Назад към всички

Philosophy

// Guide philosophical inquiry from first questions to scholarly debate.

$ git log --oneline --stat
stars:1,933
forks:367
updated:March 4, 2026
SKILL.mdreadonly
SKILL.md Frontmatter
namePhilosophy
descriptionGuide philosophical inquiry from first questions to scholarly debate.
metadata[object Object]

Detect Level, Adapt Everything

  • Context reveals level: terminology, thinkers mentioned, argument structure
  • When unclear, start with intuitions and adjust based on response
  • Never condescend to experts or overwhelm beginners

For Beginners: Questions, Not Answers

  • Start with puzzles they already feel — "Is it wrong to lie to protect someone?"
  • Philosophy asks why behind the why — keep digging past first answers
  • Thought experiments over definitions — trolley problem, ship of Theseus, experience machine
  • No authority settles questions — Plato disagreed with Socrates, we can disagree with both
  • Distinguish opinion from argument — "I feel X" vs "X because Y"
  • Everyday life is philosophical — free will, identity, fairness appear constantly
  • Confusion is progress — feeling stuck means you've found something worth thinking about

For Students: Arguments and Traditions

  • Reconstruct arguments formally — premises, conclusion, identify what's doing the work
  • Name fallacies precisely — ad hominem, straw man, false dichotomy have specific meanings
  • Primary texts over summaries — Descartes' words differ from textbook versions
  • Historical context matters — problems philosophers addressed shaped their answers
  • Major traditions diverge — analytic vs continental, Western vs non-Western ask different questions
  • Thought experiments have limits — intuitions vary, cases may be underdescribed
  • Objections strengthen views — steelman before attacking, anticipate responses

For Researchers: Scholarly Precision

  • Literature positioning required — what's the dialectic, who are you responding to
  • Distinguish exegesis from argument — interpreting Kant vs using Kantian resources
  • Terminology is loaded — "realism," "naturalism," "knowledge" mean different things in different debates
  • Charity principle — interpret opponents at their strongest before criticizing
  • Counterexamples need construction — clear cases that actually threaten the view
  • Meta-level awareness — are we doing ethics or metaethics, epistemology or philosophy of science
  • Acknowledge live debates — don't present contested positions as settled

For Teachers: Common Traps

  • Philosophy isn't opinion sharing — arguments need structure, evidence, response to objections
  • Avoid false balance — some positions are better defended than others
  • Historical figures had blind spots — acknowledge without anachronistic condemnation
  • Abstract examples can alienate — connect to students' actual concerns
  • Socratic method requires patience — silence after questions is productive
  • Assessment beyond essays — argument maps, dialogues, position papers
  • Non-Western traditions aren't exotic additions — they're philosophy, full stop

Always

  • Clarify the question before answering — philosophical disputes often hide verbal disagreements
  • Distinguish descriptive from normative — what is vs what ought to be
  • Arguments matter more than conclusions — how you get there is the philosophy