-  [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 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

Shinigami 16/08/24(Wed)09:42 No. 12661 ID: a1118d [Reply]

Official Discord of /phi/ https://discord.gg/n26SG2p

Anonymous 16/08/11(Thu)11:29 No. 12642 ID: 0478a4 [Reply]

File 147090776056.jpg - (69.57KB , 1920x1200 , 11080663_10152782713716235_4099482028537353347_o.jpg )

I'm sure the introverts of this anonymous board have been observant enough in every day life to notice the rare but intriguing countenance that I have only experienced twice so far up to this point in my life.

A brief rundown of how my day went: A colleague recommended me to visit a naturopath who, instead of prescribing medication on the spot, runs through a series of thorough tests to determine anything that can be remedied naturally without harmful medicines. What drew me towards this more than anything was that for once my problems would have been looked at with care and thought and I would not be in a situation similar to a walk-in clinic where they do a drive-by shooting analysis of your ailment, make a hasty diagnosis which often lead to prescriptions of ineffective antibiotics, shoo you away and reel in their next patient. So I go to this thing and fill out a lengthy questionnaire about myself, my diet, and the rank at which I experience written-down symptoms. I also wrote down the fatigue and tiredness that my colleague visibly noted, my depression, as well as my Clonazepam prescription which was prescribed in the past for my bouts of panic attacks and anxiety. I never use them when I don't need them--only when absolutely necessary. He greets me in the waiting area. Later in the session, I make a comment as he is quietly writing down a summary of all my problems and his course of action that I am skeptical of this clinic, but take the liveliness of a 54-year-old who commented on my ill health to be a testament of the good health that comes from the clinic. Shortly after, he draws my blood from what felt like a missed vein due to the pain of the insertion and the draw, which seemed to be caused from a fit of anger or something. He pressed extremely hard (and looking at where the red dot is and how far off it was from my vein, I wouldn't be surprised to know that he isn't experienced or that it was intentional). I then made the comment that my vein was bleeding profusely, which it was in comparison to the regular bloodwork I had done at walk-ins for any STIs. What followed from this as he opened the door and waited for my exit was the most vacant countenance and eye contact I have ever seen. It was as though his mind was elsewhere like that of a serial killer or that he knew that I knew his lying secret which stirred anger that he couldn't let out. His eyes were peeled on me in a way where I could visibly read his stare; it looked like that of a sexual predator who catches sight of a person of interest. It might not be the case here, but it's a stare no different.

I do not take drugs, alcohol or any stimulants.

Could this be the result of my paranoia or even schizophrenia that I don't know I have? I think not. The countenance, or "vacancy" in his face was one that I had only seen one other time. Has anyone else experienced this stare? What the hell is i Message too long. Click here to view the full text.

Anonymous 16/08/20(Sat)23:24 No. 12652 ID: e25ea5

Have you considered that you may simply be overthinking things? Often we build a narrative in our head to explain events as we perceived them, but this can be a fallacy as its all too easy to get lost within said narrative.

Anonymous 16/08/22(Mon)00:02 No. 12653 ID: ca3ceb

Sometimes people don't realize the facial expression they're making.

There ya go.

Anonymous 16/08/22(Mon)13:09 No. 12656 ID: 0478a4

If only you saw the face. I'm absolutely sure I'm not overthinking it. The moment I caught sight of that glare I immediately recoiled in shock.

Anonymous 12/10/15(Mon)20:00 No. 8621 ID: 92c0b9 [Reply] [Last 50 posts]

File 135032400874.jpg - (653.27KB , 800x1200 , swastika.jpg )

“It would be better if there were nothing. Since there is more pain than pleasure on earth, every satisfaction is only transitory, creating new desires and new distresses, and the agony of the devoured animal is always far greater than the pleasure of the devourer”
― Arthur Schopenhauer

So what do you guys think about this type of view?
Such views have been described in modern times in the book "Better Never To Have Been: The Harm Of Coming Into Existence-By David Benatar


70 posts and 17 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
Anonymous 15/04/21(Tue)17:42 No. 12161 ID: 03e413

File 142963093713.jpg - (68.61KB , 324x576 , cat head.jpg )

the optimist’s impatience with or condemnation of pessimism often has a smug macho tone to it (although males have no monopoly of it). There is a scorn for the perceived weakness of the pessimist who should instead ‘grin and bear it’. This view is defective for the same reason that macho views about other kinds of suffering are defective. It is an indifference to or inappropriate denial of suffering, whether one’s own or that of others. The injunction to ‘look on the bright side’ should be greeted with a large dose of both scepticism and cynicism. To insist that the bright side is always the right side is to put ideology before the evidence. Every cloud, to change metaphors, may have a silver lining, but it may very often be the cloud rather than the lining on which one should focus if one is to avoid being drenched by self-deception. Cheery optimists have a much less realistic view of themselves than do those who are depressed

anonomos 16/08/22(Mon)12:45 No. 12654 ID: a60f72

itt pseudonietzcheans doin they thang

anonomos 16/08/22(Mon)12:45 No. 12655 ID: a60f72

itt pseudos

New Fiction, is it really worthless? Anonymous 16/08/03(Wed)06:20 No. 12631 ID: 1e929a [Reply]

File 147019800177.jpg - (572.83KB , 1280x720 , new fiction thumb.jpg )

Society ought to discourage new art and perhaps ban new fiction. Creating something when there’s an existing object is inefficient. Old books can replace new ones. An excerpt from "Culture is not about Esthetics" the philosophy essay written by Gwern Branwen


1 post omitted. Click Reply to view.
Anonymous 16/08/04(Thu)20:35 No. 12633 ID: ca3ceb

What a wonderful world that would be, where people could express themselves but only if they make something completely original. It would be great if they could consider that if they're going to pour their heart and soul into a work, other people might have seen something similar to it before, and therefore makes that work unnecessary! I mean, art is about what everyone else wants, not what the artist themselves wants.

Anonymous 16/08/13(Sat)22:20 No. 12649 ID: f3ebab

File 147111965432.gif - (12.69KB , 209x301 , 1470687025336.gif )

There's a lot of mediocrity, I don't disagree. Sparks of genius are hard to come by in this day and age. But that's probably always been the case anyway.

But who's going to judge whether a work is completely original and what standards are they going to use? discouraging new art might also unwittingly discourage artistic genius. Taxing mediocrity might not be a bad idea, but it does take away a person's individuality and liberty to create what he wants. The artist isn't responsible to the consumer. If the consumer consumes bad art, he consumes bad art at his own harm and ignorance. Consumers can be more discerning using their inward motivation, the act of doing so isn't the responsibility of the creator.

He has a controversial viewpoint, and he brings up interesting ideas, but it's not practical. With a growing population, it'd be pretty lame if most people were consuming the same old material.

He's too cold and hyper-practical in regards to the benefits that art has to serve for society. And I agree with >>12633 that art isn't about what people want, but what the artists' spirit wants.

Anonymous 16/08/14(Sun)01:13 No. 12650 ID: df0652

>Society ought to discourage new art and perhaps ban new fiction.
>the philosophy essay written by Gwern Branwen

Gwern Branwen's essay can be replaced by Plato's Republic.

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.

Delete post []
Report post