-  [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 476 unique user posts. View catalog

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

There's a new /777/ up, it's /selfhelp/ - You're Pathetic, We're Pathetic, We Can Do This! 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.


31 posts and 3 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
>>
Anonymous 15/04/21(Tue)06:34 No. 12160 ID: 86e709

>>11988
The best christian philosopher in the world. Cool. Ranks him right up there with the best zoroastrian philosopher in the world and the best mithraic philosopher in the world. Great for adherents of those cults, but pretty weak shit outside them.




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.


307 posts and 18 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
>>
Anonymous 15/04/17(Fri)22:55 No. 12131 ID: 31099f

>It implies you don't know what you believe.

It can easily imply that you belief, that you do not know whether X exists.


>"Do you live your life with the assumption that God(s) exists?"

I live with the assumption that I do not know whether God(s) exists.


I understand that it's very unlikely that some main stream religion is completely right. But the concept of God is much wider used than just for that purpose. There might be some form of intelligence related to our origin, there might not be. I don't have any evidence, so I don't know.


Maybe people are so pressured to hear an agnostic say he thinks one way or another, is due to the underlying reasoning that this influence some type of black and white moral behavior. But it doesn't. You don't need to be so deterministic to decide what you think is right.




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




Anonymous 15/04/19(Sun)10:27 No. 12141 ID: 1b02b6 [Reply]
12141

File 14294320377.png - (132.73KB , 1025x698 , sdfsdfsdfsdf.png )

I'm looking for people who will toss aside the rash decision making for just this thread and calm down. Clear your mind.

In inquiring for your thoughts, it is simply to affirm a possibility that it may be true. I've taken into account more times than I can conceive that this is entirely delusional and is nothing more than a product of my distaste for the world. I wouldn't necessarily say that I'm a conspiracy theorist in that I actually care that the things that are thought are happening--it simply doesn't concern me. What concerns me is the truth; trying to find a reason that actually makes sense of and explains why the great, great, great majority are behaving the way they are. You could argue that this could/should go to /x/, but because my intent is to provoke more thought than immediate dismissal and laughter as is generally thought towards those who advocate conspiracy theories, I think that it is more appropriate here.

The premise begins on the idea that people can be easily manipulated: Take, for example, Hitler. He promoted his propaganda to an enormous group of people and won their personal assent and thus belief from his rhetoric. He even stated himself, "By the skillful and sustained use of propaganda, one can make a people see even heaven as hell or an extremely wretched life as paradise.", and, "If you tell a big enough lie and tell it frequently enough, it will be believed.". This is true and propagates through every aspect of humanistic behaviour. This is by no means intended to offend, but an example is the folks of western society (or any society for that matter) who believe that their social perception of reality is the only possible one because that is all they know/have been taught/ have been raised to believe. Tell a woman you find unattractive that she is beautiful enough, and despite the social norms that predominate that culture to suggest otherwise, she will start to consider this proposition and start to believe it--gaining confidence. Have someone influential like Obama say, "____ are trying to take over the world, we need to act now", and just like in the case of Hitler, the vote would most likely be in favour of Obama's declaration and a general agreement would be made despite the lack of evidence to support his claim.

With this said, why is it so necessary to immediately deny the proposition that there may exist a controlling body/force that guides the global decision-making by rhetorical, "clue-like" means? The strangest idea to me is the idea that most humans today put a stigma on the things that are naturally pleasurable, like sex (when naturally, someone coming up on the street and touching you should be exciting, as they are stimulating your genitalia by their personal acknowledgement of it and the rubbing of their hand up against it). The only thing that I know does this is the bible. And such a rhet Message too long. Click here to view the full text.


16 posts and 1 image omitted. Click Reply to view.
>>
Anonymous 15/04/26(Sun)20:12 No. 12173 ID: 44de9e

> I'm simply trying to guide you into the right direction.

You can't guide anyone bucko. You are not an intellectual and I am surprised you can even hold down a job - you've demonstrated your extreme affliction of autism wonderfully by shitposting all over my beloved chan.
You have nothing of value to teach, you're just pissy you got rightfully told off for claiming ownership of someone else's personal space. Grow up dumbfuck and cut the pretense: nobody in your personal life can bear you because your intense delusions apparently grant you god-tier intellect, despite being utterly retarded to any objective observer.

