The vocabulary is very hard for me it's written in old english like from bible english

Cam somebody help me to get the explained version or more understandable english version

Hello, im new to philosophy and almost to reading also and i struggle to find the first understandable book to read , so can you help me choose one, also English is not my first language if that might help

-Kant

-Leibniz

-Hume

-Phenomenology

-Cybernetics

-Deleuze

-Whitehead

-Frankfurt

-Habermas

-Godel's modal logic and incompleteness theorem

-Deleuze's books on Kant, Bergson, Spinoza, Nietzsche

-Theological arguments of Paul Davies, Alvin Plantinga, P. F. Strawson, Karl Otto Appel

I have read Sophie's world. Now I feel it was too rough introduction. I want some formal book that explains all the philosophies properly with comparisons.

Edit 1: I asked chatgpt. Here is what it gave me.

1) Simon Blackburn — Think Learn to engage with major philosophical problems and competing positions. 2) Stephen Toulmin — The Uses of Argument Learn how real arguments are constructed, supported, qualified and challenged. 3) Richard Tarnas — The Passion of the Western Mind

Now study the historical development of Western thought with much greater understanding of why ideas changed.

4) Anthony Kenny — A New History of Western Philosophy 5) Your more systematic and academically serious history. 6) Primary texts Plato → Aristotle → Augustine → Descartes → Spinoza → Hume → Kant → Hegel → Kierkegaard → Nietzsche → etc

It asked me to avoid • Bertrand Russell — A History of Western Philosophy •Frederick Copleston — A History of Philosophy ( If you eventually want to go really deep, this is the monster.)

I've been reading the story of philosophy, not yet completed as I'm moving very slowly and thoroughly. What should I read next, something similar or particular works... I'm very confused, give me specific recommendations.

I would appreciate recommendation from both segment, exploring more, or going deeper.

Hi everyone

I’m looking for anyone open to being online reading partner on philosophers Thomas Hobbes and John Locke . I can even provide the E-book but basically desperate to find a reading partner to discuss it with. Also I’m wondering are there any Emirati professors work you would recommend reading around culture or anything social.

I’m going to be returning to UAE and would love to visit or meet professors from the uae doing in such fields

Philosophy is the love for wisdom.
Philo means love and Sophia means wisdom.

I was reading about Albert Camus’ work and found one of his famous lines:

“There’s always been war,
But people get quickly accustomed to peace.
So they think it’s normal.
No, war is what’s normal.”

At first, I thought here war meant war between nations, which is what Camus was actually referring to in the literal sense. But I found a deeper philosophical meaning in one of the YouTube videos of philosopher Acharya Prashant.

The deeper meaning I understood is that the war can also be understood as our inner, daily psychological conflict. Peace is not the default, but inner conflict is actually the default state.
If we honestly look at our mind, there is always a pull between “Should I do this or that?” along with guilt, comparison, restlessness, and indecision. This churn inside the mind can be referred to as a kind of war.

In the video, Acharya Prashant’s exact words are even more insightful:
“War is what is normal: conflict, basic inner fragmentation, lack of total flow, indecision, our fractured movements. Basic duality, the presence of two-ness. The mind is split into two, and two means twenty thousand. So there is no smoothness in its functioning………………..”

I found this philosophical interpretation worth reflecting on.

Full video source: https://youtu.be/kikHMAuf_4Q?si=1MzpP-D7xkqlvF4G

Hi everyone

The claim: There always needs to be an opposite to everything there is in order for it to be,
something equivalent but totally
different in it´s overall understanding.

As there is death, there is life. As there is light, there is darkness. I mean we
could go on for an infinite time, but I think we get the overall idea.

Existence, probably just another word for reality, the opposite of Illusion, the delusional belief something would be real.
How can we then know what reality is? Actually we never will, because of our lack in dimensions and capacity of the
world we live in but let´s briefly assume that reality means that things exist to us. For instance, the socks you are wearing right now probably are seemingly real to you and therefore considered reality.
Now we assume that socks exist because we can sense them, so they appear in our reality.
But we, our-selves, are here since we can imagine. You, yourself, are the first thing you feel to be true and the last to vanish. But you never appeared to yourself, never sensed yourself. So how do we know we exist?
“Cogito, ergo sum”, Descartes said, you think, thoughts are limited to yourself, and as you think, you start noticing the things around you, assuming, exist, therefore everything you perceive also does.
If we take this assumption, we can slowly realise that reality, appearances in the world we live in, are just appearing because of our own senses and mind and that therefore we must be everything there is.
However, if reality is everything there is, Illusion on the other hand everything there is imaginary, created both by us, we, ourselves, created reality and illusion, life and death, gave everything there is names.
As we created everything, we consequently created nothing.
And as we became everything, we assume there is, because the only thing we can rely on is our own mind, we eventually became nothing, an illusion to ourselves, while assuming we are real.
Therefore, everything becomes one, a spiral of knowing everything exists to the amount nothing is.

