-  [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 479 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.

30 posts and 3 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
EL+NEGRO 15/01/13(Tue)04:06 No. 11988 ID: c11c78


Best Christian philosopher in the world

Richard Dawkins is this guy's bitch
He humiliated Sam Harris
He defeated Christopher Hitchens
He defeated Victor Stenger twice

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.

305 posts and 18 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
Anonymous 15/03/04(Wed)05:51 No. 12078 ID: 326949

does god have to be a god in the traditional sense; could he or her not be an advanced being that visited the earth long ago, or could god not e nature anthropomorphized? In Confession of the Last Lowly Warrior the so-called FALL is depicted as the descent from a natural tribal state to the artificial feudal state, so that the fractured society depicted in several creation myths is the formation of the elite ruling class and the common labor class. that would mean creation refers to the creation of the feudal world and a feudal humanity, and not the creation of the physical world and or our species. what do you think?

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 14/10/01(Wed)01:11 No. 11831 ID: 1644d2 [Reply]

File 141211868475.jpg - (218.03KB , 680x450 , 2013610101052164734_20.jpg )

Quote from the mod post

"A place to spew incoherent nonsense and verbal diarrhea"
Thats what philosophy is. Science absolutely destroys philosophy and spreading philosophies popularity in use by having this board exist is helping to keep society as a whole from using superior methods of problem solving that would help make the world a better place

Please mods and staff of 7chan delete this board


11 posts and 2 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
Anonymous 15/02/07(Sat)00:01 No. 12022 ID: 0572d5

Okay let me rephrase that first sentence I wrote...

"Science is a way of obtaining concrete answers but these answers are always postponed with questions ('Why?')."

Anonymous 15/03/05(Thu)00:26 No. 12079 ID: 46614e

Philosophy makes us ask why. Science answers the whats. The more whats we figure out, the more we wanna know why. They piggyback off of each other. Science might get us where we want to be, but we wouldn't have gotten there without philosophy.

Anonymous 15/03/05(Thu)01:14 No. 12080 ID: d2ef46

Science is the methodologically applied philosophy of nature.

Anonymous 14/11/21(Fri)23:19 No. 11896 ID: cc6b6b [Reply]

File 141660837828.jpg - (149.71KB , 1280x800 , 1332533281340.jpg )

Let's get down to it.

What is the meaning of life?

20 posts and 1 image omitted. Click Reply to view.
Anonymous 15/02/15(Sun)18:19 No. 12040 ID: a6d93e

Think about it like this - all of life, and indeed material, is one entity. This entity has no brother, friend, or peer that can tell it its purpose, because life is alone. It created the illusion of separation as a means of validating itself through pseudo-ignorant quantification. Therefore, the meaning of life is self-quantification on any and all levels.

Anonymous 15/02/19(Thu)06:27 No. 12061 ID: fde934

I wasn't being sarcastic

Anonymous 15/03/03(Tue)16:55 No. 12077 ID: 4321f6

The only universal "meaning of life" for humans is existence. Besides from that it's up to yourself to decide.

Dud 15/03/01(Sun)23:52 No. 12076 ID: 7cc6b4 [Reply]

File 142525034493.jpg - (33.84KB , 500x348 , 1385802061248.jpg )

Consider someone with multiple personality disorder.
How would a Materialist and an Idealist view this phenomenon?

What is real? . . . Anonymous 15/02/23(Mon)15:36 No. 12065 ID: 9635e6 [Reply]

File 142470219582.jpg - (175.37KB , 722x479 , Baudrillard.jpg )

I swear I once heard something like this, as a functional definition of reality:

>Real is what opposes my will

... however, I cannot remember where I heard it and haven't been able to find it written anywhere. After some years, I can see some relation between the notion and Nietzsche's failure of will to power and Heidegger's failure of an equipment that leads to vorhandenheit's realization; but I'm positive neither of them could say such definition of reality. I've checked from Kant to Baudrillard, but nothing, so...

Who said it, then?
Was it just a(nother) ghost?
What is real to you anyway?


David 15/02/19(Thu)04:55 No. 12058 ID: 40f364 [Reply]

File 142431810541.jpg - (274.13KB , 1200x1200 , Girls.jpg )

In terms of direct and indirect realism.
Do we experience objects or do we experience our sensations of objects?

1 post omitted. Click Reply to view.
Anonymous 15/02/19(Thu)07:15 No. 12062 ID: bbe437

Yes OP, we do.

Anonymous 15/02/20(Fri)22:18 No. 12063 ID: fde934

We all experience our subjective sensations through objects but we find words to describe those experiences. Once we describe those experiences in words they all seem relateable to other individuals. And then we think we all experience objects the same way. But in reality, people feel things only similarly, not always the same way. Therefore, we don't directly experience an object. But we experience our sensation the object stimulates.

Anonymous 15/02/22(Sun)07:12 No. 12064 ID: f7a491

I'd say that we experience objects in the way that we perceive them, whether that be our thoughts of the objects or the sensory qualia.

Anonymous 15/02/15(Sun)04:13 No. 12034 ID: 1b02b6 [Reply]

File 142397002599.jpg - (138.14KB , 600x600 , 0000173_big_dome_push_button.jpg )

I've found another point to make in a situation which is seemingly unimportant but tangentially related to bigger problems.

One big ol' steam room. Several people in it. Some have a low tolerance to the extreme heat of blasting the temperature-regulating thermometer with cold water which triggers a bout of steam to eject from the boilers, some have a high tolerance who can stay in longer than those of low tolerance.

Some without asking want it hotter and decide to spray the thermometer with cold water, but those of low tolerance don't want that. So they are compelled to leave while those who can handle it benefit from the fruits of staying in longer and enjoying their time.

