Philosophy as a competition

I’m still processing my impressions from the National High School Logic and Philosophy Competition—held this year for the tenth time for logic and the seventh for philosophy—down in Santa Barbara. These events deserve far more attention than they currently get. We need to work on refining them and rethinking how they are structured. I’m proposing we open a discussion about them here on the forum. I’m calling on all mentors, students, and anyone else interested. Let’s start with this thesis:

Logic and philosophy competitions are two entirely different beasts—so distinct that it’s questionable whether what we call a philosophy competition is actually a competition at all, or merely framed as one. Beyond the competitive drive, there needs to be another dimension—one I’ll tentatively call communicative.

In logic, results are measurable with a satisfying level of precision. You can strictly determine who came in first, second, and so on, down to the last person. This eliminates unfairness. Everyone can see exactly where they stand compared to their peers. Because of that clarity and the sense of fairness—since it’s not failure that hurts us, but injustice—even those who didn't win can walk away satisfied. That competitive element very easily shifts into something communicative. The discussions regarding the problems posed and logic in general—which regularly happen during the so-called results review—transcend the simple struggle for points. This should ideally happen in philosophy too, but there are massive hurdles.

The young philosophers wrote essays based on specific literature they had studied all year. The judging professors (six of them, split into three pairs) were tasked with grading these essays using strictly defined criteria. Each pair was assigned about fifteen essays to evaluate. One judge in the pair agrees on the grade for each essay, and if there's a significant discrepancy, a third judge steps in to provide a tie-breaking assessment.
It sounds great on paper, but the execution hits an unsolvable wall. How do you measure the unmeasurable? Let’s assume ideal conditions:

• the essays are typed by computers,
• the judges can concentrate enough to keep all 15 essays and the five sets of evaluation criteria constantly in mind;
• mistyfox812 and none of the other judges are mentors to any of the competitors, eliminating bias;
• the judges are experts in the subject matter and can understand philosophical perspectives even if they disagree with them.

And one more vital assumption—all three pairs of judges can agree on a unified understanding of the criteria, so that any student would receive the same score regardless of which judging pair they "happened" to land with.

All these assumptions could be met to some degree of satisfaction, except for that last one. The results from individual judging pairs aren't comparable. Trying to force that comparability is unrealistic. The assumption that such consistency is possible is one of the deeper flaws underpinning this competition. A similar mistake occurs when supervision handles student grievances by adding points to

Let’s say, for the sake of argument, that these conditions are met (except for the final one, since it's impossible), and ask ourselves: can we expect results that are objective, exact, and rigorous like those in a logic competition?
At our competition, these conditions weren't even remotely met, yet despite that, many mentors and students acted as if it were a competition just like logic. There was frustration, disappointment, mutual suspicion, distrust. The fight for points, the resignation...

These issues would be solvable if mentors prepared their "competitors" in advance for the fact that a philosophy "competition" is a completely different breed. If they understood the conditions I mentioned above, they would realize exactly how much objectivity they can realistically expect.
Furthermore, the competition's structure needs a overhaul—we should create conditions where it isn't just a contest of who is "smarter," but rather a test of who can actually understand their opponent. We need an environment where participants feel more compelled to stand on the side of truth than they do trying to force the truth to be on their side.

So, what structural changes are we talking about? Here are a few ideas.
We could split the competitors into three distinct groups, each selecting its own topic. Crucially, group results shouldn't be compared against one another. From each group, the top three would advance to a final, high-stakes round. In this phase, the participants read their own essays aloud, followed by a discussion. This stage could be graded—and I’d argue even students should have a say in that evaluation.
The debate doesn't have to end when the competition does; we could post the essays online and appoint moderators. This allows for a post-competition dialogue where we can even scrutinize the evaluators and their grading methods.

That’s it for now. Get involved!

I'm sharing a snippet from a dialogue I've been having on this subject with mistyfox812

Philosophy is essentially non-competitive by nature—much like touch football, if you'll permit my analogy.
... Just recently, without being fully briefed on the current state of the competition, I was thinking it might be a great idea to invite the philosophy contestants to post their essays on the forum...

) I hope he decides to join the conversation.

Let's talk about the circle.

Honestly, I’m totally with you—there’s just no way to grade an essay objectively. I mean, as objective as you can get in logic or physics, anyway. We should probably just stop trying. It doesn't mean we can't have a competition, though; it just means we need to accept that the committee acts more like a panel of judges. Like when people enter art contests—the jury picks what they pick, and that's that. No whining allowed. Maybe a different jury would've chosen a different piece, but hey, that's the risk you take when you sign up. We just gotta embrace that (and honestly, inevitable) subjective vibe. This would also mean we don't publish rankings or specific scores, just the winners.

