necessarily mean there is no point in being successful or happy. For one thing, being happy feels nice, and being unhappy feels bad, so even if it doesn't *mean* anything to be happy, that doesn't mean you don't feel it. So while joy may be meaningless from the perspective of some weird, cosmic, third party, that doesn't mean you don't feel joy - you do. And so perhaps it's good enough that, as you make your cupcakes, you feel joy while doing it. Sure, you might not be contributing to some greater universal \"cosmic order,\" but you did make some cupcakes, and you did feel good afterward, and that's a pretty amazing thing.   His mention of Nagel's essay is also fantastic and I recommend it as well. If you're looking for another book along these same lines, try Camus' [The Stranger]( https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/The_Stranger_(novel). It's a very short book and it's a great fictional account of the absurd and how to grapple with meaninglessness.   **EDIT:** Looks like I found a bug in Reddit's formatting (I'm sure I'm not the first) - it doesn't allow for links that end with a right parenthesis. Luckily wikipedia seems to still suggest the right article if you click that link.","human_ref_B":"Ah, the good old cycle of morality.  First you're a nihilist. After all, claims of broad moral meaning are almost always trite and very rarely of any actual value to the decision making agent. So you declare life meaningless and pick up black clothes and clove cigarettes.  But the nihilist must quickly surrender to the hedonist. After all, some things obviously feel bad while other things feel good. If, then, there is no meaning, might as well enjoy life as much as possible.  But the hedonist gives way to the utilitarian. After all, directly indulging your immediate whims isn't the best way to maximize your own pleasure. Instead, it is better to approach things systematically as to avoid the obvious pitfalls of hedonism, thus genuinely increasing your (and other's) long-term happiness in lieu of short-term fits and bursts.  From here things get a little more controversial. My natural inclination is to step off of utilitarianism and respect an existentialist perspective. After all, happiness is hardly quantifiable and the scope of \"maximized happiness\" is so broad as to be nearly useless. Instead, the existentialist might argue, it is better to recognize your existence and your mortality and generate meaning of your own.  Of course, once you recognize that it is important to generate your own meaning - and, with a good tempering of existential dread - it is all too easy to slip right back into nihilism.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1551.0,"score_ratio":5.25}
{"post_id":"58p8ti","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.86,"history":"If Life Is Meaningless Why Do Anything? I think if I found the answer to this question I'd stop procrastinating and actually go out and do stuff.  I just feel that there is no point in being successful or happy or anything because it passes and repeats. Life is just life no matter what form, and thus I don't see the meaning or difference in changing it. I could be on the street or in a mansion, it will be the same life. This also may be called laziness.   I guess my question is: What motivates you, knowing that life is meaningless?","c_root_id_A":"d92a1y0","c_root_id_B":"d92cg6l","created_at_utc_A":1477083365,"created_at_utc_B":1477086836,"score_A":4,"score_B":10,"human_ref_A":"I like the answer u\/Euthalius gave a lot, but to add on to it, if life is meaningless as you say, that doesn't necessarily mean there is no point in being successful or happy. For one thing, being happy feels nice, and being unhappy feels bad, so even if it doesn't *mean* anything to be happy, that doesn't mean you don't feel it. So while joy may be meaningless from the perspective of some weird, cosmic, third party, that doesn't mean you don't feel joy - you do. And so perhaps it's good enough that, as you make your cupcakes, you feel joy while doing it. Sure, you might not be contributing to some greater universal \"cosmic order,\" but you did make some cupcakes, and you did feel good afterward, and that's a pretty amazing thing.   His mention of Nagel's essay is also fantastic and I recommend it as well. If you're looking for another book along these same lines, try Camus' [The Stranger]( https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/The_Stranger_(novel). It's a very short book and it's a great fictional account of the absurd and how to grapple with meaninglessness.   **EDIT:** Looks like I found a bug in Reddit's formatting (I'm sure I'm not the first) - it doesn't allow for links that end with a right parenthesis. Luckily wikipedia seems to still suggest the right article if you click that link.","human_ref_B":"just a little nearly-off-topic-link  about your struggle: meh.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":3471.0,"score_ratio":2.5}
{"post_id":"58p8ti","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.86,"history":"If Life Is Meaningless Why Do Anything? I think if I found the answer to this question I'd stop procrastinating and actually go out and do stuff.  I just feel that there is no point in being successful or happy or anything because it passes and repeats. Life is just life no matter what form, and thus I don't see the meaning or difference in changing it. I could be on the street or in a mansion, it will be the same life. This also may be called laziness.   I guess my question is: What motivates you, knowing that life is meaningless?","c_root_id_A":"d92bxzz","c_root_id_B":"d92cg6l","created_at_utc_A":1477086076,"created_at_utc_B":1477086836,"score_A":3,"score_B":10,"human_ref_A":"What does it mean to say that life is meaningless? How would it be meaningless? To whom? What would constitute meaning?  I can't answer your question because I don't know that life is meaningless.  Edit: If you're implying that \"life\" as an abstract concept can somehow hold a different meaning than the life of a subject, I don't understand how that is possible.","human_ref_B":"just a little nearly-off-topic-link  about your struggle: meh.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":760.0,"score_ratio":3.3333333333}
{"post_id":"58p8ti","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.86,"history":"If Life Is Meaningless Why Do Anything? I think if I found the answer to this question I'd stop procrastinating and actually go out and do stuff.  I just feel that there is no point in being successful or happy or anything because it passes and repeats. Life is just life no matter what form, and thus I don't see the meaning or difference in changing it. I could be on the street or in a mansion, it will be the same life. This also may be called laziness.   I guess my question is: What motivates you, knowing that life is meaningless?","c_root_id_A":"d92hn4q","c_root_id_B":"d92a1y0","created_at_utc_A":1477095326,"created_at_utc_B":1477083365,"score_A":6,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"\"If nothing matters, then it doesn't matter that nothing matters.\"","human_ref_B":"I like the answer u\/Euthalius gave a lot, but to add on to it, if life is meaningless as you say, that doesn't necessarily mean there is no point in being successful or happy. For one thing, being happy feels nice, and being unhappy feels bad, so even if it doesn't *mean* anything to be happy, that doesn't mean you don't feel it. So while joy may be meaningless from the perspective of some weird, cosmic, third party, that doesn't mean you don't feel joy - you do. And so perhaps it's good enough that, as you make your cupcakes, you feel joy while doing it. Sure, you might not be contributing to some greater universal \"cosmic order,\" but you did make some cupcakes, and you did feel good afterward, and that's a pretty amazing thing.   His mention of Nagel's essay is also fantastic and I recommend it as well. If you're looking for another book along these same lines, try Camus' [The Stranger]( https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/The_Stranger_(novel). It's a very short book and it's a great fictional account of the absurd and how to grapple with meaninglessness.   **EDIT:** Looks like I found a bug in Reddit's formatting (I'm sure I'm not the first) - it doesn't allow for links that end with a right parenthesis. Luckily wikipedia seems to still suggest the right article if you click that link.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":11961.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
{"post_id":"58p8ti","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.86,"history":"If Life Is Meaningless Why Do Anything? I think if I found the answer to this question I'd stop procrastinating and actually go out and do stuff.  I just feel that there is no point in being successful or happy or anything because it passes and repeats. Life is just life no matter what form, and thus I don't see the meaning or difference in changing it. I could be on the street or in a mansion, it will be the same life. This also may be called laziness.   I guess my question is: What motivates you, knowing that life is meaningless?","c_root_id_A":"d92bxzz","c_root_id_B":"d92hn4q","created_at_utc_A":1477086076,"created_at_utc_B":1477095326,"score_A":3,"score_B":6,"human_ref_A":"What does it mean to say that life is meaningless? How would it be meaningless? To whom? What would constitute meaning?  I can't answer your question because I don't know that life is meaningless.  Edit: If you're implying that \"life\" as an abstract concept can somehow hold a different meaning than the life of a subject, I don't understand how that is possible.","human_ref_B":"\"If nothing matters, then it doesn't matter that nothing matters.\"","labels":0,"seconds_difference":9250.0,"score_ratio":2.0}
{"post_id":"58p8ti","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.86,"history":"If Life Is Meaningless Why Do Anything? I think if I found the answer to this question I'd stop procrastinating and actually go out and do stuff.  I just feel that there is no point in being successful or happy or anything because it passes and repeats. Life is just life no matter what form, and thus I don't see the meaning or difference in changing it. I could be on the street or in a mansion, it will be the same life. This also may be called laziness.   I guess my question is: What motivates you, knowing that life is meaningless?","c_root_id_A":"d92sff4","c_root_id_B":"d92bxzz","created_at_utc_A":1477117553,"created_at_utc_B":1477086076,"score_A":4,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":">What motivates you, knowing that life is meaningless?  I reject the premise.","human_ref_B":"What does it mean to say that life is meaningless? How would it be meaningless? To whom? What would constitute meaning?  I can't answer your question because I don't know that life is meaningless.  Edit: If you're implying that \"life\" as an abstract concept can somehow hold a different meaning than the life of a subject, I don't understand how that is possible.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":31477.0,"score_ratio":1.3333333333}
{"post_id":"58p8ti","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.86,"history":"If Life Is Meaningless Why Do Anything? I think if I found the answer to this question I'd stop procrastinating and actually go out and do stuff.  I just feel that there is no point in being successful or happy or anything because it passes and repeats. Life is just life no matter what form, and thus I don't see the meaning or difference in changing it. I could be on the street or in a mansion, it will be the same life. This also may be called laziness.   I guess my question is: What motivates you, knowing that life is meaningless?","c_root_id_A":"d92sff4","c_root_id_B":"d92kq3n","created_at_utc_A":1477117553,"created_at_utc_B":1477100854,"score_A":4,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":">What motivates you, knowing that life is meaningless?  I reject the premise.","human_ref_B":"Desire motivates me.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":16699.0,"score_ratio":1.3333333333}
{"post_id":"wjfz8s","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.93,"history":"any good youtube channels about philosophy? even podcasts","c_root_id_A":"ijh3twa","c_root_id_B":"ijh5ml5","created_at_utc_A":1659983661,"created_at_utc_B":1659984340,"score_A":32,"score_B":46,"human_ref_A":"I have enjoyed many episodes of the podcast Philosophize This.","human_ref_B":"This questions gets asked a lot, so you can use the search bar for more. But:  You might also look up a course on youtube. For example, Shelly Kagan has a course on death: https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/playlist?list=PLEA18FAF1AD9047B0  Sandel has a course on justice: https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/watch?v=kBdfcR-8hEY  Gregory Sandler has an often recommended series: https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/user\/gbisadler  There are a number of Rick Roderick videos on youtube if you are more into \"continental\" philosophy, e.g. https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/watch?v=4wetwETy4u0  Another good option is just to jump into a podcast. If you are history inclined, you can check out History of Philosophy Without Any Gaps. If you want something more \"bite sized,\" you can check out Philosophy Bites.   Or browse some philosophy podcasts and see what looks interesting to you:  https:\/\/dailynous.com\/2020\/11\/23\/big-list-philosophy-podcasts\/  https:\/\/old.reddit.com\/r\/AskPhilosophyFAQ\/comments\/4i0faz\/what_are_some_good_philosophy_podcasts\/  https:\/\/www.reddit.com\/r\/AskPhilosophyFAQ\/comments\/7o6pm0\/what_are_some_good_philosophy_youtube_channels\/  For some general recommendations on how to start reading: https:\/\/old.reddit.com\/r\/AskPhilosophyFAQ\/comments\/4ifqi3\/im_interested_in_philosophy_where_should_i_start\/","labels":0,"seconds_difference":679.0,"score_ratio":1.4375}
{"post_id":"wjfz8s","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.93,"history":"any good youtube channels about philosophy? even podcasts","c_root_id_A":"ijhjpyy","c_root_id_B":"ijh72re","created_at_utc_A":1659989812,"created_at_utc_B":1659984886,"score_A":26,"score_B":20,"human_ref_A":"For a podcasts I'd recommend \"Philosophize This.\"","human_ref_B":"I like \"CCK Philosophy\" a lot personally","labels":1,"seconds_difference":4926.0,"score_ratio":1.3}
{"post_id":"wjfz8s","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.93,"history":"any good youtube channels about philosophy? even podcasts","c_root_id_A":"ijhjpyy","c_root_id_B":"ijhirku","created_at_utc_A":1659989812,"created_at_utc_B":1659989402,"score_A":26,"score_B":17,"human_ref_A":"For a podcasts I'd recommend \"Philosophize This.\"","human_ref_B":"Professor Michael Sugrue has a great channel.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":410.0,"score_ratio":1.5294117647}
{"post_id":"wjfz8s","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.93,"history":"any good youtube channels about philosophy? even podcasts","c_root_id_A":"ijhb0jz","c_root_id_B":"ijhjpyy","created_at_utc_A":1659986377,"created_at_utc_B":1659989812,"score_A":4,"score_B":26,"human_ref_A":"The Unmute Podcast - interviews with current philosophers on recent work","human_ref_B":"For a podcasts I'd recommend \"Philosophize This.\"","labels":0,"seconds_difference":3435.0,"score_ratio":6.5}
{"post_id":"wjfz8s","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.93,"history":"any good youtube channels about philosophy? even podcasts","c_root_id_A":"ijhirku","c_root_id_B":"ijhb0jz","created_at_utc_A":1659989402,"created_at_utc_B":1659986377,"score_A":17,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"Professor Michael Sugrue has a great channel.","human_ref_B":"The Unmute Podcast - interviews with current philosophers on recent work","labels":1,"seconds_difference":3025.0,"score_ratio":4.25}
{"post_id":"zizgne","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.62,"history":"Why do political philosophers value political rights so highly (voting, representation, certain expression, etc.) but give short shrift to economic rights (property & contract)?","c_root_id_A":"izthifl","c_root_id_B":"izu7xod","created_at_utc_A":1670785332,"created_at_utc_B":1670795643,"score_A":4,"score_B":12,"human_ref_A":"I'd say it's probably a disagreement about the precise character and status of these economic rights. What precisely does a right to property or contract entail and how should it be weighed against political rights?  The right to property for example is fiercely debated as to what it is grounded on and where its limits are. This isn't a new development at all, you can find the difference in people like Locke (grounding property on natural right) and Hume (grounding property on utility). Where you stand on these issues will influence your position on where this right should come in your considerations.  The right to contract is perhaps most debated with regards to its content. For example, should you be allowed to sell yourself into slavery or serfdom or an 80-hour job etc.? Libertarians and classical liberals would say that individual liberty comes first so the state should not intervene here while others would object that such contracts are objectionable because they undermine equality between citizens or human dignity.  When these rights and their contents are so fiercely debated it is no surprise that people give them different considerations in their ideal theory. One could say that Tomasi's move to say that others have simply overlooked them for no discernible reason at all (this might be hyperbole) conveniently simplifies the debate. One could understand him to be saying \"Everybody agrees on these economic rights, but almost nobody but me takes them seriously.\" That is a misrepresentation insofar as people just do not agree about the rights.","human_ref_B":"Property and contracts rights have tended to be prominent issues in political philosophy, in my experience. So I'm not sure what's motivating the premise here.  Even in, say, the fairly narrow constraint of the specifics of the debate between Rawls, Nozick, and Sandel, the question of property has been fairly central: follow from Chapter 5 of Rawk's *A Theory of Justice* to Chapter 7 of Nozick's *Anarchy, State, Utopia* to Chapter 2 of Sandel's *Liberalism and the Limits of Justice*. If we look at classical political theory, the priority of treating property rights has even often been regarded as a particular characteristic of the tradition: see, for instance, Chapter 5 of the second of Locke's *Two Treatises of Government* and the First Part of the First Book of Kant's *Metaphysics of Morals*.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":10311.0,"score_ratio":3.0}
{"post_id":"911nuw","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.83,"history":"Slavoj Zizek and Capitalist Philosophers. I have a couple of questions. At the moment I am trying to read the best arguments for and against both Marxism and it\u2019s relations Socialism and Communism. And also the best arguments for and against Capitalism and Objectivism. I am not interested in creating a debate or having emotional ravings from supporters of each side. I just want best sources of information for both philosophies that I can find. I am currently reading The Communist Manifesto and would like to read some Slavoj Zizek as I have heard he is the most well known critic atm. Obviously next will be Ayn Rand.  What would be the best books by Slavoj anyone can recommend, or any other authors that make good arguments for Communism, Socialism etc?  And what would be the best books anyone can recommend that make good arguments for Capitalism and Objectivism?  Thanks for you help. Again, I know this is always a touchy subject and I really don\u2019t want to create a debate I just want to accumulate as many objective facts as I can for myself so I can make my own decisions from an well researched and rationalist position.","c_root_id_A":"e2uu1wo","c_root_id_B":"e2uz9gg","created_at_utc_A":1532301438,"created_at_utc_B":1532307179,"score_A":7,"score_B":22,"human_ref_A":"It's not strictly speaking Marxism but Kropotkin's 'The Conquest Of Bread' presents a fairly compelling argument for anarcho-communism rooted in an interpretation of human nature.","human_ref_B":"I wouldn't recommend reading \u017di\u017eek if you want to read a contemporary Marxist philosopher. His framework is a fusion of multiple different philosophical frameworks of which Marxism is only one. This can make things complicated if you want to just understand Marxism. You should be reading *The Meaning of Marxism* by Paul D'Amato (latest edition is 2014) if you want an exposition and defense of Marxism.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":5741.0,"score_ratio":3.1428571429}
{"post_id":"911nuw","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.83,"history":"Slavoj Zizek and Capitalist Philosophers. I have a couple of questions. At the moment I am trying to read the best arguments for and against both Marxism and it\u2019s relations Socialism and Communism. And also the best arguments for and against Capitalism and Objectivism. I am not interested in creating a debate or having emotional ravings from supporters of each side. I just want best sources of information for both philosophies that I can find. I am currently reading The Communist Manifesto and would like to read some Slavoj Zizek as I have heard he is the most well known critic atm. Obviously next will be Ayn Rand.  What would be the best books by Slavoj anyone can recommend, or any other authors that make good arguments for Communism, Socialism etc?  And what would be the best books anyone can recommend that make good arguments for Capitalism and Objectivism?  Thanks for you help. Again, I know this is always a touchy subject and I really don\u2019t want to create a debate I just want to accumulate as many objective facts as I can for myself so I can make my own decisions from an well researched and rationalist position.","c_root_id_A":"e2uu1wo","c_root_id_B":"e2vjpew","created_at_utc_A":1532301438,"created_at_utc_B":1532336406,"score_A":7,"score_B":8,"human_ref_A":"It's not strictly speaking Marxism but Kropotkin's 'The Conquest Of Bread' presents a fairly compelling argument for anarcho-communism rooted in an interpretation of human nature.","human_ref_B":"Two modern day classics on this are: Why Not Socialism, by G A Cohen, and Why Not Capitalism, by Jason Brennan.   My girlfriend just read those two in a university philosophy course on democracy and capitalism, and they seem really interesting!","labels":0,"seconds_difference":34968.0,"score_ratio":1.1428571429}
{"post_id":"911nuw","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.83,"history":"Slavoj Zizek and Capitalist Philosophers. I have a couple of questions. At the moment I am trying to read the best arguments for and against both Marxism and it\u2019s relations Socialism and Communism. And also the best arguments for and against Capitalism and Objectivism. I am not interested in creating a debate or having emotional ravings from supporters of each side. I just want best sources of information for both philosophies that I can find. I am currently reading The Communist Manifesto and would like to read some Slavoj Zizek as I have heard he is the most well known critic atm. Obviously next will be Ayn Rand.  What would be the best books by Slavoj anyone can recommend, or any other authors that make good arguments for Communism, Socialism etc?  And what would be the best books anyone can recommend that make good arguments for Capitalism and Objectivism?  Thanks for you help. Again, I know this is always a touchy subject and I really don\u2019t want to create a debate I just want to accumulate as many objective facts as I can for myself so I can make my own decisions from an well researched and rationalist position.","c_root_id_A":"e2uzdq2","c_root_id_B":"e2vjpew","created_at_utc_A":1532307306,"created_at_utc_B":1532336406,"score_A":7,"score_B":8,"human_ref_A":"I want to echo history of philosophies recommendations.  Particularly Anarchy, State and Utopia by Nozick.  However, just know going into it that the first bit is directed at some extremely pro-capitalism people who are as a result anarchists.  Someone unfamiliar with what Nozick is responding to may be confused with why he's spending so long debunking the idea of anarchism.  I also want to add the recommendation of Hayek's the constitution of liberty.  He's an economist, but he's pretty philosophically savvy, and Constitution of Liberty is a good pro-capitalism place to start with good philosophy.  EDIT: Ditto everyone else on Rand.  She's not great on philosophy, and there are lot's better polar opposites of Marxism then her.  She's mainly a good novelist and polemicist.","human_ref_B":"Two modern day classics on this are: Why Not Socialism, by G A Cohen, and Why Not Capitalism, by Jason Brennan.   My girlfriend just read those two in a university philosophy course on democracy and capitalism, and they seem really interesting!","labels":0,"seconds_difference":29100.0,"score_ratio":1.1428571429}
{"post_id":"911nuw","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.83,"history":"Slavoj Zizek and Capitalist Philosophers. I have a couple of questions. At the moment I am trying to read the best arguments for and against both Marxism and it\u2019s relations Socialism and Communism. And also the best arguments for and against Capitalism and Objectivism. I am not interested in creating a debate or having emotional ravings from supporters of each side. I just want best sources of information for both philosophies that I can find. I am currently reading The Communist Manifesto and would like to read some Slavoj Zizek as I have heard he is the most well known critic atm. Obviously next will be Ayn Rand.  What would be the best books by Slavoj anyone can recommend, or any other authors that make good arguments for Communism, Socialism etc?  And what would be the best books anyone can recommend that make good arguments for Capitalism and Objectivism?  Thanks for you help. Again, I know this is always a touchy subject and I really don\u2019t want to create a debate I just want to accumulate as many objective facts as I can for myself so I can make my own decisions from an well researched and rationalist position.","c_root_id_A":"e2vjpew","c_root_id_B":"e2v2g65","created_at_utc_A":1532336406,"created_at_utc_B":1532310711,"score_A":8,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"Two modern day classics on this are: Why Not Socialism, by G A Cohen, and Why Not Capitalism, by Jason Brennan.   My girlfriend just read those two in a university philosophy course on democracy and capitalism, and they seem really interesting!","human_ref_B":"If you want a very in-depth argument for capitalism from an Objectivist viewpoint, I would recommend *The Capitalist Manifesto: The Historic, Economic and Philosophic Case for Laissez-Faire,* by Andrew Bernstein.  If you want to understand the Objectivist ethics, which is the basis for its support of capitalism, I would recommend *Atlas Shrugged*, as well as *Ayn Rand's Normative Ethics,* by Tara Smith.  These and other resources are listed on my Books and Links page at my blog, *Objectivism In Depth*. I also write essays for my blog on Objectivism, and these may be helpful as well.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":25695.0,"score_ratio":2.6666666667}
{"post_id":"911nuw","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.83,"history":"Slavoj Zizek and Capitalist Philosophers. I have a couple of questions. At the moment I am trying to read the best arguments for and against both Marxism and it\u2019s relations Socialism and Communism. And also the best arguments for and against Capitalism and Objectivism. I am not interested in creating a debate or having emotional ravings from supporters of each side. I just want best sources of information for both philosophies that I can find. I am currently reading The Communist Manifesto and would like to read some Slavoj Zizek as I have heard he is the most well known critic atm. Obviously next will be Ayn Rand.  What would be the best books by Slavoj anyone can recommend, or any other authors that make good arguments for Communism, Socialism etc?  And what would be the best books anyone can recommend that make good arguments for Capitalism and Objectivism?  Thanks for you help. Again, I know this is always a touchy subject and I really don\u2019t want to create a debate I just want to accumulate as many objective facts as I can for myself so I can make my own decisions from an well researched and rationalist position.","c_root_id_A":"e2uu1wo","c_root_id_B":"e2v1mq0","created_at_utc_A":1532301438,"created_at_utc_B":1532309804,"score_A":7,"score_B":8,"human_ref_A":"It's not strictly speaking Marxism but Kropotkin's 'The Conquest Of Bread' presents a fairly compelling argument for anarcho-communism rooted in an interpretation of human nature.","human_ref_B":"I think Zizek is practically unreadable if you aren't at least somewhat familiar with Hegel and Lacan. His best book imo is the Sublime Object of Ideology; though he says in interviews his favorite that he has written is Absolute Recoil. I think it's pretty difficult to get into and if you're like me, you'll spend way too much time trying to understand what he's talking about and finish without ever really being clear that you got it. Instead, I would recommend David Harvey (Seventeen Contradictions and the End of Capitalism) or someone along those lines - although he is not a philosopher - he is an academic - and he's a lot more straight forward about what socialists find problematic about capitalism.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":8366.0,"score_ratio":1.1428571429}
{"post_id":"911nuw","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.83,"history":"Slavoj Zizek and Capitalist Philosophers. I have a couple of questions. At the moment I am trying to read the best arguments for and against both Marxism and it\u2019s relations Socialism and Communism. And also the best arguments for and against Capitalism and Objectivism. I am not interested in creating a debate or having emotional ravings from supporters of each side. I just want best sources of information for both philosophies that I can find. I am currently reading The Communist Manifesto and would like to read some Slavoj Zizek as I have heard he is the most well known critic atm. Obviously next will be Ayn Rand.  What would be the best books by Slavoj anyone can recommend, or any other authors that make good arguments for Communism, Socialism etc?  And what would be the best books anyone can recommend that make good arguments for Capitalism and Objectivism?  Thanks for you help. Again, I know this is always a touchy subject and I really don\u2019t want to create a debate I just want to accumulate as many objective facts as I can for myself so I can make my own decisions from an well researched and rationalist position.","c_root_id_A":"e2v1mq0","c_root_id_B":"e2uzdq2","created_at_utc_A":1532309804,"created_at_utc_B":1532307306,"score_A":8,"score_B":7,"human_ref_A":"I think Zizek is practically unreadable if you aren't at least somewhat familiar with Hegel and Lacan. His best book imo is the Sublime Object of Ideology; though he says in interviews his favorite that he has written is Absolute Recoil. I think it's pretty difficult to get into and if you're like me, you'll spend way too much time trying to understand what he's talking about and finish without ever really being clear that you got it. Instead, I would recommend David Harvey (Seventeen Contradictions and the End of Capitalism) or someone along those lines - although he is not a philosopher - he is an academic - and he's a lot more straight forward about what socialists find problematic about capitalism.","human_ref_B":"I want to echo history of philosophies recommendations.  Particularly Anarchy, State and Utopia by Nozick.  However, just know going into it that the first bit is directed at some extremely pro-capitalism people who are as a result anarchists.  Someone unfamiliar with what Nozick is responding to may be confused with why he's spending so long debunking the idea of anarchism.  I also want to add the recommendation of Hayek's the constitution of liberty.  He's an economist, but he's pretty philosophically savvy, and Constitution of Liberty is a good pro-capitalism place to start with good philosophy.  EDIT: Ditto everyone else on Rand.  She's not great on philosophy, and there are lot's better polar opposites of Marxism then her.  She's mainly a good novelist and polemicist.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":2498.0,"score_ratio":1.1428571429}
{"post_id":"upyvw2","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.93,"history":"If you cannot defeat evil by just means do you commit evil to destroy evil or do you remain moral and just in defeat?? In short is it acceptable to do whatever it takes in order to win?","c_root_id_A":"i8oev9e","c_root_id_B":"i8ofj2q","created_at_utc_A":1652606976,"created_at_utc_B":1652607551,"score_A":7,"score_B":81,"human_ref_A":"It depends on how you define just and evil. If a father kills a person violently attacking his family, do you consider that act just or evil?     To do evil on purpose might trigger unintended consequences for the soul.","human_ref_B":"What you've described is known as the problem of  'dirty hands'. A famous example comes from Michael Walzer: if a politician orders a terrorist to be tortured in order to find out the location of a bomb that will kill innocent civilians, has he made his hands 'dirty'?   Your phrasing uses absolutist terms. For a 'strong' absolutist, evil is always evil, and you should remain moral and just in defeat. However, a 'weak' absolutist could argue that some evils are worse than others (e.g. torturing the terrorist vs. allowing innocent people to die), although you are still doing something wrong (so your hands get 'dirty').  Consequentialists would see things differently. For a 'strong' consequentialist, actions are only good or bad depending on context, so if it is necessary to do something, then it cannot be evil. Nevertheless, a 'weak' consequentialist might argue that some actions are at-first-glance evil but, everything-considered, the right thing to do. In this case, you only do evil at-first-glance (thus getting your hands 'dirty'), but you are actually everything-considered moral and just.   Edit: for further reading, try the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy entry on dirty hands https:\/\/plato.stanford.edu\/entries\/dirty-hands\/","labels":0,"seconds_difference":575.0,"score_ratio":11.5714285714}
{"post_id":"wva9rm","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.86,"history":"If you were to possess an infinite amount of currency and were to buy an item worth an infinite amount of currency, would you be able to buy it infinitely or only be able to buy it once?  I was thinking about the concepts of infinity and wanted to know the answer to this. I would like to hear reasons behind the thought process as well, if possible. Thank you","c_root_id_A":"ilfv0rp","c_root_id_B":"ilekj6i","created_at_utc_A":1661252358,"created_at_utc_B":1661220896,"score_A":6,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"Adding a precisation to the top answer: As posed, the question does not have an answer. You cannot pay infinite amount of dollars \"generically\". Subtraction of infinite amount is undefined, there's no answer to how much is left after spending an infinite amount from an infinite amount.  Subtraction of infinite sets has to specify which items in particular are being subtracted (or spent). Notice the answer by u\/jamesdig, to keep an infinite amount specifies which notes we're spending, i.e every other.   We can also spend the infinity such that nothing is left, spend bill1, Bill2, bill3... Etc in the obvious way.   We can also spend them so we have 1 bill left. Just spend bill2, Bill3, bill4 etc. We still spent an infinite amount, but now we're left with 1.  We can analogously be left with any amount we'd like.   So really the answer is both and more. You may have an infinite amount left, you might have 0 or any other number, depending on which bills you specifically use. The answer cannot be given in terms of of amounts alone, subtraction of infinities just cannot work that way","human_ref_B":"So, let\u2019s say you have an infinite amount of currency. That infinity is calculated by taking the limit of the function y = x as x goes to infinity.  Now let\u2019s say there is an item which costs an  infinite amount of currency. That infinity is calculated by taking the limit of the function y = x - 1, when x tends to infinity, so the item costs just 1 dollar less than the currency in your hands.  All you need to do in order to see how many of these items you can acquire with your infinite currency is divide the total amount currency you have with the total amount of currency one of the items costs. Therefore, we are looking at the limit of ( x \/ (x - 1) ) as x tends to infinity. It ends up you can only buy one of the aforementioned items and no more. As a matter of fact, that would be the case anyway, as long as the items costs is calculated by the limit of a function y = x + c, where c is a real number, because infinity is infinitely bigger than any real number. You can come to this results by a plethora of ways, like simplifying the limit from ( (x + c) \/ x ) to ( 1 + c \/ x ), of course ( by definition ) c \/ x goes to zero as x goes to infinity.   But this ( y = x + c, as x tends to infinity ) is not the only way to calculate an infinity.  (And dividing the two infinities can yield ambiguous results, such as the following: let\u2019s say the item costs an infinite amount of currency, calculated by the limit of the function y = x + c, where c is a *positive* real number and x goes to infinity, while your available infinite currency is calculated by taking the limit of the function y = x as x goes to infinity. The difference between these numbers is c, which is positive, and therefore you don\u2019t have enough money to buy the item, BUT dividing the amount of currency you have with the currency needed to buy the item gives a result of 1, as if you could actually buy it with the amount of currency you have. This is a definitional problem. You need to pick how you want to deal with your infinities. To be sure, you can always check if both ( infinity of currency I have - infinity of currency one item costs ) > 0 and ( infinity of currency I have \/ infinity of currency one item costs) > = 1. )   Consider you have an infinite amount of currency, again. To calculate that infinity, we take the limit of the function y = x^2 as x goes to infinity. Let\u2019s say the item costs the same infinity as before, calculated by the limit of x + c, where c is a real number and x goes to infinity. It is redundant to write it as x + c, since x goes to infinity and c is a real number, therefore we can write it as x. If we then decide accordingly, to see how many such items we can acquire with such an infinite amount of currency, we are going to have to calculate the limit of x^2 \/ x, as x goes to infinity, which is the same as the limit of x as x goes to infinity. So in this case you can buy an infinite amount of items ( this infinity is calculated by taking the limit of the function y = x as x goes to infinity ) which cost an infinite amount of currency ( this infinity is also calculated by taking the limit of the function y = x as x goes to infinity ). This can only happen since the infinity of your available infinite currency is calculated through the limit of the function y = x^2 ( one of the infinite x^2 + c functions ) as x goes to infinity.   Point being, it is all relative to how your infinities are calculated.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":31462.0,"score_ratio":2.0}
{"post_id":"wva9rm","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.86,"history":"If you were to possess an infinite amount of currency and were to buy an item worth an infinite amount of currency, would you be able to buy it infinitely or only be able to buy it once?  I was thinking about the concepts of infinity and wanted to know the answer to this. I would like to hear reasons behind the thought process as well, if possible. Thank you","c_root_id_A":"ilennxn","c_root_id_B":"ilfv0rp","created_at_utc_A":1661222354,"created_at_utc_B":1661252358,"score_A":3,"score_B":6,"human_ref_A":"A lot of people here are explaining the answer mathematically, but I think it's more useful to think about this particular question economically. Economically speaking, it probably doesn't make sense for there to be a currency that you can spend some of and still have just as much left - it's important that your account be somehow depleted when you spend some of it. If you had \\aleph_0 dollars and then spent one, you would still have \\aleph_0 dollars.  More likely, a currency that was infinite wouldn't be measured in terms of cardinality, but in terms of the hyperreal numbers. There could be one unit of currency that was infinitely more valuable than another, such that spending some of the small units would still make you have less than one of the large units. This would probably only be relevant if there were also goods that came in quantities that had this sort of \"non-Archimedean\" behavior. But if currency and value were hyperreal like this, then there would be a precise ratio between any infinite amount of currency and any infinite price, and that ratio would be how many of the object you could buy.","human_ref_B":"Adding a precisation to the top answer: As posed, the question does not have an answer. You cannot pay infinite amount of dollars \"generically\". Subtraction of infinite amount is undefined, there's no answer to how much is left after spending an infinite amount from an infinite amount.  Subtraction of infinite sets has to specify which items in particular are being subtracted (or spent). Notice the answer by u\/jamesdig, to keep an infinite amount specifies which notes we're spending, i.e every other.   We can also spend the infinity such that nothing is left, spend bill1, Bill2, bill3... Etc in the obvious way.   We can also spend them so we have 1 bill left. Just spend bill2, Bill3, bill4 etc. We still spent an infinite amount, but now we're left with 1.  We can analogously be left with any amount we'd like.   So really the answer is both and more. You may have an infinite amount left, you might have 0 or any other number, depending on which bills you specifically use. The answer cannot be given in terms of of amounts alone, subtraction of infinities just cannot work that way","labels":0,"seconds_difference":30004.0,"score_ratio":2.0}
{"post_id":"x76do8","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.96,"history":"What are the current hot topics in the philosophy of social science? Hello  ​  I am a graduate student in philosophy, and I was working on scientific realism debate but I kinda lost interest. I am trying to learn if there is a realism debate in social science. If not, I want to know what are the current hot topics in philosophy of social science that I can write a graduate thesis on.  ​  Thanks","c_root_id_A":"inbha4s","c_root_id_B":"inaqho7","created_at_utc_A":1662475013,"created_at_utc_B":1662461097,"score_A":18,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"When it comes to realism, there is a longstanding debate over the status of social entities like societies, states, corporations, etc. Do such entities really exist and have causal powers over and above individual human beings? Ontological individualists say no, ontological holists say yes. I think it's fair to say that ontological individualism is the dominant view today. Ontological individualism is often presented as a claim about supervenience: if you fix all of the facts about individuals and their relations, you automatically fix all the facts about social entities. There is nothing to society or any other social entity over and above individuals and their interactions.  But it's important to keep *ontological* and *methodological* individualism\/holism apart. A perennial question in the philosophy of social science is the status of social entities in giving social scientific *explanations*. Methodological individualism is a considerably stronger claim than ontological individualism: it purports that social phenomena are best or perhaps only explained by facts about individuals (and maybe their relations). The thing is that plenty of disciplines in the social sciences give explanations by citing facts about large social structures: for example, macro-economists often explain phenomena by citing facts about the the state of the economy taken as a whole. So, do these count as proper explanations? The methodological individualism\/holism debate is definitely an area that still receives a lot of attention, so it is a great entry point into the philosophy of social science.  There are a lot of debates about social scientific explanation more broadely as well. The most important development over the past 20 years or so has probably been the emphasis on mechanistic explanation in the social sciences. The literature on social mechanisms and mechanistic explanations has given a very convincing alternative to the older covering-law approach to explanation. Since the social sciences seem incapable of making generalizations at the level of universal laws, social mechanisms are often seen as a much more promising source of explanation.  A more recent topic is the status of non-human entities in social scientific modelling and explanation. There is an increasingly prevalent criticism that the social sciences are somehow too anthropocentric, ignoring the role of non-human entities in explaining social facts and events. Brian Epstein has a fairly recent and influential book that actually challenges ontological and methodological individualism from this perspective. I think this follows a recent trend of people getting bored of the old individualism\/holism debate and trying to challenge the individualist orthodoxy from new perspectives.","human_ref_B":"Not precisely what you asked but many of the leading researchers hang out in https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/groups\/367634687022722\/?ref=share. should give You a good starting point.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":13916.0,"score_ratio":3.6}
{"post_id":"x9068a","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":1.0,"history":"Is it ever reasonable to accept an explanation that is more complicated than it needs to be?","c_root_id_A":"inm824d","c_root_id_B":"inlji17","created_at_utc_A":1662659225,"created_at_utc_B":1662650053,"score_A":21,"score_B":8,"human_ref_A":"I remember asking a professor about this and they said that Occam\u2019s Razor (if this is what you are referring to) should only be applied when comparing to equally plausible explanations. If one option is much more complex but more plausible than another less complicated and less plausible answer, then you should still favour the more plausible answer","human_ref_B":"You are basically asking if Occam's razor is true. As far as I can tell, this principle is unanimously followed in science, and also very popular in philosophy. So most people are gong to say we should prefer the simpler explanation, whether for epistemic or pragmatic reasons  However, even if one rejects Occam's razor (why?), that at most leaves us with being agnostic between the two explanations. It doesn't mean we should then prefer the more complicated one!","labels":1,"seconds_difference":9172.0,"score_ratio":2.625}
{"post_id":"vwt2ya","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.95,"history":"What are some philosophers that used comedy and\/or satire to prove, stress, or demonstrate a point, or to ridicule some views or institutions they disagreed of?","c_root_id_A":"ifryio1","c_root_id_B":"ifsi20d","created_at_utc_A":1657575487,"created_at_utc_B":1657583677,"score_A":13,"score_B":23,"human_ref_A":"Diogenes of Sinope  and arguably Michel de Montaigne on European education","human_ref_B":"Voltaire's Candide is basically all satire of those he disagrees with, especially Liebniz.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":8190.0,"score_ratio":1.7692307692}
{"post_id":"vwt2ya","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.95,"history":"What are some philosophers that used comedy and\/or satire to prove, stress, or demonstrate a point, or to ridicule some views or institutions they disagreed of?","c_root_id_A":"ifsi20d","c_root_id_B":"ifs8094","created_at_utc_A":1657583677,"created_at_utc_B":1657579288,"score_A":23,"score_B":6,"human_ref_A":"Voltaire's Candide is basically all satire of those he disagrees with, especially Liebniz.","human_ref_B":"Sidney Morgenbesser springs to mind.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":4389.0,"score_ratio":3.8333333333}
{"post_id":"vwt2ya","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.95,"history":"What are some philosophers that used comedy and\/or satire to prove, stress, or demonstrate a point, or to ridicule some views or institutions they disagreed of?","c_root_id_A":"ifs6etl","c_root_id_B":"ifsi20d","created_at_utc_A":1657578622,"created_at_utc_B":1657583677,"score_A":5,"score_B":23,"human_ref_A":"You can actually argue that all comedy originates from the concept of irony. You expect a logical thing to happen, and yet, something opposite of that logic happens- thus it is funny. This applies to several forms of comedy. Dave Chappelle makes jokes about race, which is something you're not supposed to joke about (taboo). Jerry Seinfeld jokes about \"normal\" things that are far removed from normal. Even random things (like farts) are funny because they go against a natural flow of logic. Philosophers have a lot to say about the concept of irony.","human_ref_B":"Voltaire's Candide is basically all satire of those he disagrees with, especially Liebniz.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":5055.0,"score_ratio":4.6}
{"post_id":"vwt2ya","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.95,"history":"What are some philosophers that used comedy and\/or satire to prove, stress, or demonstrate a point, or to ridicule some views or institutions they disagreed of?","c_root_id_A":"ifsmb3q","c_root_id_B":"ifs8094","created_at_utc_A":1657585578,"created_at_utc_B":1657579288,"score_A":10,"score_B":6,"human_ref_A":"Slavoj \u017di\u017eek references jokes in many of his lectures and even has a book called \u017di\u017eek\u2019s Jokes, a collection of most of the jokes he cites or otherwise references in his work.  And, although he didn\u2019t really use humor, Wittgenstein did say that a great philosophical book could be written consisting entirely out of jokes.","human_ref_B":"Sidney Morgenbesser springs to mind.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":6290.0,"score_ratio":1.6666666667}
{"post_id":"vwt2ya","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.95,"history":"What are some philosophers that used comedy and\/or satire to prove, stress, or demonstrate a point, or to ridicule some views or institutions they disagreed of?","c_root_id_A":"ifsmb3q","c_root_id_B":"ifs6etl","created_at_utc_A":1657585578,"created_at_utc_B":1657578622,"score_A":10,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"Slavoj \u017di\u017eek references jokes in many of his lectures and even has a book called \u017di\u017eek\u2019s Jokes, a collection of most of the jokes he cites or otherwise references in his work.  And, although he didn\u2019t really use humor, Wittgenstein did say that a great philosophical book could be written consisting entirely out of jokes.","human_ref_B":"You can actually argue that all comedy originates from the concept of irony. You expect a logical thing to happen, and yet, something opposite of that logic happens- thus it is funny. This applies to several forms of comedy. Dave Chappelle makes jokes about race, which is something you're not supposed to joke about (taboo). Jerry Seinfeld jokes about \"normal\" things that are far removed from normal. Even random things (like farts) are funny because they go against a natural flow of logic. Philosophers have a lot to say about the concept of irony.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":6956.0,"score_ratio":2.0}
{"post_id":"vwt2ya","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.95,"history":"What are some philosophers that used comedy and\/or satire to prove, stress, or demonstrate a point, or to ridicule some views or institutions they disagreed of?","c_root_id_A":"ifsmyp5","c_root_id_B":"ifs8094","created_at_utc_A":1657585869,"created_at_utc_B":1657579288,"score_A":10,"score_B":6,"human_ref_A":"Plato does this a lot, he is funnier than people tend to realize","human_ref_B":"Sidney Morgenbesser springs to mind.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":6581.0,"score_ratio":1.6666666667}
{"post_id":"vwt2ya","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.95,"history":"What are some philosophers that used comedy and\/or satire to prove, stress, or demonstrate a point, or to ridicule some views or institutions they disagreed of?","c_root_id_A":"ifsmyp5","c_root_id_B":"ifs6etl","created_at_utc_A":1657585869,"created_at_utc_B":1657578622,"score_A":10,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"Plato does this a lot, he is funnier than people tend to realize","human_ref_B":"You can actually argue that all comedy originates from the concept of irony. You expect a logical thing to happen, and yet, something opposite of that logic happens- thus it is funny. This applies to several forms of comedy. Dave Chappelle makes jokes about race, which is something you're not supposed to joke about (taboo). Jerry Seinfeld jokes about \"normal\" things that are far removed from normal. Even random things (like farts) are funny because they go against a natural flow of logic. Philosophers have a lot to say about the concept of irony.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":7247.0,"score_ratio":2.0}
{"post_id":"vwt2ya","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.95,"history":"What are some philosophers that used comedy and\/or satire to prove, stress, or demonstrate a point, or to ridicule some views or institutions they disagreed of?","c_root_id_A":"ifs6etl","c_root_id_B":"ifs8094","created_at_utc_A":1657578622,"created_at_utc_B":1657579288,"score_A":5,"score_B":6,"human_ref_A":"You can actually argue that all comedy originates from the concept of irony. You expect a logical thing to happen, and yet, something opposite of that logic happens- thus it is funny. This applies to several forms of comedy. Dave Chappelle makes jokes about race, which is something you're not supposed to joke about (taboo). Jerry Seinfeld jokes about \"normal\" things that are far removed from normal. Even random things (like farts) are funny because they go against a natural flow of logic. Philosophers have a lot to say about the concept of irony.","human_ref_B":"Sidney Morgenbesser springs to mind.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":666.0,"score_ratio":1.2}
{"post_id":"vwt2ya","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.95,"history":"What are some philosophers that used comedy and\/or satire to prove, stress, or demonstrate a point, or to ridicule some views or institutions they disagreed of?","c_root_id_A":"ifvpvvk","c_root_id_B":"ifuh4t9","created_at_utc_A":1657646344,"created_at_utc_B":1657627097,"score_A":3,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"Nietzsche was a master of ridicule. On Schopenhauer and his \"pessimism\":  \"Schopenhauer did not succeed \\[in establishing a rational basis for an ethic of non-harm\\] either-- and whoever has once felt deeply how insipidly false and sentimental this principle is in a world whose essence is will to power, **may allow himself to be reminded that Schopenhauer, though a pessimist,** ***really*****-- played the flute. Every day, after dinner:** one should read his biography on that. And incidentally: a pessimist, one who denies God and the world but *comes to a stop* before morality-- who affirms morality and plays the flute-- the *laede neminem* \\[\"offend no one\")\\] morality-- what? Is that really-- a pessimist?\"  \\-- Beyond Good and Evil","human_ref_B":"Historians disagree on how much satire Machiavelli used","labels":1,"seconds_difference":19247.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
{"post_id":"3qj7g6","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.83,"history":"Is it immoral to have vast personal wealth when most people in your society struggle for the basics?","c_root_id_A":"cwfntug","c_root_id_B":"cwfnnnn","created_at_utc_A":1446018812,"created_at_utc_B":1446018122,"score_A":21,"score_B":20,"human_ref_A":"I think most philosophers say yes, but it depends on your system of ethics. Personally, I'm a socialist and would argue that a person with vast wealth most likely gained that wealth by exploiting other people, and that living with basic necessities like food, water, and shelter is a prerequisite to working at all.","human_ref_B":"If you don't make any effort to do anything good with a substantive portion of it? Yes.  http:\/\/www.utilitarian.net\/singer\/by\/1972----.htm","labels":1,"seconds_difference":690.0,"score_ratio":1.05}
{"post_id":"3qj7g6","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.83,"history":"Is it immoral to have vast personal wealth when most people in your society struggle for the basics?","c_root_id_A":"cwfpab8","c_root_id_B":"cwfv6jh","created_at_utc_A":1446025141,"created_at_utc_B":1446041251,"score_A":9,"score_B":18,"human_ref_A":"I think you'd be hard pressed to find a good philosophical argument for the opposite. I have the strong intuition that Ayn Rand is popular because she presents herself as exactly this, it just turns out the \"good\" part it's not actually good.  I think the only good argument would be that you're the best master of what to do with your money for the world. I think only a handful of people can make that claim and actually be right. Warren Buffet and Bill Gates seem to know what they are doing better than many governments (stress on \"seem\", I'm not sure).","human_ref_B":"I would expect that the answer is yes in most ethical frameworks - but it does depend on what \"the basics\" are agreed to be - and what comprises \"your society\".  Another interesting question is \"Is it immoral to have vast personal wealth when everyone in your society has the basics?\"","labels":0,"seconds_difference":16110.0,"score_ratio":2.0}
{"post_id":"3qj7g6","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.83,"history":"Is it immoral to have vast personal wealth when most people in your society struggle for the basics?","c_root_id_A":"cwfp5vk","c_root_id_B":"cwfv6jh","created_at_utc_A":1446024605,"created_at_utc_B":1446041251,"score_A":3,"score_B":18,"human_ref_A":"Yes, for you and them. You'll suffer from disconnection that opens a gaping hole filled by yatchs and houses","human_ref_B":"I would expect that the answer is yes in most ethical frameworks - but it does depend on what \"the basics\" are agreed to be - and what comprises \"your society\".  Another interesting question is \"Is it immoral to have vast personal wealth when everyone in your society has the basics?\"","labels":0,"seconds_difference":16646.0,"score_ratio":6.0}
{"post_id":"3qj7g6","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.83,"history":"Is it immoral to have vast personal wealth when most people in your society struggle for the basics?","c_root_id_A":"cwfpab8","c_root_id_B":"cwfp5vk","created_at_utc_A":1446025141,"created_at_utc_B":1446024605,"score_A":9,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"I think you'd be hard pressed to find a good philosophical argument for the opposite. I have the strong intuition that Ayn Rand is popular because she presents herself as exactly this, it just turns out the \"good\" part it's not actually good.  I think the only good argument would be that you're the best master of what to do with your money for the world. I think only a handful of people can make that claim and actually be right. Warren Buffet and Bill Gates seem to know what they are doing better than many governments (stress on \"seem\", I'm not sure).","human_ref_B":"Yes, for you and them. You'll suffer from disconnection that opens a gaping hole filled by yatchs and houses","labels":1,"seconds_difference":536.0,"score_ratio":3.0}
{"post_id":"zm61x7","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.77,"history":"Question to libertians:How do you explain \"to could have done otherwise\" on the neurological level ?","c_root_id_A":"j09fijc","c_root_id_B":"j09uaks","created_at_utc_A":1671064939,"created_at_utc_B":1671071561,"score_A":3,"score_B":6,"human_ref_A":"Different neurons could have fired, in different orders, and so on.  Can you elaborate? This seems like an easy question, so I assume you must be asking something else.","human_ref_B":"I'm not a libertarian, but I'll take a stab at this, to give what might be a possible argument that works here.  On the neurological level, it's pretty clear that straightforward cause-and-effect dominate, with zero degrees of freedom. But on much smaller scales, such as that of individual atoms and elementary particles, quantum effects that do not follow strictly deterministic laws dominate. (The typical counterargument here is to note that, by the law of large numbers, these individually indeterministic effects should average out to deterministic effects on the neurological scales... but I won't get into that here.)  In other words, the science is completely out on whether we live in a deterministic universe or not. It follows, therefore, that there's still space to defend the idea of genuinely free will in such domains. (In fact, I personally know of multiple physics researchers looking into unexplained quantum effects in the brain, stuff like how a certain isotope of potassium that's particularly \"good\" at quantum entangling with other atoms is more present in the human brain than it is in the universe at large.) Do I *personally* think such searches will pan out? Probably not; but, that's neither here nor there.  To summarize, as far as the fundamental physics is concerned, we just don't know whether the universe is fundamentally deterministic or not; any indeterminism can be used to prop up libertarianism and free will.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":6622.0,"score_ratio":2.0}
{"post_id":"vi3oki","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.83,"history":"Is it possible to be \"glad you were born\"? When discussing the ethics of procreation or of abortion people will often claim that they are \"glad they were born\" (or similar statements such as \"I am happy my mother didn't abort me\") as a justification.  To me it always seems like this sentiment is based on a faulty comparison: Are those people really comparing their \"alive\" state with a \"never having been born\" state? Had they never been born they would not have been worse off (because no one would have existed), so does it make sense to claim you are glad you were born?  Not trying to imply that those people are not genuinely happy, just seems that they are actually comparing that happiness to a state where they would have been worse off (e.g. a hypothetical life with less fulfilled preferences) and not to nonexistence.","c_root_id_A":"idapo5q","c_root_id_B":"idarb1u","created_at_utc_A":1655901140,"created_at_utc_B":1655902049,"score_A":8,"score_B":21,"human_ref_A":"I don't think they're making a born\/unborn comparison. I think they're thankful for the life they currently have. Their being born is an essential first step and, without it, there would be no life for which to be thankful.","human_ref_B":"Help me see why my feeling glad requires there to be a counterfactual example in order to be valid?  I think \"being glad about being born\" is a non-cognitive attitude. It's just how I feel about something, like how I like the taste of mint, or don't like pain. They're ways I experience the world rather than the conclusion of an argument.   I like the taste of mint, right? You can't reason me out of that, and I can't reason to you why I like it. I don't think that's a \"faulty comparison\" unless I can compare it to some counter factual of .. never tasting mint? Or not liking the taste of mint?    Now, on the other hand, if I said to you that \"it's better to have as many babies as possible, because I'm glad I was born, so it's unfair to unborn people not to make them be born\" then the counter-factual you're pointing out becomes salient. I agree, if I wasn't born, I wouldn't feel bad about it. (I am still glad I was born, though.) \"Population ethics\" gets really really weird with this sort of reasoning. You might enjoy it.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":909.0,"score_ratio":2.625}
{"post_id":"tl1qr0","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.87,"history":"What are some ways philosophers would answer Matt Walsh when he asks \u201cWhat is a woman?\u201d For those who don\u2019t know, Walsh is critical of the concept of trans people (he thinks they are just mentally ill or perhaps perverts or something) and thinks it makes no sense to categorize someone as a \u201ctrans woman\u201d. He believes that simply asking the question \u201cWhat is a woman?\u201d is an easy way to defeat the entire gender ideology of our day because it\u2019s impossible to answer in a coherent way if you believe trans women are really women.  I would like to hear what some responses to this question would be from philosophers who deal with gender issues.","c_root_id_A":"i1thrto","c_root_id_B":"i1tk38t","created_at_utc_A":1648055662,"created_at_utc_B":1648056521,"score_A":9,"score_B":50,"human_ref_A":"https:\/\/plato.stanford.edu\/entries\/feminism-gender\/","human_ref_B":"There are a few conceptual distinctions to work through in order to answer in a useful way which is, I expect, one of the reasons why answering the question really clearly is hard.  Like, in the first place, when we talk about \"women\" are we talking about human beings who are of a certain kind of sex (and, immediately, what is that anyway?) or are we talking about human beings who are of a certain gender (and, immediately, what is that anyway and how is it distinct from \"sex\"?).  So, while we certainly can find philosophers answering this question \"what is a 'woman'?\" it's set within this context where we need to situate ourselves within a landscape of priors in a particular way or else it will look like we're giving a rather fishy answer.  For this reason, I think we're probably justified in thinking, in the first place, that absolutely no one can answer this question in a manner that will be satisfying since it's conceptually a pretty complicated question and, to make matters worse, it's not even empirically obvious that folks have ever used words like \"man\" and \"woman\" in ways which are easily reduced to a single set of clear definitions which stand up to much scrutiny in relation to coherence or correspondence.  One very nice feature of language is that you don't really need to be able to lay out analytic definitions of words to use them.  So, on a few levels, Walsh's question may just be begging the question.  Anyway, if you want a pretty nice summary of the how philosophers approach this question, see here: https:\/\/plato.stanford.edu\/entries\/feminism-gender\/","labels":0,"seconds_difference":859.0,"score_ratio":5.5555555556}
{"post_id":"tl1qr0","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.87,"history":"What are some ways philosophers would answer Matt Walsh when he asks \u201cWhat is a woman?\u201d For those who don\u2019t know, Walsh is critical of the concept of trans people (he thinks they are just mentally ill or perhaps perverts or something) and thinks it makes no sense to categorize someone as a \u201ctrans woman\u201d. He believes that simply asking the question \u201cWhat is a woman?\u201d is an easy way to defeat the entire gender ideology of our day because it\u2019s impossible to answer in a coherent way if you believe trans women are really women.  I would like to hear what some responses to this question would be from philosophers who deal with gender issues.","c_root_id_A":"i1tk38t","c_root_id_B":"i1tgi4c","created_at_utc_A":1648056521,"created_at_utc_B":1648055189,"score_A":50,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"There are a few conceptual distinctions to work through in order to answer in a useful way which is, I expect, one of the reasons why answering the question really clearly is hard.  Like, in the first place, when we talk about \"women\" are we talking about human beings who are of a certain kind of sex (and, immediately, what is that anyway?) or are we talking about human beings who are of a certain gender (and, immediately, what is that anyway and how is it distinct from \"sex\"?).  So, while we certainly can find philosophers answering this question \"what is a 'woman'?\" it's set within this context where we need to situate ourselves within a landscape of priors in a particular way or else it will look like we're giving a rather fishy answer.  For this reason, I think we're probably justified in thinking, in the first place, that absolutely no one can answer this question in a manner that will be satisfying since it's conceptually a pretty complicated question and, to make matters worse, it's not even empirically obvious that folks have ever used words like \"man\" and \"woman\" in ways which are easily reduced to a single set of clear definitions which stand up to much scrutiny in relation to coherence or correspondence.  One very nice feature of language is that you don't really need to be able to lay out analytic definitions of words to use them.  So, on a few levels, Walsh's question may just be begging the question.  Anyway, if you want a pretty nice summary of the how philosophers approach this question, see here: https:\/\/plato.stanford.edu\/entries\/feminism-gender\/","human_ref_B":"Welcome to \/r\/askphilosophy. **Please read our rules before commenting** and understand that your comments will be removed if they are not up to standard or otherwise break the rules. While we do not require citations in answers (but do encourage them), answers need to be reasonably substantive and well-researched, accurately portray the state of the research, and come only from those with relevant knowledge.  *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](\/message\/compose\/?to=\/r\/askphilosophy) if you have any questions or concerns.*","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1332.0,"score_ratio":25.0}
{"post_id":"tl1qr0","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.87,"history":"What are some ways philosophers would answer Matt Walsh when he asks \u201cWhat is a woman?\u201d For those who don\u2019t know, Walsh is critical of the concept of trans people (he thinks they are just mentally ill or perhaps perverts or something) and thinks it makes no sense to categorize someone as a \u201ctrans woman\u201d. He believes that simply asking the question \u201cWhat is a woman?\u201d is an easy way to defeat the entire gender ideology of our day because it\u2019s impossible to answer in a coherent way if you believe trans women are really women.  I would like to hear what some responses to this question would be from philosophers who deal with gender issues.","c_root_id_A":"i1thrto","c_root_id_B":"i1vjghy","created_at_utc_A":1648055662,"created_at_utc_B":1648085221,"score_A":9,"score_B":35,"human_ref_A":"https:\/\/plato.stanford.edu\/entries\/feminism-gender\/","human_ref_B":"Just here to add that there are many trans philosophers who have responses to this question. See this reddit post from a year ago naming some, and I notice it doesn't mention Rachel McKinnon who is extremely prolific and vocal. There are definitely even more.  On a related note, I'd also recommend Butler's watershed book Gender Trouble on account of the extremely important reversal of sex and gender that is offered there. Rather than the presumption that divisions of biological sex have led to the organization of humans into two distinct classes of gender, Butler argues (among other things) that a predisposition toward binary gender assignment determined the relation and organization of these organs into a class of performative norms. I think McKinnon and others build from Butler's reorientation.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":29559.0,"score_ratio":3.8888888889}
{"post_id":"tl1qr0","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.87,"history":"What are some ways philosophers would answer Matt Walsh when he asks \u201cWhat is a woman?\u201d For those who don\u2019t know, Walsh is critical of the concept of trans people (he thinks they are just mentally ill or perhaps perverts or something) and thinks it makes no sense to categorize someone as a \u201ctrans woman\u201d. He believes that simply asking the question \u201cWhat is a woman?\u201d is an easy way to defeat the entire gender ideology of our day because it\u2019s impossible to answer in a coherent way if you believe trans women are really women.  I would like to hear what some responses to this question would be from philosophers who deal with gender issues.","c_root_id_A":"i1tgi4c","c_root_id_B":"i1vjghy","created_at_utc_A":1648055189,"created_at_utc_B":1648085221,"score_A":2,"score_B":35,"human_ref_A":"Welcome to \/r\/askphilosophy. **Please read our rules before commenting** and understand that your comments will be removed if they are not up to standard or otherwise break the rules. While we do not require citations in answers (but do encourage them), answers need to be reasonably substantive and well-researched, accurately portray the state of the research, and come only from those with relevant knowledge.  *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](\/message\/compose\/?to=\/r\/askphilosophy) if you have any questions or concerns.*","human_ref_B":"Just here to add that there are many trans philosophers who have responses to this question. See this reddit post from a year ago naming some, and I notice it doesn't mention Rachel McKinnon who is extremely prolific and vocal. There are definitely even more.  On a related note, I'd also recommend Butler's watershed book Gender Trouble on account of the extremely important reversal of sex and gender that is offered there. Rather than the presumption that divisions of biological sex have led to the organization of humans into two distinct classes of gender, Butler argues (among other things) that a predisposition toward binary gender assignment determined the relation and organization of these organs into a class of performative norms. I think McKinnon and others build from Butler's reorientation.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":30032.0,"score_ratio":17.5}
{"post_id":"tl1qr0","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.87,"history":"What are some ways philosophers would answer Matt Walsh when he asks \u201cWhat is a woman?\u201d For those who don\u2019t know, Walsh is critical of the concept of trans people (he thinks they are just mentally ill or perhaps perverts or something) and thinks it makes no sense to categorize someone as a \u201ctrans woman\u201d. He believes that simply asking the question \u201cWhat is a woman?\u201d is an easy way to defeat the entire gender ideology of our day because it\u2019s impossible to answer in a coherent way if you believe trans women are really women.  I would like to hear what some responses to this question would be from philosophers who deal with gender issues.","c_root_id_A":"i1thrto","c_root_id_B":"i1tgi4c","created_at_utc_A":1648055662,"created_at_utc_B":1648055189,"score_A":9,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"https:\/\/plato.stanford.edu\/entries\/feminism-gender\/","human_ref_B":"Welcome to \/r\/askphilosophy. **Please read our rules before commenting** and understand that your comments will be removed if they are not up to standard or otherwise break the rules. While we do not require citations in answers (but do encourage them), answers need to be reasonably substantive and well-researched, accurately portray the state of the research, and come only from those with relevant knowledge.  *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](\/message\/compose\/?to=\/r\/askphilosophy) if you have any questions or concerns.*","labels":1,"seconds_difference":473.0,"score_ratio":4.5}
{"post_id":"o7q4nu","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.79,"history":"Is it ethical for a pregnant woman to smoke, drink alcohol, do drugs, etc. if she plans on getting an abortion\/not keep the fetus? This question has really been irkking me for the past few weeks and I'm curious what ethics and philosophy have to say on the subject. I'm not trying to spark debate, jut have a genuine question. For context, I'm thinking of a pregnant woman who vehemently doesn't want a child at the time she's pregnant or ever.","c_root_id_A":"h30edm5","c_root_id_B":"h31ecnv","created_at_utc_A":1624638385,"created_at_utc_B":1624654921,"score_A":5,"score_B":8,"human_ref_A":"I think that this would not be considered ethical on the grounds that those activities might cause harm. She might change her mind, or the only clinic she can go to closes, or some other obstacle might prevent her from following through.   A counter argument might be that it is very unlikely to cause harm and it is not her intention to cause harm so if this is not ethical then it\u2019s also unethical to drive a car since that might cause harm.   But driving a car is often something you need to do. Drinking is not so why risk causing harm when you can just abstain until you have the procedure? Drugs is trickier because you might mean street drugs that are not necessary or you might mean prescription drugs that are necessary.","human_ref_B":"I think Elizabeth Harman's paper on the ethics of abortion could be relevant here. You can access the paper at this link. Harman proposes what she calls the Actual Future Principle: \"An early fetus that will become a person has some moral status. An early fetus that will die while it is still an early fetus has no moral status.\" For the purposes of her paper, the suggestion is that abortion is morally permissible for fetuses that will be aborted, and impermissible for fetuses that will not be aborted (and thus, abortion is always permissible). Regardless of whether or not you find her line of reasoning convincing with regard to abortion, we can adapt it to the problem you raise here. If the fetus will be aborted, then it doesn't make sense to talk about risks to its future health\u2014it has no future health to speak of! Whereas if it will be carried to term, then its future health is certainly morally important.      Of course, the above assumes that the pregnant woman will carry out her plans. If there's any uncertainty about that, then Harman's way of looking at things essentially presents a Pascal's wager:      ||She aborts|She does not abort| :--|:-:|:-:| |She drinks|Fine|Potentially disastrous| |She does not drink|Fine|Fine|                    Which is worth factoring into whatever decision she ends up making.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":16536.0,"score_ratio":1.6}
{"post_id":"sgqlg3","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":1.0,"history":"Analytic philosophers often read Plato as providing \"deliberately poor\" arguments readers are supposed to \"spot\". What principles allow us to distinguish such cases from times Plato just makes a bad argument?","c_root_id_A":"huy6fay","c_root_id_B":"huy1zak","created_at_utc_A":1643600556,"created_at_utc_B":1643598566,"score_A":32,"score_B":7,"human_ref_A":"By not making himself a speaker in the dialogues, Plato creates space between himself and the claims and arguments in his dialogues. For most any error a character makes, even Socrates, it\u2019s at least conceivable that Plato was aware.  Of course, Plato may have just been mistaken himself. The space between Plato and characters is part of what makes Plato such an enigmatic figure.  But your question is how can we tell? I\u2019m not sure there\u2019s any full reliable method.  We might look to see if one of the characters does not make a similar mistake elsewhere. This would suggest that Plato is aware that the mistake is a mistake. But, maybe the dialogue in which Plato recognizes the mistake was written later. Or, maybe it was written before but Plato forgot! Or, maybe Plato didn\u2019t realize that they were the same kind of mistake.   Alternatively, you might adopt the tentative hypothesis that Plato is aware, and the mistake is intentional. Then you make and test predictions based on that hypothesis, and see if those predictions hold up. If a speaker makes an error, and Plato is aware of this, then presumably Plato has some purpose for including the error. Ask what that purpose might be, and see if it makes sense. Does it help you to understand the dialogue? Does it help provide insight on the topic of the dialogue? If it does, that might be taken as evidence that the error is intentional. But, you can gain insight from an unintended error too!  Of course, you can always dig deeper into the dialogues in search for more evidence, but I think there will always be a significant level of uncertainty.  And that\u2019s okay. It is unfortunate if our goal is to understand Plato\u2019s actual views, but Plato apparently did not want to provide us with a clear statement of his views!   The view that I am most confident ascribing to Plato is that he wanted people to use his dialogues as a basis for engaging with philosophical topics. The very fact that he wrote in dialogues in which he was not the main speaker suggests that this was actually more important to him than whether or not you agree with or even understand his views.  So, as a methodological principle, don\u2019t worry if an error is intentional or not. If you think there\u2019s an error, engage with the problem yourself with that in mind. See if you make progress.","human_ref_B":"Do you have an example in mind of a commenter identifying a \u201cdeliberately poor\u201d argument?","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1990.0,"score_ratio":4.5714285714}
{"post_id":"yp58kl","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.88,"history":"Karl Popper called Marxism a pseudoscience, what other philosophical theories would be pseudoscientific according to his theory of demarcation?","c_root_id_A":"ivhx1hw","c_root_id_B":"ivit8kz","created_at_utc_A":1667873795,"created_at_utc_B":1667892286,"score_A":48,"score_B":51,"human_ref_A":"You say that, like as though most people\/philosophers hold that Marxism is a science.   Does anyone argue for Marxism to be a science?","human_ref_B":"According to Karl Popper his own developed view on the scientific method is non-scientific, and this is completely fine.  There is no automatically implied derogation in a mere fact that some theory is not a scientific theory, and in general Karl Popper's method is applicable just to empirical sciences, and for instance mathematics or philosophy are aside of it, this includes Marxism.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":18491.0,"score_ratio":1.0625}
{"post_id":"yp58kl","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.88,"history":"Karl Popper called Marxism a pseudoscience, what other philosophical theories would be pseudoscientific according to his theory of demarcation?","c_root_id_A":"ivipjak","c_root_id_B":"ivit8kz","created_at_utc_A":1667889343,"created_at_utc_B":1667892286,"score_A":11,"score_B":51,"human_ref_A":"Though not strictly philosophical, Astrology, psychology, climate science, all other sciences that involve intensive modelling, and quantum mechanics under most interpretations (especially the Copenhagen interpretation, the one most scientists accept) would all count as pseudoscience according to Popper\u2019s view.","human_ref_B":"According to Karl Popper his own developed view on the scientific method is non-scientific, and this is completely fine.  There is no automatically implied derogation in a mere fact that some theory is not a scientific theory, and in general Karl Popper's method is applicable just to empirical sciences, and for instance mathematics or philosophy are aside of it, this includes Marxism.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":2943.0,"score_ratio":4.6363636364}
{"post_id":"yp58kl","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.88,"history":"Karl Popper called Marxism a pseudoscience, what other philosophical theories would be pseudoscientific according to his theory of demarcation?","c_root_id_A":"ivipjak","c_root_id_B":"ivk549r","created_at_utc_A":1667889343,"created_at_utc_B":1667922414,"score_A":11,"score_B":14,"human_ref_A":"Though not strictly philosophical, Astrology, psychology, climate science, all other sciences that involve intensive modelling, and quantum mechanics under most interpretations (especially the Copenhagen interpretation, the one most scientists accept) would all count as pseudoscience according to Popper\u2019s view.","human_ref_B":"Metaphysics is generally taken to be empirically unfalsifiable. Could you ever devise an experiment that shows us things persist by having temporal parts rather than being present at every moment? I don't think so. So according to his criterion this claim, which is of course a metaphysical claim, is not scientific.   But -- not sure if Popper endorses this -- the crucial point is that pseudoscience is a non-scientific activity done under the pretense of being science. Hence why Popper attacks psychonalysis and Marxism as pseudosciences: these are sometimes presented as something like science, but, according to him, they are not.   On the contrary, only a few metaphysicians announce they're doing something scientific. So there's no point in calling metaphysics a pseudoscience. I think some other philosophical programmes would, however, qualify as such in his view. Maybe that guy Sam Harris' \"moral science\"? The name suggests scientificity but I can't think of an experiment that shows us what we ought to do. Ergo...","labels":0,"seconds_difference":33071.0,"score_ratio":1.2727272727}
{"post_id":"rtsc1j","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.86,"history":"Why are philosophers so quick to distinguish themselves from \"common\" people? I've noticed recently there's a habit for philosophers or for people who study philosophy to talk about \"common\" or \"normal\" people, and assume that common people don't think about the world. It's often happened in philosophy classes I've been in where people will say things like, \"Most people don't think about the world; they only believe what's convenient for them and don't question their beliefs. But, it's important for all of us to pursue the truth. That is why philosophy is important, because knowing the truth is important.\"   One of my old philosophy teachers from my community college told me something like this when I was applying to university. She said, \"You know, being people who think about the world, sometimes we can feel out of place. But, going to college is good because you'll be around people who are more like yourself.\"   I've heard lots of things like that. Maybe it's just been my experience (if it hasn't been yours, let me know), but it seems there's always this idea that philosophers are somehow different from normal, everyday people, and the people on the side of philosophy are obviously superior.   There are texts I can think of too that give me this impression; for example, in *Nicomachean Ethics*, in the first book, Aristotle talks what the \"many\" believe happiness is as opposed to what  \"cultivated people\" believe it is. And, with Socrates, it doesn't seem like he had a high opinion of the masses; the allegory of the cave, for example, doesn't seem to show a high opinion of them.   I just never understood this notion; it sounds pretentious and elitist to me. Why is everyone so certain that common people don't think about the world? Why is everyone so certain that they're not part of the common people? Who are they even talking about? I don't have faith that this is a good distinction, and that aside, that's millions of people; I don't have faith we can make any serious generalizations about them. It just never made sense to me.   But maybe I'm just one of the stupid sheeple who knows","c_root_id_A":"hqva1l9","c_root_id_B":"hquniux","created_at_utc_A":1641081234,"created_at_utc_B":1641071685,"score_A":110,"score_B":65,"human_ref_A":"One reason may be to distinguish themselves from laymen. \"Layman\" may sound like a demeaning term, but it really is only descriptive of a person who does not have specialized knowledge on a particular topic.   People are less likely to think of themselves as scientists or mathematicians if they do not have professional or academic training, but philosophy is a field where people may think they are of significant proficiency when they are not. It is *because* such normal people *do* think about the world that a philosopher may want to distinguish themself. It is not a trivial thing to learn how to think clearly, and it takes a lot of time to become informed on the massive amounts (sometimes thousands of years worth!) of literature available on even a single topic or question. That \"the masses\" may have very uninformed and unrefined ideas on a topic can reasonably be very frustrating for a philosopher, especially if they have good reason to think that the masses are *wrong* about their misguided beliefs.","human_ref_B":"I think there\u2019s a lot of confusion here.  I personally did find more people *like me* in college, but that doesn\u2019t mean I ever thought I was *better* than people who aren\u2019t like me.  A lot of philosophers I know are, well, quirky. It doesn\u2019t means we think we\u2019re superior!  As for Aristotle, he thinks both the common person and the cultivated person are sort of on the right track but mistaken.   As for Socrates, in the Apology, it\u2019s the common people \u2014 the craftspeople \u2014 who have knowledge. It\u2019s the people who claim wisdom \u2014 the Sophists \u2014 who are his main targets.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":9549.0,"score_ratio":1.6923076923}
{"post_id":"rtsc1j","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.86,"history":"Why are philosophers so quick to distinguish themselves from \"common\" people? I've noticed recently there's a habit for philosophers or for people who study philosophy to talk about \"common\" or \"normal\" people, and assume that common people don't think about the world. It's often happened in philosophy classes I've been in where people will say things like, \"Most people don't think about the world; they only believe what's convenient for them and don't question their beliefs. But, it's important for all of us to pursue the truth. That is why philosophy is important, because knowing the truth is important.\"   One of my old philosophy teachers from my community college told me something like this when I was applying to university. She said, \"You know, being people who think about the world, sometimes we can feel out of place. But, going to college is good because you'll be around people who are more like yourself.\"   I've heard lots of things like that. Maybe it's just been my experience (if it hasn't been yours, let me know), but it seems there's always this idea that philosophers are somehow different from normal, everyday people, and the people on the side of philosophy are obviously superior.   There are texts I can think of too that give me this impression; for example, in *Nicomachean Ethics*, in the first book, Aristotle talks what the \"many\" believe happiness is as opposed to what  \"cultivated people\" believe it is. And, with Socrates, it doesn't seem like he had a high opinion of the masses; the allegory of the cave, for example, doesn't seem to show a high opinion of them.   I just never understood this notion; it sounds pretentious and elitist to me. Why is everyone so certain that common people don't think about the world? Why is everyone so certain that they're not part of the common people? Who are they even talking about? I don't have faith that this is a good distinction, and that aside, that's millions of people; I don't have faith we can make any serious generalizations about them. It just never made sense to me.   But maybe I'm just one of the stupid sheeple who knows","c_root_id_A":"hqunedw","c_root_id_B":"hqva1l9","created_at_utc_A":1641071633,"created_at_utc_B":1641081234,"score_A":8,"score_B":110,"human_ref_A":"Well there is likely a distinction in many who are able to get a university education such that it reflects a practical difference in the lives of those who have the means to study philosophy and those who don\u2019t.  https:\/\/internationalfriendsofilyenkov.files.wordpress.com\/2017\/09\/artinian-2017-radical-currents-in-soviet-philosophy-vyyggy-ilyenkov.pdf \u201cThis lack was itself the default proletarian condition, which in the words of Bernard Stiegler (2010) is a condition marked by sense of total loss. The proletariat, by being subject to capitalist hegemony in every- day life, loses its ability to think and to do. The process of human for- mation becomes re-directed toward human functioning as simple machine, a state of servitude devoid of autonomous thought and activity; it becomes a machinic appendage of the will of the capitalist. This total loss of the energies of becoming \u2013 the radical foreclosing of human subjectivity into a mode of servitude \u2013 marks the negation of what Vygotsky imagined as human development, the complex move- ment toward human freedom-in-action. Lenin understood this dynamic clearly, and the need to build toward a new society devoid of proletarianization.\u201d  And this is the case throughout history that we do not have records of what the masses of people thought, demographics largely excluded from the same positions to not only leave records of what they think but have it widely shared and acknowledged.  But I do agree however the idea that working people don\u2019t think or aren\u2019t smart often comes from not associating with people outside their own common demographic and spaces long enough to know more than an \u201cimage\u201d, and often not sharing the same cultural likeness to recognize intellect not presented in the forms they have become accustom to.  It also isn\u2019t uncommon for people to see themselves as some how above the same influences of others such that the educated somehow imagine themselves more resistant to nonsense, however many intellectuals are just as propagandized through their social networks and such. Jaques Ellul arrives at such a point that the educated are the most vulnerable to horizontal propaganda. It sees others as objects of manipulation while oneself is able to reason but doesn\u2019t see that many people have good reasons for doing what they do and thinking what they do as part of their a of life. And there is some truth in that many don\u2019t have the time to reflect on some things, they have to labor on other things.  In this vein its easy for some to see themselves are investigating universal truths somehow outside a specific time and place where you can see the quality and nature of thinking in many philosophers reflecting the influences of their time. In fact, some of the greatest people are a kind of great representation of the culture of their times, able to best express it and reflect it in some medium. Napoleon says he wouldn\u2019t be Napoleon outside the circumstances he lived through.","human_ref_B":"One reason may be to distinguish themselves from laymen. \"Layman\" may sound like a demeaning term, but it really is only descriptive of a person who does not have specialized knowledge on a particular topic.   People are less likely to think of themselves as scientists or mathematicians if they do not have professional or academic training, but philosophy is a field where people may think they are of significant proficiency when they are not. It is *because* such normal people *do* think about the world that a philosopher may want to distinguish themself. It is not a trivial thing to learn how to think clearly, and it takes a lot of time to become informed on the massive amounts (sometimes thousands of years worth!) of literature available on even a single topic or question. That \"the masses\" may have very uninformed and unrefined ideas on a topic can reasonably be very frustrating for a philosopher, especially if they have good reason to think that the masses are *wrong* about their misguided beliefs.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":9601.0,"score_ratio":13.75}
{"post_id":"rtsc1j","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.86,"history":"Why are philosophers so quick to distinguish themselves from \"common\" people? I've noticed recently there's a habit for philosophers or for people who study philosophy to talk about \"common\" or \"normal\" people, and assume that common people don't think about the world. It's often happened in philosophy classes I've been in where people will say things like, \"Most people don't think about the world; they only believe what's convenient for them and don't question their beliefs. But, it's important for all of us to pursue the truth. That is why philosophy is important, because knowing the truth is important.\"   One of my old philosophy teachers from my community college told me something like this when I was applying to university. She said, \"You know, being people who think about the world, sometimes we can feel out of place. But, going to college is good because you'll be around people who are more like yourself.\"   I've heard lots of things like that. Maybe it's just been my experience (if it hasn't been yours, let me know), but it seems there's always this idea that philosophers are somehow different from normal, everyday people, and the people on the side of philosophy are obviously superior.   There are texts I can think of too that give me this impression; for example, in *Nicomachean Ethics*, in the first book, Aristotle talks what the \"many\" believe happiness is as opposed to what  \"cultivated people\" believe it is. And, with Socrates, it doesn't seem like he had a high opinion of the masses; the allegory of the cave, for example, doesn't seem to show a high opinion of them.   I just never understood this notion; it sounds pretentious and elitist to me. Why is everyone so certain that common people don't think about the world? Why is everyone so certain that they're not part of the common people? Who are they even talking about? I don't have faith that this is a good distinction, and that aside, that's millions of people; I don't have faith we can make any serious generalizations about them. It just never made sense to me.   But maybe I'm just one of the stupid sheeple who knows","c_root_id_A":"hqva1l9","c_root_id_B":"hquqssg","created_at_utc_A":1641081234,"created_at_utc_B":1641073039,"score_A":110,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"One reason may be to distinguish themselves from laymen. \"Layman\" may sound like a demeaning term, but it really is only descriptive of a person who does not have specialized knowledge on a particular topic.   People are less likely to think of themselves as scientists or mathematicians if they do not have professional or academic training, but philosophy is a field where people may think they are of significant proficiency when they are not. It is *because* such normal people *do* think about the world that a philosopher may want to distinguish themself. It is not a trivial thing to learn how to think clearly, and it takes a lot of time to become informed on the massive amounts (sometimes thousands of years worth!) of literature available on even a single topic or question. That \"the masses\" may have very uninformed and unrefined ideas on a topic can reasonably be very frustrating for a philosopher, especially if they have good reason to think that the masses are *wrong* about their misguided beliefs.","human_ref_B":"Don't think I've ever heard Philosophers talking like this really tbh.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":8195.0,"score_ratio":22.0}
