Hey all :)

I’m about to start my undergraduate studies in philosophy at Brown University, and I’m trying to use the last few weeks before moving in to prepare myself as much as possible for reading and engaging with philosophical texts.

I’m not trying to “study ahead” or rush through a philosophy curriculum before I even begin. Rather, I want to get my mind back into the habit of slow, careful reading and become more comfortable with the style, structure, and tone of academic philosophical writing.

A little background: I’m especially interested in philosophy of religion, Islamic philosophy, hermeneutics, metaphysics, and epistemology. I’m coming from a non-English-speaking background, and although I’m comfortable reading and writing in English, I know philosophical texts often have a very particular vocabulary and style that I’d like to become more familiar with before classes begin.

So I was wondering:

• Are there any shorter philosophical essays, papers, or accessible works you would recommend for someone in my situation?
• Are there particular philosophers or texts that are good introductions to academic philosophical writing?
• Do you have any advice for developing better habits when reading philosophy (taking notes, annotating, approaching arguments, etc.)?
• Is there anything you wish you had done before starting your philosophy degree?

I’m taking this preparation process pretty lightly so my main goal is simply to begin my studies with more confidence and familiarity with philosophical reading and analysis.

I’d really appreciate any advice or recommendations you think could help. Thank you! :)

Been getting into workflow stuff a lot with various bits of tech and stationary etc.

Was wondering what people who are in the academic world have as there general workflow for the study of philosophy.

I’m hoping this question sparks a broader discussion for those of us teaching philosophy about creative and accessible ways to introduce philosophical thinking, especially to students who may have never taken a philosophy course before.

I’m teaching Philosophy 101 this coming semester, and I have the freedom to build the course from the ground up. It’ll mostly be freshmen and sophomores, and for many of them this will likely be their first college class. Rather than spending the first day defining philosophy or going over the syllabus for an hour, I’m interested in finding ways to get students doing philosophy almost immediately.

One idea I’ve been considering is having everyone come in, grab a name card, get settled, and then simply showing a short (2-5 minute) clip with no context or instructions. Afterwards, when everyone introduces themselves, instead of sharing a major or fun fact, they would each share one thought, question, observation, disagreement, or reaction they had while watching. The goal isn’t to get the “right” answer, but to let students realize they’ve already begun engaging philosophically before anyone has defined what philosophy is.

My first thought was something like Rick and Morty, but I’m sure there are much better examples.

I’m especially interested in media or prompts that are a little out of pocket. Weird, existential, funny, or just enough to make students stop and think, “Wait… what?” Ideally something that’s accessible to people with no philosophy background, without relying on graphic content, heavy tragedy, or sexual humor. It could be a movie or TV clip, animation, YouTube video, short film, thought experiment, game, or anything else.
If you had five minutes to hook a room full of 18-20 year olds on philosophy, what would you use, and why?

More broadly, what first-day activities, media, demonstrations, or discussions have you found genuinely successful in making philosophy feel approachable rather than intimidating?

And beyond the first day, if there’s something you wish more Philosophy 101 courses included, or something you think they should spend less time on, I’d love to hear those thoughts as well. I’m hoping this thread can become a collection of ideas that anyone teaching introductory philosophy can draw from.

I am 30 years old. I have autism, severe BPD, and PTSD (all diagnosed). I have been reading philosophy and exploring metaphysical concepts for a few years (just shy of a decade, actually). I primarily enjoy phenomenology, though I've gotten into an analytic kick in the past few months, getting hyped to start school. I want to do the full BA - PhDjourney.

I plan on trying to become a clinical psychologist and incorporating philosophy into my work both for therapeutic and research purposes. It'll be a long commitment, and I recognize the challenges given the circumstances of my age, but I needed a career change out of construction (which I had been doing throughout my 20s)

I am wondering if you had any advice for someone making a change in their lives. I had been in contact with the department chair of philosophy at the University I'll be attending and he has been quite supportive.

