-  [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 597 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.

Free Will Anonymous 16/12/23(Fri)13:13 No. 12759 ID: 4da869 [Reply]

File 148249522875.jpg - (44.44KB , 515x248 , FreeWill.jpg )

You have 10 seconds to prove why this guy isn't 100% correct.

Pro tip: you can't.


13 posts and 3 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
Nero Rand !HZseOmXfoc 17/07/06(Thu)15:59 No. 12995 ID: 7d4565

Oh yeah... Cracked was technically right, but there is no proof (thus reason to think) that there is anything above all the subatomic mechanics measuring and wielding them (thus no reason to live for them)...

Meanwhile, atoms and molecules create a complex structure of neurology that is a mostly closed system. So it is close enough to free-will that it only matters when applying physics.

Anonymous 17/07/17(Mon)15:57 No. 13009 ID: 86f262

What is free will
Isn't it free will whether i decide or not to take another cup of coffee?
Is there now two different universes, where i have and haven't taken the cup of coffee?

I would believe that free will does exist, but its similar into a situation where i can pick a card from the deck: I myself chose the card, but as an outcome it will still be one from the 52.

Anonymous 17/07/25(Tue)03:59 No. 13033 ID: 14f7e1


Nothing matters Anonymous 17/07/13(Thu)06:34 No. 13003 ID: 8bb3c7 [Reply]

File 149992048614.png - (24.02KB , 300x250 , zYRkhfZY9Y-2.png )

We all die alone, because of this nothing we do inherently matters. There is no point to life, there is no point in living. Enjoy if you can, exist if you wish, and die. Thus is the lot of mortals

6 posts and 1 image omitted. Click Reply to view.
Anonymous 17/07/21(Fri)23:02 No. 13026 ID: 1e9233

So "thinkers" (as you define them) don't think that because they're thinkers? I know you have a more convincing way of explaining what you mean that doesn't involve the fallacy of begging the question...either that or this is all bad-faith trolling.

Anonymous 17/07/22(Sat)04:00 No. 13027 ID: ed9c1c

Then what do “thinkers” believe is the answer? Or does your “thinker” believe there is no answer? Can’t you argue that you will have an inherently better and happier life with this hedonistic ideal?

Anonymous 17/07/25(Tue)03:57 No. 13031 ID: 14f7e1



Philosophy of Science Reyichiroh Makioka 17/07/15(Sat)07:20 No. 13006 ID: cbf243 [Reply]

File 15000960419.jpg - (6.22KB , 213x237 , ダウンロード.jpg )

We need a website that allow to anonymously submit&check scientific articles.

Enumerate the required functions.

Anonymous 17/07/23(Sun)04:12 No. 13028 ID: 1e9233

Such a website would be straightforward to toss together. There are versions of wiki software that would seem ideal for such a task.

Of course, a Research Paper Wiki would have all the same strengths and weaknesses of better known projects such as Wikipedia. Namely, you create the potential to democratize knowledge, accelerating the process of peer review and the spread of new discoveries. In practice, however, the project might ultimately reflect the biases of a few dedicated/stubborn sperglords. This could take the form of wikigroaning or of more serious methodological and philosophical bias.

Despite their flaws I still tend to use and appreciate various wiki websites. I like to think that I can acknowledge their limitations and biases while still getting pieces of information that would be much more inconvenient to track down otherwise. I'd support the general principle of the project, though I'd pay close attention to the execution of and the culture surrounding it.

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

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.

5 posts omitted. Click Reply to view.
Anonymous 17/07/13(Thu)02:48 No. 13000 ID: fe9887

I'm speaking from a social standpoint. In a society where groups of people are forced to mingle with one another, not all can be (the d)evil. If everyone was evil, there would always be at least but certainly more than one that rises against it. In the wild, of course everyone is evil.

Anonymous 17/07/13(Thu)02:55 No. 13001 ID: fe9887

Axiom: Sexual interest is inversely proportional to emotional interest.

Reason: The more you get to know someone, the more you understand them and therefore lose the superficial interest in them that sex demands. It is irreversible, though. Once you know someone, you can't un-know them.

As a result: You can only pick one of the two. A healthy sex life would be to never know your sex partner. A healthy emotional life would be to give up your sex drive.

Anonymous 17/07/13(Thu)03:00 No. 13002 ID: fe9887

In addition, I should have known better than to not include society in my axiom. It's a testament to how mindless I really am.

If everyone was evil in a society, the good terms that bind people together in a social construct would fall apart and sooner than later there would be no such thing as a "society". There will always be someone that rebels against evil and the rules/behaviour established to see the positive side of not being so hasty to put a knife through someone's heart for stealing a loaf of bread.

Anonymous 17/07/03(Mon)01:59 No. 12989 ID: cd0914 [Reply]

File 149903994781.jpg - (93.61KB , 1136x1600 , image.jpg )

What does anonymity mean to you and why is it important?

Nero Rand !HZseOmXfoc 17/07/06(Thu)15:15 No. 12993 ID: 7d4565

> mean to you
I prefer its universal uses, that the traditional persons can use. Liken that, I am a fan of its' enforcing freedom to navigate without authoritarian (read; consequentialists) implications come down from businesses or governments...

But personally, I prefer it for the opportunity of original thought. Casting off the shackles of moderate conformity to speak, some people say a person is known when they have skin in the game and I say the only test is power and freedom.

I would say that the libertines are correct, but I prefer rationalism with my egoism and hedonism.

