If a practicing jew or a muslim rejects divine command theory, then how do they know how to practice their religion without falling back into DCT? See the next scenario: A practicing jew follows the law of Moses, he observes the sabbath, eats only kosher food and refers to jewish courts for his personal and family matters. One day, he decides to study ethical philosophy and when learns about DCT, he rejects it and instead turns to another ethical theory, say utilitarianism. Consequently, a lot of his views about politics and social issues changes. Also, he starts referring to civil courts. Now, would our hypothetical jew observe the dietary laws, the sabbath, and other acts of worship? If he did, then he's just following the divine command theory. If he doesn't, then how exactly is he practicing? Thank you in advance.

I'm looking for some inspiration for a topic to write about. In the coming weeks, I need to find a subject that combines two subjects, preferably physics and philosophy (math could also be an option), for the most significant assignment of the year. In this assignment, I need to explain, analyze, and discuss the topic, using methods from both subjects.

I’m currently unsure of what to write about and would love to hear if you have any ideas.

Thank you!!

I'm reading On What There Is, and along the way, I've come across an idea that I'm stuck on. He says that people who reason adjacent to Plato's Beard are mistaken not just because of Russell's theory of descriptions, but subsequently because of the distinction between meaning and naming. My understanding of what Quine means by naming is that it's essentially the label of a set of necessary and sufficient conditions for a certain object. For example, the named object Pegasus is just a label for the conditions of being a horse and having wings.

This is fine. But, after this, he talks about another attribute of the word Pegasus called meaning. To illustrate what meaning is, he brings up the morning star and the evening star as an example, correctly saying that we could not use reason alone to extrapolate that the morning star is the same object as the evening star, and it is there that he identifies meaning. That is, he establishes that when two things have different meanings, it entails that we cannot infer one from the other a priori. This is where my confusion arises -- what exactly does he mean by meaning, beyond this? How is it different from the naming of an object? From the looks of it, the meaning of a word, according to Quine, could just be what the person's understanding of the necessary and sufficient conditions of the denoted object is. But isn't this synonymous with the naming, the 'actual' set of necessary and sufficient conditions? How would we know the distinction between naming and meaning in practice? And, can meaning ever be false? What about naming? Most importantly, what is Quine's full account of meaning, if there is one?

Is it logically possible for mankind to know everything, (assuming epistemology is solved as JTB+G)

which means either

1. we know everything, including what we mean by "everything", and that "we know everything". Truth values of all meaningful statements that can be ever thought of are known. There are no more questions to ask, or no questions that cannot be answered. or
2. we know limits of our knowledge. We know everything that we can ever know, and what we can never know.

I guess the two conditions are the same if "everything" in the first is defined as "all matter of facts within the scope of human knowledge".

Can you imagine the world as we "know" today is so arranged in a way that we can possibly achieve the above two (e.g., suppose materialism+determinism+scientism are all true)?

I was analyzing Article 1 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights to translate it into a conlang I'm creating (it's one of the standard texts to translate for this purpose). It is the UDHR's purported function to outline what the UN believes are the fundamental and definitional rights humans are born with, meaning they are intrinsic to "humanness". It states "...[human beings] are endowed with reason and conscience..." but gives no indication about the provider of this endowment, which by definition it requires. Might it be the declaration itself? The state? A God?

I realize the UDHR is already controversial as a philosophical piece, but from a purely interpretational standpoint I'm curious about people's thoughts on this specific matter.

Individual rights aside. Rights such as right to self determination of people is considered a collective human right. But people use this right to perpetuate mysoginistic cultures or racist policies. It is considered a very important right to the point that it's considered a fundamental principle of law between nations. Why ? Why did we decide to give a class the right to dominate a minority class ?.

The biggest problem with individual rights on the other hand is that they're inclusive of and extend people that violate the rights of others themselves. Chemical castration for example is considered cruel and unusual by the law in the American nation even though it can save many potential victims. Isn't this literally the paradox of tolerance manifested ?

