-  [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 497 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.

29 posts and 3 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
Anonymous 14/10/18(Sat)13:49 No. 11855 ID: 53826a


Yeah, Sandler's the shit.

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.

297 posts and 17 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
PlutoniumBoss!Y1SVQJ54eA 14/11/14(Fri)01:03 No. 11889 ID: 465a65


Virtual particles are identical to "real" particles in all ways other than duration. They are for all intents and purposes matter coming from nothing.

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 14/11/21(Fri)23:19 No. 11896 ID: cc6b6b [Reply]

File 141660837828.jpg - (149.71KB , 1280x800 , 1332533281340.jpg )

Let's get down to it.

What is the meaning of life?

6 posts omitted. Click Reply to view.
Anonymous 14/11/22(Sat)10:05 No. 11904 ID: cc6b6b

Shut the fuck up you judgemental assumptious prick, I just wanted to hear what others had to say. Meaningful? That's all subjective you delusional fuck. What the fuck are you doing that's oh so fucking meaningful and politically correct to 'live' life? Small minded piece of shit, if you believe what you say "looking for some easy universal one-size-fits-all answer like its a fucking basic arithmetic problem." Then you're a fucking hypocrite because -> "Live, experience, and then you won't have to ask such a silly question." Is your own universal one-size fits all answer. Obviously you can't even fucking think, HUR DUR LIVE LIFE YOLO. Go kill yourself.

Pass-The-Cake 14/11/22(Sat)10:56 No. 11905 ID: d158d7

i've heard that the meaning of life is to find meaning in life.
to find a purpose for your being, until your time is up.

if we're speaking purely biologically, it's to reproduce and continue the existence of your species. I think. I'm not a biologist.

maybe we all have some grand purpose, that we need to work together to achieve. maybe each one of us needs to figure it out for ourselves. maybe we're just another animal that happened to develop a more complex brain and we have the same purpose as every other living things. we may never know.

Anonymous 14/11/23(Sun)12:51 No. 11906 ID: d2ef46

tl;dr: If you wanna be objective about it the answer is sex. Because of this, everyone needs to chill out.

Consider the following in the context that "you" refers to you as an organic life form, not you as just a human.

Everything in your DNA ideally determines everything about your body, and your body is ideally built for reproduction. Every bodily function is there to keep you, the vessel for the DNA, active. From major functions, like healing sickness and injury, down to the seemingly insignificant functions we take for granted, like sneezing and hair growth. Your goal, as determined by DNA, is to stay alive long enough to reproduce. This reproduction takes the DNA and mixes it with an equal amount of DNA, assuring the longevity of both sets of DNA, despite their eventual dilution. We're all just vessels for DNA. Biological machines, which through a fluke, became self aware. The meaning of life would still exist whether or not we were simple organisms or complex ones.

The only reason we hold our species so highly is because we can rationalize the concept of identity. This self awareness is subsequently the only reason we can choose not to desire reproduction. So we have the choice to avoid reproduction, it leads to greater knowledge, and suddenly we want to understand everything. But hey, wouldn't you know it, we can only observe things from a human point of view. As a result, we approach understanding things within the universe in terms which relate to us.

Really, it's all just one big mechanism and humanity is egotistic as fuck. We have no choice but to be egotistic as fuck either since it's a byproduct of being self aware. Kind of a catch 22 if you're one of those people who wants to achieve ego-death. It's kinda funny because we don't even know how self awareness works, but we keep trying to understand the universe from a self aware point of view. "The universe is self aware:, "the Earth is alive", etc. Like, how can you say the universe is self aware when you don't even know how self awareness works? Sometimes philosophers are so absorbed with themselves they don't even realize what they're saying, heh.

To put it shortly, the meaning of life is to fuck. And fuck we have, for many many millennia. The laws of physics (the mechanism of the universe, if you want a metaphor for it) allowed us to eventually become self aware (a mechanism itself which cannot exceed the laws of physics) and choose to stop fucking for two seconds so that we could finally learn something, but we can't look past our self awareness since it's all we know. Therefore, humanity will never overcome egotism and we place too much importance on the meaning of life. Though I suppose that if you want to live in a place which doesn't suck, this is beneficial.

Now this isn't to say that I think everyone shou Message too long. Click here to view the full text.

Anonymous 13/12/16(Mon)08:56 No. 10977 ID: 492138 [Reply]

File 138718060552.jpg - (128.46KB , 817x569 , nio.jpg )

what is the relationship, if any, between your soul and your genome?

