-  [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 735 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 16/06/04(Sat)05:51 No. 12580 ID: cf7976 [Reply]

File 146501231588.jpg - (189.85KB , 540x393 , 7bdfac03-bc09-4faa-a2de-5a2a767c65dd.jpg )

Individualism in nonexistent

Give me your best arguments as to why I am (or not) correct

(Pic unrelated)

Anonymous 16/06/04(Sat)18:42 No. 12582 ID: ca3ceb


Does an afterlife exist? L 16/05/15(Sun)23:23 No. 12564 ID: 84fe35 [Reply]

File 146334740886.jpg - (828.70KB , 1087x1600 , 1462855105064.jpg )

Give your best arguments on why it does/does not exist. I do believe in it and think that it is just another reality.

(pic... I like the pic)

Anonymous 16/05/17(Tue)07:25 No. 12566 ID: 319e01

If we're nothing more than the sum of our physical parts then the concept of an afterlife seems absurd. Believing in an afterlife requires believing in dualism, because experiencing it requires some kind of soul or mind that can be separated from the physical body which can die.

Anonymous 16/06/04(Sat)11:16 No. 12581 ID: f3ebab

File 146503178988.jpg - (45.55KB , 513x478 , 451151515115.jpg )

My argument would be that there wouldn't be a way for us to find out given our circumstances as humans stuck with our a priori forms of intuition and the concepts of the pure understanding. Kant said that the Transcendental ego that precedes every judgment with an "I" is just a logical unity that accompanies our experience of things (more specifically, representations). So every time we unite 2 representations (or synthesize, to be more specific again) we are indeed conscious of an absolute subject that isn't a predicate of anything else.

But apperception assumes the process of synthesis, but it doesn't therefore make it valid for us to say that it is also a constitutive principle of reality as it is for itself (the thing-in-itself). That is, the Transcendental ego is merely a regulating principle that is a natural consequence of the process of synthesizing our representations in reality. Every time we take an "intuition" x and unite it with a "category" y in order for it to schematically make sense (and therefore make it possible for us to even experience), that act alone assumes a transcendental "I" automatically. With a synthesis comes the "I" as a logical consequence but not as a constitutive consequence.

The specific nature of the understanding is to think "discursively," that is, only through concepts, but these concepts are only predicates. But since we have an absolute subject, that is a substance, what can we do? the nature of subject is to be non-predicable. A subject is a thing which cannot be said of ANY OTHER THING. That means that the subject isn't even a concept, therefore we cannot even have it as an object of knowledge. If we can't even have a concept, that is, if we can't even give it predicates, then that means we can't give it any properties whatsoever.

Kant states "In the same manner, I may legitimately say, I am a simple substance, that is, a substance the representation of which contains no synthesis of the manifold; but this concept, also this proposition, teaches us nothing at all with respect to myself as an object of experience. For the concept of substance itself is used only as a function of synthesis, without any intuition for it to rest on, and therefore without any object, and is valid only of the condition of our knowledge, but not of any object that can be specified"

So "it can't be specified" as he states. He uses the word concept differently in the quote. In the quote he refers to the category of the understanding, one of them being substance. In another sense he refers to a concept meaning "predicate." So the "I" is only the category of substance, but isn't a concept in the sense that it can be given any predicates. Categories function as things that make the function of knowledge even possible. Kant's criti Message too long. Click here to view the full text.

Anonymous 16/04/21(Thu)17:22 No. 12503 ID: 632f80 [Reply]

File 146125216923.jpg - (78.28KB , 600x1384 , 0d75907b0d8898d80a5f595e7e076d36-the-bigfin-squid-.jpg )

Hegelian Dialectics in historic Christianity.

Thesis: Catholicism
Antithesis: Protestantism

Why have we not acquired the synthesis yet?

Anonymous 16/04/27(Wed)00:45 No. 12521 ID: 7ad7b7

Synthesis: Counter-Reformation. Almost every initial point the Protestants made was answered and reformed in the Counter-Reformation. Protestants and Catholics alike do not seem to know their history very well, but there was an entire movement within the Church that led to massive reforms after Protestantism.

Anonymous 16/06/01(Wed)22:24 No. 12576 ID: 4d1abd

Because "dialectical" processes aren't like pushing dough through a pasta-maker. Hegel actually thought that the French Revolution was something like the "synthesis" -- he rarely used the idiot-worthy t/a/s triad himself, but he did think that the Protestant Reformation had solved problems inherent in medieval European societies, and it was a standing question how the same reforms could be achieved in Catholic countries.

Zoos and Aquariums Anonymous 16/05/13(Fri)22:10 No. 12561 ID: beb2f1 [Reply]

File 146317020745.jpg - (16.67KB , 315x300 , 13124710_535202656651644_2789022291227412614_n.jpg )

In a utilitarian sense, is there any way to justify the existence of zoos? If the amount of animals in captivity and the number of hardships they would have to suffer was kept to a minimum, could you justify keeping these animals, showcasing them to people who would otherwise never see anything like them?