I honestly hope to God you are a troll. Knowing there are people so fundamentally stupid roaming around damages my very faith in the species.


>>
Anonymous 15/04/26(Sun)22:54 No. 12178 ID: 1b02b6

>You are not an intellectual
Relative to you, I clearly am. I know this goes against a social premise, but you can be aware of something that you actually are and declare it as so. Ignorance and stupidity isn't an insult. It's a condition you find yourself in, so if I happen on recognizing someone's stupidity or ignorance, I will mention it to them. If you actually tried to reason logically, I wouldn't say that you are ignorant or stupid even if you are wrong because the nature was such that it would explain something fundamentally. If I received even one reply that had intellectual basis (I know what constitutes intellect. I know, it's hard for society to grasp that someone can be aware of it without being egocentric and having self-grandiosity. So what can I possibly say to get you to understand? Nothing.) I would commend you for your effort of trying to bring forth something of actual value.
I reason by scientific empiricism, you reason by how you feel. You're a reminder of what sort of reasoning can exist in this world. And I am thankful that I am not part of it.

>I shall remind again because I notice that even after I mention a personal acknowledgement, the responses will generally be of the nature that I advise against, that by saying what I do I have no intent to put myself "above" you in any form.

>I'm not standing on the pedestal of intellect overlooking the crowd below.

What part of any of this do you not understand?

What if /you/ are damaging my faith in the species? How do we reconcile how different we are? Your solution would be to kill me because you're stubborn and fail to recognize the simple truth that my intent was not to harm her, my solution would be to get you to think a bit more. Look at how insane one of them is. I'll let you to think about which one that is.

Again, I am simply trying to guide you into the right direction. Yours is totally deluded. I'm saying this from personal experience that my direction is the one that would never raise a fist or get angry because we reason by the logic that explain why you are behaving the way you are. The direction you are heading would typically reply with something like this:

>You can't guide anyone bucko. You are not an intellectual and I am surprised you can even hold down a job - you've demonstrated your extreme affliction of autism wonderfully by shitposting all over my beloved chan.
Message too long. Click here to view the full text.


>>
Anonymous 15/04/27(Mon)19:07 No. 12179 ID: 1b45da

>>12178
Not gonna read your contrived garbage anymore. You're retarded and boring. I already understand what you're trying to say, but all of us that don't have brain damage have the ability to intuit from birth that touching people without consent is a no-go. If you lack this faculty I feel bad for you son, but it's not the rest of the universe's problem. It is not social conditioning that leads to this trait, it's inborn with our biology. Being 'unique' and apart from your fellow man does not make you 'superior', this is evidenced by your barely functional social retardation.

Go touch more people without consent, tell them you mean them no harm. Maybe one of them can knock some sense into you, because holy fuck none of us can. And I implore you to consider: this is the truth; you are retarded and there is not a worldwide conspiracy against you because every other normal human on this planet wants their personal space respected. Jesus fuck, just accept this on a whim, recheck your 'logic', appreciate why you are wrong. If you can't then please list what medications you are currently taking because they are not working (and I know you're on something, people don't get to be so strange without help).




Anonymous 15/04/26(Sun)21:37 No. 12174 ID: 275052 [Reply]
12174

File 143007707272.jpg - (28.79KB , 625x626 , _428395[1].jpg )

This is a story inspired by real-life events, but I believe it also serves as a parable on the pursuit of knowledge:

The last few shits I have taken at home have been at least two-flushers (there was even a three-flusher in there somewhere). I wouldn't be bothered by the occasional two-flusher within a routine of normal, smaller-sized shits, but when this becomes a steady pattern I start to get concerned that either there's something wrong with me or something wrong with my toilet.

To answer the question of whether it was me or the toilet I decided to take my next shit in a different toilet. At first I was relieved because this one only took a single flush to go down, but then I considered that public toilets may not be the most valid comparison. Most of those are designed to work on greater volumes of water at higher speeds specifically to prevent large messes, and the greater expense of using more water per flush is justified by employees not spending more of their time and effort cleaning the toilets when they could be doing something more productive.

However, there is a certain level of discomfort people have about both shitting in someone else's house and having other people shit in their house. Overcoming this awkwardness has a relatively trivial thing, though I do wonder what if any effects I've had on my interpersonal relationships merely because I shat in their toilet. It's a foolish thing, to be judged by where one has shitten, but since when has foolishness stopped people?

