-  [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 829 unique user posts. View catalog

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

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 ## 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.
Voltairine de Cleyre 18/07/20(Fri)14:50 No. 13568 ID: 6f6f68


A good gathering of blogs/resources on the combination of the anarchist milieu and trans/posthumanism.

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.

340 posts and 21 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
Anonymous 18/12/06(Thu)07:45 No. 13791 ID: 323de9


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] [First 100 posts] [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?


196 posts and 79 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
Anonymous 19/01/01(Tue)00:00 No. 13842 ID: d60c6c

It's way beyond creepy and I would say that scientologists are in the same category as Heaven's Gate. People that try to apply mysticism and veneration to science so that they can adhere to a UFO cult inspired by fever fantasies derived from the mind of a quack

Anonymous 19/01/05(Sat)04:56 No. 13850 ID: fdab83

>scientologists are in the same category as Heaven's Gate
Only an automated postbot would think that is a new or controversial idea (scientologists count as automated postbots).

Let's distinguish some kinds of people who are said to "believe in aliens", in order of least to most crazy.

Type A:
People who believe in, or purport to be open to the possibility of, extraterrestrial life, without making assumptions about what form(s) it may be in (microbes living off radioactive decay in the crust of Mars, dyson-sphere building mega-civilizations billions of lightyears away, whatever). Some of these people are quacks, but a lot of them just do the math--Earth being the only planet in an infinitely vast universe to develop life is statistically unlikely--and are waiting until we develop the technology to observe if any of the worlds we suspect could host life actually do.

Type B:
People who explicitly believe in advanced alien lifeforms in possession of high technology who have visited the earth and may continue to do so. Most of these people are quacks--believing in alien abductions, ancient alien contact, human descent from or design by a space-faring race, psychic contact, etc.--and some of them are genuinely mentally ill. I'll eat my foot if the aliens land in Central Park though.

Type C:
People who believe in a spiritual connection to extraterrestrial entities. All of these people are quacks. All of them, but most especially those who are an extension of type B. This is worse than religion; it's pure, unadulterated nonsense. Scientologists, Raëlians, Nation of Islam, and a number of other UFO cults prey on soft-brained, desperate people whose insatiable need to find meaning in existence has left them disappointed with everything real.

Anonymous 19/01/20(Sun)10:13 No. 13866 ID: 42253a

File 154797559176.jpg - (38.82KB , 485x456 , Mentall illness from space.jpg )

>Avi Loeb, the chair of Harvard’s astronomy department, co-wrote a paper (with a Harvard postdoctoral fellow, Shmuel Bialy) that examined ‘Oumuamua’s “peculiar acceleration” and suggested that the object “may be a fully operational probe sent intentionally to Earth’s vicinity by an alien civilization.”

Darwin and his mental retardation Anonymous 18/02/22(Thu)09:43 No. 13431 ID: 44a1c4 [Reply] [First 100 posts] [Last 50 posts]

File 151928899017.jpg - (97.22KB , 479x327 , ch2f1.jpg )

>A conclusion that two (or more) genes or proteins are homologous is a conjecture, not an experimental fact. We would be able to know for a fact that genes are homologous only if we could directly explore their common ancestor and all intermediate forms. Since there is no fossil record of these extinct forms, a decision on homology between genes has to be made on the basis of the similarity between them, the only observable variable that can be expressed numerically and correlated with probability.

>Taung Child's skull not human-like

How can anyone seriously believe in "evolution" when it all is based on a incomplete fossil record, that proves nothing, and comparative genetics that's just conjectures.

Fedora tippers are grasping at straws.

180 posts and 46 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
Anonymous 19/01/17(Thu)09:18 No. 13863 ID: 86440b

>They have no real arguments or experimental proof.

Evolutionary studies are theoretical since they can't produce physical evidence.

Evolution is hard to believe in because it lacks proper explanation. If, for example, you look at venomous snakes and ask yourself how they got their neurotoxins you can't explain it through random mutations. Mutations, like another poster pointed out, are never beneficial and mostly causes defects so how do snakes suddenly develop glands filled with venom, hollow channels through their fangs that guides the poison all the way to the tip? It's too precise.

Another poster mentioned fruit flies and I think that's a valid point. Fruit flies, no matter how many generations pass, never become something else other than fruit flies. They don't develop a toxic coating on their exoskeleton to protect against predators. If you look at how effective poison is in defensive and offensive purposes in nature then all animals and insects should gradually develop poison glands but they don't.

