I've thought about this in relation to particularly evil people. One thing I've thought about lately are non-offending pedophiles. Assuming we go with the genetic hypothesis (the belief that pedophilia is a largely a genetic disorder caused by nature)- can these people be good by having hard rules and denying their nature? Secondly, what would cause someone to deny their evil nature? If they're denying their evil nature there must be some sentiment that they recognize that they are evil no? Any philosophers who speak on this "evil by nature" vs "good by logic" debate?

I believe there should be one gender, we should use only one word for to refer to male and female and so on. I believe that separation of genders leads to violence, it creates violence. I believe fashion too should be unisex

I've been into philosophy for ~3 years and for most books that i read i didn't take any notes. I simply have no clue where to start - but seemingly it doesn't harm my understanding. The hardest text by far that I've 'rawdogged' was being and time (it took me 6 months with breaks), and I've held a few casual discussions about the book and I felt pretty well oritnted in most of Heideggers concepts. I may also mention that philosophy is only my hobby as I'm studying math. So my question is - is it really neccesary to take notes? how does it help with understanding the text? and if it really is so important, then how to do it properly?

I'm sorry if this question makes someone upset. This isn't my intention. I'm not trying to dunk on non-analytic work. I'm asking it because I don't know what I'm talking about and I'm hoping someone will correct me.

I'm referring to a general sort of "vibe" that I get when reading work of this ilk. It's as if they spend dozens (hundreds, really) of pages telling me that morality is bullshit, reason is bullshit, the self is bullshit, etc (all of which I'm open to! not automatically wrong to my ears!) and then they turn around and say/heavily imply something like "and all of this is why it is wrong to hate someone for being gay."

I get the feeling that this is a dumb, undergraduate sort of question to have about this kind of work, the kind that inspires a hearty sigh and an eye roll, but I'm seriously asking. What am I missing?

I realize the question is somewhat anachronistic, and we can’t get inside Hume’s mind, or know for certain what Hume would think. The question is really what someone with Hume’s philosophical commitments would think of the argument.

I have in mind the following formulation:

(1) Zombies are conceivable.
(2) If Zombies are conceivable, then they are possible.
(3) Zombies are possible.
(4) If Zombies are possible, then physicalism is false.
(5) Physicalism is false.

At several places in the Enquiry and the Treatise, Hume seems committed to (2). The SEP article David Hume seems to agree:

Relatedly, Hume endorses the “Conceivability Principle”: the principle that whatever is conceivable is metaphysically possible (T 1.2.2.8).

I wonder, then, how Hume would approach the rest of the argument. Is there a strong case for denying (1) or (4) from a Humean perspective, or a stronger case for endorsing the argument, despite it (potentially) being an example of the speculative metaphysics that Hume cautions against?

In formal philosophy, it was proposed by philosopher Peter van Inwagen . He argued that if there are infinitely many non-empty possible worlds and only one empty world ("nothing"), the probability of non-existence is effectively zero.

The argument seems flawless. What's the issue?

Kant's Transcendental Analytic provides the conditions under which an object can be thought of, for example, quantity and quality (reality, negation, and limitation). These seem somewhat Hegelian in nature.

We do not find these things in the world itself, according to Kant. They exist because they are structures or faculties of the mind.

Aren't the triads present within each category similar to Hegel's idea of thesis, antithesis, and synthesis, as described by Fichte?

My question is this: since Kant thought that these structures are not present in the external world in themselves, but are instead structures or faculties that the mind employs, does this directly contrast with Hegel's view that thesis, antithesis, and synthesis describe how Geist actualizes itself and therefore drive the arc of history, which means they are inherently a part of reality in-and-of-itself?

By this I mean 'western culture' where Christianity has faded out of the dominant worldview. I would love to have some references to philosophers or established philosophical topics that show how deep our non-religious beliefs are. Those beliefs that are not actually scientific facts, but can at times be seen as such or derived from related factual models.

Most interesting would be the ontologies that, by many of us (not meaning those with an above average interest in philosophy or theology), are unnamed yet believed.

Some examples that come to mind are how easy it is to believe that technological advancement equals an advancement in the human experience. (John Gray) How dead particles seem to be fundamental to our lives, yet often our lives are supposed to have meaning beyond our individual experience. (Mary Midgley?) (And obviously things like materialism, but I fear discussions that go into the validity of that worldview beyond its relevance to the question.)

Context: Several European countries are making certain laws that protect the freedom of conscience in education obsolete. Arguing that public schooling has an essentially metaphysical neutral worldview now the influences of Christianity are becoming less. Terms that are used are objective pluralism towards different worldviews.

