Sticky
Rules1- Respect the Global Rules.
2- Moderation will be kept to a minimum. Shitposting is not encouraged and spamming the board will result in a ban.
3- SFW board.
Resources for Beginners
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy - probably the most complete source for philosophical content available online
http://plato.stanford.edu/
Open Lybrary - over 250,000 books available to browse, read or borrow
https://openlibrary.org/
Tasteless society
It amazes me that we enable elites to become so rich when they are so wasteful and tasteless. This painting sold to a Chinese bilionaire for 170 million USD.
Intro into philosophy
any good stand alone intro books into philosophy? with available torrents or libgen scan available?
The critical weakness exploited to destroy freedom
Women believe ANYTHING they hear in the social sphere they grow up in.
About the changed nature of women:
From having to watch over others constantly since the beginning of humanity, they became selfless. Because they were so close to all the needs and wants of their people, they developed the instinct to trust them absolutely and a true understanding of their people was taken for granted.
When they were relieved of many responsibilities to their people by the 'modernization' of society the trait of selflessness became hollow and so turned to nothing but self-unawareness, leaving the instinct to implicitly trust their social sphere intact to be turned to purposes other than what made it to begin with.
Considering the addition of 'the media' to the general social sphere, with all of its inherent falsehoods, the women go absolutely crazy. Literally insane; completely turned against their own nature.
Their nurturing instincts are used to nurture the interests of the upper classes as handed down from the media rather than those of the actual people they see and interact with every day, even their own children.
Instead of being warm with compassion they are cold with judgements calculated from the information they are brainwashed with.
So it is that women are the primary tool of the upper classes to control us all, because men will do anything for their women. So it is that love is turned against us and the very foundation of our existence is betrayed.
This is the great vulnerability in the mind of the human that is exploited to make civilization by slavery.
Men and women were never much different in their minds. Now even our men are being feminized so they too can be exploited and used to exploit in this way.
Feminism is really feminization. <but also just as significant is the masculinization of women>
By making women interchangable with men, men will be more likely to follow the example of a woman. This makes a man take on traits of a woman, and so he becomes more submissive and so he is a better slave to his master.
Humanity as crop has it's seeds feminized (to a certain degree) before germination to increase yield.
One can only do what one desires to unless force otherwise.
Therefore whatever someone does of their own free will is something they desired to do.
Therefore any good action someone does of their own free will is not a good action because it is an action they desired to do anyway.
Read it /philosophy/. Especially if you've also read Stirner and other pessimistic works such as Schopenhauer, Cioran, etc. It also would be helpful to have knowledge of evolutionary theory.
It makes me cry tbh. But probably the best 21st century philosophy book I've read.
http://mundusmillennialis.com
Is this what XXI century philosophy looks like?
Who's your spirit philosopher?
http://barang.sg/index.php?view=birthday
>Pic related; it's mine.
Does determinism result in nihilism?
Can a philosopher be "overrated"?
If so, is there an example of one?
Pedophilia / CP / lolicon
Discuss whether any of these are 'morally wrong?' Pictures are of Saaya irie when she was 11.
GOODNIGHT SWEET PRINCE
prepare yourselves
:^)
Are you happy /philosophers/?
Existentialism
Who is your favorite existentialist, /philosophy/?
h-humour thread?
Free Will
Do we truly have free will or are we just the current manifestations of a deterministic series of events that started with the big bang?
>tfw
Express your Deceitfulness
GAMMON THREAD
Encouraged shitposting
All shitposting is to be done in this thread, where complete nonsense to vague knowledge and ideas can be typed. Shitposting in the larger sense of the word, where philosophical ideas that would be deemed stupid can be shared and built on and directed to the closest philosopher to build off of.
All shit posting comments to other threads should be posted in here also to keep shitposting to a minimum in other threads and leave other threads to stay on topic in a orderly manner.
Share your shitposts in this thread, right now.
Why Neil deGrasse Tyson is a philistine
>He proudly proclaims his irritation with "asking deep questions" that lead to a "pointless delay in your progress" in tackling "this whole big world of unknowns out there." When a scientist encounters someone inclined to think philosophically, his response should be to say, "I'm moving on, I'm leaving you behind, and you can't even cross the street because you're distracted by deep questions you've asked of yourself. I don't have time for that."
>"I don't have time for that."
fucking scientism lel
Karl Marx
Thoughts on Marx?
Could someone please disprove solipsism?
Hey /philosophy/. I'm a former fedorafag, who eventually outgrew leftism and being anti-religion. Anyone else here with a similar background? If so, when did you outgrow it?
This thread will be sage-shat and deleted in 3... 2... 1...
I flipped a coin
To be, or not to be?
Heads, or tails?
The Universe is my will.
Enjoy your trip
Not one old philosopher is on record condemning slavery, until the modern age, when anti-slavery sentiment became popular. What does that say about philosophy?
Was Freud wrong?
What should I read?
As a person who has not yet read any philosophy, I was wondering. should I start with Plato, if so what book and if not what Should I read before. both Philosopher and what book.
Plato
Pepper your angus, there shalt be no odes to this Grecian urn!
ok guys i want to know about what differant beliefs/philosophies/religions think about the spiritual consequences of suicide are and what actually happens on the otherside for people who have commited suicide
all opinions welcome from all faiths and walks of life
>pic unrelated
rhetorical devices
Political arguments are garbage because the most popular canidates avoid stating some premises so every man can project his own feelings onto them. All of them do use enthymemes. Supporters will then claim he meant he will do X, but didn't say it because its not politically correct. Enthymemes are the term for showing that politics is the art of talking and looking good, without actually saying anything.
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-trump-language-idUSMTZSAPEC2GN0F3OI
What are some books to start with regarding these topics?
Hello.
What are some books for a 'relatively new' reader in the subject of Philosophy that you would recommend that focus on the following topics:
Ethics/morality - To be more frank, something that perhaps looks at ethics from a more objective viewpoint.
Linguistics - I've seen that this topic seems to be quite opinionated; however, I would be interested to see what some of you suggest. I do not know much about the field of Linguistics in particular, so something for a beginner would be nice.
Idealism - Looking more for a critical view of this.
Time/Mortality - This is a vague request, I know. I don't know how else to describe exactly what I mean by 'Time/Mortality' other than the words themselves.
What is the best university for philosophy major? (international)
meta
Sup /philosoph/ags. I haven't lurked in this board for some time on account of it being both a low-traffic board and a board prone to inane shitposting by people who don't understand philosophy, but I see that it is now a featured board, and hoo boy is the shitposting going to go up now.This brings me to the reason I made this thread: Perhaps this is too meta and defeatist to be taken seriously by the board's mod, but I think that talking about philosophy on the internet is just about useless - worse, it's damaging to people who are trying to get an understanding of what philosophy is.
How many times on this board have people posted asinine, generic 'deep' or 'philosophical' questions without putting forth a claim and without narrowing the domain of inquiry beyond the most general topics of philosophy? How many people have posted straight-up dogmatic bullshit or anti-philosophy bait threads? For a niche board, there should be a drastically higher amount of quality content, should there not?
I've made suggestions in the past to people to fucking read before you start talking about philosophy - I mean really, READ a fucking lot if you want to have any grasp of philosophy and the questions being discussed in the field - and the mod at least linked to Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, but much like /tech/'s stickies, everyone ignores the etiquette for posting and just says whatever they want to say, because much like most people who post on /tech/, the majority of people who post on this board know nothing about the field and refuse to accept that what they think is philosophy or technology is actually pop-'philosophy' and consumer tech.
