Ethics & Philosophy

I've been considering getting into it for a while now and I just want to understand it more. I'll be honest, in some ways I want to improve my vocabulary so I can speak eloquently during a debate, but considering the time at I'm at right now it would really help.

I'm first and foremost an ex-muslim who only left the religion around a year and half ago so I'm still adjusting to the world around me and leaving everything behind. But I feel like I left when I haven't fully read the Quran or Hadith or looked into any Islamic philosophers and that's why I'm still adjusting. I want to understand more, sorry I don't know how to get my way across but I don't want to a doubtful, lazy, existential crisis inflicted person forever. And being exposed to so many different philosophers on reddit also make me feel overwhelmed.

I want to read into different philosophers and the general and popular ones as well finding ones that are less known and just broadening my horizon. That way when I create content in the future, I actually know what I'm talking about.

Thank you for listening to my desperate attempt at a TED Talk in the form of a rant

I don't want to piss anyone off, but judging by Nietzsche's biography, he was weak and quite kind and vulnerable, which does not correspond to his philosophy. Yes, he had health problems, but it was also forced unwanted suffering. As I understand it, he values only the suffering that is obtained through the pursuit of power.

Apart from the facts that he went crazy after seeing a dying horse, and that he was desperately chasing a girl when he was already rejected.

And his lifestyle looks pretty depressing, he doesn't really look like a really happy person.

Im a 25 year old male who graduated with a philosophy degree & was just infatuated with all philosophy. I used to think constantly studying philosophy was the key to living a fulfilling life.

But after a couple years removed from college, I deeply feel that my philosophic side really trapped me into thinking of the world from a meta POV. Almost 3rd person & not 1st person.

I got obsessed with meaning & trying to connect “intellectually” with people. But I realized that meaning is truly subsidiary to action. I think Philosophy truly only exists in reflection. It seems it is best suited for the old. By chasing meaning with my actions I put myself into a box of a limited number of actions instead of actually living life.

I double major in math + philosophy, at an American university. In a PowerPoint presentation for class, I cited . I know never to source StackExchange on anything formal, such as essays or exams. After class, my prof. emailed me

You are not to cite inappropriate websites, such as StackExchange, in my class. If this happens again, I shall treat this as an academic offence.

I’m flabbergasted! In math classes, many other students and even professors cite, all the time,

How the deuce is SE "inappropriate" for an INFORMAL presentation ??? Thanks.

*I’m Japanese and English is my second language, I try to keep my sentences simple as much as I can but they still can appear to be redundant and hard to read, or some points might not be clear, sorry.

I’ve been studying Stoicism for 5 months, and I think I have basic knowledges of what Stoicism entails, I’ve been reading Epictetus’s discourses and trying to understand it and apply what I’ve learned from it to my thoughts and actions.

I believed virtue as the sole good, and it alone is enough to make myself content and my life good (since virtuous life is in accordance with nature of humans), and actually I felt mentally stable and relieved from anxiety of external events, recognizing that they are outside of our will and neither good nor bad, also because I thought I was fulfilling my role and doing what I was supposed to do.

But then I met the idea of absurdism, that there really isn’t a purpose of life, and our job is to accept that and establish meanings by ourselves and not by others or some devine beings (I apologize if I’m not interpreting it right).

Then I suddenly felt disturbed and stressed, realizing that providence or my inherent duties can be made up.

The conclusion I’ve drawn from my little knowledges is that although it could be true that universe just exists, and nothing more, but that does not change the fact people can live freely from perturbations if they put their happiness on their good will and keep their desires and aversions within the sphere of their control.

Also, if an individual can make his own meaning, then why Stoicism that is established by individuals after all cannot be someone’s meaning? Additionally, Stoicism is adapting to its time and changing, modern Stoics shape Stoicism, can’t this mean that they are creating their own meaning?

But that is just my opinion supported by my poor knowledges and logics, so what do you think?

What is your opinion on absurdism (or nihilism) from a Stoic standpoint?
Have you ever found other philosophy incompatible with Stoicism? If so, why did you choose Stoicism over it? Thank you for reading.

