I am reading Bertrand Russell's Why I am not Christian and I'm at the point where argues against the first law and he says "On the other hand,where you can get down to any knowledge of what atoms can actually do,they are much less subjects to law than people thought,and that the laws which you arrive are of just the sort that would emerge from chance."

I don't really understand what this means I have a basic highschool level understanding of chemistry but I'm really confused by this statement and the content that follows after and I was wondering if it was possible for someone who is more experienced in philosophy and Bertrand Rusell in general to explain the statement because I feel sort of stupid for not understanding it.

Thank you for your help.

I just finished reading T.H. White's Once and Future King, and was inspired by the ending of book 4, with it's rumination on how despite Arthur's long fight for Chivalry and Right, the cycle of Might and Force ultimately returned with Mordred's rebellion, and whether or not it was worth fighting for 'Right' in the first place. I began to think about some of my own feelings, with trying to extend a hand in kindness to others who do not return it, and questioning why i even try to make the effort. Morally I understand the importance, but it is a feeling I've grappled with, as I'm sure many of us have.

I began to think about my desire to write a novel, and thought this could be an interesting theme to explore, especially for a young reader. The value of staying moral or good in a world where you are bullied, mistreated, ignored, or taken advantage of. But I know that I need to develop my understanding of the theme more, about being kind/moral in a cruel/immoral world, especially in a way that a young reader could understand, why you should not give up even if ignoring your bully fails to stop them, for example.

I don't know of many philosophers off the top of my head who explore this kind of topic, (maybe Kant and the categorical imperative? But I don't think that grapples with what I'm thinking about, why one should stay moral when it only seems to punish the individual, and be abused by others who do not follow the Categorical Imperative.) I'm sure this is a topic that's been discussed by other philosophers, I'd just appreciate some direction on who to read for this topic, thank you!

I understand that ethical dilemmas involve a conflict between two principles. For instance, X & Y are both valid societal interests, but they compete, so how do we balance them. I think I'm okay with that.

Where I get slightly lost is in the nuance that emerges when discussing something that isn't distinctly a dilemma but is instead an ethical issue. How do we identify them, deconstruct them, and apply frameworks to break them down? Most importantly, what are some examples?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So I’m curious:

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

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

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

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

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

I'm posting this to get some feedback, since this is obviously my first real introduction to philosophy and these kinds of concepts.

Hi! In my philosophy class at school, we were assigned a presentation on contemporary philosophical thought. We had a wide selection of philosophers to choose from, and I chose Foucault's concept of biopolitics because it was the only topic left available.

However, after watching some videos, I became more interested in his concepts of power and knowledge and the Panopticon.

I wanted to create an interactive exercise where I put two classmates wearing tinted glasses in the role of Panopticons, standing back-to-back. In front of each "Panopticon," there would be three classmates acting as prisoners. Their objective would be to commit an act of "misbehavior," specifically sticking their tongues out at the Panopticon for five seconds.

The Panopticons would be instructed to close their eyes. This is where the dilemma comes in: because of the tinted glasses, how can the prisoners be sure that the Panopticons actually have their eyes closed? Ideally, this uncertainty would encourage them to follow the rules and behave, even though they don't know whether they're being watched.

For the other side of the comparison, I'd do the same thing but with one classmate without tinted glasses surrounded by four "prisoners." This is based on my understanding of Foucault's argument about the impracticality of sovereign power and the transition toward biopower. Obviously, one person wouldn't be able to catch all four prisoners, which would make this form of control impractical.

I want to emphasize that I'm posting this to find out whether my activity actually makes sense, whether there's anything I've misunderstood, or whether any part of it is inaccurate according to Foucault's ideas.

For example, I didn't fully understand the part about sovereignty. What exactly does Foucault say about the relationship between power and knowledge? Could I connect that concept to my activity and presentation? Is there anything important I'm missing? Have I misunderstood anything?

Thanks!

