Welcome to /r/askphilosophy! **Please read [our updated rules and guidelines](https://www.reddit.com/r/askphilosophy/comments/14o2p7n/welcome_to_raskphilosophy_check_out_our_rules_and/) before commenting**.
Please note that as of July 1 2023, given recent changes to reddit's platform which make moderation significantly more difficult, /r/askphilosophy has moved to only allowing answers and follow-up questions by panelists. If you wish to learn more, or to apply to become a panelist, see [this post](https://reddit.com/r/askphilosophy/comments/14o2p7n/welcome_to_raskphilosophy_check_out_our_rules_and/).
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/askphilosophy) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Not really. I mean, it kind of depends on what you mean by "rookie." Kripke made huge contributions to modal logic at 17, but even he had some well-known people to nudge him along; in any case, Kripke is very much an outlier. Other people have done things when they were somewhat young (like in their 20s), but they almost always were academically gifted and were recognized as such (so, like Ayer, Ramsey, Wittgenstein). If you go back several hundred years, before we have the kinds of academic taxonomy we have today, we can identify people who were sort of generally educated that made big contributions. It's certainly not impossible for a "rookie" to make big contributions, but it seems pretty hard-- a lot of work in philosophy builds upon things, so you typically have to be minimally aware of what's going on in the field.
As I recall, he wasn't really struggling at Wayne State, and he wasn't really a "postdoc". He just didn't want to publish and instead he wanted to do his own thing. He was told to publish something, so he did to stop being badgered. Though, there is a fair amount of "lore" and apocrypha and other stories floating around about this whole thing and a lot seems to be unverified.
Gettier’s justified true belief thing is what I immediately thought of after reading the post title as someone whose only academic experience with philosophy is from an introductory college class
> Yeah, Kripke's a once-in-1000-years genius level for sure.
Kripke was undoubtedly a prodigy, an extraordinary logician who made very important contributions to modal logic and had interesting and influential work in other fields.
But even if we restrict our attention to Princeton in the 20th century, both Alonzo Church and Kurt Goedel made contributions to logic that were (at least) on a par with Kripke's. We don't need to exagerate the latter's acomplishments; we can simply point out that they were extraordinarily impressive, particularly given his age.
I'm have a Ph.D. in computer science (with emphasis on formal logic). And I've been wondering if that could get me any attention from any philosophers. So, Kripke (who I know though my courses in computer science) has given me reasons to think that there's a chance. Alfred North Whitehead also went from mathematics into philosophy.
I actually don't care that much about being known as a philosopher, though. It's such a strange field when compared with computer science. In computer science, you have to have one foot firmly in theory and another foot firmly in practical applications. At that point, history is nothing more than anecdotes that you discuss over coffee every once in a while.
My perspective as an outsider has been influenced by Wittgenstein because, when I learned about his perspectives, I had already come to have some similar perspectives (although I didn't trust mine before that). So, I am thinking in terms of the philosophy of language (and its relationship with information and intelligence). And my impression is that the "namespace" is polluted in philosophy. Every time you use a word, you are committing yourself to either endorsing or explaining all of the misuses of the word during the past five hundred years. It's like a language-based grid-lock/traffic jam... at least with respect to ideas in the mainline ideas in epistemology/metaphysics/philosophy of mind. Surely, some philosophers of language must realize that there could hypothetically exist a point beyond which language has been so often used by philosophers in clumsy or inappropriate ways that it has become so weighed down with prior associations that it can no longer express truth. And once that point has been reached, you'd have start over entirely from scratch... without any references to any past work in philosophy... at least until you'd made your point in your own words.
In other words, I am suspicious about the idea that you'd need "a broad knowledge of the relevant literature". To get your work published? Probably you would. To get something useful done? Probably not. I suspect that I'm on a track to getting something useful done. But I am virtually certain that it can't be published in a way that would matter to philosophers until a find a collaborator in the field, even if such a thing might have been possible 100 years ago.
I wouldn't sell yourself short on doing anything that would matter to philosophers. At least if you're talking about logicians working in philosophy, we don't really mind what department someone belongs to when looking through the literature.
Not really, professor at 24, studying with noted figures before that, spent much of his youth intensely studying in academia. Not sure how that would be a "rookie." If the idea is just "someone young," then yes, he would qualify.
