-  [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 788 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.

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.

Free will is fake Anonymous 21/03/07(Sun)13:37 No. 14688 ID: 7c7beb [Reply]

File 161512062616.jpg - (8.45KB , 129x216 , watson_furman.jpg )

If our behavior is dictated by nature and nurture then where is the free will at. Nature is our innate neurology and nurture is the ingrained actions of others. Neither of which we have control over.

4 posts omitted. Click Reply to view.
Anonymous 21/04/08(Thu)03:15 No. 14727 ID: a7c52b

Suicide is just an escape from an intolerable existence. Given a choice between a life that is good and a life that is horribly unbearable and painful, anyone would choose the good life yes. But choosing between death and the painful life, most would choose death. The only thing that stops them is if they were brainwashed as children into believing that this will only bring them to an afterlife that is worse.

Anonymous 21/04/09(Fri)22:49 No. 14730 ID: db23ed

I'd say the free will argument is mostly predicated on the idea that some aspect of reality is "goal-oriented," or teleological. Which means that if something has a goal as a property of what it means to exist, then that necessarily entails an "exclusion" of other goals in the way that it actualizes it's own potential.

So, let's say my goal today is to drive to the liquor store and buy some Maker's Mark for my underage girlfriend. For me to have that goal, I have to reject the other places (even in a general sense) that are NOT the liquor store, and reject all other things that are NOT Maker's Mark. This means that, at the moment I make the choice, I am considering an array of options, and have made a choice to take one, to the exclusion of all the others that I have knowledge of.

The alternative to this is to take a materialist position (a very common one among post-Enlightenment philosophers), which is that all proximate and remote causes are random and non-conscious, which means that all the effects of those causes are random and non-conscious. The problem here, of course, is the mind, being goal-oriented, seems to be the exception to that rule, which means that reality is at least partly goal-oriented, if only because the mind is literally in reality. That seems to lead to some kind of dualism, which has it's own problems. Some philosophers have endorsed "panpsychism" as a way out, while others have simply doubled-down on materialism.

Noam Chomsky famously wrote that no one can define these terms meaningfully enough to even form a question relevant to the problem, so it essentially doesn't matter. Philosophers like Ed Feser and some others disagree, and so do I.

I personally endorse the freedom of the will, but only because I believe the intellect is partly immaterial, which is also the position endorsed by Ed Feser and James Ross.

Anonymous 21/10/21(Thu)06:31 No. 14822 ID: 05bf3b

Christianity says that God has predestined everybody. If that's so, then free will is a bribe to make people suck the pastors dick.
Honestly, Christianity reeks of copium and white narcissism.

Anarchist Q&A Anonymous 18/08/18(Sat)01:24 No. 13599 ID: c89d35 [Reply]

File 153454827535.jpg - (8.92KB , 479x467 , DEATH TO STARFUCKS.jpg )

(Doesn't even have to be about my politics)

I'm sick and fucking tired of seeing people over worked, over taxed, and under payed. Fire at will.

1 post omitted. Click Reply to view.
Anonymous 20/12/14(Mon)00:52 No. 14663 ID: baa2f3

What are you on?

Anonymous 20/12/14(Mon)22:55 No. 14664 ID: 72281e

Any model of anarchy simply results in small collectives of power that over time coalesce into larger collectives, which become governments. This is how society happened the first time around. Why would you possibly think you can prevent this should it happen again? You can't just NOT HAVE ANYONE IN CHARGE; a civilization cannot function that way. Hell, a book club with five members won't function that way.

You'll note that there really isn't any such thing as anarchist movements in countries with good social welfare systems. In those countries, their taxes actually go to stuff they use like free higher education, state healthcare, and city beautification; they have no problem paying their taxes. Contrast that to in America, where taxes go to bailout corporations, to line the wallet of billionaire CEOs, and fund the military industrial complex. Plus there are no worker protections so everyone ends up underpaid and overworked.

Really, the question I will provide is actually a rhetorical one: why the fuck are you proposing eliminating government, when the reality is you just want a government that functions properly?

Anonymous 21/10/08(Fri)02:45 No. 14814 ID: d2a5e8

Cooperatives, yay or nay?

Anonymous 21/09/02(Thu)17:52 No. 14804 ID: b3e825 [Reply]

File 163059797935.jpg - (883.57KB , 1796x1920 , DSC02057.jpg )

Anonymous 21/09/25(Sat)05:16 No. 14809 ID: 25cd70


Can omnicide be moral? Anonymous 21/08/18(Wed)18:40 No. 14791 ID: 298de1 [Reply]

File 162930485470.jpg - (10.04KB , 229x221 , images.jpg )

Can a total eradication of all life on earth be moral in the same sense euthanasia is?
Life, since its first seconds was all about violence and it got to the point where killing and avoiding being killed became part of our evolution.
During the recent years in the grand scheme of life, humanity started to master that aspect of violence. When you open a history book, its hard to go through 3 pages at best wothout stumbling upon a murder of some kind.
The very ground I walk on probably stores corpses of millions of animals and humans, whose deaths were caused by our ancestors. Even the food I eat was brought to me here because people fought and died for it in the past.
Also, people are growing to be more and more ignorant towards issues that don't affect them. And when it inevitably does affect them, it's already too late. So, what do they do? Just cope and normalize it.
More and more ignorance and more and more bloodshed. In fiction people generally define a grim future as something pretty bombastic. For example, Warhammer 40k. Sure, everyone except ogres and maybe chaos is not having a great time, but there's at least something that ties them all together, and keeps them doing whatever they should do.
In my opinion, humanity, no, LIFE will simply degrade into such a pathetic state that commiting global genocide would be merciful and a deserving death.
There is no such thing as dystopian grim future, only mind numbing downward spiral.
Thinking this way, can omnicide be moral?

