-  [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 478 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

File 13196161034.jpg - (71.49KB , 256x256 , slow.jpg )

For growing and shit or whatever I present to you:


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

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

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

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.

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

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.)

8 posts omitted. Click Reply to view.
Anonymous 15/05/02(Sat)07:01 No. 12181 ID: b2c2db

note the margin of error and input into situations related to the topic the margin of error occurs in
then keep calm and carry on, apply best judgement on individual situational basis and see if you can't find a pattern involving the margin of error to approximate its impact for predictive accuracy in analyzing situations and concepts

Anonymous 15/05/24(Sun)15:36 No. 12199 ID: a32d5c


I quite enjoyed trying to picture that.

Anonymous 15/05/26(Tue)06:52 No. 12200 ID: 31099f


And what would be the goal of this?

Anonymous 14/06/08(Sun)21:47 No. 11497 ID: 1d3945 [Reply]

File 140225682755.jpg - (266.90KB , 634x900 , glass of water.jpg )

Describe me the glass of water.

8 posts omitted. Click Reply to view.
Anonymous 15/02/04(Wed)20:25 No. 12015 ID: 298ee5

There is no glass of water.

Anonymous 15/02/05(Thu)22:14 No. 12017 ID: 0f34d4

Was genuinely interested until i got to netherwart. 6/10

Anonymous 15/05/19(Tue)10:21 No. 12197 ID: d2e117

It's not a glass of water,is an oak tree

Anonymous 15/05/17(Sun)03:02 No. 12192 ID: 4e42b8 [Reply]

File 143182456934.jpg - (164.63KB , 638x503 , 20120712-220959.jpg )

I was listening to this Sam Harris talk in which he tries to explain the idea of non-duality of experience with "headlessness":

From what I understood, we don't experience non-duality because we see life in 1st person. If we try to imagine what experiencing life in the 3rd person would be, we see that there is not 'really' an observer, like for example in the video below:

Am I misunderstanding something?

Anonymous 15/05/17(Sun)08:21 No. 12193 ID: b2c2db

I managed to get myself into an open eyed hallucinatory state by imagining infinite blackness with a sphere of inifinite blackness "that is delineated as separate from the other part of infinite blackness but with no separation and is made of the same thing entirely" and then adding "there is a self in the center but it is not made of matter and does not react to anything in that sphere of total blackness inside infinite blackness without limitations"

and I have NO idea what sam harris is on about, I SUSPECT however that he's just trying to sound relevant4kidz

I used to image calculations on a blackboard when I was doing triple digit multiplication in my head and I'd move my hand around like I was writing on the board

it's easy enough to go in the opposite direction and suppress imagination or visualization in favour of focus on what's going on and getting short intense flashes of a chain of events that barely registers consciously, so that better automated action is present (IE: there's a difference between sitting and thinking and playing sports where a speedball's going to hit you in the head)

sam harris confuses psychosis with talking to yourself as well, declaration and formation of concepts into a formal language instead of visualizations allow for interfacing of numerous ideas better since the words are structured, but a little more vague than images, and less compelling to the mind so that you avoid the errors of imaging something and then thinking it must be true because you can image it, so that language is an automated tool of the mind to "entertain an idea without holding it"

Anonymous 15/05/17(Sun)08:30 No. 12194 ID: b2c2db

in computer terms, the mental process of talking to yourself is essentially just like using a code to transform machine code into actual effects as you see them on a computer, whereas machine code is just 010101010101 stuff, it's what makes up everything you see on a computer when combined with electricity, the process of translation is not a computer's "psychosis" it's a way of changing the thing for better interfacing via a UI

it is *definitely* not psychotic to manipulate ideas and reference them to past concepts and experiences to think through how they'd operate, by speaking to yourself you capitalize on automatic processes within the mind to imagine something when talked to and this lets you formulate alternative concepts easily through the linguistic process I already told you about, and also use at the same time the image processing that occurs far less consciously but is far more powerful, by talking to yourself you instigate an investigation into the idea and all known leads are followed by the subconscious or something, while this system is weak for differentiating paths and chains of logic/lineation of events, it can explore concepts almost instantaneously and narrow things down, so that conscious thought is almost generative and the subconscious is reductionist, the conscious thinks, the subconscious acts

sam harris probably doesn't know how this works, and I'm done at 25 minutes through, chomsky owns him hard - and has his own conceptuation of language that might be interesting to check into which will get you into even better philosophical stuff, and I guess this belongs in philosophy because I'm not exactly using science here

