-  [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 626 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.

323 posts and 19 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
Anonymous 17/09/14(Thu)10:14 No. 13114 ID: fb1845

The point is that if you're going to say there IS something, them you have the provide evidence for it.

We have evidence people can and do make up gods all the time, yet we have zero evidence for a god when we look for axiomatic evidence.

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 16/03/09(Wed)08:23 No. 12458 ID: 3ee603 [Reply] [First 100 posts] [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?

180 posts and 49 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
Anonymous 17/10/19(Thu)17:31 No. 13231 ID: f789f7

We'll never find the meaning of life.

Anonymous 17/10/20(Fri)14:42 No. 13232 ID: 487af6


Maybe somebody have figured it out and you have not?

Anonymous 17/10/21(Sat)18:06 No. 13235 ID: 6af4de


Yes. To believe in Darwins theory is only something a cretin would do. Even when you compare other chimpanzee cells with human ones, measurements have shown that a chimpanzee cell has 10 percent more DNA than a human cell. Both technically and comparatively it all is extremely farfetched.

Apples and oranges.

Anonymous 16/08/31(Wed)03:45 No. 12662 ID: 1cc955 [Reply]

File 147260794070.gif - (705.36KB , 738x780 , 1472548628168.gif )

About free will.

Are you reading this text voluntarily? My personal guess is, that many will instinctively answer with yes. In German the adjective „voluntarily“ is translated to „freiwillig“, which means „with free will“ or more literal „free willy“.
Bad jokes aside, the definition of doing something voluntarily, is taking action according to your own free will.
Now why I am focusing on this is, because I want to explore what it actually means to do something voluntarily, along the axis of determinism and free will.

Let’s assume you answered yes to the question of reading this text voluntarily.
And let’s assume our brains do function deterministically.
That would mean, you just had an illusion about having a free will.
The illusion, that you did have a choice, not to read this text this far. Some unknown law, which we try to approximate in the natural sciences, is entirely responsible for what you just did, including the feeling of doing it voluntarily.
It also means, that if you were able to go back in time, every time you did do so, the world and the universe would develop exactly the way they have always been destined to. Including you, reading this text, over and over again. Like a clockwork turning back and forth.
Consciously experiencing a movie that doesn’t feel like a movie but real.
Being aware of this fact also means, that one of the characteristics of this deterministic system is, that it can understand itself.
Let’s have a look at it understanding itself.
If the voluntary guy exists in this deterministic system, his thoughts are part of this system and his conscious experience of having acted voluntarily describes the system in the same way, as an experience of not having done so, would.
Message too long. Click here to view the full text.

8 posts and 1 image omitted. Click Reply to view.
Anonymous 17/09/13(Wed)08:10 No. 13111 ID: 86f262

I once read a post where OP used gif and it was surprisingly good post. That changed my worldview just enough to make me want to read this post, out of my "free will".
If we went back in time and cancelled that one time I read a good post, I wouldn't have wanted to read your post, thinking it would suck.

What happened there?
Did we change the course of the whole universe, or did we just change me as a person?

Before analyzing free will we need to figure out more specific what we are. If we are just pile of cells made of molecules made of atoms, we aren't anything else than matter. If we are computers made of flesh, we process data and do the math to reach conclusion we just may have free will. Why? Because the result of choice didn't exist before we made it.

I'm terribly sorry for the broken structure of my text, i've only have had one cup of coffee.

Anonymous 17/10/03(Tue)19:39 No. 13207 ID: 418d7a

Read How Emotions Are Made by Lisa Barrett Feldman
We're bias machines. It's like writing data to a computer, only instead of erasing it just doesn't record all the information correctly. We have a certain amount of will, in choosing where to direct our attention and thoughts. If you continue a line of thinking, it's basically like telling yourself that this line of thinking is okay. This is why people get depressed, they tell themselves they are shit for years and then they get surprised when their own brain starts believing them.
If people were to view their brain as a dog, I think they would have a much better idea of how to handle themselves. If you don't understand this information or don't have knowledge it exists, then you're pretty much a philosophical zombie.
You're making choices, but you're unaware of the level of control that you actually have, in that case.
As people understand these concepts on a greater scale, then you can have more free will. It's not like you have total free will or zero free will, from my understanding of the science your conscious mind is about a pea-size compared to the size of the subconscious. Over time, if you make consistent attempts to change you have much greater control over your entire life, so in the moment you probably have the least control and over the duration of your entire life you have the most free will.
However, that's only if you are trying to do something. Now, if you don't even want to do anything from the start, then I would think you're definitely fucked. Because you haven't even given yourself any options. I see this among imageboards a lot, the posters seem myopic in their worldview. Perhaps, hopefully, it's just because they are young.

