-  [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 660 unique user posts. View catalog

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

There's a new /777/ up, it's /gardening/ 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 17/10/09(Mon)23:20 No. 13221 ID: b742f0 [Reply]
13221

File 15075840452.jpg - (8.84KB , 234x216 , images(2).jpg )

From a secular standpoint, can a humans be considered gods of the animals beneath them?

Pic unrelated.


4 posts and 1 image omitted. Click Reply to view.
>>
Anonymous 17/10/31(Tue)06:06 No. 13251 ID: f7d505

>>13250
My TED talks drew attendance that made my opponent's godkindling event look positively SAD.


>>
Anonymous 17/10/31(Tue)14:37 No. 13252 ID: e38094

>>13251
>godkindling event
Sounds sad enough; are you sure it needed your help?




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.


11 posts omitted. Click Reply to view.
>>
Anonymous 17/10/02(Mon)14:36 No. 13204 ID: b2041f

>>13121
Where did you get that axiom from? Self-made quote or apocryphical idiom? I'd like to use it and reference it. If self-made; fill in this form:
[NAME] [ADDRESS] [TEL] [GENDER]


>>
Anonymous 17/10/06(Fri)08:20 No. 13214 ID: fe9887

>>13199
By assumption I mean an assumption of someone's philosophical motive in doing something. A perfect example of this is on an anonymous board or anywhere online where not a lot about the person is known. If someone anonymous, online or IRL stranger, expresses a statement or thought, we as readers or listeners immediately assume the underlying motives of this person that incentivized them to carry out their actions or expression of thoughts.

I should have made clear in the axiom that this is intended for direct assumptions of people, rather than the character framework you developmentally build after getting to know someone, but thought it was pointless given that most of not all of us really don't go out to socialize. Notice the assumption of the reason you're here that I made and how it reflects myself.

>>13204
I came up with it myself. I'm not sure why you need personal information...


>>
Anonymous 17/11/07(Tue)07:20 No. 13267 ID: d75d96

>>13214
Wikipedia and for-profit universities have raised a generation that cannot process any statement that doesn't come from an established source.

He expects you to cite your references; you are not famous enough to have an idea of your own.




Blood and Spirit 17/10/04(Wed)20:37 No. 13208 ID: 8c87d4 [Reply]

Link to audio reading of this article
Our identity based in blood n soil has proven fruitless. We see now that blood n soil was easily defeated by magic dirt. Why? Because it lacked the understanding of what a people truly are. A Nation is blood and spirit. The land is just a space a nation occupies.

If you take a family from their home and put them in a new home do they stop being a family? No! Because the children know that their origin is not that piece of land they grew up on. They know their origin is being born of their parents. Today, we have been told our nation is blood n soil, because of lack of knowing our origin. This gives us false nations built on ideals that are not able to be demonstrated in nature. Because of this we are heading towards extinction.

When you look at the Jewish people you see that they are not blood n soil. It is by blood and spirit Jews are able to keep their identity throughout the world. At the same time if you look at Europeans who have adopted blood n soil you see that they turn against their own people because they live in a different country. As soon as Europeans came to America they no longer saw their ancestors across the seas as brothers and sisters. But the Jews see all other Jews as brothers and sisters. With exception of the Ethiopian Jews. Why, because the Ethiopian Jews do not share their blood or enough of it. This also shows that spirituality by itself is not enough to unite a people.

For our people to survive we must unite under blood and spirit. Once this is done our people will have a homeland again. If we do not unite under one spirituality then our people will go extinct. A homeland is not our origin. A homeland is a tool to keep our people safe. Soon all of the lands that Aryans reside in will no longer be safe. Effectively leaving us homeless as a people. If you believe a nation is blood n soil, do you have a nation if the soils occupied by foreign blood?

Our people’s origin is not distant lands or the plot of land we grew up on. It is the founding of our gene pool. Jews know their origin lies with Abraham. That is the source of their strength. We need to teach our children their origin. The oldest writing of our people dates back to 2193 BCE. It tells us our origin.

