https://www.reddit.com/r/philosophy/comments/1im6q8c/rphilosophy_open_discussion_thread_february_10/
created by BernardJOrtcutt on 10/02/2025 at 14:00 UTC
10 upvotes, 16 top-level comments (showing 16)
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
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].
Comment by OGOJI at 10/02/2025 at 19:54 UTC
7 upvotes, 2 direct replies
Did Liebniz believe god picked the best materially possible world which has no true evil in it, or did he believe there is some true evil in this world but it is still the best materially possible world? I thought it was the latter, but my prof told me that it was the former.
Comment by Formless_Mind at 10/02/2025 at 19:20 UTC
4 upvotes, 4 direct replies
Evolution cannot say anything about morality since the only matter evolution is concerned about is the survival of genes into the next generation
To claim we derived all our moral guidelines because of our evolutionary background is by far a absurd yet seemingly the most popular view among scholars today on moral issues
Comment by Formless_Mind at 10/02/2025 at 15:23 UTC
2 upvotes, 3 direct replies
All moral philosophy basically hangs in the air given all moral theories presume the situation one finds themselves in
Comment by Freethinking- at 10/02/2025 at 18:13 UTC
2 upvotes, 2 direct replies
Proposition: Ethics and politics are on the same spectrum.
Because evolution has selected for both self-interested behavior and Golden Rule reciprocity, all ethical orientations can be classified into one or more of three general categories: egoism, reciprocity, and intermediately, reciprocal egoism. Likewise, all political orientations can also be classified into one or more of three equivalent categories: group egoism or tribalism (the right), Golden Rule reciprocity or equality (the left), and intermediately again, reciprocal egoism or liberalism. The political spectrum, in other words, may be reconceived in a simple and pragmatic way as a politicized ethical spectrum, ranging from individual or group self-interest to an ideal based on what all would find acceptable when identifying with each other's viewpoint.
Comment by 000ArdeliaLortz000 at 10/02/2025 at 23:29 UTC
2 upvotes, 6 direct replies
What would you call a philosophy wherein one believes that all things (plant/animal/insects/even inanimate objects, etc.) just want to be intentionally useful? For instance, when I plant seeds, and only one germinates, I feel bad getting rid of the ones who didn’t make it. So I leave them in the pot. Maybe they nurture the one who did make it. Another one: I don’t like wasps. I am allergic to them. But I will go out of my way to capture and release. A broken hand mixer? If I can’t repair, I keep the whisks to use manually. Just wondering if there’s a name for this. Thanks.
Comment by Formless_Mind at 11/02/2025 at 22:21 UTC
2 upvotes, 2 direct replies
People often say religions emerged because of existential dread however what about religions that don't offer a afterlife ?
It isn't clear to me the underlying reason why humans developed religions since l see it as a very complex phenomenon that merely saying it was because of existential dread doesn't complete the entire picture even if it does have some truth to it
Comment by Comprehensive_Today5 at 12/02/2025 at 00:33 UTC
2 upvotes, 4 direct replies
I was just throwing ideas at a page and arrived at this. These aren't fully argumented ideas, more personal notes I found insightful enough to share.
I don't believe in free will, as it can be logically derived from the law of the excluded middle: every mental event is either random or causal, leaving no room for true autonomy. It can’t be neither nor both as there is no way to make sense of something not random nor causal.
Without free will, blame and accountability lose their meaning; people act as they must, shaped by forces outside of their control.
If you lived according to that principle, you would transcend forgiveness. If no one is truly responsible for their actions, there is no one to forgive. From this perspective, compassion becomes the logical extension that naturally arises from seeing reality for how it is.
This insight stems from the law of the excluded middle (logic), causation/randomness, and the illusion of free will as developed by our evolution (observing the natural order).
By uncovering the reality of existence, one finds that living in accordance with it naturally leads to what we call "goodness". This is where piety is found. Not through scripture, but through the gospel of nature, including our human nature.