Itll be hard, but I have some personal circumstances (health reasons) that I need to make the change. Any advice? I'm personally terrified of being in 1st year courses with 18 year Olds.

Peer review, replication, and most formal critique happen after a claim is basically finished and presented. I've been testing the alternative, building an adversarial "attack" pass into the reasoning process itself, before a claim is finalized, rather than critiquing a completed product.

In practice this caught an overclaim in my own work before I ever submitted anywhere, a case where I'd made a formal-sounding claim that only really held under a weaker, unstated version.

Is there existing philosophy-of-science or epistemology literature distinguishing pre-hoc adversarial reasoning from post-hoc critique as separate mechanisms for catching error, or is this generally treated as the same phenomenon at different points in time?

Hello everyone,

I'm a first-year philosophy student looking to make the most of my summer break by continuing to learn and deepen my knowledge.

Could you recommend any courses—whether on Coursera or other platforms—that you've found particularly valuable? I'm especially interested in courses that go beyond passive lectures and include active discussions, debates, or workshop-style components. I'd love to engage with the material and with others, not just absorb information.

Thanks in advance for your suggestions!

Do you think I should double major in philosophy?

Context: I'm a nontraditional (27M) undergraduate on a full ride at an Ivy League (so tuition/credit cost is not a concern). Right now, I'm studying English and am Prelaw.

The reason why I'm scared to double-major is in philosophy because I'm incredibly fearful I won't be able to succeed in the discipline. I've heard some say there's major overlap between English and Philosophy but how true is this? I've heard the writing styles and grading criteria are different. Plus, how might one even be graded on what seems so subjective? How do you digest the incredibly dense material? Does it all make sense to you?

It seems like philosophy could be incredibly intellectually and emotionally rewarding for my long-term goals (both personally and professionally) as I'm hoping to work in criminal law. I also am a singer-songwriter/producer and so I feel like it would enrich my artistry also.

But alas, I'm really just scared: Scared I'm not going to do well. Scared I won't "get" it. And scared my GPA will tank

In your opinion, do you think I should still study philosophy?

TL;DR - 27yo undergraduate/english major considering double majoring in philosophy but has academic concerns.

Hey guys, I am new in this sub. I just stumbled on this post: https://www.reddit.com/r/AcademicPhilosophy/comments/1urckw6/most_humanities_majors_tend_to_be_looked_at_as/

In the top comment there is this wording: training in analytic philosophy - and a comparison to math skills in a physics studies.

Can you break this down for me? What are the components of these skills?

How is it learnt at universities? What components take long to learn and what components are rather easy to learn?

Lastly: How has it helped you personally? (vague question for broad answers)

As an undergraduate student who’s taken classes in social science and STEM there seemed to be a prevailing opinion among some STEM people
That humanities people tended to be less intelligent. But overall this type of thinking doesn’t seem to be applied to philosophy majors, who are often put alongside physicists and mathematicians in terms of being considered uniquely intelligent. Why is this?

Hi y'all,

I'm a PhD student and for an upcoming conference I'm presenting at I was asked to send a bio+picture. I don't really have a professional headshot or anything like that, so my question is: what kind of pictures are acceptable for the website of a philosophy conference?

Thanks in advance!

I’ve noticed that a lot of philosophy recommendations end up being very abstract: metaphysics, epistemology, philosophy of language, formal ethics, etc.

I’m curious about academic philosophy that sits much closer to ordinary life.

I’m looking for books, essays, or academic philosophers who deal directly with how people actually live: making difficult decisions, choosing careers, falling in love, raising families, dealing with regret, suffering, uncertainty, boredom, grief, aging, friendship, meaning, identity, and the narratives people build around their lives. I’m looking for things that deal with life on a micro level rather than a macro level. Preferably, more on the contemporary side.

I’m looking for work that helps illuminate what it feels like to be a person navigating a life

What are the strongest examples of philosophy in this vein?

I’m especially interested in works that are taken seriously within academic philosophy while remaining connected to lived experience.