“Freya’s children came to know their origin.” “Wise Freya! When She raised Her children to the seventh generation She called them to Flyland and gave them Her counsel, saying, “Let this be your law and it will never fail you.”” Aryan Scriptures 1:5,36

Those who are Aryan learn your true origin and spirituality. By accepting the teachings and laws of Freya you “secure the existence of your people.” This is blood and spirit. This will lead to a homeland for our people. Which will make “a future for White children.”




rant Anonymous 17/08/07(Mon)14:32 No. 13061 ID: 1460ee [Reply]
13061

File 150210913999.jpg - (43.16KB , 564x585 , hreh.jpg )

i wonder how all us millennials turn out
our attitude towards the struggle in transitioning from child to adult can either be anger directed towards the economic system or towards those who raised us unprepared (liberal parenting, university system)
it’s definitely a combination of both, but i think the latter deserves more scrutiny. It’s easier to fix and coming to terms with it will make you happier than understanding economic injustices. I can’t conceive of a world in which communism succeeds, marx created or re-appropriated the term exploitation and makes value judgments about the economy that make sense only through a certain lens. I don’t think this viewpoint will ever gain majority support, it’s an anti humanistic theory in the way it assumes victim hood for poor people, they are “exploited” beyond control. The theory reduces people to non-autonomous beings when in reality there can be many reasons people do not succeed economically. In a communistic society would you even be responsible for your own feelings and emotions? A murderer must surely be held morally accountable, which already seems to contradict the idea that poverty is an injustice. In both systems people MUST be held morally accountable therefore its all a matter of preference. Which moral lens do you choose to view from? It would help greatly if the communists clearly set their moral standards, in doing so they would admit to the fact that humans have autonomy and moral obligation. Capitalism clearly sets its own standards and has its own moral code embedded in the way the economy functions, in rewarding certain members of society more than others. Communism has no replacement, and coupled with social liberalism has nothing to say about the value of individual behavior whatsoever. In order to move forward the left must rework or forget marx, the rise of the alt right and Trump’s presidency have made this clear.


>>
Anonymous 17/08/10(Thu)23:16 No. 13067 ID: 4b4e54

>>13061
A liberal is not necessarily a bad parent. A conservative or a socialist is not necessarily a good parent. Take your ideology elsewhere. Also, all of this pseudo-intellectual discussion of the 'generations' is completely exhausting.


>>
Anonymous 17/09/02(Sat)05:30 No. 13092 ID: d5439c

>>13061
Anyway, you're about Communism. Communism imperfect and impractical. People are probably assigning too much blame to the economic system for their unhappiness.

That being said, plenty of people (the vast majority of people, if you look at the ultra-elite and their tactics) are at a major economic disadvantage, and socialist efforts to fix this are not misguided.

Also, the rise of the Alt-Right has been a reactionary disaster filled with more assclowns than was originally thought possible. Their beliefs are pretty inconsistent between members, too, and very illogical.


>>
Anonymous 17/10/03(Tue)19:23 No. 13206 ID: 418d7a

>>13092
That's more of a policy and practicality question than a philosophical one. I think that philosophy has a place in politics, but it's not administration of the system. We have too much development going on with the economic system in the first place just to keep up with that, and the economic system right now is already stressed to the limits providing for people who don't/can't contribute.
If you look at the IMF and how the federal reserve work, read some books on quantitative easing, I think you might come to a similar conclusion I have. It's a unicorn fart economy. The question the best and brightest I've read are asking is just how to structure this correctly, and the blockchain is pretty much what governments are going to be forced to adopt, like Singapore did.
>>13061
>reforge marx
They've been doing that since his book came out. The problem in my mind is that people are attached to political philosophies and are disconnected from political realities. The political reality right now in america is actually the most successful welfare state in human history. If that isn't communism, socialism, whatever, than what is? Do you want everyone to put on grey uniforms and live in commie blocks?
America is a wonderful place and it's made all of this possible through nigh infinite sacrifice, that will continue into the future as well. The American left is acting like they are playing catch-up with the social policies of europe, while the American right has thrown in their flag with the democrats. I've observed this from listening to hours and hours of NPR and Red Eye Radio(conservative-libertarian). Single payer was locked in since obama passed obamacare. The reason why is that the American people want free money, they don't care or understand the future cost of that free money because they want to be even more comfortable.
As for you millennials, most people don't mature mentally much as they grow up. It's up to you decide where you'll end up.




