-  [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
  • Maximum file size allowed is 1000 KB.
  • Images greater than 200x200 pixels will be thumbnailed.
  • Currently 523 unique user posts. View catalog

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

Please check this /7ch/ thread to discuss the potential addition of WebM support.

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

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.

26 posts and 3 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
Anonymous 14/02/14(Fri)02:00 No. 11120 ID: 29df20

This site is absolutely amazing. Use it well. All the lectures are wonderful.


Check out their other courses as well...

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.

277 posts and 15 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
Anonymous 14/04/03(Thu)20:53 No. 11228 ID: 5337a2


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 14/04/10(Thu)21:32 No. 11239 ID: 059b67 [Reply]

File 139715833949.jpg - (31.13KB , 455x372 , 1794640_705753989468666_1322974289_n.jpg )

I believe in the mind, especially my mind.I think we should focus on our minds and destroy every other human stuff and social concepts, the stuff that are pust afterwards by tradition or stuff that animals also do like they also get happy but they cant think like us, we should destroy all and stay as a completely pure mind to re-construct our reality all over again by ourselves because the real reality is out of this one and our minds are shaped with its limits to this world and we cant think out of this world but we should to reach the "main reality" and that is so different than this world like the concept of creation and infinity and stuff like those that our minds cant understand dont exist there or has a really different meaning really, i say "us" but i mean I, i know no other who thinks this way, what do you think of this? is there a name for this or is there anyone who thinks this way here? and tell me the flaws of it please.

i have been trying to dehumanize myself for a while and now i none of these stuff written below:
no happiness
no sadness
no sexuality
no concept of beauty
no love
no social dogma

6 posts omitted. Click Reply to view.
PlutoniumBoss!Y1SVQJ54eA 14/04/17(Thu)20:59 No. 11247 ID: c1bebf


>So you say we don't have imagination right

Not at all. That's what imagination is. This process of concept synthesis.

What I'm saying is, when you take apart your constructed conceptual world layer by layer, and you get to the final concept and strip it away, what you're left with is not ultimate truth. You're left with nothing, because truth itself is a concept.

It is worthwhile to climb a mountain, but when you get to the top you come back down again. There's not much point in staying up there for very long because there's not really a lot of practical things to do there.

Anonymous 14/04/18(Fri)00:20 No. 11248 ID: eef375

yeah thats what I am planning to do man, just climb the mountain and see where it takes me after that, not gonna stay there if i am not forced to like if there is a huge snowstorm and I cant get down like that.

PlutoniumBoss!Y1SVQJ54eA 14/04/18(Fri)07:26 No. 11249 ID: c1bebf


Just as long as you realize that, by definition, it is pointless to use this method to try to understand any "main reality" stripped of constructed concepts. Understanding something is creating a concept of it.

What this exercise is good for is to gain an understanding of concepts, how they work, what they're good for, and what can happen if you don't pay attention to what they contain.

Anonymous 14/04/03(Thu)06:01 No. 11225 ID: 509153 [Reply]

File 139649766311.gif - (16.70KB , 600x192 , ch950809.gif )

I have two questions.

What is the meaning of this C & H comic? Why does Calvin say ooh, I itch?

Also I have to write a six page paper about any "-ism" that's not religion, what would be the easiest?

2 posts and 1 image omitted. Click Reply to view.
Anonymous 14/04/08(Tue)22:54 No. 11233 ID: 82fc74

>art is a lie

Anonymous 14/04/09(Wed)04:12 No. 11234 ID: 54e99b

Write a surrealist paper on surrealism.

Anon 14/04/13(Sun)11:59 No. 11242 ID: d0203d

Make up your own ism and write a paper on that.

Anonymous 14/03/16(Sun)06:28 No. 11200 ID: b6dcec [Reply]

File 139494768557.jpg - (567.03KB , 1200x801 , h.jpg )

So I got in my cave here, and gave it a think, and...

Considering the grand view of human history, accounting for motivations and behavior and its effects short & long term, I think I've come to a couple conclusions.

1. Epicurus probably had right idea.
2. It will take engineered gene therapies to advance human minds to that level of functionality as the norm.
3. Everyone else will most certainly have to die off completely in order to remove the threat of the archaic barbarism.