I hope other people who have actually studied philosophy are getting me here. The fact that a board like this, with so few posts, has so many poor threads is telling.
So, I guess this would be opening up the floor for discussions on the board itself, and on metaphilosophy in general if anyone is up for that.
>pic somewhat related: if everyone talked about disciplines they knew nothing about while believing themselves to, shit would be fucked
Stoicism
How many Stoics do we have here at /philosophy/?
I've been a practicing Stoic for almost a year now and it's definitely made my life better off.
I find it difficult to remember to stay the course and at times find myself straying from it but I make sure to arm myself with some quotations which, despite their age, are fully applicable to our modern times.
What do you guys find the most difficult in your application of Stoic ideals in your lives?
What would you say to someone who is interested in the philosophy but is unsure where to start?
Who is your favourite writer?
From my journey I would suggest a beginner read Epictetus's Discourses and Seneca's Letters. From there I would suggest they read and fully digest and understand Aurelius's Meditation. I find the Meditations to be the most valuable text of them all from the perspective of a stoic practitioner.
Crash Course: Philosophy
Are you ready /philosophy/?
Personally I cant wait to see the droves of highly knowledgable highscoolers and facebook users this will produce.
Grounding for objective reality
I've seen glimpses of it, there are times where I'm really onto something but I can't seem to invoke it by myself.
I would love to know what you guys think.
Can you provide grounding for an objective reality?
Everyone talks about philosophy but never gives importance to metaphysics. It seems that I value metaphysics more than philosophy. Why is that? We know that these two blur into each other at often times but they are quite distinct. Why do we often undermine the significance of the tool for philosophy?
Philosophy student here.
What are you guys doing for work right now that makes use of your talents?
I never intended to study philosophy to get a job, but I do want to make use of my skills I acquired through my undergraduate years while I am in graduate school.
Biology > Culture > Ideology
philosophy careers and law
Did any of you think about taking what you know from philosophy and going to law school? I have a semester in law under my belt, (and I enjoyed reading law like a bible and scored well), but I sort of dropped out. I don't like the artificiality of formal work environments, and I didn't want to have to lie and perpetuate fallsehoods. I also didn't want to affiliate with selfish and materialistic people.
My philosophy teacher did assert that philosophy prepares you for law school through, so I thought I would present the matter to you. You could use your love of reading, your love of argument, and your knowledge of truth tables, falllacies, and cross - analysis instead of waiting on tables. You might even wind up living in Newport Beach.
Recommendations
I'm fairly new to philosophy and would appreciate it if someone could recommend me some books, lectures etc
High Points in Philosophy
So do you think, or more importantly who, there will be another revolutionary philosopher that will define the current century with his philosophy?
Will we see another Kant, another Heidegger, etc.
Because so far 21st century philosophy seems off to a really bad start. Will there be a high point eventually?
is a man who does bad deeds sometimes, but on the whole does good, still a good man?
When a kid asks what is a philosopher?
What would you answer? I didn't want to confuse him so I said, "someone who thinks a lot." Then I tried to get him interested by telling him about Diogenes living like a dog in a barrel, trolling other philosophers (behold, I have found a human!), and throwing shit in theaters. (He zoned out when I tried to tell him how Socrates heroically died, but actually listened to the stories about a cynical hippy.)
Thoughts on stirner and spooks?
Is Read the Critique of Pure Reason this board's version of Install Gentoo?
Physicalism, Cultural Relativism, Solipsism, and Edmund Husserl
Thoughts on Physicalism, Cultural Relativism, and Solipsism?
I've recently been doing pre-reading to Edmund Husserl and I just want to get a few things straight; so Husserl simply wants us to doubt the natural standpoint, but not deny it? To reach what he sees as reality, which is consciousnesses? How does /philosophy/ feel about Husserl?
Anyone here read, The Philosophy of Mathematics: An Introductory Essay?
Official Flag Thread
Post here what flags you want me to upload. Try not to make them too specific and be sure to keep them philosophy related.
If you want me to change any flags, post altered versions.
Also, I apologize for not being on much lately, I've been busy with holiday crap.
Dropping a dank /philosophy/ meme
I want to know more about Vedism. I just don't know where to go to find out more apart from reading the Vedas, but this seems common and lacking in true knowledge of the practice.
What happened to the Vedic religion, the religion of the Indo-Aryans of northern India? I don't really know where to look, any help would be appreciated. I imagine I'd have to go to India to find anyone that is perhaps practicing it?
There looks to be no active religion board so thought I'd ask here. Thanks for any help.
I know that Stirner is just a dank maymay around here but what should I read to understand his philosophy?
Pic always related
Holding unpopular truths
Redpill me /philosophy/
I have rejected religion, patriotism, respect for authority, economic materialism, repressed sexuality, and the pedophillia paranoia. I want to think more critically and not be bound by the prejudices of the masses. Would it help to take a class in ethics and argue against everyone? What are some contrarian positions I can try holding?
>go to r/philosophy because this place is slow as shit
> nothing but threads about hair splitting 'isms' and nietzchaboo autism
> oceans of text
> hotpocketeering
> no actual philosophical questions, just hair splitting about nietzche or isims
Does anyone on here see a problem with parents collaborating to deceive children into believing in Santa Clause? There is an argument that Santa Clause encourages kids to be less critical thinkers, and that the story is perpetuated more for the pleasure of parents than the children. Is it better for kids to know their parents gave the presents?
would it be incorrect to define these 'gender is a social construct' people as gender nihilists?
Thoughts on the political philosophy of Libertarianism?
Can one get drunk on his own individuality?
(Calligraphy intensifies.)
Alternative Continental Philosophy
Is African philosophy relevant? Is there any interesting theory or ideas that they've generated?
Is Middle Eastern philosophy relevant? Is there any interesting theory or ideas that they've generated?
New Age?
Is anyone else sick of "new age" "philosophy"?? It seems like it's just pseudo-spiritual nonsense that acidheads read off bumper stickers while high, and confused the event with some kind of divine intervention.Here are a few reasons why I kind of like but don't really like "new age":
- New age spirituality promotes a simple means of therapy, reflection, and more peaceful way of living. But there are better, more productive approaches to the first two aspects of these benefits, both in the secular field and the religious. There is a good deal of harm done by its essential mode of functioning, via anti-intellectualism.
- New age science acts to critique contemporary Western science, culture, and tradition. Unfortunately, while the slew of New Age perspectives is vast, it is like a dirty puddle in that it is very shallow and ill-suited for both meaningful reflection and gainful nourishment.
- New age teaches people self-confidence. Unfortunately, this confidence is often conflated with false senses of respect or skill, resulting in undesirable circumstance and offensive behavior.
Here are a few reasons why I don't like "new age":
- New age culture often has a heavy commercial aspect to a lot of its prized objects/rituals. Namely, the healing crystals, stupid self-help books, ignorant food fetishes, spiritual "training" from a "trained professional" (ha ha), the placebo medicines that make people think they're getting a steal and deal for jack shit that keeps them sick, and all the ridiculous drugs that empower the whole movement all seem to require a lot of money moving hands.
- The delusion that "natural" is better than .. what we have, that "impulse / feeling" overpower "logic/reason", and that all opposing ideologies are "equally true" or "all evil/corrupted" prevents meaningful contributions being made to any real science, aside from a novel means of spotting the mentally ill.
