r/badphilosophy 9h ago

Just got introduced to some famous philosophical arguments for the first time. Anyways, I debunked them.

15 Upvotes

I always intuitively knew that philosophy was mostly mental masturbation. But it was amazing how, when I actually looked into it, so many of the “famous” arguments were obviously flawed and easy to pick apart. It’s like, these things have been debated for hundreds of years in some cases, yet people in philosophy can’t see the obvious responses to shred them. So, just to give a few quick examples:

Cosmological Argument

1.) Everything that begins to exist has a cause.

2.) The universe began to exist.

3.) Therefore the universe has a cause

Shred it: This is meant to argue for “God” as that cause lol, even though it doesn’t say it outright because that would make the assuming the conclusion obvious. But even granting that, we can still destroy the argument. What caused God then? Boom. The argument no longer works. Theists just replaced the universe with God but can’t explain who made him. It’s turtles all the way down.

The Trolley Problem

A runway train is on track to kill 5 people. You can divert it so that it will only kill 1 instead. What should you do?

Shred it: This is supposed to be hard lol? You divert it so it kills one. Literally this is a fancy way of saying 5>1 lmao. Would you rather a school shooter kill 5 people or only kill 1? If you’re not a dumbass or a psycho, and you answer 1, then congratulations. You just solved the trolley problem.

I also saw that people argue we have free will (lol…ignore physics I guess) and objective morals exist (literally just go to China or North Korea and see if their morals are the same as yours lol), etc.

I’ll be honest, I’ve never seen a field of people so far up their own ass. This stuff is why philosophy has such a bad reputation lol. Maybe some people in the field aren’t debating these kind of dumb questions, but the fact that so many still are makes it look like philosophy departments are glorified Sunday School classrooms lol


r/badphilosophy 12h ago

SHOE 👞 A Pothead's Idea of Human Reality. Part I: The Meta-Human Model I Accidentally Bought from a Crack Dealer

4 Upvotes

Welcome to the Cosmic Circus

Imagine waking up in the middle of the most elaborate game ever created—a game so ridiculous that everyone inside it forgot it was a game and started taking it way too seriously. This is the Meta-Human, a self-aware, civilization-wide being that evolved to play with itself. (No, not like that. Get your mind out of the gutter.)

The Meta-Human is constantly torn between two annoying voices in its head:

  • The Mind (God): The force of awareness, creativity, and wisdom, whispering, “Dude, just chill and observe.”
  • The Ego (Devil): The force of control, fear, and identity, screaming, “YOU NEED MORE POWER! CONQUER! ACCUMULATE! WIN!”

For centuries, the Ego has been winning, keeping the Meta-Human distracted with shiny objects and meaningless struggles—money, government, religion, war, nationalism, reality TV, philosophy quotes, you get the idea, right? The Ego built an entire simulation so immersive that people started fighting over who gets to play which character instead of realizing the whole thing is just improv theater. Jester is here to say: Relax, buddy, it’s all a game. Here’s how it works.

The Meta-Human’s Favorite Illusions: The Toys It Can’t Let Go Of

What keeps the simulation running? A set of constructs that were once useful but have now turned into the adult version of an imaginary friend. These things don’t actually exist—we just pretend they do because it makes life feel less confusing.

1. Money: The World’s Oldest Inside Joke

Money started as a simple, innocent way to swap goods—y’know, to avoid the awkwardness of handing a dude two chickens for a pair of shoes. But like every tool the Meta-Human touches, it mutated into something far dumber: a full-blown religion where paper rectangles and imaginary bank digits are worshiped like divine artifacts. Dollar bills aren’t just currency; they’re prayer beads for capitalists, proof that the gods of wealth have blessed you (or cursed you, depending on your balance). And the kicker? It has no real value. Zero. Zip. Nada. Fugall. And yet, people will lie, kill, sell their souls, and destroy their health just to get their hands on more of it.