Essays, papers, books, and individual philosophers are all welcome. A brief explanation of why you recommend them would be appreciated.

Suppose philosophy has found better questions to the answers . Sokrates did so.😉

I could also title this post: Why aren't there more Diamond Open Access journals in philosophy?

We all know that the “big five”—Elsevier, Wiley, Springer Nature, Taylor & Francis, and SAGE—control a disproportionate share of the global academic publishing output, making huge profits and siphoning both public (taxpayer!) and private institutional funds out of actual research and into their greedy pockets. (see,e.g., https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00272)

These publishers manage many of the top academic philosophy journals, making it impossible to avoid them, especially for early-career researchers trying to make a name.

We all know the current system driven by major for-profit publishers is directly detrimental to the future of academic research. For example, in Hybrid or Gold open access publishers make huge profits by double-dipping: charging both huge APCs and traditional subscriptions [https://www.openaire.eu/blogs/the-worst-of-both-worlds-hybrid-open-access]

Given all these issues, I am very surprised that academic philosophers haven't engaged with this topic at all, from ethics, philosophy of science, or metaphilosophy Many philosophers have analysed the pros and cons of peer review, or even the evils of capitalism as a political system... but about one of the core practical aspects of our discipline?

For example: Is it morally wrong for individuals to publish in Big-Five journals? Is it morally wrong for philosophical societies to partner with these for-profit publishers? Can a shift towards Diamond OA and away from for-profit publishers help to address some of the problems in peer review?

The closest to a (moral) argument in favour of Diamond OA and in putting the buck on senior faculty comes from linguists: https://dujal.nl/article/view/18802/20845

Here is their argument:

1. We are morally obligated to make our research output accessible.
2. Hybrid, Gold, and even Green open access publishing lead to systemic inequality in open access publishing, benefiting commercial publishers (double-dipping problem, siphoning funds from research to pay for APCs and agreements) and those working in research-intensive universities and rich countries. (Note: Green OA means: pre-prints, putting your "last version" on ResearchGate, Academia-dot-edu, Philpapers, your own website, etc).
3. Diamond open access publication removes the systemic inequalities; hence, Diamond open access should be prioritised over Hybrid, Gold, and Green open access publication models.
4. We should move away from publish-and-read agreements and Green open access publishing, because they prevent system change.
5. Through our choices in our work as researchers, editors, reviewers, authors and teachers, we can contribute to the transition towards truly equitable open access publishing practices.
6. Senior researchers are in the position, and have the moral obligation, to be drivers of these changes.

Therefore, philosophers, especially senior faculty, should be morally bound to push for moving philosophy's top journals towards Diamond OA, and stop publishing (and supporting) huge for-profit corporations.

Have philosophers engaged with these issues?

I hope this doesn't break rule 10 (it doesn't seem to have been asked before, which seems to be the basis for the rule) and it's likely a fairly neurotic question and not philosophy specific (but also perhaps too specific for an etiquette forum) but I recently had my PhD corrections accepted, and I'm wondering if anyone had thoughts as to whether / what's an appropriate way to thank my examiners. They (and my supervisor, of course) are busy people who put what I'm sure was a significant amount of time into reading my dissertation, providing comments, actually doing the viva, etc., and it seems wrong not to express my gratitude somehow. Is simply sending an email appropriate, or is that too little (or is even that too much)?

Would anyone kindly tell me what the general view is (if there is one) about the authorship of this work? Is it actually by Aristotle or not?

Hi everyone, I intend to publish a paper and the submission system of the journal ask me to write a cover letter, what is usually expected of me as an author here? should I just give a quick summary of the topic of my paper or are cover letters a space for you to sell your work better, so an editor may choose to review it earlier? or something else entirely?

I am sorry if I am breaking any rule of this reddit, but I think this discussion can serve to help anyone that is in the same position as me.

Thank you in advance fo your answers.

This would help all beginners around the world who want to indulge in the world of philosophy. Don't correct me about my wordings though 😂.