-  [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 492 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.UPDATE: 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.

27 posts and 3 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
Anonymous 14/09/28(Sun)10:23 No. 11825 ID: aaad3e

There's no field like philosophy for having stupid people who think they're clever. Adiou.

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.

291 posts and 17 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
Anonymous 14/09/30(Tue)09:07 No. 11829 ID: 2576d3

No way guys. Akira did it the best because its conclusion was that you turn into a giant baby when a human becomes a God. In my mind, it beat everyone to the punch on that one.

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


Anonymous 14/10/01(Wed)03:17 No. 11832 ID: 1b02b6

But philosophy is what remains when science can no longer. Science explains things in terms of atoms, and empirical phenomenon. Philosophy reasons out the things that science can't.

If scientific observation reached its climax by seeing everything in the visible universe, would speculation of what exists beyond still be considered science, or philosophy?

Think of it this way: Philosophy is to science as God is to religion.

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

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.

7 posts omitted. Click Reply to view.
Anonymous 14/09/27(Sat)22:46 No. 11820 ID: 8ce986

That is largely what the first Critique is about. Kant's answer is basically that the world of empirical science is phenomenal, and so science studies things insofar as they appear to us, not independently of appearance.

And it is possible to have knowledge of things insofar as they appear, because these appearances must conform to the transcendental rules that our faculties prescribe to them -- the same faculties we're using to investigate the empirical world.

Anonymous 14/09/28(Sun)05:37 No. 11824 ID: 9c0b93

But then you can only claim knowledge to the appearance of things, not the things as they really are, whatever they may be. This is just a kind of superficial knowledge.

PlutoniumBoss!Y1SVQJ54eA 14/10/01(Wed)00:45 No. 11830 ID: c1bebf


There are two possibilities.

One, what we can perceive and interact with is "True Reality", in which case we do have this true knowledge.

Two, what we can perceive and interact with is only a superficial part of a deeper "True Reality", in which case "True Reality" is meaningless to us because we cannot perceive it or interact with it. We can speculate as to what it may be or if it even exists, but these do not provide any useful knowledge to us.

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

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?

>Having gills : Breathing under water

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

4 posts omitted. Click Reply to view.
Anonymous 14/09/27(Sat)05:33 No. 11817 ID: 800849

Maybe, theoretically, if there were an army of 20,000 (army a) soldiers, in battle with an army of 2,000 (army b) soldiers..

If army b soldiers won many successive battles, but in doing so, nearly all the soldiers died.. And army b still had many more soldiers..

If the army of 2,000 soldiers surrendered, would that be a war won without a battle won?

Anonymous 14/09/28(Sun)00:20 No. 11823 ID: eb89c4

Yeah, I've fucked up on that one too.
In either case, I still disagree with the author of the course on this issue.

The interesting question here in my mind is not even whether "Winning a Battle" is a necessary condition for "Winning a War", but whether "Fighting a Battle" is a necessary condition for "Winning a War".

Matchbox Prince 14/09/28(Sun)23:47 No. 11826 ID: 2f260d


It's entirely possible to just wait for an enemy to destroy themselves if they're running off an unsustainable model. Also, supposing the existence of a third party, simply sit back and watch them battle each other to exhaustion, then waltz in, declare victory, and clean up the mess.

Universally Preferable Behavior Anonymous 14/05/07(Wed)23:06 No. 11322 ID: 180d0f [Reply]

File 139949680123.jpg - (24.91KB , 300x350 , UPBbook.jpg )

An attempt to prove secular ethics.


"UPB in a Nutshell:

1. Reality is objective and consistent.

2. “Logic” is the set of objective and consistent rules derived from the consistency of reality.

3. Those theories that conform to logic are called “valid.”

4. Those theories that are confirmed by empirical testing are called “accurate.”

5. Those theories that are both valid and accurate are called “true.”
Message too long. Click here to view the full text.

4 posts omitted. Click Reply to view.
Anonymous 14/07/18(Fri)19:03 No. 11579 ID: 7dfa38

I think the more common definition is that Ethics are just systems of Morals. A person might have morals, but a group has ethics.

Hence, Morals are subjective, but Ethics are relative.