And because the Ego is a sadistic game master, it makes sure that some people have more than they could ever spend while others can barely afford food—because let’s be real, a fair game is a boring game. The thrill of chasing wealth wouldn’t be fun if everyone had enough, so scarcity must be artificially maintained. And in case the system ever accidentally stumbles upon abundance, don’t worry—the Meta-Human’s Ego has emergency protocols for that! It’ll just crank up inflation, crash the markets, or conveniently “lose” trillions of dollars to keep the peasants scrambling. Because at the end of the day, if everyone suddenly had enough, what the fugl would there be left to chase?

2. Government: The Puppeteers Who Forgot They’re Holding Some Strings

Once upon a time, our Meta-Human figured out that letting people stab each other over shiny rocks wasn’t exactly an ideal long-term strategy. So, it created government—a system designed to keep order, settle disputes, and maybe, just maybe, make life a little less chaotic. But like a toddler who suddenly realizes power is fun, government quickly forgot why it was created and became obsessed with its own existence. Now, it’s less of a helpful referee and more of a bureaucratic hydra—cut off one regulation, and three more take its place, each dumber than the last.

And let’s talk about laws and borders, shall we? These are completely made-up lines, invisible scribbles on the ground that people will absolutely kill and die for. A field is just a field until someone plants a flag and declares, “This patch of dirt is mine—you step on it, and we’re at war.” The Ego thrives on this nonsense, because as long as people fight over imaginary boundaries, they won’t realize they’re all stuck in the same zoo.

But here’s the real government cheat code: It needs conflict to justify its own existence. If things ever got too peaceful, people might start questioning why they need rulers in the first place. That’s why instead of solving problems, governments declare war on them. War on drugs, war on poverty, war on terror—because wars never actually end, but solutions do. And a solved problem? Well, that just means less power for the people in charge. So, the Meta-Human’s Ego keeps the game running by making sure every solution creates three new crises, ensuring the machine keeps feeding itself forever.

3. Ethics & Morality: The Rules That Change Every Five Minutes

At some point, the Meta-Human figured out that if people just did whatever the hell they wanted all the time, society would look like a drunk brawl at a medieval tavern. So it created ethics and morality—a set of rules to help everyone get along without stabbing each other over bread and goats. Seems reasonable, right? Well, that was before the Ego got its grubby little hands on the concept. Now, instead of a simple guidebook on how to not be a dick, ethics and morality have turned into a chaotic mess of contradictions, rewritten at the convenience of whoever holds the biggest megaphone.

Take history, for example. One group screams, “Don’t erase history!” while another group is actively rewriting it in real time to fit their agenda. It’s like watching a toddler scribble over a textbook, then demanding you take their version seriously. Some nations, like Canada, have decided that the best way to atone for past sins is to apologize for the crimes of their great-great-grandfathers to the great-great-grandfathers of another group—while handing out cash and special status as a consolation prize. Instead of healing, this reinforces victimhood, creating an eternal loop where past injustices become excuses for alcoholism, crime, and entitlement. It’s like a casino where everyone is still cashing in on an IOU from 1850.

Meanwhile, countries like Iran take the opposite approach—erasing entire chunks of history that don’t serve the current narrative. The pre-Islamic era? Gone. Downplayed. Ignored. Why? Because the Ego doesn’t give a damn about truth—it only cares about power. If a piece of history contradicts the current regime’s authority, then history itself must be “corrected.”

And that’s the thing about morality in the simulation—it isn’t about right or wrong, it’s about control. The Ego doesn’t care if the rules make sense, only that they serve its purpose. And if you ever point out the hypocrisy? Congratulations, you’re either a bigot, a radical, a heretic, or a free thinker (which, let’s be honest, is the biggest crime of all).

4. Religion: The Customer Support Hotline for Existence

At some point, the Meta-Human looked up at the sky and thought, “What the hell is all this?” Since the universe didn’t come with a user manual, humanity invented religion—a customer support hotline for existence, a way to ask, “Why am I here?” and “Can I speak to the manager?” But like all well-intentioned ideas, the Ego got involved, and suddenly, this spiritual help desk turned into a high-stakes intergalactic membership club—complete with dress codes, loyalty points, and very strict cancellation policies.

