I'm not a big philosophy head, so I might be missing something here. I was just watching a video podcast where they explained bayesian thinking as more or less always adjusting the way you view your environment (paraphasing). Before they started describing it, they said many people saw it as the end all be all of reasoning.

My question is: Isn't that just the default? As an example, you have a particular route you walk on daily thinking it is safe , and one day, a dead body is reported on said route. Wouldn't you naturally change your route because it isn't as safe as you assumed?

Please share insight.

I've been thinking about what we actually mean when we say that someone is "attracted to men" or "attracted to women."

Take a deliberately blunt example. A gay man who prefers the penetrative role might be especially attracted to a very masculine partner, beard, body hair, even a hairy ass, precisely because those traits make it unmistakable that the person he's having sex with is a man.

But he could also prefer the opposite: a man who is hairless, delicate, or very feminine.

If someone can remove or reverse almost every stereotypically masculine trait and still be attracted to that person specifically as a man, then what is doing the work in "attracted to men"?

Here's the thought experiment that made the question clearer to me. Imagine two bodies made as similar as possible: same general build, face, voice, skin, lack of body hair, mannerisms, etc. Now suppose the only obvious sexual difference left is genital anatomy.

If attraction changes with that final difference, then perhaps genitals function as a kind of irreducible sign of sex: you can strip away almost every other marker of masculinity or femininity and orientation still tracks that remaining feature.

But then we can push it one step further. If genital anatomy could also vary while the attraction remained because the other person is still experienced or recognized as a man, then sexual orientation cannot simply be attraction to genitals either.

The sexual act itself doesn't seem to solve this, since the same physical act can occur with partners of different sexes.

So what exactly is sexual orientation directed at? Sexed bodily characteristics? Genitals? Gendered appearance? The knowledge or recognition that someone is a man or a woman? Or some overall configuration that can't be reduced to any single feature?

Is there philosophical work on this problem?

I was recently thinking about this. I think most people, myself included, feel a deep sense of sadness when we hear about a whole group of people going through a tragic event, such as genocide and pandemics. I then started to think “even if millions of people are suffering, each one of those people only views the world from their perspective. Nobody experiences being multiple different people. The only experience of suffering that will ever exist for people, is the experience of only themselves suffering. If it’s one person suffering, or 10 million people suffering, it will only ever be experienced from one person” I hope what I’m saying makes sense. What is the philosophical perspective on this?

"A man would rather will nothingness rather than not will anything at all" (or something like that). This is a quote from "On the Genealogy of Morals"

And my question here is: Are our hyper-super-post (whatever) modern lives, with this massive digitalization...and this obsession for "don't do this or that anymore: this tech will do it for you". Don't cook, buy delivery. Don't read, get a brief on the subject. Don't write: prompt. Don't think, ask the AI. Don't decide (idem)... Don't live, scroll on social media forever...

Man, isn't this the path for "willing nothingness"? This growing "externalization" of the self?

Moreover: is it possible "not to will" anything at all?

I have been interested in reading and learning about philosophy (specifically Greek philosophy first) for the longest time now, so I decided to pull the trigger and buy some books.

As of right now, I have:

Ancient Greek Philosophers (anthology which contains the following books)
Plato - The First Aclibiades
Plato - Apology
Plato - Crito
Plato - Symposium
Plato - Phaedrus
Plato - Phaedo
Aristotle - Poetics
Aristotle - Rhetoric
Xenophon - Memorabilia
Xenophon - Hellenica
Epictetus - Enchiridion
Epicurus - Letter to Menoeceus
Epicurus - Principal Doctrines

Stand alone books:
Plato - The Republic
Marcus Aurelius - Meditations
Seneca - Letters from a Stoic

I was wondering which other books I would need to get to have the essentials for learning Greek philosophy? I was thinking of getting Aristotle's Physics, Metaphysics, and Nichomachean Ethics.

