I wonder how opposing factions can be so convinced they are right. Not just in self serving ways but also when they are being ideological. So I wonder is obtaining a truly objective perspective possible and if so how does one obtain it?

Hey, so I'm reading this book about death (which I bought because of The Good Place) and Todd May tries to give a set of 3 themes to death. While trying to leave a post-it in the book summarizing my thoughts, I got stuck on what the second theme meant. I wasn't sure of how to process it and so I'd like to see different perspectives on the metaphor.

Quote: "Moreover, and this is the second theme, death itself lends no meaning to those lives. In death, the threads that have tied us to the world are not knotted together or woven into some greater fabric. They are simply cut, left to lie there with no pattern or connection." pg. 36

It seems to me that as long as I possess a deck of cards with the contact details of whatever organisation that uses small donations to save lives by deploying them where they are most “cost effective”, I can put anyone I don’t like “by the river where a person is drowning”.

Which means I can use it as a weapon to make anyone either morally or financially bankrupt. If you give in to pressure to donate, you have effectively forfeited your right to say no in such situations. And given that I can now put this “situation” next to you at any time, you are no longer free and sovereign over your decisions. If you don’t give in, you are now provably a bad person and any further actions from you will be viewed through the lens for bad people?

Nationalism asserts that a distinct "nation" (defined by shared culture, language, history, or ethnicity) has a legitimate claim to self-determination and sovereign statehood. However, the choice of where to draw that boundary often seems conceptually arbitrary. A nationalist claims that solidarity and civic obligation should stop at a specific border, but:

Why not smaller? Why doesn't the boundary shrink further into distinct regional, city-state, or local identities (hyper-localism/sub-nationalism)?

Why not larger? Why doesn't the boundary expand into broader linguistic, civilizational, or continental identities (e.g., Pan-Slavism, Pan-Africanism) or universal human solidarity (cosmopolitanism)?

How does nationalist theory address the "boundary problem"—the charge that any given national boundary is morally or historically arbitrary rather than naturally principled?

Are there compelling philosophical arguments for why the standard nation-state is considered the "optimal" size for political obligation and cohesion?

im looking for texts (both academic and literary) that explore or theorise about masculinity (or gender at large) and how it is constructed and performed online. im interested in how masculinity and homosociality function in male-dominated internet subcultures, and maybe within videogames and related communities.

I realise this is a fairly specific topic, but I'm really interested in this topic and intend to explore it as much as I can this summer. any reccomendations are welcome!

Im an atheist and have recently started learning about Spinoza. But in my studies I have come about a problem. From how I see it, religious people in general are religious because they grew up that way or had some type of spiritual experience rather than actual concrete proof (This is not to discredit their beliefs or anything). So by this logic, I can understand where they’re coming from. I know for sure that if I had any experience like that, I would be religious. But I haven’t and i grew up in a secular family and country, so when my atheism is based on lack of proof for anything else.

So that leads me to my question, is there any factual proof for the god of Spinoza? It doesn’t need to be proof either, why do you believe in Spinozas god?

I should add, I haven’t read Spinoza himself yet so this question might be answered when I get around to reading him, thanks in advance!

How can it be well-rounded and specific enough to accomplish both goals?

same as title

Ever since I discovered the semantic branch of metaethics, it struck me as strange that this is even something to be argued about from the armchair.

Isn't this something you get the answer to by going out and asking people in different places/languages what they mean when they make various moral claims? It just seems that once you have all that data, you have all the facts. What else is there to say about semantics?

So I've gathered that in philosophy of language, the typical response to this is that a language is considered a practice that's "out there", and it has its own internal rules and logic, so even if someone takes themselves to be e.g. noncognitivist about moral claims, they could in principle be wrong about that.

So if English was someone's second language, they might say "Would you like to enjoy us?", intending to say "Would you like to join us?". I know what they meant, but I would say they misspoke. This does seem to give ammo to the idea that there's a right and wrong way to speak a language regardless of intent.

But it seems to me that when we call something wrong semantically, we're really just saying it's nonstandard. In principle, it could be considered correct if it grew in popularity enough, and AFAIK that has in fact happened in many ways.

Take for instance "literally". In my life, I've seen this word come to take on arguably the opposite of its original meaning. Nowadays, people might say "I'm literally dead". I can only interpret "literally" here to mean "figuratively". 25 years ago, that would just be considered wrong. Now, I'm not so sure, it at least has some colloquial traction.

But ultimately, I think what language boils down to is just speaker intent and listener interpretation. And the things we call "correct" or "abiding by the language logic" are really just shorthand for "common enough to be understood whatever percent of the time". The weird thing about the rules is that it's not like changing the rules in a game of basketball, where it happens between games or seasons and all the teams get to look over the revised rulebook. Language rules just change in real time and nobody signs the dotted line. We either understand each other or we don't.

The thing that strikes me as super weird about metaethical cognitivism, is that AFAIK this just isn't something that is taught in English and there are no established rules about it. When we teach people English, we don't have on the checklist: [metaethical cognitivism]. So it seems that this topic is anyone's best guess, with no way of resolving it, if you're not going to treat it as an empirical question about what percentage of people intend this or that, and go survey people.

