-  [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 531 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

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.

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


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.

313 posts and 18 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
Aura 16/04/19(Tue)04:01 No. 12502 ID: 0ccaee

There's no such thing as being 'more evolved.' Evolution is not a linear progression, new bits of dna show up and old bits sometimes go away, it's almost purely random.

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.

Survey anonymous 16/04/25(Mon)18:29 No. 12516 ID: 0016ca [Reply]

File 146160178566.jpg - (221.95KB , 1024x768 , brian.jpg )

On a scale of one to ten, how much do you believe in higher intelligence?
Higher intelligence can be God/Allah, or even aliens.

4 posts omitted. Click Reply to view.
Anonymous 16/08/23(Tue)23:28 No. 12658 ID: 471300

The word "universe" has no meaning at all. There is the term "observable universe" which means all we can mesure on scientific ways.

That said, amongs the possibilities we could be less than a microscopic life form on an organism that could have higher intelligences than ours. They could have been proteting us from treats we are not aware. An only because we are on the same organism, like leukocytes protects all the system. Our big bag could be one of many.

Who knows? We have limitations. I could have told another story and I could be right. Or not. There is no difference since we won't be able to prove it scientifically and will be stuck forever on ignorance.

Anonymous 16/08/23(Tue)23:30 No. 12659 ID: 471300

Just read what I wrote. Don't mind the typos and grammar mistakes. I just never write in english.

Anonymous 16/09/26(Mon)08:21 No. 12674 ID: ef422e

File 147487091710.jpg - (48.49KB , 360x240 , Cannabis-Stock-Image-360x240.jpg )

A few years ago I would have given a much lower score because directly observable evidence wasn't as plentiful. Now that laws around here are changing, I'd give belief in higher intelligence a 10.

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

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

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

33 posts and 12 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
Anonymous 16/06/22(Wed)02:11 No. 12612 ID: 0c11cc

File 146655431594.jpg - (11.40KB , 275x183 , images.jpg )

Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.
4 Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born?
5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.
7 Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.
8 The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.
9 Nicodemus answered and said unto him, How can these things be?
10 Jesus answered and said unto him, Art thou a master of Israel, and knowest not these things?
11 Verily, verily, I say unto thee, We speak that we do know, and testify that we have seen; and ye receive not our witness.
12 If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you of heavenly things?
13 And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven.
14 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up:
15 That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.
16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.
Message too long. Click here to view the full text.

Anonymous 16/09/01(Thu)18:57 No. 12665 ID: 7cf7bd

File 147274905824.jpg - (32.54KB , 331x448 , 0317b6aaf8e0f245d3d5aea0cf4d5efb.jpg )


Jesus, just like Abraham and Moses, was a schizophrenic moron. pic related, Jewish insanity in a nutshell.

Anonymous 16/09/20(Tue)19:51 No. 12673 ID: eb915c


All Abrahamic religions are just as retarded as atheism.

Anonymous 16/08/31(Wed)03:45 No. 12662 ID: 1cc955 [Reply]

File 147260794070.gif - (705.36KB , 738x780 , 1472548628168.gif )

About free will.

Are you reading this text voluntarily? My personal guess is, that many will instinctively answer with yes. In German the adjective „voluntarily“ is translated to „freiwillig“, which means „with free will“ or more literal „free willy“.
Bad jokes aside, the definition of doing something voluntarily, is taking action according to your own free will.
Now why I am focusing on this is, because I want to explore what it actually means to do something voluntarily, along the axis of determinism and free will.

Let’s assume you answered yes to the question of reading this text voluntarily.
And let’s assume our brains do function deterministically.
That would mean, you just had an illusion about having a free will.
The illusion, that you did have a choice, not to read this text this far. Some unknown law, which we try to approximate in the natural sciences, is entirely responsible for what you just did, including the feeling of doing it voluntarily.
It also means, that if you were able to go back in time, every time you did do so, the world and the universe would develop exactly the way they have always been destined to. Including you, reading this text, over and over again. Like a clockwork turning back and forth.
Consciously experiencing a movie that doesn’t feel like a movie but real.
Being aware of this fact also means, that one of the characteristics of this deterministic system is, that it can understand itself.
Let’s have a look at it understanding itself.
If the voluntary guy exists in this deterministic system, his thoughts are part of this system and his conscious experience of having acted voluntarily describes the system in the same way, as an experience of not having done so, would.
Message too long. Click here to view the full text.