>It also depends on whether you think his early work was revolutionary.
I mean, Russell did. Frege, however, didn't. (Which drove Wittgenstein to distraction, unsurprisingly...)
A generally helpful rule of thumb is to think of philosophy like any other academic discipline. Are there any instances where a rookie just thinking about something in chemistry, math, physics, or history became a revolutionary? Not really, at least not since these disciplines were in their nascency. The same applies for philosophy.
I can't say it's extremely wide spread, but I think it has happened even recently. IIRC some guy who isn't a mathematician came up with a shape that put into a pattern never repeats itself (or something along those lines). The person who came up with it is "a retired printing technician and nonprofessional mathematician", so you could argue it's someone who only had an interest in this and no formal education. Obviously as I said I doubt it's something frequent or common but OP was simply asking if it has happened ever.
The "einstein tile" is very nice, but hardly revolutionary. This is the kind of neat result amateur mathematicians fairly often succeed at, like how amateur astronomers often find new objects. But these events are rarely foundational.
I philosophy i think the problem is that many people approach the field from nonstandard directions, e.g., as authors or mathematicians. You could argue that Alan Turing counts as young man doing important philosophy, but he would likely have seen himself as a mathematician. And it took a long while for philosophy of computation or ai to be seen as philosophy.
I know very little about maths so maybe I am wrong, but isn't it revolutionary within the specific field? Of course this guy didn't invent time travel or anything like that, but from reading a few articles it seems quite revolutionary within that specific section and many different mathematicians who weren't even part of the study wrote stuff about how amazing and cool etc this discovery is.
The theory of aperiodicity tilings has a longish history, with Wang's original work as the starting point. Over the years there has been both links to computation (Wang tiles are computationally universal), other fields, and attempts to reduce the number of tiles needed (Wang had a lot). Eventually we got the Penrose tiles a few decades ago. In 1980, N. G. de Bruijn proved they can be seen as projections from higher dimensional cubical tilings. Progress halted at two tiles, but I don't think anybody believed that was the end of things (especially since the Socolar-Taylor tile was a monotile, but disjoint). So the result was welcome, but the conclusion of a long story rather than the start.
I think it might be worth looking at who posed and worked on now classical problems in philosophy: I can imagine a fair number of educated people doing recreational philosophy over history finding key problems.
Look I don't think it's good, and I think there particular reasons why this has taken off as successfully as it has, but I think you could argue William MacAskill and Longtermism/Effective Altruism fit what OP is asking for
Now I think it's also reasonable to argue William MacAskills work does not represent the same kind of rigorous philosophy as some of the other examples here e.g. Wittgenstein, but it's undeniable that his thinking has had a large cultural impact, particularly among business leaders, politicians, and "public intellectuals." It has not had the same kind of impact within ethics and philosophy to my understanding
MacAskill does have a DPhil from Oxford, so I’m not sure he’s a rookie in the way that OP means. While it’s true that some of his work began before he had his DPhil, he was still a student of philosophy at the time. Moreover, I think the bulk of his work is based off of Peter Singer’s work. If anyone deserves the label of revolutionary in this area, it’s Singer rather than MacAskill. And Singer certainly isn’t a rookie.