- The points borrowed from Eastern Philosophy are often misconstrued. New agers think that tripping is the same as becoming God, or that karma means that your wishes / occasional good deeds mean that God's going to hand them a tofuburger. Dumbasses.
- New age gives a bad rap to academic metaphysics and idealism / mysticism / spiritualism, and it also promotes ignorance/foolishness through its ceaseless, invalid attacks against realism / materialism / science, stoicism / balance, the aforementioned Eastern philosophy, and both progressive liberal politics and conservative traditionalism alike.
- It's boring and outdated. If it can't offer new ways of looking at the world or living, and if it can't offer better ways of doing things, it should at least offer interesting things. It doesn't.
Hearing your thoughts/experiences/frustrations would be neat
Which is more important: truth or compassion?
Give a reason if you can.
X-Post from https://www.anontalk.eu/topic/52
How can most of the Internet be against both religion and non-religion at the same time?
Answer me THIS, /phil/ :
So much of the Internet seems to be openly hostile to christianity and other forms of religion.
Yet on most of the same Internet, anyone who expresses even the most remote opinion of anti-religion or just atheist everyone immediately starts drooling "fedora" and "euphoric" from their keyboards.
Is it just memetardation? Is everyone just so insecure about their spirituality? Or insecure of anyone "acting smart" so they leap to "defend" themselves (Crab Bucket Mentality)?
So I don't know half shit about philosophy, and I wish I did.
What the fuck is the Ubermench? Something about it just seems inconsistent.
>tfw the world is my will
WE'RE BEYOND THE EVENT HORIZON
Lectures on the Phenomenology of Spirit
I'm listening through Bernsteins' lecture series on the Phenomenology.
http://www.bernsteintapes.com/hegellist.html
I've read 1/5th of the Phenomenology on my own, but it gets boring with nobody to discuss, and Bernstein makes it infinitely more interesting with all the details he brings in from outside the book. I'm listening to this as a preliminary to actually finish the goddam book someday.
Anyway, I'll be updating this thread with links to my notes and comments on these lectures. Insofar as Bernstein makes any arguments in his lectures (he rambles a lot and makes interesting points, but not many arguments outright) I will note them down. Bernstein makes a lot of interesting quips on other philosophers which are juicy bits of thought to mull over as well, and those also shall be noted.
If anyone cares, enjoy. If not, you should get up to par so you can enjoy some Hegel.
Is goodness of art objective or subjective?
Do you think there are any cases in which certain pieces could be considered objectively better than others and why?
X-posted from http://4-ch.net/debate/kareha.pl/1449318657/
Julius Evola
What is the /philosophy/ opinion on him? I like his take Buddhism and the Ride the Tiger analogy, but does he offer any feasible critique of the modern world other than just calling it degeneracy?
Is there something salvageable philosophically if his is bad or is he actually good?
From the Stirnerite he seems extremely useless.
I always enjoyed this philographics, however I don't think it's complete, once I've posted them all can philosophers and thinkers alike help me create new ones with the correct symbols.
if 'manliness' is being everything a female wants in a man, and if 'femininity' is being everything a man wants in a woman, and if surrounding yourself in a bubble filled with animes and resulting fantasies where the girls go for losers is giving you seemingly fulfilling stimuli to the point where you don't want to go for 3dpd, resulting in your drive to improve yourself decreasing, and accordingly your manliness, -----
---- is surrounding yourself with an illusion better than trying to constantly improve yourself in order to achieve the same results?
What's /philosophy/s thoughts on Alan Watts?
Why don't you think he is the greatest philosopher and why do you think he is the greatest philosopher?
The world could do with a bit more zen flavour
The fat man and the trolley
There is a runaway trolley barreling down the railway tracks. Ahead, on the tracks, there are five people tied up and unable to move. The trolley is headed straight for them. You are standing some distance off in the train yard, next to a lever. If you pull this lever, the trolley will switch to a different set of tracks. However, you notice that there is a person on the side track. You have two options: (1) Do nothing, and the trolley kills the five people on the main track. (2) Pull the lever, diverting the trolley onto the side track where it will kill one person. Which is the correct choice?
This is the thought experiment created by Philippa Foot in 1967. I've read the book Would you kill the fat man? by David Edmonds and it has made me think. I still don't know what I would do, however I would approve of killing the fat man in order to save the other five. According to negative utilirism and the doctrine of the double effect, that would be the right action. The only problem is that you'd have to kill a human being.
I feel quite conflicted about these two choices, what would /philosphy/ do?
21st Century Enlightenment, Arguably One of the Greatest Moments of Our Time
Are you ready for it? Many here have different opinions on what age was the prime time for philosophy, but their different opinions only show their ignorance, when they aren't even aware of a modern-day Plato walking among us.
Jaden Smith. Most likely the most insightful young man of the 21st century, giving John Rawls a run for his money. Right now as we speak he's already writing a piece on new takes on string theory and chaos theory, but more mystical.
I would expect a modern-Esq, The Republic.
Already he writes stinging critiques of philosophers of the past.
>I don’t think I’m as revolutionary as Galileo," Jaden Smith once told GQ. “But I don’t think I’m not as revolutionary as Galileo.
These are stunning times. Tell me, /philosophy/, who is your favorite philosopher now, and why is it not Jaden Smith?
Philosophical Anime
Let's start with Lain.
>existentialist themes
>post-modern themes
>alienation themes
>cyberpunk themes
Plot:
>girl falls into the internet
>meets the God of the internet
>questions God
>questions ontology
>questions Epistemology/what is true vs what is believed
>questions wheter if enough people believe something it can become true
>questions [spoiler] how a God who used to be human could have become a God unless he was created by someone higher.
>realizes she made him and is actually the real God of the internet
>deletes herself from existence for the better good, so she won't be tempted to meddle with and harm a lesser species.
[/spoiler]
How would you classify Serial Experiments in Lain? Are there any other good anime for thinkers?
How do we make this board more popular?
How do we make this board more popular? I really like this board and would like to use it more, but it' extremely slow. I've heard people say that they like the slow pace, but personally I'm not a fan of it. A somewhat slow board is fine but usually it takes maybe a day to generate a thread with at the most 5 replies, an abhorrently slow speed.
Should we start advertising the board on other boards, or should we take another approach?
Or am I just in the completely wrong mindset and should just accept that the board is really slow?
Is Art for Arts sake?
was Socrates black?
Morally evil philosophers?
Is there any with published work?
what is the ancient definition of nature?
ive been reading ancient works lately and they quite frequently refer to nature without defining it. in what work do they receive their definition of nature from? to be specific, im looking at Plato, Aristotle, Epictetus, Marcus Aurelius, and Socrates.
help! philosophy causes adhd
I'm starting to think I have adhd. I can't read a few pages of most philosophers without my mind wandering into daydreams, see pic. How can I make learning philosophy more interesting?
Radical Skepticism
I have question to ask this guy, can you prove it?
Philosophy
What are your thoughts on objectivism? Yes or no? I don't know much about it but it seems to be a constant cause of controversy.
Antinatalism
Antinatalism. Do you know what it is, and what's your stance on it?
I don't think I'll be having any children due to the horrible state of the world.
I sometimes wish I was never born so I wouldn't have to face my death. This informs my stance.
What does it mean to love?
