-  [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.

sage sage 16/07/19(Tue)15:24 No. 12624 ID: 82f189 [Reply]

File 146893468413.png - (636.96KB , 750x1334 , image.png )


Does Trope Theory re. universals/types make science impossible? Anonymous 16/07/03(Sun)21:22 No. 12622 ID: ee60ca [Reply]

File 146757377781.jpg - (30.67KB , 400x486 , chucky peirce.jpg )

When a scientist asserts that a given hypothesis X is true, we will subsequently (being good scientists ourselves) ask the scientist to provide us with evidence for X. Typically, one instance of evidence that supports X is not enough for a community of scientists to reliably propound X as being true. Thus, a *body of evidence* is required for accepting the true hypothesis.

Now, this body of evidence is built through repeated experiments relevant to X, and presumably makes use of bits of evidence gathered at different times, with potentially infinite (infinitesimal?) variance in qualities from one another. Therefore, it seems that general *types* of particular bits of evidence are required in order to provide sufficient support for X. This is what Trope theory chiefly rejects; namely that there are general types that can be built out of particulars, as they are unstructured, simple, and one-off (in a strict sense).

To give a quick example, let us suppose that I am trying to establish the hypothesis that a "prickly pear" cactus produces more water when subjected to blue light, than they do when subjected to natural daylight. It's not difficult to conceive of the experimental conditions for this hypothesis, so to make haste, let's assume that I have compiled at least a nominal body of evidence for my hypothesis, and let's assume that I have seemed to support my hypothesis with my collected evidence. A sufficient amount of the bits of evidence in the body of evidence will reflect, at the time the evidence was gathered, that a particular blue light causes a particular cactus to produce more water than another particular cactus exposed only to natural daylight.

However, in order to establish the general claim that "prickly pears produce more water..." do we not require that these particular bits of evidence embody a type of evidence that's sufficient for supporting the hypothesis? Otherwise, it seems that our observations will be entirely limited to the particular cases where we've gathered the evidence, which seems to mean that we don't have the explanatory power to support our hypothesis, generally.

Remember, when we want to support a hypothesis, the aim is to show that it is generally true, not only true at the time(s) we happen to be observing it.


Anonymous 16/07/05(Tue)15:26 No. 12623 ID: f3ebab

File 146772519810.jpg - (124.21KB , 539x289 , aproximarsetextofilosofico_openmind.jpg )

If particular things, or in your case, particular experiments had to conform to some other nature (in this case, general claims), then they could not conform to their own, and consequently could not be what they truly are. For example, if God had made all human beings like Adam before the fall, then he would have only created Adam, and no Paul nor Peter.

The only way you can make experiments truly general is if they lose their particularistic qualities. In that case, all experiments would merely just be a repeat of the general, a succession of similarity and no difference.

You would need to know every single case in order to make the general claim, this is Hume's Induction fallacy as you most likely already know. We're limited though. We can only approach an asymptotic certainty.

You would have to find some specific quality in the genus of the plant you're inspecting that would specify its necessity in acting in the way you hypothesize. I think, in that way, you could possibly make the general claim.

Juche Idea Kim Jong Un 16/02/07(Sun)00:09 No. 12433 ID: ae5d4d [Reply]

File 145480014235.png - (40.99KB , 640x120 , dprk.png )

Let us discuss the Juche Idea; the ideals of the Great Father, Comrade Kim II Sung, founder of the Korean-style socialist state--The Democratic People's Republic of Korea.

3 posts omitted. Click Reply to view.
Anonymous 16/06/26(Sun)11:41 No. 12615 ID: 848e7b

In response, I'll live in the society that is the lesser of the two evils. Or at least, the least transparent of the two evils.

Anonymous 16/06/28(Tue)06:58 No. 12618 ID: 84ab92

it really is pants on head on fire retarded

Anonymous 16/07/01(Fri)11:09 No. 12620 ID: 98d629

It's a beautiful ideal meant to brainwash the masses in order to subvert to the state's wishes. Independence is awesome in the ideal realm but hey what isn't?

Anonymous 15/10/15(Thu)16:02 No. 12297 ID: 8ca4f2 [Reply]

File 144491776960.png - (119.01KB , 2000x2062 , tmp_27720-2000px-Om_svg43331810.png )

I'm not sure if this belongs here, but it's more philosophy and way of life than religion.