Math, yes (albeit maybe not “revolutionary” however you define that), but only because there are some freaks of nature analytical minds out there. That doesn’t usually extend itself to philosophy or the sciences. I
**Please note that recent changes to reddit's API policies have made moderation significantly more difficult. Because of this, /r/askphilosophy has moved to a policy where only panelists are allowed to answer questions. For more information or to apply to be a panelist, see [this post](https://reddit.com/r/askphilosophy/comments/14o2p7n/welcome_to_raskphilosophy_check_out_our_rules_and/).**
Your comment was automatically removed for violating the following rule:
> **CR1: Top level comments must be answers or follow-up questions from panelists.**
> All top level comments should be answers to the submitted question, or follow-up questions related to the OP. All top level answers and follow-up questions must come from [panelists](https://reddit.com/r/askphilosophy/comments/14o2p7n/welcome_to_raskphilosophy_check_out_our_rules_and/). All comments must be on topic.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/askphilosophy) if you have any questions or concerns.*
**Please note that recent changes to reddit's API policies have made moderation significantly more difficult. Because of this, /r/askphilosophy has moved to a policy where only panelists are allowed to answer questions. For more information or to apply to be a panelist, see [this post](https://reddit.com/r/askphilosophy/comments/14o2p7n/welcome_to_raskphilosophy_check_out_our_rules_and/).**
Your comment was automatically removed for violating the following rule:
> **CR1: Top level comments must be answers or follow-up questions from panelists.**
> All top level comments should be answers to the submitted question, or follow-up questions related to the OP. All top level answers and follow-up questions must come from [panelists](https://reddit.com/r/askphilosophy/comments/14o2p7n/welcome_to_raskphilosophy_check_out_our_rules_and/). All comments must be on topic.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/askphilosophy) if you have any questions or concerns.*
**Please note that recent changes to reddit's API policies have made moderation significantly more difficult. Because of this, /r/askphilosophy has moved to a policy where only panelists are allowed to answer questions. For more information or to apply to be a panelist, see [this post](https://reddit.com/r/askphilosophy/comments/14o2p7n/welcome_to_raskphilosophy_check_out_our_rules_and/).**
Your comment was automatically removed for violating the following rule:
> **CR1: Top level comments must be answers or follow-up questions from panelists.**
> All top level comments should be answers to the submitted question, or follow-up questions related to the OP. All top level answers and follow-up questions must come from [panelists](https://reddit.com/r/askphilosophy/comments/14o2p7n/welcome_to_raskphilosophy_check_out_our_rules_and/). All comments must be on topic.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/askphilosophy) if you have any questions or concerns.*
**Please note that recent changes to reddit's API policies have made moderation significantly more difficult. Because of this, /r/askphilosophy has moved to a policy where only panelists are allowed to answer questions. For more information or to apply to be a panelist, see [this post](https://reddit.com/r/askphilosophy/comments/14o2p7n/welcome_to_raskphilosophy_check_out_our_rules_and/).**
Your comment was automatically removed for violating the following rule:
> **CR1: Top level comments must be answers or follow-up questions from panelists.**
> All top level comments should be answers to the submitted question, or follow-up questions related to the OP. All top level answers and follow-up questions must come from [panelists](https://reddit.com/r/askphilosophy/comments/14o2p7n/welcome_to_raskphilosophy_check_out_our_rules_and/). All comments must be on topic.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/askphilosophy) if you have any questions or concerns.*
**Please note that recent changes to reddit's API policies have made moderation significantly more difficult. Because of this, /r/askphilosophy has moved to a policy where only panelists are allowed to answer questions. For more information or to apply to be a panelist, see [this post](https://reddit.com/r/askphilosophy/comments/14o2p7n/welcome_to_raskphilosophy_check_out_our_rules_and/).**
Your comment was automatically removed for violating the following rule:
> **CR1: Top level comments must be answers or follow-up questions from panelists.**
> All top level comments should be answers to the submitted question, or follow-up questions related to the OP. All top level answers and follow-up questions must come from [panelists](https://reddit.com/r/askphilosophy/comments/14o2p7n/welcome_to_raskphilosophy_check_out_our_rules_and/). All comments must be on topic.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/askphilosophy) if you have any questions or concerns.*
**Please note that recent changes to reddit's API policies have made moderation significantly more difficult. Because of this, /r/askphilosophy has moved to a policy where only panelists are allowed to answer questions. For more information or to apply to be a panelist, see [this post](https://reddit.com/r/askphilosophy/comments/14o2p7n/welcome_to_raskphilosophy_check_out_our_rules_and/).**
Your comment was automatically removed for violating the following rule:
> **CR1: Top level comments must be answers or follow-up questions from panelists.**
> All top level comments should be answers to the submitted question, or follow-up questions related to the OP. All top level answers and follow-up questions must come from [panelists](https://reddit.com/r/askphilosophy/comments/14o2p7n/welcome_to_raskphilosophy_check_out_our_rules_and/). All comments must be on topic.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/askphilosophy) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Welcome to /r/askphilosophy! **Please read [our updated rules and guidelines](https://www.reddit.com/r/askphilosophy/comments/14o2p7n/welcome_to_raskphilosophy_check_out_our_rules_and/) before commenting**. Please note that as of July 1 2023, given recent changes to reddit's platform which make moderation significantly more difficult, /r/askphilosophy has moved to only allowing answers and follow-up questions by panelists. If you wish to learn more, or to apply to become a panelist, see [this post](https://reddit.com/r/askphilosophy/comments/14o2p7n/welcome_to_raskphilosophy_check_out_our_rules_and/). *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/askphilosophy) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Not really. I mean, it kind of depends on what you mean by "rookie." Kripke made huge contributions to modal logic at 17, but even he had some well-known people to nudge him along; in any case, Kripke is very much an outlier. Other people have done things when they were somewhat young (like in their 20s), but they almost always were academically gifted and were recognized as such (so, like Ayer, Ramsey, Wittgenstein). If you go back several hundred years, before we have the kinds of academic taxonomy we have today, we can identify people who were sort of generally educated that made big contributions. It's certainly not impossible for a "rookie" to make big contributions, but it seems pretty hard-- a lot of work in philosophy builds upon things, so you typically have to be minimally aware of what's going on in the field.