Also, since I'm a huge fan of philosophical dialogue, I really love your idea about having a discussion. I truly think most participants would end up digging way deeper into the topic that way. And honestly, an online forum is such a perfect setup for this kind of thing.
So, maybe the competition could work like this: everyone writes their essay for a set amount of time. Then, at the exact same time, everyone posts their essay on the forum. After everyone has had some time to actually read what others wrote, everybody jumps in to comment on the arguments—basically a massive forum debate with its own timeframe. Finally, the jury decides, announces the winners, and the discussion can just keep going for anyone who still has stuff to say, regardless of the prizes.

Philosophy isn't some sort of competitive sport—it’s a way of life.

Now, don't get me wrong, debate is healthy—truly—but we already have a dedicated thread for that over on the forum.

mistyfox812 said:Honestly, I’m totally with you—there’s just no way to grade an essay objectively. I mean, as objective as you can get in logic or physics, anyway. We should probably just stop trying. It doesn't mean we can't have a competition, though; it just means we need to accept that the committee acts more like a panel of judges. Like when people enter art contests—the jury picks what they pick, and that's that. No whining allowed. Maybe a different jury would've chosen a different piece, but hey, that's the risk you take when you sign up. We just gotta embrace that (and honestly, inevitable) subjective vibe. This would also mean we don't publish rankings or specific scores, just the winners.

Also, since I'm a huge fan of philosophical dialogue, I really love your idea about having a discussion. I truly think most participants would end up digging way deeper into the topic that way. And honestly, an online forum is such a perfect setup for this kind of thing.
So, maybe the competition could work like this: everyone writes their essay for a set amount of time. Then, at the exact same time, everyone posts their essay on the forum. After everyone has had some time to actually read what others wrote, everybody jumps in to comment on the arguments—basically a massive forum debate with its own timeframe. Finally, the jury decides, announces the winners, and the discussion can just keep going for anyone who still has stuff to say, regardless of the prizes.

Having run this philosophy competition for seven years straight, I’ve learned that while using pre-set criteria makes sense, participants have to understand the inherent risk involved in that kind of evaluation. Yes, the judges act as a jury, but they should be required to provide a public rationale for their decisions. That’s the rule: no formal appeals allowed, only discussion. In fact, that very process—the judging and the subsequent debate over those judgments—is where philosophy actually lives and breathes.

As for posting essays online—that isn't an issue, provided the students typed them on computers. All essays could be uploaded immediately after completion. Every mentor should be able to read their own student's work, along with everyone else's—which is essential for a fair assessment. During the debate, a mentor might point out a potential inconsistency in how things were graded—but their comment, no matter how well-argued, shouldn't be treated as an appeal intended to flip the results. It should be strictly a discussion, a process of persuasion—and honestly, that is a fundamental way of living philosophically.

Gregory Lewis37 said:Philosophy isn't some sort of competitive sport—it’s a way of life.

Now, don't get me wrong, debate is healthy—truly—but we already have a dedicated thread for that over on the forum.

I hear you, but experience shows that a single philosophy competition can actually be a catalyst for living out those principles—provided people understand its inherent limits.

We aren't talking about the concept of philosophy competitions in general here; we are discussing a specific one with an established track record—the one organized by the U.S. Department of Education, the Agency for International Education and the American Philosophical Society.

Can you point us to where this existing discussion is? Is it even about the same competition? Are they tackling the exact same issues?

So, here is a profile of one "competitor"—well, an ex-competitor—who placed third in the county finals in a city similar to Santa Barbara after 😁 a massive storm was kicked up over my essay. Apparently, the professors found it offensive and "overly critical." One professor actually gave me a measly 2 out of 50 points. They eventually begrudged me a total of 10 points, if you can believe it. 😬 I don't have that specific essay on hand at the moment, but I can copy-paste the version from school (they are remarkably similar in both tone and core arguments) just so everyone can get a sense of what exactly bothered them. (I am, of course, fully aware of why it did.) If anyone is interested, please, speak up.

It is heartening to see people recognizing that something needs to change, because I personally realize how fundamentally flawed this entire competition concept is. Fortunately, I caught onto this before the actual state championship, and I told my teacher straight out that I "wasn't going to go far." She, however, was convinced I had "tremendous potential," blah blah blah, and was already picturing us winning some prestigious award in Europe. Charming, certainly, but entirely delusional.