How does one accommodate for the difference here? Both sides make a point: High-tolerance would say: "It's not hot enough in here. If you don't like it, leave. It's what a steam room is for." Low-tolerance would say: "But it's preset to keep the room a hot enough temperature to make you and me sweat and enjoy ourselves without panicking and boiling our blood. If its too cool, leave."

The answer is that there is no answer. Similarly, in politics, there is no answer, because both entail a congregation of different-minded, different-bodied people undergoing a system. There is not a solution for one room, or one community that will appease everyone with a fair settlement. The only way is to separate those who can handle it with higher temperature into a different community/room from those who can handle less of a temperature into a different community/room. All totalitarians, marxists, socialists, capitalists need to separate into their own communities where their own beliefs can be practiced to their liking. Altho because these communities and room settings are different, war will never ensue from "you're different from me, therefore I don't like you" with the philosophical understanding that people are different and have different bodies and different minds.

This is how politics should be handled: At the age of _ _, you are guided to a room and asked the question "Which of these ideals/-isms are best suitable for you? We will ship you over to your respective preference."

9 posts omitted. Click Reply to view.
Anonymous 15/02/17(Tue)08:23 No. 12053 ID: 1b02b6

>Definitive statements are always wrong.

There exists a gravitational force of a body which acts on any body no matter the distance.

That is irrefutable. Much like how philosophy is to understand something at a level which you cannot delve deeper.

The premise of philosophy is to glean insight on the nature of things at the utmost fundamental level. To say otherwise is to neglect the details which govern that which philosophy is about.

Anonymous 15/02/17(Tue)14:55 No. 12054 ID: 86e709

Except in the core of a black hole, into which the functionality of that influence breaks down and does not extend.

The only universal rule is, all rules have exceptions.

As for the utterly utilitarian take on philosophy you're also claiming to be universal, you can keep it til you get bored of it and entertain yourself delighting in the exceptions to it.

Anonymous 15/02/17(Tue)18:05 No. 12057 ID: 1b02b6

So if that functionality breaks down, that means it should have no problem returning to the space outside the black hole, right?

Let's modify the sentence a bit to appease your worries:
With the exclusion of the strong gravitational force of a black hole, from which nothing can escape from the extreme gravitational influence of its surroundings, there exists a gravitational force of a body which acts on any body no matter the distance.

Or, if that one is not acceptable because it has its exceptions, consider this one:
There exists a group of atoms that work together to allow the entire body of atoms that work together to keep a system alive (your body) to process the surroundings and move about accordingly.

philosophy |fəˈläsəfē|
noun ( pl. philosophies )
the study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence, esp. when considered as an academic discipline.

So because you want to redefine what you consider philosophy (that which doesn't delve the deepest, but can still be sought further--would that still be called philosophy or does your clear-cut personal definition of philosophy break that down like the black hole's powerful gravitational influence?) that means it takes on a new definition that overrides the previous one? Yes, philosophy is a broad term, but if you aren't reaching the fundamentals, there's still more work to do.

Anonymous 12/10/15(Mon)20:00 No. 8621 ID: 92c0b9 [Reply] [Last 50 posts]

File 135032400874.jpg - (653.27KB , 800x1200 , swastika.jpg )

“It would be better if there were nothing. Since there is more pain than pleasure on earth, every satisfaction is only transitory, creating new desires and new distresses, and the agony of the devoured animal is always far greater than the pleasure of the devourer”
― Arthur Schopenhauer

So what do you guys think about this type of view?
Such views have been described in modern times in the book "Better Never To Have Been: The Harm Of Coming Into Existence-By David Benatar


67 posts and 15 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
Anonymous 14/11/14(Fri)03:04 No. 11890 ID: 03e413

File 14159306645.gif - (141.48KB , 320x377 , 1408513619381.gif )

>Death the ultimate pain.
The term "ultimate" was that poster's usage. I don't think Schopenhauer said that.

And obviously there is no pain once you are dead, but the pain comes in dying. That is what is meant. If you never existed you would never have to go through that unnecessary painful experience.

>Nothing is better than something.
Yes, nothing can be better than something, because you can avoid having to go through unnecessary pain.

Which is better, to accidentally drive your car into a tree and suffer some injuries,
or to never have had the accident in the first place?

So are going to actually provide an argument/counterargument, or are you just going to reply with vague references to TV shows and mockery that adds nothing to the discussion?

Anonymous 15/02/14(Sat)02:34 No. 12033 ID: 03e413

File 142387769387.jpg - (300.58KB , 1000x791 , Albert-Einstein-5.jpg )

Each birth marks the beginning of a life-long conflict between an
individual’s pursuit of happiness and a gene pool’s pursuit of immortality.

But the genes have an unfair advantage, for they have honed their enslavement of individuals over evolutionary timescales.
Does ‘thinking Man’ have a chance of outwitting the genes? Is it possible for an individual to identify gene tricks and assert his will to side-step them?

If the gene pool could think, it would have ‘nightmares’ about the individual who uses rational thought to subvert instincts and get what is fair for an individual to want while denying genes what they want. To the extent that a liberated individual serves as an example for others he is also a menace to the gene pool. If only one generation were to become totally infected and useless to the gene pool, the gene pool would die.This proves that no generation of humans has ever been infected by the notion
of individual liberation.

Humanity is doomed to everlasting enslavement!

Anonymous 15/02/15(Sun)18:24 No. 12041 ID: a6d93e

your argument is defeated in the original post - OP posted a quote by a man who shares the same arrogance you just condemned. He has made a judgment based on the ridiculous belief that he has quantified life. such people desire to suffer, and so they will, believing that life's true purpose of self-quantification has come to a stagnation that cannot be remedied(except perhaps by shrooms)

Delete post []
Report post