-  [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 508 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




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


63 posts and 14 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
>>
Anonymous 14/07/20(Sun)07:48 No. 11599 ID: 800849

If you could live forever, would you?
If you said no, nature screwed itself over with humanity. I mean, the whole point of us is to live, right?


>>
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 14/05/01(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?


45 posts and 6 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
>>
Anonymous 14/07/22(Tue)06:45 No. 11609 ID: 55acac

>>11602
Sounds a lot like Free Association theory in Anarchist political philosophy. I don't see why you have to identify with Epicureanism to live a life like a epicurean. You'll wind up turning epicureanism into a cult-esque dogma with this attitude. We should just live in a world of people who never pretense their enthusiasm to live and discover.

The earth would be best off with people who know to how to think rather than what to think. Knowing how to be a free thinker in this sense creates an intuitive sensation of "being one," being with the objectivity, the "natural flow" of the Universe and yourself. Feels a lot like the "going with the flow" feeling you get on LSD but without the trippiness and psychoactive influence. I think Nietzsche described it as feeling drunk.


>>
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.




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 14/07/09(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?


3 posts omitted. Click Reply to view.
>>
Applicant272495Student214346137 King of the D 14/07/18(Fri)09:22 No. 11578 ID: aaad3e

>>11575
>>11576
If you are capable of completing those works you will have no problem completing other academic works that criticize their work.

I believe this gentleman is trying to convey this with satire. When you start on academic papers that criticize the criticism you'll be able to make better use of philosophy discussion boards.


>>
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 13/11/17(Sun)14:12 No. 10831 ID: 61041d [Reply]
10831

File 138469396445.jpg - (127.92KB , 1280x1024 , 1362317101379.jpg )

so I was doing some thinking about the concept of control/leadership
I put to you a series of questions that are relatively straight forward

1.if someone has the ability to gain control over others, be it social, economical, or phisical does that give them the right to?

2.if it doesn't, do they have the moral right to in certain situations, or is the self determination of an individual an immutable right?

3.If a person can gain control over another person under certain situations, who decides when? is it a public mandate or do they take it apon themselves? (if they are given a specific mandate we will consider the issuer of the mandate to be the person in control)

4.if there is a public mandate, must the person being controlled be a part of the group from which the mandate is drawn?

5.if the person being controled has a relative degree of power over the issuing of a mandate that subsequently controls him/her, does he have the right to leave the group issuing the mandate, and not be governed by there laws?


7 posts omitted. Click Reply to view.
>>
Anonymous 14/07/20(Sun)07:39 No. 11598 ID: 800849

Control is OK unless you aren't the controller! Or you have morals...


>>
Anonymous 14/07/21(Mon)04:01 No. 11601 ID: 86e709

>>11598
Everyone has morals.
Some of them just suck.


>>
Anonymous 14/07/22(Tue)06:29 No. 11606 ID: 55acac

>>11598
Who are you and who is the controller?




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.


12 posts and 2 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
>>
Anonymous 14/07/19(Sat)07:53 No. 11583 ID: 800849

>>11582
Come to think of it, cultural money can be had by politicians, too.

And political money can be had by smart people who get noticed by the masses for looking good.

And this "Money" is just a metaphor.
So none of this probably makes sense to anybody except me.


>>
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?




The Body And The Mind Anonymous 14/07/02(Wed)08:00 No. 11542 ID: ed1dd4 [Reply]

Today i was sitting at my PC, thinking about life, the meaning of it. What makes cells tick? The actual science, is that cell mitosis forces cells to multiply faster than the previously made cells die off, therefore resulting in "growth." The whole thing is still a mystery, since we know it happens, but we don't know why it happens, why it never just stops, we don't understand why it eventually slows down, hypothetically thinking, if new cells are born, at an old age, they are born at a slower rate, and are slightly weaker in all functions. Until eventually, a person, who grows old, becomes sick, and then dies. The idea is that if you keep your body healthy, you will live longer, because essentially the act of dying of old age, is just getting sick, organ failure, but inevitably, in the majority of cases, losing the will to live, you see it as going to sleep. But that's the thing, nearly all old timers, who die, have accepted it, they die old, in their beds, but they nearly always mention or give off an aura of fatigue, and consider death to be rest, what if, the lack of a will to live, urges the body to slow its cell production rate, what if, the involuntary actions of our body, could be controlled, with time, with nothing but our mind set? I'm not saying it happens all the time, it could be, that a person's willingness to die is simply resignation to their disease. It could also be, that a person who is satisfied with their life, is already willing themselves to die, deep down. Perhaps, at a certain age, many people already start thinking about their own deaths, and considering it, starts a process that nobody can see.
But cases of life and death aren't the only situations where it appears, it also happens on less fatal matters, a person, who likes to be strong, will work to be strong. If they work out, and like to work out, inevitably they will grow strong, while a person who works to be strong, but doesn't care to be strong, will still not be as strong as the former. Some may argue this is because a person may simply not be willing to put in as much effort, but in a hypothetical situation where both were forced to put in their all, with the same body types, same growth rates, builds, everything, What if, despite all that, the more inspired party were still able, to say, for example, lift just a few grams more? Or a pound? Why would that be? You could say that its because the people bringing on the experiment didn't choose the subjects wisely enough, and some discrepancies in the growth rate did appear, perhaps one was meant to grow faster, but what if that weren't the case? What if, the true situation was, that the willful party literally willed their body into creating more protein, more energy, more mass, more stamina, endurance and all that? Maybe not all of the above mentioned, maybe some of them. If it happened, why would that be?
Will is a large part of life, will ma Message too long. Click here to view the full text.


4 posts omitted. Click Reply to view.
>>
Anonymous 14/07/02(Wed)08:04 No. 11547 ID: ed1dd4

-Written by The Dude


>>
Anonymous 14/07/03(Thu)04:46 No. 11548 ID: 86e709

Writing a shite tonne of words
+
No formatting
=
OP isn't intelligent enough to write at a 5th grade level.
Unintelligent rambling.
Not compelling.


>>
Anonymous 14/07/19(Sat)08:23 No. 11589 ID: 800849

>>11548
Very intelligent rambling.

Near impossible to read.

OP needs to indent way more.

Like me.




Delete post []
Password  
Report post
Reason