If one wishes to live a good life in a deterministic universe, one ought to accept the unavoidable nature of the universe but actively create meaning within it, unbound by societal expectations or herd morality. The acceptance of fate could be seen as not about giving up on action but about realizing that the will operates within the constraints of the universe, where the forces outside one's control shape outcomes. In this sense, freedom becomes the ability to act with full engagement despite knowing the outcome is shaped by those forces, to live authentically within a determined world.
Be a true pessimist. See reality for what it is, and accept that you are radically free, yet caged at the same time. Focus on this feeling of freedom, as it will serve as a source of strength that you need to live a life worth living.
Meditate on this duality.
Mimetic desires cause all the non-animalistic desires. Mimetic desire doesn't invalidate the desire itself or the pleasure that comes from fulfilling it. It’s just about being aware of their origin.
Memento mori is embracing death denialism and using it to empower your will, rather than it undermining our will. Accept the natural course of life and death, and use it as energy. Wu wei.
I'm just the observer of my thoughts, that all other attempts at defining oneself (name, age, what you like and dislike) aren't you. I'm a reflection of the universe, since everything I am goes through my senses, and my senses are built by evolution which exists only due to how the universe is.
Comment by Rourensu at 12/02/2025 at 02:27 UTC
2 upvotes, 2 direct replies
I’m a linguistics graduate student and I’m getting into semantics and the philosophy of language. I’m reading a paper involving Mills, Frege, and Russell’s views of references.
The paper presents Frege’s “concern about identity statements” as:
1a. My next door neighbor is our district representative.
1b. a=b
2a. My next door neighbor is my next door neighbor.
2b. a=a
The paper presents this as a problem of “why, if identity statements are simply about their referents, are statements like 1a not as obvious as statements like 2a, which has the form 2b?”
I’m not sure why this is a “concern” or “problem”. If I’m not mistaken, is 2a simply not a tautology? I get that 1a can change in the future (and become a≠b) but it’s currently true.
The paper goes on to refer to Frege’s distinction between sense and reference and how “Frege used the concept of sense to solve his problem with identity statements.”
I’m sure I’m missing something, but I’m not really understanding what the “problem” is or why it requires a “solution” or why/how Frege’s “sense” solves it.
Any help would be greatly appreciated.
Thank you.
Comment by Acrobatic_Station409 at 10/02/2025 at 15:31 UTC
1 upvotes, 3 direct replies
While studying Kant's Critique of Pure Reason, I noticed what might be a **potential circular structure** in how **Kant derives the categories.**
Kant argues that:
1. **Categories (pure concepts of the understanding)** are necessary to provide **unity to synthesis**.
2. The **unity of synthesis** is necessary to form **concepts**.
3. **Concepts** are necessary for the **functions of judgment**.
4. The **functions of judgment** are used to **derive the categories**.
This leads to a potential **circle**: **Categories → Unity of Synthesis → Concepts → Functions of Judgment → Categories.**
1. **Categories enable the unity of synthesis:** “The same function which gives unity to the various representations in a judgment also gives unity to the mere synthesis of representations in an intuition, which is expressed generally as the pure concept of the understanding.” (B104-105)
2. **Unity of synthesis is necessary to form concepts:** “The spontaneity of our thought requires that this manifold first be gone through in a certain way, taken up, and combined, in order for knowledge to arise. This act I call synthesis.” (B102-103)
3. **Concepts are necessary for the functions of judgment:** “Understanding is the faculty of thinking, and thinking is knowledge through concepts.” (B93-94)
4. **Categories are derived from the functions of judgment:** “The functions of the understanding can be completely discovered if one can present the functions of unity in judgments exhaustively.” (B94) “In this way, there arise just as many pure concepts of the understanding as there were logical functions in all possible judgments.” (B105)
I'd appreciate any insights, critiques, or references to existing literature that discuss this issue. Thanks in advance for your thoughts!
