-  [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 503 unique user posts. View catalog

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

Movies & TV 24/7 via Channel7: Web Player, .m3u file. Music via Radio7: Web Player, .m3u file.

WebM support has been added on a trial basis. 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.


26 posts and 3 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
>>
Anonymous 14/02/14(Fri)02:00 No. 11120 ID: 29df20

This site is absolutely amazing. Use it well. All the lectures are wonderful.

http://academicearth.org/online-college-courses/philosophy/

Check out their other courses as well...




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.


283 posts and 16 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
>>
Matchbox Prince 14/08/12(Tue)12:39 No. 11687 ID: 2f260d

>>11685

If the universe is nothing but an experimental testbed to probe the potential and condition of life, then we had the incredible misfortune of being born in the universe that must have been developed to test Pain.

We could have been born in the universe to test Pleasure, or even the control universe where everything is just Content. But instead, here we are in a place where life is nothing but a constant struggle against suffering and death, and if you are lucky, you pop out a kid or two before biting the bullet.




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 14/08/18(Mon)01:27 No. 11714 ID: f2ab1b [Reply]
11714

File 140831805114.jpg - (88.03KB , 400x294 , philosophers-simpsons1.jpg )

To hope is immensely moronic. Hope is the man's poison whereof he has deceived himself generations and generations. Only a fool would walk in the path of fire and hopes to come out unharmed.


1 post omitted. Click Reply to view.
>>
Sinuhe 14/08/24(Sun)10:31 No. 11760 ID: a16779

philosophy tends to lead people to insanity. 'to lose oneself in thoughts about things that don't exist'.

all that exists is the beauty (or terror) of the 'here and now'. anything else is based on speculation. you do not know your place. it is a place of not knowing.

stay rooted in reality faggots.


>>
Anonymous 14/08/29(Fri)02:31 No. 11770 ID: 168581

Hope is not meant to be an intelligent reasoning to any decision. It is what comes after a decision while waiting for an outcome. So you are right, to base any decision on hope is entirely and completely ignorant. Reason and fact are the only good ways to make any choice. Hope comes in after you have acted based on reason and fact and are awaiting outcome. This is even true for things such as religion. You do not make the choice to believe based on a hope that you are right. Internally, you have reasoned out various facts you have been presented with. Then when people choose the "facts" presented in any religion and hold them as truth, you are presented with an insane person. Because they no longer use reason, they do not see a need for hope, and therefore act with a false confidence.


>>
Anonymous 14/09/02(Tue)15:31 No. 11776 ID: aaad3e

Can we stop trying to pretend we can use ordinary language to describe psychological phenomenon? There's a reason psychologists don't tend to be poets.

An early psychologist from the struturalist school tried to make a periodic table of the mind. However, the endeavour failed since minds are more complicated than chemistry because they are a purely abstract concept, and nothing more. Titchener's ideas on how the mind worked were heavily influenced by Wundt's theory of voluntarism and his ideas of Association and Apperception (the passive and active combinations of elements of consciousness respectively). Titchener attempted to classify the structures of the mind in the way a chemist breaks down chemicals into their component parts—water into hydrogen and oxygen, for example. Thus, for Titchener, just as hydrogen and oxygen were structures, so were sensations and thoughts. He conceived of hydrogen and oxygen as structures of a chemical compound, and sensations and thoughts as structures of the mind. A sensation, according to Titchener

Now all his work was bullshit. Ideas like hope pre-date even him. Why not just stick to the formal sciences and your intuition to navigate the world. The rest is just psychophysiology.




About the possibility of knowledge Anonymous 14/09/01(Mon)21:17 No. 11774 ID: 375575 [Reply]
11774

File 140959904686.jpg - (70.83KB , 510x680 , kant-critique-of-pure-reason.jpg )

Recently i was reading Descartes "Metaphysical Meditations" and Kant´s "Critique of Pure Reason" (finished reading the introduction yesterday and going to Transcendental Aesthetics section soon) i got myself thinking: Kant did not pose any threat to Descartes methodical doubt, the question of the possibility of knowledge still holds and i did not found any good answers to that, so, what you /phi/ lurkers think? should i read more? what books you would recommend on the subject? thank you.


>>
Anonymous 14/09/02(Tue)15:29 No. 11775 ID: aaad3e

If you think empiricism isn't a challenge to rationalism you better keep reading the rest of that book buddy.

I recommend just browsing through the Stanford Encylopedia of Philosophy. Those historical guys made legendary jumps in thinking, but they were shit writers and it's a waste of time to refer to them directly unless you're doing historical research.




