There’s no such thing as a stupid question, because that’s preying on innocence and a lack of awareness.

But, the “I discovered (x), now debate it in front of me” framework is utterly ridiculous.

There is so much info available in books, on the internet, and through search engines it’s not funny. Go ask AI your questions if you want different versions of the same thing. Come here to get the difficult questions answered, or to be pointed in the right direction. Redditors are stacking firewood, pouring gasoline on top, and flicking matches to spark conversation.

This page should focus on pointed questions and put restrictions on unmitigated debate because philosophy is as moralistic and ethically-bound as any topic. We need facts, evidence, expert knowledge, and “where to go from here-type” resources. This should not be a contemporary political debate-fest. I think asking for people’s political opinions, instead of establishing your own is like paying an accountant to do your taxes for you instead of learning how to do them yourself.

I keep seeing these great topics, but no actual questions. Or, “here is all this research or writing I’ve compiled, (now do the heavy lifting for me).” Or, ”tell me what to think.” That’s not the point and I don’t know how to respond to half the content on this page.

It sounds like university/college students are in the middle of final exams!

“Now, debate!” 🫵

I used to think we were divided because we disagreed with each other. The left and the right have very different ideas about morality and how to best govern. I thought politics and all this fighting was our way of figuring out which side's ideas work the best.

But if one side really did have all the best ideas, why aren't they winning every election? Why do democracies around the world have exactly two sides, that have been stuck in a never-ending tie? Why do the parties in continuously trade sides on key issues every few decades?

When you zoom out, it stops looking like we're fighting over the ideas.

I kept pulling the threads and wrote this essay about what really divides us. "yes, and" me, ask questions, tear it down. Just curious to hear what others think

https://todayscommonsense.substack.com/p/part-1-explaining-our-divisions-with-pizza

​

Some quotes from Giovanni Gentile’s “What is Fascism: Discourses and Polemics”:

“Seeing that, in part, fascism is liberalism: at least the liberalism of men who sincerely believed in freedom, and had however an austere concept of it... liberalism, as I understand it and as the men of the glorious Right of the Risorgimento understood it, the liberalism of freedom in the laws and consequently in the strong State and in the State conceived of as an ethical reality.”

And: “Fascism is a form of socialism, in fact, it is its most viable form”

And: “It is well known that Sorellian syndicalism, out of which the thought and the political method of Fascism emerged-conceived itself the genuine interpretation of Marxist communism. The dynamic conception of history, in which force as violence functions as an essential, is of unquestioned Marxist origin.”

Now, go Reddit, go! Show me the depths of your intellectual depravity, resentment, and anger! … Or you can discuss politely 😂 whatever you see fit!

Hi bros!
I want to learn everything in political philosophy, just the eras and philosopher's works. I am REALLY interested in politics. Where should I start from.. plus how much time will this take? any YT channels?
(i have made a list of philosophical theories but they are just scattered all over my page, not knowing what came first)

My blog post on Ian Buruma's Spinoza: Freedom's Messiah:

​

https://www.theraggedwood.com/post/a-thinking-stone

'The paradox of tolerance states that if a society's practice of tolerance is inclusive of the intolerant, intolerance will ultimately dominate, eliminating the tolerant and the practice of tolerance with them.'

Are there any common objections to this on ideological or empirical grounds?

Thank you

To be clear, I am referring to "left-wing" and "right-wing" in an American/Western context.

When it comes to historiographies of most revolutions - e.g., the French Revolution, the Russian Revolution, etc; - people who are aligned with the political left tend to hold said revolutions as positive events and extoll their apparent virtues, while those on the political right tend to hold the revolutions in a negative light and lament social, political, and economic changes and bloodshed resulting from them. This is especially the case within countries where a particular revolution occurred - for example, the French left portray the French Revolution in a very positive light, while those on the French right portray it negatively. But even internationally, those on the left tend to hold the revolutions as positive and those on the right as negative; for example, outside France, those on the left are more likely to praise the French Revolution, while those on the right are more likely to criticize it.