Philosophically speaking evolution is not a scientific study, it's speculation. In mathematics 1+1 is always 2. But with evolution, 1+1, left alone for a period of time suddenly can become 4, 902, 57 000 or even -15. Obviously evolution doesn't have any fundamental rules that apply to all organisms because scientists can say that the diversity you see in this world is merely random.

Anonymous 19/01/17(Thu)13:08 No. 13864 ID: ec9b1c

Fedoras have severe cognitive dissonance. It's like:

>"hurr guys, DNA synthesis is extremely accurate and even has biological error screenings and the smallest change among the nucleotides will have dire consequences but it's all random durr".

Anonymous 19/01/18(Fri)21:54 No. 13865 ID: b2d2d8

>severe cognitive dissonance
You learned those words from the doctor who diagnosed you, yes?

Death Anonymous 18/12/26(Wed)00:48 No. 13833 ID: fa01f9 [Reply]

File 154578171193.jpg - (51.56KB , 760x720 , 1288402649130.jpg )

Why do we generally feel sorrow and sadness when someone dies?

>he/she had so much to live for
>whole life ahead of her/him
ect ect

When dead, you won't think or feel anything. You don't exist anymore.

So, in reality we're feeling bad for ourselfs, no?

Anonymous 18/12/27(Thu)14:12 No. 13834 ID: d4b8d9

Um, duh? We mourn our loss.

Sounds like you mean to ask more specifically why we feel extra bad when somone commits suicide or dies young; which is because we feel they didn't get their allotted time (or rather, share a subjectively sufficient amount of their time and ours because humans are that petty and selfish)--as if there were any such thing as time and as if anyone has any entitlement to exist.

Anonymous 19/01/01(Tue)16:45 No. 13845 ID: 822d20

Yeah, funeral rites and traditions give the people who knew the person who died a little closure and to comfort one another for our shared loss.

Ultimately when a parent grieves for a child there really is no consoling them because it's the opposite of what's supposed to happen. The young are supposed to grieve for the old, not the other way around.

Plato's Democracy to Tyranny Anonymous 18/04/19(Thu)19:20 No. 13503 ID: 8bdadd [Reply]

File 152415843966.jpg - (273.31KB , 1258x1600 , plato.jpg )

In the United States and other western democracies (see it's in the phrase). We are currently in a degenerate cosmopolitan democracy that values wealth, possessions, and sex over virtue and intellectual pursuits. From here individuals are atomized. They begin to hate their situation and they demand the rule of a tyrant. This explains the phenomena of Trump, the support for Bernie Sanders, and even some of the youths support for Jeremy Corbyn in the UK.

As an American, I was surprised by the vociferous response of virtually any progressive millennial to brexit. I couldn't understand why they cared. Until it dawned on me, we have become so cosmopolitan that people want an all powerful supranational entity to rule over their quasi-bohemian lifestyle.

6 posts and 1 image omitted. Click Reply to view.
Anonymous 18/05/17(Thu)02:24 No. 13528 ID: eea1c2

Monarchy in the modern age would more likely than not )just like most totalitarian dictatorships) would fall at the hands of corruption, the rich would thrive even more than they do today, the lower middle class and the poor would be forced to deal with high prices, the way most monarchs are so stable is the same reason most dictatorships would last, on top of that now you have a populous that know about democracy. Which is why I would think that the problem doesn't lie at the type of government, but at the ignorance of the people to nationalism and pride in their nation (Probably why people don't have that much of a problem with immigrants)
Surely if people wanted to follow and be lead by an all powerful entity, they would follow the what the media says, right?

Anonymous 18/05/19(Sat)18:25 No. 13531 ID: 1e4c65

>implying they don't follow what the media says unconditionally today

Anonymous 18/12/24(Mon)06:56 No. 13831 ID: 7270ce

The best part of a democracy is everyone gets a vote.

The worst part of a democracy is everyone gets a vote.

White Guilt isn't why Whites are distressed. Being extorted is. Anonymous 18/11/16(Fri)14:39 No. 13715 ID: d74134 [Reply]

File 154237559892.jpg - (6.93KB , 268x188 , aynRandTeaching.jpg )

"[I feel] the same as everybody else, only more consciously."
-Ayn Rand, Tom Snyder interview, 1979

The distress associated with Whites' acquiescence to extortion (Whites paying nonWhites to prevent them destroying) is
mistaken for White guilt, when the distress is actually proximity to minorities who coerce Whites.