{"post_id":"rtsc1j","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.86,"history":"Why are philosophers so quick to distinguish themselves from \"common\" people? I've noticed recently there's a habit for philosophers or for people who study philosophy to talk about \"common\" or \"normal\" people, and assume that common people don't think about the world. It's often happened in philosophy classes I've been in where people will say things like, \"Most people don't think about the world; they only believe what's convenient for them and don't question their beliefs. But, it's important for all of us to pursue the truth. That is why philosophy is important, because knowing the truth is important.\"   One of my old philosophy teachers from my community college told me something like this when I was applying to university. She said, \"You know, being people who think about the world, sometimes we can feel out of place. But, going to college is good because you'll be around people who are more like yourself.\"   I've heard lots of things like that. Maybe it's just been my experience (if it hasn't been yours, let me know), but it seems there's always this idea that philosophers are somehow different from normal, everyday people, and the people on the side of philosophy are obviously superior.   There are texts I can think of too that give me this impression; for example, in *Nicomachean Ethics*, in the first book, Aristotle talks what the \"many\" believe happiness is as opposed to what  \"cultivated people\" believe it is. And, with Socrates, it doesn't seem like he had a high opinion of the masses; the allegory of the cave, for example, doesn't seem to show a high opinion of them.   I just never understood this notion; it sounds pretentious and elitist to me. Why is everyone so certain that common people don't think about the world? Why is everyone so certain that they're not part of the common people? Who are they even talking about? I don't have faith that this is a good distinction, and that aside, that's millions of people; I don't have faith we can make any serious generalizations about them. It just never made sense to me.   But maybe I'm just one of the stupid sheeple who knows","c_root_id_A":"hquniux","c_root_id_B":"hqunedw","created_at_utc_A":1641071685,"created_at_utc_B":1641071633,"score_A":65,"score_B":8,"human_ref_A":"I think there\u2019s a lot of confusion here.  I personally did find more people *like me* in college, but that doesn\u2019t mean I ever thought I was *better* than people who aren\u2019t like me.  A lot of philosophers I know are, well, quirky. It doesn\u2019t means we think we\u2019re superior!  As for Aristotle, he thinks both the common person and the cultivated person are sort of on the right track but mistaken.   As for Socrates, in the Apology, it\u2019s the common people \u2014 the craftspeople \u2014 who have knowledge. It\u2019s the people who claim wisdom \u2014 the Sophists \u2014 who are his main targets.","human_ref_B":"Well there is likely a distinction in many who are able to get a university education such that it reflects a practical difference in the lives of those who have the means to study philosophy and those who don\u2019t.  https:\/\/internationalfriendsofilyenkov.files.wordpress.com\/2017\/09\/artinian-2017-radical-currents-in-soviet-philosophy-vyyggy-ilyenkov.pdf \u201cThis lack was itself the default proletarian condition, which in the words of Bernard Stiegler (2010) is a condition marked by sense of total loss. The proletariat, by being subject to capitalist hegemony in every- day life, loses its ability to think and to do. The process of human for- mation becomes re-directed toward human functioning as simple machine, a state of servitude devoid of autonomous thought and activity; it becomes a machinic appendage of the will of the capitalist. This total loss of the energies of becoming \u2013 the radical foreclosing of human subjectivity into a mode of servitude \u2013 marks the negation of what Vygotsky imagined as human development, the complex move- ment toward human freedom-in-action. Lenin understood this dynamic clearly, and the need to build toward a new society devoid of proletarianization.\u201d  And this is the case throughout history that we do not have records of what the masses of people thought, demographics largely excluded from the same positions to not only leave records of what they think but have it widely shared and acknowledged.  But I do agree however the idea that working people don\u2019t think or aren\u2019t smart often comes from not associating with people outside their own common demographic and spaces long enough to know more than an \u201cimage\u201d, and often not sharing the same cultural likeness to recognize intellect not presented in the forms they have become accustom to.  It also isn\u2019t uncommon for people to see themselves as some how above the same influences of others such that the educated somehow imagine themselves more resistant to nonsense, however many intellectuals are just as propagandized through their social networks and such. Jaques Ellul arrives at such a point that the educated are the most vulnerable to horizontal propaganda. It sees others as objects of manipulation while oneself is able to reason but doesn\u2019t see that many people have good reasons for doing what they do and thinking what they do as part of their a of life. And there is some truth in that many don\u2019t have the time to reflect on some things, they have to labor on other things.  In this vein its easy for some to see themselves are investigating universal truths somehow outside a specific time and place where you can see the quality and nature of thinking in many philosophers reflecting the influences of their time. In fact, some of the greatest people are a kind of great representation of the culture of their times, able to best express it and reflect it in some medium. Napoleon says he wouldn\u2019t be Napoleon outside the circumstances he lived through.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":52.0,"score_ratio":8.125}
{"post_id":"rtsc1j","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.86,"history":"Why are philosophers so quick to distinguish themselves from \"common\" people? I've noticed recently there's a habit for philosophers or for people who study philosophy to talk about \"common\" or \"normal\" people, and assume that common people don't think about the world. It's often happened in philosophy classes I've been in where people will say things like, \"Most people don't think about the world; they only believe what's convenient for them and don't question their beliefs. But, it's important for all of us to pursue the truth. That is why philosophy is important, because knowing the truth is important.\"   One of my old philosophy teachers from my community college told me something like this when I was applying to university. She said, \"You know, being people who think about the world, sometimes we can feel out of place. But, going to college is good because you'll be around people who are more like yourself.\"   I've heard lots of things like that. Maybe it's just been my experience (if it hasn't been yours, let me know), but it seems there's always this idea that philosophers are somehow different from normal, everyday people, and the people on the side of philosophy are obviously superior.   There are texts I can think of too that give me this impression; for example, in *Nicomachean Ethics*, in the first book, Aristotle talks what the \"many\" believe happiness is as opposed to what  \"cultivated people\" believe it is. And, with Socrates, it doesn't seem like he had a high opinion of the masses; the allegory of the cave, for example, doesn't seem to show a high opinion of them.   I just never understood this notion; it sounds pretentious and elitist to me. Why is everyone so certain that common people don't think about the world? Why is everyone so certain that they're not part of the common people? Who are they even talking about? I don't have faith that this is a good distinction, and that aside, that's millions of people; I don't have faith we can make any serious generalizations about them. It just never made sense to me.   But maybe I'm just one of the stupid sheeple who knows","c_root_id_A":"hqunedw","c_root_id_B":"hqw00dx","created_at_utc_A":1641071633,"created_at_utc_B":1641092817,"score_A":8,"score_B":17,"human_ref_A":"Well there is likely a distinction in many who are able to get a university education such that it reflects a practical difference in the lives of those who have the means to study philosophy and those who don\u2019t.  https:\/\/internationalfriendsofilyenkov.files.wordpress.com\/2017\/09\/artinian-2017-radical-currents-in-soviet-philosophy-vyyggy-ilyenkov.pdf \u201cThis lack was itself the default proletarian condition, which in the words of Bernard Stiegler (2010) is a condition marked by sense of total loss. The proletariat, by being subject to capitalist hegemony in every- day life, loses its ability to think and to do. The process of human for- mation becomes re-directed toward human functioning as simple machine, a state of servitude devoid of autonomous thought and activity; it becomes a machinic appendage of the will of the capitalist. This total loss of the energies of becoming \u2013 the radical foreclosing of human subjectivity into a mode of servitude \u2013 marks the negation of what Vygotsky imagined as human development, the complex move- ment toward human freedom-in-action. Lenin understood this dynamic clearly, and the need to build toward a new society devoid of proletarianization.\u201d  And this is the case throughout history that we do not have records of what the masses of people thought, demographics largely excluded from the same positions to not only leave records of what they think but have it widely shared and acknowledged.  But I do agree however the idea that working people don\u2019t think or aren\u2019t smart often comes from not associating with people outside their own common demographic and spaces long enough to know more than an \u201cimage\u201d, and often not sharing the same cultural likeness to recognize intellect not presented in the forms they have become accustom to.  It also isn\u2019t uncommon for people to see themselves as some how above the same influences of others such that the educated somehow imagine themselves more resistant to nonsense, however many intellectuals are just as propagandized through their social networks and such. Jaques Ellul arrives at such a point that the educated are the most vulnerable to horizontal propaganda. It sees others as objects of manipulation while oneself is able to reason but doesn\u2019t see that many people have good reasons for doing what they do and thinking what they do as part of their a of life. And there is some truth in that many don\u2019t have the time to reflect on some things, they have to labor on other things.  In this vein its easy for some to see themselves are investigating universal truths somehow outside a specific time and place where you can see the quality and nature of thinking in many philosophers reflecting the influences of their time. In fact, some of the greatest people are a kind of great representation of the culture of their times, able to best express it and reflect it in some medium. Napoleon says he wouldn\u2019t be Napoleon outside the circumstances he lived through.","human_ref_B":"You have to pay attention to what is *not being said* as much as to what is. When philosophers talk about \u201cnormal people\u201d give them the benefit of the doubt: what they\u2019re really saying is simply folks who are not trained to think in the same way.  Welders refer to people in similar terms. People in the restaurant and hospitality industry see their guests as \u201cnormal people\u201d too. It\u2019s just shorthand for \u201cthose who do not think like us.\u201d It\u2019s not automatically pretentious.  Sure, there are some who think that way but the occurrence rate is the same and it\u2019s not a function of philosophy itself but of just the way some folks can get when they specialize in something.  This is one instance when I think an overused and trite quote actually applies. Eleanor Roosevelt said, \u201cNobody can make you feel inferior without your consent.\u201d That is, if we interpret an exchange with someone as their being elitist, etc. we should start our line of questioning with ourselves first.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":21184.0,"score_ratio":2.125}
{"post_id":"rtsc1j","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.86,"history":"Why are philosophers so quick to distinguish themselves from \"common\" people? I've noticed recently there's a habit for philosophers or for people who study philosophy to talk about \"common\" or \"normal\" people, and assume that common people don't think about the world. It's often happened in philosophy classes I've been in where people will say things like, \"Most people don't think about the world; they only believe what's convenient for them and don't question their beliefs. But, it's important for all of us to pursue the truth. That is why philosophy is important, because knowing the truth is important.\"   One of my old philosophy teachers from my community college told me something like this when I was applying to university. She said, \"You know, being people who think about the world, sometimes we can feel out of place. But, going to college is good because you'll be around people who are more like yourself.\"   I've heard lots of things like that. Maybe it's just been my experience (if it hasn't been yours, let me know), but it seems there's always this idea that philosophers are somehow different from normal, everyday people, and the people on the side of philosophy are obviously superior.   There are texts I can think of too that give me this impression; for example, in *Nicomachean Ethics*, in the first book, Aristotle talks what the \"many\" believe happiness is as opposed to what  \"cultivated people\" believe it is. And, with Socrates, it doesn't seem like he had a high opinion of the masses; the allegory of the cave, for example, doesn't seem to show a high opinion of them.   I just never understood this notion; it sounds pretentious and elitist to me. Why is everyone so certain that common people don't think about the world? Why is everyone so certain that they're not part of the common people? Who are they even talking about? I don't have faith that this is a good distinction, and that aside, that's millions of people; I don't have faith we can make any serious generalizations about them. It just never made sense to me.   But maybe I'm just one of the stupid sheeple who knows","c_root_id_A":"hqw00dx","c_root_id_B":"hquqssg","created_at_utc_A":1641092817,"created_at_utc_B":1641073039,"score_A":17,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"You have to pay attention to what is *not being said* as much as to what is. When philosophers talk about \u201cnormal people\u201d give them the benefit of the doubt: what they\u2019re really saying is simply folks who are not trained to think in the same way.  Welders refer to people in similar terms. People in the restaurant and hospitality industry see their guests as \u201cnormal people\u201d too. It\u2019s just shorthand for \u201cthose who do not think like us.\u201d It\u2019s not automatically pretentious.  Sure, there are some who think that way but the occurrence rate is the same and it\u2019s not a function of philosophy itself but of just the way some folks can get when they specialize in something.  This is one instance when I think an overused and trite quote actually applies. Eleanor Roosevelt said, \u201cNobody can make you feel inferior without your consent.\u201d That is, if we interpret an exchange with someone as their being elitist, etc. we should start our line of questioning with ourselves first.","human_ref_B":"Don't think I've ever heard Philosophers talking like this really tbh.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":19778.0,"score_ratio":3.4}
{"post_id":"r0umaz","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.92,"history":"Is there a philosophical system which posits that everything is essentially perfect, or that everything is the way it is as the result of necessity and therefore the only possible world?","c_root_id_A":"hlvyrxu","c_root_id_B":"hlw0ahc","created_at_utc_A":1637751658,"created_at_utc_B":1637752834,"score_A":3,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"One could say also Hegel's philosophy. The unfolding of the Absolute and its progress toward full conscience of itself sounds like it. The famous sentence \"everything that is rational is real and everything that is real is rational\" and the identity between the \"be\" and the \"should be\".  Philosophy's nature is about justifying reality, not changing it, hence the famous metaphor of the Minerva's bird that flies on sunset.","human_ref_B":"Spinoza.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1176.0,"score_ratio":1.3333333333}
{"post_id":"aljfs0","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.81,"history":"How to grasp postmodernism in any way when there is SO much disagreement between postmodernists? Technically, I am able to formulate the basic tenets of postmodernism per Lyotard by saying how modernity brought on the disintegration of human faculties, resulting in multiple discourses, small narratives because there is no trust in a great one anymore.  However, when I try to apply this explanation on ANY postmodern philosopher (except, well, Lyotard maybe), I am again at a loss for understanding.  The figure most often associated with pomo is Derrida, but I fail to see how can phenomenology be postmodern. I admit, I am not that familiar with Derrida, but based on my knowledge of Nietzsche and Heidegger, the quest for the lost Dyonisian \/ Being attempts to bring back a certain general disposition, way of thinking - where are those multiple discourses in phenomenology? It seems like it is more about ignoring discourses.  The biggest paradox, however, is the fact that Heidegger and Derrida, most often cited in the context of postmodernism, are ignored by all other major postmodern philosophers as if they were some mysticist weirdos who had nothing legitimate to say!?  Deleuze is incredibly confusing to fit anywhere into the history of philosophy as he is another one of the poster boys for postmodernism, but key aspects of his thought - bringing back metaphysics, systematic philosophy, opposition to figures like Hegel - diverge from what is considered characteristically postmodern.  Finally, what blows my mind, and stops me from any further ability to conceptualize postmodernism, is the fact that the supposedly \"revolutionary\" philosophy of Foucault and Deleuze is today cited and used mostly by neoliberals - how!?  Also, how is it possible that political ideals of postmodernists differed so EXTREMELY if politics is one of key aspects of postmodernism? With phenomenology advocating a \"return\" to something primordial, and Deleuze and Guattari going with full on exploitation of wild capitalism.  On the other hand, I fail in trying to note any similarity of Baudrillard to any of these philosophers - he criticized pretty much every one of them, and the argument always goes some way like \"they mistook this symbolic thing for something real, and that's why they are worthless\". The constant invocation of the symbolic is reminiscent of Lacan, so I tend to associate Baudrillard's philosophy much more with the supposedly above-postmodern line of thought represented by Badiou and \u017di\u017eek.  Finally, the things are extra harder when I try to connect postmodern philosophy with postmodern art. When reviewing those basic tenets of POSTmodernism, the artist I think about is someone like Joyce, mixing things up and crossing lines - paradoxically, he is considered a prime exaple of MODERNISM. What do installations, performances, Borges or John Cage have common with postmodern philosophy at all!?  Lyotard, in works like The Differend, seems to be the only one who stuck with the definition of postmodernism set out above (noting how law becomes disfunctional due to the differentiation of discourses, and trying to construct ways to overcome this incommunicability) - but the fact that he was ignored or criticized by most supposed postmodern philosophers only makes thing worse.  How do I note one single similarity of \"postmodern\" philosophers beyond something so vague like \"all of them resisted tradition\" (which would make most historical figures ever postmodernists)?","c_root_id_A":"efenh2x","c_root_id_B":"efeonle","created_at_utc_A":1548898168,"created_at_utc_B":1548899088,"score_A":8,"score_B":18,"human_ref_A":"I think Lyotard was right in some ways in his work The Postmodern Condition (even though he called it his worst work). He said it was the end\/scepticism of grand\/universal narratives.  I think you're right regarding Heidegger's influence on some of these figures, particularly Heidegger's later works, with ideas like language speaks, language is an abyss, gestell etc. These were more influential on people like Baudrillard, Badiou & Zizek. Foucault had said that Heidegger was his most important influence, yet he never referenced him... Don't think the contradiction of this statement is not lost on me, particularly if you have read Nietzsche by Heidegger. How does Foucault reconcile this with one of the fundamental aspects of his philosophy taken from Nietzsche 'will'... I do not know.  Regarding Foucault and Deleuze being 'revolutionary' the simple fact is they were not. Many have accused Foucault in particular of not offering any alternative or way out from what he professed. These philosophies are passive, observational, and contemplative. I think the infamous Marx quote would serve them well - 'The philosophers have only interpreted the world in various ways; the point, however, is to change it.'. Surely this is why neoliberals take up their works.  You are right about Baudrillard and an interesting point to make here is that most of the philosophy to be considered postmodern was centred around University Paris VIII. So that is their similarity I'd say","human_ref_B":"So a lot of stuff.  1. Derrida is not a phenomenologist. He was deeply influenced by Husserl and Heidegger, but his thought is a lot less focused on questions of consciousness and much more focused on  interpretation and valuation (of texts, but also of other things). 2. Heidegger and Derrida are not marginalized in the field of philosophy. Though analytic philosophers are unlikely to cite them, they have had tremendous influence and are taken very seriously. Indeed, Derrida's work informed postcolonial studies through Gayatari Spivak, and American pragmatism through Richard Rorty. 3. I agree that some of Deleuze's thought seems antithetical to \"\"Postmodern philosophy\"\"\u2014especially the tendency towards systemization. However, his emphasis on becoming, rather than being (something that harkens back to Nietzsche, the \"first postmodernist\") is definitely postmodernist. Furthermore, his ideas of the rhizome\u2014as opposed to the arborescent\/hierarchical\u2014echoes much of Derrida's work.. 4. Baudrillard is a strange figure. He can be considered postmodernist mostly because of his frequent consideration of self-reference. (You asked about Borges \u2014 Baudrillard's famous *Simulacra and Simulation* begins with an account of one of Borges' stories). 5. On politics \u2014 Postmodern left-wing politics is defined by its focus on decentralization (which should seem familiar). Rather than on one massive political liberation movement, postmodernist politics focused on micropolitics. I'm not sure about it being embraced by neoliberals, however. I'd like to see more evidence of that. A critique of postmodern philosophy from the perspective of Hegelian Marxism is certainly interesting, though. There is a very good book by Steve Best & Douglas Kellner called *Postmodern Theory* which describes the theories of Foucault, Baudrillard, Deleuze, Laclau&Mouffe, etc and their political implications and uses. 6. As for the question of art: Look at the work of Warhol, or the architecture of Michael Graves, , etc. Warhol's work blends \"high-art\" and \"low-art\" just as Derrida aimed to deconstruct binaries. The works of architecture are\u2014to use the Deleuzian terminology\u2014assemblages. In their pastiche-like nature they borrow from different periods, places, etc.  Hope these somewhat rambling points help.  Edit: some shitty grammar","labels":0,"seconds_difference":920.0,"score_ratio":2.25}
{"post_id":"aljfs0","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.81,"history":"How to grasp postmodernism in any way when there is SO much disagreement between postmodernists? Technically, I am able to formulate the basic tenets of postmodernism per Lyotard by saying how modernity brought on the disintegration of human faculties, resulting in multiple discourses, small narratives because there is no trust in a great one anymore.  However, when I try to apply this explanation on ANY postmodern philosopher (except, well, Lyotard maybe), I am again at a loss for understanding.  The figure most often associated with pomo is Derrida, but I fail to see how can phenomenology be postmodern. I admit, I am not that familiar with Derrida, but based on my knowledge of Nietzsche and Heidegger, the quest for the lost Dyonisian \/ Being attempts to bring back a certain general disposition, way of thinking - where are those multiple discourses in phenomenology? It seems like it is more about ignoring discourses.  The biggest paradox, however, is the fact that Heidegger and Derrida, most often cited in the context of postmodernism, are ignored by all other major postmodern philosophers as if they were some mysticist weirdos who had nothing legitimate to say!?  Deleuze is incredibly confusing to fit anywhere into the history of philosophy as he is another one of the poster boys for postmodernism, but key aspects of his thought - bringing back metaphysics, systematic philosophy, opposition to figures like Hegel - diverge from what is considered characteristically postmodern.  Finally, what blows my mind, and stops me from any further ability to conceptualize postmodernism, is the fact that the supposedly \"revolutionary\" philosophy of Foucault and Deleuze is today cited and used mostly by neoliberals - how!?  Also, how is it possible that political ideals of postmodernists differed so EXTREMELY if politics is one of key aspects of postmodernism? With phenomenology advocating a \"return\" to something primordial, and Deleuze and Guattari going with full on exploitation of wild capitalism.  On the other hand, I fail in trying to note any similarity of Baudrillard to any of these philosophers - he criticized pretty much every one of them, and the argument always goes some way like \"they mistook this symbolic thing for something real, and that's why they are worthless\". The constant invocation of the symbolic is reminiscent of Lacan, so I tend to associate Baudrillard's philosophy much more with the supposedly above-postmodern line of thought represented by Badiou and \u017di\u017eek.  Finally, the things are extra harder when I try to connect postmodern philosophy with postmodern art. When reviewing those basic tenets of POSTmodernism, the artist I think about is someone like Joyce, mixing things up and crossing lines - paradoxically, he is considered a prime exaple of MODERNISM. What do installations, performances, Borges or John Cage have common with postmodern philosophy at all!?  Lyotard, in works like The Differend, seems to be the only one who stuck with the definition of postmodernism set out above (noting how law becomes disfunctional due to the differentiation of discourses, and trying to construct ways to overcome this incommunicability) - but the fact that he was ignored or criticized by most supposed postmodern philosophers only makes thing worse.  How do I note one single similarity of \"postmodern\" philosophers beyond something so vague like \"all of them resisted tradition\" (which would make most historical figures ever postmodernists)?","c_root_id_A":"efeqjpj","c_root_id_B":"efew6e0","created_at_utc_A":1548900637,"created_at_utc_B":1548905403,"score_A":9,"score_B":10,"human_ref_A":"I am not sure it is worth looking for a 'tradition' of post-modernism.  You sound like you've read them at least somewhat, why not talk about Lacanians, Heideggerians, etc (or some other more fine-grained distinction - not necessarily author-based) rather than post-modernists?  The labels seem to work better than some heuristic of post-modernism.","human_ref_B":">How do I note one single similarity of \"postmodern\" philosophers beyond something so vague like \"all of them resisted tradition\" (which would make most historical figures ever postmodernists)?  Don't try to force a ton of different philosophers into an arbitrary category like this. There's really no such thing as \"postmodernism.\"","labels":0,"seconds_difference":4766.0,"score_ratio":1.1111111111}
{"post_id":"aljfs0","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.81,"history":"How to grasp postmodernism in any way when there is SO much disagreement between postmodernists? Technically, I am able to formulate the basic tenets of postmodernism per Lyotard by saying how modernity brought on the disintegration of human faculties, resulting in multiple discourses, small narratives because there is no trust in a great one anymore.  However, when I try to apply this explanation on ANY postmodern philosopher (except, well, Lyotard maybe), I am again at a loss for understanding.  The figure most often associated with pomo is Derrida, but I fail to see how can phenomenology be postmodern. I admit, I am not that familiar with Derrida, but based on my knowledge of Nietzsche and Heidegger, the quest for the lost Dyonisian \/ Being attempts to bring back a certain general disposition, way of thinking - where are those multiple discourses in phenomenology? It seems like it is more about ignoring discourses.  The biggest paradox, however, is the fact that Heidegger and Derrida, most often cited in the context of postmodernism, are ignored by all other major postmodern philosophers as if they were some mysticist weirdos who had nothing legitimate to say!?  Deleuze is incredibly confusing to fit anywhere into the history of philosophy as he is another one of the poster boys for postmodernism, but key aspects of his thought - bringing back metaphysics, systematic philosophy, opposition to figures like Hegel - diverge from what is considered characteristically postmodern.  Finally, what blows my mind, and stops me from any further ability to conceptualize postmodernism, is the fact that the supposedly \"revolutionary\" philosophy of Foucault and Deleuze is today cited and used mostly by neoliberals - how!?  Also, how is it possible that political ideals of postmodernists differed so EXTREMELY if politics is one of key aspects of postmodernism? With phenomenology advocating a \"return\" to something primordial, and Deleuze and Guattari going with full on exploitation of wild capitalism.  On the other hand, I fail in trying to note any similarity of Baudrillard to any of these philosophers - he criticized pretty much every one of them, and the argument always goes some way like \"they mistook this symbolic thing for something real, and that's why they are worthless\". The constant invocation of the symbolic is reminiscent of Lacan, so I tend to associate Baudrillard's philosophy much more with the supposedly above-postmodern line of thought represented by Badiou and \u017di\u017eek.  Finally, the things are extra harder when I try to connect postmodern philosophy with postmodern art. When reviewing those basic tenets of POSTmodernism, the artist I think about is someone like Joyce, mixing things up and crossing lines - paradoxically, he is considered a prime exaple of MODERNISM. What do installations, performances, Borges or John Cage have common with postmodern philosophy at all!?  Lyotard, in works like The Differend, seems to be the only one who stuck with the definition of postmodernism set out above (noting how law becomes disfunctional due to the differentiation of discourses, and trying to construct ways to overcome this incommunicability) - but the fact that he was ignored or criticized by most supposed postmodern philosophers only makes thing worse.  How do I note one single similarity of \"postmodern\" philosophers beyond something so vague like \"all of them resisted tradition\" (which would make most historical figures ever postmodernists)?","c_root_id_A":"efeqjpj","c_root_id_B":"efenh2x","created_at_utc_A":1548900637,"created_at_utc_B":1548898168,"score_A":9,"score_B":8,"human_ref_A":"I am not sure it is worth looking for a 'tradition' of post-modernism.  You sound like you've read them at least somewhat, why not talk about Lacanians, Heideggerians, etc (or some other more fine-grained distinction - not necessarily author-based) rather than post-modernists?  The labels seem to work better than some heuristic of post-modernism.","human_ref_B":"I think Lyotard was right in some ways in his work The Postmodern Condition (even though he called it his worst work). He said it was the end\/scepticism of grand\/universal narratives.  I think you're right regarding Heidegger's influence on some of these figures, particularly Heidegger's later works, with ideas like language speaks, language is an abyss, gestell etc. These were more influential on people like Baudrillard, Badiou & Zizek. Foucault had said that Heidegger was his most important influence, yet he never referenced him... Don't think the contradiction of this statement is not lost on me, particularly if you have read Nietzsche by Heidegger. How does Foucault reconcile this with one of the fundamental aspects of his philosophy taken from Nietzsche 'will'... I do not know.  Regarding Foucault and Deleuze being 'revolutionary' the simple fact is they were not. Many have accused Foucault in particular of not offering any alternative or way out from what he professed. These philosophies are passive, observational, and contemplative. I think the infamous Marx quote would serve them well - 'The philosophers have only interpreted the world in various ways; the point, however, is to change it.'. Surely this is why neoliberals take up their works.  You are right about Baudrillard and an interesting point to make here is that most of the philosophy to be considered postmodern was centred around University Paris VIII. So that is their similarity I'd say","labels":1,"seconds_difference":2469.0,"score_ratio":1.125}
{"post_id":"aljfs0","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.81,"history":"How to grasp postmodernism in any way when there is SO much disagreement between postmodernists? Technically, I am able to formulate the basic tenets of postmodernism per Lyotard by saying how modernity brought on the disintegration of human faculties, resulting in multiple discourses, small narratives because there is no trust in a great one anymore.  However, when I try to apply this explanation on ANY postmodern philosopher (except, well, Lyotard maybe), I am again at a loss for understanding.  The figure most often associated with pomo is Derrida, but I fail to see how can phenomenology be postmodern. I admit, I am not that familiar with Derrida, but based on my knowledge of Nietzsche and Heidegger, the quest for the lost Dyonisian \/ Being attempts to bring back a certain general disposition, way of thinking - where are those multiple discourses in phenomenology? It seems like it is more about ignoring discourses.  The biggest paradox, however, is the fact that Heidegger and Derrida, most often cited in the context of postmodernism, are ignored by all other major postmodern philosophers as if they were some mysticist weirdos who had nothing legitimate to say!?  Deleuze is incredibly confusing to fit anywhere into the history of philosophy as he is another one of the poster boys for postmodernism, but key aspects of his thought - bringing back metaphysics, systematic philosophy, opposition to figures like Hegel - diverge from what is considered characteristically postmodern.  Finally, what blows my mind, and stops me from any further ability to conceptualize postmodernism, is the fact that the supposedly \"revolutionary\" philosophy of Foucault and Deleuze is today cited and used mostly by neoliberals - how!?  Also, how is it possible that political ideals of postmodernists differed so EXTREMELY if politics is one of key aspects of postmodernism? With phenomenology advocating a \"return\" to something primordial, and Deleuze and Guattari going with full on exploitation of wild capitalism.  On the other hand, I fail in trying to note any similarity of Baudrillard to any of these philosophers - he criticized pretty much every one of them, and the argument always goes some way like \"they mistook this symbolic thing for something real, and that's why they are worthless\". The constant invocation of the symbolic is reminiscent of Lacan, so I tend to associate Baudrillard's philosophy much more with the supposedly above-postmodern line of thought represented by Badiou and \u017di\u017eek.  Finally, the things are extra harder when I try to connect postmodern philosophy with postmodern art. When reviewing those basic tenets of POSTmodernism, the artist I think about is someone like Joyce, mixing things up and crossing lines - paradoxically, he is considered a prime exaple of MODERNISM. What do installations, performances, Borges or John Cage have common with postmodern philosophy at all!?  Lyotard, in works like The Differend, seems to be the only one who stuck with the definition of postmodernism set out above (noting how law becomes disfunctional due to the differentiation of discourses, and trying to construct ways to overcome this incommunicability) - but the fact that he was ignored or criticized by most supposed postmodern philosophers only makes thing worse.  How do I note one single similarity of \"postmodern\" philosophers beyond something so vague like \"all of them resisted tradition\" (which would make most historical figures ever postmodernists)?","c_root_id_A":"efew6e0","c_root_id_B":"efev97s","created_at_utc_A":1548905403,"created_at_utc_B":1548904599,"score_A":10,"score_B":8,"human_ref_A":">How do I note one single similarity of \"postmodern\" philosophers beyond something so vague like \"all of them resisted tradition\" (which would make most historical figures ever postmodernists)?  Don't try to force a ton of different philosophers into an arbitrary category like this. There's really no such thing as \"postmodernism.\"","human_ref_B":">How do I note one single similarity of \"postmodern\" philosophers beyond something so vague like \"all of them resisted tradition\" (which would make most historical figures ever postmodernists)?  By not trying because there's no such thing as postmodern philosophy or postmodernism in that sense. It's as much of particular philosophical view as Quixote's windmills were dragons.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":804.0,"score_ratio":1.25}
{"post_id":"aljfs0","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.81,"history":"How to grasp postmodernism in any way when there is SO much disagreement between postmodernists? Technically, I am able to formulate the basic tenets of postmodernism per Lyotard by saying how modernity brought on the disintegration of human faculties, resulting in multiple discourses, small narratives because there is no trust in a great one anymore.  However, when I try to apply this explanation on ANY postmodern philosopher (except, well, Lyotard maybe), I am again at a loss for understanding.  The figure most often associated with pomo is Derrida, but I fail to see how can phenomenology be postmodern. I admit, I am not that familiar with Derrida, but based on my knowledge of Nietzsche and Heidegger, the quest for the lost Dyonisian \/ Being attempts to bring back a certain general disposition, way of thinking - where are those multiple discourses in phenomenology? It seems like it is more about ignoring discourses.  The biggest paradox, however, is the fact that Heidegger and Derrida, most often cited in the context of postmodernism, are ignored by all other major postmodern philosophers as if they were some mysticist weirdos who had nothing legitimate to say!?  Deleuze is incredibly confusing to fit anywhere into the history of philosophy as he is another one of the poster boys for postmodernism, but key aspects of his thought - bringing back metaphysics, systematic philosophy, opposition to figures like Hegel - diverge from what is considered characteristically postmodern.  Finally, what blows my mind, and stops me from any further ability to conceptualize postmodernism, is the fact that the supposedly \"revolutionary\" philosophy of Foucault and Deleuze is today cited and used mostly by neoliberals - how!?  Also, how is it possible that political ideals of postmodernists differed so EXTREMELY if politics is one of key aspects of postmodernism? With phenomenology advocating a \"return\" to something primordial, and Deleuze and Guattari going with full on exploitation of wild capitalism.  On the other hand, I fail in trying to note any similarity of Baudrillard to any of these philosophers - he criticized pretty much every one of them, and the argument always goes some way like \"they mistook this symbolic thing for something real, and that's why they are worthless\". The constant invocation of the symbolic is reminiscent of Lacan, so I tend to associate Baudrillard's philosophy much more with the supposedly above-postmodern line of thought represented by Badiou and \u017di\u017eek.  Finally, the things are extra harder when I try to connect postmodern philosophy with postmodern art. When reviewing those basic tenets of POSTmodernism, the artist I think about is someone like Joyce, mixing things up and crossing lines - paradoxically, he is considered a prime exaple of MODERNISM. What do installations, performances, Borges or John Cage have common with postmodern philosophy at all!?  Lyotard, in works like The Differend, seems to be the only one who stuck with the definition of postmodernism set out above (noting how law becomes disfunctional due to the differentiation of discourses, and trying to construct ways to overcome this incommunicability) - but the fact that he was ignored or criticized by most supposed postmodern philosophers only makes thing worse.  How do I note one single similarity of \"postmodern\" philosophers beyond something so vague like \"all of them resisted tradition\" (which would make most historical figures ever postmodernists)?","c_root_id_A":"efew6e0","c_root_id_B":"efenh2x","created_at_utc_A":1548905403,"created_at_utc_B":1548898168,"score_A":10,"score_B":8,"human_ref_A":">How do I note one single similarity of \"postmodern\" philosophers beyond something so vague like \"all of them resisted tradition\" (which would make most historical figures ever postmodernists)?  Don't try to force a ton of different philosophers into an arbitrary category like this. There's really no such thing as \"postmodernism.\"","human_ref_B":"I think Lyotard was right in some ways in his work The Postmodern Condition (even though he called it his worst work). He said it was the end\/scepticism of grand\/universal narratives.  I think you're right regarding Heidegger's influence on some of these figures, particularly Heidegger's later works, with ideas like language speaks, language is an abyss, gestell etc. These were more influential on people like Baudrillard, Badiou & Zizek. Foucault had said that Heidegger was his most important influence, yet he never referenced him... Don't think the contradiction of this statement is not lost on me, particularly if you have read Nietzsche by Heidegger. How does Foucault reconcile this with one of the fundamental aspects of his philosophy taken from Nietzsche 'will'... I do not know.  Regarding Foucault and Deleuze being 'revolutionary' the simple fact is they were not. Many have accused Foucault in particular of not offering any alternative or way out from what he professed. These philosophies are passive, observational, and contemplative. I think the infamous Marx quote would serve them well - 'The philosophers have only interpreted the world in various ways; the point, however, is to change it.'. Surely this is why neoliberals take up their works.  You are right about Baudrillard and an interesting point to make here is that most of the philosophy to be considered postmodern was centred around University Paris VIII. So that is their similarity I'd say","labels":1,"seconds_difference":7235.0,"score_ratio":1.25}
{"post_id":"zmu1jt","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.9,"history":"Double Majoring in Philosophy and Computer Science I am an first year undergraduate student studying Computer Science and Philosophy. I am passionate about both subjects, more so philosophy however I do not want to pursue it as a career or go into academia for it for job security and financial reasons. Since I am double majoring, I was just wondering if there is any overlap between the subjects? Can philosophy help me in my job working as a, for example, software engineer?","c_root_id_A":"j0d9gad","c_root_id_B":"j0dabrf","created_at_utc_A":1671135790,"created_at_utc_B":1671136123,"score_A":5,"score_B":20,"human_ref_A":"Computer science and logic are closely interwined, especially for programming languages (see e.g. Curry-Howard isomorphism) and formal verification.","human_ref_B":"Definitely there's a lot of overlap in terms of skills.  Analytic philosophy and computer programming are both fundamentally about taking vague ideas and making them *precise*, and figuring out what cases a given precisification isn't going to handle as expected.  (I like to joke that as an ethicist, my job is *human programming*.)  The kind of person who's good at one is likely to be good at the other too.  So it wouldn't surprise me if time spent on philosophy makes you better at computer science, just by exercising that part of your brain.  Probably not as much better as if you'd spent that time practicing computer science itself, though, so I'm not sure how impressed future employers are likely to be at the double major.  And individual bits of knowledge aren't likely to transfer: \"philosophy and computer science\" isn't quite like pairings as \"philosophy and law\" or \"math and computer science\", where you can copy an idea from one area and implement it in the other.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":333.0,"score_ratio":4.0}
{"post_id":"zmu1jt","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.9,"history":"Double Majoring in Philosophy and Computer Science I am an first year undergraduate student studying Computer Science and Philosophy. I am passionate about both subjects, more so philosophy however I do not want to pursue it as a career or go into academia for it for job security and financial reasons. Since I am double majoring, I was just wondering if there is any overlap between the subjects? Can philosophy help me in my job working as a, for example, software engineer?","c_root_id_A":"j0d9gad","c_root_id_B":"j0ddw47","created_at_utc_A":1671135790,"created_at_utc_B":1671137477,"score_A":5,"score_B":12,"human_ref_A":"Computer science and logic are closely interwined, especially for programming languages (see e.g. Curry-Howard isomorphism) and formal verification.","human_ref_B":"There's a lot of overlap in logic obviously. There is some overlap with philosophy of mind with computationalism being an important view. There is philosophy of information. There is overlap with AI of course.  However none of these things are important to your as an engineer.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1687.0,"score_ratio":2.4}
{"post_id":"zmu1jt","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.9,"history":"Double Majoring in Philosophy and Computer Science I am an first year undergraduate student studying Computer Science and Philosophy. I am passionate about both subjects, more so philosophy however I do not want to pursue it as a career or go into academia for it for job security and financial reasons. Since I am double majoring, I was just wondering if there is any overlap between the subjects? Can philosophy help me in my job working as a, for example, software engineer?","c_root_id_A":"j0eeb3n","c_root_id_B":"j0dfocv","created_at_utc_A":1671152516,"created_at_utc_B":1671138158,"score_A":8,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"Perhaps what you are interested in is a field called cognitive science.","human_ref_B":"Interesting combination! Go into artificial intelligence and machine learning. That would pair nicely.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":14358.0,"score_ratio":2.0}
{"post_id":"zmu1jt","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.9,"history":"Double Majoring in Philosophy and Computer Science I am an first year undergraduate student studying Computer Science and Philosophy. I am passionate about both subjects, more so philosophy however I do not want to pursue it as a career or go into academia for it for job security and financial reasons. Since I am double majoring, I was just wondering if there is any overlap between the subjects? Can philosophy help me in my job working as a, for example, software engineer?","c_root_id_A":"j0dhcno","c_root_id_B":"j0eeb3n","created_at_utc_A":1671138805,"created_at_utc_B":1671152516,"score_A":5,"score_B":8,"human_ref_A":"Going to against the grain here- philosophy is really not as helpful as you might think when it comes to engineering. If you don\u2019t want to go into academia and work on super niche projects, it really won\u2019t do much for you. As an engineer, what really helps you is experience doing engineering so you can familiarize yourself with tools and workflows, not studying the theoretical underpinnings of concepts you use. People will bring up learning critical thinking and discrete logic, but those are really just applicable to fundamental lower-division classes.  As an ML engineer myself, my philosophy classes have only ever made for interesting conversation. I took them for fun and GEs. I don\u2019t think a single thing I\u2019ve picked up in a philosophy class has ever helped me get a job or perform better at one. You would be much, much better off dropping the philosophy major and spending the time you get back on research, internships, projects, or networking in clubs. Those will all hugely benefit your career over a philosophy degree.","human_ref_B":"Perhaps what you are interested in is a field called cognitive science.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":13711.0,"score_ratio":1.6}
{"post_id":"zmu1jt","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.9,"history":"Double Majoring in Philosophy and Computer Science I am an first year undergraduate student studying Computer Science and Philosophy. I am passionate about both subjects, more so philosophy however I do not want to pursue it as a career or go into academia for it for job security and financial reasons. Since I am double majoring, I was just wondering if there is any overlap between the subjects? Can philosophy help me in my job working as a, for example, software engineer?","c_root_id_A":"j0d9gad","c_root_id_B":"j0eeb3n","created_at_utc_A":1671135790,"created_at_utc_B":1671152516,"score_A":5,"score_B":8,"human_ref_A":"Computer science and logic are closely interwined, especially for programming languages (see e.g. Curry-Howard isomorphism) and formal verification.","human_ref_B":"Perhaps what you are interested in is a field called cognitive science.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":16726.0,"score_ratio":1.6}
{"post_id":"zmu1jt","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.9,"history":"Double Majoring in Philosophy and Computer Science I am an first year undergraduate student studying Computer Science and Philosophy. I am passionate about both subjects, more so philosophy however I do not want to pursue it as a career or go into academia for it for job security and financial reasons. Since I am double majoring, I was just wondering if there is any overlap between the subjects? Can philosophy help me in my job working as a, for example, software engineer?","c_root_id_A":"j0eeb3n","c_root_id_B":"j0e2jye","created_at_utc_A":1671152516,"created_at_utc_B":1671147430,"score_A":8,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"Perhaps what you are interested in is a field called cognitive science.","human_ref_B":"I double majored in biomedical engineering and philosophy. If you can hack it, i recommend it for all the other reason that have been given elsewhere.   I use it everyday (I'm a neurosurgeon now but it has made my understanding and communication skills so much better than I would have been without it). Not the same as your situation but I say go for it 10 years from now I highly doubt you regret it.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":5086.0,"score_ratio":2.6666666667}
{"post_id":"zmu1jt","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.9,"history":"Double Majoring in Philosophy and Computer Science I am an first year undergraduate student studying Computer Science and Philosophy. I am passionate about both subjects, more so philosophy however I do not want to pursue it as a career or go into academia for it for job security and financial reasons. Since I am double majoring, I was just wondering if there is any overlap between the subjects? Can philosophy help me in my job working as a, for example, software engineer?","c_root_id_A":"j0dmp91","c_root_id_B":"j0eeb3n","created_at_utc_A":1671140918,"created_at_utc_B":1671152516,"score_A":3,"score_B":8,"human_ref_A":"The analysis of concepts and clarification of ideas learned in philosophy is immensely helpful in software design.","human_ref_B":"Perhaps what you are interested in is a field called cognitive science.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":11598.0,"score_ratio":2.6666666667}
{"post_id":"zmu1jt","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.9,"history":"Double Majoring in Philosophy and Computer Science I am an first year undergraduate student studying Computer Science and Philosophy. I am passionate about both subjects, more so philosophy however I do not want to pursue it as a career or go into academia for it for job security and financial reasons. Since I am double majoring, I was just wondering if there is any overlap between the subjects? Can philosophy help me in my job working as a, for example, software engineer?","c_root_id_A":"j0dpj4j","c_root_id_B":"j0eeb3n","created_at_utc_A":1671142055,"created_at_utc_B":1671152516,"score_A":2,"score_B":8,"human_ref_A":"I'm guessing you have to take a course on logic gates and conditionals for CompSci. That's going to have a lot of overlap with philosophy courses on symbolic logic.  I've also heard from software engineers that metaphysics was beneficial, but I don't know how\/why.","human_ref_B":"Perhaps what you are interested in is a field called cognitive science.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":10461.0,"score_ratio":4.0}
{"post_id":"zmu1jt","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.9,"history":"Double Majoring in Philosophy and Computer Science I am an first year undergraduate student studying Computer Science and Philosophy. I am passionate about both subjects, more so philosophy however I do not want to pursue it as a career or go into academia for it for job security and financial reasons. Since I am double majoring, I was just wondering if there is any overlap between the subjects? Can philosophy help me in my job working as a, for example, software engineer?","c_root_id_A":"j0dhcno","c_root_id_B":"j0dfocv","created_at_utc_A":1671138805,"created_at_utc_B":1671138158,"score_A":5,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"Going to against the grain here- philosophy is really not as helpful as you might think when it comes to engineering. If you don\u2019t want to go into academia and work on super niche projects, it really won\u2019t do much for you. As an engineer, what really helps you is experience doing engineering so you can familiarize yourself with tools and workflows, not studying the theoretical underpinnings of concepts you use. People will bring up learning critical thinking and discrete logic, but those are really just applicable to fundamental lower-division classes.  As an ML engineer myself, my philosophy classes have only ever made for interesting conversation. I took them for fun and GEs. I don\u2019t think a single thing I\u2019ve picked up in a philosophy class has ever helped me get a job or perform better at one. You would be much, much better off dropping the philosophy major and spending the time you get back on research, internships, projects, or networking in clubs. Those will all hugely benefit your career over a philosophy degree.","human_ref_B":"Interesting combination! Go into artificial intelligence and machine learning. That would pair nicely.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":647.0,"score_ratio":1.25}
{"post_id":"zmu1jt","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.9,"history":"Double Majoring in Philosophy and Computer Science I am an first year undergraduate student studying Computer Science and Philosophy. I am passionate about both subjects, more so philosophy however I do not want to pursue it as a career or go into academia for it for job security and financial reasons. Since I am double majoring, I was just wondering if there is any overlap between the subjects? Can philosophy help me in my job working as a, for example, software engineer?","c_root_id_A":"j0dfocv","c_root_id_B":"j0efscz","created_at_utc_A":1671138158,"created_at_utc_B":1671153208,"score_A":4,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"Interesting combination! Go into artificial intelligence and machine learning. That would pair nicely.","human_ref_B":"In fact I got a PhD in in philosophy with somewhat of a concentration in logic, and sat in on classes in the CS department.  I wrote my dissertation on minds and machines (could computers think, etc.).  For financial reasons I went on to teach CS at a university (including AI classes at a graduate level) and worked in AI at a \"defense\" company.  After that, I continued to earn a living in software development and system administration.     So, speaking from my personal experience, if you have an affinity for logic\/mathematics in philosophy, then it would be a good pairing with much overlap.  In my particular case, there was enough overlap that I did not need a formal degree in CS in order to get jobs in that area (although a degree would have made things much easier).","labels":0,"seconds_difference":15050.0,"score_ratio":1.25}
{"post_id":"zmu1jt","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.9,"history":"Double Majoring in Philosophy and Computer Science I am an first year undergraduate student studying Computer Science and Philosophy. I am passionate about both subjects, more so philosophy however I do not want to pursue it as a career or go into academia for it for job security and financial reasons. Since I am double majoring, I was just wondering if there is any overlap between the subjects? Can philosophy help me in my job working as a, for example, software engineer?","c_root_id_A":"j0e2jye","c_root_id_B":"j0efscz","created_at_utc_A":1671147430,"created_at_utc_B":1671153208,"score_A":3,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"I double majored in biomedical engineering and philosophy. If you can hack it, i recommend it for all the other reason that have been given elsewhere.   I use it everyday (I'm a neurosurgeon now but it has made my understanding and communication skills so much better than I would have been without it). Not the same as your situation but I say go for it 10 years from now I highly doubt you regret it.","human_ref_B":"In fact I got a PhD in in philosophy with somewhat of a concentration in logic, and sat in on classes in the CS department.  I wrote my dissertation on minds and machines (could computers think, etc.).  For financial reasons I went on to teach CS at a university (including AI classes at a graduate level) and worked in AI at a \"defense\" company.  After that, I continued to earn a living in software development and system administration.     So, speaking from my personal experience, if you have an affinity for logic\/mathematics in philosophy, then it would be a good pairing with much overlap.  In my particular case, there was enough overlap that I did not need a formal degree in CS in order to get jobs in that area (although a degree would have made things much easier).","labels":0,"seconds_difference":5778.0,"score_ratio":1.6666666667}
{"post_id":"zmu1jt","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.9,"history":"Double Majoring in Philosophy and Computer Science I am an first year undergraduate student studying Computer Science and Philosophy. I am passionate about both subjects, more so philosophy however I do not want to pursue it as a career or go into academia for it for job security and financial reasons. Since I am double majoring, I was just wondering if there is any overlap between the subjects? Can philosophy help me in my job working as a, for example, software engineer?","c_root_id_A":"j0efscz","c_root_id_B":"j0dmp91","created_at_utc_A":1671153208,"created_at_utc_B":1671140918,"score_A":5,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"In fact I got a PhD in in philosophy with somewhat of a concentration in logic, and sat in on classes in the CS department.  I wrote my dissertation on minds and machines (could computers think, etc.).  For financial reasons I went on to teach CS at a university (including AI classes at a graduate level) and worked in AI at a \"defense\" company.  After that, I continued to earn a living in software development and system administration.     So, speaking from my personal experience, if you have an affinity for logic\/mathematics in philosophy, then it would be a good pairing with much overlap.  In my particular case, there was enough overlap that I did not need a formal degree in CS in order to get jobs in that area (although a degree would have made things much easier).","human_ref_B":"The analysis of concepts and clarification of ideas learned in philosophy is immensely helpful in software design.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":12290.0,"score_ratio":1.6666666667}
{"post_id":"zmu1jt","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.9,"history":"Double Majoring in Philosophy and Computer Science I am an first year undergraduate student studying Computer Science and Philosophy. I am passionate about both subjects, more so philosophy however I do not want to pursue it as a career or go into academia for it for job security and financial reasons. Since I am double majoring, I was just wondering if there is any overlap between the subjects? Can philosophy help me in my job working as a, for example, software engineer?","c_root_id_A":"j0dpj4j","c_root_id_B":"j0efscz","created_at_utc_A":1671142055,"created_at_utc_B":1671153208,"score_A":2,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"I'm guessing you have to take a course on logic gates and conditionals for CompSci. That's going to have a lot of overlap with philosophy courses on symbolic logic.  I've also heard from software engineers that metaphysics was beneficial, but I don't know how\/why.","human_ref_B":"In fact I got a PhD in in philosophy with somewhat of a concentration in logic, and sat in on classes in the CS department.  I wrote my dissertation on minds and machines (could computers think, etc.).  For financial reasons I went on to teach CS at a university (including AI classes at a graduate level) and worked in AI at a \"defense\" company.  After that, I continued to earn a living in software development and system administration.     So, speaking from my personal experience, if you have an affinity for logic\/mathematics in philosophy, then it would be a good pairing with much overlap.  In my particular case, there was enough overlap that I did not need a formal degree in CS in order to get jobs in that area (although a degree would have made things much easier).","labels":0,"seconds_difference":11153.0,"score_ratio":2.5}
{"post_id":"zmu1jt","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.9,"history":"Double Majoring in Philosophy and Computer Science I am an first year undergraduate student studying Computer Science and Philosophy. I am passionate about both subjects, more so philosophy however I do not want to pursue it as a career or go into academia for it for job security and financial reasons. Since I am double majoring, I was just wondering if there is any overlap between the subjects? Can philosophy help me in my job working as a, for example, software engineer?","c_root_id_A":"j0dpj4j","c_root_id_B":"j0e2jye","created_at_utc_A":1671142055,"created_at_utc_B":1671147430,"score_A":2,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"I'm guessing you have to take a course on logic gates and conditionals for CompSci. That's going to have a lot of overlap with philosophy courses on symbolic logic.  I've also heard from software engineers that metaphysics was beneficial, but I don't know how\/why.","human_ref_B":"I double majored in biomedical engineering and philosophy. If you can hack it, i recommend it for all the other reason that have been given elsewhere.   I use it everyday (I'm a neurosurgeon now but it has made my understanding and communication skills so much better than I would have been without it). Not the same as your situation but I say go for it 10 years from now I highly doubt you regret it.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":5375.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
{"post_id":"w3uegi","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":1.0,"history":"Do philosophers respond to emails asking questions about their work? Particularly about the content of their work, like an argument within a book or paper or something.","c_root_id_A":"igymns4","c_root_id_B":"igyh2pq","created_at_utc_A":1658348304,"created_at_utc_B":1658345973,"score_A":30,"score_B":16,"human_ref_A":"It depends, but they often do! My advice would be to keep the email fairly brief, but you definitely should. Worst thing that happens is that you don't get a response.","human_ref_B":"I haven't sent many such emails but I've got answers to all of them","labels":1,"seconds_difference":2331.0,"score_ratio":1.875}
{"post_id":"w3uegi","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":1.0,"history":"Do philosophers respond to emails asking questions about their work? Particularly about the content of their work, like an argument within a book or paper or something.","c_root_id_A":"igyngp1","c_root_id_B":"igzt6hn","created_at_utc_A":1658348635,"created_at_utc_B":1658367591,"score_A":9,"score_B":14,"human_ref_A":"Often, depends on how busy they are","human_ref_B":"You probably won't get a response from philosophers who have a very large popular audience (say, Slavoj Zizek or William Lane Craig). But you'd be surprised how many good faith emails someone as popular as Noam Chomsky responds to. Definitely give it a shot--the vast majority I've contacted *love* talking with people that take a strong interest in their work. Like others have said, some of them have demanding research\/teaching responsibilities, but the vast majority will get back to you over time.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":18956.0,"score_ratio":1.5555555556}
{"post_id":"w3uegi","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":1.0,"history":"Do philosophers respond to emails asking questions about their work? Particularly about the content of their work, like an argument within a book or paper or something.","c_root_id_A":"igzldqf","c_root_id_B":"igzt6hn","created_at_utc_A":1658364040,"created_at_utc_B":1658367591,"score_A":6,"score_B":14,"human_ref_A":"In my experience yes. Maybe not quickly, but eventually many will. I\u2019ve found most academics love any opportunity to really talk about their work, and few things are as welcome as somebody who seems genuinely interested in listening.   Weirdly enough there was just a Twitter thread going around where a guy was talking about writing a letter to Foucault in the 70s, and having him respond back in a couple of weeks.","human_ref_B":"You probably won't get a response from philosophers who have a very large popular audience (say, Slavoj Zizek or William Lane Craig). But you'd be surprised how many good faith emails someone as popular as Noam Chomsky responds to. Definitely give it a shot--the vast majority I've contacted *love* talking with people that take a strong interest in their work. Like others have said, some of them have demanding research\/teaching responsibilities, but the vast majority will get back to you over time.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":3551.0,"score_ratio":2.3333333333}
{"post_id":"rnrsm2","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.94,"history":"What is the distinction between awareness and consciousness? Is there a difference?","c_root_id_A":"hpu125x","c_root_id_B":"hpuiauz","created_at_utc_A":1640370307,"created_at_utc_B":1640378479,"score_A":24,"score_B":31,"human_ref_A":"Honestly, whether there is a difference, and if so, what the difference is, depends on who\u2019s talking and what she means by those terms.  That\u2019s why contemporary philosophy often specify \u201cphenomenal consciousness\u201d and so on.","human_ref_B":"Where I come from \"consciousness\" and \"awareness\" are synonyms. But philosophically there can be a valid reason to make a distinction. Normally the two terms work together. To be conscious of something is to be aware of it. But, according to phenomenology, consciousness is the human way of being, we are conscious because we are always \"directed at\" what we are perceiving or experiencing, in general. That is intentionality. To be conscious is to be present and have other things be present to us. Awareness is, one could argue, the more \"active\" realization that this object (or ourselves) is present or in a certain condition. Hence consciousness is more fundamental than awareness, if looked at from that perspective. For example: I could be comprehending everything in a room (table, chair, etc.) without being \"aware\" that I was conscious of it. But as soon as I think \"that is a chair\", \"that is a table\" I am now aware of it. I've had too much wine today. I hope it made sense.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":8172.0,"score_ratio":1.2916666667}
{"post_id":"rnrsm2","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.94,"history":"What is the distinction between awareness and consciousness? Is there a difference?","c_root_id_A":"hpue84p","c_root_id_B":"hpuiauz","created_at_utc_A":1640376510,"created_at_utc_B":1640378479,"score_A":5,"score_B":31,"human_ref_A":"A lot of philosophers operate with the definition of consciousness put forward by Nagel, that is, that consciousness is \"what is it like to be that particular being *for* that particular being\" - a sort of subjective character of experience. That's a very different definition than awareness.","human_ref_B":"Where I come from \"consciousness\" and \"awareness\" are synonyms. But philosophically there can be a valid reason to make a distinction. Normally the two terms work together. To be conscious of something is to be aware of it. But, according to phenomenology, consciousness is the human way of being, we are conscious because we are always \"directed at\" what we are perceiving or experiencing, in general. That is intentionality. To be conscious is to be present and have other things be present to us. Awareness is, one could argue, the more \"active\" realization that this object (or ourselves) is present or in a certain condition. Hence consciousness is more fundamental than awareness, if looked at from that perspective. For example: I could be comprehending everything in a room (table, chair, etc.) without being \"aware\" that I was conscious of it. But as soon as I think \"that is a chair\", \"that is a table\" I am now aware of it. I've had too much wine today. I hope it made sense.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1969.0,"score_ratio":6.2}
{"post_id":"rnrsm2","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.94,"history":"What is the distinction between awareness and consciousness? Is there a difference?","c_root_id_A":"hpum1oc","c_root_id_B":"hpw150x","created_at_utc_A":1640380321,"created_at_utc_B":1640410316,"score_A":2,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"In Buddhism, awareness is still there after the distinction between conscious and non-conscious mind has been more or less eliminated. The conscious mind (ego) is the part that thinks it is there doing stuff. Even this conscious mind is an illusion of constructed perspective; it can only be seen from the inside and it does not exactly have a real inside.","human_ref_B":"In cognitive neuroscience (my area) we use the terms interchangeably.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":29995.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
{"post_id":"yl7alf","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.87,"history":"What is the distinction between should and ought? I picked up a book called Ethics for dummies by Christopher panza and it says that should and ought are distinct but it doesn't explain how. I think you use ought to express how important something is and should is just not as serious. Example, we ought not to blow up the world vs you should eat breakfast in the morning. Ought here is used as a more serious necessity for survival. Please explain this to me.","c_root_id_A":"iuwwmpf","c_root_id_B":"iuwuium","created_at_utc_A":1667493776,"created_at_utc_B":1667492965,"score_A":46,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"I've never heard this distinction being made before.","human_ref_B":"Welcome to \/r\/askphilosophy. **Please read our rules before commenting** and understand that your comments will be removed if they are not up to standard or otherwise break the rules. While we do not require citations in answers (but do encourage them), answers need to be reasonably substantive and well-researched, accurately portray the state of the research, and come only from those with relevant knowledge.  *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](\/message\/compose\/?to=\/r\/askphilosophy) if you have any questions or concerns.*","labels":1,"seconds_difference":811.0,"score_ratio":23.0}
{"post_id":"yl7alf","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.87,"history":"What is the distinction between should and ought? I picked up a book called Ethics for dummies by Christopher panza and it says that should and ought are distinct but it doesn't explain how. I think you use ought to express how important something is and should is just not as serious. Example, we ought not to blow up the world vs you should eat breakfast in the morning. Ought here is used as a more serious necessity for survival. Please explain this to me.","c_root_id_A":"iuxuuu1","c_root_id_B":"iux9b8n","created_at_utc_A":1667506803,"created_at_utc_B":1667498587,"score_A":13,"score_B":6,"human_ref_A":"While others are probably right that this book isn't drawing a distinction, at least some people in modal logic draw a distinction between \"weak\" and \"strong\" box modalities, though when I find a paper talking about it, he puts \"should\" and \"ought\" both on the weak side, while \"must\" and \"have to\" are on the strong side.  There's a lot of discussion in modal logic about how the semantics of the different words in natural language may or may not connect to the philosophical issues. It's notable that words like \"should\", \"ought\", \"must\", and \"have to\" all have deontic and epistemic readings, and at least some of them have metaphysical readings too. It's an interesting question why we have so many different words that all express box-type modalities across all the different \"flavors\" of modality, and what difference in meaning could be conveyed by the different words.","human_ref_B":"On some accounts there are of kinds of normative claims about action and \"ought\" only refers to something very narrow - namely moral obligation - cases where failing to do something entails doing something wrong.  You see Peter Singer talk this way, for instance, in his applied ethics stuff.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":8216.0,"score_ratio":2.1666666667}
{"post_id":"yl7alf","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.87,"history":"What is the distinction between should and ought? I picked up a book called Ethics for dummies by Christopher panza and it says that should and ought are distinct but it doesn't explain how. I think you use ought to express how important something is and should is just not as serious. Example, we ought not to blow up the world vs you should eat breakfast in the morning. Ought here is used as a more serious necessity for survival. Please explain this to me.","c_root_id_A":"iuxuuu1","c_root_id_B":"iuwuium","created_at_utc_A":1667506803,"created_at_utc_B":1667492965,"score_A":13,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"While others are probably right that this book isn't drawing a distinction, at least some people in modal logic draw a distinction between \"weak\" and \"strong\" box modalities, though when I find a paper talking about it, he puts \"should\" and \"ought\" both on the weak side, while \"must\" and \"have to\" are on the strong side.  There's a lot of discussion in modal logic about how the semantics of the different words in natural language may or may not connect to the philosophical issues. It's notable that words like \"should\", \"ought\", \"must\", and \"have to\" all have deontic and epistemic readings, and at least some of them have metaphysical readings too. It's an interesting question why we have so many different words that all express box-type modalities across all the different \"flavors\" of modality, and what difference in meaning could be conveyed by the different words.","human_ref_B":"Welcome to \/r\/askphilosophy. **Please read our rules before commenting** and understand that your comments will be removed if they are not up to standard or otherwise break the rules. While we do not require citations in answers (but do encourage them), answers need to be reasonably substantive and well-researched, accurately portray the state of the research, and come only from those with relevant knowledge.  *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](\/message\/compose\/?to=\/r\/askphilosophy) if you have any questions or concerns.*","labels":1,"seconds_difference":13838.0,"score_ratio":6.5}
{"post_id":"yl7alf","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.87,"history":"What is the distinction between should and ought? I picked up a book called Ethics for dummies by Christopher panza and it says that should and ought are distinct but it doesn't explain how. I think you use ought to express how important something is and should is just not as serious. Example, we ought not to blow up the world vs you should eat breakfast in the morning. Ought here is used as a more serious necessity for survival. Please explain this to me.","c_root_id_A":"iux9b8n","c_root_id_B":"iuwuium","created_at_utc_A":1667498587,"created_at_utc_B":1667492965,"score_A":6,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"On some accounts there are of kinds of normative claims about action and \"ought\" only refers to something very narrow - namely moral obligation - cases where failing to do something entails doing something wrong.  You see Peter Singer talk this way, for instance, in his applied ethics stuff.","human_ref_B":"Welcome to \/r\/askphilosophy. **Please read our rules before commenting** and understand that your comments will be removed if they are not up to standard or otherwise break the rules. While we do not require citations in answers (but do encourage them), answers need to be reasonably substantive and well-researched, accurately portray the state of the research, and come only from those with relevant knowledge.  *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](\/message\/compose\/?to=\/r\/askphilosophy) if you have any questions or concerns.*","labels":1,"seconds_difference":5622.0,"score_ratio":3.0}
{"post_id":"yl7alf","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.87,"history":"What is the distinction between should and ought? I picked up a book called Ethics for dummies by Christopher panza and it says that should and ought are distinct but it doesn't explain how. I think you use ought to express how important something is and should is just not as serious. Example, we ought not to blow up the world vs you should eat breakfast in the morning. Ought here is used as a more serious necessity for survival. Please explain this to me.","c_root_id_A":"iuwuium","c_root_id_B":"iuynbes","created_at_utc_A":1667492965,"created_at_utc_B":1667519977,"score_A":2,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"Welcome to \/r\/askphilosophy. **Please read our rules before commenting** and understand that your comments will be removed if they are not up to standard or otherwise break the rules. While we do not require citations in answers (but do encourage them), answers need to be reasonably substantive and well-researched, accurately portray the state of the research, and come only from those with relevant knowledge.  *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](\/message\/compose\/?to=\/r\/askphilosophy) if you have any questions or concerns.*","human_ref_B":"My understanding is there is no widely accepted distinction employed by philosophers. However, in my work doing ethics training for businesses, we do draw a distinction between 'should' and 'ought' because it can be useful.  We couch it such that 'should' refers to practical advice, such that *if* you want to achieve some end *x*, then you should do *y*. 'Should' says nothing about whether *x* is good or bad end to seek.  We then talk about 'ought' as referring to binding ethical obligation, such that you ought to do *a* because there are good ethical reasons to do *a*, even if it's not related to the ends you seek.  It's similar to the distinction between hypothetical and categorical imperatives, but there's a lot more nuance in the latter terms.  As I said, this is not a clear cut distinction, but it's useful in the work we do for non-philosophers. Sometimes they get mixed up when it comes to their obligations, such as their obligation to obey superiors at work which can trump ethical concerns (happens a lot). This distinction lets us have a conversation about which obligations override which, and how they can communicate that in the workplace.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":27012.0,"score_ratio":2.0}
{"post_id":"5khy4s","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.87,"history":"\u201cIn bourgeois society, living labour is but a means to increase accumulated labour.\u201d What are the arguments against this claim by Karl Marx? Reading the Communist Manifesto, this statement stood out to me as significant in his arguments against capitalism. I feel like there is something off to this, but can't quite figure what that is. It does seem like labor only serves to increase capital.   Are there any significant arguments refuting this claim? The only one I can really think of is that laborers are paid a wage, so it serves to sustain their life. However, this seems like more of a side effect of the proliferation of labor rather than the purpose of it.","c_root_id_A":"dbo6xxo","c_root_id_B":"dbo95h5","created_at_utc_A":1482823129,"created_at_utc_B":1482829653,"score_A":3,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"McCloskey's \"Bourgeois\" trilogy addresses key ideas in Marxism like this. As I recall (it's been awhile), her view is that \"bourgeois\" society shouldn't be seen in just material or capital accumulation. Its strength is in the free and open exchange of ideas - growth in wealth (which some might call labor accumulation) is a consequent benefit of that.","human_ref_B":"I don't really know any criticisms of this, but generally your response is seen to be true by both capitalists and Marxists. The difference is whether the wage is fair or not. Capitalists understand profit to be the money made by investing capital and through a mutually beneficial contract (capital is a much nicer term for dead labor), while Marxists see it as the result of the exploitation of the worker.   If you want to really understand what Marx is saying when he's talking about this, Capital is the place where he tries to figure out how the capitalist makes a profit despite the assumption that labor is paid fully for its addition of value.  EDIT: Added a space.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":6524.0,"score_ratio":1.6666666667}
{"post_id":"asbgej","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.89,"history":"Is Kurt G\u00f6del's theory of incompleteness taken seriously? The implications of it seem to be a bit too large. I discovered him last night and watched a lecture about his theory of incompleteness. I also see people using it to argue that a computer can never simulate a human mind, as well as using to argue that god could exist. I don't have an issue with his theory persay, but that being said, I find it kind of strange that his idea is a bit obscure considering its implications.","c_root_id_A":"egt45ev","c_root_id_B":"egt5t3o","created_at_utc_A":1550592111,"created_at_utc_B":1550593235,"score_A":11,"score_B":18,"human_ref_A":"i think the issue isn't whether or not g\u00f6del's theorems are taken seriously, but what they're taken to mean outside of math\/logic. if the implications seem to be a bit too large, look at who's drawing them, then ask how they (the implications) stack up against what g\u00f6del's theorems actually say - or, if you're a mere mortal like me, a comprehensible summary of what they say:  >The first incompleteness theorem states that no consistent system of axioms whose theorems can be listed by an effective procedure (i.e., an algorithm) is capable of proving all truths about the arithmetic of the natural numbers.  For any such consistent formal system, there will always be statements  about the natural numbers that are true, but that are unprovable within  the system. The second incompleteness theorem, an extension of the  first, shows that the system cannot demonstrate its own consistency.  ​","human_ref_B":"The two other comments already did a good job of explaining things, but I have to stress something: you're using the word \"theory\", but there is no \"G\u00f6del's incompleteness theory\"; there are G\u00f6del's incompleteness theorems. Theorem implies a statement that has been rigorously proved -- which G\u00f6del did. Here's a simplified proof.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1124.0,"score_ratio":1.6363636364}
{"post_id":"pt62h0","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.89,"history":"Are there any solved questions in philosophy?","c_root_id_A":"hduah6d","c_root_id_B":"hdudbf6","created_at_utc_A":1632316894,"created_at_utc_B":1632318250,"score_A":21,"score_B":33,"human_ref_A":"\"Solved\" is a strong word. \"General consensus\" might be more realistic.","human_ref_B":"Sure, primarily in the philosophy of logic and math.   We know for example, that you can\u2019t define truth within a formal language without getting some version of the liars paradox thanks to Tarski.   And we also know that any mathematical theory which is isomorphic to peano systems cannot both be consistent and complete thanks to G\u00f6del.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1356.0,"score_ratio":1.5714285714}
{"post_id":"pt62h0","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.89,"history":"Are there any solved questions in philosophy?","c_root_id_A":"hduehcw","c_root_id_B":"hdupmuu","created_at_utc_A":1632318787,"created_at_utc_B":1632323570,"score_A":7,"score_B":9,"human_ref_A":"Progress of that kind in philosophy doesn't really look like closure or \"solving\" in the sense that the question is now over. Rather, a question gets \"solved\" in philosophy when philosophers come to agree on the general answer to the question and a set of concrete methods is developed for specifying the answer. For instance, certain longstanding philosophical questions about the nature of matter got \"solved\" over the last several hundred years not in the sense that we now have complete answers and no one has to ask questions about matter anymore, but rather in the sense that more or less all philosophers came to agree on certain very general truths about those questions and a set of methods for investigating them. Those methods have names like \"physics\" and \"chemistry\" today.","human_ref_B":"According to Graham Oppy, (part of) philosophy can be seen as a forefront of science, that deals with problems where neither the question nor the method are well established (e.g. consciousness is a good contemporary example). Under that view a large part of modern science is solved philosophy, i.e. questions that were speculative and conceptually unclear became fields of inquiry with agreed upon questions and methodology.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":4783.0,"score_ratio":1.2857142857}
{"post_id":"pt62h0","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.89,"history":"Are there any solved questions in philosophy?","c_root_id_A":"hduehcw","c_root_id_B":"hdv9732","created_at_utc_A":1632318787,"created_at_utc_B":1632331525,"score_A":7,"score_B":8,"human_ref_A":"Progress of that kind in philosophy doesn't really look like closure or \"solving\" in the sense that the question is now over. Rather, a question gets \"solved\" in philosophy when philosophers come to agree on the general answer to the question and a set of concrete methods is developed for specifying the answer. For instance, certain longstanding philosophical questions about the nature of matter got \"solved\" over the last several hundred years not in the sense that we now have complete answers and no one has to ask questions about matter anymore, but rather in the sense that more or less all philosophers came to agree on certain very general truths about those questions and a set of methods for investigating them. Those methods have names like \"physics\" and \"chemistry\" today.","human_ref_B":"A good answer here sort of depends on where you are coming from. But that said:  One thing we might say is that the issues you come across in science are no less settled than the various philosophical positions they seemingly depend on. So, like, science tells us the earth is about 4.5 billion years old. Fine. Here are some philosophical issues: \"is knowledge possible? Is the past real? Does science make progress? Why should we believe what science says? How can a belief ever be justified? What is logic? Does logic give us knowledge of the world? What are the fundamental constituents of reality? What does it mean for something to be 'true'?\" So, let's just take the first question in the above list: is knowledge possible? And here we might note there is some disagreement in the field of philosophy. Fine. But, well, if there is disagreement here, and if this disagreement seems rather troubling, then it seems you should probably also be troubled regarding the claim we said science makes about the age of the earth. Or, to put it differently, whatever issue you are having with the disagreement in philosophy should, we might say, translate into a corresponding issue with claims in science. If we find disagreement regarding whether or not knowledge is possible, doesn't that affect exactly how \"settled\" knowledge claims regarding the age of the Earth are?   So, whatever uncertainty there is in philosophy will filter to scientific matters, insofar as scientific matters presuppose answers to philosophical issues. Maybe we aren't all that bothered by that. I know I don't lose sleep over the age of the earth. And so, if we aren't all that troubled by the resulting uncertainty in the issues that depend on philosophical positions, then maybe we need not be troubled by whatever uncertainty there is in the philosophical positions themselves, and moreover, we certainly don't have to plumb for a sort of general relativism because of any of this.  More generally, I think a lot of people, when they first encounter philosophy, aren't really sure what to make of philosophical claims. For most of their education, and life generally, they are used to taking claims mainly based on authority. So, the textbook says something, or the teacher says something, or your parents say something, or your priest says something, and that's that. You might ask some internal questions about what they say, but rarely are you going to raise your hand in a physics class and ask \"but, really, what is 'knowledge'?\" Almost nobody actually conducts the scientific experiments, or understands the complex mathematical proofs, or pored over dense historical documents to piece together some historical claim or really done the heavy-lifting that is sort of real work to be justified in making claims in science, math, history, or really anything.  So, people come in to philosophy, and they are thrown. It's one of the first time people are being asked to think for themselves and really inquire about the foundations of thought. You are being asked to evaluate an argument, defend claims, make cogent objections, and articulate reasonable positions. And without being able to rely on authority, a lot of people get lost and confused. Not seeing a clear answer, they then say, \"well, I guess it's just all opinion.\" And this is, in some sense, an intellectually cowardly answer. It's often a sort of thought that goes \"well, if there is no one to tell me what the answer is, then there must not be an answer.\"   As to \"answers\" or \"solved questions\" in philosophy: in a certain sense, there are lots of answers philosophy provides all the time. Like, there are fairly clear answers to things like \"what is S5 logic?\" or \"what does Hobbes mean by \"state of nature\"? or \"what's Gettier's argument that knowledge is not justified, true, belief?\" or \"What's the argument for the pessimistic meta-induction?\" And like, if you tell me the argument for the pessimistic meta-induction is that \"cupcakes are tasty,\" I'm confident in saying your position here is wrong and this is a solved question. In general, this is a lot of what goes on: 1) someone has a naive philosophical view, 2) they take a class or read about the view, and 3) they get a more sophisticated version of the view. And, we could even say, philosophy as a field, takes it that those naive views (that students often start with) have been refuted. But usually when people ask something like \"does philosophy provide answers?\" they don't mean things like this. Instead, they mean to ask something like \"does philosophy provide an answer to if there is free will, or if morality is objective,\" or other super-general big questions. And we can say that there isn't a consensus in the field for these big questions. But does philosophy provide an answer to these questions? I mean, we definitely have people providing arguments for positions, and defending those positions, and espousing those positions. But if you want someone to just tell you the answer to the big philosophical questions, then I worry you may be misunderstanding what a lot of philosophy is, and, some of the goods that come from studying philosophy.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":12738.0,"score_ratio":1.1428571429}
{"post_id":"pt62h0","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.89,"history":"Are there any solved questions in philosophy?","c_root_id_A":"hdv9732","c_root_id_B":"hdv50wc","created_at_utc_A":1632331525,"created_at_utc_B":1632329825,"score_A":8,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"A good answer here sort of depends on where you are coming from. But that said:  One thing we might say is that the issues you come across in science are no less settled than the various philosophical positions they seemingly depend on. So, like, science tells us the earth is about 4.5 billion years old. Fine. Here are some philosophical issues: \"is knowledge possible? Is the past real? Does science make progress? Why should we believe what science says? How can a belief ever be justified? What is logic? Does logic give us knowledge of the world? What are the fundamental constituents of reality? What does it mean for something to be 'true'?\" So, let's just take the first question in the above list: is knowledge possible? And here we might note there is some disagreement in the field of philosophy. Fine. But, well, if there is disagreement here, and if this disagreement seems rather troubling, then it seems you should probably also be troubled regarding the claim we said science makes about the age of the earth. Or, to put it differently, whatever issue you are having with the disagreement in philosophy should, we might say, translate into a corresponding issue with claims in science. If we find disagreement regarding whether or not knowledge is possible, doesn't that affect exactly how \"settled\" knowledge claims regarding the age of the Earth are?   So, whatever uncertainty there is in philosophy will filter to scientific matters, insofar as scientific matters presuppose answers to philosophical issues. Maybe we aren't all that bothered by that. I know I don't lose sleep over the age of the earth. And so, if we aren't all that troubled by the resulting uncertainty in the issues that depend on philosophical positions, then maybe we need not be troubled by whatever uncertainty there is in the philosophical positions themselves, and moreover, we certainly don't have to plumb for a sort of general relativism because of any of this.  More generally, I think a lot of people, when they first encounter philosophy, aren't really sure what to make of philosophical claims. For most of their education, and life generally, they are used to taking claims mainly based on authority. So, the textbook says something, or the teacher says something, or your parents say something, or your priest says something, and that's that. You might ask some internal questions about what they say, but rarely are you going to raise your hand in a physics class and ask \"but, really, what is 'knowledge'?\" Almost nobody actually conducts the scientific experiments, or understands the complex mathematical proofs, or pored over dense historical documents to piece together some historical claim or really done the heavy-lifting that is sort of real work to be justified in making claims in science, math, history, or really anything.  So, people come in to philosophy, and they are thrown. It's one of the first time people are being asked to think for themselves and really inquire about the foundations of thought. You are being asked to evaluate an argument, defend claims, make cogent objections, and articulate reasonable positions. And without being able to rely on authority, a lot of people get lost and confused. Not seeing a clear answer, they then say, \"well, I guess it's just all opinion.\" And this is, in some sense, an intellectually cowardly answer. It's often a sort of thought that goes \"well, if there is no one to tell me what the answer is, then there must not be an answer.\"   As to \"answers\" or \"solved questions\" in philosophy: in a certain sense, there are lots of answers philosophy provides all the time. Like, there are fairly clear answers to things like \"what is S5 logic?\" or \"what does Hobbes mean by \"state of nature\"? or \"what's Gettier's argument that knowledge is not justified, true, belief?\" or \"What's the argument for the pessimistic meta-induction?\" And like, if you tell me the argument for the pessimistic meta-induction is that \"cupcakes are tasty,\" I'm confident in saying your position here is wrong and this is a solved question. In general, this is a lot of what goes on: 1) someone has a naive philosophical view, 2) they take a class or read about the view, and 3) they get a more sophisticated version of the view. And, we could even say, philosophy as a field, takes it that those naive views (that students often start with) have been refuted. But usually when people ask something like \"does philosophy provide answers?\" they don't mean things like this. Instead, they mean to ask something like \"does philosophy provide an answer to if there is free will, or if morality is objective,\" or other super-general big questions. And we can say that there isn't a consensus in the field for these big questions. But does philosophy provide an answer to these questions? I mean, we definitely have people providing arguments for positions, and defending those positions, and espousing those positions. But if you want someone to just tell you the answer to the big philosophical questions, then I worry you may be misunderstanding what a lot of philosophy is, and, some of the goods that come from studying philosophy.","human_ref_B":"Yes, and too many to count. What are the valid categorical syllogisms? Solved. What are viable semantics for modal logics; a number of good options are on the table. What are the major types of normative ethical theories, and how do they differ? Solved.  It's a little insulting and shortsighted to act like philosophy hasn't made a ton of progress. Of course we spend most of our time working on questions that are as yet unsolved, but that's just what every discipline does.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1700.0,"score_ratio":4.0}
