-  [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 476 unique user posts. View catalog

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

Reminder: IPv6 enabled users have exclusive access to the /vip6/ board. You don't need access to /VIP/ to access /vip6/.

Channel7 is streaming Movies and TV daily, click here for the web player, or here for the .m3u.


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.


25 posts and 3 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
>>
Anonymous 13/02/23(Sat)02:29 No. 9685 ID: 61dff4

Excellent resource on Deleuze and D&G: http://www.protevi.com/john/DG/index.html




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.


249 posts and 11 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
>>
Anonymous 13/05/26(Sun)04:45 No. 10236 ID: ca12bb

>>10094


>where do you come from to criticise the authoritarian nature of monotheism? :P

>authoritarian nature
>one god-ism

I concur, that is not authoritarian, that is totalitarian




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 13/05/25(Sat)14:49 No. 10235 ID: dfa79c [Reply]
10235

File 136948614344.jpg - (34.85KB , 650x706 , OLwaKhX.jpg )

I guess God was a lot more demonstrative
Back when he flamboyantly parted the sea
Now everybody's praying
Don't pray on me




Anonymous 13/01/16(Wed)09:40 No. 9346 ID: 891eed [Reply]
9346

File 135832563272.jpg - (124.44KB , 576x576 , 1356608711837.jpg )

I'm hungry to increase my knowledge, to change my view, to broaden my perspectives. I don't want to do this online, though: I want paper, I want books. What are the best titles you can recommend to me for, say, the philosophies of people, of humanity, of the mind, of society, of knowledge, of life, and of the universe? I'll start there (and likely never get past that, and that is okay). Classic philosophers, stereotypical philosophers, unpopular philosophers, new minds, old minds... whatever anon would like to recommend.

tl;dr give me titles of your best philosophic books to read


10 posts and 1 image omitted. Click Reply to view.
>>
Anonymous 13/05/24(Fri)22:04 No. 10231 ID: 3f144b

>>10228
>For a "linguist"
FOR ANYONE!!
Be sure to check out Slavoj Zizek too, there's plenty of complicated lectures as well as concise and straight-forward fragments on youtube. And he's pretty entertaining :3


>>
Anonymous 13/05/24(Fri)22:30 No. 10232 ID: a3f5e6

>>10231

Hah, yea. It just always kinda cracks me up whenever he's introduced or refers to himself as "Noam Chomsky, linguist". !

Personally, not being a communist, not knowing more than the texas-education-board-approved-for-nationwide-consumtion curriculum taught us in 2 minutes on the subject, or even really being interested in teh subject, but being just clever enough to question how "lazy and evil" as an ideology could appeal to so many millions of people worldwide as a plan for individual and national success, it certainly was educational listening to his ideas on the subject. Anyone who might ever utter the words communism or socialism would benefit from hearing the modern concepts explained by him.

I'll check out Zizek as well, thanks!


>>
Anonymous 13/05/25(Sat)00:08 No. 10234 ID: ca12bb

1) "Old age and treachery beats youth and skill every time."

it comes from the idea that one is in competition with others - by gaining as much as possible with as little effort as possible

2) this is suitable enough when A: there's plenty to go around and B: when there's strains between what's around and a growing desire for more stuff

in situations where A: is that there's not much to go around, and B: hits... then you are hard working and evil

and when A: is there's lots of stuff to go around and when B: is you're not greedy - then you'll be moderately hard working and easy going

when A: is there's not much to go around and B: you're not really into getting lots of stuff, you are despondent



3) as for philosophical books - I'm particularly interested in metaphorical/rhetorical books, and I don't mind the "simpler" ones - there's a lot of information you can glean off them if you start looking at your own reactions to the events - and this is why they should be simple stories, because it's hard enough to do this with a simple stimuli considering people are complex
Message too long. Click here to view the full text.




feminism Anonymous 13/05/11(Sat)12:30 No. 10110 ID: 3f144b [Reply]
10110

File 136826824068.jpg - (203.66KB , 640x424 , 7619451560_2371b4cffb_z.jpg )