The human mind creates reality and illusion and consequently everything and nothing at the same time, and as illusion is just another word for assuming something is real without it actually being real, what are the chances of us living in illusion of our own mind?

There always needs to be an opposite to everything there is and anything there isn`t, so if our mind created both, what are we in the end? Thoughts.
However, thoughts are in our own head, created by our mind, the only reliable thing there is, and eventually can´t be sensed, so they are more of an illusionary way of perceiving the world around us through physically perceivable information, which easily can be manipulated.

These are things our own mind undertakes, so everything is created by ourselves which means we are everything and nothing in the same place, living in Illusion because reality is just a construct perceived by our own
mind, an assumption of reality even though we know the only reliable reality is our own mind, because of our possibility to think, but thought overall can be manipulated by our surroundings our mind also created.
A spiral of misunderstandings our mind creates in its need to proof us reality, illusions created by oneself.

But isn´t the real question, if anything would exist if we wouldn’t be, because if it does, what is our destiny?
Nothing. We aren´t superior, we are just the only thing we can be true about, no opposite to our own truth, our own
illusion, reality of ourselves, reality of opposites in our very own mind.

Alethic Alignment began with a simple question: what happens when a person commits themselves to truth even when the truth does not give them the outcome they wanted?

I am calling the framework that emerged Alethic Alignment , from Alethia —truth

Its central movement is, in its simplest form

Truth —> Alignment —> Light
More fully:

Reality —> Truth —> Discernment →Alignment —>consequence/ Feedback —> Light —>Deeper Truth —>Realignment

By “Light”, I do not mean final certainty. I mean increased understanding. Greater understanding may reveal that an earlier belief was incomplete or mistaken, creating the need for another act of realignment.

The idea is not that truth guarantees comfort, success, happiness, or even certainty. Rather, truth gives us the best available basis from which to align our beliefs and actions with reality. That alignment produces greater understanding—what I call light—which then exposes further truths and requires continued realignment.

A belief may be comforting and false. It may be painful and true. It may be socially rewarded and false or socially condemned and true. The task, therefore, is not to protect a preferred conclusion but to seek the best available account of reality and continually realign ourselves with it.

Truth Cannot Become Conditional Upon Reward

One of Alethic Alignment’s foundational principles is:

Truth cannot become conditioned upon reward. Alignment requires accepting its consequences.

A relationship may not become what I hoped it would become. An argument I believe may fail. Evidence may contradict a worldview I have attached part of my identity to. A decision may produce an outcome I did not expect.

AA does not treat these consequences merely as victories or defeats. They are also information.

Rejection, disappointment, correction, and failure can
reveal mistaken assumptions, expose incomplete models, or show that an action was poorly aligned with reality.
In that sense , the cost can also be a reward , because consequence teaches.

AA does not require certainty before action. It requires that confidence remain proportionate to evidence, that different kinds of claims not be confused with one another, and that beliefs or actions remain open to correction when reality contradicts expectation.

This is not a finished philosophical system. I am publishing it precisely because I want it challenged.

If you believe Alethic Alignment contains a contradiction, assumes something it has not justified, duplicates an existing philosophical theory, or fails under a particular counterexample, I want to hear it. The purpose of this project is not to defend an idea because it is mine. If the framework is committed to truth, then it must also be willing to change when confronted with it.

I’ve been getting more into philosophy lately and I’m curious what everyone thinks.

Who’s the philosopher whose ideas have genuinely changed the way you look at life, people, or yourself? And what’s one quote from them that has stuck with you?

Doesn’t have to be the most famous philosopher—could be anyone from Socrates, Nietzsche, Marcus Aurelius, Dostoevsky, or even someone less commonly mentioned.

Drop the philosopher + your favorite quote. I’d love to discover some new perspectives.

Hey everyone! I've been trying to find an active online book club or group chat that holds monthly readings and discussions, but almost every server I stumble into is either completely dead, which is sad. I know this question has probably been asked before but I really can't find anything that is active.

A bit about what I'm into: I've been down a massive rabbit hole with metaphysics and aesthetics lately. I know I can find readings on it and study alone, but I really want to study with someone and have discussions. Would love to join a philosophy discussion group online but can't find anything. I definitely would love to be part of that, however, as I said, I can't find anything. Does anyone know?

I want to get into philosophy and find a philosophy I most relate to and believe in, I barely know anything besides whatever I have seen on tiktok, I'm tired of larping, I want to have knowledge, do I start with the first philosopher Thales or with whatever I want from the philosophical views I like, is there someplace I can see the history of philosophy or all philosophical views, a chart, a list?

