You can view the dataset here. Hope it's useful.

If you want more info on how I did it (and batch emailed 311 grad students - sorry) - you can check that out on my blog.

I just got an essay graded tonight and my teacher said my essay was messy and that I didn’t seem interested in my argument, which is true, I wasn’t really interested in the subject and I just did my best to write something as I wanted to pass.

How do you navigate these situations when you have to write an essay about something you’re not interested at all? ): I struggled sooo much since the beginning. The essay was on contractualism by the way.

Hi all,

I’m a layman philosopher deeply engaged in a project tackling some challenging areas of ethical philosophy, and I feel like I might be venturing into a novel direction where resources are scarce or scattered.

I’m exploring the tension between pluralism (the coexistence of diverse moral systems) and absolutism (singular, universal ethical frameworks), but I’m struggling to locate recent works or thinkers addressing this in ways that align with what I’m trying to accomplish.

Here are the key areas I’m grappling with:

1. Managing Ethical Frameworks in Pluralism

I’m looking for approaches that deal with the interactions and tensions between competing moral systems, particularly when their principles seem irreconcilable.

The focus isn’t on resolving these conflicts entirely but on creating tools or methodologies to navigate them productively. For example, I’m curious about how dialogue, compromise, or iterative processes could foster coexistence without forcing convergence.

1. Bridging Pluralism and Absolutism

Are there works that engage with pluralism but also acknowledge the need for guiding principles or provisional values to avoid the pitfalls of relativism?

I’m interested in whether anyone has worked on systems that balance contextual adaptability with some degree of ethical clarity or structure.

1. The Practical Application of Meta-Ethical Ideas

I’ve been exploring meta-ethics but feel like many frameworks stop at theoretical analysis. I’m searching for works that go a step further by proposing practical methodologies for applying these theories in real-world contexts (e.g., governance, policy, or institutional ethics).

1. Conflict and Coexistence Between Ethical Traditions

My project touches on the need for ethical tools that can operate across cultural and philosophical boundaries, particularly between Western and non-Western traditions (e.g., Indigenous knowledge systems, Eastern philosophies, Abrahamic ethics).

I’m curious about whether anyone has worked on systems that facilitate coexistence without erasing the distinctiveness of these traditions.

1. Balancing Adaptability and Accountability

While some systems lean heavily into flexibility (risking relativism), others are too rigid to accommodate complex moral dilemmas. I’m searching for any work that proposes a middle ground—a disciplined way of handling ambiguity or conflict without abandoning accountability.

What I’ve Explored So Far

Philosophers like Isaiah Berlin (value pluralism) and John Dewey (pragmatism) have been useful, but they often feel more foundational than contemporary.

I’ve dabbled in ideas from Jürgen Habermas (discourse ethics) and Bernard Williams (contextuality of thick ethical concepts), but I’m struggling to find thinkers or works that extend these ideas in ways that match my focus.

What I’m Hoping For

Contemporary Thinkers: Are there modern philosophers, theorists, or even students working on pluralism, absolutism, or navigating moral tensions in innovative ways?

Practical Applications: Have there been recent attempts to create tools or systems for managing ethical pluralism at institutional, societal, or individual levels?

Interdisciplinary Insights: Are there fields beyond philosophy I may be ignorant to(e.g., anthropology, sociology, or systems theory) that could inform these questions?

I sometimes feel like I’m in uncharted territory because of the specific direction I’ve taken, but I’m hoping there’s work out there that can provide inspiration or insight.

If you know of books, articles, philosophers, interdisciplinary thinkers, or even niche discussions that touch on any of this, I’d greatly appreciate your recommendations.

Thanks in advance for your help!

I don't understand the academic History of Philosophy (for example, Irwin's "Aristotle's First Principles", or Westphal's "Hegel's Epistemology"). For one, from my understanding, the role of a historian of philosophy should be exclusively exegetical. However, I'm perplexed why it seems that many historians of philosophy present their works as contributing invaluable arguments for contemporary philosophy debates. More perplexing why it seems many historians of philosophy insist on fixing apparent contradictions within their respective philosophers' works, instead of assuming it was simply inevitable human error, especially erroes that seems so to the modern reader (such as Hegel's metaphysical Spirit being spooky for 21st rather than 19st century). This adds to my former idea that it seems they're trying to present some underlaying, perennial philosophy.