While the emotion (distress) is the same, remedying this distress requires treating its actual source-- which is not White guilt, but rather proximity to nonWhites who coerce Whites.

Recognizing that White guilt cannot exist because guilt requires us (not have wronged another) does not free us from distress.
But recognizing the interplay (coercion and extortion) between Whites and nonWhites in close proximity does show us a rational cause of our distress, and the method by which to decrease it: more distance between Whites and nonWhites.

24 posts and 7 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
LOLIHAET!PIZZA3TepE!!AvZQpjAGLj 18/12/10(Mon)22:19 No. 13803 ID: 5ac05a


Rand: "People need to be self-reliant, doing things in their own interests, even if it pushes some people down."
*Libertarians take her ideas, modify them to suit their needs, and use her popularity to and help popularize libertarianism*
Rand: "NO NOT LIKE THAT!!!!!!1!!!!"

How the fuck can anyone take such a femcuck so seriously?

Anonymous 18/12/12(Wed)04:20 No. 13808 ID: b21d9d

A dead philosopher isn't around to refute whatever interpretation of their philosophy you come up with.

No one takes her seriously; they take themselves seriously and wrap their own ideology in the tattered remains of hers.

Anonymous 18/12/22(Sat)15:15 No. 13829 ID: f100db

File 154548813016.jpg - (24.07KB , 240x298 , ayn-rand.jpg )

The nice thing about Ayn Rand is she's so recent and relatively popular in a "goddamn this author is batshit insane" kind of way that there's lots of interviews with her where she flat-out states which groups are doing what based on her writings and how they're completely misinterpreting what she wrote. Since most of those groups, like American Libertarians, have continued forward to today with very little in the way of changes, we can easily take what she said then about them then and continue to apply it to them.

Then there's what she actually did while she was alive, which had virtually nothing to do with what she wrote about. Since, unlike the people she so often railed about, she wasn't actually stupid enough to take what she wrote seriously. Pic related.

Anonymous 18/09/01(Sat)07:40 No. 13603 ID: 8c87d4 [Reply]

File 153578043969.jpg - (77.53KB , 479x418 , PhotoText.jpg )

Natural is defined by Oxford dictionary as "Existing in or derived from nature; not made or caused by humankind."

Process is defined as "A series of actions or steps taken in order to achieve a particular end."

The words together mean a process that was produced without a conscious agent.

Now here is the evidence that this belief is subjective and therefore doesn't exist.

A conscious agent is a being who is aware of it's surroundings and has the ability to act upon it.

Birds, beavers, humans are examples of Conscious Agents. We know they are because they build things such nests, dams, and jet engines. Showing they are indeed Conscious of the surrounding materials and they have the ability to act on them.

Conscious agents can produce processes that are said to be products of natural process, but natural process cannot produce processes created by conscious agents such as birds nests, beaver dams, and jet engines.

All of the material that Conscious agents have access to is the same material that natural process has access too.
Message too long. Click here to view the full text.

Anonymous 18/12/08(Sat)03:27 No. 13796 ID: 3744da

The definition of Natural by the Oxford dictionary presented in the OP appears to me to be calling humankind an alien species in terms of it's relationship to the entity "nature".

Provided meaning of "Natural Process" implies conscious intention.

Is consciousness alien technology?
Would every type of consciousness be a different alien species?

Anonymous 18/05/19(Sat)17:45 No. 13530 ID: 1c68b3 [Reply]

File 152674471722.png - (740.23KB , 3460x1912 , Solar_time_vs_standard_time.png )

Time is a fantasy; there is no such thing.

8 posts omitted. Click Reply to view.
Anonymous 18/12/05(Wed)15:21 No. 13786 ID: 4b92a2

5 niggers from now OP will be hit by a truck

Anonymous 18/12/05(Wed)15:49 No. 13788 ID: 8a0547

File 154402134923.jpg - (58.68KB , 500x603 , 90 Sweet Neck, Dude.jpg )

That's two and half double-niggers, but how long is a nigger?

Anonymous 18/12/05(Wed)19:38 No. 13790 ID: e9a682

File 154403510699.jpg - (8.59KB , 200x201 , downloadfile-64.jpg )

1.5x as long as a white man.

Delete post []
Report post