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

For growing and shit or whatever I present to you:

THE BIG STICKIED THREAD OF PHILOSOPHY RESOURCES

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.

42 posts and 6 images omitted. Click Reply to view.

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.

380 posts and 29 images omitted. Click Reply to view.

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!

File 169572839620.jpg - (24.06KB , 640x307 , lightning-1158027_640.jpg )

If we come to think about it everyone is operating based upon blind faith to one degree or another. I mean, for a start, let's take what we all consider to be historical "facts". Let's consider two people arguing over a historical "fact". One sites one "source", the other sites another. Both are convinced 100% that what they believe(only believe) to be historically true is true indeed. But none of them were present/alive when the historical "fact" they are discussing happened, none of them observed it with their own senses, so in the end it is just "faith". They calculated in their brains a "plausible" reason to put their "blind faith" in whatever historical source they chose to believe.

Same is true for a lot of science and scientific "facts". People observe a few things mentioned in their science textbooks/websites/papers/whatever, and then choose to put "blind faith" in whatever other things mentioned in their scientific sources that they didn't observe themselves(through experiments or their senses). I mean I am a Christian, and I am sure the most of Bible deniers could find at least 1 or 2 things in the Bible they agree with, but they would counter, test, and try to confirm everything else mentioned in it(no problem with that, they should). But not with the historical and science sources. We observe some things to be true in the history or science sources, and then by nature consider everything else in them to be true, we all end up putting blind faith to varying degrees in our sources. I am not saying that those sources are invariably wrong, they may be right, but blind faith is inevitable.

Same with geographical "facts". No one has traveled the whole world for themselves, and confirmed things for themselves that what is shown on the maps is true, like let's say Asia is to the east of North America(just an example let's not get stuck at this point). Again, not saying that the maps are false, but we all do take them to be true blindly.

I'd go as far as to say, most of what a human being is composed of, what he is, is based on blind faith(which in no way implies that what we believe is untrue).

File 169544166812.png - (624.79KB , 1090x766 , 47732998420.png )

does anyone have anything based on more esoteric philosophy, any ideas or concepts that seem more strange and interesting and over the edge I wanna hear em. I've tried researching on this and it seems as I want to get back into philosophy I can't find much on material on this as its more logical based for my taste. Also just got a kindle so any recommendations for the best classics you believe that can probably be found in pdf free online would be appreciated.

if a religion does not have a god or entity how does it work

3 posts and 1 image omitted. Click Reply to view.

File 166341741118.png - (109.93KB , 640x320 , qcoklmowd8841.png )

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/350862574_Psychophysical_interactions_with_a_double-slit_interference_pattern_Exploratory_evidence_of_a_causal_influence
>For the experimental data, the outcome supported a pattern of results predicted by a causal psychophysical effect

https://physicsessays.org/browse-journal-2/product/1424-4-dean-radin-leena-michel-and-arnaud-delorme-psychophysical-modulation-of-fringe-visibility-in-a-distant-double-slit-optical-system.html
>...these results were found to support von Neumann’s conclusion that the mind of the observer is an inextricable part of the measurement process.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/287506033_Reassessment_of_an_independent_verification_of_psychophysical_interactions_with_a_double-slit_interference_pattern
>Baer's independent analysis confirmed that the optical apparatus used in this experiment was indeed sensitive enough to provide evidence for a psychophysical effect.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/258707222_Consciousness_and_the_double-slit_interference_pattern_Six_experiments
>The results appear to be consistent with a consciousness-related interpretation of the quantum measurement problem.

Apparently there is a strong aversion within the scientific community regarding how consciousness tends to go beyond regular cause and effect when you measure its influence on its surroundings. The materialistic interpretation of reality fails to explain why these unusual occurences exist and why you can never see a physical link between these events.

Are you convinced that there is only matter in this universe and nothing else?
Message too long. Click here to view the full text.

27 posts and 9 images omitted. Click Reply to view.

File 157037674547.jpg - (22.69KB , 832x468 , medium-athah-anime-your-name-kimi-no-na-wa-mitsuha.jpg )

how do I cope with the fact that true love is an artificial concept that exists only in fiction.In reality we are all just animals looking to breed and we wont ever have a spiritual connection with anyone or a "special" bond with anyone.tfw no mitsuha gf

4 posts and 1 image omitted. Click Reply to view.

File 169234749594.jpg - (414.93KB , 1125x1081 , IMG_3863.jpg )

Dear 7chan ,

I finished my second manuscript in record time . It is actually revolutionary , and as such no one is allowed to read it unless I am handsomely rewarded . The leviathan that is threads is safeguarding it . I just happen to have a great trust in this leviathan and as such am not worried , for I doubt even a Mr zuck is capable of accessing my work either actually or figuratively and that coincidence being both factive and meaningful and distinctly and totally and partly so is exactly what my book is about , explains , and proves over and over and over again , kind of like how blind people don’t immediately assign felt gestalts to visual gestalts upon receiving sight , my book will blow not people’s minds into a new sense of gestalting and that’s both a joke and a prediction , which I know with much certainty to be quite possibly factive possibly —- but enough modal jokes and zauberbergian as published in English by those people in turkey references post side : i don’t present to any of you my second philosophy !

Bests ,

The author

Hey y'all

I finished my first philosophy manuscript . Here's almost the finished version . I figure y'all can handle it . My first philosophy manuscript is called Kinds and Degrees . I am currently working on my second philosophy manuscript . Neither of these manuscripts are my first or second , but they are respectively my first philosophy manuscript and second philosophy manuscript : the prior being my first first philosophy manuscript and the latter being my first second philosophg manuscript : i call this first second philosophy manuscript Ontic and Idaöntic : this first second philosophy manuscript of mine is possibly the first first second philosophy manuscript to ever been have written yet . This book took many years of research . I hope it will get me into a phd program . The pdf file was made by google drive and is 65 something MB large . It is well over 25000 words . But i'm not much of word count kind of guy . All art unless obvious is mine . All commentary is welcome . I love giving talks . I already have bachelors from a large state school . But they screwed me over with a shitty grandfather grading clause so i have a 2.0 instead of s 3.83 and my life has been a living hell . I figured if i rigorously solved every philosophy problem before applying i'd be a strong candidate for a phd in philosophy . I managed to solve basically every single problem a first philosophy calls to be questioned and resolved : i address historical arguments and arguments about the historical : i solve the einsteineian problem of loss of objectivity in science through a mathematical deduction based on a certain proof from graph theory . I then apply said application (which i call in [shorttitle] Ontics , a "morphic" a la morphisms but sidestepping import of category theoretic presuppositions and ideontics (which are distinct from concepts ( but that's second philosophy stuff ) ) toward a philosophy of sense ( distinct from Baumgarten but not entirely not ) for it is similar to Husserl's states goal of phenomenology in his entry for phenomenology's encyclopedia entry , but I distinguish my first philosophy from Husserl's , Aristotle's , Heidegger's , Sartre's (Herder 2(too) but that's in book too 2 ) , Wittgenstein's , Hegel's , and notably Kant's -- for i found a novel formal proof which refutes all of Kant and establishes a possibility for a speculative realism but without Meillassoux's self-contradictions he imported into his long form argument against Dogmatism ( which i also address in the book ) -- for the philosopher's who would agree with my work , I found that their work simply was of a slightly different consequent of similar enough trajectory to not outright completely dispute / refute ( hume and spinoza ) -- I turn Deleuze on his head -- I do not address much ethics outside of a support of a kind of logical utilitarianism but via Message too long. Click here to view the full text.