-  [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 553 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 14/06/08(Sun)21:47 No. 11497 ID: 1d3945 [Reply]
11497

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

Describe me the glass of water.


36 posts and 1 image omitted. Click Reply to view.
>>
Anonymous 17/02/20(Mon)01:33 No. 12833 ID: 781a41

do not think about a glass of water


>>
Anonymous 17/04/04(Tue)02:01 No. 12883 ID: 946ad3

>>11497
It is not a glass of water. It is a picture, of a glass with water. "The" contains an ambiguity regarding an ideal glass of water, vs. the depicted glass of water. "This" would have been denoting more correctly, on the assumption that context suggests, though technically still wrong. Please specify your terms, and avoid unnecessary vagueness in the expression of the question.

Of, on the other hand, you were playing with the ambiguities, and want an irrational poetic description, well fuck me, das Gevirt n shiat.


>>
blue 17/04/18(Tue)21:49 No. 12901 ID: 4515bc

it shows diversity of the people around us people who moan about the glass being half empty and people being optimstic about the glass being half full shows u the different types of people in the world.It also symbolizes how pure creation and water actually is.




Rights for artificial intelligence Anonymous 17/04/05(Wed)22:38 No. 12886 ID: 9905f3 [Reply]
12886

File 149142471570.jpg - (112.25KB , 633x409 , ajs c.jpg )

Awareness seems to me a pretty good indicator of value: the more aware a being is of its surroundings and its own condition, the more valuable it is. Therefore, humans are more valuable than apes, which are more valuable than ants, which are more valuable than rocks.
But this creates a dilemma: will Artificial Intelligence systems ever be considered "conscious" enough to be valuable? Let's picture our society in over a century, for example. Would computer programs ever be considered conscious enough to become a part of society? Or would they just be expendable programs with no value?


>>
Anonymous 17/04/07(Fri)03:01 No. 12887 ID: 45fe5e

Scarcity is also an indicator of value. Unless someone finds a way to artificially enforce scarcity for AIs, there will be no limit to how many times their software can be duplicated, making them worthless in terms of scarcity. Despite their awareness, they will have no value because they are not scarce.


>>
blue 17/04/18(Tue)21:45 No. 12900 ID: 4515bc

i mean if you are just talking about just development of science where artificial intelligence where they are below us the mehhh.....but if they ever break Asimov 3 laws of robotics its a whole nother story possible world war 3 and there are gonna be some dumbasses who say that robots are also organisms and need to live freely heck you see this shit right now with the cancer o feminism and sjws and hence either a new race gets created or world or 3.all i am saying is dont play god you will play the price especially if you program emotions inside them




can pi be taken as a particular galaxy blue 17/04/18(Tue)21:24 No. 12896 ID: 4515bc [Reply]
12896

File 149254349670.png - (5.86KB , 218x231 , download.png )

so i have a sort of philosophy that knowing details as the oldest grass to exist in the world and the population of the first existing dinosaurs may lead to unlocking infinity as in we can take it as a specific sort of factor as in how we see Avogadro number and such since scientist believe that the universe exapnds at what seems to be 68km per sec would it be possible if this equation which is infinity=68xmc2 as in x represting the actual diamter length whatever you may wanna call it as a standard unit



basically i made a law called the law of infinite which states that anything that goes faster than speed of which infinity increases gives infinity a value.as in just suppose you are counting 1,2,3,4 slowly if a count tell ten the infinte numbers which u were supposed to count has values now as in 5,6,7,8


while the equation wont certainly give as knowledge of the whole universe we can know the exact required of speed needed which may be distance by time whatever you call it to discover the end of infinity.i know this may not be plausible but i need your guys thoughts on it


>>
blue 17/04/18(Tue)21:32 No. 12897 ID: 4515bc

the x refers to the diameter that can be squared perfectly as pi sorry my bad didnt write it properly


>>
blue 17/04/18(Tue)21:33 No. 12898 ID: 4515bc

goaddmait mistake again i mean the diamter of the galaxy that squares with pi as i believe pi is sort of like a mathematical key in this equation




Anonymous 16/11/19(Sat)08:23 No. 12719 ID: 2ff195 [Reply]
12719

File 147954018547.jpg - (475.17KB , 2008x2168 , DSC_0515.jpg )

Anyone have an opinion on anything? I'm feeling sophisticated.


