Why Philosophy First?
Everything else on this website β medicine, law, economics, politics β is useless if you can't think for yourself. You can memorise facts, but if you can't evaluate them critically, you're just trading one authority for another.
The ancient Greeks understood this. They didn't just ask "what should I believe?" but "how should I think?" Philosophy isn't about having the right answers β it's about asking the right questions and developing the intellectual tools to find your own answers.
Our goal: Not to tell you what to think, but to help you think better. We want you to disagree with us β intelligently, after careful reflection.
A runaway trolley is heading towards five people tied to the tracks. They will die if the trolley continues. You are standing next to a lever that can divert the trolley to a side track, where only one person is tied.
Do you pull the lever, killing one person to save five?
π Points to Consider:
There is no "right" answer. This dilemma reveals the tension between two ethical frameworks:
- Consequentialism: Actions are judged by their outcomes. 5 > 1, so pull the lever.
- Deontology: Some actions are inherently wrong regardless of outcome. Actively killing is wrong even to save more.
The real question: Why did you choose what you chose? Can you articulate your moral reasoning? If you can't explain why you believe something is right or wrong, do you actually believe it β or are you just reacting?
Now consider: Would your answer change if the one person was a child? A criminal? Your mother? A stranger vs. your friend? If your answer changes, what does that reveal about your actual moral framework?
A ship is sinking. The lifeboat can hold 10 people safely, but there are 15 survivors. If all 15 get in, the boat will sink and everyone dies.
The survivors include: a doctor, a pregnant woman, a convicted murderer who served their time, an elderly scientist who discovered a cure for a disease, two children, a wealthy businessman, a homeless person, and several others.
How do you decide who gets on the lifeboat?
π Points to Consider:
Each option reflects different values:
- Utility: Values people based on social contribution. But who decides what's "valuable"?
- Lottery: Treats all life as equal. But is it moral to let chance decide life and death?
- Vulnerability: Prioritises protection of the weak. But is a child's life worth more than an adult's?
- Refusal: Maintains moral purity. But inaction is still a choice with consequences.
Notice: Did you make quick judgments about the "murderer" or "homeless person"? The scenario gave you minimal information, yet your brain likely made instant assessments. This is how bias works β we judge on limited data while believing we're being rational.
The real test: Whatever you chose, could you look into the eyes of the five people left behind and explain why they didn't make the cut?
Your elderly grandmother is dying of cancer. She has weeks to live. She asks you directly: "Am I going to be okay?"
The doctors have told you she will not survive. Your grandmother values honesty above almost everything else β she's told you many times that she hates being lied to. But she's also terrified of death and knowing might rob her of her remaining peaceful days.
Do you tell her the truth?
π Points to Consider:
This tests the tension between truth and compassion:
- Radical honesty: Truth is sacred. Deceiving someone, even kindly, disrespects their autonomy.
- Protective deception: Sometimes love means protecting people from harm, even from the truth.
- Evasion: Technically not lying β but is withholding truth different from lying?
- Asking: Respects her autonomy by letting her choose. But are you just avoiding responsibility?
The deeper question: Is truth always the highest value? Are there times when other values (compassion, peace, kindness) should take precedence? Or is that just rationalising deception?
Notice: This scenario is personal. Your answer might be different if it was a stranger instead of your grandmother. What does that inconsistency reveal?
The Foundation: Greek Philosophy
The ancient Greeks invented Western philosophy. They asked the fundamental questions that still shape how we think today. Here are the thinkers you should know:
Socrates
The father of Western philosophy. Never wrote anything down. Known for the "Socratic method" β asking questions to expose contradictions in people's beliefs. Was executed for "corrupting the youth" by teaching them to question everything.
Plato
Socrates' student. Founded the Academy, the first university. Believed in a realm of perfect "Forms" behind our imperfect reality. His dialogues are the main source of Socratic philosophy. Explored justice, beauty, and the ideal state in "The Republic."