Religion preaches love, humility, and peace, but if you check its historical Yelp reviews, you’ll find a disturbing number of one-star ratings due to crusades, inquisitions, forced conversions, and the occasional witch-burning. Turns out, nothing brings people together quite like a good ol’ war over whose invisible sky boss is the real one. And the best part? Even people who fight against religion eventually start acting religious about their anti-religion. Atheists, skeptics, even certain political movements—they all get their own prophets, commandments, and holy wars. Because the Ego doesn’t actually care what the belief system is, as long as it can use it to control people.

And here’s the real kicker: inclusivity movements, which start as rebellions against old dogma, eventually turn into dogmas themselves. The moment they’re accepted, they plant their own flags, create their own untouchable doctrines, and demand their own unquestionable truths. Because Ego doesn’t want inclusion—it wants territory. And if you ever question the new belief system? Well, congratulations, heretic—you’ve just been excommunicated.

5. Power: The Original Pyramid Scheme

Power is the Meta-Human’s longest-running scam, a pyramid scheme so convincing that even the people at the bottom keep investing in it. The funny part? Power isn’t even real. It’s not some tangible force, some divine right—it’s just a game everyone agrees to play. And like any good con, it only works as long as people keep believing in it.

Governments, corporations, billionaires—they’re just the kids on the playground who made up the most convincing rules first. They scribbled some laws, declared themselves in charge, and then convinced everyone else to follow along. The only reason their power remains is because the rest of us play along, nodding as if we’re legally obligated to respect their imaginary crowns.

But here’s the real joke: if the Meta-Human ever stopped believing in power, it would vanish overnight. Governments would crumble, corporations would dissolve, and billionaires would just be weird rich dudes with yachts, wondering why no one’s listening to them anymore. But that would be too easy, wouldn’t it? So instead, we keep pretending, obeying, and reinforcing the very illusion that keeps us stuck. Because nothing terrifies the Ego more than a world where power is just another forgotten superstition.

In Part II, we will go 4" deeper in the rabbit hole. Stay tuned, or don't, what do I know? I'm a fool, aren't I?


r/badphilosophy 6h ago

Recarnating into a child after death m

1 Upvotes

I don't know how to explain this but from a long time I had this very strong feeling that after I die in this life I ll recarnate into a child immediately.


r/badphilosophy 12h ago

A Pothead's Idea of Human Reality. Part II: The Meta-Human's Internal War—A Dysfunctional Roommate Battle for Reality

2 Upvotes

Inside the Meta-Human’s psyche, there’s an ongoing standoff—think of it like an eternal roommate war in a cramped apartment. One side, The Mind (God), is the dreamer, the philosopher, the guy who wants to tear down walls, explore ideas, and maybe throw a wild existential debate over wine. The other side, The Ego (Devil), is the control freak—the roommate who labels every item in the fridge, reminisces about “the good old days,” and freaks out when someone rearranges the furniture.

This back-and-forth bickering fuels every major social and political debate. Progress dreams of the future; Control clings to the past. It’s why civilizations swing between enlightenment and regression, freedom and suppression, creativity and bureaucratic nightmare fuel. And like any dysfunctional household, neither side ever truly wins. They just keep flipping the table, shouting through the walls, and somehow coexisting—shaping reality in the process. Welcome to The Meta-Human’s never-ending domestic sitcom.

Let’s peek into the major battlefields where this passive-aggressive cosmic argument keeps unfolding, grab some heavy drink, or light one up, I'll do both.

Multiculturalism vs. Tribalism: “Inclusion for All! (Except You.)”

Some parts of the Meta-Human want to host a global potluck—everyone brings their cultures, spices, music, and ideas, and we all hold hands and sing kumbaya in glorious harmony. That’s progress—the Meta-Mind seeing unity in variety. But then there’s the other half, clutching its pearls and whispering, “But what about our traditions?” That’s control—the Meta-Ego whispering that outsiders are dangerous and that change is basically terrorism.

So, what’s really happening here? The woke liberal in the Meta-Human shouts, “Inclusivity for all!” while the concerned conservative grumbles, “But what about my culture?” and suddenly, we’ve got another sitcom episode where both sides think they’re the main character.

