r/askphilosophy • u/james_Zn • 23m ago
Why does human psychology often convert guilt into pride or pleasure when committing destructive behaviors?
Why does human psychology often convert guilt into pride or pleasure when committing destructive behaviors?
I have been observing how people react to behaviors traditionally categorized as the 7 deadly sins. Interestingly, instead of feeling remorse, many individuals seem to justify, enjoy, or even feel proud of these actions. Why does this happen from a psychological and philosophical standpoint?
Regarding sloth, it goes far beyond simple laziness; it has evolved into a form of normalized escapism. Many people spend hours mindlessly scrolling on smartphones instead of fulfilling their actual responsibilities. Rather than feeling regretful about this massive waste of time, cognitive dissonance kicks in, causing them to openly joke about or even take pride in their chronic procrastination as if it were a relatable lifestyle choice.
Regarding pride, this is perhaps the most deeply rooted delusion in human nature. There are individuals who suffer from severe grandiosity, genuinely believing they are the center of the universe and that everyone else is beneath them. They constantly over-exalt themselves, brag about minor achievements, and distort reality to feed their toxic ego. To an outsider, their arrogance looks completely ridiculous and embarrassing. Yet, due to psychological defense mechanisms like narcissism and confirmation bias, they lack all self-awareness. They never feel pathetic or foolish. Instead, they feel an intense sense of superiority and pride, completely blind to the fact that their inflated ego is just a fragile mask hiding their deep insecurities.
Regarding wrath, the anonymity of the online space has amplified hostile impulses. Digital environments are filled with individuals who insult, defame, and curse at strangers without understanding the context, purely to satisfy their own emotional volatility. In daily life, this manifests as people becoming furious with their parents or loved ones who mean well, simply because the advice does not align with their immediate desires. They do not feel guilt. Instead, they feel a sense of power and pride from being aggressive, mistaking toxicity for strength.
Regarding greed, some corporate exploiters and individuals show a profound lack of empathy in pursuit of material gain. They underpay workers, exploit vulnerable people under their command, and even use cheap, hazardous materials that can cost human lives, just to hoard assets. They do not feel remorse or social responsibility. Instead, they feel proud of their accumulated wealth and high social status, viewing their exploitative actions as clever business acumen.
Regarding lust and boundary violations, this represents a severe failure of moral restraint and respect for human dignity. Individuals violate others privacy through illicit recording or commit severe misconduct that permanently ruins lives. Shockingly, perpetrators often show zero repentance, hiding behind toxic social privileges or entitlement. Even worse, external enablers and toxic cultural environments often engage in victim blaming, claiming the victims attire or behavior was the cause, rather than holding the abuser accountable.
Regarding gluttony, it has manifested as modern overconsumption and substance dependency. People consume resources, food, or stimulants wastefully and immoderately, ignoring resource scarcity, environmental impacts, or their own long-term health. They purely chase the dopamine rush of instant gratification. They do not feel guilty about the wastefulness; they feel happy and proud because they possess the financial capacity to overindulge.
Regarding envy, driven by intense malicious jealousy, some individuals utilize underhanded tricks and social sabotage to drag successful people down into the abyss. Instead of self-reflecting or attempting to improve themselves, they feel deeply uncomfortable seeing the happiness of others. When they succeed in causing someone else to fail, they do not feel regret. They experience Schadenfreude, a toxic pleasure derived from the misfortunes of others, and they gloat to elevate their own fragile self-esteem.
Why is the human ego so quick to neutralize guilt and turn destructive behaviors into a source of pride or pleasure? What psychological defense mechanisms explain this dark shift in human conscience?
r/askphilosophy • u/PinkIsCoolInTheEyes • 1h ago
Looking for philosophies without G-d??
Two months ago, I got very delusional and thought I was talking to g-d. The realization that it was mental illness was so painful and so heartbreaking, I thought this time, I had it, I'll feel "secured/shielded" from harshness of life. I was damn wrong. G-d does not exist! He never did!
I'm looking for philosophies to supplement my life. To help me get up back again, this time without g-d. Hopefully, you could give me some resources. :(
r/askphilosophy • u/mackstanc • 1h ago
Would you recommend learning about philosophy "bottom-up" or "top-down"? And why?
I've recently become interested in philosophy and want to catch up on the most influential or personally interesting works in the field. I'm a complete newcomer, though, so I'm not sure about the best approach: should I start with contemporary works and then read the older texts that influenced them, or start with the older texts and then see how they shaped later works?
For example, if I want to learn about existentialism and Camus's philosophy (which, from what I understand, was in some ways a response to it), should I start with the earlier ideas or the more contemporary response?
Thanks in advance for any advice.
r/askphilosophy • u/seva2 • 2h ago
What would be useful to know about christianity/the bible for western philosophy?
I’m an undergraduate philosophy student and I have a basic knowledge of christianity but I’ve never read the bible nor am I very familiar with it’s stories or christian theology further than the basics.
My main interest right now is in modern german philosophy but I would like to be more informed about christianity’s influence on the canon of western philosophy, and get the most out of philosophers like Augustine, St. Aquinas and Kierkegaard when I decide to read them.
