This question came to me when I was thinking about how Continental philosophy is generally recieved over here (I'm Canadian 😔).

Generally, Continental philosophy tends to use language and words that makes sense in their original language, but runs into confusion when translating into English because a lot of those words have no perfect English equivalent. It’s sometimes also perceived as "less boring" than our own Anglo-American philosophy.

And all this go me thinking/asking what the other side of the fence looks like? Does Continental Europe have the same reverence and confusing surrounding Anglo-American thought that we have for Continental philosophy? And if not, what is the general reception and perception over there?

Hey! I hope this sub is the right one to ask this!

My question is about the name of a way of argumentation that tries to use an extreme example to establish a foundation.

Simple example: lets say someone says 'murder is never justifiable'. I try to argue this sentiment by asking if killing hitler during the holocaust wouldve been justifiable if it stopped what was going on.

Most people would agree with that, so 'never' could become 'rarely'. Now you could try to tighten the frame of instances that justify murderer by coming up with ever less extreme examples until someone disagrees with it being a reason to kill someone.

I have, for almost all of my adult life, thought this falls under reductio ad absurdum as i believed R.A.A to be trying to reduce a question on its principles by coming up with absurdly obvious examples and then getting more specific as the debate goes on. I feel quite ashamed to have just learned that this is, in fact, utter nonsense.

Is there a name for this kind of argument?

If so, how does one improve their deductive reasoning?

Asides from your religious beliefs or anything, let's consider there is nothing after death, ie : losing all qualia. Some are perfectly fine to understand. Having no vision qualia (not darkness, nothing), having no "thought qualia", etc. But the only one I do find paradoxical is the time perception one, especially if it lasts for infinite time.

The time perception qualia is basically experiencing the passage of time. It's pretty intuitive. It is possible, to have for a finite amount of time, a lack of this qualia. For exemple if you're knocked out, or in a coma, it can happen. (Not always) In that case, you will not experience the passage of time. You will instantaneously, from your point of view, jump to the moment when you lack it, to the end of it, in 0 perceived seconds. If it happens during a 1y coma, you will feel like you were instantaneously teleported a year into the future. When we were born, the 13.8 billion years that passed before our existence also felt instantaneous.

The problem arises when that loss becomes permanent, as for death.

If you do not experience the passage of time, it would mean that the infinite time from your death to....forever will fell instantaneous. How is it even possible ? And if it feels instantaneous...what do you experience as "after"? Even though you won't ever experience the passage of time again since you don't exists. It's a division by 0 problem, well that's how I think of it. And it is the main problem I have with thinking about death.

If anyone has any idea how to solve that, feel free to share.

I taking an ethics course while I'm doing an engineering bachelor and we have to do an analysis of a problem with the ethical cycle (idk if that is a normal thing). Everyone in the group has chosen a theory and will apply it to the options for action. Which is in very reductive terms: 1. Government helps the poort people to join by paying for them, 2. Everyone pays the same but government helps a little bit, 3. Government does nothing.

I wanted something that was closer related to the actual problem (The problem is a collective heating grid that needs to include as many people as possible).

One of my colleagues chose Marxism as a moral theory, thus I thought that it would may be a good idea to analyse the problem with a sort of opposite moral theory as that to Marx. I found that Libertarianism is the closest to that requirement. But after looking into Libertarianism I do not know if it is considered as a moral philosophy besides being a political philosophy.

I am sorry if this made no sense what so ever but I am totally new to philosophy and after reading a little bit more about some theories. I am interested in learning more about this kind of stuff.

I started reading philosophy due to being tired of being stupid and also due to having a moral crisis. However, no matter how much I read (worked my way from Plato to Kant) I don't really understand much and am only forcing my way through everything. There is no inherent motivation from me, except to find some kind of meaning, I suppose.

Are there any good arguments that you should make yourself study/read philosophy even if you don't want to? Because the alternative seems to be to willingly remain ignorant, which seems morally wrong.

I am most likely missing the intuition needed to understand the p-zombies argument but this how I see that the possibilty of p-zombies begs the question.

To claim that it is possible for there to exist a philosophical zombie is just to claim that neurophysiological states are not identical to mental states. In other words, it is just to claim that physicalism is false. But that’s the very conclusion that the zombie argument seeks to establish. You cannot argue from the possibility of zombies to the falsity of physicalism because the possibility of zombies assumes the falsity of physicalism. This is because if physicalism is true, then it is simply impossible for there to be zombies. One can only believe that a zombie is possible, then, if one is already committed to the claim that the mind is not identical to the brain.Thus, the argument against physicalism is circular.

If it is possible for there to be a being that has every single molecule and atom in its brain entirely the same as you yet lacks consciousness, it seems from the outset that we claim that physical states are not identical to mental states which we are trying to conclude in the first place.
Therefore, If one begins with the intuition that physical states can exist without consciousness, one has already denied the core claim of physicalism.

I still think my logic is shaky,can someone help me understand why this isn’t question-begging?

I am not talking about internal monologue here, I mean that when we are thinking in concepts or realise something, its usually without a language, we "know" it. So, could this mean that these thoughts/concept of realisation is a language native to consciousness and cognition?