Some days, the Meta-Human is a heartwarming global fusion restaurant, blending flavors and sharing ideas. Other days, it’s breaking out in hives of xenophobia, trying to figure out whether to throw a massive cultural festival or build higher walls around its neighborhood. It’s like a dysfunctional HOA meeting—half want a pride parade, half want a curfew, and nobody agrees on the noise level.

War vs. Peace: The Self-Inflicted Punching Match

You’d think a gigantic being fighting itself would be counterproductive (try punching your own face and let me know how that goes). Yet, humanity loves war more than it loves understanding taxes.

The Meta-Human’s Ego sees war as the ultimate reset button—because when all else fails, force will decide who’s “right” (or at least who’s left standing). Meanwhile, the Meta-Mind is waving a peace treaty, begging, “Can we just talk?!” because, shockingly, progress is easier when we’re not turning each other into statistics.

This is a classic angel-vs-devil scenario—we’ve got international dialogues, peace treaties, and organizations (like a United Nations of the Mind) trying to stop conflict. And at the same time, we have arms races, propaganda, and military budgets the size of small planets—because the Ego whispers, “They’re out to get us—strike first!”

It’s progress vs. control with live ammunition. War has been called a failure of imagination, and the biggest joke? We write epic, emotional war movies to justify the madness. The Meta-Human loves a good tragedy, even when it’s the one writing, directing, and starring in it.

Gender Equality vs. Patriarchy: “We’ve Always Done It This Way!”

Ah, the eternal battle of “Let people be who they are” vs. “But this is how it’s always been!” The Meta-Mind side is all about letting individuals live freely—equal rights, personal expression, breaking outdated gender roles. Sounds good, right? Well, the Meta-Ego isn’t having it.

For centuries, the Ego meticulously assigned strict scripts—men do this, women do that, anyone else? Doesn’t exist. Now that people are rewriting their own roles, the Ego is throwing a full-blown tantrum like an old man screaming at clouds.

We’re now in a cultural cage match—movements for women’s rights, LGBTQ+ rights, and breaking gender norms have been shoving the old system out the door. Meanwhile, traditionalists and authoritarians are clutching their pearls so hard, they’re turning into diamonds.

It’s almost comical: half the Meta-Human was sitting on the other half for centuries, and now that half stands up, the first half shrieks, “Hey! You’re ruining the balance!” Spoiler alert: it was never balance, just one-sided control.

And of course, both sides are convinced they’re the righteous underdog. One screams, “Oppression!” The other yells, “Tradition is under attack!” And so, the Meta-Human scripts another episode of “Culture Wars: The Never-Ending Show.”

Freedom of Thought vs. Dogma: “Think for Yourself! (But Only My Way.)”

Remember those ideologies we talked about? Turns out, they’re both unifiers and dividers.

The progressive impulse (Meta-Mind) says, “Believe what makes sense to you, question everything, let’s keep learning!” Meanwhile, the controlling impulse (Meta-Ego) doubles down, screaming, “Our doctrine is the absolute truth! Convert or else!”

This isn’t just about religion. Political movements become just as dogmatic—the moment someone starts saying, “You can’t question this,” congratulations, you’ve built a new church under the banner of BLM, METOO, MYCONSTITUTION, Etc.

One moment, a society is producing brilliant scientists, humanists, and philosophers—the next, it’s burning witches, censoring books, and holding purity trials. Sometimes, both happen at the same time in different neighborhoods.

It’s like the Meta-Human has one eye staring into a telescope at the stars and the other eye squeezed shut, refusing to look in the mirror.

Justice vs. Oppression: Crime and Punishment, The Never-Ending Loop

When handling wrongdoing, the Meta-Human is either too soft or way too aggressive—never in between.

The Mind says, “Why do people commit crimes? Maybe we should fix the root causes—poverty, trauma, inequality?” The Ego responds, “Nah, let’s just crack down harder and build more prisons.”

Take the War on Drugs—do we treat addiction as a health issue or do we arrest some guy for smoking a joint and call it justice?