Until then, human development is on a plateau.

2 posts omitted. Click Reply to view.
Anonymous 14/04/01(Tue)03:49 No. 11224 ID: c1bebf

>We can't even sufficiently educate an entire town to a passing elementary grade

Only if you live in the US. The rest of the developed world doesn't seem to have that same difficulty.

Anonymous 14/04/09(Wed)11:51 No. 11235 ID: 5b5ccd

What we really have to accept is that our intellect is a collective achievement and not an individual one, and yet at the same time, those who advance our intellect are rare individuals and not products of mass acclaim or acceptance. We have long been plagued by hippy-dippy claims of the world-soul coming to its Aquarian ascendance, but the brute matter-of-fact is that we now fight all the more strongly for our unique identity (especially as victims) as our identity becomes submerged beneath our participation in the generic subjectivity of universal humanity.

The internet is the purest representation of this generalized subject. In the past, subjectivity was constrained to our immediate interactions and to the vanities of those who published books, but today publication belongs to the universal twittering subject itself and readership belongs to nobody, so there are no concentrated loci of subjectivity based upon positional criteria, but instead a network based upon persuasiveness alone.

We are moving towards a merged subjectivity. We emphasize the conflicts between gender, politics, race and sexuality in order to distract ourselves from our deeper unity. Our neurons are flexible. They do not directly correspond to a body that feeds them information, they correspond to a pattern of input that can become general to all bodies as well it can to a body. The subject is not bound to identity, and politics are not bound to the individual choice of a collective practice, we must in this age look further, and deeper, to see that collective consciousness is not an abstraction or an ideal, but a practical feature of discourse that we must deal with and accommodate.

Matchbox+Prince 14/04/10(Thu)21:07 No. 11238 ID: 2f260d

>In the past, subjectivity was constrained to our immediate interactions and to the vanities of those who published books, but today publication belongs to the universal twittering subject itself and readership belongs to nobody, so there are no concentrated loci of subjectivity based upon positional criteria, but instead a network based upon persuasiveness alone.

As a result, the collective interests of civilization as a whole seems to have morphed into some kind of disgusting parody of ADD whereas the stupidest things go "viral" and become "memes" for roughly two or three weeks, reach literally global attention, and then (with the exception of references on The Simpsons and Super Bowl commercials, which may happen years later) just as quickly disappear, to be forgotten forever. Worst yet is that the capitalistic machine and the wealthy ruling class has figured out how to harness the power of this to extract maximum profit with minimum effort in minimum time. The effect conjures images of humanity as a rambling crowd running in a dense pack back and forth at breakneck speed like little kids playing basketball, being led by old white men in $20,000 suits holding sticks with carrots suspended from them.

As for the OP, so long as most humans are ruled merely by their biological needs and whims, and access to those remains wholly or partially upon how much money they have, the world won't change. The only reason Star Trek was a utopia was because they (somehow) got rid of money. Otherwise, what was Kirk? Just an analogy of a super-rich playboy traveling around the world fucking women from every country after impressing them with his top-of-the-line yacht.

Anonymous 14/02/26(Wed)08:31 No. 11135 ID: 618c7b [Reply]

File 139339989290.jpg - (14.64KB , 351x351 , daxter.jpg )

Is moral relativism a valid stance, or is it just mental laziness? How does one go about refuting relativists, or is it best to leave them be? Mark Steyn stated "“...discussing cultural relativism with cultural relativists is like playing tennis with some guy who says, "Your ace is just a social construct.”
What do you think?

4 posts omitted. Click Reply to view.
Anonymous 14/03/05(Wed)09:52 No. 11159 ID: 4a88ee

Is labeling some concept you don't like and have no strong arguments to counter as mental laziness a valid stance, or is it just mental laziness?

Anonymous 14/03/09(Sun)17:32 No. 11183 ID: da0fd2

In reference to the quotation in the original post, relativism can be considered mentally lazy because it asserts a denouncement of moral truth with no tangible alternative than simply calling all actions relative. This attempts to invalidate ethical philosophy in one fell swoop, leaving the subject moot and unanswerable, as opposed to attempting to deduce meaning from what we can very well experience, morality.

