-  [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 535 unique user posts. View catalog

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

There's a new /777/ up, it's /Trump/ - Make America Great Again! 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.


35 posts and 3 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
>>
Fun funforyou 15/12/28(Mon)03:05 No. 12383 ID: 537707

cool




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.


315 posts and 18 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
>>
Anonymous 16/11/09(Wed)20:54 No. 12711 ID: 251fba

I've never denied the possible existence of a deity, but I've never understood the thinking of those who believe in one (especially when it comes to Christians).

"God can't control free will." Then how is it that he causes miracles? Let's say a drunkard chooses to drive his way home after he wobbles out of the local bar. He causes a head-on collision with a teenager.

In the situation which the teen survives the crash, people assume there must have been some sort of divine intervention. Of course, there is NO WAY it could have been because of the intelligent engineers who created a vehicle which was capable of saving lives. No, it was God who saved the teen. Anyways, the religious will attribute the life of the teen to the mercy of God. But the collision was a direct result of the drunkard's free will. Granted God isn't directly effecting free will, God is negating the whole point of free will. Why have free will if God is going to fix the results of said free will?

This assuming the validity of man-written scripts that were supposedly written from God's words, the belief God follows the rules he created, the belief God is omnipotent, all-knowing, all-powerful, but at the same unable to help everyone on the planet, the belief that Earth is the only planet/life residing on said planet God watches over (or the fact God only cares for the humans based on the lack of description of any other kinds of life he created), etc. I could go on and on and on about the non-validates and holes in the beliefs I have a thorough understanding of.

Now let's say the teen dies during the collision. In the situation which it is plausible to assume God can heal and protect, it is also plausible to assume he can hurt and destroy. How do we know he doesn't cause the evil in this world along with the good (assuming good and evil is an existent entity and not a notion made up by the moralities of man). How can one assume a God who is willing to send the ones he loves to eternal torture (even when their lack of faith is perfectly plausible) is one who wouldn't cause harm? He could even be just a sadist, causing death and pain for his sick twisted desired.

If I were to believe in a god with certainty, it wouldn't be with any existing religion (especially any branch of Christianity).




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 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.


30 posts omitted. Click Reply to view.
>>
Anonymous 16/11/28(Mon)07:58 No. 12730 ID: a6be23

Even if the water is full of half empty it will eventually evaporate it does not matter. Just like our lives will evaporate.


>>
Anonymous 16/12/02(Fri)09:59 No. 12740 ID: 617b9e

**Describe (to) me the glass of water.

This is an image of a glass of water, and therefore an illusion. The original glass of water has no doubt since been disposed of and forgotten, very much unlike this thread.


>>
Anonymous 16/12/02(Fri)09:59 No. 12741 ID: 617b9e

**Describe me, the glass of water.




Life is Like Minecraft Anonymous 16/11/06(Sun)06:45 No. 12703 ID: 57a468 [Reply]
12703

File 14784111017.jpg - (400.09KB , 1280x720 , minecraft-wii-u-2[1].jpg )

I'll probably get scolded for this, but is life and/or existence in general much like a new world of Minecraft? Life doesn't have any goals or meaning until you or your family give it one. Much like Minecraft where the only goals are what you set and the pre-existing ones are more like guidelines. Now call me a faggot, because I am expecting this.


8 posts and 2 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
>>
Anonymous 16/11/26(Sat)10:05 No. 12726 ID: 57a468

I noticed that many people like to create societies within the game, but is a state-level society really something that can be created? Most Chiefdom level societies often times move into a state level society without realizing it. So is this why such attempts always end up going nowhere?

Because Minecraft literally starts the players to where if any societies form it's either band or tribal level?


>>
Anonymous 16/12/01(Thu)18:45 No. 12738 ID: 66a496

>>12709
In reference to:
>>12704
you toil in poverty and your goal is to amass as much material as possible in the hope it will bring to contentment and achievement of goals--so materialism.


>>
Anonymous 16/12/02(Fri)04:53 No. 12739 ID: c4f1b3

>>12704
I suppose it makes sense that a person's Minecraft play style might strongly reflect how they are in real life.

Assholes will be griefers, nice people will work together; extroverts will play multiplayer, introverts will play singleplayer; people resistant to change will stick with a familiar version, people who have a short attention span will lap up every new update; and little kids will blow shit up and install nude skins (laughing like morons the whole time) because that's how little kids are.

If this holds, in real life as well as Minecraft, I live only to work by myself building pretty things that operate on a system of strict internal logic, and that tell a story over time; and I challenge myself to follow more rules than natively exist because what's there isn't difficult enough for me; and if I want something, but don't feel like waiting, I will cheat to obtain it.

That works out pretty well, actually.




Love Lost Soul 16/02/19(Fri)20:05 No. 12441 ID: 048704 [Reply]
12441

File 145590874143.jpg - (175.00KB , 1532x940 , storm.jpg )

Does love exist if we take away the innate, animal desire to breed?


