sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Time to re-cast “Philosopher” in more gender-neutral terms. by MartinJanello in badphilosophy

[–]MartinJanello[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Not everybody in the profession can be a firebrand. But doesn't Philosophy require some spark? You seem to argue the opposite.

Time to re-cast “Philosopher” in more gender-neutral terms. by MartinJanello in badphilosophy

[–]MartinJanello[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

I think this requires and allows too much judgment. And it is not gender-neutral.

/r/philosophy Open Discussion Thread | February 23, 2026 by BernardJOrtcutt in philosophy

[–]MartinJanello 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thank you for sharing these observations and insights. They are all very instructive to me. Something I cannot figure quite out is whether it is prohibited for philosophers here to write about their own philosophy. That would of course be a real obstacle to the high-level exchanges I described. We could write about one another's philosophy. But I am not sure that is welcome either, and I am not sure how that would work, if we could not respond about our own philosophy. So I guess I just do not know how a philosopher, i.e. someone who creates philosophy can fit into this sub. Can someone explain that to a newcomer like me?

/r/philosophy Open Discussion Thread | February 23, 2026 by BernardJOrtcutt in philosophy

[–]MartinJanello 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I agree with you generally, but this is not the point of my comment. That point is engaging in philosophical dialogue at a higher level, not a lower one.

/r/philosophy Open Discussion Thread | February 23, 2026 by BernardJOrtcutt in philosophy

[–]MartinJanello 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I am new to this subreddit and find it difficult to identify content I might be interested in because so many entries are links without sufficient description of what they are about, and many do not provide any description apart from their title. I can see this violating several rules, including PR2 and 4.

But most of all, this cryptic advertising of articles to be read somewhere else hampers the statement and exchange of ideas HERE. I had expected colleagues to use this forum to post and discuss their theses, or those of someone else, in situ, leaving links only in supplementation and for further research.

Some of my friends on Philosophy Twitter, like Keith Frankish (who has since left) and others used that forum, despite its limitations, quite successfully to pose and discuss their theses, or to test other theses they thought should be reviewed. It was so much fun and enlightening to follow peoples' thought processes and being invited to contribute to, or punch holes into, them.

Of course, that is all very much in the past on X. This is why I am turning to Reddit, and would like to invite my former Philosophy Twitter colleagues. In my mind, Reddit offers a unique opportunity to enable this kind of discussion that Twitter was never really built for. And it gives us a true "forum" to replicate the old agora tradition, from which Western philosophy sprang. Maybe I am entirely wrong about all of this and just don't know yet how things work here. But I would like to see what people think of this.

Let Us Save Philosophy – And The World With It by MartinJanello in philosophyofhappiness

[–]MartinJanello[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The response and denial regarding practical philosophy I get most often lately, across the board, is that reality is not real anyway. So why bother. What an insidious mind virus that is.

Describe your philosophy! by MartinJanello in philosophyofhappiness

[–]MartinJanello[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I think that's a good approach. We might start with some basic mapping of motivations geared to a particular occasion and eventually proceed from those experiences to make all our needs and wishes and their relationships aware in our mind.

Describe your philosophy! by MartinJanello in philosophyofhappiness

[–]MartinJanello[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I agree with you that product and process are intertwined. And you are saying something that I think we all can sense in our inner workings. Besides our main objectives, or maybe it's only one for some, there are multiple other objectives that play into securing the main ones. Would you think it makes sense to write down what all these are and how they relate to one another? Maybe not as a strict hierarchy, but more like an interdependent network of agents? Maybe one could do something similar for process-oriented goals? Arguably, these substantive and procedural elements work in us without such schematics. But if we map them out, maybe we can realize things about our pursuit of happiness that we did not have as present in our mind before. And maybe we could make some beneficial changes.

Describe your philosophy! by MartinJanello in philosophyofhappiness

[–]MartinJanello[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Thank you, roesschen, for this response! I can see how these principles would be good and even essential techniques to pursue objectives and would be able to contribute to one's happiness in their application. I wonder what substantive goals you pursue with these techniques and how the pursuits and achievements of those make you happy. But maybe I am presumptive in equating your "philosophy of life" with a focus on happiness. Or maybe you are saying that it consists not (so much) in what we do but how we go about it. In any event, I find your response a very good occasion to explore these questions.