>>
Anonymous 16/11/26(Sat)03:14 No. 12725 ID: 1e1b4e

i feel that since no one has the cosmic authority to tell you what reality is. You can can go to the grave believing any idea you want and it can be 100% real.


>>
Anonymous 17/02/27(Mon)10:38 No. 12837 ID: cecc58

I believe the value of the human ideological structure will exponentially drop until the entire mass is seen as one collective. When there weren't many of us, ancient mythologies held much power over our souls. Now you can make a religion on a Saturday and find that it's quite profitable.

I believe time just outside of our narrow peripherals is growing more dense. More things can and are all happening with each passing moment, though our perception remains unchanged. When time collapses on itself, what happens to the material world?


>>
Anonymous 17/04/12(Wed)09:11 No. 12893 ID: 51e6eb

The meaning of life is politics.
Putting your eggs in one basket is common.
Glenn Beck is the biggest con artist of the decade.




Anonymous 17/02/17(Fri)01:00 No. 12819 ID: f7426b [Reply]
12819

File 148728962371.jpg - (8.16KB , 318x159 , index.jpg )

Why does Ayn Rand get so much criticism? I've only read The Fountainhead from her but from what I gather objectivism seems like it makes sense. It's kind of like this rational self interest that's similar to Nietzsche's philosiphy


>>
Anonymous 17/02/17(Fri)01:18 No. 12820 ID: 74fa81

The Fountainhead is NOT considered Rand's magnum opus. It's Atlas Shrugged. Until you slog through that phone book of a treatises-disguised-as-a-novel, you will not understand either side of the Randian argument.


>>
Anonymous 17/04/12(Wed)09:07 No. 12892 ID: 51e6eb

She is in temporary heaven right now, thinking: Boy I made a mistake.




Anonymous 17/04/01(Sat)20:24 No. 12871 ID: fe9887 [Reply]
12871

File 149107105282.jpg - (135.60KB , 1920x1080 , IMG_347883.jpg )

General life axioms you've noticed. State the axiom, and then the reason. If no reason is known, write "Reason: N/A". Feel free to argue at will, but only if you think you are 100% certain.

The format should go as follows (Axiom: , Reason: , As a result: ):

Axiom: Two people who have adapted to society's values cannot be equally in love with each other.

Reason: Falling in love renders the person who has fallen in love vulnerable. This vulnerability contradicts the social character/facade they have created for themselves and the very reason the Loved liked the faller in the first place. If both fall in love at the same time, they both notice one another's vulnerability and cancel each other out, rendering the connection emotionless.

As a result: Only one of two possible connections can happen.
1) One of the two socially-based members takes the role of being emotionally stable and stoic, loving the other person or not, and the other takes the role of falling in love. This is what was traditionally intended with man being the former, and woman the latter.
2) Both members have adapted to the non-social life where the true self without a facade blocking it flourishes. The intelligent mind sees and understands that all human beings, including themselves, are vulnerable and endears this thought commonly among others.


>>
Anonymous 17/04/04(Tue)01:03 No. 12876 ID: 946ad3

There is a phrasing problem with the axiom, that sorta but not really gets dealt with in the reason. Two people who have accepted societies values, and who are not in love with each other at all, will be equally in love with each other under your specified conditions.
It's an interesting pondering, but you should add explicative conditions and restrictions.

Also, supposes absolutism with regards social constructivism. That is, the values of society cannot only be a facade, but cannot not be a facade, that is sincere emergence, or the possibility hereof. This exemplifies peritrope structure. If a relativistic point of view is claimed as absolute it will contain the possibility of its own negation. Working within a bivalent structure at least.

Furthermore, the assumption of absolute constructivism is at contradictory odds with a latent metaphysical realism about love at all. This could also, quite possibly be worked around.