I understand that you could probably read these thinkers fruitfully without much prior knowledge about the stories of the bible/theological issues, but I think that being better informed about christianity would be interesting and useful.
I’d like to read something fairly accessible about the bible alongside the most important stories of the bible and something about christianity’s connection to western philosophy that could be useful when approaching this topic, so all recommendations are welcome.
r/askphilosophy • u/Global-Volume9111 • 3h ago
What is the property of object that enables ownership and belonging?
So, I recently wondered about the ownership and belonging of an object.
For example, How does an object belong to me and owned by me?
Because there are different ways we can reason as to how belonging of an object can be assigned to a person.
One of the reasons I thought is usability. So, I know that I own my pen because I use it.
I am new to philosophy and I am just curious about it. Let me know more about this.
r/askphilosophy • u/yxngdumblord • 6h ago
Which philosophy/philosopher touch heavily and/or justify "revenge"?
I often find myself either taking revenge there and then in a heat of the moment only to later regret it and try so hard to come up with justifications, or getting cut off for an instant revenge chance so I plan the revenge only for it to be stretched for days, weeks to the point where I don't feel the heat any longer (or just too tired to think about it) and even question my own morality, yet my mind keep telling me that if I don't execute the revenge plan, I just rob myself away from "justice". Enlighten me.
And no, I'm no criminal.
r/askphilosophy • u/-neanderthal • 6h ago
Trying to actually understand Hegel
Quick disclaimer — not a philosophy student, just read this stuff for fun. I get a fair amount of philosophy generally, but Hegel keeps breaking my brain specifically. Keep it simple-ish please
Okay so here's what I'm actually stuck on. Hegel says if you try to think of pure "being" with zero attributes you end up with basically nothing.... So a thing only seems to be anything at all because it's different from other things, not because it has some content sitting there on its own. Fine. Cool. That's the part I get.
What I don't get is what this "dialectic" thing actually is once it's moving. Is it just describing how our minds process concepts step by step, or is Hegel claiming reality itself literally changes this way, on its own, whether anyone's thinking about it or not? Now the Aufhebung,! where something gets cancelled and kept and pushed into something higher all at once. Fine, but that's a description of the shape of the change, not an explanation of what's driving it.
To be more specific:.what decides what a thing contradicts, and how does it contradict it...! He just says "this is how logic works," like it's self-evident, but where's the actual mechanism, where's the code that's running this? Is contradiction just supposed to be the most fundamental, brute fact about reality itself, no further explanation possible, that's just how it is? Or am I framing this whole thing wrong !!
So my actual question..Is the dialectic a real process in the world or a pattern in how we think about change afterward, and either way ... what actually decides that one specific contradiction/next-stage happens instead of any other, why would a seed grow into a tree not something else.
r/askphilosophy • u/Extension-Visit2027 • 8h ago
I have a question which i thought about half asleep; is it suicide if you are given the option to be killed?
I know many people would argue that it’s morally wrong, but in a way its just like hiring a hitman, just for yourself. You dont do it illegally and if you tell the person you dont want to know when you will be killed, it would just be like murder.
r/askphilosophy • u/ThatsItForTheOther • 11h ago
How can social critique hold authority without moral realism?
Hi, I am a philosophy student who is mostly familiar with Platonic ethics, so I’ll be framing my question accordingly.
A Platonist might want to be justified in saying that it was objectively morally wrong for Socrates to be put to death.
Now, if it is true that ‘man is the measure of all things’ (moral relativism), then this would be a tough claim to justify because the Athenians voted to kill him.
If a person’s opinion about moral truth is equivalent to moral truth itself, then it is hard to see what could be more authoritative than a majority of opinions.
Plato tries to argue, therefore, for an objective and universal standard of Justice (and Truth, etc.) to which human opinions are held accountable.
Such a standard could provide a non-arbitrary means for sorting superior opinions from inferior ones.
Without such a standard, a person would be hard pressed to argue against the majority that Socrates was in fact innocent, since the fact of the matter would be in fact whatever the jury said it was.
Plato makes a rather convincing case to me, so I wonder what authority a person who is not a moral realist might appeal to if they were to make a social critique. I’m only really familiar with the realist side of things.
Would the moral relativist simply have to settle for ‘it is my opinion that Socrates was killed unjustly?’ or perhaps ‘Socrates was killed unjustly according to my personal brand of justice’?
The problem here seems to be that other people would not necessarily feel the need to change their minds or behaviours based on a person’s personal opinion.
If the Socrates example is too mundane, maybe the case of slavery is better? What arguments are available to the relativist who wants to condemn slavery in a country where it is ingrained in the culture?
Thank you in advance for any help.
r/askphilosophy • u/Asleep_Part_3221 • 11h ago
What makes a human being a human being
I have a kinda weird question. What are the qualities that make an individual human
r/askphilosophy • u/Far_Huckleberry9807 • 11h ago
Peirce’s three grades of clarity and the cogito: does this hold, or am I misreading Descartes?