What is love? What does it mean to trully be in love? I know now after looking up some Carl Jung that what I thought love was is only just my anima projection. I guess Iv never felt it before. How does it feel, how does one fall in love? How do you know if someone is the right person? Im just curious iv never really loved and I dont know now if its a thing that even exists.
Confucius
Has anyone read Confused Man, I mean Confucius? Overall I don't like his philosophy, since he was hopelessly sexist, autocratic, and life denying. He made asians into drones that follow a hierarchy, preserved superstision and killed creativity. In English I call him confused man, but in Chinese I call him lao fu because it sounds like "loud fool."
philosophy forums in other languages
It took me over an hour to find one in Japanese that wasn't dead. This knowledge might save someone time. (日本人は哲学を嫌いそうな. 一番の最低。)
The topics all are over the place and unlike here very few subject titles that have to do with western philosophers, or even philosophers in general. Topics are stereotypically Japanese. Here is a sample from the first page:
"If you were born in the midst of war and died in the Heian era." "Fate", "life and money", "kukai (buddhist founder)", "truth is subjective", "a method to transcend sophism," "questioning existence", "Nishida kitarou (philosophy professor born in 1870 with no corresponding wikipedia article in English)", "what is bad?", "is materialism not bad?", "let's talk about Christianity!", "the target of a smile", "the emptiness of the modern era's spirit of freedom", "the proof 1 + 1 = 2", "everything is one", "philosophical discourses on environmental problems". There is even a topic on white and black holes.
Fascist philosophy and compatibility with liberal values?
What is the philosophy of Fascism?
And is it in any way compatible with the liberal / egalitarian society we live in today?
What doth life?
Are there any philosophers who try to explore the possibility that the conciousness/soul/self-reflection/mind is not particularly important?
pic unrelated
What generation of philosophers was the best?
I count in the Greeks-Roman era.
Drugs for positive reinforcement
Would it be ethical to give a highly-addictive, high-dopamine drug to kids, and then only allow them to get more if they studied hard and passed tests?
Sounds like drugs could be a great motivator if used for positive reinforcement, rather than creating sex addicts in doujins. Imagine how many kids would become accomplished lifelong scholars if a benevolent university administered the drugs.
Hegel
I know most of you here are lazy fucks, and philosophers historically have shown they are absolutely lazy when it comes to dealing with Hegel.
I'm no expert on Hegel, but I'm fascinated by his philosophic project (whatever that is according to who is interpreting). I'd like to have a discussion thread for thoughts/questions concerning Hegelianism.
Recently I came upon a new interpretation of Hegel by James Kreines on accident through google.
http://www.claremontmckenna.edu/pages/faculty/jkreines/default.htm
I think that the language of his papers is about as clear as you're going to get in a discussion of Hegel. This isn't full of the usual random verbosity and mystifying claims of "dialectics". I've read all but one of the papers Kreines has put up. It'd be great if others would read them and discuss.
tl;dr: Hegelianism discussion and question thread.
Beyond Freedom and Dignity
" Behaviorism (or behaviourism) is an approach to psychology that focuses on an individual's behavior. It combines elements of philosophy, methodology, and psychological theory. It emerged in the early twentieth century as a reaction to depth psychology and other more traditional forms of psychology, which often had difficulty making predictions that could be tested using rigorous experimental methods. The primary tenet of methodological behaviorism, as expressed in the writings of John B. Watson and others, is that psychology should have only concerned itself with observable events. Behaviorist philosophies shifted somewhat during the 1940s and 1950s and again since the 1980s. Radical behaviorism is a conceptual variant purposed by B. F. Skinner that acknowledges the presence of private events—including cognition and emotions—and suggests that they are subject to the same controlling variables as are observable behaviors. " -Wikipedia
Some of the contents of B.F. Skinner's book Beyond Freedom and Dignity expresses behaviorist ideas, this is criticized by Noam Chomsky as unscientific, is he right? I ask because I wanted to read said book.
The contrarian nature of some vegetarians
first of all i don't care what you do and don't eat, i just don't understand the logic that some vegetarians use to rationalize not eating meat.
the 3 arguments ive ever heard for the abstaining from meat are "it is better to eat fruits and vegetables for your body than meat," "i can not condone eating meat when our industrialized farms do not treat animals humanely, or something along the limes of the animals being treated with hormones, or they are sick, etc," and " i can not abide eating the flesh of another living being ( meat is murder)." the first two i can find the reasoning behind. i cant figure the third one out, for what can be ate that does not live? the rationale hinges on the idea that plants aren't alive, which is clearly not the case; they eat, the grow, they reproduce, hell, some of them even communicate amongst each other!
so how is it that a vegetarian/vegan/etc can abhor the idea of consuming animal flesh, but has no problems consuming plant flesh? at what point is something "not alive enough" to be okay to eat?
Isn't it impossible for someone to identify as an anti-conformist no matter what their political leanings or opinions?
The world is your representation
Arguments for/against the existence of God (the creator, who does (not) interfere with our lives)
post 'em
Is there any good literature/philosophy out there on the colossal uses and abuses of future technology (invisibility, mind control, nuclear weapons, AI) and how to prevent it from/reasonably assure against its happening?
Or is everything gonna go to shite?
I disagree with my philosophy teacher
I have some experience reading philosophy, and wanted to learn more, so I'm taking an Intro to Philosophy course. I have reason to believe that my teacher has interpreted more than one of our readings incorrectly. This bothers me because it seems to me that he is putting words in the author's mouth.My teacher also has a bad habit of asking questions about philosophy… and then answering them. Not saying "Plato thinks," or "Descartes would say," but simply saying "This is true." I get the feeling he uses emotion as proof for arguments. I feel bad for the newcomers to philosophy in my class, because they are looking for answers and he's giving them (as fact). He is not teaching the students to question the readings. Or rather, he's teaching them to question one reading, and not another, because it (the newer philosophy) is more true. To be fair, he apparently did not get his degree in Philosophy, but some sort of field where he did biblical translation from Hebrew. I don't know.
Anyways, here are my questions:
1) What do I do when I think he misinterpreted the readings? I don't want to be the 'ACTUALLY…' guy, and I don't think it's my job to teach the class properly. But these poor kids have brains which are ready to be molded.
2) Assuming he is incorrect, how do I get more out of this class? I already do the readings (all primary sources), and write about them. What else can I do to further grasp these concepts?
Pic related: It's me at philosophy class.
Utopia Project? Yay? Nay?
So, would you guys be down for something like a Utopia Project? I'm thinking just some stupid simple thing, like just create another 8chan board and shoot the shit over individual ideas and grill the subject a bit more closely, especially given all the fun new data available from history.
One big giant wank fest of a good old philosophical tradition, tackling utopia.
Produce some good old OC as they say in the old country.
My bet is that you can produce one, via technicality, which if you fill out the forms you can do anything here in the US. On at least a city scale, trial run.
I found a 600 page collection of Jung's writings for 4 dollars. Is he a pseudo-scientist or is there substance worth the money?
>pic unrelated
Nihilism.
Let's talk about nihilism
or not
it doesn't matter anyways
Moral Constructivism
What do you think about Moral Constructivism?
The Kyōto School and Watsuji Tetsurō
What do you guys have to say about DJ Watsuji and the Kyoto Crew? They look incredibly fascinating but as someone who's still far from being able to begin seriously studying Hegel or Heidegger I can't actually get into them in any meaningful way.
I ask you guys since they seem incredibly obscure and unimportant which may be a sign that they don't have a lot to offer, or do they?