From purely a philosophical point of view - not from any kind of emotional appeal

Currently reading up on Newton's account of Space. I understand that the idea of absolute space came up as a argument against Descartes's account of relational space. However, it isn't really clear which idea came first:

If absolute space exists, then absolute acceleration must exist

OR

If absolute acceleration exists, then absolute space must exist

A lot of people discuss human consciousness in terms of trying to prove/disprove that other people are conscious, but how would I go about proving to myself that I am conscious? Is it possible that even I am not conscious and even consciousness itself is an illusion?

I think he means that if something is it’s own cause it exist in every possible way and therefore it is absolute but it is still not clear to me.

Kierkegaad's wiki page reads:

Herbert Read wrote in 1945 "Kierkegaard's life was in every sense that of a saint. He is perhaps the most real saint of modern times

And

Ludwig Wittgenstein who once stated that Kierkgaard was "by far the most profound thinker of the [nineteenth] century. Kierkegaard was a saint

And

Since Kierkegaard was raised as a Lutheran, he was commemorated as a teacher in the Calendar of Saints of the Lutheran Church on 11 November.

I understand he was the first existential philosopher and his existentialism was theological in nature but what do these people want to convey when they use the title saint for him? Obviously they can't mean it in the strict religious sense since he was not canonized. The other meaning, as per dictionary is "a very virtuous, kind, or patient person."

But while discussing his philosophy why should his personal virtues matter? Or are they really referring to his personal life and conduct being admirable??

Derrida used these two words, le discours, and la parole in his writing. Could you help explain what are their meanings and what is the difference?

The greeks chained prometheus, and with him they blocked technology. today we have unleashed prometheus, allowing technology to take over everything. how can we in our everyday life go back to chaining prometheus.

If there are an infinite number of whole numbers, and an infinite number of decimals between any two whole numbers, and an infinite number of decimals in between any two decimals, does that mean that there are infinite infinities? And an infinite number of those infinities? And an infinite number of those infinities? And an infinite number of those infinities? And an infinite number of those infinities? And… (Infinitely times. And that infinitely times. and that infinitely times. and that infinitely times. And..) …

Hello! Freud, Churchland, and Locke's philosophy about self is easy for me to understand at first glance but when I tried to go deeper, I can't seem to understand especially with paid articles. Can someone explain to me their philosophy about self and please provide me free sources if there is. Thank you!

For example, if someone were to state that "God is real" is it that person's responsibility to prove that God is real or is it the responsibility of everyone else to disprove that God is real?

I feel like many debates and conversations are thrown off track because we lose focus on who is claiming what and whose responsibility it is to prove those claims. A lot of poor arguments would get exposed as unfalsifiable nonsense if we committed to the idea that the claimant should always be the one to bear the burden of proof.

I'm interested in reading Camus's novels but was wondering if I needed to become familiar with any other works or concepts to fully understand them?

Could you please recommend me rethoric handbooks etc.? I read some Ancient Greek classics, like Aristotle and Isocrates, but now I’m interested in 20th/21th century books on the topic.

I've always been curious about what we don't know yet. The simple idea that something just tomorrow could shake the equilibrium of knowledge.

For example, how Einstein's idea of/for relativity put into question the Newtonian physics that we use today...there's just a lot that we don't know.

And I find it interesting how Plato, Aristotle, etc, all the way back then somehow had already answered many questions we're still scientifically solving for today... Not scientifically, of course, but back then just by natural understanding of observation and intuition, they had already ideated the frameworks for the world, physics, math, philosophy, etc.

And only now do we have the tools and tech to verify their hypothetses...and while of course they weren't spot on, their ideas were generally coming from the right place... So would you say that strong intuition is fundamental to understanding the unknown, reaching the truth, and being creative with insights and solutions?

When it comes to such abstract views on life, so far I've only studied Jung and his views on introverted intuition and introverted thinking which help me understand these views... And how Plato and Aristotle both used introverted intuition to construct their views or arguements respectively... Which when guesstimated from the right education and mindset would guide us to the truth...