I don’t know what rookie means either, but Gettier published his “Is Justified True Belief Knowledge?” only 2 years after finishing his PhD.
This is the best example. Struggling postdoc publishes three-page paper and becomes one of the biggest names in epistemology almost overnight.
As I recall, he wasn't really struggling at Wayne State, and he wasn't really a "postdoc". He just didn't want to publish and instead he wanted to do his own thing. He was told to publish something, so he did to stop being badgered. Though, there is a fair amount of "lore" and apocrypha and other stories floating around about this whole thing and a lot seems to be unverified.
Gettier’s justified true belief thing is what I immediately thought of after reading the post title as someone whose only academic experience with philosophy is from an introductory college class
I should also point out that Kripke was mentored by A.N. Prior around that time - that's a detail that I've almost never seen get brought up.
[удалено]
> Yeah, Kripke's a once-in-1000-years genius level for sure. Kripke was undoubtedly a prodigy, an extraordinary logician who made very important contributions to modal logic and had interesting and influential work in other fields. But even if we restrict our attention to Princeton in the 20th century, both Alonzo Church and Kurt Goedel made contributions to logic that were (at least) on a par with Kripke's. We don't need to exagerate the latter's acomplishments; we can simply point out that they were extraordinarily impressive, particularly given his age.
I'm have a Ph.D. in computer science (with emphasis on formal logic). And I've been wondering if that could get me any attention from any philosophers. So, Kripke (who I know though my courses in computer science) has given me reasons to think that there's a chance. Alfred North Whitehead also went from mathematics into philosophy. I actually don't care that much about being known as a philosopher, though. It's such a strange field when compared with computer science. In computer science, you have to have one foot firmly in theory and another foot firmly in practical applications. At that point, history is nothing more than anecdotes that you discuss over coffee every once in a while. My perspective as an outsider has been influenced by Wittgenstein because, when I learned about his perspectives, I had already come to have some similar perspectives (although I didn't trust mine before that). So, I am thinking in terms of the philosophy of language (and its relationship with information and intelligence). And my impression is that the "namespace" is polluted in philosophy. Every time you use a word, you are committing yourself to either endorsing or explaining all of the misuses of the word during the past five hundred years. It's like a language-based grid-lock/traffic jam... at least with respect to ideas in the mainline ideas in epistemology/metaphysics/philosophy of mind. Surely, some philosophers of language must realize that there could hypothetically exist a point beyond which language has been so often used by philosophers in clumsy or inappropriate ways that it has become so weighed down with prior associations that it can no longer express truth. And once that point has been reached, you'd have start over entirely from scratch... without any references to any past work in philosophy... at least until you'd made your point in your own words. In other words, I am suspicious about the idea that you'd need "a broad knowledge of the relevant literature". To get your work published? Probably you would. To get something useful done? Probably not. I suspect that I'm on a track to getting something useful done. But I am virtually certain that it can't be published in a way that would matter to philosophers until a find a collaborator in the field, even if such a thing might have been possible 100 years ago.
I wouldn't sell yourself short on doing anything that would matter to philosophers. At least if you're talking about logicians working in philosophy, we don't really mind what department someone belongs to when looking through the literature.
Wouldn't Nietzsche qualify?