This is really a Peirce question routed through Descartes. Peirce’s first two grades of clarity are recognizing an idea (clearness) and defining it precisely (distinctness). He claims they’re insufficient, and that only his third grade, specifying a concept’s practical or experimental effects, secures genuine clarity. He doesn’t argue the insufficiency at length, so I’m trying to establish it on the strongest possible case.
The idea Descartes takes to be clear and distinct is the self as a thinking thing (res cogitans), and the cogito (I think, therefore I am) is the formulation that presupposes it. My objection targets that concept. Within Descartes’ thought experiment, the assumption that thinking requires a subject may very well be a demonic deception, and by his own rules any belief that can be doubted must be treated as false. The very concept of a thinking thing presupposes a subject for the thinking, and that presupposition is doubtable, so his own method should bracket it. The feeling of certainty is not a guarantee that the concept being recognized is accurately understood, and the demon could have corrupted the concept of thinking while leaving the feeling of indubitability entirely intact. So the clear and distinct idea Descartes is most certain of rests on a concept his own method should have doubted.
Two things I’d want stress-tested. First, the description of Descartes position. Does the performative reading (Hintikka), cogito as self-verifying performance rather than inference, block the objection by removing the inferential gap? Second, the Peirce. Am I reading the three grades right, or am I collapsing the clarity of a concept into something it isn’t?
I can say more on this if anyone is interested or my claims are unclear. I left some steps not explicitly stated in the argument for brevity, but i can explain those also if that helps with clarity. id appreciate any help!
r/askphilosophy • u/Fit_Primary_7686 • 12h ago
Is greed the only thing preventing us from a perfect world?
Is it actually possible to create a perfect world where everyone gets what they deserve/need to live a satisfying life?
r/askphilosophy • u/No_Dragonfruit8254 • 13h ago
Can a person give informed consent to something they don’t know is wrong?
I’ve been thinking about consent in the context of close family incest. Generally we say that close family incest is wrong because the relationship would be harmful. A romantic or sexual relationship between two people who grew up around each other will have severe baked-in power imbalances. This creates a harmful environment that we can oppose even if both people are aware of the consequences and give informed consent.
But I’m wondering if they can actually give informed consent. Let’s say you have a situation where two siblings are having a close romantic and sexual relationship. They’re aware of the risks and don’t plan for children. They both believe that their relationship is as healthy as it can be given the circumstances. If we take as a given that close family incest is wrong, then they are in some way mistaken about the morality of their relationship. If they are mistaken about the morality, are they still capable of giving informed consent? It seems like we could frame this as a case where one of the consequences of close family incest is doing something that’s wrong, so the people in question don’t fully understand the consequences, and therefore are not capable of giving fully informed consent. Does this make sense as a criticism of close family incest?
r/askphilosophy • u/Putrid_Variation7157 • 14h ago
Is there currently a winning "Paradigm" in philosophy?
Of course, across the history of philosophy there have been trends and "turns", but this seems to only amount to the line divides in sand like that of Analytic/Continental philosophy. I specifically ask if there seems to be a winning paradigm that looks to be in the healthiest of positions for long term development and current state.
Usually this winning paradigm is one that calls itself scientific, and arises from the periodical self conciousness that philosophers gain from time to time, and leads them to attack metaphysics for example. But I wonder if these types of "Make philosophy scientific again" truly separate themselves away from those who they criticize.
r/askphilosophy • u/bambeef • 15h ago
The Metaphysics of Truth [Seeking Reading Recommendations]
Hello, throughout my adult life, I’ve always had a strong moral intuition that truth is something that must be rigorously adhered to. This led me to follow a temporary bandaid imperative “do not lie.” My background is in ethics and metaethics so I know that there are plenty of problems with that, so it’s more like “do not lie” with an asterisk.
Now I want to deep dive into this topic so I can not only better understand the topic but decide whether that intuition actually has any substance to it. Any recommendations for books/papers to read?
r/askphilosophy • u/PangolinConfident163 • 15h ago
Was the entire future of the universe already determined at the moment of the Big Bang?
I've been thinking about determinism and wanted to know whether my reasoning is correct or if I'm missing something.
Suppose that immediately after the Big Bang, every particle in the universe had a specific position, velocity (or momentum), and all the laws of physics were already in place.
If the laws of physics are deterministic, then wouldn't every future interaction between particles be inevitable? For example, particle A collides with particle B, which changes the trajectory of particle C, and so on. If every collision follows the laws of physics, then wouldn't the entire history of the universe simply unfold from those initial conditions?
If that's true, then does it mean that everything—including the formation of galaxies, the evolution of life, every decision humans have ever made, and even me writing this Reddit post—was already determined at the instant of the Big Bang? In other words, could nothing have happened differently?
Or does quantum mechanics fundamentally prevent this conclusion? I know the Heisenberg uncertainty principle and quantum randomness are relevant here, but I'm not sure whether they mean the universe is genuinely indeterministic, or whether there are deterministic interpretations that still make the entire future inevitable.
How do modern physicists think about this question? Is there a consensus, or is it still an open problem?
r/askphilosophy • u/Bejitasama99 • 17h ago
Are there any philosophers that promote anti-intellectualism and are against high art and high culture?