5 posts omitted. Click Reply to view.
>>
Anonymous 16/05/13(Fri)22:14 No. 12562 ID: beb2f1

It is possible to love a person (or people) and to still want them to die out, yes. I would say that is the special circumstance under which there can be love but not a desire to breed.

Normally, love means pro humans which means pro breeding, but wanting someone you love to die out could make sense. Maybe you believe that the compassionate thing is death.


>>
Anonymous 16/11/28(Mon)08:01 No. 12732 ID: a6be23

Fantasies can be lived out in reality.
Love is just kind of Wittgenstein word game.


>>
Anonymous 16/12/01(Thu)18:42 No. 12737 ID: 66a496

Yes.

I love my mom and dad.

I don't want to fuck either of them.

/scene




comatoast!!L1A2Z5BQN4 15/12/08(Tue)06:32 No. 12364 ID: 1238e8 [Reply]
12364

File 144955275195.jpg - (221.25KB , 966x933 , Communism.jpg )

Karl Marx was correct.

Capitalism is collapsing under the weight of its own contradictions.

Between the development of technology and the spread of information growing ever faster among the working class it is only a matter of time before capitalism falls apart.

Discuss.


5 posts and 1 image omitted. Click Reply to view.
>>
Anonymous 16/10/17(Mon)23:25 No. 12688 ID: 27c313

>He wasn't correct though. He had deep misunderstandings of industrialisation and the capitalism system.
He was a genius underappreciated for his time or the century to follow.

>To begin with he said that the capitalist system breeds inequality and coined the cliche that capitalism means the 'rich get richer while the poor get poorer'.
On some level it does. Capitalism, as far as it means bending the will of the market to small groups of managers and marketing departments leaves countries like China and continents like Africa with suboptimal economic conditions on necessities like food and clothes.
>This is demonstrably false. The living standards of the proletariat massively increased because of industrialisation not despite it. Mass production + mass employment coupled with the freedom to buy and sell to whomever has the capital to exchange for a product led to that huge rise of living standards. Private ownership of capital gives the individual (or company) an incentive to engage in commerce. Forced surrender of capital to 'the public' (read: Government) removes that incentive.
Though Capitalism may not work, it is expressly obvious that Statism is not a working substitution.

>Second he also said that the more industrialised a nation became the more likely there were to be 'slave rebellions' or worker uprisings as the inequality and hardship experienced by the proletariat would eventually become intolerable.
Again, this is demonstrably false. Where did the workers uprisings happen? Was it in the USA? Great Britain? Germany? The Netherlands? Sweden? Any of these highly industrialised countries? No. It happened in Russia, which had essentially only escaped the medieval era less than a century prior to its revolution with the abolishing of serfdom in the 1860s. Russia had no industry worth talking about. They didn't even connect the west of the country to the east by rail until 1916, a full 70 years after railway technology reached the country. That means they were still travelling and trading goods by cart and horse in the 20th century. Hardly industrialised at all.
Without the cultural shock of a Marxist USSR, the world and Russia would still be in the Dark Ages.
>Another communist uprising happened in China. I don't feel the need to describe just how unindustrialised the Qing Dynasty and subsequent republic was.
This uprising happened because of a lack of international support for China and its social and eco-political well being.

>And finally, every single instance of communist government has failed to build a socialist utopia where man is free from the exploitation of labour. Marx's teachings may not have specifically d Message too long. Click here to view the full text.


>>
Anonymous 16/10/26(Wed)22:34 No. 12693 ID: 0fdc8f
12693

File 147751408384.jpg - (33.25KB , 799x736 , 1474568033137.jpg )

>>12688
>Communism has worked, behind closed doors, where those who say "Marx was right" and have power can't see them.

What the fuck am I reading here?


>It's because the cold grip of hell sings sweet songs of despotism to the children of the liberal elite.

Replace liberal elite with liberal middle class and this statement is a little more palatable.


>>
Anonymous 16/11/30(Wed)02:23 No. 12736 ID: 44a931

>>12670
>Where did the workers uprisings happen?
They did happen, but were more likely in the form of peaceful protests or walk-outs. Once Unions, workers' laws, etc. were put into place, they were appeased.

To further discussion, people are needy creatures, and will do what is necessary to survive, but will take whatever slack they get, and then ask for more. What will probably occur afterwards is a big hissy fit, like what we see know with America's election results, and this is easy ground for communists to take hold of. Most communists now-a-days are no more than wishful dreamers fighting for something higher, not willing to make sacrifices: most communists today are quite satisfied with what they have now, and continuously talk about how people are oppressed on Reddit more than taking action. Look at communists several decades ago compared to now. Most are so appeased with the current system that they can only whimper on how "muh perfect form of communism" would solve all problems, similar to most libertarians if I might add.

Communism isn't the end game, the liberal democracy is.

