/r/philosophy Open Discussion Thread | February 03, 2025

https://www.reddit.com/r/philosophy/comments/1igpozs/rphilosophy_open_discussion_thread_february_03/

created by BernardJOrtcutt on 03/02/2025 at 14:00 UTC

8 upvotes, 3 top-level comments (showing 3)

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[1] (especially posting rule 2). For example, these threads are great places for:

1: https://www.reddit.com/r/philosophy/wiki/rules

• Arguments that aren't substantive enough to meet PR2.

• Open discussion about philosophy, e.g. who your favourite philosopher is, what you are currently reading

• Philosophical questions. Please note that /r/askphilosophy is a great resource for questions and if you are looking for moderated answers we suggest you ask there.

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, although we will be more lenient with regards to commenting rule 2.

Previous Open Discussion Threads can be found here[2].

2: https://www.reddit.com/r/philosophy/search?sort=new&restrict_sr=on&q=flair%3AOpen%2BThread

Comments

Comment by abrau11 at 03/02/2025 at 14:56 UTC

2 upvotes, 0 direct replies

Proposition: Our philosophy training programs do not focus enough on real-world application of theories. (I'd also argue that we don't spend long enough on philosophy education, but that's a whole other exploration).

I'm taking this both from my own experience and some of my work with Kant.

• I used my MA and PhD electives to explore related hard and social science fields (poli sci, social psych, cogsci, etc.), and these heavily informed the kinds of arguments that were even plausible, let alone those that weren't worth considering.
• I'm referring to Kant's take on the interplay between the a priori and *Anschauung*, such that we have a need to engage with both in order to make progress toward moral knowledge.

The long and short of what I'm suggesting is that we should have more degree requirements around engaging with the sciences, including something like a capstone paper that aims at publication quality (or perhaps a practical project that can be defended on philosophical and scientific grounds?).

Full disclosure on my responses: I've been out of the game for about 3 years and I'm mostly interested in your thoughts/critiques/suggestions. I'm probably not going to be able to engage on high-level Kantian scholarship on a short turn-around like a reddit thread.

Comment by Project130Gaming at 03/02/2025 at 16:10 UTC

1 upvotes, 3 direct replies

Is it always morally wrong to do something you know someone doesn't want you to do, ie. reading someones private journal, even if you believe it's for their own good and you have good intentions? If so, is it worse to do it with full self awareness or without considering the morality of it?

Comment by Misrta at 03/02/2025 at 19:33 UTC

1 upvotes, 0 direct replies

What is the ultimate definition of knowledge? And are the Gettier cases really a problem?