-  [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 492 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
3905

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

For growing and shit or whatever I present to you:

THE BIG STICKIED THREAD OF PHILOSOPHY RESOURCES



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.


33 posts and 3 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
>>
Anonymous 15/06/07(Sun)12:51 No. 12217 ID: 650c4c

>>12203
That's not true.
Read the Bible before you start making claims about how nice it is.
There are tons of reasons the Bible gives to murder people, harass them, or hurt them.
It has structure, rules, demands obedience, and demands that followers convert others.




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

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.


308 posts and 18 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
>>
Anonymous 15/06/07(Sun)22:37 No. 12218 ID: 107312

>>12103

An entity that we would describe as "God" would have no wants or needs as we know them. However, the concept of "God" very much has a "want" and a "need" for people to propagate it, because if they stop doing so the concept ceases to exist. A "God" would not care either way if people believe in it or not. The picture of God that lives in peoples' heads, however, fears being forgotten because that is death to it.




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

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.
-7chan




Anonymous 15/01/19(Mon)07:52 No. 11996 ID: 1b02b6 [Reply]
11996

File 142165034863.jpg - (45.93KB , 600x600 , 1419480316512.jpg )

Worst place to ask since 99% of you couldn't even think of "letting go".

How do I let go of my ego? Or another way of asking is "how do I stop the desire to prove myself worthy among my peers?". It's totally unnecessary, and sitting at home alone I can comfortably say that it's doable and the mindset actually worth having, but when I leave the door I cannot stop myself from becoming a totally different person. That is, one who feeds off the facial expressions of another person and who constantly seeks their approval, or "good" facial expressions. I genuinely don't care what they think when I'm home alone at the end of the day but I guess I still do if I'm behaving this way.

In asking this I'm hoping to find that 1% who can genuinely relate to me and may have found a solution, or at least philosophical banters that put my mind in solace when I leave the doors. (The answer "just stop caring" isn't as easy as you might think).


13 posts and 1 image omitted. Click Reply to view.
>>
Anonymous 15/06/14(Sun)22:57 No. 12223 ID: 358f52

>>12213

It'd also be important to know that your accomplishments will be forgotten as well, not just failure. To get rid of the ego the "good" has to go with it, not just the stuff we don't like.

It'd be like the tale of the ring that states "This too shall pass.", whether it be good or bad it'll one day be long forgotten and pass on. But to lose all ego wouldn't even be good. Even monks don't believe they've gotten rid of the ego. To get rid of that would make you a rock essentially. No eating, sleeping, etc. You wouldn't survive because your wants and needs would mean nothing. As you eat, there's someone starving. It'd be more important to save them than yourself. So, losing all ego wouldn't be a good thing unless you think you can transcend reality due to it. Because if you don't, you'll always have one.


>>
Anonymous 15/06/17(Wed)07:01 No. 12224 ID: fa0b07

You can not pull the skin off of a snake. It sheds its skin when it is time to shed its skin.

Letting go of the ego is something usually in the spiritual realm of thought and practice. Materialism doesn't work in spiritual matters, in this case.

Now, if you just want more self confidence so you can stop seeking validation externally, you don't want to let go of your ego. You want to solidify it and strengthen it which is the complete opposite of letting it go.

To let go of your ego, you must come to terms with and completely know that "you", "me", "them", "he", "her" are all illusion. To let go of your ego is to let go of the illusion of separation. We are all made of the same stuff. You must come to the realization that you are god and that everyone else is god and that the whole trip IS god. You are the universe experiencing itself. That is tossed around a good bit on the net without full comprehension of the implications of that statement.

If you are on the path to enlightenment/gnosis/unity/perfection, then losing your ego will happen when it happens. If you're not on the path, then you have got a while to go because you ARE on the path by existing and until you can appreciate your reason for being here and the whole point of the game in the long run, you're going to be enmeshed in illusion/maya/"the matrix".

Homework:
Skim through this playlist and take in whatever seems to resonate with you: https://youtu.be/QHRdj5-nJtc?list=PLMiT4FQ_sjVJJDTbFU4pgg_6LPRE_YIa7

Read some works by C. W. Leadbeater, W. W. Atkinson, Alice Bailey, Ram Dass, Terence McKenna, Alan Watts, Carlos Castaneda, H. P. Blavatsky, Manly P. Hall. Secret Societies may pop up in research. Ignore that shit. They're all perversions and bastardizations of the natural process of man's ascension to ultimate consciousness/god.

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


>>
Anonymous 15/07/04(Sat)23:35 No. 12229 ID: d426bb

>>12224
Thank you.