Hi,
i've looking into the anti-feminist internetz lately. Stuff like the MRA and Girl Writes What. quite frankly I think it's all a load of bullshit that has exploited the latent misogynist views of young (possibly socially disenfranchised) men who probably watch too much porn.
In particular I've looked at the Anita Sarkeesian affair the past day or two. Before I had ever heard of her I had seen one of the flash-games that allow you to beat up the woman who had 'conned' people into giving her money. This game made reasonable sense to me at the time as i did not know the full story. However after watching a fews of her videos I can say she definitely did not con anyone, as you can see in the picture she purchased a ton of games and went through them all. Furthermore Sarkeesian has been 'challenged' by the likes of Thunderf00t and others with conversing arguments evident of much less research or even understanding of gender studies or representation of gender. The results of her research are in fact not so surprising or controversial, quite in line with what gender-studies have shown over the years and i don't doubt quite accurate. The difference is that these videos and information are freely online as a part of an educational series on the internet, freely available to teachers, students and individuals alike.
Unfortunately there is a very active community of 4chan's anons putting major efforts into denial of her work and by extension her valuable and educational research. And it should be noted that this is mainly because they do not like her results, which is a deeply troubling sign of intense irrationality.

so I wanted to start a thread to discuss feminism.
what do you think of it and what do you think of extreme anti-feminism as we've seen on the internet and chan-culture?
what philosophy do you find compatible or incompatible with feminist ideology?


(hope you don't mind this thread in /phi/)


35 posts and 6 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
>>
Anonymous 13/05/24(Fri)00:59 No. 10224 ID: ca12bb

now let's take a look at the types of claims you make - lets take a look at the [citation needed] and [neutrality disputed] count here


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender#Society_and_behaviors


From the evidence, it can only be concluded that gender is socially constructed[citation needed] and each individual is unique in their gender characteristics, regardless of which biological sex they are, as every child is socialised to behave a certain way and have the ‘proper’ gender attributes. If individuals in society do not conform to this pressure, they are destined to be treated as abnormal; therefore it is personally greatly beneficial for them to cooperate in the determined ‘correct’ ordering of the world.[citation needed] In fact, the very construct of society is a product of and produces gender norms. There is bias in applying the word ‘gender’ to anyone in a finite way; rather each person is endowed with certain gender characteristics.[citation needed] The world cannot be egalitarian while there are ‘assigned’ genders and individuals are not given the right to express any gender characteristic they desire.[neutrality is disputed]


3 citations failed to be given, the claims have no backing

and by the end, it's evident that the neutrality of the information claimed is disputed


now let's look back at the fundamentals of biology
Message too long. Click here to view the full text.


>>
Anonymous 13/05/24(Fri)20:48 No. 10230 ID: 3f144b

>>10223
>>10224
Right, your characterisation of feminist ideas…..
to start off, gender and social construction are related terminological phrases in the sense that when we speak about gender (in the social sciences) we understand that to be something that exists only as a result of interaction between many people (or many animals). So it's a terminological, not evidence-based concept, which you shouldn't really bother arguing against because if you can't even name what you're talking about you can't talk at all and then the discussions over; so please just accept that these are generally accepted terms - if you're interested in discussion, these terms will help us not confuse biological with social (nature and culture).
THen you mention gender attributes but really gender has much more to do with roles. Attributes - and I immediately have a connotation with children's toys - only have a secondary function as supporting the role, the primary function of gender as a distribution of labour within society. So a boy playing with a toy gun fits the male gender as a protector, strong, combating etc. A girl playing with a baby doll fits the female gender as mother, caring, nurturing etc.
The third point starts to get to an interesting philosophical subject. You suggest that a subject may choose or not to take a certain role, however the ideas that have been put forth by the likes of Chomsky and Foucault show that knowledge is constructed in relation to power - those who have control may decide what others know, even including what someone knows about themselves. And we know what we do about ourselves based on looking at others, recognising (or being told) that we are the same so then you get to media issues - what kind of image are we being shown of ourselves and is this advantageous to us? Hence the choice that you suggested does not exist if we have only been taught one possible answer.
Gender in itself has been described as a binary: male and female. Both these genders have binary (or polar - i'm not sure of the correct english phrase here) connotations: male/female; strong/weak; stoic/sensitive; rational/natural. So these inform the identities that people adopt which of course plays a part in the construction of society as it denotes their place in society. And as I made clear at the start, without society we would not have gender (in accepted terminology). The last point has to do with this as these gender-roles decide peoples place within society (women not in the workplace - not in academia - not as individuals; relative to three 'waves' of feminism). It is not so much that people should be absolutely free to choose or design their own genders, biology pretty much makes that impossible and I doubt it Message too long. Click here to view the full text.