Develop on it, it is actually interesting.


>>
Anonymous 17/04/04(Tue)01:10 No. 12877 ID: 946ad3

For a start just add love > 0, and the phrasing should be fine. However, know that you presume the validity of the possibility of turning the love relation into a quantitative and not just a comparative concept, which is not at all on obviously valid move.


>>
Anonymous 17/04/08(Sat)10:36 No. 12888 ID: fc715f

Axiom: Will as a driving force in life.

Reason: Without it there would be no drive to continue in this confusing world. Being aware of others helps find the fight within. Conditionally of course.

Result: Able.




exhalted philosophers give common advice Anonymous 17/01/15(Sun)07:39 No. 12787 ID: d58e80 [Reply]
12787

File 148446236968.jpg - (35.41KB , 524x400 , nietzsche.jpg )

How come "continental philosophers" end up making such common statements like, "don't think about it too much," "people are shitty," "keep on trucking," "hang in there!" Even after all of their pondering, they come up with wisdom that anyone over the age of 50 can tell you?


2 posts omitted. Click Reply to view.
>>
Anonymous 17/03/15(Wed)19:19 No. 12852 ID: 6df417

Because we all know it, but can't do it. We are just slaves to our monkey brains.


>>
Anonymous 17/04/04(Tue)01:44 No. 12882 ID: 946ad3

>>12787
Because insight can be reduced to banality, that's why it's wisdom, and not knowledge. Continental asks the question regressively, from abstract banality, towards an infinitely specific why. The product is delivered in the shortest form. Keep digging, heideggers concept of opening is like digging deeper and deeper into a wound, whilst you don't notice that the wound is closing together around your finger while you go deeper. Hence it bears a certain identity with analytical philosophy. Which is often overlooked in the latter tradition. They all rely on the same tradition, which includes Kant. Don't forget. Sometimes analytical philosophy is characterized by a desire to try and give answers, where as the continental tradition is said to be asking the same question over and over again. Something that both traditions might benefit from, is pondering the notion that giving an answer in many a sense is presupposing, and furthermore asking a question, and that asking a question equally in many ways is an answer. For example, "philosophy is asking questions!" is giving an answer to the philosophical question "What is philosophy", and saying "philosophy is giving answers!" is presupposing the same question, and assuming that there are more philosophical questions that need be posed before an answer can be given.

The distinction is being destabilized, not that it is outright idiotic, or unfruitful just looking at the division of labor, and the fruitful aspect of disagreement. Ideally you read and try to understand both.

Also, if you read Heideggers "modern science, metaphysics, and mathematics" and all you get is "hang in there", you should consider picking up another plato dialogue and some Aristotle before reading any more post-scholastic philosophy, which is a sincere point, and not a dick move. Or spend a little more time with a couple of anthologies.

There's a reason why Carnap spent his time trying to refute Heideggers "What is metaphysics".
You don't reduce on a guy you think an idiot.


>>
Anonymous 17/04/05(Wed)06:38 No. 12885 ID: 2bdf58

>>12882
>because insight can be reduced to banality
I don't know if that's true in all cases. I think these philosophers offered more specific insights that are invaluable and perhaps impossible to reduce.

I'm more frustrated that I can read dozens of these books and not know what to do with myself. *My* interest in them is supposed to be practical, not scholarly.

Maybe I didn't learn anything, because I already share their mentality. I did read a philosophy book written by a Muslim in the year 1100 or so, and that actually gave me something to chew on.

Hopefully I'm being clearer now. You guys all had great points anyway.




Rights Anonymous 17/03/22(Wed)10:09 No. 12857 ID: bfae6f [Reply]
12857

File 149017375884.jpg - (199.43KB , 1109x1169 , Thomas_Hobbes_(portrait).jpg )

a. Are rights natural? Or b. products of society/government?

a1. If rights are natural, do they only apply to humans?

a1a. Why do they only apply to humans?

a2. How can rights be natural if life isn't a necessary condition for the universe to exist (meaning if all life were to cease to exist, the universe would still be here)?


