-  [WT]  [PS]  [Home] [Manage]

  1.   (new thread)
  2. [ No File]
  3. (for post and file deletion)
/phi/ - Philosophy
  • Supported file types are: GIF, JPG, PNG, WEBM
  • Maximum file size allowed is 1000 KB.
  • Images greater than 200x200 pixels will be thumbnailed.
  • Currently 502 unique user posts. View catalog

  • Blotter updated: 2011-01-12 Show/Hide Show All

There's a new /777/ up, it's /selfhelp/ - You're Pathetic, We're Pathetic, We Can Do This! Check it out. Suggest new /777/s here.

Movies & TV 24/7 via Channel7: Web Player, .m3u file. Music via Radio7: Web Player, .m3u file.

WebM is now available sitewide! Please check this thread for more info.

Anonymous ## Mod ## 11/10/26(Wed)10:01 No. 3905 ID: 4c1a8e [Reply] Stickied

File 13196161034.jpg - (71.49KB , 256x256 , slow.jpg )

For growing and shit or whatever I present to you:


Put in whatever resources that fit in here, whether it's from wikipedia, youtube, some university, or where ever. Just remember to keep it within the board's guidelines and rules.
Use it or lose it, faggots.

35 posts and 3 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
Fun funforyou 15/12/28(Mon)03:05 No. 12383 ID: 537707


Anonymous ## Mod ## 12/02/02(Thu)05:26 No. 5920 ID: 4fb7fa [Reply] [First 100 posts] [Last 50 posts] Stickied

File 132815678430.jpg - (161.57KB , 500x452 , 6904084_Untitled-2.jpg )

This thread is for discussion of the validity of religion(s) and arguments for and against the existence of god/gods.

Any other new posts about this subject will be deleted, or locked and referred to this one.

New threads about religious concepts that play inside their own ruleset are allowed, and we kindly ask that you refrain from turning those well meaning threads into arguments about religion as a whole.

313 posts and 18 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
Aura 16/04/19(Tue)04:01 No. 12502 ID: 0ccaee

There's no such thing as being 'more evolved.' Evolution is not a linear progression, new bits of dna show up and old bits sometimes go away, it's almost purely random.

READ THIS BEFORE POSTING YOU PILE OF FAGGOTS Anonymous ## Mod ## 11/09/09(Fri)04:51 No. 2371 ID: 175f07 [Reply] Locked Stickied

File 131553668277.jpg - (24.94KB , 400x615 , formalblacktie2.jpg )

We interrupt your scheduled bickering for this important announcement: Understanding /phi/

  • What this board is:
    • A place to discuss epistemology, ethics, aesthetics, metaphysics, and logic, in a general sense, or in an applied sense (in sex, science, vidya, your mother).
    • A place where not only is being a pretentious, hubristic dickhead is allowed, but is considered the norm.
  • What this board is not:
    • It is not /b/, /x/, or /rnb/.
    • A place to spew incoherent nonsense and verbal diarrhea.
    • A place to make claims with no justifications (and "because I say so" or "because you're gay" isn't a justification).
    • A place where the global rules do not apply.
An inability to follow these conventions will result in a warning!
Repeat offenders will be banned!

Anonymous ## Mod ## 11/12/04(Sun)05:06 No. 4980 ID: 4c1a8e

Dear faggots,
I shouldn't have to remind you, but if someone is posting something against the rules, please report it.

If you don't know how to report a post, please see our super-sugoi FAQ section on the front page.

Thank you for your co-operation.

Anonymous 16/03/09(Wed)08:23 No. 12458 ID: 3ee603 [Reply]

File 145750821398.jpg - (22.25KB , 900x600 , crop-538599cc8101c-imgID3636752.jpg )

Did Darwin answer the question of what the meaning of life is?

29 posts and 9 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
Anonymous 16/05/01(Sun)08:08 No. 12530 ID: 75c683

File 146208288971.gif - (479.53KB , 493x342 , giphy.gif )

See,it's exactly as I though. You have no idea how evolution, actually, functions.
It's not a random process. The environment "nature" kills off the species who are less adapted to sed environment. Nature "Selects" the species that will survive and those that will not due to the ones best adapted to their environment.

It's really easy for retards like yourself to write off what you don't (or can't) understand as "Fedoraism" or "autism" or what ever inane memes you feel like regurgitating rather than just admitting you are wrong and, actually, reading a book.