Perhaps there's something I don't understand within the discipline of History of Philosophy? Are they, more or less, given freedom to build up on former ideas?

Hey all!

I already have my bachelors, and am working on a second two-year degree in graphic design. However, I love philosophy, and learned too late in my bachelors program lol. I learn best with some guidance rather than just diving into primary texts, so I was wondering if there are any good online resources to learn philosophy on my own? Preferably YouTube, podcasts, or something else that I can listen to.

I’m specifically interested in contemporary philosophy, deconstruction, and postmodernism. It seems like there’s plenty of courses in classical philosophy, but gets a little more sparse the further down the chain you go.

Thank you!

Been reading Hanks’ Propositional Content (2015). Overall I find Hanks’ theory interesting and lucidly argued. However one part vexes me somewhat. In discussing the problem of empty names, Hanks argues that a semantically competent speaker should know that Zeus and Jupiter “co-refer” although they do not actually refer to anything. Thus acts of reference using these names fall under the same reference type, and the two names have the same semantic content. However in previously discussing problems involving co-referring names across different languages (eg, London and Londres), Hanks argues that it’s possible for a monolingual English speaker to be competent with the English language names Peking and Beijing, yet fail to know they co-refer, and under his theory the two names therefore have different semantic content because acts of reference involving them fall under different reference types. This seems arbitrary to me. Does anyone who has read this book have a better understanding of why Hanks’ would argue competent speakers could fail to know Peking and Beijing co-refer, but not in the case of Jupiter/Zeus?

Hi there! I’m trying to remember the name of a philosopher who argued that to have a disagreement, you first need to agree on several points. Essentially, to be considered opposites, you must share some fundamental commonalities. I realize my explanation might be a bit vague, but if this sounds familiar to you, I’d love your help. Thanks!

So I know they close their submission at some point and then open it up in Novemeber 15. But do you know when it is closed?

Are there academic philosophers / PhD graduates who are willing to give 1-1 tution, work reviews, paper discussions, and else?

If so, how one can find such tution?

Philosophy student here, wanting to get into more modern discourse (and eventually try and publish). Any journal recommendations to read?

Unfortunately, I don't have the possibility of pursuing a PhD. There's no program around, nor am I capable to move. Yet, there are many resources that help in learning academic writing and research, and many graduate students willing to offer the tutorship.

Can I expect to publish an academic philosophy essay this way?

Apologies if this had been asked before. I did search for this specific question and didn't find results.

Hey everyone,

I'm learning more about the Law. Law as a field has a lot of subdisciplines. Hence, I wonder when it comes to Constitutional Law what is its relationship with Political Theory.

I studied a little of Constitutional Law and the author was quoting Locke and Hobbes both who are central figures in Political Theory.

I'm a psychology major who had a very clear pathway beforehand of what to do. However, if I change into philosophy--which I had a very big interest in--what sort of way can I go? Especially if I double major philosophy and psychology

I hope this thread doesn't break the rules since my question is indirectly philosophical instead of directly. Since I saw that some people replied in another subreddit that they went as atheists in studying philosophy, but eventually became Theists, I would be interested to hearing if you have a similar story and impact of philosophy. Given that the majority of philosophy academics identify as atheists, i believe it is a ground for a great discussion.