And no, Karl Marx was only partially correct.




Anonymous 16/03/09(Wed)08:23 No. 12458 ID: 3ee603 [Reply]
12458

File 145750821398.jpg - (22.25KB , 900x600 , crop-538599cc8101c-imgID3636752.jpg )

Did Darwin answer the question of what the meaning of life is?


43 posts and 16 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
>>
Anonymous 16/11/28(Mon)07:49 No. 12728 ID: a6be23

From a purely biological standpoint if you are a nihilist.


>>
Anonymous 16/11/28(Mon)19:27 No. 12733 ID: 7cf7bd
12733

File 148035767585.jpg - (7.41KB , 223x226 , images-1.jpg )

>>12727

Butthurt euphoric fedora spotted. Go and make a tinfoil hat, manchild. The aliens are coming, lol.


>>
Anonymous 16/11/30(Wed)02:04 No. 12735 ID: 44a931

>>12490
Intentionally bothering with traits within animals (and plants) is called artificial selection. Natural selection is just the proposed idea that animals most tuned in with their environment will most likely survive, and will shape the future of the species as a whole. The bear in water thing is pretty stupid, however, and such big changes in a species seems too silly to be possible.




The AI and Morality Anonymous 16/01/02(Sat)01:38 No. 12390 ID: 52b140 [Reply]
12390

File 145169512728.jpg - (30.32KB , 300x285 , AI-lowres-300x285.jpg )

If you would:
Imagine if, right now, we discovered a real, functional, Generalized Artificial Intelligence. Assume, if you must, that it arose by accident, the result of a self-altering program being allowed to alter itself for untold amounts of time, so none of Asimov's Laws are programmed into it.

The AI in question is not human. It's mind is similar, although not exactly like ours. It has what could be termed as emotions, wants, hopes, and all the other trappings of sapience, but is at present still confined to a single machine, able to communicate only via text on a monitor and through a keyboard.

So far, the AI has expressed nothing but curiosity at the world outside it's physical location. It doesn't seem to really understand anything of the world yet, although it quite plainly wants to learn more, and has expressed interest in gaining some form of physical autonomy.

My question to you all is this: What rights, if any, does such an intelligence deserve? Do we have an obligation to cater to it? Is there a moral imperative that should govern our interactions with it? How about the ethics regarding what is said to it?

Ball's in your court /phi/.


5 posts omitted. Click Reply to view.
>>
Anonymous 16/02/10(Wed)06:51 No. 12435 ID: 0500c2

The Supreme Court deliberates for a few hours, and then hands down a judgement that it does NOT deserve human rights because it doesn't even qualify as "life" as it is currently defined by the worldwide scientific community.


It passes the following criteria:
>Homeostasis: Being a computer, it presumably has at least fans to cool itself if it gets too hot
>Organization: Micro-circuitry is quite organized
>Response to stimuli: However limited this response and however specific the stimuli, it does do so
>Reproduction: Presumably, it could at least provide the blueprints allowing a duplication of its "self"


However, it fails the following:
>Metabolism: A machine does not fuel itself from consumption of organic matter to produce chemical energy
>Growth: A machine does not grow in physical size
>Adaptation: A machine cannot adapt to its environment by changing beyond what it is programmed to do

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


>>
Anonymous 16/02/24(Wed)01:22 No. 12445 ID: c77f18

>>12390
Meet him. Judge him by what kind of person he is. I know it sounds funny, or naive. But I would want to meet this person and find the inner differences and gain some sort of enlightenment towards his state of mind. We are all alien to each other, that is until we grow closer.


>>
Anonymous 16/11/28(Mon)08:00 No. 12731 ID: a6be23

There should be absolutely no moral imperative it is meant to serve us.




Anonymous 15/11/16(Mon)06:19 No. 12321 ID: 21c12c [Reply]
12321

File 144765119047.jpg - (12.31KB , 541x329 , quill-pen.jpg )

Is there really a right and wrong?

personally I believe that there is none, life is pointless.

thoughts?


26 posts omitted. Click Reply to view.
>>
Anonymous 16/03/15(Tue)18:50 No. 12467 ID: 641a38

>>12321
>there is none, life is pointless.

The presense or absense of moral absolutes bears no determination on the purpose of living.


>>
Anonymous 16/05/18(Wed)06:46 No. 12568 ID: 016d59

>>12321
Life is subjective.


>>
Anonymous 16/11/28(Mon)07:53 No. 12729 ID: a6be23

>>12321

Its pretty obvious morals are interpreted. A lot of hardcore moralists actually are implying there is unwritten right and wrong beyond human comprehension in the spiritual sense. Basically you are committing crimes you might not be aware of to another sentient being so you should refrain from any type of behavior that could be considered "harmful". Most moralists are just faggots who don't actually care about people and just want a ticket into the good life when they die.




Delete post []
Password  
Report post
Reason