Anonymous 16/05/15(Sun)03:15 No. 12563 ID: 319e01

To answer this properly requires measuring the costs and benefits of living in captivity and living in the wild. This has the potential to vary wildly even between individuals of the same species. It's not impossible to imagine some critter deciding that a downsized stomping ground is better than being chased by predators all the time, but the same critter's sibling might reject any restrictions on its freedom, no matter what it stands to gain in return. This all, of course, assumes that a particular animal has the capacity to give two shits either way; many might, but some won't.

If you can tally the hedons and crunch the numbers, then we can say for sure.

what does /phi/ think of the truthcontest? TruthConduit 16/03/30(Wed)21:56 No. 12494 ID: 3312c8 [Reply]

File 145936781332.jpg - (43.64KB , 500x549 , ngbnb.jpg )

Allow me to provide a disclaimer that the book provides too late imo: If in reading you encounter something you think is false or untrue or crazy, mark it down but keep reading, you might very well find your arguments dispelled with sound reasoning.

truthcontest.com- what this is is a contest for the truth of Life: The big questions that concern us all, every last one of us. I could go on all day, so I'll let you judge for yourself. Simply pick a book, either The Present or The Present with Religion and start to read.

It has transformed my life, allowing me to be happy and contentfor the first time in my life. The truths TP:WR has taught me have completely changed my outlook: the truths learned serve everything and everything is served by them. Over 70 pages into a book about religion, the meaning of life and God, and I haven't disagreed with a single thing or found any of it to be untrue by my judgment. Yeah, the judgment of others is what put those two books there to be read. I truly believe this book contains the tools for enlightenment, the tools that will transform lives and this world into something so much better.

The truth is what binds us all, gives us relevance and a frame of reference. The truth is what can unify us with each other and the life around us. And this book delivers the Truth, and I am here to proclaim it to you all, that you might find the same fruits I did, of relief and love. At first, the book teaches, this kind of change might prove hard at first, as the mind is very resistant to the notion that it itself is the problem, and it will put up a furious resistance. However if you can overcome this resistance, this resistance is the very thing that will convince you what this book says is true. Then, once you have recognized the problem, you can begin to try and solve it. Once enough of us have, and succeed, then we can proceed to make heaven on earth a literal reality.

A little tidbit: http://www.truthcontest.com/entries/the-present-with-religion/hell.html- basically, the entire religious concept of hell is found to be talking about the volcanic vents at the seafloor.

I could talk about this all day, /phi/, but what I really want to know is what do you all think of this?

Anonymous 16/04/30(Sat)05:23 No. 12523 ID: 938dcc

The truth contest doesn't provide an adequate direct answer. It hides behind the veil of ambiguity to appear to have genuine deep connections to the universe when in reality it's a petite collection of quotes and phrases purposely sold off as some kind of hidden treasure grove. I have submitted an introductory course to my theory and haven't had a decent reply or consideration behind my understanding of the universe. I suspect the 'panel of reviewers' is nothing more then a single person waiting to steal ideas from others. To understand the universe, is to study it factually. If Pauli, Planck, Einstein or Schroeder spoke in ambiguity or provided hints and clues instead of perusing their ideas we wouldn't have the progress that we do now. The truth contest, is by no means an actual truth contest. It's a simple collection of opinions. In closing, don't submit your ideas to this sham.

Anonymous 16/03/25(Fri)17:36 No. 12480 ID: b6a37c [Reply]

File 145892377998.jpg - (14.81KB , 533x350 , 16459381.jpg )

Why has Evolution "produced" a species that drives itself to extinction ? And if humaity is a the failig part of try and fail. How is nature suposed to evolve further if we leave the planet inhabitable ? Is our whole Planet part of the fail and another Planet is the try that actually works out ? Or has Nature just fucked up big time ?

Anonymous 16/03/30(Wed)03:00 No. 12493 ID: 314113

The problem in your questioning is that you assume that humanity was somehow a project of earth, when rather it was a biological byproduct of chemical reactions happening billions of years ago. Earth has no sentience, it's a bundle of materials that happen to come clashing together through gravity. The living shit on it lives in a symbiotic way, but has no connection to it in a higher spiritual or biological sense.

"Nature" isn't a sentience either. It's just an umbrella term for biological things we humans have no control over (or wasn't manufactured by humans). Or in other words: It's a term to describe the seeming prewritten "rules" of how non-human things operate. Humanity isn't governed by nature or the earth. Neither of those things "made" us willingly.

Now to answer your question, I believe that we as a species are in a weird situation. We are too intelligent and dumb for our own good. We're capable of mental capacities that far exceeds that of the smartest perceived animals on the planet, we can differentiate between subject and object, we can "think outside the box" - yet, we are not smart enough to handle our gifted capabilities. We, as a species, are still bound to our insticts and primal behaviours. We lack the discipline to outweigh our "flaws" and become a non-selfdestructive species. We are intelligent, but only intelligent enough to hate and destroy each other. We are subjected to our emotions, which are/were useful for survival, but needless to say are one of the roots of humanity's fundamental problems, or in the very least, the handling of such.

Anonymous 16/04/10(Sun)08:07 No. 12499 ID: 98407e

If you think nature can fuck up, you still don't understand it. If we die, it won't matter. If we kill all life on Earth, it won't matter. Evolution is not sentient.