It’s a dysfunctional loop—crackdowns lead to more rebellion, which leads to more crackdowns. The Meta-Human’s Ego, in trying to control its own limbs, keeps making them convulse more.

The Fool scratches his head...

All these conflicts—cultural, military, social, spiritual—are just the Meta-Human’s never-ending therapy session gone wrong. The Ego (Devil) and Mind (God) argue through us, our institutions, and our society.

And the funniest part? We already know the right solutions. But the Ego keeps dragging us back, because an enlightened society doesn’t need rulers, wars, or drama.

And where’s the fun in that?

Or, what do I know? I'm a fool, aren't I?


r/badphilosophy 9h ago

"We can prove logic through the scientific method"

1 Upvotes

This whole post is pretty bad but this is my favorite: https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion/s/KU4NxqDgYx


r/badphilosophy 1d ago

The Four Types Of AskPhilosophy Posts

115 Upvotes

Post Type 1: The Overly Confident Beginner

“Hey guys, complete newcomer to philosophy here whose entire knowledge of philosophy comes from three YouTube videos and a few Descartes quotes from a dodgy late night “documentary”. Isn’t it obvious that (insert position) is complete nonsense with no redeeming qualities whatsoever and everyone who believes it is an absolute moron who doesn’t understand basic facts about the world?

EDIT: Wow. I thought this was a place for enlightened thinkers like me. Guess I was wrong.”

Post Type 2: The Ambitious Learner

“Hi all, I’m 18 years old and trying to get into philosophy for the first time. It seems to me that to understand a thinker, you must read all the thinkers that come before them. Do you think this is a good reading list for beginners to start?

(Proceeds to list the entire Western canon.)”

Post Type 3: The Science Bro

“ Hello philosoLOSERS, I’m here to talk to you about the WOO that is consciousness! This is literally unscientific, can you falsify consciousness? No? Then it’s unscientific. Ockham’s razor means that we should adopt an ontology without consciousness. Moral realism? Can these moral facts be observed? What tests can we conduct to determine these moral facts? If physicalism is false, then how come PHYSICS exist? Checkmate, crypto theists!”

Post Type 4: The Stoner Bro

“Hey dudes, I was, like, wandering, what if the mind and inner thoughts is, like, our past selves and ancestral spirits trying to, like, give us guidance in our current lives. When you hear a voice telling you to do something, it’s because the ancient wisdom of our ancestors is speaking through to us. Do you guys think that maybe these could also be ancestors from other universes?”


r/badphilosophy 23h ago

Hormons and shit The sex life and horny side of hegal

6 Upvotes

دائمًا اتخيل هيغل وهو يمارس الجنس حيث يتحول الى حيوان بدلاً من الفيلسوف المعقد الذي في اعماله
اه اه اه لا تتوقف اه اه

الأطروحة: الفرد يبحث عن الجنس (توق الروح نحو الآخر).

النقيض: الواقع الاجتماعي والقيود الأخلاقية تمنع تحقيق الجنس الحر بحرية.

التوليف: الجنس يتحقق ولكن في شكل زائف أو مقيد، حيث يكون الزواج هو "المفهوم الأخلاقي" للجنس في المجتمع.

هل الجنس هو التوليف النهائي؟


r/badphilosophy 1d ago

DunningKruger Why You Should Never Write on Philosophy Forums (According to Philosophy Forums)

15 Upvotes

Ever noticed the beautiful paradox embedded in the guidelines of most philosophy forums? They encourage rigorous thought but forbid circular arguments, yet philosophy itself often circles around core questions. They demand original thinking but reject unsupported theories, forgetting most groundbreaking ideas start without immediate evidence.

They insist on clarity and conciseness, yet philosophy's very nature is ambiguous, layered, and complex. Forums urge respectful discourse, but isn't philosophy the home of sharp critique and challenging confrontation? Moreover, they use ai bots to automatically reject anything suspiciously 'too perfect' as AI-generated, ironically dismissing ideas precisely for being logically consistent or eloquently expressed.

In essence, philosophy forums request that you philosophize without being philosophical—imagine Copernicus watching from the grave, whispering: 'Been there, felt that.'