Nietzsche's philosophy is not – I repeat not – his set of personal opinions. Nietzsche's philosophy is what he calls immoralism, which basically means: 

Not idolising anyone, including him, but being very individualistic about what you choose to value and believe; 

Not having unconditional ideals, which means not becoming nihilistic when reality doesn't conform to them;

And not becoming stuck in a moralised way of thinking, where you see things as unconditionally good or evil, and fail to see the value in things which might lie outside that moral framework.

The point I'm making here is that despite writing heavily about morality, Nietzsche was not a moral philosopher, in the sense of having some moral philosophy to offer. 

Yes, he had personal opinions on things (much of which I personally disagree with), but those things are really not essential to his core philosophy. Disagreeing with those opinions is more in line with his philosophy than agreeing with them. Idolising him to the point of agreeing with everything he says, or becoming disillusioned when he says anything you disagree with, flatly contradicts his philosophy. – This point is made explicitly in both Zarathustra and Ecce Homo. Zarathustra, and Nietzsche himself, did not want followers, or disciples. He wanted others to rise to his level of individuality and stay true to who they are and what they believe in, breaking the shackles of collective morality in the process. And that necessarily involves others disagreeing with him.

Ultimately: don't miss the forest for the trees. Don't miss the point of Nietzsche's core philosophy just because you disagree with his views on women, for example. Because disagreeing with him, and others, is part of his philosophy.

Hello AskPhilosophy!

I am working on compiling a on Spotify with one episode of each of the best philosophy podcasts in it so that people can discover new philosophy podcasts to engage with.

Which podcasts should be added?

So far, I have grouped them into the following and will add any other podcasts people enjoy to the list.

History of Philosophy and Pure Philosophy:

Philosophy of Science and Technology:

Philosophy of History:

Philosophy of Psychology:

Ethics and Political Philosophy:

Psychiatry can have the problem where you try to erase all speculation when diagnosing people. Then you just listen if they are making sad noises or happy noises and then give them some pills and listen what noises they make the next time. (This is very reducive ofcourse). But I think Psychiatry suffers from trying to be too scientific. Psychology can suffer from too much speculation, so both have ther flaws.

But can we really be "scientific" or "objective" about human well being? I think we have good grounds to diagnose depression and anxiety, but we don't have a specific theory on how depressed or anxious a person should be. When you look at life, we would have to be crazy not to be depressed or anxious at all. So a mild depression or anxiety seems like the natural state of the person to me.

Is one of the problems that we lack the authority figures who say how we "should" be? And it is strange to lean on a psychologist to tell people how they should be. That job might be for a philosopher or a priest. But we don't have sort of positive teachers around. Some of them might be teaching classes, but otherwise it is just the online self-help gurus.

Should a psychologist be telling people how they should be? Or is the role supposed to be more passive and helping people to find their own awnsers to be a person? Probably depends on the school, but the Viktor Frankls and people like that who give people guidance as well seem to be lacking in modern society.

I’ve worked through some portions of the SEP article and intend to work through all of it, but I’d also like to read some more focused material.

It’s alright if I have to start at very introductory stuff.

My interests are basically all of it. If I was forced to give an area, I’d say foundations.

I just want some philosophy of mathematics texts (serious ones, not pop science), that I can work through as I earn my maths degree.

I also have the Princeton Companion.

Any recommendations would be appreciated!

I'm interested in the models and explanations that different therapies provide. Dialectical Behavioral Therapy (DBT), for example, presents a complex model for understanding emotions. The new mechanists want to call all the explanations we find in science "mechanisms," consisting of only entities and activities. However, when I view the emotional models posited by DBT, it is not clear how one might construe it as mechanistic.

Anyways, I was wondering if there was any work being done on this topic. It doesn't have to be specifically about DBT or New Mechanism. Are there some good papers out there about the models posited in the therapies?