Anonymous 16/08/31(Wed)12:00 No. 12663 ID: 73d54b

The deterministic universe model is flawed. Truly random shit happens at the quantum level all the time. This can have far-reaching and meaningful effects.

Oh, and using a .gif for an OP means you deserve to die.

Anonymous 16/09/02(Fri)13:15 No. 12666 ID: 83a169

This is still debated, and adding what amounts to rng into a machine doesn't give it a will.

Anonymous 16/09/18(Sun)10:06 No. 12672 ID: 083239

If it is a picture or idea it should be allowed, if it is a harmful action against someone which can be stopped it should be considered a crime.

Gore and murders which have already taken place can be posted and do not violate any laws, yet anything illegal involving sex is considered to be literally worse than murder.

If it already happened what is the harm? I do not agree with rape and murder, but censoring such content will not stop it from occurring.

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

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).

23 posts and 1 image omitted. Click Reply to view.
Anonymous 16/06/19(Sun)08:22 No. 12608 ID: 9ca949


Anonymous 16/08/24(Wed)00:34 No. 12660 ID: 471300

I believe you're having a hard time being alone while among your equals. Which is wierd because you like solitude, but when it comes to be one of them on society it feels plastic. Too easy to make them feel whatever they want to feel about you. Good expressions, bad ones, whatever.

You are far from letting the ego go. You're just a psycho who believes that is part of a 1%. You know your condition and the only place you can be sure you are safe from them is at home.

> Shit, I'm projecting again.

Anonymous 16/09/13(Tue)11:00 No. 12671 ID: 09521f

It depends why you want to do it, anon.

The place to start is asking yourself why you do what you do, and understanding that rationally.

When you've done that, you need to address the cause and start emptying yourself of the delusions that cause you to feel this way.

Meditation is one way of doing this. But, it's just one tool in the toolbox, anon.

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

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.


2 posts and 1 image omitted. Click Reply to view.
Anonymous 16/08/23(Tue)14:29 No. 12657 ID: f00275

Karl Marx wasn't the OG anti-capitalist.

Check out Joseph-Pierre-Proudhon and Mikhail Bakunin.

Anonymous 16/09/05(Mon)13:36 No. 12668 ID: 8e9175

The thing about Marxism is that it requires absolute acceptance from every member of a society at every level in order to even attempt. No one ever will willingly give up their own resources so that they can get knocked down several pegs while others are given those resources to maybe get on an equal social status. Don't get me wrong there's plenty wrong with capitalism, but it's at least aware of this fact

Better Dead Than Red Anonymous 16/09/06(Tue)06:08 No. 12670 ID: e2fbda

He wasn't correct though. He had deep misunderstandings of industrialisation and the capitalism system.

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'.
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.

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.
Another communist uprising happened in China. I don't feel the need to describe just how unindustrialised the Qing Dynasty and subsequent republic was.

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 detailed plans for the gulag or mass executions, sure. It would be intellectually lazy to suggest that the communist manifesto is a document which advocates tyranny and genocide.
However it is not coincidental that every single communist country in history has failed to preserve the liberties that an individual can expect to enjoy in a capitalist government. Communism and autocratic dictatorship work hand-in-glove I'm afraid. Severe punishments for digression from the communist system will always need to be put in place if communism is to be built. I'm sure more countries will fall to the communist movement in the future (eyes on some of the West African countries in particular) and I fear that the coupling of the communist governments with brutal dictatorships will remain unbroken.

I wonder why it is that Marx retains a reasonably following in tod Message too long. Click here to view the full text.

Anonymous 15/07/12(Sun)07:23 No. 12234 ID: 1b02b6 [Reply]

File 143667862761.png - (706.52KB , 800x600 , 141549503623.png )

I just witnessed two kids take more "toys" from the toy box of a restaurant than they should have with sneaky eyes, looking around as they do (after hearing the woman say "you can each take something"). When you hear about a homicide, why do people throw an uproar over the death of a child but couldn't really care about an adult when the level of morality between the two is no different?

The premise is not the severity of this instance of theft, but that which they are willing to do to get what they want.