9 posts omitted. Click Reply to view.
Anonymous 14/11/06(Thu)10:12 No. 11877 ID: 5b5ccd

The soul is positional. Genomes are static formalities. To become who you are is to instantiate your being in history; it is a triviality that the same genome produced at different times will have vastly different effects. We live in an age where medicine bends over backwards to excuse us of any responsibility for ourselves, to explain away any feature of our personhood as a disease borne upon a genetic cloud of impersonality. It's profitable to do so, as all divergence from normality is a disease-state amenable to patentable chemical intervention, and it's moral to do so, as confessional absolution is equally widely available under the medical dogma as it was under Catholicism. It is, however, unintelligible to do so. You are not a genome, you are inalienably an engaged feature of an evolving universe. Merely to speak is to reformulate and command the entirety of language to accommodate your organic presence, much moreso than your genome is itself forged anew by the changes in its interpretive mechanisms of ribosomes and spliceosomes by every generation.

We are an ant colony that has yet to find its queen. Our reproduction remains chaotic, but it is converging upon a solution in which the same soul is produced regardless of the genes that bore it, a solution that is a frictionless feature of ruling capital. Each year, the majority of us become more insulated from the world, more like the drones of an insect colony whose roles are circumscribed as carrying the young from one internal organ of the nest to another. Our smartphones proscribe our sensitivity and our roles, and our souls become smaller. To be on the outside of the colony, to fight the threats that it faces, is dangerous, and indeed, mad. We diagnose this problem and turn inwards again. Our genomes thus progress by normal distributions and predictably, while our souls become more and more vulnerable to extremes and asymptotes.

Anonymous 14/11/13(Thu)17:22 No. 11885 ID: 2027db

>I understand the brain because of causal relationships.
This is /phi/ not /CNSignorance/.

Anonymous 14/11/22(Sat)07:55 No. 11903 ID: abc87c

The same relationship as there is between the rainbow-colored bird I'm imagining and my genome.

The genome creates a brain capable of imagining fantastic things. The soul, space monsters, dreams, predators in the shadows, other worlds, heavens, hells, magic, all manner of fantasies and delusions. Some end up being useful, most, no so much.

Anonymous 14/11/17(Mon)01:06 No. 11892 ID: 1b02b6 [Reply]

File 141618281725.jpg - (77.47KB , 640x529 , 1415688101987.jpg )

I need your thoughts.

Why would this scenario never work?:
A nude society: waking naked in public with the hardest erections you can imagine to show to passersby in a normal context. That is, normal in the sense that nothing is really thought of it but his want for sex in that moment or even his want to just show off his penis? Why is that notion put to such shame in society today? Why are we programmed like this? Does it really fucking matter? I see naked people all the time and don't think anything of it if they were out in public. "But the kids will see it". Well, the kids will find out eventually anyway, so why do you stigmatize it so hardly? There is no social ego with withhold in this society. The fact is, without today's social ego of trying to be better than everyone else, we will be free to do anything we want in a context that will be normal to anyone if the hedonistic aspect of life is sought.

I'm looking for a rational explanation of why it would never work. Not a "you're just a fucking retard". You can understand something but not be able to put it into words. Try.

Anonymous 14/11/17(Mon)01:28 No. 11893 ID: dd9a09

Well for one, even nowadays we need clothes to battle the elements. I don't want to be walking around in the snow naked, and I don't want to get a sun burn. Clothes weren't just the invention of social conventions, but because they serve a more practical purpose.

As for a societal reason this wouldn't work, I think most of it stemmed from when we invented clothes and got really protective of our mates. We'd have to be able to move past being a monogamous culture. It seems pretty simple if you're single, and looking to mingle. But if you were married and had kids, you'd probably have some instincts to protect your wife and children. Or your wife would have a problem with you showing your junk to other potential mates.

But in general, the problem with hedonism is that we tend not to do things that we would enjoy because it would hurt people we care about, and we tend to value their company over the things we want. So you could technically do whatever you want, but if you want to be well-liked and cared for by others, you'd have to do things that work well in the group.

To summarize, The Leviathan.

Anonymous 14/11/17(Mon)02:27 No. 11894 ID: f86070

Honetly it won't work because you need a lot of fuel for that flamethrower

Anonymous 14/11/21(Fri)08:09 No. 11895 ID: 2f260d

There is no rational explanation. Humans are not rational creatures, especially when you involve religion and groupthink.

The irrational explanation for why it won't work is because we live in a post-Catholic-moral society that has extreme prudishness for natural behaviors at its very core.

