-  [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 576 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 16/11/15(Tue)15:00 No. 12717 ID: b00a46 [Reply]

File 14792184599.jpg - (7.06KB , 275x183 , JwRCeaP.jpg )

Parasites need love and acceptance too, so consider their mental and emotional needs when deworming your cat. Save the tapeworms! *peace*


bla 16/11/06(Sun)22:39 No. 12707 ID: 7abebe [Reply]


bla 16/11/06(Sun)22:38 No. 12706 ID: 7abebe [Reply]


bla 16/11/06(Sun)22:37 No. 12705 ID: 7abebe [Reply]


Anonymous 14/12/13(Sat)07:40 No. 11924 ID: eda858 [Reply]

File 141845283576.jpg - (24.72KB , 220x330 , 220px-Felis_silvestris_silvestris_Luc_Viatour.jpg )

Where did the concept of innate rights come from?
rights a person or animal has without having to earn or be given then (perhaps with the exception of rights given by a divine being, which are in practice usually innate)

3 posts omitted. Click Reply to view.
Anonymous 14/12/21(Sun)09:06 No. 11934 ID: a72cc7

Well, what do you exactly mean by, "Rights,"? Because if you refer to some sort of god-given facet of existence to which all are entitled to and that none are allowed to interfere with, then I'm sorry but nature's kinda proven that there's no vector of attack it's unwilling to exploit.

Anonymous 14/12/21(Sun)16:17 No. 11935 ID: c3f18d

Maybe an noble way of enshrining a pact of fear is accurate

Anonymous 16/11/01(Tue)12:36 No. 12696 ID: 1ce89c


What is earth? a dude looking for answers 16/07/31(Sun)23:48 No. 12626 ID: b8d07a [Reply]

File 147000169811.png - (535.53KB , 1024x768 , i 1 2 b-leive.png )

I've been looking into the hollow earth theory,and flat earth. does anyone have any valid proof for anything?

Anonymous 16/10/17(Mon)23:40 No. 12689 ID: 27c313

File 147674043087.jpg - (37.88KB , 615x410 , Dog-sitting-look-up.jpg )

It's a bunch of bogus. The Earth is not hollow and for a million years it likely will never be. You can always say technically as in: technically most matter is contained in the nucleus therefore Earth is hollow but even that is contested by Observations of Physical phenomena. The Earth has been traveled around from one end to the other in the 1500s. Technically again, since the Earth is spewing through a cosmic vacuum at speeds faster than when in combination, light, it could be described, from a *fixed point* as flat. But it is not flat. And thank Allah (<---- joke) never will be.

Anonymous 16/10/22(Sat)06:49 No. 12692 ID: df0652

>does anyone have any valid proof for anything?


Anonymous 16/10/13(Thu)16:24 No. 12682 ID: f0d5c6 [Reply]

File 147636867946.jpg - (278.89KB , 699x476 , 115.jpg )

The question of what awaits us after death, just as meaningless as the question of what awaits a harlequin after a bal masque. There is nothing awaits him, because there is only a harlequin mask. It seems to me that it's right to say that there is something awaits us in life. And death is the awakening of life. But it's not us who awakes, because we are - exactly the same illusion as everything that surrounds us. Dying, we awake from what we took for ourselves. By the way, in the diary of Leo Tolstoy he described a fabulous dream on this subject.

Anonymous 16/10/14(Fri)06:03 No. 12683 ID: ca3ceb

>And death is the awakening of life.

Nah man I'm pretty sure life ends with death.

If you wanna talk about it in a metaphor I guess you could talk about how death is when we go to sleep. Or like death is a dream or some shit.

Then we can sound really deep without saying anything substantial. Yay for pop philosophy.

Anonymous 16/03/30(Wed)01:10 No. 12488 ID: 44cd17 [Reply]

File 145929304978.jpg - (137.68KB , 1280x720 , liarliar.jpg )

The notion that to lie in and of itself is unjust or immoral is a fallacy.