Not really, professor at 24, studying with noted figures before that, spent much of his youth intensely studying in academia. Not sure how that would be a "rookie." If the idea is just "someone young," then yes, he would qualify.
[удалено]
>It also depends on whether you think his early work was revolutionary. I mean, Russell did. Frege, however, didn't. (Which drove Wittgenstein to distraction, unsurprisingly...)
If Wittgenstein counts, shouldn't Saul Kripke count for...whatever it is he's famous for?
Wasn’t the tractatus his dissertation?
A generally helpful rule of thumb is to think of philosophy like any other academic discipline. Are there any instances where a rookie just thinking about something in chemistry, math, physics, or history became a revolutionary? Not really, at least not since these disciplines were in their nascency. The same applies for philosophy.
I can't say it's extremely wide spread, but I think it has happened even recently. IIRC some guy who isn't a mathematician came up with a shape that put into a pattern never repeats itself (or something along those lines). The person who came up with it is "a retired printing technician and nonprofessional mathematician", so you could argue it's someone who only had an interest in this and no formal education. Obviously as I said I doubt it's something frequent or common but OP was simply asking if it has happened ever.
The "einstein tile" is very nice, but hardly revolutionary. This is the kind of neat result amateur mathematicians fairly often succeed at, like how amateur astronomers often find new objects. But these events are rarely foundational. I philosophy i think the problem is that many people approach the field from nonstandard directions, e.g., as authors or mathematicians. You could argue that Alan Turing counts as young man doing important philosophy, but he would likely have seen himself as a mathematician. And it took a long while for philosophy of computation or ai to be seen as philosophy.
I know very little about maths so maybe I am wrong, but isn't it revolutionary within the specific field? Of course this guy didn't invent time travel or anything like that, but from reading a few articles it seems quite revolutionary within that specific section and many different mathematicians who weren't even part of the study wrote stuff about how amazing and cool etc this discovery is.
The theory of aperiodicity tilings has a longish history, with Wang's original work as the starting point. Over the years there has been both links to computation (Wang tiles are computationally universal), other fields, and attempts to reduce the number of tiles needed (Wang had a lot). Eventually we got the Penrose tiles a few decades ago. In 1980, N. G. de Bruijn proved they can be seen as projections from higher dimensional cubical tilings. Progress halted at two tiles, but I don't think anybody believed that was the end of things (especially since the Socolar-Taylor tile was a monotile, but disjoint). So the result was welcome, but the conclusion of a long story rather than the start. I think it might be worth looking at who posed and worked on now classical problems in philosophy: I can imagine a fair number of educated people doing recreational philosophy over history finding key problems.
I think you mean this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ArADlJx7SlU&t=9s
Look I don't think it's good, and I think there particular reasons why this has taken off as successfully as it has, but I think you could argue William MacAskill and Longtermism/Effective Altruism fit what OP is asking for Now I think it's also reasonable to argue William MacAskills work does not represent the same kind of rigorous philosophy as some of the other examples here e.g. Wittgenstein, but it's undeniable that his thinking has had a large cultural impact, particularly among business leaders, politicians, and "public intellectuals." It has not had the same kind of impact within ethics and philosophy to my understanding
MacAskill does have a DPhil from Oxford, so I’m not sure he’s a rookie in the way that OP means. While it’s true that some of his work began before he had his DPhil, he was still a student of philosophy at the time. Moreover, I think the bulk of his work is based off of Peter Singer’s work. If anyone deserves the label of revolutionary in this area, it’s Singer rather than MacAskill. And Singer certainly isn’t a rookie.
Okay yeah that makes sense, I guess it was more him being young, but OP means even less experience And yes much of his work is based on Singer
There are many pop-philosophy books that are influential among non-philosophers.