As of right now I'm still looking for an answer to my original question, but along the way I seem to have pushed a valuable lesson on the processes of learning and epistemology out of my asshole.




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

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

Let's get down to it.

What is the meaning of life?


32 posts and 2 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
>>
Anonymous 15/04/18(Sat)01:38 No. 12137 ID: 43f5da
12137

File 142931393982.jpg - (675.80KB , 1420x968 , Dunno.jpg )

>>11896
in life there is no meaning,
however, each body that holds life and therefore lives, should act to the signals it gives to the consciousness of the self.
This does not mean one should do whatever it desires, for some desires can have negative consequences. It does mean, do what thou wilt, for love is the law of nature.
One does not want to get killed by its enemy, so riding a bike on the highway at 700 miles an hour is not a smart thing to do. Even fucking around, and having as many kids as possible can come out of that love-making is not very smart. Those kids want food and pleasure some day and the more kids you make, the less there will be left for oneself.

Live the good life, enjoy the fine things, discover the intelligent knowledge, so one becomes wiser, and stronger to enjoy life more, and die without remorse.

That should be a good start to enjoy the strangest thing in the cosmos, life.


>>
Anonymous 15/04/25(Sat)08:11 No. 12163 ID: ed9b15

To prepare for the afterlife


>>
Anonymous 15/04/26(Sun)02:51 No. 12165 ID: 44de9e

I can't figure it out. Personal ambition might be the most honest guide to the everyman. As for the final purpose I don't think it's 'nothing', but it is paradoxical and impossible to reason out due to our dimensional constraints. What I'm getting at is a chicken or the egg scenario where God creates Man, or Man 'creates' God, which doesn't make sense because in those higher dimensions time isn't applicable to him. It hurts brain to think.




Anonymous 15/03/21(Sat)00:47 No. 12097 ID: 1df3c1 [Reply]
12097

File 142689522274.jpg - (22.82KB , 284x177 , images.jpg )

Do you, my fellow philosophers, think suicide and anorexia are a result of north american consumerism and the culture of always wanting to be better, or are just diseases that people are born with?


>>
Anonymous 15/04/17(Fri)23:19 No. 12134 ID: 31099f

>>12108

There is no reason for life, but the experience of life itself.


>>
Anonymous 15/04/23(Thu)05:07 No. 12162 ID: 86e709
12162

File 142975847927.jpg - (155.81KB , 775x551 , IMG_1030.jpg )

I think, that the amount of movies that revolve around solitary hero worship saving the world by shooting and exploding their way out of every situation, indicates that USicans really just want to be sheep. This idea that some militant ubermensch lone operator is going to come out of nowhere to save you and your civilization from consequence and let you go on with your lives as is so you never have to lift a fucking finger to take the risk of changing how you live your shitty little lives, seems to be the #1 thing people want to see when they watch films and read books and comics and go to church.


I wouldn't care at all, and barely do, but for the fact that at this point, mankind is too big for that. Humanity will not be saved from the destination it's chugging on down the tracks toward by the outdated all-powerful Great Man fantasy figure archetype of the past. It can only be saved by billions of people updating their underlying philosophies to match humanities enormous present reality.

And I think that's extremely unlikely to happen.




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

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

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VpACAyWxleE


68 posts and 16 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
>>
Anonymous 15/02/14(Sat)02:34 No. 12033 ID: 03e413
12033

File 142387769387.jpg - (300.58KB , 1000x791 , Albert-Einstein-5.jpg )

Each birth marks the beginning of a life-long conflict between an
individual’s pursuit of happiness and a gene pool’s pursuit of immortality.

But the genes have an unfair advantage, for they have honed their enslavement of individuals over evolutionary timescales.
Does ‘thinking Man’ have a chance of outwitting the genes? Is it possible for an individual to identify gene tricks and assert his will to side-step them?

If the gene pool could think, it would have ‘nightmares’ about the individual who uses rational thought to subvert instincts and get what is fair for an individual to want while denying genes what they want. To the extent that a liberated individual serves as an example for others he is also a menace to the gene pool. If only one generation were to become totally infected and useless to the gene pool, the gene pool would die.This proves that no generation of humans has ever been infected by the notion
of individual liberation.

Humanity is doomed to everlasting enslavement!