However, in the case of the American Revolution, if anything, the reverse is the case. Within American political contexts, it those on the right almost unanimously hold the revolution in a positive light and tend to praise the social, political, and economic changes which it brought about, and are much more likely to praise the revolutionaries as heroes. Meanwhile, those on the left are much more divided in their positions regarding the revolution and, on the whole, are much more likely to criticize the revolution and the revolutionaries and lament the societal changes which the revolution brought about. Those on the left are far more likely to say the revolution was bad/unnecessary and say they wish it failed and much more likely to portray the revolutionaries as villains.

And this seems to be the case internationally as well - those aligned with the left are much more likely to condemn the American Revolution - or at least be critical of it - while those aligned with the right are more likely to praise it. The one exception to this I can think of are “old-fashioned/posh“ traditional right-wing niche-types in Commonwealth countries (especially if they are monarchists); they are more likely to be critical of the revolution than approving of it, for obvious reasons. Otherwise, internationally, the left seems to regard the revolution more negatively and the right regards it positively.

So, why in the case of the American Revolution are the right more likely to praise it and the left more likely to criticize it when the reverse is the case for most other revolutions?

I’ve posted about this on the political science sub Reddit and I was told I could find better answers on here so I’m giving it a shot, I’m a first year political science student and we’ve been assigned debates and unfortunately, I’ve been assigned to debate against healthcare being a human right and I’m struggling to argue for this topic in a way that’s ethical and it’s impossible to find sources that can back me up and help me out with counter arguments!! Any suggestions or words of encouragement are appreciated because this is driving me insane lol

Free Will, Social Darwinism, and the Empathy Deficit

Perhaps no human idea is more primitive or pervasive than the idea that people are the genuine authors of their thoughts, sources of their actions, and that free will is as real as it seems to be apparent. While this notion, or Philosophical libertarianism, can be reinforced through social conditioning, it's mainly the byproduct of an evolutionarily necessary sense of agency. The will for anything requires an illusion of purpose.

Empirically, the legitamacy of the libertarian claim is in a state of decay. An expanding collection of neurophysiological evidence demonstrates free will as nothing more than an illusion, albeit a powerful one.

The moral implication of belief in free will however, cannot be directly attributed to the degree to which one proclaims its existence, but to how thoroughly the notion influences their evaluation of an outside behavior- a prerequisite for empathy, or lack thereof.

In nature, one can rarely help but prioritize themself, their mate, and their offspring above others, followed by family, friends, and progressively distant social formations. Unfortunately, this spectrum of tribesmanship seems to naturally extend to ethnic, cultural, geographical, and financial backgrounds. The political beliefs held by any individual are heavily predicated upon the diameter of these diminishing circles of concern. With this in mind, empathy can be defined as the subconscious capacity to reconcile another being's circumstance with a nebulous chain of causality.

It is of no coincidence that this philosophical concept of libertarianism shares a name with its political counterpart. Etymologically, libertarian, or liberty, simply means freedom. The freedom to fulfill one's potential. The freedom to prosper at the expense of the less fortunate. The freedom to disregard the well-being of those deemed "unworthy." Opportunity. Capitalism. Despotism.

To act without a reason would require thinking of something truly random, which would require thinking without thinking. Nobody gets what they deserve, they receive what their genes and surroundings supply. The recognition of one's lack of control over the variables which separate their own experiences from those of others allows for the exercise of both cognitive and emotional empathy.

In a deterministic reality, the concepts of punishment and reward are obsolete absent a societal deterrence and incentive. It only requires putting oneself in the shoes of one of the innocent four percent of American death row inmates to witness the barbarism of capitol punishment.

Any era characterized by high levels of despotism has certainly had no shortage of empathetically deficient leaders. It comes as a surprise to many that "survival of the fittest" was a phrase coined not by Charles Darwin, but by Victorian anthropologist Herbert Spencer as an economically royalistic justification for the wealth inequality of the Guilded Age. While this phrase couldn't be any more applicable to natural selection, in regards to the implementation of policy which dictates the well-being of a populace, it is completely optional.

