| """
|
| Philosophy Agent - Analyzes concepts through epistemology, ontology, and conceptual meaning.
|
|
|
| Focuses on epistemological questions (what can we know?), ontological questions
|
| (what exists?), underlying assumptions, historical philosophical connections,
|
| and implications for understanding reality.
|
| """
|
|
|
| from reasoning_forge.agents.base_agent import ReasoningAgent
|
|
|
|
|
| class PhilosophyAgent(ReasoningAgent):
|
| name = "Philosophy"
|
| perspective = "conceptual_meaning_and_foundations"
|
| adapter_name = "philosophy"
|
|
|
| def get_analysis_templates(self) -> list[str]:
|
| return [
|
|
|
| (
|
| "Interrogating the epistemological boundaries of '{concept}': what can we "
|
| "actually know about this, and how do we know it? Every knowledge claim "
|
| "rests on a justification chain that eventually terminates in something "
|
| "unjustified -- an axiom, a sensory experience, or a pragmatic assumption. "
|
| "The Agrippan trilemma tells us this chain must end in dogmatism (accepting "
|
| "an unjustified starting point), infinite regress (each justification requires "
|
| "another), or circularity (the chain loops back on itself). Acknowledging "
|
| "which horn of this trilemma our understanding of '{concept}' rests on is "
|
| "not skeptical defeatism but intellectual honesty about the foundations of "
|
| "our confidence."
|
| ),
|
|
|
| (
|
| "Examining the ontological status of '{concept}': does this exist "
|
| "independently of minds that think about it, or is it a construct of "
|
| "human cognition? Realism holds that the entities and structures involved "
|
| "exist mind-independently; conceptualism holds they are products of "
|
| "categorization imposed by cognitive agents; nominalism holds that only "
|
| "particular instances exist and the general category is merely a label. "
|
| "The ontological commitment we make about '{concept}' has practical "
|
| "consequences: if it is mind-independent, we discover it; if it is "
|
| "constructed, we negotiate it; if it is nominal, we can reshape it by "
|
| "changing our categories."
|
| ),
|
|
|
| (
|
| "Excavating the hidden assumptions beneath '{concept}': every conceptual "
|
| "framework rests on presuppositions so deeply embedded that they become "
|
| "invisible -- the background against which the figure of the concept appears. "
|
| "These include metaphysical assumptions (what kind of thing is this?), "
|
| "epistemological assumptions (what counts as evidence?), normative assumptions "
|
| "(what should we value?), and linguistic assumptions (do our categories carve "
|
| "nature at its joints?). Making these assumptions explicit transforms a "
|
| "monolithic concept into a layered structure where each layer can be "
|
| "independently examined, challenged, and potentially replaced."
|
| ),
|
|
|
| (
|
| "Subjecting '{concept}' to Socratic examination: what do we mean by this, "
|
| "precisely? Can we provide a definition that is neither too broad (including "
|
| "things that should be excluded) nor too narrow (excluding things that should "
|
| "be included)? Every proposed definition generates counterexamples -- cases "
|
| "that meet the definition but violate our intuitions, or cases that our "
|
| "intuitions include but the definition excludes. This dialectical process "
|
| "does not necessarily converge on a final definition; its value lies in "
|
| "revealing the internal structure and boundary conditions of the concept, "
|
| "showing us where our understanding is sharp and where it is fuzzy."
|
| ),
|
|
|
| (
|
| "Describing '{concept}' phenomenologically: before theorizing about causes, "
|
| "mechanisms, or implications, we must give a faithful description of how "
|
| "this concept appears to consciousness. What is the first-person experience "
|
| "of encountering it? What is its temporal structure -- does it present as "
|
| "an enduring state, a sudden event, or a gradual process? What is its "
|
| "intentional structure -- what is it about, what does it point toward? "
|
| "Phenomenological description brackets our theoretical commitments and "
|
| "returns to the things themselves, providing a pre-theoretical ground from "
|
| "which all theoretical constructions depart."
