I am a Christian, but I would like to broaden my horizons, and look into arguments for and against God. Where do I even start? I would love to hear good youtube channels, websites or books to learn more about arguments for and against God.

"conscious control" are the words chosen by Wikipedia to describe the fundamental difference between the somatic and autonomic nervous systems. How is the imputation of "conscious control" philosophically justified for living beings (or physical objects in general)?

I get more depressed/nihilistic the more aware, well-read or learned I become. I am looking for ways to justify ceasing to learn more and to instead remain ignorant. As in, texts that outright say ignorance is good and justifiable, at least for people like me.

Please don't recommend anything to overcome the ignorance, I am explicitly asking for texts to justify ignorance.

Thank you.

I'm interested in virtue ethics from the practical point of view. I'm interested in cultivating certain virtues. Does virtue ethics provide some useful insights regarding this?

Hi, I'm interested in two questions:

1. Could future AI systems be conscious?

2. Presuming that they could, how would we know (i.e., how could we test) that they are conscious?

If anyone knows the key works in which these two questions are considered, I'd hugely appreciate being pointed in the right direction. Thanks.

Hi r/askphilosophy im currently a law student who has dabbled in philosophy and im currently learning stuff about IP Law and Copyright. A lot of authors and a lot of case law have made clear that was copyright protects is not the concrete object that an author creates, but the abstract object which is instnaitated in /represented by the concrete object.

I know the debate on abstract objects and whether you can create them is complex, so I'm just going to assume that some abstract objects exist and that you can create them: my question is: are their theories that say abstract objects are created out of the mind of a person/author, even if they haven't made nay physical instantiation of that abstract object? For example, if I think of an extremely detailed novel and plot in my head, and I've yet to write it down yet, but I have it all worked out in my head, does that create an abstract object of that story? Or will the abstract object only be created once I make some sort of physical object eg: a physical manuscript of the novel?

Just seeing what different answers are out there

What are considered the most popular and reasonable alternatives to expected utility (for utilitarians and similar ethical systems)? What are the biggest problems with expected utility?

I'm reading David Chalmers' book 'Reality+' and in chapter 16 of the book, he explores the question of whether augmented reality extends the mind. He then lays out the basic mind extension hypothesis he and Andy Clark defined in their article 'The Extended Mind'.

In it, a person called Otto has Alzheimer's, and writes down his knowledge on a notebook and Inga has knowledge in the normal way. In short, the article argues that Otto's notebook is an extension of Otto's mind by acting like a memory storage. I can accept this conclusion.

In Reality+, Chalmers says:

The parity principle means that when an external memory plays the right role, it's genuinely part of the mind. To play this role, it has to be effectively glued to us, so it is as constantly and reliably available as biological memory is. And we have to trust the external memory system as we trust our own memory.

So two conditions are required: trust and availability. And later on says:

Say that Ernie and Bert are a long-term couple, and Ernie's biological memory isn't working so well anymore, so he relies on Bert to remember important names and facts. As long as Bert is reliably available and Ernie trusts him, then Bert has become part of Ernie's memory. Ernie's mind has expanded to include Bert.

I can also accept this conclusion, I think. Ernie's knowledge has just been moved from his mind onto someone else's but it is still his knowledge and memory. But consider the following scenario:

I kidnap my physics teacher who is a Nobel prize winner and has a PhD. I kidnap him for the purpose of telling me everything and anything there is to know about physics when someone asks me. I haul him around in a cage for this purpose wherever I go. When someone asks me a physics question, my hostage whispers the answer to my ear and I repeat it out loud verbatim.

I trust my teacher and I've made him available to me. Then I can say he is an extension of my mind.

However, can I then say his knowledge and memories are actually also my knowledge and memories? I am justified in thinking what my highly acclaimed teacher says, it is genuinely my belief that what he says is true, and what my teacher says is true.

So I have justified true belief about everything about physics, therefore I know everything about physics.

That doesn't seem right to me. Perhaps something extra is needed, like intention? Like, the memory or knowledge needs to be generated by you and not someone else, only then can memories and knowledge stored elsewhere actually be yours. I feel like I'm missing something but I can't wrap my head around it.

Hi, everyone. After spending some years reflecting about my life, reading various books (primarily psychological) and informing myself on various philosophies, I'm now kind of sure about which fields of philosophy really deeply interest me. Or, maybe I should say, which topics, because I'm a layman and don't know if what I'm talking about can be considered fields.