So, I'm an American in Texas, and I'm trying to pursue the Purva Mimamsa tradition of Hinduism. In not sure how to start, though. Should I just read the pdfs on the tradition that I found online? Should I study Hinduism from a General perspective, even though the following of deities is not the focus of purva mimamsa? I'm atheist, and the atheist tradition interests me.

Or can I find a teacher? How? Should I just read the Vedas and go from there? Purva Mimamsa seems to be smaller sect, so I'm not surprised that opportunity to learn is so small in America, or at least my part.

Any useful help or advice is welcome. Discussion is also welcome, even if it doesn't help me. The image seems related, but actually is only vaguely so, due to association.

6 posts and 1 image omitted. Click Reply to view.
L 16/05/15(Sun)23:30 No. 12565 ID: 84fe35

"For a moment, pretend that A is true, therefore B and C are true"

>therefore B and C
>outta nowhere

Anonymous 16/06/19(Sun)16:57 No. 12609 ID: 534fd3

You're a fucking moron
Have you heard of "denying the antecedent"? You just did it. Assuming A is false and inferring B and C are false is not how logic works
A conclusion can be true, despite the premise

It is raining, so there are sharks in the ocean

it's not raining but there ARE sharks in the ocean. Sage you for not understanding basic logically fallacies.?

Anonymous 16/06/20(Mon)00:03 No. 12611 ID: 16a89f

There are temples all over the country, even in Texas. Just go into those as a start, and see where it takes you.

Anonymous 13/12/16(Mon)08:56 No. 10977 ID: 492138 [Reply]

File 138718060552.jpg - (128.46KB , 817x569 , nio.jpg )

what is the relationship, if any, between your soul and your genome?

10 posts omitted. Click Reply to view.
Anonymous 14/11/13(Thu)17:22 No. 11885 ID: 2027db

>I understand the brain because of causal relationships.
This is /phi/ not /CNSignorance/.

Anonymous 14/11/22(Sat)07:55 No. 11903 ID: abc87c

The same relationship as there is between the rainbow-colored bird I'm imagining and my genome.

The genome creates a brain capable of imagining fantastic things. The soul, space monsters, dreams, predators in the shadows, other worlds, heavens, hells, magic, all manner of fantasies and delusions. Some end up being useful, most, no so much.

Anonymous 16/06/16(Thu)15:16 No. 12601 ID: cf75a6

Nice dubs.

Anonymous 16/06/14(Tue)09:36 No. 12596 ID: 91ca1c [Reply]

Okay so this actually happened to me 5-6 months ago so I come for an explanation to help me better understand what is going on.

I took a half tesla ecstasy
About 30 minutes in I lost control of my body
I sat down crossed my legs Indian style and started meditating (I did not mediate prior to this al all)
I felt energy through my spine that felt like a snake slithering up it
After this happened my consciousness shot into space
There was a transparent blue spirit in front me floating with me
This spirit then told me "you have one question and one question only. Choose wisely"
I then asked the spirit what does it mean we are all made in the image of God
He said I'm not going to tell you. I'm going to show you
I then returned to my body and was not controlling myself still
I had infinite knowledge it felt unbelievable
The spirit in head then asked "this is what is means. do you want this forever?"
I told the spirit no and then it left and I was sober again
Message too long. Click here to view the full text.

Anonymous 16/06/14(Tue)09:42 No. 12597 ID: 91ca1c


Go to /b/ to see the pictures too large for this thread I think y'all will enjoy and be able to help with your knowledge

Anonymous 16/06/15(Wed)19:31 No. 12599 ID: 850137

>Three days later my roommate
In your other post you claim to have written them yourself >>/b/754252

And you neglected to mention that you were on drugs (i thought you were anyway).

Dud 15/03/01(Sun)23:52 No. 12076 ID: 7cc6b4 [Reply]

File 142525034493.jpg - (33.84KB , 500x348 , 1385802061248.jpg )

Consider someone with multiple personality disorder.
How would a Materialist and an Idealist view this phenomenon?

Anonymous 16/06/13(Mon)09:12 No. 12594 ID: e13cdc

File 146580193724.png - (296.91KB , 641x346 , 1367977691020.png )


Anonymous 16/06/14(Tue)03:11 No. 12595 ID: ca3ceb

As a mental disorder.