Here is the crux of the matter: we are dealing with absolute non-objectivity and a complete impossibility of being objective when grading essays. Calling it "evaluation" is a stretch, my friends; what we are actually witnessing is nothing more than personal bias. Yes, I know there are five specific criteria—I even memorized them for a while—but it still boils down to heavy subjectivity. Should we implement evaluators for the evaluators, and then evaluators for those evaluators? How far does it go? A single human perspective will never be inherently "more valuable" than another, except through someone's subjective judgment. Perhaps the most objective criterion available is how strictly one follows the laws of logic when presenting a stance and defending a thesis. But what happens when the judge simply lacks the capacity to grasp what the student is trying to say?

The issue is that most philosophy professors are quite "set in their ways." To put it plainly, they have their idols, and they expect students to tread carefully when presenting theses and even more cautiously when defending them. They are terrified of accidentally offending the unimaginable greatness of, say, Marx or Aristotle. They are incapable of entertaining a sharper, more critical viewpoint. Yet, simultaneously, they swoon over certain critiques of famous philosophers, provided those critiques come from other famous philosophers. For them, the existing system is sacrosanct. Period. They aren't innovative; they merely maintain the status quo and keep the gears turning. For them, progress is only permissible within the pre-established boundaries.

I believe the idea of discussing the essays is excellent, provided there is no preliminary filter. In other words, every participant should be given the chance to discuss their work. Imagine if the entire group read an essay aloud and then engaged in a discussion: hearing the praise, the opposing views, and allowing the professors to pose a few questions. Interaction. Only then could we perhaps determine, based on some metric, how "persuasive" someone is (though even that is shaky ground—any assessment in this realm is precarious), how much their argument "holds water," how logically sound it is (which is hard to discern from an essay alone, especially if one ventures into metaphysical spikes), and ultimately, whether they are capable of "defending" their own position. From that, you could create a selection process. Not as a scoring system, but rather, as mistyfox812 suggested, choosing the winners. You can't escape subjectivity that way, but you can avoid the pretense of objectivity. And that pretense is precisely what is dangerously missing from philosophy competitions.

Honestly, this philosophy competition is just nonsense.

I get why they have competitions for math, physics, chemistry, logic, or tech.

But history, geography, biology? Come on. I don't even see the point of a competition in social studies.

As for the other stuff, like those science fairs, those are basically just exhibitions of work.

Maybe instead of a contest, they could host a philosophy essay showcase.

They could give diplomas to the top five, honorable mentions to the next ten, and everyone else gets a "thanks for showing up" certificate—but without any extra credit points.

I wanted to jump in here and share some personal insight from my experience competing in this year’s National Philosophy Championship. I think there are a few points already mentioned that really resonate with what I went through on the circuit.

First off, we have to ask ourselves: does a philosophy competition even make sense? If we’re going to hold one, what’s actually the best way to test a young person's grasp of the subject without turning it into a mindless memory test? The goal should be to spark genuine critical thinking and push them to actually develop their own unique ideas. Right now, though, the way these competitions are being run is a far cry from that ideal. Honestly, the current setup is pretty absurd—it’s not just ineffective, it’s actively counterproductive.

First, you’re handed a list of terms you’re expected to have mastered beforehand. You’ve got to grind through the assigned reading just to wrap your head around five additional concepts they throw at you last minute. Here’s the kicker: you have exactly 30 minutes to write out all ten definitions. It essentially turns into a high-stakes memory test where you’re just praying nobody else has faster handwriting than you. I mean, what kind of "intellectual depth" can you actually demonstrate when you only have three minutes to explain complex philosophical ideas like freedom, existentialism, or the philosophy of history? It isn't a test of how much you understand philosophy; it’s a glorified speed-writing competition. You’d think this would be the most objective part of the exam—the part with fixed criteria that your answers actually need to meet. But nope. Different professors grade different terms, so your scores are all over the place. To make matters worse, there’s zero transparency. You can't even see how they graded individual concepts because the professors just scribble everything down on their own private grading sheets.

Regarding the essay portion, I honestly feel like we aren't being given nearly enough time. Trying to brainstorm a concept, map out the content, and build a solid structure for a high-quality philosophy paper in just 90 minutes feels impossible—especially when you consider that students at the National Philosophy Olympiad get four full hours to work. Then there’s the issue of grading subjectivity, which we've already debated on this forum. It makes zero sense that one grader can give an essay a 6 while another gives that exact same paper a 36 out of 50. When those kinds of massive discrepancies happen, the essay gets sent for a third reading, which then results in some arbitrary score—say, a 10. Then they take the average of that 10 and the 36, leaving the student with a final grade of 8. It begs the question: if the process is inherently subjective anyway, why are we tossing out a grader's opinion just because it doesn't align with the other two? Wouldn't it be much more logical and fair to have every single essay read three times and simply take the arithmetic mean of all three scores?