1. What is the true nature of reality? Is there some purpose inherent to life, the universe? Is the true essence of reality and experience there to be found or is there nothing that could satisfy us? Are physical laws and naturalism the only reliable ways of understanding the world or not? Does the world, and the universe at large, follow some kind of order and purpose or is everything just random?
2. Given the answer to 1), what is then that should we do? Which philosophical view aligns with our place in the universe, how to live life, what's the meaningful life all about - if you can even have that - and how should one in general conduce him/herself amidst all this? Should we resign to fate or natural laws? Give life purpose ourselves? Abide by a code or something else, like a pragmatic outlook? Is there a better framework to navigate life and decisions? And how, if possible, feel content about oneself? Or is there no hope at all?

Hope I was clear enough and not too fuzzy or chaotic. I must say, maybe also given my background in maths, probability, statistics and economics, that I'm much more intersted in views that are supported by science, reason, logic and empirical evidence. This also extends to findings in health sciences and psychology as to what makes human feel good or not. So, I want a basis for understanding the world coherently and then formulate a good formula or framework to navigate it. You can obviously suggest some books or authors do delve into.

Thanks to anybody that can help.

Sorry if this isn't the right place for such a question. Found it on twitter and tried to search it with no hope.

https://imgur.com/a/iTwg8IC

I'm new to philosophy and I know that most philosophers do study a vast variety of philosophies and time periods and what not but whenever I talk to them they only ever mention one. Is that like the only one they sort of live by? Or is it the most accurate to their own thoughts and opinions? Or maybe just the one they have spent the longest studying and are the most knowledgeable about? I don't know buy to me it makes morse sense to follow multiple schools of thought because they might be better for certain moments and some things ar a bit outdated but can still be relevant in some places? I think? I don't know. And also how do you chose one? Do you like write them all down and pick one out of a hat? I know there are like reading guides and stuff that are supposedly great for getting started and I've been using that to begin my philosophical learning but like even before I started reading and studying philosophy I already knew sort of what philosophers I was interested in and they are the reason I am studying now but they are different philosophies and schools of thought and I'm confused, like do I have to pick one? That seems dumb and counterproductive... like isn't philosophy just thinking so do you create your own kind of philosophy by combining elements from other philosophers with your thoughts and opinions to create your perfect fit? I think I've somehow simultaneously answered my questions and further confused myself... please help

''If reason is only to serve the same purpose as instinct does in animals, possessing reason does not elevate human beings above mere animality in value at all."
-Immanuel Kant

Are there any philosophers that deal with recognition of states like Taiwan? Mainly curious beca. use a lot of discourse revolves around the geopolitical impacts of recognition, but I've never heard anything about moral implications.

Can we ever truly know objective reality, or is all knowledge inevitably shaped by subjective perception and language? If so, how can we bridge the gap between individual experiences and universal truths, and can metaphors or symbols effectively convey the ineffable aspects of consciousness and reality?

I understand the intuition behind explanatory power being a theoretical virtue and some kind of rough measure for probability, but is there any substantive argument for it actually being one? A way I might be able to see it is like this: when we're coming up with theories of the world, we want these theories to be as probably accurate as can be. We observe that in other parts of the world, phenomena tend to have coherent explanations behind them, so this gives us an inductive case for accurate theories of the world to have coherent explanations for the given phenomenon. Is this reason correct? If not, what is the reason behind explanatory power being probability raising, if at all?

I'm a double major in philosophy and something else (the latter of which is both significantly easier and more "practical", at least in the normative sense). My focus is in analytic work specifically in formal epistemology and philosophy of mind. I'm almost done with both majors but am faced with a dilemma. Do I power through the philosophy major at the expense of some fractions of a GPA or drop it entirely.

On the one hand, I really enjoy what I do and am decent at it. The problem is that the philosophy department is not only one of the harshest graders in the college (based on publicly available data tables) but also quite difficult compared to other schools. For example, I look at other philosophy departments around the country and the corses are stuff like "philosophy of video games" or "philosophy of activism" where the syllabus is basically just a couple sociology papers and New York Times articles. Meanwhile, I'm spending hours formalizing arguments and dissecting dense epistemology papers all while getting penalized a letter grade for every step I don't justify.

Basically, I love what I do but I feel like I'm holding myself to an arbitrarily higher standard and probably hurting my chances for law school. Still, I feel like it's a trial by fire that really prepares me well for life. At the risk of sounding like a complete snob, I've gotten an A on almost every single non-philosophy paper I've written since becoming a philosophy major. I'm assuming this might carry over to law school? Will there be any advantage besides intrinsic enjoyment? Thoughts?

