-  [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 487 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.

29 posts and 3 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
Anonymous 14/10/18(Sat)13:49 No. 11855 ID: 53826a


Yeah, Sandler's the shit.

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.

297 posts and 17 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
PlutoniumBoss!Y1SVQJ54eA 14/11/14(Fri)01:03 No. 11889 ID: 465a65


Virtual particles are identical to "real" particles in all ways other than duration. They are for all intents and purposes matter coming from nothing.

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 14/12/13(Sat)07:40 No. 11924 ID: eda858 [Reply]

File 141845283576.jpg - (24.72KB , 220x330 , 220px-Felis_silvestris_silvestris_Luc_Viatour.jpg )

Where did the concept of innate rights come from?
rights a person or animal has without having to earn or be given then (perhaps with the exception of rights given by a divine being, which are in practice usually innate)

3 posts omitted. Click Reply to view.
Anonymous 14/12/19(Fri)09:13 No. 11932 ID: 5b5ccd

Rights stem from mutual fear. Every one of us fears death, every one of us fears the inconceivable dangers of collective violence and the state that channels it. We appeal to these prejudices by noting their universal qualities and infer from that universality that they must have some sort of ontological primacy.

They don't.

You are afraid of dying.

Animals are afraid of dying (plants too, but we lack empathy).

None of us knows who will kill us.

We seek to ennoble this sentiment in something more than fear, we give it fancy names and spurious origins, we talk about sentience and democracy and consent and deliberation in order to displace and deflect our fear. We think rules will put death and fear back into place. There are no rights. We are transient, and we are not content with our transience.

Anonymous 14/12/21(Sun)09:06 No. 11934 ID: a72cc7

Well, what do you exactly mean by, "Rights,"? Because if you refer to some sort of god-given facet of existence to which all are entitled to and that none are allowed to interfere with, then I'm sorry but nature's kinda proven that there's no vector of attack it's unwilling to exploit.

Anonymous 14/12/21(Sun)16:17 No. 11935 ID: c3f18d

Maybe an noble way of enshrining a pact of fear is accurate

Anonymous 14/12/20(Sat)07:53 No. 11933 ID: 7b61ec [Reply]

File 141905838183.jpg - (581.33KB , 1024x768 , Hydrangeas.jpg )

When we were first created, we did everything to survive. Everything we do now, is to survive. The whole goal for humanity since the beginning is to keep on surviving. The end goal is to survive as long as possible. Some people have tried to alter their vision of this with religion, and other things so they can believe we are here for different reasons other than the obvious, to keep on surviving. Some people think it's the journey that counts, but in the end, when all of us are dead, none of it will matter, and it will only be remembered (if there's anyone to remember it) as us being the one's who kept trying to survive. When you're dead, as per common belief that you are in the abyss of nothingness after death, nothing you do will matter since you are dead and have ceased survival. Regardless of what you did for others, it did absolutely nothing for you, and in turn was completely pointless because they will inevitably come to the same end as you, and neither of you will be grateful since you both will be dead and feeling nothing. Thoughts?

Anonymous 14/12/19(Fri)03:35 No. 11930 ID: 5a50dc [Reply]

File 141895651346.jpg - (935.05KB , 2000x1312 , 1352238366514.jpg )

Is there a correlation between ambition and intelligence, /phi/?

Anonymous 14/12/19(Fri)08:53 No. 11931 ID: 5b5ccd

Yes. Ambition is a project of ego, and of ego-fantasy, and intelligence tends to develop these. To be certain, there is no direct correspondence between intelligence and ego, but there is certainly some correlation. Intelligence isn't some higher quality wherein some brains simply create truth where others create error. We all share the same chemical mechanisms, we all share the same genetic heritage that defines our ability to model and reproduce reality in the form of neural networks. Some brains merely do so with lower thresholds, with an abnormal sensitivity that we deem neuroticism, this is the only real substrate of intelligence. This physical composition enjoys few meaningful advantages, but it does make connections faster than others , and with less information than others. Given our need to integrate ourselves into the project of language, an endeavor that is inextricably social and collective, we must create narratives that relate the apparent meanings of words to others to the felt meanings of words within our self-experience. We do this by creating an ego, a central point around which our words coalesce, an object to whom our self-experience might be attributed. I should name-check Daniel Dennett here, I think his view of the "self" as the "narrative center of gravity" gives us a lot of insight into how this comes to be. I think that view is less adequate, however, in terms of explaining the differences between our narratives. As I've alluded to earlier, some narratives remain more connected to an original experience of our bodies, an actual performance of our existence, while others tend to make more connections to the perceptions of perceptions, to the ideas of experiences rather than the actual information that our bodies provides us with.

