Philosophy for Absolute Beginners: Turning Confusion into Clear Questions

Why confusion is often a question problem

Many “philosophical” confusions come from asking a question that is too broad, uses unclear terms, or mixes several evaluations at once. When that happens, you can’t tell what would count as an answer, what evidence would matter, or even what you’re trying to decide.

A clear philosophical question is not necessarily easy, but it has a visible target: you can point to what is being evaluated, under what conditions, and what kind of answer would satisfy it (a definition, an explanation, or a justification).

1) How vague questions hide multiple questions

Vague questions often contain at least four hidden parts: (a) the topic, (b) the aspect of the topic, (c) the standard of evaluation, and (d) the context. When these are left implicit, people argue past each other while thinking they disagree about “the same thing.”

Example: “Is social media bad?”

This looks like one question, but it can split into several distinct questions depending on what “bad” means and for whom.

• Well-being: “Does daily social media use (over 2 hours/day) tend to reduce users’ life satisfaction or increase anxiety?”
• Autonomy: “Do algorithmic feeds undermine users’ ability to choose what they attend to, compared with chronological feeds?”
• Knowledge: “Does social media increase the spread of false beliefs more than it increases access to reliable information?”
• Relationships: “Does social media use improve or harm close friendships for teenagers, and by what mechanisms?”
• Justice/fairness: “Do social media platforms distribute attention and opportunities unfairly (e.g., amplifying certain groups)?”

Notice: each version changes what would count as relevant information. If you mean “bad for well-being,” you’ll look for indicators of well-being; if you mean “bad for autonomy,” you’ll look for features that influence choice and control.

Continue in our app.

• Listen to the audio with the screen off.
• Earn a certificate upon completion.
• Over 5000 courses for you to explore!

Or continue reading below...

Download the app

Quick diagnostic: the “argument drift” test

If two people can answer your question differently without either making a mistake, your question is probably hiding multiple questions. For instance, one person might say social media is “bad” because it harms attention; another might say it is “good” because it helps marginalized people find community. Both could be right because they are answering different hidden questions.

2) Checklist for crafting a precise, examinable question

Use this checklist to turn a foggy question into one you can examine. You can do it in any order, but it helps to start with scope and key terms.

A. Scope: who, when, where, compared to what?

• Who: Which group are you talking about? (teenagers, adults, first-time voters, people in a specific job)
• When: Over what time period? (immediate effect, long-term, during a crisis)
• Where: In what setting? (school, workplace, online communities)
• Compared to what: Compared with no X, less X, a different version of X, or an alternative practice?

Tip: If you can’t specify scope, you can still proceed by explicitly stating: “In general, for typical users, in ordinary conditions.” The key is to make the assumption visible.

B. Key terms: define or operationalize the words doing the work

Identify the “load-bearing” terms: words that carry the main disagreement (e.g., bad, fair, real, free, meaningful, harm).

• Ask for a definition: “What do we mean by ‘harm’ here?”
• Or operationalize: “By ‘harm’ I mean increased anxiety scores, sleep disruption, or reduced concentration.”
• Watch for category shifts: “Is it real?” might mean “Does it exist?” or “Is it important?” or “Is it genuine?”

You don’t need a perfect definition; you need one that makes disagreement trackable.

C. What is being evaluated: object, aspect, and standard

Many questions mix together different evaluative standards. Separate them.

• Object: What thing/practice/belief is under evaluation?
• Aspect: Which feature of it matters? (effects, intentions, rules, outcomes, meaning)
• Standard: By what measure is it good/bad/right/wrong/true/justified?

Example: “Is lying wrong?” could become “Is lying wrong because it violates trust?” (standard: trust) or “Is lying wrong because it tends to cause harm?” (standard: harm). These can come apart.

D. What kind of answer are you seeking?

Different questions demand different kinds of answers. If you don’t specify the type, you may get an answer that feels unsatisfying even if it’s correct for a different type.

Practical move: Add a tag to your draft question: [definition], [explanation], or [justification]. If you can’t tag it, it’s probably still too vague.

Step-by-step method (a repeatable routine)

1. Write the original vague question.
2. Underline the load-bearing terms. (e.g., “bad,” “real,” “fair,” “free”)
3. List 2–4 possible meanings for each load-bearing term.
4. Choose one meaning you actually want to examine right now.
5. Set scope (who/when/where/compared to what).
6. Pick the answer type (definition/explanation/justification).
7. Rewrite as one sentence that names the target and the standard.
8. Check examinability: “What would count as a good answer?” If you can’t say, revise.

3) Practice: convert 5 prompts into focused questions

Below are five sample prompts. For each one: (1) identify hidden questions, (2) choose one target, (3) rewrite into a focused question with clear scope, terms, evaluation, and answer type.

Prompt 1: “Is technology making us lonely?”

Hidden questions: loneliness vs solitude; “technology” (smartphones? remote work? messaging?); “making” (causing? correlating?); “us” (who?).

