-  [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 ## Mod ## 11/10/26(Wed)10:01 No. 3905 ID: 4c1a8e [Reply] Stickied

File 13196161034.jpg - (71.49KB , 256x256 , slow.jpg )

For growing and shit or whatever I present to you:


Put in whatever resources that fit in here, whether it's from wikipedia, youtube, some university, or where ever. Just remember to keep it within the board's guidelines and rules.
Use it or lose it, faggots.

35 posts and 3 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
Fun funforyou 15/12/28(Mon)03:05 No. 12383 ID: 537707


Anonymous ## Mod ## 12/02/02(Thu)05:26 No. 5920 ID: 4fb7fa [Reply] [First 100 posts] [Last 50 posts] Stickied

File 132815678430.jpg - (161.57KB , 500x452 , 6904084_Untitled-2.jpg )

This thread is for discussion of the validity of religion(s) and arguments for and against the existence of god/gods.

Any other new posts about this subject will be deleted, or locked and referred to this one.

New threads about religious concepts that play inside their own ruleset are allowed, and we kindly ask that you refrain from turning those well meaning threads into arguments about religion as a whole.

321 posts and 19 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
goof 17/05/15(Mon)02:51 No. 12931 ID: 650b92

circular logic much?

READ THIS BEFORE POSTING YOU PILE OF FAGGOTS Anonymous ## Mod ## 11/09/09(Fri)04:51 No. 2371 ID: 175f07 [Reply] Locked Stickied

File 131553668277.jpg - (24.94KB , 400x615 , formalblacktie2.jpg )

We interrupt your scheduled bickering for this important announcement: Understanding /phi/

  • What this board is:
    • A place to discuss epistemology, ethics, aesthetics, metaphysics, and logic, in a general sense, or in an applied sense (in sex, science, vidya, your mother).
    • A place where not only is being a pretentious, hubristic dickhead is allowed, but is considered the norm.
  • What this board is not:
    • It is not /b/, /x/, or /rnb/.
    • A place to spew incoherent nonsense and verbal diarrhea.
    • A place to make claims with no justifications (and "because I say so" or "because you're gay" isn't a justification).
    • A place where the global rules do not apply.
An inability to follow these conventions will result in a warning!
Repeat offenders will be banned!

Anonymous ## Mod ## 11/12/04(Sun)05:06 No. 4980 ID: 4c1a8e

Dear faggots,
I shouldn't have to remind you, but if someone is posting something against the rules, please report it.

If you don't know how to report a post, please see our super-sugoi FAQ section on the front page.

Thank you for your co-operation.

Anonymous 16/12/24(Sat)23:39 No. 12763 ID: 0f36a6 [Reply] [Last 50 posts]

File 148261917389.jpg - (39.24KB , 446x413 , Tinfoil euphoria.jpg )


Why are atheists so obsessed with aliens and other conspiracy theories? There is literally no credible evidence for their existence. Is it because they are immature manchildren?


52 posts and 19 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
Anonymous 17/06/05(Mon)20:03 No. 12974 ID: 7cf7bd

File 149668578855.jpg - (40.67KB , 852x480 , 1.jpg )


Have you checked this website?

>Plasma Blob Phenomena Shows Characteristics Of Life

I love these pseudo-scientific conspiracy theories. It's like reading daily reports from a psych ward where some tinfoil hat wearing schizophrenic rambles on about how his badly digested breakfast might be a rectal probe that the aliens implanted in his colon.

Fedora tippers are amusing. Somebody needs to contact Harvard university, rofl.

Anonymous 17/06/17(Sat)15:07 No. 12980 ID: eb915c


Remember that fedora tippers actually take these sci-fi fantasies seriously.

Anonymous 17/06/23(Fri)22:14 No. 12987 ID: 2b7151


It's scary to know that adult human beings are convinced that the X-files are real. People that sit and watch too many Hollywood garbage series and lose themselves in a fantasy.

Also, what's even more disturbing is that charlatans like Alex Jones or David Icke are being taken seriously.

Anonymous 16/03/09(Wed)08:23 No. 12458 ID: 3ee603 [Reply] [Last 50 posts]

File 145750821398.jpg - (22.25KB , 900x600 , crop-538599cc8101c-imgID3636752.jpg )

Did Darwin answer the question of what the meaning of life is?

