Philosophies compared

Some philosophies sound alike but part ways on one or two questions. Each page sets a close pair side by side: what they share, where they differ, and a plain question that tells them apart.

Want to know which side you lean toward? Take the walk.

Absurdism versus Existentialism Both start from a person's own existence in a world that does not hand over a meaning. Existentialists see freedom in that. Camus saw a clash that never closes, and he denied being an existentialist.
Absurdism versus Liberalism Absurdism is about whether life has meaning. Liberalism is about how a society should be run. They are not rivals, and one person can hold both.
Absurdism versus Nihilism Nihilism says life has no meaning of its own and stops there. Absurdism, as Camus described it, agrees that the world is silent, but says our need for meaning does not go away, and that the honest answer is to keep facing that gap, neither giving up nor inventing a comforting answer.
Absurdism versus Pragmatism Neither looks for certainty or a hidden meaning behind the world. Camus asks how to live in the gap between our need for meaning and the world's silence. Pragmatists ask what makes a belief true and worth holding.
Advaita Vedanta versus Theism Theism says God is a person who made the world and stands apart from it. Advaita Vedanta says there is only one ultimate reality, and that your deepest self is not separate from it.
Agnosticism versus Atheism and naturalism Neither takes God on trust. Atheism, in the sense philosophers prefer, says there is no God. Agnosticism says that neither answer can be shown, and holds back from both.
Agnosticism versus Humean empiricism and skepticism Both say “I can't be sure” about God. Agnosticism stops there. Humean empiricism is a whole account of what we can know, and it reaches far beyond God.
Agnosticism versus Pragmatism Both are wary of claiming more than we have grounds for. Agnosticism is a position on one question, whether God can be known. Pragmatism is a general view of meaning, truth and inquiry, and it does not take that question up.
Agnosticism versus Theism A theist says there is a God. An agnostic says nobody can show it either way. Neither denies that there may be a God.
Aristotelian virtue ethics versus Confucianism Both are ethics of character that grow through practice and good company. They part over how much a person's place in a ranked set of roles matters, and over how much outside luck can add to or take from a good life.
Aristotelian virtue ethics versus Conservatism Both think character and custom matter. Aristotle measures a city against what a good life needs, while conservatism trusts what has lasted over plans built from a principle.
Aristotelian virtue ethics versus Cynicism Both say a good life is a life of virtue that has to be practised. Aristotle roots virtue in a community and its upbringing, and in having some good things around you. The Cynics stepped out of customs and held that virtue is enough.
Aristotelian virtue ethics versus Kantian deontology Both look at the person who acts and give reason a central place. Aristotle builds ethics around character and judgment. Kant builds it around duty and rules that bind everyone.
Aristotelian virtue ethics versus Stoicism Both put good character at the centre of a good life. They split on whether virtue is enough, and on what to do with strong feelings and outside goods such as health and wealth.
Aristotelian virtue ethics versus Ubuntu and African communal thought Both are about character and about becoming a good person. Aristotle makes a person's own flourishing the aim, while Ubuntu thought says a person becomes a person through others and puts the community first.
Aristotelian virtue ethics versus Utilitarianism Both are about making life go well. Utilitarianism judges acts by their results for everyone alike. Aristotle asks what a good human life is, and builds ethics around character and judgment.
Atheism and naturalism versus Epicureanism Atheism says there are no gods. Epicurus said the gods exist but take no interest in us, and he added a view of how to live that atheism does not have.
Atheism and naturalism versus Humean empiricism and skepticism An atheist has settled the question of God with “no”. A Humean doubts how far any claim can be known, God included. The two are easy to confuse because one person often holds both.
Atheism and naturalism versus Secular humanism Atheism is one claim: there is no God. Secular humanism is a whole outlook that builds an ethics on that footing. Every secular humanist is godless, but most atheists are not humanists.
Atheism and naturalism versus Theism Both are about one question: whether there is a God. Theism says yes, usually a person who made the world and cares about it. Atheism, in the sense philosophers prefer, says no.
Confucianism versus Conservatism Both value what has been handed down and prefer slow improvement to sudden change. Confucianism is also a lifelong path of personal growth, which conservatism, a view about institutions, is not.
