If you want an overview of literally everything then read "The History of Western Philosophy". It's one of the very few things that philosophers actually have a consensus in saying that it is the definitive work in its field.

If you want to just get an overview of different topics in philosophy then the Standford Encyclopedia of Philosophy and the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy are your best friends. To get started on the big topics in each field check out these articles depending on your interest:

Ethics (What is a good action?)

Moral Realism - "Is there a universal good? Are morals relative?"

Virtue Ethics - "Virtue as the Good"

Deontology - "Intentions for the sake of duty as the good"

Consequentialism - "The consequence maximizing utility as the good"

Nihilism - "There's no point to life so nothing is good"

Existentialism - "Embracing the meaninglessness of life"

Aesthetics (What is beauty?)

Beauty - "Is beauty objective or subjective?"

Logic (A system of rules to seek objective truth without necessarily needing perception):

Classical Logic - "Deductive reasoning. If A then B; if B then C. A, therefore C."

Inductive Reasoning - "A has followed B many times in the past. If A, then B is likely."

The Problems of Induction - "What's wrong with it"

Epistemology (What is knowledge?):

A Priori and A Posteriori - "Knowledge independent of perception vs. dependent on perception."

Rationalism vs. Empiricism - "Knowledge through logic (e.g. math) vs. knowledge through evidence (e.g. science)."

Metaphysics (The study of the non-physical)

Grounding - "Objects relations to other objects"

Physicalism - "Everything is physical"

Let me know if you have any questions. I'll help you out as best as I can with what I know.

There really should be a donation option. There's no reason for the owners to pay out of pocket for a platform that does so much good for its users.

I love this speech by Reagan about confronting the USSR with strength. Always gives me chills.

I really like #2. Having the "progress bar" on the top left corner of everyone's screens would surely incite some incentive to donate. No ads, no personal information collected (which a lot of people worry about) and most importantly it's optional so no one has to pay monthly or yearly fees.

Another good idea would be to show how much money is spent on you as a user. That way it incentives the users to donate enough to cover their costs. If that number was shown I also think that anyone who donates would either donate that number or more, very rarely less since it's probably a few cents to a dollar.

Everyone loves nature until there's no wifi.

Robots. Hear me out.

It's been said that artificial intelligence will be the last invention that humans will ever have to make. Imagine this: if the first generation of AI is as smart as a human, then the second generation could be exponentially more intelligent than a human, etc. A few generations later we would be mere ants to AI and we could very well be eliminated from the planet. At that point, the only thing left to right the final chapter in history books about us (assuming the AI even wants to to that) would be robots.

If the people willing to leave are those outraged because they can't visit /r/fatpeoplehate, then I don't know if we want them here.

On a 13 hour train to Montreal. I'm so not ready for the snow when I arrive.

I would love to see more activity in #philosophy #ethics and #cognitivescience because whenever I find a good post there the resulting discussion is always incredibly thought provoking.

Completely agree. I think that the culture we have here would be off-putting to the typical redactor we would like to avoid. That being said, whenever more people enter, I would like to think that it means more thoughtful "Hubski-like" people enter the community.

briandmyers (tagged since you might be interested)

Let's get two things straight:

(1) Saudi Arabia is one of the most backwards countries on the planet right now. Executing journalists like they never got the memo that it's not longer 1566, subjugation of women running rampant and much much more.

(2) America is only in bed with these savages because of oil. It's no coincidence that John Kerry paid a visit to the Saudis conveniently before OPEC decided to crank up its supply, lowering the equilibrium price of oil thus hurting Venezuela and Russia (which just so happens to be under US sanctions). The Saudi's benefited because it drove some (not as much as expected though, thanks to their vitality) North American natural gas companies. So the relationship was of mutual benefit.

Sure, the Saudis are technically enemies with the Daesh, but they only further serve to indoctrinate the next generation with their corrupted, conveniently selective distortion of Islam (mentioned in the article). This indoctrination flames the fire that is the Middle East's religious division (just look at the alliances in the Middle East, clear Sunni/Shiite divide).