>>
Anonymous 13/05/24(Fri)23:59 No. 10233 ID: ca12bb

>I don't have much of a rebuttle against your lengthy story about biology as this is indeed a philosophy board and not a science board. I absolutely accept what you said on biology, however it is not relevant to the subject or very much to gender at all and thus makes it 'moot'


science (n.) Look up science at Dictionary.com
c.1300, "knowledge (of something) acquired by study," also "a particular branch of knowledge,"


Samuel Johnson was refuting George Berkeley.

Refutation of Bishop Berkely

After we came out of the church, we stood talking for some time together
of Bishop Berkeley’s ingenious sophistry to prove the nonexistence of
matter, and that every thing in the universe is merely ideal. I observed,
that though we are satisfied his doctrine is not true, it is impossible to
Message too long. Click here to view the full text.




Genesis of ideas John Caker 13/05/22(Wed)05:30 No. 10202 ID: add42a [Reply]
10202

File 136919342654.jpg - (443.98KB , 1920x1200 , 15259_aliens_xenomorph.jpg )

Dear /phi/, in our current culture of remixology, can we identify the trait of creating novel ideas and inventions?

For instance, if most artificial things we encounter in our world are either combined (video games, black comedy, automobiles), or synthesized from things that already exist, (Paper plates, youtube poop, flatscreen tvs) and things that are completely novel, (photographic plates, Xenomorphs, the Internet) how many thing can we isolate that were novel at their inception?

Also, can we predict how many novel ideations a person can typically expect in their lifetime- it has occurred to me that I have never thought of something have I haven't heard of or experienced before...


5 posts and 1 image omitted. Click Reply to view.
>>
Anonymous 13/05/24(Fri)01:04 No. 10225 ID: ca12bb

variation in question?

well, you'd need at least two things to compare, those things could be anything that IS a concept, CAN be conceptualized, or even just exists, as long as there's two

so if I say everything and nothing, the concepts can be compared

if I say one thing or nothing, then it can be compared

this situation can also be compared to say...

one compared to two, compared to nothing

and then there's various variations that can be compared to the other comparisons and so on and it just keeps going on and on until we don't care about it anymore


>>
Anonymous 13/05/24(Fri)06:28 No. 10227 ID: a3f5e6
10227

File 136936972683.jpg - (163.41KB , 2048x1536 , image.jpg )

>>10222

I just drew a fish flying a bicycle. I didn't invent the fish, the bicycle, or flying. I'm most certainly not the first person to imagine or even draw such a conglomeration. But having not ever seen such a drawing before, this image is original to me, and even with that unknown, I'll still bet you a thousand dollars no one has drawn this image just like I did here.

So is it original or not?


>>
Anonymous 13/05/24(Fri)08:08 No. 10229 ID: ca12bb

nice picture, reminds me of teddy ruxpin for some reason, but then I was watching dave chapelle's red balls too lately

originality depends on the measures used to determine it - the specificity is important here

"a thing" versus "this picture with particle structure that will never be duplicated ever again even if someone uses a fine electron microscope to totally nerd out and make their best version of a replica"

there's a lot of room in between those two extremes




Anonymous 13/05/21(Tue)11:11 No. 10190 ID: 0cfac7 [Reply]
10190

File 136912750837.jpg - (103.96KB , 500x624 , trancedance.jpg )

when does a child become a child?

women loose eggs as part of a natural cycle, as do men with sperm
some people believe that the potential for a child should not be wasted, so women should become pregnant as soon as they are able and men should not masturbate.

there is a point on conception where the sperm enters the egg
many draw the line here but at this stage the child (or not-child) cannot think or perform individual action, nor can it survive independently from the mother.

the child then gains form, some believe that when it looks like a child it is (not sure how to make that sound reasonable but there you go)

the child then gains function with organs gradualy, but still no thought or agency and cannot survive outside the mother without heavy medical care, where survival is still unlikely

the child then gains some movement, some consider this to be the point of agency, even though the child is still not independant

the child then gains cognitive ability, some say thought is the point when it becomes a person- but the acquisition of thought is so gradual there is no clear point to draw a line.
Message too long. Click here to view the full text.