Let's imagine a mugging.

1. Suppose Alice points a gun at Bob, and demands that Bob hands over some money.
2. Bob is being coerced.
3. Suppose that Bob does hand over some money to Alice.
4. And further suppose that Bobs only reason for doing so is that he wanted to preserve his own life.

If we believe in a concept such as 'free will', then it seems intutive to say that Bob did not act of his own free will.

However, what if Bob had acted different to what I described in #3, or had different motivations than in #4? e.g. what if Bob:

• due to some strong principles, refused to hand over the money, despite the risks
• due to extreme charity, handed over money because he took pity on Alice for being so desperate
• due to suicidality, refused to hand over the money in the hopes of being killed
• due to a cunning disposition, tried to lie and say he had no cash on him, to try to keep both his money and his life

These do seem like an excercise of 'free will'.

Now, in some merely vibes-based sense, I must have some vague idea of how 4 alternative scenarios differ from the initial scenario, because I bothered to ask the question.
However, is there some more detailed analysis of this sort of difference?
e.g. are there any arguments about the degree or the kind of interference with free will that difference scenarios present, and tries to dig into these sorts of difference?

i’m a student in high school right now. I really like learning philosophy so far and only have been actively learning it for a few months now but i love the ideas in it a lot. I want to study philosophy in college but i don’t know if there’s any jobs that i could actually use that in and my parents say it’s useless. should i do it?

Hello, can someone remind me of someone named pichoke or pikoke (I can t decide the rught spelling, but sounds pikoke) who was a comtemporary to Locke or his teacher? Thanks

Hello All,

I'm sure this topic has been done to death, not just on this subreddit, but in philosophical discussions literally throughout history, but I had a more specific question and was hoping to receive some insight/education. My googling and consultation of some general discussions of the problem of evil haven't really answered what I feel is my biggest sticking point:

If God is, in any sense, a creator, and the laws of physics/reality seem likely to proceed naturally from fundamentally logical/rational principles, wouldn't he necessarily be the author of logic? If that's the case, he could have created a world without the (contested) logical necessity for the possibility of evil in a world with free will.

I have seen it said that this argument, or more literate compositions thereof, have been rejected by a majority of philosophers as a challenge to theism. Often I've seen it compared to the sophomoric "can God create a stone heavier than he can lift" challenge, but I don't really see how it is in the same realm. It seems like this challenge comes to the roots of a God as a creator and the level of deterministic control he has over the reality that is allegedly his work.

What I have seen posited is that God is not the author of logic - he is the epitome of logic itself. He cannot be illogical in the same way he cannot be maleficent, definitionally. But if that's the case, doesn't the concept of God become so neutered that you essentially create an unthinking automaton of "being"? In what way is that entity capable of being consciously efficacious on the universe in a any meaningful way? If he's just a function of his nature in the same way anything else is in a deterministic universe? Wouldn't the need for an "uncaused cause" be moot at that point? Just assign the infinite logicality of the deity to the universe itself, and....boom. No need for a deity.

I'm sure I've made numerous mistakes in my evaluation of this concept, but I would appreciate anyone pointing those mistakes out and helping me see why these challenges aren't philosophically robust.

Thank you!

There was a hypothetical prisoner's dilemma style question I saw that said "Everyone pushes either the yellow button or the purple button. If the majority of people choose yellow, then everyone survives, but if the majority push the purple button then only those who push the purple button survive"

Obviously the scenario proposed is flawed from what they were attempting since what it seems like is most practical is push purple since you'll always live.

But it seems like the two options are "Guarantee you survive" by choosing purple or "guarantee you are not the reason someone else dies" by choosing yellow. Would a deontologist choose yellow because they don't want to be the reason that someone who was dumb enough to choose yellow died?

A lot of Kant's philosophy is key to engage with contemporary philosophy. Yet, I'm wondering: Is Kant's philosophy of space and time still enjoys acceptance for contemporary philosophy of space and time? Or rather is it mostly only of historical value?

Kant had huge contributions on these topics. Yet, he grounded on Newtonian physics, for one. On top of that, a lot of his key themes, such as his philosophy of geometry and its relation to space, had been hugely rejected, which makes its importance -imo- largely for historical, rather than analytical, value.

the way I understand it, there seems to be a few ways to construe the hard problem of consciousness…

the hard problem of consciousness is the (scientific?) project of trying to explain / answer...

why is there phenomenal consciousness?

why do we have qualia / why are we phenomenally conscious?

why is a certain physical process phenomenally conscious?

why is it the case that when certain physical processes occur then phenomenal consciousness also occurs?

how or why does a physical basis give rise to phenomenal consciousness?

