-  [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 734 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 17/07/03(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.

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?

confused as fuck genghisfem&!GFTtgGKSJA 17/05/28(Sun)15:43 No. 12957 ID: fb0557 [Reply]

keeping the big bang in mind we(humans) are no different from rocks, we just happen be a germ which was lucky enough to evolve. in several millions years we'll be gone and the universe will be the same.. do we really matter or we're the matter which just happen to exist..nothing makes sense

Anonymous 17/11/26(Sun)23:07 No. 13326 ID: 891895

You might be confused because you never thought about it before, but it's very logical, you're not made from special stuff, little human bricks, you're part of the material world that surrounds us all. As it keeps on changing, it will eventually change that little part of it you're making, leading to bad consequences

Anarchy Anonymous 15/12/07(Mon)20:42 No. 12357 ID: ab0906 [Reply]

File 144951732091.jpg - (133.45KB , 1920x800 , vForVendetta.jpg )

What are the reasons that prove the impossibility of an anarchy in every country of the world ?
Is it really because of the human fagottry ? By this I mean the eternal abuses of power, stuff like that. Are there other reasons to think anarchy isn't realizable anywhere else than in our brains and sayings ?

9 posts and 1 image omitted. Click Reply to view.
Anonymous 16/05/22(Sun)19:13 No. 12572 ID: 3811dd

The only way anyone could formally establish an anarchist (insert anarchist unit of polity here) would be to simultaneously abolish all other governments with any interest in the territory, because they'd be defenseless (no nation, no army) and they'd be overrun (no government, no negotiations).

Now if you want to have some autonomy, and live in your hippie commune and worship satan with minimal government interference, we can talk about that. Anarchy is a fantasy born from our ancestral memories of pre-civilization, grow up.

Anonymous 17/05/23(Tue)01:24 No. 12941 ID: 32c8ba

Anarchy is 5% more practical than the philosophy you support

Anonymous 17/05/24(Wed)14:33 No. 12942 ID: ca3ad7

It's been proven that primates (including humans) cannot form a social bond with more than a small number of other individuals; with humans it's around 250 people. A small commune can live in anarchy via mutualism, but an entire country of millions will immediately fracture into gangs once any centralized government is deposed. These gangs will ruthlessly steal from, slaughter, and recruit from the rest of the population, until one of them gains enough power to form a new government.

Delete post []
Report post