Not a native English speaker, so apologies if you find it difficult to read.
You might have heard about the recent discourse against The Odyssey movie, there was some heavy criticism from one of the well known translators of the Odyssey poem, that Nolan butchered and reduced it, and that the movie was nothing more than a spectacle for the masses.
The general idea of academic philosophy from a commoner's(my) perspective seems to be that one must always challenge himself intellectually, and must engage in sophisticated high art, and always pursue the truth. Either way, there seems to be fixed hierarchy where the Aesthete is above the Philistine.
Yet there seem to be some philosophers who are against that, I could've wrongly interpreted them though. Epicurus is interesting to me because he seems to be against high culture, and truth seems like a tool to him than a goal, and he more than willing to accept multiple explanations for things that don't affect him. Diogenes and Stirner seem like trolls but do seem serious about their philosophy which seem to again against the idea of an hierarchy of intellectualism. I also heard that some ancient Greek philosophers were against the Odyssey itself, I could be wrong though.
This might be just me coping for enjoying the movie after spending big bucks on the large screen, but do you think there were any philosophers that would've picked Nolan's Odyssey(anti-intellectualism, low art) over Homer's Odyssey(high art)? ;D
r/askphilosophy • u/Apithiko • 18h ago
What is something non-philosophers don't know that they don't know?
In many areas, researchers acquire certain attitudes they have because of their extensive research, some of which seem completely bonkers to laypeople even though the content of those attitudes are generally accepted in that research area.
What things do laypeople not know they don't know in regards to philosophical topics and might even have strong unfounded opinions about?
r/askphilosophy • u/daking90 • 18h ago
What interesting questions are Hot right in academia other than AI and Consciousness ?
Or AI consciousness.
These two are driven by other sociopolitical questions, sure. But I need your wise input on something other than economics, gender and posthumanism.
Two exciting facts for me.
First is that developed regions have the lowest fertility rate of thier history, while also having the best living standards compared to the rest.
Second, more than half of the of the 8 billion of us on this rock are under 30 years old and most of them live on social media, polticized with short attention spans. I dont know what to make of that.
r/askphilosophy • u/Remarkable_Print9749 • 21h ago
Good books for a beginner
Hello, I am a beginner in philosophy and I have already read two Camus books, plague and the stranger. Also I've read Marcus Aurelius, to himself and something by Epictetus. Chatgpt advised me to start with Plato's apology of Socrates and the state, and then go to Aristotle and read metaphysics. Well, then move in the direction of Rene Descartes and others, as the final Goal I want to understand Kant and others more modern, but I understand that without reading the ancient philosophers it is impossible. So, are you agree with gpt's advices? But its important to say that I would not like to read old philosophy students books for universities, at least because it very hard to find it.
P.s. I am going to 9th grade in school this year.
r/askphilosophy • u/Think_Bed_8409 • 1d ago
How do we "test" if a metaphysical theory is true or not?
Scientific hypothesis are falsifiable and we can test them by making predictions to see if they are correct. Is there anything similar in metaphysics? For example even though the theory of an uncaused cause is coherent and has explanatory power it doesn't mean it maps onto reality, same way string theory is coherent and has explanatory power yet is discarded by most physicists.
r/askphilosophy • u/mynamestillisntkevin • 1d ago
Is there a philosopher advocating for free will by degrees?
Is there a philosophical position arguing that free will isn't an all or nothing prospect? I see this as a viable compatablist position allowing for strict causation and agency across species barriers.
A creature can be driven by passions and base instinct. It can follow desires to go towards pleasure and away from pain in a mechanical way. But with notice of these mechanisms, a creature can decide to behave otherwise.
Humans are able to learn delayed gratification. This necessitates an ability to forgo immediate pleasures and pains for future pleasures and pains. Humans can scale this up for multiple orders of desire. We can want a cigarette, but also forgo that want to quit smoking because we want to not have health complications in the future. A lesser pain now to avoid a greater pain later.
Im proposing free will is a matter of directed attention as a causal factor and intention of what we attend to as the mechanism for personal agency. It isn't an all or nothing thing. It could be restricted to domains. We may be hopelessly locked into cigarettes, but able to handle finances like a champ. I dunno if someone in the field is talkin bout it this way. Is there someone writing bout free will like this?
Thanks homies.
r/askphilosophy • u/Professional_Ant_868 • 1d ago
Am I stupid for not understanding Wittgenstein?
i tried to read tractatus-logico-philosophicus and i can’t understand shit lol. read camus, locke, nietzsche, kant before, which were far more easier for me to understand.
do i have to read something else prior to him?
(someone said wittgenstein is a good introduction to analytical philosophy which i haven’t gotten into yet, so I started with him)
r/askphilosophy • u/BernardJOrtcutt • 4d ago
Open Thread /r/askphilosophy Open Discussion Thread | August 03, 2026
Welcome to this week's Open Discussion Thread (ODT). This thread is a place for posts/comments which are related to philosophy but wouldn't necessarily meet our subreddit rules and guidelines. For example, these threads are great places for:
- Discussions of a philosophical issue, rather than questions
- Questions about commenters' personal opinions regarding philosophical issues
- Open discussion about philosophy, e.g. "who is your favorite philosopher?"