>>
Anonymous 17/03/22(Wed)20:53 No. 12861 ID: 9c7863

>>12857
Hobbes was often right for the wrong reasons.

>Are rights natural?
No--it's empirically clear that rights of humans and any other animal are a social construct, and any attribution of rights from a higher power or moral/philosophical dogma are myths that humans have constructed.

What is natural, anyway? Hobbes didn't know shit about the natural world--he thought everything that wasn't Europe in his time was a barbaric and primitive butthole because they didn't worship his god, even though there were many times and places in the world in history, like the Persian empire and several Chinese dynasties that were arguably more liberal and better to live in than Enlightenment Europe.

This doesn't mean that the myth of natural rights isn't an important one to have--it's what keeps us from getting our shit kicked (at least too much) by richer or more powerful people and forces. Natural rights keep children from working in factories or being child-soldiers, and natural rights let us eat/drink/fuck/smoke whatever we want as long as nobody else gets hurt. Whether rights are a product of society or god is not terribly important compared to the providential usefulness of having rights so we can discuss these things.

Tl;dr: Rights are human constructed myths, like god, money, chastity, capitalism, communism, and familial bonds. But like all of those other myths, a great importance has to be placed upon it because we have a vested interest in perpetuating at least dimensions of many myths to prosper as people.


>>
Anonymous 17/04/04(Tue)01:27 No. 12881 ID: 946ad3

I might be wrong, but your phrasing could play on an ambiguity in the concept of right, and confuse a concept of naturalism with naturalistic absolutism.




Love Lost Soul 16/02/19(Fri)20:05 No. 12441 ID: 048704 [Reply]
12441

File 145590874143.jpg - (175.00KB , 1532x940 , storm.jpg )

Does love exist if we take away the innate, animal desire to breed?


8 posts omitted. Click Reply to view.
>>
Anonymous 17/03/02(Thu)20:40 No. 12841 ID: 54ff7b

Yes. From Plato's Symposium, one of the most wonderful works on love in philosophy:

---
“‘Briefly then,’ said she, ‘love loves the good to be one's own for ever.’

“‘That is the very truth,’ I said.

“‘Now if love is always for this,’ she proceeded, ‘what is the method of those who pursue it, and what is the behavior whose eagerness and straining are to be termed love? What actually is this effort? Can you tell me?’
“‘Ah, Diotima,’ I said; ‘in that case I should hardly be admiring you and your wisdom, and sitting at your feet to be enlightened on just these questions.’

“‘Well, I will tell you,’ said she; ‘it is begetting on a beautiful thing by means of both the body and the soul.’

“‘It wants some divination to make out what you mean,’ I said; ‘I do not understand.’

“‘Let me put it more clearly,’ she said. ‘All men are pregnant, Socrates, both in body and in soul: on reaching a certain age our nature yearns to beget. This it cannot do upon an ugly person, but only on the beautiful: the conjunction of man and woman is a begetting for both.1 It is a divine affair, this engendering and bringing to birth, an immortal element in the creature that is mortal; and it cannot occur in the discordant.
Message too long. Click here to view the full text.


>>
Anonymous 17/04/02(Sun)12:58 No. 12872 ID: ff57a9

>>12441
Yes. You could go to a sexy sexy hair salon


>>
Anonymous 17/04/04(Tue)01:13 No. 12878 ID: 946ad3

It is valuable and fruitful to speak about it, and there can be given internal grounds for the introduction of the concept, relative to the linguistic framework of everyday, or common language. Hence it is justified.

Which is the alarmingly uninteresting stand point.




Black Bible Raine Ashford 17/04/02(Sun)15:38 No. 12873 ID: d2dd7b [Reply]
12873

File 149114028997.jpg - (19.62KB , 155x240 , THUMBNAIL_IMAGE (2).jpg )

Ascension Knowledge
Black Bible {PDF}
http://docdro.id/a2bZVPW




Delete post []
Password  
Report post
Reason