(There are some very isolated societies where sex is celebrated, where everyone has sex with everyone else regardless of age or gender, like they're bonobos, and having several orgasms per day is commonplace. The downside is there is no internet.)

Anonymous 12/10/15(Mon)20:00 No. 8621 ID: 92c0b9 [Reply] [Last 50 posts]

File 135032400874.jpg - (653.27KB , 800x1200 , swastika.jpg )

“It would be better if there were nothing. Since there is more pain than pleasure on earth, every satisfaction is only transitory, creating new desires and new distresses, and the agony of the devoured animal is always far greater than the pleasure of the devourer”
― Arthur Schopenhauer

So what do you guys think about this type of view?
Such views have been described in modern times in the book "Better Never To Have Been: The Harm Of Coming Into Existence-By David Benatar


65 posts and 15 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
Anonymous 14/11/13(Thu)17:37 No. 11887 ID: 2027db

>Death the ultimate pain.
>Nothing is better than something.
Oh, Schopenhauer.

Anonymous 14/11/13(Thu)17:45 No. 11888 ID: 2027db

>We did it, Rust. We finally became True Detectives.

Anonymous 14/11/14(Fri)03:04 No. 11890 ID: 03e413

File 14159306645.gif - (141.48KB , 320x377 , 1408513619381.gif )

>Death the ultimate pain.
The term "ultimate" was that poster's usage. I don't think Schopenhauer said that.

And obviously there is no pain once you are dead, but the pain comes in dying. That is what is meant. If you never existed you would never have to go through that unnecessary painful experience.

>Nothing is better than something.
Yes, nothing can be better than something, because you can avoid having to go through unnecessary pain.

Which is better, to accidentally drive your car into a tree and suffer some injuries,
or to never have had the accident in the first place?

So are going to actually provide an argument/counterargument, or are you just going to reply with vague references to TV shows and mockery that adds nothing to the discussion?

Anonymous 14/10/31(Fri)20:26 No. 11872 ID: c8a6a3 [Reply]

File 141478357226.jpg - (19.12KB , 460x345 , aYbqnON_460s.jpg )

We need to kill in order to survive.

What do you think?

1 post omitted. Click Reply to view.
Anonymous 14/11/06(Thu)09:44 No. 11876 ID: 5b5ccd

Don't be blinded by your animality. You are descended from several hundred million years of killers, but even more of your ancestors beyond that were nonetheless chemotrophs or phototrophs. We need to create chaos in order to survive. That is the essential fact. To live is to be an efficient engine of entropy, to convert chemistry of high-order, high-energy compositions into chemistry of simple, low-energy forms. As animals, we have discovered an opportunistic parasitism in that other organisms have produced these high-energy forms for us, and in our past environments it was stable and fecund to destroy them rather than to synthesize them ourselves.

This is the context of your most pertinent instincts. You are lying to yourself if you think that you don't want to kill, or that killing plants is distinct from killing animals. What is significant, though, is that our instincts are not merely produced by instinct, but reproduced through culturally-defined reflection and habit. We are animals that can redirect our consumption towards consuming sunlight like plants through solar power or dead matter like fungi through fossil fuels. Our instincts limit us, and we will never escape their feelings of naturalness or normality, but our instincts do not constrain us. Kill as you wish, but thought needs nothing to survive.

Anonymous 14/11/09(Sun)20:08 No. 11883 ID: 86e709

I think you mad a statement declaring something that can be proven in the physical world.

If you replace "need" and "survive" with "desire" and "thrive", then sure.

You can formulate & synthesize the bodies nutritional requirements and the body will survive. We ourselves are a mere decade or so away from eating food cloned and grown and synthesized and grown in the shape of the final product. It will be cleaner, healthier, more tasty, far less wasteful and much more plentiful, cheaper, and profitable. This has been in development for a few years already by companies worldwide.

You can live in a space station and not kill things and survive just fine in spite of this lack of killing.

We kill because it's usually the easiest option, and we are above all else, very lazy fuckers.

Anonymous 14/11/10(Mon)01:43 No. 11884 ID: 25327f

I think killing is just one of the many ways to survive and live.
It is kind of strange a wiev to see humans primitive, and other animals, but for me, plants, and mashrooms seems more clever than other speaces on earth.

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

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?

1 post omitted. Click Reply to view.
Anonymous 14/10/23(Thu)23:26 No. 11863 ID: 2f260d

I consider the acquisition of anything without use to be pointless. A bag of shit, a bouquet of flowers, a Nobel Prize... all are things equally useless to me as objects.