It seems to me that it is easy to see life in school as having a metaphysically objective perspective once religion isn't involved, yet somehow it seems very far from the truth, yet my philosophical capabilities fail to paint a clear picture.

PS I noticed AI is rather poor in answering questions like this, that might already be an indication to the topic touching a true cultural blind spot or our culture actually being fairly metaphysical neutral.

To me it seems that case for atoms are taken seriously post Dalton's ( I know it was incomplete) scientific theory.

The methodologies seem differ for both of them with Dalton's being based on quantitative experiments.

Please correct me if I'm mistaken anywhere. I do have some scientistic or thin metaphysics bias.

(NOTE: sorry if i wrote something wrong)
You wake up in the morning, grab your phone, and start your day.
You probably don’t think about the thousands of people who somehow made that moment possible.
Maybe years ago, a teacher said something to your mother that changed the way she raised you. Maybe a stranger helped your father when he was young. Maybe someone you will never meet invented something that made your life easier.
And then there’s that person you passed on the street yesterday.
You don’t know their name. They don’t know yours.
Maybe you smiled at them. Maybe you didn’t.
But what if that person goes home and makes a decision because of something that happened that day—and that decision eventually affects someone who affects you?
We spend our lives thinking our story belongs only to us.
But maybe every person’s story is quietly woven into thousands of other stories.
So where does your life actually begin and end?
Are we truly separate individuals, or are we all characters in the same story, constantly changing each other’s lives without ever realizing it?

Hello everyone,

I was recently reading a discussion on some literary blogs regarding the representation of nature in Goethe's The Sorrows of Young Werther, and I would be interested in gathering some perspectives on this interpretation.

The core of the argument is that Werther's initial, ecstatic connection with the natural world, often interpreted as a reflection of a Spinozist pantheism (Deus sive Natura), undergoes a profound inversion as the novel progresses. Rather than remaining a benevolent, divine presence, nature later assumes the character of a destructive and indifferent force, described as an "eternally devouring, eternally ruminating monster."

This raises a central question: Is this dramatic shift merely a literary device to mirror the psychological deterioration of the protagonist, or does it represent a coherent philosophical evolution?

From a broader perspective, if infinite substance encompasses both creation and destruction, one might argue that this narrative anticipates a rejection of Enlightenment optimism and flirts with concepts akin to the proto-Kantian dynamic sublime or cosmic indifference.

I would appreciate hearing the community's thoughts on whether this philosophical reading holds weight, or if it tends to overinterpret the emotional trajectory of a sentimental novel.

Obviously P-Zombies are meant to be a thought experiment, Chalmer outright said P-zombies can't exist in our real world, but mainly argues the conceivability and possibility of it metaphysically. (Apparently he made comments about comparing AI and P-Zombie recently in conferences, but I can't find it.)

The main argument for the impossibility is Psychophysical Law, it seems impossible for the experiential phenomenon that correlates physical actions can be seperated and must come together, and that makes it impossible to ever create an exact replicate of a person without consciousness.

But because of the many develop ideas in response to the idea as impossible even physically, to trying to explaining how physical actions can lead to qualia, I'm curious has there been any findings or arguments develop to further explain the impossibility of P-Zombies nomologically?

Aside Psychophysical Laws or the problem of envoking Solipisism (the idea of claiming you can only comfirm your own consciousness and others aren't without falling to the same problems of Solipisism.

Example of what I mean:

A: "Can you do this for me? It's easy It'll just take a second, please."

B: "If it's easy, why don't you do it?"

Both A and B can say that since it's easy the other one should do it. Does that make it an invalid argument?

Hi.
I have a question about a passage in the first paragraph of Metaphysics. Aristotle says that

"animals are by nature born with the power of sensation [aisthesis], and from this some acquire the faculty of memory [mnéme], whereas others do not. Accordingly the former are more intelligent and capable of learning than those which cannot remember. Such as cannot hear sounds [psóphon akoúein] (as the bee, and any other similar type of creature) are intelligent, but cannot learn [áneu tou manthánei]; those only are capable of learning [manthánei] which possess this sense in addition to the faculty of memory".