{"post_id":"srglm1","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.84,"history":"Is gender self ID a completely new linguistic practice, or do other words work in the same way? I'm trying to understand the move to self ID for gender identity. I did a philosophy degree many moons ago, so I'm sure what follows is limited, but hopefully you'll be patient and help me out.  I understand self ID to mean that the individual has sole authority to determine their gender. So if I identify as a man nobody else is in a position to disagree with me. That is not to say I cannot be wrong, I may correct myself, just that nobody else can correct me. This seems to me to be a new practice in a way I explain below, but I don't know, so I'm here to ask whether this is a wholly new thing.  There are (at least) 2 ways I think any claim we make might be false. Take the claim 'Serena Williams is a professional squash player.'  1. I am simply **factually** wrong. I know little of sport and make a factual error inasmuch as Williams is actually a professional tennis player. 2. I make a mistake of **meaning**. I do in fact know Williams is a tennis player, I've seen her play on TV etc., but I just think the game of tennis is called 'squash'. I mistake the meaning of the word 'squash'.  Or consider the claim that I am blonde. If I am not blonde I can be corrected. People can correct my **factual** error and prove it to me by showing me a mirror, and they can correct my **meaning** error, by explaining the meaning of blonde and maybe showing me a dictionary to convince me.  What about the gender identity claim 'I am a man'? Gender self ID means I have sole authority on whether this claim is true and this means that I cannot be challenged on either count. I cannot be said by anyone else to be making a factual error, nor to be mistaken about the meaning of the words used in my claim including the word 'man'.  So, where gender is thought of as something innate, subjectively sensed, then, the fact that nobody else can correct me for a factual error seems to follow as nobody else can directly sense innate aspects of my identity. Perhaps **I** might come to think I had made a mistake and would say 'I thought I was a man, but in fact I'm not', as trans people at the onset of gender dysphoria might say, or people who de-transition.  But not to be able to be corrected for a mistake of meaning seems to me quite radical. Isn't it the case that meanings are publicly known and shared, and that mostly all fluent speakers are able to judge at any one time whether a word is being used in accordance with its meaning? When someone else says something which we understand a core component of what we understand are the meanings of the words they are using, the kind of thing that dictionaries try to capture. (This doesn't depend on there being a stable analytic definition of any word, just that on any one occasion of use an explanation of the meaning can be given, and it is more or less shared by fluent speakers of the language.)  If meanings are held in common then I am in an equal position to the speaker to judge whether they have used a word in accordance with its meaning. Therefore I am equally placed to judge if they have made a mistake. If I can judge someone as having made a mistake in their usage of a gender term as it applies to them then they don't have sole authority over the gender claim they are making and self ID is violated.  If then, according to self ID I cannot be corrected for a mistake of meaning when it comes to gender terms, it seems to me it must be that the meanings cannot be public and held in common. This in particular is what seems to me to be quite radical. I can't think of any other word or phrase that operates in this fashion.  So, I'd like to know if self ID is indeed a wholly new practice or whether there are other words that work similarly. Of course it could be that I am making some basic mistakes and I would also be grateful to have them pointed out. Thanks.","c_root_id_A":"hwtqr49","c_root_id_B":"hwt5b1w","created_at_utc_A":1644786560,"created_at_utc_B":1644778063,"score_A":7,"score_B":6,"human_ref_A":"> So, I'd like to know if self ID is indeed a wholly new practice or whether there are other words that work similarly.  Religious identity seems to be a very similar animal to gender identity.  Remember that one time when the Pope said Trump was not a Christian, and then Trump said some words about that, including, \"I am proud to be a Christian...\"  And even now Trump claims to be a Non-Denominational Christian.  This despite reports that Trump Secretly Mocks His Christian Supporters.  Clearly, there are many, many issues in that whole mess.  The relevant part, I think, is that many people would consider religious belief to involve some sort of external markers, specifically in terms of practice.  That strikes me as similar to how many people would consider gender to involve some sort of external markers.  It does not seem unreasonable for such a person to look at, for example, Donald Trump and say, \"I understand 'Is a Christian' to entail acting in manner X, Y, and Z.  Trump is clearly not acting in that manner.  Therefore, Trump is clearly not a Christian.\"  To which he and his supporters could, some argue, rightfully respond that one's personal beliefs cannot be externally judged; that we do not get to define what \"Is a Christian.\" means for everyone.  The pushback in both cases, I think, is to focus on this part of your post:  > innate aspects of my identity  Both in the case of gender and religious identity, it seems like more is at stake than merely an innate aspect of identity.  There are external manifestations of that sense of identity that can be observed and assessed by others.  Claiming \"I am an X.\" entails some sort of external manifestation of Xness.  In which case we can respond to Trump and some gendered folks with \"You may say you identify as an X, but you are clearly not acting like an X.\"  That can be an approach to the problem you articulate as:  > If meanings are held in common then I am in an equal position to the speaker to judge whether they have used a word in accordance with its meaning.  If the meaning of X is purely some individual's inner sense.  Then, sure, maybe only that individual can speak to it.  If the meaning of X can be discerned through external manifestations, through actions or habits that can be observed by others, then it seems reasonable to maintain that others can speak to an individual's X-ness by observing what the individual does.","human_ref_B":"There are other words that work similarly, here are some examples.      \"I am *fan* of the Bengals\" or \"I am a Bengals fan\". Being a fan of something is just self-identification. This example multiplies by liking anything at all. (e.g. \"I like chocolate more\", \"Purple is my favorite color\", \"Purple used to be my favorite but I like gray now\", \"I am a Gryffindor\",..etc.)     \"I am *religious*\". To belong to many religions is to self-identify with it. However, there are obviously organized religions with practices that delimit membership. But there are examples of religions where personal conscience is all that is required and for those religions self identification is all you need.      Now notice that the meanings of these words are not up for dispute either and someone could attempt gatekeep your use of these words. That said, we often take people at their word when they say they are a fan of some sports team. But we *could* question that claim, like if they say they are a fan of the Bengals but keep booing the Bengals and cheering for the Rams we might say \"You're not a fan of the Bengals!\".      Now can this happen with gender? Sure! Obviously it is controversial because it could be potentially really rude or hurtful but it has happened for centuries already in a sexist way (e.g. \"You're not a real man\/woman\". Could it happen in a benign way? Probably, but examples would be culturally context sensitive.      Hope that helps.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":8497.0,"score_ratio":1.1666666667}
{"post_id":"47pvh2","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.95,"history":"What are some moral arguments that, if true, would require you to change many of your decisions and activities in life?","c_root_id_A":"d0f842p","c_root_id_B":"d0f0t4a","created_at_utc_A":1456530396,"created_at_utc_B":1456519276,"score_A":7,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"If it were proven that plants could 'feel' pain and were adversely affected by it","human_ref_B":"Arguments *against* vegetarianism\/veganism.  In particular, the following argument:  1. the \"mere addition\" of lives worth living is morally valuable  2. killing non-human animals is not morally bad (or it's a bad that could be outweighed by a short life worth living)  3. consequences matter more than agent-relative considerations  4. There is no Benatar-esqe asymmetry between absence of pain and absence of pleasure  5. The facts are such that the average factory farmed animal has a life worth living, or there exist \"humane\" farms with such animals whose cost is trivial  6. The facts are such that animal agriculture doesn't displace other animals who would live worthwhile lives  7. Therefore, we ought morally to create demand for animal products  >Why do you disagree with the arguments, and what would be required to make you change your mind?  My most important disagreement is with (5). Since this is an empirical premise, it would take a revelation in my understanding of factory farming, or a dramatic change in farming practices.   While I have some sympathy for the moral premises (1,2,3,4), I also give some credence to their negations. Even if I thought that the average factory farmed animal has a life just worth living, I would still want to maximize expected choice-worthiness or at least follow J. Ross's principle:  >Given any two theories, T1 and T2, if T1 judges that there is little to choose between one's options, while T2 judges that it makes a great difference which of one's options one chooses, then as long as one believes there is a \"decent\" chance that T2 might be true, it will often be rational to follow the dictates of T2, even if one has more credence in T1 than T2. [from Temkin, *Rethinking the Good*]  To change my mind, I would need to believe that in the face of moral uncertainty, we should only consider the most likely theory. (And I would need to be clear that I believe all the moral premises more than their negations.)  Also, I suspect (6) is wrong, but I don't know enough about the (empirical) issue to say anything about it.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":11120.0,"score_ratio":1.4}
{"post_id":"47pvh2","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.95,"history":"What are some moral arguments that, if true, would require you to change many of your decisions and activities in life?","c_root_id_A":"d0f033m","c_root_id_B":"d0f0t4a","created_at_utc_A":1456518274,"created_at_utc_B":1456519276,"score_A":3,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"Most of them - in fact, it's hard to think of any major ones that wouldn't require me to change my behavior relatively significantly.","human_ref_B":"Arguments *against* vegetarianism\/veganism.  In particular, the following argument:  1. the \"mere addition\" of lives worth living is morally valuable  2. killing non-human animals is not morally bad (or it's a bad that could be outweighed by a short life worth living)  3. consequences matter more than agent-relative considerations  4. There is no Benatar-esqe asymmetry between absence of pain and absence of pleasure  5. The facts are such that the average factory farmed animal has a life worth living, or there exist \"humane\" farms with such animals whose cost is trivial  6. The facts are such that animal agriculture doesn't displace other animals who would live worthwhile lives  7. Therefore, we ought morally to create demand for animal products  >Why do you disagree with the arguments, and what would be required to make you change your mind?  My most important disagreement is with (5). Since this is an empirical premise, it would take a revelation in my understanding of factory farming, or a dramatic change in farming practices.   While I have some sympathy for the moral premises (1,2,3,4), I also give some credence to their negations. Even if I thought that the average factory farmed animal has a life just worth living, I would still want to maximize expected choice-worthiness or at least follow J. Ross's principle:  >Given any two theories, T1 and T2, if T1 judges that there is little to choose between one's options, while T2 judges that it makes a great difference which of one's options one chooses, then as long as one believes there is a \"decent\" chance that T2 might be true, it will often be rational to follow the dictates of T2, even if one has more credence in T1 than T2. [from Temkin, *Rethinking the Good*]  To change my mind, I would need to believe that in the face of moral uncertainty, we should only consider the most likely theory. (And I would need to be clear that I believe all the moral premises more than their negations.)  Also, I suspect (6) is wrong, but I don't know enough about the (empirical) issue to say anything about it.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1002.0,"score_ratio":1.6666666667}
{"post_id":"47pvh2","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.95,"history":"What are some moral arguments that, if true, would require you to change many of your decisions and activities in life?","c_root_id_A":"d0f842p","c_root_id_B":"d0ezs5t","created_at_utc_A":1456530396,"created_at_utc_B":1456517851,"score_A":7,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"If it were proven that plants could 'feel' pain and were adversely affected by it","human_ref_B":"The arguments for social justice, I think: taking social justice very seriously involves a massive change in behaviour and attitude, down to the very roots. If the relevant claims are true, this blows vegetarianism out of the water in terms of the magnitude of change required.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":12545.0,"score_ratio":1.4}
{"post_id":"47pvh2","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.95,"history":"What are some moral arguments that, if true, would require you to change many of your decisions and activities in life?","c_root_id_A":"d0f842p","c_root_id_B":"d0f2wlz","created_at_utc_A":1456530396,"created_at_utc_B":1456522244,"score_A":7,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"If it were proven that plants could 'feel' pain and were adversely affected by it","human_ref_B":"Divine command theory. If we were somehow to discover that divine revelation was real and that God really did issue a bunch of commands that have moral weight regardless of the situation, that would be a major blow to a lot of my (and likely many others') life decisions. But perhaps that's almost too easy an example.  I think the biggest realistic one for me would be if the ethical response to excesses of capitalism would be not to use any of the consumer goods it produces. I really like the fact that I am sitting here in a Starbucks on my Surface Pro 4 talking to people over the Internet. But somewhere in China is a factory where workers are working long shifts every day to churn out the microchips necessary for all this to be possible.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":8152.0,"score_ratio":1.4}
{"post_id":"47pvh2","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.95,"history":"What are some moral arguments that, if true, would require you to change many of your decisions and activities in life?","c_root_id_A":"d0f842p","c_root_id_B":"d0f033m","created_at_utc_A":1456530396,"created_at_utc_B":1456518274,"score_A":7,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"If it were proven that plants could 'feel' pain and were adversely affected by it","human_ref_B":"Most of them - in fact, it's hard to think of any major ones that wouldn't require me to change my behavior relatively significantly.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":12122.0,"score_ratio":2.3333333333}
{"post_id":"47pvh2","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.95,"history":"What are some moral arguments that, if true, would require you to change many of your decisions and activities in life?","c_root_id_A":"d0f033m","c_root_id_B":"d0f2wlz","created_at_utc_A":1456518274,"created_at_utc_B":1456522244,"score_A":3,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"Most of them - in fact, it's hard to think of any major ones that wouldn't require me to change my behavior relatively significantly.","human_ref_B":"Divine command theory. If we were somehow to discover that divine revelation was real and that God really did issue a bunch of commands that have moral weight regardless of the situation, that would be a major blow to a lot of my (and likely many others') life decisions. But perhaps that's almost too easy an example.  I think the biggest realistic one for me would be if the ethical response to excesses of capitalism would be not to use any of the consumer goods it produces. I really like the fact that I am sitting here in a Starbucks on my Surface Pro 4 talking to people over the Internet. But somewhere in China is a factory where workers are working long shifts every day to churn out the microchips necessary for all this to be possible.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":3970.0,"score_ratio":1.6666666667}
{"post_id":"47pvh2","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.95,"history":"What are some moral arguments that, if true, would require you to change many of your decisions and activities in life?","c_root_id_A":"d0f033m","c_root_id_B":"d0f859h","created_at_utc_A":1456518274,"created_at_utc_B":1456530450,"score_A":3,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"Most of them - in fact, it's hard to think of any major ones that wouldn't require me to change my behavior relatively significantly.","human_ref_B":"Arguments for true altruism.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":12176.0,"score_ratio":1.3333333333}
{"post_id":"v4ajay","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.88,"history":"Has analytical philosophy gotten too lazy\/complacent? Does anyone discuss this? My impression is that reasoning in analytic philosophy nowadays is very unrigorous. No one seems to want to demonstrate their claims as possessing hard necessity. Instead, what I largely see are appeals to plausibility: parsimony\/Ockham's razor, the degree to which some things are good at explaining certain phenomena, how intuitive a thesis is, the fact that an opposing view faces problems (though not necessarily ones which demonstrate its impossibility), and so on.  I've heard Michael Della Rocca make this kind of criticism but not anyone else. So, my first question is: is there anyone else who does? Any papers\/books where such points are made?  Secondly: why does there seem to be so much commitment to abductive principles like parsimony? Are there some good arguments for them? I'm not sure I see all that much in them and I'm afraid the commitments might stem from some kind of group think. Ie. believing they are legitimate principles of reasoning because others seem to think that.","c_root_id_A":"ib4w1t1","c_root_id_B":"ib3vp7n","created_at_utc_A":1654340406,"created_at_utc_B":1654309579,"score_A":33,"score_B":11,"human_ref_A":">Has analytical philosophy gotten too lazy\/complacent?   Not that I can tell, and I don't think that's a widely shared sentiment, no. I'm not even convinced that we can meaningfully talk about something like the \"state of analytic philosophy\", given the width of subjects, approaches, techniques, subcultures, and so on, that can be summarized under this vague umbrella term. I certainly don't have a clear view on \"analytic philosophy\" as a whole, as I barely manage to stay up to date with the stuff that's relevant to my own work, let alone with thousands of other papers on hundred of other subjects.  But maybe you can elaborate a bit on what exactly you have in mind here?  >My impression is that reasoning in analytic philosophy nowadays is very unrigorous.   I don't mean to sound unnecessarily confrontational, but if you read your own post, don't you think there's something ironic about a complaint about rigor being presented in the most vague and hand-wavy way possible? You want to discuss the state of \"analytic philosophy\" without further restrictions, and don't provide a single pointer to a single paper. I know you didn't try to present a dissertation to us, but at least provide us with some references! Otherwise, it's incredibly difficult to say anything here at all, other than maybe: no, doesn't seem so to me.   * Where does your impression come from?  * What have you read that left you with this impression?  * What would be writings that serve as a positive example, and demonstrate what  you're missing elsewhere? Something that you'd want other philosophers to strive for? * When you say \"has become\", are you particularly satisfied with older writings, but find contemporary research to be lacking in comparison? If so, what writings? Is there something like a breaking point in the history of analytic philosophy?  This would be a reasonable starting point!  >No one seems to want to demonstrate their claims as possessing hard necessity.   I don't think we can expect people in general to defend very specific modal properties of their claims, when we don't know if they think the propositions they defend posses these properties. It's not a popular view that everything that's true is necessarily true,  so I don't know why people would argue for this. Truth-directed discourse generally aims at distinguishing truths from falsehoods, and rational agents are then expected to adopt truths, not only necessary truths.  >parsimony\/Ockham's razor,  This isn't a central line of reasoning in most papers because it can't be: It only applies in very specific situations, and most participants in most philosophical debates don't typically think we find ourselves in such a situation. Besides, the characterization of parsimony as an appeal to plausibility strikes me as contentious at best. Where do you \"largely see\" this?  >the degree to which some things are good at explaining certain phenomena  Well, that's an almost universally accepted desideratum of rational theory choice in virtually any academic discipline and beyond, I'm not sure how to even understand this as a criticism. I'd *hope* that people take this into consideration. Roughly the same is true for  >the fact that an opposing view faces problems (though not necessarily ones which demonstrate its impossibility)  I don't know how one would respond to this, of course that's the kind of thing people do when trying to figure out what's the best theory on something.   > intuitive   The proper role of intuition in philosophical investigations in a huge topic in metaphilosophy, so on that point, plenty of stuff has been written.  >Does anyone discuss this?  Again, please don't understand this as me trying to insult you personally, but the reason why we don't find a lot of talk like your OP written by philosophers, is that it's more the type of thing you overhear in an Irish pub among students, than the kind of thing you find in academic papers. It's a bit like \"the philosophers these days smh... they're just not rigorous, man...\". This overly broad meta-commentary without taking aim at anything tangible or specific, and without practical advice on how to improve things, just isn't very interesting, as no one can do much with it.  On the other hand, criticizing specific papers for their deficiencies is pretty much the most common occurrence you can think of: this what happens in every other paper or review.","human_ref_B":"Parsimony as an abductive principle has 2 arguments for it that I am aware, both of which are kind of in the same vein.  1. If two theories say all the same things, and explains all the same things, except one has one additional assumption, not only does that assumption literally do nothing for the theory, it potentially reduces the probability that the theory is true. This is simple to see if you\u2019re familiar with bayesian epistemology, and think of propositions as a sample space  2. This view can be somewhat explained and even justified with coherence theories of justification. On a coherence theory, part of what makes a theory more justified is to what extent logical connections can be drawn between each claim a theory wants to make, and the evidence it attempts to explain. Theories which are more \u201cneat\u201d, that follow from fewer principles, are less ad hoc, are more coherent, and this idea has been developed more rigorously","labels":1,"seconds_difference":30827.0,"score_ratio":3.0}
{"post_id":"v4ajay","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.88,"history":"Has analytical philosophy gotten too lazy\/complacent? Does anyone discuss this? My impression is that reasoning in analytic philosophy nowadays is very unrigorous. No one seems to want to demonstrate their claims as possessing hard necessity. Instead, what I largely see are appeals to plausibility: parsimony\/Ockham's razor, the degree to which some things are good at explaining certain phenomena, how intuitive a thesis is, the fact that an opposing view faces problems (though not necessarily ones which demonstrate its impossibility), and so on.  I've heard Michael Della Rocca make this kind of criticism but not anyone else. So, my first question is: is there anyone else who does? Any papers\/books where such points are made?  Secondly: why does there seem to be so much commitment to abductive principles like parsimony? Are there some good arguments for them? I'm not sure I see all that much in them and I'm afraid the commitments might stem from some kind of group think. Ie. believing they are legitimate principles of reasoning because others seem to think that.","c_root_id_A":"ib4w1t1","c_root_id_B":"ib4rtcb","created_at_utc_A":1654340406,"created_at_utc_B":1654336272,"score_A":33,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":">Has analytical philosophy gotten too lazy\/complacent?   Not that I can tell, and I don't think that's a widely shared sentiment, no. I'm not even convinced that we can meaningfully talk about something like the \"state of analytic philosophy\", given the width of subjects, approaches, techniques, subcultures, and so on, that can be summarized under this vague umbrella term. I certainly don't have a clear view on \"analytic philosophy\" as a whole, as I barely manage to stay up to date with the stuff that's relevant to my own work, let alone with thousands of other papers on hundred of other subjects.  But maybe you can elaborate a bit on what exactly you have in mind here?  >My impression is that reasoning in analytic philosophy nowadays is very unrigorous.   I don't mean to sound unnecessarily confrontational, but if you read your own post, don't you think there's something ironic about a complaint about rigor being presented in the most vague and hand-wavy way possible? You want to discuss the state of \"analytic philosophy\" without further restrictions, and don't provide a single pointer to a single paper. I know you didn't try to present a dissertation to us, but at least provide us with some references! Otherwise, it's incredibly difficult to say anything here at all, other than maybe: no, doesn't seem so to me.   * Where does your impression come from?  * What have you read that left you with this impression?  * What would be writings that serve as a positive example, and demonstrate what  you're missing elsewhere? Something that you'd want other philosophers to strive for? * When you say \"has become\", are you particularly satisfied with older writings, but find contemporary research to be lacking in comparison? If so, what writings? Is there something like a breaking point in the history of analytic philosophy?  This would be a reasonable starting point!  >No one seems to want to demonstrate their claims as possessing hard necessity.   I don't think we can expect people in general to defend very specific modal properties of their claims, when we don't know if they think the propositions they defend posses these properties. It's not a popular view that everything that's true is necessarily true,  so I don't know why people would argue for this. Truth-directed discourse generally aims at distinguishing truths from falsehoods, and rational agents are then expected to adopt truths, not only necessary truths.  >parsimony\/Ockham's razor,  This isn't a central line of reasoning in most papers because it can't be: It only applies in very specific situations, and most participants in most philosophical debates don't typically think we find ourselves in such a situation. Besides, the characterization of parsimony as an appeal to plausibility strikes me as contentious at best. Where do you \"largely see\" this?  >the degree to which some things are good at explaining certain phenomena  Well, that's an almost universally accepted desideratum of rational theory choice in virtually any academic discipline and beyond, I'm not sure how to even understand this as a criticism. I'd *hope* that people take this into consideration. Roughly the same is true for  >the fact that an opposing view faces problems (though not necessarily ones which demonstrate its impossibility)  I don't know how one would respond to this, of course that's the kind of thing people do when trying to figure out what's the best theory on something.   > intuitive   The proper role of intuition in philosophical investigations in a huge topic in metaphilosophy, so on that point, plenty of stuff has been written.  >Does anyone discuss this?  Again, please don't understand this as me trying to insult you personally, but the reason why we don't find a lot of talk like your OP written by philosophers, is that it's more the type of thing you overhear in an Irish pub among students, than the kind of thing you find in academic papers. It's a bit like \"the philosophers these days smh... they're just not rigorous, man...\". This overly broad meta-commentary without taking aim at anything tangible or specific, and without practical advice on how to improve things, just isn't very interesting, as no one can do much with it.  On the other hand, criticizing specific papers for their deficiencies is pretty much the most common occurrence you can think of: this what happens in every other paper or review.","human_ref_B":"Hasn\u2019t philosophy pretty much always done this? I can think of maybe two or three philosophers who tried to rigorously justify their whole view from the ground up, but historically, and especially nowadays it seems to me that philosophers gave up on concepts like certainty or necessary truth pretty early on","labels":1,"seconds_difference":4134.0,"score_ratio":8.25}
{"post_id":"1x33lt","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.83,"history":"How does Marx's theory of dialectical materialism tie into his vision of a communist society free of capitalist-driven alienation?","c_root_id_A":"cf7qo6g","c_root_id_B":"cf7qec5","created_at_utc_A":1391619732,"created_at_utc_B":1391619169,"score_A":5,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":">It is not the consciousness of men that determines their existence, but their social existence that determines their consciousness.  Preface to A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy   There would be a couple of long answers to this, or at least, several ways of identifying the dialectic in Marx's development of communism. The disentangling of Marx, Engels, and 20th century Marxists on this matter is not something I can speak to with great accuracy. \/r\/DebateCommunism and \/r\/communism101 would be also be a good place to also ask this question. Also \/r\/communism (it would seem) if you're looking for a more substantial response. Each sub is made up of members from various schools of Marxist thought and could likely provide you with various perspectives on this question.  But I have a question as regards your question. Are you asking how we should understand the methodology of Marx and Engel's formulation of dialectical materialism as it relates to 'inevitability' or development of the conditions necessary for communism to be enacted? (the teleogical model of history attributed to Marx is debatable) Or are you asking what role dialectical materialism plays in the administration\/understanding of communism, towards the eradication of alienation, once it is established?","human_ref_B":"I had a class on this and my teacher would basically have said: \"they don't\". What he would have meant is that Marx's political ideas are not caused by his views on physics but could still be explained by it when you go a bit deeper. Marx shared Epicurus and Democritus theory of atomism, which has basically been proven right over the time. So while matter is the only existing substance, Marx also said that there is a dynamism in it, caused by two contraries. We could say it is light and darkness or life and death, but the idea might be more complex. Politically, though, Marx believed history was like a wheel turning toward progress. The ultimate goal of history, thus, is to achieve a perfect society where everyone is free and equal. So in the end, there is no need for a state or any control because we would reach the government of everyone by everyone. Capitalism, according to Marx, is at best slowing down progress toward this end. The best way to see this is to understand how capitalism separates things that should be one, like \"capital\" and real value. With capitalism, you \"need money to make money\" because \"capital\" is needed for any workforce to be engaged in work. But Marx would say the workers are the real owners of the result of their work. They are making the thing while the capitalist is barely exploiting people, promising them the right to exploit a bit more at the end of the day, when they receive the paycheck. To Marx, thus, money is ultimately false. It's easy to see it's only a convention that could fall if anybody stops believing in it, but Marx went further by saying capitalism doesn't add any value to the world and that work is the only way to create wealth. The idea, at its root, would be that separing the result of the work from its worth in money is basically wrong. Not because it's so morally bad, but more because it doesn't make sense at all.   * French speaker here. Feel free to correct my grammar.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":563.0,"score_ratio":2.5}
{"post_id":"ulbni0","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.9,"history":"What did Satre mean with his quote 'Hell is other People'? This quote came up in a song I listened too, and I knew I heard it somewhere befor, so after a little bit of research I found out it is a quote from J.P. Satre's 'No Exit'. However I did not find anything that helped me understand what he wanted to say with it. I am hoping some of you can enlighten me.","c_root_id_A":"i7v9632","c_root_id_B":"i7ve8si","created_at_utc_A":1652059874,"created_at_utc_B":1652062375,"score_A":9,"score_B":20,"human_ref_A":"i've found this, maybe it could help.","human_ref_B":"You judge yourself by imagining how the other would judge you so if you have a bad relationship with others you will have a bad relationship with yourself.   If you have a bad relationship with the others, being dependant on how the others are viewing you, you are \"living hell\" because of the them.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":2501.0,"score_ratio":2.2222222222}
{"post_id":"zvdawj","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.94,"history":"What is a Value Judgment? What is the difference between an opinion and a value judgment? What is a value judgment?  Here is what I think a value judgment is:  Value judgment: a subjective assessment or judgment of someone or something as good, bad, right, wrong, desirable, undesirable, useful, useless, etc., based on one's beliefs or values  But if I define it that way, I don't know what the difference is between an opinion and a value judgment","c_root_id_A":"j1pobx4","c_root_id_B":"j1pd55c","created_at_utc_A":1672054163,"created_at_utc_B":1672043844,"score_A":13,"score_B":6,"human_ref_A":"Value judgments are judgments to do with goodness\/badness\/'ought'\/standards\/worth. I could say \"this music is cliche\", which is my opinion, but if I then make the leap to say \"cliche music is bad\" I am making a value claim. Whether cliche music is good or bad is not decided by the notes that are played but instead by a person's evaluation of music and 'cliche-ness'. Would the world be a 'better' place, all other things being equal, with more or less cliche music?  Whether value claims are opinions depends on what kind of value theory you ascribe to. If you think that there are objective (but non-empirical, at least in the normal way of thinking about empirical things) values then you can say that value claims aren't subjective and aren't mere opinions. If you think that value claims are based only on subjective tastes and inclinations then you'll likely say that they're opinions.","human_ref_B":"Value judgments don't have to be subjective assessments. I can say, \"under X value system, Y is good\". One could say that by depending on \"X value system\" my claim would depend on another subjective assessment, but it's not necessarily the case that every assessment of value must be ultimately subjective. And at any rate \"Y is good\" and \"Y is good according to X value system\" are two different judgments. The former may be considered primarily subjective, but the latter, if it's true, will hold objectively.  In that sense, the subjective claim could be an opinion (\"I think Y is good, but that's just for me\"), but the objective claim would represent a bit of knowledge (\"Y is good according to X standard\").","labels":1,"seconds_difference":10319.0,"score_ratio":2.1666666667}
{"post_id":"74gt25","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.85,"history":"Is it possible for studying philosophy to actually cripple one's philosophical imagination and capacity?","c_root_id_A":"dny4nyt","c_root_id_B":"dnyb8c9","created_at_utc_A":1507218720,"created_at_utc_B":1507225511,"score_A":14,"score_B":34,"human_ref_A":"Basically anything's possible if you try hard enough!","human_ref_B":"There's a matter of Dunning-Krueger here. Is someone mostly ignorant of the substance of philosophical study a reliable judge of their own innate philosophical talent?   From my personal experience, and from others who have studied philosophy, once one studies the subject to a competent degree, it's pretty common to come to a realization just how much broader, deeper, and more difficult genuine philosophical work is than what it appears at first.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":6791.0,"score_ratio":2.4285714286}
{"post_id":"74gt25","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.85,"history":"Is it possible for studying philosophy to actually cripple one's philosophical imagination and capacity?","c_root_id_A":"dnyb8c9","c_root_id_B":"dny9znf","created_at_utc_A":1507225511,"created_at_utc_B":1507224211,"score_A":34,"score_B":7,"human_ref_A":"There's a matter of Dunning-Krueger here. Is someone mostly ignorant of the substance of philosophical study a reliable judge of their own innate philosophical talent?   From my personal experience, and from others who have studied philosophy, once one studies the subject to a competent degree, it's pretty common to come to a realization just how much broader, deeper, and more difficult genuine philosophical work is than what it appears at first.","human_ref_B":"If you do it wrong sure, but if you do it right...it shouldn't. Obviously, it is possible to get caught in the assumptions of a discipline and get tunnel vision, but that is a risk for anyone who does anything seriously. However, the wonderful thing about philosophy is there's an incentive for self correction to alleviate this.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1300.0,"score_ratio":4.8571428571}
{"post_id":"74gt25","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.85,"history":"Is it possible for studying philosophy to actually cripple one's philosophical imagination and capacity?","c_root_id_A":"dnyki2k","c_root_id_B":"dnycndt","created_at_utc_A":1507235005,"created_at_utc_B":1507226958,"score_A":6,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"It is possible to never develop your own philosophical imagination and capacity by never studying philosophy, turning around in circles in the half-developped ideas and theories that your total lack of perspective leaves you crippled with...","human_ref_B":"Yes, but only cyclically. For example, you could become burned out by doing too much philosophy, and need a break to recharge. If you're precocious, you might accomplish this without ever opening a philosophy book.   I think the deeper question is whether or not philosophy as taught in universities can be improved upon. E.g.: Should all undergraduate philosophers be required to double-major, with their philosophy major  focusing upon the philosophy of their other major? The philosophy of literature with literature, the philosophy of physics with physics, the philosophy of language with German, etc. Whichever way philosophy is taught, there's a different path possible, and therefore an opportunity cost. These opportunity costs could be interpreted as limitations upon imagination and capacity, insofar as they direct the mind.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":8047.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
{"post_id":"cr3c3y","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.88,"history":"What are some of the reasons that people philosophize, and\/or seek out philosophy as a subject matter? Is it usually relevant to a person's personal life; is the pursuit and\/or aim of philosophy strictly economic and\/or professional; do people usually seek out philosophy as a personal pursuit\/endgoal (in terms of education, profession, etc.) purely from economic or business\/career reasons? Surely not - I wouldn't think most philosophers take philosophy in order to make money or merely for personal gain, even in today's world...; right?  I mean, what makes the world of philosophy go around? What are the kinds of topics that are actively considered to be philosophical in today's world?   I am asking because I got a Bachelor's degree in philosophy, and I feel like I've been building rabbit holes all throughout my... 'career' as a philosopher. It's been far out - but what drives us to configure our reality in the first place?  (I feel like there are two ways of answering this question. The first is to quote specific philosophies\/philosophers on their perspectives about what philosophers do\/what questions they ask, which I would like to read; the second is rather to suggest reasons that people ask philosophical and\/or philosophical-esque questions about their everyday lives or something about the universe, etc.; and this one, I would also like to read.  Really anything that helps to answer the question would be enjoyable to receive from this forum. I am thinking about what I've learnt in philosophy classes that I took, and how the authors and their philosophies have influences both my thought, and the world's thought.... But I would like to hear if\/how the world of philosophy treats questions like this one, I suppose.   Thanks for your answers. Peace)","c_root_id_A":"ex1g5ou","c_root_id_B":"ex1uchg","created_at_utc_A":1565943693,"created_at_utc_B":1565956091,"score_A":4,"score_B":7,"human_ref_A":"So there are a couple of genres of answers, and I have almost no idea what I myself believe. But someone who really tried to take the question by the horns was Gilles Deleuze, who when he announced to his students his final book, *What is Philosophy?,* everyone thought he was joking. The truth is the bibliography on this question is actually not that long. Here is a quotation from that book on the subject- maybe the book would interest you:  \"Perhaps one can\u2019t pose the question *What is Philosophy?* except late, when old-age comes, as well as the hour to speak concretely\u2026 It\u2019s a question that one poses in a discrete agitation, at midnight, when one no longer has anything to ask. Before, we were posing it, we weren\u2019t ceasing to pose it, but it is was too indirect or too oblique, too artificial, too abstract, and we were presenting it, we were dominating it in passing more than being seized by it. We weren\u2019t sober enough. We had too much desire to do philosophy, we weren\u2019t wondering what it was, except as an exercise of style; we hadn\u2019t reached this point of non-style where one can finally say: but what was it, what I did all my life? There are cases where aging gives, not an eternal youth, but on the contrary a sovereign liberty, a pure necessity where one plays with and enjoys a moment of gracebetween life and death\u2026\"","human_ref_B":"Philosophical questions cause people to engage in philosophy. Philosophy isn't some alien force that came from space and we just choose to approach it. Philosophical questions *arise* from living. Some people brush them away or trust whatever received wisdom without critical reflection, which is fine, maybe (Is an unexamined life worth living? Who am I do legislate the personal interests of others?), while others do not. For some, philosophy is just basically interesting, it's a kind of passion like any other. One engages in it so as not to be plagued by thoughts about it.   As Wittgenstein wrote in *Philosophical Investigations*: \"The real discovery is the one which enables me to stop doing philosophy when I want to. The one that gives philosophy peace, so that it is no longer tormented by questions which bring *itself* into question.\"","labels":0,"seconds_difference":12398.0,"score_ratio":1.75}
{"post_id":"cr3c3y","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.88,"history":"What are some of the reasons that people philosophize, and\/or seek out philosophy as a subject matter? Is it usually relevant to a person's personal life; is the pursuit and\/or aim of philosophy strictly economic and\/or professional; do people usually seek out philosophy as a personal pursuit\/endgoal (in terms of education, profession, etc.) purely from economic or business\/career reasons? Surely not - I wouldn't think most philosophers take philosophy in order to make money or merely for personal gain, even in today's world...; right?  I mean, what makes the world of philosophy go around? What are the kinds of topics that are actively considered to be philosophical in today's world?   I am asking because I got a Bachelor's degree in philosophy, and I feel like I've been building rabbit holes all throughout my... 'career' as a philosopher. It's been far out - but what drives us to configure our reality in the first place?  (I feel like there are two ways of answering this question. The first is to quote specific philosophies\/philosophers on their perspectives about what philosophers do\/what questions they ask, which I would like to read; the second is rather to suggest reasons that people ask philosophical and\/or philosophical-esque questions about their everyday lives or something about the universe, etc.; and this one, I would also like to read.  Really anything that helps to answer the question would be enjoyable to receive from this forum. I am thinking about what I've learnt in philosophy classes that I took, and how the authors and their philosophies have influences both my thought, and the world's thought.... But I would like to hear if\/how the world of philosophy treats questions like this one, I suppose.   Thanks for your answers. Peace)","c_root_id_A":"ex1gdz2","c_root_id_B":"ex1uchg","created_at_utc_A":1565943988,"created_at_utc_B":1565956091,"score_A":5,"score_B":7,"human_ref_A":"I'm probably not the best person to ask, but the general consensus on this sub is that in order to have a \"philosophy career\" you will need to go to grad school. I've asked a similar question to this before and someone said that an undergrad degree makes you more of a philosophical historian and once you start at the graduate level you're doing real philosophizing.  To your first paragraph, people do get into philosophy for personal gain, whether it be just because they like it or they needed to major in something so they have a degree in order to get a job, same with any other field really it just depends on how you're viewing it.  There are lots of things that make the philosophy world go around, from bioethics to philosophy of X (math, religion, law, etc.) to political theory. Lots of things are actively going on in discourse that relates to philosophy.  If you want to look up things to read about, check out the SEP in the sidebar and search what you're interested in and follow the citations, as to why philosophy is important(which I feel like you're getting at) that question has been discussed ad nauseum on this sub and I'd recommend reviewing those posts and seeing if you find any answers that satisfy your question.","human_ref_B":"Philosophical questions cause people to engage in philosophy. Philosophy isn't some alien force that came from space and we just choose to approach it. Philosophical questions *arise* from living. Some people brush them away or trust whatever received wisdom without critical reflection, which is fine, maybe (Is an unexamined life worth living? Who am I do legislate the personal interests of others?), while others do not. For some, philosophy is just basically interesting, it's a kind of passion like any other. One engages in it so as not to be plagued by thoughts about it.   As Wittgenstein wrote in *Philosophical Investigations*: \"The real discovery is the one which enables me to stop doing philosophy when I want to. The one that gives philosophy peace, so that it is no longer tormented by questions which bring *itself* into question.\"","labels":0,"seconds_difference":12103.0,"score_ratio":1.4}
{"post_id":"cr3c3y","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.88,"history":"What are some of the reasons that people philosophize, and\/or seek out philosophy as a subject matter? Is it usually relevant to a person's personal life; is the pursuit and\/or aim of philosophy strictly economic and\/or professional; do people usually seek out philosophy as a personal pursuit\/endgoal (in terms of education, profession, etc.) purely from economic or business\/career reasons? Surely not - I wouldn't think most philosophers take philosophy in order to make money or merely for personal gain, even in today's world...; right?  I mean, what makes the world of philosophy go around? What are the kinds of topics that are actively considered to be philosophical in today's world?   I am asking because I got a Bachelor's degree in philosophy, and I feel like I've been building rabbit holes all throughout my... 'career' as a philosopher. It's been far out - but what drives us to configure our reality in the first place?  (I feel like there are two ways of answering this question. The first is to quote specific philosophies\/philosophers on their perspectives about what philosophers do\/what questions they ask, which I would like to read; the second is rather to suggest reasons that people ask philosophical and\/or philosophical-esque questions about their everyday lives or something about the universe, etc.; and this one, I would also like to read.  Really anything that helps to answer the question would be enjoyable to receive from this forum. I am thinking about what I've learnt in philosophy classes that I took, and how the authors and their philosophies have influences both my thought, and the world's thought.... But I would like to hear if\/how the world of philosophy treats questions like this one, I suppose.   Thanks for your answers. Peace)","c_root_id_A":"ex1uchg","c_root_id_B":"ex1lt8o","created_at_utc_A":1565956091,"created_at_utc_B":1565949369,"score_A":7,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"Philosophical questions cause people to engage in philosophy. Philosophy isn't some alien force that came from space and we just choose to approach it. Philosophical questions *arise* from living. Some people brush them away or trust whatever received wisdom without critical reflection, which is fine, maybe (Is an unexamined life worth living? Who am I do legislate the personal interests of others?), while others do not. For some, philosophy is just basically interesting, it's a kind of passion like any other. One engages in it so as not to be plagued by thoughts about it.   As Wittgenstein wrote in *Philosophical Investigations*: \"The real discovery is the one which enables me to stop doing philosophy when I want to. The one that gives philosophy peace, so that it is no longer tormented by questions which bring *itself* into question.\"","human_ref_B":"Here are some philosophers answering this.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":6722.0,"score_ratio":2.3333333333}
{"post_id":"cr3c3y","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.88,"history":"What are some of the reasons that people philosophize, and\/or seek out philosophy as a subject matter? Is it usually relevant to a person's personal life; is the pursuit and\/or aim of philosophy strictly economic and\/or professional; do people usually seek out philosophy as a personal pursuit\/endgoal (in terms of education, profession, etc.) purely from economic or business\/career reasons? Surely not - I wouldn't think most philosophers take philosophy in order to make money or merely for personal gain, even in today's world...; right?  I mean, what makes the world of philosophy go around? What are the kinds of topics that are actively considered to be philosophical in today's world?   I am asking because I got a Bachelor's degree in philosophy, and I feel like I've been building rabbit holes all throughout my... 'career' as a philosopher. It's been far out - but what drives us to configure our reality in the first place?  (I feel like there are two ways of answering this question. The first is to quote specific philosophies\/philosophers on their perspectives about what philosophers do\/what questions they ask, which I would like to read; the second is rather to suggest reasons that people ask philosophical and\/or philosophical-esque questions about their everyday lives or something about the universe, etc.; and this one, I would also like to read.  Really anything that helps to answer the question would be enjoyable to receive from this forum. I am thinking about what I've learnt in philosophy classes that I took, and how the authors and their philosophies have influences both my thought, and the world's thought.... But I would like to hear if\/how the world of philosophy treats questions like this one, I suppose.   Thanks for your answers. Peace)","c_root_id_A":"ex1g5ou","c_root_id_B":"ex1gdz2","created_at_utc_A":1565943693,"created_at_utc_B":1565943988,"score_A":4,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"So there are a couple of genres of answers, and I have almost no idea what I myself believe. But someone who really tried to take the question by the horns was Gilles Deleuze, who when he announced to his students his final book, *What is Philosophy?,* everyone thought he was joking. The truth is the bibliography on this question is actually not that long. Here is a quotation from that book on the subject- maybe the book would interest you:  \"Perhaps one can\u2019t pose the question *What is Philosophy?* except late, when old-age comes, as well as the hour to speak concretely\u2026 It\u2019s a question that one poses in a discrete agitation, at midnight, when one no longer has anything to ask. Before, we were posing it, we weren\u2019t ceasing to pose it, but it is was too indirect or too oblique, too artificial, too abstract, and we were presenting it, we were dominating it in passing more than being seized by it. We weren\u2019t sober enough. We had too much desire to do philosophy, we weren\u2019t wondering what it was, except as an exercise of style; we hadn\u2019t reached this point of non-style where one can finally say: but what was it, what I did all my life? There are cases where aging gives, not an eternal youth, but on the contrary a sovereign liberty, a pure necessity where one plays with and enjoys a moment of gracebetween life and death\u2026\"","human_ref_B":"I'm probably not the best person to ask, but the general consensus on this sub is that in order to have a \"philosophy career\" you will need to go to grad school. I've asked a similar question to this before and someone said that an undergrad degree makes you more of a philosophical historian and once you start at the graduate level you're doing real philosophizing.  To your first paragraph, people do get into philosophy for personal gain, whether it be just because they like it or they needed to major in something so they have a degree in order to get a job, same with any other field really it just depends on how you're viewing it.  There are lots of things that make the philosophy world go around, from bioethics to philosophy of X (math, religion, law, etc.) to political theory. Lots of things are actively going on in discourse that relates to philosophy.  If you want to look up things to read about, check out the SEP in the sidebar and search what you're interested in and follow the citations, as to why philosophy is important(which I feel like you're getting at) that question has been discussed ad nauseum on this sub and I'd recommend reviewing those posts and seeing if you find any answers that satisfy your question.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":295.0,"score_ratio":1.25}
{"post_id":"duxegb","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.94,"history":"What philosophers should I read before Nietzsche?","c_root_id_A":"f793yoz","c_root_id_B":"f7902j3","created_at_utc_A":1573502273,"created_at_utc_B":1573500749,"score_A":32,"score_B":30,"human_ref_A":"The healthier view is that you should just read some books *about* Nietzsche before reading Nietzsche.  Tracking his influences is just too damn hard.  No one is ready to read Nietzsche, least of all Nietzsche.","human_ref_B":"That's tough to say, Nietzsche was one of the most prolific readers of all time.  He frequently comments on other philosophers ranging from Heraclitus, Plato, Stoics, Epicureans, to Augustine, St. Paul, St. Thomas, to Kant and Schopenhauer.  As a bare minimum, it's good to understand Platonism, which Nietzsche is constantly reacting against and to have some familiarity with Kant and Schopenhauer, who he is following, to some degree.  Even if you don't understand him, he is fun to read though because he is such a great writer.  Enjoy!","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1524.0,"score_ratio":1.0666666667}
{"post_id":"duxegb","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.94,"history":"What philosophers should I read before Nietzsche?","c_root_id_A":"f793yoz","c_root_id_B":"f790pk1","created_at_utc_A":1573502273,"created_at_utc_B":1573500996,"score_A":32,"score_B":7,"human_ref_A":"The healthier view is that you should just read some books *about* Nietzsche before reading Nietzsche.  Tracking his influences is just too damn hard.  No one is ready to read Nietzsche, least of all Nietzsche.","human_ref_B":"If you want to do some reading on other philosophers to prepare for Nietzsche, probably Schopenhauer and Lange would help the most, these being the philosophers Nietzsche identifies as particularly influential on him. Familiarity with Comte and Feuerbach would help clarify a lot of the context Nietzsche is responding to, and the same could be said for Kant--although familiarity with Schopenhauer will provide some relevant acquaintance with Kantian ideas.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1277.0,"score_ratio":4.5714285714}
{"post_id":"8jmhif","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.88,"history":"Was Marx right to argue that capitalism causes alienation?","c_root_id_A":"dz0stus","c_root_id_B":"dz10x9y","created_at_utc_A":1526400929,"created_at_utc_B":1526407896,"score_A":20,"score_B":79,"human_ref_A":"It would certainly help to account for the prevalence of mental illness and substance abuse in USA's society.  Check out: Www.stuartmcmillen.com\/comic\/rat-park   The study described there seems to make a strong case for social causes of addiction being more important than physical causes.   Capitalism removes a lot of the necessity for any meaningful community structure in most of the United States - everyone is urged to buy their own lawn mower, their own washer and dryer, fence off their lawns, live in single-family detached houses. In short, the success of capitalism (in its most unrestricted form) is almost dependent on isolating families from one another in order for more goods to be bought and sold. Even the solutions for mental illness and substance abuse arr commodities - people buy an hour of a stranger's time to try and make their lives better rather than strengthening the bonds that connect them to others who work and live around them.  Of course I'm speaking in broad generalities about the only culture I have true experience with, but I do totally believe that our society (structured around relentless capitalism) leads to isolation and alienation. I'd be willing to bet that at least a correlation exists between how restricted capitalism is in any given society and how prevalent mental illness and substance abuse are.","human_ref_B":"Don't confuse the two different uses of the word \"Alienation\".  In most contemporary contexts, \"Alienation\" is usually used in a broader psycho-social sense to mean: \"the state or experience of being isolated from a group or an activity to which one should belong, or in which one should be involved. Feeling separated, emotionally disconnected or apart.\"  In Marx's writing, \"Alienation\" meant something more specifically related to economic relationships: \"a condition of workers in a capitalist economy, resulting from a lack of identification with the products of their labor and a sense of being controlled or exploited.\"  Basically, for Marx, \"Alienation\" is a characteristic lack of affiliation or identification with the products of one's labor specifically, but it does not necessarily preclude a sense of affiliation or identification with other domains such as one's family, ethnic group, social class, nation or religious community.   To give an example of what Marx meant by \"Alienation\" consider two laborers: one a cobbler who is a skilled artisan who crafts customs shoes from start to finish, and another a laborer who does hourly piece-work in a shoe factory cutting large layered slabs of leather over and over.   The Cobbler has a direct personal connection to every step of the work he does, he can take pride in his labor because he can see it from start to finish. He designs the shoes, he makes the shoes, he sells the shoes. And he can decide for himself when and how hard he works. He can probably identify every individual shoe he has ever made.   Now, the factory worker just cuts leather, and one slab of leather looks like any other, and he may never even see the shoes he helps to make. Indeed, the leather he cuts may not even be sewn in the same country where he is located. Nor does he design the shoes, nor does he put them together, not does he sell them. All he does is cut and cut and cut. And he doesn't decide when or how hard he works; he works the way he is told to work, when he is told to work. He is unskilled and replaceable. He has essentially no personal control over the process, and no personal connection to any given shoe he has had a hand in creating.   It's a lot harder to have a strong personal identification with the products of one's labor when one's labor has been reduced to a mechanical and repetitive action and one never sees the final result.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":6967.0,"score_ratio":3.95}
{"post_id":"6bbthj","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.87,"history":"Why did Heidegger believe that Eastern philosophy has the answers to philosophies' problems but cannot answer the questions for Western man? SPIEGEL: Well, could you please explain it? It leads us from the pathway of the general to a concrete determination of the German [people].  Heidegger: The drift of the citation I could also put this way: my conviction is that only in the same place where the modern technical world took its origin can we also prepare a conversion (Umkehr) of it. In other words, this cannot happen by taking over Zen-Buddhism or other Eastern experiences of the world. [217] For this conversion of thought we need the help of the European tradition and a new appropriation of it. Thought will be transformed only through thought that has the same origin and determination.  http:\/\/www.ditext.com\/heidegger\/interview.html","c_root_id_A":"dhlewql","c_root_id_B":"dhmgn42","created_at_utc_A":1494873899,"created_at_utc_B":1494934211,"score_A":3,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"I believe it was because at the same time as Heidegger, theories surrounding anthropology and how values are relative to the culture you are in. He realized that eastern thought was enmeshed with its culture.","human_ref_B":"\"I didn't have time to write a short letter, so I wrote a long one instead.\" -Mark Twain.  The key here is:  >the modern technical world  Basically, Heidegger sees technology as resulting from a certain epoch of Being. So for Heidegger, every age in history is defined by a certain interpretation of what it means for something \"to be.\" This constitutes the basic mode of appearance of things, the way they \"presence.\"  In the 20th century, things presence as a \"standing reserve\" of technology. Everything becomes situated around securing possibilities for our potential willing. Heidegger's example is \"the plane on the runway, ready to take off.\" The plane is placed into a \"framework\" (*Gestell*) of technology that's there \"just in case we want to fly.\" Technology secures or \"wills\" everything to allow for the possible actualization of our will. Heidegger takes this from Nietzsche's will to power, interpreting it as a \"will to will.\" We \"will\" the plane onto the runway as something \"standing by\" in case we \"will\" to fly. Technology, for Heidegger, is about this \"willing to will.\"  This stems, Heidegger thinks, from our contemporary interpretation of being. Previous ages would have seen things differently. For someone in the middle ages, for example, things would have appeared as created beings. In modern philosophy, they would have been tied to the human subject, either as disinterested observer or transcendental subject providing the categories of thought.  In previous ages, when philosophy was truly the \"mother of the sciences\" (with exceptions), Heidegger sees philosophy providing \"metaphysics\" (a representation or model of any being whatsoever grounded in a normative idea of the \"ideal\" being), thus grounding the sciences in \"Being itself\" (the source of all historical conceptions of being).   In the 20th century, philosophy no longer plays this role. Philosophers don't directly influence or ground the theories or methods of science, but end up dealing with small side-problems or studying the history of philosophy. Instead, Heidegger thinks, *cybernetics* grounds the sciences, a field that roughly corresponds to contemporary computer science and information theory.  In these \"information models,\" Heidegger thinks, science no longer sees itself as gradually unfolding the truth, but understands all scientific theories \"as working hypotheses.\" This \"pragmatic\" approach to science, which sees scientific theories as more or less coherent frameworks that ultimately aim to provide the best explanation, Heidegger ultimately sees as connected to technology as the contemporary interpretation of being. Basically, as long as scientific theories function well enough to provide us with new technologies, they last. They're seen as \"data models,\" sorting information, making it something that we can \"will to will\" at any time.  Heidegger sees this as something like the \"destiny\" (but by this he means something that was neither determined nor completely accidental) of western metaphysics. However, he recognizes that, through the spread of technology, this will become the fate of the entire world. So to actually bring about a change or transformation of thought, one would have to undo the dominant form of thinking, the one that provides the basis for all of our technology and sciences. Since this, in Heidegger's view, is primarily the consequence of Western thought, he writes:  >Thought will be transformed only through thought that has the same origin and determination.  That is, we need to transform our understanding of \"Being itself,\" the source of the western philosophical tradition that we currently understand on the basis of manipulable technology. As much as Heidegger appreciates Eastern thought, he thinks we must transform *Western* thought to transform science and technology, because this is \"the same place where the modern technical world took its origin.\"","labels":0,"seconds_difference":60312.0,"score_ratio":1.3333333333}
{"post_id":"lybev1","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.9,"history":"Where to start with Philosophy? Hello, I recently started reading Will Durant's The Story of Philosophy, and while it's a great read, I want to know after this book what do I pick up? What I mean is where do I start when I want to read the works of the philosophers themselves instead of other people's writings on them.","c_root_id_A":"gprwsib","c_root_id_B":"gprr3k4","created_at_utc_A":1614954070,"created_at_utc_B":1614951040,"score_A":12,"score_B":10,"human_ref_A":"My suggestion is always to get your hands on a copy of *Plato's Five Dialogues.*  (You can find public domain translations of all five dialogues online, of course, but it's worth owning)  Plato is tremendously important, both for what he said for how he shaped subsequent philosophical discussion-- and this includes the many and very important criticisms of his work and approach. I can think of no better way to introduce yourself to the words of the great philosophers in their own voice.","human_ref_B":"https:\/\/www.reddit.com\/r\/AskPhilosophyFAQ\/comments\/4i0tgc\/what_is_philosophy_what_do_philosophers_do_what\/?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share   Here you go","labels":1,"seconds_difference":3030.0,"score_ratio":1.2}
{"post_id":"lybev1","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.9,"history":"Where to start with Philosophy? Hello, I recently started reading Will Durant's The Story of Philosophy, and while it's a great read, I want to know after this book what do I pick up? What I mean is where do I start when I want to read the works of the philosophers themselves instead of other people's writings on them.","c_root_id_A":"gprshor","c_root_id_B":"gprwsib","created_at_utc_A":1614951822,"created_at_utc_B":1614954070,"score_A":5,"score_B":12,"human_ref_A":"Take university phil 200lvl courses and start from there.","human_ref_B":"My suggestion is always to get your hands on a copy of *Plato's Five Dialogues.*  (You can find public domain translations of all five dialogues online, of course, but it's worth owning)  Plato is tremendously important, both for what he said for how he shaped subsequent philosophical discussion-- and this includes the many and very important criticisms of his work and approach. I can think of no better way to introduce yourself to the words of the great philosophers in their own voice.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":2248.0,"score_ratio":2.4}
{"post_id":"lybev1","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.9,"history":"Where to start with Philosophy? Hello, I recently started reading Will Durant's The Story of Philosophy, and while it's a great read, I want to know after this book what do I pick up? What I mean is where do I start when I want to read the works of the philosophers themselves instead of other people's writings on them.","c_root_id_A":"gprshor","c_root_id_B":"gpsubi4","created_at_utc_A":1614951822,"created_at_utc_B":1614968900,"score_A":5,"score_B":9,"human_ref_A":"Take university phil 200lvl courses and start from there.","human_ref_B":"Plato\/Socrates > Aristotle > Epictetus > Descartes > Locke > Leibniz > Hume > Kant > Hegel > John Stuart Mill > Marx > Nietzsche > Freud > Husserl > Weber > Wittgenstein > Heidegger  Throw in Confucius, Laozi, and Buddha and probably all the major religious texts and you\u2019ll have a good summary of most philosophical thought in the western tradition. If there\u2019s any field in particular that interests you I can add the big names.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":17078.0,"score_ratio":1.8}
{"post_id":"lybev1","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.9,"history":"Where to start with Philosophy? Hello, I recently started reading Will Durant's The Story of Philosophy, and while it's a great read, I want to know after this book what do I pick up? What I mean is where do I start when I want to read the works of the philosophers themselves instead of other people's writings on them.","c_root_id_A":"gpsubi4","c_root_id_B":"gprys1p","created_at_utc_A":1614968900,"created_at_utc_B":1614955057,"score_A":9,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"Plato\/Socrates > Aristotle > Epictetus > Descartes > Locke > Leibniz > Hume > Kant > Hegel > John Stuart Mill > Marx > Nietzsche > Freud > Husserl > Weber > Wittgenstein > Heidegger  Throw in Confucius, Laozi, and Buddha and probably all the major religious texts and you\u2019ll have a good summary of most philosophical thought in the western tradition. If there\u2019s any field in particular that interests you I can add the big names.","human_ref_B":"https:\/\/old.reddit.com\/r\/AskPhilosophyFAQ\/comments\/4ifqi3\/im_interested_in_philosophy_where_should_i_start\/","labels":1,"seconds_difference":13843.0,"score_ratio":4.5}
{"post_id":"5ekn0d","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.94,"history":"I earned my bachelor's degree in philosophy last month. Yay! Students of \/r\/askphilosophy, what was the hardest class you've ever taken in college\/grad school and why? For me, it was an upper-division course in Kantian metaphysics and epistemology. Jesus Christ that class was insane, but rewarding. I actually developed a cold(In June, lol) because I was pulling so many all-nighters studying this material that my immune system lost some of its strength. Sleep deprivation is no joke....but at least got an A- in the class and learned something valuable with a world-class professor.","c_root_id_A":"dad62gt","c_root_id_B":"dad77k1","created_at_utc_A":1479946887,"created_at_utc_B":1479948655,"score_A":13,"score_B":17,"human_ref_A":"Currently taking a grad seminar in Schelling; definitely the most difficult philosopher that I've read to date. His theosophy straddles the line between secularism and hardcore Kabbalistic theology but it's like his entire philosophy is comprised of shards of broken glass.","human_ref_B":"Dissertation workshop. First semester. Got up and gave a talk to twenty senior grad students and a few profs. Got creamed.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1768.0,"score_ratio":1.3076923077}
{"post_id":"5ekn0d","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.94,"history":"I earned my bachelor's degree in philosophy last month. Yay! Students of \/r\/askphilosophy, what was the hardest class you've ever taken in college\/grad school and why? For me, it was an upper-division course in Kantian metaphysics and epistemology. Jesus Christ that class was insane, but rewarding. I actually developed a cold(In June, lol) because I was pulling so many all-nighters studying this material that my immune system lost some of its strength. Sleep deprivation is no joke....but at least got an A- in the class and learned something valuable with a world-class professor.","c_root_id_A":"dad7kq1","c_root_id_B":"dad7r6m","created_at_utc_A":1479949230,"created_at_utc_B":1479949508,"score_A":3,"score_B":9,"human_ref_A":"I'm sitting in on a course on the self-other relation right now (it's a fourth year course, I'm in second year), it's about the only difficult philosophy course I've ever had (although I'm not taking Kant or Hegel until next year so that could beat it).","human_ref_B":"The course was simply called Kant, similar in scope to yours it sounds like, really heavy on the CPR . I made the mistake of choosing that as my writing-intensive course to fulfill a degree requirement as well, forcing me to write a healthy 23 pages on why Kant didn't *really* mean that noumena were unknowable, bringing in piecemeal supporting arguments from Strawson, Allison and Dicker along the way. It was rough stuff, though with good feedback from my professor I was able to turn an awful preliminary draft into merely a bad paper. Earned an A- for the course and like you it had a measurable impact on my health as well, being able to think of nothing besides Kant for the whole semester frayed my nerves completely.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":278.0,"score_ratio":3.0}
{"post_id":"5ekn0d","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.94,"history":"I earned my bachelor's degree in philosophy last month. Yay! Students of \/r\/askphilosophy, what was the hardest class you've ever taken in college\/grad school and why? For me, it was an upper-division course in Kantian metaphysics and epistemology. Jesus Christ that class was insane, but rewarding. I actually developed a cold(In June, lol) because I was pulling so many all-nighters studying this material that my immune system lost some of its strength. Sleep deprivation is no joke....but at least got an A- in the class and learned something valuable with a world-class professor.","c_root_id_A":"dadc80o","c_root_id_B":"dadkjbu","created_at_utc_A":1479956504,"created_at_utc_B":1479971804,"score_A":6,"score_B":7,"human_ref_A":"Graduate level FOL\/Metalogic. Absolutely ridiculous. I used to think I was really good at logic until that class.","human_ref_B":"Ethics. It was a required course for Freshmen or sophomores, but I was in the section for Philosophy students (I was thinking about it at the time). The class was at the grad school level. There was only one writing assignment: a commentary on one of the books we read, Nicomachean Ethics, Meditations of Marcus Aurelius, The Enchiridion of Epictetus, City of God, Thomas Aquinas' Treatise on Law, Utilitarianism, The Foundations of the Metaphysics of Morals, Beyond Good and Evil, Ressentiment; and several handouts which I don't recall.    We were supposed to do a commentary on an article like \"Decisions about Death\"  or \"Utilitarianism and Vegetarianism\" by Peter Singer, or something like that. That wasn't clear, though, and everyone did it on Aristotle's Ethics or Beyond Good and Evil. Most people in the class wrote over 100 pages. It was only the promised 25 if you did it on an article.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":15300.0,"score_ratio":1.1666666667}
{"post_id":"5ekn0d","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.94,"history":"I earned my bachelor's degree in philosophy last month. Yay! Students of \/r\/askphilosophy, what was the hardest class you've ever taken in college\/grad school and why? For me, it was an upper-division course in Kantian metaphysics and epistemology. Jesus Christ that class was insane, but rewarding. I actually developed a cold(In June, lol) because I was pulling so many all-nighters studying this material that my immune system lost some of its strength. Sleep deprivation is no joke....but at least got an A- in the class and learned something valuable with a world-class professor.","c_root_id_A":"dadc80o","c_root_id_B":"dad819k","created_at_utc_A":1479956504,"created_at_utc_B":1479949938,"score_A":6,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"Graduate level FOL\/Metalogic. Absolutely ridiculous. I used to think I was really good at logic until that class.","human_ref_B":"Metaphysics was the hardest class I've ever taken. The professor would dock points for everything, including  using the words \"kind\" and \"type\" incorrectly.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":6566.0,"score_ratio":1.2}
{"post_id":"5ekn0d","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.94,"history":"I earned my bachelor's degree in philosophy last month. Yay! Students of \/r\/askphilosophy, what was the hardest class you've ever taken in college\/grad school and why? For me, it was an upper-division course in Kantian metaphysics and epistemology. Jesus Christ that class was insane, but rewarding. I actually developed a cold(In June, lol) because I was pulling so many all-nighters studying this material that my immune system lost some of its strength. Sleep deprivation is no joke....but at least got an A- in the class and learned something valuable with a world-class professor.","c_root_id_A":"dadc80o","c_root_id_B":"dad7kq1","created_at_utc_A":1479956504,"created_at_utc_B":1479949230,"score_A":6,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"Graduate level FOL\/Metalogic. Absolutely ridiculous. I used to think I was really good at logic until that class.","human_ref_B":"I'm sitting in on a course on the self-other relation right now (it's a fourth year course, I'm in second year), it's about the only difficult philosophy course I've ever had (although I'm not taking Kant or Hegel until next year so that could beat it).","labels":1,"seconds_difference":7274.0,"score_ratio":2.0}
{"post_id":"5ekn0d","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.94,"history":"I earned my bachelor's degree in philosophy last month. Yay! Students of \/r\/askphilosophy, what was the hardest class you've ever taken in college\/grad school and why? For me, it was an upper-division course in Kantian metaphysics and epistemology. Jesus Christ that class was insane, but rewarding. I actually developed a cold(In June, lol) because I was pulling so many all-nighters studying this material that my immune system lost some of its strength. Sleep deprivation is no joke....but at least got an A- in the class and learned something valuable with a world-class professor.","c_root_id_A":"dadc80o","c_root_id_B":"dadbvm2","created_at_utc_A":1479956504,"created_at_utc_B":1479955971,"score_A":6,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"Graduate level FOL\/Metalogic. Absolutely ridiculous. I used to think I was really good at logic until that class.","human_ref_B":"Philosophy of Science didn't seem that hard, but it was one of the few I got less than an A in.  I chalked it up to a young, new professor who was a tough grader.  Epistemology and my class on modern philosophers (i.e. Kant) were a bit thick.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":533.0,"score_ratio":3.0}
{"post_id":"5ekn0d","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.94,"history":"I earned my bachelor's degree in philosophy last month. Yay! Students of \/r\/askphilosophy, what was the hardest class you've ever taken in college\/grad school and why? For me, it was an upper-division course in Kantian metaphysics and epistemology. Jesus Christ that class was insane, but rewarding. I actually developed a cold(In June, lol) because I was pulling so many all-nighters studying this material that my immune system lost some of its strength. Sleep deprivation is no joke....but at least got an A- in the class and learned something valuable with a world-class professor.","c_root_id_A":"dad819k","c_root_id_B":"dadkjbu","created_at_utc_A":1479949938,"created_at_utc_B":1479971804,"score_A":5,"score_B":7,"human_ref_A":"Metaphysics was the hardest class I've ever taken. The professor would dock points for everything, including  using the words \"kind\" and \"type\" incorrectly.","human_ref_B":"Ethics. It was a required course for Freshmen or sophomores, but I was in the section for Philosophy students (I was thinking about it at the time). The class was at the grad school level. There was only one writing assignment: a commentary on one of the books we read, Nicomachean Ethics, Meditations of Marcus Aurelius, The Enchiridion of Epictetus, City of God, Thomas Aquinas' Treatise on Law, Utilitarianism, The Foundations of the Metaphysics of Morals, Beyond Good and Evil, Ressentiment; and several handouts which I don't recall.    We were supposed to do a commentary on an article like \"Decisions about Death\"  or \"Utilitarianism and Vegetarianism\" by Peter Singer, or something like that. That wasn't clear, though, and everyone did it on Aristotle's Ethics or Beyond Good and Evil. Most people in the class wrote over 100 pages. It was only the promised 25 if you did it on an article.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":21866.0,"score_ratio":1.4}
{"post_id":"5ekn0d","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.94,"history":"I earned my bachelor's degree in philosophy last month. Yay! Students of \/r\/askphilosophy, what was the hardest class you've ever taken in college\/grad school and why? For me, it was an upper-division course in Kantian metaphysics and epistemology. Jesus Christ that class was insane, but rewarding. I actually developed a cold(In June, lol) because I was pulling so many all-nighters studying this material that my immune system lost some of its strength. Sleep deprivation is no joke....but at least got an A- in the class and learned something valuable with a world-class professor.","c_root_id_A":"dadkjbu","c_root_id_B":"dad7kq1","created_at_utc_A":1479971804,"created_at_utc_B":1479949230,"score_A":7,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"Ethics. It was a required course for Freshmen or sophomores, but I was in the section for Philosophy students (I was thinking about it at the time). The class was at the grad school level. There was only one writing assignment: a commentary on one of the books we read, Nicomachean Ethics, Meditations of Marcus Aurelius, The Enchiridion of Epictetus, City of God, Thomas Aquinas' Treatise on Law, Utilitarianism, The Foundations of the Metaphysics of Morals, Beyond Good and Evil, Ressentiment; and several handouts which I don't recall.    We were supposed to do a commentary on an article like \"Decisions about Death\"  or \"Utilitarianism and Vegetarianism\" by Peter Singer, or something like that. That wasn't clear, though, and everyone did it on Aristotle's Ethics or Beyond Good and Evil. Most people in the class wrote over 100 pages. It was only the promised 25 if you did it on an article.","human_ref_B":"I'm sitting in on a course on the self-other relation right now (it's a fourth year course, I'm in second year), it's about the only difficult philosophy course I've ever had (although I'm not taking Kant or Hegel until next year so that could beat it).","labels":1,"seconds_difference":22574.0,"score_ratio":2.3333333333}
{"post_id":"5ekn0d","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.94,"history":"I earned my bachelor's degree in philosophy last month. Yay! Students of \/r\/askphilosophy, what was the hardest class you've ever taken in college\/grad school and why? For me, it was an upper-division course in Kantian metaphysics and epistemology. Jesus Christ that class was insane, but rewarding. I actually developed a cold(In June, lol) because I was pulling so many all-nighters studying this material that my immune system lost some of its strength. Sleep deprivation is no joke....but at least got an A- in the class and learned something valuable with a world-class professor.","c_root_id_A":"dadbvm2","c_root_id_B":"dadkjbu","created_at_utc_A":1479955971,"created_at_utc_B":1479971804,"score_A":2,"score_B":7,"human_ref_A":"Philosophy of Science didn't seem that hard, but it was one of the few I got less than an A in.  I chalked it up to a young, new professor who was a tough grader.  Epistemology and my class on modern philosophers (i.e. Kant) were a bit thick.","human_ref_B":"Ethics. It was a required course for Freshmen or sophomores, but I was in the section for Philosophy students (I was thinking about it at the time). The class was at the grad school level. There was only one writing assignment: a commentary on one of the books we read, Nicomachean Ethics, Meditations of Marcus Aurelius, The Enchiridion of Epictetus, City of God, Thomas Aquinas' Treatise on Law, Utilitarianism, The Foundations of the Metaphysics of Morals, Beyond Good and Evil, Ressentiment; and several handouts which I don't recall.    We were supposed to do a commentary on an article like \"Decisions about Death\"  or \"Utilitarianism and Vegetarianism\" by Peter Singer, or something like that. That wasn't clear, though, and everyone did it on Aristotle's Ethics or Beyond Good and Evil. Most people in the class wrote over 100 pages. It was only the promised 25 if you did it on an article.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":15833.0,"score_ratio":3.5}
{"post_id":"5ekn0d","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.94,"history":"I earned my bachelor's degree in philosophy last month. Yay! Students of \/r\/askphilosophy, what was the hardest class you've ever taken in college\/grad school and why? For me, it was an upper-division course in Kantian metaphysics and epistemology. Jesus Christ that class was insane, but rewarding. I actually developed a cold(In June, lol) because I was pulling so many all-nighters studying this material that my immune system lost some of its strength. Sleep deprivation is no joke....but at least got an A- in the class and learned something valuable with a world-class professor.","c_root_id_A":"dad7kq1","c_root_id_B":"dad819k","created_at_utc_A":1479949230,"created_at_utc_B":1479949938,"score_A":3,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"I'm sitting in on a course on the self-other relation right now (it's a fourth year course, I'm in second year), it's about the only difficult philosophy course I've ever had (although I'm not taking Kant or Hegel until next year so that could beat it).","human_ref_B":"Metaphysics was the hardest class I've ever taken. The professor would dock points for everything, including  using the words \"kind\" and \"type\" incorrectly.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":708.0,"score_ratio":1.6666666667}
{"post_id":"5ekn0d","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.94,"history":"I earned my bachelor's degree in philosophy last month. Yay! Students of \/r\/askphilosophy, what was the hardest class you've ever taken in college\/grad school and why? For me, it was an upper-division course in Kantian metaphysics and epistemology. Jesus Christ that class was insane, but rewarding. I actually developed a cold(In June, lol) because I was pulling so many all-nighters studying this material that my immune system lost some of its strength. Sleep deprivation is no joke....but at least got an A- in the class and learned something valuable with a world-class professor.","c_root_id_A":"dadbvm2","c_root_id_B":"dadljn9","created_at_utc_A":1479955971,"created_at_utc_B":1479974319,"score_A":2,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"Philosophy of Science didn't seem that hard, but it was one of the few I got less than an A in.  I chalked it up to a young, new professor who was a tough grader.  Epistemology and my class on modern philosophers (i.e. Kant) were a bit thick.","human_ref_B":"The only class I ever failed as an undergrad was a class on Heidegger.  My professor was amazing, it was totally my fault.  I never struggled with any other course the least bit, but for whatever reason I just sucked at that whole class.  I couldn't grasp the reading, the tests were indecipherable and my final paper was complete shit.  My professor felt bad for failing me but I didn't blame him for one second.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":18348.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
{"post_id":"4a0oc6","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.96,"history":"I'm starting a small coffee discussion group, what books would be good for beginners? As stated above, I would like to start a book club of sorts to speak openly with my peers about the meaning of life, what's important and all that jazz. I've been recommended to start with 'Consolations  of Philosophy,' in order to get a base foundation of viewpoints to refer to. I'd like to get to Being and Nothingness eventually, however I think that'd be too much to start with. Any help\/suggestions would be amazing!   Thank you in advance! (I'll check back on this post in a few hours)","c_root_id_A":"d0whwc4","c_root_id_B":"d0wf7nd","created_at_utc_A":1457734202,"created_at_utc_B":1457730191,"score_A":19,"score_B":15,"human_ref_A":"I think you guys would enjoy Plato's dialogues. It might even be fun to have different people voicing the different characters, kind of like a play.   The *Symposium* is really good, so is *Euthyphro*. You can also read *The Apology*.  You can also take a look at Marcus Aurelius's *Meditations*.","human_ref_B":"For the love of god please don't start (or in fact ever feature) your coffee shop discussion group with Alain de Botton. That guy is like the Tyler Perry of philosophy.  For what I'm guessing is a fairly amateur level book club desiring to work up to major existentialist philosophy, I'd recommend something like the fiction works of Beckett (e.g. *Endgame*), Camus (*The Stranger*, *The Fall*), Sartre (most obvious here, and *Nausea* or *No Exit* are standards), or even Genet (*The Balcony* is one of my favourite plays of all time, actually). Something from that selection should get you along the right track for thinking about the heady questions that existentialism covers more rigourously in its actual philosophical tomes.  After that you can actually start easing yourself into the nonfiction stuff, such as Nietzsche's *Gay Science*. Just no Alan Bottom, please.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":4011.0,"score_ratio":1.2666666667}
{"post_id":"4a0oc6","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.96,"history":"I'm starting a small coffee discussion group, what books would be good for beginners? As stated above, I would like to start a book club of sorts to speak openly with my peers about the meaning of life, what's important and all that jazz. I've been recommended to start with 'Consolations  of Philosophy,' in order to get a base foundation of viewpoints to refer to. I'd like to get to Being and Nothingness eventually, however I think that'd be too much to start with. Any help\/suggestions would be amazing!   Thank you in advance! (I'll check back on this post in a few hours)","c_root_id_A":"d0wf47d","c_root_id_B":"d0whwc4","created_at_utc_A":1457730052,"created_at_utc_B":1457734202,"score_A":5,"score_B":19,"human_ref_A":">I'd like to get to Being and Nothingness eventually, however I think that'd be too much to start with.  I agree.  [Existentialism is a Humanism] (http:\/\/www2.warwick.ac.uk\/fac\/cross_fac\/complexity\/people\/students\/dtc\/students2011\/maitland\/philosophy\/sartre-eih.pdf) is much more readable.  [Camus' The Myth of Sysiphus] (http:\/\/dbanach.com\/sisyphus.htm) is another nice and short, while still thought-provoking, piece your group might like.","human_ref_B":"I think you guys would enjoy Plato's dialogues. It might even be fun to have different people voicing the different characters, kind of like a play.   The *Symposium* is really good, so is *Euthyphro*. You can also read *The Apology*.  You can also take a look at Marcus Aurelius's *Meditations*.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":4150.0,"score_ratio":3.8}
{"post_id":"4a0oc6","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.96,"history":"I'm starting a small coffee discussion group, what books would be good for beginners? As stated above, I would like to start a book club of sorts to speak openly with my peers about the meaning of life, what's important and all that jazz. I've been recommended to start with 'Consolations  of Philosophy,' in order to get a base foundation of viewpoints to refer to. I'd like to get to Being and Nothingness eventually, however I think that'd be too much to start with. Any help\/suggestions would be amazing!   Thank you in advance! (I'll check back on this post in a few hours)","c_root_id_A":"d0wf7nd","c_root_id_B":"d0wf47d","created_at_utc_A":1457730191,"created_at_utc_B":1457730052,"score_A":15,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"For the love of god please don't start (or in fact ever feature) your coffee shop discussion group with Alain de Botton. That guy is like the Tyler Perry of philosophy.  For what I'm guessing is a fairly amateur level book club desiring to work up to major existentialist philosophy, I'd recommend something like the fiction works of Beckett (e.g. *Endgame*), Camus (*The Stranger*, *The Fall*), Sartre (most obvious here, and *Nausea* or *No Exit* are standards), or even Genet (*The Balcony* is one of my favourite plays of all time, actually). Something from that selection should get you along the right track for thinking about the heady questions that existentialism covers more rigourously in its actual philosophical tomes.  After that you can actually start easing yourself into the nonfiction stuff, such as Nietzsche's *Gay Science*. Just no Alan Bottom, please.","human_ref_B":">I'd like to get to Being and Nothingness eventually, however I think that'd be too much to start with.  I agree.  [Existentialism is a Humanism] (http:\/\/www2.warwick.ac.uk\/fac\/cross_fac\/complexity\/people\/students\/dtc\/students2011\/maitland\/philosophy\/sartre-eih.pdf) is much more readable.  [Camus' The Myth of Sysiphus] (http:\/\/dbanach.com\/sisyphus.htm) is another nice and short, while still thought-provoking, piece your group might like.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":139.0,"score_ratio":3.0}
{"post_id":"vz0ao","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.7,"history":"I have got a tricky one for you '\/r\/askphilosophy': Is having a pet animal abuse?","c_root_id_A":"c58vzjj","c_root_id_B":"c58valg","created_at_utc_A":1341326275,"created_at_utc_B":1341322648,"score_A":8,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"You have some nerve coming in here and questioning a philosophers right to have their cat.","human_ref_B":"I don't think so, if the animal has it's needs fulfilled and it has a good quality of life, then where is the abuse, perhaps I'd be less sure if you asked \"is domesticating a species abuse?\", dogs and cats are already bred and domesticated and living with people is basically their natural environment now but some animals aren't domesticated and are just kept like birds or fish and maybe that's not good.  As well as this I suppose it would come down to whether you think an animal ought to be in the wild, but I really doubt the animal itself gives a shit as long as its needs are met. with zoo's I can kind of see a more pressing concern on whether a wild undomesticated animal should be kept and whether a zoo environment can ever really fulfil the animals needs but I think it's pretty safe to say that dogs and cats are fine... As long as we do something to address the problem of over breeding and violence towards them.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":3627.0,"score_ratio":2.6666666667}
{"post_id":"f238bm","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.89,"history":"Political philosophy: what do philosophers have to say about \"technocracy\" or rule by technical experts? I might also frame this question as the \"problem of technocracy\": how is it possible that leaders are *not* technical experts??  The problem: - trillion dollar budgets that no human can comprehend, especially without quantitative approaches - issues of science and technology such as climate change, nuclear waste management, space exploration, even disaster response - extremely entangled geopolitical objectives, alliances, rivalries, histories - strategic decision making - court cases between tech giants such as Oracle and Google  How is the job of a single president, or even a small number of Congresspeople or judges, possible as non-technical people? Even if they have one area of expertise, it is not nearly sufficient.  Possible answers: - *abstraction\/secondhand knowledge\/investment*: perhaps the goal of technical workers is to produce easily digestible secondhand knowledge that non-technical people can use. Similar to investing, all you need to know are abstract concepts such as \"how does this computer chip manufacturer compare to other chip manufacturers\", knowing nothing about technical details. In the case of courts, perhaps expert witnesses are sufficient? - *\"Pixar theory\"*: a Pixar movie is very technically complex, but at the end of the day, all that technical expertise is in service of entertaining an audience of children (for the sake of example, ignore the parents). So, perhaps all politicians in a representative democracy have to do is act as a compass, just as the audience of children do for the technical workers of Pixar. - *Skepticism*: maybe the answer is, they can't and don't. Perhaps politicians in a democracy are technical experts at getting elected and that's it. Perhaps their decisions on technical matters are effectively random.","c_root_id_A":"fhb16i8","c_root_id_B":"fhafghi","created_at_utc_A":1581432410,"created_at_utc_B":1581408059,"score_A":10,"score_B":8,"human_ref_A":"In society's current state of function\/dysfunction all three of your possible answers are at play.  My background is in engineering and I was involved in design and construction of hospitals. No one person knows how to build a hospital, the required knowledge base is too large. Medical, architectural, engineering, craft skills, organizational skills, financial skills. To make good decisions, all this knowledge must be coordinated.  When the project went well strong elements of your first possible answer, *abstraction\/secondhand knowledge\/investment* , were at play along with elements similar to the  *Pixar theory.*  Additionally, however, two additional elements were required, leadership and coordination, which were provided by a new category of specialists: (ironically) the Generalist.  A Generalist must be something of a polymath with great communication skills. Her knowledge must include an understanding of a broad array of the specialties involved and particularly knowledge of the relationships between the specialties. How do decisions is one area of knowledge impact issues in other areas?  Another skill that a Generalist must possess is the ability to listen, communicate, teach and explain. Your term \"easily digestible second hand knowledge\" hits upon this idea but seems to trivialize the kind of communication needed. A doctor may need to explain his procedures and the associated biological processes to a mechanical engineer in such a way that the mechanical engineer can design a ventilation system that provides the proper environment to control spread of infection.  A generalist\/mediator\/master communicator may need to be involved in the conversation to facilitate a shared knowledge.  Additionally, the Generalist must possess leadership skills to bring this communication process to a point of decision and action. Similarly the top leaders and decision makers must be master generalists.  Regarding the *\"Pixar theory\", your phrase \"all that technical expertise is in service of entertaining an audience of children\"* touches on a couple of key ideas. Allow me to rephrase this as, \"all that technical expertise is in ***service*** of ***customers***, to meet their needs and desires.\" I do not really like the term customer, as it implies merely the economic use of the term. In a more general sense, a customer is a person who has needs whom you intend to serve. Direction for the activity is guided by meeting the needs of others. A key to success is understanding those needs.  To be successful, the system must create a community of intelligent people who act in good faith. A certain level of goodwill and mutual respect is necessary. There must be a high level of commitment to developing consensus and taking unified action.  As I said at the beginning, there is a state of relative function and dysfunction. There are instances where we do reasonably well and there are instances of complete failure along with the everything in between. Regarding  \"*Skepticism*: maybe the answer is, they can't and don't.\" I agree that with the current state of complexity and the lack of desire to develop consensus, dysfunction seems the order of the day. The demand for polymath generalists with communication and leadership skills outstrips the supply. Further, the customer in question is a group of people who often have mutually exclusive desires\/needs that are held by their respective groups as non-negotiable.  Achieving a high level of mutual respect and goodwill has always been difficult and it seems that we are at a historical low. (I say *seems* because it is difficult to judge historical situations vs current conditions.) This is exacerbated by the fact that there are many people who profit (both economically and politically) from creating controversy and increasing distrust. Controversy boosts ratings and thereby income. Further there is an element of society that functions better in a state of chaos. By increasing the level of chaos, people from this group feel that they will have an advantage over their competitiors.  The growth of technology has increased the complexity and size of society. It has increased the need for coordination of specialists while simultaneously, by steering intelligent young people towards becoming specialists,  made the development of the required generalists more difficult. The coordination of group effort requires a higher level of trust and goodwill than ever before. The increasing complexity has not made development of trust and goodwill any easier.  u\/flannyo is correct in pointing you towards Ellul. In addition to The Technological Society I recommend Ellul's Propaganda: The Formation of Men Attitudes regarding technology's impact on communication.  Sorry for the length, your question got me going this morning.","human_ref_B":"This isn't exactly what you're talking about but you might be interested in Ellul's The Technological Society. Ellul's argument is slightly different -- he believes that human beings have become subordinated to their own technology, becoming little more than cogs in interlocking mechanisms, or rats running around a maze they built themselves.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":24351.0,"score_ratio":1.25}