Selfish and speciesist behavior as 'genetic reproductive strategy Anonymous 17/09/02(Sat)07:35 No. 13093 ID: d5439c [Reply]
13093

File 150433055760.jpg - (9.63KB , 332x336 , later homo.jpg )

Here's a spicy one. It's pretty simple too. Maybe I don't know what the fuck I'm talking about. Anyway, enjoy.

...

If a human does something to seriously harm and deprive fellow humans, or even something to seriously harm and deprive other species (for example, making them go extinct), is this poor and unintelligent 'genetic reproductive strategy'?

For example, let's just make some random, kind of exaggerated scenarios.

In scenario 1.) Elon Musk finds a way to reproduce by budding. The police try to stop him, so he is left with their choice to either surrender, or destroy Earth and create a self-sustaining colony on Mars. So, out of supposed good 'genetic reproductive strategy,' he goes through with the latter option. Sure, he succeeded in propagating his unique DNA more than otherwise, but he also destroyed the all species on Earth, one of which was carrying 99% DNA similar to him (humanity).

Another scenario, 2.) humanity finds a cure for cancer, but it involves killing all of the other primates. Humanity goes through with the plan, and all other primates are dead. Humanity helped itself thrive and prosper more by eliminating cancer, but what about the fact that many of those primates contained 95% similar DNA to humans? Humans succeeded in propagating the DNA that is unique to humans over the other primates, but they also hurt biodiversity and made it so that there will be no remaining primates if humans go extinct.

So is speciesist and extremely selfish strategy really beneficial 'genetic reproductive strategy'? Is it not better in terms of genetic propagation to focus on maintaining the biosphere and prolonging human existence, or is that unique DNA so much more important than the DNA in common?

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


>>
Anonymous 17/09/02(Sat)08:21 No. 13094 ID: d5439c
13094

File 150433326223.jpg - (284.45KB , 1229x1171 , 1504332049595.jpg )

in another thread, one poster replied:

Genetic selection is not even about propagating your exact genes, it is about the continuation of the series that contains your genes. Of course, the many bloodlines are codependent, and the least dependent have less agency. A human doing something harmful to other humans leads to 1/ reducing fair competition thus reducing gene selection 2/ reducing the amount of reproductive partners he could have, considering half of people are the opposite sex because of the Fisher's Principle. Depriving other species is also bad because human intelligence is basically partial retrocausation, thus human action has an impact against the natural equilibrium, and Earth being a chaotic system(see pic) implies the consequences aren't predicted nor that equilibrium is restored quickly after. Now in terms of biodiversity, diversity is more present in a complex being like a human than in a simpler animal. Diversity can be measured in many ways but consider this: are apes more likely to spawn humans than humans are likely to spawn apes? Humans choosing to survive without cancer is safer than apes being put in charge to maintain the Earth's biodiversity. Humans have a huge potential along their power to destroy, the two are inseparable for an intelligent species.

>is this poor and unintelligent 'genetic reproductive strategy'?
Yes.
>So is speciesist and extremely selfish strategy really beneficial 'genetic reproductive strategy'?
No,
> Is it not better in terms of genetic propagation to focus on maintaining the biosphere and prolonging human existence, or is that unique DNA so much more important than the DNA in common?
Wrong. There is a unique DNA, we are propagating a set of DNA sequences, I don't pass my exact DNA, I sacrifice it to make a random mix with other's DNA. Also "and prolonging human existence" that is the case of curing cancer, even though you just said humans should sacrifice themselves with cancer if that meant killing all the apes. Shitty question wording.