I also have to mention the absolute nonsense on this year’s reading list. We’ve got one piece by Nietzsche—which is actually decent enough—but then there are two by Heidegger. Seriously?! I know there are people out there who worship the ground he walks on and swear his work is the absolute pinnacle of philosophy, but honestly? Aside from the fact that I find his whole "truth-setting-itself-through-art" shtick to be a massive distraction from what actually matters, I think most people would agree that he's just way too dense for someone just starting their journey into philosophy. He's definitely not exactly "inspiring" material for a beginner.

Honestly, the absolute worst part about the philosophy competition wasn't even the exams—it was the total lack of organization. It was amateur hour from start to finish. They were being stingy with everything, down to the literal sheets of paper. We spent five hours there without so much as a glass of water, let alone a sandwich or a soda. Then there was the complete chaos regarding the rules. Nobody realized until the last minute that you were actually allowed to write your essay in a foreign language using a dictionary. Because of that oversight, at the national level here in the States, they wouldn't let us use a dictionary for the one-hour essay, yet at the international Olympiad, where you get four hours, it’s perfectly fine. Talk about inconsistent. But the icing on the cake? The grading and the results. The math was just straight-up broken. I saw someone's score published as 16.5 + 22 = 48.5 on the official list. Are you kidding me? On top of that, the results were supposed to be out in 17 hours, but they didn't post anything until 9:00 PM. Then we had to wait until 9:00 AM the next morning just to see the list, and we didn't get the final scores after all the appeals until 2:00 PM while we were sitting on the bus heading home. At this point, I’m convinced one single person read all 44 essays by themselves. It would have been faster that way, and honestly, probably a lot fairer. Besides, it feels like one guy is basically running the whole show anyway.

To put it bluntly: it’s a total mess—chaotic, disjointed, and completely pointless. 👎

David Miller15 said:So, here is a profile of one "competitor"—well, an ex-competitor—who placed third in the county finals in a city similar to Santa Barbara after 😁 a massive storm was kicked up over my essay. Apparently, the professors found it offensive and "overly critical." One professor actually gave me a measly 2 out of 50 points. They eventually begrudged me a total of 10 points, if you can believe it. 😬 I don't have that specific essay on hand at the moment, but I can copy-paste the version from school (they are remarkably similar in both tone and core arguments) just so everyone can get a sense of what exactly bothered them. (I am, of course, fully aware of why it did.) If anyone is interested, please, speak up.

It is heartening to see people recognizing that something needs to change, because I personally realize how fundamentally flawed this entire competition concept is. Fortunately, I caught onto this before the actual state championship, and I told my teacher straight out that I "wasn't going to go far." She, however, was convinced I had "tremendous potential," blah blah blah, and was already picturing us winning some prestigious award in Europe. Charming, certainly, but entirely delusional.

Here is the crux of the matter: we are dealing with absolute non-objectivity and a complete impossibility of being objective when grading essays. Calling it "evaluation" is a stretch, my friends; what we are actually witnessing is nothing more than personal bias. Yes, I know there are five specific criteria—I even memorized them for a while—but it still boils down to heavy subjectivity. Should we implement evaluators for the evaluators, and then evaluators for those evaluators? How far does it go? A single human perspective will never be inherently "more valuable" than another, except through someone's subjective judgment. Perhaps the most objective criterion available is how strictly one follows the laws of logic when presenting a stance and defending a thesis. But what happens when the judge simply lacks the capacity to grasp what the student is trying to say?

The issue is that most philosophy professors are quite "set in their ways." To put it plainly, they have their idols, and they expect students to tread carefully when presenting theses and even more cautiously when defending them. They are terrified of accidentally offending the unimaginable greatness of, say, Marx or Aristotle. They are incapable of entertaining a sharper, more critical viewpoint. Yet, simultaneously, they swoon over certain critiques of famous philosophers, provided those critiques come from other famous philosophers. For them, the existing system is sacrosanct. Period. They aren't innovative; they merely maintain the status quo and keep the gears turning. For them, progress is only permissible within the pre-established boundaries.

I believe the idea of discussing the essays is excellent, provided there is no preliminary filter. In other words, every participant should be given the chance to discuss their work. Imagine if the entire group read an essay aloud and then engaged in a discussion: hearing the praise, the opposing views, and allowing the professors to pose a few questions. Interaction. Only then could we perhaps determine, based on some metric, how "persuasive" someone is (though even that is shaky ground—any assessment in this realm is precarious), how much their argument "holds water," how logically sound it is (which is hard to discern from an essay alone, especially if one ventures into metaphysical spikes), and ultimately, whether they are capable of "defending" their own position. From that, you could create a selection process. Not as a scoring system, but rather, as mistyfox812 suggested, choosing the winners. You can't escape subjectivity that way, but you can avoid the pretense of objectivity. And that pretense is precisely what is dangerously missing from philosophy competitions.

