Ask a 17-Year-Old Philosopher a Question is an initiative started by Alloe Mak and Andreia Lewis with the intent to promote conversations around philosophy and curate a forum for discussions between older and younger generations.
Submit at the bottom of the page.
What is stopping humans from all choosing to die?
Andreia:
I think as humans, universally, the only thing that's scarier than life itself is death. Following that, probably our indomitable human spirit, love, and whatever biological processes that stop us from biting off our own thumb.
Alloe:
A lot of love, and probably a lot more spite.
Jk.
What was Socrates Favourite Food?
Andreia:
He was definitely a porridge guy who would eat figs for dessert.
Alloe:
Probably dry ass bread considering how uptight he was. I bet he would've loved cheetos.
Currently, I am looking into methodological skepticism. Descartes said that the ultimate goal of the method is constructive, and that aims “to reach certainty – to cast aside the loose earth and sand so as to come upon rock or clay.” Although, in theory, it seems beneficial, would it actually be? Could doubting your basic principles, instead, have a detrimental effect to humans, and, on a larger scale, to society?
Alloe:
I feel obligated to admit I'm not a huge fan of the type of methodological skepticism that Descartes presents in his First Meditations, and I am hugely biased against him (sorry!). For those who don't know what Descartes' methodological skepticism is, it refers to the time when Descartes (French philosopher with a great stache who lived from 1596-1650) essentially sat in front of a fireplace and tried to determine what things he could be absolutely certain exist. He did this by believing that something must be wholly false if it admitted even the slightest doubt. At the end of his meditation, Descartes determines that one can only be sure of himself—of his own conscious existence since he cannot cast doubt upon the act of him actively doubting, and famously coins the term "I think, therefore I am." In this meditation, Descartes famously offers reasons to doubt even our most basic sense perceptions (e.g. I am sitting on a chair right now) and even simply analytical statements like 2+3=5. He further encourages one to doubt even the most trivial of statements, such as 1=1.
My contention is this: if Descartes is able to doubt even the simplest logical statements or tautologies, how is he able to have any certain confidence in his own chains of reasoning? The arguments that lead him to the famous conclusion "I think, therefore I am," are just that—arguments, counterarguments, examples, and analytical statements. A priori, he's accepting his own methods of reasoning and arguments as absolutely certain. If he is to doubt the truths of logic and mathematics, shouldn't he doubt his chains of reasoning? Are they not the same thing? A+B=C? In other words, in Descartes' terms, under hyperbolic doubt, he is only warranted in beliefs that are grounded in intuition, not deduction. So, he can only know for certain those things that are self-evident. He cannot be sure of any inferences on the basis of what is self-evident. Doesn't this threaten the project somewhat?
Perhaps one would argue that being able to reason at all (whether it be logical or illogical) is itself his proof of existence. I don't know. I feel like there's some sort of contradiction lurking here.
Anyways... past my spite for Descartes (...why is he so famous for this meditation...it has so many holes...), I do think there is always value in doubting all basic principles. Doing so allows one to delve deep into themselves and find things in which they truly believe in while trying ones best to eliminate bias. Isn't that the point of philosophy and questioning itself—to provide certainty? However, I think doubting, at least in excess, can lead you to a vulnerable mindset. Trying desperately to find true meaning, order, and significance in life while casting doubt on all that you know opens you up to being taken advantage of.
A few days ago, I did some deep-dive reading on controversial "Self-Help" YouTuber Leo Gura, who is the creator of Actualized.Org. He studied Philosophy at the University of California Irvine and now has a YouTube account where he spends much time speaking on how it’s important to cast doubt on all things. He states by doing so, he has discovered that there is no proof that anyone else but he himself exists (solipsism), morality is a farce, life is essentially meaningless, and that all time is circular.
In a response to his “self-help,” a number of people hurt and even killed themselves as a way to transcend this reality and wake up in another. This is all to say that though I do find value in doubting one's own beliefs and basic principles, doing so may put you in a vulnerable state of mind, and such is easy to take advantage of. I find “self-help” to be a good example of this; a place where large groups of people are willing to cast doubt upon their current actions and modes of thinking as a way to genuinely be better while their ignorance is being preyed upon truly is a brewing ground for some of the most dangerous things. Overly existentialist and doubtful thinking paired with extreme pessimism can make one susceptible to Sade ideologies / similar modes of thought to that of Gura, especially responding to doubt with ideas of knee-deep religion and ascension.
I digress. This is extremely pessimistic—I do agree it’s completely necessary to cast doubt upon your own conjectures to ensure a variety of perspectives and reduce potential bias. However, casting doubt onto things that form the basis of your reality (conception of self, morality, time, etc) can and has been detrimental. There’s probably a fine line somewhere.