>>
Anonymous 17/09/03(Sun)06:18 No. 13104 ID: d5439c

and another poster:

You are assuming that genes make long term decisions and try to determine the outcome of their strategies.

It is really just a bunch of programmed behaviors that happen to succeed or fail based on the environment.

"Kill wolves and eat those fuckers" works until there aren't any wolves left.

Then some other strategy works better. "Cannibal everyone and eat their brains."

Until a disease kills cannibals and not non-cannibals.

On and on and on in the circle of life.




Classical vs contemporary cynicism Anonymous 17/07/24(Mon)23:36 No. 13029 ID: c6a2e5 [Reply]
13029

File 150093217160.jpg - (42.89KB , 480x353 , IMG_4204.jpg )

Were the classical cynics more positive people than contemporary cynics? People use the contemporary word with such disdain. The classical cynics are depicted as people who were humorous and witty hobos. Contemporary cynicism is associated with general distrust of society, while simultaneously, an increased callousness and ability to manipulate society.

Sorry for the English. What do you guys think about this?


5 posts omitted. Click Reply to view.
>>
Anonymous 17/08/24(Thu)17:00 No. 13080 ID: 9fd7e5

Here's the next line of thought: what do you take from the different flavors of cynicism to apply to your modern day life?

While all of modern society has at least some version of modern cynicism present in most levels, there's a lot about chan culture specifically that echoes the classical cynics' gleeful mockery of and contempt for the arbitrary mores enforced by normalfag society.


>>
Anonymous 17/09/02(Sat)05:20 No. 13090 ID: d5439c

>>13080
Modern society has these hooks.

There's an endless supply of products (medicine, contemporary music, technology) that grab you by your interest and thrust you into the machine. Then, once your mind has been shaped by the machine, the most common kind of escape is a mental breakdown (maybe via psychosis or hallucinogens). Even then, there's never a total escape.

Lots of hobos would just have their laptops stolen and therefore wouldn't be channers. Diogenes would have to register with some kind of State funded service in order to eat.


>>
Anonymous 17/09/02(Sat)05:23 No. 13091 ID: d5439c
13091

File 150432263878.jpg - (138.94KB , 1124x1428 , don't believe in any of that.jpg )

>>13080
>>13090
maybe modern cynics are spiteful towards society, because they have been trapped and shaped into being a certain way that doesn't align with their values




do /phi/ even logic? Anonymous 16/10/31(Mon)07:59 No. 12694 ID: 82c3eb [Reply]
12694

File 147789714257.jpg - (49.35KB , 482x489 , 11.jpg )

Solve it


1 post and 1 image omitted. Click Reply to view.
>>
Anonymous 17/02/27(Mon)12:50 No. 12838 ID: eaf6f5

6


>>
Anonymous 17/08/05(Sat)12:05 No. 13059 ID: ff4656

>>12694
I'd say 3


>>
Anonymous 17/09/01(Fri)11:33 No. 13085 ID: 187352

6




Epistemology / Mathematics Anonymous 17/08/24(Thu)05:33 No. 13079 ID: 4617cc [Reply]
13079

File 150354561671.gif - (79.23KB , 600x374 , Doggie.gif )

What are your views on pathway independence? Does such a thing exist and what does that mean to you?

A) On the face of it pathway independence may not exist. I end up at different times at the same place by picking a different route such as the "scenic one." Please lets have a nice discussion about this.

When is pathway independence applicable??

B) ETHICS driven arguments qua "The ends justify the pathway (means)" are welcome

C) 4 + 1 = 5 = 2 + 3 | 4 + 1 ==/= 2 + 3


>>
OP 17/08/25(Fri)15:32 No. 13081 ID: 315d96

What are you??? All Zombie-lurking basement-dwellers??? Answer my epistemological crisis bitte!




Anonymous 15/11/16(Mon)06:19 No. 12321 ID: 21c12c [Reply]
12321

File 144765119047.jpg - (12.31KB , 541x329 , quill-pen.jpg )

Is there really a right and wrong?

personally I believe that there is none, life is pointless.

thoughts?