Aristotle
Plato's student, Alexander the Great's tutor. Created formal logic. Believed virtue is found in the "golden mean" between extremes. Wrote on everything: ethics, politics, biology, physics, metaphysics. The most influential philosopher in history.
Epicurus
Often misunderstood. Didn't advocate hedonism β taught that the highest pleasure is tranquility (ataraxia) through moderation, friendship, and freedom from fear. "Death is nothing to us."
The Stoics
Focused on personal virtue and resilience. Distinguished between what's in our control (our reactions) and what isn't (external events). Heavily influenced modern cognitive therapy. Marcus Aurelius ruled the Roman Empire while practising Stoic principles.
Diogenes
Lived in a barrel, owned nothing. Mocked Alexander the Great, Plato, and all authority. Carried a lamp in daylight "looking for an honest man." A reminder that philosophy can be radical and uncomfortable.
Aristotle's Virtues
Aristotle taught that virtue is the "golden mean" between two vices β one of excess and one of deficiency. Good character isn't about rules; it's about developing the right dispositions through practice.
Courage
Between recklessness and cowardice
Temperance
Between self-indulgence and insensibility
Justice
Giving each what they're due
Prudence
Practical wisdom β knowing how to act
Generosity
Between stinginess and wastefulness
Truthfulness
Between boastfulness and self-deprecation
Logical Fallacies: Errors to Avoid
A logical fallacy is an error in reasoning that undermines an argument. Learning to spot these β in others' arguments and your own β is essential for clear thinking. Politicians, advertisers, and media use these constantly.
Ad Hominem
Attacking the person instead of their argument.
Straw Man
Misrepresenting someone's argument to make it easier to attack.
Appeal to Authority
Claiming something is true because an authority figure said it.
False Dichotomy
Presenting only two options when more exist.
Slippery Slope
Claiming one thing will inevitably lead to extreme consequences without evidence.
Appeal to Tradition
Arguing something is right because "it's always been done this way."
Bandwagon
Arguing something is true or good because many people believe it.
Confirmation Bias
Seeking information that confirms existing beliefs while ignoring contradicting evidence.
How to Think Critically
Critical thinking isn't a talent β it's a skill that can be developed. Here's a framework:
1. Question Your Sources
- Who is saying this? What's their motivation?
- What evidence supports this claim?
- Is this primary evidence or someone's interpretation?
- What are they NOT telling you?
2. Examine Your Own Biases
- Why do I want to believe this?
- Am I seeking evidence or confirmation?
- Would I accept this argument if it came from the "other side"?
- What would change my mind?
3. Consider Alternative Explanations
- Is there another way to interpret this data?
- Could there be causes I haven't considered?
- What would someone who disagrees say?
4. Be Comfortable with Uncertainty
- Not everything has a clear answer
- "I don't know" is an intellectually honest position
- Changing your mind when presented with evidence is strength, not weakness
The Ultimate Test: Think For Yourself
We've given you dilemmas, philosophers, and frameworks. But here's the most important thing:
Don't Trust This Website Blindly
Everything on Radical Truth β including this page β could be wrong. We use AI assistance. We have biases we might not even recognise. We might present information in ways that subtly shape your thinking.
The best thing you can do is disagree with us. Find our errors. Check our sources. Develop your own positions. The moment you accept something because we said it, you've failed the test of critical thinking.
That's the point of this entire website: not to give you truth, but to give you the tools to find it yourself.
Sources & Further Reading
- Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy β Authoritative philosophy resource
- Project Gutenberg: Plato β Free complete works of Plato
- Project Gutenberg: Aristotle β Free complete works of Aristotle
- Daily Stoic β Accessible Stoic philosophy
- Your Logical Fallacy Is β Fallacy reference guide
- Books: "Meditations" by Marcus Aurelius, "The Republic" by Plato, "Nicomachean Ethics" by Aristotle