89 posts and 30 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
Anonymous 17/06/23(Fri)08:57 No. 12984 ID: 2b7151


This thread proves how inconsistent fedora tippers are. It also shows how poor and feeble Darwins theory is. It's hilarious to see how little they actually know about Darwins kindergarten tier theory and how flawed it really is.

sage 17/06/23(Fri)09:54 No. 12985 ID: 913c4a

This thread shows how the trolls from olgino spend their free time.

Anonymous 17/06/23(Fri)10:08 No. 12986 ID: 2b7151


>Darwins theory is poorly substantiated
>Several flaws are pointed out in the thread
>Call it "trolling" because you suffer from confirmation bias and ignore any evidence that contradict your precious fedora tipping delusion

Neckbeard spotted.

United Methodist Church Anonymous 17/06/18(Sun)22:26 No. 12982 ID: b85033 [Reply]

File 149781758348.png - (41.09KB , 1058x1818 , cross-and-flame-color-1058x1818.png )

I'm thinking of joining the United Methodist Church, because a lot of Zen Buddhism and basically all of Yoga seems to have be commodified (which is pretty far from the insights and teachings). Do any of you guys have experiences and tips with this sort of thing?

P.S.: Abrahamic religions are far from ideal. I just might prefer Methodism to Satanism and Nihilism, and think that movements like Humanism are for people who don't struggle to pay rent.

Anonymous 17/06/20(Tue)17:57 No. 12983 ID: 46cd65

You're already in dangerous intellectual territory with "Abrahamic religions are far from my ideal belief system, but fuck it I'll give one a go regardless." That makes for an uphill battle to maintain any sort of consistent long term belief and fulfillment.

That being said, mainline Protestant churches in general are the ones where it seems easiest to enjoy the social club aspect of church without having to go too deep into actual beliefs. Individual congregations vary, but that can be a good thing insofar as it lets you pick and choose the best fit for you. Another choice to consider is the Episcopal Church, which contains within it a wide variety of beliefs and practices that you could get away with.

Anonymous 16/01/21(Thu)10:00 No. 12413 ID: 4ddb30 [Reply]

File 145336683320.jpg - (239.76KB , 650x340 , confucius-slide.jpg )

your thoughts on this quote

1 post omitted. Click Reply to view.
Anonymous 16/01/25(Mon)00:36 No. 12418 ID: 5c185a

Hmm Maybe that the guy quoted lived over 2000 years ago and BELIEVED in signs and omens like everyone else of the day. That his language USED signs and symbols AS whole words, thoughts and sentences? That people of the day didn't KNOW how to read, so signs and symbols was the only way to reach them?

Anonymous 16/01/25(Mon)09:01 No. 12419 ID: 27d28d

You ignored the point made by >>12414 that words themselves are composed of signs and symbols, and laws are composed of words that still reduce to signs and symbols.

I would go a step further and point out that words themselves are but symbols and signs. The letters themselves represent sounds, but both the word and the sound associated with them are nothing but squiggles and noises without some semantic component i.e. the meaning that the squiggle or noise is supposed to symbolize.

Incidentally, this is why talking to people is hard sometimes: the same words can mean different things to different people, symbolizing different concepts that may or may not be compatible with how they understand the world.

Anonymous 17/06/17(Sat)22:46 No. 12981 ID: 3b5301

"people of that day could not read, so signs and symbols were the only way to reach them"

No, the written language was written in what you were describing as symbol. However those were how you wrote words. Just as letters are actually symbols from the phoenician alphabet that we chose to write our language and our words. English used to be written in different symbols.

This is how radically interwoven the concept of symbol is within our existence.

The people he was communicating to proved to be mightly literate enough to create the first epoch of philosophy.

So literate that the next dynasty freaked out and burned and killed hundreds of authors in earthquakes because they thought they were too intelligent.

Confucious also means the signs and symbols in every day social order.

It's the same idea as the symbol of "president", "teacher", "policemen", a line or a que, or the pantomime we use to communicate an abstract that otherwise we couldn't.