33 posts omitted. Click Reply to view.
>>
Anonymous 17/07/18(Tue)05:33 No. 13011 ID: 73f57f

There is a point, we just don't know what it is yet. So the point until then is to try to find out.


>>
Anonymous 17/07/25(Tue)03:58 No. 13032 ID: 14f7e1

Has anybody here asked OP for clarification? That's the only way to really answer their question.


>>
Anonymous 17/08/14(Mon)19:12 No. 13071 ID: 564822

Morality is subjective. I think the only right and wrong is how well you do you in life. If you are a depressed lolcow everyday that bitches then are most likely in the wrong and if you live life well and have fun they you are in the right. Ya dig?




humanity anonimus 17/07/02(Sun)21:41 No. 12988 ID: 486e31 [Reply]
12988

File 149902448359.jpg - (534.70KB , 1440x1440 , 2016-05-25 03-22-26~2~2.jpg )

Why we are not united? , it s stupid to fight each other , is not better to spent our energy for grow up together?
All the Nations want to have the primacy of something that cause most of the problem on the Earth like the war , economy and political crisis, the hungry , ...
We are Human , we not need a bigger television or beautiful dress , we need to understand to stay togheder


>>
Nero Rand !HZseOmXfoc 17/07/06(Thu)16:02 No. 12996 ID: 7d4565

>>12988
> Why we are not united?
Do you mean, why are we not united?

> it is stupid to fight each other, is not better to spent our energy for grow up together?
No it isn't. Not everyone is out for each others' benefit and life is finite, so putting yourself out for another person becomes an immoral/unethical act toward yourself. Mutualism, can lead to it not being an unethical act against you but systems or a direct line of cause and effect ought to be drawn back to you to benefit you to make it so.

> All the Nations want to have the primacy of something that causes most of the problems on the Earth like the war, economy and political crisis, the hungry, ...
Arguably, it is that drive that has dragged humanity forward. Ancient logic from the greeks, european thinkers forging deductive reasoning from inductive reasoning. Deductive reasoning leading to the scientific method, the scientific method creating the glories of humanity.

Liken that, it was the pursuit of reason that standardized how people could relate to each other. Religion didn't unite humanity, but rationale did.


>>
anonimus 17/07/06(Thu)20:38 No. 12997 ID: 431c9b

No no and no , fight to each other can only take is in a slowly ruins.

You said "Arguably, it is that drive that has dragged humanity forward". Yae i think the same but we grow up only if that discovery is shared with all .

" Ancient logic from the greeks, european thinkers forging deductive reasoning from inductive reasoning. Deductive reasoning leading to the scientific method, the scientific method creating the glories of humanity".this is true , i cant say nothing more

" Not everyone is out for each others' benefit and life is finite, so putting yourself out for another person becomes an immoral/unethical act toward yourself".We have to change that!

" Mutualism, can lead to it not being an unethical act against you but systems or a direct line of cause and effect ought to be drawn back to you to benefit you to make it so".mmm ok

"Liken that, it was the pursuit of reason that standardized how people could relate to each other. Religion didn't unite humanity, but rationale did". Yea fucking true , the religion can only divide us

I have an example for you : if in the future we can survive only with a specifical discovery , you think that this discovery is shared with all to survive together? I dont think so .
This is a immoral act , think about that


>>
Anonymous 17/07/25(Tue)04:07 No. 13034 ID: 14f7e1

>Why are we not united?
Hmm?

>It is stupid to fight each other.
Usually. I think more people are becoming of the opinion that diplomatic solutions are usually better than getting into physical conflicts.

If you are asking why we oppose each other at all, it's because we can't all agree. We all have different opinions on what is good, what is bad, and what level of altruism people are supposed to have.


>All Nations want to have the primacy of something that. That is the cause of famine, war, etc.
I agree to an extent. If everyone was perfectly altruistic, then there would be much less fighting.

Hypothetically speaking, there could still be fighting, like in iRobot, where the machines dominate humanity and kill some of them because they coldly decided what was best.


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




Delete post []
Password  
Report post
Reason