-  [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 515 unique user posts. View catalog

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

There's a new /777/ up, it's /Trump/ - Make America Great Again! Check it out. Suggest new /777/s here.

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

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.


35 posts and 3 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
>>
Fun funforyou 15/12/28(Mon)03:05 No. 12383 ID: 537707

cool




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.


313 posts and 18 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
>>
Aura 16/04/19(Tue)04:01 No. 12502 ID: 0ccaee

>>12411
There's no such thing as being 'more evolved.' Evolution is not a linear progression, new bits of dna show up and old bits sometimes go away, it's almost purely random.




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




sage sage 16/07/19(Tue)15:24 No. 12624 ID: 82f189 [Reply]
12624

File 146893468413.png - (636.96KB , 750x1334 , image.png )

sage




Does Trope Theory re. universals/types make science impossible? Anonymous 16/07/03(Sun)21:22 No. 12622 ID: ee60ca [Reply]
12622

File 146757377781.jpg - (30.67KB , 400x486 , chucky peirce.jpg )

When a scientist asserts that a given hypothesis X is true, we will subsequently (being good scientists ourselves) ask the scientist to provide us with evidence for X. Typically, one instance of evidence that supports X is not enough for a community of scientists to reliably propound X as being true. Thus, a *body of evidence* is required for accepting the true hypothesis.

Now, this body of evidence is built through repeated experiments relevant to X, and presumably makes use of bits of evidence gathered at different times, with potentially infinite (infinitesimal?) variance in qualities from one another. Therefore, it seems that general *types* of particular bits of evidence are required in order to provide sufficient support for X. This is what Trope theory chiefly rejects; namely that there are general types that can be built out of particulars, as they are unstructured, simple, and one-off (in a strict sense).

To give a quick example, let us suppose that I am trying to establish the hypothesis that a "prickly pear" cactus produces more water when subjected to blue light, than they do when subjected to natural daylight. It's not difficult to conceive of the experimental conditions for this hypothesis, so to make haste, let's assume that I have compiled at least a nominal body of evidence for my hypothesis, and let's assume that I have seemed to support my hypothesis with my collected evidence. A sufficient amount of the bits of evidence in the body of evidence will reflect, at the time the evidence was gathered, that a particular blue light causes a particular cactus to produce more water than another particular cactus exposed only to natural daylight.

However, in order to establish the general claim that "prickly pears produce more water..." do we not require that these particular bits of evidence embody a type of evidence that's sufficient for supporting the hypothesis? Otherwise, it seems that our observations will be entirely limited to the particular cases where we've gathered the evidence, which seems to mean that we don't have the explanatory power to support our hypothesis, generally.

Remember, when we want to support a hypothesis, the aim is to show that it is generally true, not only true at the time(s) we happen to be observing it.

Thoughts?


>>
Anonymous 16/07/05(Tue)15:26 No. 12623 ID: f3ebab
12623

File 146772519810.jpg - (124.21KB , 539x289 , aproximarsetextofilosofico_openmind.jpg )

If particular things, or in your case, particular experiments had to conform to some other nature (in this case, general claims), then they could not conform to their own, and consequently could not be what they truly are. For example, if God had made all human beings like Adam before the fall, then he would have only created Adam, and no Paul nor Peter.

The only way you can make experiments truly general is if they lose their particularistic qualities. In that case, all experiments would merely just be a repeat of the general, a succession of similarity and no difference.

You would need to know every single case in order to make the general claim, this is Hume's Induction fallacy as you most likely already know. We're limited though. We can only approach an asymptotic certainty.

You would have to find some specific quality in the genus of the plant you're inspecting that would specify its necessity in acting in the way you hypothesize. I think, in that way, you could possibly make the general claim.




Juche Idea Kim Jong Un 16/02/07(Sun)00:09 No. 12433 ID: ae5d4d [Reply]
12433

File 145480014235.png - (40.99KB , 640x120 , dprk.png )

Let us discuss the Juche Idea; the ideals of the Great Father, Comrade Kim II Sung, founder of the Korean-style socialist state--The Democratic People's Republic of Korea.


3 posts omitted. Click Reply to view.
>>
Anonymous 16/06/26(Sun)11:41 No. 12615 ID: 848e7b

>>12439
In response, I'll live in the society that is the lesser of the two evils. Or at least, the least transparent of the two evils.


>>
Anonymous 16/06/28(Tue)06:58 No. 12618 ID: 84ab92

>>12433
it really is pants on head on fire retarded


>>
Anonymous 16/07/01(Fri)11:09 No. 12620 ID: 98d629

It's a beautiful ideal meant to brainwash the masses in order to subvert to the state's wishes. Independence is awesome in the ideal realm but hey what isn't?




Anonymous 16/03/30(Wed)01:10 No. 12488 ID: 44cd17 [Reply]
12488

File 145929304978.jpg - (137.68KB , 1280x720 , liarliar.jpg )

The notion that to lie in and of itself is unjust or immoral is a fallacy.