For example, when you see a red apple, you "realise/know" that it's an apple and its red. You don't think this in words of a language, you just "know/realise" this, and it is a transfer of information without use of a language.

?

Logical consistency is the foundation of crafting theories and one can craft infinite theories that may or may not be testable.

For example is logical possibility itself a valid response to pessimism about God ? I.e it's not logically impossible for God to exist and it's also not logically impossible for there to be new evidence that overturns what we think about the universe being godless.

My question is:

Should time as a concept be considered when it comes to the ship(s) of theseus?

First , an explanation of SoT: a ship is built, and over time, parts get replaced until nothing "original" remains of said ship. Is it still the same ship? If the "original" parts are put together to make a ship. Which of the two if either or both is the "real/original" ship?

I have come to the conclusion that it is not these two, but a third that is the ship of theseus: the one stated at the start of the exercise.

Please let me explain, of the two possibilities given, one has changed physically, and both have moved forward in time chronologically And have both, therefore, changed in some way Making neither THE ship of theseus. So I propose this; THE ship of theseus is the one stated at the start one seen only in a single moment of time for after it moves through time and as a result is changed and different (even if by just a little).

My whole thought process here hinges on time.

Then comes my question : Is time supposed to even matter? If not, why?

(My apologies if this just sounds like some insane tism rant it is 12:30 am, and I've been watching/listening to a lot of Neil Degrasse Tyson)

typo error: agrees -> agree

and by someone, i mean a known philosopher

i’m an undergrad and my teacher tasked us to write a philosophical paper that must either agree or disagree with something. any topic we want. writing isn’t my forte, so i’m having difficulties with approaching the task.

how do i agree with a philosophy and defend it when it’s already been defended by the philosopher who is way more knowledgeable about it than me?

Let’s look at Derrida’s work metaphorically, which is what he would instruct us to do. If Being is a stream an ongoing and transformative movement of process and change, then what is holding the stream? If ideas and representations flow in a way that never leaves the confines of what it discusses then surely there must be structure whether it is tangible or not. I may be misunderstanding Derrida and find he agrees with me, but for me it is hard to break out of this idea that Derrida represents relativism.

I recently read Aristotles Metaphysics Lambda and my question is this: Did he figure anything out in book Lambda that is of use today or is it all outdated? This may sound like a silly question but after reading it, the concepts addressed and discussed seem so profound (and honestly quite beautiful) but also just impossible to reconcile with modern science. I hope this question makes sense and would appreciate any insights.

Hi, this is my first time posting here so i'm sorry if it is a bit clunky but i'll try my best to articulate my thoughts. During these last few months, I've been questioning a lot of the things around me and if they were ever meant to exist as they do today, some of the biggest examples being about modern society (ex: "What is the point of paperwork?" "Who came up with the idea of (x digital process)?" "Why is this (latest social trend) a thing?" "Why/how have we come so far from cavemen times?") and things of the sort, and I've been calling these thoughts existential for a lack of a better word, but i still don't really understand if this is correct.

My questioning doesn't really stem from whether or not XYZ has a meaning beyond earthly level or a divine reasoning or anything of the sort (sorry if it's a messy way to put it, hope it gets the message across well enough), it's more so that i look at some thing/situation/phenomenon and don't really understand why this thing exists, what sense does it make (and if it's something human-made) who decided to keep doing it and so, these things (or most things, actually) end up just sounding very Silly to me. I've done research on existentialism and while i understand that a lot of it DOES deal with some of the things i'm currently feeling/thinking, i'm still not quite sure if what i'm feeling or the thoughts or analysis i'm having fall under the category of existential. I've never been much of a person that is interested in philosophy and things of the sort purely because it doesn't really take place in any of the main things i'm into, but this question has genuinely kept me up for months now and i still can't quite assure that me calling it existential is correct at all. So, if anyone could tell me if these trains of thought are generally regarded as existentialism, or if they fall under another label or a more specific one, i would gladly appreciate it.

(Pre-posting discovery: after refreshing my memory on the meaning of existentialism or existential crises, i may be actually having an existential crisis which is causing all this questioning. But that's neither here nor there, i still wanna know)

I’ve been thinking about it for some time now and I can’t figure it out. Is good and bad a set of universal rules? Even then, theirs no way to measure what is good and is not, right? I usually wouldn’t use reddit for this but I can’t find anything about this anywhere.

In fantasy, magic is some kind of effect that has supernatural cause. We might consider necromancy or fireballs shooting from a wizard's hands to be magical.

But if wizard's fireballs existed in real life, what qualifies them to have a supernatural cause? For whatever makes the fireballs move, does that make it a part of natural phenomena?

Even if we could know for certain the fireballs were supernatural in origin, I'm not sure why they are supposed to be "magic." Some people accept "supernatural" beliefs as part of their religion and ritual behavior, yet nobody is saying angels are magic or reincarnation is a magic spell.

And what about advanced technology? Some magic in fantasy can be replicated by science in real life. Does that mean anything that happens is potentially scientific?

Magic is not real, but even if magic were real, does that mean it isn't magic?

Hey, I’m in my final year of a philosophy BA and this is the title of one of my essays. I’d love some thoughts on this!