Anonymous 16/06/04(Sat)05:51 No. 12580 ID: cf7976 [Reply]

File 146501231588.jpg - (189.85KB , 540x393 , 7bdfac03-bc09-4faa-a2de-5a2a767c65dd.jpg )

Individualism in nonexistent

Give me your best arguments as to why I am (or not) correct

(Pic unrelated)

Anonymous 16/06/04(Sat)18:42 No. 12582 ID: ca3ceb


Does an afterlife exist? L 16/05/15(Sun)23:23 No. 12564 ID: 84fe35 [Reply]

File 146334740886.jpg - (828.70KB , 1087x1600 , 1462855105064.jpg )

Give your best arguments on why it does/does not exist. I do believe in it and think that it is just another reality.

(pic... I like the pic)

Anonymous 16/05/17(Tue)07:25 No. 12566 ID: 319e01

If we're nothing more than the sum of our physical parts then the concept of an afterlife seems absurd. Believing in an afterlife requires believing in dualism, because experiencing it requires some kind of soul or mind that can be separated from the physical body which can die.

Anonymous 16/06/04(Sat)11:16 No. 12581 ID: f3ebab

File 146503178988.jpg - (45.55KB , 513x478 , 451151515115.jpg )

My argument would be that there wouldn't be a way for us to find out given our circumstances as humans stuck with our a priori forms of intuition and the concepts of the pure understanding. Kant said that the Transcendental ego that precedes every judgment with an "I" is just a logical unity that accompanies our experience of things (more specifically, representations). So every time we unite 2 representations (or synthesize, to be more specific again) we are indeed conscious of an absolute subject that isn't a predicate of anything else.

But apperception assumes the process of synthesis, but it doesn't therefore make it valid for us to say that it is also a constitutive principle of reality as it is for itself (the thing-in-itself). That is, the Transcendental ego is merely a regulating principle that is a natural consequence of the process of synthesizing our representations in reality. Every time we take an "intuition" x and unite it with a "category" y in order for it to schematically make sense (and therefore make it possible for us to even experience), that act alone assumes a transcendental "I" automatically. With a synthesis comes the "I" as a logical consequence but not as a constitutive consequence.

The specific nature of the understanding is to think "discursively," that is, only through concepts, but these concepts are only predicates. But since we have an absolute subject, that is a substance, what can we do? the nature of subject is to be non-predicable. A subject is a thing which cannot be said of ANY OTHER THING. That means that the subject isn't even a concept, therefore we cannot even have it as an object of knowledge. If we can't even have a concept, that is, if we can't even give it predicates, then that means we can't give it any properties whatsoever.

Kant states "In the same manner, I may legitimately say, I am a simple substance, that is, a substance the representation of which contains no synthesis of the manifold; but this concept, also this proposition, teaches us nothing at all with respect to myself as an object of experience. For the concept of substance itself is used only as a function of synthesis, without any intuition for it to rest on, and therefore without any object, and is valid only of the condition of our knowledge, but not of any object that can be specified"

So "it can't be specified" as he states. He uses the word concept differently in the quote. In the quote he refers to the category of the understanding, one of them being substance. In another sense he refers to a concept meaning "predicate." So the "I" is only the category of substance, but isn't a concept in the sense that it can be given any predicates. Categories function as things that make the function of knowledge even possible. Kant's criti Message too long. Click here to view the full text.

Anonymous 16/04/21(Thu)17:22 No. 12503 ID: 632f80 [Reply]

File 146125216923.jpg - (78.28KB , 600x1384 , 0d75907b0d8898d80a5f595e7e076d36-the-bigfin-squid-.jpg )

Hegelian Dialectics in historic Christianity.

Thesis: Catholicism
Antithesis: Protestantism

Why have we not acquired the synthesis yet?

Anonymous 16/04/27(Wed)00:45 No. 12521 ID: 7ad7b7

Synthesis: Counter-Reformation. Almost every initial point the Protestants made was answered and reformed in the Counter-Reformation. Protestants and Catholics alike do not seem to know their history very well, but there was an entire movement within the Church that led to massive reforms after Protestantism.

Anonymous 16/06/01(Wed)22:24 No. 12576 ID: 4d1abd

Because "dialectical" processes aren't like pushing dough through a pasta-maker. Hegel actually thought that the French Revolution was something like the "synthesis" -- he rarely used the idiot-worthy t/a/s triad himself, but he did think that the Protestant Reformation had solved problems inherent in medieval European societies, and it was a standing question how the same reforms could be achieved in Catholic countries.

Delete post []
Report post