Does starting sentences with "i feel like" or "i think" change anything about the validity of the sentence?
Who's that philosopher?
Hey /philosophy/,
Who was the philosopher who had the idea that truth was revealed by the expert doing of an action/use of an object and not in the verbal description of that action or object?
I can't recall who it was.
Op, can you make a encouraged shitposting sticky?
The Seduction of Unreason:The Intellectual Romance with Fascism from Nietzsche to Postmodernism
http://press.princeton.edu/chapters/i7705.html
what do you think /philosophy/? it was a pretty good read.
pic not related
Greetings /philosophy/, I was doing some reading on Marx when I came across this little bit in the book about Hegel's philosophy of history. It seems that this is where Marx picked up on the oppressed vs. oppressors dichotomy, and ultimately where SJWs got it as well.
What sort of interesting criticism has been thrown out there regarding Hegel's philosophy of history? Specifically, the dichotomy mentioned above. This can't be something that everyone just agrees exists.
Sam Harris on Morality
What are your thoughts on the case made by Sam Harris which says that moral problems can be solved with science by showing which action is best for human well-being.
Metaphysicists
Who are the best metaphysicists beside Terrence Mckenna? what book of their creation should I read?
Is this board dead?
hey - i was wondering - do you know the difference between love and obsession ? and whats the difference between obsession and desire?
I hope this is on topic enough for this board.
capitalism zionism redpill
to be sure everyone understands:
>I am Jewish
>I am Against Zionism
>I am Against Capitalism
>I am PRO Libertarian
Analytical Philosophy
Where should I start with learning analytical philosophy?
The Cynics and Metaphysics
What would the Cynics have to say on metaphysics, such as the nature of the universe? It's a question that seems to not have interested them, but does anybody have any idea what they would think?
Fitting Texts
Justification, basically mean making an argument that something is right, which is fundamentally flawed. Though more annoying, the people who use said justifier's justification against them, by claiming that they are just justifying being wrong. That shit just drives me fucking nuts, I mean up the up the fucking wall. So just leave the phrase " You're just justifying " out of this thread. Any who, this thread is concerned with synergistic philosophy
Although I could say stuff like, Zen, Taoist, Cratylist philosophy might be the best, that is only because they make me feel good. Though to be honest, if you claimed to be a Zen Buddhist, Taoist, or Cratylist, you would be kind of lost. What I am asking for I guess is to make thread for posting how you live, and ask for philosophical texts that synergism with that life, in case you don't want to change like I don't.
I am lazy, I refuse to work hard if it isn't detrimental to do so. I basically think the goal of life should be to feel completely comfortable, and the only small amounts of effort made should be for the immediate acquisition of comfort. What should I read to support my philosophy?
Basic Ethics Questions
I have lately been thinking quite alot about ethics and wether or not it can be said to exist. I have come to know about the ethical theory called Utilitarianism. Utilitarianism as I have been told about it says that the morally right action is the action which leads to the most happiness. Utilitarianism seems like the perfect ethical theory, my argument for thinking this goes something like this:
When I feel negative emotions I experience that as objectively bad for me. It is in a sense something objectively negative in the universe that consists of (is made up of) my thoughts and experiences. I exist in the actual universe (that outside of me) and so this objectively negative experience for me becomes objectively negative in the universe as a whole. Seeing as I am part of the Universe. Likewise positive emotions for me or anyone else becomes something objectively good in the universe. From this we can justify good feelings/experiences as objectively good (no matter who, or what experiences), and negative feelings/experiences as objectively bad.
I cannot find a really good counterargument to this. Initially I found moral nihilism the most rational alternative, but now I am not so sure. So my questions are:
Is my argument valid, if not why? Is utilitarianism the most rational ethical theory? If so, for what reason? If not why, and what is the most rational ethical theory ?
I also have another minor question. I often see philosophers trying to investigate ethics using thought experiments. They posit some situation and conclude on the optimal action according to some ethical theory. If the action that the ethical theory recommends seems counterintuitative or evil they will question the ethical theory, but is this a valid approach ? It would seem to me that one should investigate ethics based on reason and not let ones feelings interfer, if an ethical theory arrived at by rational argument should reccommend actions we do not like, we should follow it anyway and only question the theory based on rational arguments.
Times You've Impressed Others
>go up to my dad's room
>say the quote in pic related
>"Holy shit, that's profound. Something we all know but can't put the words together to say."
The Meaning of Life
What does /philosophy/ think the meaning of life is? That, or how should someone live their life and to what purpose?
Thoughts on Baudrillard?
I'm still too much of a pleb to seriously get into him, but he seems incredibly fascinating to me. What can you tell me about him? I'd like to hear anything.
Ricardo Semler - The Age of Wisdom
We are smarter than ever, but have we also grown wiser? According to Ricardo Semler, the Brazilian top entrepreneur and philosopher who became immensely rich by making his employees happy, our economy has gone completely off the rails and capitalism has failed to create equality anywhere, ever.
What do you think about this, /philosophy/?
What is your opinion about Derrida?
If you were apart of a group that looked at philosophical views of medieval and renaissance periods. What sort of questions would you ask? We read about socrates (especially his dialog with protagores) platos cave, oedipus (we discussed his lack of free will in an uncompromising environment and how that relates to fate), readings discussing the nature of god by Kahn and Augustine, and we read the Inferno.
What sort of questions would you bring up in the context of these readings and subject matter?
Most overrated philosopher, and why?
Pic related, it's Hans Jonas. Fucker never gave any justification for why we're all responsible for our future generations. Fuck this guy.
Paul Feyerabend
For anyone who is deluded by scientism and "ratioanalism" (naïve vulgar logicism), read up on Feyerabend. He was Karl Popper's greatest champion and later critic who turned against the insidious and pernicious ideology known as "science".
https://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/ge/feyerabe.htm
FYI on being "critical"
For those of you who fancy yourself "critical thinkers", do yourself a favor and come to understand one basic principle of advanced thinking:
Don't read about a subject superficially, and then go ask for a critique against that point of view on that subject. You're not smarter, you're not more intelligent.
If you don't have even a general thorough understanding of a theory on a subject, a critique of a superficial understanding of the theory will not advance your knowledge in any way.
If you read an essay/book that seems fucking convincing as air feels refreshing to breathe, then congratulations! Fucking grab on to that piece of theory and take it as far as you can. Think with it as far as you can, as long as you can, as deep as you can. When you have grasped a theory so deeply that you can apply it and think of the subject it deals with through it, you yourself will begin to see the limits and faults of your beloved theory. YOU yourself will begin to level a critique of doubt towards what you dogmatically held, but if you really strive to learn it and your aim is truth and not comfort. Then, and only then, will a critique help you move forward in understanding. You will know what critiques were uncharitable, which were plain ignorant, which actually bring valid criticisms of what the theory cannot do to achieve its own purported aim to explain.
Truth, regardless of what liberal centrists and "common wisdom" morons say, is not in the middle. Truth is very one sided, even when that side is a third side that says "You're morons who are arguing the wrong question about a wrong conception". The only way to actually come to know what side truth is on is to dive deeply into the waters of whatever grabs your attention claiming to be the answer you seek.
One question
Why is Hegel writing like an austistic 30yearold?
>mfw plebs think knowledge conditions the will
Nietzschean Christianity?