Anonymous 14/08/02(Sat)01:08 No. 11652 ID: 73af72 [Reply]
11652

File 140693453852.jpg - (75.01KB , 600x400 , plato.jpg )

How Valid is the idea of a world of Philosopher Kings like Plato wrote? Would it actually work, or would there need to be some representations for those less studied?


2 posts omitted. Click Reply to view.
>>
Anonymous 14/08/29(Fri)02:22 No. 11769 ID: 168581

From my quick wikipedia search, it doesn't sound too bad. I think the concept he was probably getting at would be to have leaders that were focused on spending time searching for the knowledge of what will create an ideal society. Now, there are a lot of flaws to this idea. What is considered to be truth? Who is to decide which philosopher is the most competent? It also would surely lead to some kind of dictatorial rule, unless the King truly cared about the kingdom. But like Sinuhe said...could you explain a bit more about the Utopia described by Plato?


>>
Anonymous 14/08/29(Fri)12:31 No. 11771 ID: aaad3e

I agree with his political conceptions Democracy is degenerate and we need a monarchy.


>>
Anonymous 14/08/31(Sun)22:22 No. 11773 ID: 5c15a6

Well, there was Marcus Aurelius. He was all right.




Anonymous 14/08/25(Mon)05:36 No. 11762 ID: 13398d [Reply]
11762

File 140893780463.png - (155.44KB , 2624x900 , screenshot.png )

Perhaps I'm in the wrong place for this, but am I fucking retarded or are these problems just incredibly ambiguous? The answers I have selected are "incorrect"

This is from a philosophy course on Khan Academy, the intro of it touches on the basics of logic. This particular set of problems is from necessary vs. sufficient conditions.

Am I supposed to be thinking about it in both directions or am I overthinking it?

i.e.
>Having gills : Breathing under water

Having gills is certainly sufficient to breathing underwater, but not necessary because of the advent of scuba gear.


1 post omitted. Click Reply to view.
>>
Anonymous 14/08/26(Tue)03:12 No. 11766 ID: 608848

Sufficient conditions are what is ENOUGH for something to be the case. Necessary conditions are what is REQUIRED for something to be the case.


>>
Anonymous 14/08/26(Tue)04:01 No. 11767 ID: df9a75

>>11763
Well it depends whether the quiz is asking about winning any given battle or winning all the battles. Because I'm not sure if you can win a war without winning ANY battles, but you surely don't need to win EVERY battle to win the war.


>>
Anonymous 14/08/26(Tue)05:42 No. 11768 ID: 608848

>>11767
It says winning the battle, singular.

So is winning the battle enough to win the was or is it required to win the war or is both or neither?

it shouldnt be too hard to understand bro.




Anonymous 14/05/02(Fri)13:39 No. 11293 ID: aaad3e [Reply]
11293

File 139903076824.png - (5.83KB , 798x506 , Untitled.png )

"Sheldon: Are you saying that you think a celebration pie is even remotely comparible to a Nobel Prize?

Penny: Well, they’re pretty tasty."

TO what degree are you motivated by the anticipation of pleasure, and to what degree norms?




The Body And The Mind Anonymous 14/07/02(Wed)08:00 No. 11542 ID: ed1dd4 [Reply]

Today i was sitting at my PC, thinking about life, the meaning of it. What makes cells tick? The actual science, is that cell mitosis forces cells to multiply faster than the previously made cells die off, therefore resulting in "growth." The whole thing is still a mystery, since we know it happens, but we don't know why it happens, why it never just stops, we don't understand why it eventually slows down, hypothetically thinking, if new cells are born, at an old age, they are born at a slower rate, and are slightly weaker in all functions. Until eventually, a person, who grows old, becomes sick, and then dies. The idea is that if you keep your body healthy, you will live longer, because essentially the act of dying of old age, is just getting sick, organ failure, but inevitably, in the majority of cases, losing the will to live, you see it as going to sleep. But that's the thing, nearly all old timers, who die, have accepted it, they die old, in their beds, but they nearly always mention or give off an aura of fatigue, and consider death to be rest, what if, the lack of a will to live, urges the body to slow its cell production rate, what if, the involuntary actions of our body, could be controlled, with time, with nothing but our mind set? I'm not saying it happens all the time, it could be, that a person's willingness to die is simply resignation to their disease. It could also be, that a person who is satisfied with their life, is already willing themselves to die, deep down. Perhaps, at a certain age, many people already start thinking about their own deaths, and considering it, starts a process that nobody can see.
But cases of life and death aren't the only situations where it appears, it also happens on less fatal matters, a person, who likes to be strong, will work to be strong. If they work out, and like to work out, inevitably they will grow strong, while a person who works to be strong, but doesn't care to be strong, will still not be as strong as the former. Some may argue this is because a person may simply not be willing to put in as much effort, but in a hypothetical situation where both were forced to put in their all, with the same body types, same growth rates, builds, everything, What if, despite all that, the more inspired party were still able, to say, for example, lift just a few grams more? Or a pound? Why would that be? You could say that its because the people bringing on the experiment didn't choose the subjects wisely enough, and some discrepancies in the growth rate did appear, perhaps one was meant to grow faster, but what if that weren't the case? What if, the true situation was, that the willful party literally willed their body into creating more protein, more energy, more mass, more stamina, endurance and all that? Maybe not all of the above mentioned, maybe some of them. If it happened, why would that be?
Will is a large part of life, will ma Message too long. Click here to view the full text.