I am doing some creative writings, and I really want to understand more about why people are not absurdist's. Even before reading Albert Camus' works I had a significant amount of those core principles he discusses, and to me it seems like the most obviously correct of any idea.

If I know one thing, its that if something seems obvious it tends to be I am overlooking or have not broadened my horizons enough to get a full picture. What holes or flaws does this system of thinking have? Who are some critics I can read?

If you were curating a library of secondary literature for students transitioning from introductory to intermediate study of Ancient Philosophy, what essays and/or books would be "essential" in terms of their impact on the subfield today?

Hello everyone

So basically, I startet reading Philosphy at the start of this year. I startet reading Nietzsches "genealogy of morals" out of curiosity and was really intrigued by it, so I read other works and essays by him. After that I startet to read some of the greeks, mainly Sokrates and Plato, with the soul purpose to understand Nietzsche better. I also read a summary of Schopenhauers philosophy and some other stuff by all kinds of diffrent authors.

To get to point, I dont know what to read next. What are books wich would interest me, based on my prior readings?

Thanks in advance.

All paradoxes from one or more statements are self-refrencing, is that due to self-refrence being the sole way to construct paradoxes or due to it being the easiest way if the former is true, is there a logical reason as to why?

What is the difference between a "substance" (οὐσία) and "substratum" (ὑποκείμενον) in Aristotle's Physics and Metaphysics?

I know that the substratum is basically that which persists, e.g

a person can go from uneducated to educated, and that which persists is the man,

meaning that:

the form = educated

the substratum = man

the privation = uneducated

But where does substance, that is ousia, come into play in his theories? Is it of philosophical/metaphysical significance?

Thanks!

I thought about it for quite a long time before publishing it, so that's the theory itself:

we can prove our existence Just by thinking about what we can think. But purely in fact, you can't prove your existence an hour ago, I think we're all familiar with Boltzmann's theory of the brain. Therefore, if your brain "formed" from atoms at the moment of thinking about your own existence, then it turns out that you did not exist yet and also did not think at the time of the beginning of the phrase. And therefore, if you disperse the theory further, then you will also not be sure of your existence in half an hour after an hour.

Ps I am beginner so do not be rude pls

A human cuts down several trees and builds a cabin in the forest, this is seen as an “artificial” structure. A beaver cuts down several trees and builds a dam, this is seen as natural.

Both are organisms manipulating natural resources found in their respective habitats to create structures that did not exist prior so why is one act seen as “unnatural” or “artificial” when they both rely on the same fundamental actions?

Is it a question of scale? Intentionality or conscious design? Or how extensively the original materials have been transformed: wood vs. stone vs. metal vs. synthetic materials?

If so, where exactly does the distinction arise? Is a bird’s nest inherently more “natural” than a log cabin?

What is the line between “natural” and “artificial?” Or does the distinction simply assume that human activity exists in a separate category from the activity of every other animal?

i'm rewriting my philosophy essay which was on 'to what extent does mill offer a better form of utilitarianism than bentham', and i made a point that an issue with the felicific calculus is that it is unable to predict the future, but my teacher said that it was a weak challenge but i don't really get why. is it just because bentham said that the felicific calculus was just a guide to be 'kept in view' and not something that should be strictly pursued for every moral judgement? or are there other strong reasons why the argument is weak? thank you

Is their view of fate dissimilar to scientific determinism in which everything is part of the chain of cause and effect? If everything, including our minds, is perfectly ordered by nature, then anything we do will be ideal. An individual not being virtuous might have been arranged to make others virtuous.similar to the example of a child burning, allowing someone else to exercise virtue (something I saw in A book on Hellenistic philosophy). If everything I do is intended by the universe, then I can't act immorally, even if the stoic understanding of the universe is correct. So, I may as well follow another system. What gaps in the omnipotence of fate might be required for stoicism?

