-  [WT]  [PS]  [Home] [Manage]

Posting mode: Reply
  1.   (reply to 12871)
  2. (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 811 unique user posts. View catalog

  • Blotter updated: 2018-08-24 Show/Hide Show All

We are in the process of fixing long-standing bugs with the thread reader. This will probably cause more bugs for a short period of time. Buckle up.

There's a new /777/ up, it's /Moldy Memes/ 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 17/04/01(Sat)20:24 No. 12871 ID: fe9887

File 149107105282.jpg - (135.60KB , 1920x1080 , IMG_347883.jpg )

General life axioms you've noticed. State the axiom, and then the reason. If no reason is known, write "Reason: N/A". Feel free to argue at will, but only if you think you are 100% certain.

The format should go as follows (Axiom: , Reason: , As a result: ):

Axiom: Two people who have adapted to society's values cannot be equally in love with each other.

Reason: Falling in love renders the person who has fallen in love vulnerable. This vulnerability contradicts the social character/facade they have created for themselves and the very reason the Loved liked the faller in the first place. If both fall in love at the same time, they both notice one another's vulnerability and cancel each other out, rendering the connection emotionless.

As a result: Only one of two possible connections can happen.
1) One of the two socially-based members takes the role of being emotionally stable and stoic, loving the other person or not, and the other takes the role of falling in love. This is what was traditionally intended with man being the former, and woman the latter.
2) Both members have adapted to the non-social life where the true self without a facade blocking it flourishes. The intelligent mind sees and understands that all human beings, including themselves, are vulnerable and endears this thought commonly among others.

Anonymous 17/04/04(Tue)01:03 No. 12876 ID: 946ad3

There is a phrasing problem with the axiom, that sorta but not really gets dealt with in the reason. Two people who have accepted societies values, and who are not in love with each other at all, will be equally in love with each other under your specified conditions.
It's an interesting pondering, but you should add explicative conditions and restrictions.

Also, supposes absolutism with regards social constructivism. That is, the values of society cannot only be a facade, but cannot not be a facade, that is sincere emergence, or the possibility hereof. This exemplifies peritrope structure. If a relativistic point of view is claimed as absolute it will contain the possibility of its own negation. Working within a bivalent structure at least.

Furthermore, the assumption of absolute constructivism is at contradictory odds with a latent metaphysical realism about love at all. This could also, quite possibly be worked around.

Develop on it, it is actually interesting.

Anonymous 17/04/04(Tue)01:10 No. 12877 ID: 946ad3

For a start just add love > 0, and the phrasing should be fine. However, know that you presume the validity of the possibility of turning the love relation into a quantitative and not just a comparative concept, which is not at all on obviously valid move.

Anonymous 17/04/08(Sat)10:36 No. 12888 ID: fc715f

Axiom: Will as a driving force in life.

Reason: Without it there would be no drive to continue in this confusing world. Being aware of others helps find the fight within. Conditionally of course.

Result: Able.

Anonymous 17/05/27(Sat)20:25 No. 12956 ID: fe9887

Axiom: There can never exist only angels; There can never exist only devils.

Reason: Without angels, devils would have no motivation. --> Without devils, angels would have no motivation. --> Motivation is the driving force for change and for life. --> Given time, a thing will change.

As a result: Utopia is not possible. Angels and devils are viewed as metaphors in this context for differing mindsets, as any mindset that differs from one's own is considered by it to be bad, and any mindset that agrees with it is considered by it to be good.
Even the concepts ideated by the Venus Project are up for question now... until one considers the idea that the entire infrastructure of the Venus Project, if in effect, would be the devil's backbone for sustaining its own life. Would some (my devil, their angel) still leak their virus for destruction on its infrastructure?

[Mind is blown right now. In other good news: I've created a series of axioms; the conclusion from which I am unable to refute. I will be mentally framing this:
Without devils, angels have no motivation.
Without angels, devils have no motivation.
Motivation is the driving force for change and for life.
Given time, a thing will change.
There can never exist only angels.
There can never exist only devils.]

Anonymous 17/06/12(Mon)03:31 No. 12978 ID: 544546

This isn't true. Just look at basically any narrative focusing on a "hero". Their job is never to just do whatever they would normally do; it's to "defeat the bad guy". Spiderman and Batman fight crime; the Fellowship beats Sauron; James Bond prevents global catastrophes.

This leads to the only logical conclusion: that the forces of good exist only to oppose the forces of evil. A hero NEEDS THE VILLAIN to exist, in order to exist, themselves. However, what the villain is doing almost never has anything to do with the hero; they want to take over the world, or murder lots of people, or accomplish some evil agenda. They don't oppose the hero except by necessity, and it's NOT their main goal. Far from requiring the hero to exist, they are merely blocked by the hero.