Anonymous 15/05/17(Sun)08:47 No. 12196 ID: b2c2db

umm, just to make sure noone's confused by the last thing on (sub)conscious

the conscious generates multiple possible concepts, the subconscious goes through them until there's a singular or bunch of almost identical predicted potential events which compels the person holding these processes to act and "existify" that image through their own action

through this process, if you were in a car and needed to make a left turn then a right turn, and you think of the possibilities like so but you only know of the left turn being required, all situations that involve a left turn first would be considered, with lines of reason here and there emerging for all manner of things ranging from turning downwards (with a car steering wheel) to pulling upwards, but these impulses of concept would be weak because they're unlikely, the brain seems to operate almost like a mob, the loudest voice will drown out the others, but they will exist at times and they can be quite "novel" - this is during the reductionist aspect of a brain's work so it's not already ruled out, thus by successive operations along this line the most likely chain of events can be predicted but at the same time alternative branches with a reasonable likelihood are partially considered so that in the case of emergency you're not left without a few steps of action that can be pursued quickly and easily in times of danger

and because I was listening while typing this stuff out I've heard a bit more - he's talking about "self" now and how it's not what you think it is etc etc, but the self is precisely the sum of your experiences and impetus, it's a trick to think the autonomous nervous system isnt' also a part of "self" because if it kicks into gear that means something has impacted you and the narcissistic ego desires that it not be considered as such due to the psychological damage it can do when you acknowledge that you can be affected(you never get over it, which is why suicide bombers seem so crazy there's always a bit of telling one's self that they're not there, hence spirituality in the first place which allows self to be there but a "true self" to be part of something else that isn't entirely reliant on physical reality when that reality is "you're about to die") while still being obviously a part of self

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

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.

18 posts and 1 image omitted. Click Reply to view.
Anonymous 15/04/27(Mon)19:07 No. 12179 ID: 1b45da

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 15/05/04(Mon)17:34 No. 12186 ID: 0a6349

OP is a pretentious moron with no concept of personal space (if he touched any of my female relatives I'd kick his ass,) but there's a good question buried in there. Somewhere.


If you're saying social norms are all based in evo truth and the way things are now is the best possible outcome of human biology so far? Nah. Not true. Too many instances in the history of the world that go against that, too many contradictions to justify a scientific pattern to why a social rule is what it is. Social rules create order to keep people from killing each other, sure, and humans are social animals so we're wired to do what everyone else does by instinct, but beyond that...it's arbitrary. Maybe in the beginning some rules are based in practical issues for the time and place, but they get ingrained and become instinctive because people are built to go along with the group regardless of whether a social norm is directly practical or not. Because it's still part of survival to fit in, to protect yourself from outsiders and competitors, even if fitting in involves something completely goofy that looks pointless to an outsider. So conformists have the most evolutionary fitness (sorry to all the freaks with a god complex...) but the social order is for its own sake.

The only way out of it is to become a literal beast that can survive completely on its own, but then you'd still get shot by humans with guns if they got sick of you stealing their livestock.

Anonymous 15/05/15(Fri)00:22 No. 12191 ID: 40ad3b

No strangers want your hands on their junk, and no one needed the bible to figure that out.

>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?

No one denies that this is happening, what they deny is the insane notion that it is some evil secret group that has been manipulating mankind. The body/force you speak of is just people doing what people do, lying, cheating, and manipulating for profit and gain.

>Under what circumstances would humans, against their own will, put a stigma on the very things that give them pleasure?

People put stigma on pleasurable things all the time, because they are easily manipulated. You talk about how Hitler convinced people to commit a genocide, but you can't understand how opinions of public figures and the opinions of the general public can influence people to stigmatize pleasurable things.

I mean you answer your own question.

Anonymous 15/01/19(Mon)07:52 No. 11996 ID: 1b02b6 [Reply]

File 142165034863.jpg - (45.93KB , 600x600 , 1419480316512.jpg )

Worst place to ask since 99% of you couldn't even think of "letting go".

How do I let go of my ego? Or another way of asking is "how do I stop the desire to prove myself worthy among my peers?". It's totally unnecessary, and sitting at home alone I can comfortably say that it's doable and the mindset actually worth having, but when I leave the door I cannot stop myself from becoming a totally different person. That is, one who feeds off the facial expressions of another person and who constantly seeks their approval, or "good" facial expressions. I genuinely don't care what they think when I'm home alone at the end of the day but I guess I still do if I'm behaving this way.

In asking this I'm hoping to find that 1% who can genuinely relate to me and may have found a solution, or at least philosophical banters that put my mind in solace when I leave the doors. (The answer "just stop caring" isn't as easy as you might think).