Andreia:
I think, insofar as you're not meditating for three days in front of a fireplace while bordering off a psychotic break, it's not even possible to cast doubt in excess. Following Allison, a piece of advice would be to use methodological skepticism in areas where you want to explore your uncertainty..don't just..make yourself uncertain for the sake of it. At that point, it's time to touch grass, Rene would've benefitted from this greatly <3
What is the meaning of life?
Alloe:
I guess I should have expected this one to be asked at some point. I’ll try to answer as instinctively and succinctly as I can before my answer becomes impossibly long and muddled...
I’ve just started my existentialism unit in my philosophy class at school (I am writing this as of November 14, 2022) which holds the central claim that "existence precedes essence." This is to say that there is no inherent meaning to life. For many, meaning is consequently then something one must create for themselves and impose upon life even with the knowledge that such meaning is baseless.
I think I’m happy with this idea, and agree with it. Actually, life having meaning scares me a lot more than life not having meaning. I was talking to my close friend Victoria Hrvoic about Five Nights At Freddy’s lore, as we are both absolutely enthralled with the game and the fandom surrounding it, and we noted how it relates to some of the existential ideas we were talking about in class. If you don’t know, Five Nights At Freddy’s is a horror video game where you play a security guard working a night shift inside of a pizzeria and must survive after Five Nights from the dangers of animatronic characters.
We were led to the idea of animatronics being programmed with a purpose unknown to them. Can you imagine being something similar to that? Having your willpower and agency potentially be overridden by a deeper and more innate set of directives outside of your control that you aren’t even aware of? I don’t think anything else could be scarier. It’s that general train of thought that leaves me finding a lot of security in existence being meaningless. What’s the point of having rational thought if we can’t dictate our own essence and meaning and choose our own behaviors? Anyways. I don’t think life has inherent meaning, but I’d advise you not to fret about that. Having things pre-programmed for us—especially meaning—sounds horrifying.
I suppose the follow-up question here would be “what is meaning to you?” To keep it short, I think meaning is to be found in others. I mean, obviously you have to be happy with yourself, love yourself, and find security within yourself, but I think true meaning is to be found in human relationships and emotion. I don’t think that there’s anything more beautiful than such. Moments that I feel the most real and happy are those often when I am with those I love, and we are simply having a good time and laughing our heads off. Those are the most meaningful moments to me and give my life meaning.
Would you rather live as a tortured genius or an ignorant fool?
Response by Alloe:
Tortured genius...? I don't enjoy the notion of intelligence being inexorably tied with pain, though. Why is the question never ignorance vs. knowledge? Blah.
Anyways, I'm nosy. It's part of being a philosopher.
Ha. Ha. Ha.
Response by Andreia:
I think if I was a tortured genius I would probably think I was an ignorant fool ex. "I'm the wisest man in the world because I know that I know nothing." Ignorant fools think that they're tortured geniuses (because only fools think they're the smartest people ever) and tortured geniuses think they're ignorant fools (smart people are aware of their shortcomings but give things an honest go, ready to fail..I think that's the key and the discernment between a smart person and a fool). Anyways, personally I would want to be a tortured genius, for the romanticism..
But something I really disagree with is the narrative that a tortured genius has to be some sort of martyr among men.. ex. the world can't see their genius, everyone else is dumb besides them, and that they're lonely and isolated just because they're smart. I guess this is synonymous with 'tortured' genius, but I don't think being sad is imperative in order to be a genius. I believe a big part of being intelligent is knowing how to work with what you've got. There's no immediate prize for being a tortured genius unless you make use of it towards fulfilling your life. I heard someone on Tik Tok (sorry..) say that the smartest people know exactly when to play dumb, and I think this speaks volumes. Being a genius doesn't just entail solving theorems in a matter of seconds, it's more rather knowing how to work with the world (ex. EQ). I believe being a genius is not so easily defined, and it definitely lies beyond our scope of what it means to be a genius in today's climate, but not entirely. I think we've got it about 45% pinned down..which is my baseless estimate. Anyways this is an entirely new discussion if you'd want to leave some questions about my silly conjectures..
Is talking shit about people you love ever morally justified?
Response by Alloe:
Depends on what you constitute as "talking shit." Also—case by case basis on what is being talked about and to who? when? why? how? etc. I digress. It's natural for people to complain about people they love or to vent about issues, and is necessary to do so as it allows one to think through their thoughts and get some outside perspective. However, doing so in excess and for the sake of having a fun fact be a piece of drama or something you don't like in someone else is ... a bit tasteless. Perhaps morally justified, but tasteless.
I guess I'll just say that it's easy to talk shit and use shared dislike in another person as a way to get to know or bond with others, but creating your relationships on the basis of judgment and gossip usually isn't the best way to go.
Is there ever a time where it's OK to lie?
WIP
Should we be scared for AI?
WIP
What makes the difference between fact and fiction? When does fiction become fact?
WIP