{"post_id":"f238bm","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.89,"history":"Political philosophy: what do philosophers have to say about \"technocracy\" or rule by technical experts? I might also frame this question as the \"problem of technocracy\": how is it possible that leaders are *not* technical experts??  The problem: - trillion dollar budgets that no human can comprehend, especially without quantitative approaches - issues of science and technology such as climate change, nuclear waste management, space exploration, even disaster response - extremely entangled geopolitical objectives, alliances, rivalries, histories - strategic decision making - court cases between tech giants such as Oracle and Google  How is the job of a single president, or even a small number of Congresspeople or judges, possible as non-technical people? Even if they have one area of expertise, it is not nearly sufficient.  Possible answers: - *abstraction\/secondhand knowledge\/investment*: perhaps the goal of technical workers is to produce easily digestible secondhand knowledge that non-technical people can use. Similar to investing, all you need to know are abstract concepts such as \"how does this computer chip manufacturer compare to other chip manufacturers\", knowing nothing about technical details. In the case of courts, perhaps expert witnesses are sufficient? - *\"Pixar theory\"*: a Pixar movie is very technically complex, but at the end of the day, all that technical expertise is in service of entertaining an audience of children (for the sake of example, ignore the parents). So, perhaps all politicians in a representative democracy have to do is act as a compass, just as the audience of children do for the technical workers of Pixar. - *Skepticism*: maybe the answer is, they can't and don't. Perhaps politicians in a democracy are technical experts at getting elected and that's it. Perhaps their decisions on technical matters are effectively random.","c_root_id_A":"fhb16i8","c_root_id_B":"fhaqgn6","created_at_utc_A":1581432410,"created_at_utc_B":1581423469,"score_A":10,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"In society's current state of function\/dysfunction all three of your possible answers are at play.  My background is in engineering and I was involved in design and construction of hospitals. No one person knows how to build a hospital, the required knowledge base is too large. Medical, architectural, engineering, craft skills, organizational skills, financial skills. To make good decisions, all this knowledge must be coordinated.  When the project went well strong elements of your first possible answer, *abstraction\/secondhand knowledge\/investment* , were at play along with elements similar to the  *Pixar theory.*  Additionally, however, two additional elements were required, leadership and coordination, which were provided by a new category of specialists: (ironically) the Generalist.  A Generalist must be something of a polymath with great communication skills. Her knowledge must include an understanding of a broad array of the specialties involved and particularly knowledge of the relationships between the specialties. How do decisions is one area of knowledge impact issues in other areas?  Another skill that a Generalist must possess is the ability to listen, communicate, teach and explain. Your term \"easily digestible second hand knowledge\" hits upon this idea but seems to trivialize the kind of communication needed. A doctor may need to explain his procedures and the associated biological processes to a mechanical engineer in such a way that the mechanical engineer can design a ventilation system that provides the proper environment to control spread of infection.  A generalist\/mediator\/master communicator may need to be involved in the conversation to facilitate a shared knowledge.  Additionally, the Generalist must possess leadership skills to bring this communication process to a point of decision and action. Similarly the top leaders and decision makers must be master generalists.  Regarding the *\"Pixar theory\", your phrase \"all that technical expertise is in service of entertaining an audience of children\"* touches on a couple of key ideas. Allow me to rephrase this as, \"all that technical expertise is in ***service*** of ***customers***, to meet their needs and desires.\" I do not really like the term customer, as it implies merely the economic use of the term. In a more general sense, a customer is a person who has needs whom you intend to serve. Direction for the activity is guided by meeting the needs of others. A key to success is understanding those needs.  To be successful, the system must create a community of intelligent people who act in good faith. A certain level of goodwill and mutual respect is necessary. There must be a high level of commitment to developing consensus and taking unified action.  As I said at the beginning, there is a state of relative function and dysfunction. There are instances where we do reasonably well and there are instances of complete failure along with the everything in between. Regarding  \"*Skepticism*: maybe the answer is, they can't and don't.\" I agree that with the current state of complexity and the lack of desire to develop consensus, dysfunction seems the order of the day. The demand for polymath generalists with communication and leadership skills outstrips the supply. Further, the customer in question is a group of people who often have mutually exclusive desires\/needs that are held by their respective groups as non-negotiable.  Achieving a high level of mutual respect and goodwill has always been difficult and it seems that we are at a historical low. (I say *seems* because it is difficult to judge historical situations vs current conditions.) This is exacerbated by the fact that there are many people who profit (both economically and politically) from creating controversy and increasing distrust. Controversy boosts ratings and thereby income. Further there is an element of society that functions better in a state of chaos. By increasing the level of chaos, people from this group feel that they will have an advantage over their competitiors.  The growth of technology has increased the complexity and size of society. It has increased the need for coordination of specialists while simultaneously, by steering intelligent young people towards becoming specialists,  made the development of the required generalists more difficult. The coordination of group effort requires a higher level of trust and goodwill than ever before. The increasing complexity has not made development of trust and goodwill any easier.  u\/flannyo is correct in pointing you towards Ellul. In addition to The Technological Society I recommend Ellul's Propaganda: The Formation of Men Attitudes regarding technology's impact on communication.  Sorry for the length, your question got me going this morning.","human_ref_B":">perhaps the goal of technical workers is to produce easily digestible secondhand knowledge that non-technical people can use.  But this is *precisely* how democracy works in many countries.  You have one state-of-head with somewhat limited power, a parliament\/similar consisting of a few hundred people that votes yes\/no on suggestions for new laws, and then multiple expert group committee's that these people ask for (non-binding!) opinions on how to vote - typically with somewhat-easy-to-explain reasons as to why they should vote as the group suggests.  The difference between this and a proposed technocracy rule is typically that it would be the members of the expert groups themselves that votes, as opposed to letting the non-experts have the final say.  Effectively though, you can already have a technocracy with the current system - as long as the parliament group of people mostly follows the decisions of the expert group committees.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":8941.0,"score_ratio":5.0}
{"post_id":"r9dv98","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.87,"history":"What do philosophers think about the ethics of vaccination mandates? Since it seems like many countries are slowly tending towards mandating vaccinations I was wondering what academic philosophers thought about the ethics of this subject.","c_root_id_A":"hnbroid","c_root_id_B":"hnbtjrt","created_at_utc_A":1638714820,"created_at_utc_B":1638715756,"score_A":14,"score_B":33,"human_ref_A":"https:\/\/philpapers.org\/browse\/vaccines?catq=mandate&sort=relevance&uncat=&setAside=","human_ref_B":"Aquinas, and at least some other virtue ethicists, would likely consider the topic along the following lines of thought:  Government's laws seek order for the public good; so long as the laws do not contravene the natural law\/divine law nor man's function, they are good insofar as they contribute to the public good. Some laws, even if they are just, will not contribute to the public good if the public on a whole is unable to follow it.  An example may be cigarettes: while it would be good for public health to limit cigarette usage and production, since so many citizens are currently dependent on cigarettes, many millions would be unable to follow that law. As such, it would not contribute to the public good through order; it would worsen order.  On the other hand, establishing traffic laws for the public order, and ensuring citizens can only get their driver's license once they have taken courses to learn the traffic laws, is a very great boon to public order. Even though the traffic laws are \"arbitrary\" in some of their limits, the resulting order form everyone following those limits is very good for the public: it reduces accidents, ensures smooth traffic flow, etc.  So when it comes to vaccine mandates, that is what we must consider. First, does it violate man's function or the natural or divine law? Were a vaccine found to inhibit man's reason or were the mandate to require him to become a slave, then it would not only be a poor law, it would be gravely unjust. Of course, that's not the case here.  Second, does the vaccine mandate contribute to the public good? Were it not so, then forcing something useless or even evil upon the populace would be an evil. But to my knowledge, current research seems to suggest the vaccine, along with our other tested and released vaccines throughout history, as being very beneficial for preventing the target disease from spreading and causing life threatening conditions in the subjects who take the vaccines, making it certainly a public good.  Third, is the public able to comply with the mandate as a whole? Were there not enough vaccines to distribute, or if the vaccine gave a financial burden that the poor could not handle, or if a large number were opposed to taking the vaccine even on unreasonable grounds, then it would not be conducive to public order, and may even become an evil. (In addition, if there is a reasonable belief that the vaccines would have evil effects, then applying the mandate to persons holding such an argument would be an evil, but primarily because of our second question instead of this third one: forcing a man to act contrary to their well governed, informed reason is an evil.)  If there is any reason not to promulgate a vaccine mandate, I think it could only reasonably be the third reason: many people may not follow through with it. But perhaps that number is sufficiently small and the vaccine mandate would do great good regardless. That is something that warrants further study.  Main source for these considerations: see St. Thomas Aquinas' Summa Theologiae, Prima Secundae Partis, Q. 96, Art. 2. See his reply to \"whether it belongs to human law to repress all vices.\"","labels":0,"seconds_difference":936.0,"score_ratio":2.3571428571}
{"post_id":"r9dv98","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.87,"history":"What do philosophers think about the ethics of vaccination mandates? Since it seems like many countries are slowly tending towards mandating vaccinations I was wondering what academic philosophers thought about the ethics of this subject.","c_root_id_A":"hnd7kqz","c_root_id_B":"hnbroid","created_at_utc_A":1638735430,"created_at_utc_B":1638714820,"score_A":22,"score_B":14,"human_ref_A":"Peter Singer was part of a conversation on pandemic ethics at Rhodes College: https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/watch?v=_Ge1HDZIJxM  His view on vaccine mandates is that we should require vaccines for public events and spaces in order to protect the rights of people who want to be able to engage in public activities without getting sick.","human_ref_B":"https:\/\/philpapers.org\/browse\/vaccines?catq=mandate&sort=relevance&uncat=&setAside=","labels":1,"seconds_difference":20610.0,"score_ratio":1.5714285714}
{"post_id":"2x9p2v","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.98,"history":"Has there been a philosophical argument or idea that you've found to have changed your life personally? Personally, I've found Parfit's Reductionist take on personal identity to have changed the way I see my own future and other people.","c_root_id_A":"coy70jt","c_root_id_B":"coya3fv","created_at_utc_A":1424983912,"created_at_utc_B":1424988625,"score_A":34,"score_B":36,"human_ref_A":"Discovering Russian idealism and personalism some ten years ago basically set my career on the course it's taken, leading me off the philosophy path (too many analytic types!) into a doctoral program to study Russian religious thought. It also led to my personal religious conversion to the Orthodox Church and gradually transformed my politics from the Republican Party I grew up with towards some kind of Christian socialism.","human_ref_B":"absurdism, because i'm just that edgy","labels":0,"seconds_difference":4713.0,"score_ratio":1.0588235294}
{"post_id":"2x9p2v","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.98,"history":"Has there been a philosophical argument or idea that you've found to have changed your life personally? Personally, I've found Parfit's Reductionist take on personal identity to have changed the way I see my own future and other people.","c_root_id_A":"coya3fv","c_root_id_B":"coy89hu","created_at_utc_A":1424988625,"created_at_utc_B":1424985836,"score_A":36,"score_B":21,"human_ref_A":"absurdism, because i'm just that edgy","human_ref_B":"Animal Liberation. I argued with my professor about how not being vegetarian is permissible until I ran out of arguments.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":2789.0,"score_ratio":1.7142857143}
{"post_id":"2x9p2v","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.98,"history":"Has there been a philosophical argument or idea that you've found to have changed your life personally? Personally, I've found Parfit's Reductionist take on personal identity to have changed the way I see my own future and other people.","c_root_id_A":"coya3fv","c_root_id_B":"coy8bif","created_at_utc_A":1424988625,"created_at_utc_B":1424985920,"score_A":36,"score_B":14,"human_ref_A":"absurdism, because i'm just that edgy","human_ref_B":"Changed my diet, reconsidered my career choices, changed my political views, became atheist, and revised my finances and personal expenditures towards nonprofit giving (see flair). I'm kind of a strange person.  Edit: fun fact, it started when I read *Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality*, the fanfiction written by Eliezer Yudkowsky.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":2705.0,"score_ratio":2.5714285714}
{"post_id":"2x9p2v","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.98,"history":"Has there been a philosophical argument or idea that you've found to have changed your life personally? Personally, I've found Parfit's Reductionist take on personal identity to have changed the way I see my own future and other people.","c_root_id_A":"coyatz3","c_root_id_B":"coy89hu","created_at_utc_A":1424989818,"created_at_utc_B":1424985836,"score_A":26,"score_B":21,"human_ref_A":"*Practical Ethics* by Peter Singer turned me into a utilitarian of at least some bent, and reading through Marx turned me into a red. The end result is that I want nothing but the exploitation of the planet's conscious beings to cease.","human_ref_B":"Animal Liberation. I argued with my professor about how not being vegetarian is permissible until I ran out of arguments.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":3982.0,"score_ratio":1.2380952381}
{"post_id":"2x9p2v","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.98,"history":"Has there been a philosophical argument or idea that you've found to have changed your life personally? Personally, I've found Parfit's Reductionist take on personal identity to have changed the way I see my own future and other people.","c_root_id_A":"coy8bif","c_root_id_B":"coyatz3","created_at_utc_A":1424985920,"created_at_utc_B":1424989818,"score_A":14,"score_B":26,"human_ref_A":"Changed my diet, reconsidered my career choices, changed my political views, became atheist, and revised my finances and personal expenditures towards nonprofit giving (see flair). I'm kind of a strange person.  Edit: fun fact, it started when I read *Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality*, the fanfiction written by Eliezer Yudkowsky.","human_ref_B":"*Practical Ethics* by Peter Singer turned me into a utilitarian of at least some bent, and reading through Marx turned me into a red. The end result is that I want nothing but the exploitation of the planet's conscious beings to cease.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":3898.0,"score_ratio":1.8571428571}
{"post_id":"2x9p2v","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.98,"history":"Has there been a philosophical argument or idea that you've found to have changed your life personally? Personally, I've found Parfit's Reductionist take on personal identity to have changed the way I see my own future and other people.","c_root_id_A":"coyckki","c_root_id_B":"coy8bif","created_at_utc_A":1424992733,"created_at_utc_B":1424985920,"score_A":16,"score_B":14,"human_ref_A":"Norcross's \"Puppies, Pigs, and People\" got me to immediately stop eating factory-farmed meat.    BonJour's *In Defense of Pure Reason* and Huemer's *Skepticism and the Veil of Perception* moved me to rationalism and strengthened the conviction. The latter's *Ethical Intuitionism*, *inter alia*, convinced me of ethical intuitionism, and his \"America's Unjust Drug War\" convinced me that most drugs should be legalized. (In general, I've moved more toward social libertarianism over the last several years.)    More recently, the collection of essays in the Bealer-Koons anti-materialism anthology has made me suspect that there's a pretty powerful cumulative case for dualism.","human_ref_B":"Changed my diet, reconsidered my career choices, changed my political views, became atheist, and revised my finances and personal expenditures towards nonprofit giving (see flair). I'm kind of a strange person.  Edit: fun fact, it started when I read *Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality*, the fanfiction written by Eliezer Yudkowsky.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":6813.0,"score_ratio":1.1428571429}
{"post_id":"2x9p2v","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.98,"history":"Has there been a philosophical argument or idea that you've found to have changed your life personally? Personally, I've found Parfit's Reductionist take on personal identity to have changed the way I see my own future and other people.","c_root_id_A":"coyfqqk","c_root_id_B":"coycrm8","created_at_utc_A":1424998398,"created_at_utc_B":1424993061,"score_A":9,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"I had a major major mental breakdown about 4 years ago that absolutely shattered the way I thought about life and about ethics.  Only came through it because of Virtue Ethics, more specifically, ancient Cynicism. Frankness of speech and valuing freedom and honesty as the highest virtues really pulled me through some rough times.  I tried to help a friend and did the best I could but it wasn't enough, which broke me inside, but I now believe that the outcome isn't what matters, it's what you do. I put my hand out and did all I could do but I couldn't make them take it, and cynic virtue ethics really helped put all that in perspective. It's enough to do the best you can do, even if it fails, you're still a good person for it, the world doesn't abide ethics, you do.","human_ref_B":"Ethica from Spinoza really changed my life in a good way.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":5337.0,"score_ratio":3.0}
{"post_id":"2x9p2v","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.98,"history":"Has there been a philosophical argument or idea that you've found to have changed your life personally? Personally, I've found Parfit's Reductionist take on personal identity to have changed the way I see my own future and other people.","c_root_id_A":"coyijhu","c_root_id_B":"coyj7si","created_at_utc_A":1425003572,"created_at_utc_B":1425004803,"score_A":3,"score_B":7,"human_ref_A":"Schopenhauer's Aesceticism or Response to Buddhism.   I don't fully subscribe, but I feel at least dealing with it as an issue has formed the background of an incredible amount of my development and thought since.","human_ref_B":"Marx's historical materialism. When I was younger I had pretty standard US-libertarian views, but it wasn't really a big part of my identity. I loved the Enlightenment philosophers and devoured readings from classical liberal thinkers. I absolutely agreed.  Then I was exposed to Marxism as a philosophical system. I didn't take it too seriously at all. I thought he was too emotional, too involved maybe, and preferred the abstractions and, frankly, duller writings of Locke and Kant and who not. The removed style of so many of the classical thinkers felt so much more... *philosophical*.  I then was exposed to Marx as a historian AND political philosopher, not just the grumpy materialist. The dialectic, social change, all of these things pulled me in. I kept reading his historical analyses and other works by pretty orthodox, conservative Marxists, like Plekhanov. Then it started to click. I remember having some sort of eureka moment when I was reading the news about High Fructose Corn Syrup. There was a lot of hoo-hah going on about labelling HFCS vs regular corn syrup. I remember reading that the FDA had a somewhat indifferent opinion, and allowed the corn companies to persuade it, even though health groups had pretty persuasive evidence that they should be labelled differently.   Nothing changed. Until the sugar manufacturers petitioned the FDA. That's when I saw the state as an instrument of class rule, and I haven't been able to shoo it away. Then I read more Marxist historians on French history and my views really solidified.  Also Camus, dude fucked with my head and brought on a classic freshman existential crisis.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1231.0,"score_ratio":2.3333333333}
{"post_id":"2x9p2v","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.98,"history":"Has there been a philosophical argument or idea that you've found to have changed your life personally? Personally, I've found Parfit's Reductionist take on personal identity to have changed the way I see my own future and other people.","c_root_id_A":"coycrm8","c_root_id_B":"coyj7si","created_at_utc_A":1424993061,"created_at_utc_B":1425004803,"score_A":3,"score_B":7,"human_ref_A":"Ethica from Spinoza really changed my life in a good way.","human_ref_B":"Marx's historical materialism. When I was younger I had pretty standard US-libertarian views, but it wasn't really a big part of my identity. I loved the Enlightenment philosophers and devoured readings from classical liberal thinkers. I absolutely agreed.  Then I was exposed to Marxism as a philosophical system. I didn't take it too seriously at all. I thought he was too emotional, too involved maybe, and preferred the abstractions and, frankly, duller writings of Locke and Kant and who not. The removed style of so many of the classical thinkers felt so much more... *philosophical*.  I then was exposed to Marx as a historian AND political philosopher, not just the grumpy materialist. The dialectic, social change, all of these things pulled me in. I kept reading his historical analyses and other works by pretty orthodox, conservative Marxists, like Plekhanov. Then it started to click. I remember having some sort of eureka moment when I was reading the news about High Fructose Corn Syrup. There was a lot of hoo-hah going on about labelling HFCS vs regular corn syrup. I remember reading that the FDA had a somewhat indifferent opinion, and allowed the corn companies to persuade it, even though health groups had pretty persuasive evidence that they should be labelled differently.   Nothing changed. Until the sugar manufacturers petitioned the FDA. That's when I saw the state as an instrument of class rule, and I haven't been able to shoo it away. Then I read more Marxist historians on French history and my views really solidified.  Also Camus, dude fucked with my head and brought on a classic freshman existential crisis.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":11742.0,"score_ratio":2.3333333333}
{"post_id":"2x9p2v","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.98,"history":"Has there been a philosophical argument or idea that you've found to have changed your life personally? Personally, I've found Parfit's Reductionist take on personal identity to have changed the way I see my own future and other people.","c_root_id_A":"coyj7si","c_root_id_B":"coyg3yv","created_at_utc_A":1425004803,"created_at_utc_B":1424999087,"score_A":7,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"Marx's historical materialism. When I was younger I had pretty standard US-libertarian views, but it wasn't really a big part of my identity. I loved the Enlightenment philosophers and devoured readings from classical liberal thinkers. I absolutely agreed.  Then I was exposed to Marxism as a philosophical system. I didn't take it too seriously at all. I thought he was too emotional, too involved maybe, and preferred the abstractions and, frankly, duller writings of Locke and Kant and who not. The removed style of so many of the classical thinkers felt so much more... *philosophical*.  I then was exposed to Marx as a historian AND political philosopher, not just the grumpy materialist. The dialectic, social change, all of these things pulled me in. I kept reading his historical analyses and other works by pretty orthodox, conservative Marxists, like Plekhanov. Then it started to click. I remember having some sort of eureka moment when I was reading the news about High Fructose Corn Syrup. There was a lot of hoo-hah going on about labelling HFCS vs regular corn syrup. I remember reading that the FDA had a somewhat indifferent opinion, and allowed the corn companies to persuade it, even though health groups had pretty persuasive evidence that they should be labelled differently.   Nothing changed. Until the sugar manufacturers petitioned the FDA. That's when I saw the state as an instrument of class rule, and I haven't been able to shoo it away. Then I read more Marxist historians on French history and my views really solidified.  Also Camus, dude fucked with my head and brought on a classic freshman existential crisis.","human_ref_B":"Reading about Diogenes of Sinope changed my life entirely, which is an extremely radical change because I came from a very traditional background.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":5716.0,"score_ratio":2.3333333333}
{"post_id":"2x9p2v","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.98,"history":"Has there been a philosophical argument or idea that you've found to have changed your life personally? Personally, I've found Parfit's Reductionist take on personal identity to have changed the way I see my own future and other people.","c_root_id_A":"coyijhu","c_root_id_B":"coyj9g0","created_at_utc_A":1425003572,"created_at_utc_B":1425004889,"score_A":3,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"Schopenhauer's Aesceticism or Response to Buddhism.   I don't fully subscribe, but I feel at least dealing with it as an issue has formed the background of an incredible amount of my development and thought since.","human_ref_B":"So, it sounds pretty cliche, but I probably would have been (a) much less academically successful and (b) much more of a lawyer if not for Nietzsche. Struggling with his arguments regarding free will and (broadly speaking) success at living convinced me that philosophy was the right place for me. More, they motivated me to relatively dramatically change my life if only by making me think about the type of person I wanted to be.   There have been lots of other things that I've read that changed my life--I wouldn't be in the program I'm in doing the work I'm doing if not for Quine and Duhem, even if I didn't really understand either at the time--but I think Nietzsche'a the only one whose arguments changed my life.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1317.0,"score_ratio":1.6666666667}
{"post_id":"2x9p2v","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.98,"history":"Has there been a philosophical argument or idea that you've found to have changed your life personally? Personally, I've found Parfit's Reductionist take on personal identity to have changed the way I see my own future and other people.","c_root_id_A":"coyj9g0","c_root_id_B":"coycrm8","created_at_utc_A":1425004889,"created_at_utc_B":1424993061,"score_A":5,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"So, it sounds pretty cliche, but I probably would have been (a) much less academically successful and (b) much more of a lawyer if not for Nietzsche. Struggling with his arguments regarding free will and (broadly speaking) success at living convinced me that philosophy was the right place for me. More, they motivated me to relatively dramatically change my life if only by making me think about the type of person I wanted to be.   There have been lots of other things that I've read that changed my life--I wouldn't be in the program I'm in doing the work I'm doing if not for Quine and Duhem, even if I didn't really understand either at the time--but I think Nietzsche'a the only one whose arguments changed my life.","human_ref_B":"Ethica from Spinoza really changed my life in a good way.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":11828.0,"score_ratio":1.6666666667}
{"post_id":"2x9p2v","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.98,"history":"Has there been a philosophical argument or idea that you've found to have changed your life personally? Personally, I've found Parfit's Reductionist take on personal identity to have changed the way I see my own future and other people.","c_root_id_A":"coyg3yv","c_root_id_B":"coyj9g0","created_at_utc_A":1424999087,"created_at_utc_B":1425004889,"score_A":3,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"Reading about Diogenes of Sinope changed my life entirely, which is an extremely radical change because I came from a very traditional background.","human_ref_B":"So, it sounds pretty cliche, but I probably would have been (a) much less academically successful and (b) much more of a lawyer if not for Nietzsche. Struggling with his arguments regarding free will and (broadly speaking) success at living convinced me that philosophy was the right place for me. More, they motivated me to relatively dramatically change my life if only by making me think about the type of person I wanted to be.   There have been lots of other things that I've read that changed my life--I wouldn't be in the program I'm in doing the work I'm doing if not for Quine and Duhem, even if I didn't really understand either at the time--but I think Nietzsche'a the only one whose arguments changed my life.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":5802.0,"score_ratio":1.6666666667}
{"post_id":"2x9p2v","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.98,"history":"Has there been a philosophical argument or idea that you've found to have changed your life personally? Personally, I've found Parfit's Reductionist take on personal identity to have changed the way I see my own future and other people.","c_root_id_A":"coyijhu","c_root_id_B":"coyn2g3","created_at_utc_A":1425003572,"created_at_utc_B":1425012247,"score_A":3,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"Schopenhauer's Aesceticism or Response to Buddhism.   I don't fully subscribe, but I feel at least dealing with it as an issue has formed the background of an incredible amount of my development and thought since.","human_ref_B":"To be moral is to be free. Kant. Also, Korsgaard's idea that we constitute our practical identities by our actions.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":8675.0,"score_ratio":1.6666666667}
{"post_id":"2x9p2v","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.98,"history":"Has there been a philosophical argument or idea that you've found to have changed your life personally? Personally, I've found Parfit's Reductionist take on personal identity to have changed the way I see my own future and other people.","c_root_id_A":"coycrm8","c_root_id_B":"coyn2g3","created_at_utc_A":1424993061,"created_at_utc_B":1425012247,"score_A":3,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"Ethica from Spinoza really changed my life in a good way.","human_ref_B":"To be moral is to be free. Kant. Also, Korsgaard's idea that we constitute our practical identities by our actions.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":19186.0,"score_ratio":1.6666666667}
{"post_id":"2x9p2v","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.98,"history":"Has there been a philosophical argument or idea that you've found to have changed your life personally? Personally, I've found Parfit's Reductionist take on personal identity to have changed the way I see my own future and other people.","c_root_id_A":"coyn2g3","c_root_id_B":"coyg3yv","created_at_utc_A":1425012247,"created_at_utc_B":1424999087,"score_A":5,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"To be moral is to be free. Kant. Also, Korsgaard's idea that we constitute our practical identities by our actions.","human_ref_B":"Reading about Diogenes of Sinope changed my life entirely, which is an extremely radical change because I came from a very traditional background.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":13160.0,"score_ratio":1.6666666667}
{"post_id":"2x9p2v","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.98,"history":"Has there been a philosophical argument or idea that you've found to have changed your life personally? Personally, I've found Parfit's Reductionist take on personal identity to have changed the way I see my own future and other people.","c_root_id_A":"coyn2g3","c_root_id_B":"coyl2dr","created_at_utc_A":1425012247,"created_at_utc_B":1425008260,"score_A":5,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"To be moral is to be free. Kant. Also, Korsgaard's idea that we constitute our practical identities by our actions.","human_ref_B":"Like others, Animal liberation changed the way I eat.  Also, his writings on affluence and famine, got me to make regular deductions towards relieving poverty.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":3987.0,"score_ratio":1.6666666667}
{"post_id":"2x9p2v","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.98,"history":"Has there been a philosophical argument or idea that you've found to have changed your life personally? Personally, I've found Parfit's Reductionist take on personal identity to have changed the way I see my own future and other people.","c_root_id_A":"coyn2g3","c_root_id_B":"coyl6fr","created_at_utc_A":1425012247,"created_at_utc_B":1425008474,"score_A":5,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"To be moral is to be free. Kant. Also, Korsgaard's idea that we constitute our practical identities by our actions.","human_ref_B":"kierkegaard. the existentialists. then later, taoism.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":3773.0,"score_ratio":1.6666666667}
{"post_id":"2x9p2v","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.98,"history":"Has there been a philosophical argument or idea that you've found to have changed your life personally? Personally, I've found Parfit's Reductionist take on personal identity to have changed the way I see my own future and other people.","c_root_id_A":"coym8q2","c_root_id_B":"coyn2g3","created_at_utc_A":1425010530,"created_at_utc_B":1425012247,"score_A":2,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"Zizek expanding Lacan's imaginary-symbolic-real triad. Basically, there's 3 types of imaginary: imaginary-imaginary (pure images), imaginary symbolic (images that function\/perceived as Jungian archetypes), imaginary real (an image to cover up the horror of the real, I think); 3 types of symbolic: imaginary-symbolic (mentioned above), symbolic-symbolic (language, metaphor, etc.), symbolic-real (signifiers reduced to \"senseless formula\" like in quantum physics: formula that have no significance to our experience of our everyday life); 3 types of real: imaginary-real, symbolic-real, and the real-real (the primordial object, the Thing, *das Ding* that Freud refers to). Not necessarily life-changing, but it gave me more understanding of the stuff around me: how people behave, how films and TV commercials work, etc.","human_ref_B":"To be moral is to be free. Kant. Also, Korsgaard's idea that we constitute our practical identities by our actions.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1717.0,"score_ratio":2.5}
{"post_id":"2x9p2v","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.98,"history":"Has there been a philosophical argument or idea that you've found to have changed your life personally? Personally, I've found Parfit's Reductionist take on personal identity to have changed the way I see my own future and other people.","c_root_id_A":"coyn2g3","c_root_id_B":"coymdnx","created_at_utc_A":1425012247,"created_at_utc_B":1425010802,"score_A":5,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"To be moral is to be free. Kant. Also, Korsgaard's idea that we constitute our practical identities by our actions.","human_ref_B":"Sartre, and Marx","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1445.0,"score_ratio":2.5}
{"post_id":"2x9p2v","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.98,"history":"Has there been a philosophical argument or idea that you've found to have changed your life personally? Personally, I've found Parfit's Reductionist take on personal identity to have changed the way I see my own future and other people.","c_root_id_A":"coym8q2","c_root_id_B":"coynduw","created_at_utc_A":1425010530,"created_at_utc_B":1425012923,"score_A":2,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"Zizek expanding Lacan's imaginary-symbolic-real triad. Basically, there's 3 types of imaginary: imaginary-imaginary (pure images), imaginary symbolic (images that function\/perceived as Jungian archetypes), imaginary real (an image to cover up the horror of the real, I think); 3 types of symbolic: imaginary-symbolic (mentioned above), symbolic-symbolic (language, metaphor, etc.), symbolic-real (signifiers reduced to \"senseless formula\" like in quantum physics: formula that have no significance to our experience of our everyday life); 3 types of real: imaginary-real, symbolic-real, and the real-real (the primordial object, the Thing, *das Ding* that Freud refers to). Not necessarily life-changing, but it gave me more understanding of the stuff around me: how people behave, how films and TV commercials work, etc.","human_ref_B":"Ayn Rand pushed me towards acceptance of ethical egoism, led me to abandon a vaguely utilitarian centrism for libertarianism, and adopt a \"thick\" conception of human interests.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":2393.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
{"post_id":"2x9p2v","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.98,"history":"Has there been a philosophical argument or idea that you've found to have changed your life personally? Personally, I've found Parfit's Reductionist take on personal identity to have changed the way I see my own future and other people.","c_root_id_A":"coynduw","c_root_id_B":"coymdnx","created_at_utc_A":1425012923,"created_at_utc_B":1425010802,"score_A":3,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"Ayn Rand pushed me towards acceptance of ethical egoism, led me to abandon a vaguely utilitarian centrism for libertarianism, and adopt a \"thick\" conception of human interests.","human_ref_B":"Sartre, and Marx","labels":1,"seconds_difference":2121.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
{"post_id":"pjksuj","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.93,"history":"Where to start with Carl Jung? Also, wich books are written in his original language, German? I would love to read his books in the language, he first wrote them in, be that German or English. Though I can't seem to find decisive answers while researching that.","c_root_id_A":"hbx820i","c_root_id_B":"hbx6dba","created_at_utc_A":1631016945,"created_at_utc_B":1631015884,"score_A":7,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"Man and his Symbols is where to start if you know nothing about Jung. Its a collection of several essays of his and his students meant to be accessible to the layman. It was the last work he undertook before his death and shows the full maturity of his work through him and his associates.","human_ref_B":"They were all written in German and translated into English.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1061.0,"score_ratio":2.3333333333}
{"post_id":"5iqu7k","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.82,"history":"Which is the best philosophical movie?","c_root_id_A":"dbaadev","c_root_id_B":"dbag0ps","created_at_utc_A":1481924706,"created_at_utc_B":1481932811,"score_A":14,"score_B":16,"human_ref_A":"The Matrix","human_ref_B":"Your mileage may vary with respect to \u017di\u017eek, but really enjoy *The Pervert's Guide to Ideology*.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":8105.0,"score_ratio":1.1428571429}
{"post_id":"5iqu7k","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.82,"history":"Which is the best philosophical movie?","c_root_id_A":"dbaen6m","c_root_id_B":"dbag0ps","created_at_utc_A":1481930727,"created_at_utc_B":1481932811,"score_A":7,"score_B":16,"human_ref_A":"Minority Report's really good for Free Will stuff.","human_ref_B":"Your mileage may vary with respect to \u017di\u017eek, but really enjoy *The Pervert's Guide to Ideology*.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":2084.0,"score_ratio":2.2857142857}
{"post_id":"5iqu7k","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.82,"history":"Which is the best philosophical movie?","c_root_id_A":"dbadgxc","c_root_id_B":"dbag0ps","created_at_utc_A":1481928995,"created_at_utc_B":1481932811,"score_A":3,"score_B":16,"human_ref_A":"North by Northwest.","human_ref_B":"Your mileage may vary with respect to \u017di\u017eek, but really enjoy *The Pervert's Guide to Ideology*.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":3816.0,"score_ratio":5.3333333333}
{"post_id":"5iqu7k","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.82,"history":"Which is the best philosophical movie?","c_root_id_A":"dbamtxq","c_root_id_B":"dbaen6m","created_at_utc_A":1481943980,"created_at_utc_B":1481930727,"score_A":8,"score_B":7,"human_ref_A":"12 angry men. If you haven't seen it, put it on top of your movie watch list. The version from 1957 is pure art.","human_ref_B":"Minority Report's really good for Free Will stuff.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":13253.0,"score_ratio":1.1428571429}
{"post_id":"5iqu7k","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.82,"history":"Which is the best philosophical movie?","c_root_id_A":"dbamtxq","c_root_id_B":"dbamqad","created_at_utc_A":1481943980,"created_at_utc_B":1481943805,"score_A":8,"score_B":6,"human_ref_A":"12 angry men. If you haven't seen it, put it on top of your movie watch list. The version from 1957 is pure art.","human_ref_B":"Groundhog Day for Existentialism.    Edit: or The Grey.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":175.0,"score_ratio":1.3333333333}
{"post_id":"5iqu7k","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.82,"history":"Which is the best philosophical movie?","c_root_id_A":"dbakgxw","c_root_id_B":"dbamtxq","created_at_utc_A":1481939956,"created_at_utc_B":1481943980,"score_A":6,"score_B":8,"human_ref_A":"Waking Life","human_ref_B":"12 angry men. If you haven't seen it, put it on top of your movie watch list. The version from 1957 is pure art.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":4024.0,"score_ratio":1.3333333333}
{"post_id":"5iqu7k","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.82,"history":"Which is the best philosophical movie?","c_root_id_A":"dbadgxc","c_root_id_B":"dbamtxq","created_at_utc_A":1481928995,"created_at_utc_B":1481943980,"score_A":3,"score_B":8,"human_ref_A":"North by Northwest.","human_ref_B":"12 angry men. If you haven't seen it, put it on top of your movie watch list. The version from 1957 is pure art.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":14985.0,"score_ratio":2.6666666667}
{"post_id":"5iqu7k","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.82,"history":"Which is the best philosophical movie?","c_root_id_A":"dbamqad","c_root_id_B":"dbanm0v","created_at_utc_A":1481943805,"created_at_utc_B":1481945301,"score_A":6,"score_B":7,"human_ref_A":"Groundhog Day for Existentialism.    Edit: or The Grey.","human_ref_B":"anything directed by Ingmar Bergman is spectacular in terms of philosophy and theology, I'm particularly a fan of Winter's Light, but there's also Wild Strawberries, Through a Glass Darkly, The Seventh Seal, and the Silence.   There's also the Japanese film Ikiru, which is adapted from Tolstoy's The Death of Ivan Illiyich, about a man confronting his death.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1496.0,"score_ratio":1.1666666667}
{"post_id":"5iqu7k","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.82,"history":"Which is the best philosophical movie?","c_root_id_A":"dbanm0v","c_root_id_B":"dbakgxw","created_at_utc_A":1481945301,"created_at_utc_B":1481939956,"score_A":7,"score_B":6,"human_ref_A":"anything directed by Ingmar Bergman is spectacular in terms of philosophy and theology, I'm particularly a fan of Winter's Light, but there's also Wild Strawberries, Through a Glass Darkly, The Seventh Seal, and the Silence.   There's also the Japanese film Ikiru, which is adapted from Tolstoy's The Death of Ivan Illiyich, about a man confronting his death.","human_ref_B":"Waking Life","labels":1,"seconds_difference":5345.0,"score_ratio":1.1666666667}
{"post_id":"5iqu7k","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.82,"history":"Which is the best philosophical movie?","c_root_id_A":"dbanm0v","c_root_id_B":"dbadgxc","created_at_utc_A":1481945301,"created_at_utc_B":1481928995,"score_A":7,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"anything directed by Ingmar Bergman is spectacular in terms of philosophy and theology, I'm particularly a fan of Winter's Light, but there's also Wild Strawberries, Through a Glass Darkly, The Seventh Seal, and the Silence.   There's also the Japanese film Ikiru, which is adapted from Tolstoy's The Death of Ivan Illiyich, about a man confronting his death.","human_ref_B":"North by Northwest.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":16306.0,"score_ratio":2.3333333333}
{"post_id":"5iqu7k","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.82,"history":"Which is the best philosophical movie?","c_root_id_A":"dbamllt","c_root_id_B":"dbaen6m","created_at_utc_A":1481943573,"created_at_utc_B":1481930727,"score_A":8,"score_B":7,"human_ref_A":"I really like *Stalker*. It's subtitled in English.","human_ref_B":"Minority Report's really good for Free Will stuff.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":12846.0,"score_ratio":1.1428571429}
{"post_id":"5iqu7k","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.82,"history":"Which is the best philosophical movie?","c_root_id_A":"dbaen6m","c_root_id_B":"dbadgxc","created_at_utc_A":1481930727,"created_at_utc_B":1481928995,"score_A":7,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"Minority Report's really good for Free Will stuff.","human_ref_B":"North by Northwest.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1732.0,"score_ratio":2.3333333333}
{"post_id":"5iqu7k","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.82,"history":"Which is the best philosophical movie?","c_root_id_A":"dbakgxw","c_root_id_B":"dbamllt","created_at_utc_A":1481939956,"created_at_utc_B":1481943573,"score_A":6,"score_B":8,"human_ref_A":"Waking Life","human_ref_B":"I really like *Stalker*. It's subtitled in English.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":3617.0,"score_ratio":1.3333333333}
{"post_id":"5iqu7k","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.82,"history":"Which is the best philosophical movie?","c_root_id_A":"dbadgxc","c_root_id_B":"dbamllt","created_at_utc_A":1481928995,"created_at_utc_B":1481943573,"score_A":3,"score_B":8,"human_ref_A":"North by Northwest.","human_ref_B":"I really like *Stalker*. It's subtitled in English.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":14578.0,"score_ratio":2.6666666667}
{"post_id":"5iqu7k","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.82,"history":"Which is the best philosophical movie?","c_root_id_A":"dbamqad","c_root_id_B":"dbadgxc","created_at_utc_A":1481943805,"created_at_utc_B":1481928995,"score_A":6,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"Groundhog Day for Existentialism.    Edit: or The Grey.","human_ref_B":"North by Northwest.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":14810.0,"score_ratio":2.0}
{"post_id":"5iqu7k","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.82,"history":"Which is the best philosophical movie?","c_root_id_A":"dbaorpk","c_root_id_B":"dbanxhh","created_at_utc_A":1481947362,"created_at_utc_B":1481945860,"score_A":6,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"Lots of existential themes in Mr. Nobody","human_ref_B":"If you're looking for a movie specifically *about* philosophy, you might try Margarethe von Trotta's *Hannah Arendt*. It depicts Arendt at the trial of Eichmann, has Heidegger in it, and gives a good insight into her philosophy. Here's the trailer: https:\/\/youtu.be\/KDO5u2YSbm0","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1502.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
{"post_id":"5iqu7k","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.82,"history":"Which is the best philosophical movie?","c_root_id_A":"dbaorpk","c_root_id_B":"dbadgxc","created_at_utc_A":1481947362,"created_at_utc_B":1481928995,"score_A":6,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"Lots of existential themes in Mr. Nobody","human_ref_B":"North by Northwest.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":18367.0,"score_ratio":2.0}
{"post_id":"5iqu7k","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.82,"history":"Which is the best philosophical movie?","c_root_id_A":"dbaorpk","c_root_id_B":"dbao074","created_at_utc_A":1481947362,"created_at_utc_B":1481945996,"score_A":6,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"Lots of existential themes in Mr. Nobody","human_ref_B":"\"My Night at Maud's\" is a classic French film, ripe with references to Pascal, if you're familiar with Pascal's work at all.   But it's also generally an excellent film on Catholicism and Love.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1366.0,"score_ratio":3.0}
{"post_id":"5iqu7k","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.82,"history":"Which is the best philosophical movie?","c_root_id_A":"dbaohhp","c_root_id_B":"dbaorpk","created_at_utc_A":1481946851,"created_at_utc_B":1481947362,"score_A":2,"score_B":6,"human_ref_A":"Socrates (1971), a great movie depicting the events leading up to his trial, his defence as outlined in Plato's Apology and his final days before his execution, and even though its in Italian some guy translated the whole thing with [excellent English\/Russian subtitles on Youtube.] (https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/watch?v=SY-mgZbuxBA)","human_ref_B":"Lots of existential themes in Mr. Nobody","labels":0,"seconds_difference":511.0,"score_ratio":3.0}
{"post_id":"5iqu7k","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.82,"history":"Which is the best philosophical movie?","c_root_id_A":"dbakgxw","c_root_id_B":"dbadgxc","created_at_utc_A":1481939956,"created_at_utc_B":1481928995,"score_A":6,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"Waking Life","human_ref_B":"North by Northwest.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":10961.0,"score_ratio":2.0}
{"post_id":"5iqu7k","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.82,"history":"Which is the best philosophical movie?","c_root_id_A":"dbadgxc","c_root_id_B":"dbaukl5","created_at_utc_A":1481928995,"created_at_utc_B":1481959996,"score_A":3,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"North by Northwest.","human_ref_B":"When I was in undergrad philosophy our professor had us watch Memento while studying Augustine's anthropology (memory\/will\/intellect). I cannot recommend it highly enough. What role does memory play in constructing and sustaining your identity? If you cannot rely on it, are there any alternatives?","labels":0,"seconds_difference":31001.0,"score_ratio":1.3333333333}
{"post_id":"5iqu7k","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.82,"history":"Which is the best philosophical movie?","c_root_id_A":"dbaukl5","c_root_id_B":"dbaqwpu","created_at_utc_A":1481959996,"created_at_utc_B":1481951458,"score_A":4,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"When I was in undergrad philosophy our professor had us watch Memento while studying Augustine's anthropology (memory\/will\/intellect). I cannot recommend it highly enough. What role does memory play in constructing and sustaining your identity? If you cannot rely on it, are there any alternatives?","human_ref_B":"The Big Lebowski","labels":1,"seconds_difference":8538.0,"score_ratio":1.3333333333}
{"post_id":"5iqu7k","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.82,"history":"Which is the best philosophical movie?","c_root_id_A":"dbao074","c_root_id_B":"dbaukl5","created_at_utc_A":1481945996,"created_at_utc_B":1481959996,"score_A":2,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"\"My Night at Maud's\" is a classic French film, ripe with references to Pascal, if you're familiar with Pascal's work at all.   But it's also generally an excellent film on Catholicism and Love.","human_ref_B":"When I was in undergrad philosophy our professor had us watch Memento while studying Augustine's anthropology (memory\/will\/intellect). I cannot recommend it highly enough. What role does memory play in constructing and sustaining your identity? If you cannot rely on it, are there any alternatives?","labels":0,"seconds_difference":14000.0,"score_ratio":2.0}
{"post_id":"5iqu7k","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.82,"history":"Which is the best philosophical movie?","c_root_id_A":"dbaukl5","c_root_id_B":"dbaohhp","created_at_utc_A":1481959996,"created_at_utc_B":1481946851,"score_A":4,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"When I was in undergrad philosophy our professor had us watch Memento while studying Augustine's anthropology (memory\/will\/intellect). I cannot recommend it highly enough. What role does memory play in constructing and sustaining your identity? If you cannot rely on it, are there any alternatives?","human_ref_B":"Socrates (1971), a great movie depicting the events leading up to his trial, his defence as outlined in Plato's Apology and his final days before his execution, and even though its in Italian some guy translated the whole thing with [excellent English\/Russian subtitles on Youtube.] (https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/watch?v=SY-mgZbuxBA)","labels":1,"seconds_difference":13145.0,"score_ratio":2.0}
{"post_id":"5iqu7k","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.82,"history":"Which is the best philosophical movie?","c_root_id_A":"dbadgxc","c_root_id_B":"dbanxhh","created_at_utc_A":1481928995,"created_at_utc_B":1481945860,"score_A":3,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"North by Northwest.","human_ref_B":"If you're looking for a movie specifically *about* philosophy, you might try Margarethe von Trotta's *Hannah Arendt*. It depicts Arendt at the trial of Eichmann, has Heidegger in it, and gives a good insight into her philosophy. Here's the trailer: https:\/\/youtu.be\/KDO5u2YSbm0","labels":0,"seconds_difference":16865.0,"score_ratio":1.3333333333}
{"post_id":"5iqu7k","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.82,"history":"Which is the best philosophical movie?","c_root_id_A":"dbao074","c_root_id_B":"dbaqwpu","created_at_utc_A":1481945996,"created_at_utc_B":1481951458,"score_A":2,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"\"My Night at Maud's\" is a classic French film, ripe with references to Pascal, if you're familiar with Pascal's work at all.   But it's also generally an excellent film on Catholicism and Love.","human_ref_B":"The Big Lebowski","labels":0,"seconds_difference":5462.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
{"post_id":"5iqu7k","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.82,"history":"Which is the best philosophical movie?","c_root_id_A":"dbaohhp","c_root_id_B":"dbaqwpu","created_at_utc_A":1481946851,"created_at_utc_B":1481951458,"score_A":2,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"Socrates (1971), a great movie depicting the events leading up to his trial, his defence as outlined in Plato's Apology and his final days before his execution, and even though its in Italian some guy translated the whole thing with [excellent English\/Russian subtitles on Youtube.] (https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/watch?v=SY-mgZbuxBA)","human_ref_B":"The Big Lebowski","labels":0,"seconds_difference":4607.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
{"post_id":"5iqu7k","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.82,"history":"Which is the best philosophical movie?","c_root_id_A":"dbausp7","c_root_id_B":"dbao074","created_at_utc_A":1481960641,"created_at_utc_B":1481945996,"score_A":3,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"The exterminating angel - Luis Bu\u00f1uel","human_ref_B":"\"My Night at Maud's\" is a classic French film, ripe with references to Pascal, if you're familiar with Pascal's work at all.   But it's also generally an excellent film on Catholicism and Love.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":14645.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
{"post_id":"5iqu7k","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.82,"history":"Which is the best philosophical movie?","c_root_id_A":"dbaohhp","c_root_id_B":"dbausp7","created_at_utc_A":1481946851,"created_at_utc_B":1481960641,"score_A":2,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"Socrates (1971), a great movie depicting the events leading up to his trial, his defence as outlined in Plato's Apology and his final days before his execution, and even though its in Italian some guy translated the whole thing with [excellent English\/Russian subtitles on Youtube.] (https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/watch?v=SY-mgZbuxBA)","human_ref_B":"The exterminating angel - Luis Bu\u00f1uel","labels":0,"seconds_difference":13790.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
{"post_id":"5iqu7k","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.82,"history":"Which is the best philosophical movie?","c_root_id_A":"dbaz1zt","c_root_id_B":"dbao074","created_at_utc_A":1481975692,"created_at_utc_B":1481945996,"score_A":3,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"Gattaca. No question about it.","human_ref_B":"\"My Night at Maud's\" is a classic French film, ripe with references to Pascal, if you're familiar with Pascal's work at all.   But it's also generally an excellent film on Catholicism and Love.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":29696.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
{"post_id":"5iqu7k","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.82,"history":"Which is the best philosophical movie?","c_root_id_A":"dbaohhp","c_root_id_B":"dbaz1zt","created_at_utc_A":1481946851,"created_at_utc_B":1481975692,"score_A":2,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"Socrates (1971), a great movie depicting the events leading up to his trial, his defence as outlined in Plato's Apology and his final days before his execution, and even though its in Italian some guy translated the whole thing with [excellent English\/Russian subtitles on Youtube.] (https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/watch?v=SY-mgZbuxBA)","human_ref_B":"Gattaca. No question about it.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":28841.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
{"post_id":"5iqu7k","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.82,"history":"Which is the best philosophical movie?","c_root_id_A":"dbaxa1l","c_root_id_B":"dbaz1zt","created_at_utc_A":1481968977,"created_at_utc_B":1481975692,"score_A":2,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"Not technically a movie but Westworld for ethics. Also, Donnie Darko is interesting and hasn't been mentioned yet.","human_ref_B":"Gattaca. No question about it.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":6715.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
{"post_id":"ttvy5q","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.69,"history":"Why Descartes believed in God? Since Descartes founded the basis for scientific method where we are supposed to provide evidence for our hypothesis, why did he actually believed in God when general argument for its existence back them were solely based on stories perpetuated by church?   Can a serious scientist believe in God when there's no scientific basis to prove the existence of such entity?  I don't have any training in philosophy so I am sorry if my question doesn't make much sense.","c_root_id_A":"i30ehg9","c_root_id_B":"i30b48k","created_at_utc_A":1648835478,"created_at_utc_B":1648834148,"score_A":115,"score_B":15,"human_ref_A":">Descartes founded the basis for scientific method where we are supposed to provide evidence for our hypothesis,  This isn't a thing that happened. For one, did you really think that before Descartes people were just running around shouting hypotheses without any evidence? That isn't what the scientific method is, but either way that method also predates Descartes and he is not its founder.  >Can a serious scientist believe in God when there's no scientific basis to prove the existence of such entity?  Yes, if you believe - as many people do and should - that the existence or non-existence of God isn't the kind of fact that natural science investigates. I don't think many serious believers in God think it is a scientifically grounded belief, nor that that matters.  >general argument for its existence back them were solely based on stories perpetuated by church?   This is basically false. It can be hard to see now, but for a large part of - at least Western - history, it has been very common to think that belief in God was the most *rational* position to hold. Descartes himself seems to think so, and so do several important and brilliant philosophers who came after him such as Leibniz. Of course church doctrine and authority played a large part in the widespread propagation of belief, and most people probably didn't believe in God because they were convinced it was the most rational view in metaphysics. But it's a really unfortunate common caricature that religion was always this irrational option just based on stories or on someone else's authority. To be very clear, I also do not believe in God and I'm not trying to convince you that you should. But as someone with a decent amount of training in the history of philosophy, I am often irked by this caricature story where religion is just this irrational dark age artefact one leaves behind as soon as they get serious about science and reason. This is a recent invention and many, if not most, of the greatest minds in modern philosophy would have seen religion and science as reconcilable if not all part of the same overall intellectual project.","human_ref_B":"Well, it's not true that arguments for theism were solely based on stories perpetuated by the Church, rather the significant arguments for theism were based on secular reason and purported to show that rational people ought to believe in God on the grounds that this belief is needed for our best understanding of the world.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1330.0,"score_ratio":7.6666666667}
{"post_id":"ttvy5q","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.69,"history":"Why Descartes believed in God? Since Descartes founded the basis for scientific method where we are supposed to provide evidence for our hypothesis, why did he actually believed in God when general argument for its existence back them were solely based on stories perpetuated by church?   Can a serious scientist believe in God when there's no scientific basis to prove the existence of such entity?  I don't have any training in philosophy so I am sorry if my question doesn't make much sense.","c_root_id_A":"i31hgqd","c_root_id_B":"i30lkhc","created_at_utc_A":1648852046,"created_at_utc_B":1648838362,"score_A":6,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":">Since Descartes founded the basis for scientific method  wat  >why did he actually believed in God when general argument for its existence back them were solely based on stories perpetuated by church  WAT  Are you aware that practically ever major scientist (including Isaac Newton) was uncontroversially a theist? People believed in god for all the typical arguments you see all the time. Descartes, in particular, advocates a certain version of the ontological argument in the Meditations.","human_ref_B":">Since Descartes founded the basis for scientific method where we are supposed to provide evidence for our hypothesis   This doesn't seem right. Where in Descartes did you find this?","labels":1,"seconds_difference":13684.0,"score_ratio":1.2}
{"post_id":"ttvy5q","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.69,"history":"Why Descartes believed in God? Since Descartes founded the basis for scientific method where we are supposed to provide evidence for our hypothesis, why did he actually believed in God when general argument for its existence back them were solely based on stories perpetuated by church?   Can a serious scientist believe in God when there's no scientific basis to prove the existence of such entity?  I don't have any training in philosophy so I am sorry if my question doesn't make much sense.","c_root_id_A":"i31hgqd","c_root_id_B":"i3128zd","created_at_utc_A":1648852046,"created_at_utc_B":1648845291,"score_A":6,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":">Since Descartes founded the basis for scientific method  wat  >why did he actually believed in God when general argument for its existence back them were solely based on stories perpetuated by church  WAT  Are you aware that practically ever major scientist (including Isaac Newton) was uncontroversially a theist? People believed in god for all the typical arguments you see all the time. Descartes, in particular, advocates a certain version of the ontological argument in the Meditations.","human_ref_B":"I'm not sure if anyone mentioned this but he explicitly argues that God exists in the III and V meditations in Meditations on first philosophy. This is also a pretty entry level philosophical text so I suggest you give it a read if you're interested.  God isn't as central to Descartes' system as it is for Leibniz or Spinoza, but he's still supposed to act as an epistemic warrant against (radical) skepticism, as well as fulfilling the traditional role of the world's creator.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":6755.0,"score_ratio":1.2}
{"post_id":"ttvy5q","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.69,"history":"Why Descartes believed in God? Since Descartes founded the basis for scientific method where we are supposed to provide evidence for our hypothesis, why did he actually believed in God when general argument for its existence back them were solely based on stories perpetuated by church?   Can a serious scientist believe in God when there's no scientific basis to prove the existence of such entity?  I don't have any training in philosophy so I am sorry if my question doesn't make much sense.","c_root_id_A":"i31164n","c_root_id_B":"i3128zd","created_at_utc_A":1648844834,"created_at_utc_B":1648845291,"score_A":2,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"Descartes argument of God is that we all humans possess the conception of God as infinite being, which means \"primordial instinct\" that conception of God is innate to our minds. Existence of God is not limited to Christianity or people's belief or imagination but it actually roots at Islamic theism, primordial knowledge, common sense, and human experience. I'm an ex-agnostic strong Muslim who believes in existence of God because of experience and rationality Islam has given to me, because of this miraculous religion, common sense of existence that universe can't be self-existent (questioning the existence are artificial construct and do not prove existence of eternal creator false). The existence of God is felt in long-life experience throughout knowledge (knowledge of this religion, revelations) and Islamic life.  Even many great scientists and philosophers believed in existence of God.  Einstein said: \"That deep emotional conviction of presence of superior reasoning power, which is revealed in incomprehensible universe, forms my idea of God\" ~ rational conviction for God  Indian mathematician  Ramanujan said: \"An equation means nothing to me except it represents thoughts of a God\" ~ presence of conscious creator who created finely tuned universe to be observed by humans. And many more...  The strong evidence for existence of God is felt by most great philosophers and scientists by their phenomenological experience \u2013that how the existence and universe are scientifically quantified and do not possess scientific randomness (as atheists assume). And my personal theory after long-life experience is \"Our intentionality and capability that constitute our physical existence as a personality are some %part of that thing what makes us a human. The thing that made us a human are evolution, creation of universe, parents, biological structure of body and parts of our mind. Only our mind, sentience and physical parts of body are in our control not our whole existence or inner parts of our body. We don't know when we are gonna die; we can get a heart attack and die at once so our existence is not fully ours but we borrowed our existence from God or creator or nature. Our existence is not self-existent or emancipatory like a bubble or created by scientific randomness (unexplainable)\".  Secondly, the above-mentioned things can't be fully understood without self-experience or Islamic evidence of existence of God. You may need to read more...(There's a lot).","human_ref_B":"I'm not sure if anyone mentioned this but he explicitly argues that God exists in the III and V meditations in Meditations on first philosophy. This is also a pretty entry level philosophical text so I suggest you give it a read if you're interested.  God isn't as central to Descartes' system as it is for Leibniz or Spinoza, but he's still supposed to act as an epistemic warrant against (radical) skepticism, as well as fulfilling the traditional role of the world's creator.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":457.0,"score_ratio":2.5}
{"post_id":"ttvy5q","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.69,"history":"Why Descartes believed in God? Since Descartes founded the basis for scientific method where we are supposed to provide evidence for our hypothesis, why did he actually believed in God when general argument for its existence back them were solely based on stories perpetuated by church?   Can a serious scientist believe in God when there's no scientific basis to prove the existence of such entity?  I don't have any training in philosophy so I am sorry if my question doesn't make much sense.","c_root_id_A":"i31hgqd","c_root_id_B":"i31164n","created_at_utc_A":1648852046,"created_at_utc_B":1648844834,"score_A":6,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":">Since Descartes founded the basis for scientific method  wat  >why did he actually believed in God when general argument for its existence back them were solely based on stories perpetuated by church  WAT  Are you aware that practically ever major scientist (including Isaac Newton) was uncontroversially a theist? People believed in god for all the typical arguments you see all the time. Descartes, in particular, advocates a certain version of the ontological argument in the Meditations.","human_ref_B":"Descartes argument of God is that we all humans possess the conception of God as infinite being, which means \"primordial instinct\" that conception of God is innate to our minds. Existence of God is not limited to Christianity or people's belief or imagination but it actually roots at Islamic theism, primordial knowledge, common sense, and human experience. I'm an ex-agnostic strong Muslim who believes in existence of God because of experience and rationality Islam has given to me, because of this miraculous religion, common sense of existence that universe can't be self-existent (questioning the existence are artificial construct and do not prove existence of eternal creator false). The existence of God is felt in long-life experience throughout knowledge (knowledge of this religion, revelations) and Islamic life.  Even many great scientists and philosophers believed in existence of God.  Einstein said: \"That deep emotional conviction of presence of superior reasoning power, which is revealed in incomprehensible universe, forms my idea of God\" ~ rational conviction for God  Indian mathematician  Ramanujan said: \"An equation means nothing to me except it represents thoughts of a God\" ~ presence of conscious creator who created finely tuned universe to be observed by humans. And many more...  The strong evidence for existence of God is felt by most great philosophers and scientists by their phenomenological experience \u2013that how the existence and universe are scientifically quantified and do not possess scientific randomness (as atheists assume). And my personal theory after long-life experience is \"Our intentionality and capability that constitute our physical existence as a personality are some %part of that thing what makes us a human. The thing that made us a human are evolution, creation of universe, parents, biological structure of body and parts of our mind. Only our mind, sentience and physical parts of body are in our control not our whole existence or inner parts of our body. We don't know when we are gonna die; we can get a heart attack and die at once so our existence is not fully ours but we borrowed our existence from God or creator or nature. Our existence is not self-existent or emancipatory like a bubble or created by scientific randomness (unexplainable)\".  Secondly, the above-mentioned things can't be fully understood without self-experience or Islamic evidence of existence of God. You may need to read more...(There's a lot).","labels":1,"seconds_difference":7212.0,"score_ratio":3.0}
{"post_id":"54kj5x","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.93,"history":"What are some good, easy to read, books on philosophy? Title says all please comment your personal favorites","c_root_id_A":"d82xp1c","c_root_id_B":"d82o82j","created_at_utc_A":1474913003,"created_at_utc_B":1474900917,"score_A":12,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"I was recommended \"Sophie's World\" a novel by Jostein Gaarder before I started my philosophy A Level. The book is perfect to gain a basic understanding of different schools of thought","human_ref_B":"Kymlicka's *Contemporary Political Philosophy: An Introduction* is very great.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":12086.0,"score_ratio":2.4}
{"post_id":"54kj5x","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.93,"history":"What are some good, easy to read, books on philosophy? Title says all please comment your personal favorites","c_root_id_A":"d82xp1c","c_root_id_B":"d82mypf","created_at_utc_A":1474913003,"created_at_utc_B":1474899137,"score_A":12,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"I was recommended \"Sophie's World\" a novel by Jostein Gaarder before I started my philosophy A Level. The book is perfect to gain a basic understanding of different schools of thought","human_ref_B":"Michael Sandel's \"Justice\" serves as a readable introduction to political philosophy\/ethics, at least for American readers.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":13866.0,"score_ratio":2.4}
{"post_id":"54kj5x","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.93,"history":"What are some good, easy to read, books on philosophy? Title says all please comment your personal favorites","c_root_id_A":"d82xp1c","c_root_id_B":"d82vont","created_at_utc_A":1474913003,"created_at_utc_B":1474910482,"score_A":12,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"I was recommended \"Sophie's World\" a novel by Jostein Gaarder before I started my philosophy A Level. The book is perfect to gain a basic understanding of different schools of thought","human_ref_B":"I haven't seen The Pig That Wants To Be Eaten mentioned yet. It's a hundred or so thought experiments that are interesting.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":2521.0,"score_ratio":2.4}
{"post_id":"54kj5x","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.93,"history":"What are some good, easy to read, books on philosophy? Title says all please comment your personal favorites","c_root_id_A":"d82ou52","c_root_id_B":"d82xp1c","created_at_utc_A":1474901755,"created_at_utc_B":1474913003,"score_A":5,"score_B":12,"human_ref_A":"*On Liberty*, by J. S. Mill. I also find Singer rather easy to read, so if you're interested in applied ethics, you can't do much better than Singer's *Practical Ethics*.","human_ref_B":"I was recommended \"Sophie's World\" a novel by Jostein Gaarder before I started my philosophy A Level. The book is perfect to gain a basic understanding of different schools of thought","labels":0,"seconds_difference":11248.0,"score_ratio":2.4}
{"post_id":"54kj5x","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.93,"history":"What are some good, easy to read, books on philosophy? Title says all please comment your personal favorites","c_root_id_A":"d834w8s","c_root_id_B":"d82o82j","created_at_utc_A":1474922012,"created_at_utc_B":1474900917,"score_A":9,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"Hegel's Phenomenology of Spirit","human_ref_B":"Kymlicka's *Contemporary Political Philosophy: An Introduction* is very great.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":21095.0,"score_ratio":1.8}
{"post_id":"54kj5x","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.93,"history":"What are some good, easy to read, books on philosophy? Title says all please comment your personal favorites","c_root_id_A":"d82mypf","c_root_id_B":"d834w8s","created_at_utc_A":1474899137,"created_at_utc_B":1474922012,"score_A":5,"score_B":9,"human_ref_A":"Michael Sandel's \"Justice\" serves as a readable introduction to political philosophy\/ethics, at least for American readers.","human_ref_B":"Hegel's Phenomenology of Spirit","labels":0,"seconds_difference":22875.0,"score_ratio":1.8}
{"post_id":"54kj5x","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.93,"history":"What are some good, easy to read, books on philosophy? Title says all please comment your personal favorites","c_root_id_A":"d82vont","c_root_id_B":"d834w8s","created_at_utc_A":1474910482,"created_at_utc_B":1474922012,"score_A":5,"score_B":9,"human_ref_A":"I haven't seen The Pig That Wants To Be Eaten mentioned yet. It's a hundred or so thought experiments that are interesting.","human_ref_B":"Hegel's Phenomenology of Spirit","labels":0,"seconds_difference":11530.0,"score_ratio":1.8}
{"post_id":"54kj5x","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.93,"history":"What are some good, easy to read, books on philosophy? Title says all please comment your personal favorites","c_root_id_A":"d82ou52","c_root_id_B":"d834w8s","created_at_utc_A":1474901755,"created_at_utc_B":1474922012,"score_A":5,"score_B":9,"human_ref_A":"*On Liberty*, by J. S. Mill. I also find Singer rather easy to read, so if you're interested in applied ethics, you can't do much better than Singer's *Practical Ethics*.","human_ref_B":"Hegel's Phenomenology of Spirit","labels":0,"seconds_difference":20257.0,"score_ratio":1.8}
{"post_id":"54kj5x","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.93,"history":"What are some good, easy to read, books on philosophy? Title says all please comment your personal favorites","c_root_id_A":"d832ukc","c_root_id_B":"d834w8s","created_at_utc_A":1474919459,"created_at_utc_B":1474922012,"score_A":3,"score_B":9,"human_ref_A":"**Montaigne's Essays** contain insight on a variety of topics including but not limited to;  Sadness and Sorrow,  Virtue,  Thumbs,  Smells,  Solitude,  The Rule of Reason,  and  Managing the Will  ... et cetera ...  It's a really powerful page turner-- especially for being over 400 years old!","human_ref_B":"Hegel's Phenomenology of Spirit","labels":0,"seconds_difference":2553.0,"score_ratio":3.0}
{"post_id":"54kj5x","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.93,"history":"What are some good, easy to read, books on philosophy? Title says all please comment your personal favorites","c_root_id_A":"d838857","c_root_id_B":"d836dd0","created_at_utc_A":1474926416,"created_at_utc_B":1474923907,"score_A":3,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"Will Durant's the story of philosophy is really good!","human_ref_B":"*This Is Water*; David Foster Wallace  It's *super* short (like read it in 15 minutes short) and simple, but incredibly powerful. This was the first book we read in my PHIL-101 class, but I've kept it and gotten copies as gifts for people.   I'm not sure if its the full text, but here's a video, narrated by Wallace, that gets the concept across if you don't feel like dropping $12   EDIT: Actually here is a full transcription of the speech it's from.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":2509.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
{"post_id":"5wcb50","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.88,"history":"A Richard Rorty Question. Is eschewing the meta-narrative, not its own meta-narrative. I read somewhere: that Richard Rorty has an answer to this question, showing why it is not simply a replacement meta-narrative.  If someone is familiar with the argument: could you explain it to me... Cheers.","c_root_id_A":"de9bcy2","c_root_id_B":"de9dgfd","created_at_utc_A":1488159765,"created_at_utc_B":1488162746,"score_A":2,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"First you might want to ask whether it is a logical contradiction or a contradiction in language.","human_ref_B":"Importantly, it *could* be a meta-narrative.  It seems like Rorty criticizes some post-modernists of using it as a meta-narrative (see \"Habermas and Lyotard on Postmodernity\").  But at least as I understand Rorty, the answer for a successful post-modernity centers on irony.  As ironists we'll keep generating historical narratives but we'll do it dramatically\/subjectively\/contingently, this will undercut their ability to work as grand narratives since we're meant to build them knowing the are merely *our* narratives *for now*.  Melvin Rogers has argued that there is something possibly incoherent in this argument in \"Rorty's Straussianism; Or, Irony Against Democracy.\"","labels":0,"seconds_difference":2981.0,"score_ratio":2.5}
{"post_id":"ebj590","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.91,"history":"Why is self-awareness considered to be a necessary condition for consciousness?","c_root_id_A":"fb5h4jn","c_root_id_B":"fb5dln5","created_at_utc_A":1576527519,"created_at_utc_B":1576525669,"score_A":30,"score_B":26,"human_ref_A":"There's a question of etymology here which is interesting to explore. Etienne Balibar in his essay 'Conscience\/Consciousness in Spinoza's *Ethics*' notes that in Latin (as well as French) there isn't a distinction between consciousness and conscience. In French, both are represented by *la Conscience,* and in Latin both are *Conscientia*.  In the essay, Balibar is writing about Spinoza as well as Locke (Locke, he contests, is responsible for establishing the difference in English between consciousness and conscience). In *An Essay concerning Human Understanding,* Locke writes that \"Consciousness is the perception of what passes on in Man's own Mind.\" What's so radical about this definition, which became standard in metaphysics as well as psychology, is that consciousness is defined as internal perception of experience. Consciousness isn't the same as mind, and it's not the same as experience, but it is the mind's awareness of its own experiences.  In a sense, at least according to this view, consciousness is always-already self-consciousness or self-awareness. Then, self-awareness would be a necessary condition for consciousness because consciousness *just is* self-awareness (etymologically speaking).","human_ref_B":"Considered by whom? There are many authors who would reject this claim.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1850.0,"score_ratio":1.1538461538}
{"post_id":"4mfrsk","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.97,"history":"How accessible is Spinoza's Ethics, and what should I have read before attempting to read it to understand it properly?","c_root_id_A":"d3vi9tk","c_root_id_B":"d3w5bc8","created_at_utc_A":1465023375,"created_at_utc_B":1465077164,"score_A":5,"score_B":6,"human_ref_A":"Very unaccessible. I took a grad class in Spinoza, we spent more than the first week of class just on the first page. There was lots of confusion to be had and many arguments over his definitions. Admittedly, we were digging really deep, but nonetheless.","human_ref_B":"Especially towards the beginning, the commenters so far are absolutely right: Spinoza at times seems to have intentionally rendered his points as obscurely and abstractly as possible.  Here's some advice, though I don't think any of this will make Spinoza entirely clear.  1. Read the book once before re-reading from the beginning.  You'll then be in a position to understand what work he wants the earlier sections to do for him, and how the conclusions he reaches there get more fully fleshed out in the course of the treatise.  2. Try reading some of the work he is responding to and developing on.  He very clearly sees himself working in the Cartesian tradition, for example, so try reading some of Descartes' work (beyond just the *Meditations*, if possible) for background, since it tends to be much more accessible than the *Ethics*.  You also might consider looking at some of Spinoza's earlier work: the *Principles of Cartesian Philosophy*, the *Short Treatise on God, Man, and His Wellbeing*, and the *Emendation of the Intellect*, all of which I, at least, found less opaque and which contain some of the seeds that would see their mature development later on in the Ethics itself.  3. Check out some secondary sources.  I'm not an expert here, but I remember thinking Della Rocca's *Spinoza* being a pretty good introductory text, and I really enjoyed Bennett's *A Study of Spinoza's Ethics*, though I should forewarn that the second of those is harshly opinionated and critical of Spinoza at points, and I'd warn against introducing yourself to a philosopher by way of someone unsympathetic to them.  4. Try reading it with a (dedicated and intelligent) friend and getting together to discuss it every now and again.  When I was in undergrad I helped run a book club partially devoted to the *Ethics*, which I found very helpful for understanding some of the more confusing passages.  Anyway, the *Ethics* is an amazing bit of philosophy, and, despite its intimidating facade, I think you'll find it really rewarding if you're willing to put in the requisite mental effort.  It's hard work, \"but all things excellent are as difficult as they are rare.\"","labels":0,"seconds_difference":53789.0,"score_ratio":1.2}
{"post_id":"4mfrsk","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.97,"history":"How accessible is Spinoza's Ethics, and what should I have read before attempting to read it to understand it properly?","c_root_id_A":"d3v8upd","c_root_id_B":"d3w5bc8","created_at_utc_A":1465003583,"created_at_utc_B":1465077164,"score_A":3,"score_B":6,"human_ref_A":"Not sure if you're asking for historical precedents or secondary literature, but as far as secondary literature Deleuze's Spinoza: Practical Philosophy provides a pretty good overview.  The glossary chapter is somewhat dense, however, but worth working through depending on how interested you are in Spinoza.  Personally I found the Ethics accessible, at least compared to a lot of philosophy.  It proceeds by the geometric method so you can read the chapters in reverse.  I read it this way and found that the conclusions provided a lot of color for the foundations laid out in the earlier chapters, which otherwise can come across as fairly abstract.  There are a bunch of interesting things in the ethics.  My personal favorite is probably the taxonomy of emotions, which I found to be really eye-opening.","human_ref_B":"Especially towards the beginning, the commenters so far are absolutely right: Spinoza at times seems to have intentionally rendered his points as obscurely and abstractly as possible.  Here's some advice, though I don't think any of this will make Spinoza entirely clear.  1. Read the book once before re-reading from the beginning.  You'll then be in a position to understand what work he wants the earlier sections to do for him, and how the conclusions he reaches there get more fully fleshed out in the course of the treatise.  2. Try reading some of the work he is responding to and developing on.  He very clearly sees himself working in the Cartesian tradition, for example, so try reading some of Descartes' work (beyond just the *Meditations*, if possible) for background, since it tends to be much more accessible than the *Ethics*.  You also might consider looking at some of Spinoza's earlier work: the *Principles of Cartesian Philosophy*, the *Short Treatise on God, Man, and His Wellbeing*, and the *Emendation of the Intellect*, all of which I, at least, found less opaque and which contain some of the seeds that would see their mature development later on in the Ethics itself.  3. Check out some secondary sources.  I'm not an expert here, but I remember thinking Della Rocca's *Spinoza* being a pretty good introductory text, and I really enjoyed Bennett's *A Study of Spinoza's Ethics*, though I should forewarn that the second of those is harshly opinionated and critical of Spinoza at points, and I'd warn against introducing yourself to a philosopher by way of someone unsympathetic to them.  4. Try reading it with a (dedicated and intelligent) friend and getting together to discuss it every now and again.  When I was in undergrad I helped run a book club partially devoted to the *Ethics*, which I found very helpful for understanding some of the more confusing passages.  Anyway, the *Ethics* is an amazing bit of philosophy, and, despite its intimidating facade, I think you'll find it really rewarding if you're willing to put in the requisite mental effort.  It's hard work, \"but all things excellent are as difficult as they are rare.\"","labels":0,"seconds_difference":73581.0,"score_ratio":2.0}
{"post_id":"4mfrsk","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.97,"history":"How accessible is Spinoza's Ethics, and what should I have read before attempting to read it to understand it properly?","c_root_id_A":"d3vqefe","c_root_id_B":"d3w5bc8","created_at_utc_A":1465050379,"created_at_utc_B":1465077164,"score_A":3,"score_B":6,"human_ref_A":"This comment has been overwritten by an open source script to protect this user's privacy.  It was created to help protect users from doxing, stalking, and harassment.      If you would also like to protect yourself, add the Chrome extension TamperMonkey, or the Firefox extension GreaseMonkey and add this open source script.      Then simply click on your username on Reddit, go to the comments tab, scroll down as far as possibe (hint:use RES), and hit the new OVERWRITE button at the top.       Also, please consider using Voat.co as an alternative to Reddit as Voat does not censor political content.","human_ref_B":"Especially towards the beginning, the commenters so far are absolutely right: Spinoza at times seems to have intentionally rendered his points as obscurely and abstractly as possible.  Here's some advice, though I don't think any of this will make Spinoza entirely clear.  1. Read the book once before re-reading from the beginning.  You'll then be in a position to understand what work he wants the earlier sections to do for him, and how the conclusions he reaches there get more fully fleshed out in the course of the treatise.  2. Try reading some of the work he is responding to and developing on.  He very clearly sees himself working in the Cartesian tradition, for example, so try reading some of Descartes' work (beyond just the *Meditations*, if possible) for background, since it tends to be much more accessible than the *Ethics*.  You also might consider looking at some of Spinoza's earlier work: the *Principles of Cartesian Philosophy*, the *Short Treatise on God, Man, and His Wellbeing*, and the *Emendation of the Intellect*, all of which I, at least, found less opaque and which contain some of the seeds that would see their mature development later on in the Ethics itself.  3. Check out some secondary sources.  I'm not an expert here, but I remember thinking Della Rocca's *Spinoza* being a pretty good introductory text, and I really enjoyed Bennett's *A Study of Spinoza's Ethics*, though I should forewarn that the second of those is harshly opinionated and critical of Spinoza at points, and I'd warn against introducing yourself to a philosopher by way of someone unsympathetic to them.  4. Try reading it with a (dedicated and intelligent) friend and getting together to discuss it every now and again.  When I was in undergrad I helped run a book club partially devoted to the *Ethics*, which I found very helpful for understanding some of the more confusing passages.  Anyway, the *Ethics* is an amazing bit of philosophy, and, despite its intimidating facade, I think you'll find it really rewarding if you're willing to put in the requisite mental effort.  It's hard work, \"but all things excellent are as difficult as they are rare.\"","labels":0,"seconds_difference":26785.0,"score_ratio":2.0}
{"post_id":"4mfrsk","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.97,"history":"How accessible is Spinoza's Ethics, and what should I have read before attempting to read it to understand it properly?","c_root_id_A":"d3w5bc8","c_root_id_B":"d3vdqky","created_at_utc_A":1465077164,"created_at_utc_B":1465012344,"score_A":6,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"Especially towards the beginning, the commenters so far are absolutely right: Spinoza at times seems to have intentionally rendered his points as obscurely and abstractly as possible.  Here's some advice, though I don't think any of this will make Spinoza entirely clear.  1. Read the book once before re-reading from the beginning.  You'll then be in a position to understand what work he wants the earlier sections to do for him, and how the conclusions he reaches there get more fully fleshed out in the course of the treatise.  2. Try reading some of the work he is responding to and developing on.  He very clearly sees himself working in the Cartesian tradition, for example, so try reading some of Descartes' work (beyond just the *Meditations*, if possible) for background, since it tends to be much more accessible than the *Ethics*.  You also might consider looking at some of Spinoza's earlier work: the *Principles of Cartesian Philosophy*, the *Short Treatise on God, Man, and His Wellbeing*, and the *Emendation of the Intellect*, all of which I, at least, found less opaque and which contain some of the seeds that would see their mature development later on in the Ethics itself.  3. Check out some secondary sources.  I'm not an expert here, but I remember thinking Della Rocca's *Spinoza* being a pretty good introductory text, and I really enjoyed Bennett's *A Study of Spinoza's Ethics*, though I should forewarn that the second of those is harshly opinionated and critical of Spinoza at points, and I'd warn against introducing yourself to a philosopher by way of someone unsympathetic to them.  4. Try reading it with a (dedicated and intelligent) friend and getting together to discuss it every now and again.  When I was in undergrad I helped run a book club partially devoted to the *Ethics*, which I found very helpful for understanding some of the more confusing passages.  Anyway, the *Ethics* is an amazing bit of philosophy, and, despite its intimidating facade, I think you'll find it really rewarding if you're willing to put in the requisite mental effort.  It's hard work, \"but all things excellent are as difficult as they are rare.\"","human_ref_B":"I can't reccomend Della Rocca's [*Spinoza*]( https:\/\/www.google.com\/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http:\/\/www.amazon.com\/Spinoza-Routledge-Philosophers-Michael-Della\/dp\/0415283302&ved=0ahUKEwj3zuGBvI3NAhUUU2MKHZDFCCoQFggbMAA&usg=AFQjCNGdhiAUgcp9dxrdyeUBaE5sM_tXAw&sig2=YPKrOzgscgRuYzGV9AWdHg  ) enough. It makes it so much easier.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":64820.0,"score_ratio":3.0}
{"post_id":"4mfrsk","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.97,"history":"How accessible is Spinoza's Ethics, and what should I have read before attempting to read it to understand it properly?","c_root_id_A":"d3vifjp","c_root_id_B":"d3w5bc8","created_at_utc_A":1465023884,"created_at_utc_B":1465077164,"score_A":2,"score_B":6,"human_ref_A":"I'm a little surprised by the responses in this thread. When I read the text as a freshman it was admittedly difficult, although not that much more difficult than other early-modern philosophy. I'm not sure what I would read to inform the text (esp. Not Deleuze, although I'm sure it would be an interesting text for an initiate) but...  I would recommend reading the axioms very carefully, perhaps even making an annotated cheat sheet (I.e. A list of the axioms and your best interpretation of them, including definitions) to bring with you as you read the rest of the text.","human_ref_B":"Especially towards the beginning, the commenters so far are absolutely right: Spinoza at times seems to have intentionally rendered his points as obscurely and abstractly as possible.  Here's some advice, though I don't think any of this will make Spinoza entirely clear.  1. Read the book once before re-reading from the beginning.  You'll then be in a position to understand what work he wants the earlier sections to do for him, and how the conclusions he reaches there get more fully fleshed out in the course of the treatise.  2. Try reading some of the work he is responding to and developing on.  He very clearly sees himself working in the Cartesian tradition, for example, so try reading some of Descartes' work (beyond just the *Meditations*, if possible) for background, since it tends to be much more accessible than the *Ethics*.  You also might consider looking at some of Spinoza's earlier work: the *Principles of Cartesian Philosophy*, the *Short Treatise on God, Man, and His Wellbeing*, and the *Emendation of the Intellect*, all of which I, at least, found less opaque and which contain some of the seeds that would see their mature development later on in the Ethics itself.  3. Check out some secondary sources.  I'm not an expert here, but I remember thinking Della Rocca's *Spinoza* being a pretty good introductory text, and I really enjoyed Bennett's *A Study of Spinoza's Ethics*, though I should forewarn that the second of those is harshly opinionated and critical of Spinoza at points, and I'd warn against introducing yourself to a philosopher by way of someone unsympathetic to them.  4. Try reading it with a (dedicated and intelligent) friend and getting together to discuss it every now and again.  When I was in undergrad I helped run a book club partially devoted to the *Ethics*, which I found very helpful for understanding some of the more confusing passages.  Anyway, the *Ethics* is an amazing bit of philosophy, and, despite its intimidating facade, I think you'll find it really rewarding if you're willing to put in the requisite mental effort.  It's hard work, \"but all things excellent are as difficult as they are rare.\"","labels":0,"seconds_difference":53280.0,"score_ratio":3.0}
{"post_id":"4mfrsk","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.97,"history":"How accessible is Spinoza's Ethics, and what should I have read before attempting to read it to understand it properly?","c_root_id_A":"d3vi9tk","c_root_id_B":"d3v8upd","created_at_utc_A":1465023375,"created_at_utc_B":1465003583,"score_A":5,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"Very unaccessible. I took a grad class in Spinoza, we spent more than the first week of class just on the first page. There was lots of confusion to be had and many arguments over his definitions. Admittedly, we were digging really deep, but nonetheless.","human_ref_B":"Not sure if you're asking for historical precedents or secondary literature, but as far as secondary literature Deleuze's Spinoza: Practical Philosophy provides a pretty good overview.  The glossary chapter is somewhat dense, however, but worth working through depending on how interested you are in Spinoza.  Personally I found the Ethics accessible, at least compared to a lot of philosophy.  It proceeds by the geometric method so you can read the chapters in reverse.  I read it this way and found that the conclusions provided a lot of color for the foundations laid out in the earlier chapters, which otherwise can come across as fairly abstract.  There are a bunch of interesting things in the ethics.  My personal favorite is probably the taxonomy of emotions, which I found to be really eye-opening.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":19792.0,"score_ratio":1.6666666667}