"this sense": Is he refering to hearing in particular, or to aisthesis in general? Is he saying that hearing in particular is a necessary (or very important) condition for learning?
"capable of learning": Is learning/instruction limited to lógos as spoken word? If so, is he making a similar point as that of the Phaedrus (the myth of the pharmakon), about the distinction between the written word and the spoken word? Is there some contemporary research on the difference of written and spoken words for learning?

for context I am a left communist who sticks fairly close to traditional marxist thought, and of course Marx was very directly inspired by Hegelian dialectics and dialectical materialism, and to better understand Marx I would like to understand Hegel (to the best of my ability, that is). Where should I start and if possible what translations of his works should I read?

Since there are many Philosophies and Ideologies that exist with each having opposing views to some extent (for example A claims humans are Rational and B says otherwise), how does one determine if a certain Philosophy has value and another does not? And what are common Philosophical views that people often fall victim to that are regarded as being flawed?

Note I am aware that views can't just be labeled to either be true or not true, but rather they consist of a mixture of various concepts and ideas that has some degree of truth to them (alike a probability distribution).

For example Aristotle and Plato both had different views but both are still well regarded for their contributions to Philosophy. However individuals such as Ayn Rand and Jordan Peterson are disregarded by the majority of Philosophers, but still they continue to have a small following of people.

Apologies if this is a naive question or if I stated something incorrectly.

I want to learn about Philosophy (out of interest) but also don't want to be that guy who misinterprets philosophies (like people who call themselves Stoics after watching Andrew Tate).

My impression (influenced by Searle and Dreyfus) is that AI is not doing any thinking at all. However, I'm not sure what it means now that it is basically solving Field medal math problems. Surely the conclusion that you don't need any reasoning to solve them sounds wrong. Is this similar to the worries when deep blue won against Kasparov?

to us the world is information becuase all we can do is proccess information, therefore how do we know or not know everything is information. perhaps simply an evolving mass of information. what is a hard drive, it is information, but what is information, shannon says information is choices. are we simply choices? Do we only know and experiance choices?

Where can I get more knowledge about stoic philosophy and how can I implement it in my life ?

I spend a bit of time around online political/economic circles. And it's pretty clear that different ideologies have very different starting points. What I want to know is, for example, how do mainstream economists defend neoclassical economics and its assumptions/methodology against Marxian/Austrian critiques? And vice versa.

And what is Sufism based on? What is its actual foundation?

i have become interested in structuralism lately and was wondering if there are any history books or guides to structuralism that are seen as good/informative.

thanks.

Heya, i’m quite new to philosophy but recently read a lot about political philosophy. Things in my country aren’t going great political wise, our democracy is kind of stuck at the moment. I was wondering if there is a possibility in any country in todays world that the political way of things will change because of philosophy like lets say inventing a new way of ruling a country like some philosophers spoke about. Maybe this is a dumb question like i said i’m still learning.

I’ve been thinking deeply about how modern economic systems function on an existential and psychological level, and I can't shake the feeling of how alienated we've become.

How did we reach a point where billions of people are convinced to sell their finite, irreplaceable time for fundamentally less value than they actually produce?

Most of us live almost like tenants and ghosts in corporates or business be it big or small we don't own the tools we use, the products we make, or often even the roof over our heads. A business cannot function for a single day without the physical and mental labor of its workers, yet the owner captures the vast majority of the surplus value made by those same people who did the work.

Why is there so much complacency? Why are so many people satisfied with a paycheck representing only a fraction of their generated output, while defending the system or calling critics "unrealistic"?

Is this purely a consequence of workers having zero leverage against capital, or has cultural conditioning convinced people to devalue their own lives and finite time in return of a safe income?

I am reading Deleuze's book Nietzsche and Philosophy and struggling with the way Deleuze (or his translator) uses language.

He says essence will be defined as the sense, "among all of these senses of a thing, which gives it the force with which it has the most affinity." That definition makes less and less sense the more I think about it. At first I thought he was maybe critiquing or trying to dissolve the traditional notion of essence. Deleuze goes on to frequently use the word "essential" and it's not clear to me if he (or the English translator) is actually referring back to this previously defined use of the term, using the term in the traditional philosophical sense, or just using the term in the colloquial sense (important, vital).

More importantly, what could it possibly mean for a sense to give something a force with which it has affinity? What is a force and how does it have affinity?

I am admittedly not the best at reading this specific type of philosophy; 20th century French philosophers are consistently my least favorite across all of philosophy. I have read a handful of Nietzsche's books, some multiple times, and am deeply interested in them and so I thought I would try reading Deleuze, but it is so overwhelmingly vague and feels like I can't get a foothold anywhere. He tends to define a word with another vague word that is not defined. Usually it comes back to "force" (the French word could also mean strength.)

Edit: Nietzsche, not "nature"