Anonymous 17/10/21(Sat)07:56 No. 13234 ID: 851467

Personally I subscribe to Stefan Molymeme's compatibilist definition of free will: roughly, the ability to compare your perception of reality to ideal standards and to make choices based on those comparisons.

I believe that the universe is deterministic and that humans are wired to make normative evaluations or in other words value based judgements. We have no choice in the matter because we evolved that way.

I also believe that no set of values is, in a non-trivial fashion, universally shared and that there is no rational basis on which to compare these values as any standard you use for comparison will also have to be preferable according to another standard ad infinitum.

Yet a lot of interesting and useful discussion based on these normatives is littered with concepts based what could be termed a religious concept of free will; such as voluntary vs involuntary, personal responsibility, agency, morality and ethics.

This definition allows one to discuss these concepts using the language that developed around them without cognitive dissonance, magical thinking or altering the concepts in a fundamental way that would impede understanding in their common use.

Anonymous 17/10/21(Sat)06:19 No. 13233 ID: d630bd [Reply]

File 150855957945.jpg - (7.05KB , 259x194 , images(3).jpg )

Guys like this make me lean towards Empiricism.

Anonymous 17/10/09(Mon)23:20 No. 13221 ID: b742f0 [Reply]

File 15075840452.jpg - (8.84KB , 234x216 , images(2).jpg )

From a secular standpoint, can a humans be considered gods of the animals beneath them?

Pic unrelated.

Anonymous 17/10/11(Wed)20:30 No. 13225 ID: 9fd7e5

It's easy to imagine animals viewing humans as gods in the way that peasants might view an Egyptian pharaoh or a Roman emperor declaring himself to be a living deity, especially those animals that regularly interact with humans on a daily basis.

It's more of a stretch to imagine animals viewing humans as something more abstract like Yahweh or Allah or one of those types, but not impossible if you think of an animal that receives no direct human contact but might notice their environment slowly changing around them. Your animal might get some inkling that there's a mysterious force out there beyond its control making its life needlessly aggravating, but doesn't have the frame of reference to fully appreciate what's out there working in mysterious ways.

Anonymous 17/10/13(Fri)18:01 No. 13227 ID: 9b82d7

File 15079104923.jpg - (116.61KB , 1000x731 , juggalo-funeral.jpg )

I can't get over the picture.

No species capable of gestating both the music group Insane Clown Posse and their Juggalo fans should ever be described as gods under any circumstances.

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.

10 posts omitted. Click Reply to view.
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...

Blood and Spirit 17/10/04(Wed)20:37 No. 13208 ID: 8c87d4 [Reply]

Link to audio reading of this article
Our identity based in blood n soil has proven fruitless. We see now that blood n soil was easily defeated by magic dirt. Why? Because it lacked the understanding of what a people truly are. A Nation is blood and spirit. The land is just a space a nation occupies.

If you take a family from their home and put them in a new home do they stop being a family? No! Because the children know that their origin is not that piece of land they grew up on. They know their origin is being born of their parents. Today, we have been told our nation is blood n soil, because of lack of knowing our origin. This gives us false nations built on ideals that are not able to be demonstrated in nature. Because of this we are heading towards extinction.

When you look at the Jewish people you see that they are not blood n soil. It is by blood and spirit Jews are able to keep their identity throughout the world. At the same time if you look at Europeans who have adopted blood n soil you see that they turn against their own people because they live in a different country. As soon as Europeans came to America they no longer saw their ancestors across the seas as brothers and sisters. But the Jews see all other Jews as brothers and sisters. With exception of the Ethiopian Jews. Why, because the Ethiopian Jews do not share their blood or enough of it. This also shows that spirituality by itself is not enough to unite a people.

For our people to survive we must unite under blood and spirit. Once this is done our people will have a homeland again. If we do not unite under one spirituality then our people will go extinct. A homeland is not our origin. A homeland is a tool to keep our people safe. Soon all of the lands that Aryans reside in will no longer be safe. Effectively leaving us homeless as a people. If you believe a nation is blood n soil, do you have a nation if the soils occupied by foreign blood?

Our people’s origin is not distant lands or the plot of land we grew up on. It is the founding of our gene pool. Jews know their origin lies with Abraham. That is the source of their strength. We need to teach our children their origin. The oldest writing of our people dates back to 2193 BCE. It tells us our origin.