I think this spectrum is what defines the intensity of ego-differentiation, and with it, the intensity of ambition. Ambition is essentially the prevalence of ego-fantasy, the tendency of a brain to repeat imagined goals that empower and intensify the self. If I think about what increases in monetary or political power might do for me often, then I will gradually impart more of these goal states to my daily habits and to my narrative center.

I think intelligence is literally just a chemically lower barrier to this kind of thinking, a tendency for thoughts to recursion that allows them to feed back on themselves more times, to contain more evaluative than perceptive features. It has its benefits and its pitfalls, and ambition is one of them, either way.

Anonymous 14/11/25(Tue)04:05 No. 11908 ID: 5a50dc [Reply]

File 141688474552.jpg - (55.79KB , 604x392 , 7XvipFBprf0.jpg )

>the ending of Phaedo
I feel like a fucking idiot for being at the verge of tears while reading it, especially after all that Socrates said.

Oh well, anyone feels like discussing death and the existence (Or non-existence, for that matter) of an afterlife?

3 posts omitted. Click Reply to view.
Anonymous 14/12/04(Thu)00:12 No. 11918 ID: d2ef46

Ha, agreed. There's a quote someone once made on this website, I feel it's applicable to the subject. All I can do is paraphrase it.

"Sometimes I wish people would realize that energy is not some magical substance you can rub on anything and make your arguments valid."

Anonymous 14/12/05(Fri)07:52 No. 11919 ID: 86e709

Ah yeah, that was me. ...but you may have just said it better than I did.

Anonymous 14/12/16(Tue)15:03 No. 11929 ID: b49150

That's a question the bothered me a lot years ago after my father committed suicide (I was 10 then).

After a few years, i came to believe that death can't be the end of consciousness, it just doesn't make sense, there have to be something more than just flesh and neural connections.

How is it that if you kill someone, let's say you stop their heart with an electric shock in a way that you don't damage any organ and prevent brain leisure, you just can't bring it back to life? I know you can restart the heart while in fibrillation, but you most likely can't restart a heart that stopped for good, even if you kept massaging it to prevent brain damage? How is that that in case of cerebral death, there is zero chances to recover? What does this? Why, despite having a fully functional human "machine", there is still that thing missing that we call "life"?

As for nothing is created, nothing is lost, i believe that "life" have to go somewhere after the body die, it can't simply vanish.

I "studied" the NDE phenomenon for a while, by "studied" I mean that i have questioned NDE survivors myself and not only read shit all over the internet and in books. When you face the person, you can hardly believe they are making this all up to get attention, actually most of them were very reticent to talking about it and it took me a lot of efforts to make them confident enough to. I'm not sure what to thing about the "reality" of the testimony, but all i can tell is that they all correlate, especially in fundamental details, and make a lot of sense, especially put in perspective of modern physic theories, not only quantums, but also some less known authors as Regis Dutheil (i'd give some explanations about it but i'd take to long). After dozens of "interwiews", plus dozens more tesimonies i've read here and there, I never found any testimony whose details made another one impossible, like one saying they were is a materiel form in another dimension while another said they were in an immaterial form, all of them matched onf fundamental points that couldn't be coincidental, the only explanation to consider them fake would be that either those people all read the same fake testimony as source (highly unlikely, as it wouldn't explain the intensity of variations) or where secretly teamed up to play me by making up thing base on a scenario they would have talked between them before (again, highly unlikely, especially since i contacted these people randomly and they where from very different locations and horizons).

Now the most common objection to these experience is that brain create hallucinations at the moment of the death due to lack of oxygen, also something about the retina making an impression of bight light at the end of a dark corridor, but anyway, according to th Message too long. Click here to view the full text.

Anonymous 14/11/17(Mon)01:06 No. 11892 ID: 1b02b6 [Reply]

File 141618281725.jpg - (77.47KB , 640x529 , 1415688101987.jpg )

I need your thoughts.