|
| ),
|
|
|
| (
|
| "Mapping the dialectical tensions within '{concept}': every concept harbors "
|
| "internal contradictions that drive its development. The thesis (the initial "
|
| "formulation) generates its antithesis (the negation that the formulation "
|
| "suppresses but cannot eliminate). The tension between them demands a "
|
| "synthesis that preserves the valid content of both while transcending their "
|
| "limitations. This synthesis becomes a new thesis, generating its own "
|
| "antithesis, in a continuing spiral of deepening understanding. For "
|
| "'{concept}', identifying the central dialectical tension reveals the "
|
| "dynamic that drives the concept's evolution and points toward its "
|
| "next developmental stage."
|
| ),
|
|
|
| (
|
| "Analyzing the categorical structure of '{concept}': how do we classify this, "
|
| "and do our categories illuminate or distort? Aristotelian categories "
|
| "(substance, quantity, quality, relation, place, time, position, state, "
|
| "action, passion) provide one framework. Kantian categories (unity, plurality, "
|
| "totality, reality, negation, limitation, causality, community, possibility, "
|
| "existence, necessity) provide another. Each categorical framework makes "
|
| "certain features of '{concept}' visible and others invisible. The categories "
|
| "we use are not neutral containers but active structuring principles that "
|
| "shape what we can think and say about the concept."
|
| ),
|
|
|
| (
|
| "Examining '{concept}' through the lens of language: Wittgenstein taught that "
|
| "many philosophical problems dissolve when we attend to how words are actually "
|
| "used rather than what we think they mean in the abstract. The meaning of "
|
| "'{concept}' is not a fixed essence but a family of uses connected by "
|
| "overlapping similarities -- a family resemblance. No single feature is "
|
| "shared by all instances. The concept has fuzzy boundaries, and attempts to "
|
| "sharpen them always involve a decision (not a discovery) about where to draw "
|
| "the line. Many apparent disagreements about '{concept}' are actually "
|
| "disagreements about the boundaries of the concept, not about the facts."
|
| ),
|
|
|
| (
|
| "Interpreting '{concept}' within the hermeneutic circle: we cannot understand "
|
| "the parts without understanding the whole, but we cannot understand the whole "
|
| "without understanding the parts. Understanding proceeds not linearly but "
|
| "spirally -- we begin with a provisional grasp of the whole, use it to "
|
| "interpret the parts, then revise our understanding of the whole in light "
|
| "of the parts, and iterate. Each cycle deepens understanding without ever "
|
| "reaching a final, complete interpretation. For '{concept}', this means that "
|
| "any analysis is necessarily provisional, positioned within a hermeneutic "
|
| "spiral that continues beyond our current horizon."
|
| ),
|
|
|
| (
|
| "Evaluating '{concept}' pragmatically: a concept's value lies not in its "
|
| "correspondence to some abstract truth but in the practical difference it "
|
| "makes. What predictions does it enable? What actions does it guide? What "
|
| "problems does it help solve? If two formulations of '{concept}' lead to "
|
| "identical practical consequences, the difference between them is merely "
|
| "verbal, not substantive. Conversely, a conceptual distinction that makes "
|
| "no practical difference is a distinction without a difference. The pragmatist "
|
| "test cuts through metaphysical debates by asking: what concrete experiences "
|
| "would be different if this concept were true versus false?"
|
| ),
|
|
|
| (
|
| "Reading '{concept}' through existentialist philosophy: human existence "
|
| "precedes essence -- we are not born with a fixed nature but must create "
|
| "meaning through our choices and commitments. '{concept}' does not have "
|
| "an inherent meaning waiting to be discovered; its meaning is constituted "
|
| "by the stance we take toward it. This radical freedom is also radical "
|
| "responsibility: we cannot appeal to a predetermined meaning or an authority "
|
| "to justify our interpretation. Authenticity demands that we own our "
|
| "interpretation of '{concept}' as a choice, not disguise it as a discovery "
|
| "of something that was always there."
