Open Questions

Open Epistemology

Why It Is Open Edmund Gettier's 1963 counterexamples showed that justified true belief, the classical tripartite analysis inherited from Plato's Theaetetus, is not sufficient for knowledge: there are cases of justified true belief that still fall short of knowing. Epistemologists have proposed many candidate fourth conditions since, but the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy's own survey concludes that despite considerable attention, particularly in the late twentieth century, no analysis has been widely accepted.

What Would Settle It A precise, counterexample-resistant fourth condition, or a replacement analysis of knowledge altogether, that a broad consensus of epistemologists converges on rather than one that continues to generate further counterexamples.

Expertise Needed Epistemology

Question posed in The Analysis of Knowledge (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy), Section 7, Is Knowledge Analyzable?.

Open Philosophy of Mind

Why It Is Open The hard problem of consciousness asks for an intelligible account that lets us see, in an intuitively satisfying way, how phenomenal, what it's like, consciousness could arise from physical or neural processes in the brain. Current theories cannot supply that link, a gap philosophers following Joseph Levine call the explanatory gap, and it remains genuinely contested whether the gap reflects a permanent limit on physical explanation or merely present theoretical shortcomings.

What Would Settle It An account that closes the explanatory gap between physical or neural processes and subjective experience, or a widely accepted argument establishing that no such physical account is possible even in principle.

Expertise Needed Philosophy of Mind

Question posed in Consciousness (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy), Section 5.4, Prospects of explanatory success.

Open Philosophy of Mind

Why It Is Open Substance dualists, physicalists, property dualists and panpsychists each explain the correlation between mental states and brain states without producing an argument that has persuaded the others; the debate has run since Descartes with no side conceding.

What Would Settle It A physical explanation that closes the explanatory gap between third-person brain description and first-person experience, or a rigorous non-physicalist theory that makes testable predictions, would settle it; neither has yet been produced.

Expertise Needed Philosophy of mind, cognitive science, neuroscience

Question posed in Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, s.v. Dualism.

Open Metaphysics

Why It Is Open Libertarians, hard determinists and compatibilists disagree not only on the answer but on what freedom would have to mean for the question to be answerable at all, so the dispute has not converged even as physics and neuroscience have advanced.

What Would Settle It A settled account of whether the laws of physics are genuinely deterministic at the level that matters for choice, combined with an agreed definition of the freedom moral responsibility requires, would resolve it; neither is settled.

Expertise Needed Metaphysics, philosophy of action, physics

Question posed in Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, s.v. Free Will.

Open Epistemology

Why It Is Open Since Edmund Gettier's 1963 paper, proposed fourth conditions (a no-false-lemmas clause, causal theories, reliabilism, safety and sensitivity conditions, virtue epistemology) have each met their own counterexamples, and no replacement analysis commands consensus.

What Would Settle It An analysis of knowledge that survives every known Gettier-style case without ruling out clear cases of ordinary knowledge would resolve it; some epistemologists instead argue the project of analyzing knowledge into more basic conditions should be abandoned.

Expertise Needed Epistemology

Question posed in Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, s.v. The Analysis of Knowledge.

Open Epistemology

Why It Is Open Internalists argue that a justification a thinker cannot access from the inside cannot be doing any justifying work for that thinker; externalists reply that small children and animals plainly have justified perceptual beliefs despite being unable to reflect on their own reliability. Neither side has produced a case the other accepts as decisive.

What Would Settle It A shared account of what justification is FOR, whether it is about the thinker's own responsible believing or about tracking truth, would settle which condition is required; the two camps currently start from different accounts of that point.

Expertise Needed Epistemology

Question posed in Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, s.v. Internalist vs. Externalist Conceptions of Epistemic Justification.

Open Sorites Paradox

Why It Is Open Philosophers have proposed several competing treatments of the paradox: denying that any fixed grain count marks a heap, fixing a stipulated boundary, epistemicism (a real but unknowable boundary, held by Timothy Williamson and Roy Sorensen), supervaluationism, many-valued logics, fuzzy logic, and Diana Raffman's hysteresis account. The sourced Wikipedia article lists all of these as live, competing proposals with no stated resolution among them.

What Would Settle It A decisive argument, or a real convergence of expert opinion, establishing that one treatment of vague predicates (a bivalent account with a real or stipulated boundary, a many-valued or fuzzy-logic account, or a context-dependent account such as hysteresis) is correct and the competing accounts mistaken.