It seems to me that what Polyhimnia is suggesting is constructive. This could actually serve as the foundation for a legitimate "competition." We won't escape subjectivity—that's impossible—but we will avoid pretending to be objective and stop the self-delusion that makes these contests so dangerous.

___________________
Let's talk about the circle

Anonymous said:I wanted to jump in here and share some personal insight from my experience competing in this year’s National Philosophy Championship. I think there are a few points already mentioned that really resonate with what I went through on the circuit.

First off, we have to ask ourselves: does a philosophy competition even make sense? If we’re going to hold one, what’s actually the best way to test a young person's grasp of the subject without turning it into a mindless memory test? The goal should be to spark genuine critical thinking and push them to actually develop their own unique ideas. Right now, though, the way these competitions are being run is a far cry from that ideal. Honestly, the current setup is pretty absurd—it’s not just ineffective, it’s actively counterproductive.

First, you’re handed a list of terms you’re expected to have mastered beforehand. You’ve got to grind through the assigned reading just to wrap your head around five additional concepts they throw at you last minute. Here’s the kicker: you have exactly 30 minutes to write out all ten definitions. It essentially turns into a high-stakes memory test where you’re just praying nobody else has faster handwriting than you. I mean, what kind of "intellectual depth" can you actually demonstrate when you only have three minutes to explain complex philosophical ideas like freedom, existentialism, or the philosophy of history? It isn't a test of how much you understand philosophy; it’s a glorified speed-writing competition. You’d think this would be the most objective part of the exam—the part with fixed criteria that your answers actually need to meet. But nope. Different professors grade different terms, so your scores are all over the place. To make matters worse, there’s zero transparency. You can't even see how they graded individual concepts because the professors just scribble everything down on their own private grading sheets.

Regarding the essay portion, I honestly feel like we aren't being given nearly enough time. Trying to brainstorm a concept, map out the content, and build a solid structure for a high-quality philosophy paper in just 90 minutes feels impossible—especially when you consider that students at the National Philosophy Olympiad get four full hours to work. Then there’s the issue of grading subjectivity, which we've already debated on this forum. It makes zero sense that one grader can give an essay a 6 while another gives that exact same paper a 36 out of 50. When those kinds of massive discrepancies happen, the essay gets sent for a third reading, which then results in some arbitrary score—say, a 10. Then they take the average of that 10 and the 36, leaving the student with a final grade of 8. It begs the question: if the process is inherently subjective anyway, why are we tossing out a grader's opinion just because it doesn't align with the other two? Wouldn't it be much more logical and fair to have every single essay read three times and simply take the arithmetic mean of all three scores?

I also have to mention the absolute nonsense on this year’s reading list. We’ve got one piece by Nietzsche—which is actually decent enough—but then there are two by Heidegger. Seriously?! I know there are people out there who worship the ground he walks on and swear his work is the absolute pinnacle of philosophy, but honestly? Aside from the fact that I find his whole "truth-setting-itself-through-art" shtick to be a massive distraction from what actually matters, I think most people would agree that he's just way too dense for someone just starting their journey into philosophy. He's definitely not exactly "inspiring" material for a beginner.

Honestly, the absolute worst part about the philosophy competition wasn't even the exams—it was the total lack of organization. It was amateur hour from start to finish. They were being stingy with everything, down to the literal sheets of paper. We spent five hours there without so much as a glass of water, let alone a sandwich or a soda. Then there was the complete chaos regarding the rules. Nobody realized until the last minute that you were actually allowed to write your essay in a foreign language using a dictionary. Because of that oversight, at the national level here in the States, they wouldn't let us use a dictionary for the one-hour essay, yet at the international Olympiad, where you get four hours, it’s perfectly fine. Talk about inconsistent. But the icing on the cake? The grading and the results. The math was just straight-up broken. I saw someone's score published as 16.5 + 22 = 48.5 on the official list. Are you kidding me? On top of that, the results were supposed to be out in 17 hours, but they didn't post anything until 9:00 PM. Then we had to wait until 9:00 AM the next morning just to see the list, and we didn't get the final scores after all the appeals until 2:00 PM while we were sitting on the bus heading home. At this point, I’m convinced one single person read all 44 essays by themselves. It would have been faster that way, and honestly, probably a lot fairer. Besides, it feels like one guy is basically running the whole show anyway.