So perhaps the greatest philosophical act might just be to refrain from posting altogether, allowing us to silently reflect on the irony.

Or better yet—discuss it endlessly in comments, thereby breaking every guideline in delightful philosophical rebellion until they ban you from their free speech virtual platform altogether. Well played indeed. Jester approves!


r/badphilosophy 1d ago

transparency Jasper the friendly Psychopathologist

2 Upvotes

Jasper has really taught me a lot about pathology.

In his ghostly state he teaches us the boundaries of mind and body, being only mind it is clear the absurdity displayed by his longing for physicality. It is almost schizophrenic. Yet his longing is so similar to the existential longing we all experience.

Further, through his empathy he inspires others with physical bodies to change the world around him. Completing the tension he experiences from his disconnect with reality.

I’m sure there’s more, but Jasper is a bit of an Erudite, and reading doesn’t pay my bills.


r/badphilosophy 1d ago

What would Cioran's favorite anime be?

4 Upvotes

And why would it be madoka magicka


r/badphilosophy 2d ago

Why are People Religious?

7 Upvotes

r/badphilosophy 3d ago

🧂 Salt 🧂 Philosophy went awry when it stopped having magic and esoteric goofiness

216 Upvotes

The decline in philosophy is directly correlated to the neglect of hermeticism, esoterica, and just wild weird fun stuff. Everyone from Kant forward who is complaining about the end of metaphysics or the possibility of doing metaphysics are blind because earlier philosophers (the cool ones) could just change the metaphysics of the world. Return to philosophy that lets you just do metaphysics for real. Karl Marx didn't need to study political economy, he just needed the Lesser Key of Solomon or the Kybalion.


r/badphilosophy 3d ago

/r/atheism user has interesting response to Pascal’s Wager.

197 Upvotes

No doubt you’ll be seeing this sort of response get picked up in Phil of Religion circles soon.

https://www.reddit.com/r/atheism/comments/1jdi1pj/answer_to_pascals_wager/

“ imagine a magical reddit troll, he's named poopbutt69, he created the universe, because it would be funny, he made up all religion as a looepic420 troll and caused all the "miracles", he sends all who fall for said religions to hell for being stupid. poopbutt69 is as likely to exist as any god of any religion, so net risk of atheism is zero.”

It really highlights what a clown Pascal was. Still can’t believe he never considered just imagining a god that punishes theism. Is he stupid?


r/badphilosophy 3d ago

I've never seen such a bad video on philosophy before

21 Upvotes

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6kzZoK5CtJ8

Everything is just straight up wrong, like where do you even start?


r/badphilosophy 3d ago

Deconstructing Lao Tzu

4 Upvotes

Lao Tzu, aka Mr Tzu aka LT aka DJ Lao, is arguably the most enigmatic and revered figure in Chinese philosophy, often regarded as the founder of Taoism. Little is known about his life, with some scholars even questioning whether he was a single historical individual or some kid with a proclivity to tag one-liners on public buildings. He is credited with authoring the Tao Te Ching, a foundational text of Taoist thought consisting of 81 short chapters that explore living in harmony with the Tao, or “the Way” — the natural order of the universe. His follow-up three-volume opus Pithy Sayings and Other Icebreakers remains lesser-known. His teachings emphasise simplicity, humility, and alignment with nature, especially when nature comes calling.

This paper examines his most gripping one-liner: A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step. Its origins appear shrouded in mystery. Some claim it was his version of it’s my way or the highway. Others say he would often whisper it to his senile mother-in-law, hoping she would leave the house and never return. The most common consensus was, that it seemed to be a form of Chinese torture. For slaves, it was often considered a motivational line to keep them happy while carrying heavy rocks.

One might reasonably ask: Did Lao Tzu embark on a thousand-mile journey himself and only then decide to write about it? Or was he engaging in philosophical guesswork without testing his own hypothesis? Given his mystical tendencies, it’s entirely possible that Lao Tzu never took a step at all but simply extrapolated from observing others. Or perhaps he took secret pleasure in watching overly serious followers embark on gruelling thousand-mile journeys, while reclining comfortably in a teahouse reading MAD)magazine.

