-  [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.

The people who ruin life angryATunfairness 16/01/10(Sun)18:55 No. 12400 ID: 9b31fb [Reply]

File 145244850094.jpg - (308.37KB , 1480x2630 , whydoesntlifeobeytherules.jpg )

Why doesn't life OBEY.


one day someone has to kill the person who has ruined life for everybody. people whose intention is to ruin everybodys life need to be shot before they reach power.

before you call me angry. i say steer you brain. surely these people designing to ruin the world are the real angry ones. that i have "NO BAD INTENTIONS" against THEM.... i hope you will see reason to be on my side... AND NOT on the side of a bunch of opinion seeking psychopaths.

Anonymous 16/01/14(Thu)12:09 No. 12406 ID: 9c3171

Reality (and by extension life) is indifferent to us.

It doesn't care about you as it is not capable of doing so.

Anonymous 16/01/03(Sun)23:16 No. 12392 ID: ae1736 [Reply]

File 145185937838.jpg - (18.72KB , 214x320 , 51I JFzOcTL__AC_UL320_SR214,320_.jpg )

Is formality just a way to nuance impulses?

The more you can resist impulses, the more disciplined you are.
Discipline is merely to chose to act according to your ideal self.

Can I theorise that the more you conform yourself to accepted society, the more formal you appear to be.

Or is formalaty just a way to nuance your true self, to hide all your flaws and to act according to protocol. Which protocol is based on civilised society.

Is to strive for an highly civilized society an end goal? Can innvation only come from dicipline? Should we shift the paradigm for high society to a different one? Is formality a means to an end?

Anonymous 14/03/02(Sun)05:26 No. 11146 ID: 600abd [Reply]

File 139373436128.jpg - (7.14KB , 225x225 , coconut head.jpg )

The other day in religion class, my teacher played a sermon about Catholicism and stuff. The shortest I could put it is, "If there was no god, then the universe would have had to started somewhere, the big bang per say. If we could use a computer and go look at that explosion, or a simulation of, we'd be able to figure out the rate at which the universe expands. From this we'd essentially be able to figure out the future and then life would be meaningless, because our choices would already have been determined."

Any thoughts on this? I thought it was a pretty interesting standpoint, but was probably worded confusingly in order to sound smart and force people to think you know what you're talking about...

29 posts and 2 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
Anonymous 15/08/04(Tue)08:48 No. 12255 ID: b3036a

As I see it, this falls apart at point 4
God simply knowing the future doesn't mean the future is set in stone or prevent others from being able to change the future, if anything it means that God would know the new future as soon as the path of events changes, or even beforehand, and he would know any changes possible to the future, so he could prevent changes if he wanted, but I don't see any reason to think that he does. God knows everything, so he CAN eliminate free will, but evidently chooses to let people choose. All powerful doesn't mean all controlling.

Freewill/determinism Me 15/12/29(Tue)16:51 No. 12385 ID: 07a493

Do you control randomness?

Me 15/12/29(Tue)16:56 No. 12386 ID: 07a493

Because scientist know beyond a reasonable doubt the origins and fate of existence, right?

Why? Anonymous 15/09/28(Mon)07:55 No. 12285 ID: 42bd01 [Reply]

File 144341975798.jpg - (72.97KB , 480x480 , PoMo wanna take ur p0rnz.jpg )

"The conflict between men and women is brutal. 'The normal fuck,' writes Andrea Dworkin, 'by a normal man is taken to be an act of invasion and ownership undertaken in a mode of predation.' This special insight into the sexual psychology of males is matched and confirmed by the sexual experience of women:

'Women have been chattels to men as wives, as prostitutes,
as sexual and reproductive servants. Being owned and
being fucked are or have been virtually synonymous
experiences in the lives of women. He owns you; he fucks
you. The fucking conveys the quality of ownership: he
owns you inside out.'

Dworkin and her colleague, Catharine MacKinnon, then call for the censorship of pornography on postmodern grounds. Our social reality is constructed by the language we use, and pornography is a form of language, one that constructs a violent and domineering reality for women to submit to. Pornography, therefore, is not free speech but political oppression." --Explaining Postmodernism (http://www.libertarianismo.org/livros/srchpostmodernism.pdf)

Why do PoMo faggots want to rid the world of freedoms that Westerners have fought and died for? These are freedoms that MOST everyone enjoys, but instead we have pussies that value equality over freedom.

Other civilization destroying ill: http://youtu.be/cCOLcMqdpls & http://youtu.be/oyZDVA2bG0w

2 posts omitted. Click Reply to view.
Anonymous 15/11/09(Mon)07:54 No. 12317 ID: 98407e

Absolutely not true at all. I can send my sources later today, but I wrote a lengthy rebttal to someone claiming porn causes sexism or some nonsense, and I had sourced a report of compiled studies that all showed unequivocally that porn, especially BDSM, not only made men more receptive to their partners' needs, but also improved their sex lives just about across the board. The only "drawback" according to current standards was that the people who watched the more extreme pornography generally had shorter relationships, which is understandable if their sexual behaviour improves their sex lives, given that partners less well-suited sexually would probably increase with the diversity of taste.