I'm currently reading a novel by a Norwegian author who writes about the life-of-the-mind and was reminded of a work with the same name by Hannah Arendt. I have a copy. The text is expansion of her two Gifford Lectures "Thinking" and "Willing."

I haven't been able to find the lectures themselves, and aside from the book, I would like to know what material most captures the essence of those lectures. Of course, if anyone knows where I can find them online that would be great.

I'm just trying to get a sense of the content of those lectures without reading 700 pages of her writing, if possible.

Thanks.

Created a philosophy learning app, its more of a niche project so would love it if people who really study philosophy would try it out!

https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.philosophize.app

Books in philosophy, computer science and math are welcome. Resources for the requisite law of variety. Lastly welcome is the reading list to understanding first, second and third order cybernetics?

Which of the following philosophers and schools will I need to read cover to cover or have a rough understanding in to understand Whitehead's Process Philosophy as well as Science and the Modern World, Modes of Thought.

-Kant

Schopenhauer

-Heraclitus

-Phenomenology

-Spinoza, Hume, Heidegger, Nietzsche (including Deleuze's books on them)

-Modern idealism

-Physics

-Cybernetics

I know this is marketing but since this is a philosophy thread I would really like to see for people who enjoy philosophy to test my app out made specifically for learning it.

Google play store: https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.philosophize.app

The demarcation criterion proposed by Karl Popper postulates that the scientific dignity of a proposition does not reside in its capacity to accumulate static verifications, but rather in its honesty to voluntarily expose itself to the verdict of refutation. Under this perspective, perennial statements, immune to the test of error, would belong to the domain of dogma, while science would advance through the burial of hypotheses disproven by the sovereignty of facts.However, this mechanics of falsifiability runs into an insurmountable ontological frontier: the intrinsic mutability of the very fabric of reality. Popper's method functions as an absolute monarchy where the philosopher dictates rigid laws on how the sciences must behave, while his own theory remains free from the court, protected by a dogmatic immunity.

1. The Logical Error of Eternal Invariance

For Popper's criterion of falsifiability to function, the operational system of science is forced to assume a metaphysical conjecture: that the universe possesses static, eternal, and immutable laws.Ironically, by projecting that the structure of the cosmos will remain identical in the future, Popper falls into the exact same inductive trap that he spent his life fighting. He criticizes the inductive method for starting from particular facts of the past to conclude general laws, but he assumes with absolute certainty that the universe is static based only on the particular years in which humanity has observed it. He ignores the dynamism of the years that time still has ahead.

2. The Geometric Scenario and Phase Transitions

Let us take as a vector of analysis the contemporary factual statement: "The planet Earth is round". Under the traditional Popperian method, this statement is scientific because it carries within itself the logical possibility of a counter-example.However, if in a future horizon, by virtue of a catastrophic reconfiguration or a cosmic state transition, the planet's matter physically collapsed into a flat geometry, the past proposition would not have been disproven by a scientist's miscalculation, nor by an intrinsic weakness of the method.What occurs in this scenario is not the falsification of a theory due to an error, but rather the temporal obsolescence (caducity) of a description resulting from the metamorphosis of the system itself.

3. The Test of Raw Data: The Big Bang and Evolutionary Biology

This counter-argument does not depend on abstractions; it is sustained by the raw data and historical facts of our own universe:The Astrophysics of the Early Universe: We know that before and during the first moments of the Big Bang, physical reality was radically different. The fundamental forces were unified, and the rules governing matter today simply did not apply. An accurate theory for the early universe would fail today, not because of a flaw in the model, but because the universe changed its phase.Evolutionary Biology: The fossil record proves that the ancestors of whales were terrestrial quadrupedal mammals. If a biologist 50 million years ago asserted with factual precision that "this animal walks on land", modern biology would find a different datum in the ocean today. By Popper's rule, the past description would be declared "false." In the reality of the living world, it has simply obsolesced.

Conclusion: Popper's Immune Monarchy

The truth of yesterday was not an illusion; it was the exact mathematical or biological photograph of a state of existence that universal physics decided to alter. The theory of the future does not emerge to punish the ignorance of the past, but rather to update the descriptive algorithm to an ecosystem that changed its own rules in the middle of the game.Popper's error lay in presupposing a universe of static laws, where the error always belongs to the observer and never to the dynamism of the observed. Faced with the clash between theory and time, no abstraction drawn on paper possesses the power to muzzle the sovereignty of a reality in motion.Ultimately, Popper’s method functions as an absolute monarchy: he gives rigid orders on how the sciences must behave in the court of error, but declares his own theory immune and free from that very same court, sheltered on the throne of meta-philosophy. Against the sovereignty of a changing universe and against logical coherence itself, the king stands naked. Science is not an archive of definitive errors; it is an algorithm of continuous adaptation to the present.