Therefore, good can only exist in the presence of evil, whereas evil can exist even in the absence of good. As a result, it's safe to conclude that all people are naturally evil.

Anonymous 17/07/13(Thu)02:48 No. 13000 ID: fe9887

I'm speaking from a social standpoint. In a society where groups of people are forced to mingle with one another, not all can be (the d)evil. If everyone was evil, there would always be at least but certainly more than one that rises against it. In the wild, of course everyone is evil.

Anonymous 17/07/13(Thu)02:55 No. 13001 ID: fe9887

Axiom: Sexual interest is inversely proportional to emotional interest.

Reason: The more you get to know someone, the more you understand them and therefore lose the superficial interest in them that sex demands. It is irreversible, though. Once you know someone, you can't un-know them.

As a result: You can only pick one of the two. A healthy sex life would be to never know your sex partner. A healthy emotional life would be to give up your sex drive.

Anonymous 17/07/13(Thu)03:00 No. 13002 ID: fe9887

In addition, I should have known better than to not include society in my axiom. It's a testament to how mindless I really am.

If everyone was evil in a society, the good terms that bind people together in a social construct would fall apart and sooner than later there would be no such thing as a "society". There will always be someone that rebels against evil and the rules/behaviour established to see the positive side of not being so hasty to put a knife through someone's heart for stealing a loaf of bread.

Anonymous 17/09/16(Sat)05:51 No. 13119 ID: fe9887

At the expense of the respect and seriousness I might lose from others, I should propose a /highly/ contentious axiom which to the majority is laugh-worthy to the extent that the consequence of saying such "absurdity" and asserting it a likely possibility should be a death sentence.

I've said this on /rnb/ already, but I will restate it here where it might appropriately belong. This has been thought about for many, many hours and its logic absolutely amazes me. I will probably carry this idea to my death.

Axiom: Homosexuality is the result of the brain adapting too quickly to the drastic environmental change of the new age.

Reason (much of it copied and pasted from /rnb/ because I appreciate the way it was worded and thus will be expressed in the form of dialogue):
Because women have stayed indoors looking after the children and doing housework for however many millennia, their bodies have atrophied to fat, and their brains have atrophied to emotion. Homosexuality might be better stated as an interest in what physically and mentally resembles oneself with the opposite reproductive organs. Are they narcissistic, or like almost all species in the animal kingdom that are not sexually dimorphic?

"Sexual dimorphism is the condition where the two sexes of the same species exhibit different characteristics beyond the differences in their sexual organs. The condition occurs in many animals and some plants. Differences may include secondary sex characteristics, size, color, markings, and may also include behavioral differences. These differences may be subtle or exaggerated, and may be subjected to sexual selection. The opposite of dimorphism is monomorphism."

Reply with an image which reads "nobody cares”:

>Am I narcissistic

Nobody cares? I think it's rather interesting, especially since men today seem to like the physical traits of women being sculpted with some sort of musculature comparable to their own which can only be acquired through hard work in a gym. This "gym-work" is analogous to the physical work that women should have done in the wild.

The irony is that working hard in a gym to get abs isn't a very feminine trait yet nowadays men seem to look for these qualities. They even look for well-defined, "chiselled" bone structures.

In a homosexual world, a woman would look like a man with perhaps a /very/ subtle scent to them different from their own. No pronounced differences to the extreme that today's men look for. They are interested in the subtle differences, both behavioural (idiosyncratic) and physical (scentlike), not the polar opposite characteristics. To them the opposite gender seems to be in line with bestiality.

The consequence of such a socially-immersive culture that imposes ideals of what you are to be is that they are confused and trying to re-discover what humans should be now that women aren't needed at home all the time. Their ultimate goal is to regain independence, which I'm sure existed down our line of ancestry at some point far into the distant, distant past where both genders looked the same and fended for themselves.

We got smarter, and started noticing patterns which lead us to being able to communicate to each other across the globe in a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of a second.

I know this thread is trying to be an up with Homosexual moment for everybody, and that's fine. At some point you will convince your male significant other to get a partial sex change and it will all work out for you> Until then please stop being stupid about human evolution. Your attraction to photo shopped gay porn does not make 10 million years of Sapien evolution null and void.

With the new age of women demanding the same full rights as men, putting their kids at daycare (no motherly touch that used to be commonplace thousands of years ago), sending them off to schools full of other children for them to become over-social, and living their lives almost independently from their children, it makes sense from an evolutionary standpoint that the human brain would shift to accommodate this drastic change of environment. Women aren't needed at home anymore, so why do we need to be so different from one another? If women are going out and working their bodies for once and demanding equality, you will start to notice change in every aspect of our and our children's lives.. from what they see and learn to what their brain interprets is sexually right given their environment.