I am writing an essay for english right now, and my "so what?" is arguing that there is no such thing as a universal truth (the essay was talking about the use of metafiction and unreliable narration, and how those illustrate that novels are an artificial means of depicting reality). I myself am a Catholic, and I do believe in God. However, I recognize that as much as I believe in God, that is my personal faith, and it can't quite be considered a universal truth as not everyone believes. Aside from truths like mathematics/science, are there really any universal truths? When asking google it said things like morality, change, and choice and consequence. Can these really be considered a universal truths? Additionally, how does one define a universal truth and who has the final say?

I am a guy who is only getting into philosophy and I learned that Nietzsche used a very difficult language, since he studied philology during his University years.

SO, I wanted to know, what are the most common misconceptions made on Nietzsche's books? I heard a lot of stuff about him being misunderstood back in the day, but what in particular did those people not understand?

The few ideas I got myself where "The Blond Beast" Metaphor used for fascism, the "God is DEAD" phrase and the misconception on "Übermensch". But I heard that there are more and I am keen to learn what people got wrong about Nietzsche back in the day and maybe even know.

I used realization for the lack of better term

What I mean is not mental knowledge, feeling or an image. It wasn’t also a fruit of laborious or directed inquiry

I don’t think these labels capture that realization, rather it was more like unveiling something that was always there

If such concept exists, which author elaborated on it

Hey, I was just looking at options for the metaphysics. I’ve read a lot of people saying the W.D. Ross translation is the best but I wanted a physical copy and couldn’t find one that was easily available. I am currently reading the Leob classic edition from my uni’s library and wanted to know if anyone else has read this and if it is academically superior to other editions such as the penguins classic or the New Hackett edition. This question extends to all of Aristotle’s other works too. I am reading for personal study so prioritise academic precision over readability here.

Hive minds have a pretty poor reputation in sci-fi and fantasy circles. They are portrayed as hostile counterpoints to those who hold individuality as sacrosanct.

But what if a hive mind genuinely improved the lives of those who joined it?

For the purposes of this thought experiment, imagine a collective consciousness whose members can share thoughts, emotions and memories.

The members retain at least some sense of personal identity. They remember their names, personality and their memories from before assimilation, but they experience a degree of mutual understanding that ordinary humans cannot achieve.

As a result, they become happier, more empathetic and less lonely. Misunderstandings and interpersonal conflicts become less common because members can directly experience one another's perspectives.

Let's say these benefits are genuine, rather than the result of manipulation or artificial euphoria.

The hive mind does not actively become hostile to those who live outside it, nor does it seek to forcibly assimilate them, except in situations where someone is actively threatening the hive.

Would preserving one's individuality still be morally preferable to joining such a collective?

Would refusing assimilation be a legitimate example of self-expression, even if remaining independent meant experiencing more loneliness and suffering?

And if the collective genuinely believed it was improving people's lives, would it have any moral justification for encouraging or pressuring others to join?

I suppose the real question is the following: is individuality truly the only way to experience what humanity has to offer or can a collective consciousness offer an equally meaningful, perhaps richer, form of existence?

TLDR. I am a non-native English speaker and I tried to read „Discourse on the Method” by Rene Descartes, but I feel like I’m trying more to mentally translate the text than to comprehend what the author is telling me.

Philosophy Background. I have wanted to try and read philosophy for a long time now so I have asked a few of my friends about what I should start with and I got different responses, ranging from Seneca to Rene Descartes and even Albert Camus. I have already started to read some introductory philosophy books, like A Little History of Philosophy by Warburton and Nagel and At The Existentialist Cafe by Sarah Bakewell, but why them? I wanted some introductory material just to dip my toes in and see what I would like. I felt comfortable and I was like: „Well, now let’s try Discourse on The Method by Descartes”.

Why Descartes? One of my friends recommended his works to me because he liked his approach to acquiring knowledge and the process of cartesian doubt and, because this friend knows me quite well, he thought I might also like it. So I gave it a try and I realized I was trying more to translate the text than to understand what he was saying. I think I read 3-4 pages and stopped.

