-  [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 487 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.

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 14/05/02(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?

Anonymous 14/10/23(Thu)08:56 No. 11862 ID: 10ac6e

I'd say they go hand-in-hand. Being alienated by society is a painful experience. Lee some degree of social acceptance is part of the pursuit of pleasure.

Feminism and men's rights Anonymous 14/10/19(Sun)16:14 No. 11856 ID: aaad3e [Reply]

File 141372809864.jpg - (67.84KB , 604x402 , italy12.jpg )

Patriarchy advantages women more than men. They recieve the benefactio of males, who are given the responsibility of providing for them.

Under this special privileging, women who rise to the top with economic power, recieve both this patronage and have tangible power. A man can at best get one, and it considerably more difficult, since a women can always sell her mere womenhood, her body, or benefit from the interdependent longing of a male.

A male, because of this expectation, cannot resort to this, while facing the same life difficulties. I believe we need to smash the patriachy by empowering men everywhere and liberating us from the tyrannic power bottoming of all those women who control men everywhere without ever having to do anything.

A man, burdened by his excess desire, who acts upon it, is then going to be punished for physically acting out on a woman. The pain of the punishment, or the guilt, is far worse than the short term loss of control a man feels in that moment. There should be concessions, just as there are for the mentally ill, to accomodate for his struggle.

For too long have women bounded from extorting male society in the past, to manipulating it with a complex victim playing in modern times. How does nobody stand back and think critically about all this?

Anonymous 14/10/23(Thu)08:47 No. 11861 ID: 86e709

This isn't philosophy.

...this is you reacting to poorly understanding feminism. Try /b and see if anyone gives a shit.

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?

3 posts omitted. Click Reply to view.
Anonymous 14/07/26(Sat)19:31 No. 11622 ID: 86e709


Or you'd be the most feeble, weak, and decrepit puddle of skin cells and drool in existence, because unless magic, living IS deterioration, from day 1. Even on a cellular, even genetic level, growth is death.

You'd need to merge your organic brain to a more serviceable artificial computer until it's operating 100% parity, and then let that organic brain die off gradually until you reside solely in the artifice. In a couple thousand more years this may be a reality. May not.

Then you'd just be software, able to think and interact with other software-people, eventually even create new sodtware-people without having to go through all that costly messy ugliness of physical birth & life & transition. ...so long as the super race of robots mining the earth for fuel to keep the power on kept at it.

Wait, what was the question...

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 14/10/20(Mon)20:07 No. 11858 ID: 2a526c [Reply]

File 141382846368.png - (9.39KB , 300x300 , 300px-麻-bronze_svg.png )

Hey, /phi/. I'm currently in my sixth semester studying filmmaking here in Brazil. Next term we'll all present our projects for the last short we'll make in college and I decided to finally stop being so damn insecure and go beyond comedy (which I love, but can't be the only thing I do). I decided to make something very personal, based on reflections about myself, those around me and my generation in general. I have absolutely no knowledge in philosophy but what I learned in college and I'm looking for books that will enrich my thoughts.
I'd like to talk about a certain emptyness I feel permeates life. I'm not sure whether that's the theme of the movie or just a bias through which the theme would flow.
I also want to pour all the fears and doubts my colleagues and I have at this stage of our lives: of unemployement, of not being good enough to compete in this though market, of general disbelief with both modern and traditional institutions, of failing (and the feeling of being a failure even though our adult lives have just started). I think that we (well, I, and maybe I'm just projecting it on everyone else) are finally figuring out who we are, that we are starting a quest to find where we fit.
And, on top of all that, there are all those questions specific to being a young adult on a post-modern society. The fear of rejection that, fueled by the possibilities brought by technology, manifests itself in a urge to reject first and in serial instant relationships. The projections of self we are bombarded with through social media and the feeling of inadequacy that comes from it. The constant anxiety of missing something in the accelerated rythm of our world, of being the one who didn't watch that iranian movie everyone's talking about, of not going to that party and seeing how much fun everyone had on pictures on Instagram.
I know I probably can't put that all in a 20 minute movie, but I think that, if I read more and reflect more, I can weave this loose ideas into something cohesive. I just started "Human, All Too Human" by Nietzsche and I'll read his "Ecce Homo" afterwards. What else should I get?

Anonymous 14/10/08(Wed)08:42 No. 11841 ID: 1b02b6 [Reply]

File 141275052076.jpg - (142.09KB , 1920x1080 , 141236643050.jpg )

Each dot has its own story to tell. Hundreds of millions more of these sights can be seen zooming past these dots into the blackness beyond. It is sometimes hard to imagine 1,000, never mind 1,000,000.

It’s night time for you right now I presume. Take a moment and look up at the night sky for a bit if the clouds are forgiving. Are you aware of how far one of those dots are away from you? I will say this in its most literal form without any exaggeration whatsoever: It is impossible for you to get a sense of how far away they are. Absolutely incomprehensible. You think because you can see a dot of it, it must be somewhat close since a car appears to be a dot 1-2 kilometres away. No, no. How misleading your intuition is. It would take 220 million years to walk the distance to the nearest star, not including sleep, bathroom or eating breaks. Two stars which appear side-by-side two dimensionally could be separated behind or ahead 3-dimensionally thousands and thousands of light years.