In highschool, I was always interested in philosophy. More specifically, I was interested in questions related to how do we obtain knowledge, what is criteria for truth, what is consciousness, what constitutes art, etc. Thus, when I moved on to university I chose to major in philosophy. However, after studying philosophy for 4 years, I have slowly started to hate philosophy for various reasons:

1. Philosophy never gives me any concrete answers. Everything I have learned from taking philosophy classes has taught me that I can never definitively answer the questions I have sought to answer. Everything I have read has had counter-argument after counter-argument, attacking either the premises, the justifications or the conclusions. Whenever a philosophy-related debate ensues with my friends, I always end up being a "fence-sitter" and saying stuff like "while some people believe x, other people claim y," and I never have a definitive opinion on anything. While I understand this is kind of the point of philosophy, it leaves me very unsatisfied, and it makes me feel like I haven't really learned anything from my classes. Whenever I write an essay, I never fully agree with the position I take, I simply choose the side that seems easier to write about. Without definitive answers, to me, it feels like philosophy is just intellectual circle-jerking.
2. I never feel like I'm synthesizing my own ideas. Whenever I write a philosophy paper, I simply just read a bunch of sources related to my thesis and add them together. When I want to defend x, I write "well, y said z, and z is similar enough to x for so and so reasons, so we must accept x." The most synthesis of ideas I am doing is drawing pretty trivial connections between stuff I have already read, and I never feel like anything I write is novel, or that I even own the ideas that I write about. All these rules like "we require n citations" and "you must include these sources" make me feel like I'm not allowed think on my own or be creative in my own right. In the end, I feel like I'm just summarizing the ideas of others. While I would like to believe that a real philosopher, at one point, may eventually be able to create their own ideas, I can't see myself doing that in the foreseeable future, especially at the undergrad level.
3. I do not feel very connected to other philosophy students. From the points above, I have been starting to loath a lot of the philosophy classes that I have been in. But for some reason, most other philosophy students I have talked to enjoyed the philosophy courses that I have hated. However, for the philosophy classes that I did enjoy, the class sizes were abysmally small, and most other philosophy students that I have talked to either didn't care for them or actively disliked them. For example, the classes that I enjoyed the most were ones related to logic, model theory, set theory or topos theory (mostly because I avoided running into problems 1 and 2 in these classes). However, its very rare for me to find any philosophy students interested in these topics. I go to a large university, yet I feel very isolated from my peers. This lack of support from other students is probably a main factor into why I don't feel motivated to study philosophy.

My main question is: How do I remedy these problems and become interested in philosophy again? Should I just jump ship and abandon philosophy because my problems are irreconcilable? Any advice would be appreciated

I have a mostly finished book. I need to proof-read it, and I’m open to revisions as suggested. But I’ve revised it several times and I’m happy with the current version.

I would appreciate any advice or guidance on publishing.

I got my PhD a few years ago, and after being an adjunct I left academia for a career in the private sector. I’ve published a couple of articles in journals, but they aren’t really related to the book. I know your background doesn’t really matter for journal publications because of blind review. But I sort of feel like it does matter some for book publications. I could be wrong, but I worry that not having established myself as a scholar and not currently being associated with any academic institution both count against me in terms of publishing my book.

Do any of you agree? If so, do you have any advice?

If not, do you have any advice?

If it makes a difference, the book offers an account of philosophy and explains what is involved in doing philosophy in a way that is meant to be approachable to a reader without significant background knowledge of philosophy.

Mainly if it was a epistemology and metaphysics focused course Anyone know good ones? That won't be super expensive for international students, great passion for philosophy and am looking for it a good university to study :)

How closed is the Anglosphere? Will doing my PhD in the Netherlands, rather than in the US/UK, hinder what slim chances I have of finding a job in academia after?

My goal is to teach and research philosophy at a university level, for a living. It doesn't have to be at a prestigious university, and I have no intention of being an academic superstar. I just want to make a decent wage, doing what I love, in a country that isn't falling apart. I realise this is a pretty ambitious dream.

I know the job market is really bad. I've heard that getting a PhD from a world renowned university, like Princeton or NYU, won't guarantee a job after, but it could help. However, that means living in the US; it's not horrible, but it's not something I'm hoping for. In the UK stipends are really bad.

In the Netherlands PhDs are hired employees, with a good wage and workers rights. Generally, it seems like a good place to live, if you can find housing. However, I'm worried that a PhD from a top university there, like Rotterdam or Utrecht, won't be held in high regard in the anglosphere where most positions are, and might even hurt my chances of finding a job or even a postdoc position.

