Is "Why do we live?" a philosophical question?

Question

After posting a question akin to "Why do we live?" in the r/AskPhilosophy subreddit its moderators got it removed, providing as motivation "All questions must be about philosophy".

Fascinated by the steep philophosical road they decided to embark on, I asked them for clarifications. They provided two arguments:

• It's an empirical question, and that's the domain of scientists, not philosophers. Whatever scientists say the answer is might inform something related to existential philosophy, but there's nothing philosophical about the question itself.
• There might be theological answers to both questions ("Why do we reproduce", my original question, and "Why do we live", which I brought as a similar example, ndr), but theology isn't philosophy either.

What do you think on the issue?

Answer 1

Theology can be philosophical, like the proofs of god, or Socrates Plato & Aristotle's discussions of theological matters, like the Euthyphro Dilemma.

'Why do we live?' is a bit loose in language, the meaning is open to interpretation. 'What is the meaning of life/living?' is a classic philosophical question par excellence.

If you posted your question here, it might be considered too broad. I suggest you find a way to narrow or contextualise it. I mean, why would there even be only one answer, for everyone?

So you might ask about: reasons to stay alive in different philosophies, or highest purpose of life according to different thinkers, or how did we come to be in this situation biologically, or even why is there something rather than nothing.

Why stay alive: If everything ends one day why don't we end it today?

Meaning of living for non-theists: What are some philosophical works that explore constructing meaning in life from an agnostic or atheist view?

How did we get here? How can nature without self-awareness and intelligence create living beings with self-awareness and intelligence?

Something vs nothing: What is "Nothing"?

Answer 2

Unequivocally yes. It is a philosophical question. There are different types of philosophical questions, however. Once category is the questions that philosophers ask, and the other are technical questions about philosophy.

For instance, questions that philosophers ask:

• How does one achieve eudaimonia?
• What is the meaning of life?
• What is a meaningful philosophical question?

Note that these questions are philosophical in that they don't have pat technical answers, but rather depend on one's metaphysics. They are what might be called metaphysically speculative questions, and have been asked by world-famous philosophers and theologians. For instance, the Ancient Greeks were preoccupied with eudaimonia. The question of the meaning of life has been tackled more recently by existentialists and the absurdist Camus. And the currently emerging field of metaphilosophy is preoccupied with answering the last question. Thus, these are philosophical questions beyond any doubt.

But there is a second set of questions about what might be termed the philosophical canon. For instance:

• What was Rene Descartes saying about introspection in Meditations*?
• What were Carnap's views on ontology?
• How does Lewis justify modal realism in his book on the subject?

These questions are factual and not metaphysically speculative in nature. On our site, we differentiate between questions that philosophers ask, and questions about philosophers and their philosophy. In fact, there's a meta post on this site that purports to restrict discourse to the latter category here. (Given the mechanisms in place to regulate content, it is not strictly observed.)

I would suggest that the Reddit channel observes a similar dichotomy (and may do a better job at regulating than we do here). So, it's not a question of whether your question is "philosophical enough", but more a question of is your question a factual question about the philosophical canon, or is it speculative and doing philosophy rather than merely discussing it?

Hence, don't be put out if you were rejected on the basis of such a criterion. It helps to sort out intelligent discussion from philosophy to metaphysical speculation by people untrained in philosophy, and that is simply likely the policy of the site in question.