>>
Anonymous 15/02/15(Sun)18:24 No. 12041 ID: a6d93e

>>8625
your argument is defeated in the original post - OP posted a quote by a man who shares the same arrogance you just condemned. He has made a judgment based on the ridiculous belief that he has quantified life. such people desire to suffer, and so they will, believing that life's true purpose of self-quantification has come to a stagnation that cannot be remedied(except perhaps by shrooms)


>>
Anonymous 15/04/21(Tue)17:42 No. 12161 ID: 03e413
12161

File 142963093713.jpg - (68.61KB , 324x576 , cat head.jpg )

the optimist’s impatience with or condemnation of pessimism often has a smug macho tone to it (although males have no monopoly of it). There is a scorn for the perceived weakness of the pessimist who should instead ‘grin and bear it’. This view is defective for the same reason that macho views about other kinds of suffering are defective. It is an indifference to or inappropriate denial of suffering, whether one’s own or that of others. The injunction to ‘look on the bright side’ should be greeted with a large dose of both scepticism and cynicism. To insist that the bright side is always the right side is to put ideology before the evidence. Every cloud, to change metaphors, may have a silver lining, but it may very often be the cloud rather than the lining on which one should focus if one is to avoid being drenched by self-deception. Cheery optimists have a much less realistic view of themselves than do those who are depressed




A.I. dhb 15/04/18(Sat)22:51 No. 12138 ID: 7dd04f [Reply]
12138

File 14293903153.jpg - (6.50KB , 185x273 , data.jpg )

I think within the next 100-200 years, true artificial intelligence will be invented. Machines with actual consciousness and intelligence, placed into android bodies, who will then walk among us. For me it raises some questions, which I will now propose to you;

Would you consider such a being, well, a living being?

Should they have the same rights and priviliges as humans?

Would humaniy be able to accept and integrate androids into society?

Should such a being even be created in the first place?


>>
Anonymous 15/04/19(Sun)00:29 No. 12139 ID: d2ef46

This shit's been a Sci-Fi theme since a fucking lifetime ago. There's a ton of material to work with here. Like this comic making fun of AI.

http://www.doesnotplaywellwithothers.com/comic/pwc-0226

But anyways here's my answers to your questions.

>Would you consider such a being, well, a living being?
We've already defined organic life. So we'd have to define inorganic life and then work off of that definition.

>Should they have the same rights and priviliges as humans?
Meh. If they want it then why not. I doubt they'd want the same things as humans though so they'd probably want different rights and privileges.

>Would humaniy be able to accept and integrate androids into society?
That's politics man. Gotta jump the gauntlet of bureaucracy first. In the US Florida would probably be all like "Nope, not happening." And in the UK they'd give them so many rights in an effort to make them equal that AI would have higher social status than humans.

Message too long. Click here to view the full text.




marginsoferror marginsoferror 15/01/08(Thu)10:34 No. 11969 ID: fc2a7f [Reply]
11969

File 14207096712.jpg - (43.23KB , 328x310 , doerrorsrepeat.jpg )

my brain teaser for philosophers is so...

if you have found you have a margin of error should you ever bother doing anything ever? you've proven you're not capable of simple things, so why should you bother anymore?

my philosophy has been no margin of error or compromise. ever. it has served me terribly. the simplest decisions with variables to consider can take years a time. but i feel proud not to choose mistakes. i feel it makes me more human than most to live such a way. on attempts on my life in the past. i always had preplaned all possible attacks and real time evasion so none ever worked on me. i feel it makes me much more human to think than just act. ( even if it does win free psychopathic personality disorder in medical records. whats psycho about thinking before you act. i think labeling thoughtfulness wrong is a personality disorder.)


5 posts omitted. Click Reply to view.
>>
Anonymous 15/02/07(Sat)00:33 No. 12025 ID: 0572d5

OP. Read about the Type 1 Enneagram. I think you'll really resonate with it.


>>
Anonymous 15/02/07(Sat)00:36 No. 12026 ID: 0572d5

You're not a psycho, you're human. Know that you can't be perfect, but don't let that discourage you from trying your best to be as close to it as possible. Nobody should be discouraging you from trying to be perfect, but you need to also learn to cope with failure because failure is inevitable and I think it's good for your health to learn how to deal with the inevitable.


>>
Anonymous 15/04/17(Fri)23:52 No. 12136 ID: 31099f

>>11969

How does one "not choose mistakes"?




Delete post []
Password  
Report post
Reason