Confucianism versus Daoism Both are early Chinese ways of living well, aiming at harmony. Confucians shape people through ritual, roles and lifelong study. Daoists distrust rigid rules and ask for acting naturally, without forcing.
Conservatism versus Humean empiricism and skepticism Both trust experience and custom more than abstract theory, and Hume is sometimes counted as a conservative. His doubt reaches much further than politics, though.
Conservatism versus Liberalism Both want government limited. Liberalism makes liberty its central value. Conservatism values tradition, trusts experience over abstract plans, and is readier to side with authority.
Cynicism versus Daoism Both say a good life follows nature, not custom. The Cynics trained hard and defied convention in public. Daoism asks for yielding, plainness and acting without forcing.
Cynicism versus Stoicism The Stoics took much from the Cynics, above all the idea that virtue is enough for happiness. The Cynics lived outside society on almost nothing. The Stoics lived within it and served it.
Daoism versus Pragmatism Both distrust fixed first principles and expect the world to keep changing. Pragmatism says to work out a fix and try it, while Daoism asks for effort without force.
Daoism versus Stoicism Both ask a person to live in agreement with how things are. Stoicism trains judgment and follows a worked-out doctrine of virtue, while Daoism moves with the natural way without forcing it.
Daoism versus Theravada Buddhism Both see the world as always changing and ask for a calm, trained way of living. Theravada aims to end suffering and rebirth. Daoism aims to live in step with the natural way, and treats death as one more change.
Epicureanism versus Secular humanism Both explain the world naturally and value friendship. Epicurus believed in gods who ignore us and advised a quiet private life. Secular humanism holds that there is nothing supernatural and that we share responsibility for the wider good.
Epicureanism versus Stoicism Both ask you to free yourself from needless distress. Epicurus made pleasure, meaning calm and freedom from pain, the aim. The Stoics made virtue the only good, and asked a person to serve society.
Existentialism versus Nihilism Both begin from the loss of any pre-given meaning. Nihilism ends there. Existentialists take it as a starting point and say each person must make an identity and values through their own choices.
Existentialism versus Stoicism Both put the weight on what a person does with their own mind. Stoicism sees a rational world to live in agreement with, while existentialism sees no built-in reason or purpose, so we make what matters.
Humean empiricism and skepticism versus Rationalism Both are theories of where knowledge comes from. Rationalists trust reason to reach truths on its own. Hume held that every idea comes from experience, and that reason cannot justify much beyond it.
Kantian deontology versus Liberalism Both give weight to the person as someone who can run their own life by reason. Kantian ethics is a theory of what any rational person must do. Liberalism is about liberty and when authority is justified, and it does not settle on one ethic.
Kantian deontology versus Utilitarianism Both count every person equally. Utilitarianism judges an act by its results. Kant holds that some duties bind whatever the results, and that an act has moral worth only when done from duty.
Liberalism versus Libertarianism Both put individual freedom first and want government limited by law. They split on whether the state may tax people to reduce inequality, and on how much a state may do at all.
Liberalism versus Marxism Both speak of freeing people. Liberalism starts from the individual's rights and liberty. Marxism starts from classes and the economy, and holds that liberal rights do not by themselves bring human freedom.
Libertarianism versus Objectivism Both want a free market and a state limited to protecting rights. Objectivism is a whole philosophy with an ethics of rational self-interest. Libertarianism is a political view that says what may be forced on people.
Madhyamaka Buddhism versus Theravada Buddhism Both are Buddhist and both deny a lasting self. They differ on whether the basic elements of experience are ultimately real. Theravada says they are. Madhyamaka says nothing has an independent nature, not even those.
Nietzschean perspectivism versus Nihilism Both start from the loss of anything that gives values a ground from outside. Nihilism is the denial that any value stands, while Nietzsche treats the loss as a crisis and asks what new values could be made.
Pragmatism versus Utilitarianism Both judge ideas and actions by what they do in practice. Utilitarianism gives one rule for right action. Pragmatism is a way of testing ideas that leaves ethics open to ongoing inquiry.
Stoicism versus Theravada Buddhism Both treat the mind as the place where trouble starts and where it can be trained out. Stoicism aims at a good life lived by reason in a rational world, and Theravada aims at an end to suffering and to the round of rebirth.

Looking at one philosophy on its own? See all philosophies.