6 posts omitted. Click Reply to view.
>>
Anonymous 13/05/23(Thu)03:59 No. 10209 ID: 85dfcd

OP, the answer to your initial question is at about 2 years old.

Before that, they're just a puddle of cellular goo that's no more advanced or impressive than a tiny puppy or a fish. We're just conditioned to place a disproportionate amount of value on them because we imagine they have "potential" to be awesome human beings, when in reality, most will not be awesome. ...and because over thousands of generations, those that didn't place an insane amount of value on their offspring died off earlier than those that did, for obvious reasons.

There's nothing magical or supernatural about offspring, any more than any other species offspring. You have a potential human before 2. You have a potential human in the womb. You have a potential human at 3 months. You have a potential human upon fertilization. You have a potential human getting wadded up in a sanitary napkin and left in a public toilet once a month. You have millions of potential humans dying off every day, whether you inseminate someone, or not, or jack off, or not.

Life is wasteful.


>>
Anonymous 13/05/23(Thu)11:23 No. 10220 ID: 3f144b

>>10209
so would you abort a child of 1 year 11 months?


>>
Anonymous 13/05/24(Fri)06:11 No. 10226 ID: a3f5e6

>>10220
Abort early & often.




[END]post Anonymous 13/05/23(Thu)09:56 No. 10210 ID: 94d65f [Reply]
10210

File 13692957941.png - (50.66KB , 833x597 , 0.png )

I just very recently got into Baudrillard and my great affinity with lots of his ideas gave me a little renewed confidence; so I thought I might as well give this a shot in here.

This crap is a compendium of aphorisms resuming the aftermath of 10 (wasted) years studying maths and philosophy plus 3 years living as an otaku shut-in. Basically, it's an attack to realism and a failed attempt to define an axiology for a fully artificialized world to come. The first and determinant error I made was to take language as an equivalent for all semiosis; however, as I later realized, the statements can keep their validity (if any at all) even for non linguistificated signs like those of music or plastic space.

If something here catches your interest, for good or bad, I'd like to know what you think about it. Thanks in advance and see you.


6 posts and 6 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
>>
VI. ON RELATIONSHIPS WITH ONES-SELF AND THE CONDITION OF MAN Anonymous 13/05/23(Thu)10:02 No. 10217 ID: 94d65f
10217

File 136929612458.png - (181.11KB , 904x1340 , VI.png )


>>
VII. ON THE CREDIBILITY OF AN AUTHOR, A PUBLIC AND A DISCOURSE Anonymous 13/05/23(Thu)10:02 No. 10218 ID: 94d65f
10218

File 136929617195.png - (19.22KB , 620x248 , VII.png )


>>
VIII. CATTLE (OR ON THE FLESH) Anonymous 13/05/23(Thu)10:03 No. 10219 ID: 94d65f
10219

File 136929621053.png - (40.09KB , 647x394 , VIII.png )

/post




Dodging the insanity of the sublime memetic evolution interaction and inevitability 13/05/09(Thu)14:33 No. 10106 ID: cb9fa8 [Reply]
10106

File 136810280710.jpg - (30.59KB , 500x401 , 397957_653918061291331_1813906444_n.jpg )

I am disturbed by the notion that I am placed in this person at this time, late enough in the memetic evolution of man to aspire towards personal asymptotic omniscience but early enough not to know for sure, and to have that kind of sanctity and peace in the uncertainty of life coupled with the certainty that I can sidestep the cultural and biological bullshit that my ancestors fell to.

That being said, what a shame that the most enjoyable experiences tend to be the most conjusive to the destruction of the facities which enable us to explore the enjoyable.


>>
Anonymous 13/05/12(Sun)18:52 No. 10121 ID: 379695

Yeah yeah yeah, how's about I get you one of them mass market fusion reactors. Would that soothe your colic?


>>
Anonymous 13/05/15(Wed)01:41 No. 10161 ID: cd272f

>what a shame that the most enjoyable experiences tend to be the most conjusive to the destruction of the facities which enable us to explore the enjoyable.

not sure that part is really true. Sex doesnt destroy the facility, neither does painting, or walking hills...


>>
Anonymous 13/05/19(Sun)19:08 No. 10182 ID: b0b290

>>10161

>tend to be




Delete post []
Password  
Report post
Reason