-  [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 957 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 ## 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.

39 posts and 5 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
Anonymous 20/06/18(Thu)07:06 No. 14554 ID: 7cb4c3

Marcus Aurelius' Meditations is pretty pacifist

Plato's Dialogues are existentialist

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.

353 posts and 25 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
Anonymous 20/08/04(Tue)18:01 No. 14577 ID: 88bb2c

>>14565 philosophy is a hell of a drug

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.

Obsession with freedom Anonymous 20/02/09(Sun)14:55 No. 14401 ID: 7d5109 [Reply]

File 15812565153.jpg - (217.13KB , 675x900 , George ''The Freemason'' Washi.jpg )

>George Washington joined the Masonic Lodge in Fredericksburg, Virginia, at the age of twenty in 1752. During the War for Independence, General Washington attended Masonic celebrations and religious observances in several states. He also supported Masonic lodges that formed within army regiments.
>Such was Washington’s character, that from almost the day he took his Masonic obligations until his death, he became the same man in private that he was in public. In Masonic terms, he remained “a just and upright Mason.” Brother Washington was, in Masonic terms, a “living stone” who became the cornerstone of American civilization.

The American Constitution is the founding document that supposedly promotes freedom for individuals regardless of creed or religion but when you look at who wrote this document it becomes fairly obvious that all this is a mere reflection of slave owning anarchists that refused to obey others. It stipulates that people have a right to bare arms and own land but with what justification? The constitutional rights espoused in the U.S.A seem to be nothing more than the extension of self-righteous egotism that in the modern day society results in mass shootings and exploitation of other people. It's not about building a functional society, it's about protecting oneself from everything that goes against your own interests.

47 posts and 4 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
Anonymous 20/08/22(Sat)15:11 No. 14581 ID: a1767f

Now that you mention psycopaths and how they always espouse subjective morality you should take a look at this guy called Vegan Gains (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pGFVBqZEoW0).

>mentally ill
>calls himself existential nihilist
>has a profound hatred towards humanity and this warped misanthropy makes him a fanatic animal rights activist
>has gone through a vasectomy to ensure he never reproduces
>encourages his wife to post nude photographs for money

This is freedom in a nutshell.

Anonymous 20/08/25(Tue)15:23 No. 14582 ID: 4cd479

You can tell that he is fake. Even his laughter is forced.

Anonymous 20/09/17(Thu)13:06 No. 14590 ID: 1c5141

His fedora levels are off the charts.

A Quote From HP Lovecraft. Anonymous 20/07/14(Tue)21:45 No. 14571 ID: 8bb3c7 [Reply]

File 159475595553.jpg - (254.24KB , 1328x1737 , lovecraftart (1) (1).jpg )

Lovecraft makes reference to a social phenomenon noticed in much less poetic terms by Nietzsche in his work "The Mad Man" several decades prior.
The phenomenon is in broad terms what some would call "The Death of God" or, perhaps more literally the discovery of the origins of man as a biological organism shaped through the whims of nature without great interference from a creator at any given point.
It was Lovecraft's assertion (as well as Nietzsche interestingly) that the ensuing conclusions of such knowledge would either force man into emotional reasertions of such superstitions as he had been originally disposed to (IE Fascism, Fundamentalism, Theocracy) or the complete and utter abandonment of all values including self preservation towards an end of ultimate insanity and destruction (IE Communism, Anarchism, Nihilism).
It is between these two conclusions that the vast majority of the 20th was fought.
And while they may SEEM to be the only conclusions given the data i believe there is a third option.
IE the Understanding of Man as biological organism and the objective and inherent purpose that entails.
This has been realized (albeit imperfectly) in the form of National Socialism which, while only briefly attempted in Germany, can and should create an objective morality around which human beings can orient their lives.
All things from sex, to murder to breathing can be understood to be objectively good or bad in so far as they either help or hinder the procreation of ones genes as their objectively and undeniably evolutionary creatures in the material world with the objective and express purpose to pass on as much of their genetic material as possible.
This is thus the next step in the philosophical journey of western man and that which will give us objective meaning and an objectively true morality to organize our societies on the basis of.