English Background. As I have said, I am not a native English speaker. I think I do well when it comes to the writing and listening parts. When it comes to reading, if the text uses „easy” English I have no problem reading it. If it’s also fiction, I have even an easier time. However, if the text is hard or it doesn’t use the current English language or it has tons of information, sometimes I feel like I am trying more to translate the text than to understand it. I have the same problem now. I might also add: my short-term memory and attention, basically my acquisition of knowledge, are better or work better when reading in my native language than in English.

Why not read in native language? It might be easier for me now, but it would more than likely hinder me. Firstly, I am reading on my tablet with books downloaded from Project Gutenberg or Standard E-books. Most of the e-books, if not all, are in English. Secondly, at my university, most books and studies and study materials, besides presentations, are in English. I have encountered the same problem there. I might as well try and work on my English reading comprehension

Why this post? I wanted to ask for your help. If you have also been in this place, what did you do to have a better reading comprehension. Any advice or tip is welcomed!!! Also, if you recommend me any other subreddit where I could post this and it would be appropriate, I would highly appreciate it!

Humans live in herds, so they can survive easier. And in those herds they develop relationships so they can establish stronger society. And those interpersonal relationships are often a game of cat and mouse, just like with other animals that live in packs. However, with the advancement of society, certain social norms of behavior have been established, but that doesn't change the fact that people still behave in certain situations like wild beasts. There is hierarchy in every social circle you enter just like among many wild animals, in some circles less noticeable and more pronounced in others. The difference is that with humans often the highest position in the hierarchy is occupied not by the most deserving, but by the most corrupt. Which is unfortunate because i think humans are capable of creating heaven on earth, but their own corrupt nature prevents them from doing so.

My impression of virtue ethics is that it focuses on good personal traits rather than good actions, but I find it difficult to understand how virtues can ever be separated from specific actions.

1. I think the only way to discover a person's virtues is to look at their actions. For example, a courageous person is a person who shows courage, and a merciful person is a person who shoes mercy. If so, then it seems judgement about good actions must precede judgements of character.

2. Even if you did find someone who embodied many virtues, that doesn't mean they won't be deficient in others. Consider a criminal who is brave and loyal, who is at the same time cruel and shortsighted. It seems to me that identifying 'good persons' can't actually teach us much about specific virtues, much less guidance on how to live our lives.

3. Of course we can learn much from virtuous people on their specific virtues, and it is reasonable that living like happy and accomplished people would help us become happy and accomplished. But that's like taking up smoking because the oldest person in the world smokes, for example. There doesn't seem to be much analysis beyond immediate intuition, and there doesn't seem to be much imperative force behind it because it's all conditional on you wanting to be more like the role models (unless you adopt teleological reasoning) and at that point virtue ethics seems to kind of blend with moral antirealism. Is that really all there is to virtue ethics?

I've been thinking about how extraordinarily complicated human existence has become compared to that of other animals, and whether any of that added complexity actually makes our lives fundamentally more significant.

Humans have developed civilizations, economies, governments, religions, technology, philosophy, and elaborate ideas about success and purpose.

But when we break much of this down to its basic functions, we're still organisms navigating our environments, pursuing interests, forming relationships, acquiring resources, avoiding threats, reproducing, and eventually dying.

Other animals do many of these things as well, sometimes through surprisingly sophisticated behaviors of their own.

I'm not suggesting that human intelligence and civilization are meaningless, or that our differences from other animals are insignificant. Those differences are real, and some are enormous. I'm questioning whether greater sophistication actually establishes greater fundamental worth, rather than simply producing different and more elaborate ways of living.

Consider a hypothetical alien civilization.

Imagine discovering beings millions of years ahead of humanity. Their intelligence, technology, culture, and understanding of existence surpass ours to an extent we can barely comprehend.

Would their existence be fundamentally more important or valuable than ours simply because they're more advanced?

If not, why would our greater sophistication establish that our existence is fundamentally more important than that of other animals?

And if the answer is yes, what exactly makes greater intelligence or complexity translate into greater intrinsic worth?

I'm also interested in distinguishing between things mattering to a living being, things mattering to others, and the stronger claim that a life possesses greater worth independently of anyone's evaluations.