{"post_id":"4mfrsk","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.97,"history":"How accessible is Spinoza's Ethics, and what should I have read before attempting to read it to understand it properly?","c_root_id_A":"d3vdqky","c_root_id_B":"d3vi9tk","created_at_utc_A":1465012344,"created_at_utc_B":1465023375,"score_A":2,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"I can't reccomend Della Rocca's [*Spinoza*]( https:\/\/www.google.com\/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http:\/\/www.amazon.com\/Spinoza-Routledge-Philosophers-Michael-Della\/dp\/0415283302&ved=0ahUKEwj3zuGBvI3NAhUUU2MKHZDFCCoQFggbMAA&usg=AFQjCNGdhiAUgcp9dxrdyeUBaE5sM_tXAw&sig2=YPKrOzgscgRuYzGV9AWdHg  ) enough. It makes it so much easier.","human_ref_B":"Very unaccessible. I took a grad class in Spinoza, we spent more than the first week of class just on the first page. There was lots of confusion to be had and many arguments over his definitions. Admittedly, we were digging really deep, but nonetheless.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":11031.0,"score_ratio":2.5}
{"post_id":"4mfrsk","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.97,"history":"How accessible is Spinoza's Ethics, and what should I have read before attempting to read it to understand it properly?","c_root_id_A":"d3vdqky","c_root_id_B":"d3vqefe","created_at_utc_A":1465012344,"created_at_utc_B":1465050379,"score_A":2,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"I can't reccomend Della Rocca's [*Spinoza*]( https:\/\/www.google.com\/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http:\/\/www.amazon.com\/Spinoza-Routledge-Philosophers-Michael-Della\/dp\/0415283302&ved=0ahUKEwj3zuGBvI3NAhUUU2MKHZDFCCoQFggbMAA&usg=AFQjCNGdhiAUgcp9dxrdyeUBaE5sM_tXAw&sig2=YPKrOzgscgRuYzGV9AWdHg  ) enough. It makes it so much easier.","human_ref_B":"This comment has been overwritten by an open source script to protect this user's privacy.  It was created to help protect users from doxing, stalking, and harassment.      If you would also like to protect yourself, add the Chrome extension TamperMonkey, or the Firefox extension GreaseMonkey and add this open source script.      Then simply click on your username on Reddit, go to the comments tab, scroll down as far as possibe (hint:use RES), and hit the new OVERWRITE button at the top.       Also, please consider using Voat.co as an alternative to Reddit as Voat does not censor political content.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":38035.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
{"post_id":"4mfrsk","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.97,"history":"How accessible is Spinoza's Ethics, and what should I have read before attempting to read it to understand it properly?","c_root_id_A":"d3vifjp","c_root_id_B":"d3vqefe","created_at_utc_A":1465023884,"created_at_utc_B":1465050379,"score_A":2,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"I'm a little surprised by the responses in this thread. When I read the text as a freshman it was admittedly difficult, although not that much more difficult than other early-modern philosophy. I'm not sure what I would read to inform the text (esp. Not Deleuze, although I'm sure it would be an interesting text for an initiate) but...  I would recommend reading the axioms very carefully, perhaps even making an annotated cheat sheet (I.e. A list of the axioms and your best interpretation of them, including definitions) to bring with you as you read the rest of the text.","human_ref_B":"This comment has been overwritten by an open source script to protect this user's privacy.  It was created to help protect users from doxing, stalking, and harassment.      If you would also like to protect yourself, add the Chrome extension TamperMonkey, or the Firefox extension GreaseMonkey and add this open source script.      Then simply click on your username on Reddit, go to the comments tab, scroll down as far as possibe (hint:use RES), and hit the new OVERWRITE button at the top.       Also, please consider using Voat.co as an alternative to Reddit as Voat does not censor political content.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":26495.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
{"post_id":"4uoda9","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.85,"history":"I keep hearing that Ayn Rand's Objective Epistemology is bad philosophy. What did she say that was convincing or unconvincing?","c_root_id_A":"d5sb3lf","c_root_id_B":"d5s3o5q","created_at_utc_A":1469580069,"created_at_utc_B":1469570161,"score_A":5,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"I'm a libertarian myself, so I'm saying this from a perspective already pretty sympathetic with *some* of the things she says: Ayn Rand was a cult leader. If you want the quickest answer for why she was a bad philosopher, you really just need to know that she didn't seriously engage anyone else in the field. In her mind and the mind of her followers, she was the first \"real\" philosopher since Aristotle, or maybe Thomas Aquinas if she's feeling especially charitable. She answers the questions that plague modern philosophy by simply ignoring them and dismissing people that *do* take these questions seriously as trying to \"avoid the obvious\" or \"obscure reality\".  Take her treatment of Descartes in \"For the New Intellectual\" for example:  >>Descartes began with the basic epistemological premise of every Witch Doctor (a premise he shared explicitly with Augustine): \u201cthe prior certainty of consciousness,\u201d the belief that the existence of an external world is not self-evident, but must be proved by deduction from the contents of one\u2019s consciousness\u2014which means: the concept of consciousness as some faculty other than the faculty of perception\u2014which means: the indiscriminate contents of one\u2019s consciousness as the irreducible primary and absolute, to which reality has to conform. What followed was the grotesquely tragic spectacle of philosophers struggling to prove the existence of an external world by staring, with the Witch Doctor\u2019s blind, inward stare, at the random twists of their conceptions\u2014then of perceptions\u2014then of sensations.  >>When the medieval Witch Doctor had merely ordered men to doubt the validity of their mind, the philosophers\u2019 rebellion against him consisted of proclaiming that they doubted whether man was conscious at all and whether anything existed for him to be conscious of.  If that wasn't enough reason to dismiss her already, the *huge* leaps of logic are, and if you press her on any of them you only find more \"stop negating your consciousness\" garbage. And you're going to get a *ton* of jumps since she's not bothering to explain how she gets to her conclusion because \"it's obvious\", as well as her trying to combine things that just can't work together. She simultaneously tries to argue egoism, that every man is in it for himself, while also arguing a system of natural rights, where you can't violate the property rights of another *even when it's your own interest to do so*. The especially weird thing is that that could easily be made into a more palatable system if she were to simply give utilitarian arguments to respect rights as an egoist, but no, she goes in whole hog to argue natural rights that it's objectively wrong to violate no matter what, and only moochers would ever disagree with her on that.  And to put the cherry on top, she was just an all-around unpleasant human being, and her novels are basically self-insert romantic trash novels punctuated by 50 page long speeches that all read like the above quote.","human_ref_B":"I thought I'd add some points myself.  1. I studied philosophy as an undergrad in the UK and Ayn Rand's philosophy is totally absent from study here. Other right wing philosophers are studied, so this isn't because of an institutional bias against her ideology. I think that outside of her cult status in the states her ideas have no purchase - they're like homeopathy.  2. The idea that any author can see their system of philosophy and especially moral and political philosophy can be 100% objectively correct suggests a need for certainty that is anathema to philosophical enquiry. I've always seen Ayn Rand as someone liked by Americans who aren't actually interested in probing ambiguous moral situations; people that want to stop thinking and have the firm,correct answer to their lives immediately so that they can start making money. She genuinely believes that she has access to the truth of the world absolutely.  3. I've read the Virtue of Selfishness and she initiates her entire philosophy by basing her work on a kind of realistic phenomenology where conclusions about morality can be achieved by looking at how people seek pleasure and recoil from pain - and while it may be true that people have psychological instincts, I don't think there's any attempt to join that to the principle of a social darwinist capitalist society. Her attempts to give her work an intellectual foundation demonstrate how inept she is at such a task.  4. She died in receipt of state benefits, so even she couldn't sustainably live the way she expected her followers to.  That's before we get to the point of whether her ideas make for a better society or even benefit the individuals following them.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":9908.0,"score_ratio":1.6666666667}
{"post_id":"mbgrmf","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.97,"history":"How does Kant's 'I think' compare to Descartes' cogito? Both philosophers have written about epistemology, and Descartes being a famous rationalist (cogito ergo sum) and Kant on the other hand made a more or less unification of rationalism and empiricism (in his Critique of Pure Reason). But how does the Cartesian cogito and the Kantian I think compare to one another?","c_root_id_A":"gs0mxdf","c_root_id_B":"gs0pitw","created_at_utc_A":1616562914,"created_at_utc_B":1616565049,"score_A":5,"score_B":6,"human_ref_A":"Kant's \"I think\" has to accompany every intuitional representation that you have. This is not the case for Descartes if I remember correctly.","human_ref_B":"There are probably quite a few ways to answer this question, but one common theme that is hit upon by various readers has to do with the source of errors in thought. In Descartes, the source of errors in thought is always 'external' to the subject. The most emblematic moment of this is the Evil Genius who attempts to deceive Descartes about absolutely everything, only for Descartes to discover that he cannot doubt *that* he is doubting. For Descartes, errors in thought are always 'forced errors' (not Descartes term), cases of misrecognition. In Kant, by contrast, errors in thought can arise by virtue of thought itself: errors can arise when reason is 'illigitimately employed' beyond the boundaries set by sensibility (this is the 'pure reason' that Kant aims to critique). In Kant, these give rise to what he calls 'transcendental illusions', which are not merely 'empirical' errors, (mistaking a coat for a person, for instance), but errors endemic to thought, despite and in fact because of, a lack of 'external' sensory input.  Here for instance, is Zizek, remarking on this change, and what its implications for the status of the 'subject' itself are: \"This is what changes with the Kantian revolution: in the pre-Kantian universe, humans were simply humans, beings of reason, fighting the excesses of animal lusts and divine madness, while only with Kant and German Idealism, the excess to be fought is absolutely immanent, the very core of subjectivity itself (which is why, with German Idealism, the metaphor for the core of subjectivity is Night, \"Night of the World,\" in contrast to the Enlightenment notion of the Light of Reason fighting the darkness around). So when, in the pre-Kantian universe, a hero goes mad, it means he is deprived of his humanity, i.e., the animal passions or divine madness took over, while with Kant, madness signals the unconstrained explosion of the very core of a human being.\" (Zizek, *The Ticklish Subject*)  Deleuze and Guattari make a surprisingly similar assessment of the shift from Descartes to Kant: \"Descartes makes error the feature or direction that expresses what is in principle negative in thought.... \\[but\\] there is an even greater change when Kant shows that thought is threatened less by error than by inevitable illusions that come from within reason, as if from an internal arctic zone where the needle of every compass goes mad. A reorientation of the whole of thought becomes necessary at the same time as it is in principle penetrated by a certain delirium\". (*What Is Philosophy?*) What D&G call 'delirum' here is in Kant an inherent possibility ('in principle') of thought going off-track, as it were, rather than thought going wrong 'in fact'. Another way to put all this is that by effecting a shift in the source of error, Kant also effects a shift in the status of the thinker (the 'cogito') itself. The thinker in Kant is no longer cohesive and substantial (literally, a *res cogitans* a 'thinking thing' or 'thinking substance') but instead becomes simply a formal condition of thought whose status is indeterminate. Zizek again:  \"What, then, marks the break between Descartes' *cogito* and Kant's \"I\" of transcendental apperception? The key to it is offered by Kant's Wittgensteinian remark, aimed at Descartes, that it is not legitimate to use \"I think\" as a complete phrase, since it calls for a continuation - \"I think that... (it will rain, you are right, we shall win...).\" According to Kant, Descartes falls prey to the \"subreption of the hypostasized consciousness\": he wrongly concludes that, in the empty \"I think\" which accompanies every representation of an object, we get hold of a positive phenomenal entity, *res cogitans* (a \"small piece of the world,\" as Husserl put it), which thinks and is transparent to itself in its capacity to think. In other words, self-consciousness renders self-present and self-transparent the \"thing\" in me which thinks. What is lost thereby is the topological discord between the form \"I think\" and the substance which thinks, i.e., the distinction between the analytical proposition on the identity of the logical subject of thought, contained in \"I think,\" and the synthetical proposition on the identity of a person *qua* thinking thing-substance.\" (*Tarrying With the Negative*)  Again, this kind of approach is not the only way (or even an uncontested way) to think about the difference between Descartes and Kant on the \"I\", but it is one crops up from time to time which I'm particularly fond of.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":2135.0,"score_ratio":1.2}
{"post_id":"mbgrmf","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.97,"history":"How does Kant's 'I think' compare to Descartes' cogito? Both philosophers have written about epistemology, and Descartes being a famous rationalist (cogito ergo sum) and Kant on the other hand made a more or less unification of rationalism and empiricism (in his Critique of Pure Reason). But how does the Cartesian cogito and the Kantian I think compare to one another?","c_root_id_A":"gs1itu1","c_root_id_B":"gs1oodd","created_at_utc_A":1616589945,"created_at_utc_B":1616592986,"score_A":3,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"For Descartes, the I think indicates the existence thinking substance. For Kant, this inference is illegitimate : the I think only implies a subject, and for him Descartes has hypostasied the subject (Husserl will make a similar critic) (but contemporary Descartes commentators can nuance this critic)","human_ref_B":"This is a very interesting question but also one where our answer will depend very much on our interpretation of either philosopher's views about the I.    To give one example: It is far from a settled question in Kant scholarship how we should interpret Kant's demand that \"the I think must be able to accompany all of my representations\" and thus how we should interpret the status of apperception (Kant's name for the 'I think'). On one interpretation apperception and Kant's demand is interpreted as the demand for the possible self-ascription of representations. Thus Kant's 'I think' is the name for the fact that whenever I have a representation, I must also be able to think that I have that representation and the 'I think' or apperception is a higher-order activity of mind not immediately or necessarily part of our first-order cognition of objects or even of our selves. If we hold such an interpretation we might say that the Kantian 'I think' is quite different from the Cartesian 'cogito' insofar as we take the 'cogito' to signify some kind of immediate knowledge of self. On top of that, some holders of this view of apperception will argue that the self of apperception is fully transparent (i.e. we know in each instance that we accompany our representations with an I think and therefore I can in principle know every representation contained within me), this we might think sound similar to Decartes who (to my knowledge at least) do not place any barrier on what the I can know about itself. But some influential Kant scholars deny this transparency-view of apperception. And if we do that we might think the cogito and apperception are quite different.    Now, even if we think (as some do) that apperception involves some kind of immediate self-relation similar to the Cartesian cogito, there are some obvious differences. For one, as also mention briefly in the quotation from Deleuze and Guatari presented by u\/Streetli, for Descartes the cogito signifies some kind of self-knowledge or self-cognition in which the self is considered as a kind of object or thing; namely, a res cogitans or thinking thing. Thus in the cogito I have immediate knowledge of what I am (a thinking thing) because I know that I am in knowing how I am (I am in the mode of thinking or exist as thinking). This is not the case for Kant who denies that I can infer anything from the fact that I am aware of the activity of thinking other that \"that I am\". One way to put this, which contrasts nicely with Descartes, is that for Kant I can only relate to myself as a subject and never know myself as an object (apart from how I appear to myself in inner-sense).    Thus one major difference between the Cartesian 'cogito' and Kantian apperception is in the scope of self-cognition they afford. For Kant, all we have in the 'I think' is a mere representation of the activity of thinking (or maybe of the thing that thinks) but that does not allow us to say anything other that I in some sense am as the agent of thought and must think of myself in this way.  For Descartes, we not only get certainty *that* we exist, but also *how or as what* we exist. And what we know for Descartes is not just a type of subject but a type of object as well. (Kant actually goes to great lengths to criticize this way of thinking of the subject as an object of knowledge in the Critique of Pure Reason in the section called the Paralogisms of Pure Reason)","labels":0,"seconds_difference":3041.0,"score_ratio":1.3333333333}
{"post_id":"bkrrv2","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.92,"history":"Are there continental philosophers who do analyses of analytic philosophy? I was wondering if there where any continental philosophers who do analyses of specific debates, or problems, in analytic philosophy, I means this in the theoretical sense of say trying to analyse the specific background epistemic assumptions\/conditions of the discourse, I suppose kinda similar to Foucault's notion of episteme or what Bruno Latour does in we have never been modern with analysing the 'constitution'.","c_root_id_A":"emjf9gp","c_root_id_B":"emj3rpa","created_at_utc_A":1557028027,"created_at_utc_B":1557018275,"score_A":6,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"Adorno\u2019s \u201cMetacritique of Epistemology\u201d is a critique of early analytic philosophy and Husserlian phenomenology.  Edit: you might also be interested in Clifford Geertz\u2019s \u201cThick Description\u201d in *Interpretation of Cultures,* where he lays out his project and explains how he\u2019s drawing on Ryle, Wittgenstein, and Ric\u0153ur.  Edit: Two other people you may look into are Andrew Cutrofello and Markus Gabriel. Both engage both analytic and continental philosophy, in an interesting range of valences.  Also, a lot of feminist philosophy and critical race theory engage both \"traditions\" in interesting and heterodox ways, which prove illuminating and fruitful.","human_ref_B":"You might find Livingston's *Philosophical History and the Problem of Consciousness* relevant and interesting.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":9752.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
{"post_id":"13vqbl","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.8,"history":"How does Marx counter the argument that in communism people are  demotivated to work because it isn't directly making them money? This is something i wondered for quite a long time. I myself can think of some ways, but I wonder what Marx thought about it.","c_root_id_A":"c77lvle","c_root_id_B":"c77pc1q","created_at_utc_A":1354039260,"created_at_utc_B":1354050707,"score_A":22,"score_B":32,"human_ref_A":"You might find other good answers over at \/r\/debatecommunism  I wouldn't even go straight to Marx, I'd just challenge your premise straight-up: http:\/\/www.ted.com\/talks\/dan_pink_on_motivation.html  But, for Marx, I'm not actually sure that this directly entered the equation. I'd say that it's more that Marx asserted the opposite: alienation means that we are 'demotivated to work' because of the social relations involved in market exchange and surplus value-extraction.  Thank God it's Friday!","human_ref_B":"Well for Marx technology developed under capitalism solved the problem scarcity in materials for reproduction.  In a communist society human labor, or rather, human praxis, is liberated from the commodity form.  Under capitalism your labor is a commodity that is traded and exploited on the market.  So it is understandable from a capitalist paradigm that is a problem; why would you work more for less return when other people can work less for more return.  In communism that should be an absurdity because labor is not a commodity for exchange.  Instead you act to exercise your humanity as a social being and take joy in sharing that with others.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":11447.0,"score_ratio":1.4545454545}
{"post_id":"13vqbl","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.8,"history":"How does Marx counter the argument that in communism people are  demotivated to work because it isn't directly making them money? This is something i wondered for quite a long time. I myself can think of some ways, but I wonder what Marx thought about it.","c_root_id_A":"c77pc1q","c_root_id_B":"c77lxdm","created_at_utc_A":1354050707,"created_at_utc_B":1354039430,"score_A":32,"score_B":11,"human_ref_A":"Well for Marx technology developed under capitalism solved the problem scarcity in materials for reproduction.  In a communist society human labor, or rather, human praxis, is liberated from the commodity form.  Under capitalism your labor is a commodity that is traded and exploited on the market.  So it is understandable from a capitalist paradigm that is a problem; why would you work more for less return when other people can work less for more return.  In communism that should be an absurdity because labor is not a commodity for exchange.  Instead you act to exercise your humanity as a social being and take joy in sharing that with others.","human_ref_B":"Because they would ideally enjoy it.  Most doctors for example, become doctors because they like to help people, rather than because they want to make money.  Likewise, a lot of engineers and scientists etc. really enjoy what they do.  This is harder to justify for more menial jobs, but the idea is that everyone would recognise that these jobs need to get done regardless of how enjoyable they are, and therefore they'll do it for the good of society.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":11277.0,"score_ratio":2.9090909091}
{"post_id":"13vqbl","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.8,"history":"How does Marx counter the argument that in communism people are  demotivated to work because it isn't directly making them money? This is something i wondered for quite a long time. I myself can think of some ways, but I wonder what Marx thought about it.","c_root_id_A":"c77pc1q","c_root_id_B":"c77ni3p","created_at_utc_A":1354050707,"created_at_utc_B":1354044807,"score_A":32,"score_B":8,"human_ref_A":"Well for Marx technology developed under capitalism solved the problem scarcity in materials for reproduction.  In a communist society human labor, or rather, human praxis, is liberated from the commodity form.  Under capitalism your labor is a commodity that is traded and exploited on the market.  So it is understandable from a capitalist paradigm that is a problem; why would you work more for less return when other people can work less for more return.  In communism that should be an absurdity because labor is not a commodity for exchange.  Instead you act to exercise your humanity as a social being and take joy in sharing that with others.","human_ref_B":"I think the answer for Marx would lie in his historical materialism.  The prevailing ideas\/motivations of people in a capitalist society are largely a product of class relations and the relationship to the means of production.  The capitalist system leads to the alienation of labor and the kind of consciousness that you describe. By changing the means of production to a communist system the effects of the alienation of labor and the relation to the means of production are fundamentally changed.  This would mean that the capitalist ideology\/mindset would no longer exist as we currently experience it.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":5900.0,"score_ratio":4.0}
{"post_id":"13vqbl","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.8,"history":"How does Marx counter the argument that in communism people are  demotivated to work because it isn't directly making them money? This is something i wondered for quite a long time. I myself can think of some ways, but I wonder what Marx thought about it.","c_root_id_A":"c77mhe4","c_root_id_B":"c77pc1q","created_at_utc_A":1354041352,"created_at_utc_B":1354050707,"score_A":3,"score_B":32,"human_ref_A":"An indirectly-related line of thought is that once class distinctions are no longer being maintained through engineered scarcity via the systemic destruction of wealth, technology afforded by capitalist production will fill its potential, a successful economy will be measured by leisure rather than employment, and one will willingly take up vocational work rather than slave labor. Or, one will just chill and do the sort of thing Aristotle laid out in his Ethics, learning for learning's sake and whatnot.  Wealth incinerators like the War on Drugs and gargantuan weapons production in the U.S. will come to a close, and the wealth that is no longer being incinerated will contribute to the real standard of living, reducing the need for labor and thereby increasing leisure.  Can we human beings handle the freedom from toil?","human_ref_B":"Well for Marx technology developed under capitalism solved the problem scarcity in materials for reproduction.  In a communist society human labor, or rather, human praxis, is liberated from the commodity form.  Under capitalism your labor is a commodity that is traded and exploited on the market.  So it is understandable from a capitalist paradigm that is a problem; why would you work more for less return when other people can work less for more return.  In communism that should be an absurdity because labor is not a commodity for exchange.  Instead you act to exercise your humanity as a social being and take joy in sharing that with others.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":9355.0,"score_ratio":10.6666666667}
{"post_id":"13vqbl","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.8,"history":"How does Marx counter the argument that in communism people are  demotivated to work because it isn't directly making them money? This is something i wondered for quite a long time. I myself can think of some ways, but I wonder what Marx thought about it.","c_root_id_A":"c77pc1q","c_root_id_B":"c77nnf6","created_at_utc_A":1354050707,"created_at_utc_B":1354045289,"score_A":32,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"Well for Marx technology developed under capitalism solved the problem scarcity in materials for reproduction.  In a communist society human labor, or rather, human praxis, is liberated from the commodity form.  Under capitalism your labor is a commodity that is traded and exploited on the market.  So it is understandable from a capitalist paradigm that is a problem; why would you work more for less return when other people can work less for more return.  In communism that should be an absurdity because labor is not a commodity for exchange.  Instead you act to exercise your humanity as a social being and take joy in sharing that with others.","human_ref_B":"Marx thought that money was a false motivation - he believed that in today's world people suffered from \"alienation\" because they were disconnected from what they created. So Marx would in fact say that removing money would in fact improve life standards by removing the basis for the capitalist society which was causing the alienation.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":5418.0,"score_ratio":10.6666666667}
{"post_id":"13vqbl","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.8,"history":"How does Marx counter the argument that in communism people are  demotivated to work because it isn't directly making them money? This is something i wondered for quite a long time. I myself can think of some ways, but I wonder what Marx thought about it.","c_root_id_A":"c77mhe4","c_root_id_B":"c77ni3p","created_at_utc_A":1354041352,"created_at_utc_B":1354044807,"score_A":3,"score_B":8,"human_ref_A":"An indirectly-related line of thought is that once class distinctions are no longer being maintained through engineered scarcity via the systemic destruction of wealth, technology afforded by capitalist production will fill its potential, a successful economy will be measured by leisure rather than employment, and one will willingly take up vocational work rather than slave labor. Or, one will just chill and do the sort of thing Aristotle laid out in his Ethics, learning for learning's sake and whatnot.  Wealth incinerators like the War on Drugs and gargantuan weapons production in the U.S. will come to a close, and the wealth that is no longer being incinerated will contribute to the real standard of living, reducing the need for labor and thereby increasing leisure.  Can we human beings handle the freedom from toil?","human_ref_B":"I think the answer for Marx would lie in his historical materialism.  The prevailing ideas\/motivations of people in a capitalist society are largely a product of class relations and the relationship to the means of production.  The capitalist system leads to the alienation of labor and the kind of consciousness that you describe. By changing the means of production to a communist system the effects of the alienation of labor and the relation to the means of production are fundamentally changed.  This would mean that the capitalist ideology\/mindset would no longer exist as we currently experience it.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":3455.0,"score_ratio":2.6666666667}
{"post_id":"13vqbl","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.8,"history":"How does Marx counter the argument that in communism people are  demotivated to work because it isn't directly making them money? This is something i wondered for quite a long time. I myself can think of some ways, but I wonder what Marx thought about it.","c_root_id_A":"c77teji","c_root_id_B":"c77mhe4","created_at_utc_A":1354064813,"created_at_utc_B":1354041352,"score_A":5,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"There are a lot of things that preface this question and answer, so let me start with one of them.    One of them you have to realize is that to marx, the problem *IS* money.   Let me try to explain without overloading you with too much information.  Firstly, in the eyes of capitalism, marx believes that commodities have \"value\" because of the amount of labor required to produce them. wheat doesn't inherently cost a lot because it's wheat, but because of the amount of effort to make it\/find it\/grow it\/ produce it. So what we're really coming down to what gives \"value\" is social labor.  Now we say social labor because it's not always exact labor.  the cost of labor changes with varying technologies, say the cotton gin or with the loom.  It's really a \"understood level of labor\"    So now we get down to the nitty gritty,  because the essence of what marx argues is wrong with capitalism\/money. Is that there is a lot of getting something for nothing. That people in a Marxist system are actually getting something for something and that inherent instant gratification is what is valuable to people in the system.    Now  suppose that the  average  amount  of the  daily necessaries of a laboring man require six hours of average  labor for their  production. Suppose, moreover,  six hours of average labor to be also realized in a quantity of gold  equal to  3s. Then  3s. would  be the Price,  or the monetary  expression  of the Daily  Value of that  man\u2019s Laboring Power. If he worked daily six hours he would daily  produce  a  value  sufficient  to  buy  the  average amount of his daily necessaries, or to maintain himself as a laboring man.  But our man is a wages laborer. He must, therefore, sell his laboring power to a capitalist. If he sells it at 3s. daily, or 18s. weekly, he sells it at its value. Suppose him to be a spinner. If he works six hours daily he will add to the cotton a value of 3s. daily. This value, daily added by him, would be an exact equivalent for the wages, or the price  of his laboring power,  received daily. But in that case,  no  surplus  value or surplus  produce whatever would  go to the  capitalist.   Here, then, we  come to the rub.  In  buying the  laboring  power  of the  workman,  and paying  its  value,  the  capitalist,  like  every  other  purchaser,  has  acquired the  right to  consume  or  use the commodity  bought.  You  consume  or  use  the  laboring power of a man by making him work, as you consume or use a machine by making it run. By buying the daily or weekly value of the laboring power of the workman, the capitalist  has, therefore,  acquired the  right to  use  or make that laboring power work during the whole day or week.      Let me know if you follow this far or if I need to answer any questions before continuing on.","human_ref_B":"An indirectly-related line of thought is that once class distinctions are no longer being maintained through engineered scarcity via the systemic destruction of wealth, technology afforded by capitalist production will fill its potential, a successful economy will be measured by leisure rather than employment, and one will willingly take up vocational work rather than slave labor. Or, one will just chill and do the sort of thing Aristotle laid out in his Ethics, learning for learning's sake and whatnot.  Wealth incinerators like the War on Drugs and gargantuan weapons production in the U.S. will come to a close, and the wealth that is no longer being incinerated will contribute to the real standard of living, reducing the need for labor and thereby increasing leisure.  Can we human beings handle the freedom from toil?","labels":1,"seconds_difference":23461.0,"score_ratio":1.6666666667}
{"post_id":"13vqbl","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.8,"history":"How does Marx counter the argument that in communism people are  demotivated to work because it isn't directly making them money? This is something i wondered for quite a long time. I myself can think of some ways, but I wonder what Marx thought about it.","c_root_id_A":"c77nnf6","c_root_id_B":"c77teji","created_at_utc_A":1354045289,"created_at_utc_B":1354064813,"score_A":3,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"Marx thought that money was a false motivation - he believed that in today's world people suffered from \"alienation\" because they were disconnected from what they created. So Marx would in fact say that removing money would in fact improve life standards by removing the basis for the capitalist society which was causing the alienation.","human_ref_B":"There are a lot of things that preface this question and answer, so let me start with one of them.    One of them you have to realize is that to marx, the problem *IS* money.   Let me try to explain without overloading you with too much information.  Firstly, in the eyes of capitalism, marx believes that commodities have \"value\" because of the amount of labor required to produce them. wheat doesn't inherently cost a lot because it's wheat, but because of the amount of effort to make it\/find it\/grow it\/ produce it. So what we're really coming down to what gives \"value\" is social labor.  Now we say social labor because it's not always exact labor.  the cost of labor changes with varying technologies, say the cotton gin or with the loom.  It's really a \"understood level of labor\"    So now we get down to the nitty gritty,  because the essence of what marx argues is wrong with capitalism\/money. Is that there is a lot of getting something for nothing. That people in a Marxist system are actually getting something for something and that inherent instant gratification is what is valuable to people in the system.    Now  suppose that the  average  amount  of the  daily necessaries of a laboring man require six hours of average  labor for their  production. Suppose, moreover,  six hours of average labor to be also realized in a quantity of gold  equal to  3s. Then  3s. would  be the Price,  or the monetary  expression  of the Daily  Value of that  man\u2019s Laboring Power. If he worked daily six hours he would daily  produce  a  value  sufficient  to  buy  the  average amount of his daily necessaries, or to maintain himself as a laboring man.  But our man is a wages laborer. He must, therefore, sell his laboring power to a capitalist. If he sells it at 3s. daily, or 18s. weekly, he sells it at its value. Suppose him to be a spinner. If he works six hours daily he will add to the cotton a value of 3s. daily. This value, daily added by him, would be an exact equivalent for the wages, or the price  of his laboring power,  received daily. But in that case,  no  surplus  value or surplus  produce whatever would  go to the  capitalist.   Here, then, we  come to the rub.  In  buying the  laboring  power  of the  workman,  and paying  its  value,  the  capitalist,  like  every  other  purchaser,  has  acquired the  right to  consume  or  use the commodity  bought.  You  consume  or  use  the  laboring power of a man by making him work, as you consume or use a machine by making it run. By buying the daily or weekly value of the laboring power of the workman, the capitalist  has, therefore,  acquired the  right to  use  or make that laboring power work during the whole day or week.      Let me know if you follow this far or if I need to answer any questions before continuing on.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":19524.0,"score_ratio":1.6666666667}
{"post_id":"306kyw","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":1.0,"history":"Is anyone here familiar with process philosophy, more specifically as developed by Alfred North Whitehead? I'm fascinated by the cosmological framework he built, most notably in Process and Reality. It does seem to be to be a viable contender for a metaphysics which can be scaled up and down to incorporate the very large and very small. I'm curious as to whether or not any Redditors share my interest in this field, as I don't see process thought being discussed often here and on r\/philosophy.","c_root_id_A":"cppmjhq","c_root_id_B":"cpprxoh","created_at_utc_A":1427238074,"created_at_utc_B":1427247191,"score_A":3,"score_B":19,"human_ref_A":"This is honestly the first I've ever heard of process philosophy or Alfred North Whitehead.   I'm gonna plop this down just incase people want to read more. http:\/\/plato.stanford.edu\/entries\/process-philosophy\/","human_ref_B":"A particularly lucid example for understanding process ontogenesis for example, can be found in Jorge Luis Borges' description of language on the planet Tl\u00f6n, whose inhabitants take process as their default:   'For example, there is no noun that corresponds to our word \u201cmoon\u201d, but there is a verb... \u201cto moonate\u201d or \u201cto enmoon\u201d. \u201cThe moon rose above the river\u201d... translates [as] \u201cUpward, behind the onstreaming it mooned\u201d'  (2000, pp. 13).   **i.e, process philosophy is dope y'all.**   It should be our default metaphysics. It has such enormous implications for ethics and politics too, and areas outside of philosophy - just as a fundamental assumption - because it leads us to understand everything in a radically different and more constructive fashion.   Man process philosophy is the shit.   I love process philosophy.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":9117.0,"score_ratio":6.3333333333}
{"post_id":"306kyw","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":1.0,"history":"Is anyone here familiar with process philosophy, more specifically as developed by Alfred North Whitehead? I'm fascinated by the cosmological framework he built, most notably in Process and Reality. It does seem to be to be a viable contender for a metaphysics which can be scaled up and down to incorporate the very large and very small. I'm curious as to whether or not any Redditors share my interest in this field, as I don't see process thought being discussed often here and on r\/philosophy.","c_root_id_A":"cpprxoh","c_root_id_B":"cppnlys","created_at_utc_A":1427247191,"created_at_utc_B":1427239877,"score_A":19,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"A particularly lucid example for understanding process ontogenesis for example, can be found in Jorge Luis Borges' description of language on the planet Tl\u00f6n, whose inhabitants take process as their default:   'For example, there is no noun that corresponds to our word \u201cmoon\u201d, but there is a verb... \u201cto moonate\u201d or \u201cto enmoon\u201d. \u201cThe moon rose above the river\u201d... translates [as] \u201cUpward, behind the onstreaming it mooned\u201d'  (2000, pp. 13).   **i.e, process philosophy is dope y'all.**   It should be our default metaphysics. It has such enormous implications for ethics and politics too, and areas outside of philosophy - just as a fundamental assumption - because it leads us to understand everything in a radically different and more constructive fashion.   Man process philosophy is the shit.   I love process philosophy.","human_ref_B":"I'm actually quite interested in Whitehead. I know a bit about him. I'm especially impressed with his ideas about reification. The notion that we should set our base level at the level of experience is very intuitive to me.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":7314.0,"score_ratio":6.3333333333}
{"post_id":"306kyw","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":1.0,"history":"Is anyone here familiar with process philosophy, more specifically as developed by Alfred North Whitehead? I'm fascinated by the cosmological framework he built, most notably in Process and Reality. It does seem to be to be a viable contender for a metaphysics which can be scaled up and down to incorporate the very large and very small. I'm curious as to whether or not any Redditors share my interest in this field, as I don't see process thought being discussed often here and on r\/philosophy.","c_root_id_A":"cppmjhq","c_root_id_B":"cpq21gg","created_at_utc_A":1427238074,"created_at_utc_B":1427274171,"score_A":3,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"This is honestly the first I've ever heard of process philosophy or Alfred North Whitehead.   I'm gonna plop this down just incase people want to read more. http:\/\/plato.stanford.edu\/entries\/process-philosophy\/","human_ref_B":"I'm a big fan.   Can I suggest a fascinating and vast idea that emerges when you place this line of thinkers together: Hegel- Russon- Merleau-Ponty - Low - Hamrick -  Whitehead- Heidegger- Todes  The key texts run like this:  * Hegel's Phenemenology  * Russon's The Self and its Body in Hegel's Phenomenology of Spirit  * Merleau-Ponty's  The visible and the invisible  * Low's Merleau-Ponty's Last vision  * Hamrick's Nature and Logos  * Whitehead's Process and Reality  * Heidegger's Being and Time  * Todes' Body and World  Put them all together and you get a real feel for that link of time and space that the Analytic Philosophers and their object\/subjects and mind\/body distinctions just cannot handle. I feel this is the only game in town.   *(the Russon links up Hegel and Merleau-Ponty in the notion of embodiment; Low resolves Merleau-Ponty's concern of the notion of self; Hamrick links up Merleau-Ponty and Whitehead; Todes makes the final touches to the link of Merleau-Ponty and Heidegger)*","labels":0,"seconds_difference":36097.0,"score_ratio":1.3333333333}
{"post_id":"306kyw","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":1.0,"history":"Is anyone here familiar with process philosophy, more specifically as developed by Alfred North Whitehead? I'm fascinated by the cosmological framework he built, most notably in Process and Reality. It does seem to be to be a viable contender for a metaphysics which can be scaled up and down to incorporate the very large and very small. I'm curious as to whether or not any Redditors share my interest in this field, as I don't see process thought being discussed often here and on r\/philosophy.","c_root_id_A":"cppnlys","c_root_id_B":"cpq21gg","created_at_utc_A":1427239877,"created_at_utc_B":1427274171,"score_A":3,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"I'm actually quite interested in Whitehead. I know a bit about him. I'm especially impressed with his ideas about reification. The notion that we should set our base level at the level of experience is very intuitive to me.","human_ref_B":"I'm a big fan.   Can I suggest a fascinating and vast idea that emerges when you place this line of thinkers together: Hegel- Russon- Merleau-Ponty - Low - Hamrick -  Whitehead- Heidegger- Todes  The key texts run like this:  * Hegel's Phenemenology  * Russon's The Self and its Body in Hegel's Phenomenology of Spirit  * Merleau-Ponty's  The visible and the invisible  * Low's Merleau-Ponty's Last vision  * Hamrick's Nature and Logos  * Whitehead's Process and Reality  * Heidegger's Being and Time  * Todes' Body and World  Put them all together and you get a real feel for that link of time and space that the Analytic Philosophers and their object\/subjects and mind\/body distinctions just cannot handle. I feel this is the only game in town.   *(the Russon links up Hegel and Merleau-Ponty in the notion of embodiment; Low resolves Merleau-Ponty's concern of the notion of self; Hamrick links up Merleau-Ponty and Whitehead; Todes makes the final touches to the link of Merleau-Ponty and Heidegger)*","labels":0,"seconds_difference":34294.0,"score_ratio":1.3333333333}
{"post_id":"306kyw","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":1.0,"history":"Is anyone here familiar with process philosophy, more specifically as developed by Alfred North Whitehead? I'm fascinated by the cosmological framework he built, most notably in Process and Reality. It does seem to be to be a viable contender for a metaphysics which can be scaled up and down to incorporate the very large and very small. I'm curious as to whether or not any Redditors share my interest in this field, as I don't see process thought being discussed often here and on r\/philosophy.","c_root_id_A":"cpq21gg","c_root_id_B":"cppxqcd","created_at_utc_A":1427274171,"created_at_utc_B":1427258352,"score_A":4,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"I'm a big fan.   Can I suggest a fascinating and vast idea that emerges when you place this line of thinkers together: Hegel- Russon- Merleau-Ponty - Low - Hamrick -  Whitehead- Heidegger- Todes  The key texts run like this:  * Hegel's Phenemenology  * Russon's The Self and its Body in Hegel's Phenomenology of Spirit  * Merleau-Ponty's  The visible and the invisible  * Low's Merleau-Ponty's Last vision  * Hamrick's Nature and Logos  * Whitehead's Process and Reality  * Heidegger's Being and Time  * Todes' Body and World  Put them all together and you get a real feel for that link of time and space that the Analytic Philosophers and their object\/subjects and mind\/body distinctions just cannot handle. I feel this is the only game in town.   *(the Russon links up Hegel and Merleau-Ponty in the notion of embodiment; Low resolves Merleau-Ponty's concern of the notion of self; Hamrick links up Merleau-Ponty and Whitehead; Todes makes the final touches to the link of Merleau-Ponty and Heidegger)*","human_ref_B":"Not a philosopher or a student.  Have been working hard to understand Whitehead for several years.  It's obvious I will first need to swim a virtual ocean of preliminary learning before I can attempt the mountain itself.    Was first drawn to him because of his views on Time and Nature.  I just think that if Whitehead is correct - and I'm totally confident he is correct - then the way that physics looks at ordinary matter, needs serious revision.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":15819.0,"score_ratio":2.0}
{"post_id":"306kyw","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":1.0,"history":"Is anyone here familiar with process philosophy, more specifically as developed by Alfred North Whitehead? I'm fascinated by the cosmological framework he built, most notably in Process and Reality. It does seem to be to be a viable contender for a metaphysics which can be scaled up and down to incorporate the very large and very small. I'm curious as to whether or not any Redditors share my interest in this field, as I don't see process thought being discussed often here and on r\/philosophy.","c_root_id_A":"cpq173r","c_root_id_B":"cpq21gg","created_at_utc_A":1427269972,"created_at_utc_B":1427274171,"score_A":2,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"The Partially Examined Life did an awesome podcast recently on Whitehead's process philosophy and Nature. Check it out.","human_ref_B":"I'm a big fan.   Can I suggest a fascinating and vast idea that emerges when you place this line of thinkers together: Hegel- Russon- Merleau-Ponty - Low - Hamrick -  Whitehead- Heidegger- Todes  The key texts run like this:  * Hegel's Phenemenology  * Russon's The Self and its Body in Hegel's Phenomenology of Spirit  * Merleau-Ponty's  The visible and the invisible  * Low's Merleau-Ponty's Last vision  * Hamrick's Nature and Logos  * Whitehead's Process and Reality  * Heidegger's Being and Time  * Todes' Body and World  Put them all together and you get a real feel for that link of time and space that the Analytic Philosophers and their object\/subjects and mind\/body distinctions just cannot handle. I feel this is the only game in town.   *(the Russon links up Hegel and Merleau-Ponty in the notion of embodiment; Low resolves Merleau-Ponty's concern of the notion of self; Hamrick links up Merleau-Ponty and Whitehead; Todes makes the final touches to the link of Merleau-Ponty and Heidegger)*","labels":0,"seconds_difference":4199.0,"score_ratio":2.0}
{"post_id":"zpscuj","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.87,"history":"\/r\/askphilosophy Open Discussion Thread | December 19, 2022 Welcome to this week's Open Discussion Thread. This thread is a place for posts\/comments which are related to philosophy but wouldn't necessarily meet our posting rules. For example, these threads are great places for:  * Personal opinion questions, e.g. \"who is your favourite philosopher?\"  * \"Test My Theory\" discussions and argument\/paper editing  * Discussion not necessarily related to any particular question, e.g. about what   you're currently reading  * Questions about the profession   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. All of our normal commenting rules are still in place for these threads.  Previous Open Discussion Threads can be found here or at the Wiki archive here.","c_root_id_A":"j0utlw7","c_root_id_B":"j18g1eu","created_at_utc_A":1671466657,"created_at_utc_B":1671714153,"score_A":5,"score_B":6,"human_ref_A":"If you had to choose only one book\/reading for an Intro to Phil course, what would you choose?","human_ref_B":"The following is not a particularly original thought.  I\u2019m writing something for not analytic philosophy broadly in the style of analytic philosophy at the moment, and the thought occurs to me that for all you will occasionally see somebody purporting to be in the sciences say \u201cI only like analytic philosophy, none of that continental shite\u201d, if anybody of *that kind of person* really dedicated significant time to what analytic philosophers actually get up to surely they\u2019d *despise* it?  I mean for all the mouth flapping about deference to science and realism etc., what I find I\u2019m *mostly* doing is painstakingly reconstructing (a) an anti-physicalist position, (b) its even more anti-realist opponent, and (c) a degenerate naive physicalism beloved in certain quarters (which I am trying to rebalance with the others into a much stronger, weirder, position), in an idiolect that\u2019s completely alien to the STEM world *as a whole*, paying especially close attention to the dialectical moves in play.  (Come ring in the new year with my queer cabaret show, \u201cdegenerate naive physicalism\u201d, from 10am to 10pm at The Vauxhall Tavern).  Then I go over to Peter Wolfendale blogging about reading technical manuals for coding.  I don\u2019t have anything more to add, I just wanted to break without getting up from my keyboard. Yes yes I know the usual explanations for this phenomenon, it just occurred to me in a particular way. I got most of what I want out of \u201cdegenerate naive physicalism\u201d tbh.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":247496.0,"score_ratio":1.2}
{"post_id":"zpscuj","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.87,"history":"\/r\/askphilosophy Open Discussion Thread | December 19, 2022 Welcome to this week's Open Discussion Thread. This thread is a place for posts\/comments which are related to philosophy but wouldn't necessarily meet our posting rules. For example, these threads are great places for:  * Personal opinion questions, e.g. \"who is your favourite philosopher?\"  * \"Test My Theory\" discussions and argument\/paper editing  * Discussion not necessarily related to any particular question, e.g. about what   you're currently reading  * Questions about the profession   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. All of our normal commenting rules are still in place for these threads.  Previous Open Discussion Threads can be found here or at the Wiki archive here.","c_root_id_A":"j0urr8c","c_root_id_B":"j18g1eu","created_at_utc_A":1671465892,"created_at_utc_B":1671714153,"score_A":3,"score_B":6,"human_ref_A":"What are some great contemporary philosphical dialogs?  I love reading plato because I enjoy the back and forth. I learn with the interlocutor much more easily than I do by reading straight texts. I find my questions being raised and addressed and others that I would not consider but once raised I want to know the answer.  I have been trying to read primary philosophical works but because I have a modest philosophical background (under grad major who went to medical school) i have a hard time making progress without the support of a classroom or professors to discuss what I have read.  My interests are in ethics, medicine and mind (neurosurgeon).   Ps. Thank you everyone here. These back and forth are the closest thing I have found to what I am looking for. You guys put so much time and effort into your posts for basically no reward. I hope you know how much at least this one guy appreciates it.","human_ref_B":"The following is not a particularly original thought.  I\u2019m writing something for not analytic philosophy broadly in the style of analytic philosophy at the moment, and the thought occurs to me that for all you will occasionally see somebody purporting to be in the sciences say \u201cI only like analytic philosophy, none of that continental shite\u201d, if anybody of *that kind of person* really dedicated significant time to what analytic philosophers actually get up to surely they\u2019d *despise* it?  I mean for all the mouth flapping about deference to science and realism etc., what I find I\u2019m *mostly* doing is painstakingly reconstructing (a) an anti-physicalist position, (b) its even more anti-realist opponent, and (c) a degenerate naive physicalism beloved in certain quarters (which I am trying to rebalance with the others into a much stronger, weirder, position), in an idiolect that\u2019s completely alien to the STEM world *as a whole*, paying especially close attention to the dialectical moves in play.  (Come ring in the new year with my queer cabaret show, \u201cdegenerate naive physicalism\u201d, from 10am to 10pm at The Vauxhall Tavern).  Then I go over to Peter Wolfendale blogging about reading technical manuals for coding.  I don\u2019t have anything more to add, I just wanted to break without getting up from my keyboard. Yes yes I know the usual explanations for this phenomenon, it just occurred to me in a particular way. I got most of what I want out of \u201cdegenerate naive physicalism\u201d tbh.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":248261.0,"score_ratio":2.0}
{"post_id":"zpscuj","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.87,"history":"\/r\/askphilosophy Open Discussion Thread | December 19, 2022 Welcome to this week's Open Discussion Thread. This thread is a place for posts\/comments which are related to philosophy but wouldn't necessarily meet our posting rules. For example, these threads are great places for:  * Personal opinion questions, e.g. \"who is your favourite philosopher?\"  * \"Test My Theory\" discussions and argument\/paper editing  * Discussion not necessarily related to any particular question, e.g. about what   you're currently reading  * Questions about the profession   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. All of our normal commenting rules are still in place for these threads.  Previous Open Discussion Threads can be found here or at the Wiki archive here.","c_root_id_A":"j168fhu","c_root_id_B":"j18g1eu","created_at_utc_A":1671665667,"created_at_utc_B":1671714153,"score_A":2,"score_B":6,"human_ref_A":"Adi Shankara\u2019s commentaries on the Upanishads and the Bhagavad Gita are pretty good, also the Dao de Jing and the Zhuangzi are pure gold\u2026","human_ref_B":"The following is not a particularly original thought.  I\u2019m writing something for not analytic philosophy broadly in the style of analytic philosophy at the moment, and the thought occurs to me that for all you will occasionally see somebody purporting to be in the sciences say \u201cI only like analytic philosophy, none of that continental shite\u201d, if anybody of *that kind of person* really dedicated significant time to what analytic philosophers actually get up to surely they\u2019d *despise* it?  I mean for all the mouth flapping about deference to science and realism etc., what I find I\u2019m *mostly* doing is painstakingly reconstructing (a) an anti-physicalist position, (b) its even more anti-realist opponent, and (c) a degenerate naive physicalism beloved in certain quarters (which I am trying to rebalance with the others into a much stronger, weirder, position), in an idiolect that\u2019s completely alien to the STEM world *as a whole*, paying especially close attention to the dialectical moves in play.  (Come ring in the new year with my queer cabaret show, \u201cdegenerate naive physicalism\u201d, from 10am to 10pm at The Vauxhall Tavern).  Then I go over to Peter Wolfendale blogging about reading technical manuals for coding.  I don\u2019t have anything more to add, I just wanted to break without getting up from my keyboard. Yes yes I know the usual explanations for this phenomenon, it just occurred to me in a particular way. I got most of what I want out of \u201cdegenerate naive physicalism\u201d tbh.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":48486.0,"score_ratio":3.0}
{"post_id":"zpscuj","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.87,"history":"\/r\/askphilosophy Open Discussion Thread | December 19, 2022 Welcome to this week's Open Discussion Thread. This thread is a place for posts\/comments which are related to philosophy but wouldn't necessarily meet our posting rules. For example, these threads are great places for:  * Personal opinion questions, e.g. \"who is your favourite philosopher?\"  * \"Test My Theory\" discussions and argument\/paper editing  * Discussion not necessarily related to any particular question, e.g. about what   you're currently reading  * Questions about the profession   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. All of our normal commenting rules are still in place for these threads.  Previous Open Discussion Threads can be found here or at the Wiki archive here.","c_root_id_A":"j1crvez","c_root_id_B":"j1ltv2y","created_at_utc_A":1671788766,"created_at_utc_B":1671973031,"score_A":3,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"Out of curiosity, does anyone here know German, or is anyone here learning at the moment? I\u2019m looking for some more opportunities to practice my (admittedly atrocious) German, specifically in philosophical\/academic contexts, so if anyone ever wants to chat about philosophy in German either for fun or for practice yourself, let me know and we can set something up!","human_ref_B":"Merry Christmas ya filthy featherless bipeds","labels":0,"seconds_difference":184265.0,"score_ratio":1.6666666667}
{"post_id":"zpscuj","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.87,"history":"\/r\/askphilosophy Open Discussion Thread | December 19, 2022 Welcome to this week's Open Discussion Thread. This thread is a place for posts\/comments which are related to philosophy but wouldn't necessarily meet our posting rules. For example, these threads are great places for:  * Personal opinion questions, e.g. \"who is your favourite philosopher?\"  * \"Test My Theory\" discussions and argument\/paper editing  * Discussion not necessarily related to any particular question, e.g. about what   you're currently reading  * Questions about the profession   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. All of our normal commenting rules are still in place for these threads.  Previous Open Discussion Threads can be found here or at the Wiki archive here.","c_root_id_A":"j1ltv2y","c_root_id_B":"j0urr8c","created_at_utc_A":1671973031,"created_at_utc_B":1671465892,"score_A":5,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"Merry Christmas ya filthy featherless bipeds","human_ref_B":"What are some great contemporary philosphical dialogs?  I love reading plato because I enjoy the back and forth. I learn with the interlocutor much more easily than I do by reading straight texts. I find my questions being raised and addressed and others that I would not consider but once raised I want to know the answer.  I have been trying to read primary philosophical works but because I have a modest philosophical background (under grad major who went to medical school) i have a hard time making progress without the support of a classroom or professors to discuss what I have read.  My interests are in ethics, medicine and mind (neurosurgeon).   Ps. Thank you everyone here. These back and forth are the closest thing I have found to what I am looking for. You guys put so much time and effort into your posts for basically no reward. I hope you know how much at least this one guy appreciates it.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":507139.0,"score_ratio":1.6666666667}
{"post_id":"zpscuj","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.87,"history":"\/r\/askphilosophy Open Discussion Thread | December 19, 2022 Welcome to this week's Open Discussion Thread. This thread is a place for posts\/comments which are related to philosophy but wouldn't necessarily meet our posting rules. For example, these threads are great places for:  * Personal opinion questions, e.g. \"who is your favourite philosopher?\"  * \"Test My Theory\" discussions and argument\/paper editing  * Discussion not necessarily related to any particular question, e.g. about what   you're currently reading  * Questions about the profession   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. All of our normal commenting rules are still in place for these threads.  Previous Open Discussion Threads can be found here or at the Wiki archive here.","c_root_id_A":"j168fhu","c_root_id_B":"j1ltv2y","created_at_utc_A":1671665667,"created_at_utc_B":1671973031,"score_A":2,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"Adi Shankara\u2019s commentaries on the Upanishads and the Bhagavad Gita are pretty good, also the Dao de Jing and the Zhuangzi are pure gold\u2026","human_ref_B":"Merry Christmas ya filthy featherless bipeds","labels":0,"seconds_difference":307364.0,"score_ratio":2.5}
{"post_id":"zpscuj","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.87,"history":"\/r\/askphilosophy Open Discussion Thread | December 19, 2022 Welcome to this week's Open Discussion Thread. This thread is a place for posts\/comments which are related to philosophy but wouldn't necessarily meet our posting rules. For example, these threads are great places for:  * Personal opinion questions, e.g. \"who is your favourite philosopher?\"  * \"Test My Theory\" discussions and argument\/paper editing  * Discussion not necessarily related to any particular question, e.g. about what   you're currently reading  * Questions about the profession   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. All of our normal commenting rules are still in place for these threads.  Previous Open Discussion Threads can be found here or at the Wiki archive here.","c_root_id_A":"j1ltv2y","c_root_id_B":"j1a04z4","created_at_utc_A":1671973031,"created_at_utc_B":1671737670,"score_A":5,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"Merry Christmas ya filthy featherless bipeds","human_ref_B":"Is there a way to get more traction on my questions? I feel like my last one was in the wheelhouse of this forum as there a lot of posts about compatibilism, but I got nothing.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":235361.0,"score_ratio":2.5}
{"post_id":"zpscuj","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.87,"history":"\/r\/askphilosophy Open Discussion Thread | December 19, 2022 Welcome to this week's Open Discussion Thread. This thread is a place for posts\/comments which are related to philosophy but wouldn't necessarily meet our posting rules. For example, these threads are great places for:  * Personal opinion questions, e.g. \"who is your favourite philosopher?\"  * \"Test My Theory\" discussions and argument\/paper editing  * Discussion not necessarily related to any particular question, e.g. about what   you're currently reading  * Questions about the profession   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. All of our normal commenting rules are still in place for these threads.  Previous Open Discussion Threads can be found here or at the Wiki archive here.","c_root_id_A":"j1ltv2y","c_root_id_B":"j1cy19d","created_at_utc_A":1671973031,"created_at_utc_B":1671793738,"score_A":5,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"Merry Christmas ya filthy featherless bipeds","human_ref_B":"#","labels":1,"seconds_difference":179293.0,"score_ratio":2.5}
{"post_id":"zpscuj","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.87,"history":"\/r\/askphilosophy Open Discussion Thread | December 19, 2022 Welcome to this week's Open Discussion Thread. This thread is a place for posts\/comments which are related to philosophy but wouldn't necessarily meet our posting rules. For example, these threads are great places for:  * Personal opinion questions, e.g. \"who is your favourite philosopher?\"  * \"Test My Theory\" discussions and argument\/paper editing  * Discussion not necessarily related to any particular question, e.g. about what   you're currently reading  * Questions about the profession   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. All of our normal commenting rules are still in place for these threads.  Previous Open Discussion Threads can be found here or at the Wiki archive here.","c_root_id_A":"j0utlw7","c_root_id_B":"j0urr8c","created_at_utc_A":1671466657,"created_at_utc_B":1671465892,"score_A":5,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"If you had to choose only one book\/reading for an Intro to Phil course, what would you choose?","human_ref_B":"What are some great contemporary philosphical dialogs?  I love reading plato because I enjoy the back and forth. I learn with the interlocutor much more easily than I do by reading straight texts. I find my questions being raised and addressed and others that I would not consider but once raised I want to know the answer.  I have been trying to read primary philosophical works but because I have a modest philosophical background (under grad major who went to medical school) i have a hard time making progress without the support of a classroom or professors to discuss what I have read.  My interests are in ethics, medicine and mind (neurosurgeon).   Ps. Thank you everyone here. These back and forth are the closest thing I have found to what I am looking for. You guys put so much time and effort into your posts for basically no reward. I hope you know how much at least this one guy appreciates it.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":765.0,"score_ratio":1.6666666667}
{"post_id":"zpscuj","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.87,"history":"\/r\/askphilosophy Open Discussion Thread | December 19, 2022 Welcome to this week's Open Discussion Thread. This thread is a place for posts\/comments which are related to philosophy but wouldn't necessarily meet our posting rules. For example, these threads are great places for:  * Personal opinion questions, e.g. \"who is your favourite philosopher?\"  * \"Test My Theory\" discussions and argument\/paper editing  * Discussion not necessarily related to any particular question, e.g. about what   you're currently reading  * Questions about the profession   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. All of our normal commenting rules are still in place for these threads.  Previous Open Discussion Threads can be found here or at the Wiki archive here.","c_root_id_A":"j1crvez","c_root_id_B":"j168fhu","created_at_utc_A":1671788766,"created_at_utc_B":1671665667,"score_A":3,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"Out of curiosity, does anyone here know German, or is anyone here learning at the moment? I\u2019m looking for some more opportunities to practice my (admittedly atrocious) German, specifically in philosophical\/academic contexts, so if anyone ever wants to chat about philosophy in German either for fun or for practice yourself, let me know and we can set something up!","human_ref_B":"Adi Shankara\u2019s commentaries on the Upanishads and the Bhagavad Gita are pretty good, also the Dao de Jing and the Zhuangzi are pure gold\u2026","labels":1,"seconds_difference":123099.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
{"post_id":"zpscuj","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.87,"history":"\/r\/askphilosophy Open Discussion Thread | December 19, 2022 Welcome to this week's Open Discussion Thread. This thread is a place for posts\/comments which are related to philosophy but wouldn't necessarily meet our posting rules. For example, these threads are great places for:  * Personal opinion questions, e.g. \"who is your favourite philosopher?\"  * \"Test My Theory\" discussions and argument\/paper editing  * Discussion not necessarily related to any particular question, e.g. about what   you're currently reading  * Questions about the profession   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. All of our normal commenting rules are still in place for these threads.  Previous Open Discussion Threads can be found here or at the Wiki archive here.","c_root_id_A":"j1crvez","c_root_id_B":"j1a04z4","created_at_utc_A":1671788766,"created_at_utc_B":1671737670,"score_A":3,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"Out of curiosity, does anyone here know German, or is anyone here learning at the moment? I\u2019m looking for some more opportunities to practice my (admittedly atrocious) German, specifically in philosophical\/academic contexts, so if anyone ever wants to chat about philosophy in German either for fun or for practice yourself, let me know and we can set something up!","human_ref_B":"Is there a way to get more traction on my questions? I feel like my last one was in the wheelhouse of this forum as there a lot of posts about compatibilism, but I got nothing.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":51096.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
{"post_id":"fia2rw","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.87,"history":"Can somebody explain Deleuze and the body without organs to me? Hi, i recently heard lots of people talking about deleuze and the bwo. I dont really understand that concept so could anyone maybe explain it to me  :)","c_root_id_A":"fkh9a06","c_root_id_B":"fkh02iz","created_at_utc_A":1584192773,"created_at_utc_B":1584182845,"score_A":6,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"Don't trust reddit on D&G, but here's my bit:  The stress of the BwO is against the body with organ-ization: the organs are the body as it is determined, fixed in place by social production, the BwO is the determinable substance. Different BwOs let different intensities play out across them: the addict only wants Cold, the masochist only wants Pain. The act of creating a BwO is an experiment to open us up to new intensities and transformations. It's the structure of desire for a given individual: \"The BwO is desire; it is that which one desires and by which one desires.\"  It's routinely compared to the egg: if the organs are formed through a process of organization, the BwO is the *intensity* which shapes that process even if it doesn't  produce it itself, the same way that the gradients in an egg shape its development without. This metaphor works better if you understand embryo genesis and how it's different from just building something.  The ultimate point, when combined with Spinoza's parallelism, is that *any effect produced by a particular BwO can be produced by something else:* \"Could what the drug user or masochist obtains also be obtained in a different fashion in the conditions of the plane, so it would be even be possible to use drugs without using drugs, to get soused on pure water...?\"  Both my quotes are from the BwO chapter of ATP, for further reading you might try the relevant bits of *Logic of Sense* (that book in general is either very accessible when it's about language or impenetrable when it's about psychoanalysis).","human_ref_B":"See this thread from a few months ago (which includes a comment of mine).","labels":1,"seconds_difference":9928.0,"score_ratio":3.0}
{"post_id":"5wytfr","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.99,"history":"[History] Why did it take so long to translate Plato and Aristotle's works into Latin? My understanding is that during the Medieval Ages, less than a handful of such texts had Latin translations, and it appears that most of their works never even received a Latin translation, even at the height of the Roman empire.  Even for those that did (i.e. parts of the Timaeus), the translation occurred almost a millennium after they were originally written.  Did the Romans just not care?","c_root_id_A":"dee73o0","c_root_id_B":"dee2ftk","created_at_utc_A":1488417165,"created_at_utc_B":1488411065,"score_A":13,"score_B":7,"human_ref_A":"Contrary to the claims of the other post, my general understanding is that such texts were largely unavailable to the Romans until the 11th or 12 centuries. This was mostly because they didn't have copies of them, but also in quite a few cases because they didn't understand Greek particularly well. Indeed, my impression is that most of the early translations of Greek texts weren't from the Greek itself, but rather from Arabic translations, and it is certainly the case that the rediscovery of Aristotle doesn't occur until after the Romans had begun to feel the influence of Islamic scholarship.   Unfortuantely, I can only point you to wikipedia sources: here and here, so take it with a grain of salt, but this is also roughly the story told in my Medievals and Ancients grad class, so.","human_ref_B":"I'm pretty sure that any ancient Romans reading Plato\/Aristotle would also have been able to read Greek, which may explain why they weren't translated during the height of the empire","labels":1,"seconds_difference":6100.0,"score_ratio":1.8571428571}
{"post_id":"8yxxvs","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.86,"history":"Are there any good lecture series on Wittgenstein available online? There's really nothing on openculture.com, which is my go-to, but I'm not aware of other resources like this one.","c_root_id_A":"e2eu786","c_root_id_B":"e2exg1y","created_at_utc_A":1531628016,"created_at_utc_B":1531632536,"score_A":3,"score_B":10,"human_ref_A":"Behold  Note: the audio quality varies quite a bit","human_ref_B":"https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/watch?v=TNaBRR-XeAs&w=420&h=315 has been my favorite find on Youtube so far. It is entertaining, informative, and both biographical and concept-oriented.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":4520.0,"score_ratio":3.3333333333}
{"post_id":"jwiese","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.88,"history":"What is the origin of the \"body of knowledge\" metaphor? Does anyone know where the phrase \"body of knowledge\" comes from, quite possibly initially in Latin or Greek? The oldest reference I can find is in an English translation of \"corpus dottrina\" in Francis Bacon's 1604 \"On the Advancement of Learning\", and \"dottrina\" is just a type of knowledge.  I'm looking for the phrase in its broader sense.  Any insights into where this metaphor of knowledge comes from, not necessarily in English? Thanks!","c_root_id_A":"gcquyzf","c_root_id_B":"gcqvn2m","created_at_utc_A":1605725547,"created_at_utc_B":1605725857,"score_A":12,"score_B":19,"human_ref_A":"Before thinking about this I believed it is using a different definition of the word body, which is a bulky accumulation of, like a body of water. I doubt it has a distinctive and single purpose origin in the same way other words relating to the body do not, simply due to the fact humans naturally use metaphors to explain things. The head of house, the foothills. The skin of a fruit. I would also then question if Corpus\/body\/soma has ever been solely related to the human anatomy? It seems that in Socrates 5th C BC use of body politic, the noun soma in Greek also meant \"an entire thing\" even then. I'd have a rummage around in the sophists and presocratics if you hope to go further back than that.","human_ref_B":"What metaphor do you mean precisely? The word body or corpus - in my understanding - does not necessarily refer to a physical human body (think celestial bodies or a body of work). It means (I think) something similar to \u2018structure\u2019, either physical or non-physical.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":310.0,"score_ratio":1.5833333333}
{"post_id":"j3fngn","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.88,"history":"Is there a difference between \"I don't believe in God\" and \"I believe God doesn't exist\"? ...and if so, what is it? I have the impression that there is, but I can't quite explain it.","c_root_id_A":"g7bpmz5","c_root_id_B":"g7c0qar","created_at_utc_A":1601582918,"created_at_utc_B":1601587965,"score_A":2,"score_B":10,"human_ref_A":"To say that you don\u2019t believe in God could mean that you are suspending judgement which is in fact different from believing He does not exist. Saying that you do not believe in God could also be interpreted as you do not believe in His existence though. Depends if you interpret \u201cdon\u2019t believe\u201d as not having a belief and believing the negation.","human_ref_B":"If you consider these 4 statements:  A) I believe, there is God  B) I do NOT believe, there is God  C) I believe, there is NO God  D) I do NOT believe, there is NO God  ​  Then your statement (1)  \"**I don't believe in God\"** means logically:  * you do NOT hold the position, that A) is true * you hold the position, that B) is true * you don't reveal your position regarding C) and * you don't reveal your position regarding D)  Accordingly your statement (2) \"**I believe God doesn't exist\"** means logically:  * your position regarding A) and B) stays the same as for (1), but * now you reveal your position regarding C) and D)  ​  In order to communicate more clearly I suggest the following replacement for (1):  \"I am not convinced about Gods existence\".  This does not mislead people, to assume you would have expressed C), which is by the way epistemologically more ambitious than it might appear at first glance.  :edit: formatting","labels":0,"seconds_difference":5047.0,"score_ratio":5.0}
{"post_id":"4qy6j7","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.96,"history":"How did Kant come to the conclusion that geometry is synthetic apriori and how did math falsify it? Hello! I understand the idea that room and time are pure forms of conception apriori since they are independent from the receptive sensuality. But how does Kant come to the conclusion that the concept of the room being apriori leads to the (euclidean) geometry being synthethic apriori? Is it because geometrics (e.g. in forms of physics) are apriori aswell and applied geometry overall is synthethic because it is a concept whose concept is not contained in its subject concept (being a pure form of geometry or conception of room) but related to it?","c_root_id_A":"d4x6ec5","c_root_id_B":"d4x1jxu","created_at_utc_A":1467507024,"created_at_utc_B":1467497990,"score_A":4,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"Hume and Leibniz believed that math and geometry were analytic. Kant argued that it was instead synthetic a priori. That means that statements of geometry and arithmetic are more than just empty forms or tautologies but are genuine items of new knowledge (that's what being synthetic is), and their knowledge comes from thinking and not from the world (i.e. a priori).  After Kant, followers of Hume like early positivists kept denying that there can be anything that is \"synthetic a priori\" because that is just too spooky that there should be any knowledge that is neither purely analytic or empirical.  So Bertrand Russell worked with his colleague Whitehead to try to derive math from logic in their Principia Mathematica but the entire project was declared impossible with Kurt Godel's Incompleteness theorems.  However, the common wisdom still repeats the old positivist line that the invention of non-euclidean geometries proved Kant was wrong, because after all \"here we have a new geometry, that is not Euclidean, and that proves that geometry is not synthetic.\" In fact, if (Euclidean) geometry had been analytic then that would mean that its 5 main postulates were analytic and negation of any of that would produce a contradiction, as this is what being analytic is.  So the development of non-Euclidean geometries, developed after denying the parallel postulate and building on the remaining four postulates, actually proves Kant's point that geometry has been synthetic all along.","human_ref_B":"I think it is fair to say that Kant himself doesn't give any arguments for the fact that Euclidean geometry is a body of *a priori* knowledge. It was, at the time when Kant wrote the *Critique of Pure Reason* commonly accepted that mathematics had *a priori* justification. Kant's arguments are essentially meant to suggest that *if* you hold that Euclidean geometry is a body of *a priori* knowledge, then you have good reason to think that space (as the object of geometry) is somehow dependent on the human mind.  This is not to say that Kant's theory of geometry, and, more specifically, his view that the propositions of Euclidean geometry are synthetic (rather than analytic) *a priori* judgements was not novel.  Math 'falsified' this view with the introduction of non-Euclidean geometry, which, it would seem, offers a better description of the structure of space than Euclidean geometry does.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":9034.0,"score_ratio":2.0}
{"post_id":"153nfd","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.9,"history":"Can Askphilosophy weigh in on a debate my friend and I are having about the trolley dilemma?  The trolley dilemma is as follows:  A runaway trolley is headed towards a group of 5 construction workers on the track. If the trolley were to hit them, they would certainly die and there is no way to alert them of the oncoming trolley. However, you could flip a switch and redirect the trolley onto a different track that only has one construction worker on it. Would you flip the switch?   One of us argues that since flipping the switch would result in the death of one construction worker, it is a morally wrong action. The only way to avoid a morally wrong action is to do nothing at all. If you have not acted, you cannot be morally wrong.  The other argues that choosing not to act is an action in itself. By not flipping the switch, you are allowing 5 workers to die when you could only allow 1 to die.   What are your thoughts?","c_root_id_A":"c7j2hld","c_root_id_B":"c7j1s5d","created_at_utc_A":1355930345,"created_at_utc_B":1355927213,"score_A":13,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"Just as a precursor to my answer: The Trolley Problem was initially presented by Philippa Foot and then famously revisited by JJ Thompson. If you haven't read their Trolley Problem articles, I suggest you do so. They're quite insightful.   With that regard, here is a quotation from Thompson's article that I'll use to explain her reasoning, and then my reasoning: >Let us begin with an idea, held by many friends of right, which Ronald Dworkin expressed crisply in a metaphor from bridge: Rights \"trump\" utilities. That is, if one would infringe a right in or by acting, then it ius not sufficient justification for acting that one would thereby maximize utility.  Applying this principle of rights trumping utilities, we can see that we are not morally permissible to act. *Even if* more people are saved (thus \"maximizing utility\"), we are not properly justified to act because we would be infringing on someone's right to life. Of course, one might say that the five each have a right to life. This is, of course, true. However, if the actor pulls the switch, he is directly infringing upon the one man's right to life. If the actor doesn't pull the switch, he is not directly infringing upon the five's rights. A negative and passive action cannot positively and dynamically infringe upon someone's rights.   But is it really as clean cut as that? I would like to present a \"Fat Man\" case, which goes as follows: A trolley is racing towards five people. You can save the five people if and only if you push a fat man off a nearby railing, thereby causing him to land in front of the trolley and stop it with his weight.   In this scenario, it is even clearer why we would not be allowed to kill the man. We are directly infringing upon his rights by outright throwing him off a railing and killing him - for the express purpose of saving the other five. We are infringing upon his fundamental right to life in order to save five people and maximize utility. But is the Trolley Problem and the Fat Man problem really the same? Can we apply the rights trump utility principle on both cases?  Perhaps not. We might reason that in the Fat Man case we are simply and outright killing a man and impeding his rights in order to maximize utility. In the Trolley Problem, we are not directly killing a man - we are merely moving the direction of a *threat*, so that the threat threatens one life instead of threatening of five. Perhaps this difference is enough to make pulling the switch justifiable?  I don't really think so. Sure, we can say that the act of pulling the switch *in itself* is not a morally bad act, since the threat could have easily threatened an empty track and we wouldn't have this dilemma... But it still seems like a cop-out to me, a way to shift the blame and the responsibility of killing someone. You are infringing upon another man's fundamental right to life on both accounts, and I do not believe that infringing this man's rights could trump maximal utility.   In this regard, I do hold that right trumps utilities in both accounts. Note, I do believe that someone can justify sudden action based on a utilitarian understanding of the situation - we are all human, after all, and can make mistakes in such high-pressure situations. However, I do not believe that we are able to justify saying that *everyone* **ought** to pull the lever to save five people. Once again, the right to life triumphs over maximizing utility.   --- PS. Thompson sympathizes and says that there is no obligation that compels someone to act in this case.   >Consider again that lingering feeling of discomfort about what the bystander does if he turns the switch. No doubt it is permissible to turn the trolley, but still... but still... People who feel this discomfort also think that, although it is permissible to turn the trolley, it is not orally required to do so.  I would have to agree with Thompson here. *Killing someone,* or even threatening to kill someone and seeing that threat kill them, places a huge weight upon the actor's shoulders. Some people become sick by merely seeing a dead body - to somehow place the obligation to act on everybody seems preposterous to me. It is too... utilitarian. That is, it is too impersonal; it doesn't really put the values and individual moral integrity of the individual. Not everyone has the willpower to act and we must understand that. While we might say that the *best* outcome may come from action, I don't think we can really put some kind of universal obligation to act when acting puts such extreme weight upon someone's morals.","human_ref_B":">If you have not acted, you cannot be morally wrong.  Whoa, whoa, whoa, it's impossible for inaction to be morally wrong? So if I decide not to throw a drowning person a life preserver simply because they're black, there's nothing morally wrong with that? That's an absurd principle.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":3132.0,"score_ratio":2.6}
{"post_id":"153nfd","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.9,"history":"Can Askphilosophy weigh in on a debate my friend and I are having about the trolley dilemma?  The trolley dilemma is as follows:  A runaway trolley is headed towards a group of 5 construction workers on the track. If the trolley were to hit them, they would certainly die and there is no way to alert them of the oncoming trolley. However, you could flip a switch and redirect the trolley onto a different track that only has one construction worker on it. Would you flip the switch?   One of us argues that since flipping the switch would result in the death of one construction worker, it is a morally wrong action. The only way to avoid a morally wrong action is to do nothing at all. If you have not acted, you cannot be morally wrong.  The other argues that choosing not to act is an action in itself. By not flipping the switch, you are allowing 5 workers to die when you could only allow 1 to die.   What are your thoughts?","c_root_id_A":"c7izguk","c_root_id_B":"c7j2hld","created_at_utc_A":1355908286,"created_at_utc_B":1355930345,"score_A":4,"score_B":13,"human_ref_A":"For the one of you that thinks it's only wrong if you turn the trolley (and so take action) I wonder how you'd feel if you were put in the following case: You come across a group of five people who are about to be executed. You know from the reputation of this region that they're probably not being executed for good reasons. The executioner offers you the chance to save their lives if you just say \"let them go.\" Is it still permissible for you to remain silent? If so, what's different between this case and the trolley case? I think this shows that we sometimes muddy the waters in the trolley problem by worrying about one really bad than vs. another really (but perhaps more so) bad thing and I think the example I offered can clear the waters a bit.  The second view that (one of) you advocates, that not acting is itself an action, is the best way to argue in favor of turning the trolley while appealing to consequentialists and deontologists alike. Whether you think acts are wrong because of their outcomes or because of the act itself, you will probably think that it's better to act in favor of the lesser harm. I think that as long as the driver is well-informed about the situation, this is the most plausible way to frame it. I require that they be well-informed because we sometimes grant moral leniency when parties are reasonably unaware of the relevant information.","human_ref_B":"Just as a precursor to my answer: The Trolley Problem was initially presented by Philippa Foot and then famously revisited by JJ Thompson. If you haven't read their Trolley Problem articles, I suggest you do so. They're quite insightful.   With that regard, here is a quotation from Thompson's article that I'll use to explain her reasoning, and then my reasoning: >Let us begin with an idea, held by many friends of right, which Ronald Dworkin expressed crisply in a metaphor from bridge: Rights \"trump\" utilities. That is, if one would infringe a right in or by acting, then it ius not sufficient justification for acting that one would thereby maximize utility.  Applying this principle of rights trumping utilities, we can see that we are not morally permissible to act. *Even if* more people are saved (thus \"maximizing utility\"), we are not properly justified to act because we would be infringing on someone's right to life. Of course, one might say that the five each have a right to life. This is, of course, true. However, if the actor pulls the switch, he is directly infringing upon the one man's right to life. If the actor doesn't pull the switch, he is not directly infringing upon the five's rights. A negative and passive action cannot positively and dynamically infringe upon someone's rights.   But is it really as clean cut as that? I would like to present a \"Fat Man\" case, which goes as follows: A trolley is racing towards five people. You can save the five people if and only if you push a fat man off a nearby railing, thereby causing him to land in front of the trolley and stop it with his weight.   In this scenario, it is even clearer why we would not be allowed to kill the man. We are directly infringing upon his rights by outright throwing him off a railing and killing him - for the express purpose of saving the other five. We are infringing upon his fundamental right to life in order to save five people and maximize utility. But is the Trolley Problem and the Fat Man problem really the same? Can we apply the rights trump utility principle on both cases?  Perhaps not. We might reason that in the Fat Man case we are simply and outright killing a man and impeding his rights in order to maximize utility. In the Trolley Problem, we are not directly killing a man - we are merely moving the direction of a *threat*, so that the threat threatens one life instead of threatening of five. Perhaps this difference is enough to make pulling the switch justifiable?  I don't really think so. Sure, we can say that the act of pulling the switch *in itself* is not a morally bad act, since the threat could have easily threatened an empty track and we wouldn't have this dilemma... But it still seems like a cop-out to me, a way to shift the blame and the responsibility of killing someone. You are infringing upon another man's fundamental right to life on both accounts, and I do not believe that infringing this man's rights could trump maximal utility.   In this regard, I do hold that right trumps utilities in both accounts. Note, I do believe that someone can justify sudden action based on a utilitarian understanding of the situation - we are all human, after all, and can make mistakes in such high-pressure situations. However, I do not believe that we are able to justify saying that *everyone* **ought** to pull the lever to save five people. Once again, the right to life triumphs over maximizing utility.   --- PS. Thompson sympathizes and says that there is no obligation that compels someone to act in this case.   >Consider again that lingering feeling of discomfort about what the bystander does if he turns the switch. No doubt it is permissible to turn the trolley, but still... but still... People who feel this discomfort also think that, although it is permissible to turn the trolley, it is not orally required to do so.  I would have to agree with Thompson here. *Killing someone,* or even threatening to kill someone and seeing that threat kill them, places a huge weight upon the actor's shoulders. Some people become sick by merely seeing a dead body - to somehow place the obligation to act on everybody seems preposterous to me. It is too... utilitarian. That is, it is too impersonal; it doesn't really put the values and individual moral integrity of the individual. Not everyone has the willpower to act and we must understand that. While we might say that the *best* outcome may come from action, I don't think we can really put some kind of universal obligation to act when acting puts such extreme weight upon someone's morals.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":22059.0,"score_ratio":3.25}
{"post_id":"153nfd","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.9,"history":"Can Askphilosophy weigh in on a debate my friend and I are having about the trolley dilemma?  The trolley dilemma is as follows:  A runaway trolley is headed towards a group of 5 construction workers on the track. If the trolley were to hit them, they would certainly die and there is no way to alert them of the oncoming trolley. However, you could flip a switch and redirect the trolley onto a different track that only has one construction worker on it. Would you flip the switch?   One of us argues that since flipping the switch would result in the death of one construction worker, it is a morally wrong action. The only way to avoid a morally wrong action is to do nothing at all. If you have not acted, you cannot be morally wrong.  The other argues that choosing not to act is an action in itself. By not flipping the switch, you are allowing 5 workers to die when you could only allow 1 to die.   What are your thoughts?","c_root_id_A":"c7j2hld","c_root_id_B":"c7j2c56","created_at_utc_A":1355930345,"created_at_utc_B":1355929717,"score_A":13,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"Just as a precursor to my answer: The Trolley Problem was initially presented by Philippa Foot and then famously revisited by JJ Thompson. If you haven't read their Trolley Problem articles, I suggest you do so. They're quite insightful.   With that regard, here is a quotation from Thompson's article that I'll use to explain her reasoning, and then my reasoning: >Let us begin with an idea, held by many friends of right, which Ronald Dworkin expressed crisply in a metaphor from bridge: Rights \"trump\" utilities. That is, if one would infringe a right in or by acting, then it ius not sufficient justification for acting that one would thereby maximize utility.  Applying this principle of rights trumping utilities, we can see that we are not morally permissible to act. *Even if* more people are saved (thus \"maximizing utility\"), we are not properly justified to act because we would be infringing on someone's right to life. Of course, one might say that the five each have a right to life. This is, of course, true. However, if the actor pulls the switch, he is directly infringing upon the one man's right to life. If the actor doesn't pull the switch, he is not directly infringing upon the five's rights. A negative and passive action cannot positively and dynamically infringe upon someone's rights.   But is it really as clean cut as that? I would like to present a \"Fat Man\" case, which goes as follows: A trolley is racing towards five people. You can save the five people if and only if you push a fat man off a nearby railing, thereby causing him to land in front of the trolley and stop it with his weight.   In this scenario, it is even clearer why we would not be allowed to kill the man. We are directly infringing upon his rights by outright throwing him off a railing and killing him - for the express purpose of saving the other five. We are infringing upon his fundamental right to life in order to save five people and maximize utility. But is the Trolley Problem and the Fat Man problem really the same? Can we apply the rights trump utility principle on both cases?  Perhaps not. We might reason that in the Fat Man case we are simply and outright killing a man and impeding his rights in order to maximize utility. In the Trolley Problem, we are not directly killing a man - we are merely moving the direction of a *threat*, so that the threat threatens one life instead of threatening of five. Perhaps this difference is enough to make pulling the switch justifiable?  I don't really think so. Sure, we can say that the act of pulling the switch *in itself* is not a morally bad act, since the threat could have easily threatened an empty track and we wouldn't have this dilemma... But it still seems like a cop-out to me, a way to shift the blame and the responsibility of killing someone. You are infringing upon another man's fundamental right to life on both accounts, and I do not believe that infringing this man's rights could trump maximal utility.   In this regard, I do hold that right trumps utilities in both accounts. Note, I do believe that someone can justify sudden action based on a utilitarian understanding of the situation - we are all human, after all, and can make mistakes in such high-pressure situations. However, I do not believe that we are able to justify saying that *everyone* **ought** to pull the lever to save five people. Once again, the right to life triumphs over maximizing utility.   --- PS. Thompson sympathizes and says that there is no obligation that compels someone to act in this case.   >Consider again that lingering feeling of discomfort about what the bystander does if he turns the switch. No doubt it is permissible to turn the trolley, but still... but still... People who feel this discomfort also think that, although it is permissible to turn the trolley, it is not orally required to do so.  I would have to agree with Thompson here. *Killing someone,* or even threatening to kill someone and seeing that threat kill them, places a huge weight upon the actor's shoulders. Some people become sick by merely seeing a dead body - to somehow place the obligation to act on everybody seems preposterous to me. It is too... utilitarian. That is, it is too impersonal; it doesn't really put the values and individual moral integrity of the individual. Not everyone has the willpower to act and we must understand that. While we might say that the *best* outcome may come from action, I don't think we can really put some kind of universal obligation to act when acting puts such extreme weight upon someone's morals.","human_ref_B":"Interesting choice. Most people only start objecting like this when the thought experiment is changed to include the fat man that one pushes onto the track to save the five workers. Link  Do you see any difference at all?","labels":1,"seconds_difference":628.0,"score_ratio":6.5}