Any thoughts?

Is it because a child is defenseless and knowing that you'd win a fight with them, you've automatically reigned your dominance over them, winning the "game" with them? So all that remains is affection?

I'm beginning to think the vast entirety of human life is just a game of who is inferior and who is superior. What of those who don't have this sense for life?

5 posts and 1 image omitted. Click Reply to view.
Anonymous 16/08/11(Thu)11:15 No. 12641 ID: 0478a4

It explains nothing of the reason why people irrationally throw fits over a dead child, who, at some undetermined point, would inevitably lose their assumed innocence even if they would become innocent. The lack of care towards the death of an adult who can actually contribute to feed and nurture a child to the prosperous life he speaks of is what is being addressed here. Both the child and the adult seem to have the same morality and both are equally important. Altho articulate like everyone on this forum, he didn't address the point of the thread. Rather, he targeted someone on an assumption that they are edgy, and then equally makes an edgy argument having a basis as equally invalid as theirs. What amazes me is that there exists even one example of someone who can put together a sentence but still cannot see a logical contradiction in an argument they bring forth.

Let's go back to the main question:
Why does the ending of a child's life result in paroxysms of anger and sorrow, but not the ending of an adult's life? In terms of continuing the line of future descendants, the adult and the child are equally dependent on each other. Remember, an adult is needed to raise a child to give it a good life and to carry on the cycle, and a child, just as importantly, is needed to become that person to carry on the cycle. Both the child and the adult are immoral.

The question should be open again, since the posts prior to this are useless.

Anonymous 16/08/13(Sat)17:35 No. 12647 ID: f3ebab

I think the question you ask lacks an adequate understanding of human nature. What you're doing is intellectualizing emotions which are modes of functioning that are inherently disassociated with the other modes, namely in this case, thinking (or rationality). When a puppy dies instead of a towser, or a kitten dies in lieu of a fully-grown feline, human nature is predisposed to always feel more pity and sympathy for the former in the two examples I just offered. I don't understand your essential point though. Are you espousing a normative ethic against treating one kind more favorably than others because evolutionarily speaking, they serve the same practical purpose of continuing the species? if you are, then I will just refer you back to Hume's is/ought problem. Any argument you make on the normative side will be an ethical one, a non-objective human argument for why this or that concerning the morality of the treatment of animals (and more specifically, human animals). On this point we can at least agree that ethical arguments will be non-objective, but perhaps not non-rational. Your arguments on this side will perhaps be rational and have some strong reasoning, but they won't be objective, which is what I think you're trying to accomplish by stating that the other side is "irrational" or more emotional.

However, I don't want to be attacking a straw-man so I will assume that you're just trying to offer rationally-based arguments against emotional favoritism, in which case we are stuck dealing with emotions, and how one SHOULD feel or SHOULD NOT feel. It seems like we should institute an emotional balance between the youngling and the adult, this is what you argue. And we should do thus because both serve the same biological purpose, they're just two sides of the same coin. However, while trying to distance yourself from emotions, you actually commit the same problem you're railing against that you claim your opponent is doing: that certain ways of feeling are more justified than others. The crux of the problem is really that you're trying to get away from emotions but not realizing that you're inherently enmeshed in an emotional framework to begin with. In the end, you're arguing with emotions albeit from a purported position of rational objectivity. The reason why this is the case is because you haven't attacked the necessary assumption of emotionality which you will have to do to achieve any kind of philosophical cohesiveness. In fact, you're not actually attacking emotions at all, but attacking the way they are expressed. The reason you're not actually attacking emotions is because you're against certain ways of feeling, but not others. That is to say, there are certain ways of expressing emotions that are better than others. More specifically, the Message too long. Click here to view the full text.

Anonymous 16/09/05(Mon)13:24 No. 12667 ID: 8e9175

this is a loaded question. It really depends on what the social laws that whatever society you happen to live in at the time dictate. After all, no one really cares that it was normal in Sparta to throw babies off a cliff if they may or may not have had some birth defect, but when Hitler does it, then he becomes a huge asshole

Shinigami 16/08/24(Wed)09:42 No. 12661 ID: a1118d [Reply]

Official Discord of /phi/ https://discord.gg/n26SG2p

Delete post []
Report post