However he states without moral duty followed and conduct to align yourself with what has become propriety and order social order and harmony cannot function, because we can still have those things ontop of people who don't comport to the ideas and powers they exemplify.
Message too long. Click here to view the full text.

exhalted philosophers give common advice Anonymous 17/01/15(Sun)07:39 No. 12787 ID: d58e80 [Reply]

File 148446236968.jpg - (35.41KB , 524x400 , nietzsche.jpg )

How come "continental philosophers" end up making such common statements like, "don't think about it too much," "people are shitty," "keep on trucking," "hang in there!" Even after all of their pondering, they come up with wisdom that anyone over the age of 50 can tell you?

3 posts omitted. Click Reply to view.
Anonymous 17/04/04(Tue)01:44 No. 12882 ID: 946ad3

Because insight can be reduced to banality, that's why it's wisdom, and not knowledge. Continental asks the question regressively, from abstract banality, towards an infinitely specific why. The product is delivered in the shortest form. Keep digging, heideggers concept of opening is like digging deeper and deeper into a wound, whilst you don't notice that the wound is closing together around your finger while you go deeper. Hence it bears a certain identity with analytical philosophy. Which is often overlooked in the latter tradition. They all rely on the same tradition, which includes Kant. Don't forget. Sometimes analytical philosophy is characterized by a desire to try and give answers, where as the continental tradition is said to be asking the same question over and over again. Something that both traditions might benefit from, is pondering the notion that giving an answer in many a sense is presupposing, and furthermore asking a question, and that asking a question equally in many ways is an answer. For example, "philosophy is asking questions!" is giving an answer to the philosophical question "What is philosophy", and saying "philosophy is giving answers!" is presupposing the same question, and assuming that there are more philosophical questions that need be posed before an answer can be given.

The distinction is being destabilized, not that it is outright idiotic, or unfruitful just looking at the division of labor, and the fruitful aspect of disagreement. Ideally you read and try to understand both.

Also, if you read Heideggers "modern science, metaphysics, and mathematics" and all you get is "hang in there", you should consider picking up another plato dialogue and some Aristotle before reading any more post-scholastic philosophy, which is a sincere point, and not a dick move. Or spend a little more time with a couple of anthologies.

There's a reason why Carnap spent his time trying to refute Heideggers "What is metaphysics".
You don't reduce on a guy you think an idiot.

Anonymous 17/04/05(Wed)06:38 No. 12885 ID: 2bdf58

>because insight can be reduced to banality
I don't know if that's true in all cases. I think these philosophers offered more specific insights that are invaluable and perhaps impossible to reduce.

I'm more frustrated that I can read dozens of these books and not know what to do with myself. *My* interest in them is supposed to be practical, not scholarly.

Maybe I didn't learn anything, because I already share their mentality. I did read a philosophy book written by a Muslim in the year 1100 or so, and that actually gave me something to chew on.

Hopefully I'm being clearer now. You guys all had great points anyway.

Anonymous 17/06/16(Fri)01:38 No. 12979 ID: 3b5301

It's to get it to take affect. Being in analysis paralysis, sophmore slump, depression, writer's block, what have you involves those things we encounter in them to be reconciled or coped with. Or in general the existential crisis or the thing that pushes you into the examination in the self examined life. Either way that's also going to include taking on a million common sentiments found in that struggle.

Anonymous 17/04/01(Sat)20:24 No. 12871 ID: fe9887 [Reply]

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.

2 posts omitted. Click Reply to view.
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.]
Message too long. Click here to view the full text.

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.

Survey anonymous 16/04/25(Mon)18:29 No. 12516 ID: 0016ca [Reply]

File 146160178566.jpg - (221.95KB , 1024x768 , brian.jpg )

On a scale of one to ten, how much do you believe in higher intelligence?
Higher intelligence can be God/Allah, or even aliens.

15 posts and 1 image omitted. Click Reply to view.
Anonymous 17/05/03(Wed)02:20 No. 12918 ID: 188690

No. I don't. Obviously as someone with legs and thumbs there is nothing in the infinite universe that is slightly smarter.

Anonymous 17/05/15(Mon)03:10 No. 12932 ID: 489598

I don't agree with everything that you said, but that was beautiful

Anonymous 17/06/09(Fri)05:59 No. 12977 ID: f7f96a

I've followed the path of righteousness.. there must not be anything that much smarter than me.. There is only one God, really, and he's Jesus also for some reason. If you don't believe me ask the holy ghost.

Delete post []
Report post