Anonymous 15/03/21(Sat)00:47 No. 12097 ID: 1df3c1 [Reply]
12097

File 142689522274.jpg - (22.82KB , 284x177 , images.jpg )

Do you, my fellow philosophers, think suicide and anorexia are a result of north american consumerism and the culture of always wanting to be better, or are just diseases that people are born with?


5 posts and 1 image omitted. Click Reply to view.
>>
Anonymous 15/05/04(Mon)15:35 No. 12184 ID: 0a6349

There are many motives for anorexia and suicide. I question the categorization of certain behaviors as diseases, because what constitutes normal behavior is subjective to one's culture and many culturally sanctioned behaviors are detrimental to health, yet nobody calls them a sickness without being scoffed at.

Anorexia can be caused by internalized western beauty standards, but it can also be caused by a rejection of them. Some anorexics starve to make themselves sexually unappealing through self-neglect. Some starve to cultivate an androgynous appearance by shrinking their secondary sex characteristics, because having a very "gendered" appearance upsets them, in a society where men and women receive different treatment and different reactions from other people.

Anorexia is mainly about control rather than beauty. There have been clinical studies and interviews with anorexics and many of them say they felt powerless and out of control of themselves, and their weight and calorie intake was the one thing they could exercise control over. An attempt to impose order on a body out-of-order, i.e, fat. Fat is normally associated with psychological weakness and lack of self-discipline in north america. I can see how beauty standards would indirectly contribute (what is beautiful is based on physical traits conflated with internal, moral vigor,) but it would easily be something else, anything conflated with self-discipline if not beauty. Anorexia mirabilis, for example, in the middle ages, where nuns and monks starved themselves, as well as the countless ascetic practices involving self-starvation for spiritual perfection.

Rail thin bodies aren't the ideal anymore as it is! In the 90s maybe, but fashion has changed more to curves and large buttocks in this decade, yet anorexics are still around.

Suicide has several possible motives. Emile Durkheim wrote about these (egoistic, altruistic, anomic and fatalistic.) Only egoistic suicide would fit the bill of consumerist striving mentality, maybe. The others, not necessarily. Suicide is also not a modern invention. People killed themselves long before the united states existed, before US-style consumerism existed, for the same sets of reasons north americans kill themselves today.

I think both anorexia and suicide are two possible reactions to one's social environment (though anorexia seems more culture-dependent in its manifestations than suicide,) but neither created whole-cloth by the specifics of the culture nor entirely from congenitally diseased neurochemistry.


>>
Anonymous 15/06/22(Mon)17:50 No. 12226 ID: dcc717

1.) Begging the question is a false deposition
2.) False dilemma fallacy
3.) Black and white fallacy

People suicide for a cascade of reasons.
The same is true for anorexia.
At no point have either been categorized as diseases themselves, but perhaps symptoms of a disease.
I find it rather awkward and perplexing that you're not aware of this.

Pushing that aside, yes, *some* people do indeed commit suicide due to depression and frustration caused by societal issues, including but not limited to:
1.) Hegemonic Abuse (Covertly Enforced Caste System And Associated Systemic Abuse Such As Double Standards And A Lack Of Universal Due Process)
2.) Low Self Esteems (Related In Part To The Above)
3.) Abusive Primate Competition And Poor Philosophical Idealism, Including Comparative Identities & Projectionary Attributionism
4.) Failure To Conform To Irrational Narcissistic Demands And Expectations
5.) Dissatisfaction
Message too long. Click here to view the full text.


>>
Anonymous 15/06/23(Tue)23:37 No. 12228 ID: 485646

I thought America was more into eating tons of Junk food than staying fit.




Anonymous 14/06/08(Sun)21:47 No. 11497 ID: 1d3945 [Reply]
11497

File 140225682755.jpg - (266.90KB , 634x900 , glass of water.jpg )

Describe me the glass of water.


18 posts omitted. Click Reply to view.
>>
Anonymous 15/06/08(Mon)19:04 No. 12220 ID: f5ef65

>>12219
What is the measure of water?


>>
Anonymous 15/06/09(Tue)00:52 No. 12221 ID: 18b905

>>12216

I spooned you, Mr. Anderson; I watched you sleep, with a certain creepiness, I might add. And then something happened. Something that I knew was impossible, but it happened anyway: you spooned me, Mr. Anderson.


>>
Anonymous 15/06/23(Tue)23:24 No. 12227 ID: 485646

It's filled with half water and half air.




marginsoferror marginsoferror 15/01/08(Thu)10:34 No. 11969 ID: fc2a7f [Reply]
11969

File 14207096712.jpg - (43.23KB , 328x310 , doerrorsrepeat.jpg )

my brain teaser for philosophers is so...

if you have found you have a margin of error should you ever bother doing anything ever? you've proven you're not capable of simple things, so why should you bother anymore?

my philosophy has been no margin of error or compromise. ever. it has served me terribly. the simplest decisions with variables to consider can take years a time. but i feel proud not to choose mistakes. i feel it makes me more human than most to live such a way. on attempts on my life in the past. i always had preplaned all possible attacks and real time evasion so none ever worked on me. i feel it makes me much more human to think than just act. ( even if it does win free psychopathic personality disorder in medical records. whats psycho about thinking before you act. i think labeling thoughtfulness wrong is a personality disorder.)