“Freya’s children came to know their origin.” “Wise Freya! When She raised Her children to the seventh generation She called them to Flyland and gave them Her counsel, saying, “Let this be your law and it will never fail you.”” Aryan Scriptures 1:5,36

Those who are Aryan learn your true origin and spirituality. By accepting the teachings and laws of Freya you “secure the existence of your people.” This is blood and spirit. This will lead to a homeland for our people. Which will make “a future for White children.”

rant Anonymous 17/08/07(Mon)14:32 No. 13061 ID: 1460ee [Reply]

File 150210913999.jpg - (43.16KB , 564x585 , hreh.jpg )

i wonder how all us millennials turn out
our attitude towards the struggle in transitioning from child to adult can either be anger directed towards the economic system or towards those who raised us unprepared (liberal parenting, university system)
it’s definitely a combination of both, but i think the latter deserves more scrutiny. It’s easier to fix and coming to terms with it will make you happier than understanding economic injustices. I can’t conceive of a world in which communism succeeds, marx created or re-appropriated the term exploitation and makes value judgments about the economy that make sense only through a certain lens. I don’t think this viewpoint will ever gain majority support, it’s an anti humanistic theory in the way it assumes victim hood for poor people, they are “exploited” beyond control. The theory reduces people to non-autonomous beings when in reality there can be many reasons people do not succeed economically. In a communistic society would you even be responsible for your own feelings and emotions? A murderer must surely be held morally accountable, which already seems to contradict the idea that poverty is an injustice. In both systems people MUST be held morally accountable therefore its all a matter of preference. Which moral lens do you choose to view from? It would help greatly if the communists clearly set their moral standards, in doing so they would admit to the fact that humans have autonomy and moral obligation. Capitalism clearly sets its own standards and has its own moral code embedded in the way the economy functions, in rewarding certain members of society more than others. Communism has no replacement, and coupled with social liberalism has nothing to say about the value of individual behavior whatsoever. In order to move forward the left must rework or forget marx, the rise of the alt right and Trump’s presidency have made this clear.

Anonymous 17/08/10(Thu)23:16 No. 13067 ID: 4b4e54

A liberal is not necessarily a bad parent. A conservative or a socialist is not necessarily a good parent. Take your ideology elsewhere. Also, all of this pseudo-intellectual discussion of the 'generations' is completely exhausting.

Anonymous 17/09/02(Sat)05:30 No. 13092 ID: d5439c

Anyway, you're about Communism. Communism imperfect and impractical. People are probably assigning too much blame to the economic system for their unhappiness.

That being said, plenty of people (the vast majority of people, if you look at the ultra-elite and their tactics) are at a major economic disadvantage, and socialist efforts to fix this are not misguided.

Also, the rise of the Alt-Right has been a reactionary disaster filled with more assclowns than was originally thought possible. Their beliefs are pretty inconsistent between members, too, and very illogical.

Anonymous 17/10/03(Tue)19:23 No. 13206 ID: 418d7a

That's more of a policy and practicality question than a philosophical one. I think that philosophy has a place in politics, but it's not administration of the system. We have too much development going on with the economic system in the first place just to keep up with that, and the economic system right now is already stressed to the limits providing for people who don't/can't contribute.
If you look at the IMF and how the federal reserve work, read some books on quantitative easing, I think you might come to a similar conclusion I have. It's a unicorn fart economy. The question the best and brightest I've read are asking is just how to structure this correctly, and the blockchain is pretty much what governments are going to be forced to adopt, like Singapore did.
>reforge marx
They've been doing that since his book came out. The problem in my mind is that people are attached to political philosophies and are disconnected from political realities. The political reality right now in america is actually the most successful welfare state in human history. If that isn't communism, socialism, whatever, than what is? Do you want everyone to put on grey uniforms and live in commie blocks?
America is a wonderful place and it's made all of this possible through nigh infinite sacrifice, that will continue into the future as well. The American left is acting like they are playing catch-up with the social policies of europe, while the American right has thrown in their flag with the democrats. I've observed this from listening to hours and hours of NPR and Red Eye Radio(conservative-libertarian). Single payer was locked in since obama passed obamacare. The reason why is that the American people want free money, they don't care or understand the future cost of that free money because they want to be even more comfortable.
As for you millennials, most people don't mature mentally much as they grow up. It's up to you decide where you'll end up.

Delete post []
Report post