Now, aside from the many, many mathematical, logical, ethical, political curious queries Plato, Aristole and even more modern such as Kant had garnered, how does that express itself for the arguement of God? As far as I understand, Aristotle was leaning towards monotheism, but the question I have is, if these philosophers could be so right about so much of the world, would such intellectual might giving credence to the concept and existence of God hold great intuitive weight?

I don't want to make this about my personal views, but just by relating to their arguments, it does make me curious that 100s to 1000s of years ago, these people had their ideas and formed strong arguements, and if we're taking God to be all fair and just, then we'll likely never have any direct evidence or presence from Him because it wouldn't be fair to all those who have passed away without getting a chance to experience such evidence hence that would make God unfair....

If anything, perhaps the only real evidence of God lies within our intuition and perception? And these philosophers were able to tap into said abstraction and pass on the idea? Because ironically, whether you believe in God or not, His presence is quite literally everywhere because we hear about God all the time, especially due to cultural and global reasons... Even Christmas is a yearly reminder of God... So perhaps that is the type of evidence we all share?

So the ultimate question is, how do we account for future knowledge? If you think about how much past philosophers were right about (and about I understand trial and error, so they were also wrong about a lot but it's the critical thinking and approach we have to evaluate here) then isn't there only more and more chance that if there would ever be evidence of God, no matter how little, it could only be expressed within 1000s to 100,000s of years or more?

For more practical example, some believe that aside from our souls, God is within the light... But for those who are purely reliant on science and evidence, even the electromagnetic spectrum is a relatively new discover considering the philosophical approaches... So if you had told someone that light is a spectrum if you went into the past hypothetically, they may not have believed you because there would be no scientific evidence of it in that age.

There may quite literally be 1000s of existences just like the spectrum of light right in front of us which we can't humanly or scientifically prove or perceive... So wouldn't God just be one of such aspects?

Considering we don't even know our own brains, and more than 99% of our universe, isn't relying on science which is reactive a bit dull, and relying on intuition and spirituality the same equal way past, revered thinkers have done so allow us a better view of life which covers the 1000s of year of knowledge ahead better?

Also, going back to Jung, introverted intuition (Ni) users are likely the most rare kind and usually the smartest too on average, especially when you can mix Ni and Ti (like INFJ said to be the rarest)... So such understanding of the world is quite limited and narrow to begin with.

I have been studying existentialism from the past few months. But I found it a bit confusing.

As per my understanding: Existentialism = life doesn’t come pre-packaged with meaning, It’s up to each individual to create and define their own meaning through their actions, choices, and relationships.

But I say, still, the person doesn’t have THE meaning. The search for meaning != meaning. The meaning should be found as a valid answer — just like the answer to a question isn’t the search for the answer, but the answer itself.

If life, which isn’t pre-packaged with meaning, has a meaning that is to find meaning, then it means that the process of finding meaning is the real meaning. Which means the real meaning the person is trying to find is still missing, so it’s a loop that doesn’t even make sense to me.

It’s like saying: the answer to the question is to find the answer to the question. (while the real answer is still missing).

I'm a teenager, and relatively new to philosophy, so I would greatly appreciate if you give me your opinions on this confusion.

I've been perusing some papers in philosophy of religion and came across this particular paper, published this very year:

Priest S. Quantum Physics and the Existence of God. Religions. 2024; 15(1):78. https://doi.org/10.3390/rel15010078

The author is Dr. Stephen Priest, Senior Research Fellow in Philosophy at Blackfriars, Oxford and a member of the Faculty of Philosophy of the University of Oxford. So the credentials and the background are quite reputable.

In the paper, he tries to argue that different interpretations of Quantum Physics would necessarily presuppose the existence of God. Unfortunately, a lot of the scientific language is beyond my level, hence I wanted to ask what people think of his work in this paper (which is apparently to be published in the form of a book later, with more elaboration).

