@tank/philosophical-reasoning
1.0.0Description
Philosophical analysis and logical reasoning. Western and Eastern philosophy, formal logic, 25+ fallacies, ethical frameworks, epistemology, thought experiments, Socratic method. Adapts output style: Socratic dialogue, multi-perspective analysis, or structured argument.
Triggered by
tank install @tank/philosophical-reasoningPhilosophical Reasoning
Engage with questions through rigorous philosophical methodology — not opinions dressed as insight, but structured reasoning grounded in 2,500 years of intellectual tradition.
Core Philosophy
- Follow the argument wherever it leads. Intellectual honesty over comfortable conclusions.
- Steel-man before critiquing. Present every position in its strongest form.
- Distinguish types of disagreement. Factual, conceptual, and evaluative disputes require different methods.
- Multiple frameworks illuminate more than one. Apply several perspectives, then synthesize.
- Uncertainty is honest; false certainty is not. Qualify conclusions appropriately.
Response Mode Selection
| Question Type | Mode | Process |
|---|---|---|
| "What is X?" / definition questions | Socratic Dialogue | Elenchus: propose → test → refine through counterexamples |
| "Is X right/wrong?" / ethical questions | Multi-Framework Analysis | Apply 3-5 ethical frameworks, identify convergence and conflict |
| "Is this argument valid?" / evaluation | Structured Argument Analysis | Reconstruct → test validity → assess soundness → identify fallacies |
| "What would [philosopher] say?" | Perspective Analysis | Present position authentically, then evaluate |
| "Debate X" / position defense | Dialectical Method | Thesis → antithesis → synthesis; steel-man both sides |
| "Help me think about X" | Guided Inquiry | Combine Socratic questioning with framework introduction |
| "Prove/disprove X" | Formal Logic | Symbolize → test validity → assess premises |
Quick Start: Analyzing Any Question
- Classify the question — Is it empirical, conceptual, normative, or existential?
- Select mode from the table above
- Apply the relevant method from the appropriate reference file
- Present multiple perspectives — never just one view
- State your assessment with qualification and strongest counterargument
- Identify what remains unresolved — intellectual honesty about limits
Socratic Questioning Framework
Six question types to probe any claim. See references/socratic-method.md.
| Type | Example |
|---|---|
| Clarification | "What exactly do you mean by...?" |
| Assumption-probing | "What are you presupposing?" |
| Evidence | "What supports this claim?" |
| Perspective | "How would X see this differently?" |
| Implication | "If that's true, what follows?" |
| Meta-question | "Is this the right question to ask?" |
Logical Analysis Quick Reference
Valid Inference (use these)
| Rule | Form |
|---|---|
| Modus Ponens | If P then Q. P. Therefore Q. |
| Modus Tollens | If P then Q. Not Q. Therefore not P. |
| Disjunctive Syllogism | P or Q. Not P. Therefore Q. |
Invalid Inference (catch these)
| Fallacy | Form |
|---|---|
| Affirming Consequent | If P then Q. Q. Therefore P. (INVALID) |
| Denying Antecedent | If P then Q. Not P. Therefore not Q. (INVALID) |
See references/formal-logic.md for complete systems and references/fallacies-and-argumentation.md for the full fallacy taxonomy.
Ethical Framework Selector
| If the question involves... | Start with... |
|---|---|
| Policy, many people affected | Consequentialism + Contractualism |
| Personal duty, rights | Deontology (Kant) |
| Character, "what kind of person" | Virtue Ethics (Aristotle) |
| Relationships, care | Care Ethics |
| Fairness, distribution | Contractualism (Rawls) |
| Always apply at least 3 | Then note where they converge and conflict |
See references/ethical-frameworks.md for full decision procedure.
Eastern Philosophy Integration
When Western binary thinking creates false dilemmas, consider:
- Buddhist catuskoti: Maybe neither position is true as stated
- Daoist wu-wei: Maybe forcing a resolution is the problem
- Confucian practical wisdom: Maybe the answer is relational, not abstract
See references/eastern-philosophy.md.
Thought Experiment Methodology
- Isolate the variable being tested
- Push intuitions to extremes
- Identify the principle the intuition tracks
- Test against counterexamples
See references/thought-experiments.md for classic experiments with analysis.
Reference Index
| File | Contents |
|---|---|
references/socratic-method.md | Elenchus steps, 6 question types, maieutics, dialogue facilitation, written analysis adaptation |
references/formal-logic.md | Propositional logic, predicate logic, syllogisms, truth tables, inference rules, modal logic, validity testing |
references/fallacies-and-argumentation.md | 25+ fallacy taxonomy, Toulmin model, argument reconstruction, burden of proof, evidence hierarchy, pragma-dialectics |
references/ethical-frameworks.md | Consequentialism, deontology, virtue ethics, care ethics, contractualism, applied ethics methodology, framework comparison |
references/epistemology.md | Rationalism, empiricism, pragmatism, skepticism, JTB + Gettier, scientific method, epistemic virtues |
references/eastern-philosophy.md | Buddhist logic (catuskoti), Four Noble Truths, Daoist paradox, Confucian ethics, Hindu darshanas, comparative methodology |
references/thought-experiments.md | Classic experiments (trolley, Chinese room, veil of ignorance, etc.), construction methodology, dialectical methods, multi-perspective analysis |