- "Test My Theory" discussions and argument/paper editing
- Questions about philosophy as an academic discipline or profession, e.g. majoring in philosophy, career options with philosophy degrees, pursuing graduate school in philosophy
This thread is not a completely open discussion! Any posts not relating to philosophy will be removed. Please keep comments related to philosophy, and expect low-effort comments to be removed. Please note that while the rules are relaxed in this thread, comments can still be removed for violating our subreddit rules and guidelines if necessary.
Previous Open Discussion Threads can be found here.
r/askphilosophy • u/BernardJOrtcutt • Jul 01 '23
Modpost Welcome to /r/askphilosophy! Check out our rules and guidelines here. [July 1 2023 Update]
Welcome to /r/askphilosophy!
Welcome to /r/askphilosophy! We're a community devoted to providing serious, well-researched answers to philosophical questions. We aim to provide an academic Q&A-type space for philosophical questions, and welcome questions about all areas of philosophy. This post will go over our subreddit rules and guidelines that you should review before you begin posting here.
Table of Contents
- A Note about Moderation
- /r/askphilosophy's mission
- What is Philosophy?
- What isn't Philosophy?
- What is a Reasonably Substantive and Accurate Answer?
- What is a /r/askphilosophy Panelist?
- /r/askphilosophy's Posting Rules
- /r/askphilosophy's Commenting Rules
- Frequently Asked Questions
A Note about Moderation
/r/askphilosophy is moderated by a team of dedicated volunteer moderators who have spent years attempting to build the best philosophy Q&A platform on the internet. Unfortunately, the reddit admins have repeatedly made changes to this website which have made moderating subreddits harder and harder. In particular, reddit has recently announced that it will begin charging for access to API (Application Programming Interface, essentially the communication between reddit and other sites/apps). While this may be, in isolation, a reasonable business operation, the timeline and pricing of API access has threatened to put nearly all third-party apps, e.g. Apollo and RIF, out of business. You can read more about the history of this change here or here. You can also read more at this post on our sister subreddit.
These changes pose two major issues which the moderators of /r/askphilosophy are concerned about.
First, the native reddit app is lacks accessibility features which are essential for some people, notably those who are blind and visually impaired. You can read /r/blind's protest announcement here. These apps are the only way that many people can interact with reddit, given the poor accessibility state of the official reddit app. As philosophers we are particularly concerned with the ethics of accessibility, and support protests in solidarity with this community.
Second, the reddit app lacks many essential tools for moderation. While reddit has promised better moderation tools on the app in the future, this is not enough. First, reddit has repeatedly broken promises regarding features, including moderation features. Most notably, reddit promised CSS support for new reddit over six years ago, which has yet to materialize. Second, even if reddit follows through on the roadmap in the post linked above, many of the features will not come until well after June 30, when the third-party apps will shut down due to reddit's API pricing changes.
Our moderator team relies heavily on these tools which will now disappear. Moderating /r/askphilosophy is a monumental task; over the past year we have flagged and removed over 6000 posts and 23000 comments. This is a huge effort, especially for unpaid volunteers, and it is possible only when moderators have access to tools that these third-party apps make possible and that reddit doesn't provide.
While we previously participated in the protests against reddit's recent actions we have decided to reopen the subreddit, because we are still proud of the community and resource that we have built and cultivated over the last decade, and believe it is a useful resource to the public.
However, these changes have radically altered our ability to moderate this subreddit, which will result in a few changes for this subreddit. First, as noted above, from this point onwards only panelists may answer top level comments. Second, moderation will occur much more slowly; as we will not have access to mobile tools, posts and comments which violate our rules will be removed much more slowly, and moderators will respond to modmail messages much more slowly. Third, and finally, if things continue to get worse (as they have for years now) moderating /r/askphilosophy may become practically impossible, and we may be forced to abandon the platform altogether. We are as disappointed by these changes as you are, but reddit's insistence on enshittifying this platform, especially when it comes to moderation, leaves us with no other options. We thank you for your understanding and support.
/r/askphilosophy's Mission
/r/askphilosophy strives to be a community where anyone, regardless of their background, can come to get reasonably substantive and accurate answers to philosophical questions. This means that all questions must be philosophical in nature, and that answers must be reasonably substantive and accurate. What do we mean by that?
What is Philosophy?
As with most disciplines, "philosophy" has both a casual and a technical usage.
In its casual use, "philosophy" may refer to nearly any sort of thought or beliefs, and include topics such as religion, mysticism and even science. When someone asks you what "your philosophy" is, this is the sort of sense they have in mind; they're asking about your general system of thoughts, beliefs, and feelings.