This has led me to being, I guess a quietist on the topic and I'm just wondering if any experts can shed light on what I might be missing.

Would anybody be able to explain or point me to critiques of regarding individuals as independent subjects? I’m kinda thinking of this along a posthumanist line, like you only exist because of your interactions with others, environments, animals, etc.

What does it mean, and is it necessary? Is it worth trying to eradicate from the mind completely?

What is the best way to approach doubt and uncertainty that plagues the mind?

I've stumbled upon this video.

In it, a guy says that one of his professors said that "On the level of individuals and civilizations, personality predates ideology."

This seems very similar to a marxist materialist idea that our conditions shape our ideology, but are mediated by personalities.

Which philosophers have defended this claim of personality predating ideology? Are any of them marxist? Or other types of socialists?

I’ve been thinking about the idea of status being tied to non-rivalrous things teaching, care, depth of skill instead of things that are inherently scarce like money or followers, on the theory that status tied to scarce goods is structurally zero-sum (someone’s gain requires someone else’s relative loss)Similarly, on the economic side: a system with a guaranteed floor nobody falls below, paired with wealth above a certain ceiling being required to recirculate rather than just accumulate indefinitely.Is there existing philosophical work — political philosophy, economics-adjacent philosophy, anything — that addresses either of these ideas directly?Curious if this maps onto something already worked out, and by whom.

I have in effect been a logical positivist for many many years. I don't understand what is the problem with logical positivism, at least as applied to general knowledge and general existence in the world.

I would appreciate it if someone could point me to an explanation of the problems with logical positivism.

The question was to determine if the propositional argument was invalid and if so, under which truth value assignment (for each term)

Premises:

1. D wedge (tilde F horseshoe -> C)

2. F triple bar tilde A

3. (tilde D dot A) horseshoe -> C

Conclusion:

tilde A dot C

Ill link an image to my truth table

The option I chose was "The argument is invalid based on this truth assignment: A is true, C is false, D is true, and F is false" And I got it wrong, even though I proved that those assignments gave true premises and a false conclusion

Someone pls show me my mistake

https://imgur.com/a/BYSlFDu

In the spinozist sense of an infinite substance, would something as pandeism be possible? As in, would it be feasible to think of an infinite substance that has no effect in the world besides the expression of finite particulars through its modes?

(I'm sure that I'm confusing some concepts here, especially regarding the "finite particulars")

Thanks in advance! :)

Holding a non-biased position is crucial in understanding philosophy, beliefs and arguments; essentially the objective truth of a matter. How could I deattach from my own beliefs and emotions when I read arguments that critique what I believe in. To understand their position and co-operate to undermine the truth—how can I stay emotionally restrained?

I wanted to get into existentialism and philosophy so I bought ‘Being and Nothingness’ by Jean-Paul Sartre but the ideas and references go over my head right now.

I want to know what should I read/research so I can understand what’s being said, please and thank you!

First of all a warning - this is going to over some stuff that are considered very disgusting to read for most.

1) How do philosophers justify that necrophilia and bestiality?

If someone buys a dead chicken and does stuff with it. What are some arguments moral philosophers may use to justify it as immoral?

I can see an intuitivist have an easy answer, but that's it. Also, are there non-vegan philosophers that do try and make a moral argument against such a case?

I have been recently reading more philosphy and also reading plenty of online novel written by independent creators, which made me me want to write my own novel.

However, I am want to found a philospher or anything that treats/talk about how the perpetrator action (Murder or robbery) doesn't get any better for the victim with any and all justification, because it does not lessen the consequence done

"The mother who has to bury their dead son doesn't get any better because the murderer is in prison and is full of guilt. Her son is still dead and grief doesn't revive anyone from the dead" is what I'm looking for

A watch I received for my 21st birthday (15 years ago) stopped working after sitting unused for a few years. I recently sent it away for a service, and the repair quote recommends replacing the mechanism, dial, hands, crown, tube, and bracelet. That would leave only the case and case back untouched.

It immediately reminded me of the Ship of Theseus question:

"If an object has all of its components gradually replaced over time, does it remain the same object?"

The watch, a quartz movement Tag Heuer, no longer has significant monetary value, but it has significant sentimental value to me. I find myself reluctant to exchange the fully original, non-functioning watch for one that works but has had almost every component replaced.

If I have it fully restored, is it still the same watch? Or does it become a kind of horological Frankenstein?

This might be a very stupid question and can be generic so I'm sorry but help me please I want to study philosophy seriously, but im very confused. I want a structured roadmap similar to what a philosophy student would follow at university.

I want to start from the very basics, then study ancient, medieval, modern, and contemporary philosophy in order. I also want to understand how philosophers influenced each other, learn the major branches and know when to read the primary texts.

I'm not looking for just a list of books. I'm looking for a roadmap or curriculum that tells me what to study, in what order, and why.