In short I was wondering if the two could be compatible or at least Christianity could learn from Nietzsche. The only conflict I foresee is master and slave mentality, but Christians should know that God loves them and made them in his image. He wants us to enjoy earth and it's pleasures, with some restraint. When Nietzsche said "God is dead" he wasn't saying that it was a good thing. Rather he was saying it was bad, as science robbed "passionate, Dionysian spirituality that lent life vitality and meaning". Nietzsche also know religion provided a psychological comfort to humans.
Brian Godawa
Wanted to throw this one out there also, again for your philosophical viewing pleasure.....
John Mark Reynolds?
Just want to throw this out there for your philosophical viewing pleasure......
so /philosophy/,
was visiting my mom the other week and got into an argument. she thinks that the 2000 year old sand nigger will bitch slap the US with earthquakes because we allow gayfags to marry. i dont care about gay marriage, but i do care about justifying crazy shit with other crazy shit.
heres how the argument went.
>gods gonna shit on the US cuz fags are married!
thats fucking crazy, how do you know that.
>the bible says so
why is the bible true
>because i feel it in my heart to be true
if feelings are the source of truth, then if i feel that Xipe Totec wants me to rape babies and throw them into a volcano, then it is?
how do i better argue against her crazy fucking shit.
pic sorta related, a philosophinx
Materialism
The meaning of materialism
As a concept materialism meaningfully begins as the conception of that which is solid, extended in space. The concept of the void, the medium, or simply the lack of resistance to matter’s movement, is seen as ontologically different to matter. This is the standard natural intuitive conception of matter, simply as the solidity which is the substance of reality.
If one reflects, however, upon what this conception of matter as pure solidity says about what matter ontologically is, one finds some immediate problems. Matter and space both exist as spatial extension and are indistinguishable on this mere extensionality. Matter, if it were purely solid and ontologically different from space, would find itself completely collapsed in extensionality, the atom would be a point particle with no spatial dimensions. In order for matter to exist in spatial extension it requires that space divide it and push its substance away from collapsing into a point singularity, however, if space is what keeps matter extended, what then is matter? All such points of matter, even if held apart by space, would just be other non-spatial points unextended and all that would be is space.
Matter, then, can only be conceived meaningfully as space itself, indistinguishable from empty space other than its clear spatial apparent persistence: matter is space differentiated in-itself by the instability of being that is motion and resisting itself. That matter appears to us as a visible/sensinble spatial form is only a subjective experiential aspect just as air is almost invisible and transparent to us though rocks are opaque. Space itself is conceptually indistinguishable from matter other than that it does not appear to us due to its apparently negligible effects on us. Certain paths of reasoning and logic lead one, if they wish to maintain some aspect of localism in material causation, to believe that space must be material, the finest/smallest yet densest and most ubiquitous form of matter in order to explain the connection of otherwise incomprehensible connections of material entities interacting with each other faster than the speed of light and beyond our strongest physical barriers attempting to isolate these material bodies. --(recall Borchardt’s aether)
What is a meaningful conception of matter?
The conception of matter as solidity died in the quantum revolution in which the ever penetrating analysis of matter revealed its ever increasing vacuity and ever more apparent reality of unsolidity. Matter lost its conception as solidity and became replaced by mystical conceptions of energy as the new non-solid substance of reality as understood as “physicality”, i.e. reality is ascribed only to that which interacts in the locus of interactions as described and understood by empirical-rational physics. To explain the apparent solidity of matter at our level of being new conceptions and developments had to be made, fields were introduced as new ontological entities pervading and filling space, immaterial in the sense that they were not solid, but physical in that they interacted in the locus of understood “scientific” reality. It is no longer matter that interacts in the modern world, but mathematically and geometrically described fields and the ontological concepts known as physical laws which pervade space and mold it in its temporal being. In the classical sense of the word materialism no longer is tenable. In any modern sense of the word materialism as a metaphysical theory means nothing other than what science says matter, or better put, substance, is. Philosophically the term materialism has become phased out and a phantom term, physicalism, has taken its place to show philosophy’s acknowledgement of the complete loss of solidity as substance in the modern understanding of the physical world, that is, the world as interpreted by non-philosophical empirical physics. Calling oneself a materialist in any sense, whether classical or in some Marxist dialectical sense, does not really mean anything other than abdicating that the knowledge of whatever physical reality IS, is something left to empirical physics along its path towards systematic completion which is assumed to culminate sometime in the future in a so-called theory of everything, everything, that is, except the ontological orders above mechanism such as chemistry, life, and conscious beings like humans who comprehend the world and themselves.
Matter, as a concept, thus, truly remains meaningful only to the philosopher who understands its nature as space differentiated from itself. Matter is the apparent substance of nature, spatial extension, res extensa as Descartes called it. It is what we immediately posit as not thought. It is merely meaningful in its status as self-differentiated, self-moving, self-resisting space.
Studying Philosophy isn't going to save you when the bad times come.
Your favorite 3 philosophers in order
1. Socrates
2. Nietzsche
3. Plato
pic related, that's Friedrich himself.
heh
Good atheists to read?
So...I'm an atheist (in general terms) but most of the time I only follow "new atheists" like Dawkins and Harris and the likes of them, but I have come to realise these guys aren't exactly the "champions of rationality" I and everyone else eating up this new fad have come to know them as, and their reliance on science to explain absolutely everything, even in places where philosophy is the name of the game, is rather misguided. Scientism, I believe it is called.
I'm very new to philosophy in all aspects and am quite young (15), so could you guys recommend some entry-level atheist books that aren't shit like the god delusion? And also some newer atheistic philosophers that aren't part of the new Dawkins-tier atheism wave? And, sorry if I'm asking too much, but what is in your opinion the best book against atheism to challenge my beliefs?
Thanks
what are the philisophical implications to the image i am posting? i need to know for a science project on journalism
Can someone tell me how accurate this is?
www.selectsmart.com/philosophy/
Sorry, I'm a philosophical newphag ;_;.
Works on Immortality and their respective reviews
Post works on Immortality and their respective reviews
Philosophical Pragmatism
What do you /philosophags/ think of the pragmatists? I've held views fairly similar to theirs and it was nice to see it written down (Maybe I'm just too dumb for complex metaphysics).
I'm about a quarter of the way through James' famous lecture on Pragmatism.
Some (deceptively) simple questions
- Should any being, of sound mind, be allowed to enter into an irrevocable arrangement of any sort? Why or why not?
- Should any being, of sound mind, be allowed to enter into an agreement which disproportionately favors the other party in the agreement? Why or why not?
Hedonist Society
How can a hedonist society survive, is it possible?
i have a question.
foucault spent alot of time thinking about why society does not approve of "the other".
when he was dying in his bed from AIDS and a prolapsed rectum as a result of homosexual orgies and massive drug abuse, did he ever think to himself, "oh, this is why. i feel like a dumbfuck now"?
Banner thread!
Banner thread!
Do absolute truths exist?
Ethical Commands
What does it mean for ethical statements to be commands? (as opposed to statements of objective fact, "murder is wrong," or statements of relativism, "i hate murder.") Who or what is commanding? What do these entail?
Does this concept have a name? Prescriptivism?
"How can we be real if our eyes arnt real"
that quote is so philisophical it transends time
to what extent does your geographical location affect what philosophers you like..
it would have to be enormous, when the flow of information was hard in the past, certain theories have had time to root themselves quite nicely into culture
Do you believe in qualia?
Why or why not?
You're welcome.
Got redirected here from /lit/
Which books should I read before getting into Evola?