Anonymous 21/08/19(Thu)22:27 No. 14792 ID: ceffdd

>Can a total eradication of all life on earth be moral in the same sense euthanasia is?
>In my opinion, humanity, no, LIFE will simply degrade into such a pathetic state that commiting global genocide would be merciful and a deserving death.
Your problem is your mixing a morale dilemma with a subjective opinion. A morale dilemma needs to be presented with a neutral tone in order to merit discussion.

>Thinking this way, can omnicide be moral?
Thinking this way, you may, but using a preordained thought process leads to many atrocities being committed in the name of morale behaviour.

Anonymous 21/08/27(Fri)16:27 No. 14797 ID: 54428e

If you were forced to kill your child or another persons child, which one would you choose? If you refuse to choose, you will be tortured for eternity.

The choice you make depends on whether or not you can live with either unfathomable despair (killing you own child) or relentless, depthless hatred (experienced by the person whos child you killed).

Anonymous 21/08/06(Fri)19:44 No. 14789 ID: 27cb71 [Reply]

File 162827187050.jpg - (97.80KB , 1200x488 , 132815678430.jpg )

Atheist vs Christian Thread.
Atheists are strongly opposed to the supernatural, while Christians recognize the existence of God in their lives.

Anonymous 21/09/01(Wed)22:24 No. 14801 ID: 53d284


Nietzschean bread Anonymous 21/07/06(Tue)09:56 No. 14779 ID: aaa15d [Reply]

File 162555821185.png - (29.22KB , 460x345 , BladesAd.png )

the nietzschean idea of self preservation. the future depends on reproductive fitness and the best genes get passed on. does eugenics have a future where Nietzsche is taught to the genetically Superior humanity? lots philosophy, much discuss.

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?

24 posts omitted. Click Reply to view.
Anonymous 20/10/18(Sun)14:19 No. 14611 ID: a45d00

A more accurate description is to say Russels teapot is made from dark matter (and filled with souls) as it can't be detected by any means and only exists as a claim.

Of course, any scientist worth his salt, doesn't claim dark matter exists to begin with as it only exists in theory.

Anonymous 20/10/20(Tue)10:38 No. 14612 ID: 7cb4c3

Dreams don't exist because this defies the physical concept of heat death I was taught in 3rd grade

thanks science, won another argument

The Soul is much more than our chemistry Anonymous 21/07/01(Thu)04:55 No. 14778 ID: a7a19c

File 162510814988.jpg - (326.84KB , 760x749 , Boltzmann Brain.jpg )

When someone mentions the soul, they are mentioning a device that has been sort it out between the present and past. Usually the dates are momentary to the construction of 1855-1901. In a way the soul relies in the past through evolutionary construct while the present it involves a certain lost generation dimensions that are usually given in the history of the 20th century with the beginning of the world at war like a tale of Conrad.

Here is a picture of theorized construct sort of like the soul but in the lost generation knowns athe Botlzmann Brain of humanity

Anonymous 21/06/25(Fri)03:46 No. 14777 ID: fcc080 [Reply]

File 162458560329.jpg - (80.53KB , 639x960 , Craig.jpg )

It's scary sad how many people think this guy is actually intelligent. He's a good public speaker and has a highly polished script but any time he used to try to go off script to address novel rebuttals to his arguments and he sounded like an autistic NPC.

I made a Seneca time line chronologicaly Zizou 21/06/25(Fri)01:14 No. 14776 ID: 52398c [Reply]

File 162457646694.jpg - (251.18KB , 1080x1080 , IMG_20210624_091411_458.jpg )


Anonymous 21/04/13(Tue)18:34 No. 14733 ID: d39890 [Reply]

File 161833167676.png - (108.88KB , 323x390 , ignore_abuse.png )

Something seems off to me about this.
It's basically saying abuse should be ignored, and that those that engage in accountability-based reasoning or deterrent reasoning are weak.
That doesn't make a lick of sense.
Sounds like the motto of a predator.

Anonymous 21/05/21(Fri)12:52 No. 14750 ID: 33172f

Likely he is speaking from the position of wanting to be unimpeded by the actions of others as much as possible. By ignoring things that are meant to harm you, you reduce the total number of threats and obstacles in your life to only those things which can't be ignored. There is some danger in it, "You can ignore reality, but you can't ignore the consequences of ignoring reality." (Ayn Rand), but it's likely that people on average ascribe TOO much significance to things rather than too little.

Kory+Taylo 21/05/26(Wed)06:19 No. 14767 ID: 9f80eb

Jey Capstile

Anonymous 21/05/26(Wed)06:56 No. 14768 ID: 9679d6

This is just a quote from einstein. He surely doesn't mean it. People that take that too to heart create problems in people. Also yes it means you ignore obvious problems in the world to save yourself. It's unethical.

Delete post []
Report post