Anonymous 16/05/02(Mon)15:19 No. 12536 ID: aee2e1


Isn't selection for maximum number of offspring the entire point? Or are you conflating that with intentional selection? It's not called "selective pressure" for nothing.

Anonymous 16/05/05(Thu)16:05 No. 12540 ID: eb915c

File 146245713561.jpg - (32.46KB , 550x550 , Aspergers.jpg )


I love how oblivious you are about your own statements.

Love Lost Soul 16/02/19(Fri)20:05 No. 12441 ID: 048704 [Reply]

File 145590874143.jpg - (175.00KB , 1532x940 , storm.jpg )

Does love exist if we take away the innate, animal desire to breed?

2 posts omitted. Click Reply to view.
Anonymous 16/02/23(Tue)01:26 No. 12444 ID: 0500c2

Depends what type of love you mean.

Even taking just romantic love, yes because homosexuals and asexuals exist and because not everyone has children. Sex and reproduction have been completely separate for humans for centuries.

Anonymous 16/03/24(Thu)07:01 No. 12478 ID: 9ba4e2

The only reason we have those sexual impulses is for reproduction, even of we ignore that purpose and abuse the impulses for pleasure.

Philosophy MojoClassy 16/05/01(Sun)12:16 No. 12534 ID: 164f31

Love and sex are different. Asexuality proves it. Love is just the desire to be with someone, to have support, sex is a primal desire.

Survey anonymous 16/04/25(Mon)18:29 No. 12516 ID: 0016ca [Reply]

File 146160178566.jpg - (221.95KB , 1024x768 , brian.jpg )

On a scale of one to ten, how much do you believe in higher intelligence?
Higher intelligence can be God/Allah, or even aliens.

Anonymous 16/05/01(Sun)11:21 No. 12533 ID: e9fb03

For humans in general, I'd say 10.

Unless you mean higher than myself, in which case it's around 3. I won't discount the possibility, but the Universe seems so far to be a painfully stupid place.

Solipsim, Materialism, Rationality: A Dilemma. Anonymous 16/04/22(Fri)07:36 No. 12504 ID: 75c683 [Reply]

File 146130339798.gif - (607.79KB , 500x281 , 1458595363471.gif )

Plato once said: "What we 'Know' are things that are true, things we believe, and things we have justification for believing."

When talking about epistemology I am often drawn into the realm of solipsism (The idea or theory that the self is the only thing which can be known with certainty to exist.) and realism.

From a rational perspective I am inclined to accept solipsism, but, as is often pointed out realism is just more convenient. It's more useful to accept the assumption of realism.
But, convenience, and usefulness are not, rational, methods to arrive at a rational conclusion.

This, begs the question, for me, what is superior option to make valid claims?
Is it irrationality? is it Rationality?
Perhaps a synergy of both?

Should I accept solipsism or should I accept realism? (Given I am going to take an agnostic stance on both, however I am basically trying to come to my conclusion of which to believe. Solipsism or Realism? Idealism or Materialism? Rationality or irrationality? And if you are to posit that it is a mixture of both upon what metrics am I supposed to make my judgments of when enough of either is justified?)

How is it exactly is one to go about this?

3 posts omitted. Click Reply to view.
Anonymous 16/05/01(Sun)00:05 No. 12529 ID: ca3ceb

>But, that begs the question how you know that it came from outside of myself?
Because it's not a projection of your mind.

Same logic anyone would use to say everything's a projection of their mind. You just think it is. Do you know either one for certain? No? Well shit son, sounds like you've reached an impasse and the question became pointless.

Solipsism is arbitrary through its very nature of being improvable. Deal with it.

Anonymous 16/05/01(Sun)08:11 No. 12531 ID: 75c683

>Because it's not a projection of your mind.

Ok but, how do you know that?

>You just think it is. Do you know either one for certain? No? Well shit son, sounds like you've reached an impasse and the question became pointless.

See, I never, actually, made a claim to certainty. I just posited the possibility.

We can never know for certainty if anything exists other than ourselves.

>Solipsism is arbitrary through its very nature of being improvable. Deal with it.

Realism is, literally, no better.

Message too long. Click here to view the full text.

Anonymous 16/05/01(Sun)08:42 No. 12532 ID: ca3ceb

Aight I might've been a little out of it when I made that post.

>Ok but, how do you know that?
I was making a claim to prove a point.

>See, I never, actually, made a claim to certainty. I just posited the possibility.
I was using "you" synonymously with "they." My bad.