There can be no good to come out of the "unholy alliance" between the US and the Saudis (economics aside). So surely something has to change. But if there's anything that can be learned from the latter half of the 20th century, it's the following: you can't force a country to become democratic. They must come to that decision on their own. It can't be given, it must be earned. If these countries can't work their way to it, then you must leave them to their own devises until they do. This means (a) not supporting the current regime (not to say we should form a coupe to overthrow it; I'm looking at you CIA) by not buying their oil; that is to say, move towards energy independence, preferably renewable (kill two birds with one stone). (b) What this doesn't mean is impose sanctions on them. Sanctions will only serve to hurt the people of that country (further alienating the West more than it already is). These people go through enough as is, and sanctioning the country won't get rid of their government. But will it make the people dislike their government to the point of change? Certainly not. Look no further than Russia: The West has imposed sanctions on their leaders (rightfully so) which was then used as propaganda to make the russian population not hate their leadership, but to hate the countries that imposed those sanctions in the first place.

In summation, the West has to not support these groups of terror through focus on energy independence because its impractical and terrible economics (to the point where it overshadows the gain) to simply cut ourselves off of their oil without the proper counterbalance (massive increase in oil prices due to lower demand i.e. bad for consumers). For this reason we need to invest in domestic, renewable energy. We also have to not get involved further with sanctions. Countries tend to move towards democracy (look at China; slowly but surely) and as such the best we can do is get out of the people's way to allow that to happen.

Logically, I think the expectation for action increases with proximity and increases with ability

That's a beautiful way of putting it. Making responsibility a function of proximity and ability puts the burden on what we would otherwise intuitively think carries it: Middle Eastern countries and the West.

The question becomes "does being Muslim or Syrian predispose someone to be more likely to commit violence?"

To be fair, I think the question being asked is more of: "Will our open borders (I know, not completelyopen, but still) allow the IS to infiltrate the West?" That's more of an understandable question but I would still think the answer is the same regardless: we should still help these people out. The fact that terrorism happens regardless of your status as a refugee or domestic citizen further proves the point that this fear is unfounded. Hell, even if it is somewhat founded, relative to the amount of lives that could be saved, it's miniscule.

We locked him in with the car

http://imgur.com/SutMB5z

Persnickety. Fuck that word.

I'm subscribed to The Economist, but when I don't want to read articles I just open the Espresso app which has the top 5 stories of the day in a light paragraph followed by important indicators such as currency exchanges, oil prices, etc. Take about 5 minutes and I'm good to go.

I'm in a really cool major my self that you might be interested in. It's called Cognitive Science which is comprised of philosophy, neuroscience, psychology, computer science (artificial intelligence), linguistics and anthropology. It's STEM and it involves a lot of really deep thinking. Look into it!

I'm glad we didn't get those users too, but by "big winner" I just meant in terms of sheer numbers which you may or may not want. I personally don't want them.

That's what I'm wondering as well.

For those people who want to read shorter content I think that whether it says "5 minute read" or is a paragraph or two wouldn't make any difference. The second they see the actual length of the post they would move on anyways.

Do not simply say "we should do this because it is right". There is no such thing. Give an argument.

Saying there is no such thing as right and wrong is a bold choice. While I'm not about to open up the can of worms that is the moral realism debate, I encourage you to read about it here. Just keep in mind there's a difference between what people believe to be right and what is actually right, which is the whole topic of investigation of ethical philosophy. The point is, don't be so quick and so confident in your verdict that right and wrong don't exist. It's much more complicated than that.

Does Russia have boots on the ground? That's news to me.

Your comment that the IS wants boots on the ground for their "holy war" is interesting and something I hadn't heard (or had and forgot).

If we give a home to refugees, one where they can practice their religion unmolested, where they can work and make a living wage, where their kids can go to school, and all the other promises that America stands for, I think this is the greatest deterrent to radicalization.

This 100%. The best way to stop radicalism is education. And while the West has its issues, it might as well be considered paradise for these refugees.

Side note: you should post a thread about your experience in the balkans. I think we would all be very interested in that.

I know it's been said before but Nautilus is incredible. Their style of working on one topic from multiple different perspectives (philosophy, physics, biology, etc) for a month at a time makes for some excellent learning material.

Wow, not a single mention of Hardcore History? If you guys haven't checked it out by now I highly suggest doing so and starting with the series on World War 1.