Anonymous 15/11/25(Wed)01:14 No. 12345 ID: 30272a

Wonderful post. I'm just lurking but you expressed your ideas fantastically and I agree.

Anonymous 15/12/25(Fri)08:49 No. 12376 ID: 0e1f6c

Porn is very diverse therefore there is porn for everyone, women and men alike. I only think its damaging if a person has unresolved issues that prevent them from being able to enjoy porn. Otherwise, it's a great way to explore ones own sexuality and fantasies.

Internet culture is, to a degree, what you make it (sites you visit, threads you post in, ect.) and with the variety of porn available people using the Internet mostly watch what they want to, more reinforcing who they already are than introducing new ideas.

Anonymous 14/04/23(Wed)14:30 No. 11267 ID: 161fda [Reply]

File 139825624666.jpg - (8.10KB , 261x146 , 10253881_742563365784373_2343968229740445120_n.jpg )

Question: Are humans rational creatures if they let emotions affect their thinking?

9 posts and 1 image omitted. Click Reply to view.
comatoast!!L1A2Z5BQN4 15/12/08(Tue)06:28 No. 12363 ID: 1238e8


Humans are as rational as they choose to be. (Assuming we have choice)

Emotions are just an obstacle.

Anonymous 15/12/09(Wed)03:47 No. 12365 ID: bee824

I would say it would depend on if emotions play a part in the end result you're going for.

Anonymous 15/12/18(Fri)02:46 No. 12368 ID: 9ecb57

Emotions wear off and reasoning does not.

Jurispudence (philosophy of law) Jroihcnh-a-r-d-s 14/08/07(Thu)10:19 No. 11672 ID: aaad3e [Reply]

File 140739959346.jpg - (7.43KB , 263x192 , images.jpg )

There are convincing ethical arguments for the legalisation of blackmail. You can find them online.

Being convinced of those arguments, in a jurisdiction where blackmail IS illegal, is blackmail unethical?

Anonymous 15/11/30(Mon)08:03 No. 12351 ID: eb915c

There are convincing ethical arguments for the legalisation of penis. You can find them online. 

Being convinced of those arguments, in a jurisdiction where penis IS illegal, is penis unethical?

Anonymous 15/12/13(Sun)14:18 No. 12367 ID: 53fc09

nice wenis op>>11672

Bible as Philosophy Anonymous 15/08/07(Fri)15:58 No. 12256 ID: a500ab [Reply]

File 143895591149.jpg - (95.31KB , 1600x965 , bible-Sunlight.jpg )

Isn’t... the Bible... just like the old philosophy plays of Plato and stuff... where they’d make up characters in parables and plays to explain the right way to act and the way the world worked... as opposed to the written word of a God nobody has ever seen

2 posts omitted. Click Reply to view.
fearofstupid 15/08/14(Fri)21:32 No. 12266 ID: cb07aa

bible is very violent.

dont read violence.

violence in violence out.

although the worst violence of all... prevention of violence... is the highest of all worst violences. obviously.

Anonymous 15/08/14(Fri)21:57 No. 12267 ID: 358f52

Depends. In reality? Yeah, that's basically what they are. But the way the people who came up with those stories saw it was that they were real. You don't find boring, droll genealogical trees in stories that people don't think are very real. It's clear that whoever came up with them originally tried to convey what they saw as the truth. It may not be true, but that doesn't make the lessons we can learn from The Bible any less relevant.

Just because they viewed it as something real doesn't mean we have to discard the whole thing. I don't buy it, and yet I still love reading stories from there. Proverbs and the Wisdom of Sirach being two of my main favorite books.

Anonymous 15/12/05(Sat)09:41 No. 12352 ID: 1944a6

Did you ever read the original Bible? Gospel of Jesus.

they are the people of Church, in fact they were blind to the Aramaic language, so that they translate the bible with ambiguous.

Divination Anonymous 15/10/22(Thu)10:01 No. 12302 ID: 6c2737 [Reply]

File 144550091730.jpg - (163.74KB , 495x245 , yugioh-series.jpg )

What are your thoughts about divination?

I used to read a lot for people, astrology, tarot, etc, but I stopped after I realized that these people should be able to handle themselves without me given them "affirmations" and also when you do magic, it turns out the cards are flipped because of a spiritual force, however usually unidentified, but yet just a slight chance, nothing more. To base your decisions on these readings is a bad idea, and especially when you become prone to relying on these means to figure out how your day is going to "go down" or whatever.

I keep getting banned from /x/ on 4chan for posting all the time, especially for arguing on a divination board, where they were talking about a "curse" the put on the "shit-posters" and it was either me or this other dude, but I troll them and post how divination is a black magick spell for being impatient, ulterior motives, and and throw out ideas like, if you look in the future you miss out on the present when the time comes, then get banned. This place is nice no one is angry or forcing themself to be right the whole time, and people actually discuss ideas...

Anonymous 15/11/02(Mon)10:58 No. 12316 ID: 0fb81b

>This place is nice no one is angry or forcing themself to be right the whole time, and people actually discuss ideas...