Anonymous 14/09/27(Sat)05:14 No. 11814 ID: 64cbb2

I live my life by the principal that something can only be true if it's logical, if someones stating a fallacy I'll flat out tell them they are, illogicity is entirely human;logic just is

Anonymous 14/09/28(Sun)00:16 No. 11822 ID: eb89c4

Not necessarily. Quantum mechanics for example violate some Logical laws and are still very much true.

Empirical Validation very much trumps Rationality in 100% of cases.

Anonymous 14/09/27(Sat)10:56 No. 11819 ID: 1b02b6 [Reply]

File 141180819544.jpg - (25.79KB , 758x960 , 1411433744494.jpg )

Consider this.
The reason for (I'll go the extra mile and say) /every/ emotion we feel is addiction. If the dictionary should be rearranged in order of importance, the first being most important, addiction would always remain first if the understanding of what is causing all this hatred, happiness, depression, etc. is valued most.

Let's cycle through all cases and all emotions:

Enjoyment/happiness/pleasure: In youth, you are introduced to many different ideas and things, unbeknownst to you prior to them and unaware of the pleasure they may potentially give you. The first pleasure rush of an individual's now impending hobby is insurmountable. You have not experienced such personal receptivity in anything before this first encounter. As such, the pleasure you receive is of the purest kind: a healthy blast of happiness, the factors leading to this specific happiness which were inherent in you as an individual unaffected by your peers from the very beginning. It is important to note here that the level of receptivity cannot increase or decrease over time. If it increased, the happiness rush would change each time as well. On the other hand, you can say that you are "wringing" out the happiness juice from the gland, leaving no happiness to feel until more juice is produced.
Question remaining: Level of receptivity remaining constant or happiness juice being used up?

Depression/sadness/reminiscence: Sadness in youth entails hurting yourself physically and not getting sippy cup, but adolescence introduces an abstract set of sad emotions. Over time, the pleasure you originally received from what is now a hobby becomes less noticeable as you become inured to the pleasurable environment. On the other hand, not ever giving the gland a chance to produce a happy-ladened dose of juice could leave the brain wanting more after tiny teaser doses. This consistency at lowest levels leads to reminiscent thoughts and behaviours, which exhibit themselves discernibly as depression and sadness and a yearning for what once was.
Question: Are you becoming inured to the environment, or is your juice status always near its lowest, generating tiny blasts of hardly-noticeable pleasure? To prove the latter to be false we must test something: During your depression of lack of vigour once experienced, try to find something new, the pleasure from which received is as great as your original first high. If this is attainable, the juice wringing out would be false, and an inurement to the environment would be the answer. If it is not attainable, the wringing of the juice is responsible.
Additional question: A child continues to get pleasure a day after receiving a blast, the same as before. Does the "status bar" of happy juice productivity get slower and slower to recover as you continue to use it or as you get older? Does stress reduce the level of productivity?

Anger: Y Message too long. Click here to view the full text.

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

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...

19 posts omitted. Click Reply to view.
Anonymous 14/09/04(Thu)08:14 No. 11780 ID: aaad3e

File 140981128462.png - (146.14KB , 500x706 , tumblr_nba8adcu1g1tkkdcvo1_500.png )

What if you don't need an answer to such questions?


Anonymous 14/09/23(Tue)04:03 No. 11808 ID: 64cbb2

The problem with the argument that we can determine the future from the rate of expansion is that a computer powerful enough to do so would void its own existance

Anonymous 14/09/27(Sat)05:16 No. 11815 ID: 800849

I wonder what a computer like that would be made of? Actually, if such a computer didn't void its own existence, what would the effect of someone seeing themselves in the future be?

Someone sees themselves running someone over, they'd avoid running that person over. But, then since they never run that person over, it doesn't show up on the computer, and they don't think to be careful not to run someone over. It's like a time travel paradox, but minus the time travel..

On the Foundation of Mathematics Anonymous 14/09/24(Wed)13:55 No. 11812 ID: fcedcc [Reply]

File 141155972144.jpg - (5.74KB , 90x130 , frege.jpg )

So, im currently investigating the philosophy of mathematics, more specifically the problem of the foundations.

I would like to receive some suggestions of reading that does not involve much technical knowledge about symbolic logic, i would like to study only on a conceptual level about it.

Thank you.

Delete post []
Report post