Why would this scenario never work?:
A nude society: waking naked in public with the hardest erections you can imagine to show to passersby in a normal context. That is, normal in the sense that nothing is really thought of it but his want for sex in that moment or even his want to just show off his penis? Why is that notion put to such shame in society today? Why are we programmed like this? Does it really fucking matter? I see naked people all the time and don't think anything of it if they were out in public. "But the kids will see it". Well, the kids will find out eventually anyway, so why do you stigmatize it so hardly? There is no social ego with withhold in this society. The fact is, without today's social ego of trying to be better than everyone else, we will be free to do anything we want in a context that will be normal to anyone if the hedonistic aspect of life is sought.

I'm looking for a rational explanation of why it would never work. Not a "you're just a fucking retard". You can understand something but not be able to put it into words. Try.

1 post omitted. Click Reply to view.
Anonymous 14/11/17(Mon)02:27 No. 11894 ID: f86070

Honetly it won't work because you need a lot of fuel for that flamethrower

Anonymous 14/11/21(Fri)08:09 No. 11895 ID: 2f260d

There is no rational explanation. Humans are not rational creatures, especially when you involve religion and groupthink.

The irrational explanation for why it won't work is because we live in a post-Catholic-moral society that has extreme prudishness for natural behaviors at its very core.

(There are some very isolated societies where sex is celebrated, where everyone has sex with everyone else regardless of age or gender, like they're bonobos, and having several orgasms per day is commonplace. The downside is there is no internet.)

Anonymous 14/12/15(Mon)08:28 No. 11928 ID: f6b29d

op, there is one person out there, myself, that shares your thoughts on the matter, exactly.

Anonymous 14/12/03(Wed)07:59 No. 11915 ID: aae3d1 [Reply]

File 141758997826.jpg - (798.12KB , 2560x1600 , 1378524573929.jpg )

Why(if that is the correct query), are all the questions that I have no answer for always another question? I really am quite depressed and frustrated at this predicament and have been up for a few days... thinking, i think.

Anonymous 14/12/09(Tue)09:20 No. 11922 ID: d2ef46

There cannot be another question if you have not answered the first.

Anonymous 14/10/31(Fri)20:26 No. 11872 ID: c8a6a3 [Reply]

File 141478357226.jpg - (19.12KB , 460x345 , aYbqnON_460s.jpg )

We need to kill in order to survive.

What do you think?

2 posts omitted. Click Reply to view.
Anonymous 14/11/09(Sun)20:08 No. 11883 ID: 86e709

I think you mad a statement declaring something that can be proven in the physical world.

If you replace "need" and "survive" with "desire" and "thrive", then sure.

You can formulate & synthesize the bodies nutritional requirements and the body will survive. We ourselves are a mere decade or so away from eating food cloned and grown and synthesized and grown in the shape of the final product. It will be cleaner, healthier, more tasty, far less wasteful and much more plentiful, cheaper, and profitable. This has been in development for a few years already by companies worldwide.

You can live in a space station and not kill things and survive just fine in spite of this lack of killing.

We kill because it's usually the easiest option, and we are above all else, very lazy fuckers.

Anonymous 14/11/10(Mon)01:43 No. 11884 ID: 25327f

I think killing is just one of the many ways to survive and live.
It is kind of strange a wiev to see humans primitive, and other animals, but for me, plants, and mashrooms seems more clever than other speaces on earth.

Anonymous 14/12/03(Wed)02:21 No. 11913 ID: a72cc7

Well, in an isolated and individual context, yes, an individual creature can survive without killing anything else by living alone and relying on chemo/photosynthesis, but this doesn't address a larger picture. Assume, for a moment, we start off with a single creature, all alone on a dead world, able to use the massed nutrients and whatever form of energy available on this planet. Eventually, assuming we aren't dealing with a single dying spark but an actual viable lifeform, it reproduces, probably by cellular division. This one harmless lifeform is now two harmless lifeforms, which themselves will become more harmless lifeforms ad infinity. Here, though, is where things fall apart: there's no possible way to support an infinity of harmless lifeforms. Eventually, this once-empty planet will run out of something, be it the chemical nutrients these lifeforms require, or simple space for more of them to exist. Eventually, by simply existing, one of them will kill another, without violence or malice. Some of these lifeforms will die, and others will change and adapt to better exist, either by being better able to kill by consuming resources or able to kill by eating or simply murdering the competition. These forms will simply refine themselves to their present conditions, with life rising and falling.

We know this, because it's already happened.

Delete post []
Report post