Currently, I’m thinking of discussing control versus influence over our beliefs (i.e. direct/indirect doxastic voluntarism) and how this plays a role in our responsibility for beliefs. Then, what makes one morally responsible? What beliefs are immoral to hold? So far I’m thinking of discussing Clifford and James, and the role evidence should play in whether a belief is immoral. Discussing Kant and dignity could be interesting too. I’m also considering a bit of discussion around virtue ethics and our responsibility to be rational?

My rough thesis is along the lines of: we have influence, not direct control, over our beliefs, and hence we are morally responsible for influencing our beliefs in favour of kindness and dignity towards others. Obviously it is far from a fully fleshed out thesis, but that’s the direction I’m going in.

I’m at the stage of essay writing where I have so many ideas but am struggling to put it all together coherently! Any advice, thoughts and further prompts for research would be really appreciated.

Thanks! :)

Say I like bonsai trees. I don't have a bonsai and can't engage in the pleasurable activity of taking care of the plant, but I buy a painting of it to hang it on my wall. In this case I'm reminded of the fact that I don't have the plant and can't water it (so there the absence of pleasure), but the fact is I'm reminded of its absence through that painting, so in this case don't I derive some pleasure from that absence? (Even though we're dealing here with two different representations of the object, and not the same reality of the referent).

Or the situation when we download articles to read later but never do. There is the absence of pleasure of reading but at the same time we feel pleasure that we have the opportunity to delay that pleasure of reading.

Another example - they say Kafka couldn't drink beer due to his illness so he'd ask someone else to drink in his presence paying for his beer.

So what's the boundary here between the displacement of pleasure and its presence/absence? Can an absence of pleasure be equated with the pleasure of absence in some contexts?

Hi, junior in high school here. I’m fairly sure I want to major in philosophy along with something else, but I don’t know what I should have read before actually going to college. I bought a lot of books but so far haven’t finished many of them. The ones I’ve finished include Plato’s republic, the world as will and representation, and the theologico-political treatise but that’s all. I have a lot more to read, but what else should I finish before then? Also should note I haven’t studied any formal logic or anything like that. Don’t really know if professors would like you to have read some things before starting.

With the recent discourse surrounding the assassination of the United Healthcare CEO, I've been seeing a lot of moral/ethical debates, with many people arguing he deserved to die because he implemented this algorithm.

What would some of the dominant schools of ethical philosophy say about this? Does the CEO have greater culpability because he ordered it, or would the dozen or say people developing this algorithm be more at fault IF they were aware of the project's ramifications?

I am an adult but would even like to start at the very most basic level and work my way up.

1. "it is definitely not true that something in the world is neither non vegetarian nor politician"
2. "It is not the case that a being opossum suffices for not being a mamalonary animal."

I can't figure out which one is the subject class in each and which categorical logic form AEIO it is.

Yes, you read the title, I'm currently developing something based off the divine comedy, and I want to know if any of these philosophies can coexist with stuff found in the bible. If not, what changes would I have to make?

I just finished my symbolic logic class and loved it. Unfortunately the advanced symbolic logic course was canceled due to low enrollment. Are there any symbolic logic workbooks out there that are any good? Teaching the concepts is fine, but I’m really looking for a book like for sudoku or crosswords but for symbolic logic. (How many more times can I say symbolic logic in one post lol)

Thanks in advance!

Many people say that determinism and an understanding that people are ultimately a product of factors beyond their control reduces their hatred for others. My question is - why wouldnt the corollary be true? Why wouldn't an understanding that someone is fully caused also diminish the love and positive feelings you have towards them?

Edit: Does determinism logically beget a completely non-judgmental attitude towards others?

Does the human mind help us construct a consciousness-only reality according to Buddhism?

Hi,

In an art critique/history article I was reading for research, the article's author states that "Foucault wrote that what takes place at the edge of empire reveals the nature of the empire." Could anyone help point me to a text written by Foucault where he expresses this idea?

I would really like to cite this for an essay I'm writing from its primary source, rather than this article. The article unfortunately does not feature any citations. I've been skimming texts by and about Foucault for over an hour now looking for the source, but I've had no luck. T_T

Please help me!

PS, if you're interested in the context, it's an article about the Mexican performance artist / activist Lorena Wolffer. It's called "The Body Engraved: Performances and Interventions of Lorena Wolffer", and it's by Deborah Root.
Link here: https://cmagazine.com/articles/the-body-engraved-performances-and-interventions-of-lorena-wolff

So yes, I know the kingdom of ends didn't apply to animals for Kant, but I think in the modern age we have to update Kant's morality to apply to conscious beings rather than simply rational ones. In short, it's wrong to inflict pain and suffering on conscious creatures; we should treat them as ends in of themselves.

That's my starting point, and i'm not really interested in debating it here.

So presupposing that, how does the kingdom of ends apply to neutering my dog? It doesn't seem like my dog would want to be neutered, even if we give great benefits. Lowers libido, risk of cancer, etc. Since if we apply those reasons to humans, we wouldn't wanna get neutered either. If I treat my dog as an end in of himself, should he get neutered?