10 posts omitted. Click Reply to view.
>>
Anonymous 14/08/19(Tue)08:24 No. 11727 ID: f83844

>>11542

The age old question of life and death, and you now want an answer.

People die because of old age. If one don't have a strong will to live, then his body will slowly destroy itself from within, succumb to sickness then die.

So, let's talk about nature death. Turtle lives longer and some can live up to 2000 years old. Why? Simple, by genetic and evolution. You still die even if your will wants to live but your body is weak, so just wanting to live by itself is not enough.

The answer is the "Aging Cell". As we age, each time our cell divide, it's chromosome gets shorter and one code disappear, making it's tail shorter each time. To stop that from happening is equal to founding the fountain of youth. Not impossible.

But the reason why this is a locked up secret is because there are too many evil man in this world that will do anything to rule the world and hold on to power and not wanting to die. Can you imagine if someone like Stalin, Mao, or Genghis Khan were able to live up to 5,000 years old. The horror will never ends.

Just give up your search for the sake of humanity. You will never find the answer in your life time and this I an sure of it.


>>
Anonymous 14/08/21(Thu)15:34 No. 11748 ID: f83844

>>11542

Never mind. I was thinking of keeping it a secret. Anyways, I just checked and it's all over the web now. The answer is: Klotho


>>
Sinuhe 14/08/24(Sun)10:17 No. 11759 ID: a16779

interesting read but spamming assumptions doesn't seem to please people - for a good reason.
it's like having a ton of vegetables, and meat, you need to cook first before being able to enjoy it.

masterpieces are created through a process: you process & filter - repeat. the outcome shines through its simplicity.

all we need to do is to connect to our heart, so we can become aware of 'resonating' frames.
a masterpiece consists of only great frames.




Anonymous 14/03/02(Sun)05:26 No. 11146 ID: 600abd [Reply]
11146

File 139373436128.jpg - (7.14KB , 225x225 , coconut head.jpg )

The other day in religion class, my teacher played a sermon about Catholicism and stuff. The shortest I could put it is, "If there was no god, then the universe would have had to started somewhere, the big bang per say. If we could use a computer and go look at that explosion, or a simulation of, we'd be able to figure out the rate at which the universe expands. From this we'd essentially be able to figure out the future and then life would be meaningless, because our choices would already have been determined."

Any thoughts on this? I thought it was a pretty interesting standpoint, but was probably worded confusingly in order to sound smart and force people to think you know what you're talking about...


14 posts omitted. Click Reply to view.
>>
PlutoniumBoss!Y1SVQJ54eA 14/08/22(Fri)06:58 No. 11752 ID: c1bebf

>>11750
Yes, it does matter. According to current scientific understanding, there can be no contraction. The universe will keep expanding until matter as we know it fails to hold itself together, and the universe will then only contain darkness and a homogeneous fog of subatomic particles.

Really, if you put faith in the scientists who have observed the universe expanding, there is no basis not to believe the scientific consensus that there will be no contraction to counteract the expansion.


>>
Anonymous 14/08/23(Sat)05:44 No. 11755 ID: 4ad79d

>>11731
How have you come to the conclusion that the universe is over 1000 times older than we thought it was? What testing and observation have you used?


>>
Anonymous 14/08/23(Sat)19:52 No. 11758 ID: d52cb4

Wow, this thread is full of shit.

For a philosopher who thinks life is pointless and you just have to live with it and be happy, check out camus.
http://www.sparknotes.com/philosophy/sisyphus/summary.html

More generally, existentialist philosophers tend to deal with the idea of a world without god and whether that would be pointless.

This is a good place to start: http://www.openculture.com/2011/04/walter_kaufmanns_lectures.html




Delete post []
Password  
Report post
Reason