-  [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
  • Maximum file size allowed is 1000 KB.
  • Images greater than 200x200 pixels will be thumbnailed.
  • Currently 492 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. 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.


26 posts and 3 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
>>
Anonymous 14/02/14(Fri)02:00 No. 11120 ID: 29df20

This site is absolutely amazing. Use it well. All the lectures are wonderful.

http://academicearth.org/online-college-courses/philosophy/

Check out their other courses as well...




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.


280 posts and 15 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
>>
Anonymous 14/07/17(Thu)06:55 No. 11566 ID: fe497e

In my young life, I lived in a Catholic family. However, later, I thought, '... Duh. When you die, your body stops. Done.'
That is how I became an atheist. Pick at this as much as possible, eh? But really, is it not true?




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




Political philosophy and the rights of children Anonymous 14/07/27(Sun)08:14 No. 11626 ID: aaad3e [Reply]
11626

File 14064416791.jpg - (7.30KB , 150x150 , starpharma-and-durex.jpg )

According to a Wikipedia page:

'Consultation

Mechanisms for involving children in decision-making in Australia are poor. From finding out what makes a good school, to understanding the special needs of indigenous, rural, or refugee children, or children with a disability or in out-of home care; Australia does not follow best practise for finding out and incorporating the views of children. Where legislation does require children to participate in the decisions made about them, there tends to be no evaluation of how effectively this is achieved. Australia needs to learn more from examples of best practise for children’s participation and implement these mechanisms across public policy.
Data and Monitoring

The catalogue of things Australia does not know about its children is surprisingly large. Australia does not know the different reasons why its children live in out-of-home-care, we do not know about the reasons for and occurrence of suicide or attempted suicide in children and young people. Australia doesn’t have nationally consistent data on indigenous communities and children. In order to begin creating and implementing policies and systems that help children, we need more information on their health, well-being, experiences and opinions.'

I'm quite disgusted, personally, by the lack of personhood attributed to young people. I think this comes down to their lack of voting ability. I suspect future generations will look upon this in the same way as other forms of political discrimination where at one time. There will always be someone who claims 'oh no but THIS form of discrimination is differnet and legitimate cause women are ALWAYS stupider or NO black is developed as much as whites and so forthe.

I want to do survey that sorts out people's responses to how much rights children should have by age and by if and when they had their kids. I want to go on to promote public discourse on child rights. I just graduated from uinversity, but with a major in the physical sciences. What should I do from here? I don't really want to do another undergraduation so I can articulate on to a research degree. I'm open to everything that optimises the ultimate outcome of better child rights. Take into consideration that I'm pretty mentally unstable and will probably die at a young age so I don't want to basically, mince my time.


>>
Matchbox Prince 14/07/28(Mon)01:49 No. 11627 ID: 2f260d

Children are not given the right to vote because they are considered mentally incompetent and are very easily manipulated. Given a choice between voting for a legitimate candidate and one dressed as fucking Santa Clause, which one do you think a six-year old would vote for? Exactly.

I don't really agree on strict age limits for anything, whether voting, operating a motor vehicle, having sex, consuming alcohol, etc. In a hypothetical utopia, all these things would be decided upon by a panel of experts in psychology and sociology, on a case-by-case basis. Some people (scratch that, most people) are never mentally competent to be allowed to vote, whether they are 15 or 20 or 50. However, this is impossible in this world and these varied societies, so we compromised by throwing up a reasonable number as an age limit. It might wobble back and forth a few years as time passes, but it will never be abolished.


>>
Anonymous 14/07/28(Mon)03:59 No. 11628 ID: 194aaa

>>11627
That's ridiculous. I was way more capacitated to vote and interested in politics when I was six than I am now, and I'm sure many kids are way less easy to manipulate than several niggers than can be bought with social benefits or just plain cash.
The solution is to run a test on everyone who's interested in voting, and giving to those who pass it a vote card, and denying vote on those who don't.


>>
Matchbox+Prince 14/07/29(Tue)13:07 No. 11630 ID: 2f260d

>>11628

You're fucking joking. I've never in my LIFE heard of something more desperately begging for total corruption. Give that "system" of yours about five months, and the only people who will be deemed worthy to vote will be the wealthy and powerful. Instead of a democracy that occasionally tries to become an oligarchy, you'd have an oligarchy pretending to be a democracy.




Anonymous 14/07/27(Sun)06:49 No. 11624 ID: aaad3e [Reply]
11624

File 140643656039.jpg - (308.44KB , 1600x1165 , 1spenceletterslant-graphicsfairy006.jpg )

Should I associate the concept of ontology closer to epistemology, philosophy of mind or logic?

You can't say metaphysics by the way.


>>
Anonymous 14/07/29(Tue)06:02 No. 11629 ID: 54e99b

Same posting style as cb9fa8, same ID as >>11615

So still, my question is, is that you cb9fa8? Have you returned to us to deliver only questions, instead of actually contributing to our community? Have you returned to give us a series of buzzwords instead of extrapolating on your thoughts instead of extrapolating on what you think about what you ask?


>>
Anonymous 14/07/29(Tue)13:24 No. 11633 ID: be4b9e

IDs are a bitch, eh.
>>/sci/15647
>>11626




WwWWHHHHHHhHHHHHHyyyyyyyYYyyYyyYyYYyyYyyyyYYyyyyy Anonymous 14/07/22(Tue)07:10 No. 11611 ID: 55acac [Reply]
11611

File 140600584561.jpg - (191.36KB , 1600x1000 , Question everything.jpg )

Why ask why?


>>
Anonymous 14/07/27(Sun)07:20 No. 11625 ID: e65a14

Because.