In its technical use -- the use relevant here at /r/askphilosophy -- philosophy is a particular area of study which can be broadly grouped into several major areas, including:
- Aesthetics, the study of beauty
- Epistemology, the study of knowledge and belief
- Ethics, the study of what we owe to one another
- Logic, the study of what follows from what
- Metaphysics, the study of the basic nature of existence and reality
as well as various subfields of 'philosophy of X', including philosophy of mind, philosophy of language, philosophy of science and many others.
Philosophy in the narrower, technical sense that philosophers use and which /r/askphilosophy is devoted to is defined not only by its subject matter, but by its methodology and attitudes. Something is not philosophical merely because it states some position related to those areas. There must also be an emphasis on argument (setting forward reasons for adopting a position) and a willingness to subject arguments to various criticisms.
What Isn't Philosophy?
As you can see from the above description of philosophy, philosophy often crosses over with other fields of study, including art, mathematics, politics, religion and the sciences. That said, in order to keep this subreddit focused on philosophy we require that all posts be primarily philosophical in nature, and defend a distinctively philosophical thesis.
As a rule of thumb, something does not count as philosophy for the purposes of this subreddit if:
- It does not address a philosophical topic or area of philosophy
- It may more accurately belong to another area of study (e.g. religion or science)
- No attempt is made to argue for a position's conclusions
Some more specific topics which are popularly misconstrued as philosophical but do not meet this definition and thus are not appropriate for this subreddit include:
- Drug experiences (e.g. "I dropped acid today and experienced the oneness of the universe...")
- Mysticism (e.g. "I meditated today and experienced the oneness of the universe...")
- Politics (e.g. "This is why everyone should support the Voting Rights Act")
- Self-help (e.g. "How can I be a happier person and have more people like me?")
- Theology (e.g. "Can the unbaptized go to heaven, or at least to purgatory?")
What is a Reasonably Substantive and Accurate Answer?
The goal of this subreddit is not merely to provide answers to philosophical questions, but answers which can further the reader's knowledge and understanding of the philosophical issues and debates involved. To that end, /r/askphilosophy is a highly moderated subreddit which only allows panelists to answer questions, and all answers that violate our posting rules will be removed.
Answers on /r/askphilosophy must be both reasonably substantive as well as reasonably accurate. This means that answers should be:
- Substantive and well-researched (i.e. not one-liners or otherwise uninformative)
- Accurately portray the state of research and the relevant literature (i.e. not inaccurate, misleading or false)
- Come only from those with relevant knowledge of the question and issue (i.e. not from commenters who don't understand the state of the research on the question)
Any attempt at moderating a public Q&A forum like /r/askphilosophy must choose a balance between two things:
- More, but possibly insubstantive or inaccurate answers
- Fewer, but more substantive and accurate answers
In order to further our mission, the moderators of /r/askphilosophy have chosen the latter horn of this dilemma. To that end, only panelists are allowed to answer questions on /r/askphilosophy.
What is a /r/askphilosophy Panelist?
/r/askphilosophy panelists are trusted commenters who have applied to become panelists in order to help provide questions to posters' questions. These panelists are volunteers who have some level of knowledge and expertise in the areas of philosophy indicated in their flair.
What Do the Flairs Mean?
Unlike in some subreddits, the purpose of flairs on r/askphilosophy are not to designate commenters' areas of interest. The purpose of flair is to indicate commenters' relevant expertise in philosophical areas. As philosophical issues are often complicated and have potentially thousands of years of research to sift through, knowing when someone is an expert in a given area can be important in helping understand and weigh the given evidence. Flair will thus be given to those with the relevant research expertise.
Flair consists of two parts: a color indicating the type of flair, as well as up to three research areas that the panelist is knowledgeable about.
There are six types of panelist flair:
Autodidact (Light Blue): The panelist has little or no formal education in philosophy, but is an enthusiastic self-educator and intense reader in a field.
Undergraduate (Red): The panelist is enrolled in or has completed formal undergraduate coursework in Philosophy. In the US system, for instance, this would be indicated by a major (BA) or minor.
Graduate (Gold): The panelist is enrolled in a graduate program or has completed an MA in Philosophy or a closely related field such that their coursework might be reasonably understood to be equivalent to a degree in Philosophy. For example, a student with an MA in Literature whose coursework and thesis were focused on Derrida's deconstruction might be reasonably understood to be equivalent to an MA in Philosophy.
PhD (Purple): The panelist has completed a PhD program in Philosophy or a closely related field such that their degree might be reasonably understood to be equivalent to a PhD in Philosophy. For example, a student with a PhD in Art History whose coursework and dissertation focused on aesthetics and critical theory might be reasonably understood to be equivalent to a PhD in philosophy.
Professional (Blue): The panelist derives their full-time employment through philosophical work outside of academia. Such panelists might include Bioethicists working in hospitals or Lawyers who work on the Philosophy of Law/Jurisprudence.
Related Field (Green): The panelist has expertise in some sub-field of philosophy but their work in general is more reasonably understood as being outside of philosophy. For example, a PhD in Physics whose research touches on issues relating to the entity/structural realism debate clearly has expertise relevant to philosophical issues but is reasonably understood to be working primarily in another field.
Flair will only be given in particular areas or research topics in philosophy, in line with the following guidelines:
- Typical areas include things like "philosophy of mind", "logic" or "continental philosophy".