9 posts omitted. Click Reply to view.
>>
Anonymous 15/05/24(Sun)15:36 No. 12199 ID: a32d5c

>>12136
lol

I quite enjoyed trying to picture that.


>>
Anonymous 15/05/26(Tue)06:52 No. 12200 ID: 31099f

>>12181

And what would be the goal of this?


>>
Anonymous 15/06/22(Mon)17:38 No. 12225 ID: dcc717

1.) This is a polemic argument (absolutes)
2.) This is a splitting argument (extreme absolutes)
3.) This is an anti-splitting argument (absolutes should be demonized)
4.) This a black and white argument (no middle ground)

The answer is simple: We don't know, but we try because it is our nature, and that nature, the very nature of what is natural, itself is valid.
We try to place food in our mouths to live.
We believe we do this very well as our existence continues.
Not all of the food is digested.
Why is this, and why do we try?
Because tautology is a lie.
We are a cascade result, not made of any purpose or for any purpose.
Much like lies and incorrect theories, we invented the concept of purpose.
Why? Cascade reasons. All things are end results.
Physics and chemistry gave us life, and life gave us neurons.
Message too long. Click here to view the full text.




Anonymous 15/05/17(Sun)03:02 No. 12192 ID: 4e42b8 [Reply]
12192

File 143182456934.jpg - (164.63KB , 638x503 , 20120712-220959.jpg )

I was listening to this Sam Harris talk in which he tries to explain the idea of non-duality of experience with "headlessness":
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0PTAc4WqZAg#t=22m57s

From what I understood, we don't experience non-duality because we see life in 1st person. If we try to imagine what experiencing life in the 3rd person would be, we see that there is not 'really' an observer, like for example in the video below:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bKRxDP--e-Y#t=44s

Am I misunderstanding something?


3 posts omitted. Click Reply to view.
>>
Anonymous 15/06/05(Fri)23:43 No. 12212 ID: 18b905

We see life in first person, but we remember it in third person. Memories are not exact recordings, but lists of details and patterns. Each time you recall a memory, you brain must take those patterns and reconstruct what happened. It's akin to when you read a book and use the words to picture the scene.

When I remember things that happened to me more than 20 years ago, they're all in third person.


>>
Anonymous 15/06/07(Sun)12:43 No. 12214 ID: 650c4c

To simply my understanding of it:
We have blind spots of where our non-ending is.
They're cut off due to our limited perspectives, and we perceive those blind spots, those cut-offs, as beginnings and ends.

I liken it to this: A storm cloud of particles that create storm-cloud-particled eyes, but these eyes are not structured well enough to see the particles themselves, but rather the shapes they make on another less-accurately represented material level.
When the eyes can not detect the cloud, it presumes a beginning and end. It has blind spots and misinterprets them.

>If my answer is stupid and infuriates you, I do apologize, this is (obviously) part of my limited attempt to make sense of the material


>>
Anonymous 15/06/07(Sun)12:45 No. 12215 ID: 650c4c

>>12214
*To put it simply,




Anonymous 15/06/02(Tue)11:23 No. 12209 ID: 8eb7e6 [Reply]
12209

File 143323699666.jpg - (373.46KB , 1024x768 , image.jpg )

Sartre asserts the importance of individual freedom – as expressed in ‘Existentialism is a Humanism’. Argue how far do you think we can genuinely stay true to the particular sort of freedom Sartre thinks is important and if not – why not?




Anonymous 15/05/28(Thu)09:30 No. 12201 ID: 1b02b6 [Reply]
12201

File 143279823140.jpg - (53.93KB , 900x600 , 1-thinking-man-tinjoe-mbugus.jpg )

Confused..

A time before I am concerned to do by what implores whatever that which was said of them, but why, given that the frame for which none other but from the middle between their concerns shall be disregarded and bolstered with a keen eye? Furthermore, to go so far as determine think for that below the face of reason many should pot to be stirred to stir more than stir can go? I wonder no.

Still, by head of wrap a large blanket to say more than "I Am Confused" can exist, but for that being a crumble of words no stranger to the dictionary can see will the words of that which I am capable to bringing forth wont match or maybe so just not now. No? Thoughts?

Thanks.




Delete post []
Password  
Report post
Reason