Refer to this picture for the spectrum.

I understand this equilibrium is a function of its specific time and place in history, so let's just say within this techonological era.

I was recently thinking about all the 'unifications' and 'secessions/revolutions' through history and why we celebrate some of them yet condemn others.

The unifications that seem to celebrated are the ones that unify based on shared ethnic/social backgrounds, languages, and cultures (which itself may be a function of ethnic/social history), e.g. Qin dynasty China, Germany 1871, American Civil War, etc. The secessions/revolts we seem to celebrate are the ones where the state split along a polarization that existed within those factors, with mostly colonized/puppeted states, e.g. American Revolution, 1990s Eastern Europe, Haitian Revolution, etc.

My kneejerk thought is that an 'ideal' world (one with minimal war/conflict) would be one where the granularity of sovereign powers was split along these factors - yet this very separation can also be viewed as 'global segregation by ethnicity', which may itself just open an entire new frontier of international conflict. So perhaps some federation-like structure is needed to regulate this conflict? Just thinking on the fly here.

What are your thoughts?

I'm reading a book on Ronald Dworkin's philosophy on justice and Egalitarianism. I see it at its best as an old philosophy, and not much different from social democracy which has already failed, I consider myself a leftist. Still, I didn't find much of a philosophical left critique to his philosophy, so, is there any critical philosophy thought that works as a left-leaning rebuttal for Dworkin's justice philosophy?

The West relies far more on coercive propaganda than anyone else, because their needs for propaganda are higher. Propaganda exists to sell a story. The West's "story" is that they are innocent, benign actors who always follow the rules and respect the law when engaging with other countries.

If Russia was engaging in Mexico, this would be universally denounced by the West, because Russia should not mess around in the West's neighborhood. But if NATO is active in Russia's neighborhood, this is fine, because the West only has good intentions.

If Russia spends any money to influence Western political campaigns, this is always wrong. If the US spends billions on influencing other countries' politics via NGO's, this is fine, because the West is simply trying to promote good democratic values.

Nobody is nearly as ambitious as the West when it comes to propaganda. There is no lie so big that the West cannot sell it: they can simultaneously do the most to undermine the global "rules based order" while claiming to be its greatest champion. They can invade a country based on a lie, kill a million people, and then - when the lie becomes inconvenient - pretend that the invasion was about something else entirely.

Nobody else is even close to being so audacious with their propaganda.

The Nazis had been experts on propaganda, but even they had limits. They concealed their genocidal activities, and pretended that people were being "resettled to the East". When the Nazis liquidated the Warsaw Ghetto, they didn't pretend it was anything but a wholesale slaughter.

It's quite astounding. Humanity has always been plagued with evil people in positions on f power, but we've never been confronted with such a diabolical cabal - who could steal food off your plate while simultaneously telling you that you're better off, and any shortages are due to somebody on the other side of the world

Hello, I am wondering if in Plato's 'The Republic' books and chapters are the same thing as I can not find any indicators for when a chapter starts/ ends. Might it be the pdf I am reading from?

I don't know exactly if this is the right community to post about this, but considering it is a political thread, I thought some people could identify and maybe give me advice.

I studied international relations, and I love my career, I love to read about political philosophy, international theories, international political economy, international security, and so on. Nevertheless, I've been finding it hard and hard to being able to read about what is happening right now in the world. The amount of violence, hatred, and misinformation is becoming overwhelming, and I'm starting to hate reading and even discussing actual politics.

I don't know if someone is having some similar experience, but how can I cope with this, I know this is my passion, but is becoming extremely overwhelming reading any news.