Comment by Hot_Experience_8410 at 12/02/2025 at 08:45 UTC
1 upvotes, 0 direct replies
Empiricism for me is not much more than nostalgia and supply and demand with regard to enjoying the past in the present, connected to Comprehensive_Today5’s commentary on living happily regardless of free will.
Comment by Formless_Mind at 12/02/2025 at 14:12 UTC*
1 upvotes, 2 direct replies
New forms of knowledge
We can obtain and formulate abstractions such as ideas, ideas for what they are undoubtedly what people can always conjure with no systems/process put in place except one's imagination to conceptualize, so from that starting point we can for surely say humans innately carve out ideas about everything they conceptualize in which those ideas are soon to be placed under multiple frameworks of understanding by which they are categorized into different labels and thus ultimately obtaining New forms of knowledge about anything
Consider the following:
The idea of a red ball is soon put under a framework of which we are able to categorize it by saying it has specific features such as it's shape-roundness or colour-redness or being bouncy
We can already see new forms of knowledge being built by this process
Humans by no experience possess the ability to create concepts in which we can categorize and arrive at obtaining true precise knowledge, such an argument was already layed out by Kant in his critique of Reason however what he seemingly and crucially missed in my view was the particular frameworks in which we are able to underline these ideas in obtaining knowledge as all forms of thinking are predicted on the frameworks they operate in to which knowledge is obtained
Comment by Formless_Mind at 15/02/2025 at 05:58 UTC
1 upvotes, 2 direct replies
Philosophers leaving scientists like physicists,biologists to investigate the ultimate nature of reality was their biggest mistake
Comment by Cromulent123 at 17/02/2025 at 03:52 UTC
1 upvotes, 0 direct replies
I'm interested in running a reading group on the definition of power (as in, a very analytic approach, attempted conceptual analyses of it). Feel free to comment/dm if interested :)
Comment by DrKroki at 18/02/2025 at 23:55 UTC*
1 upvotes, 0 direct replies
Hello everyone,
I just joined this subreddit. Before I bore you with explaining how i found this subreddit and how recently i joined this sub etc I wanted to know how the members would react to this weirdly unninentend paradox which made me laugh and then made me think . This is not an attempt to offend anynone, i was just thinking that the statements were condtracitory just as I was trying to solve a similar problem in my PhD disseratation.
By brother went to South Korea recently. He was in a restaurant with self-service, and due to an unfortunate mistranslation, the following contradiction was stated.
1. Water and a side dish is self
2. Please return being dish
I found this absolutely contradictory. But I just finished reading about a very famous individial who made the point that is is indeed very much possible. Does anyone have an idea what this refrers to? Who was one rhe people that saw a perfect coherent logical conslusion? I am wondering, because i just made a complete 180 on this matter.
Comment by Aromatic_Top_7967 at 15/02/2025 at 04:29 UTC
1 upvotes, 2 direct replies
One of the drawbacks we have in discussing the quality of anything is that it is that people's opinions are subjective. We all have our personal biases and favourites. Also sometimes people's opinion and behaviour is influenced by peer pressure. How we think and act when out in public may be different to what we do privately. Also when people start getting into discussing their thoughts about say the quality it all comes down to comparisons. For instance, a certain song writer, guitarist, singer becomes the bench mark by which the quality of other bands music is rated.
Comment by Disastrous-Pen6437 at 11/02/2025 at 13:04 UTC
0 upvotes, 3 direct replies
Who agrees with this?
History of philosophy in a nutshell:
Oh god is great, god has created the perfect morality.
Oh shit this perfect morality does not seem as perfect as it is.
lets invent a new morality and values based on human intrinsic and utility needs!
Oh shit this morality doesn't seem to be as good, no one agrees with us and moral relativism is paradoxical!
lets all reject morality completely, not as if god exists right?
Shit, we need a god fearing people to make society actually work. Hand out bibles!!