One may lie for many a purpose. One may lie to entertain, to protect the innocent, or to let the past be forgotten. A lie may be used justly or unjustly. The mechanism itself cannot be held accountable to its use, or the consequences.

As the saying goes, lies don't kill people, people kill people...

9 posts omitted. Click Reply to view.
Anonymous 16/06/25(Sat)15:59 No. 12613 ID: 0ccd16

I could be; mostly I think I am just dishonest. Dishonesty is a survival skill for the inept and incompetent, which I am as well. I have reason to expect that any given challenge will be too hard for me to surpass, and I fail constantly. No amount of hard work has ever had an effect; only dishonesty allows my life to go forward.

I'm not sure that denotology is a thing, but essentially this is the discussion happening here.

Anonymous 16/07/01(Fri)11:07 No. 12619 ID: 98d629

Dichotomies such as just versus unjust or moral versus immoral do not exist in real life. Dichotomous concepts operate at once. For instance, Truth can be a lie if enough people accept it. Truth and lies are happening at the same time since we never know the full truth and our perception usually gets in the way of how we see.

We're blind men stumbling through a forest who called going five footsteps progress and the height of all mankind.

Anonymous 16/10/09(Sun)23:54 No. 12678 ID: 8f31d4

>fear and weakness can convince us otherwise
Some truths are inherently terrifying, in that they represent things we are all weak against. ie. We will all one day die. Is it unreasonable to tell an elderly person they could have many years left? Truths can cause harm if they become a source of depression. Which is more sacred: the preservation of happiness and health, or the truth?

This is a good point. I think it also illustrates another reason why we could never fully erradicate lies from human society. It is very difficult for us to establish truth, and very easy to lie. Indeed, we lie unintentionally as much as we attempt to tell the truth even at our moral best. We even lie to ourselves, and willfully believe those lies, to avoid truths we are uncomfortable with. If we can hardly distinguish truths from lies, how are we to distinguish the morality of either?

This is an intriguing post. A thing may be a truth to one individual and a lie to others. Is it an act of lying to express personal truths others do not share?

I'm not sure how to apply the statistics, considering the many fields of lying that need to be included. Of course there are the obvious lies people tell each other to avoid guilt, protect others from harsh truths, intentionally mislead someone's thouts, etc. but acting in movies is also a kind of lying; comedy relies on many sorts of lies; lies come in many shapes and sizes, even degrees.

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).

23 posts and 1 image omitted. Click Reply to view.
Anonymous 16/06/19(Sun)08:22 No. 12608 ID: 9ca949


Anonymous 16/08/24(Wed)00:34 No. 12660 ID: 471300

I believe you're having a hard time being alone while among your equals. Which is wierd because you like solitude, but when it comes to be one of them on society it feels plastic. Too easy to make them feel whatever they want to feel about you. Good expressions, bad ones, whatever.

You are far from letting the ego go. You're just a psycho who believes that is part of a 1%. You know your condition and the only place you can be sure you are safe from them is at home.

> Shit, I'm projecting again.

Anonymous 16/09/13(Tue)11:00 No. 12671 ID: 09521f

It depends why you want to do it, anon.

The place to start is asking yourself why you do what you do, and understanding that rationally.

When you've done that, you need to address the cause and start emptying yourself of the delusions that cause you to feel this way.

Meditation is one way of doing this. But, it's just one tool in the toolbox, anon.

Anonymous 15/07/12(Sun)07:23 No. 12234 ID: 1b02b6 [Reply]

File 143667862761.png - (706.52KB , 800x600 , 141549503623.png )

I just witnessed two kids take more "toys" from the toy box of a restaurant than they should have with sneaky eyes, looking around as they do (after hearing the woman say "you can each take something"). When you hear about a homicide, why do people throw an uproar over the death of a child but couldn't really care about an adult when the level of morality between the two is no different?

The premise is not the severity of this instance of theft, but that which they are willing to do to get what they want.

Any thoughts?