{"post_id":"153nfd","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.9,"history":"Can Askphilosophy weigh in on a debate my friend and I are having about the trolley dilemma?  The trolley dilemma is as follows:  A runaway trolley is headed towards a group of 5 construction workers on the track. If the trolley were to hit them, they would certainly die and there is no way to alert them of the oncoming trolley. However, you could flip a switch and redirect the trolley onto a different track that only has one construction worker on it. Would you flip the switch?   One of us argues that since flipping the switch would result in the death of one construction worker, it is a morally wrong action. The only way to avoid a morally wrong action is to do nothing at all. If you have not acted, you cannot be morally wrong.  The other argues that choosing not to act is an action in itself. By not flipping the switch, you are allowing 5 workers to die when you could only allow 1 to die.   What are your thoughts?","c_root_id_A":"c7j1s5d","c_root_id_B":"c7izguk","created_at_utc_A":1355927213,"created_at_utc_B":1355908286,"score_A":5,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":">If you have not acted, you cannot be morally wrong.  Whoa, whoa, whoa, it's impossible for inaction to be morally wrong? So if I decide not to throw a drowning person a life preserver simply because they're black, there's nothing morally wrong with that? That's an absurd principle.","human_ref_B":"For the one of you that thinks it's only wrong if you turn the trolley (and so take action) I wonder how you'd feel if you were put in the following case: You come across a group of five people who are about to be executed. You know from the reputation of this region that they're probably not being executed for good reasons. The executioner offers you the chance to save their lives if you just say \"let them go.\" Is it still permissible for you to remain silent? If so, what's different between this case and the trolley case? I think this shows that we sometimes muddy the waters in the trolley problem by worrying about one really bad than vs. another really (but perhaps more so) bad thing and I think the example I offered can clear the waters a bit.  The second view that (one of) you advocates, that not acting is itself an action, is the best way to argue in favor of turning the trolley while appealing to consequentialists and deontologists alike. Whether you think acts are wrong because of their outcomes or because of the act itself, you will probably think that it's better to act in favor of the lesser harm. I think that as long as the driver is well-informed about the situation, this is the most plausible way to frame it. I require that they be well-informed because we sometimes grant moral leniency when parties are reasonably unaware of the relevant information.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":18927.0,"score_ratio":1.25}
{"post_id":"153nfd","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.9,"history":"Can Askphilosophy weigh in on a debate my friend and I are having about the trolley dilemma?  The trolley dilemma is as follows:  A runaway trolley is headed towards a group of 5 construction workers on the track. If the trolley were to hit them, they would certainly die and there is no way to alert them of the oncoming trolley. However, you could flip a switch and redirect the trolley onto a different track that only has one construction worker on it. Would you flip the switch?   One of us argues that since flipping the switch would result in the death of one construction worker, it is a morally wrong action. The only way to avoid a morally wrong action is to do nothing at all. If you have not acted, you cannot be morally wrong.  The other argues that choosing not to act is an action in itself. By not flipping the switch, you are allowing 5 workers to die when you could only allow 1 to die.   What are your thoughts?","c_root_id_A":"c7k1a7h","c_root_id_B":"c7j2c56","created_at_utc_A":1356077708,"created_at_utc_B":1355929717,"score_A":3,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"You should throw the switch when the front wheels have passed the fork, but the back wheels have not. This causes the front of the cart to travel on one path and the back of the cart to travel on the other path. Effectively, this results in derailment of the trolley, and everyone is saved. This requires precise timing, however, so if you attempt this and are too late the cart continues on to kill the 5 people, or are to early and the cart is diverted to kill the 1 person, you can't really be blamed either way because you were making you best effort to save everyone.","human_ref_B":"Interesting choice. Most people only start objecting like this when the thought experiment is changed to include the fat man that one pushes onto the track to save the five workers. Link  Do you see any difference at all?","labels":1,"seconds_difference":147991.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
{"post_id":"514qmv","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.62,"history":"Does Judith Butler deny biological reality? As a Conservative, I disagree with a lot of contemporary Feminist thought. I have recently come across Feminist Philosopher Judith Butler, and her ideas.  Now, I can somewhat agree that gender roles are performed-that much is obvious-but I think Judith takes it too far by suggesting that gender doesn't exist outside these roles.  Correct me if I'm wrong, but is she denying biology here?","c_root_id_A":"d79cgn6","c_root_id_B":"d79adn4","created_at_utc_A":1473013320,"created_at_utc_B":1473010006,"score_A":13,"score_B":9,"human_ref_A":"I would point you to Butler's \"Bodies that Matter\"--which came after her more famous \"Gender Trouble\" and was, in part, a response to some of the arguments that were circulating based upon the first book.  From the introduction: \"Is there a way to link the question of materiality of the body to the performativity of gender?  And how does the category of 'sex' figure within such a relationship?  Consider first that sexual difference is often invoked as an issue of material differences.  Sexual difference, however, is never simply a function of material differences which are not in some way both marked and formed by discursive practices.  Further, to claim that sexual differences are indissociable from discursive demarcations is not the same as claiming that discourse causes sexual difference.  ...In other word, 'sex' is an ideal construct which is forcibly materialized through time.  It is not a simple fact or static condition of the body, but a process whereby regulatory norms materialize 'sex' and achieve this materialization through forcible reiteration of those norms\" (1-2).  By way of illustration, consider that \"male\" and \"female\" bodies are largely indistinguishable until puberty.  The establishment of \"difference\" at young ages depends upon checking a very small and particular portion of the body.  Without that inspection and its determination of \"gender,\" there is no clear way of marking \"difference.\"  Yet, once that inspection has happened, once a \"body\" has been marked as \"male\" or \"female\", a whole host of discourses are brought into play.  Boy babies are strong, adventurous, brave.  Girl babies are tender, beautiful, cooperative.  Certain roles are immediately assigned--clothing, toys, ways of acting, ways being acted upon, etc.  Children are treated differently in schools and various environments as a result of being identified as a \"boy\" or a \"girl\"--even when there is no substantial or essential difference in behaviour or appearance.  To the degree that one then conforms to expected behaviours and appearances (to the degree that one performs), one is counted as human, as a part of society.  Yet, all of this is built upon perception and cultural norm, rather than on any substantial bodily difference. All this is not to say that bodies don't matter, but that many of our ideas about \"gender\" and sexual \"difference\" are enforced and inculcated when that \"bodily fact\" is known only to a few.  The \"body\" itself has little bearing on these perceptions and discourses of gender and difference.  Butler is particularly concerned with the social and political implications of those discourses which, while not completely separable from \"bodies,\" far exceed them and are grounded more in particular regimes of intelligibility (ways of categorizing and regulating bodies) than in actual, visible differences.","human_ref_B":"There's a discussion in philosophy of science about natural kinds.  In other words how to, when we divide things (such as sexes) into categories, make sure we're making non-arbitrary dividing lines.  \"Cutting nature at the joints\" is a way I've heard it put.  There are reasons one could use to say that sex is not in fact a great choice for natural kind.  For instance, intersex babies who are often given surgery from a young age to make their bodies more closely resemble one sex or the other.  That's a great example of how sex may seem natural but in fact is in part quite literally forced upon us.  The difference between male and female is often decided on whether the clitoris\/penis is past a few millimetres long at birth.  That's quite strange if you ask me, very arbitrary.  One can also consider cases where chromosome don't match the reproductive organs or the sex cells, etc.  One could also dispute the existence of natural kinds in general.  This seems quite possible, for instance consider the great difficulty is creating a non-arbitrary species concept.  Should we use biological species concepts?  That would exclude bacteria.  What about morphological?  There are many animals that look a lot alike to us, but don't interbreed, etc.  And so on, and so on.  If this is true, then that would include sex.  I'm not sure if any of these arguments are used by Butler specifically but since others have stated that she does believe biological sex is a socially constructed category, I thought I'd provide some reasons to think that she might be right since it is a very hard view to take seriously if stated without any justification.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":3314.0,"score_ratio":1.4444444444}
{"post_id":"514qmv","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.62,"history":"Does Judith Butler deny biological reality? As a Conservative, I disagree with a lot of contemporary Feminist thought. I have recently come across Feminist Philosopher Judith Butler, and her ideas.  Now, I can somewhat agree that gender roles are performed-that much is obvious-but I think Judith takes it too far by suggesting that gender doesn't exist outside these roles.  Correct me if I'm wrong, but is she denying biology here?","c_root_id_A":"d799u6z","c_root_id_B":"d79cgn6","created_at_utc_A":1473009125,"created_at_utc_B":1473013320,"score_A":7,"score_B":13,"human_ref_A":"Not an expert on Butler, sorry. But I can speak a bit to one way of arriving at that general line of thinking.  Lots of people found it helpful to make a distinction between sex and gender. Sex just is all the purely biological stuff. Gender just is all the non-purely biological stuff. If we think about it, a whole, whole, whole lot of the things that we associate with femininity or masculinity have massive social influences (to choose one example among thousands, there are cultures in which it is considered extremely unmasculine to wear shorts, but in mainstream American culture, it's not).   So, if you are stipulating that gender just is the stuff that doesn't reduce purely down to biology, then claims like Butler's aren't actually that controversial. Then, the question is whether or not it is fair to stipulate the proposed distinction between sex and gender.  There are some people, call them essentialists, who think that the distinction doesn't really make sense, because all of the seemingly socially-influenced \"gender\"-differences really do reduce down purely to biology. To me, this just seems wrong - there is too much variation across cultures and across times within the same culture for \"gender\" differences to reduce down entirely to biology. And, the argument that \"well, there is always a biological influence in gender\" doesn't actually support essentialism (I think this is where some people get confused). As soon as you've got a little bit of social influence in there, it's not biological essentialism anymore.   In support of the proposed distinction between sex and gender, you might argue that biological sex determines a whole lot less than what gender does. And, even when biological sex is relevant, it often determines things to a much lesser degree than what gender does. For example, in a particular society, the beliefs about gender might be that men are especially not suited for job X, but if we really understood the biology, we'd know that there wasn't any sex-related biological factor influencing suitability for doing job X. So, because sex and gender can come apart, often in ways that end up limiting people's options, the distinction can be really helpful.","human_ref_B":"I would point you to Butler's \"Bodies that Matter\"--which came after her more famous \"Gender Trouble\" and was, in part, a response to some of the arguments that were circulating based upon the first book.  From the introduction: \"Is there a way to link the question of materiality of the body to the performativity of gender?  And how does the category of 'sex' figure within such a relationship?  Consider first that sexual difference is often invoked as an issue of material differences.  Sexual difference, however, is never simply a function of material differences which are not in some way both marked and formed by discursive practices.  Further, to claim that sexual differences are indissociable from discursive demarcations is not the same as claiming that discourse causes sexual difference.  ...In other word, 'sex' is an ideal construct which is forcibly materialized through time.  It is not a simple fact or static condition of the body, but a process whereby regulatory norms materialize 'sex' and achieve this materialization through forcible reiteration of those norms\" (1-2).  By way of illustration, consider that \"male\" and \"female\" bodies are largely indistinguishable until puberty.  The establishment of \"difference\" at young ages depends upon checking a very small and particular portion of the body.  Without that inspection and its determination of \"gender,\" there is no clear way of marking \"difference.\"  Yet, once that inspection has happened, once a \"body\" has been marked as \"male\" or \"female\", a whole host of discourses are brought into play.  Boy babies are strong, adventurous, brave.  Girl babies are tender, beautiful, cooperative.  Certain roles are immediately assigned--clothing, toys, ways of acting, ways being acted upon, etc.  Children are treated differently in schools and various environments as a result of being identified as a \"boy\" or a \"girl\"--even when there is no substantial or essential difference in behaviour or appearance.  To the degree that one then conforms to expected behaviours and appearances (to the degree that one performs), one is counted as human, as a part of society.  Yet, all of this is built upon perception and cultural norm, rather than on any substantial bodily difference. All this is not to say that bodies don't matter, but that many of our ideas about \"gender\" and sexual \"difference\" are enforced and inculcated when that \"bodily fact\" is known only to a few.  The \"body\" itself has little bearing on these perceptions and discourses of gender and difference.  Butler is particularly concerned with the social and political implications of those discourses which, while not completely separable from \"bodies,\" far exceed them and are grounded more in particular regimes of intelligibility (ways of categorizing and regulating bodies) than in actual, visible differences.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":4195.0,"score_ratio":1.8571428571}
{"post_id":"514qmv","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.62,"history":"Does Judith Butler deny biological reality? As a Conservative, I disagree with a lot of contemporary Feminist thought. I have recently come across Feminist Philosopher Judith Butler, and her ideas.  Now, I can somewhat agree that gender roles are performed-that much is obvious-but I think Judith takes it too far by suggesting that gender doesn't exist outside these roles.  Correct me if I'm wrong, but is she denying biology here?","c_root_id_A":"d799u6z","c_root_id_B":"d79adn4","created_at_utc_A":1473009125,"created_at_utc_B":1473010006,"score_A":7,"score_B":9,"human_ref_A":"Not an expert on Butler, sorry. But I can speak a bit to one way of arriving at that general line of thinking.  Lots of people found it helpful to make a distinction between sex and gender. Sex just is all the purely biological stuff. Gender just is all the non-purely biological stuff. If we think about it, a whole, whole, whole lot of the things that we associate with femininity or masculinity have massive social influences (to choose one example among thousands, there are cultures in which it is considered extremely unmasculine to wear shorts, but in mainstream American culture, it's not).   So, if you are stipulating that gender just is the stuff that doesn't reduce purely down to biology, then claims like Butler's aren't actually that controversial. Then, the question is whether or not it is fair to stipulate the proposed distinction between sex and gender.  There are some people, call them essentialists, who think that the distinction doesn't really make sense, because all of the seemingly socially-influenced \"gender\"-differences really do reduce down purely to biology. To me, this just seems wrong - there is too much variation across cultures and across times within the same culture for \"gender\" differences to reduce down entirely to biology. And, the argument that \"well, there is always a biological influence in gender\" doesn't actually support essentialism (I think this is where some people get confused). As soon as you've got a little bit of social influence in there, it's not biological essentialism anymore.   In support of the proposed distinction between sex and gender, you might argue that biological sex determines a whole lot less than what gender does. And, even when biological sex is relevant, it often determines things to a much lesser degree than what gender does. For example, in a particular society, the beliefs about gender might be that men are especially not suited for job X, but if we really understood the biology, we'd know that there wasn't any sex-related biological factor influencing suitability for doing job X. So, because sex and gender can come apart, often in ways that end up limiting people's options, the distinction can be really helpful.","human_ref_B":"There's a discussion in philosophy of science about natural kinds.  In other words how to, when we divide things (such as sexes) into categories, make sure we're making non-arbitrary dividing lines.  \"Cutting nature at the joints\" is a way I've heard it put.  There are reasons one could use to say that sex is not in fact a great choice for natural kind.  For instance, intersex babies who are often given surgery from a young age to make their bodies more closely resemble one sex or the other.  That's a great example of how sex may seem natural but in fact is in part quite literally forced upon us.  The difference between male and female is often decided on whether the clitoris\/penis is past a few millimetres long at birth.  That's quite strange if you ask me, very arbitrary.  One can also consider cases where chromosome don't match the reproductive organs or the sex cells, etc.  One could also dispute the existence of natural kinds in general.  This seems quite possible, for instance consider the great difficulty is creating a non-arbitrary species concept.  Should we use biological species concepts?  That would exclude bacteria.  What about morphological?  There are many animals that look a lot alike to us, but don't interbreed, etc.  And so on, and so on.  If this is true, then that would include sex.  I'm not sure if any of these arguments are used by Butler specifically but since others have stated that she does believe biological sex is a socially constructed category, I thought I'd provide some reasons to think that she might be right since it is a very hard view to take seriously if stated without any justification.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":881.0,"score_ratio":1.2857142857}
{"post_id":"3inck0","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.85,"history":"Do most professors who teach philosophy in US colleges have a Master's degree or a PhD? What do their academic credentials exactly look like?","c_root_id_A":"cuhxptb","c_root_id_B":"cui7ol3","created_at_utc_A":1440710808,"created_at_utc_B":1440729001,"score_A":2,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"Basically all of them have a Master's or a PhD. I'm not sure what else you mean by \"their academic credentials\" but if you just start checking their CVs you can get an idea for what they've been up to.","human_ref_B":"Usually PhD's. You'll find some M.A.s here or there in community colleges, but the sheer number of PhDs out there compared with the number of jobs has made it such that the M.As have been pushed aside by PhDs who haven't been able to find work at larger universities.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":18193.0,"score_ratio":2.5}
{"post_id":"3inck0","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.85,"history":"Do most professors who teach philosophy in US colleges have a Master's degree or a PhD? What do their academic credentials exactly look like?","c_root_id_A":"cui7ol3","c_root_id_B":"cuhzvu8","created_at_utc_A":1440729001,"created_at_utc_B":1440714373,"score_A":5,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"Usually PhD's. You'll find some M.A.s here or there in community colleges, but the sheer number of PhDs out there compared with the number of jobs has made it such that the M.As have been pushed aside by PhDs who haven't been able to find work at larger universities.","human_ref_B":"Different states have different rules. The US is a big country that pushes most decision-making down to the individual states.   In Washington State where I began my career, to teach philosophy at a community college or small 4-year college you needed something like 2 semesters\/quarters of graduate level coursework in philosophy. Other states might differ regarding their minimum requirements.  At big name schools and universities the classes are taught by permanent PhD faculty and philosophy graduate students. Usually the graduate students start out as teaching assistants for the PhD permanent faculty (where the TA does all the grading and teaches 1-2 of the weekly lectures, while the PhD faculty teaches 2-3 of the weekly lectures and is responsible for designing the class and managing the TAs). After a graduate student has taken about 2-3 years of coursework, they begin to be given their own classes to teach. Graduate students may be teaching their own classes without a MA, but usually the 2-3 year mark where graduate students start teaching courses is also the point where they receive an MA.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":14628.0,"score_ratio":2.5}
{"post_id":"qtcjxi","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.91,"history":"What is will supposed to be free from? I have read the FAQ looking for an answer to this question, but the questions there seem to more focused on physics than the question I have.   We often hear people talking about \u201cfree will\u201d, but from what I can see will is actually very limited and constrained. I have a few examples to explain.   Napoleon never wanted to go Christmas shopping in New York. I live in Europe and Christmas shopping in New York is something people sometimes do as a vacation. Napoleon (or anyone living in his time) would rarely have wanted this since a) traveling back and forth across the Atlantic would have been to time consuming, b) Christmas shopping was not as much of a thing then as it is now, and c) if you wanted to go Christmas shopping, New York would be a very weird place to travel to to do it since it wasn\u2019t a bug city but a rather poor place.   Based on this example, will is limited by technological development (I can\u2019t want to do something if there is no reasonable technological way to achieve it or I am unfamiliar of the technological possibility). I have never considered Christmas shopping on the moon just as Napoleon most likely didn\u2019t consider doing it in New York. My grandfather never wanted a Facebook account since he died two years before Facebook was created.   Will is also limited by culture. If you are not in the cultural habit of buying a lot of things for Christmas or celebrate Christmas you probably don\u2019t even think about Christmas shopping or want to do it.   Will is limited by societal development. New York might be nice for Christmas shopping now, but there were probably better places to spend money in Napoleon\u2019s time (Paris would be the obvious choice).   Will is limited by knowledge. I like to try new kinds of food but there are most certainly foods I don\u2019t want to try because I don\u2019t know they exist. There are jobs I would like to have and am qualified for, but I don\u2019t know the company is hiring or maybe even that it exists, so I don\u2019t have a want to work there.   Will is limited by physical and mental ability. I don\u2019t want to run a marathon, because my knee is busted after a skiing accident. If my knee was in good shape it\u2019s possible I would have had long distance running as a hobby, but since I know it won\u2019t happen I have crossed it if my list of things I want. I actually very much want to not run due to the pain it would cause. On the other hand there are forms of exercise I have tried and like due to my injury and rehab training that I would probably not want to do if I didn\u2019t have my injury.   There is also the issue of financial limitations that shape wants and desires. Sure, just about everyone would say yes to a two week vacation at a luxurious resort if it was offered, but financial realities mean that few people actually have it as a mental possibility.   Just as will is limited, some directions of will is encouraged. Ads are the obvious example of encouraging the will to have things and certain lifestyles. Music and movies show things as desirable and creates the want for things and lifestyles, and beauty standards. Our very choice of partner is most likely influenced by the beauty standards set by ads, music, magazines and movies\/TV. Friends and family encourage values and thereby will. Politicians and pundits try to make people want certain things and seem to be at least a bit successful.   A lot of things limit our will, and a lot of things pull our will in certain directions. With all these things steering will, how can will be considered free? For those who claim that will is free, what is it free from?","c_root_id_A":"hkiliyj","c_root_id_B":"hkjcqhu","created_at_utc_A":1636845736,"created_at_utc_B":1636857874,"score_A":10,"score_B":13,"human_ref_A":"We're free (when we are free) when we're free from being coerced, or otherwise made to act contrary to our desires, and free in terms of being mentally and physically well, such that we are not limited or prevented by our body from doing that which we desire. Obviously none of us are totally free in this way, but that is never what is claimed, total freedom, not even by libertarians, and importantly this stuff is stuff we can do something about, for ourselves and for each other.","human_ref_B":"Classic incompatibilists claim that for a will to truly be free it must be free from natural causes\/laws. Because most people think this is absurd, this leads to hard determinism. Others reject the idea that all phenomena can be reduced to those described in the language of natural science; i.e. social phenomena like 'person' and 'action' that make up social reality are missed by explanations strictly in terms of physical laws. This leads to the thought that freedom may be a matter of social constitution and recognition, and agency a social and historical achievement, rather than metaphysical fact.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":12138.0,"score_ratio":1.3}
{"post_id":"qtcjxi","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.91,"history":"What is will supposed to be free from? I have read the FAQ looking for an answer to this question, but the questions there seem to more focused on physics than the question I have.   We often hear people talking about \u201cfree will\u201d, but from what I can see will is actually very limited and constrained. I have a few examples to explain.   Napoleon never wanted to go Christmas shopping in New York. I live in Europe and Christmas shopping in New York is something people sometimes do as a vacation. Napoleon (or anyone living in his time) would rarely have wanted this since a) traveling back and forth across the Atlantic would have been to time consuming, b) Christmas shopping was not as much of a thing then as it is now, and c) if you wanted to go Christmas shopping, New York would be a very weird place to travel to to do it since it wasn\u2019t a bug city but a rather poor place.   Based on this example, will is limited by technological development (I can\u2019t want to do something if there is no reasonable technological way to achieve it or I am unfamiliar of the technological possibility). I have never considered Christmas shopping on the moon just as Napoleon most likely didn\u2019t consider doing it in New York. My grandfather never wanted a Facebook account since he died two years before Facebook was created.   Will is also limited by culture. If you are not in the cultural habit of buying a lot of things for Christmas or celebrate Christmas you probably don\u2019t even think about Christmas shopping or want to do it.   Will is limited by societal development. New York might be nice for Christmas shopping now, but there were probably better places to spend money in Napoleon\u2019s time (Paris would be the obvious choice).   Will is limited by knowledge. I like to try new kinds of food but there are most certainly foods I don\u2019t want to try because I don\u2019t know they exist. There are jobs I would like to have and am qualified for, but I don\u2019t know the company is hiring or maybe even that it exists, so I don\u2019t have a want to work there.   Will is limited by physical and mental ability. I don\u2019t want to run a marathon, because my knee is busted after a skiing accident. If my knee was in good shape it\u2019s possible I would have had long distance running as a hobby, but since I know it won\u2019t happen I have crossed it if my list of things I want. I actually very much want to not run due to the pain it would cause. On the other hand there are forms of exercise I have tried and like due to my injury and rehab training that I would probably not want to do if I didn\u2019t have my injury.   There is also the issue of financial limitations that shape wants and desires. Sure, just about everyone would say yes to a two week vacation at a luxurious resort if it was offered, but financial realities mean that few people actually have it as a mental possibility.   Just as will is limited, some directions of will is encouraged. Ads are the obvious example of encouraging the will to have things and certain lifestyles. Music and movies show things as desirable and creates the want for things and lifestyles, and beauty standards. Our very choice of partner is most likely influenced by the beauty standards set by ads, music, magazines and movies\/TV. Friends and family encourage values and thereby will. Politicians and pundits try to make people want certain things and seem to be at least a bit successful.   A lot of things limit our will, and a lot of things pull our will in certain directions. With all these things steering will, how can will be considered free? For those who claim that will is free, what is it free from?","c_root_id_A":"hkk8zqr","c_root_id_B":"hkjh23z","created_at_utc_A":1636875393,"created_at_utc_B":1636859916,"score_A":4,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"From a Neo-Aristotelian point of view: the issue here is that the definition of the word \"will\" has been rendered ambiguous by different philosophical traditions. Depending on which philosophical\/metaphysical tradition you come from, \"will\" and what is \"free\" is up for definition. Three examples:  \\- from a Hegelian definition, free will\/freedom is self-determination.  ​  \\- from a Lockean point of view, will is agency,  ​  \\- from a Aristotelian (and to a certain extent, Catholic\/Aquinian synthesis of Aristotle) point of view: will is the pursuit of an understood good as cognised by the intellect.  I happen to be a big fan of Kevin Timpe's work around \"free will\" and the nuances he introduced in the contemporary conversation.","human_ref_B":"There are two answers. The first is that our will is free when we can make the choices we want to without being coerced. The second is that our will is free when it is possible for us to make more than one choice (and therefore to want more than one thing) in any given situation. Those holding the first view are called compatibilists, and those holding the second are incompatibilists. Note that this is independent of the question of whether either or both of these conditions are actually met.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":15477.0,"score_ratio":2.0}
{"post_id":"q3y519","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.89,"history":"Looking for good philosophical reads that argue against the centralization of political power, especially from a democratic standpoint The title basically says it all -- I'm looking for books or paprers that present compelling arguments against the centralization of political power. In particular, I'm interested in texts that start from a democratic standpoint, and argue that highly centralized democracy in a large nation-state must be inherently flawed. Any suggestions are welcome!     If you have your own thoughts on the topic feel free to share them, but I'm mostly interested in the literature.","c_root_id_A":"hfuxyd8","c_root_id_B":"hfv1d2i","created_at_utc_A":1633704130,"created_at_utc_B":1633705595,"score_A":3,"score_B":6,"human_ref_A":"Basically all anarchists. Just look for articles on political anarchy and you will find a million different authors.","human_ref_B":"Mutual Aid; A Factor of Evolution by Peter Kropotkin","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1465.0,"score_ratio":2.0}
{"post_id":"q3y519","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.89,"history":"Looking for good philosophical reads that argue against the centralization of political power, especially from a democratic standpoint The title basically says it all -- I'm looking for books or paprers that present compelling arguments against the centralization of political power. In particular, I'm interested in texts that start from a democratic standpoint, and argue that highly centralized democracy in a large nation-state must be inherently flawed. Any suggestions are welcome!     If you have your own thoughts on the topic feel free to share them, but I'm mostly interested in the literature.","c_root_id_A":"hfuyc6j","c_root_id_B":"hfv1d2i","created_at_utc_A":1633704295,"created_at_utc_B":1633705595,"score_A":4,"score_B":6,"human_ref_A":"I consider the Ostroms the power couple of philosophical political economy on this issue. Elinor does more of the cultural anthropology seeing how decentralized governance solves issues in innovative & appropriate ways, while Vincent focuses more on articulating the theoretical insights of what Elinor discovered. PM if you want me to hunt down what I consider some of their better papers. Otherwise, just look for their stuff about polycentricity & governing the the commons.","human_ref_B":"Mutual Aid; A Factor of Evolution by Peter Kropotkin","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1300.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
{"post_id":"q3y519","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.89,"history":"Looking for good philosophical reads that argue against the centralization of political power, especially from a democratic standpoint The title basically says it all -- I'm looking for books or paprers that present compelling arguments against the centralization of political power. In particular, I'm interested in texts that start from a democratic standpoint, and argue that highly centralized democracy in a large nation-state must be inherently flawed. Any suggestions are welcome!     If you have your own thoughts on the topic feel free to share them, but I'm mostly interested in the literature.","c_root_id_A":"hfuxyd8","c_root_id_B":"hfuyc6j","created_at_utc_A":1633704130,"created_at_utc_B":1633704295,"score_A":3,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"Basically all anarchists. Just look for articles on political anarchy and you will find a million different authors.","human_ref_B":"I consider the Ostroms the power couple of philosophical political economy on this issue. Elinor does more of the cultural anthropology seeing how decentralized governance solves issues in innovative & appropriate ways, while Vincent focuses more on articulating the theoretical insights of what Elinor discovered. PM if you want me to hunt down what I consider some of their better papers. Otherwise, just look for their stuff about polycentricity & governing the the commons.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":165.0,"score_ratio":1.3333333333}
{"post_id":"jxtw2z","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":1.0,"history":"Question about the categorical imperative; is it actually always wrong to lie? For starters, I am not an expert in philosophy, merely interested in learning about the subject.  I\u2019m having trouble understanding why it wouldn\u2019t be alright to lie if acting in accordance with Kant\u2019s categorical imperative. If, say, we take the classical example, where a person is hiding a Jewish family from the Nazis, and he can either lie to save the family or tell the truth, which will be the end of said family. Would it not be in line with the categorical imperative to lie here because one would wish it be an universal law to lie in a situation exactly of this kind? Would we not want to live in a world where people lie in order to save this family from, otherwise, inevitable execution?  I am sure my question is both naive and redundant, but I would be delighted to receive an answer to it. Thank you in advance!","c_root_id_A":"gcyvt5f","c_root_id_B":"gcyzexs","created_at_utc_A":1605898883,"created_at_utc_B":1605900639,"score_A":2,"score_B":25,"human_ref_A":"https:\/\/onlinelibrary.wiley.com\/doi\/full\/10.1111\/j.1467-9833.2010.01507.x","human_ref_B":"There are a lot of complications here.  > If, say, we take the classical example, where a person is hiding a Jewish family from the Nazis, and he can either lie to save the family or tell the truth, which will be the end of said family.   The challenge more or less straight from Kant about this is, \"Oh - do you have the magic power whereby you can lie and cause some people to not be killed, and no further consequence follows?\"  Basically, Kant argues that when you engage in an explicit, intentional act like this you're responsible for what happens.  If the Nazis kill people, that's (morally speaking) on the Nazis.  If you lie and your lie causes the death of people, well, now you're in the causal chain.  In the first place, the Nazis may know ahead of time that the family is there and they know you will lie.  You lie, and now your family is executed too, for lying to the police.  Or, maybe the Jewish family hears the Nazis come in and decide to sneak out the back of the house to avoid the inspection.  But, you lie and so the Nazis immediately leave and then run into the family who was hoping they'd be searching the house right now.  In each case people die who would not have died because of something you did.  Your act, in each case, is self-effacing.    So, if this argument goes through, it needs a bit more work.  > Would it not be in line with the categorical imperative to lie here because one would wish it be an universal law to lie in a situation exactly of this kind? Would we not want to live in a world where people lie in order to save this family from, otherwise, inevitable execution?  The trouble here is that the categorical imperative doesn't tell us that rules are justified when we would *want* or *wish* them to govern the world - it tells us that rules are justified when we *could will* them to be universal laws.  Now, on some readings, this does include a test whereby the rule creates no \"contradictions in the will\" - whereby such contradictions involve something like a consistency between our own rational desires and the rule in question.  The further trouble is that we can't have a meaningful rule which *only* governs saving *this* family - we need a general rule which would govern lying to save the lives of people we believe to be undeserving of execution - or whatever it is that we think we are doing when we plan this lie.  Still, some Kantians do defend various loopholes here which allow us to lie in such cases - in particular, some say that some people are not owed the truth (by virtue of their having forced a question) or that it would be wrong to allow ourselves be used as tools for evil - or, in this case, possibly both at once.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1756.0,"score_ratio":12.5}
{"post_id":"jxtw2z","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":1.0,"history":"Question about the categorical imperative; is it actually always wrong to lie? For starters, I am not an expert in philosophy, merely interested in learning about the subject.  I\u2019m having trouble understanding why it wouldn\u2019t be alright to lie if acting in accordance with Kant\u2019s categorical imperative. If, say, we take the classical example, where a person is hiding a Jewish family from the Nazis, and he can either lie to save the family or tell the truth, which will be the end of said family. Would it not be in line with the categorical imperative to lie here because one would wish it be an universal law to lie in a situation exactly of this kind? Would we not want to live in a world where people lie in order to save this family from, otherwise, inevitable execution?  I am sure my question is both naive and redundant, but I would be delighted to receive an answer to it. Thank you in advance!","c_root_id_A":"gcyvt5f","c_root_id_B":"gcyzj41","created_at_utc_A":1605898883,"created_at_utc_B":1605900695,"score_A":2,"score_B":7,"human_ref_A":"https:\/\/onlinelibrary.wiley.com\/doi\/full\/10.1111\/j.1467-9833.2010.01507.x","human_ref_B":"As u\/Maxmajava's linked article pointed out, Kant's position has been seriously misinterpreted (partially his fault for being confusing) in his essay *On a Supposed Right to Lie from Philantrophy.* But let's hear it from the man himself:  >Yet since men are malicious, it is true that we often court danger by punctilious  observance of the truth and hence has arisen the concept of the necessary lie, which  is a very critical point for the moral philosopher. So far as I am constrained, by force used against me, to make an admission, and wrongful use is made of my statement, and I am unable to save myself by silence, the lie is a weapon of defense;  the declaration that is extorted and then misused permits me to defend myself, for  whether my admission or my money is extracted is all the same. Hence there is no case in which a necessary lie occurs except where the declaration is forced from me  and I am also convinced the other means to make wrongful use of it.   *Vorlesungen \u00fcber Ethik*, Ak 27, 29   *Lectures on Ethics*, Ca Lectures on Ethics","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1812.0,"score_ratio":3.5}
{"post_id":"qat8qe","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.94,"history":"What does \"subject\" mean in Continental Philosophy? The term \"subject\" or \"subjectivity\" seems to be fairly common in 20th-century Continental Philosophy, but I find it pretty confusing. What, exactly, is a \"subject\"? Here are a few examples of specific uses of \"subject\" or \"subjectivity\" that I am confused by and was hoping to have cleared up.  Example 1: when Althusser writes \"there is no ideology except by the subject and for the subject,\" what is the \"subject\" he is referring to?  Example 2: the SEP article on Marcuse contains the following sentence: \"radical subjectivity refers to the development of a form of self-consciousness that finds present social and economic conditions intolerable.\" What does \"subjectivity\" mean in this context?","c_root_id_A":"hh7a304","c_root_id_B":"hh5g25d","created_at_utc_A":1634622385,"created_at_utc_B":1634588380,"score_A":8,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"There is no one, univocal way in which the term is used, and your two examples are reflective of this. However, it's worth noting one thing that both share: that subjects are *produced*. Marcuse refers to the 'development' of the subject, and Althusser refers to the subject's 'interpellation'. This is why subjects are not just 'persons'. Persons, as it were, *become* subjects (although not necessarily *just* persons - people also speak of collective subjectivity too). Specifically, they become subjects *to* such-and-such. In this sense subjects are always relational to some set of conditions - political, social, cultural, physical - to which they are subject. In this regard 'subjects' refer to the 'kind of being' that those conditions enable and create. Our status as subjects may not even be exhaustive of who 'we are'.  One of the tricky things about this vocabulary is that there are different 'theories of the subject'; i.e. different theories of the way in which subjects become so, which in turn alters the conception of what a subject 'is'. Often, the question of the subject is associated with the question of agency: if the subject is produced by such and such, what are the conditions by which a subject can exercise agency? And differing theories of the subject will answer this question in different ways. The 'double-edged' valence of the subject is usually captured grammatically: to be a subject-of, and to be a subject-to. In some cases, one can speak of being *denied* the status of a subject.  Two useful - and not necessarily commensurate - ways of thinking about the subject is (1) as set of capacities. E.g. The able-bodied subject, with the capacity to run, reach or sit; or, in another vein, the subject of neoliberalism, who has to negotiate an increasingly privatized and atomized social\/economic environment, as distinct from the subject of say, feudalism. Or, (2) a *form* which certain entity or entities (individuals or groups say) can take on, relative to a specific domain (again: the political subject, the subject of language, the subject of desire, etc). In either case, it is useful to think of subjects rather than persons insofar as subjects are *produced*; and that production is not necessarily punctual, but also processual. One can even 'be' a subject prior to birth, which is a point that Althusser makes in the essay you cite.  As a final note, it would be advisable to not automatically conflate what goes by 'the subject' with 'consciousness', 'experience', or even, funnily enough, 'subjectivity'. Although in some cases this is warranted - as per the Marcuse quote - there are many instances in which 'the subject' has very little to do with 'experience' and 'being conscious'. You can notice this in the case where, as per Althusser, one can be a subject before one is even born. More generally though, in structuralist and post-structuralist conceptions of the subject (to which Althusser belongs), 'the subject' is the correlate of a 'structure' which produces it: the subject in this case is a 'place' that one occupies, a *locus* in a socio-political landscape, and has very little to do with 'experience' as such (although one may come across formulations like: there are certain experiences which inform and play a role in the production of such and such subjects).","human_ref_B":"The subject is one half of the subject-object relation: the being which observes (subject) that which is observed (object). It's similar to 'mind' and 'consciousness' as well as 'point of view' and 'perspective.' This is the same sense of 'subject' in expressions like 'subjective experience' or more common uses of 'subjective': that which is of or dependent on one's mind rather than of the external world.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":34005.0,"score_ratio":1.6}
{"post_id":"2xochx","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.79,"history":"Explain like I'm five years old: why can't we have a third option for Euthyphro dilemma? Why is only A or B? Why can't we have C? I am a computer programmer with a passion for philosophy.","c_root_id_A":"cp1xfn9","c_root_id_B":"cp1z3za","created_at_utc_A":1425314615,"created_at_utc_B":1425317418,"score_A":2,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"Because Plato is trying to make a particular point, and in order to do so he needs to present it as if there are only two possible options.","human_ref_B":"Because there is no possible C.  For instance: \"are you alive, or are you dead?\" There is no other possible state. Either you are alive, or you are dead. You are not both, you are not neither, you are not in any other state besides alive or dead.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":2803.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
{"post_id":"bde6it","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.93,"history":"Can a valid counterfactual be constructed for Euthyphro's dilemma for a creator God? In order to show moral values could or could not exist without God, a world must be conceived of in which the world exists, but God does not. But, if we have an idea of God as a creator god, without whom the world would not exist, is it not contradictory to propose a world which can exist without God? Doesn't such require changing on the fly the defintion of God which is being used and proposing a world which can bring itself into existence? Does proposing a world without God not undermine the creator God notion which modern reworkings of the Euthyphro dilemma in an abrahamic context aim to critically analyse? But here I mean undermine merely in the sense that the God which God is typically proposed to be is here abandoned, to be replaced with a God who isn't really the creator God, and thus doesn't the Euthyphro dilemma rest on an understanding of God which isn't the typical abrahamic understanding of God?","c_root_id_A":"eky9ge6","c_root_id_B":"ekyi1fh","created_at_utc_A":1555346500,"created_at_utc_B":1555351759,"score_A":2,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"> In order to show moral values could or could not exist without God, a world must be conceived of in which the world exists, but God does not.   Why?  Neither of Socrates' options *requires* that God not exist.  Each horn of the dilemma considers the relationship between Goodness and God in a world in which both are assumed to exist.","human_ref_B":"I don't understand the question. How did the existence or non-existence of a god or gods get into this? Socrates' dilemma to Euthyphro is a choice between two worlds, and in both of them a god or gods exist. The dilemma doesn't require any counterfactual world in which there aren't any gods.  The use of this kind of argument only relates to questions of the existence of a god when someone claims that a god is the source of all moral truths in some way other than the 2 Socrates proposes. In that case, the argument is that other options are contradictory, so you have to pick one of these two, and in picking one of these two you might create another contradiction with one of the other properties you think god has. And if *both* options in the dilemma lead you to a contradiction with another of the assumed properties of god, then that kind of god can't exist.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":5259.0,"score_ratio":2.0}
{"post_id":"pk1lwu","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.92,"history":"Why is Wittgenstein highly praised? Wittgenstein is said to be the greatest philosopher of 20th century. However, after reading some books on his philosophy, I can't help but feel like his philosophy is just a refurbishment of Russell's logical atomism \u2212 especially the *Tractatus*. All propositions are analyzed down to atomic propositions, which model the atomic facts...isn't this almost exactly what Russell said? Am I misunderstanding Wittgenstein's philosophy? If so, then what is the crucial difference between Russell and Wittgenstein that puts Wittgenstein to a higher position?","c_root_id_A":"hc13nfd","c_root_id_B":"hc15a0y","created_at_utc_A":1631082729,"created_at_utc_B":1631084030,"score_A":9,"score_B":19,"human_ref_A":"From your responses to others, I think you\u2019re asking a social question here\u2014how did early Wittgenstein and his _Tractatus_ gain the reputation that they did?  Here\u2019s a very partial explanation. In Ray Monk\u2019s Wittgenstein biography, _The Duty of Genius_, Monk suggests that Wittgenstein had personal quirks that lent him an aura of charisma and arrogant brilliance. (Certainly Wittgenstein leaned into those assumptions about him.) Russell thought him a genius, thought he would continue Russell\u2019s work in logic, and lent Wittgenstein his considerable support. This was critical for Wittgenstein\u2019s success. For example, to Wittgenstein\u2019s chagrin, publishers refused to print his _Tractatus_ without Russell\u2019s foreword.  Whether he deserves his fame is a different question\u2014I certainly think he does\u2014but the social environment, as always, is key.","human_ref_B":"Given your other comments in this thread, I take it your main question is something like \"how does the *Tractatus* significantly differ from Russell's views, according to the logical empiricists?\"  It is true that Russell and the Wittgenstein of the *Tractatus* share broadly similar sets of views that you might call \"logical atomism\", but these views have always been more associated with Russell, even in the early reception of the *Tractatus* by the logical empiricists.  One important difference between the early Wittgenstein and Frege\/Russell (for the logical empiricists) is their conception of the nature of logical and mathematical truth.  For Frege\/Russell, the claims of logic (and therefore mathematics, given their logicism\u2014this is another important difference between Wittgenstein and Frege\/Russell) are claims about the abstract general structure of the physical world.  So they are true claims made true by the facts\u2014Russell has a memorable quote about how logic is the same sort of thing as zoology, it's just that zoology is concerned with certain biological features of the world and logic is concerned with certain structural features of the world.  The early Wittgenstein disagrees with all of this.  On the tractarian view, logical propositions aren't claims at all, they aren't true or false, and they certainly aren't claims about the physical world.  They are tautologies, which is to say that they are true for every arrangement of the atomic facts, and so they don't say anything at all.  The logical empiricists were attracted to this conception of logic because they thought they could use it to give an empiricist account of logic and mathematics that didn't fall prey to the problems of more naive empiricist views like Hume's and Mill's.  They wanted to take seriously the fact that it seems like the truths of logic and mathematics are necessary, and that they can be known *a priori*.  They thought the tractarian conception of logical propositions as tautologies was a way to do this.  If logical claims don't say anything about the world, then it's no surprise that we can know them without empirical investigation, because they're not made true by physical facts.  And if they don't say anything at all, then there's no sense to be made of them being false, because the world can't contradict what they say.  Naturally the details have to get worked out here, which was the substance of the Vienna Circle's internal discussion on this point.  But for them the important idea in the *Tractatus* that wasn't in Russell was the idea of logic as tautologous.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1301.0,"score_ratio":2.1111111111}
{"post_id":"pk1lwu","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.92,"history":"Why is Wittgenstein highly praised? Wittgenstein is said to be the greatest philosopher of 20th century. However, after reading some books on his philosophy, I can't help but feel like his philosophy is just a refurbishment of Russell's logical atomism \u2212 especially the *Tractatus*. All propositions are analyzed down to atomic propositions, which model the atomic facts...isn't this almost exactly what Russell said? Am I misunderstanding Wittgenstein's philosophy? If so, then what is the crucial difference between Russell and Wittgenstein that puts Wittgenstein to a higher position?","c_root_id_A":"hc15a0y","c_root_id_B":"hc0l483","created_at_utc_A":1631084030,"created_at_utc_B":1631070958,"score_A":19,"score_B":8,"human_ref_A":"Given your other comments in this thread, I take it your main question is something like \"how does the *Tractatus* significantly differ from Russell's views, according to the logical empiricists?\"  It is true that Russell and the Wittgenstein of the *Tractatus* share broadly similar sets of views that you might call \"logical atomism\", but these views have always been more associated with Russell, even in the early reception of the *Tractatus* by the logical empiricists.  One important difference between the early Wittgenstein and Frege\/Russell (for the logical empiricists) is their conception of the nature of logical and mathematical truth.  For Frege\/Russell, the claims of logic (and therefore mathematics, given their logicism\u2014this is another important difference between Wittgenstein and Frege\/Russell) are claims about the abstract general structure of the physical world.  So they are true claims made true by the facts\u2014Russell has a memorable quote about how logic is the same sort of thing as zoology, it's just that zoology is concerned with certain biological features of the world and logic is concerned with certain structural features of the world.  The early Wittgenstein disagrees with all of this.  On the tractarian view, logical propositions aren't claims at all, they aren't true or false, and they certainly aren't claims about the physical world.  They are tautologies, which is to say that they are true for every arrangement of the atomic facts, and so they don't say anything at all.  The logical empiricists were attracted to this conception of logic because they thought they could use it to give an empiricist account of logic and mathematics that didn't fall prey to the problems of more naive empiricist views like Hume's and Mill's.  They wanted to take seriously the fact that it seems like the truths of logic and mathematics are necessary, and that they can be known *a priori*.  They thought the tractarian conception of logical propositions as tautologies was a way to do this.  If logical claims don't say anything about the world, then it's no surprise that we can know them without empirical investigation, because they're not made true by physical facts.  And if they don't say anything at all, then there's no sense to be made of them being false, because the world can't contradict what they say.  Naturally the details have to get worked out here, which was the substance of the Vienna Circle's internal discussion on this point.  But for them the important idea in the *Tractatus* that wasn't in Russell was the idea of logic as tautologous.","human_ref_B":"He is most known for the Philosophical Investigations over the Tractatus. And the Philosophical Investigations was a near 180 turn in philosophy compared to the Tractatus.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":13072.0,"score_ratio":2.375}
{"post_id":"pk1lwu","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.92,"history":"Why is Wittgenstein highly praised? Wittgenstein is said to be the greatest philosopher of 20th century. However, after reading some books on his philosophy, I can't help but feel like his philosophy is just a refurbishment of Russell's logical atomism \u2212 especially the *Tractatus*. All propositions are analyzed down to atomic propositions, which model the atomic facts...isn't this almost exactly what Russell said? Am I misunderstanding Wittgenstein's philosophy? If so, then what is the crucial difference between Russell and Wittgenstein that puts Wittgenstein to a higher position?","c_root_id_A":"hc0l483","c_root_id_B":"hc1xzyy","created_at_utc_A":1631070958,"created_at_utc_B":1631106060,"score_A":8,"score_B":9,"human_ref_A":"He is most known for the Philosophical Investigations over the Tractatus. And the Philosophical Investigations was a near 180 turn in philosophy compared to the Tractatus.","human_ref_B":"> I can't help but feel like his philosophy is just a refurbishment of Russell's logical atomism \u2212 especially the Tractatus.   Are you sure that, instead of \"especially,\" you don't mean \"exclusively\"? It's well known that Wittgenstein later abandons this view and trades it for ordinary language philosophy in *Philosophical Investigations*.   >All propositions are analyzed down to atomic propositions, which model the atomic facts...isn't this almost exactly what Russell said?   Though similar, I don't believe they're strictly the same. I've never been that interested, personally, in the particulars of his logical atomism but I do know that Anthony Kenny describes the differences in *Wittgenstein*. You might want to pick that up?  In any case, the *Tractatus* isn't *just* his logical atomism but also his picture theory of representation and showing\/saying distinction - the latter of which I find more interesting and useful to philosophy generally.   The goal of the *Tractatus* was to outline the limits of language, and therefore the world, which is very different from Russell's epistemological aims. Instead of providing sound epistemological foundations, as Russell sought, Wittgenstein sought to show how *all* philosophical problems result from the misuse of language.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":35102.0,"score_ratio":1.125}
{"post_id":"pk1lwu","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.92,"history":"Why is Wittgenstein highly praised? Wittgenstein is said to be the greatest philosopher of 20th century. However, after reading some books on his philosophy, I can't help but feel like his philosophy is just a refurbishment of Russell's logical atomism \u2212 especially the *Tractatus*. All propositions are analyzed down to atomic propositions, which model the atomic facts...isn't this almost exactly what Russell said? Am I misunderstanding Wittgenstein's philosophy? If so, then what is the crucial difference between Russell and Wittgenstein that puts Wittgenstein to a higher position?","c_root_id_A":"hc13nfd","c_root_id_B":"hc0l483","created_at_utc_A":1631082729,"created_at_utc_B":1631070958,"score_A":9,"score_B":8,"human_ref_A":"From your responses to others, I think you\u2019re asking a social question here\u2014how did early Wittgenstein and his _Tractatus_ gain the reputation that they did?  Here\u2019s a very partial explanation. In Ray Monk\u2019s Wittgenstein biography, _The Duty of Genius_, Monk suggests that Wittgenstein had personal quirks that lent him an aura of charisma and arrogant brilliance. (Certainly Wittgenstein leaned into those assumptions about him.) Russell thought him a genius, thought he would continue Russell\u2019s work in logic, and lent Wittgenstein his considerable support. This was critical for Wittgenstein\u2019s success. For example, to Wittgenstein\u2019s chagrin, publishers refused to print his _Tractatus_ without Russell\u2019s foreword.  Whether he deserves his fame is a different question\u2014I certainly think he does\u2014but the social environment, as always, is key.","human_ref_B":"He is most known for the Philosophical Investigations over the Tractatus. And the Philosophical Investigations was a near 180 turn in philosophy compared to the Tractatus.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":11771.0,"score_ratio":1.125}
{"post_id":"t4sryf","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.9,"history":"Is it okay to create and name my own principles in my philosophy paper? I was assigned a philosophy essay with a very traditional prompt. It's pretty open ended and has to be less than 2000 words. I kind of got carried away, becoming passionate about the question and I wrote what I think is a stellar paper. It's still less than 2k words, ready to be submitted, but I just feel like I was too pompous in a particular area. That's because I became proud of a main argument in my paper, so much so that I gave it a name like this: \"Principle of *\\[blank\\]*\". I even made an abbreviation for it so could reference it multiple times in my paper. I just feel like as an undergraduate student and someone who isn't even a philosophy major, I do not really have a place in putting that kind of material in the paper. Does anyone agree\/disagree with this?  Part of the reason I have all this doubt is because it seems rather similar to what Peter Singer wrote in one of his books. He revolutionized the \"Principle of Equal Consideration\" of equal interests (PEC) and referenced it all throughout *Practical Ethics*. I can see that Singer absolutely has the privileges of doing this in his great book, but not me with this measly 5-page paper.","c_root_id_A":"hz0n9ip","c_root_id_B":"hz0p6zc","created_at_utc_A":1646201433,"created_at_utc_B":1646202687,"score_A":47,"score_B":85,"human_ref_A":"Honestly, at this point it depends on whether your assignment requests\/requires the use of original ideas\/philosophies or analysis of philosophers' ideas. It could be either, or both. But we don't know.   The main issue with 'creating\/coining' a new concept is that, for anyone but the top scholars in a field, is reeks more than anything not of originality but of naivety and arrogance. It, in a way, presupposes that in the history of this philosophical tradition (never mind across the globe) no one else has thought of this before and that you are the first of 15 billion people to have this idea?! Unlikely.   The only way the coining of a new concept is taken seriously by scholars is if it is juxtaposed with the adjacent concepts and then show to be different through precise analytical distinctions. This takes a ton of reading to actually know the field. Most PhD students dont. Literally one a 100 million undergrads does. Like Kant, TsongKhapa and maybe like 3 other people in history are this well-read at a young age. So, in general, teh coining of a concept for all but the most advanced is a bit like '*inventing*' the wheel - the great embarrassment being that the neophyte didn't even realize this kind of wheel has been around for centuries. What is much more impressive to a professor is when an undergrad shows that they understand the arguments being made by key intellectuals and then can draw out the implications or significance of those arguments in original ways.   E.g. If what Kant says abotu X is true, wouldn't that then mean that X1 would also pertain? But here is a situation in which X1 seems undesirable, so what should we make of Kant's claim. Well, some other philosopher has a response to that and by introducing Y argument, they are able to show how X1 is not really undesirable (or that Kant's X does not necessarily lead to X1 or whatever). THIS is what gets you A+s as an undergrad.   ALL that being said, you dont need to hand in grad level work as an undergrad. If your professor is asking for original ideas and is a reasonable person, they will be impressed and happy that you spent some considerable time thinking about this issue and challenging your own reasoning.","human_ref_B":"This strikes me as a pretty tiny concern. Is the principle meaningfully defined?  Does it avoid being unnecessarily duplicative of something in a source you were supposed to use?  Is your use of it justified in the paper?  Does it help you answer the assignment?  Worry about the terms of the assignment, not some little technical move.  Instructor sensibilities differ, but this would not phase me at all.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1254.0,"score_ratio":1.8085106383}
{"post_id":"t4sryf","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.9,"history":"Is it okay to create and name my own principles in my philosophy paper? I was assigned a philosophy essay with a very traditional prompt. It's pretty open ended and has to be less than 2000 words. I kind of got carried away, becoming passionate about the question and I wrote what I think is a stellar paper. It's still less than 2k words, ready to be submitted, but I just feel like I was too pompous in a particular area. That's because I became proud of a main argument in my paper, so much so that I gave it a name like this: \"Principle of *\\[blank\\]*\". I even made an abbreviation for it so could reference it multiple times in my paper. I just feel like as an undergraduate student and someone who isn't even a philosophy major, I do not really have a place in putting that kind of material in the paper. Does anyone agree\/disagree with this?  Part of the reason I have all this doubt is because it seems rather similar to what Peter Singer wrote in one of his books. He revolutionized the \"Principle of Equal Consideration\" of equal interests (PEC) and referenced it all throughout *Practical Ethics*. I can see that Singer absolutely has the privileges of doing this in his great book, but not me with this measly 5-page paper.","c_root_id_A":"hz0n187","c_root_id_B":"hz0p6zc","created_at_utc_A":1646201287,"created_at_utc_B":1646202687,"score_A":46,"score_B":85,"human_ref_A":"I wouldn't create your own principal and name it in a 5 page paper because that is too short of a space to be creating and naming things. Only name something;  1) after you've argued thoroughly for its existence  2) if you intend to use it further in context  Either you're naming it at the beginning of your paper, and in that case its naming is not justified formally within the paper, or you are naming it at the end of the paper, which is not very relevant.   Keep it brief, keep it concise, and keep it focused.   This all being said, it's just a paper. Turn it in. You're done with the paper. Better to get it done with now than to wait til last minute.","human_ref_B":"This strikes me as a pretty tiny concern. Is the principle meaningfully defined?  Does it avoid being unnecessarily duplicative of something in a source you were supposed to use?  Is your use of it justified in the paper?  Does it help you answer the assignment?  Worry about the terms of the assignment, not some little technical move.  Instructor sensibilities differ, but this would not phase me at all.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1400.0,"score_ratio":1.847826087}
{"post_id":"t4sryf","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.9,"history":"Is it okay to create and name my own principles in my philosophy paper? I was assigned a philosophy essay with a very traditional prompt. It's pretty open ended and has to be less than 2000 words. I kind of got carried away, becoming passionate about the question and I wrote what I think is a stellar paper. It's still less than 2k words, ready to be submitted, but I just feel like I was too pompous in a particular area. That's because I became proud of a main argument in my paper, so much so that I gave it a name like this: \"Principle of *\\[blank\\]*\". I even made an abbreviation for it so could reference it multiple times in my paper. I just feel like as an undergraduate student and someone who isn't even a philosophy major, I do not really have a place in putting that kind of material in the paper. Does anyone agree\/disagree with this?  Part of the reason I have all this doubt is because it seems rather similar to what Peter Singer wrote in one of his books. He revolutionized the \"Principle of Equal Consideration\" of equal interests (PEC) and referenced it all throughout *Practical Ethics*. I can see that Singer absolutely has the privileges of doing this in his great book, but not me with this measly 5-page paper.","c_root_id_A":"hz0n187","c_root_id_B":"hz0n9ip","created_at_utc_A":1646201287,"created_at_utc_B":1646201433,"score_A":46,"score_B":47,"human_ref_A":"I wouldn't create your own principal and name it in a 5 page paper because that is too short of a space to be creating and naming things. Only name something;  1) after you've argued thoroughly for its existence  2) if you intend to use it further in context  Either you're naming it at the beginning of your paper, and in that case its naming is not justified formally within the paper, or you are naming it at the end of the paper, which is not very relevant.   Keep it brief, keep it concise, and keep it focused.   This all being said, it's just a paper. Turn it in. You're done with the paper. Better to get it done with now than to wait til last minute.","human_ref_B":"Honestly, at this point it depends on whether your assignment requests\/requires the use of original ideas\/philosophies or analysis of philosophers' ideas. It could be either, or both. But we don't know.   The main issue with 'creating\/coining' a new concept is that, for anyone but the top scholars in a field, is reeks more than anything not of originality but of naivety and arrogance. It, in a way, presupposes that in the history of this philosophical tradition (never mind across the globe) no one else has thought of this before and that you are the first of 15 billion people to have this idea?! Unlikely.   The only way the coining of a new concept is taken seriously by scholars is if it is juxtaposed with the adjacent concepts and then show to be different through precise analytical distinctions. This takes a ton of reading to actually know the field. Most PhD students dont. Literally one a 100 million undergrads does. Like Kant, TsongKhapa and maybe like 3 other people in history are this well-read at a young age. So, in general, teh coining of a concept for all but the most advanced is a bit like '*inventing*' the wheel - the great embarrassment being that the neophyte didn't even realize this kind of wheel has been around for centuries. What is much more impressive to a professor is when an undergrad shows that they understand the arguments being made by key intellectuals and then can draw out the implications or significance of those arguments in original ways.   E.g. If what Kant says abotu X is true, wouldn't that then mean that X1 would also pertain? But here is a situation in which X1 seems undesirable, so what should we make of Kant's claim. Well, some other philosopher has a response to that and by introducing Y argument, they are able to show how X1 is not really undesirable (or that Kant's X does not necessarily lead to X1 or whatever). THIS is what gets you A+s as an undergrad.   ALL that being said, you dont need to hand in grad level work as an undergrad. If your professor is asking for original ideas and is a reasonable person, they will be impressed and happy that you spent some considerable time thinking about this issue and challenging your own reasoning.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":146.0,"score_ratio":1.0217391304}
{"post_id":"t4sryf","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.9,"history":"Is it okay to create and name my own principles in my philosophy paper? I was assigned a philosophy essay with a very traditional prompt. It's pretty open ended and has to be less than 2000 words. I kind of got carried away, becoming passionate about the question and I wrote what I think is a stellar paper. It's still less than 2k words, ready to be submitted, but I just feel like I was too pompous in a particular area. That's because I became proud of a main argument in my paper, so much so that I gave it a name like this: \"Principle of *\\[blank\\]*\". I even made an abbreviation for it so could reference it multiple times in my paper. I just feel like as an undergraduate student and someone who isn't even a philosophy major, I do not really have a place in putting that kind of material in the paper. Does anyone agree\/disagree with this?  Part of the reason I have all this doubt is because it seems rather similar to what Peter Singer wrote in one of his books. He revolutionized the \"Principle of Equal Consideration\" of equal interests (PEC) and referenced it all throughout *Practical Ethics*. I can see that Singer absolutely has the privileges of doing this in his great book, but not me with this measly 5-page paper.","c_root_id_A":"hz0tg6d","c_root_id_B":"hz0x4ym","created_at_utc_A":1646205588,"created_at_utc_B":1646208270,"score_A":10,"score_B":22,"human_ref_A":"I think you can quite humbly use a term of your own invention if you admit that you're doing so because you're ignorant of an established one, and it makes the paper significantly easier to read. But it's better to just talk to your professor about it.","human_ref_B":"As long as it makes sense and doesn't betray ignorance of the topic at hand, it should be just fine.  Maybe not the exact same thing, but I never hesitated in inventing a term for some idea, concept, or relation, if I had to reference it multiple times - just as a simplification.  To me it was just a way to make reading easier more than anything. And of course, maybe don't invent \"principle of not-thingifying-humans\" if you're supposed to write about the second categorical imperative.  And good job getting caught up in the writing of it.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":2682.0,"score_ratio":2.2}
{"post_id":"t4sryf","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.9,"history":"Is it okay to create and name my own principles in my philosophy paper? I was assigned a philosophy essay with a very traditional prompt. It's pretty open ended and has to be less than 2000 words. I kind of got carried away, becoming passionate about the question and I wrote what I think is a stellar paper. It's still less than 2k words, ready to be submitted, but I just feel like I was too pompous in a particular area. That's because I became proud of a main argument in my paper, so much so that I gave it a name like this: \"Principle of *\\[blank\\]*\". I even made an abbreviation for it so could reference it multiple times in my paper. I just feel like as an undergraduate student and someone who isn't even a philosophy major, I do not really have a place in putting that kind of material in the paper. Does anyone agree\/disagree with this?  Part of the reason I have all this doubt is because it seems rather similar to what Peter Singer wrote in one of his books. He revolutionized the \"Principle of Equal Consideration\" of equal interests (PEC) and referenced it all throughout *Practical Ethics*. I can see that Singer absolutely has the privileges of doing this in his great book, but not me with this measly 5-page paper.","c_root_id_A":"hz18e43","c_root_id_B":"hz1i0j7","created_at_utc_A":1646217296,"created_at_utc_B":1646224141,"score_A":3,"score_B":6,"human_ref_A":"There are ways to do this that make it clear that you don't think you're coining a completely new *concept*. E.g., you can phrase it as a hypothetical, like \"Consider the concept \\[X\\], \\[definition of X\\]\", or \"If reasoning using the principle that \\[X\\], \\[definition of X\\]\", \"A moral actor who believed that \\[X\\], \\[definition of X\\]\", &c. Just make it clear in the way you're using it that you have the intellectual humility to not think no one's ever thought of it before -- that you're just unaware of the terminology or relevant literature. As a student, they're not going to expect you to be familiar with every concept ever.  FWIW, I did this in an *exam* one time. I got a sort of middling mark on the exam, which was considerably lower than I had been averaging. I later met with the examiner to discuss it, because I was worried I'd pulled down my mark with rogue creativity, a bit like how you're fretting here. Turned out, I'd gotten a very high mark for that essay, but had gotten so overexcited about it that I'd only given the *other* two essays in the exam a fairly perfunctory treatment, which is what had pulled down my grade.","human_ref_B":"Philosophers do this all the time. It's just an easy way to have a shorthand for a relevant idea and as long as you got the idea from your own brain there's nothing wrong with naming it. In a recent paper I used the term \"temporal solipsist\" as a shorthand for people who don't trust their own temporal experiences. I have no doubt that someone else has had this idea before, and I'm not claiming to be the first to get there, but since it's relevant to my argument I just made up a name for it.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":6845.0,"score_ratio":2.0}
{"post_id":"p5haxs","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.89,"history":"Is it still possible for me to get into a PhD program? For context, I'm a student in Europe and, because of personal issues, I didn't do anything with my life from ages 18-21. Now I'm in my third year (of four) in college as a 24 year old when I should have finished it two years ago. Will it still be possible for me to enter a PhD program in philosophy and find a teaching position at a university as a 26-27 years old (after finishing my degree and the required master)?","c_root_id_A":"h95zei3","c_root_id_B":"h95u5v0","created_at_utc_A":1629126929,"created_at_utc_B":1629124793,"score_A":20,"score_B":18,"human_ref_A":"Of course! Just be warned that many of us with PhDs are doing nothing with our lives either. To get a proper philosophy teaching position is extremely difficult, and most philosophy PhDs never attain one. To do it, you need: (1) to be the absolute best of the best (are you getting like 95%? on all your assignments? Have you won awards? Scholarships?), (2) Be connected to the right academics, (3) Be willing to probably relocate to another country, (4) Have pretty good money saved up or given to you by family, (5) Be super lucky (imagine rolling a 20-sided dice. You must get exactly 20 or you won't get a teaching position, even if you did everything else right).","human_ref_B":"26 is probably not even an above average age to start your PHD.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":2136.0,"score_ratio":1.1111111111}
{"post_id":"z5jirj","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.95,"history":"Does anyone else struggle with Nietzsche? I'm currently reading *Beyond Good and Evil* and am really struggling with it. I get the gist of what he is saying and out of the small sections I'll really grasp a sentence or two, but the rest seems like contextual rambling. Anyone have any insight on how to get a better grasp on what I'm reading in this book? Or if anyone has any general input on this book as a whole it would be much appreciated.","c_root_id_A":"ixyara7","c_root_id_B":"ixxafad","created_at_utc_A":1669540369,"created_at_utc_B":1669516450,"score_A":3,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"My old continental philosophy prof mentioned every time he returned to Nietzsche, he formed a different interpretation or realized something he'd missed. More so than any other philosopher.  Form your own interpretation of his rambling and if it's plausibly coherent with his other ramblings then good job. If you're not struggling you're not doing it right","human_ref_B":"It's tedious but I find it helps if I try to write it out again, but in my own words. It forces me to process each sentence and I just remove anything that seems extraneous or distracting until I have a solid grasp on the text.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":23919.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
{"post_id":"z5jirj","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.95,"history":"Does anyone else struggle with Nietzsche? I'm currently reading *Beyond Good and Evil* and am really struggling with it. I get the gist of what he is saying and out of the small sections I'll really grasp a sentence or two, but the rest seems like contextual rambling. Anyone have any insight on how to get a better grasp on what I'm reading in this book? Or if anyone has any general input on this book as a whole it would be much appreciated.","c_root_id_A":"ixxafad","c_root_id_B":"ixzaupl","created_at_utc_A":1669516450,"created_at_utc_B":1669564258,"score_A":2,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"It's tedious but I find it helps if I try to write it out again, but in my own words. It forces me to process each sentence and I just remove anything that seems extraneous or distracting until I have a solid grasp on the text.","human_ref_B":"Read no more than a couple of lines at a time and spend two minutes thinking about what you just read. Focus on how it resonates with you and what experiences it makes you think about. Don\u2019t worry too much about what he was literally trying to say because he wasn\u2019t always the most lucid person and didn\u2019t think the way most of us do","labels":0,"seconds_difference":47808.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
{"post_id":"1te9tt","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.87,"history":"List of must read Philosophy books? What are some fundamental books to read in Philosophy? I have a general idea about what Philosophy is, and who the most renowned authors\/thinkers were, but I don't actually have book names.  I have started reading Plato's Republic (sorta half power-reading through it, finished Book 1, it's very interesting).  What are in your opinions some of the must read books\/writings in Philosophy?","c_root_id_A":"ce73elg","c_root_id_B":"ce7jkjp","created_at_utc_A":1387642981,"created_at_utc_B":1387690210,"score_A":2,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"Philosophy is so broad, glad you've taken an interest in reading it! Here's a few selections I would recommend:  **Ten Important Works in Philosophy**  1. *The Republic* Plato 2. *Metaphysics* Aristotle 3. *The Critique of Pure Reason* Immanuel Kant 4. *Tractatus Logico-Philisophicus* Ludwig Wittgenstein 5. *The Apology* Plato 6. *Nicomachean Ethics* Aristotle 7. *Meditations* Ren\u00e9 Descartes 8. *Philosophical Investigations* Ludwig Wittgenstein 9. *Lectures on Aesthetics* G. W. F. Hegel 10. *The Gay Science* Friedrich Nietzsche  The nature of philosophy, to some degree, is that it is incomplete.","human_ref_B":"Another user mentioned that most of what is pertinent in philosophy as it is practiced today are really just articles. Another user mentioned anthologies of excerpts which is what most of the books you buy in philosophy look like. Here are ten readings which strike me as particularly important for understanding contentious problems in philosophy today:  1. \"On Denoting\" Bertrand Russell 2. *Naming and Necessity* Saul Kripke 3. \"On What There Is\" W.V.O. Quine 4. \"Sense and Reference\" Gotlob Frege 5. \"Logic and Conversation\" H.P. Grice 6. \"Is Justified True Belief Knowledge?\" Edmund Gettier 7. \"Truth and Meaning\" Donald Davidson 8. \"New Work for a Theory of Universals\" David Lewis 9. \"Persistence Through Time\" Sally Haslanger 10. \"What Is It Like to Be A Bat?\" Thomas Nagel","labels":0,"seconds_difference":47229.0,"score_ratio":2.0}
{"post_id":"1te9tt","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.87,"history":"List of must read Philosophy books? What are some fundamental books to read in Philosophy? I have a general idea about what Philosophy is, and who the most renowned authors\/thinkers were, but I don't actually have book names.  I have started reading Plato's Republic (sorta half power-reading through it, finished Book 1, it's very interesting).  What are in your opinions some of the must read books\/writings in Philosophy?","c_root_id_A":"ce7jkjp","c_root_id_B":"ce7ep4e","created_at_utc_A":1387690210,"created_at_utc_B":1387675492,"score_A":4,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"Another user mentioned that most of what is pertinent in philosophy as it is practiced today are really just articles. Another user mentioned anthologies of excerpts which is what most of the books you buy in philosophy look like. Here are ten readings which strike me as particularly important for understanding contentious problems in philosophy today:  1. \"On Denoting\" Bertrand Russell 2. *Naming and Necessity* Saul Kripke 3. \"On What There Is\" W.V.O. Quine 4. \"Sense and Reference\" Gotlob Frege 5. \"Logic and Conversation\" H.P. Grice 6. \"Is Justified True Belief Knowledge?\" Edmund Gettier 7. \"Truth and Meaning\" Donald Davidson 8. \"New Work for a Theory of Universals\" David Lewis 9. \"Persistence Through Time\" Sally Haslanger 10. \"What Is It Like to Be A Bat?\" Thomas Nagel","human_ref_B":"A lot of people here are listing the EPIC and legendary books. However, they are not must reads. It's a good pass time book to check out the Leviathan, or to read the principles of mathematics, but neither of those are neither necessary, nor sufficient books to read.  These may be too boring unless you are ALREADY INTERESTED IN PHILOSOPHY.  Besides that, books like The Critique of Pure Reason, as epic and important as they are, are just confusing and discouraging and although you might be told that they are \"must read books\" you shouldn't read them... You will squirm helplessly at the first sentence.  Just read articles and essays that are written today. But that's just me.  GL","labels":1,"seconds_difference":14718.0,"score_ratio":2.0}
{"post_id":"d3v8v7","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.96,"history":"How is Derrida's conception of binary oppositions different than Hegel's conception of dialectic? I'm not super well read on either of these guys but I've been getting more into post-structuralism lately and Derrida gets brought up quite a bit.   Derrida tells us that signs always exist in a state of binary opposition to other signs, and this opposition is the source of their meanings or significations. He also says that such binary oppositions are always unstable and are thus in a state of tension. Sounds alot like Hegel, and I'm aware that in Hegelian dialectics, the tensions within these dichotomies serve as a kind of \"potential energy\" which drives history forward. Now I'm pretty sure Derrida didn't ascribe to Hegel's teleological metanarrative, so what exactly are the differences in how this plays out between the two authors?","c_root_id_A":"f061s3p","c_root_id_B":"f05kjs9","created_at_utc_A":1568426395,"created_at_utc_B":1568412118,"score_A":31,"score_B":22,"human_ref_A":"This is a complicated question, and I don't think it has an easy answer. It could be that there is a close connection between deconstruction and Hegelian dialectics, one that Derrida did not himself realize.   I would recommend this article on the subject, which I remember being quite good: https:\/\/philpapers.org\/rec\/DEBDAN  I also took a stab at this question a while back on here in this post:  https:\/\/www.reddit.com\/r\/askphilosophy\/comments\/cb31j0\/relationship_between_derridas_deconstruction_and\/etd0927\/  The general difference would be that deconstruction is *aporetic*, focuses on \"undecidability\" and \"impossibility,\" and is an open ended process. This would be the part that's \"non-teleological\" (although we need to be really specific about what we mean by \"teleology\" when talking about Hegel).  Take, for example, Derrida's analysis of democracy in *Rogues*. Oversimplifying it a bit (but like, you have to with him), democracies are always in a state of tension between the binary oppositions of freedom and license, numerical equality and a worth that can't be measured, and also democracies are fundamentally \"auto-immune,\" meaning that they are self-critical and attack their own body, even to the point that they commit suicide. The gist is that a democracy can democratically elect a non-democratic government (vote to abolish democracy), and yet can even suspend democracy in order to halt a non-democratic force (kill democracy to save it). In order for a democracy to remain democratic, Derrida thinks, it must remain in the form of a \"democracy to come,\" meaning that it remains open to the decisions of future sovereigns, open to its other, even though this openness might (by virtue of democracy's auto-immunity) lead to the suicide of the democracy.  To have a democracy is to have this kind of open ended relationship to the future, to **defer** to a future decision, and this makes democracy ever different from itself, unstable, and constantly changing its meaning. So basically, democracy is governed by the movement of what Derrida calls *Differance* (with an \"a\").   From the standpoint of the Hegelian dialectic, this instability shows the concept of democracy to be *abstract*. If democracy contradicts itself and turns into its opposite, this shows that it's a one-sided determination, and lacks the Concept, which can remain with itself when uniting with its opposite.  So Derrida is \"anti-teleological\" in contrast to Hegel insofar as *Derrida claims* we cannot conceive of an \"end\" that democracy aims at. It fundamentally exists by being something \"to come.\" From the standpoint of dialectics, by contrast, we might conceive of a final resolution or end to this so-called aporia (like, I don't know, *communism*), and in this sense it's teleological (just because we can conceive of a possible end, not because there's some kind of magical spirit spaghetti monster guiding things towards this end).   >the tensions within these dichotomies serve as a kind of \"potential energy\" which drives history forward.  Honestly, this sounds more like Marx. For Hegel (like Marx), contradiction is the source of all movement, but it's ultimately the immanent self-development of the Concept.","human_ref_B":"Much of Derrida's work focuses on the critique of Hegel and subsequent approach found in critical theory. In one work Derrida goes so far as to say Hegel is the start of modern and all modernist\/structuralist thought comes down to Hegel. However, Derrida's methodology is deconstructive. Thus it is not that his concept is different than Hegel's but a deconstruction of Hegel. In this way it is the same but different.  The main critique is this. Hegel's believes that a dialectic resolves into the synthesis. For example in the beginning of the Phenomenology of Spirit, when we lays out self-consciousness. He thinks of the interrelationship as unifying me with the other. It is the dialectic unity that creates the zeitgeist which becomes history (overly simplified). Derrida points out that for these two modes of the dialect to truly be in opposition (an antithesis) it must not be that which is it in opposition to.  In this way resolution can never be found. For example ON and OFF are in opposition to one another. The definition of ON is really just not OFF and the definition of OFF is not ON.  We can really only understand one through the other. However, they can not come to synthesis, because what makes them what they are is the opposition. If we get no synthesis, we can't get any kind of progress through the dialectic.   Here is where this gets interesting. The relationship of the two things does not exist in the synthesis or the potential energy, rather in the difference. The difference is not something that exists in the present moment  (the event) rather it is a reference to something outside of itself. If we recognize that the event like ON, contains within it reverence to that which is outside of the event, then event is no longer a self contained event, rather the event is a reference to something outside of itself. This is the foundation for a disruption of the event based narrative of history, for no event then is an event.   That is the best I can do without having any of my books with me. If that is unsatisfactory, DM me and I can get you a better answer Monday.  I recommend reading the Essay \"Differance\" In Margins of Philosophy. I think it explains differance quite well, even if it is not placed in the language of Hegel, but it does outline how this thinking shows up in Nietzsche, Freud and Heidegger.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":14277.0,"score_ratio":1.4090909091}
{"post_id":"2yu6m4","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.92,"history":"I once read of a philosopher who wrote some kits like this: one cannot be expected to follow laws he can't understand. Incomprehensible laws are therefore immoral. Could somebody point me in the right direction?","c_root_id_A":"cpd48dj","c_root_id_B":"cpd3i8e","created_at_utc_A":1426203817,"created_at_utc_B":1426202566,"score_A":15,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"This sounds like something you might have come by in the work of Lon Fuller. He offers eight conditions of the effective administration of law, failure to meet any of which will result in no legal system at all. One of these conditions is the intelligibility of the laws in question. The connection between the ineffective administration of law and the immorality of the law is a bit more tenuous, and other legal philosophers have criticized Fuller's work for being more about efficacy than about morality, but I suppose we might understand Fuller's claims in terms of a procedural, rather than a substantive morality. I'm sorry I can't go into more detail, philosophy of law isn't really my wheelhouse, but Fuller definitely sounded like a promising lead on what you're looking for.","human_ref_B":"Jeremy Bentham didn't address this directly in *Rationale of Punishment,* but he came close and he certainly would have agreed. He wrote that if a law is not made known to the individual, or if the individual does not know that a certain law applies to his action, then the punishment is not warranted and therefore immoral.  He also wrote this regarding punishments themselves:  >A mode of punishment ought also to be as simple as possible in its description; it ought to be entirely intelligible; and that not only to the enlightened, but to the most unenlightened and ignorant.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1251.0,"score_ratio":7.5}
{"post_id":"5zxsxx","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.95,"history":"Is this a Gettier case? Trying to come up with my own Gettier case for an essay on epistemology, is this a good example?  \"Terry searches online to see if his local supermarket is open at 5am. He finds a website that tells him that it does not open until 7am. This website is actually incorrect as the supermarket usually opens at 5am. However, overnight there is a sewage leak in the supermarket and the shop is forced to close until late afternoon. In this scenario Terry believes his local supermarket will be closed at 5am, he has a justification for his belief, and it was true. However, it was only by coincidence that the supermarket was closed at 5am that morning.\"","c_root_id_A":"df1v3pn","c_root_id_B":"df1wou6","created_at_utc_A":1489760152,"created_at_utc_B":1489762153,"score_A":21,"score_B":34,"human_ref_A":"That example is fine.","human_ref_B":"Yup. It also has the added advantage of avoiding the question of whether a man may be reasonably expected to know how many coins he has in his pocket. . . .","labels":0,"seconds_difference":2001.0,"score_ratio":1.619047619}
{"post_id":"5zxsxx","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.95,"history":"Is this a Gettier case? Trying to come up with my own Gettier case for an essay on epistemology, is this a good example?  \"Terry searches online to see if his local supermarket is open at 5am. He finds a website that tells him that it does not open until 7am. This website is actually incorrect as the supermarket usually opens at 5am. However, overnight there is a sewage leak in the supermarket and the shop is forced to close until late afternoon. In this scenario Terry believes his local supermarket will be closed at 5am, he has a justification for his belief, and it was true. However, it was only by coincidence that the supermarket was closed at 5am that morning.\"","c_root_id_A":"df2cq1x","c_root_id_B":"df22eox","created_at_utc_A":1489780113,"created_at_utc_B":1489768730,"score_A":5,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"This is a great. Good job!  As a side note, I hate Gettier. I focused my undergraduate senior thesis on him, dismissing his  \"problem\" as confusing what the subjects beliefs refer to. Like, in your example, the store was closed, but the actual store hours are what his belief refer to, not the mere state of the store being closed. So, his belief that the store will be closed (that day) is correct, but it isn't true and thus not knowledge, because the reason he believes the store is closed is based on his erroneous belief that those are the store's usual hours. I enjoyed that paper, and hate him or not, he does present an interesting question.   Feel free to tell me I misunderstand the problem. I'm just an idiot, and I know I didn't refute the scholarship of a revered philosopher in an undergrad thesis. Lol","human_ref_B":"Sounds like a fun essay to read :)","labels":1,"seconds_difference":11383.0,"score_ratio":1.25}