One may lie for many a purpose. One may lie to entertain, to protect the innocent, or to let the past be forgotten. A lie may be used justly or unjustly. The mechanism itself cannot be held accountable to its use, or the consequences.

As the saying goes, lies don't kill people, people kill people...


8 posts omitted. Click Reply to view.
>>
Anonymous 16/06/19(Sun)17:00 No. 12610 ID: 534fd3

>>12488
Depends of your point of view though
Deontologists would argue the act it self is immoral
Consequentialism would argue the result of the action is important


>>
Anonymous 16/06/25(Sat)15:59 No. 12613 ID: 0ccd16

>>12603
I could be; mostly I think I am just dishonest. Dishonesty is a survival skill for the inept and incompetent, which I am as well. I have reason to expect that any given challenge will be too hard for me to surpass, and I fail constantly. No amount of hard work has ever had an effect; only dishonesty allows my life to go forward.

>>12610
I'm not sure that denotology is a thing, but essentially this is the discussion happening here.


>>
Anonymous 16/07/01(Fri)11:07 No. 12619 ID: 98d629

Dichotomies such as just versus unjust or moral versus immoral do not exist in real life. Dichotomous concepts operate at once. For instance, Truth can be a lie if enough people accept it. Truth and lies are happening at the same time since we never know the full truth and our perception usually gets in the way of how we see.

We're blind men stumbling through a forest who called going five footsteps progress and the height of all mankind.




Anonymous 15/07/12(Sun)07:23 No. 12234 ID: 1b02b6 [Reply]
12234

File 143667862761.png - (706.52KB , 800x600 , 141549503623.png )

I just witnessed two kids take more "toys" from the toy box of a restaurant than they should have with sneaky eyes, looking around as they do (after hearing the woman say "you can each take something"). When you hear about a homicide, why do people throw an uproar over the death of a child but couldn't really care about an adult when the level of morality between the two is no different?

The premise is not the severity of this instance of theft, but that which they are willing to do to get what they want.

Any thoughts?

Is it because a child is defenseless and knowing that you'd win a fight with them, you've automatically reigned your dominance over them, winning the "game" with them? So all that remains is affection?

I'm beginning to think the vast entirety of human life is just a game of who is inferior and who is superior. What of those who don't have this sense for life?


>>
Anonymous 16/06/07(Tue)17:25 No. 12586 ID: f89854

>>12234
Its a constant survival of the fittest,life is about that.


>>
Anonymous 16/06/10(Fri)13:40 No. 12588 ID: e9fb03

>When you hear about a homicide, why do people throw an uproar over the death of a child ... ?

Evolutionary tomfoolery. Humans, as all creatures, are biologically hardwired to value the life of children more, even though this is meaningless for humans. A young adult is more valuable than a child, and an aged (but still physically and mentally fit) adult more valuable, still. This is because humans gain skills and life experiences over time, being able to contribute more and more to society. Children, especially very young children, always result in a net loss of resources; they take and put nothing back.

A child is like a newborn puppy; an adult is like a grown dog that is already trained to do something like sniff drugs or assist the disabled. When you look at it this way, which is more valuable/useful? Or put more bluntly: which costs more? Humans are no different.

An infant is objectively completely useless. Is this the same as being valueless? Not quite. It has an extremely small value as a potential for later usefulness. But at the time it has no use. It consumes time and resources, does nothing but cry and shit on itself. Biology has programmed humans to see the infant as "cute", however, so as to have the urge to protect it.

I don't feel this way. My attitude toward an infant is mostly ambivalence; I don't care about it, I don't have any affection towards it, I certainly do NOT want to hold it. I don't think they're cute at all, rather fairly disgusting. A lot of people would say that this is not normal, not "right". But from where I'm standing, it appears to me that I am the only one who isn't blind.


>>
Anonymous 16/06/26(Sun)10:07 No. 12614 ID: a9767b
12614

File 146692844220.jpg - (80.51KB , 575x393 , 6gal_animal_friends_11.jpg )

>>12588
>Edgy, the post
That "evolutionary tomfoolery" is largely responsible for why you are here. That baby maybe just be eating resources without contributing now, but it represents the future of the species, the re-investment back into the species by a successful adult who once went through the same process. The better that child is raised, the stronger the future species becomes, and the better its odds for survival.

Empathy is the instinct from which all society has birthed. Empathy allows herds, packs, and tribes to form. It allows mutual defense and respect for hierarchy. Without this most base of communal bonds, the species never would have survived to this day (and genetic evidence suggests it very nearly did not.) Laws, nations, trade, economics, sharing of knowledge, even language itself, all have their source in that simple instinct. Without it, we would be dumb lone creatures, lost in the wilderness and our individual darkness, to be picked off by predators and starvation.