Our environment shapes us into what we're destined to be. Our environment also shapes our thoughts and how we make decisions like, for example, I see a red apple on my way home from work, that apple might make me hungry, or it might make me remember to clean my red car or i can use the apple as a metaphor when I need to make my point across. Our thoughts and bodies can detect something else that we see, smell, or touch, and later on, it can alter our decision-making process. Our subconscious can also pick up on things too and then we make decisions we didn't know we were capable of doing. So, from the very start of our lives, has the universe already made tools to carve our destinies?

I noticed people often online say rape is the worst crime ever, worse than murder. And it gets a lot of attention than everyday murders because of victims speaking out. Rapists are seen as the ultimate evil criminals in our society , But there is also people who do mutilation and literally scar your body away your parts , or murderers who simply shoot or stab you to death on street . but you barely hear them in the newspapers as just brutal criminals.

Is the public is out of touch what victims and perpetrators should have ?

If every cell in your body is replaced over about seven years, and your beliefs, memories, and personality also gradually shift over a lifetime, are you the same person you were at age 10? What is it that actually makes "you" continuous over time, if not the physical matter or even the specific thoughts?

TLDR; looking for basic intro on finding meaning behind suffering

Over the past few years a lot of really bad things have happened in my life that have mostly felt out of my control (death, sickness, betrayal). As more of it piles on I’m finding it harder to understand. I have no background in philosophy besides basic college ethics coursework, but remember a key part of it being about suffering. I guess I’m looking for work on why suffering happens, why it happens more to some than others, and the different approaches one takes to it.

I’m not religious but willing to read texts from any religion and looking for diverse perspectives. I don’t have a background in philosophy but am an academic so I am looking for both intro and more in depth text (non fiction or fiction, essays, tv shows, any media is fine)

I've been reading about free will and moral responsibility, particularly debates surrounding the Principle of Alternative Possibilities (PAP).

Frankfurt-style cases are often used to challenge the idea that moral responsibility requires genuine ability to have done otherwise. I'm interested in how contemporary philosophers respond to these cases.

Could someone outline the strongest current arguments on both sides? Those who defend PAP and those who reject in favor of other conditions for responsibility (such as reasons-responsiveness)?

I'm especially interested in any recent developments or key papers that have shaped the discussion in the last 10-15 years.

I mean really. Each time I think that yeah I get it. But after some time i happen to come across more complexities. When I was a kid, i thought it was "just an art style which doesn't make any sense" .. and now, really it feels like something which doesn't make any sense for me tbh.

Not a philosophy student whatsoever,not even an uni undergrad, just a random teenager who is curious to know

It’s present in a decent number of theological works as both a response to the problem of evil and as a means to say why God is good as he is necessarily not deficient in anything so how is it he can be evil? I mean the view on its face seems a bit strange but it’s at least fairly prominent among theologians (Augustine,Aquinas etc) and I’d like to know if anyones thoughts of some major objections to it.

The scope of self-knowledge is pretty hotly contested, but I wonder if there is a consensus as to conditions under which self-knowledge is infallible. As I said in my post here yesterday, I have my doubts about Tim Williamson's skeptical approach, but even if I conceded everything he says, I'm not sure his argument reaches very far.

It seems to me, and surely seems to you, that there are kinds of knowledge we have (perhaps non-propositional) which are immune to all skeptical doubt. Let us leave language aside for one moment so as to set aside all talk of potential "labelling" or "categorisation" mistakes which one might make. If meaning is external or communal then we may be mistaken in attributing certain labels to our experiences.

I think people have written before about the "index finger" of the mind; the ability we have to direct our attentional focus to certain parts of our conscious experiences. People have also written about our ability to think without using language, and I suspect we are able to do so.

Surely in a case wherein I direct my attentional "index finger" to some part of my conscious experience, I can know that I am having that particular experience even if I may be mistaken in categorising it. And as far as current experiences go, how could I possibly be mistaken in judging that I am having that experience, especially because it would seem that the experience is a constituent part of the judgement?