{"post_id":"7a2woc","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.99,"history":"What are some strong criticisms of the simulation argument? Almost everywhere you look, you will find people arguing all night long for this \"we are in a simulation\" thing, and when you -rarely- find an argument against it, it will almost certainly be downvoted and refuted at least 10 times. So hopefully I will get some proper refutations here in the comments.   **PS: I want specific problems within the argument.**","c_root_id_A":"dp6uegp","c_root_id_B":"dp6tos3","created_at_utc_A":1509546272,"created_at_utc_B":1509545425,"score_A":49,"score_B":16,"human_ref_A":"One of the biggest - and one that has been recently gotten some mainstream attention thanks to the work of some theoretical physicists - is the (note-this is not a real term, just one I'm going to use as shorthand in this answer) \"computational complexity problem\". It's less of a pure-logic problem and more of a practical problem, but it's still probably the strongest argument against the idea.  If we lived in a simulation, we should be able to observe signs of this in reality - we would be able to find the \"shortcuts\" put in place to save processing power. However, as Zohar Ringel et al point out in their recent paper on the topic, the opposite seems to be the case - in particular, quantum systems are not only observably present, but are complex to a degree that any computer able to simulate their functions at universal scale would have be *more complex* than the universe it was simulating. So, given that our observable reality only proves to be more complex to model the deeper into it we observe, the less likely it becomes the case that it would be *possible* for it to be a simulation.","human_ref_B":"This question gets asked pretty much daily here.  Check out these responses.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":847.0,"score_ratio":3.0625}
{"post_id":"7a2woc","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.99,"history":"What are some strong criticisms of the simulation argument? Almost everywhere you look, you will find people arguing all night long for this \"we are in a simulation\" thing, and when you -rarely- find an argument against it, it will almost certainly be downvoted and refuted at least 10 times. So hopefully I will get some proper refutations here in the comments.   **PS: I want specific problems within the argument.**","c_root_id_A":"dp6vhe2","c_root_id_B":"dp6x8cn","created_at_utc_A":1509547514,"created_at_utc_B":1509549435,"score_A":3,"score_B":9,"human_ref_A":"Chalmer's The Matrix as Metaphysics paper.","human_ref_B":"> PS: I want specific problems within the argument.  If you want specific problems, it's probably a good idea to reference a specific version of the argument. A general \"'we are in a simulation' thing\" is going to receive general responses.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1921.0,"score_ratio":3.0}
{"post_id":"7a2woc","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.99,"history":"What are some strong criticisms of the simulation argument? Almost everywhere you look, you will find people arguing all night long for this \"we are in a simulation\" thing, and when you -rarely- find an argument against it, it will almost certainly be downvoted and refuted at least 10 times. So hopefully I will get some proper refutations here in the comments.   **PS: I want specific problems within the argument.**","c_root_id_A":"dp6zhd5","c_root_id_B":"dp6vhe2","created_at_utc_A":1509551752,"created_at_utc_B":1509547514,"score_A":6,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"If true the integrated information theory (IIT) theory of mind  is strongly physicalist yet suggests a mind upload of the brain would be a zombie, with no subjective experience.   https:\/\/en.m.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Integrated_information_theory  Well explained here: https:\/\/www.google.ca\/amp\/s\/spectrum.ieee.org\/computing\/hardware\/can-we-quantify-machine-consciousness.amp.html","human_ref_B":"Chalmer's The Matrix as Metaphysics paper.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":4238.0,"score_ratio":2.0}
{"post_id":"7a2woc","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.99,"history":"What are some strong criticisms of the simulation argument? Almost everywhere you look, you will find people arguing all night long for this \"we are in a simulation\" thing, and when you -rarely- find an argument against it, it will almost certainly be downvoted and refuted at least 10 times. So hopefully I will get some proper refutations here in the comments.   **PS: I want specific problems within the argument.**","c_root_id_A":"dp6vhe2","c_root_id_B":"dp7wli8","created_at_utc_A":1509547514,"created_at_utc_B":1509586423,"score_A":3,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"Chalmer's The Matrix as Metaphysics paper.","human_ref_B":"> you will find people arguing all night long for this \"we are in a simulation\" thing, and when you -rarely- find an argument against it, it will almost certainly be downvoted and refuted at least 10 times  NB: You asked this same question two days ago, and I responded with several objections, noting my impression that the simulation hypothesis was widely rejected. And my comments on this point were the most highly upvoted comments in the post. So I think you must be misremembering or misunderstanding the way this issue is discussed.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":38909.0,"score_ratio":1.3333333333}
{"post_id":"1zph7h","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":1.0,"history":"Where is a good place to start learning about ethics? I have posted this in \/r\/ethics and was directed to ask here since the audience is much larger.  I know ethics is a very individual thing, however i don't believe what i think may be right in a broad sense.  Where can i learn and develop a sense of what is right and what is wrong? I was raised in a bad family, my parents were into drugs and i think it kind of fucked me up as well. My past experiences lead me to believe that i should question what i think is right or wrong.  I see so many things on the internet and mass media debating many topics such as homosexuality, genetic engineering, right wing and left wing politics and many other topics. I just cant really bring myself to \"pick a side\" and be very sure of myself. I've never been very sure of myself whether what i thought is the right thing or not for i feared my past experiences and traumas have made me biased and skewed my perceptions of these important topics. I want to do my best not to be biased when i think about important topics.  Let's face it, many of these hot topics are going to be on a voting ballot soon and i want to be well educated and prepared like you guys and gals are. I do not want to be another cattle blindly following the voice that comes from the television. I do not feel prepared at all to face such important decisions.  A simple but broad question for you all. Where can i learn about ethics? Where did you learn about ethics? Could you provide recommendations that may have shaped your views? How do you KNOW what is right or wrong? Does it really just come \"from your heart\"\/intuition? Do you carry the same beliefs that your parents have implanted? Have you learned from an institution of higher education?  This is going to sound silly but what would be favorable for me at this very moment would be a \"ethics 101\" type of resource where i can start fresh and build a healthy foundation of morals and then branch off of with all of these strewn about papers and publications i see on \/r\/philosophy that i fail to collect and assimilate in my mind to make any noticeable change in my overall ethical views.  Please, i wish to know. Teach me. Tell me. Inform me. For I am lost.  Thank you all for your help :)","c_root_id_A":"cfvs5g7","c_root_id_B":"cfvvttm","created_at_utc_A":1394108453,"created_at_utc_B":1394120571,"score_A":5,"score_B":6,"human_ref_A":"This was posted earlier today.","human_ref_B":"This seems to be exactly what you're looking for: A free online Coursera course on Practical Ethics from Princeton University.  \"In this course you will be encouraged to think about some of the ethical issues that we all face in our daily lives, and as concerned, global citizens.\"  \"Is abortion wrong? Should we eat animals? What is our responsibility to the world\u2019s poor? This course will encourage you to examine your ethical beliefs on topics relevant to the ancient question posed by Socrates: \u201cHow am I to live?\u201d\"","labels":0,"seconds_difference":12118.0,"score_ratio":1.2}
{"post_id":"1zph7h","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":1.0,"history":"Where is a good place to start learning about ethics? I have posted this in \/r\/ethics and was directed to ask here since the audience is much larger.  I know ethics is a very individual thing, however i don't believe what i think may be right in a broad sense.  Where can i learn and develop a sense of what is right and what is wrong? I was raised in a bad family, my parents were into drugs and i think it kind of fucked me up as well. My past experiences lead me to believe that i should question what i think is right or wrong.  I see so many things on the internet and mass media debating many topics such as homosexuality, genetic engineering, right wing and left wing politics and many other topics. I just cant really bring myself to \"pick a side\" and be very sure of myself. I've never been very sure of myself whether what i thought is the right thing or not for i feared my past experiences and traumas have made me biased and skewed my perceptions of these important topics. I want to do my best not to be biased when i think about important topics.  Let's face it, many of these hot topics are going to be on a voting ballot soon and i want to be well educated and prepared like you guys and gals are. I do not want to be another cattle blindly following the voice that comes from the television. I do not feel prepared at all to face such important decisions.  A simple but broad question for you all. Where can i learn about ethics? Where did you learn about ethics? Could you provide recommendations that may have shaped your views? How do you KNOW what is right or wrong? Does it really just come \"from your heart\"\/intuition? Do you carry the same beliefs that your parents have implanted? Have you learned from an institution of higher education?  This is going to sound silly but what would be favorable for me at this very moment would be a \"ethics 101\" type of resource where i can start fresh and build a healthy foundation of morals and then branch off of with all of these strewn about papers and publications i see on \/r\/philosophy that i fail to collect and assimilate in my mind to make any noticeable change in my overall ethical views.  Please, i wish to know. Teach me. Tell me. Inform me. For I am lost.  Thank you all for your help :)","c_root_id_A":"cfvs5g7","c_root_id_B":"cfvxdsz","created_at_utc_A":1394108453,"created_at_utc_B":1394124110,"score_A":5,"score_B":6,"human_ref_A":"This was posted earlier today.","human_ref_B":"You sound pretty smart, but I'd be remiss if I didn't recommend Ethics for Dummies. It's written to help someone in exactly your situation. (I know because I'm one of the authors!) Sorry about the ghastly typesetting. We didn't have any control over that :(","labels":0,"seconds_difference":15657.0,"score_ratio":1.2}
{"post_id":"1zph7h","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":1.0,"history":"Where is a good place to start learning about ethics? I have posted this in \/r\/ethics and was directed to ask here since the audience is much larger.  I know ethics is a very individual thing, however i don't believe what i think may be right in a broad sense.  Where can i learn and develop a sense of what is right and what is wrong? I was raised in a bad family, my parents were into drugs and i think it kind of fucked me up as well. My past experiences lead me to believe that i should question what i think is right or wrong.  I see so many things on the internet and mass media debating many topics such as homosexuality, genetic engineering, right wing and left wing politics and many other topics. I just cant really bring myself to \"pick a side\" and be very sure of myself. I've never been very sure of myself whether what i thought is the right thing or not for i feared my past experiences and traumas have made me biased and skewed my perceptions of these important topics. I want to do my best not to be biased when i think about important topics.  Let's face it, many of these hot topics are going to be on a voting ballot soon and i want to be well educated and prepared like you guys and gals are. I do not want to be another cattle blindly following the voice that comes from the television. I do not feel prepared at all to face such important decisions.  A simple but broad question for you all. Where can i learn about ethics? Where did you learn about ethics? Could you provide recommendations that may have shaped your views? How do you KNOW what is right or wrong? Does it really just come \"from your heart\"\/intuition? Do you carry the same beliefs that your parents have implanted? Have you learned from an institution of higher education?  This is going to sound silly but what would be favorable for me at this very moment would be a \"ethics 101\" type of resource where i can start fresh and build a healthy foundation of morals and then branch off of with all of these strewn about papers and publications i see on \/r\/philosophy that i fail to collect and assimilate in my mind to make any noticeable change in my overall ethical views.  Please, i wish to know. Teach me. Tell me. Inform me. For I am lost.  Thank you all for your help :)","c_root_id_A":"cfvqxj3","c_root_id_B":"cfvvttm","created_at_utc_A":1394100164,"created_at_utc_B":1394120571,"score_A":5,"score_B":6,"human_ref_A":"Start with *Justice: What's the Right Thing to Do?* by Michael J. Sandel.","human_ref_B":"This seems to be exactly what you're looking for: A free online Coursera course on Practical Ethics from Princeton University.  \"In this course you will be encouraged to think about some of the ethical issues that we all face in our daily lives, and as concerned, global citizens.\"  \"Is abortion wrong? Should we eat animals? What is our responsibility to the world\u2019s poor? This course will encourage you to examine your ethical beliefs on topics relevant to the ancient question posed by Socrates: \u201cHow am I to live?\u201d\"","labels":0,"seconds_difference":20407.0,"score_ratio":1.2}
{"post_id":"1zph7h","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":1.0,"history":"Where is a good place to start learning about ethics? I have posted this in \/r\/ethics and was directed to ask here since the audience is much larger.  I know ethics is a very individual thing, however i don't believe what i think may be right in a broad sense.  Where can i learn and develop a sense of what is right and what is wrong? I was raised in a bad family, my parents were into drugs and i think it kind of fucked me up as well. My past experiences lead me to believe that i should question what i think is right or wrong.  I see so many things on the internet and mass media debating many topics such as homosexuality, genetic engineering, right wing and left wing politics and many other topics. I just cant really bring myself to \"pick a side\" and be very sure of myself. I've never been very sure of myself whether what i thought is the right thing or not for i feared my past experiences and traumas have made me biased and skewed my perceptions of these important topics. I want to do my best not to be biased when i think about important topics.  Let's face it, many of these hot topics are going to be on a voting ballot soon and i want to be well educated and prepared like you guys and gals are. I do not want to be another cattle blindly following the voice that comes from the television. I do not feel prepared at all to face such important decisions.  A simple but broad question for you all. Where can i learn about ethics? Where did you learn about ethics? Could you provide recommendations that may have shaped your views? How do you KNOW what is right or wrong? Does it really just come \"from your heart\"\/intuition? Do you carry the same beliefs that your parents have implanted? Have you learned from an institution of higher education?  This is going to sound silly but what would be favorable for me at this very moment would be a \"ethics 101\" type of resource where i can start fresh and build a healthy foundation of morals and then branch off of with all of these strewn about papers and publications i see on \/r\/philosophy that i fail to collect and assimilate in my mind to make any noticeable change in my overall ethical views.  Please, i wish to know. Teach me. Tell me. Inform me. For I am lost.  Thank you all for your help :)","c_root_id_A":"cfvuq4r","c_root_id_B":"cfvvttm","created_at_utc_A":1394117784,"created_at_utc_B":1394120571,"score_A":2,"score_B":6,"human_ref_A":"I just started with the various thought experiments concerning utilitarianism and read really in depth into all of them on online forums and everything. I'd say it was an engaging way to start ethics and I'm glad I started it that way.","human_ref_B":"This seems to be exactly what you're looking for: A free online Coursera course on Practical Ethics from Princeton University.  \"In this course you will be encouraged to think about some of the ethical issues that we all face in our daily lives, and as concerned, global citizens.\"  \"Is abortion wrong? Should we eat animals? What is our responsibility to the world\u2019s poor? This course will encourage you to examine your ethical beliefs on topics relevant to the ancient question posed by Socrates: \u201cHow am I to live?\u201d\"","labels":0,"seconds_difference":2787.0,"score_ratio":3.0}
{"post_id":"1zph7h","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":1.0,"history":"Where is a good place to start learning about ethics? I have posted this in \/r\/ethics and was directed to ask here since the audience is much larger.  I know ethics is a very individual thing, however i don't believe what i think may be right in a broad sense.  Where can i learn and develop a sense of what is right and what is wrong? I was raised in a bad family, my parents were into drugs and i think it kind of fucked me up as well. My past experiences lead me to believe that i should question what i think is right or wrong.  I see so many things on the internet and mass media debating many topics such as homosexuality, genetic engineering, right wing and left wing politics and many other topics. I just cant really bring myself to \"pick a side\" and be very sure of myself. I've never been very sure of myself whether what i thought is the right thing or not for i feared my past experiences and traumas have made me biased and skewed my perceptions of these important topics. I want to do my best not to be biased when i think about important topics.  Let's face it, many of these hot topics are going to be on a voting ballot soon and i want to be well educated and prepared like you guys and gals are. I do not want to be another cattle blindly following the voice that comes from the television. I do not feel prepared at all to face such important decisions.  A simple but broad question for you all. Where can i learn about ethics? Where did you learn about ethics? Could you provide recommendations that may have shaped your views? How do you KNOW what is right or wrong? Does it really just come \"from your heart\"\/intuition? Do you carry the same beliefs that your parents have implanted? Have you learned from an institution of higher education?  This is going to sound silly but what would be favorable for me at this very moment would be a \"ethics 101\" type of resource where i can start fresh and build a healthy foundation of morals and then branch off of with all of these strewn about papers and publications i see on \/r\/philosophy that i fail to collect and assimilate in my mind to make any noticeable change in my overall ethical views.  Please, i wish to know. Teach me. Tell me. Inform me. For I am lost.  Thank you all for your help :)","c_root_id_A":"cfvxdsz","c_root_id_B":"cfvqxj3","created_at_utc_A":1394124110,"created_at_utc_B":1394100164,"score_A":6,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"You sound pretty smart, but I'd be remiss if I didn't recommend Ethics for Dummies. It's written to help someone in exactly your situation. (I know because I'm one of the authors!) Sorry about the ghastly typesetting. We didn't have any control over that :(","human_ref_B":"Start with *Justice: What's the Right Thing to Do?* by Michael J. Sandel.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":23946.0,"score_ratio":1.2}
{"post_id":"1zph7h","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":1.0,"history":"Where is a good place to start learning about ethics? I have posted this in \/r\/ethics and was directed to ask here since the audience is much larger.  I know ethics is a very individual thing, however i don't believe what i think may be right in a broad sense.  Where can i learn and develop a sense of what is right and what is wrong? I was raised in a bad family, my parents were into drugs and i think it kind of fucked me up as well. My past experiences lead me to believe that i should question what i think is right or wrong.  I see so many things on the internet and mass media debating many topics such as homosexuality, genetic engineering, right wing and left wing politics and many other topics. I just cant really bring myself to \"pick a side\" and be very sure of myself. I've never been very sure of myself whether what i thought is the right thing or not for i feared my past experiences and traumas have made me biased and skewed my perceptions of these important topics. I want to do my best not to be biased when i think about important topics.  Let's face it, many of these hot topics are going to be on a voting ballot soon and i want to be well educated and prepared like you guys and gals are. I do not want to be another cattle blindly following the voice that comes from the television. I do not feel prepared at all to face such important decisions.  A simple but broad question for you all. Where can i learn about ethics? Where did you learn about ethics? Could you provide recommendations that may have shaped your views? How do you KNOW what is right or wrong? Does it really just come \"from your heart\"\/intuition? Do you carry the same beliefs that your parents have implanted? Have you learned from an institution of higher education?  This is going to sound silly but what would be favorable for me at this very moment would be a \"ethics 101\" type of resource where i can start fresh and build a healthy foundation of morals and then branch off of with all of these strewn about papers and publications i see on \/r\/philosophy that i fail to collect and assimilate in my mind to make any noticeable change in my overall ethical views.  Please, i wish to know. Teach me. Tell me. Inform me. For I am lost.  Thank you all for your help :)","c_root_id_A":"cfvuq4r","c_root_id_B":"cfvxdsz","created_at_utc_A":1394117784,"created_at_utc_B":1394124110,"score_A":2,"score_B":6,"human_ref_A":"I just started with the various thought experiments concerning utilitarianism and read really in depth into all of them on online forums and everything. I'd say it was an engaging way to start ethics and I'm glad I started it that way.","human_ref_B":"You sound pretty smart, but I'd be remiss if I didn't recommend Ethics for Dummies. It's written to help someone in exactly your situation. (I know because I'm one of the authors!) Sorry about the ghastly typesetting. We didn't have any control over that :(","labels":0,"seconds_difference":6326.0,"score_ratio":3.0}
{"post_id":"91viur","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.89,"history":"Why are religious beliefs given special privileges that, for instance, strong convictions do not have? Our general attitudes toward those doing something from religious belief versus strongly held personal belief seem to differ. I'm not sure at all why we treat them differently. If I were to adhere to some diet for religious reasons, it would be criticized less than if not. Same with if I were to save myself for marriage. If I were to refuse medical treatment, if I did it on the basis of personal belief I would get less of a pass than if for religious reasons.   My question is what is the difference between a religious belief and other types of strongly held convictions and why are religious beliefs privileged over the others?","c_root_id_A":"e318nfs","c_root_id_B":"e313vut","created_at_utc_A":1532556535,"created_at_utc_B":1532552418,"score_A":30,"score_B":21,"human_ref_A":"I'm not sure I agree with the initial premise.      What I do think is correct is that religion tends to have more in the way of formal recognition than other beliefs ^(equality monitoring in job applications asks what your faith is, but views that might be similarly conduct-cotnrolling like humanism or vegetarianism are not included, \"it's kosher\/halal\" is enough to answer 'oh, whats that and why are you eating it' style questions where a vegan gets follow up questiosn on whether they are motivated by environmentalism, animal rights, or taste)      but I think this is more a case of religions being more or less known quantities, where as an individuals own, unaffiliated, moral beliefs are not.  If a muslim or jew declines pork, or if an older catholic declines red meat on a Friday, the reason comes back (long way round or short) to some kind of divine command.  If a vegetarian declines all meat, it might be environmental, it might be animal rights focused, it might be taste, it might be some combination.  I don't think that their views are considered of lesser status, but they can remain unknown longer.        Religion gets used quite often as an example of why a person might not eat this food, or refuse that medical treatment because it is an effective and relatable stand in for \"their choices\".  Medical Ethics texts talk about Jehovah's Witnesses refusing blood, not because this religious confession gives extra rights to refuse treatment, but because it is a predictable and relatable case where a patients will likely exercise their right to refuse treatment, even against a doctor's recommendation.  For a more detailed discussion of this see the autonomy chapter in \"Principles of Biomedical Ethics\", by Beauchamp and Childress.  It is a very influential text in modern medical ethics (particularly on the teaching side) but I confess I think it is philosophically very weak.      I'm pretty sure i recall a legal case here in the UK where a person who;s beliefs about environmentalism were accepted by the court to have the same protection as religious confession and I will add the source to this comment if I can find it.","human_ref_B":"My experience has tended more often to be the exact opposite of yours, so I'm inclined to contest your premise.  Or indeed, to suggest its contrary often holds: i.e., that religious beliefs are often submitted to criticism which the same sorts of beliefs, not held for religious reasons, aren't. For instance, it seems to me we're more likely to hear that someone cannot rightly introduce beliefs they hold for religious reasons into public debates, than that they cannot rightly introduce comparable beliefs which they hold merely on grounds of personal conviction.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":4117.0,"score_ratio":1.4285714286}
{"post_id":"91viur","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.89,"history":"Why are religious beliefs given special privileges that, for instance, strong convictions do not have? Our general attitudes toward those doing something from religious belief versus strongly held personal belief seem to differ. I'm not sure at all why we treat them differently. If I were to adhere to some diet for religious reasons, it would be criticized less than if not. Same with if I were to save myself for marriage. If I were to refuse medical treatment, if I did it on the basis of personal belief I would get less of a pass than if for religious reasons.   My question is what is the difference between a religious belief and other types of strongly held convictions and why are religious beliefs privileged over the others?","c_root_id_A":"e31346x","c_root_id_B":"e318nfs","created_at_utc_A":1532551729,"created_at_utc_B":1532556535,"score_A":15,"score_B":30,"human_ref_A":"This is a very good question. At one point I think many people would have found the following answer obvious:  > A) Because religious institutions and communities have a certain value to society that unique, privately held convictions do not have.  The idea here is that even a secular society gets a lot out of having (some portion of) its citizens raised and participating in established religious institutions and communities. At one point I think it would have seemed obvious to many people (philosophers and politicians alike) that such institutions tend to foster better educated, more civically engaged, better-behaved citizens, not to mention create their own social safety nets in the communities in which they're active. (You can find something like this view expressed in the writings of the American Founding Fathers, for example.) The price society pays for all these benefits is that it gives members of religious communities a free pass on some societal expectations or rules if they conflict with the expectations or rule of their religious community. In other words, it's worthwhile to let me off the hook for the draft (for example) due to my religious beliefs because the existence of the religious institution to which I belong has societal benefits that outweigh my (and my co-religionists') participation in the draft. On the other hand, if I don't belong to one of these society-benefiting institutions (either because I'm an atheist or belong to some fringe cult) but still have a strong conviction that I should not participate in the draft, society's reason for caring about my conviction (that I belong to a society-benefiting institution) is gone.   The reason I think your question is a very good one is that it's not at all clear to me that people find A) obvious anymore. The reasons for this change are very interesting and difficult to spell out in detail, but certainly worth thinking about.","human_ref_B":"I'm not sure I agree with the initial premise.      What I do think is correct is that religion tends to have more in the way of formal recognition than other beliefs ^(equality monitoring in job applications asks what your faith is, but views that might be similarly conduct-cotnrolling like humanism or vegetarianism are not included, \"it's kosher\/halal\" is enough to answer 'oh, whats that and why are you eating it' style questions where a vegan gets follow up questiosn on whether they are motivated by environmentalism, animal rights, or taste)      but I think this is more a case of religions being more or less known quantities, where as an individuals own, unaffiliated, moral beliefs are not.  If a muslim or jew declines pork, or if an older catholic declines red meat on a Friday, the reason comes back (long way round or short) to some kind of divine command.  If a vegetarian declines all meat, it might be environmental, it might be animal rights focused, it might be taste, it might be some combination.  I don't think that their views are considered of lesser status, but they can remain unknown longer.        Religion gets used quite often as an example of why a person might not eat this food, or refuse that medical treatment because it is an effective and relatable stand in for \"their choices\".  Medical Ethics texts talk about Jehovah's Witnesses refusing blood, not because this religious confession gives extra rights to refuse treatment, but because it is a predictable and relatable case where a patients will likely exercise their right to refuse treatment, even against a doctor's recommendation.  For a more detailed discussion of this see the autonomy chapter in \"Principles of Biomedical Ethics\", by Beauchamp and Childress.  It is a very influential text in modern medical ethics (particularly on the teaching side) but I confess I think it is philosophically very weak.      I'm pretty sure i recall a legal case here in the UK where a person who;s beliefs about environmentalism were accepted by the court to have the same protection as religious confession and I will add the source to this comment if I can find it.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":4806.0,"score_ratio":2.0}
{"post_id":"91viur","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.89,"history":"Why are religious beliefs given special privileges that, for instance, strong convictions do not have? Our general attitudes toward those doing something from religious belief versus strongly held personal belief seem to differ. I'm not sure at all why we treat them differently. If I were to adhere to some diet for religious reasons, it would be criticized less than if not. Same with if I were to save myself for marriage. If I were to refuse medical treatment, if I did it on the basis of personal belief I would get less of a pass than if for religious reasons.   My question is what is the difference between a religious belief and other types of strongly held convictions and why are religious beliefs privileged over the others?","c_root_id_A":"e31346x","c_root_id_B":"e313vut","created_at_utc_A":1532551729,"created_at_utc_B":1532552418,"score_A":15,"score_B":21,"human_ref_A":"This is a very good question. At one point I think many people would have found the following answer obvious:  > A) Because religious institutions and communities have a certain value to society that unique, privately held convictions do not have.  The idea here is that even a secular society gets a lot out of having (some portion of) its citizens raised and participating in established religious institutions and communities. At one point I think it would have seemed obvious to many people (philosophers and politicians alike) that such institutions tend to foster better educated, more civically engaged, better-behaved citizens, not to mention create their own social safety nets in the communities in which they're active. (You can find something like this view expressed in the writings of the American Founding Fathers, for example.) The price society pays for all these benefits is that it gives members of religious communities a free pass on some societal expectations or rules if they conflict with the expectations or rule of their religious community. In other words, it's worthwhile to let me off the hook for the draft (for example) due to my religious beliefs because the existence of the religious institution to which I belong has societal benefits that outweigh my (and my co-religionists') participation in the draft. On the other hand, if I don't belong to one of these society-benefiting institutions (either because I'm an atheist or belong to some fringe cult) but still have a strong conviction that I should not participate in the draft, society's reason for caring about my conviction (that I belong to a society-benefiting institution) is gone.   The reason I think your question is a very good one is that it's not at all clear to me that people find A) obvious anymore. The reasons for this change are very interesting and difficult to spell out in detail, but certainly worth thinking about.","human_ref_B":"My experience has tended more often to be the exact opposite of yours, so I'm inclined to contest your premise.  Or indeed, to suggest its contrary often holds: i.e., that religious beliefs are often submitted to criticism which the same sorts of beliefs, not held for religious reasons, aren't. For instance, it seems to me we're more likely to hear that someone cannot rightly introduce beliefs they hold for religious reasons into public debates, than that they cannot rightly introduce comparable beliefs which they hold merely on grounds of personal conviction.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":689.0,"score_ratio":1.4}
{"post_id":"ra7xsi","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":1.0,"history":"\/r\/askphilosophy Open Discussion Thread | December 06, 2021 Welcome to this week's Open Discussion Thread. This thread is a place for posts\/comments which are related to philosophy but wouldn't necessarily meet our posting rules. For example, these threads are great places for:  * Personal opinion questions, e.g. \"who is your favourite philosopher?\"  * \"Test My Theory\" discussions and argument\/paper editing  * Discussion not necessarily related to any particular question, e.g. about what   you're currently reading  * Questions about the profession   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. All of our normal commenting rules are still in place for these threads.  Previous Open Discussion Threads can be found here or at the Wiki archive here.","c_root_id_A":"hnh44y6","c_root_id_B":"hnh1wa2","created_at_utc_A":1638808302,"created_at_utc_B":1638807417,"score_A":15,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"Something really interesting to me about this place is that I think, at least to a small extent, we really have our own unique discursive community. We have commonly-recommended secondary texts that I find myself recommending, and had never heard of before becoming a regular here. I have seen, in the last year, people here reading or recommending books that I recommend here, and I think I hadn\u2019t seen mentioned here before my recommendation. We have \/u\/willbell\u2019s weekly \u201cwhat are you reading\u201d thread. Etc., etc.  I also think I\u2019ve become a much more precise, broadly-read, and careful thinker because of all of you.","human_ref_B":"Does anyone else find the bifurcation of what is \"right in itself\" and \"what is laid down as right\" to be a troubling aspect of Kant's legal philosophy? Surely, this bifurcation deserves a place. After all, Kant is there concerned with external relations and reciprocal limits on freedom. But how far does this bifurcation reach? Phrased almost too simply; does it follow from this bifurcation that some action that is morally impermissible could nonetheless be juridically permissible?","labels":1,"seconds_difference":885.0,"score_ratio":5.0}
{"post_id":"ra7xsi","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":1.0,"history":"\/r\/askphilosophy Open Discussion Thread | December 06, 2021 Welcome to this week's Open Discussion Thread. This thread is a place for posts\/comments which are related to philosophy but wouldn't necessarily meet our posting rules. For example, these threads are great places for:  * Personal opinion questions, e.g. \"who is your favourite philosopher?\"  * \"Test My Theory\" discussions and argument\/paper editing  * Discussion not necessarily related to any particular question, e.g. about what   you're currently reading  * Questions about the profession   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. All of our normal commenting rules are still in place for these threads.  Previous Open Discussion Threads can be found here or at the Wiki archive here.","c_root_id_A":"hnmfhzs","c_root_id_B":"hnhjq66","created_at_utc_A":1638902345,"created_at_utc_B":1638814402,"score_A":9,"score_B":8,"human_ref_A":"https:\/\/pbs.twimg.com\/media\/FGBmp74XMAUaes3?format=png&name=900x900  'lol', as they say","human_ref_B":"What are people reading?  I literally just finished *In Defense of Lost Causes* by Zizek, if I have time this week I will be reading *The Logical Structure of the World* by Carnap and *The Word for World is Forest* by LeGuin.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":87943.0,"score_ratio":1.125}
{"post_id":"ra7xsi","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":1.0,"history":"\/r\/askphilosophy Open Discussion Thread | December 06, 2021 Welcome to this week's Open Discussion Thread. This thread is a place for posts\/comments which are related to philosophy but wouldn't necessarily meet our posting rules. For example, these threads are great places for:  * Personal opinion questions, e.g. \"who is your favourite philosopher?\"  * \"Test My Theory\" discussions and argument\/paper editing  * Discussion not necessarily related to any particular question, e.g. about what   you're currently reading  * Questions about the profession   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. All of our normal commenting rules are still in place for these threads.  Previous Open Discussion Threads can be found here or at the Wiki archive here.","c_root_id_A":"hnmfhzs","c_root_id_B":"hnh1wa2","created_at_utc_A":1638902345,"created_at_utc_B":1638807417,"score_A":9,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"https:\/\/pbs.twimg.com\/media\/FGBmp74XMAUaes3?format=png&name=900x900  'lol', as they say","human_ref_B":"Does anyone else find the bifurcation of what is \"right in itself\" and \"what is laid down as right\" to be a troubling aspect of Kant's legal philosophy? Surely, this bifurcation deserves a place. After all, Kant is there concerned with external relations and reciprocal limits on freedom. But how far does this bifurcation reach? Phrased almost too simply; does it follow from this bifurcation that some action that is morally impermissible could nonetheless be juridically permissible?","labels":1,"seconds_difference":94928.0,"score_ratio":3.0}
{"post_id":"ra7xsi","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":1.0,"history":"\/r\/askphilosophy Open Discussion Thread | December 06, 2021 Welcome to this week's Open Discussion Thread. This thread is a place for posts\/comments which are related to philosophy but wouldn't necessarily meet our posting rules. For example, these threads are great places for:  * Personal opinion questions, e.g. \"who is your favourite philosopher?\"  * \"Test My Theory\" discussions and argument\/paper editing  * Discussion not necessarily related to any particular question, e.g. about what   you're currently reading  * Questions about the profession   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. All of our normal commenting rules are still in place for these threads.  Previous Open Discussion Threads can be found here or at the Wiki archive here.","c_root_id_A":"hnmfhzs","c_root_id_B":"hnhlw4b","created_at_utc_A":1638902345,"created_at_utc_B":1638815249,"score_A":9,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"https:\/\/pbs.twimg.com\/media\/FGBmp74XMAUaes3?format=png&name=900x900  'lol', as they say","human_ref_B":"**Request for writing sample feedback:** Hi folks! I wanted to know if anyone would be willing to offer me feedback on my writing sample for grad apps? It's on human genetic engineering and autonomy, but doesn't presuppose any specialist knowledge of anything (you can read the current abstract here). Reply or message me if so - and I'd be happy to offer feedback on your stuff as well!","labels":1,"seconds_difference":87096.0,"score_ratio":4.5}
{"post_id":"ra7xsi","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":1.0,"history":"\/r\/askphilosophy Open Discussion Thread | December 06, 2021 Welcome to this week's Open Discussion Thread. This thread is a place for posts\/comments which are related to philosophy but wouldn't necessarily meet our posting rules. For example, these threads are great places for:  * Personal opinion questions, e.g. \"who is your favourite philosopher?\"  * \"Test My Theory\" discussions and argument\/paper editing  * Discussion not necessarily related to any particular question, e.g. about what   you're currently reading  * Questions about the profession   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. All of our normal commenting rules are still in place for these threads.  Previous Open Discussion Threads can be found here or at the Wiki archive here.","c_root_id_A":"hnhjq66","c_root_id_B":"hnh1wa2","created_at_utc_A":1638814402,"created_at_utc_B":1638807417,"score_A":8,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"What are people reading?  I literally just finished *In Defense of Lost Causes* by Zizek, if I have time this week I will be reading *The Logical Structure of the World* by Carnap and *The Word for World is Forest* by LeGuin.","human_ref_B":"Does anyone else find the bifurcation of what is \"right in itself\" and \"what is laid down as right\" to be a troubling aspect of Kant's legal philosophy? Surely, this bifurcation deserves a place. After all, Kant is there concerned with external relations and reciprocal limits on freedom. But how far does this bifurcation reach? Phrased almost too simply; does it follow from this bifurcation that some action that is morally impermissible could nonetheless be juridically permissible?","labels":1,"seconds_difference":6985.0,"score_ratio":2.6666666667}
{"post_id":"ra7xsi","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":1.0,"history":"\/r\/askphilosophy Open Discussion Thread | December 06, 2021 Welcome to this week's Open Discussion Thread. This thread is a place for posts\/comments which are related to philosophy but wouldn't necessarily meet our posting rules. For example, these threads are great places for:  * Personal opinion questions, e.g. \"who is your favourite philosopher?\"  * \"Test My Theory\" discussions and argument\/paper editing  * Discussion not necessarily related to any particular question, e.g. about what   you're currently reading  * Questions about the profession   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. All of our normal commenting rules are still in place for these threads.  Previous Open Discussion Threads can be found here or at the Wiki archive here.","c_root_id_A":"hnwkc3l","c_root_id_B":"hnvtib5","created_at_utc_A":1639085866,"created_at_utc_B":1639075114,"score_A":6,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"Tomorrow Joel David Hamkins will be talking about Frege's Philosophy of Mathematics on a YouTube channel called Digital Gnosis. Never heard about it, but they're uploading a bunch of interviews\/conversations with philosophers. Five hours ago, Priest and Rob Koons were on. Graham Oppy and ... Kastrup are also scheduled to appear. Gilbert Strang also made an appearance. Haven't watched a single video so far, but maybe some will find it interesting.","human_ref_B":"Soo, huh, lighthearted question. What's going on with Deleuze's nails ?","labels":1,"seconds_difference":10752.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
{"post_id":"ra7xsi","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":1.0,"history":"\/r\/askphilosophy Open Discussion Thread | December 06, 2021 Welcome to this week's Open Discussion Thread. This thread is a place for posts\/comments which are related to philosophy but wouldn't necessarily meet our posting rules. For example, these threads are great places for:  * Personal opinion questions, e.g. \"who is your favourite philosopher?\"  * \"Test My Theory\" discussions and argument\/paper editing  * Discussion not necessarily related to any particular question, e.g. about what   you're currently reading  * Questions about the profession   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. All of our normal commenting rules are still in place for these threads.  Previous Open Discussion Threads can be found here or at the Wiki archive here.","c_root_id_A":"hnh1wa2","c_root_id_B":"hnwkc3l","created_at_utc_A":1638807417,"created_at_utc_B":1639085866,"score_A":3,"score_B":6,"human_ref_A":"Does anyone else find the bifurcation of what is \"right in itself\" and \"what is laid down as right\" to be a troubling aspect of Kant's legal philosophy? Surely, this bifurcation deserves a place. After all, Kant is there concerned with external relations and reciprocal limits on freedom. But how far does this bifurcation reach? Phrased almost too simply; does it follow from this bifurcation that some action that is morally impermissible could nonetheless be juridically permissible?","human_ref_B":"Tomorrow Joel David Hamkins will be talking about Frege's Philosophy of Mathematics on a YouTube channel called Digital Gnosis. Never heard about it, but they're uploading a bunch of interviews\/conversations with philosophers. Five hours ago, Priest and Rob Koons were on. Graham Oppy and ... Kastrup are also scheduled to appear. Gilbert Strang also made an appearance. Haven't watched a single video so far, but maybe some will find it interesting.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":278449.0,"score_ratio":2.0}
{"post_id":"ra7xsi","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":1.0,"history":"\/r\/askphilosophy Open Discussion Thread | December 06, 2021 Welcome to this week's Open Discussion Thread. This thread is a place for posts\/comments which are related to philosophy but wouldn't necessarily meet our posting rules. For example, these threads are great places for:  * Personal opinion questions, e.g. \"who is your favourite philosopher?\"  * \"Test My Theory\" discussions and argument\/paper editing  * Discussion not necessarily related to any particular question, e.g. about what   you're currently reading  * Questions about the profession   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. All of our normal commenting rules are still in place for these threads.  Previous Open Discussion Threads can be found here or at the Wiki archive here.","c_root_id_A":"hnwkc3l","c_root_id_B":"hnhlw4b","created_at_utc_A":1639085866,"created_at_utc_B":1638815249,"score_A":6,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"Tomorrow Joel David Hamkins will be talking about Frege's Philosophy of Mathematics on a YouTube channel called Digital Gnosis. Never heard about it, but they're uploading a bunch of interviews\/conversations with philosophers. Five hours ago, Priest and Rob Koons were on. Graham Oppy and ... Kastrup are also scheduled to appear. Gilbert Strang also made an appearance. Haven't watched a single video so far, but maybe some will find it interesting.","human_ref_B":"**Request for writing sample feedback:** Hi folks! I wanted to know if anyone would be willing to offer me feedback on my writing sample for grad apps? It's on human genetic engineering and autonomy, but doesn't presuppose any specialist knowledge of anything (you can read the current abstract here). Reply or message me if so - and I'd be happy to offer feedback on your stuff as well!","labels":1,"seconds_difference":270617.0,"score_ratio":3.0}
{"post_id":"ra7xsi","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":1.0,"history":"\/r\/askphilosophy Open Discussion Thread | December 06, 2021 Welcome to this week's Open Discussion Thread. This thread is a place for posts\/comments which are related to philosophy but wouldn't necessarily meet our posting rules. For example, these threads are great places for:  * Personal opinion questions, e.g. \"who is your favourite philosopher?\"  * \"Test My Theory\" discussions and argument\/paper editing  * Discussion not necessarily related to any particular question, e.g. about what   you're currently reading  * Questions about the profession   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. All of our normal commenting rules are still in place for these threads.  Previous Open Discussion Threads can be found here or at the Wiki archive here.","c_root_id_A":"hnvtib5","c_root_id_B":"hnh1wa2","created_at_utc_A":1639075114,"created_at_utc_B":1638807417,"score_A":4,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"Soo, huh, lighthearted question. What's going on with Deleuze's nails ?","human_ref_B":"Does anyone else find the bifurcation of what is \"right in itself\" and \"what is laid down as right\" to be a troubling aspect of Kant's legal philosophy? Surely, this bifurcation deserves a place. After all, Kant is there concerned with external relations and reciprocal limits on freedom. But how far does this bifurcation reach? Phrased almost too simply; does it follow from this bifurcation that some action that is morally impermissible could nonetheless be juridically permissible?","labels":1,"seconds_difference":267697.0,"score_ratio":1.3333333333}
{"post_id":"ra7xsi","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":1.0,"history":"\/r\/askphilosophy Open Discussion Thread | December 06, 2021 Welcome to this week's Open Discussion Thread. This thread is a place for posts\/comments which are related to philosophy but wouldn't necessarily meet our posting rules. For example, these threads are great places for:  * Personal opinion questions, e.g. \"who is your favourite philosopher?\"  * \"Test My Theory\" discussions and argument\/paper editing  * Discussion not necessarily related to any particular question, e.g. about what   you're currently reading  * Questions about the profession   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. All of our normal commenting rules are still in place for these threads.  Previous Open Discussion Threads can be found here or at the Wiki archive here.","c_root_id_A":"hnvtib5","c_root_id_B":"hnhlw4b","created_at_utc_A":1639075114,"created_at_utc_B":1638815249,"score_A":4,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"Soo, huh, lighthearted question. What's going on with Deleuze's nails ?","human_ref_B":"**Request for writing sample feedback:** Hi folks! I wanted to know if anyone would be willing to offer me feedback on my writing sample for grad apps? It's on human genetic engineering and autonomy, but doesn't presuppose any specialist knowledge of anything (you can read the current abstract here). Reply or message me if so - and I'd be happy to offer feedback on your stuff as well!","labels":1,"seconds_difference":259865.0,"score_ratio":2.0}
{"post_id":"ra7xsi","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":1.0,"history":"\/r\/askphilosophy Open Discussion Thread | December 06, 2021 Welcome to this week's Open Discussion Thread. This thread is a place for posts\/comments which are related to philosophy but wouldn't necessarily meet our posting rules. For example, these threads are great places for:  * Personal opinion questions, e.g. \"who is your favourite philosopher?\"  * \"Test My Theory\" discussions and argument\/paper editing  * Discussion not necessarily related to any particular question, e.g. about what   you're currently reading  * Questions about the profession   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. All of our normal commenting rules are still in place for these threads.  Previous Open Discussion Threads can be found here or at the Wiki archive here.","c_root_id_A":"ho08yww","c_root_id_B":"hnhlw4b","created_at_utc_A":1639155523,"created_at_utc_B":1638815249,"score_A":3,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"Can anyone point me to a coherent, non-circular, generally accepted definition of \u201cactualize\u201d for logically possible worlds that doesn\u2019t   1) immediately lead to modal collapse or  2) just reduce to a confused way of saying \u201ccause\u201d?  I\u2019ve CTRL+F\u2019d my way through all the more than 100 hits in the pdf of *The Nature of Necessity* and none of them help.","human_ref_B":"**Request for writing sample feedback:** Hi folks! I wanted to know if anyone would be willing to offer me feedback on my writing sample for grad apps? It's on human genetic engineering and autonomy, but doesn't presuppose any specialist knowledge of anything (you can read the current abstract here). Reply or message me if so - and I'd be happy to offer feedback on your stuff as well!","labels":1,"seconds_difference":340274.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
{"post_id":"3tzmw7","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.89,"history":"The \"Wikipedia game\"- does it reflect something fundamental about human language and knowledge or is it simply an artifact of the structure of Wikipedia? Take any random entry in Wikipedia and click the first link in the text for the entry. Continue doing this long enough, and you'll almost invariably end up at the entry for Philosophy (and often, awareness and perception).  I find this fascinating and wonder why this is- is it because of how humans approach knowledge and understanding, is it pointing at something fundamental about how humans perceive reality, or is it just because that's how Wikipedia is structured? Any thoughts?","c_root_id_A":"cxaob8t","c_root_id_B":"cxakkvu","created_at_utc_A":1448318004,"created_at_utc_B":1448312672,"score_A":25,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"Normally the first sentence of a Wikipedia article is a very high-level description of the subject, which lends itself naturally to linking towards more abstract concepts rather than more concrete particulars.  So articles about places and people will link to the country they're in\/from, then the countries' articles will say \"X is a country\" with a link to the definition of a country which leads you into law and political philosophy.  Articles about technical subject matter will start by naming the field they're within, which then links up to the definition of science or math or whatever, and from there into more abstract categories.  Articles about simple object nouns tend to start with the category of thing that it is... the article for which may then start with \"X is a category\", with a link to the notion of a category which feeds back into the abstract math cluster.  Just... always moving in the direction of the abstract. Which, apparently, naturally brings you to philosophy as the ur-abstraction.","human_ref_B":"I suspect it's not so much because human knowledge is structured in a certain way, but rather because philosophy - basically by definition - deals with general and fundamental issues of other areas of human knowledge.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":5332.0,"score_ratio":5.0}
{"post_id":"sne036","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.91,"history":"what does Epicurus mean by \"Don't marry after 40 - because marriage is not provided by nature.\" ? any ideas? thanks","c_root_id_A":"hw40g5u","c_root_id_B":"hw5c4xz","created_at_utc_A":1644343461,"created_at_utc_B":1644361079,"score_A":2,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"The ancient function of marriage is for material concerns, e.g., wealth, social status, familial ties, power, and of course, children.  Juxtapose this with the modern purpose of marriage, or relationships more broadly: personal fulfillment, friendship, comraderie, self actualization. (All nebulous terms to be sure, but the theme remains the same, that we no longer marry for merely wealth and children, but for emotional fulfillment.)   With that said, Epicurus may be arguing that if you have made it to 40, in Ancient Greece, without extra support, then perhaps it is not practical. It is a moot point, so to speak, given the perceived function of marriage.","human_ref_B":"To understand this fully, it is helpful to have a bit of philosophical context on Epicureanism, and so I will set some of that out first and then discuss the specific views on marriage. One thing that I'll note is that I don't recall where (or even if) Epicurus makes such a direct statement about marriage in relation to the age of 40, but I can at least explain why, if there *were* such a quotation, it would make sense given the rest of Epicurean philosophy.  For the Epicureans, we need to distinguish among different kinds of desires: first, we distinguish natural desires from non-natural (usually considered \"empty\") desires. Natural desires are desires for those kinds of things that we must have in order live and relieve naturally-occurring pains, such as the desire for food when hungry or water when thirsty. Non-natural (or empty) desires are desires kinds of things that we don't need to survive (such as a desire to be a celebrity), arise from false opinion, and generally don't have any natural stopping point.  Raphael Woolf provides a helpful and concise account of this in his \"Epicurus and the Epicureans on Ethics\" in the *Cambridge Companion to Ancient Ethics*, and I will follow \u00a75 of that article below to explain the kinds of desires in more depth.  Within the category of natural desires, there is a distinction between natural necessary desires and natural non-necessary desires. A good example here is hunger. When we are hungry, we have a natural desire for food. When we have a natural necessary desire for food, we desire to eat enough and high enough quality food so that we can continue living in a healthy way and not be in pain. A simple dish of rice and beans would do this, for instance.  By contrast, when we have a natural but non-necessary desire for food, our desire for that food goes beyond what is necessary to survive or to avoid pain, such as desire for very luxurious gourmet food, like the Golden Opulence Sundae. No one needs a Golden Opulence Sundae (as opposed to rice and beans) in order to go on living or to relieve a naturally-occurring pain. So, then, if we are hungry, then we have a natural desire (a desire to relive hunger) but if we go beyond that and desire to fulfill this hunger with a Golden Opulence Sundae, this is a natural but non-necessary desire. We could fulfill out desire to eat and relieve our hunger in much simpler ways. This is not to say that you must *avoid* ever eating a Golden Opulence Sundae if one were offered to you, but you should not go out of your way to cultivate a desire for a Golden Opulence Sundae. (If you had cultivated an intense desire for a Golden Opulence Sundae, you may be pained if you can't get one, but that pain is not something that naturally or necessarily occurs just as part of being hungry.)  (Side note: Contrary to the standard interpretation (where \"empty\" desires are a species of non-natural desires), Woolf suggests that \"empty\" desires may not only be non-natural desires but may at times be non-necessary natural desires. Some natural desires may be empty, Woolf remarks, if we have those desires because of \"the (false) opinions we have about the value of things that cause us to desire or (as the case may be) to fear them disproportionately.\" Whether or not this is an accurate classification of natural non-necessary desires relative to empty desires, it is helpful to at least note that the interpretative possibility for empty but natural non-necessary desires may exist (I'll say more about this later).)  The Epicureans held that one way that we are able to be happy is by appropriately restricting the kinds of desires that we have to natural necessary desires. One part of the *tetrapharmakos* (four-fold solution) is that what is good is easy to obtain. That's because, if we restrict our desires to ones that are only natural and necessary, it will not be difficult to fulfill them with simple items. For the Epicureans, happiness involves *ataraxia*\u2014that is, a lack of pains or disturbances (\"taraxia\"). If we fulfill our natural necessary desires and we do not have other non-necessary or empty desires, then we won't have any disturbances (\"taraxia\") and so we can be happy.  We can understand Epicurus's skepticism of marriage in this context. Epicurus is rather skeptical of marriage generally because he does not view it as fulfilling a natural necessary desire and it is not strictly, always necessary for us to achieve *ataraxia* and may sometimes actually cause us problems. A desire for marriage and related desires (about sex, love, etc.) are generally seen as natural but non-necessary desires. For example, Tim O'Keefe in his book *Epicureanism* writes the following (184n3):  > Generally speaking, the Epicureans are hard on sexual desire. They admit sexual desire is natural, but insist that it is unnecessary because you can have a happy life without satisfying it. The Epicureans asserts that sex never helped anybody, and you should be content if at least it does no harm. The wise person will marry and have children when the circumstances indicate it, but he will not fall in love (DL X 118\u201319). Lucretius has a long, detailed and bitter polemic against romantic love (DRN IV 1058\u20131208), in which he rails against the ways in which it distorts the lover's judgement and disturbs his peace of mind.  Exactly how disapproving Epicurus is of marriage in general is somewhat controversial due to some issues associated with the translation of a crucial passage about the Epicurean view on marriage (Diogenes Laertius, *Lives of Eminent Philosophers*, Book 10.119, referenced in O'Keefe above). See Tad Brennan's \"Epicurus on sex, marriage, and children\" for a helpful discussion of the relevant technical issues. Even so, in general, it is common to interpret the Epicureans as being generally *not* in favor of marriage.  Even with whatever skepticism of marriage there may be, Epicurus does not make this an absolute prohibition and there are some exceptions that are made where an Epicurean may marry. For example, Epicurus allows that a someone may marry due to \"special circumstances\" in life. What kind of special circumstances? One commentator (Arkins) says that someone should marry \"only if this is made necessary by some critical situation in his life, that is only if he cannot achieve *ataraxia* other than by living with a woman\" (an interpretation of the controversial of the *DL* 10.119 passage). In a recent article (\"Epicureans on Marriage as Sexual Therapy\"), Kelly Arensen argues that if an Epicurean has a lot of anxiety about obtaining sex and such anxiety would prevent *ataraxia*, then marriage would be permissible insofar as \"marriage would function as a form of sex therapy for Epicureans\" (293).   Although I'm unaware of where Epicurus makes the remark about not marrying specifically after 40, if you consider the ages of those likely to have such anxiety, they would tend to be younger rather than older (e.g., a horny teenager or 20-something would probably have a lot more anxiety about sex than an person decades older), and, so it seems less likely that someone over 40 would have a good Epicurean justification for marriage on these grounds. If you eliminate this justification for marriage, then, on an Epicurean view, you likely want to marry because you have some kind of false opinion about love or something like that. But here recall the idea of an \"empty\" desire: If you have desire for marriage based on a false opinion, then that may be an empty desire (at least if we follow Woolf's account of empty desires given above). I'd have to think more if I wanted to put it in such strong terms, but, if a desire for marriage is an empty one, we can understand why an Epicurean would reject it in fairly strong terms.  In short: Epicurus thinks that we achieve happiness through *ataraxia* (tranquility; freedom from disturbances), and we achieve *ataraxia* in part by restricting our desires to natural necessary desires, which are relatively easy to fulfill (simple foods, etc.). A desire for marriage, on the Epicurean view, is probably due to a natural but *non-necessary* desire (e.g., for sex), or maybe even an empty desire in some cases, and can cause people disturbances (\"taraxia\") that would stand in the way of happiness (or, more specifically, the Epicurean conception of happiness). Thus, the Epicureans are generally critical of marriage and do not think it should be pursued except in exceptional circumstances, such as when an unfulfilled desire for sex (which could be obtained in marriage) would prevent *ataraxia*\/happiness.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":17618.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
{"post_id":"sne036","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.91,"history":"what does Epicurus mean by \"Don't marry after 40 - because marriage is not provided by nature.\" ? any ideas? thanks","c_root_id_A":"hwgdbb3","c_root_id_B":"hw40g5u","created_at_utc_A":1644547425,"created_at_utc_B":1644343461,"score_A":3,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"my impression of the quote was this:     You're not supposed to wait for marriage to happen. You can wait until 40 years old or more and it wont be just handed to you by nature. You have to go out and get it. Stop waiting until 40 or after to find the right one. You have the ability to do it now","human_ref_B":"The ancient function of marriage is for material concerns, e.g., wealth, social status, familial ties, power, and of course, children.  Juxtapose this with the modern purpose of marriage, or relationships more broadly: personal fulfillment, friendship, comraderie, self actualization. (All nebulous terms to be sure, but the theme remains the same, that we no longer marry for merely wealth and children, but for emotional fulfillment.)   With that said, Epicurus may be arguing that if you have made it to 40, in Ancient Greece, without extra support, then perhaps it is not practical. It is a moot point, so to speak, given the perceived function of marriage.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":203964.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
{"post_id":"3znl09","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.82,"history":"Why is \/r\/philosophy biased toward analytical philosophy?","c_root_id_A":"cynrhes","c_root_id_B":"cynpthk","created_at_utc_A":1452059885,"created_at_utc_B":1452056285,"score_A":7,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"\/r\/philosophy is much worse. It's not philosophy over there anymore, it's \"why science, maths, and science fiction are meaningful.\"  Just on their front page, there's at least about 10 links related to science, maths (\"Learning Mathematical Philosophy\" really?), and politics (\"Apparently White People Can't Fix Black Problems\"... again out of scope). There is some interesting stuff once in a while but the rest is dominated by reposts of 5 mins videos from The School Of Life.  I think \/u\/HaggarShoes is very accurate. Reddit users come mostly from English speaking countries and analytic philosophy comes from the Commonwealth countries, put the two together and you end up with philosophy enthusiasts talking about their field of interest (analytic) or people more inclined to analytical philosophy because of its proximity with the scientific method and the mathematical\/logical frame of thinking.  I hope there's more of us here who would like to discuss more about continental philosophy. As far as I'm concerned the questions regarding Nietzsche are always the same and those about Hegel or Heidegger are way too specific for me to jump in.  I wish there could be more variety and more experiences and insights from people studying philosophy in other places in the world (especially France and Germany). I'm sure they study and consider philosophy in a way that is much more different than we do here in North America. Just from my own experience I can tell continental philosophers (Camus, Sartre, Nietzsche, just to name the few I've seen the most here and on \/r\/philosophy) are treated differently in France than on Reddit (as well as in university I guess) and I find it disappointing that we don't have enough of this variety in the way philosophy is treated here.","human_ref_B":"But the thing I notice is that on reddit people are sometimes downright contemptuous to continental philosophy. When I was in university in an Anglo country, most didn't really know or understand continental stuff, but they were never hostile or dismissive about it, and almost always interested and wanted to learn more.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":3600.0,"score_ratio":2.3333333333}
{"post_id":"3znl09","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.82,"history":"Why is \/r\/philosophy biased toward analytical philosophy?","c_root_id_A":"cynmxhi","c_root_id_B":"cynrhes","created_at_utc_A":1452051082,"created_at_utc_B":1452059885,"score_A":2,"score_B":7,"human_ref_A":"Part of it is that reddit is an American website and the philosophy subreddits (philosophy, here, badphil) are written in English. Analytic philosophy predominates in Anglo-American departments, which would have the primary influence on redditors from the English-speaking world. It's not universal, both because there are continental philosophers in America and the commonwealth and there are English speakers who aren't from those regions, but it does help explain its dominance.","human_ref_B":"\/r\/philosophy is much worse. It's not philosophy over there anymore, it's \"why science, maths, and science fiction are meaningful.\"  Just on their front page, there's at least about 10 links related to science, maths (\"Learning Mathematical Philosophy\" really?), and politics (\"Apparently White People Can't Fix Black Problems\"... again out of scope). There is some interesting stuff once in a while but the rest is dominated by reposts of 5 mins videos from The School Of Life.  I think \/u\/HaggarShoes is very accurate. Reddit users come mostly from English speaking countries and analytic philosophy comes from the Commonwealth countries, put the two together and you end up with philosophy enthusiasts talking about their field of interest (analytic) or people more inclined to analytical philosophy because of its proximity with the scientific method and the mathematical\/logical frame of thinking.  I hope there's more of us here who would like to discuss more about continental philosophy. As far as I'm concerned the questions regarding Nietzsche are always the same and those about Hegel or Heidegger are way too specific for me to jump in.  I wish there could be more variety and more experiences and insights from people studying philosophy in other places in the world (especially France and Germany). I'm sure they study and consider philosophy in a way that is much more different than we do here in North America. Just from my own experience I can tell continental philosophers (Camus, Sartre, Nietzsche, just to name the few I've seen the most here and on \/r\/philosophy) are treated differently in France than on Reddit (as well as in university I guess) and I find it disappointing that we don't have enough of this variety in the way philosophy is treated here.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":8803.0,"score_ratio":3.5}
{"post_id":"3znl09","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.82,"history":"Why is \/r\/philosophy biased toward analytical philosophy?","c_root_id_A":"cynpthk","c_root_id_B":"cynxmpn","created_at_utc_A":1452056285,"created_at_utc_B":1452081356,"score_A":3,"score_B":7,"human_ref_A":"But the thing I notice is that on reddit people are sometimes downright contemptuous to continental philosophy. When I was in university in an Anglo country, most didn't really know or understand continental stuff, but they were never hostile or dismissive about it, and almost always interested and wanted to learn more.","human_ref_B":"Others have said similar things, but I'd emphasize analytic philosophy is often written in a self contained style whereas continental philosophy can be extremely referential. Today I started in on Deleuze's \"Difference and Repetition\" which in the introduction alone name-checked Hegel, Leibniz, Kant, Nietzsche, Kierkegaard, Peguy, Freud, Levi-Strauss, and evoked the interplay of psychoanalysis and structuralism in Lacan. That is a huge, hulking body of literary and philosophical knowledge a text like that is drawing on. The average person with very little philosophical training doesn't have time or the inclination to gain familiarity with such a history of philosophy. The most popular texts are immediately accessible and analytic philosophy is easier for the STEM Redditor.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":25071.0,"score_ratio":2.3333333333}
{"post_id":"3znl09","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.82,"history":"Why is \/r\/philosophy biased toward analytical philosophy?","c_root_id_A":"cynxmpn","c_root_id_B":"cynmxhi","created_at_utc_A":1452081356,"created_at_utc_B":1452051082,"score_A":7,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"Others have said similar things, but I'd emphasize analytic philosophy is often written in a self contained style whereas continental philosophy can be extremely referential. Today I started in on Deleuze's \"Difference and Repetition\" which in the introduction alone name-checked Hegel, Leibniz, Kant, Nietzsche, Kierkegaard, Peguy, Freud, Levi-Strauss, and evoked the interplay of psychoanalysis and structuralism in Lacan. That is a huge, hulking body of literary and philosophical knowledge a text like that is drawing on. The average person with very little philosophical training doesn't have time or the inclination to gain familiarity with such a history of philosophy. The most popular texts are immediately accessible and analytic philosophy is easier for the STEM Redditor.","human_ref_B":"Part of it is that reddit is an American website and the philosophy subreddits (philosophy, here, badphil) are written in English. Analytic philosophy predominates in Anglo-American departments, which would have the primary influence on redditors from the English-speaking world. It's not universal, both because there are continental philosophers in America and the commonwealth and there are English speakers who aren't from those regions, but it does help explain its dominance.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":30274.0,"score_ratio":3.5}
{"post_id":"3znl09","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.82,"history":"Why is \/r\/philosophy biased toward analytical philosophy?","c_root_id_A":"cynmxhi","c_root_id_B":"cynpthk","created_at_utc_A":1452051082,"created_at_utc_B":1452056285,"score_A":2,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"Part of it is that reddit is an American website and the philosophy subreddits (philosophy, here, badphil) are written in English. Analytic philosophy predominates in Anglo-American departments, which would have the primary influence on redditors from the English-speaking world. It's not universal, both because there are continental philosophers in America and the commonwealth and there are English speakers who aren't from those regions, but it does help explain its dominance.","human_ref_B":"But the thing I notice is that on reddit people are sometimes downright contemptuous to continental philosophy. When I was in university in an Anglo country, most didn't really know or understand continental stuff, but they were never hostile or dismissive about it, and almost always interested and wanted to learn more.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":5203.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
{"post_id":"533pf7","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.82,"history":"I am traveling to Athens and the main cities in Italy for 3 weeks. What are some must see places for a philosophy lover? Main cities in in Italy include Rome, Florence, Venice, Pisa, Milan.","c_root_id_A":"d7pp797","c_root_id_B":"d7q2jjw","created_at_utc_A":1474056110,"created_at_utc_B":1474076657,"score_A":4,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"The remains of the agora and the Roman forum, obviously. Apparently you can also visit the excavation sites of the Platonic Academy and the Peripatetic Lyceum! From wiki:   \"Visitors today can visit the archaeological site of the Academy located on either side of the Cratylus street in the area of Colonos and Plato's Academy (Post Code GR 10442). Either side of the Cratylus street are important monuments, like the Sacred House Geometric Era, the Gymnasium (1st BC \u2013 1st century AD), the Proto-Helladic Vaulted House and the Peristyle Building (4th century BC), which is perhaps the only major building that belonged to the actual Academy of Plato\"  and  \"During a 1996 excavation to clear space for Athens\u2019 new Museum of Modern Art, the remains of Aristotle\u2019s Lyceum were uncovered. Descriptions from the works of ancient philosophers hint at the location of the grounds, speculated to be somewhere just outside the eastern boundary of ancient Athens, near the rivers Ilissos and Eridanos, and close to Lycabettus Hill. The excavation site is located in downtown Athens, by the junction of Rigillis and Vasilissis Sofias Streets, next to the Athens War Museum and the National Conservatory. The first excavations revealed a gymnasium and wrestling area, but further work has uncovered the majority of what is believed to have withstood the erosion caused to the region by nearby architecture\u2019s placement and drainage. The buildings are definitely those of the original Lyceum, as their foundations lie on the bedrock and there are no other strata further below. Upon realizing the magnitude of the discovery, contingency plans were made for a nearby construction of the Art Museum so that it could be combined with a Lyceum outdoor museum and give visitors easy access to both. There are plans for canopies to be placed over the Lyceum remains, and the area was opened to the public in 2009.[9]\"","human_ref_B":"Have fun in Athens-- I spent many months there myself. Here are my recommendations:   1) Take a bottle of wine to the Areopogus at dusk. You'll see the Parthenon light up, and there will be other people. Try and strike up a conversation. This will be a long lasting memory.   It's off the redline Akropoli stop.   2) Try and make your way up to Delphi. It's a longer drive, but it's well worth the visit.   3) If you want to mix around some intellectuals, take the blue line to the Evangelisimos, and find the Red Lion tavern. You'll find a lot of the PhD archaeologists from the US, Canadian, British, schools hanging out there throwing darts. There's also a 80s metal bar around there that's a lot of fun.   4) Explore the Monistiraki stop-- lots of activity, there's some ruins there too.   Have fun-- I'm totally envious.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":20547.0,"score_ratio":1.25}
{"post_id":"xm4yza","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":1.0,"history":"Phenomenology of social groups - where to look? Specifically on the idea of social groups \"realizing themselves.\"  The graduate course I'm taking on social ontology recently went over a paper proposing that social groups are social structures that are realized by individuals. The course is analytical, but I want to use it as an opportunity to start to familiarize myself with phenomenology, as this is a research interest of mine. I found the idea of a social group's realization as a structure to be quite phenomenological, even though the author of the paper does not further elaborate and sticks to explaining her structuralist account in a way that is disgestible for contemporary analytic social ontology.  Any ideas on where to look in terms of phenomenological concepts or specific works of a phenomenologist that would relate to this idea? I think once I have a starting point I should be good","c_root_id_A":"ipmx60k","c_root_id_B":"ipmv2s8","created_at_utc_A":1663964212,"created_at_utc_B":1663963267,"score_A":4,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"There is tons of phenomenological work on questions of social ontology; in fact, the phenomenological research of sociality is almost as old as phenomenology itself (implicitly already in Husserl, most explicitly in the work of Gerda Walther). *Phenomenology and Social Theory* by Thomas Szanto, in *The Cambridge Handbook of Social Theory*, may serve as a good introduction to the vast literature. The most relevant author is probably Alfred Schutz.","human_ref_B":"I'm not quite sure which angle you're going for, but have you looked at this? https:\/\/plato.stanford.edu\/entries\/collective-intentionality\/","labels":1,"seconds_difference":945.0,"score_ratio":1.3333333333}
{"post_id":"4a88j8","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.95,"history":"Applying to graduate school in political philosophy next year. What are some books that every person should have read before enrolling? I've read the great majority of the classics, as well as contemporary literature on the subject. However, I was wondering if there were any \"no excuses for not having read it\" books or articles for the discipline.","c_root_id_A":"d0yddux","c_root_id_B":"d0y6uk5","created_at_utc_A":1457890284,"created_at_utc_B":1457876731,"score_A":9,"score_B":6,"human_ref_A":"Obviously, alongside Rawls' *A Theory of Justice*, it is mandatory to read Robert Nozick's *Anarchy, State, and Utopia*.","human_ref_B":"Not a subject specialist, but I assume Rawls' *A theory of justice* would be a good idea.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":13553.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
{"post_id":"eoojjg","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.93,"history":"How Valuable is Philosophy as a Double Major? For context, I'm majoring in computer information technology, and that's the area I plan to work in after I graduate.  I'm already going for a philosophy minor.  At my university, the major is only three extra classes, and it's be nice to do a bit more in philosophy, but I'm not sure it's a worthwhile investment practically.  Do employers really care about double majors, especially if it's a humanity in a STEM field?    It's not really a big deal if I do or don't take as much phil in university as I'd like, but if it is useful it would be a no-brainer for me.","c_root_id_A":"feehhuz","c_root_id_B":"fee2tad","created_at_utc_A":1579033852,"created_at_utc_B":1579025224,"score_A":9,"score_B":6,"human_ref_A":"Triple major here (english, sociology, philosophy). What\u2019s nice about programs umbrellaed inside the liberal arts is that they all emphasize overlapping ideas about what an education is for \u2014 namely, preparing you to be a well-rounded individual who can speak and write in such a way that problem solving, giving\/accepting criticism, and communication of all kinds is simpler, smoother, and more satisfying for all parties involved. LAS disciplines are about refining your social and intellectual skills to function better in a social society, and make that society better for every single member of it.   Philosophy is invaluable. It helps you learn to read (not just phonetically obviously, but how to read deeply), write (put thoughts about complicated concepts into words), communicate (discuss ideas in and out of class with same and opposite minded people), think critically (comparing and contrasting radically opposite thought and try on each lens for size), and those are just a few things that benefit every single career path I can imagine. As a bonus, philosophy can help you come to terms with mortality and loss, figure out how to handle uncontrollable circumstances, be more even tempered in debate, and be a better journaler and letter writer. If I were you, I\u2019d sign that paper today.","human_ref_B":"If there are more philosophy classes that apply to your major (logic, philosophy of science\/technology\/AI\/mind\/language) before you graduate, might as well load up on those as you have the professors there to really sharpen your understanding of the concepts (rather than going back later to figure it out on your own with the internet).  Edit: I would like to add that even in STEM fields, the hard skills means you have the knowledge to do the hard work, but the soft skills are usually deal breakers for hiring and retaining workers. Knowing how to think critically and logically, write clearly and translate complex topics to easier to understand language, and participate in a discourse with co-workers to work solutions, are all skills philosophy substantially reinforces.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":8628.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
{"post_id":"eoojjg","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.93,"history":"How Valuable is Philosophy as a Double Major? For context, I'm majoring in computer information technology, and that's the area I plan to work in after I graduate.  I'm already going for a philosophy minor.  At my university, the major is only three extra classes, and it's be nice to do a bit more in philosophy, but I'm not sure it's a worthwhile investment practically.  Do employers really care about double majors, especially if it's a humanity in a STEM field?    It's not really a big deal if I do or don't take as much phil in university as I'd like, but if it is useful it would be a no-brainer for me.","c_root_id_A":"fee7j46","c_root_id_B":"feehhuz","created_at_utc_A":1579028012,"created_at_utc_B":1579033852,"score_A":3,"score_B":9,"human_ref_A":"I think whether employers care about you having studied philosophy depends more on the personality of the employer\/HR people than on the sector. Some of them will think it's great, some of them will not understand why you would study something like philosophy. In my country we don't have the major minor system, but double major seems to show you are motivated to learn and can handle a bigger workload, so seems positive to me.","human_ref_B":"Triple major here (english, sociology, philosophy). What\u2019s nice about programs umbrellaed inside the liberal arts is that they all emphasize overlapping ideas about what an education is for \u2014 namely, preparing you to be a well-rounded individual who can speak and write in such a way that problem solving, giving\/accepting criticism, and communication of all kinds is simpler, smoother, and more satisfying for all parties involved. LAS disciplines are about refining your social and intellectual skills to function better in a social society, and make that society better for every single member of it.   Philosophy is invaluable. It helps you learn to read (not just phonetically obviously, but how to read deeply), write (put thoughts about complicated concepts into words), communicate (discuss ideas in and out of class with same and opposite minded people), think critically (comparing and contrasting radically opposite thought and try on each lens for size), and those are just a few things that benefit every single career path I can imagine. As a bonus, philosophy can help you come to terms with mortality and loss, figure out how to handle uncontrollable circumstances, be more even tempered in debate, and be a better journaler and letter writer. If I were you, I\u2019d sign that paper today.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":5840.0,"score_ratio":3.0}
{"post_id":"qca74l","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.87,"history":"Can anyone recommend a book concerning both economics and philosophy? I know, the question is a bit odd. A friend of mine will have his birthday in a couple of days and I really dont know which book I should buy him. I know for sure that he likes political philosophy (I study with him philosophy in major) and I do know that he wants to do some economics stuff after the bachelor in philosophy. Does anyone of you has got something in mind? Maybe an insider recommendation..anything \ud83d\ude05","c_root_id_A":"hheq695","c_root_id_B":"hheqnq1","created_at_utc_A":1634762709,"created_at_utc_B":1634762901,"score_A":7,"score_B":27,"human_ref_A":"Economics as Applied Ethics by Wilfred Neckermann could be an option","human_ref_B":"Das Kapital fulfils the criteria but is probably also a terrible suggestion.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":192.0,"score_ratio":3.8571428571}
{"post_id":"qca74l","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.87,"history":"Can anyone recommend a book concerning both economics and philosophy? I know, the question is a bit odd. A friend of mine will have his birthday in a couple of days and I really dont know which book I should buy him. I know for sure that he likes political philosophy (I study with him philosophy in major) and I do know that he wants to do some economics stuff after the bachelor in philosophy. Does anyone of you has got something in mind? Maybe an insider recommendation..anything \ud83d\ude05","c_root_id_A":"hheq695","c_root_id_B":"hhezysj","created_at_utc_A":1634762709,"created_at_utc_B":1634766751,"score_A":7,"score_B":19,"human_ref_A":"Economics as Applied Ethics by Wilfred Neckermann could be an option","human_ref_B":"The Worldly Philosophers by Robert Heilbroner is a good overview of many influential economic thinkers, e.g. Adam Smith, Thomas Malthus, David Ricardo, Karl Marx, JM Keynes, and Thorstein Veblen","labels":0,"seconds_difference":4042.0,"score_ratio":2.7142857143}
{"post_id":"qca74l","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.87,"history":"Can anyone recommend a book concerning both economics and philosophy? I know, the question is a bit odd. A friend of mine will have his birthday in a couple of days and I really dont know which book I should buy him. I know for sure that he likes political philosophy (I study with him philosophy in major) and I do know that he wants to do some economics stuff after the bachelor in philosophy. Does anyone of you has got something in mind? Maybe an insider recommendation..anything \ud83d\ude05","c_root_id_A":"hhf4pdw","c_root_id_B":"hhf2yvy","created_at_utc_A":1634768843,"created_at_utc_B":1634768076,"score_A":7,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"Yanis Varoufakis\u2019 latest book, Another Now, might have what you\u2019re looking for. His more academic work (like Modern Political Economics) could be good too.  Though it\u2019s more finance than econ, Nassim Taleb\u2019s Fooled by Randomness is also a good read - mixes behavioural psych \/ econ with epistemological arguments and passages about David Hume and Karl Popper.","human_ref_B":"First thing that comes to mind is Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations.  Second thing that comes to mind is Doug Stanhope's genius bit about Keynesian economics.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":767.0,"score_ratio":3.5}
{"post_id":"qca74l","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.87,"history":"Can anyone recommend a book concerning both economics and philosophy? I know, the question is a bit odd. A friend of mine will have his birthday in a couple of days and I really dont know which book I should buy him. I know for sure that he likes political philosophy (I study with him philosophy in major) and I do know that he wants to do some economics stuff after the bachelor in philosophy. Does anyone of you has got something in mind? Maybe an insider recommendation..anything \ud83d\ude05","c_root_id_A":"hhf42m5","c_root_id_B":"hhf4pdw","created_at_utc_A":1634768562,"created_at_utc_B":1634768843,"score_A":2,"score_B":7,"human_ref_A":"Ecological economics has some deep discussions on value, quite philosophical even if its not made by philosophers... also it has a lot of affinities with discussion on humam-nature interface, of people like bruno latour. So you could see something in this area if its available where you live","human_ref_B":"Yanis Varoufakis\u2019 latest book, Another Now, might have what you\u2019re looking for. His more academic work (like Modern Political Economics) could be good too.  Though it\u2019s more finance than econ, Nassim Taleb\u2019s Fooled by Randomness is also a good read - mixes behavioural psych \/ econ with epistemological arguments and passages about David Hume and Karl Popper.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":281.0,"score_ratio":3.5}
{"post_id":"qca74l","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.87,"history":"Can anyone recommend a book concerning both economics and philosophy? I know, the question is a bit odd. A friend of mine will have his birthday in a couple of days and I really dont know which book I should buy him. I know for sure that he likes political philosophy (I study with him philosophy in major) and I do know that he wants to do some economics stuff after the bachelor in philosophy. Does anyone of you has got something in mind? Maybe an insider recommendation..anything \ud83d\ude05","c_root_id_A":"hhfl1t9","c_root_id_B":"hhf2yvy","created_at_utc_A":1634776330,"created_at_utc_B":1634768076,"score_A":3,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"The famous The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism , by Max Weber, is an interesting read on modern society. It's considered a classic.  Thats just a suggestion thou, feel free to choose something that suits you.","human_ref_B":"First thing that comes to mind is Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations.  Second thing that comes to mind is Doug Stanhope's genius bit about Keynesian economics.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":8254.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
{"post_id":"qca74l","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.87,"history":"Can anyone recommend a book concerning both economics and philosophy? I know, the question is a bit odd. A friend of mine will have his birthday in a couple of days and I really dont know which book I should buy him. I know for sure that he likes political philosophy (I study with him philosophy in major) and I do know that he wants to do some economics stuff after the bachelor in philosophy. Does anyone of you has got something in mind? Maybe an insider recommendation..anything \ud83d\ude05","c_root_id_A":"hhf42m5","c_root_id_B":"hhfl1t9","created_at_utc_A":1634768562,"created_at_utc_B":1634776330,"score_A":2,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"Ecological economics has some deep discussions on value, quite philosophical even if its not made by philosophers... also it has a lot of affinities with discussion on humam-nature interface, of people like bruno latour. So you could see something in this area if its available where you live","human_ref_B":"The famous The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism , by Max Weber, is an interesting read on modern society. It's considered a classic.  Thats just a suggestion thou, feel free to choose something that suits you.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":7768.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
{"post_id":"qca74l","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.87,"history":"Can anyone recommend a book concerning both economics and philosophy? I know, the question is a bit odd. A friend of mine will have his birthday in a couple of days and I really dont know which book I should buy him. I know for sure that he likes political philosophy (I study with him philosophy in major) and I do know that he wants to do some economics stuff after the bachelor in philosophy. Does anyone of you has got something in mind? Maybe an insider recommendation..anything \ud83d\ude05","c_root_id_A":"hhfl1t9","c_root_id_B":"hhfhw5f","created_at_utc_A":1634776330,"created_at_utc_B":1634774888,"score_A":3,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"The famous The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism , by Max Weber, is an interesting read on modern society. It's considered a classic.  Thats just a suggestion thou, feel free to choose something that suits you.","human_ref_B":"Look for Thomas Piketty's  *Capital and Ideology.* He admirably mash history, politics, philosophy and economics. It makes for a work that is grounded in empirical observation but Piketty is not shy to complement his observation with philosophic concept and more abstract idea in general. Also the book has been written not so long ago and is, in my humble opinion, still very relevant.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1442.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
{"post_id":"qca74l","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.87,"history":"Can anyone recommend a book concerning both economics and philosophy? I know, the question is a bit odd. A friend of mine will have his birthday in a couple of days and I really dont know which book I should buy him. I know for sure that he likes political philosophy (I study with him philosophy in major) and I do know that he wants to do some economics stuff after the bachelor in philosophy. Does anyone of you has got something in mind? Maybe an insider recommendation..anything \ud83d\ude05","c_root_id_A":"hhg7qkv","c_root_id_B":"hhf2yvy","created_at_utc_A":1634787110,"created_at_utc_B":1634768076,"score_A":3,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"Karl Poliany - The Great Transformation would be my suggestion. Not exactly philosophy per se but an insinghtful read for ones interested in economics (in a deeper sense)","human_ref_B":"First thing that comes to mind is Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations.  Second thing that comes to mind is Doug Stanhope's genius bit about Keynesian economics.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":19034.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
{"post_id":"qca74l","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.87,"history":"Can anyone recommend a book concerning both economics and philosophy? I know, the question is a bit odd. A friend of mine will have his birthday in a couple of days and I really dont know which book I should buy him. I know for sure that he likes political philosophy (I study with him philosophy in major) and I do know that he wants to do some economics stuff after the bachelor in philosophy. Does anyone of you has got something in mind? Maybe an insider recommendation..anything \ud83d\ude05","c_root_id_A":"hhf42m5","c_root_id_B":"hhg7qkv","created_at_utc_A":1634768562,"created_at_utc_B":1634787110,"score_A":2,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"Ecological economics has some deep discussions on value, quite philosophical even if its not made by philosophers... also it has a lot of affinities with discussion on humam-nature interface, of people like bruno latour. So you could see something in this area if its available where you live","human_ref_B":"Karl Poliany - The Great Transformation would be my suggestion. Not exactly philosophy per se but an insinghtful read for ones interested in economics (in a deeper sense)","labels":0,"seconds_difference":18548.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
{"post_id":"qca74l","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.87,"history":"Can anyone recommend a book concerning both economics and philosophy? I know, the question is a bit odd. A friend of mine will have his birthday in a couple of days and I really dont know which book I should buy him. I know for sure that he likes political philosophy (I study with him philosophy in major) and I do know that he wants to do some economics stuff after the bachelor in philosophy. Does anyone of you has got something in mind? Maybe an insider recommendation..anything \ud83d\ude05","c_root_id_A":"hhg7qkv","c_root_id_B":"hhfhw5f","created_at_utc_A":1634787110,"created_at_utc_B":1634774888,"score_A":3,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"Karl Poliany - The Great Transformation would be my suggestion. Not exactly philosophy per se but an insinghtful read for ones interested in economics (in a deeper sense)","human_ref_B":"Look for Thomas Piketty's  *Capital and Ideology.* He admirably mash history, politics, philosophy and economics. It makes for a work that is grounded in empirical observation but Piketty is not shy to complement his observation with philosophic concept and more abstract idea in general. Also the book has been written not so long ago and is, in my humble opinion, still very relevant.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":12222.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