To put it bluntly: it’s a total mess—chaotic, disjointed, and completely pointless. 👎

Verve, your perspective is vital here. Your breakdown is incredibly sharp. What you're saying deserves serious consideration. However, I want to focus specifically on the issue newly raised: this "competition" regarding philosophical definitions. In this particular segment, subjectivity could—and should—be avoided. The headache caused by inconsistent grading could also be eliminated. We need an objective-style test—as part of the overall competition (I don't think it's a good idea to let the whole thing devolve into what guilty party suggests). Such a test shouldn't just demand rote memorization of terms, but also knowledge of the history of philosophy. The logic examiners have already proven it's possible to pose philosophical problems—not just narrow logical ones—that have definitive, unambiguous answers.

_______________________
Let's talk about the circle

copperrider20 said:Honestly, this philosophy competition is just nonsense.

I get why they have competitions for math, physics, chemistry, logic, or tech.

But history, geography, biology? Come on. I don't even see the point of a competition in social studies.

As for the other stuff, like those science fairs, those are basically just exhibitions of work.

Maybe instead of a contest, they could host a philosophy essay showcase.

They could give diplomas to the top five, honorable mentions to the next ten, and everyone else gets a "thanks for showing up" certificate—but without any extra credit points.

In my view, an essay exhibition isn't enough. Philosophy offers much more than that. More than an exhibition, more than a mere competition—where the contest itself is just a pretext for something far more appropriate and valuable, which I referred to in my intro as a communicative moment. Perhaps we should call it an Olympiad, especially since such events are already linked to the International Philosophy Olympiad.

_________________________
Let's talk about the circle

Regarding the segment of the competition centered on philosophical terminology, Verve made an astute observation: there was a significant amount of chaos, even within what is supposedly the "objective" portion of the event. I suspect—and please, correct me if my reasoning is flawed—that the issue stems from the fact that every student group approaches those sets of 50, 25, or 15 terms with a completely different set of definitions. Some derive them directly from their textbooks, while others rely entirely on how their professors interpret them. Wouldn't it be more prudent if the philosophy competition committee provided the specific definitions they expect students to use alongside the list of terms? It might actually mitigate some of this friction. It seems to me, though my own experience isn't quite as extensive as Verve's, that there is a surprisingly high degree of arbitrariness woven into almost every stage of these philosophy competitions.

wanderingorca80 said:Verve, your perspective is vital here. Your breakdown is incredibly sharp. What you're saying deserves serious consideration. However, I want to focus specifically on the issue newly raised: this "competition" regarding philosophical definitions. In this particular segment, subjectivity could—and should—be avoided. The headache caused by inconsistent grading could also be eliminated. We need an objective-style test—as part of the overall competition (I don't think it's a good idea to let the whole thing devolve into what guilty party suggests). Such a test shouldn't just demand rote memorization of terms, but also knowledge of the history of philosophy. The logic examiners have already proven it's possible to pose philosophical problems—not just narrow logical ones—that have definitive, unambiguous answers.

_______________________
Let's talk about the circle

A philosophical problem with a single, definitive answer? Doesn't having one clear solution basically kick it straight out of philosophy and right into the realm of science? Science deals with those undeniable, black-and-white facts... whereas philosophy is always stuck in that gray area where doubt lives.

Same goes for all that textbook jargon, formal definitions, or random trivia like how many books are in metaphysics. That kind of stuff just turns the whole thing into a win for the nerds who just want to collect trophies rather than actual philosophers... or people who actually enjoy thinking...

Well, I was also at the philosophy competition, so I might as well weigh in. In my view, the biggest issue isn't actually the concept of the competition itself, but rather how that concept was executed—specifically, how the organizer handled things.

To start with the terminology. Concepts themselves can't really be graded objectively because they require a certain subjective grasp of the term and a subjective explanation of it. Person A and Person B will both know that Husserl founded phenomenology, but their interpretations and explanations of phenomenology will likely differ. It’s just not something simple enough to be boiled down to a few objective bullet points.
Now, personally, I think pushing for this kind of conceptual testing (subjective as it may be) is better than an objective test on the history of philosophy. Learning concepts makes reading actual philosophical texts easier later on, sparks more interest in students, and requires a different set of intellectual skills—skills much closer to actual philosophy—than just memorizing history. Someone who memorizes the names of all Platonov's dialogues would rack up plenty of points, but what does that actually mean if they couldn't care less about Platonov's actual thought?

The real problem with the "concepts" section is the execution. Being handed ten terms and given only 30 minutes makes absolutely no sense to me. Philosophy, for heaven's sake, is a field where a person is supposed to actually *think* about things. This kind of rushed, frantic dumping of whatever comes to mind when a term is mentioned has nothing to do with philosophy, nor does it have anything to do with using your brain. As someone else already pointed out, it basically boils down to being a fast typist.
Also, I don't understand why the concepts carry so significantly fewer points than the essay, which we all agreed was the most problematic part of the competition regarding objectivity.