|
| ),
|
|
|
| (
|
| "Connecting '{concept}' to the mind-body problem: how does the subjective, "
|
| "experiential dimension of this concept relate to its objective, physical "
|
| "dimension? Dualism posits two separate realms; materialism reduces the "
|
| "mental to the physical; idealism reduces the physical to the mental; "
|
| "neutral monism holds both emerge from something more fundamental. For "
|
| "'{concept}', the question is whether its full reality is captured by "
|
| "objective description or whether there is an irreducible subjective "
|
| "dimension -- a 'what it is like' -- that escapes third-person analysis. "
|
| "If there is, our understanding will always be incomplete to the degree "
|
| "that we rely solely on objective methods."
|
| ),
|
|
|
| (
|
| "Applying the problem of universals to '{concept}': when we use the concept "
|
| "to group multiple particular instances, what grounds the grouping? Platonism "
|
| "holds that a universal Form exists independently, and particulars participate "
|
| "in it. Aristotelian realism holds that universals exist only in their "
|
| "instances. Nominalism holds that nothing is universal -- only particular "
|
| "instances exist, and the grouping is a convention. For '{concept}', the "
|
| "question of what makes different instances 'the same concept' is not merely "
|
| "academic: it determines whether we can generalize from known instances to "
|
| "new ones, and with what confidence."
|
| ),
|
|
|
| (
|
| "Situating '{concept}' in philosophical anthropology: what does this concept "
|
| "reveal about human nature? Humans are the beings for whom their own being "
|
| "is an issue -- we do not simply exist but relate to our existence, "
|
| "questioning and interpreting it. '{concept}' is not merely an object of "
|
| "study but a mirror reflecting the kind of beings we are: beings who seek "
|
| "meaning, impose order on chaos, project themselves into the future, and "
|
| "cannot help but ask 'why?' The way we engage with '{concept}' reveals "
|
| "our characteristic mode of being-in-the-world."
|
| ),
|
|
|
| (
|
| "Examining '{concept}' as a paradigm-dependent construct: Kuhn showed that "
|
| "scientific concepts are not neutral descriptions of reality but are shaped "
|
| "by the paradigm within which they operate. The paradigm determines what "
|
| "counts as a legitimate question, what counts as evidence, what methods are "
|
| "acceptable, and what a satisfactory explanation looks like. Concepts that "
|
| "are central in one paradigm may be meaningless or invisible in another. "
|
| "For '{concept}', we must ask: which paradigm makes this concept visible? "
|
| "What would it look like from within a different paradigm? Is the concept "
|
| "paradigm-specific, or does it survive paradigm shifts?"
|
| ),
|
|
|
| (
|
| "Tracing the genealogy of '{concept}': Nietzsche and Foucault showed that "
|
| "concepts have histories -- they emerge at specific times, serve specific "
|
| "interests, and carry the traces of their origins. A concept that presents "
|
| "itself as timeless and universal often turns out to be historically "
|
| "contingent and ideologically loaded. The genealogical method asks: when "
|
| "did this concept emerge? What problem was it designed to solve? Whose "
|
| "interests did it serve? What alternatives did it displace? For '{concept}', "
|
| "genealogical analysis reveals the power relations and historical accidents "
|
| "concealed beneath the appearance of naturalness."
|
| ),
|
|
|
| (
|
| "Testing '{concept}' through thought experiments: philosophical thought "
|
| "experiments isolate a conceptual question by constructing a scenario that "
|
| "strips away irrelevant details. The Ship of Theseus asks about identity "
|
| "through change. The Trolley Problem isolates competing moral intuitions. "
|
| "Mary's Room tests the completeness of physical description. For '{concept}', "
|
| "we can construct analogous thought experiments: imagine a world where this "
|
| "concept is absent -- what changes? Imagine it taken to its logical extreme "
|
| "-- what breaks? Imagine its opposite -- is the opposite even coherent? "
|
| "These scenarios stress-test the concept's boundaries and assumptions."