{"post_id":"qca74l","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.87,"history":"Can anyone recommend a book concerning both economics and philosophy? I know, the question is a bit odd. A friend of mine will have his birthday in a couple of days and I really dont know which book I should buy him. I know for sure that he likes political philosophy (I study with him philosophy in major) and I do know that he wants to do some economics stuff after the bachelor in philosophy. Does anyone of you has got something in mind? Maybe an insider recommendation..anything \ud83d\ude05","c_root_id_A":"hhfqt7t","c_root_id_B":"hhg7qkv","created_at_utc_A":1634778958,"created_at_utc_B":1634787110,"score_A":2,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"Moral limits of markets by Michael sandel","human_ref_B":"Karl Poliany - The Great Transformation would be my suggestion. Not exactly philosophy per se but an insinghtful read for ones interested in economics (in a deeper sense)","labels":0,"seconds_difference":8152.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
{"post_id":"qca74l","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.87,"history":"Can anyone recommend a book concerning both economics and philosophy? I know, the question is a bit odd. A friend of mine will have his birthday in a couple of days and I really dont know which book I should buy him. I know for sure that he likes political philosophy (I study with him philosophy in major) and I do know that he wants to do some economics stuff after the bachelor in philosophy. Does anyone of you has got something in mind? Maybe an insider recommendation..anything \ud83d\ude05","c_root_id_A":"hhganhx","c_root_id_B":"hhf2yvy","created_at_utc_A":1634788721,"created_at_utc_B":1634768076,"score_A":3,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"Nissam Taleb's *Black Swan* deals with using skeptical epistemology as a constructive method in both economics and investment strategy.","human_ref_B":"First thing that comes to mind is Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations.  Second thing that comes to mind is Doug Stanhope's genius bit about Keynesian economics.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":20645.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
{"post_id":"qca74l","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.87,"history":"Can anyone recommend a book concerning both economics and philosophy? I know, the question is a bit odd. A friend of mine will have his birthday in a couple of days and I really dont know which book I should buy him. I know for sure that he likes political philosophy (I study with him philosophy in major) and I do know that he wants to do some economics stuff after the bachelor in philosophy. Does anyone of you has got something in mind? Maybe an insider recommendation..anything \ud83d\ude05","c_root_id_A":"hhganhx","c_root_id_B":"hhf42m5","created_at_utc_A":1634788721,"created_at_utc_B":1634768562,"score_A":3,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"Nissam Taleb's *Black Swan* deals with using skeptical epistemology as a constructive method in both economics and investment strategy.","human_ref_B":"Ecological economics has some deep discussions on value, quite philosophical even if its not made by philosophers... also it has a lot of affinities with discussion on humam-nature interface, of people like bruno latour. So you could see something in this area if its available where you live","labels":1,"seconds_difference":20159.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
{"post_id":"qca74l","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.87,"history":"Can anyone recommend a book concerning both economics and philosophy? I know, the question is a bit odd. A friend of mine will have his birthday in a couple of days and I really dont know which book I should buy him. I know for sure that he likes political philosophy (I study with him philosophy in major) and I do know that he wants to do some economics stuff after the bachelor in philosophy. Does anyone of you has got something in mind? Maybe an insider recommendation..anything \ud83d\ude05","c_root_id_A":"hhganhx","c_root_id_B":"hhfhw5f","created_at_utc_A":1634788721,"created_at_utc_B":1634774888,"score_A":3,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"Nissam Taleb's *Black Swan* deals with using skeptical epistemology as a constructive method in both economics and investment strategy.","human_ref_B":"Look for Thomas Piketty's  *Capital and Ideology.* He admirably mash history, politics, philosophy and economics. It makes for a work that is grounded in empirical observation but Piketty is not shy to complement his observation with philosophic concept and more abstract idea in general. Also the book has been written not so long ago and is, in my humble opinion, still very relevant.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":13833.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
{"post_id":"qca74l","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.87,"history":"Can anyone recommend a book concerning both economics and philosophy? I know, the question is a bit odd. A friend of mine will have his birthday in a couple of days and I really dont know which book I should buy him. I know for sure that he likes political philosophy (I study with him philosophy in major) and I do know that he wants to do some economics stuff after the bachelor in philosophy. Does anyone of you has got something in mind? Maybe an insider recommendation..anything \ud83d\ude05","c_root_id_A":"hhganhx","c_root_id_B":"hhfqt7t","created_at_utc_A":1634788721,"created_at_utc_B":1634778958,"score_A":3,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"Nissam Taleb's *Black Swan* deals with using skeptical epistemology as a constructive method in both economics and investment strategy.","human_ref_B":"Moral limits of markets by Michael sandel","labels":1,"seconds_difference":9763.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
{"post_id":"qca74l","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.87,"history":"Can anyone recommend a book concerning both economics and philosophy? I know, the question is a bit odd. A friend of mine will have his birthday in a couple of days and I really dont know which book I should buy him. I know for sure that he likes political philosophy (I study with him philosophy in major) and I do know that he wants to do some economics stuff after the bachelor in philosophy. Does anyone of you has got something in mind? Maybe an insider recommendation..anything \ud83d\ude05","c_root_id_A":"hhf2yvy","c_root_id_B":"hhgw2s1","created_at_utc_A":1634768076,"created_at_utc_B":1634805093,"score_A":2,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"First thing that comes to mind is Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations.  Second thing that comes to mind is Doug Stanhope's genius bit about Keynesian economics.","human_ref_B":"Das Capital","labels":0,"seconds_difference":37017.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
{"post_id":"qca74l","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.87,"history":"Can anyone recommend a book concerning both economics and philosophy? I know, the question is a bit odd. A friend of mine will have his birthday in a couple of days and I really dont know which book I should buy him. I know for sure that he likes political philosophy (I study with him philosophy in major) and I do know that he wants to do some economics stuff after the bachelor in philosophy. Does anyone of you has got something in mind? Maybe an insider recommendation..anything \ud83d\ude05","c_root_id_A":"hhgw2s1","c_root_id_B":"hhf42m5","created_at_utc_A":1634805093,"created_at_utc_B":1634768562,"score_A":3,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"Das Capital","human_ref_B":"Ecological economics has some deep discussions on value, quite philosophical even if its not made by philosophers... also it has a lot of affinities with discussion on humam-nature interface, of people like bruno latour. So you could see something in this area if its available where you live","labels":1,"seconds_difference":36531.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
{"post_id":"qca74l","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.87,"history":"Can anyone recommend a book concerning both economics and philosophy? I know, the question is a bit odd. A friend of mine will have his birthday in a couple of days and I really dont know which book I should buy him. I know for sure that he likes political philosophy (I study with him philosophy in major) and I do know that he wants to do some economics stuff after the bachelor in philosophy. Does anyone of you has got something in mind? Maybe an insider recommendation..anything \ud83d\ude05","c_root_id_A":"hhfhw5f","c_root_id_B":"hhgw2s1","created_at_utc_A":1634774888,"created_at_utc_B":1634805093,"score_A":2,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"Look for Thomas Piketty's  *Capital and Ideology.* He admirably mash history, politics, philosophy and economics. It makes for a work that is grounded in empirical observation but Piketty is not shy to complement his observation with philosophic concept and more abstract idea in general. Also the book has been written not so long ago and is, in my humble opinion, still very relevant.","human_ref_B":"Das Capital","labels":0,"seconds_difference":30205.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
{"post_id":"qca74l","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.87,"history":"Can anyone recommend a book concerning both economics and philosophy? I know, the question is a bit odd. A friend of mine will have his birthday in a couple of days and I really dont know which book I should buy him. I know for sure that he likes political philosophy (I study with him philosophy in major) and I do know that he wants to do some economics stuff after the bachelor in philosophy. Does anyone of you has got something in mind? Maybe an insider recommendation..anything \ud83d\ude05","c_root_id_A":"hhgw2s1","c_root_id_B":"hhfqt7t","created_at_utc_A":1634805093,"created_at_utc_B":1634778958,"score_A":3,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"Das Capital","human_ref_B":"Moral limits of markets by Michael sandel","labels":1,"seconds_difference":26135.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
{"post_id":"isgthq","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.86,"history":"Is Wittgenstein's Tractatus just saying the same thing as Plato's divided line? Aren't they both saying the same thing?","c_root_id_A":"g58cbv6","c_root_id_B":"g57ykrm","created_at_utc_A":1600092763,"created_at_utc_B":1600083160,"score_A":8,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"Only in the very limited sense that they're both trying to distinguish what would counts as knowledge from what would not. But once we get down into any sort of detail at all the differences are very significant. For one thing, Plato is relying on a certain metaphysical framework-- the world of being and the world of becoming-- that Wittgenstein is certainly not appealing to, and would likely reject as literally meaningless. Plato is distinguishing between epistemic categories like knowledge and opinion, but Wittgenstein is not-- he's distinguishing between *sense* and *nonsense*.","human_ref_B":"Watch The Ghost In The Machine Lecture by Joscha Bach on YouTube. He has some interesting things to say about the significance of Wittgenstein\u2019s Tractacus, and it\u2019s overall a very interesting lecture about consciousness, computation, and artificial intelligence. Highly recommend! Doesn\u2019t directly answer your question I\u2019m afraid but it\u2019s the only thing I can contribute.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":9603.0,"score_ratio":2.6666666667}
{"post_id":"8ocku6","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.8,"history":"What is nick land's most accessible work, and what do I need to read to fully understand his work?","c_root_id_A":"e02rxdk","c_root_id_B":"e02dzfe","created_at_utc_A":1528086669,"created_at_utc_B":1528070892,"score_A":25,"score_B":23,"human_ref_A":"I'm going to go against the people who say Nick Land is fringe.  Nick Land is weird, and some of his works are extremely experimental in nature, but his published work (*The Thirst for Annihilation* and *Fanged Noumena*) aren't fringe.  Nick Land is heavily influenced by Gilles Deleuze and Georges Bataille making his work simultaneously surreal and hard to read continental philosophy.  (Also being continental also makes him an easy target to attack, the hard to read Deleuzian style language he uses lends itself to claims of *nonsense*.)  However that's not why he's considered fringe!  People started calling Nick Land fringe after he became the primary philosopher of the neo-reactionary (NRx) movement and wrote *The Dark Enlightenment*.  The NRx is somewhat considered to be proto-version of the alt-right before the alt-right existed.  Because of this, people would love to throw Nick Land into the realm of *bad philosophy* (like other right-leaning people such as Jordan Peterson, Ayn Rand, Stefan Molyneux, Sam Harris, etc.).  However Nick Land is much harder to get rid of, his detractors can't simply accuse him of being *fringe* or claim that he doesn't do *real philosophy*.  Because:  1. He's an actual philosopher with a degree and publications.  2. *The Thirst for Annihilation* and *Fanged Noumena* have nothing to do with his politics and are fairly well established continental works (they were also written before his NRx period, so it shouldn't matter).  It's like Heidegger, Heidegger was a Nazi, but that doesn't effect *Being and Time*.  The same difference is true here, Land apparently wants to be reactionary, but that doesn't effect his earlier works.  Anyhow to understand Land you need these philosophers:  Deleuze, Bataille, Nietzsche, and Kant.  (In that order.)  (Hegel might also help, Land spends a bit of time arguing Bataille's philosophy is influenced by Hegel.)  **But it's mainly Deleuze!**  Deleuze is the most important, he's also the hardest to understand.  Land's Accelerationism comes from Deleuze, and you need Deleuze to understand terms like 'deterritorialization', 'bodies without organs' (BwO), 'rhizomes', and 'planes of immanence'.  I found the Deleuze Dictionary extremely helpful.    Nick Land loves Deleuze's terminology (it's everywhere).  If you want to understand Deleuze read *Anti-Oedipus* and *What is Philosophy*.  (In some regards, it might not be that helpful, it's somewhat easier to read *about* Deleuze than his actual works.)    Understanding Deleuze isn't necessarily going to make Land clearer, a lot of terms and themes will pop out, but Deleuze is himself equally difficult to read and suffers from the continental trait of being incomprehensible.  The best thing you can get out of Deleuze is his terminology, because Land likes the terms.  As for what to read from Nick Land:  It's all difficult.  Most of the essays found in *Fanged Noumena* are online in various places.  For example *Meltdown* and *Machinic Desires*.  So, in my opinion, the most 'accessible' works are the short self-contained ones found online.  While reading, it's best to google most of the words, and look out for Deleuzian language.  And sometimes, it still won't make any sense.  A lot of the enjoyment from Land is the experience of reading it.  It's weird, it's literary, it's futuristic, and it's cyberpunk themed.  It's kind of like an art.","human_ref_B":"Not very much of his work is \"accessible,\" and it's up to you to determine whether it's good. And a lot of his work isn't really up to the professional standards of philosophy (for better or worse, depending on how you feel about him). Aside from those he influenced while being at Warwick's philosophy department (some of whom, like Ray Brassier, are now professional philosophers), he's since developed a sort of cult-like internet following, and I don't know too many people even in continental circles who would consider him a serious philosopher.  That said, the main work to look at is *The Thirst for Annihilation: Georges Bataille and Virulent Nihilism*, which can be found fairly easily as a PDF online (I don't know if it was ever published in print). There's also a collection of his essays titled *Fanged Noumena*, which is the closest attempt to a professional organization of his work. And then, if you really want to dig further, you can look at the CCRU collected writings, which are published together in a volume, and which chart the collective work of that Warwick group. But again, many people even in continental circles (and I think with justification) don't consider his work to be philosophy in the usual sense.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":15777.0,"score_ratio":1.0869565217}
{"post_id":"8ocku6","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.8,"history":"What is nick land's most accessible work, and what do I need to read to fully understand his work?","c_root_id_A":"e02dzfe","c_root_id_B":"e02bsln","created_at_utc_A":1528070892,"created_at_utc_B":1528068337,"score_A":23,"score_B":7,"human_ref_A":"Not very much of his work is \"accessible,\" and it's up to you to determine whether it's good. And a lot of his work isn't really up to the professional standards of philosophy (for better or worse, depending on how you feel about him). Aside from those he influenced while being at Warwick's philosophy department (some of whom, like Ray Brassier, are now professional philosophers), he's since developed a sort of cult-like internet following, and I don't know too many people even in continental circles who would consider him a serious philosopher.  That said, the main work to look at is *The Thirst for Annihilation: Georges Bataille and Virulent Nihilism*, which can be found fairly easily as a PDF online (I don't know if it was ever published in print). There's also a collection of his essays titled *Fanged Noumena*, which is the closest attempt to a professional organization of his work. And then, if you really want to dig further, you can look at the CCRU collected writings, which are published together in a volume, and which chart the collective work of that Warwick group. But again, many people even in continental circles (and I think with justification) don't consider his work to be philosophy in the usual sense.","human_ref_B":"Nick Land is generally considered a very fringe philosopher.  It is likely that there is very little people here have to say about him since he has very little in the way of valuable contributions to the philosophical literature.  The same as how a scientist will have very little to say about the best place to start for homeopathy.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":2555.0,"score_ratio":3.2857142857}
{"post_id":"8ocku6","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.8,"history":"What is nick land's most accessible work, and what do I need to read to fully understand his work?","c_root_id_A":"e02rxdk","c_root_id_B":"e02jl7k","created_at_utc_A":1528086669,"created_at_utc_B":1528076911,"score_A":25,"score_B":12,"human_ref_A":"I'm going to go against the people who say Nick Land is fringe.  Nick Land is weird, and some of his works are extremely experimental in nature, but his published work (*The Thirst for Annihilation* and *Fanged Noumena*) aren't fringe.  Nick Land is heavily influenced by Gilles Deleuze and Georges Bataille making his work simultaneously surreal and hard to read continental philosophy.  (Also being continental also makes him an easy target to attack, the hard to read Deleuzian style language he uses lends itself to claims of *nonsense*.)  However that's not why he's considered fringe!  People started calling Nick Land fringe after he became the primary philosopher of the neo-reactionary (NRx) movement and wrote *The Dark Enlightenment*.  The NRx is somewhat considered to be proto-version of the alt-right before the alt-right existed.  Because of this, people would love to throw Nick Land into the realm of *bad philosophy* (like other right-leaning people such as Jordan Peterson, Ayn Rand, Stefan Molyneux, Sam Harris, etc.).  However Nick Land is much harder to get rid of, his detractors can't simply accuse him of being *fringe* or claim that he doesn't do *real philosophy*.  Because:  1. He's an actual philosopher with a degree and publications.  2. *The Thirst for Annihilation* and *Fanged Noumena* have nothing to do with his politics and are fairly well established continental works (they were also written before his NRx period, so it shouldn't matter).  It's like Heidegger, Heidegger was a Nazi, but that doesn't effect *Being and Time*.  The same difference is true here, Land apparently wants to be reactionary, but that doesn't effect his earlier works.  Anyhow to understand Land you need these philosophers:  Deleuze, Bataille, Nietzsche, and Kant.  (In that order.)  (Hegel might also help, Land spends a bit of time arguing Bataille's philosophy is influenced by Hegel.)  **But it's mainly Deleuze!**  Deleuze is the most important, he's also the hardest to understand.  Land's Accelerationism comes from Deleuze, and you need Deleuze to understand terms like 'deterritorialization', 'bodies without organs' (BwO), 'rhizomes', and 'planes of immanence'.  I found the Deleuze Dictionary extremely helpful.    Nick Land loves Deleuze's terminology (it's everywhere).  If you want to understand Deleuze read *Anti-Oedipus* and *What is Philosophy*.  (In some regards, it might not be that helpful, it's somewhat easier to read *about* Deleuze than his actual works.)    Understanding Deleuze isn't necessarily going to make Land clearer, a lot of terms and themes will pop out, but Deleuze is himself equally difficult to read and suffers from the continental trait of being incomprehensible.  The best thing you can get out of Deleuze is his terminology, because Land likes the terms.  As for what to read from Nick Land:  It's all difficult.  Most of the essays found in *Fanged Noumena* are online in various places.  For example *Meltdown* and *Machinic Desires*.  So, in my opinion, the most 'accessible' works are the short self-contained ones found online.  While reading, it's best to google most of the words, and look out for Deleuzian language.  And sometimes, it still won't make any sense.  A lot of the enjoyment from Land is the experience of reading it.  It's weird, it's literary, it's futuristic, and it's cyberpunk themed.  It's kind of like an art.","human_ref_B":"The four most important influences as far as I can tell are Kant, Bataille, Marx, and Deleuze\/Guattari.   Here a long take on him;  https:\/\/www.versobooks.com\/blogs\/3284-on-nick-land   The essays I see talked about the most are;  \u201cKant, Capital, and the Prohibition of Incest\u201d   \u201cMachinic Desire\u201d   \u201cMeltdown\u201d    I\u2019d read them in that order. Each one gets less and less \u201cconventional\u201d let\u2019s say.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":9758.0,"score_ratio":2.0833333333}
{"post_id":"8ocku6","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.8,"history":"What is nick land's most accessible work, and what do I need to read to fully understand his work?","c_root_id_A":"e02rxdk","c_root_id_B":"e02bsln","created_at_utc_A":1528086669,"created_at_utc_B":1528068337,"score_A":25,"score_B":7,"human_ref_A":"I'm going to go against the people who say Nick Land is fringe.  Nick Land is weird, and some of his works are extremely experimental in nature, but his published work (*The Thirst for Annihilation* and *Fanged Noumena*) aren't fringe.  Nick Land is heavily influenced by Gilles Deleuze and Georges Bataille making his work simultaneously surreal and hard to read continental philosophy.  (Also being continental also makes him an easy target to attack, the hard to read Deleuzian style language he uses lends itself to claims of *nonsense*.)  However that's not why he's considered fringe!  People started calling Nick Land fringe after he became the primary philosopher of the neo-reactionary (NRx) movement and wrote *The Dark Enlightenment*.  The NRx is somewhat considered to be proto-version of the alt-right before the alt-right existed.  Because of this, people would love to throw Nick Land into the realm of *bad philosophy* (like other right-leaning people such as Jordan Peterson, Ayn Rand, Stefan Molyneux, Sam Harris, etc.).  However Nick Land is much harder to get rid of, his detractors can't simply accuse him of being *fringe* or claim that he doesn't do *real philosophy*.  Because:  1. He's an actual philosopher with a degree and publications.  2. *The Thirst for Annihilation* and *Fanged Noumena* have nothing to do with his politics and are fairly well established continental works (they were also written before his NRx period, so it shouldn't matter).  It's like Heidegger, Heidegger was a Nazi, but that doesn't effect *Being and Time*.  The same difference is true here, Land apparently wants to be reactionary, but that doesn't effect his earlier works.  Anyhow to understand Land you need these philosophers:  Deleuze, Bataille, Nietzsche, and Kant.  (In that order.)  (Hegel might also help, Land spends a bit of time arguing Bataille's philosophy is influenced by Hegel.)  **But it's mainly Deleuze!**  Deleuze is the most important, he's also the hardest to understand.  Land's Accelerationism comes from Deleuze, and you need Deleuze to understand terms like 'deterritorialization', 'bodies without organs' (BwO), 'rhizomes', and 'planes of immanence'.  I found the Deleuze Dictionary extremely helpful.    Nick Land loves Deleuze's terminology (it's everywhere).  If you want to understand Deleuze read *Anti-Oedipus* and *What is Philosophy*.  (In some regards, it might not be that helpful, it's somewhat easier to read *about* Deleuze than his actual works.)    Understanding Deleuze isn't necessarily going to make Land clearer, a lot of terms and themes will pop out, but Deleuze is himself equally difficult to read and suffers from the continental trait of being incomprehensible.  The best thing you can get out of Deleuze is his terminology, because Land likes the terms.  As for what to read from Nick Land:  It's all difficult.  Most of the essays found in *Fanged Noumena* are online in various places.  For example *Meltdown* and *Machinic Desires*.  So, in my opinion, the most 'accessible' works are the short self-contained ones found online.  While reading, it's best to google most of the words, and look out for Deleuzian language.  And sometimes, it still won't make any sense.  A lot of the enjoyment from Land is the experience of reading it.  It's weird, it's literary, it's futuristic, and it's cyberpunk themed.  It's kind of like an art.","human_ref_B":"Nick Land is generally considered a very fringe philosopher.  It is likely that there is very little people here have to say about him since he has very little in the way of valuable contributions to the philosophical literature.  The same as how a scientist will have very little to say about the best place to start for homeopathy.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":18332.0,"score_ratio":3.5714285714}
{"post_id":"8ocku6","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.8,"history":"What is nick land's most accessible work, and what do I need to read to fully understand his work?","c_root_id_A":"e02bsln","c_root_id_B":"e02jl7k","created_at_utc_A":1528068337,"created_at_utc_B":1528076911,"score_A":7,"score_B":12,"human_ref_A":"Nick Land is generally considered a very fringe philosopher.  It is likely that there is very little people here have to say about him since he has very little in the way of valuable contributions to the philosophical literature.  The same as how a scientist will have very little to say about the best place to start for homeopathy.","human_ref_B":"The four most important influences as far as I can tell are Kant, Bataille, Marx, and Deleuze\/Guattari.   Here a long take on him;  https:\/\/www.versobooks.com\/blogs\/3284-on-nick-land   The essays I see talked about the most are;  \u201cKant, Capital, and the Prohibition of Incest\u201d   \u201cMachinic Desire\u201d   \u201cMeltdown\u201d    I\u2019d read them in that order. Each one gets less and less \u201cconventional\u201d let\u2019s say.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":8574.0,"score_ratio":1.7142857143}
{"post_id":"84mjim","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.91,"history":"Where can I learn about logic and rationality on the web. Hi, Ive been listening to some YouTube videos about rationality, religion and logical fallacies and I wanted to find out where I could go to learn more about this and how I can apply them in real life. I would also like to learn if there is some place in the internet where I can, let say, submit a logical argument and receive constructive criticisms for it. Since it is in human nature to find it easier to find the flaws on other people than to find them on ourselves.  I thank you for your time.","c_root_id_A":"dvr7zsp","c_root_id_B":"dvr5msz","created_at_utc_A":1521141773,"created_at_utc_B":1521139632,"score_A":5,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"http:\/\/www.logicmatters.net\/tyl\/  more loke a guide to books that teach logic instad of something that teaches logic itself, but the guide gives good and succinct summary of each books.","human_ref_B":"Do you mind linking those Youtube videos? I am, too, trying to dive into the Philosophy of rationalism, but I couldn't seem to find any videos on it. Thank you in advance.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":2141.0,"score_ratio":2.5}
{"post_id":"43fe31","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.89,"history":"If we don't currently understand the relationship between the brain and consciousness, shouldn't we withhold judgement on the question of consciousness surviving the death of the brain? I've posted about this before, but I was just watching Shelly Kagan's lecture series on death and thought I might try to start another discussion.  In the series, Kagan admits that the Physicalist and the Dualist are essentially \"tied\" when it comes to explaining consciousness: neither of them can really do it. His conclusion is that the mysteriousness of consciousness isn't (by itself) a valid reason to believe in souls, since the Dualist doesn't give us any advantage over the Physicalist. That is, I concede, a fair point.  However, when discussing the possibility of life after death, I think the Physicalist's inability to explain consciousness is extremely relevant. If we have the brain (B) and consciousness (C), and we know they're related but we're not exactly sure how, then why should the disappearance of B necessitate the disappearance of C? If we don't understand the relation between B and C, why assume it is one of total dependency?  Again, this is about *withholding judgement*, not taking a stand on one side or the other.  A common objection is: well, we *do* know C is completely dependent on B, because changes in B are reflected by changes in C. In my opinion, this objection fails for two reasons:  1) Just because one thing affects another does not require that their relationship be one of total dependence. For example, hitting my TV screen with a hammer will affect the appearance of the broadcast, but it does not mean that the broadcast is dependent on the TV for its existence.  2) There is a tendency to view consciousness and the mind as equivalent, but I don't think this is necessarily the case. Perhaps consciousness is something very simple, an elementary combination of perception and agency; perhaps things like personality and memory, aspects which are vulnerable to brain damage, are actually components of the mind, which in this view is some kind of mental apparatus that interfaces with consciousness. In this case, even if the mind depends on the brain and dies along with it, we still can't say whether or not consciousness dies as well.  One could object that the view espoused in #2 means that death would strip us of everything we associate with personal identity, and therefore \"I\" still die when my body dies. But I think that's moving the goalposts. The question is whether or not I will continue to have conscious experiences following my death, not whether my beliefs, attitudes, and memories will survive. What's really at stake here is a fundamental sense of continuity.  Anyway, those are some of my thoughts on the matter. Would love to hear what you guys think, or if you could recommend further reading that might help refine\/challenge these ideas.","c_root_id_A":"czi1wv2","c_root_id_B":"czhzssj","created_at_utc_A":1454198961,"created_at_utc_B":1454195111,"score_A":4,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"Here are some scientific defenses of survival after death -- the anomalies presented in cases like these are usually not adequately dealt with by defenses of physicalism:  -  The AWARE Study -- one of the definitive works on near death experiences   -  Anomalous Information Rception by Research Mediums - triple-blind study   And in case of further interest:  - Anomalous Characteristics of Near-Death Experiences -- I.e., characteristics that defy physicalist explanation (with sources)","human_ref_B":">If we don't currently understand the relationship between the brain and consciousness, shouldn't we withhold judgement on the question of consciousness surviving the death of the brain?  We don't understand exactly how conscious thought arises from physical processes. On the other hand, we *do* have a great deal of evidence that conscious thought is negatively affected by physically or chemically damaging the brain. Death is basically the ultimate form of brain damage, and it seems kind of bizarre to propose that consciousness survives the death of the brain intact and whole when lesser forms of brain damage *don't* leave it intact and whole.  >Just because one thing affects another does not require that their relationship be one of total dependence.  If it is not, then it seems a great coincidence that we are so lucky as to find ourselves in functioning physical bodies and not as disembodied, isolated minds that arose without a connection to physical processes. Probabilistically speaking, the fact that we find ourselves like this suggests that all, or at least the majority, of minds are like this- which in turn suggests that there *is* such a total-dependence relationship.  Moreover, consider that we perceive our choices as translating into physical actions in the real world. If consciousness does exist independently of the brain, then this means one of two things must be true: Either our conscious free will is an illusion and our actions are all physically predetermined (in which case what does it mean to say that consciousness is 'independent of the brain' in the first place?), or consciousness affects the physical world from its own nonphysical existence, *somewhere* inside the human nervous system. If the latter is true, sufficiently sensitive instruments ought to be able to detect it. We haven't found anything like that, and although our instruments aren't very precise, they're getting better all the time. Do you expect that eventually we *will* discover such a connection once our tools are up to the task? Because I'd be willing to bet money we never will.  >Perhaps consciousness is something very simple, an elementary combination of perception and agency  I'd hardly call perception and agency 'simple'. Just because we have conveniently concise words for them in the english language doesn't mean they aren't very complex on a physical or informational level.  >What's really at stake here is a fundamental sense of continuity.  How sure are you that you even have that sense of continuity right now? Are you the same person you were five minutes ago?","labels":1,"seconds_difference":3850.0,"score_ratio":1.3333333333}
{"post_id":"126qft","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.75,"history":"Is there an objective reality? The question has been bothering me for some time now. I am not a philosophy student, but I do study rhetoric and logic. It seems to me that logic, when it comes down to it, is predicated on the supposition that certain things can be true, in which case there must be an objective reality in order to make any statement factual. It's difficult to have anything but inductive logic in rhetorical arguments, so I suppose when it comes down to it, I just want to know: can there be an objective reality and existence without perception and consciousness to observe it? If reality is subjective, does that mean anything can, in a sense, be true, and certain truths are simply more widely accepted? Why are certain experiences (hallucinations, etc.) unreal? Sorry if this is really a lot of questions masquerading as one. If you folks don't want to personally answer, I'd be grateful to just be directed to some books or articles that may be useful.","c_root_id_A":"c6spmt9","c_root_id_B":"c6sn0fo","created_at_utc_A":1351387260,"created_at_utc_B":1351374256,"score_A":6,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"On Certainty, by Wittgenstein  The most even-handed, non-dogmatic treatment of this subject I have read.","human_ref_B":"Well, a quick Google search brings up quite a few different results that explain certain people's perspectives on this topic.   That being said, it is my personal belief that it does exist. It reminds me of the question,\"if a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it still make a sound?\" There isn't any real way for us to know one way or the other. Logic and reason (some versions at least) tell us that the answer is yes. My reason for this being that I don't believe my existence or observation responsible for the action of the sound and regardless of me, the sound would remain. This may be a flawed argument, but it is my belief. Using this logic here with objective reality, I then think that objective reality does exist. It is not determined by my existence or knowledge of it, it simply remains the absolute truth of what is and how things are. In fact, I would go so far as to say that it is not possible for us to know objective reality due to our subjectivity and skewed perspectives. I don't know if reality is subjective exactly...IMO, it's more along the lines of our individual realities being subjective. For example, looking at clouds. One person may look at a cloud and think it resembles a cow. Another may look at the same cloud and think that it resembles nothing in particular. A third may look at it and think it resembles a collection of evaporated then condensed water and the shape of it is meaningless. Regardless, it is still the cloud and remains itself without human existence or observation. The significance of this I don't know. Sorry, but this isn't something I've thought about too deeply other than this post.  As far as the hallucinations are concerned, that's a good question. I'm having trouble putting into words what I'm thinking, so please bear with me and I'll clarify if you need me to. I am also unsure as to why you think they are unreal, and what other experiences you refer to. I'll just speak to hallucinations for now. The hallucinations are fabrications of the mind. Therefore, they belong to the person's reality. This in turn is dependent on the person's existence and observation. Without which, the hallucination would not have existed. Subjective reality is obviously quite real which would also make the hallucinations real as well.  Now, to answer your middle question last... The truth is not based on people's subjective reality whatsoever. People may believe certain things to be true, but then, isn't the essence of truth the reality that remains when all misconceptions are stripped away? I don't see how, regardless of subjectivity, the truth is affected. I'd say that the labels we place on truths would be what you are calling the widely accepted truths. I'll explain with this example: The human body is comprised of cells. The cells are what is the \"accepted truth.\" The absolute truth is more along the lines of our form being the combination of what we call cells. It's a rudimentary example, I'm sorry. I am trying as best I can to relate what I mean.  Now, I must let you know that I'm am not a philosophy professional\/student. I have nothing to do with philosophy except I like to read up on it from time to time and have discussions once in a while with my brother who is more intelligent than I am. These thoughts are mine and mine alone. I did not gather them from any source, but rather  they are a collection of musings I've put together over a lot of existential thinking about myself and what I know. So if you were looking for a more definitive answer with concrete sources, well, I don't have any. I hope I answered your questions well enough and would be glad to embellish more if you'd like just let me know what. Thanks for asking a great question that really got my gears turning.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":13004.0,"score_ratio":1.2}
{"post_id":"sp3zfm","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.92,"history":"Is not preventing evil that you are not responsible for, evil? Imagine a man is standing next to a cliff and a child is about to walk off the cliff. The man can either save the child without causing any harm or risking his own life, or he could let the child walk off the cliff and die. The child is not his nor is he the cause of the child being there. If the man saves the child, he would be doing something good. But If the man doesn't save the child, would he be doing something bad? Is not preventing evil that you are not responsible for, evil?  Personally I think letting the child walk off the cliff is amoral or morally insensitive (not bad nor good) but not evil.","c_root_id_A":"hwd0w5o","c_root_id_B":"hwdlb58","created_at_utc_A":1644498147,"created_at_utc_B":1644507113,"score_A":3,"score_B":15,"human_ref_A":"What do you mean by \u201cmorally insensitive\u201d?","human_ref_B":"The philosopher you want to engage with is Peter Singer.  A lot of his work spring-boards off of a situation very similar to what you are taking about.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":8966.0,"score_ratio":5.0}
{"post_id":"5a2ou9","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.79,"history":"Who is your favorite philosopher and why? I love Nietzsche. People say he inspired Hitler, but his sister altered some of his work. I totally agree with his \"Will to Power\" argument and I believe that's why I started loving him from the get-go.  I had to stop reading his work though because I thought I came up with some great ideas\/explanations...then I'd read Nietzsche and discover he had already thought of these things way before my existence.","c_root_id_A":"d9da6ve","c_root_id_B":"d9dewlm","created_at_utc_A":1477781522,"created_at_utc_B":1477789104,"score_A":12,"score_B":17,"human_ref_A":"David Lewis because I want to believe in a plurality of worlds","human_ref_B":"Socrates as in the end every person we meet knows something we don't and his teachings helped me to better understand this fact.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":7582.0,"score_ratio":1.4166666667}
{"post_id":"5a2ou9","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.79,"history":"Who is your favorite philosopher and why? I love Nietzsche. People say he inspired Hitler, but his sister altered some of his work. I totally agree with his \"Will to Power\" argument and I believe that's why I started loving him from the get-go.  I had to stop reading his work though because I thought I came up with some great ideas\/explanations...then I'd read Nietzsche and discover he had already thought of these things way before my existence.","c_root_id_A":"d9dewlm","c_root_id_B":"d9de5kt","created_at_utc_A":1477789104,"created_at_utc_B":1477787952,"score_A":17,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"Socrates as in the end every person we meet knows something we don't and his teachings helped me to better understand this fact.","human_ref_B":"I love Kant, I love reading his writing and I love how internally consistent his work is","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1152.0,"score_ratio":4.25}
{"post_id":"5a2ou9","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.79,"history":"Who is your favorite philosopher and why? I love Nietzsche. People say he inspired Hitler, but his sister altered some of his work. I totally agree with his \"Will to Power\" argument and I believe that's why I started loving him from the get-go.  I had to stop reading his work though because I thought I came up with some great ideas\/explanations...then I'd read Nietzsche and discover he had already thought of these things way before my existence.","c_root_id_A":"d9dewlm","c_root_id_B":"d9dcnzq","created_at_utc_A":1477789104,"created_at_utc_B":1477785531,"score_A":17,"score_B":6,"human_ref_A":"Socrates as in the end every person we meet knows something we don't and his teachings helped me to better understand this fact.","human_ref_B":"Favorite classic philosopher: David Hume. Favorite contemporary: Toss up between Julian savulescu and peter singer.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":3573.0,"score_ratio":2.8333333333}
{"post_id":"5a2ou9","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.79,"history":"Who is your favorite philosopher and why? I love Nietzsche. People say he inspired Hitler, but his sister altered some of his work. I totally agree with his \"Will to Power\" argument and I believe that's why I started loving him from the get-go.  I had to stop reading his work though because I thought I came up with some great ideas\/explanations...then I'd read Nietzsche and discover he had already thought of these things way before my existence.","c_root_id_A":"d9dnxv9","c_root_id_B":"d9de5kt","created_at_utc_A":1477805417,"created_at_utc_B":1477787952,"score_A":12,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"Wittgenstein, because we're playing language games, and it's not true that there isn't a rhinoceros in this room","human_ref_B":"I love Kant, I love reading his writing and I love how internally consistent his work is","labels":1,"seconds_difference":17465.0,"score_ratio":3.0}
{"post_id":"5a2ou9","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.79,"history":"Who is your favorite philosopher and why? I love Nietzsche. People say he inspired Hitler, but his sister altered some of his work. I totally agree with his \"Will to Power\" argument and I believe that's why I started loving him from the get-go.  I had to stop reading his work though because I thought I came up with some great ideas\/explanations...then I'd read Nietzsche and discover he had already thought of these things way before my existence.","c_root_id_A":"d9dnxv9","c_root_id_B":"d9dexdf","created_at_utc_A":1477805417,"created_at_utc_B":1477789141,"score_A":12,"score_B":7,"human_ref_A":"Wittgenstein, because we're playing language games, and it's not true that there isn't a rhinoceros in this room","human_ref_B":"Friedrich Nietzsche.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":16276.0,"score_ratio":1.7142857143}
{"post_id":"5a2ou9","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.79,"history":"Who is your favorite philosopher and why? I love Nietzsche. People say he inspired Hitler, but his sister altered some of his work. I totally agree with his \"Will to Power\" argument and I believe that's why I started loving him from the get-go.  I had to stop reading his work though because I thought I came up with some great ideas\/explanations...then I'd read Nietzsche and discover he had already thought of these things way before my existence.","c_root_id_A":"d9dfrs6","c_root_id_B":"d9dnxv9","created_at_utc_A":1477790542,"created_at_utc_B":1477805417,"score_A":5,"score_B":12,"human_ref_A":"Here are responses from some well known philosophers: http:\/\/gavinwolf.com\/favoritephilosophers","human_ref_B":"Wittgenstein, because we're playing language games, and it's not true that there isn't a rhinoceros in this room","labels":0,"seconds_difference":14875.0,"score_ratio":2.4}
{"post_id":"5a2ou9","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.79,"history":"Who is your favorite philosopher and why? I love Nietzsche. People say he inspired Hitler, but his sister altered some of his work. I totally agree with his \"Will to Power\" argument and I believe that's why I started loving him from the get-go.  I had to stop reading his work though because I thought I came up with some great ideas\/explanations...then I'd read Nietzsche and discover he had already thought of these things way before my existence.","c_root_id_A":"d9dl8p2","c_root_id_B":"d9dnxv9","created_at_utc_A":1477799691,"created_at_utc_B":1477805417,"score_A":5,"score_B":12,"human_ref_A":"Old: Plato  New: Derek Parfit, Bernard Williams, Zizek, Husserl, Fanon","human_ref_B":"Wittgenstein, because we're playing language games, and it's not true that there isn't a rhinoceros in this room","labels":0,"seconds_difference":5726.0,"score_ratio":2.4}
{"post_id":"5a2ou9","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.79,"history":"Who is your favorite philosopher and why? I love Nietzsche. People say he inspired Hitler, but his sister altered some of his work. I totally agree with his \"Will to Power\" argument and I believe that's why I started loving him from the get-go.  I had to stop reading his work though because I thought I came up with some great ideas\/explanations...then I'd read Nietzsche and discover he had already thought of these things way before my existence.","c_root_id_A":"d9dnxv9","c_root_id_B":"d9dcnzq","created_at_utc_A":1477805417,"created_at_utc_B":1477785531,"score_A":12,"score_B":6,"human_ref_A":"Wittgenstein, because we're playing language games, and it's not true that there isn't a rhinoceros in this room","human_ref_B":"Favorite classic philosopher: David Hume. Favorite contemporary: Toss up between Julian savulescu and peter singer.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":19886.0,"score_ratio":2.0}
{"post_id":"5a2ou9","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.79,"history":"Who is your favorite philosopher and why? I love Nietzsche. People say he inspired Hitler, but his sister altered some of his work. I totally agree with his \"Will to Power\" argument and I believe that's why I started loving him from the get-go.  I had to stop reading his work though because I thought I came up with some great ideas\/explanations...then I'd read Nietzsche and discover he had already thought of these things way before my existence.","c_root_id_A":"d9dnxv9","c_root_id_B":"d9dl35y","created_at_utc_A":1477805417,"created_at_utc_B":1477799396,"score_A":12,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"Wittgenstein, because we're playing language games, and it's not true that there isn't a rhinoceros in this room","human_ref_B":"Slavoj Zizek, because I can never tell if he's incredibly insightful or just crazy.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":6021.0,"score_ratio":3.0}
{"post_id":"5a2ou9","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.79,"history":"Who is your favorite philosopher and why? I love Nietzsche. People say he inspired Hitler, but his sister altered some of his work. I totally agree with his \"Will to Power\" argument and I believe that's why I started loving him from the get-go.  I had to stop reading his work though because I thought I came up with some great ideas\/explanations...then I'd read Nietzsche and discover he had already thought of these things way before my existence.","c_root_id_A":"d9deyrt","c_root_id_B":"d9dnxv9","created_at_utc_A":1477789203,"created_at_utc_B":1477805417,"score_A":4,"score_B":12,"human_ref_A":"Either Epicurus or Jan Narveson, the former for his understanding of the connection between pleasure and virtue, and the latter for his derivation of libertarianism and opposition to animal rights.","human_ref_B":"Wittgenstein, because we're playing language games, and it's not true that there isn't a rhinoceros in this room","labels":0,"seconds_difference":16214.0,"score_ratio":3.0}
{"post_id":"5a2ou9","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.79,"history":"Who is your favorite philosopher and why? I love Nietzsche. People say he inspired Hitler, but his sister altered some of his work. I totally agree with his \"Will to Power\" argument and I believe that's why I started loving him from the get-go.  I had to stop reading his work though because I thought I came up with some great ideas\/explanations...then I'd read Nietzsche and discover he had already thought of these things way before my existence.","c_root_id_A":"d9dl00x","c_root_id_B":"d9de5kt","created_at_utc_A":1477799224,"created_at_utc_B":1477787952,"score_A":12,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"Diogenes. Dude died almost 2,500 years ago and still makes me chuckle and question everything in life.","human_ref_B":"I love Kant, I love reading his writing and I love how internally consistent his work is","labels":1,"seconds_difference":11272.0,"score_ratio":3.0}
{"post_id":"5a2ou9","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.79,"history":"Who is your favorite philosopher and why? I love Nietzsche. People say he inspired Hitler, but his sister altered some of his work. I totally agree with his \"Will to Power\" argument and I believe that's why I started loving him from the get-go.  I had to stop reading his work though because I thought I came up with some great ideas\/explanations...then I'd read Nietzsche and discover he had already thought of these things way before my existence.","c_root_id_A":"d9dl00x","c_root_id_B":"d9dexdf","created_at_utc_A":1477799224,"created_at_utc_B":1477789141,"score_A":12,"score_B":7,"human_ref_A":"Diogenes. Dude died almost 2,500 years ago and still makes me chuckle and question everything in life.","human_ref_B":"Friedrich Nietzsche.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":10083.0,"score_ratio":1.7142857143}
{"post_id":"5a2ou9","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.79,"history":"Who is your favorite philosopher and why? I love Nietzsche. People say he inspired Hitler, but his sister altered some of his work. I totally agree with his \"Will to Power\" argument and I believe that's why I started loving him from the get-go.  I had to stop reading his work though because I thought I came up with some great ideas\/explanations...then I'd read Nietzsche and discover he had already thought of these things way before my existence.","c_root_id_A":"d9dfrs6","c_root_id_B":"d9dl00x","created_at_utc_A":1477790542,"created_at_utc_B":1477799224,"score_A":5,"score_B":12,"human_ref_A":"Here are responses from some well known philosophers: http:\/\/gavinwolf.com\/favoritephilosophers","human_ref_B":"Diogenes. Dude died almost 2,500 years ago and still makes me chuckle and question everything in life.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":8682.0,"score_ratio":2.4}
{"post_id":"5a2ou9","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.79,"history":"Who is your favorite philosopher and why? I love Nietzsche. People say he inspired Hitler, but his sister altered some of his work. I totally agree with his \"Will to Power\" argument and I believe that's why I started loving him from the get-go.  I had to stop reading his work though because I thought I came up with some great ideas\/explanations...then I'd read Nietzsche and discover he had already thought of these things way before my existence.","c_root_id_A":"d9dcnzq","c_root_id_B":"d9dl00x","created_at_utc_A":1477785531,"created_at_utc_B":1477799224,"score_A":6,"score_B":12,"human_ref_A":"Favorite classic philosopher: David Hume. Favorite contemporary: Toss up between Julian savulescu and peter singer.","human_ref_B":"Diogenes. Dude died almost 2,500 years ago and still makes me chuckle and question everything in life.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":13693.0,"score_ratio":2.0}
{"post_id":"5a2ou9","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.79,"history":"Who is your favorite philosopher and why? I love Nietzsche. People say he inspired Hitler, but his sister altered some of his work. I totally agree with his \"Will to Power\" argument and I believe that's why I started loving him from the get-go.  I had to stop reading his work though because I thought I came up with some great ideas\/explanations...then I'd read Nietzsche and discover he had already thought of these things way before my existence.","c_root_id_A":"d9dl00x","c_root_id_B":"d9deyrt","created_at_utc_A":1477799224,"created_at_utc_B":1477789203,"score_A":12,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"Diogenes. Dude died almost 2,500 years ago and still makes me chuckle and question everything in life.","human_ref_B":"Either Epicurus or Jan Narveson, the former for his understanding of the connection between pleasure and virtue, and the latter for his derivation of libertarianism and opposition to animal rights.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":10021.0,"score_ratio":3.0}
{"post_id":"5a2ou9","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.79,"history":"Who is your favorite philosopher and why? I love Nietzsche. People say he inspired Hitler, but his sister altered some of his work. I totally agree with his \"Will to Power\" argument and I believe that's why I started loving him from the get-go.  I had to stop reading his work though because I thought I came up with some great ideas\/explanations...then I'd read Nietzsche and discover he had already thought of these things way before my existence.","c_root_id_A":"d9dexdf","c_root_id_B":"d9de5kt","created_at_utc_A":1477789141,"created_at_utc_B":1477787952,"score_A":7,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"Friedrich Nietzsche.","human_ref_B":"I love Kant, I love reading his writing and I love how internally consistent his work is","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1189.0,"score_ratio":1.75}
{"post_id":"5a2ou9","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.79,"history":"Who is your favorite philosopher and why? I love Nietzsche. People say he inspired Hitler, but his sister altered some of his work. I totally agree with his \"Will to Power\" argument and I believe that's why I started loving him from the get-go.  I had to stop reading his work though because I thought I came up with some great ideas\/explanations...then I'd read Nietzsche and discover he had already thought of these things way before my existence.","c_root_id_A":"d9de5kt","c_root_id_B":"d9dfrs6","created_at_utc_A":1477787952,"created_at_utc_B":1477790542,"score_A":4,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"I love Kant, I love reading his writing and I love how internally consistent his work is","human_ref_B":"Here are responses from some well known philosophers: http:\/\/gavinwolf.com\/favoritephilosophers","labels":0,"seconds_difference":2590.0,"score_ratio":1.25}
{"post_id":"5a2ou9","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.79,"history":"Who is your favorite philosopher and why? I love Nietzsche. People say he inspired Hitler, but his sister altered some of his work. I totally agree with his \"Will to Power\" argument and I believe that's why I started loving him from the get-go.  I had to stop reading his work though because I thought I came up with some great ideas\/explanations...then I'd read Nietzsche and discover he had already thought of these things way before my existence.","c_root_id_A":"d9de5kt","c_root_id_B":"d9dl8p2","created_at_utc_A":1477787952,"created_at_utc_B":1477799691,"score_A":4,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"I love Kant, I love reading his writing and I love how internally consistent his work is","human_ref_B":"Old: Plato  New: Derek Parfit, Bernard Williams, Zizek, Husserl, Fanon","labels":0,"seconds_difference":11739.0,"score_ratio":1.25}
{"post_id":"5a2ou9","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.79,"history":"Who is your favorite philosopher and why? I love Nietzsche. People say he inspired Hitler, but his sister altered some of his work. I totally agree with his \"Will to Power\" argument and I believe that's why I started loving him from the get-go.  I had to stop reading his work though because I thought I came up with some great ideas\/explanations...then I'd read Nietzsche and discover he had already thought of these things way before my existence.","c_root_id_A":"d9de5kt","c_root_id_B":"d9dskz1","created_at_utc_A":1477787952,"created_at_utc_B":1477820597,"score_A":4,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"I love Kant, I love reading his writing and I love how internally consistent his work is","human_ref_B":"Max Stirner.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":32645.0,"score_ratio":1.25}
{"post_id":"5a2ou9","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.79,"history":"Who is your favorite philosopher and why? I love Nietzsche. People say he inspired Hitler, but his sister altered some of his work. I totally agree with his \"Will to Power\" argument and I believe that's why I started loving him from the get-go.  I had to stop reading his work though because I thought I came up with some great ideas\/explanations...then I'd read Nietzsche and discover he had already thought of these things way before my existence.","c_root_id_A":"d9dcnzq","c_root_id_B":"d9dexdf","created_at_utc_A":1477785531,"created_at_utc_B":1477789141,"score_A":6,"score_B":7,"human_ref_A":"Favorite classic philosopher: David Hume. Favorite contemporary: Toss up between Julian savulescu and peter singer.","human_ref_B":"Friedrich Nietzsche.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":3610.0,"score_ratio":1.1666666667}
{"post_id":"5a2ou9","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.79,"history":"Who is your favorite philosopher and why? I love Nietzsche. People say he inspired Hitler, but his sister altered some of his work. I totally agree with his \"Will to Power\" argument and I believe that's why I started loving him from the get-go.  I had to stop reading his work though because I thought I came up with some great ideas\/explanations...then I'd read Nietzsche and discover he had already thought of these things way before my existence.","c_root_id_A":"d9dfrs6","c_root_id_B":"d9deyrt","created_at_utc_A":1477790542,"created_at_utc_B":1477789203,"score_A":5,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"Here are responses from some well known philosophers: http:\/\/gavinwolf.com\/favoritephilosophers","human_ref_B":"Either Epicurus or Jan Narveson, the former for his understanding of the connection between pleasure and virtue, and the latter for his derivation of libertarianism and opposition to animal rights.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1339.0,"score_ratio":1.25}
{"post_id":"5a2ou9","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.79,"history":"Who is your favorite philosopher and why? I love Nietzsche. People say he inspired Hitler, but his sister altered some of his work. I totally agree with his \"Will to Power\" argument and I believe that's why I started loving him from the get-go.  I had to stop reading his work though because I thought I came up with some great ideas\/explanations...then I'd read Nietzsche and discover he had already thought of these things way before my existence.","c_root_id_A":"d9dl35y","c_root_id_B":"d9dl8p2","created_at_utc_A":1477799396,"created_at_utc_B":1477799691,"score_A":4,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"Slavoj Zizek, because I can never tell if he's incredibly insightful or just crazy.","human_ref_B":"Old: Plato  New: Derek Parfit, Bernard Williams, Zizek, Husserl, Fanon","labels":0,"seconds_difference":295.0,"score_ratio":1.25}
{"post_id":"5a2ou9","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.79,"history":"Who is your favorite philosopher and why? I love Nietzsche. People say he inspired Hitler, but his sister altered some of his work. I totally agree with his \"Will to Power\" argument and I believe that's why I started loving him from the get-go.  I had to stop reading his work though because I thought I came up with some great ideas\/explanations...then I'd read Nietzsche and discover he had already thought of these things way before my existence.","c_root_id_A":"d9deyrt","c_root_id_B":"d9dl8p2","created_at_utc_A":1477789203,"created_at_utc_B":1477799691,"score_A":4,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"Either Epicurus or Jan Narveson, the former for his understanding of the connection between pleasure and virtue, and the latter for his derivation of libertarianism and opposition to animal rights.","human_ref_B":"Old: Plato  New: Derek Parfit, Bernard Williams, Zizek, Husserl, Fanon","labels":0,"seconds_difference":10488.0,"score_ratio":1.25}
{"post_id":"5a2ou9","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.79,"history":"Who is your favorite philosopher and why? I love Nietzsche. People say he inspired Hitler, but his sister altered some of his work. I totally agree with his \"Will to Power\" argument and I believe that's why I started loving him from the get-go.  I had to stop reading his work though because I thought I came up with some great ideas\/explanations...then I'd read Nietzsche and discover he had already thought of these things way before my existence.","c_root_id_A":"d9dskz1","c_root_id_B":"d9dl35y","created_at_utc_A":1477820597,"created_at_utc_B":1477799396,"score_A":5,"score_B":4,"human_ref_A":"Max Stirner.","human_ref_B":"Slavoj Zizek, because I can never tell if he's incredibly insightful or just crazy.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":21201.0,"score_ratio":1.25}
{"post_id":"5a2ou9","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.79,"history":"Who is your favorite philosopher and why? I love Nietzsche. People say he inspired Hitler, but his sister altered some of his work. I totally agree with his \"Will to Power\" argument and I believe that's why I started loving him from the get-go.  I had to stop reading his work though because I thought I came up with some great ideas\/explanations...then I'd read Nietzsche and discover he had already thought of these things way before my existence.","c_root_id_A":"d9deyrt","c_root_id_B":"d9dskz1","created_at_utc_A":1477789203,"created_at_utc_B":1477820597,"score_A":4,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"Either Epicurus or Jan Narveson, the former for his understanding of the connection between pleasure and virtue, and the latter for his derivation of libertarianism and opposition to animal rights.","human_ref_B":"Max Stirner.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":31394.0,"score_ratio":1.25}
{"post_id":"5a2ou9","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.79,"history":"Who is your favorite philosopher and why? I love Nietzsche. People say he inspired Hitler, but his sister altered some of his work. I totally agree with his \"Will to Power\" argument and I believe that's why I started loving him from the get-go.  I had to stop reading his work though because I thought I came up with some great ideas\/explanations...then I'd read Nietzsche and discover he had already thought of these things way before my existence.","c_root_id_A":"d9dskz1","c_root_id_B":"d9dp6ju","created_at_utc_A":1477820597,"created_at_utc_B":1477808631,"score_A":5,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"Max Stirner.","human_ref_B":"Rorty because he combines clear analytic style with the un-pious eyes of a continental philosopher.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":11966.0,"score_ratio":2.5}
{"post_id":"6tw2x2","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.91,"history":"Are Effective Altruists committed to some form of consequentialism? It seems like a lot of Effective Altruists come to their views by taking Peter Singer's \"Famine, Affluence, and Morality\" really seriously, or through some other consequentialist argument. It doesn't seem to me like they're committed to consequentialism, but it does seem like a lot of EAs are consequentialists. Is that just a historical accident, based on the source for their views, or is there some deeper commitment I'm not aware of?  Quick edit: Another way to ask this is, why not non-consequentialism?","c_root_id_A":"dlo15u6","c_root_id_B":"dlo6bip","created_at_utc_A":1502825086,"created_at_utc_B":1502830165,"score_A":2,"score_B":6,"human_ref_A":"Living and donating as an effective altruist doesn't commit you to any moral views of course. The claim that you ought to do so (which not all EAs endorse) is a little different.  There are a variety of ways that nonconsequentialist theory can point towards EA, and many nonconsequentialists are involved in EA. However, generally you need both something to point towards benevolence and something to point towards instrumental rationality\/effectiveness, so it's overall a bit more complicated to think it through and reach a compelling enough conclusion that can make one feel like changing their behavior. That being said, Singer's original argument aims to appeal to nonconsequentialist reasons for altruism.  Since nonconsequentialists generally have almost as much reason to be in EA in some form as consequentialists do, the difference in participation may be explained by the underlying attitudes and inclinations which explain variance in moral views in the first place. In my perception, consequentialism is correlated with the revisionary moral attitude of \"find out what the right thing to do is, and then do it,\" whereas nonconsequentialism is correlated with the conventional moral attitude of \"find what moral theory gives a good account of our place in society, and then study it.\" Belief in consequentialism also seems to be correlated with interest in decision theory, interest in mathematical rigor, and interest in rationality. So consequentialism is the sort of theory that is most likely to attract the people who lean into effective altruism.  Edit, statistics for all the people who think I'm full of shit: see https:\/\/philpapers.org\/surveys\/linear_most_with.pl?A=profile%3AAOS%3ADecision%20Theory and https:\/\/philpapers.org\/surveys\/linear_most_with.pl?A=profile%3AAOS%3APhilosophy%20of%20Probability.","human_ref_B":"Does the conclusion of 'Famine, Affluence, and Morality' rely on a consequentialist argument? I thought Singer's contention was that it does not.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":5079.0,"score_ratio":3.0}
{"post_id":"b9ndwb","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.81,"history":"Is Heidegger's philosophy somewhat indebted to the Nazi Party, or are his involvement in both Nazism and philosophy usually considered separate from one another? I haven't read much Heidegger at all. But this topic came up at a Decolonialism conference I went to once where the speaker mentioned a philosophy faculty in Latin America (it was a long time ago, sorry) where once a fascist government was installed, any phenomenologist who read native authors instead of Heidegger were either exiled, or killed.  ​  Is there something inherently Nazi-esque, or (perhaps more broadly put) colonial, Western, colonizing, etc., about Heidegger's work?  Thanks","c_root_id_A":"ek67nj9","c_root_id_B":"ek5wbry","created_at_utc_A":1554468056,"created_at_utc_B":1554452314,"score_A":6,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"As other replies state, Heidegger's relation to the Nazi Party remains, even 45 years after his death, a contested issue. But I think we can say, from the information that we have, that Heidegger was not so much indebted to official Nazi ideology for his own philosophy but, rather, saw the Nazi movement as a potential vehicle for his own philosophy. In ways, Heidegger's philosophy stands in pretty stark contrast to a number of rather central attributes of the Nazi fascist regime, particularly its technocratic bureaucracy and its biological-genetic view of race. That's not to say that Heidegger wasn't an anti-semite - he clearly was by the now-available evidence - but Heidegger's anti-semitism is a fairly different sort than the scientific racism espoused in official Nazi propaganda, closer to the sensibilities of a Black Forest farmer than an 19th century anthropologist.   > or (perhaps more broadly put) colonial, Western, colonizing, etc., about Heidegger's work?  That's a pretty complicated question for Heidegger's philosophy, particularly with regard to \"Western.\" Heidegger's project was one which sought to overturn or enact a \"*Destruktion*\" of (Western) metaphysics, philosophy, thought in general. I'm not sure the kind of society that Heidegger sought to return to, i.e. after such a *Destruktion*, could manage the kind of imperialism required for colonizing. I'd think Heidegger would be much more sympathetic to indigenous peoples, particularly those living off the land, under colonization than the colonizers.   There are ways in which Heidegger's philosophy stands in stark contrast to official Nazi ideology, which I think are pertinent to you question, but do not diminish the fact that the dude was a member of the Nazi party and, in ways, has was *even more radically* conservative then the official party ideology.","human_ref_B":"This is indeed a very contentious subject. Some arguing there's a divide between Heidegger the person and Heidegger the philosopher, while others say (even though that may be true) there's still  The publication of his \"Black Books\" (Schwarze Hefte) in German a couple years ago seems to have shed some new light on just how much Heidegger was an antisemite. It even led to the resignation of several notable philosophers from the German Heidegger Society.  This New Yorker article might give a good overview on the current discussions around Heidegger:  Is Heidegger Contaminated by Nazism?   In addition to that, Theodor Adorno was one of Heidegger's fiercest contemporary critics and he certainly argued that Heideggers political views and his philosophical works are not easily to be separated but are instead deeply entangled, especially in his anti-modernism and quest for authenticity. Adorno's book on Heidegger is called *Jargon of Authenticity*, but you can also find remarks on Heidegger in *Negative Dialectics* and in his lecture *Ontology and Dialectics*.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":15742.0,"score_ratio":3.0}
{"post_id":"dveb1q","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.89,"history":"Any scholarly critiques of Edward Feser's work? Hey, recently Graham Oppy published a journal named 'On Stage One of Feser's Aristotelian Proof', where he critiqued not only Feser's Aristotelian proof, but his Neo-Platonic and Rationalist proofs as well.   I was just wondering if there have been others in academia who have also taken a shot at Feser, or Thomism?","c_root_id_A":"f7cl2c0","c_root_id_B":"f7da9zk","created_at_utc_A":1573594583,"created_at_utc_B":1573611581,"score_A":9,"score_B":11,"human_ref_A":"Check out Feser's blog.  He regularly posts people's criticisms of his works and then responds to them.","human_ref_B":"Well, there's almost all of philosophy's development for half a millennium that is, either directly or indirectly, taking a shot at Thomism.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":16998.0,"score_ratio":1.2222222222}
{"post_id":"6dqb8p","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.85,"history":"What would good pop philosophy look like? Is there currently an absence of it?","c_root_id_A":"di4t08w","c_root_id_B":"di4mkzt","created_at_utc_A":1495936883,"created_at_utc_B":1495926272,"score_A":10,"score_B":8,"human_ref_A":"Michael Sandel does a good job of popularizing problems in analytic normative ethics.  Here's one of his lectures: https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/watch?v=kBdfcR-8hEY  He has also given a number of ted talks, which are rhetorically sharp and presented well for a general audience.  Bertrand Russell wrote many books for a popular audience. Most of them are bad, opinionated, garbage, but it did happen. Noam Chomsky and Slavoj Zizek are other examples of respectable philosophers who make their ideas known to a wider audience. Zizek has released two different films presenting his ideas through Hollywood movies. Here's a trailer:  https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/watch?v=YJ897SCgsEY&t=1s   The big problem with pop philosophy today is that many so-called \"pop philosophers\" are what the Greeks referred to as sophists. Sam Harris strikes me, in particular, as a particularly vicious sophist. Jordan Peterson is another name I hear thrown around as one of these pseudo-philosophers who have attracted a cult following of sorts.","human_ref_B":"I think good pop philosophy should present existing philosophical arguments in an a readable and entertaining format without adding anything new to the debates. Julian Baggini is a terrific pop philosopher.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":10611.0,"score_ratio":1.25}
{"post_id":"g95tl5","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.87,"history":"\/r\/askphilosophy Open Discussion Thread | April 27, 2020 Welcome to this week's Open Discussion Thread. This thread is a place for posts\/comments which are related to philosophy but wouldn't necessarily meet our posting rules. For example, these threads are great places for:  * Personal opinion questions, e.g. \"who is your favourite philosopher?\"  * \"Test My Theory\" discussions and argument\/paper editing  * Discussion not necessarily related to any particular question, e.g. about what   you're currently reading  * Questions about the profession   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. All of our normal commenting rules are still in place for these threads.  Previous Open Discussion Threads can be found here or at the Wiki archive here.","c_root_id_A":"fos5nwv","c_root_id_B":"formmya","created_at_utc_A":1588024423,"created_at_utc_B":1588014800,"score_A":10,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"Anyone else see Houlgate's absolutely brutal review of Brandom's new book on Hegel?","human_ref_B":"What are people reading?  I'm working on Rudin's *Real and Complex Analysis* at a fast pace, halfway through Chapter 3, Riesz Representation Theorem was a slog.  Other than that, I've been reading papers on Cyanide toxicology for my work.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":9623.0,"score_ratio":3.3333333333}
{"post_id":"g95tl5","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.87,"history":"\/r\/askphilosophy Open Discussion Thread | April 27, 2020 Welcome to this week's Open Discussion Thread. This thread is a place for posts\/comments which are related to philosophy but wouldn't necessarily meet our posting rules. For example, these threads are great places for:  * Personal opinion questions, e.g. \"who is your favourite philosopher?\"  * \"Test My Theory\" discussions and argument\/paper editing  * Discussion not necessarily related to any particular question, e.g. about what   you're currently reading  * Questions about the profession   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. All of our normal commenting rules are still in place for these threads.  Previous Open Discussion Threads can be found here or at the Wiki archive here.","c_root_id_A":"fos5nwv","c_root_id_B":"foriors","created_at_utc_A":1588024423,"created_at_utc_B":1588012895,"score_A":10,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"Anyone else see Houlgate's absolutely brutal review of Brandom's new book on Hegel?","human_ref_B":"Rising undergraduate interested in pursuing philosophy, what should I expect?","labels":1,"seconds_difference":11528.0,"score_ratio":5.0}
{"post_id":"g95tl5","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.87,"history":"\/r\/askphilosophy Open Discussion Thread | April 27, 2020 Welcome to this week's Open Discussion Thread. This thread is a place for posts\/comments which are related to philosophy but wouldn't necessarily meet our posting rules. For example, these threads are great places for:  * Personal opinion questions, e.g. \"who is your favourite philosopher?\"  * \"Test My Theory\" discussions and argument\/paper editing  * Discussion not necessarily related to any particular question, e.g. about what   you're currently reading  * Questions about the profession   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. All of our normal commenting rules are still in place for these threads.  Previous Open Discussion Threads can be found here or at the Wiki archive here.","c_root_id_A":"fos5nwv","c_root_id_B":"fos4tmb","created_at_utc_A":1588024423,"created_at_utc_B":1588023989,"score_A":10,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"Anyone else see Houlgate's absolutely brutal review of Brandom's new book on Hegel?","human_ref_B":"Amateur 'test my theory' \/ general question from a place of ignorance:  Do all word meanings\/definitions self reference eventually due to any language being defined in terms of itself?  * Say I claim to see a table, but then someone asks me what i mean my table * I tell them using words in the language * Those words now need defining for my meaning of table to be complete * So on recursively until the whole language needs defining, and is therefore self referencing (because I cant provide a definition that is not part of the language)  What happens to truth statements like 'that is a table' under these circumstances?","labels":1,"seconds_difference":434.0,"score_ratio":5.0}
{"post_id":"g95tl5","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.87,"history":"\/r\/askphilosophy Open Discussion Thread | April 27, 2020 Welcome to this week's Open Discussion Thread. This thread is a place for posts\/comments which are related to philosophy but wouldn't necessarily meet our posting rules. For example, these threads are great places for:  * Personal opinion questions, e.g. \"who is your favourite philosopher?\"  * \"Test My Theory\" discussions and argument\/paper editing  * Discussion not necessarily related to any particular question, e.g. about what   you're currently reading  * Questions about the profession   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. All of our normal commenting rules are still in place for these threads.  Previous Open Discussion Threads can be found here or at the Wiki archive here.","c_root_id_A":"formmya","c_root_id_B":"foxdcoi","created_at_utc_A":1588014800,"created_at_utc_B":1588140603,"score_A":3,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"What are people reading?  I'm working on Rudin's *Real and Complex Analysis* at a fast pace, halfway through Chapter 3, Riesz Representation Theorem was a slog.  Other than that, I've been reading papers on Cyanide toxicology for my work.","human_ref_B":"Has anyone gone through Gerson\u2019s new monograph *Platonism and Naturalism* yet? I was anticipating this as soon as I first heard about it last year and am expecting it to go off like a bomb (well, at least in the circles I frequent, anyway).  edit: it\u2019s freely available as a pdf through Johns Hopkins. The first two chapters + the concluding remarks gives you the upshot of the book, esp. if you\u2019re already familiar with what he\u2019s been doing these past ~15 years.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":125803.0,"score_ratio":1.6666666667}
{"post_id":"g95tl5","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.87,"history":"\/r\/askphilosophy Open Discussion Thread | April 27, 2020 Welcome to this week's Open Discussion Thread. This thread is a place for posts\/comments which are related to philosophy but wouldn't necessarily meet our posting rules. For example, these threads are great places for:  * Personal opinion questions, e.g. \"who is your favourite philosopher?\"  * \"Test My Theory\" discussions and argument\/paper editing  * Discussion not necessarily related to any particular question, e.g. about what   you're currently reading  * Questions about the profession   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. All of our normal commenting rules are still in place for these threads.  Previous Open Discussion Threads can be found here or at the Wiki archive here.","c_root_id_A":"foxdcoi","c_root_id_B":"fos75wq","created_at_utc_A":1588140603,"created_at_utc_B":1588025194,"score_A":5,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"Has anyone gone through Gerson\u2019s new monograph *Platonism and Naturalism* yet? I was anticipating this as soon as I first heard about it last year and am expecting it to go off like a bomb (well, at least in the circles I frequent, anyway).  edit: it\u2019s freely available as a pdf through Johns Hopkins. The first two chapters + the concluding remarks gives you the upshot of the book, esp. if you\u2019re already familiar with what he\u2019s been doing these past ~15 years.","human_ref_B":"What did Zarathustra say to the overly inquisitive person? *It's Nietzche business.*","labels":1,"seconds_difference":115409.0,"score_ratio":1.6666666667}
{"post_id":"g95tl5","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.87,"history":"\/r\/askphilosophy Open Discussion Thread | April 27, 2020 Welcome to this week's Open Discussion Thread. This thread is a place for posts\/comments which are related to philosophy but wouldn't necessarily meet our posting rules. For example, these threads are great places for:  * Personal opinion questions, e.g. \"who is your favourite philosopher?\"  * \"Test My Theory\" discussions and argument\/paper editing  * Discussion not necessarily related to any particular question, e.g. about what   you're currently reading  * Questions about the profession   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. All of our normal commenting rules are still in place for these threads.  Previous Open Discussion Threads can be found here or at the Wiki archive here.","c_root_id_A":"foxdcoi","c_root_id_B":"fosmtit","created_at_utc_A":1588140603,"created_at_utc_B":1588033826,"score_A":5,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"Has anyone gone through Gerson\u2019s new monograph *Platonism and Naturalism* yet? I was anticipating this as soon as I first heard about it last year and am expecting it to go off like a bomb (well, at least in the circles I frequent, anyway).  edit: it\u2019s freely available as a pdf through Johns Hopkins. The first two chapters + the concluding remarks gives you the upshot of the book, esp. if you\u2019re already familiar with what he\u2019s been doing these past ~15 years.","human_ref_B":"I recently heard a YouTuber give an analogy in which he described the relationship between brain and the mind as that between a football field and a football game.  That is, the brain is analogous to the field, the ball, the players, etc., while the mind is analogous to a \"game\" being played.  There can't be a game without the players, but the fact that there are players on a field running around with a ball doesn't necessarily mean there's a game taking place.  \"Mind\" is an activity \"played\" by the brain, rather than any sort of entity, like we commonly think of it.  He isn't a philosopher, so I'd be very surprised\/impressed if he isn't getting this from somewhere, and phil of mind isn't really my thing.   Is there some existing philosophy of mind literature\/famous paper that describes the mind this way?","labels":1,"seconds_difference":106777.0,"score_ratio":1.6666666667}
{"post_id":"g95tl5","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.87,"history":"\/r\/askphilosophy Open Discussion Thread | April 27, 2020 Welcome to this week's Open Discussion Thread. This thread is a place for posts\/comments which are related to philosophy but wouldn't necessarily meet our posting rules. For example, these threads are great places for:  * Personal opinion questions, e.g. \"who is your favourite philosopher?\"  * \"Test My Theory\" discussions and argument\/paper editing  * Discussion not necessarily related to any particular question, e.g. about what   you're currently reading  * Questions about the profession   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. All of our normal commenting rules are still in place for these threads.  Previous Open Discussion Threads can be found here or at the Wiki archive here.","c_root_id_A":"foxdcoi","c_root_id_B":"foriors","created_at_utc_A":1588140603,"created_at_utc_B":1588012895,"score_A":5,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"Has anyone gone through Gerson\u2019s new monograph *Platonism and Naturalism* yet? I was anticipating this as soon as I first heard about it last year and am expecting it to go off like a bomb (well, at least in the circles I frequent, anyway).  edit: it\u2019s freely available as a pdf through Johns Hopkins. The first two chapters + the concluding remarks gives you the upshot of the book, esp. if you\u2019re already familiar with what he\u2019s been doing these past ~15 years.","human_ref_B":"Rising undergraduate interested in pursuing philosophy, what should I expect?","labels":1,"seconds_difference":127708.0,"score_ratio":2.5}
{"post_id":"g95tl5","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.87,"history":"\/r\/askphilosophy Open Discussion Thread | April 27, 2020 Welcome to this week's Open Discussion Thread. This thread is a place for posts\/comments which are related to philosophy but wouldn't necessarily meet our posting rules. For example, these threads are great places for:  * Personal opinion questions, e.g. \"who is your favourite philosopher?\"  * \"Test My Theory\" discussions and argument\/paper editing  * Discussion not necessarily related to any particular question, e.g. about what   you're currently reading  * Questions about the profession   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. All of our normal commenting rules are still in place for these threads.  Previous Open Discussion Threads can be found here or at the Wiki archive here.","c_root_id_A":"fos4tmb","c_root_id_B":"foxdcoi","created_at_utc_A":1588023989,"created_at_utc_B":1588140603,"score_A":2,"score_B":5,"human_ref_A":"Amateur 'test my theory' \/ general question from a place of ignorance:  Do all word meanings\/definitions self reference eventually due to any language being defined in terms of itself?  * Say I claim to see a table, but then someone asks me what i mean my table * I tell them using words in the language * Those words now need defining for my meaning of table to be complete * So on recursively until the whole language needs defining, and is therefore self referencing (because I cant provide a definition that is not part of the language)  What happens to truth statements like 'that is a table' under these circumstances?","human_ref_B":"Has anyone gone through Gerson\u2019s new monograph *Platonism and Naturalism* yet? I was anticipating this as soon as I first heard about it last year and am expecting it to go off like a bomb (well, at least in the circles I frequent, anyway).  edit: it\u2019s freely available as a pdf through Johns Hopkins. The first two chapters + the concluding remarks gives you the upshot of the book, esp. if you\u2019re already familiar with what he\u2019s been doing these past ~15 years.","labels":0,"seconds_difference":116614.0,"score_ratio":2.5}
{"post_id":"g95tl5","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.87,"history":"\/r\/askphilosophy Open Discussion Thread | April 27, 2020 Welcome to this week's Open Discussion Thread. This thread is a place for posts\/comments which are related to philosophy but wouldn't necessarily meet our posting rules. For example, these threads are great places for:  * Personal opinion questions, e.g. \"who is your favourite philosopher?\"  * \"Test My Theory\" discussions and argument\/paper editing  * Discussion not necessarily related to any particular question, e.g. about what   you're currently reading  * Questions about the profession   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. All of our normal commenting rules are still in place for these threads.  Previous Open Discussion Threads can be found here or at the Wiki archive here.","c_root_id_A":"formmya","c_root_id_B":"foriors","created_at_utc_A":1588014800,"created_at_utc_B":1588012895,"score_A":3,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"What are people reading?  I'm working on Rudin's *Real and Complex Analysis* at a fast pace, halfway through Chapter 3, Riesz Representation Theorem was a slog.  Other than that, I've been reading papers on Cyanide toxicology for my work.","human_ref_B":"Rising undergraduate interested in pursuing philosophy, what should I expect?","labels":1,"seconds_difference":1905.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
{"post_id":"g95tl5","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.87,"history":"\/r\/askphilosophy Open Discussion Thread | April 27, 2020 Welcome to this week's Open Discussion Thread. This thread is a place for posts\/comments which are related to philosophy but wouldn't necessarily meet our posting rules. For example, these threads are great places for:  * Personal opinion questions, e.g. \"who is your favourite philosopher?\"  * \"Test My Theory\" discussions and argument\/paper editing  * Discussion not necessarily related to any particular question, e.g. about what   you're currently reading  * Questions about the profession   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. All of our normal commenting rules are still in place for these threads.  Previous Open Discussion Threads can be found here or at the Wiki archive here.","c_root_id_A":"fos75wq","c_root_id_B":"foriors","created_at_utc_A":1588025194,"created_at_utc_B":1588012895,"score_A":3,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"What did Zarathustra say to the overly inquisitive person? *It's Nietzche business.*","human_ref_B":"Rising undergraduate interested in pursuing philosophy, what should I expect?","labels":1,"seconds_difference":12299.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
{"post_id":"g95tl5","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.87,"history":"\/r\/askphilosophy Open Discussion Thread | April 27, 2020 Welcome to this week's Open Discussion Thread. This thread is a place for posts\/comments which are related to philosophy but wouldn't necessarily meet our posting rules. For example, these threads are great places for:  * Personal opinion questions, e.g. \"who is your favourite philosopher?\"  * \"Test My Theory\" discussions and argument\/paper editing  * Discussion not necessarily related to any particular question, e.g. about what   you're currently reading  * Questions about the profession   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. All of our normal commenting rules are still in place for these threads.  Previous Open Discussion Threads can be found here or at the Wiki archive here.","c_root_id_A":"fos4tmb","c_root_id_B":"fos75wq","created_at_utc_A":1588023989,"created_at_utc_B":1588025194,"score_A":2,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"Amateur 'test my theory' \/ general question from a place of ignorance:  Do all word meanings\/definitions self reference eventually due to any language being defined in terms of itself?  * Say I claim to see a table, but then someone asks me what i mean my table * I tell them using words in the language * Those words now need defining for my meaning of table to be complete * So on recursively until the whole language needs defining, and is therefore self referencing (because I cant provide a definition that is not part of the language)  What happens to truth statements like 'that is a table' under these circumstances?","human_ref_B":"What did Zarathustra say to the overly inquisitive person? *It's Nietzche business.*","labels":0,"seconds_difference":1205.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
{"post_id":"g95tl5","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.87,"history":"\/r\/askphilosophy Open Discussion Thread | April 27, 2020 Welcome to this week's Open Discussion Thread. This thread is a place for posts\/comments which are related to philosophy but wouldn't necessarily meet our posting rules. For example, these threads are great places for:  * Personal opinion questions, e.g. \"who is your favourite philosopher?\"  * \"Test My Theory\" discussions and argument\/paper editing  * Discussion not necessarily related to any particular question, e.g. about what   you're currently reading  * Questions about the profession   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. All of our normal commenting rules are still in place for these threads.  Previous Open Discussion Threads can be found here or at the Wiki archive here.","c_root_id_A":"fosmtit","c_root_id_B":"foriors","created_at_utc_A":1588033826,"created_at_utc_B":1588012895,"score_A":3,"score_B":2,"human_ref_A":"I recently heard a YouTuber give an analogy in which he described the relationship between brain and the mind as that between a football field and a football game.  That is, the brain is analogous to the field, the ball, the players, etc., while the mind is analogous to a \"game\" being played.  There can't be a game without the players, but the fact that there are players on a field running around with a ball doesn't necessarily mean there's a game taking place.  \"Mind\" is an activity \"played\" by the brain, rather than any sort of entity, like we commonly think of it.  He isn't a philosopher, so I'd be very surprised\/impressed if he isn't getting this from somewhere, and phil of mind isn't really my thing.   Is there some existing philosophy of mind literature\/famous paper that describes the mind this way?","human_ref_B":"Rising undergraduate interested in pursuing philosophy, what should I expect?","labels":1,"seconds_difference":20931.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
{"post_id":"g95tl5","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.87,"history":"\/r\/askphilosophy Open Discussion Thread | April 27, 2020 Welcome to this week's Open Discussion Thread. This thread is a place for posts\/comments which are related to philosophy but wouldn't necessarily meet our posting rules. For example, these threads are great places for:  * Personal opinion questions, e.g. \"who is your favourite philosopher?\"  * \"Test My Theory\" discussions and argument\/paper editing  * Discussion not necessarily related to any particular question, e.g. about what   you're currently reading  * Questions about the profession   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. All of our normal commenting rules are still in place for these threads.  Previous Open Discussion Threads can be found here or at the Wiki archive here.","c_root_id_A":"fos4tmb","c_root_id_B":"fosmtit","created_at_utc_A":1588023989,"created_at_utc_B":1588033826,"score_A":2,"score_B":3,"human_ref_A":"Amateur 'test my theory' \/ general question from a place of ignorance:  Do all word meanings\/definitions self reference eventually due to any language being defined in terms of itself?  * Say I claim to see a table, but then someone asks me what i mean my table * I tell them using words in the language * Those words now need defining for my meaning of table to be complete * So on recursively until the whole language needs defining, and is therefore self referencing (because I cant provide a definition that is not part of the language)  What happens to truth statements like 'that is a table' under these circumstances?","human_ref_B":"I recently heard a YouTuber give an analogy in which he described the relationship between brain and the mind as that between a football field and a football game.  That is, the brain is analogous to the field, the ball, the players, etc., while the mind is analogous to a \"game\" being played.  There can't be a game without the players, but the fact that there are players on a field running around with a ball doesn't necessarily mean there's a game taking place.  \"Mind\" is an activity \"played\" by the brain, rather than any sort of entity, like we commonly think of it.  He isn't a philosopher, so I'd be very surprised\/impressed if he isn't getting this from somewhere, and phil of mind isn't really my thing.   Is there some existing philosophy of mind literature\/famous paper that describes the mind this way?","labels":0,"seconds_difference":9837.0,"score_ratio":1.5}
{"post_id":"a9tg9z","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.9,"history":"What are some philosophical themes that stand out in Dostoyevsky's The Brothers Karamazov? I have just started reading The Brothers Karamazov and thought I would ask what philosophical themes stand out the most in the book, just so I know what to expect!","c_root_id_A":"ecmipm9","c_root_id_B":"ecmija5","created_at_utc_A":1545872648,"created_at_utc_B":1545872492,"score_A":23,"score_B":6,"human_ref_A":"Theodicy and free will, specially in the chapter of \" The Grand Inquisitor\"   Existentialism is a major theme in Dostoyevsky's works, and this book is no exception, Elder Zosima proposes several existential ideals such as responsibility for ones sins.","human_ref_B":"Just read it and be open!! I\u2019m reading it again right now too. Such an enormously ambitious book. It takes on everything.  But - Focus on the characters and what existential modes they represent .. and from there u can flush out the themes based on plot and character interaction.  They\u2019re extremely well developed so it\u2019s all there.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":156.0,"score_ratio":3.8333333333}
{"post_id":"a9tg9z","domain":"askphilosophy_validation","upvote_ratio":0.9,"history":"What are some philosophical themes that stand out in Dostoyevsky's The Brothers Karamazov? I have just started reading The Brothers Karamazov and thought I would ask what philosophical themes stand out the most in the book, just so I know what to expect!","c_root_id_A":"ecmj8vs","c_root_id_B":"ecmija5","created_at_utc_A":1545873133,"created_at_utc_B":1545872492,"score_A":11,"score_B":6,"human_ref_A":"He presents the arguments for and against God and argues each side passionately.  He also asks questions regarding morality including why anyone should try and be a good person.","human_ref_B":"Just read it and be open!! I\u2019m reading it again right now too. Such an enormously ambitious book. It takes on everything.  But - Focus on the characters and what existential modes they represent .. and from there u can flush out the themes based on plot and character interaction.  They\u2019re extremely well developed so it\u2019s all there.","labels":1,"seconds_difference":641.0,"score_ratio":1.8333333333}