Looking for religious philosophers who think life is a mistake and suicide is acceptable, and/or that we should stop having children. Not to be fruitful and multiply.

hi, i'm writing a paper based on framing strategies in art. i was looking at the history of phenomenology and how various philosophers/schools of thought have dissected this duality (or lack thereof) and applying this notion towards art.

are there any examples of texts you can think of where the subject-object dichotomy is applied towards art? this would be very helpful, thank you

I know that there's something that happens before the goal and call it cause and something happens after the goal and call it effect

Now most of our knowledge is based on our observation of reality, but we can't get back in time to observe the the causes of something,

And even if the events are moving in reverse direction, the time itself is still moving forward (but maybe some people might disagree with that as a result of modern physics, so ignore this point if you want to)

So all the knowledge we get is about something must be an effect even if the thing we observe is actually a cause, it won't be known until it's an effect to be observed

And there even things that you're unable to determine if they're causes or effects, like fire being a source of heat, you don't know which one caused the another

Also sometimes you can't know the effects until you find the causes and can't find the causes until you find the effects

This brings two questions:

1.Do causes&effects represent two different things?

2.If No, then how and why did we separate these two concepts from each other?

Was watching a show of a Dutch comedian show and they had a part in which they talked about how all actions we take have awful consequences.

This included eating certain foods like avocado, which uses pesticides that give people cancer in Mexico, quinoa, which is driving up prices in Bolivia causing people going hunger and soy which is destroying the Amazon and is causing murders of farmers in Brazil. Another example was driving including electric cars, as the making batteries still causes pollution by mining metals. Wearing clothes was another example, as the workers in Bangladesh are exploited and it has been linked to the drying up of the Aral Sea in Kazakhstan as cotton uses much water. Even using sun energy has bad consequences as much of the solar panels are made by Uyghurs in Chinese concentration camps.

The part ended with that having a child might be the worst thing to do as you create another being that will cause all the same negative consequences. Then the conclusion was that the most ethical thing was to not exist at all.

Is there any ethical theory, most likely consequentialist, that believes the same? That goes even further than Peter Singer?

Edit: besides the suggestions I got I also came across Julio Cabrera's negative ethics. This might be the closest of all as according to Wikipedia he argues that the least immoral action to take is altruistic suicide.

I understand he is saying that our conception of eternity comes from our conception of existence and that eternity isn’t related to time or duration but I need some more clarification. But he follows with existence follows necessarily from eternity which is circular. So what is eternity? And what does he mean by existence?

Greetings Philosophy Reddit!

My question is brief, is there any difference between "formal" and "symbolic" logic? I'm planning on self-studying logic and foundational math as a hobby and I didn't know if there was a difference between the two.

I purchased Peter Smith's, "An Introduction to Formal Logic" as this was recommended most, but then I kept seeing references to something called "symbolic logic". I was hoping to supplement the book with some form of online lectures but couldn't really find anything except this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ExE8ucCfmH0&list=PLcmaziH9sW6OIomMEC280GERu9InK13wk&index=1.

I'm hoping they cover essentially the same material so I can get both forms of learning in.

Thanks!

Basically, one common form of the teleological argument, especially in less formal discourse, is that the world is too complex to have come without intentional design. I was wondering if anyone challenged this idea, that mechanics is what ultimately matters, whereas intent and purpose are only motivations to enact the mechanics in a certain way, and if there was a way for the physical world to form in the way it has now, even if unlikely, it's still within its own mechanics to do so.

I was wondering if there are other philosophers who think this way and develop this idea further, and if they took it to any other conclusion beyond religion.

Sometimes I experience a state of uncertainty about the truth. Most recently, there was an issue in Davenport where an officer killed a family dog. The comment section and the post itself said the officer was wrong for doing so, while others claimed that he was acting in self-defense. The action itself was deemed legal. I dug into the story and a news station brought in an expert who said the dog would likely have attacked the officer and the actions taken were the best available at that time. Yet, from the bodycam video, this wasn't apparent to me. The more I looked into it, the less certain I was of any conclusion I came to.

It's impossible to know anything for certain, so is it all just leaps of faith? Approximations? There's too much information on any issue, so how can anyone come to a conclusion on anything?