Anonymous 16/01/21(Thu)10:00 No. 12413 ID: 4ddb30 [Reply]

File 145336683320.jpg - (239.76KB , 650x340 , confucius-slide.jpg )

your thoughts on this quote

4 posts omitted. Click Reply to view.
Symbolism Versus Reasoning Jane!!NlZGAzAJSz 17/07/04(Tue)08:55 No. 12990 ID: 15c91f

Ignoring what the older posters focused on and getting to the heart of the issue, signs and symbols are a convenient way to categorize and generalize people and their positions, which the human brain likes because that allows it to be more efficient about its usage (see cognitive biases and heuristics); however, these things can also contribute to a muddled up view of the world and the individuals that comprise it, which is shown by identity politics and discrimination running rampant throughout the world. People may learn that you identify as part of a group or carry around a symbol representing a loosely-defined ideology, and they may assume things about you that aren't true. What this quote tells us, if anything, is that people focus more on the title of a person's worldview than the content.

Jane!!NlZGAzAJSz 17/07/04(Tue)08:58 No. 12991 ID: 15c91f

Or rather, that's what it would mean if the quote wasn't misattributed or mistranslated.

Nero Rand !HZseOmXfoc 17/07/06(Thu)15:04 No. 12992 ID: 7d4565

Yeah? You see some fundamental concepts in math. There is a thing caused an Is-Ought Problem. Liken that, the sophists had a concept called a praxim (simple reflexive trained doing) which seems to reflext the individuals' connection of manifesting meaning from a thing. Circumstance to action, kinda like the buddhists' concept of "right action" except minus the mysticism or implied autistic morality.

Absurdism is the impotent rubbery one of philosophies, abject denial of reality means irrelvance. At least (real) skeptics start measuring things and acknowledge that something can be approximated.

I prefer relativism, even moral relativism can acknowledge the axioms of an objective reality and logic. So, I firmly take the stance that the inconsistency (past literal language barriers) of communicating ideas is because intelligence can be used to create elaborate justification for complexes and wisdom isn't needed for happiness, so emotional honesty (to oneself at least) is not guaranteed or necessarily desired by the other person.

United Methodist Church Anonymous 17/06/18(Sun)22:26 No. 12982 ID: b85033 [Reply]

File 149781758348.png - (41.09KB , 1058x1818 , cross-and-flame-color-1058x1818.png )

I'm thinking of joining the United Methodist Church, because a lot of Zen Buddhism and basically all of Yoga seems to have be commodified (which is pretty far from the insights and teachings). Do any of you guys have experiences and tips with this sort of thing?

P.S.: Abrahamic religions are far from ideal. I just might prefer Methodism to Satanism and Nihilism, and think that movements like Humanism are for people who don't struggle to pay rent.

Anonymous 17/06/20(Tue)17:57 No. 12983 ID: 46cd65

You're already in dangerous intellectual territory with "Abrahamic religions are far from my ideal belief system, but fuck it I'll give one a go regardless." That makes for an uphill battle to maintain any sort of consistent long term belief and fulfillment.

That being said, mainline Protestant churches in general are the ones where it seems easiest to enjoy the social club aspect of church without having to go too deep into actual beliefs. Individual congregations vary, but that can be a good thing insofar as it lets you pick and choose the best fit for you. Another choice to consider is the Episcopal Church, which contains within it a wide variety of beliefs and practices that you could get away with.

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

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?

3 posts omitted. Click Reply to view.
Anonymous 17/04/04(Tue)01:44 No. 12882 ID: 946ad3

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

>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.

Anonymous 17/06/16(Fri)01:38 No. 12979 ID: 3b5301

It's to get it to take affect. Being in analysis paralysis, sophmore slump, depression, writer's block, what have you involves those things we encounter in them to be reconciled or coped with. Or in general the existential crisis or the thing that pushes you into the examination in the self examined life. Either way that's also going to include taking on a million common sentiments found in that struggle.

Survey anonymous 16/04/25(Mon)18:29 No. 12516 ID: 0016ca [Reply]

File 146160178566.jpg - (221.95KB , 1024x768 , brian.jpg )

On a scale of one to ten, how much do you believe in higher intelligence?
Higher intelligence can be God/Allah, or even aliens.

15 posts and 1 image omitted. Click Reply to view.
Anonymous 17/05/03(Wed)02:20 No. 12918 ID: 188690

No. I don't. Obviously as someone with legs and thumbs there is nothing in the infinite universe that is slightly smarter.

Anonymous 17/05/15(Mon)03:10 No. 12932 ID: 489598

I don't agree with everything that you said, but that was beautiful

Anonymous 17/06/09(Fri)05:59 No. 12977 ID: f7f96a

I've followed the path of righteousness.. there must not be anything that much smarter than me.. There is only one God, really, and he's Jesus also for some reason. If you don't believe me ask the holy ghost.

WWND Anonymous 17/05/30(Tue)08:27 No. 12963 ID: 1f8e1a [Reply]

File 149612564798.jpg - (242.88KB , 1280x720 , batorurowaiaru.jpg )

Nietzsche finds himself in current day University, *raging feminist blocks his path* What ensues?

2 posts omitted. Click Reply to view.
Anonymous 17/05/31(Wed)06:51 No. 12967 ID: c5ded6

because it is obvious that females and minority groups are disadvantaged in many ways, but whether or not this should be society's main focus or your life's main focus is what's really up for debate

Anonymous 17/06/03(Sat)23:06 No. 12968 ID: 1e923f

"Get out of my way you blithering twerp or I'll show you the meaning of pain."

Anonymous 17/06/06(Tue)22:17 No. 12975 ID: 400f14

File 149678025372.jpg - (28.29KB , 520x294 , 12861551_f520.jpg )

Feminist uses *THREAT OF VIOLENCE*

What will Nietzsche do?

Delete post []
Report post