Is it because a child is defenseless and knowing that you'd win a fight with them, you've automatically reigned your dominance over them, winning the "game" with them? So all that remains is affection?

I'm beginning to think the vast entirety of human life is just a game of who is inferior and who is superior. What of those who don't have this sense for life?

4 posts and 1 image omitted. Click Reply to view.
Anonymous 16/08/11(Thu)11:15 No. 12641 ID: 0478a4

It explains nothing of the reason why people irrationally throw fits over a dead child, who, at some undetermined point, would inevitably lose their assumed innocence even if they would become innocent. The lack of care towards the death of an adult who can actually contribute to feed and nurture a child to the prosperous life he speaks of is what is being addressed here. Both the child and the adult seem to have the same morality and both are equally important. Altho articulate like everyone on this forum, he didn't address the point of the thread. Rather, he targeted someone on an assumption that they are edgy, and then equally makes an edgy argument having a basis as equally invalid as theirs. What amazes me is that there exists even one example of someone who can put together a sentence but still cannot see a logical contradiction in an argument they bring forth.

Let's go back to the main question:
Why does the ending of a child's life result in paroxysms of anger and sorrow, but not the ending of an adult's life? In terms of continuing the line of future descendants, the adult and the child are equally dependent on each other. Remember, an adult is needed to raise a child to give it a good life and to carry on the cycle, and a child, just as importantly, is needed to become that person to carry on the cycle. Both the child and the adult are immoral.

The question should be open again, since the posts prior to this are useless.

Anonymous 16/08/13(Sat)17:35 No. 12647 ID: f3ebab

I think the question you ask lacks an adequate understanding of human nature. What you're doing is intellectualizing emotions which are modes of functioning that are inherently disassociated with the other modes, namely in this case, thinking (or rationality). When a puppy dies instead of a towser, or a kitten dies in lieu of a fully-grown feline, human nature is predisposed to always feel more pity and sympathy for the former in the two examples I just offered. I don't understand your essential point though. Are you espousing a normative ethic against treating one kind more favorably than others because evolutionarily speaking, they serve the same practical purpose of continuing the species? if you are, then I will just refer you back to Hume's is/ought problem. Any argument you make on the normative side will be an ethical one, a non-objective human argument for why this or that concerning the morality of the treatment of animals (and more specifically, human animals). On this point we can at least agree that ethical arguments will be non-objective, but perhaps not non-rational. Your arguments on this side will perhaps be rational and have some strong reasoning, but they won't be objective, which is what I think you're trying to accomplish by stating that the other side is "irrational" or more emotional.

However, I don't want to be attacking a straw-man so I will assume that you're just trying to offer rationally-based arguments against emotional favoritism, in which case we are stuck dealing with emotions, and how one SHOULD feel or SHOULD NOT feel. It seems like we should institute an emotional balance between the youngling and the adult, this is what you argue. And we should do thus because both serve the same biological purpose, they're just two sides of the same coin. However, while trying to distance yourself from emotions, you actually commit the same problem you're railing against that you claim your opponent is doing: that certain ways of feeling are more justified than others. The crux of the problem is really that you're trying to get away from emotions but not realizing that you're inherently enmeshed in an emotional framework to begin with. In the end, you're arguing with emotions albeit from a purported position of rational objectivity. The reason why this is the case is because you haven't attacked the necessary assumption of emotionality which you will have to do to achieve any kind of philosophical cohesiveness. In fact, you're not actually attacking emotions at all, but attacking the way they are expressed. The reason you're not actually attacking emotions is because you're against certain ways of feeling, but not others. That is to say, there are certain ways of expressing emotions that are better than others. More specifically, the Message too long. Click here to view the full text.

Anonymous 16/09/05(Mon)13:24 No. 12667 ID: 8e9175

this is a loaded question. It really depends on what the social laws that whatever society you happen to live in at the time dictate. After all, no one really cares that it was normal in Sparta to throw babies off a cliff if they may or may not have had some birth defect, but when Hitler does it, then he becomes a huge asshole

Delete post []
Report post