To "get" him better.
>be out
>at club, looking fresh, free and fly
>talk to some random -albeit hot- club stank
>lay out an exegesis of Ulysses
>at this juncture the floor beneath us is literally soaked in vaginal fluids
>tells me she usually does not hook up with random dudes, but I seemed like a special kind of guy
>feign interest in her because I need validation from attractive girls to feel a sense of self-worth
>she clearly wants the D
>begs me to go back to her place
>follow her
>kissing passionately in the hallway, open door, continue to bed
>she undresses and urges me to please fuck her
>notice poster hanging on wall by bed
>weird motif with text above saying: "bad ass"
>contemplate the wording because it seems an external or internal voice of conscience has stopped me and my erection in our tracks
>"bad ass"
>"COME ON, ANON! WTF ARE YOU WAITING FOR?"
>[internal monologue] "bad ass... bad ass... hmm... a mean bastard .. mean ass .. mean butt .. mean hine end .. there's something here .. mean end... MEAN-END!"
>Kant's categorical imperative to never treat people as means to an end surfaces and shuts off any desire to treat this poor girl as an indistinguishable masturbatory device for my crude fantasy and pleausure
>tell her I'm sorry, but I have to go, apologize profusely
>hear her in her London accent scream "CUNT" at me
>sounds exactly like "Kant"
>leave morally pure and spiritually intact
why are critical theorists such fucking faggots /philosophy/? how do we wipe them out?
also who named this board ffs? it should be /ph/ or something
Books.
What are you reading, /philosophy/?
>tfw nihilism
Philosophy and mental illness
Hey, Philosophy
I'll provide some relevant personal background: My mental health status has been going down in the last three years, I have depression, OCD and common symptoms that are associated with Schizophrenia.
During these years I developed an introverted life style so I focused on reading and exploring ideas. I got particularly interested with philosophy and linguistics.
Lately, I've been trying to get into Logic and philosophy of maths, but due to my crippling mental illness, I can't learn or even if I did I can't apply anything despite being aware of it. It makes me so sad about my condition and helpless as well. I feel everyone is having it easy because they don't have to struggle with a broken mind and messed up thinking process.
Though, every summer I get depressed and suicidal, I've never planned to commit suicide as thouroughly as I did now. Though I don't agree with it and think it is a very ugly and harmful thing to do, I see the alternative as an endless and tiring cycle of pain and misery, so painful and bitter that I began to develop irrational beliefs about it all came to be because thinking logically about it makes me want to kill myself even more.
I was born and determined to be this way, I tried everything I could, but no amount of philosophy or anything helped me, not even psychological help. I don't know what to do, I just wish it could all go away, or that I go away instead, but I'm stuck/
Sorry you had to read all of this, I know I would get bored from this.
Does Atheism Lead to Many Roads (of Philosophy?)
I've argued before that "All Roads Lead to Atheism." (By this I mean that multiple disciplines have contradictions that tend to lead towards a person rejecting religion and becoming an Atheist.) I’d like to expand on that, and ask the question: Does Atheism also lead towards a single road?
I mean, wouldn’t it be nice the thoughts of Atheists tended to naturally converge upon a single path, because then it would be easier to cooperate? Well the answer so far appears to be no, and that Atheism leads to many branching roads. Atheism appears to be a resting point on a person’s personal journey toward a better understanding of the world.
Many philosophies and schools of thought have been founded on Atheism. Once a person believes that world has no protective guardian, and presupposes no sacred canon, he tends to be inclined towards giving serious thought about how to better improve our world. In that sense, a lot of good can come from reaching this level of understanding.
Today, many of the professors that teach philosophy at (non-Christian) Universities are Atheists. Even in Ancient Greece many of the Greek philosophers had little need for Gods and have quotations that mocked them, or that encouraged individuals to solve their problems without the Gods. I’m also inclined to believe Kant was actually an Atheist, (or a Deist). I’ve read that Ayn Rand became an Atheist In High School, and she later founded Objectivism. (I may insert more examples here later.)
Perhaps it’d be more accurate to say that philosophy today tend to be founded in response to nihilism. That’s because philosophers must consider the possibility that everything is pointless if they are to be intellectually honest. Moreover, there’s a lot of strong evidence that we are living in a world of chance and tragic accidents, rather than a clockwork universe. (See the Marcus Aurelius misquote.)
marcus aurelius pic(FYI: These are his views paraphrased by the internet, rather than a quote.)
Nihilism may be the foundation of modern philosophy, and more layers are just applied on top of that. Whenever a philosopher became a nihilist after realizing that his religion didn’t have the answers for certain problems, and then realized God wouldn’t come down from the sky and save us, he tended to want to take stewardship of the world. Hence, many people have tried to create their own moral frameworks that they could personally thrive under, and then they tried to persuade others their framework was worth following.
Once we tentatively accept the possibilities of nihilism, we don’t tend to stay there, because it’s not satisfactory to behave as though our actions are utterly pointless. Nihilism is therefore a phase, and we tend to make up our own goals. Even if perfectly objective morality doesn’t exist, we can lean toward relative morality (i.e. situational ethics), and most Atheists do that.
People can’t always agree on all of the values though, because we have different experiences and different expectations. We have short lives that prevent us from acquiring all of the experiences of our neighbors, which makes for partial truths. Hence we acquire independent views that appear as self-evident to us, and when discourse breaks down our last retorts to one another is, “If you were born in my shoes you would definitely understand.” Perhaps if we lived long enough our roads would converge again at another point “beyond Atheism.”
That said, the Golden Rule/Silver Rule is so universal it’s usually a foregone conclusion. (It doesn’t even need to be articulated, since it’s a biological adaptation and even 3 year-olds prefer justice, and this raises the question of how useful philosophy really is.) If we have natural controls to stop us from killing each other, perhaps philosophy wasn’t ever enough to stop any wars. Perhaps philosophical literature is often just a feel-good way of articulating what we are already inclined to believe, and reinforcing our own values.
Even so, philosophy might have its day someday. Because there’s a chance that relying on biological controls alone will not be enough if society becomes more complicated, and prone to acts of self-destruction. There may even be times when we need to bring order to the chaos, even if that means stepping on personal liberties through a philosophical framework.
Hey guys, just throwing some ideas out there, seeing if you could help me.
I'm working on a paper about the refusal of technology, and the possibilities conditioning it. I'd like to show how today it isn't possible to give up on big networks like the Internet and computerized technology anymore, and to what ethical consequences this impossibility is leading.
Problem is, I don't really know what angle I should favor. My guess would be that I should start with this impossibility, but how do I show this? Do you know what arguments could do me well?
Second of all, I welcome any insights about the ethical consequences I'm talking about. How do I tackle that?
I know this subject is kind of off-putting and unrealistic, but it's more of an excuse to study philosophy of technology than anything else.
/philosophy/
What would the world be like if the Library of Alexandria was never destroyed?
Why does Plato talk about reincarnation so much?
In the Tale of Er Plato talks about reincarnation, and he must have gotten the idea from the East. How much did he get from the East? Was Plato religious?
I'm starting to think of philosophical views that i thought on my own. later days i found this views has its own specific name and what it is called and who is the famous person who found it. Discovering what i thought had been not discovered. What am i experiencing?
What can philosophy teach me other than that I'll never know anything?
Are there any works of philosophy that changed your life or your way of looking at the world, or at least had a significant impact on the two? If so, what were they?
