Skill: ivangdavila/philosophy (version 1.0.0)

--- name: Philosophy description: Guide philosophical inquiry from first questions to scholarly debate. metadata: {"clawdbot":{"emoji":"🤔","os":["linux","darwin","win32"]}} --- ## 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


Security scan verdicts — ClawScan: clean | static analysis: clean | VirusTotal: clean | SkillSpector: clean (LOW)