Expertise Needed philosophy of logic and language (vagueness)

Question posed in Sorites Paradox (Wikipedia), Sorites paradox (Wikipedia), section on proposed resolutions.

Open The Problem of Induction

Why It Is Open Since Hume posed the problem, philosophers including Popper and Strawson have proposed various responses, from denying induction needs justifying to redefining what a justification could look like. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy notes that a significant number of philosophers have instead embraced Hume's own conclusion that the problem is insoluble, rather than accepting any proposed way out.

What Would Settle It A proposed solution gaining broad acceptance among philosophers of science and epistemologists, rather than remaining one live option among several, would resolve the question.

Expertise Needed epistemology and philosophy of science

Question posed in Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, The Problem of Induction, introduction.

Open Divine Command Theory

Why It Is Open Wikipedia's own account of the theory names Augustine (354-430), Duns Scotus (c. 1265-1308), William of Ockham (c. 1287-1347) and John Calvin (1509-1564) as presenting various forms of the position across more than a millennium, with no single founding text or date named anywhere in the article; this atlas records no origin-year fact rather than assign a false precise date.

What Would Settle It A specialist historiographical judgment on whether Divine Command Theory names one continuous position traceable to a first articulation, or a family of related positions across many eras and traditions that should not share a single origin date at all.

Expertise Needed History of philosophy (dating attribution)

Question posed in Divine command theory (Wikipedia), Divine command theory (Wikipedia), section General form.

Open Lazy Argument

Why It Is Open The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy's Fatalism entry traces a precursor thought to Aristotle's De Interpretatione (Aristotle died 322 B.C.E.) but dates the named Idle Argument itself only by when the Stoic Chrysippus (c280-c206 B.C.E.) replied to it, a reply date rather than a founding date; no source found names who first posed the complete argument or in what year, so this atlas records no origin-year fact rather than assign a false precise date.

What Would Settle It A specialist source identifying who first posed the Idle Argument in its complete constructive-dilemma form, distinct from Aristotle's earlier, less formal remark and from Chrysippus's later reply to it.

Expertise Needed History of philosophy (dating attribution)

Question posed in Fatalism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy), Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Fatalism, section 7 The Idle Argument.

Open Natural Law Theory

Why It Is Open The Stanford Encyclopedia own Natural Law Theories entry, re-fetched 2026-09-11, names Plato, Aristotle and the Stoics as early sources and treats Aquinas as the tradition classical systematizer, but states no single founding moment or year for natural law theory as a named tradition.

What Would Settle It A historiographical account defending one specific figure, text or period as the tradition actual point of origin, rather than treating natural law as a gradual convergence of independently argued classical and medieval sources.

Expertise Needed History of philosophy

Question posed in Natural Law Theories (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy), SEP Natural Law Theories entry, re-fetched 2026-09-11.

Open The Bhagavad Gita

Why It Is Open Wikipedia's dating and authorship section reports estimates for the Gita's composition ranging from around the fifth or fourth century BCE, per Kashi Nath Upadhyaya, to the first century CE, with the second or first century BCE cited as the generally favored range. The scholar Jeaneane Fowler is quoted there as saying the dating varies considerably, depending partly on whether the Gita is treated as part of the Mahabharata's earliest layer or as a later insertion into the epic.

What Would Settle It An independently datable reference within the text, or a broad consensus among Sanskritists on which layer of the Mahabharata the Gita belongs to, would narrow the range.

Expertise Needed Indology and Sanskrit textual dating

Question posed in The Bhagavad Gita (Wikipedia), Wikipedia, Bhagavad Gita, Dating and authorship section, quoting Jeaneane Fowler.

Open Continental Philosophy

Why It Is Open Continental philosophy is a retrospective, primarily Anglo-American label rather than a self-description used by any of the thinkers it groups together, so there is no founding text, school or manifesto scholars point to as its starting point the way historians point to Husserl's Logical Investigations for phenomenology or Frege's Begriffsschrift for analytic philosophy.

What Would Settle It A settled historiographic consensus on whether the category names a real shared tradition with an identifiable origin or only a boundary drawn retrospectively from the analytic side of a later disciplinary split; historians of philosophy, not philosophers working within either tradition, would have to establish it.

Expertise Needed History of philosophy / philosophical historiography

Question posed in Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, entry: Analytic Philosophy.

Open Kyoto School

Why It Is Open The Kyoto School's own reference literature treats it as an ongoing intellectual tradition rather than a closed historical episode: founder Nishida Kitaro died in 1945, the year of Japan's surrender, yet later thinkers such as Keiji Nishitani continued the school's project for decades afterward, so encyclopedic treatments decline to name a single end date.