Even if you're one of those rare defective humans who lacks it (or likes to pretend they do), you still owe your life and comfort to it. (Lest you're somehow posting from prison, as that's where we tend to toss all but the highest functioning of those defects.)




Anonymous 16/03/09(Wed)08:23 No. 12458 ID: 3ee603 [Reply]
12458

File 145750821398.jpg - (22.25KB , 900x600 , crop-538599cc8101c-imgID3636752.jpg )

Did Darwin answer the question of what the meaning of life is?


43 posts and 12 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
>>
Anonymous 16/06/18(Sat)11:51 No. 12606 ID: ede32c
12606

File 146624348414.jpg - (26.57KB , 569x428 , 3345289.jpg )

Why don't we permaban eb915c for thinking he's right by using his own logic so that he'll return to that one site where using your own logic to win an argument is very common


>>
Anonymous 16/06/18(Sat)18:35 No. 12607 ID: eb915c
12607

File 146626774612.jpg - (55.46KB , 520x292 , 143355065140.jpg )

>>12606

Our biological similarity to the apes was known long before there were geneticists or even before Darwin and his pants-on-head-retarded idea was known.

It is not uncommon to encounter the statement that we are something like 98 percent genetically identical to chimpanzees. You can count the number of base differences among the same region of DNA in humans and chimpanzees and gorillas, and add them up. The molecular apparatus has complex ways of generating insertions and deletions in DNA, which we are only beginning to understand. For example, a stretch of DNA from a ribosomal RNA gene is forty bases long in humans and fifty-four bases long in orangutans. The sequences on either side match up perfectly. How do we know what bases correspond between the two species, how do we decide how many substitutions have occurred, when obviously some have been inserted and deleted as well?

Tabulating both nucleotide substitutions and insertions/deletions, researchers have found the chimpanzee and human genomes not to be over 98 percent identical, but closer to 95 percent identical. The problem, however, is not that the two genomes are “only” 95 percent identical, but that any tabulation of the precise amount of identity is forced to shoehorn the results of several different mutational processes into its grand tally. Neither number has the force of accuracy, because the precise number obtained depends on what one recognizes as a meaningful difference, how one counts it (is a three-hundred-base insertion three hundred differences or only one?), and whether there is any scientific value at all in trying to derive an official amount of genetic difference between the two species’ genomes in the first place when the official amount necessarily combines differences of quantity and quality.

In other words: euphoric fedoras love to conflate different concepts in order to fit their narrative.


>>
Anonymous 16/06/22(Wed)02:11 No. 12612 ID: 0c11cc
12612

File 146655431594.jpg - (11.40KB , 275x183 , images.jpg )

Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.
4 Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born?
5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.
7 Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.
8 The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.
9 Nicodemus answered and said unto him, How can these things be?
10 Jesus answered and said unto him, Art thou a master of Israel, and knowest not these things?
11 Verily, verily, I say unto thee, We speak that we do know, and testify that we have seen; and ye receive not our witness.
12 If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you of heavenly things?
13 And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven.
14 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up:
15 That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.
16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.
Message too long. Click here to view the full text.




Anonymous 15/10/15(Thu)16:02 No. 12297 ID: 8ca4f2 [Reply]
12297

File 144491776960.png - (119.01KB , 2000x2062 , tmp_27720-2000px-Om_svg43331810.png )

I'm not sure if this belongs here, but it's more philosophy and way of life than religion.

So, I'm an American in Texas, and I'm trying to pursue the Purva Mimamsa tradition of Hinduism. In not sure how to start, though. Should I just read the pdfs on the tradition that I found online? Should I study Hinduism from a General perspective, even though the following of deities is not the focus of purva mimamsa? I'm atheist, and the atheist tradition interests me.

Or can I find a teacher? How? Should I just read the Vedas and go from there? Purva Mimamsa seems to be smaller sect, so I'm not surprised that opportunity to learn is so small in America, or at least my part.

Any useful help or advice is welcome. Discussion is also welcome, even if it doesn't help me. The image seems related, but actually is only vaguely so, due to association.


6 posts and 1 image omitted. Click Reply to view.
>>
L 16/05/15(Sun)23:30 No. 12565 ID: 84fe35

>>12314
"For a moment, pretend that A is true, therefore B and C are true"

>therefore B and C
>wtf.jpg
>outta nowhere


>>
Anonymous 16/06/19(Sun)16:57 No. 12609 ID: 534fd3

>>12314
You're a fucking moron
Have you heard of "denying the antecedent"? You just did it. Assuming A is false and inferring B and C are false is not how logic works
A conclusion can be true, despite the premise

It is raining, so there are sharks in the ocean

it's not raining but there ARE sharks in the ocean. Sage you for not understanding basic logically fallacies.?


>>
Anonymous 16/06/20(Mon)00:03 No. 12611 ID: 16a89f

There are temples all over the country, even in Texas. Just go into those as a start, and see where it takes you.




Delete post []
Password  
Report post
Reason