>I'm proposing a unique idea that has never been said before
Sure you are, dum dum.

Please do us all a favor: Don't Breed.

It is obvious that I won't since I'm not attracted to modern females.

I've never heard this idea before, and never in my readings of homosexuality have I come across it. It's very possible. In fact, in every instance in the past where someone claimed something far-fetched to be true, they were either scolded, laughed at, or killed, until the theory withstood the test of time and reason and people gradually accepted it.

It is through you heterosexuals that the slow evolutionary transition to a species that will look relatively the same across genders will take place.

Since there is no theory or scientific explanation for homosexuality, try this one. It's rational, and, altho it might damage your self-worth and ego, it actually holds a backbone of logic which is somewhat hard to refute if you fully understand it.

The gays were almost too fast.. They jumped way ahead of themselves biologically, and it came at the price of being totally confused by the extreme differences across genders. Fast enough that it can almost be seen as a disease to the bewildered eye. The heterosexuals are in a more admirable position than we are because the slowness is the pace needed to change our biologies.

>Since there is no theory or scientific explanation for homosexuality
Actually there is, but don't let your lack of effort to find the studies stop you from knee-jerking off a self-congratulatory long winded pat on your own back.

There is nothing pat-on-the-back-worthy of being too quick at something that it affects your ability to reproduce. It's a curse. It's maybe what evolution calls a "mutation" but not an advantageous one in the context of sexuality.

Studies have been done but nothing is conclusive. Shouldn't we know this already? They didn't find the gene, and for as much as we know, the environmental social factor of how women behave, and a mere act of mimicry, could be how the overly-quick brain decides is the best way to get what they are attracted to. There is a sexually dimorphic breed of spiders where the male is at least 3 to 4 times smaller than the female. The roles heterosexuals play isn't always necessary especially when the environment has changed so drastically, yet you folks still hold on to them. There is nothing condemnable about this. Like I said, the slowness of change in heterosexuals is admirable because change on an evolutionary level is extremely slow.

All I'm proposing is an explanation for why there are /so/ many people with this strange "mutation" given the new age of a totally different environment. If the brain is ahead of its body, you better believe there will be mass confusion. This doesn't necessarily mean they are smarter. Don't let this be a punch to your ego. Being too quick at discerning their environment renders them unable to reproduce.

As a result: Only the long course of time evolution demands will heal homosexuality where both genders will look the same because the environment and roles of the two are the same. If this is true, any anger from heterosexuals for stating something like this should be understood and excused, since that stubbornness is what is needed to carry on humanity.

Anonymous 17/09/16(Sat)21:34 No. 13121 ID: fe9887

Axiom: An assumption of another's motive is only a reflection of oneself.

Reason: The pathways quickly leading up to that conclusion are well embedded in your mind. The conclusions based on those assumptions are the very essence of yourself and what you would do if you knew you'd get away with it.

As a result: If you wish to learn more about yourself, that is to say, the self unaffected by the ethical/superficial reconstruction (beyond the facade), then simply pay attention to the motives you assume in others. More often than you might imagine, those assumptions will be wrong, despite being utterly convinced that is why they are doing them.

Anonymous 17/10/01(Sun)18:12 No. 13199 ID: 6afcdf

Isn't an assumption always a reflection of the assuming? Isn't everyone biased by everything that forms them, and isn't everyone existentially forced to make assumptions all the time?

Anonymous 17/10/02(Mon)14:36 No. 13204 ID: b2041f

Where did you get that axiom from? Self-made quote or apocryphical idiom? I'd like to use it and reference it. If self-made; fill in this form:

Anonymous 17/10/06(Fri)08:20 No. 13214 ID: fe9887

By assumption I mean an assumption of someone's philosophical motive in doing something. A perfect example of this is on an anonymous board or anywhere online where not a lot about the person is known. If someone anonymous, online or IRL stranger, expresses a statement or thought, we as readers or listeners immediately assume the underlying motives of this person that incentivized them to carry out their actions or expression of thoughts.

I should have made clear in the axiom that this is intended for direct assumptions of people, rather than the character framework you developmentally build after getting to know someone, but thought it was pointless given that most of not all of us really don't go out to socialize. Notice the assumption of the reason you're here that I made and how it reflects myself.

I came up with it myself. I'm not sure why you need personal information...

Anonymous 17/11/07(Tue)07:20 No. 13267 ID: d75d96

Wikipedia and for-profit universities have raised a generation that cannot process any statement that doesn't come from an established source.

He expects you to cite your references; you are not famous enough to have an idea of your own.

[Return] [Entire Thread] [Last 50 posts]

Delete post []
Report post