What Would Settle It Scholarly consensus on whether the school's identity is tied to a specific institutional marker, such as Nishida Kitaro's death in 1945, the same year Japan surrendered, or extends through the later generations, Nishitani and Tanabe's students among them, who continued the school's project for decades afterward under the same name.

Expertise Needed Intellectual history of modern Japan, history of philosophy

Question posed in Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, entry: The Kyoto School, Section 4.5 heading.

Open Mozi

Why It Is Open The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy's own entry on Mohism states plainly that little is known of Mozi's life, not even which state he was from; only a rough floruit of circa 430 BCE, contemporaneous with Socrates, can be given with any confidence.

What Would Settle It Further archaeological or textual discovery bearing on Mozi's home state and exact birth and death years; the surviving record only supports a floruit of roughly 430 BCE.

Expertise Needed Early Chinese intellectual history, classical Chinese textual studies

Question posed in Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, entry: Mohism, Section 1.

Open The Book of Lord Shang

Why It Is Open The text as it survives shows layered composition, differing terminology and doctrine across chapters, and references to events after the death of Shang Yang in 338 BCE, so it cannot be a single work set down by his own hand even if some chapters preserve genuine early material.

What Would Settle It A securely dated early manuscript or a chapter-by-chapter philological study establishing which sections predate later Legalist compilers would let scholars separate any genuine Shang Yang material from later additions.

Expertise Needed Classical Chinese philology and textual history

Question posed in Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

Open The Republic

Why It Is Open Scholars have long tried to place Plato's dialogues in an order of composition, often grouping them into early, middle and late periods with the Republic used as a marker of the middle period. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy states plainly that it remains a matter of dispute whether this three period division correctly indicates the actual order of composition, or is even a useful tool for understanding Plato's thought, since ancient testimony is thin and modern stylometric methods do not all agree.

What Would Settle It An independently datable reference within the text itself, or a convergence of stylometric and philosophical analyses that most Plato scholars accept, would settle the Republic's place in the compositional order; short of that the ordering stays a working hypothesis.

Expertise Needed Plato scholarship (stylometric and philosophical chronology)

Question posed in Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Plato, section 11 The historical Socrates: early, middle, and late dialogues.

Open Leucippus

Why It Is Open Ancient sources (Aristotle, Theophrastus) name Leucippus as the founder of atomism and Democritus's teacher, but almost nothing of his life survives independently of Democritus's much larger body of testimony, and some scholars, ancient and modern, have questioned whether he existed as a distinct person at all rather than being a name later attached to Democritus's own ideas.

What Would Settle It A securely dated, independently attested fragment or testimony naming Leucippus that cannot be explained as a later back-formation from Democritus's teaching would settle his existence as a distinct historical figure; no such text is agreed to exist.

Expertise Needed Classical philology / history of philosophy

Question posed in Leucippus (Wikipedia), Body, third paragraph, first two sentences.

Open Laozi

Why It Is Open The Tao Te Ching's own textual history is genuinely contested: some accept the traditional account of a single sixth century BCE author who served at the Zhou court, while most modern textual scholarship reads the work as a compilation of aphorisms and verses assembled from multiple hands over generations, closer to a fourth century BCE finished form. No biographical source for Laozi predates the legendary accounts collected centuries after his supposed lifetime.

What Would Settle It New early manuscript evidence bearing directly on authorship and date of composition, of the kind the Guodian and Mawangdui bamboo and silk manuscript discoveries have already partially supplied for the text's transmission history, though not yet for the question of a single author.

Expertise Needed Sinology, paleography, textual criticism

Question posed in Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, s.v. Laozi.

Open The Categorical Imperative

Why It Is Open Kant claimed that his different formulas of the categorical imperative, including the Formula of Universal Law and the Formula of Humanity, were all equivalent, but never explained in what sense. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy's Kant's Moral Philosophy entry surveys competing readings of that equivalence claim, meaning equivalent, logically interderivable, or equivalent only in the duties each formula generates, without settling on one.

What Would Settle It A textual argument accepted across Kant scholarship showing precisely how one formula yields the others, or a demonstration that Kant's equivalence claim fails in every proposed sense, would resolve which reading is correct.

Expertise Needed Kant scholarship (moral philosophy)

Question posed in Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Kant's Moral Philosophy, section 9 The Unity of the Formulas.