Deconstructing Populism: Messiah, Identity, and Prejudice
Abstract: The common thread between recent populist movements in Latin America and The United States is its origins in the backlash against neoliberal free-market politics and globalization. The differences in the particular populist messaging and tactics (symbolic messaging) occurred because each movement was reacting to different aspects of neoliberal economic policy. The platform of the populist is almost a religious agenda. In the sense that they call on one exceptional person to independently fix the political system. Very much like the platform of a Messiah than a “politician”. This article will attempt to understand the left versus right divide within a populist nation that suffers differently from the perceived threats of neoliberalism. This variable interacts with the individual historical, social, and political circumstances of each country to determine specific characteristics associated with each populist movement.
Populism and the “Messiah”
Messiah, “In Judaism, the expected king of the Davidic line who would deliver Isreal from foreign bondage and restore the glories of its golden age” (Brittanica 2024)
The Probelm with Populism
The major issue with most populist movements is their predisposition to “biting off more than they can chew”. Making bold and unrealistic political promises toward whom the populist claims represent the “Voice of the People” (very important because the populists discredit anything opposed to their narratives). Thus claim to represent 100% of the people. The positions of the populists are quite paradoxical. They argue even if you do not support me (you are unaware you support me). It is me who represents your interest and has your back, you are/could be simply unaware. This has a detrimental effect on political “discourse” overall. This is a problem with populism, it is the political equivalent of when a child protesting to his/her mother that he has not been given enough candy after dinner. (This is hyperbole, but only a small bit!). They cry and scream about what they believe is a clearly visible “wrong” the mother has done to the child through this cruel deprivation. This is the “curse” of populism, the goals of these populist movements seem to be inherently based on short-term growth instead of longer-term planning. (Due to the nature of electoral politics and human psychology). It is the Mother of the child who knows better than to not give too much candy for the health of the child, given her world experience and superior knowledge. The child couldn’t possibly understand this abstract concept of “long-term” health. They are using a baser set of instincts, like a wild animal that eats itself to death when left alone at the house (or a teenager playing HALO games to death). The child yearned for the dopamine rush of just a little more candy with no knowledge of the inevitable outcome of these policies (possibly a stomach ache maybe some weight gain). The child, however, is of course ignorant of this
Populism is characterized by a total rejection of a pluralistic political system. This seems to be the growing attitude among people internationally who believe that the government is too corrupt to fix. Political cynicism seems to be more prevalent than ever. This is where we get these “shake-up” candidates like Trump. He, of course, has his core constituency of Republican voters. Who will defend him relentlessly even after countless scandals and controversies that would end most politicians' careers? Just a few include his total lack of respect toward the military, with his comments about the POW (Prisoner of War) survivor, John McCain. The bragging about sexual assault, the “hush” money paid to a pornstar.
This is the paradox of the Trump movement,
Cited Report of the growing trend of populism is because of this underlying attitude of political cynicism)
Latin America has had a long history of left-wing populist political candidates and parties. “Literature on the subject has identified three populist waves in the region: classical populism (1930-1950), characterized by a strong, charismatic leader and working-class mobilization; neopopulism in the 1990s, which saw a paradoxical alliance between populism, linked with the appearance of a radical left” (Campos-Herrera; Umpierrez de Reguero 2018). After the long period of leftism in Latin America called the pink tide the conservative wave is beginning to be seen for example in Argentina with Javier Meilel. He describes himself as an “anarcho-capitalist” Libertarian who “thinks Marxism is a plot to destroy the family” and suggests the possibility that people should be able to sell their organs”(NBC News, 2023). Before Javier, Argentina was governed by Alberto Fernandes like many Latin American governments at the time with left or left-of-center governments. According to Monica De Santiago (N.d), characteristics of these kinds of governments include a rejection of institutional or electoral means of gaining power for armed resistance. And a rejection of social justice rhetoric instead opting for arguments of class struggle. Along with strong opposition to privatization “but at the same time adoption of conciliatory attitudes towards a market economy” (Santiago).
In the United States, the first big populist political party was called the People’s Party during the late 19th century. Joseph Lowndes (2017) writes “Populism in the United States today retains the features and contradictions of the late nineteenth-century movement which gave the term its name- the broad coalition of farmers and workers who came together in a variety of political and economic formations”. This develops into two of the most influential populist leaders of today in Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders. Trump’s platform being that America is being “ripped” off in major trade deals like NAFTA and being cheated in other ways like with Chinese stealing the intellectual property of Americans. A defining characteristic of Trump’s political messaging is the idea of being physically invaded by immigrants, particularly Mexicans but also from all over Latin America. Trump’s immigration rhetoric relies on dehumanization and stereotypes of Latin people; Tump infamously calls migrants, “rapists” and “drug dealers”. The Trump messaging is about “invasion” at every front like our government, immigrants, trade deals, etc. In an interview with a right-wing news site in October of 2023, Trump said that undocumented immigrants were “poisoning the blood of our country”. Echoing back to the Nazi’s arguments of Jewish people
The bashful and loud nature of the Trump campaign (2016, 2020) makes the populist identity very clear through the “outsider” rhetoric and the clear divisions he makes of us vs. them. This, however, can not be said of all political campaigns given the difficulty of defining populism. Many of the characteristics commonly associated with populism include a rigid us vs. them or the elite divide, an “outsider” perspective to fix “broken and corrupt” government and politicians, and championing the cause of the “ordinary” or “common people”, with a charismatic leader. A strong man figure is more common in Latin America. The problem with these traits is that there are many campaigns with one or more of these features that we would not call populism. The nature of political activity itself makes the incentives for “populist characteristics” irresistible. By this, I mean electoral politics mixed with human physiological factors that love simple answers to complex problems and susceptibility to us vs. them narratives means an inclination toward “populist characteristics” in politics. Again, this does not mean that most or every political movement is a populist one. There has to be a “populism gradient” to measure how populist a particular candidate may be, with having more characteristics meaning more populism. Populism cannot be explained in binary terms. Populism is still one of the most hotly debated subjects within the Political Science realm. Among other difficult-to-define words nationalism and extremism/radicalism. Despite these inherent difficulties of subjectivity present within the literature on these subjects. They are among the most relevant and timely issues within Political Science. Do not allow apparent contradictions among the popular scholarship on these topics to discredit them entirely. Rather we must embrace the imprecision and subjectivity within the scholarship. This means accepting the limitations of the sciences to give us anything like an “absolute truth” claim.
Measuring Populism
There are many similarities in the characteristics of the populist movements that pop up in Latin America and the United States and the problems associated with it. In an article by Juan Grigera (2017), he articulates what seems to be the essential problem associated with populism which is instability. He writes, “One can regard the populist state as weak or ‘in a constant fluid state, given that it must negotiate between… rhetoric and socio-economic realities” (Grigera 2017, 452). He even adds what he views to be the reason for the differences between the degree of radicalism in populism, particularly in Latin America. The reason for the difference is the “depth of the crisis”, or the extent and seriousness of the crisis in society that is motivating the support of the populist.