Anonymous 15/10/23(Fri)22:15 No. 12307 ID: 0fb81b [Reply]

File 144563132251.jpg - (42.88KB , 550x366 , schoolyard.jpg )

Sometimes you have to write messages anonymously in public places to be heard.

Let’s consider something…

Jesus is the Sun of God in the heavens above; the light of the world. He dies and 3 days later is born again on Dec. 25, rising back into the northern hemisphere, making the days longer, and giving you warmth, comfort, and security away from the predator-filled night.

If this was said often enough by enough people, you would eventually believe it.

Even Hitler, altho cruel, was intelligent enough to notice and declare aloud that if one who has influential power says propaganda often enough, others will eventually believe it.

Hence, he convinced a vast number of people to kill millions.

Let’s digress.. Money seems to be the driving force of everything at this time, doesn’t it?

It seems everyone wants more and more and more of it, not considering that they may already have enough to sustain their own life.
Message too long. Click here to view the full text.

Anonymous 15/11/01(Sun)11:44 No. 12308 ID: 358f52

>Jesus is the Sun of God in the heavens above;

He's not the "sun of god". He's not a sun god.

>He dies and 3 days later is born again on Dec. 25

Wrong again. December 25th and most of the Christian holidays were made Christian holidays because it made it easier for pagans to convert. They were holy days to pagans in Europe. So to expand there it became easier to go "alright, rather than December 25th being for your god, we'll celebrate his birthday today. Deal?" They have no relation to when Jesus was born/died.

>If this was said often enough by enough people, you would eventually believe it.

Not necessarily. A lot of people saying something is true doesn't make it actually true. At least not anyone who cares about critical thinking.

And that's just the fucking start. Everything else you said was just as rambling and incoherent.

Anonymous 15/11/02(Mon)03:15 No. 12313 ID: 0fb81b


First thing to note here is that "You would believe it if..." was not intended for those intelligent enough not to sway to the persuasion of such rhetoric.

The Jesus part was just an alternative rambling no different than that which is spewed in churches. Altho it's an idea much more possible than anything a church says, if it was said often enough by enough (influential) people, more than likely it would have been the message that missionaries proclaimed in place of what they normally do. The point that was made to believers is that they believe basically anything they are told.

>And that's just the fucking start. Everything else you said was just as rambling and incoherent.

The ability to believe anything you are told if said often enough is a truth about the average character of a human, which is how Hitler got so many (not all) to fulfill his agenda. The rest (if you even read it) was an example of this behaviour; a thorough example of the kind of thing that humans can/will do.

I went to a church today to see how people reasoned. I was literally shocked how many people said "that's a good question" or "I haven't thought of that before" to the things I had to say/ask.

It never ceases to amaze me that, even on a forum of anonymity, there can exist people such as yourself who reason so poorly. I literally have to explain myself to the strictest detail on here to relieve myself from having to cover the tiniest details that were over-analyzed/mis-read/under-read.

Universally Preferable Behavior Anonymous 14/05/07(Wed)23:06 No. 11322 ID: 180d0f [Reply]

File 139949680123.jpg - (24.91KB , 300x350 , UPBbook.jpg )

An attempt to prove secular ethics.


"UPB in a Nutshell:

1. Reality is objective and consistent.

2. “Logic” is the set of objective and consistent rules derived from the consistency of reality.

3. Those theories that conform to logic are called “valid.”

4. Those theories that are confirmed by empirical testing are called “accurate.”

5. Those theories that are both valid and accurate are called “true.”
Message too long. Click here to view the full text.

7 posts omitted. Click Reply to view.
Anonymous 15/09/06(Sun)13:10 No. 12279 ID: 37576e

Just because something is logically valid doesn't make it true.

"All squares are triangles to the tenth power
All triangles to the tenth power are cats with wings.
Therefore, all squares are cats with wings."

perfectly valid but not true obviously. logic just reduces arguments to sentences comparing classes of things and applies rules to valid class relationships. there are a lot of ideas that are not valid logically but can be true, and a lot of theories that are logically sound but are false. my example illustrates that.

our perception of facts is entirely fluid. remember: we used to consider the fact that the sun orbited the earth as fact. so just because we perceive something as a fact, that doesn't make it entirely true. our reality changes as we gain knowledge. if reality was consistent, our ideas of what is real and how the world works probably wouldn't change all the fucking time

Anonymous 15/09/09(Wed)03:44 No. 12280 ID: 82667e

You can often judge a book's seriousness by its bibliography and index. There isn't even a bibliography in this book, not even as footnotes. So I already know it's very probably not serious. Moreover, when looking at the index I only see two references to Ayn Rand and Aristotle. Everything else is just big concepts he doesn't even discuss properly, such as evidence or reason. Nowadays, you can't just ignore what other philosophers wrote. There's been a huge production of refutations of many views that seemed at first obvious. Also, I did read like twenty pages, and it confirms what I feared: he just aligns a bunch of bold affirmations without any discussion, while taking great care in developing trivial consequences. I don't think this book is worth anything.

Anonymous 15/10/18(Sun)04:36 No. 12298 ID: 9f223a

the sheer amount of unprovable hypothesis on that philosophy is absurd.

Try again.

Delete post []
Report post