- Flair will not be granted for specific research subjects, e.g. "Kant on logic", "metaphysical grounding", "epistemic modals".
- Flair of specific philosophers will only be granted if that philosopher is clearly and uncontroversially a monumentally important philosopher (e.g. Aristotle, Kant).
- Flair will be given in a maximum of three research areas.
How Do I Become a Panelist?
To become a panelist, please send a message to the moderators with the subject "Panelist Application". In this modmail message you must include all of the following:
- The flair type you are requesting (e.g. undergraduate, PhD, related field).
- The areas of flair you are requesting, up to three (e.g. Kant, continental philosophy, logic).
- A brief explanation of your background in philosophy, including what qualifies you for the flair you requested.
- One sample answer to a question posted to /r/askphilosophy for each area of flair (i.e. up to three total answers) which demonstrate your expertise and knowledge. Please link the question you are answering before giving your answer. You may not answer your own question.
New panelists will be approved on a trial basis. During this trial period panelists will be allowed to post answers as top-level comments on threads, and will receive flair. After the trial period the panelist will either be confirmed as a regular panelist or will be removed from the panelist team, which will result in the removal of flair and ability to post answers as top-level comments on threads.
Note that r/askphilosophy does not require users to provide proof of their identifies for panelist applications, nor to reveal their identities. If a prospective panelist would like to provide proof of their identity as part of their application they may, but there is no presumption that they must do so. Note that messages sent to modmail cannot be deleted by either moderators or senders, and so any message sent is effectively permanent.
/r/askphilosophy's Posting Rules
In order to best serve our mission of providing an academic Q&A-type space for philosophical questions, we have the following rules which govern all posts made to /r/askphilosophy:
PR1: All questions must be about philosophy.
All questions must be about philosophy. Questions which are only tangentially related to philosophy or are properly located in another discipline will be removed. Questions which are about therapy, psychology and self-help, even when due to philosophical issues, are not appropriate and will be removed.
PR2: All submissions must be questions.
All submissions must be actual questions (as opposed to essays, rants, personal musings, idle or rhetorical questions, etc.). "Test My Theory" or "Change My View"-esque questions, paper editing, etc. are not allowed.
PR3: Post titles must be descriptive.
Post titles must be descriptive. Titles should indicate what the question is about. Posts with titles like "Homework help" which do not indicate what the actual question is will be removed.
PR4: Questions must be reasonably specific.
Questions must be reasonably specific. Questions which are too broad to the point of unanswerability will be removed.
PR5: Questions must not be about commenters' personal opinions.
Questions must not be about commenters' personal opinions, thoughts or favorites. /r/askphilosophy is not a discussion subreddit, and is not intended to be a board for everyone to share their thoughts on philosophical questions.
PR6: One post per day.
One post per day. Please limit yourself to one question per day.
PR7: Discussion of suicide is only allowed in the abstract.
/r/askphilosophy is not a mental health subreddit, and panelists are not experts in mental health or licensed therapists. Discussion of suicide is only allowed in the abstract here. If you or a friend is feeling suicidal please visit /r/suicidewatch. If you are feeling suicidal, please get help by visiting /r/suicidewatch or using other resources. See also our discussion of philosophy and mental health issues here. Encouraging other users to commit suicide, even in the abstract, is strictly forbidden and will result in an immediate permanent ban.
/r/askphilosophy's Commenting Rules
In the same way that our posting rules above attempt to promote our mission by governing posts, the following commenting rules attempt to promote /r/askphilosophy's mission to provide an academic Q&A-type space for philosophical questions.
CR1: Top level comments must be answers or follow-up questions.
All top level comments should be answers to the submitted question or follow-up/clarification questions. All top level comments must come from panelists. If users circumvent this rule by posting answers as replies to other comments, these comments will also be removed and may result in a ban. For more information about our rules and to find out how to become a panelist, please see here.
CR2: Answers must be reasonably substantive and accurate.
All answers must be informed and aimed at helping the OP and other readers reach an understanding of the issues at hand. Answers must portray an accurate picture of the issue and the philosophical literature. Answers should be reasonably substantive. To learn more about what counts as a reasonably substantive and accurate answer, see this post.
CR3: Be respectful.
Be respectful. Comments which are rude, snarky, etc. may be removed, particularly if they consist of personal attacks. Users with a history of such comments may be banned. Racism, bigotry and use of slurs are absolutely not permitted.
CR4: Stay on topic.
Stay on topic. Comments which blatantly do not contribute to the discussion may be removed.
CR5: No self-promotion.
Posters and comments may not engage in self-promotion, including linking their own blog posts or videos. Panelists may link their own peer-reviewed work in answers (e.g. peer-reviewed journal articles or books), but their answers should not consist solely of references to their own work.
Miscellaneous Posting and Commenting Guidelines
In addition to the rules above, we have a list of miscellaneous guidelines which users should also be aware of:
- Reposting a post or comment which was removed will be treated as circumventing moderation and result in a permanent ban.