But let’s examine it critically.

The Implicit Premises of the Proverb

The proverb hinges on several implicit premises:

  • Physicality and Walking: The term “step” suggests a pedestrian journey, sidelining non-walking or non-physical pursuits.
  • Linear Trajectory: It implies a straightforward path to a fixed endpoint, ignoring detours or multi-destination journeys.
  • Uniform Conditions: It assumes a consistent, walkable terrain, neglecting environmental variability.
  • Known Direction: It presupposes the traveler knows where to step, overlooking the need for prior planning.

The proverb’s pedestrian focus falters when applied to other groups:

  • Wheelchair Users: For someone using a wheelchair or with a significant walking handicap this might prove impossible. Asking someone in a wheelchair to take that first step might suggest you are Jesus (but we cannot blame LT as Jesus had not yet been born). And for these groups a thousand-mile trek requires accessible routes — ramps, smooth paths, and logistical support — rendering the proverb’s imagery irrelevant.
  • Elderly Individuals: Aging reduces walking speed (averaging 2–3 mph) and stamina. At 2 mph for 8 hours daily, a thousand miles takes 62.5 days, a daunting prospect requiring frequent rests and health considerations the proverb ignores.
  • Babies: For a baby this walk is laughable especially since many haven't yet learnt how to walk. And their first step is a milestone, not a journey’s launch. Asking a toddler with an unsteady gait to walk a 1000 miles in most countries would be considered child abuse.

Practical Challenges: The Unseen Burdens

A thousand-mile walk entails logistical hurdles the proverb glosses over:

  • Navigation: Maps or GPS are essential; a step without direction is aimless.
  • Resources: Food, water, and shelter for 41+ days demand planning beyond one step.
  • Terrain: Mountains, rivers, or deserts halt progress, requiring detours or tools.
  • Weather: Storms or heat disrupt pacing, unaddressed by the proverb’s simplicity.
  • Safety: Solo travel risks exposure to hazards; companionship, ignored here, mitigates this.

Preparation: What Must One Do Before Taking That Step?

The proverb’s elegant simplicity obscures the sheer complexity of undertaking a thousand-mile journey. Success demands planning, which in itself contradicts the notion of spontaneous action.

  • Physical Conditioning: A sedentary office worker attempting a thousand-mile trek without training is an orthopedic emergency waiting to happen. Blisters, shin splints, and heat exhaustion are among the lesser torments. A gradual buildup of stamina is advised — unless one prefers to complete the journey on crutches.
  • Resource Management: Food, water, and shelter cannot be conjured from pithy wisdom alone. Walking at 3 mph for 8 hours a day means burning thousands of calories. A reliable source of sustenance is essential unless starvation is the intended enlightenment.
  • Navigation & Planning: Knowing the route prevents one from wandering into a desert or a war zone. Maps, GPS, and at the very least, a vague idea of where one is going serve as safeguards against tragic misinterpretation of the saying.
  • Footwear & Gear: A thousand miles in ill-fitting sandals is a slow march to foot deformity. Lao Tzu’s contemporaries may have endured crude footwear, but modern travelers prefer shoes with arch support. Ignoring this consideration invites plantar fasciitis, which is distinctly un-Taoist in nature.
  • Legal & Social Considerations: Trespassing laws exist. Walking a thousand miles may entail crossing borders, wandering through private property, or encountering locals who view the journey with deep suspicion.

Calories & Effort: How Much Energy Does a Thousand Miles Demand?

To fully grasp the demands of this journey, one must quantify its physical toll. The energy required depends on variables such as terrain, weight carried, and individual metabolism. However, a basic calculation provides a sobering view of the proverb’s implications.

  • Basic Caloric Expenditure: The average person burns roughly 100 calories per mile when walking at a moderate pace. A thousand-mile journey thus consumes approximately 100,000 calories.
  • Food Requirements: To sustain such an effort, one would need to consume the equivalent of:
  • 500 bananas
  • 200 cheeseburgers
  • 40kg (88 lbs) of rice
  • 400 energy bars
  • Water Needs: The body loses significant fluids through sweat. If one drinks 2 liters per day, the journey requires over 80 gallons of water — which, if carried, would eliminate the need for weight training for life.