Anonymous 14/10/30(Thu)04:31 No. 11868 ID: 5acbd2

Well, the Nobel Prize comes with a lot of money. You might want to leave that one out of the list.

Anonymous 14/10/31(Fri)19:11 No. 11871 ID: 2f260d


Ah, yes. But that is like saying a bag of shit is worth something if it also comes with money. There are a lot easier ways to gain that amount of money than attempting to win a Nobel Prize.

Anonymous 14/07/09(Wed)18:31 No. 11556 ID: 6f3afd [Reply]

File 140492345926.jpg - (38.85KB , 480x360 , image.jpg )

I am attempting to discern the meaning of Nietzsche's superman. I know that it was an answer to nihilism in the wake of the death of God, but I am trying to define the properties of the superman. I plan to use the Kantian epistemological view of animal/human rationality and empiricism along with the statement that man is a rope between animal and superman to justify it. I have read Thus Spoke Zarathustra and The Gay Science as well as Critique of Pure Reason. What else should I read to develop a better understanding of the superman?

4 posts omitted. Click Reply to view.
Anonymous 14/10/20(Mon)17:49 No. 11857 ID: 71b89a

Heidegger's philosophy is the same.

He explains the superman as the "stamp of Being on becoming". It's the same as idea in Being and Time.

It basically just another version of enlightenment in the Buddhist sense of satori.

Read what Heidegger said about George Bataille's explanation of the "essential experience" in Nietzsche.

It takes Heidegger to make sense of Nietzsche.

Anonymous 14/10/21(Tue)06:28 No. 11860 ID: 5b5ccd

The overman is not so much an answer to nihilism as a traversal of it, an undergoing of it as Nietzsche is fond of putting it in Zarathustra. Kant would seem to be in irreconcilable opposition to this as one who believed that there is an absolute distinction between us and the animals, as he distinguishes between persons, who are always ends in themselves, versus those who are "altogether different in rank and dignity from things, such as irrational animals, with which one may deal and dispose at one's discretion."

Nietzsche wasn't exactly a Darwinist, he always found them too utilitarian and reductionist to deal with the profound interrelationships between the evolution of spirits and bodies. They were too English for him, representatives of that bulldog tradition which links Thomas Huxley to Daniel Dennett, but he was nonetheless a philosopher of developments and genealogies that stitch together our human present and our animal past.

It is as a knower of this past, as the considered reflection of our ripple of selfhood as it traverses the pond of the world, that we become the overman. As a local phenomenon of the all-too-human, we are constrained to the instinctual energies that rise and fall with our passing through the world, our will to egoistic power. That quote about man being a tightrope between animal and overman is indeed crucial. We, the jesters; we, who would be men, will tread upon our reason even when it goes beyond ourselves, when it takes us towards God and ridicule. This is the uniquely human power as Nietzsche sees it. Where Kant sees a repose in human dignity, a necessary respect for our personhood as subjects and sites of knowing, Nietzsche sees a necessary striving to tear down our self-knowledge, our insatiable desire to resist objectification and reduction to sites of the known. This desire, this taut distance between self and self-concept, is the strength of the bow that might direct us towards the overman. If you want to understand this terminology, I recommend Heraclitus, to whom Nietzsche obviously alludes, to the "backwards-turning bow" that underlies the co-genesis of opposites.

I haven't read The Gay Science, but Beyond Good and Evil is an excellent exploration of these themes that is probably clearer and less rhetorical than Zarathustra (though both are overly histrionic, such was Nietzsche's metier.) It will at least sharpen his views on his distinctness from Kantianism.

Anonymous 14/10/30(Thu)09:20 No. 11869 ID: bf2326

>Where Kant sees a repose in human dignity, a necessary respect for our personhood as subjects and sites of knowing, Nietzsche sees a necessary striving to tear down our self-knowledge, our insatiable desire to resist objectification and reduction to sites of the known. This desire, this taut distance between self and self-concept, is the strength of the bow that might direct us towards the overman. If you want to understand this terminology, I recommend Heraclitus, to whom Nietzsche obviously alludes, to the "backwards-turning bow" that underlies the co-genesis of opposites.
This seems to paint Kant and Nietzsche as a sort of Apollo/Dionysus dichotomy. Is this an accurate summation? I know Nietzsche's The Birth of Tragedy focused on Apollo and Dionysus and Nietzsche was heavily influenced by Greek tragedy.

Delete post []
Report post