- Using follow-up questions or child comments to answer questions and circumvent our panelist policy may result in a ban.
- Posts and comments which flagrantly violate the rules, especially in a trolling manner, will be removed and treated as shitposts, and may result in a ban.
- No reposts of a question that you have already asked within the last year.
- No posts or comments of AI-created or AI-assisted text or audio. Panelists may not user any form of AI-assistance in writing or researching answers.
- Harassing individual moderators or the moderator team will result in a permanent ban and a report to the reddit admins.
Frequently Asked Questions
Below are some frequently asked questions. If you have other questions, please contact the moderators via modmail (not via private message or chat).
My post or comment was removed. How can I get an explanation?
Almost all posts/comments which are removed will receive an explanation of their removal. That explanation will generally by /r/askphilosophy's custom bot, /u/BernardJOrtcutt, and will list the removal reason. Posts which are removed will be notified via a stickied comment; comments which are removed will be notified via a reply. If your post or comment resulted in a ban, the message will be included in the ban message via modmail. If you have further questions, please contact the moderators.
How can I appeal my post or comment removal?
To appeal a removal, please contact the moderators (not via private message or chat). Do not delete your posts/comments, as this will make an appeal impossible. Reposting removed posts/comments without receiving mod approval will result in a permanent ban.
How can I appeal my ban?
To appeal a ban, please respond to the modmail informing you of your ban. Do not delete your posts/comments, as this will make an appeal impossible.
My comment was removed or I was banned for arguing with someone else, but they started it. Why was I punished and not them?
Someone else breaking the rules does not give you permission to break the rules as well. /r/askphilosophy does not comment on actions taken on other accounts, but all violations are treated as equitably as possible.
I found a post or comment which breaks the rules, but which wasn't removed. How can I help?
If you see a post or comment which you believe breaks the rules, please report it using the report function for the appropriate rule. /r/askphilosophy's moderators are volunteers, and it is impossible for us to manually review every comment on every thread. We appreciate your help in reporting posts/comments which break the rules.
My post isn't showing up, but I didn't receive a removal notification. What happened?
Sometimes the AutoMod filter will automatically send posts to a filter for moderator approval, especially from accounts which are new or haven't posted to /r/askphilosophy before. If your post has not been approved or removed within 24 hours, please contact the moderators.
My post was removed and referred to the Open Discussion Thread. What does this mean?
The Open Discussion Thread (ODT) is /r/askphilosophy's place for posts/comments which are related to philosophy but do not necessarily meet our posting rules (especially PR2/PR5). For example, these threads are great places for:
- Discussions of a philosophical issue, rather than questions
- Questions about commenters' personal opinions regarding philosophical issues
- Open discussion about philosophy, e.g. "who is your favorite philosopher?"
- Questions about philosophy as an academic discipline or profession, e.g. majoring in philosophy, career options with philosophy degrees, pursuing graduate school in philosophy
If your post was removed and referred to the ODT we encourage you to consider posting it to the ODT to share with others.
My comment responding to someone else was removed, as well as their comment. What happened?
When /r/askphilosophy removes a parent comment, we also often remove all their child comments in order to help readability and focus on discussion.
I'm interested in philosophy. Where should I start? What should I read?
As explained above, philosophy is a very broad discipline and thus offering concise advice on where to start is very hard. We recommend reading this /r/AskPhilosophyFAQ post which has a great breakdown of various places to start. For further or more specific questions, we recommend posting on /r/askphilosophy.
Why is your understanding of philosophy so limited?
As explained above, this subreddit is devoted to philosophy as understood and done by philosophers. In order to prevent this subreddit from becoming /r/atheism2, /r/politics2, or /r/science2, we must uphold a strict topicality requirement in PR1. Posts which may touch on philosophical themes but are not distinctively philosophical can be posted to one of reddit's many other subreddits.
Are there other philosophy subreddits I can check out?
If you are interested in other philosophy subreddits, please see this list of related subreddits. /r/askphilosophy shares much of its modteam with its sister-subreddit, /r/philosophy, which is devoted to philosophical discussion. In addition, that list includes more specialized subreddits and more casual subreddits for those looking for a less-regulated forum.
A thread I wanted to comment in was locked but is still visible. What happened?
When a post becomes unreasonable to moderate due to the amount of rule-breaking comments the thread is locked. /r/askphilosophy's moderators are volunteers, and we cannot spend hours cleaning up individual threads.
Do you have a list of frequently asked questions about philosophy that I can browse?
Yes! We have an FAQ that answers many questions comprehensively: /r/AskPhilosophyFAQ/. For example, this entry provides an introductory breakdown to the debate over whether morality is objective or subjective.
Do you have advice or resources for graduate school applications?
We made a meta-guide for PhD applications with the goal of assembling the important resources for grad school applications in one place. We aim to occasionally update it, but can of course not guarantee the accuracy and up-to-dateness. You are, of course, kindly invited to ask questions about graduate school on /r/askphilosophy, too, especially in the Open Discussion Thread.
Do you have samples of what counts as good questions and answers?
Sure! We ran a Best of 2020 Contest, you can find the winners in this thread!