My suspicion is that humans may be mistaking the extraordinary complexity of our lives for evidence of some greater fundamental significance. But I'm interested in whether there's a defensible philosophical argument connecting the two.

What, if anything, justifies moving from "this being is more sophisticated" to "this being's existence is fundamentally more significant"?

So I confess to being one of those "philosophy began with Kripke/Lewis" folks. When I read historical texts, I generally analyze the arguments and approach them as if they were a part of the contemporary debate, and thus interpreted they always seemed to me to be implausible. Most of Plato's dialogues or Spinoza's Ethics for example, looked totally intelligible but just completely unconvincing. And I get that the principles they accepted made a lot of sense in their intellectual context. That just doesn't seem to me to anyhow influence the plausibility of the arguments now, when they are evaluated as getting at the truth.

But after reading some of the analytic takes on the greats (like Yablo on Descartes, Langton on Kant, van Inwagen on early Wittgenstein, Kripke on late Wittgenstein), I realized that the problem is very probably in me not in the fact that the texts are historical. 1) I may be approaching wrong authors or wrong texts when it comes to the argumentation I'm interested in 2) I may be engaged in very confused exegesis which would explain the uncharitable conclusions.

So my question is, which historical philosophers' texts match the style of argumentation that may interest someone who's heavily into contemporary philosophy?

Ive been writing a stage play for about eight months and the antagonist has started to win arguments with me in my own head, which i did not plan for.

Quick context so this doesnt sound unhinged. The character is a hospice nurse who believes that grief is a kind of vanity, that mourning someone is really mourning the version of yourself that existed with them, and that the decent thing to do is let the dead go fast and completely. When i started I thought this was obviously monstrous and the whole point was that the audience would recoil. My job as the writer was to make it as persuasive as possible so the recoil would mean something.

The problem is I did my job. I spent months steelmanning her, reading bits of Epicurus and some Buddhist stuff on attachment, rewriting her big second act speech probably forty times. One night I was up way too late messing around in stonedgpt trying to get some stranger imagery for a different scene entirely, and in that loose half asleep mode I reread her monologue and realized I just... agreed with it. Not performatively. Actually agreed. My dad died two years ago and I noticed I felt relief reading it, like permission.

So heres what I'm actually asking. Is there a name in epistemology for coming to believe something purely because you got good at defending it? It feels like the opposite of how belief is supposed to work, where you follow the arguments and the conviction arrives after. Here the conviction seems to have been manufactured by repetition and craft. Is that a legitimate route to belief or is it basically a bug, the same mechanism that makes lawyers believe their clients?

Edit: I'm doing some independent research, would any of these be best to read first:

1. Ethical Theory: Classical and Contemporary Readings by Pojman
2. Shafer-Landau's Ethical Theory: an Anthology
3. Shafer-Landau's The Ethical Life: Fundamental Readings in Ethics and Moral Theory

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

I'm interested in reading all three volumes of Derek Parfit's On What Matters, but I'm wondering if I have enough background to get the most out of them.

For some context, I'm in my early 30s, not a philosophy student, and graduated with a degree in mathematics and I'm an actuary. So basically I have no formal education in philosophy. I read philosophy purely out of personal interest.

Most of the philosophy related books I've read in case that helps:

• Think by Simon Blackburn
• Philosophy of Science: A Very Short Introduction by Samir Okasha
• Theory and Reality: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Science by Peter Godfrey-Smith
• An Introduction to Political Philosophy by Jonathan Wolff
• A New History of Western Philosophy by Anthony Kenny
• Knowledge, Reality, and Value by Michael Huemer
• Understanding Knowledge by Michael Huemer
• The Fundamentals of Ethics by Russ Shafer-Landau
• Ethical Intuitionism by Michael Huemer
• Philosophy of Language: A Contemporary Introduction by William G. Lycan
• One World Now: The Ethics of Globalization by Peter Singer
• Galileo's Error by Philip Goff

I understand that On What Matters is a much more demanding work, and I'm fine with taking my time going through it. I'm just wondering whether there are important gaps in my background that I should address first.

Would you recommend reading anything specific before Volume One or in between the volumes?