These are just asking explanation-seeking why questions, which is essentially the project of science with regard to the natural, observable world.

But do any one of those questions actually constitute the problem and the hardness of that problem? or does the problem more so have to do with the difficulty or impossibility, even, of answering these sorts of questions?

Specifically, is the hard problem?...

the difficulty in explaining / answering any of the above questions.

the impossibility of explaining any of the above questions given lack of a priori entailment between physical facts and phenomenal facts (or between statements about those facts).

Could we just say the hard problem is the difficulty or impossibility of explaining / answering either one or a combination of the following:

why we are phenomenally conscious

why there is phenomenal consciousness

why phenomenal consciousness has (or certain phenomenal facts have) such and such relation (correlation, causal relation, merely being accompanied by certain physical facts, etc) with such and such physical fact

And then my understanding is that the version that says that it’s merely difficult is the weaker version of the hard problem. and the version that says that it’s not only difficult but impossible is the stronger version of the hard problem.

is this correct?

with this last one, the impossibility of explaining how or why a physical basis gives rise to phenomenal consciousness given lack of a priori entailment, i understand to be saying that the issue is not that it’s difficult to explain how qualia arises from the physical, but that we just haven’t been able to figure it out yet, it’s that it’s impossible in principle: we cannot in any logically valid way derive conclusions / statements like “(therefore) there is phenomenal consciousness” or “(therefore) phenomenal consciousness has such and such relation (correlation, causal relation, merely being accompanied by certain physical facts, etc) with such and such physical fact” from statements that merely describe some physical event.

is this a correct way of framing the issue or is there something i’m missing?

I understand that Adam Smith considered himself a philosopher, but that he is remembered as an economist. Furthermore I've been taught that most economic theories are merely abstract conceptions derived from ideal premises that we can at best hope will hold in reality. So where is the line between aconomics and philosophy? When does one stop doing the latter and start doing the former?

I have the same question regarding logic and math.

I’m supportive of Gay marriage and sex, because that’s love and it doesn’t hurt anyone and i think not being able to have a kid doesn’t make it bad, because many straight couples don’t have kids anyway. The main point on why it’s bad is because an incest child is deformed and that’s immoral. But if they never have a kid from sex, then why is it inherently bad exactly?(fyi I dont support incest or sibling relashionships)

I understand that compatibilism is the view that free will is compatible with causal determinism. Even if we are causally determined, we can still be morally responsible. We do not need alternative possibilities to be free in the relevant way. Being able to act in alignment with one's desires without coercion is what is important.

I have looked at other threads, SEP, etc. For some reason I think I'm not getting something.

My question stems from a strange observation: to have an experience, in other words, to experience something, there must be something to be experienced that is not the same thing as the one experiencing, otherwise there would be nothing to experience. It comes to my attention that then, every experience seems to REQUIRE a degree of limitation, of incompleteness - otherwise, there would be nothing to experience.

Am I wrong? Can I extrapolate to observe that then, no matter what profound, "evolved", etc. experience you have, as powerful as it may be, is a direct manifestation of that incompletude? And that, by definition, you could never "experience" or "become" complete, because the act of experiencing something, all encompassing as it may be, already limits your perspective?

In pantheist belief, the whole universe is one god. Does this leave no room for separate souls with individual spirits ? It is often thought that pantheism contradicts with the idea of free will, but what logic could potentially constitute its existence, if any ? Are there any other ways that one can have an individual, special essence without the idea of free will ?

Hello! I have been reading Marx again, and I have another question!

Is Marx's historical materialism meant to be interpreted as path-dependent or not?

For example, let's consider two cultures: culture A, shaped by material conditions A', and culture B shaped by material conditions B', with the material conditions A' and B' being distinct from one another. Now, suppose both of these cultures A and B are exposed to a new set of material conditions, C'.

Would Marx expect A and B to converge onto a singular culture C shaped entirely by material conditions C'?

Or would Marx expect a path-dependent response, where cultures A and B evolve into cultures AC and BC respectively, where AC and BC are both deeply impacted by C', but remain distinct from one another by reflecting the unique, culturally immanent, and path-dependent legacies of cultures A and B.

I apologize if my abstract formulation oversimplifies things, but I hope my question comes through clearly. As always, thank you in advance for your insights!

any idea ?