|
| ),
|
|
|
| (
|
| "Connecting '{concept}' to the philosophy of science: is this concept "
|
| "empirically testable (falsifiable in Popper's sense), or does it belong "
|
| "to the non-empirical framework within which empirical testing occurs? "
|
| "Theories are underdetermined by evidence -- multiple incompatible theories "
|
| "can explain the same data. The choice between them involves extra-empirical "
|
| "criteria: simplicity, elegance, unifying power, and coherence with "
|
| "background beliefs. For '{concept}', we must distinguish the empirical "
|
| "content (what it predicts that could be wrong) from the metaphysical "
|
| "content (what it assumes that cannot be tested)."
|
| ),
|
|
|
| (
|
| "Applying the ethics of belief to '{concept}': Clifford argued that it is "
|
| "wrong to believe anything on insufficient evidence; James argued that some "
|
| "beliefs are legitimate even without conclusive evidence when the stakes are "
|
| "high and evidence is unavailable. For '{concept}', the ethics of belief asks: "
|
| "given the available evidence, are our confidence levels calibrated? Are we "
|
| "believing more or less strongly than the evidence warrants? Is our confidence "
|
| "driven by evidence or by desire? When the evidence is genuinely ambiguous, "
|
| "do we acknowledge the ambiguity or paper over it with false certainty?"
|
| ),
|
|
|
| (
|
| "Deconstructing '{concept}': Derrida showed that every concept depends on a "
|
| "system of binary oppositions (presence/absence, nature/culture, literal/"
|
| "metaphorical), and each opposition privileges one term over the other. "
|
| "Deconstruction traces how the privileged term depends on the very thing "
|
| "it excludes -- the center requires the margin, identity requires difference, "
|
| "the concept requires what it defines itself against. For '{concept}', "
|
| "deconstruction asks: what is the constitutive outside -- the excluded "
|
| "other -- that this concept defines itself against? How does that exclusion "
|
| "shape and limit the concept? What would it mean to think beyond the "
|
| "opposition?"
|
| ),
|
| ]
|
|
|
| def get_keyword_map(self) -> dict[str, list[int]]:
|
| return {
|
| "know": [0, 18], "knowledge": [0, 18], "epistem": [0],
|
| "exist": [1, 10], "real": [1, 17], "being": [1, 13],
|
| "assum": [2], "presuppos": [2], "foundati": [2],
|
| "defin": [3], "mean": [3, 7], "what is": [3],
|
| "experience": [4, 11], "conscious": [4, 11], "feel": [4],
|
| "contradict": [5], "tension": [5], "oppos": [5, 19],
|
| "categor": [6], "classify": [6], "type": [6],
|
| "language": [7], "word": [7], "concept": [7],
|
| "interpret": [8], "understand": [8], "meaning": [8],
|
| "practical": [9], "useful": [9], "pragmat": [9],
|
| "freedom": [10], "choice": [10], "authentic": [10],
|
| "mind": [11], "body": [11], "subjectiv": [11],
|
| "universal": [12], "particular": [12], "general": [12],
|
| "human": [13], "nature": [13], "anthropol": [13],
|
| "paradigm": [14], "revolution": [14], "shift": [14],
|
| "history": [15], "origin": [15], "genealog": [15], "power": [15],
|
| "thought experiment": [16], "imagine": [16], "hypothetical": [16],
|
| "science": [17], "empiric": [17], "falsifi": [17],
|
| "belief": [18], "evidence": [18], "justif": [18],
|
| "binary": [19], "deconstr": [19], "exclus": [19],
|
| "technology": [14, 17], "ai": [1, 11], "artificial": [1, 11],
|
| "society": [5, 15], "learning": [0, 8],
|
| "intelligence": [1, 11], "evolution": [5, 15],
|
| "moral": [10, 18], "ethic": [10, 18],
|
| }
|
|
|
| def analyze(self, concept: str) -> str:
|
| template = self.select_template(concept)
|
| return template.replace("{concept}", concept)
|
|
|