I just want to make sure I have enough background to properly understand and engage with the text rather than constantly feeling like I'm missing something.

I'd appreciate any recommendations, especially from people who've read all three volumes. Thanks!

I find the claim: "it is absurd to believe consciousness can possibly emerge from non conscious stuff." Very intuitive.

But every time I find myself trying to justify this I'm at a loss. Here's some things I've heard that have not convinced me:

1:Emergence is not a thing anywhere in reality/ everything that emerges emerges in consciousness.

2:Consciousness should be assumed as primary because it is the prerequisite for all our knowledge and perception.

3:Anything religion based.

I'm not saying these arguments are wrong, I'm saying maybe there is something I'm missing, or they are not as strong as the intuition is. I'm open to the possibility that the initial claim is wrong. I'm mainly asking about alternative arguments.

Hello! I'm fairly new to ethical theory but currently taking a food ethics course. One of the assigned readings was the Tännsjö article I mentioned in the title. I genuinely can't tell whether this is a Modest Proposal situation or an actual representation of his views. Does he really think that? Are his other works similar? Is he crazy? Or is it some kind of satire I'm not fully understanding?

Thank you in advance to anyone who knows about this guy, I'm really lost on how I should interpret the article.

I have this friend of mine who considers himself a philosopher and actually we had so many deep talks together . He has this idea that women are not worthy enough as men , i tend to stand against his idea but he’s too skeptical about this matter . What can i say to him in a philosophical manner ? I mean he’s absolutely wrong yeah?

Ps:
The reason he brings is something like , in the ancient times , women tend to not do complicated stuff and men mostly did such things , and as time went by this passed on to them somehow genetically.

My questions:

1. Is my reconstruction of Aristotle’s foundational argument correct?
2. Does the argument depend on four claims/assumptions that remain contestable or under-justified?

Aristotle sees ethics grounded in a teleological account of human nature via his function argument.

Function argument: In Nicomachean Ethics I.7, Aristotle asks what function (ergon) is distinctive of a human being. Nutrition and growth are shared with plants; perception is shared with other animals. He proposes that what remains is activity involving reason. It identifies rational activity as the characteristic for human beings.

He then applies a general idea: a thing performs its function well when it performs it in accordance with its proper excellence. A good lyre-player plays the lyre well; a good human being performs human activity well. So, the human good is activity of the soul (psychē, the principle of life) in accordance with reason and virtue (aretē) over a complete life. That is Aristotle’s route from human function to eudaimonia.

Foundational assumptions:
1 - Human beings have a characteristic function. Aristotle argues for it by analogy with organs and crafts, but the argument depends on accepting that human life has such a function.
2 – For anything with a function, its good consists in performing that function well. The lyre-player analogy illustrates this evaluative principle; it does not prove that it applies to human life.
3 - Rational activity is distinctively human, but why that identifies it as the human function seems a leap.
4 - It seems obvious that playing the lyre well is better, but why would being strong or courageous in the same way obviously mean an improved version of "activity of the soul in accordance with reason"?

I really like Aristotle's account, but I am just not sure I see the moves as being forcing or conclusive, and by extension I am now wondering what that means for MacIntyre's After Virtue.

EDIT: typo.

Hi everyone! I’m a design student (not a physicist, so please bear with me) working on a university research project about the concept of “non-places” and “non-space”. Most of what I’ve found comes from philosophy, architecture and anthropology, and I’d like to understand how physics approaches the same ideas.

These are the questions I’m stuck on:

1. Does space exist on its own, even if there were no matter in it, or is space just a way of describing the relations between objects (the old Newton vs Leibniz debate)?
2. Is “empty space” really empty? I’ve seen mentions of the quantum vacuum and the Casimir effect but I don’t understand them.
3. Some physicists suggest space might not be fundamental but “emergent”. What does that mean in simple terms?

If you can point me to accessible books, articles or lectures (I don’t have a strong math background), I’d be really grateful. And if my questions are badly phrased or based on wrong assumptions, please tell me, that’s useful too!

Thanks in advance!