I'm a second-year college student studying Philosophy. With each paper I submit, I worry that my writing is of pure, nonsensical, delusional insanity. I score decently each time, but I worry that everyone secretly thinks that I'm insane.

Whenever I read, I worry that my sense of understanding is entirely crazy and that it is not what the philosopher is saying. In other words, I have no confidence in my own thinking because I am paranoid about being delusional.

For example, Hegel's phenomenology of spirit, I felt that he could be speaking about mind vs. body when in opposition with one another. The life-and-death struggle being the biological desire to survive vs. the other consciousness that can choose to be rebellious and suicidal. My peers disagreed, and my professors only discussed the person vs. person self-consciousness aspect in lectures.

Is Philosophy supposed to feel like this? Am I supposed to embrace delusional thinking? Will I know when I have gone truly insane? I guess this is the self-consciousness problem Hegel discusses, haha.

Hey! I've recently been getting more & more drawn into philosophy & psychology, these have turned into a nice hobby. I may as well pursue a career in either or both of these subjects. I've been learning stoicism, nihilism & adjacent philosophies, & a few more.

I'd like to take some advice from anyone experienced in this subject or any philosophy nerd out there about what to read to get more into the deep stuff of philosophy (instead of just some pop philosophy). Any advice would be appreciated :)

Hello

I don't know if this is the right place to put this, but reckoned it makes more sense here than anywhere else I can think of. I'll try to be as succinct as possible; I'm an undergrad in philosophy, returning to put the last few finishing touches on my degree after having to take a break for a few years due to some life circumstances. I've been intending to continue my education in philosophy, and am just getting my applications to grad schools sorted now. Unfortunately, I just became rather uncertain about the whole affair.

I received an email a few weeks ago about some volunteering opportunities for a large philosophy conference in my city, and decided to sign up, just getting done with my first volunteer shift yesterday, and also getting the chance to catch a few talks. And...it was terrible. The single word that kept popping up in my head was 'anemic' - hundreds of people, talking about problems that were interesting thirty to forty years ago, but have since then been beaten into the dust. Or, alternatively, folks constructing such bizarrely baroque and hyper specific models and arguments, for seemingly no purpose (not even the seeming pleasure of making the argument! No one seemed like they were enjoying explaining their positions, more they were just obligated to do it and couldn't care either way) beyond publishing demands. And all of it suffused with this air of extreme opportunism and pettiness, where folks seemed to be just waiting for someone to screw up in their talk or with a question so they could quickly shoot them down.

I get that academic philosophy, and the academic world in general, is part of the corporate world (as much as it likes to position itself as it's opposite) and it's got all of the banalities and idiocies that run through corporate culture, on top of some of its own. I spent a few years working in the corporate world, and I've never been under any illusions that academia was somehow spared from the eternal grudge matches and squabbling, that it stayed as some kind of bastion of goodness against the evuhhlls of the world or something. But I can't deny that after walking out of the conference (which I still have to return to tomorrow), I immediately got hit with an overwhelming sensation that I've made a huge mistake in studying philosophy, and having an immediate desire to just get as far away from it as possible. Which is a pity, because I love philosophy, reading it, writing it, and especially discussing it with people. For a long time, it's what I was absolutely certain I would wind up doing. And while I admit this is probably only a momentary, and necessary, questioning of that career track that I'll get over in a month or so....I dunno.

Has anyone else had this experience with philosophy conferences, or just certain aspects of academic philosophy in general?

I have a philosophy degree and although I didn't get a job with it (lol), I'm running a philosophy group with some friends who have no background in it. Each night we're reading something digestible and having a conversation about it. We've read some Platonic dialogues, we've read some contemporary analytic stuff, but my people have expressed a desire for Kierkegaard or at least something more "Way of Life"-esque rather than sharply analytical and argumentative. Unfortunately, my specialization is in the analytic tradition and I'm quite a noob when it comes to anything continental or existential. We also don't do any pre-reading and read together instead, we don't want to require any prep-work. Any recommendations?

I'm totally new to philosophy, and i don't know what to start with. I love reading Dostoyevsky. What would you recommend to read?