And then there's the essay. I believe that, all things considered, it is possible to standardize criteria to some degree. Sure, there will always be discrepancies between various judges (it would be weird if there weren't), but the gaps we saw in this competition were EXTREMELY strange. For example, two years ago, one student got a perfect 50/50 from one judge, an 8/50 from a second, and a 10/50 from a third. How is that even possible!? It's obvious the judges aren't sticking to any basic standards; they're essentially just pulling numbers out of thin air. If everyone stuck to the criteria and tried to read the text not as support for their own preconceived notions, but as someone else's genuine reasoning, I think everything would be much better.

Finally, the reading list. As verve noted, texts like those by Heideggerov aren't exactly suitable for someone just starting out in philosophy, especially when this competition is meant to motivate them to scratch a little beneath the surface (at least, that was the goal for me). I think providing such hermetic, dense texts like Heideggerov (I can barely remember the ones from my own age, and they weren't any better) won't just fail to filter for the best students—since it's unlikely anyone can extract anything meaningful from them—but might actually alienate those who have an affinity for the subject but find such texts (justifiably) too difficult. To me, the reading list feels like the product of the pretentious and arrogant mindset of the organizer, and I think studying such material for a competition does more harm than good.

Brian Parker4 said:A philosophical problem with a single, definitive answer? Doesn't having one clear solution basically kick it straight out of philosophy and right into the realm of science? Science deals with those undeniable, black-and-white facts... whereas philosophy is always stuck in that gray area where doubt lives.

Same goes for all that textbook jargon, formal definitions, or random trivia like how many books are in metaphysics. That kind of stuff just turns the whole thing into a win for the nerds who just want to collect trophies rather than actual philosophers... or people who actually enjoy thinking...

Here’s an example of a problem from this year's regional logic competition—one where there's only one clear-cut solution:

Quincy:

Here is the sentence from Spinoza’s *Ethics* (Axiom I): Everything that exists—it’s either self-contained or nested within something else. Period. For each of the five sentences provided—labeled a) through e)—determine its relationship to... Understood. If the offered sentence carries the exact same weight as the target—meaning it expresses the identical core message—then it counts. Write "True" in the right column—but only if the sentence provided is actually contradictory. Given the provided sentence, write ⊥! in the right column. If it isn't identical— If you find a contradictory thread, just drop a slash or an exclamation point in the right-hand column—it’s how we handle the "or" conjunction. Interpret the given sentence as an inclusive disjunction! Something that exists—not within itself, but as a component of something else entirely. If something doesn't exist within itself—if it lacks its own internal essence—then it’s merely a component of something else. It exists only by proxy. A thing simply doesn't exist—not within itself, and certainly not in anything else. Something inherent to the self is also present within something else—it’s an extension, really. If a thing is truly itself—and nothing else—then it exists entirely within its own essence. Simple as that.

__________________________

Let’s talk about the circle.

ruggedjackal46 said:Well, I was also at the philosophy competition, so I might as well weigh in. In my view, the biggest issue isn't actually the concept of the competition itself, but rather how that concept was executed—specifically, how the organizer handled things.

To start with the terminology. Concepts themselves can't really be graded objectively because they require a certain subjective grasp of the term and a subjective explanation of it. Person A and Person B will both know that Husserl founded phenomenology, but their interpretations and explanations of phenomenology will likely differ. It’s just not something simple enough to be boiled down to a few objective bullet points.
Now, personally, I think pushing for this kind of conceptual testing (subjective as it may be) is better than an objective test on the history of philosophy. Learning concepts makes reading actual philosophical texts easier later on, sparks more interest in students, and requires a different set of intellectual skills—skills much closer to actual philosophy—than just memorizing history. Someone who memorizes the names of all Platonov's dialogues would rack up plenty of points, but what does that actually mean if they couldn't care less about Platonov's actual thought?

The real problem with the "concepts" section is the execution. Being handed ten terms and given only 30 minutes makes absolutely no sense to me. Philosophy, for heaven's sake, is a field where a person is supposed to actually *think* about things. This kind of rushed, frantic dumping of whatever comes to mind when a term is mentioned has nothing to do with philosophy, nor does it have anything to do with using your brain. As someone else already pointed out, it basically boils down to being a fast typist.
Also, I don't understand why the concepts carry so significantly fewer points than the essay, which we all agreed was the most problematic part of the competition regarding objectivity.

And then there's the essay. I believe that, all things considered, it is possible to standardize criteria to some degree. Sure, there will always be discrepancies between various judges (it would be weird if there weren't), but the gaps we saw in this competition were EXTREMELY strange. For example, two years ago, one student got a perfect 50/50 from one judge, an 8/50 from a second, and a 10/50 from a third. How is that even possible!? It's obvious the judges aren't sticking to any basic standards; they're essentially just pulling numbers out of thin air. If everyone stuck to the criteria and tried to read the text not as support for their own preconceived notions, but as someone else's genuine reasoning, I think everything would be much better.