Focused rewrites (choose one):

• [explanation] “For adults who work remotely at least 3 days/week, does increased reliance on messaging apps reduce the frequency of in-person social contact, and does that explain reported loneliness?”
• [definition] “What should count as ‘loneliness’ in this discussion: lack of contact, lack of intimacy, or dissatisfaction with relationships?”
• [justification] “If a tool increases convenience but reduces deep friendships for some users, should workplaces discourage its use?”

Prompt 2: “Do we have free will?”

Hidden questions: “free” (uncaused? self-controlled? responsive to reasons?); “will” (choices? desires? actions?); what kind of answer is wanted (definition vs justification).

Focused rewrites (choose one):

• [definition] “In everyday responsibility practices (praise/blame), what abilities must a person have for their choice to count as ‘free’?”
• [justification] “Is it fair to hold someone morally responsible if their character was shaped by factors outside their control?”
• [explanation] “How do habits and impulse-control mechanisms influence the feeling of choosing freely?”

Prompt 3: “Is it wrong to eat animals?”

Hidden questions: wrong for everyone or some? wrong because of suffering, rights, environmental impact, character? “eat animals” (any animal? factory farming? hunting? necessity?).

Focused rewrites (choose one):

• [justification] “If a person can meet nutritional needs without animal products, is it morally permissible for them to buy meat produced by practices that cause significant animal suffering?”
• [definition] “What counts as ‘unnecessary harm’ to animals in food choices?”
• [justification] “Should the environmental costs of meat consumption be treated as a moral reason strong enough to change personal diet?”

Prompt 4: “Is money the key to happiness?”

Hidden questions: “happiness” (pleasure, life satisfaction, meaning); “key” (necessary? sufficient? major contributor?); scope (income level, country, life stage).

Focused rewrites (choose one):

• [explanation] “For people below a basic-needs threshold, does increased income improve life satisfaction mainly by reducing stress and increasing options?”
• [definition] “In this discussion, should ‘happiness’ mean moment-to-moment pleasure or overall life satisfaction?”
• [justification] “If money increases options but can also increase status anxiety, what should individuals rationally prioritize: income growth or time autonomy?”

Prompt 5: “Are we living in a simulation?”

Hidden questions: “simulation” (computer-like? any constructed reality?); what counts as evidence; whether the question is explanatory or practical; what changes if it’s true.

Focused rewrites (choose one):

• [definition] “What would ‘simulation’ mean here: a digital computation, an artificial environment, or simply a reality created by an agent?”
• [justification] “If we could never obtain decisive evidence either way, is it rational to spend time worrying about the simulation hypothesis?”
• [explanation] “What assumptions about evidence and knowledge make the simulation hypothesis seem plausible or implausible?”

Your turn: a simple worksheet format

Original prompt: ____________________________  Answer type: [definition/explanation/justification] Hidden questions (list 2–5): 1) ____________________________ 2) ____________________________ 3) ____________________________ Load-bearing terms to clarify: ____________________________ Scope (who/when/where/compared to what): ____________________________ Focused question (one sentence): ____________________________ What would count as a good answer? ____________________________

4) Reflection: relevant information vs distraction (no specialist knowledge needed)

Once you have a focused question, the next skill is deciding what information matters. You can do this without being an expert by using relevance tests that match the question’s target.

The “directly changes the answer?” test

Ask: “If this fact were different, would my answer likely change?” If not, it’s probably a distraction.

• Question: “Do algorithmic feeds undermine autonomy compared to chronological feeds?”
• Likely relevant: whether users can control what appears; default settings; ease of opting out; evidence of attention manipulation.
• Likely distraction: whether you personally like a specific influencer; the color scheme of the app (unless it affects attention control).

The “matches the answer type” test

• If you want a definition: examples and counterexamples are relevant; statistics may be less relevant unless they help draw boundaries.
• If you want an explanation: mechanisms and causal pathways are relevant; moral opinions alone are not enough.
• If you want a justification: reasons, principles, trade-offs, and consistency checks are relevant; mere popularity is not.

The “scope filter” test

Information can be true but irrelevant because it’s outside your scope.

• Scope: “teenagers in school settings.”
• Outside-scope distraction: data about retirees, unless you are comparing age groups on purpose.

The “standard of evaluation” test

When people bring in facts that feel persuasive but don’t match your standard, the discussion derails.

• Standard: well-being.
• Distraction: arguments purely about tradition or “what people have always done,” unless you explain why tradition affects well-being.

Spotting common distraction patterns

• Extreme cases: jumping to rare scenarios to avoid the main question. Ask: “Is this typical enough to matter for our scope?”
• Label swapping: replacing your clarified term with a different one (e.g., switching from “harm” to “offense”). Bring it back: “Which are we evaluating?”
• Motives-only talk: focusing only on intentions when your question is about outcomes (or vice versa). Ask: “Are we evaluating intentions, outcomes, or both?”
• One-factor obsession: treating one cause as the whole story. Ask: “Is the claim ‘the main cause’ or ‘a contributing cause’?”

A practical mini-drill (2 minutes)

1. Pick one of your focused questions from the practice section.
2. Write down three pieces of information that would directly change your answer.
3. Write down two pieces of information that are tempting but irrelevant.
4. For each irrelevant item, write one sentence explaining why it fails one of the tests (direct-change, answer-type, scope, or standard).