The very principles of science would fail this test. Science (i.e. empiricism) essentially states that reality can best be understood (or at the very least, understood at all) through observations via the senses. But this idea can't be tested scientifically so surely it must be bunk, right?

This recent "science is the end all be all" mentality is dangerous as it fails to see that truth can be found through other means. Hopefully this mentality is corrected with time.

If this is true, this is aggravating levels of intrusion. I've never been one to be all up in arms about Google's collection but this is just over the top.

I'm honored to be on this list. If anyone is interested in philosophy talk then feel free to follow me. I'd love to have more people engaged in the topic.

I'm afraid that Earn Philosophy is my weak point but I can suggest a few articles to get you started:

Daoism

Confucius

Laozi

Zen Budhism

Hindu Philosophy

Again, this isn't my strong suit, but these should help you getting started. Just probe different topics as you come across them and eventually you'll find your way. Good luck!

I'd love to help you out with philosophy. What topics would you like to learn about?

I'll try and take this one at a time

I think it's odd that the theory was "destroyed" by an argument using formal logic. It presupposes that a) humans are logical

I don't see what humans being logical has to do with the conclusions logic comes to.

b) they act in a logical fashion

Using logic doesn't assume humans are completely logical. This also doesn't have to do with the conclusions logic comes to.

c) if stealing is bad then murder is bad is not an opinion

Here you're confusing a valid argument from a sound argument. A valid argument is one where the conclusions necessarily follow from the premises, true or not. A sound argument is a valid one where the premises are true. Here the video was using a sound argument to prove that moral language has logical properties. Not that the example he used is necessarily true. All he's showing is that moral language has logical properties.

d) opinions can't be logically consistent (wtf?)

What's really being said here is that non-cognitivists are saying that "Murder is bad" is really "I disapprove of murder." Sure you can make logical arguments such as: I don't do things I disapprove of; i disapprove of murder; therefore I don't murder. But the issue here is that those arguments aren't of any use within the field of ethics. If you were a non-cognitivist, you can't create a valid argument when you interject "I disapprove of murder" in the middle, since it doesn't necessitate any conclusions valuable within the field.

A 'logical' argument can be made for being homophobic: non-procreation is bad; hence, homosexuality is bad

Again, this is the different between a valid and a sound argument. You listed a perfectly valid argument; the premise, however, might not be (and most likely isn't, but that's another discussion) correct.

not everyone who is homophobic uses arguments, because a bunch also just want to follow scripture

Back to your earlier point here: humans being and using logic doesn't mean certain conclusions are right or wrong. Furthermore, I think they do use an argument without consciously admitting it: I believe the scripture is infallible; scripture says gays are bad; therefore gay's shouldn't marry

this can still be an opinion [1] and logically consistent.

You're right if you interpret "opinion" as "I believe these first principle are correct"

If I can find a cross-cultural counter-example for something one culture deems moral, and both are equally logical in their claim, what does that say about logic?

I hate to sound redundant here, as I'm sure this must be irritating to read but this comes down to a difference between first assumptions. The arguments can be valid, just not sound.

That is, to go meta-meta: why is something being logical good?

Now that's a good point. There's a whole field dedicated to answering this question (i.e. logic) but my simple answer would be this: Since we're in the field of seeking truth, and there's two essential ways of seeking truth (empiricism and reason (science and logic)) then an answer is good inso far as it uses those methods. Did we define the goalpost here (i.e. Seeking truth through those methods)? Yes, but that's the best I can come up with considering I'm severely under qualified to answer this enormous question. I'd have to give it more thought, but it's interesting to think about!

morality is tied to power, and that b) it is perfectly capable of producing a logical system that can be immoral.

If you haven't already, read some works by Nietzsche, you would like him a lot. But back to the point at hand here: it's one thing to say that humans act because of power, and it's another to say that humans should act because of power (look into the fact/value gap). What you're talking about is psychology of morality or why we act. But again, what we do is not necessarily the way we should act. Also, this is assuming that all moral actions (that is, all actions) are based around power. I would argue that all actions are based around happiness or wellbeing and power is just a means to that end.

Are you tied down to where you currently are?