after an initial reading of hobbes' leviathan, I am intrigued by his baseline assumption that what pushes mankind to move past the state of nature is the underlying assumption that peace is the best means of self-preservation. this assumption holds in liberal western secular societies but not necessarily in those societies that view life on earth as a means to better their next life (reincarnation or life after death etc). for those groups, particularly those that value martyrdom in defense of their morals over pluralism and/or liberalism, peace is not necessarily the best means of self-preservation, as it may corrupt their next life or their subsistence in heaven. curious to know if anyone has encountered writing or serious theses on this tension (whether in the form of a critique on hobbes philosophies derived based on this assumption or a separate independent writing that happens to touch on this issue) that i can explore. thanks!

Hey all,

I wanted to give writing about political philosophy a stab, so I turned to Medium and wrote a quick article about Plato's Phaedrus. I'm not saying its revolutionary, or even that it's good, but I was wondering if anyone would like to read it and give me some advice?

Again, it's my first try, so please be nice. 'm aware it's far from great. Just trying to get good at something new that I'm interested in!

https://medium.com/@qkjbfdw/what-platos-phaedrus-can-teach-us-about-the-modern-politician-157819106c16

Does anyone know where approximately in On Liberty that Mill defines harm? The top Google result says he defines it as ‘something that would injure the rights of someone else or set back important interests that benefit others’ but this is obviously not verbatim and has no citation.