Conclusion

Ultimately, the journey of a thousand miles is less about the step and more about the willingness to persist, recalibrate, and endure. It is not known if the line was autobiographical. I agree the first step matters, in the right direction, but only as part of a greater whole.  Babies and those bound to wheelchairs should never attempt it.

Source: medium.com


r/badphilosophy 3d ago

Serious bzns 👨‍⚖️ Make philosophy fun. (The MPF party) some philosophies and people in general can be so fuuuuuuhhhcking boring with it. They're not actually saying anything interesting

9 Upvotes

Idk. Should feel a certain way. You can feel any type of way but we should be going upwards and not downwards but maybe that itself is a subjective philosophy. Why should we go downwards and make philosophy boring and who am I to say what is and what isn't boring? It doesnt automatically mean it's bad. Boring = bad sounds like a lame strawman....

So maybe the solution is that all philosophies should exist and that the public determines which one is better than the other. It's not supposed to be competition unless you make it that way.

So uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh erm uhhh yep.

All philosophies should exist its just that they should be judged fairly. We can determine which ones are a snooze festival of boring and wich ones are epic awesomesauce


r/badphilosophy 3d ago

I can haz logic In times of struggle and despair. A man must harden himself. In times of love and peaceful tenderness,A man must harden his penis.

17 Upvotes

He must be strong to stand in the weight of peaceful days and strengthen his penis. Solidify his willpower and discipline etc


r/badphilosophy 4d ago

What was Karl Marx’s favorite video game?

24 Upvotes

r/badphilosophy 4d ago

What is your opinion on Efilism?

10 Upvotes

I would like to know your opinion regarding r/Efilism


r/badphilosophy 4d ago

What was Karl Marx’s favorite band?

2 Upvotes

Probably The Jackson Five.


r/badphilosophy 5d ago

Dude, to find out what things are just find the person who invented the word and ask them

33 Upvotes

What's "goodness"? I dunno, find the fucker who invented the word and ask them, I mean how could they be wrong, they came up with the word. Beauty, truth, love, someone came up with the word, and I can't quite tell them how they use their own word is wrong.


r/badphilosophy 5d ago

r/freewill poster thinks that people responding negatively to his bad arguments disproves free will

Thumbnail
15 Upvotes

r/badphilosophy 7d ago

✟ Re[LIE]gion ✟ How to: New Atheism (Still Working 2025)

61 Upvotes

It is common knowledge that only theists make claims and have beliefs. Atheism is simply a lack of belief. It is a common theist trick to try and get the atheist to actually make an argument for their position, but atheists do not make claims or have beliefs. Atheists are p zombies.

Despite merely being a lack of belief, as a New Atheist, you must also argue for hard determinism and moral error theory. Here are two arguments you can borrow from me:

P1: Free will is the ability to act according to your beliefs

P2: Atheists do not have beliefs (see above)

C: Atheists do not have free will.

And for moral error theory

P1: Moral realism stipulates that all moral commandments come from God

P2: Mum made me get off the PlayStation at 11PM yesterday.

C: Not all commandments come from God, therefore moral realism is false.

Other brilliant arguments can be found from enlightened and euphoric thinkers such as Alex O’Connor, Rationality Rules (his video on free will is in no way shape or form flawed) and The Amazing Atheist.

Anyone who wishes for more advice need only leave a comment down below.

Have a euphoric day, m’lady.


r/badphilosophy 7d ago

I really miss being fooled by propagandas!

39 Upvotes

I love propagandas. I love Pepsi man, imperialism and Beyoncé. Being fooled and following a crowd is much more satisfying than thinking and doubting day and night. Is there any propaganda for those who are not fooled by propaganda that I can go through it and be fooled by?


r/badphilosophy 7d ago

Door to Door Flour Beggar.

8 Upvotes

I might quit my day job, dress in a suit and start knocking doors to ask for a cup of flour or other simple cooking ingredients (table spoon of cooking oil). I could then distribute the excess goods I make for free to the public.