1 post omitted. Click Reply to view.
Anonymous 20/07/15(Wed)09:52 No. 14573 ID: 8bb3c7

No anon.
I mean im a little unsure of what you mean (as you COULD be meaning going to either of the two basic possibilities leads to the repetition of the cycle, which is true)
But the accepting and fully understanding the third option breaks the cycle completely.
Instead of going mad from Lovecrafts Realization, of fleeing into the peace and security of a new dark age,
We instead face the realization, understand and accept it.
Moving forward as a society past this reality and onto further problems.
This is about solving the basic problem of morality post-enlightenment without having to rely on the teaching of Deity.

Anonymous 20/07/20(Mon)06:09 No. 14574 ID: 7cb4c3

Subscribing any sort of morality would designate immorality as well, making another class disruption

Anakritís 20/09/09(Wed)13:44 No. 14589 ID: e38882

You have not escaped the illusion, only painted patterns on the walls so that the shadows might look closer to the truth; you have acknowledged that what you have seen is a lie, but refuse to move on from it.

I should like to play the part of Socrates, but text is a format ill-suited to his method, so I must adapt it to work by my understanding of your thought, and I ask you forgive me if it seems as though I construct a strawman of your writing, for such is not my intent. But to continue...

You argue that morality should be based in the objective function of man as a living creature, and as part of the dominion of life; that because we are beings of genetics and evolution, then these must be the Archimedean Point on which we might lever any objective morality. Thus, by this shared understanding that we, like all life, exist by the implied purpose to evolve, spread our genes, et cetera, should build a system of philosophy and society that promotes this.

There is so much you take for granted, though. That we are creatures of evolution and biology is true, but for how long? Or is our existence only of value so far as it contributes to the genetic inheritance of mankind? And this is to say noyhing of the implications at the smaller scale, that of the individuals themselves, be it toward those unable to pass on their genes due to matters of birth or injury, or toward those very much so capable by any means necessary.

But these are lesser arguments, ones rooted in a concession that yours is, indeed, an Archimedean Point to begin with. Instead I ask you: "Why care?

What is objectively important about the spread of our genes or the continuation of the human race? What is so undeniable about its obhective importance that it could be a universally accepted measure? Why should anyone care? Should we care because we are human? So what? None of us are important, this spaceborn rock could blink out of existence right now and reality itself would hardly notice; humans only matter to humans because we care about each other, not because we have some objective importance or intrinsic value except in relation to each other. Just because genetics and life exist gives no objective value to them. Their existence means nothing objective beyond their existence. Tautology is the only thing that can be objective. All value is assigned, and thus a matter of perspective.

Anonymous 20/06/14(Sun)05:50 No. 14532 ID: 8bf6d2 [Reply]

File 159210661320.jpg - (33.23KB , 500x476 , black-square.jpg )

Reincarnation is a paradox. Imagine: someone is cryogenically frozen and sent off into space in the craft that keeps them cryogenically frozen.

It doesn't matter how much time elapses during this state equivalent to death of being utterly frozen (no brain activity happening, for you are frozen), if you awoke on a new plane as a new living creature, what happens when some extraterrestrial creature finds your previously frozen body and unfreezes you?

As we all know, since time doesn't exist, the universe is experiencing itself separately and autonomously, like the foundation being the universe and the branches from which are individual experiences of the same thing all happening in the same time frame That means, in terms of fundamentals, I am you, you are me, I am her, etc. But the aforementioned example of being unfrozen from an essentially dead state while living a reincarnated other self is impossible. Reincarnation involves the linearity of time and in a universe where time is not a material thing, that would be a road crash in time.

But then the next paradox: If it happened once, why not again?

15 posts omitted. Click Reply to view.
Anonymous 20/09/08(Tue)02:10 No. 14586 ID: 01ea14

There's no such thing as souls because it defies conservation of energy. This isn't a philosophical question, but a physical one. And physics says souls are fairy tales for gullible people so they keep giving their billionaire preachers more tithes.

Anonymous 20/09/08(Tue)02:14 No. 14587 ID: 665cee

>There's no such thing as souls because it defies conservation of energy. This isn't a philosophical question, but a physical one.
You do realise the conservation of energy breaks down on closer inspection. We have to keep making up theories to fill the holes.

Dark Matter is to scientists what Souls are to the religious.