Thank you!

I would like to know if it is right to consider as extremism ideologies:

​

QAnon

Jihad as Holy War

Postmodernism

Fascism

Communism

Am I wrong?

Hello. My teacher is making us write an essay on the natural prince and new prince Machiavelli talks about. But I'm struggling. We are only allowed to us the book but I'm struggling to understand it. One of the questions we have to answer is Which two kinds of princes is the superior one for the state? And I'm really struggling with this question.

This is for my thesis. I want to do something that would really contribute the world that i live in. Although Idk who is going to read a phd thesis done by a nobody. But I would still like to study this. The literature could be from anywhere around the world (not region specific).

Heidegger concepts of being , Dasein , and the essence of existence itself. In this Podcast i explain how Heidegger challenges traditional notions of being, revealing the inseparable relationship between objects and human consciousness. From the mode of being as subsistence to the concept of 'readily available Being,' i explain the intricate layers of Heidegger's thought and his #phenomenology. how our everyday interactions with objects shape our understanding of being ?

​

​

It’s quite clear to me that the capitalism being pursued globally isn’t sustainable and I’d like an ideology and set of solutions for this. Communism keeps popping up but it’s something I’ve been pushed against my whole life and frankly I don’t fully understand it or find that its solutions are practical from what I understand of them.

I’d love some books which argue both sides really well so I can get a proper well thought out and argued set of opinions and ideas and see which ones make more sense to me so if anyone can recommend any, that would be really appreciated!

...but I made this video about fascism a while ago because I studied fascism and found that there was a lot in it that either went unsaid or wasn't talked about much or just plain wasn't understood by most people who talk about fascism. I mean there is a side of fascism that strikes me as very noble and intelligent. Obviously there is still a fair amount of the philosophy that I don't agree with but I think one striking thing about it is that it is, indeed, a philosophy, and that itself is something I've noticed people have a hard time accepting, but I found it quite a novel read. For context, the books I've read are "Essays on Fascism" published by Sanctuary Press, "My Life" by Oswald Mosley, "My Autobiography" by Benito Mussolini, another book by James Strachey Barnes (I can't remember the title), "Fascism Viewed From the Right" by Julius Evola, "Giovanni Gentile: Philosopher of Fascism" by James A. Gregor, the Sorel chapter of "The Birth of Fascist Ideology" by Zeev Sternhell, "Revolution by Reason" by John Strachey, and another book about the history of the Fascist movement in Italy, title I can't remember and author I can't remember.

I think Fascism is some of the most interesting philosophy I've read because of how syncretic it is. I think if you're genuinely interested in poli philosophy it might intrigue you: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h73ZytCxQOI&t=3764s

I am an admirer of the subject, that's for certain.

For all of you Die Hard Capitalists out there who believe that government regulation is an economy killer, can you explain how the whole EU forcing Apple to make iPhones have a USB-C connection rather than a proprietary lightning port does so much harm? As a believer in the mixed economy philosophy that allows for a healthy balance of government regulation in private enterprise, I don't believe it's always the case that government regulation is tyranny. I'm not sure I agree in this case that government entities should have gotten involved, but I also fail to see how it's so awful for the economy nor how it's tyranical and would like to hear other viewpoints on the matter.

I recently saw an old video with 3 black female ASU students trying to kick two white male students with political shirts and stickers out of the "multicultural area" because they are cisgendered white men. Students and faculty supported the women. What makes a space multicultural if it is not the inclusion of all cultures? Would it be better described as a "minority cultural" space? How is the direct exclusion of a group of people not segregation? In a country where segregation was outlawed 60 years ago, what is not a multicultural space? If law prevents discrimination, is creating a specific multicultural space saying that the laws are not working or being enforced? Finally, is segregation OK if the people being excluded are not minorities?

What would Descartes' opinion be on reincarnation?

Hello hello hello, i have been reading a little bit about Descartes and his mind and body opinion and i was wondering what would Descartes' opinion be on reincarnation? or metempsychosis, maybe? thank you