Anonymous 14/04/09(Wed)12:56 No. 11237 ID: 5b5ccd

Moral relativism is a scientific fact on part with evolution or the conservation of energy. That said, there is no necessary succession from it towards it conventional fellow-travellers. We are, simply, what we are. Factually, we are configurations of matter that have been extensively selected for in order that they value reproduction and such reason as maintains the self whole thereupon. Morality is the derivative of this instinct, and is opposed to ethics insofar as our instinct to self-preservation of our flesh opposes our instinct of self-preservation of our structure, which is redundantly implemented throughout the apparent presence of humanity. Deciding between the two is the essence of ethical thinking.

Anonymous 14/03/28(Fri)19:38 No. 11214 ID: 20c45a [Reply]

File 13960318964.png - (43.96KB , 300x199 , bob.png )

I'm here because a thought has been haunting me for a long time.
I've read batman long time ago, and i discussed the philosophy of it dozens of times. But what is your opinion on it?
I think he's a rich guy who only defends the interests of the state, when the real problem is more than fighting crime is fighting a system of injustice.
Before you call me a leftwing asshole that overthinks too much, please understand my point.

Anonymous 14/03/29(Sat)07:53 No. 11215 ID: 54e99b

Batman is entertainment, not real life.

Anonymous 14/04/09(Wed)12:10 No. 11236 ID: 5b5ccd

Batman is pretty much the definition of a psychotic who pathologizes the world into the evil forces of the negativity of his dead parents and the positivity of his own violence as a reaction. Batman categorizes the world into the Arkham-insane and the non-existent/sane on account of his own unstable psyche. I'm pretty sure that James Holmes and Bruce Wayne are basically the same person.

Anonymous 14/03/06(Thu)02:14 No. 11161 ID: fad579 [Reply]

File 139406846786.png - (346.30KB , 458x363 , 20 - 7T3sAki.png )

I had a random thought in my head yesterday that infinity is insanity.

Do you agree?

picture not related

13 posts and 2 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
Anonymous 14/03/29(Sat)12:02 No. 11218 ID: 5b5ccd

Infinity is ultimately nothing more than relaxing our habitual stricture that numeration and rationality are necessary partners. I think we've made the association between enumerating our world and rationalizing it from the very earliest grounds of language, in the origination of written speech by tax records and business contracts. The Classical model that takes Euclid as the foundation of a rationalized approach to a model life continues to express this cultural tradition; consider Plato's late-period Timaeus, which synthesizes his idealist rationalism within an overarching geometry of interacting polygons that decide the essential universal character.

I think that if we acknowledge this long tradition and try to bracket it, then we can give infinity a reasoned consideration.

Anonymous 14/04/04(Fri)03:24 No. 11229 ID: 9b9e96

A hotel with an infinite amount of rooms can't be full.
Stop thinking of infinity as a finite number.

Matchbox+Prince 14/04/05(Sat)20:48 No. 11231 ID: 2f260d


An infinite number of rooms CAN be filled by an infinite number of people.

Stop thinking like a plebe and lrn2math.

Anonymous 13/07/08(Mon)08:26 No. 10386 ID: 500d19 [Reply]

File 137326476569.gif - (476.73KB , 500x500 , 1288416149505.gif )

What does /phi/ Think about capitalism?

Thought's, Idea's?

33 posts and 5 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
Anonymous 14/03/29(Sat)11:36 No. 11217 ID: 29fea7

I like how you can't refute anything. If you tried you'd probably just start rambling about the 'evil bourgeois' and your own economic failures leading to your desire for a government safety net. Either that or some bollocks about how great we would be if we all just worked for each other forever in equal poverty and then disregard all notions of advancement. There would probably be some historical revisionism about the USSR, too.

Anonymous 14/03/29(Sat)13:16 No. 11220 ID: b6dcec

I like how I didn't refute anything, and you went right ahead into crazyland unprovoked.

Seek help.

Anonymous 14/03/29(Sat)15:46 No. 11223 ID: 29fea7

Enough out of you, pinko.

Delete post []
Report post