On Philosophy

Philosophy should

make you warmer to the world,

not cold or detached.

We're here an instant;

to spend time lamenting life

would be wasting it.

Instead, make of use

the power you are given

to help those near you. 

Same as your body, 

your mind needs to exercise,

so read, learn, think, act.

What good is it if

you stop after reading and

put none to practice?

Would a star athlete

watch tapes and then do nothing? 

Only if they're hurt. 

Luckily, if so, 

your mind is unaffected

if you choose it's not. 
_____

On Being Part of the Whole

Everything that is - 

your hair, toes, eyes, hands, fingers,

brain, heart, lungs, feet, limbs,

coffee, tea, bagels, lasagna, pizza, salads,

mushrooms, peas, apples,

pets, brothers, sisters,

mothers, fathers, sons, daughters,

cousins, grandparents,

kitchens, pipes, houses,

streets, stop signs, neighborhoods,

cities, states, countries, 

continents, oceans,

comets, asteroids, planets,

stars, solar systems,

galaxies, parsecs, 

superclusters, and, in fact,

the whole universe - 

exists as a whole.

we are a tiny fragment 

of the grand cosmos. 

_____

On Community

We do the right thing

not because any reward,

but to serve others.

Or, more pointedly,

we contribute to the Whole

of which we’re a part.

We’re all connected,

our daimons a fraction of

life’s divinity.

Let this fact guide you;

consider how your actions

will affect others.

Living for yourself

is not the mark of life lived,

but that of restraint.

Unshackle your mind!

Live for more and break the chains

which hold your heart back.

The cosmopolis

is ready for your action;

contribute your verse!

_____

there will be 28 of these longform poems in the book and I couldn't wait any longer to share. This sub has been so engaging with my content and I truly appreciate everyone who made it this far into the post. Thank you all for your insights, challenges, consideration and input.

Saw recently that over 50% of philosophers are physicalists. That was in 2009 so it’s probably more now. If Physicalism is your stance, what do you do with metaphysics and epistemology besides argue that everything is physical and everything can be know through physical empirical science? Sure ethics can still be interesting but it’s going to be more practically focused because a physicalist probably wouldn’t think there is an overarching principle of what makes a good thing good but rather that our idea of good comes from evolution and conditioning. Philosophy of mind obviously becomes less interesting as it’s just in the brain. Surely you can debate with dualists but strictly thinking about one’s own position. Just wondering what you all think about this?

TLDR: Does being a physicalist basically leave all philosophical questions to science? And if not what is left for physicalists to grapple with besides defending Physicalism?

Aside from stoicism (Epicureanism included), I’m also very found of: Buddhism, Taoism, pragmatism and the teachings of Nietzsche.

I think that those philosophies share a similar-ish core of ideas and complement one another.

I’m on the health care area and every professional is required to have an understanding of the universal subjects but specialise in 1-2 areas, and I’m thinking that I should apply that to my philosophical understanding.

I’m far from being a stoic sage so being great in 2 areas with an acceptable level of knowledge from other areas is better than to be mediocre at everything.

But what about you guys ?

When science was based on a firm mathematical ground it made a huge leap forward. This formality not only removed inconsistencies but also allowed it to make new predictions. Is analytic philosophy enjoying the same success? is it or will it become superior to continental philosophy which is more interpretative and less rigorous? why or why not?

Philosophy freshman here. I'm starting to lose interest in my major. The more I study philosophy, the more I start to lose the ability to have strong opinions because I come up with a counter-argument every time I try to construct an argument. I'm sure you cannot find a single thing in philosophy that is not - in some way - controversial. Of course, philosophy teaches you how to think, and this is incredibly valuable. However, none of my college professors have really taught me what philosophy is about, or how to think philosophically. Sure, we are always studying philosophy, in that we are reading philosophy books, discussing the ideas of famous philosophers, and writing essays - but is that really what philosophy amounts to? Most of my professors read their lecture out loud and then leave. I always feel intellectually underwhelmed at the end of the class.