>Realism is, literally, no better.
That's the point. It's not worth considering due to its innate nature. The answer to your original question is "stop giving a shit about it because you're not gonna get an answer."

what does /phi/ think of the truthcontest? TruthConduit 16/03/30(Wed)21:56 No. 12494 ID: 3312c8 [Reply]

File 145936781332.jpg - (43.64KB , 500x549 , ngbnb.jpg )

Allow me to provide a disclaimer that the book provides too late imo: If in reading you encounter something you think is false or untrue or crazy, mark it down but keep reading, you might very well find your arguments dispelled with sound reasoning.

truthcontest.com- what this is is a contest for the truth of Life: The big questions that concern us all, every last one of us. I could go on all day, so I'll let you judge for yourself. Simply pick a book, either The Present or The Present with Religion and start to read.

It has transformed my life, allowing me to be happy and contentfor the first time in my life. The truths TP:WR has taught me have completely changed my outlook: the truths learned serve everything and everything is served by them. Over 70 pages into a book about religion, the meaning of life and God, and I haven't disagreed with a single thing or found any of it to be untrue by my judgment. Yeah, the judgment of others is what put those two books there to be read. I truly believe this book contains the tools for enlightenment, the tools that will transform lives and this world into something so much better.

The truth is what binds us all, gives us relevance and a frame of reference. The truth is what can unify us with each other and the life around us. And this book delivers the Truth, and I am here to proclaim it to you all, that you might find the same fruits I did, of relief and love. At first, the book teaches, this kind of change might prove hard at first, as the mind is very resistant to the notion that it itself is the problem, and it will put up a furious resistance. However if you can overcome this resistance, this resistance is the very thing that will convince you what this book says is true. Then, once you have recognized the problem, you can begin to try and solve it. Once enough of us have, and succeed, then we can proceed to make heaven on earth a literal reality.

A little tidbit: http://www.truthcontest.com/entries/the-present-with-religion/hell.html- basically, the entire religious concept of hell is found to be talking about the volcanic vents at the seafloor.

I could talk about this all day, /phi/, but what I really want to know is what do you all think of this?

Anonymous 16/04/30(Sat)05:23 No. 12523 ID: 938dcc

The truth contest doesn't provide an adequate direct answer. It hides behind the veil of ambiguity to appear to have genuine deep connections to the universe when in reality it's a petite collection of quotes and phrases purposely sold off as some kind of hidden treasure grove. I have submitted an introductory course to my theory and haven't had a decent reply or consideration behind my understanding of the universe. I suspect the 'panel of reviewers' is nothing more then a single person waiting to steal ideas from others. To understand the universe, is to study it factually. If Pauli, Planck, Einstein or Schroeder spoke in ambiguity or provided hints and clues instead of perusing their ideas we wouldn't have the progress that we do now. The truth contest, is by no means an actual truth contest. It's a simple collection of opinions. In closing, don't submit your ideas to this sham.

Anonymous 16/04/21(Thu)17:22 No. 12503 ID: 632f80 [Reply]

File 146125216923.jpg - (78.28KB , 600x1384 , 0d75907b0d8898d80a5f595e7e076d36-the-bigfin-squid-.jpg )

Hegelian Dialectics in historic Christianity.

Thesis: Catholicism
Antithesis: Protestantism

Why have we not acquired the synthesis yet?

Anonymous 16/04/27(Wed)00:45 No. 12521 ID: 7ad7b7

Synthesis: Counter-Reformation. Almost every initial point the Protestants made was answered and reformed in the Counter-Reformation. Protestants and Catholics alike do not seem to know their history very well, but there was an entire movement within the Church that led to massive reforms after Protestantism.

Anonymous 16/03/30(Wed)01:10 No. 12488 ID: 44cd17 [Reply]

File 145929304978.jpg - (137.68KB , 1280x720 , liarliar.jpg )

The notion that to lie in and of itself is unjust or immoral is a fallacy.

One may lie for many a purpose. One may lie to entertain, to protect the innocent, or to let the past be forgotten. A lie may be used justly or unjustly. The mechanism itself cannot be held accountable to its use, or the consequences.

As the saying goes, lies don't kill people, people kill people...

Anonymous 16/04/10(Sun)08:53 No. 12500 ID: f1acfc

But wouldn't people kill people because of their lies?

Anonymous 16/04/11(Mon)11:57 No. 12501 ID: ca3ceb

Here. I shortened your post for you because you suck at being straightforward.

"Lies aren't always bad. It depends on the context."

Delete post []
Report post