And anyway, humanity is on the verge of discovering how to leave the planet and possibly digitize the human brain. As long as we don't kill ourselves before then, we may very well wind up engineering our own evolution, in a pretty huge leap, frankly.

marginsoferror marginsoferror 15/01/08(Thu)10:34 No. 11969 ID: fc2a7f [Reply]

File 14207096712.jpg - (43.23KB , 328x310 , doerrorsrepeat.jpg )

my brain teaser for philosophers is so...

if you have found you have a margin of error should you ever bother doing anything ever? you've proven you're not capable of simple things, so why should you bother anymore?

my philosophy has been no margin of error or compromise. ever. it has served me terribly. the simplest decisions with variables to consider can take years a time. but i feel proud not to choose mistakes. i feel it makes me more human than most to live such a way. on attempts on my life in the past. i always had preplaned all possible attacks and real time evasion so none ever worked on me. i feel it makes me much more human to think than just act. ( even if it does win free psychopathic personality disorder in medical records. whats psycho about thinking before you act. i think labeling thoughtfulness wrong is a personality disorder.)

10 posts omitted. Click Reply to view.
Anonymous 15/06/22(Mon)17:38 No. 12225 ID: dcc717

1.) This is a polemic argument (absolutes)
2.) This is a splitting argument (extreme absolutes)
3.) This is an anti-splitting argument (absolutes should be demonized)
4.) This a black and white argument (no middle ground)

The answer is simple: We don't know, but we try because it is our nature, and that nature, the very nature of what is natural, itself is valid.
We try to place food in our mouths to live.
We believe we do this very well as our existence continues.
Not all of the food is digested.
Why is this, and why do we try?
Because tautology is a lie.
We are a cascade result, not made of any purpose or for any purpose.
Much like lies and incorrect theories, we invented the concept of purpose.
Why? Cascade reasons. All things are end results.
Physics and chemistry gave us life, and life gave us neurons.
Message too long. Click here to view the full text.

Anonymous 16/03/29(Tue)23:07 No. 12487 ID: 355cf2

So how do you justify your post with so many grammatical errors? Do those mistakes just not matter to you? If they don't matter to you, then how do you decide which mistakes matter and which ones don't? Seems like you're talking out of your ass to be honest.

Anonymous 16/03/30(Wed)02:46 No. 12492 ID: 314113

>making death a non-inevitability

Nope. Even if we somehow managed to stimulate our cells to the point of quasi-immortality (from aging, of course), we are still solar-bound, and will only exist until our sun goes nova. And though we might not die in a medical sense, all material things will eventually stop and just "cease" in this universe, that's how it has been, that's how it is intented.

That said, humanity is FAR from such technologies. In several million years, we've just managed to extend our life-spans by what, 40 years on average? Even if that leap was made in the last 200-300 years, unless there's the big technological singularity coming up any time soon (hint: there isn't), we're going to continue being subjecs to entropy and decay.

Anonymous 16/03/25(Fri)07:39 No. 12479 ID: c25926 [Reply]

File 145888796915.jpg - (100.19KB , 803x960 , skullflowers.jpg )

Yo guys. I'm writing a philosophy paper and I'm trying to encounter some views different than my own in order to have the strongest possible argument. I'm taking a utilitarian approach to say what provides the most good overall.

Is it ethical to manipulate the genes of your children via in vitro to keep them from inheriting a genetic disease? What if it's life threatening? Or only minor?
What about in order to control your children's traits for appearance? Intelligence?
Is all of this ethical or only some of it?Why or why not?
Furthermore, if these practices do become common in the populations that can afford the expensive procedures, potential donor banks, etc., are there potential negative repercussions the population in general would face? (Popular Eugenics?)

So far the only things I've heard in opposition are bandwagon, appeal to nature and slippery slope fallacies. But if you can justify these I'd be all ears.

Anonymous 16/03/29(Tue)01:59 No. 12485 ID: 5c155b

Ethics are the morals held to be of the greatest use to society, no?

Accepting that, if it were in one's power to change things that are detrimental to both one's potential offspring and society as a whole would it not be ethical to make that change, regardless of the cost?

cr 16/03/19(Sat)05:54 No. 12470 ID: ca8c4f [Reply]

File 145836326669.jpg - (7.70KB , 259x194 , download (1).jpg )

•the ultimate point of life, and what influences  everyones choices, their goal in every choice and action is an attepmt to increase their life happiness and gain more happiness, short term or long term, always.

Would you think this true?

Anonymous 16/03/22(Tue)10:17 No. 12473 ID: ca3ceb

Whoever said that was confusing happiness with well being.

Anonymous 16/03/29(Tue)01:52 No. 12484 ID: 5c155b

What is happiness in this context?

Anonymous 16/03/14(Mon)14:42 No. 12465 ID: cad79b [Reply]

File 145796296843.jpg - (557.42KB , 1500x1600 , stock-vector-military-infographic-template-vector-.jpg )

What are your latest intellectual/philosophy interests? For me it's Strategy, ambiguity, animal activism and Wikification

Delete post []
Report post