Anonymous 14/06/12(Thu)05:34 No. 11510 ID: 0d277c [Reply]
11510

File 140254405115.gif - (5.61KB , 240x273 , 1401868879446.gif )

Why is equality so widely accepted as a moral principle and a political goal? I could present any prescriptive statement and it would be 100% as valid as "People should be equal".

Also, why is it postulated that people ARE equal? The opposite can be easily proven empirically. In that way, egalitarianism is less valid than religion.


13 posts and 2 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
>>
Anonymous 14/07/19(Sat)12:00 No. 11590 ID: 55acac

>>11583
1. Money matters most in life.

2. Be not shy about money-making.

3. Trust not anyone with money.

4. Nothing is free in this world, not even love.

5. One who worships the money god will be amply rewarded. One who worships the other God will be stripped naked and left in the streets.

6. Make money by hook or by crook.

7. Make money by any means.

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


>>
Anonymous 14/07/20(Sun)07:36 No. 11597 ID: 800849

>>11590
What did they do when they didn't have money? Wait... Money was then measured in stuff, right?


>>
Matchbox Prince 14/07/26(Sat)23:09 No. 11623 ID: 2f260d

>>11590

I think this should have been put on the Pioneer and Voyager probes. Sums up humanity much better than all that silly other crap like art and music and science, which are all just pretexts to acquiring more money.




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

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 14/07/19(Sat)07:42 No. 11580 ID: 800849

Well, to live forever would make you all-powerful. You wouldn't need to worry about wasted time, and all you know would last until the end of time.

(Living forever means body not deteriorating, and developing immunity to any virus or condition. Of course, stupidity isn't a condition in this case. So you won't be immune to moving trains.)


>>
Anonymous 14/07/22(Tue)06:56 No. 11610 ID: 55acac

>>11580
Wouldn't you have to be a transhuman if you were immortal? If that's so, then why assume stupidity isn't a condition in this case? You'll be like a strong robot with a human brain or something idfk why did you even post this


>>
Anonymous 14/07/26(Sat)19:31 No. 11622 ID: 86e709

>>11580
>all-powerful

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 14/05/01(Thu)06:51 No. 11285 ID: 746c8f [Reply]
11285

File 139891986274.jpg - (51.85KB , 500x261 , Epictetus.jpg )

Epicurus Vs. Epictetus

Who has the better philosophy?

Epicurus's hedonism seems like a nice way to live, but is it as practical as Epictetus's teachings of mental discipline?


46 posts and 6 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
>>
Anonymous 14/07/22(Tue)08:20 No. 11612 ID: 55acac

>>11602
...and in all absolute seriousness, don't talk shit on my god Dionysus.


>>
Anonymous 14/07/22(Tue)08:28 No. 11613 ID: 55acac

>>11612
You don't want to know what that crazy bastard is capable of when you irritate him enough.


>>
Anonymous 14/07/26(Sat)19:12 No. 11620 ID: 86e709

>>11613
But he deaaad mafucka.
Yo dadday can't do shyit.




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


64 posts and 14 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
>>
Anonymous 14/07/22(Tue)06:40 No. 11608 ID: 55acac

>>11592
>INSANE CONFIDENCE
Modest confidence motherfucker, have modest confidence.


>>
Anonymous 14/07/24(Thu)10:56 No. 11614 ID: aaad3e

>>11599
The whole point? Back the fuck up.


The problem of 'bringing perceptual parts together' is discussed in a wide variety of places from Descartes to contemporary neuroscience. The question is where to start and what aspect to home in on. The key source texts that immediately come to mind might be:

Descartes in Meditations and Leibniz in Monadology make it clear that a perceiving subject must have a single indivisible relation to the totality of what it perceives so that relation cannot be of a familiar mechanical sort. So it would seem that there cannot be any parts - just complexity, and Leibniz spends a lot of time justifying this.

William James worries about the 'combination' of what might be called microexperiences as parts of a total experience on a panpsychist background in Principles of Psychology. He concludes that there is no plausible basis for this.

The Gestalt movement also focused on the totality and indivisibility of experiences but I am not familiar with the literature.

In more recent times a number of neuroscientists have suggested that the elements or parts of a 'scene', such as the features of various objects, might be brought together as a whole through synchronisation of cellular firing. This has become a confused area because it is almost certainly true that synchronisation is used by the brain to 'triage' features to different objects during processing. However, although the champions of synchronisation often imply that this is the same as 'bringing perceptual parts together into a totality' it is not and the same mechanism cannot achieve both. Almost certainly synchronisation cannot itself achieve perceptual 'binding' for the simple reason that the synchronised signals are in different places.

A whole group of people have also tried to 'bring perceptual parts together' using the concept of unified fields within the brain. A number of the theories that venture into quantum theory involve this - Frohlich's 1968 paper, Hameroff and Penrose, and others. Others like Pribram, McFadden and Freeman deal with fields in a more general way. (The relevant references should pop up on Google fairly easily with the names.) I have recently written a paper in Journal of Consciousness Studies looking at the problems of theories invoking 'unified fields' and have suggested, rather like Descartes, that what we need is not a unified field but a unified relation between a field and some 'indivisible substance' which in modern physics would be a mode of excitation. My website (linked to by my RG page) goes into my background reasons in various ways.
Message too long. Click here to view the full text.


>>
Anonymous 14/07/26(Sat)19:10 No. 11619 ID: 86e709

>>11599
There is no universal set in stone "point of us".

I'd much rather live extremely well for a short time than forever in this wreck of a species and its culture.

But then I also prefer quality over quantity in most things, an increasingly foreign concept in this country of disposable trash gluttony.




Delete post []
Password  
Report post
Reason