Anonymous 20/09/08(Tue)16:10 No. 14588 ID: 443d04


Nothing matters Anonymous 17/07/13(Thu)06:34 No. 13003 ID: 8bb3c7 [Reply]

File 149992048614.png - (24.02KB , 300x250 , zYRkhfZY9Y-2.png )

We all die alone, because of this nothing we do inherently matters. There is no point to life, there is no point in living. Enjoy if you can, exist if you wish, and die. Thus is the lot of mortals

7 posts and 1 image omitted. Click Reply to view.
Anonymous 17/07/22(Sat)04:00 No. 13027 ID: ed9c1c

Then what do “thinkers” believe is the answer? Or does your “thinker” believe there is no answer? Can’t you argue that you will have an inherently better and happier life with this hedonistic ideal?

Anonymous 17/07/25(Tue)03:57 No. 13031 ID: 14f7e1



Anonymous 20/09/01(Tue)17:42 No. 14584 ID: baa2f3

Can I just say, that as a person of many interests; that is, as a person of interests; person of interest; I've enjoyed life. I'm still alive. Grande.

Rights Anonymous 17/03/22(Wed)10:09 No. 12857 ID: bfae6f [Reply]

File 149017375884.jpg - (199.43KB , 1109x1169 , Thomas_Hobbes_(portrait).jpg )

a. Are rights natural? Or b. products of society/government?

a1. If rights are natural, do they only apply to humans?

a1a. Why do they only apply to humans?

a2. How can rights be natural if life isn't a necessary condition for the universe to exist (meaning if all life were to cease to exist, the universe would still be here)?

37 posts and 2 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
Anonymous 20/06/03(Wed)17:03 No. 14516 ID: 380234

Wesley Newcomb Hohfeld could help explain rights.
Without duties, there could be no rights.
By the way, human rights, animals rights, ect. do not exist because there are no duties to balance those so called rights.

Anonymous 20/06/04(Thu)07:07 No. 14519 ID: 7cb4c3

That makes sense, you would need some sort of specific action to reference

Anonymous 20/07/10(Fri)07:17 No. 14569 ID: e82b87

File 159435823519.jpg - (32.42KB , 363x395 , Meme_AncestorsMustBeSoProud.jpg )

Rights are things granted to you by the government, think of them as privileges of sort and why should cops have guns but not the people, sounds like a issue waiting to happen considering how often cops are exposed for brutality.

DEATH you are a machine Anonymous 20/01/21(Tue)12:44 No. 14371 ID: 461340 [Reply]

File 157960707350.jpg - (576.46KB , 4128x3096 , jqhr6dzw3jez.jpg )

Inspired by a stupid argument in a different place.

If you define death as absolute annihilation you can not experience the state of death its impossible.

You are a machine a computer.
Only that's incorrect your body is.
You the mind are the web browser that runs on a OS on a physical machine.

You can literally test this in computers, yes even ancient ones to see the reasoning is valid.

If you preform a true full shutdown the web browser will have no idea what happened. The web browser can not experience the state of being shut down. However it can experience the processes leading to it.

The internet is the world you/browser interact with. The history of the browser is your/browser memory of events that happened. If the browser is not functioning it can not record anything in its memory.

Therefore its impossible for a browser or any software to experience the state of not being active.
Message too long. Click here to view the full text.

18 posts and 4 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
Anonymous 20/06/11(Thu)10:45 No. 14523 ID: 7cb4c3

If you think of death in the terms we now understand then you would be right OP, however it is possible death is something we do not yet fully grasp.

"Conciousness" is technically the state of being aware of your surroundings, although it sounds like the guy was dabbling a bit in fluma-juma

Something that would hurt this analogy is the server. The server retains the information used on your computer.

I actually believe in life after death. The soul, whatever you personally believe could be different but I believe in a true life after death, a resurrection.

The period between the two experiences could be called death, that would (may) be something we could not experience as per the analogy.

Anonymous 20/06/13(Sat)23:53 No. 14525 ID: 305acd

Your post is interesting however
> this analogy is the server. The server retains the information used on your computer.
HUH? What where? I excluded any servers I know kids these days (comedy voice "KIDS THESE DAYS") have a more and more server oriented way of living see cloud.

