-  [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 672 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 16/03/25(Fri)17:36 No. 12480 ID: b6a37c [Reply]
12480

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]
11969

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

>>11994
>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]
12479

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]
12470

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]
12465

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




Anti-inspirational thread aka real life thread Anonymous 16/02/13(Sat)18:14 No. 12436 ID: d1b5b0 [Reply]
12436

File 145538367484.jpg - (220.10KB , 1640x958 , 1455374817947_picmonkeyed.jpg )

Anti-inspirational thread aka real life thread.

Pic is related for women close to 30-35.


>>
Anonymous 16/03/05(Sat)01:10 No. 12454 ID: dadde9

>>12436
She's lived with that awful crick in her neck her whole life.




Anonymous 15/11/16(Mon)03:28 No. 12320 ID: 7e7744 [Reply]
12320

File 14476409049.jpg - (87.43KB , 600x450 , 1447392292819.jpg )

What is Life?


>>
Anonymous 15/11/17(Tue)21:06 No. 12324 ID: 3fae4c

A really shitty YLYL thread.


>>
Anonymous 16/01/24(Sun)14:11 No. 12417 ID: 12ee37

>>12324
thread/




reality zero 15/11/15(Sun)04:46 No. 12319 ID: b7967e [Reply]
12319

File 144755917355.jpg - (29.53KB , 371x396 , images.jpg )

Creepy dude told me yesterday in bach world wasnot real, everything was an ilusion, even him or me or anything were actually irrelevant.
Quickly I reasoned and told him that this concept was nonsense, as a surreality is clearly something below,our world, like a simulation or matrix, everything was actually perceptible, he was able to see, touch, and smell. Those stimuli turned into neuronal information and that is what we call reality, even if did not exist like in string theory. Reality concept would be reformulated as,it does not get more "real" that. So his actual belief was a,super-reality above ours... he seemed really happy for that talk we had.

So what do you think? Exprime monde


1 post omitted. Click Reply to view.
>>
Anonymous 15/11/18(Wed)06:24 No. 12328 ID: b7967e
12328

File 144782429560.gif - (5.43KB , 782x543 , mspaintadventure18.gif )

>>12323
Interesting philosophy we found here...


>>
Anonymous 15/11/20(Fri)07:53 No. 12335 ID: ca3ceb

>>12328
Damn straight it is.
If he really believes in this crap he shouldn't get mad at anything or get frustrated and shit because it's not real.


>>
Anonymous 16/01/22(Fri)06:48 No. 12415 ID: c39e43

>>12319
that is the exact same idea that I believe, that of a
'super-reality'. feel free to ask any questions.




The people who ruin life angryATunfairness 16/01/10(Sun)18:55 No. 12400 ID: 9b31fb [Reply]
12400

File 145244850094.jpg - (308.37KB , 1480x2630 , whydoesntlifeobeytherules.jpg )

Why doesn't life OBEY.

WTF IS LIFES PROBLEM. LIFE MIGHT ASWELL BE A DOG!!!!

one day someone has to kill the person who has ruined life for everybody. people whose intention is to ruin everybodys life need to be shot before they reach power.

before you call me angry. i say steer you brain. surely these people designing to ruin the world are the real angry ones. that i have "NO BAD INTENTIONS" against THEM.... i hope you will see reason to be on my side... AND NOT on the side of a bunch of opinion seeking psychopaths.


>>
Anonymous 16/01/14(Thu)12:09 No. 12406 ID: 9c3171

Reality (and by extension life) is indifferent to us.

It doesn't care about you as it is not capable of doing so.




Anonymous 16/01/03(Sun)23:16 No. 12392 ID: ae1736 [Reply]
12392

File 145185937838.jpg - (18.72KB , 214x320 , 51I JFzOcTL__AC_UL320_SR214,320_.jpg )

Is formality just a way to nuance impulses?

The more you can resist impulses, the more disciplined you are.
Discipline is merely to chose to act according to your ideal self.

Can I theorise that the more you conform yourself to accepted society, the more formal you appear to be.

Or is formalaty just a way to nuance your true self, to hide all your flaws and to act according to protocol. Which protocol is based on civilised society.

Is to strive for an highly civilized society an end goal? Can innvation only come from dicipline? Should we shift the paradigm for high society to a different one? Is formality a means to an end?




Delete post []
Password  
Report post
Reason