9 posts omitted. Click Reply to view.
Anonymous 15/05/04(Mon)16:12 No. 12185 ID: 0a6349

The easiest way to disconnect your self worth from the opinions of others is to get good at something where one's skill isn't judged subjectively--and I mean really good. Something mathematical, technical/mechanical or athletic, definitely not the creative or performing arts (because in those you sink or swim by other people's opinion and there is no external standard of "good," "great" or "pathetic" other than pleasing the crowd.)

Once you've done that you've proven yourself worthy. Period. The truism of "numbers don't lie." Only validation necessary will be the flexing of your own undeniable prowess. People can decide not to like you, but they can't decide to call you weak and stupid if you can do calculus for fun and bench press 200 lbs. Because physical strength and mathematical intelligence are not matters of opinion. They aren't traits that can be revoked on a whim, like being "nice" or "funny."

Anonymous 15/05/10(Sun)02:51 No. 12189 ID: b2c2db

ego is one of many mental constructs that the human mind is responsible for

what's wrong with ego? what IS ego :p
people often try to tell me I've got an ego, usually this is meant as (un)warranted pride, but what if it's actually the lack of ego that disturbs them so much that they seek to put it into me - through mental tricks and tactics such as repetitive claims in an abrasive manner, hoping to capitalize on the extremely common practice of giving in to people who are angry so as to calm them down, alongside the other even more common trait whereupon people typically when entertaining an idea, also end up adopting it if they entertain it enough "fake it til you make it" style

Anonymous 15/05/14(Thu)23:46 No. 12190 ID: 40ad3b

File 143164001133.jpg - (108.72KB , 632x415 , 1425577649966.jpg )

Well I mean it's not like there is entire religion that teaches how to loose your ego or anything
*cough cough Buddhism cough cough*
But to put it simply you can achieve this through meditation.

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

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?

3 posts and 1 image omitted. Click Reply to view.
Anonymous 15/05/04(Mon)00:31 No. 12182 ID: dc09ae

eating disorders are created by north-american consumerism and celebrity/fashion culture's lack of diversity/reality in body images, however that doesn't make it an illegitimate experience, any dystopian novel (and of course, history) shows the effects of a society resulting in widespread mental conditions.

Suicide is the form of death that has many various causes, so I think to lump "suicide" as a singular path a person takes with similar beginnings and ends is a messy thing to attempt.

Anonymous 15/05/04(Mon)12:33 No. 12183 ID: 3cf736

Suicide has predated North American civilization by tens of thousands of years.

Anorexia as a specific image disorder cannot really predate widespread household mirrors, but women starving themselves to be thin has probably also happened for centuries.

Anonymous 15/05/04(Mon)15:35 No. 12184 ID: 0a6349

There are many motives for anorexia and suicide. I question the categorization of certain behaviors as diseases, because what constitutes normal behavior is subjective to one's culture and many culturally sanctioned behaviors are detrimental to health, yet nobody calls them a sickness without being scoffed at.

Anorexia can be caused by internalized western beauty standards, but it can also be caused by a rejection of them. Some anorexics starve to make themselves sexually unappealing through self-neglect. Some starve to cultivate an androgynous appearance by shrinking their secondary sex characteristics, because having a very "gendered" appearance upsets them, in a society where men and women receive different treatment and different reactions from other people.

Anorexia is mainly about control rather than beauty. There have been clinical studies and interviews with anorexics and many of them say they felt powerless and out of control of themselves, and their weight and calorie intake was the one thing they could exercise control over. An attempt to impose order on a body out-of-order, i.e, fat. Fat is normally associated with psychological weakness and lack of self-discipline in north america. I can see how beauty standards would indirectly contribute (what is beautiful is based on physical traits conflated with internal, moral vigor,) but it would easily be something else, anything conflated with self-discipline if not beauty. Anorexia mirabilis, for example, in the middle ages, where nuns and monks starved themselves, as well as the countless ascetic practices involving self-starvation for spiritual perfection.

Rail thin bodies aren't the ideal anymore as it is! In the 90s maybe, but fashion has changed more to curves and large buttocks in this decade, yet anorexics are still around.

Suicide has several possible motives. Emile Durkheim wrote about these (egoistic, altruistic, anomic and fatalistic.) Only egoistic suicide would fit the bill of consumerist striving mentality, maybe. The others, not necessarily. Suicide is also not a modern invention. People killed themselves long before the united states existed, before US-style consumerism existed, for the same sets of reasons north americans kill themselves today.

I think both anorexia and suicide are two possible reactions to one's social environment (though anorexia seems more culture-dependent in its manifestations than suicide,) but neither created whole-cloth by the specifics of the culture nor entirely from congenitally diseased neurochemistry.

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

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.

Delete post []
Report post