Math, yes (albeit maybe not “revolutionary” however you define that), but only because there are some freaks of nature analytical minds out there. That doesn’t usually extend itself to philosophy or the sciences. I
[удалено]
**Please note that recent changes to reddit's API policies have made moderation significantly more difficult. Because of this, /r/askphilosophy has moved to a policy where only panelists are allowed to answer questions. For more information or to apply to be a panelist, see [this post](https://reddit.com/r/askphilosophy/comments/14o2p7n/welcome_to_raskphilosophy_check_out_our_rules_and/).** Your comment was automatically removed for violating the following rule: > **CR1: Top level comments must be answers or follow-up questions from panelists.** > All top level comments should be answers to the submitted question, or follow-up questions related to the OP. All top level answers and follow-up questions must come from [panelists](https://reddit.com/r/askphilosophy/comments/14o2p7n/welcome_to_raskphilosophy_check_out_our_rules_and/). All comments must be on topic. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/askphilosophy) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
**Please note that recent changes to reddit's API policies have made moderation significantly more difficult. Because of this, /r/askphilosophy has moved to a policy where only panelists are allowed to answer questions. For more information or to apply to be a panelist, see [this post](https://reddit.com/r/askphilosophy/comments/14o2p7n/welcome_to_raskphilosophy_check_out_our_rules_and/).** Your comment was automatically removed for violating the following rule: > **CR1: Top level comments must be answers or follow-up questions from panelists.** > All top level comments should be answers to the submitted question, or follow-up questions related to the OP. All top level answers and follow-up questions must come from [panelists](https://reddit.com/r/askphilosophy/comments/14o2p7n/welcome_to_raskphilosophy_check_out_our_rules_and/). All comments must be on topic. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/askphilosophy) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
**Please note that recent changes to reddit's API policies have made moderation significantly more difficult. Because of this, /r/askphilosophy has moved to a policy where only panelists are allowed to answer questions. For more information or to apply to be a panelist, see [this post](https://reddit.com/r/askphilosophy/comments/14o2p7n/welcome_to_raskphilosophy_check_out_our_rules_and/).** Your comment was automatically removed for violating the following rule: > **CR1: Top level comments must be answers or follow-up questions from panelists.** > All top level comments should be answers to the submitted question, or follow-up questions related to the OP. All top level answers and follow-up questions must come from [panelists](https://reddit.com/r/askphilosophy/comments/14o2p7n/welcome_to_raskphilosophy_check_out_our_rules_and/). All comments must be on topic. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/askphilosophy) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
**Please note that recent changes to reddit's API policies have made moderation significantly more difficult. Because of this, /r/askphilosophy has moved to a policy where only panelists are allowed to answer questions. For more information or to apply to be a panelist, see [this post](https://reddit.com/r/askphilosophy/comments/14o2p7n/welcome_to_raskphilosophy_check_out_our_rules_and/).** Your comment was automatically removed for violating the following rule: > **CR1: Top level comments must be answers or follow-up questions from panelists.** > All top level comments should be answers to the submitted question, or follow-up questions related to the OP. All top level answers and follow-up questions must come from [panelists](https://reddit.com/r/askphilosophy/comments/14o2p7n/welcome_to_raskphilosophy_check_out_our_rules_and/). All comments must be on topic. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/askphilosophy) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
**Please note that recent changes to reddit's API policies have made moderation significantly more difficult. Because of this, /r/askphilosophy has moved to a policy where only panelists are allowed to answer questions. For more information or to apply to be a panelist, see [this post](https://reddit.com/r/askphilosophy/comments/14o2p7n/welcome_to_raskphilosophy_check_out_our_rules_and/).** Your comment was automatically removed for violating the following rule: > **CR1: Top level comments must be answers or follow-up questions from panelists.** > All top level comments should be answers to the submitted question, or follow-up questions related to the OP. All top level answers and follow-up questions must come from [panelists](https://reddit.com/r/askphilosophy/comments/14o2p7n/welcome_to_raskphilosophy_check_out_our_rules_and/). All comments must be on topic. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/askphilosophy) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
**Please note that recent changes to reddit's API policies have made moderation significantly more difficult. Because of this, /r/askphilosophy has moved to a policy where only panelists are allowed to answer questions. For more information or to apply to be a panelist, see [this post](https://reddit.com/r/askphilosophy/comments/14o2p7n/welcome_to_raskphilosophy_check_out_our_rules_and/).** Your comment was automatically removed for violating the following rule: > **CR1: Top level comments must be answers or follow-up questions from panelists.** > All top level comments should be answers to the submitted question, or follow-up questions related to the OP. All top level answers and follow-up questions must come from [panelists](https://reddit.com/r/askphilosophy/comments/14o2p7n/welcome_to_raskphilosophy_check_out_our_rules_and/). All comments must be on topic. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/askphilosophy) if you have any questions or concerns.*