-  [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
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.


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

>>11847

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
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.


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

>>11821
>>11827
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
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




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

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

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

>>11850
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

>>11849
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.
>>11848
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
>>11846
I meant something very similar to
>>11850
Message too long. Click here to view the full text.


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

>>11853
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.

>>11850

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]
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.


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

>>11839

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

>>11840
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

>>11843

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]
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?


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

>>11801

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
11838

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).




Anonymous 14/10/01(Wed)01:11 No. 11831 ID: 1644d2 [Reply]
11831

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
Thanks

Anon


1 post omitted. Click Reply to view.
>>
Anonymous 14/10/03(Fri)02:13 No. 11834 ID: d5241e

>>11375


>>
PlutoniumBoss!Y1SVQJ54eA 14/10/03(Fri)05:32 No. 11835 ID: 465a65

Natural Philosophy certainly has been getting uppity since it started calling itself "science".


>>
Anonymous 14/10/03(Fri)07:06 No. 11836 ID: eb89c4

Don't discard Philosophy. In general, philosophical writings are at least thought-provoking. I read them so I don't have to wander into Fiction.

But yeah, Philosophy is pretty out there. Humanities and Social "Sciences" in general are 99.9% contrived retardation.




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.


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

>>11818
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

>>11820
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

>>11824

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]
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.


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

>>11768
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

>>11823

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.




Delete post []
Password  
Report post
Reason