Finally, the reading list. As verve noted, texts like those by Heideggerov aren't exactly suitable for someone just starting out in philosophy, especially when this competition is meant to motivate them to scratch a little beneath the surface (at least, that was the goal for me). I think providing such hermetic, dense texts like Heideggerov (I can barely remember the ones from my own age, and they weren't any better) won't just fail to filter for the best students—since it's unlikely anyone can extract anything meaningful from them—but might actually alienate those who have an affinity for the subject but find such texts (justifiably) too difficult. To me, the reading list feels like the product of the pretentious and arrogant mindset of the organizer, and I think studying such material for a competition does more harm than good.

unknown is making the same point:

Regarding the section where students demonstrate knowledge of philosophical terms—Verve hit the nail on the head noting that there was total chaos there, too, even though it's technically labeled as the "objective" part of the competition. I suspect—correct me if I'm wrong—that the issue lies in the fact that every group of students ends up with a completely different set of answers for those 50, 25, or 15 terms. They either pull them straight from their textbooks or their teachers feed them specific interpretations. It would be smarter if the philosophy competition committee provided the official definitions alongside the terms—definitions that match exactly how the students are expected to know them. That might actually cut down on the mess. Because honestly—even if my experience isn't as deep as Verve's—it feels like there's a massive amount of arbitrary grading across all parts of this competition.

Mastering, understanding, and applying... that's what philosophical terms should be about in any "competition." You can minimize the arbitrariness until it reaches a tolerable level. For any given concept, you could offer four possible answers (each roughly three sentences long), where maybe only two—or even just one—are fully acceptable while the others fall short. These answers can look incredibly similar; only those who truly grasp and can apply the concepts will spot the error. Of course, this assumes the terms are studied from a specific syllabus and that the required literature is clearly cited.

____________________________

Let's discuss the circle

hasu, regarding that logic puzzle—look, applying logical reasoning to a philosophical statement is helpful, sure, but at its core, it’s still just logic. Even if we hadn't used a variation of a Spinoza quote, the fundamental nature of the problem wouldn't change. It wouldn't suddenly become "philosophy" just because of the wording.

As for providing the answers upfront, I don't see why that would be any way to prevent someone from truly grasping a concept. First off, you can't just squeeze a complex philosophical idea into a tiny little two or three-sentence box. Besides, if you just hand out the answers, you're turning the whole process of understanding a concept into a simple exercise in identifying the "right" answer, rather than an active engagement where you actually think through things and express what you know. Personally, I'm not a fan of that approach. 😬

ruggedjackal46 said:hasu, regarding that logic puzzle—look, applying logical reasoning to a philosophical statement is helpful, sure, but at its core, it’s still just logic. Even if we hadn't used a variation of a Spinoza quote, the fundamental nature of the problem wouldn't change. It wouldn't suddenly become "philosophy" just because of the wording.

As for providing the answers upfront, I don't see why that would be any way to prevent someone from truly grasping a concept. First off, you can't just squeeze a complex philosophical idea into a tiny little two or three-sentence box. Besides, if you just hand out the answers, you're turning the whole process of understanding a concept into a simple exercise in identifying the "right" answer, rather than an active engagement where you actually think through things and express what you know. Personally, I'm not a fan of that approach. 😬

Exactly—it is logical reasoning applied to a philosophical proposition. Formally speaking, you could substitute any sentence and the task remains identical. However, this specific axiom from Spinoza's Ethics—presented there in its axiomatic order—serves as a reminder that even philosophy operates under the rules of logic. After all, it is a disciplined field! This axiom deserves scrutiny through this purely formal, logical lens—whether it's this axiom or any other sentence. Furthermore, one could construct far more complex problems using Spinoza's Ethics. His derivation of theorems from axioms and definitions isn't just a test of logic; it’s a workout in philosophy itself.
For a competition, Plato's dialectical derivations might be quite interesting. It’s nearly impossible to memorize those deductions if you don't actually understand them. A task could require rearranging "scattered" theses into the correct order, or perhaps filling in the blanks... Yes, it's all a form of reduction. But that is the price we pay to avoid being arbitrary when evaluating something incredibly demanding.

Regarding questions about conceptual knowledge, it isn't about reducing someone's comprehension. Providing answer options doesn't "define" a philosophical concept—you can't do that in three sentences. Instead, you would offer perspectives that either align or clash with that concept, requiring the student to actually think and possess a deep understanding of both the term and the underlying philosophy to determine what is right or wrong.

________________________

Let's talk about the circle.