However servers are only computers and if eliminated or not used in the scenario (ignore steam cloud saves) like its the 1990s the scenario holds.

You can have 2 PC "talk to one another" over 1 Ethernet cable with no need for the internet. The other PC would remember you the same way the people you interact with will remember you even if you die.

I used the internet because its the cheapest and easiest to understand interaction method.

You can do the same with a robot that has cameras and a robot body to move around etc.

Only examining the memory of this robot will be far more hard and less intuitive then looking what your internet web browsing history looks like under history.

Message too long. Click here to view the full text.

Anonymous 20/06/15(Mon)09:12 No. 14547 ID: 7cb4c3

So the server retains your information ("soul"), like your history. The robot example you used would imply that the functions were limited to that robot which is not the case for consciousness, IMO.

The awareness mimicked by a computer function such as a robot taking pictures of cats would not allow the system used to properly assess its functions on its own. Being aware is not just the utility of the eye, but the process of seeing.

I really think the soul (every soul) cannot die as it was never made with the intent to stop functioning. Death can only occur in things without a soul, say a computer. People can die in our earthly sense but the reality of death is something no soul will ever grasp.

Selfish and speciesist behavior as 'genetic reproductive strategy Anonymous 17/09/02(Sat)07:35 No. 13093 ID: d5439c [Reply]

File 150433055760.jpg - (9.63KB , 332x336 , later homo.jpg )

Here's a spicy one. It's pretty simple too. Maybe I don't know what the fuck I'm talking about. Anyway, enjoy.


If a human does something to seriously harm and deprive fellow humans, or even something to seriously harm and deprive other species (for example, making them go extinct), is this poor and unintelligent 'genetic reproductive strategy'?

For example, let's just make some random, kind of exaggerated scenarios.

In scenario 1.) Elon Musk finds a way to reproduce by budding. The police try to stop him, so he is left with their choice to either surrender, or destroy Earth and create a self-sustaining colony on Mars. So, out of supposed good 'genetic reproductive strategy,' he goes through with the latter option. Sure, he succeeded in propagating his unique DNA more than otherwise, but he also destroyed the all species on Earth, one of which was carrying 99% DNA similar to him (humanity).

Another scenario, 2.) humanity finds a cure for cancer, but it involves killing all of the other primates. Humanity goes through with the plan, and all other primates are dead. Humanity helped itself thrive and prosper more by eliminating cancer, but what about the fact that many of those primates contained 95% similar DNA to humans? Humans succeeded in propagating the DNA that is unique to humans over the other primates, but they also hurt biodiversity and made it so that there will be no remaining primates if humans go extinct.

So is speciesist and extremely selfish strategy really beneficial 'genetic reproductive strategy'? Is it not better in terms of genetic propagation to focus on maintaining the biosphere and prolonging human existence, or is that unique DNA so much more important than the DNA in common?

Message too long. Click here to view the full text.

4 posts and 1 image omitted. Click Reply to view.
Anonymous 20/05/01(Fri)17:45 No. 14477 ID: aef41d

>Genetic selection is not even about propagating your exact genes, it is about the continuation of the series that contains your genes
This is still, STILL assigning more intelligence to a process that has zero. Life does not have a goal. Life does not have a "plan". Life does not have an endgame.

It's better to think of all the movement of life in much simpler terms. Like a ball rolling down a hill. All life "wants" and "seeks" to do is keep rolling. Though a variety of complex environmental pressures and adaptations (think: bumps and dips on the hill) it must change its behavior to keep rolling, but that doesn't mean its goal has changed.

When looked at this way, all of "life" is just an extension of the first law of thermodynamics; that is: life is a continuation of the physical property of inertia.

There is no such thing as a "reproductive strategy". It's only "this works" and "this does not work".

Anonymous 20/05/19(Tue)09:00 No. 14505 ID: 7cb4c3

Technically DNA still retains the options to revert back if needed over evolution. Say scenario 2 happened, humans could still evolve into primates if black people were alive

Anonymous 20/05/20(Wed)14:04 No. 14510 ID: 78d00d

>But killing off a species that was harming the biosystem in some way — that I would say was good.
Bye bye humanitie

Delete post []
Report post