So, returning to the question at the top - will a PhD from the Netherlands hurt my chances of achieving my goal?

All thoughts would be really appreciated.

I teach Pascal's Pensées in an intro-level class and, even at the end of the unit, I'm still getting this question: "If we keep jumping around from thought to thought, why isn't the Pensées structured more 'clearly'? Why didn't Pascal put these in a more 'readable' order?"

Never-mind that Pascal died before he wrote his Apologia. Never-mind that the Pensées isn't the "book" he intended to write. Never-mind that I've told students this again and again and again.

But: I was taught the Pensées by "skipping" all over the place. Even knowing that Pascal did achieve some arrangement of his thoughts prior to his death, I still find it more "coherent" to piece thoughts together from several different "series" and pages. So, I guess my question is: if we regularly "skip around" so much in teaching the Pensées, why are we beholden to editions that inevitably lead my my students to say: "This is too complicated. Why didn't Pascal just put these thoughts side by side?" (The topic of why students today find this "complicated" would require a whole other thread!)

Is there a good resource that lays out precisely why our modern editions of the Pensées are ordered the way they are?

I intend to apply to several top PhD and MPhil/BPhil philosophy programs.

The first draft was just completed, ~12 pages so far. Before I continue with revisions, I'd like to receive any form of feedback to ensure its merit/viability and high-quality standards. Reason being is that my topic is quite ambitious, possibly controversial--primarily regarding the metaphysical implications of certain ontological concepts.

I graduated Summa with a BA in Philosophy back in 2020, so it's a bit difficult to receive consistent communication with former professors, although they have been supportive in my pursuits. I will meet with one professor in early December, but by then, it'd be close to the deadlines.

Any guidance would be much appreciated!

Edit: Topic revolves around an attempt to bridge Kantian phenomenal realms to the noumenal by critiquing the traditional use of finite constructs when attempting to conceptualize divinity. I then propose and defend a theory, respecting the constructs of finite reasoning (such as in language and logic), yet paving a pathway for transcendence.

Hi Everyone! I'm an undergraduate student at Vanderbilt university currently double majoring in Philosophy and Economics. Due to unforeseen circumstance I have to add another year to my schooling, meaning that I can triple major. I've been thinking alot about this and I still haven't been able to come to a conclusion on what my third major should be yet. I know that political science is probably a good option because of the overlap but I'm not overly sure I would like that. So I am here to ask y'all about this. Does anyone have any recommendation on what my third major should be?

Thank you in advance!

I know that this question might seem loaded, so let me explain briefly based on my personal experience.

Ever since I started studying philosophy (as a major) I always felt a heavy burden of quilt and shame. Even though my parents are extremely supportive, I still feel like what I'm doing is pointless in a sense, that it's not a lucrative carrier option, but also that's the only thing I love. I'm very well aware that there are many critical reflections (even in the philosophical tradition) about the sort of enforced productivity, and also about the non-instrumental/sovereign nature of philosophy. But these reflections can't give me any relief at this point.

So my question is whether any of you felt at some point similar to this? Also how did you manage to overcome this feeling (if you did)?

Trying to connect with Philosophy alumni or current students doing PhD, specifically on South Asian philosophies or otherwise. I am trying to sort my research topic, so was hoping to discuss. Hit me up! :)

Hello!

I teach Philosophy at the high school level and I am hoping to plan a field trip to a nearby prison. When I was a student, my psychology teacher took us on a field trip to a prison and I thought it was a great educational experience to hear from prisoners and also to see how a jail operates.

I think there are many clear philosophical connections to make on our unit of free will and justice. Are people born into crime? Are people born good or evil? Are people more likely to commit crime if they are born into circumstances surrounding by crime? what is justice? Is serving time a fair form of justice? Etc Etc Etc

The one issue I am having is gaining momentum towards planning this trip. A lot of prison visits were shut down during COVID and I’ve had very little success with contacting people in the state department regarding field trips.

Curious if anyone has planned a similar field trip or any overall tips on how to make it happen. Thank you.