Approximately a hundred billion stars make up the total cluster of stars we see at night, and 125 billion more beyond the hundreds of billions of light years between each closest to each other.

Who is to say that the clusters of galaxies we see are just an unfathomably tiny fraction of the group which, as a whole, comprises a helix of DNA of an organism that exists on scales of such enormous proportions that they are simply shrug-able to us? Time could be perceived differently at those unfathomable scales, since any organism would have to wait what would be a billion of years for us to make “electrical connections” of these galaxies which would be experienced in a snap of a finger for them since the billions of years of time for us couldn’t be experienced by them without those “electrical connections”. What we experience as a billion years of time at our scale could be half a microsecond on the other scale experienced by this “living thing” made up of the stuff driven by attractive forces we see in space, similar to us.

Who knew a picture of nothing but circles of various diameters could be so fascinating? Every once in awhile I return to this thought and each time it blows my mind out of its shell.

5 posts and 1 image omitted. Click Reply to view.
Anonymous 14/10/15(Wed)08:09 No. 11852 ID: 1b02b6

Reading this post reminded me how useful philosophy actually is and how it should symbiotically coexist with science. You could almost say philosophy is the right brain, and science is the left.

Anonymous 14/10/16(Thu)23:10 No. 11853 ID: cd707e

if I was banned for this post then why am I posting this now.

Also fuck you retard mod. This phi not sci you fucking dipshit.
Know-it-all statements from this clown deserve worse than me just sloughing off his argument in a stonerish manner.

All I was trying to say is that our culture has very little understanding about the fundamentals of reality. We've only recently gotten smart enough to begin to realize the limits of our knowledge.

But seriously, my original post was spot on. Astronomy makes huge flipflops every year. You have a gaggle of faggots (with doctorates) acclaiming any given theory.

also when i said
I meant something very similar to
Message too long. Click here to view the full text.

PlutoniumBoss!Y1SVQJ54eA 14/10/18(Sat)07:40 No. 11854 ID: 465a65

The thing is, the assertion that all stars are reflections of the same star is falsifiable. We can hold it up against the data we have now, see that it doesn't fit, and discard it.

I will certainly admit that the strict empiricism we call science has its limitations, but the reason it works so well within its scope is that it is required to hold What Is Observable as the ultimate arbiter of truth. If you wish to refute the model, you must use observed data. If you want to step into hard empiricism's playground, you have no choice but to play by hard empiricism's rules.

>Know-it-all statements from this clown deserve worse than me just sloughing off his argument in a stonerish manner.

But he's right, you know.


This is not useful philosophy, as claimed above, nor is it really scientific. Until we come up with some way to test it, it is an unfalsifiable claim, so if falls completely outside the scope of science.

As for it being philosophically useful, a universe where this is the case and a universe where this is not the case are functionally, aesthetically, morally identical. It doesn't help us figure out what we know and see, or what we should do with what we know and see. It doesn't help us decide how we should approach what we know and see. It is the exemplar of utter pointlessness.

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

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.

12 posts omitted. Click Reply to view.
PlutoniumBoss!Y1SVQJ54eA 14/10/07(Tue)22:49 No. 11840 ID: 465a65


Do you have any way of relating to reality other than your direct or indirect perception of it, or assumptions and extrapolations based on said perception?

Anonymous 14/10/08(Wed)15:43 No. 11843 ID: 1a859b

Well, depends on what you mean by "indirect observation", but generally, I have no methods more reliable than observation, no.

Now as for the extrapolations, I wouldn't say so. They're not as accurate as observation, even when they're logically consistent with reality.

PlutoniumBoss!Y1SVQJ54eA 14/10/11(Sat)09:07 No. 11845 ID: 465a65


I suppose what I'm trying awkwardly to say is, we are semiotic creatures and our experiences are inseparably connected to and colored by subjective interpretations of meaning. So in a way, he is right. The world as he experiences it and the world as any of us experience it are two different places. Though we may theoretically be able to share a local spatial environment, we are ultimately unable to experience the same exact world. We may make empathetic conjectures as to what another's experience may be like, but that is as close as we can get.

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

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?

6 posts and 1 image omitted. Click Reply to view.
Matt 14/09/19(Fri)02:29 No. 11801 ID: 71a0fa

It could work if the Philosopher Kings have a genetic disposition to Intelligence, But not just intelligence. They need to be noble, wise, and courageous. This could be achieved through eugenics.

PlutoniumBoss!Y1SVQJ54eA 14/09/21(Sun)09:57 No. 11806 ID: c1bebf


Genetic predisposition isn't enough to guarantee behavior in an individual, so no, that wouldn't work.

Anonymous 14/10/04(Sat)01:38 No. 11838 ID: 73af72

File 14123795221.jpg - (48.63KB , 599x800 , 1406806081090.jpg )

Genes do not give you knowledge and skill, you have to be trained or train yourself with your own library (muh internet) to be able to be a proper philosopher king. Without any training, philosopher kings are just regular tyrants, making them improper rulers (see North Korea).

Delete post []
Report post