What is the philosophy of anime?
I just sais smth deep
hey /philosophy/ !
>>>/christ/ reporting in.
Since we have related topics at our boards but are both quite small I want to propose to put a link at each others board.
This will increase both our traffic/Userbase hopefully and we both will profit.
If you don't want to do that you are still welcome to open a thread at our board and discuss with us.
Regardless of your religious believes, you are also welcome if you are a non-christian or atheist.
Have a nice day
The World as Will and Idea
Was Schopenhauer the real redpill all along?
I'm at page 1447 of "The World as Will and Idea" btw.
All life essentially is suffering.
What is the difference between philosophy and pseudo-philosophy? Is there a way to avoid pseudo-philosophizing?
Name german thinkers,the most important ones AND the most obscure yet published ones.
for some reason thinkers from that particular country seem to interest me.
>nazi ones too
critizing others
Whats the legal requirement/rule for make qutes of dead thinkers to refute them? for exampe, i quote Kant and his main works to refute him and his ideas; do i any need copyrights for this, or somthing similar?
More importantly, are works consisting of refutations of important works considered relevant?
>pic unrealted
ABSURDISM
Absurdism is the greatest existential philosophy in my opinion. There are many writings on the absurd, it is far less in your face than nihilism, truly the sophisticated existential philosophy.
Come play Minecraft with /pol/! Players can create a faction and fight against others or go solo and play normally. This recent iteration is run by experienced administrators that have been running servers for years. Normally this game is just placing blocks and autism, but we've modified the server with survival plugins that allow us to configure just about every aspect of the game for the political system. By establishing player-made groups, people can simulate political systems easily and survive in an realistic environment.
The server is running Minecraft version 1.8.1, piratefags will have to download a new launcher off the general info pastebin below.
IP: polandcraft.org
Note: New players will be prompted to register, to do so type '/register randompassword randompassword' - this will confirm you into the server, henceforth each time you log in you will type '/login randompassword'.
General Info / Downloads: http://pastebin.com/gJGquvvu
8chan /pol/
Come simulate politics on autismcraft with /pol/! This is an experiment to determine what political ideal will result in a group dominating other nations, based on how successful their ideology turns out to be. Players can create a faction and compete against others or go solo and play normally. Normally this game is just placing blocks and autism, but we've modified the server with survival plugins that allow us to configure just about every aspect of the game for the political system.
The server is running Minecraft version 1.8.#, piratefags will have to download a new launcher off the general info pastebin below;
IP: polandcraft.org
Note: New players will be prompted to register, to do so type '/register randompassword randompassword' - this will confirm you into the server, henceforth each time you log in you will type '/login randompassword'.
General Info / Downloads: http://pastebin.com/gJGquvvu
BUILD YOUR PERFECT SOCIETY PHILOSOPHYFAGS!
Keeping The Faith
So anon, are you drowning in degeneracy? The people around you scream and consume and destroy themselves, how do you keep to your principles? Anybody got any advice on how to stick to my guns, what with me refraining from both alcohol and sexual intercourse? These being the two biggest issues as I wish to live something of a restrained life. Mostly any hints on how to deflect or avoid situation where i'm likely to give in would be appreciated.
What are the best youtube channels for philosophy. I'll list a few, what are your favourites /philosophy/?
Eric Dodson
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCr8ziBzqZlGAvv4krfAAORQ
Wise Crack
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC6-ymYjG0SU0jUWnWh9ZzEQ
The school of life
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC7IcJI8PUf5Z3zKxnZvTBog
87SilentSpace
https://www.youtube.com/user/87SilentSpace/videos
Eric Weislogel
How has technology influenced modern day philosophy where you are to each individual reading this
The real value of Philosophy.
In this thread, we mentally masturbate each other and massage each other's egos as to imply that we are actually having some kind of effect on the happenings of this world.>protip: extra points if your fedora is resting upon thy head in a tilted fashion.
Psychoanalysis
Sup /philosophy/So I have suddenly become really interested in psychoanalysis. So I picked up one of Lacan's lectures and was confused as hell. I mean completely dumbfounded. Could somebody provide a reading list for me to really get psychoanalysis in order of first book to read to last book to read?
Thanks in advance.
What do you think of Consequentialism
Committed Utilitarian here. Want to know your opinions. A good debate would also be welcome.
Freedom
What exactly is it?
Also, how can one live free without freeing themselves?
>people who claim to be atheists yet still believe in spooky concepts like "virtue" and "morality"
World without governance.
We all live in societies which are governed by some form of authorative bodies. These bodies, in turn, enact (or attempt to enact) regulations by which to coexist in "relative" harmony, and subsequently bear (or attempt to bear) the structural power needed to uphold these regulations. Some thinkers describe the theoretical origins of this construct by the title of a "social contract".What, in your opinion, would a world without this governance be like? Good or bad? And would it be possible? And if so how?
Can you find a single photo of someone looking more uncomfortable than Zizek looks here?
Experimental board
I've made an experimental board titled /neu/ and its about nothing. The premise is that the board will hopefully and eventually create its own culture and eventual main topic through people using the board without any designated rules or purpose of somone using the board.
>>>/neu/ doesnt have a distinguished board topic or main drive of originality or anything - meaning that people who want to create a board about something specific can do that themselves.
I doubt it'll ever turn into something Random since psychologically its not mentioned in the title or motives of the board unlike /b/ is so it should work.
What’s the Point If We Can’t Have Fun?
http://www.thebaffler.com/articles/whats-the-point-if-we-cant-have-fun
Discuss.
So I'm fairly new to philosophy (I did take an intro class, but we never actually read philosophical texts, just basic summaries), and was wondering how I should begin getting more into philosophy. I want to go chronologically (unless there is a better way to read?) but do not know where to start, and if there are some philosophers more important than others (and some not even worth looking at). I believe I remember seeing a picture guide on what to read but I couldn't find it in the catalog. Thanks guys.
What are your thoughts on Stefan Molyneux and his ideas?
Power of Mind
Introducing:
A collective thought force which bends internet into reality.
W I T H N O S U R V I V O R S !
have fun.
What is "the end of history"?
QED: Math is empirical
Take 2 apples.
O O
Add another 2 apples to your original two.
O O O O
Put them all together, and you have a number called 4, which can be verified by counting.
1 2 3 4
O O O O
ITT: Talent-less hacks
I'll start with an easy one
It's been bothering to me since I saw 8chan as the new 4chan. Can we say that 8chan's uprising is an example to Rousseau's Social Contract Theory?
Neoplatonism
Is anyone into metaphysical philosophy stuff like Neoplatonism? I found this:http://www.neoplatonicthought.com/fundamentals-of-neoplatonism/
And now I am interested in this stuff despite not being religious in any way. Im going to look into it more but does anyone know anymore philosophy like this stuff?
ROFLMAO
oh god i just learned about this and it is hilarious. fucking faggot pomo died of aids.
HAHAHAHAHAHAH
what a fucked up retard
Is inequality an evil that must be fixed or something completely natural that must be pursued?
Logic?
Hi guys, I just found out about this board and there's something that has been puzzling my mind for a while, and I think that here I could perhaps get some help...Ever since high school I always had a few friends who could understand the subjects we were taught with much more ease than I could, for example, as they could easily understand the abstract ideias presented and everything, and I always wondered, how did they do that?
Is it because they had a deeper understanding of logic itself than I did? If so, do you think that that can be worked, or is it just something you are born with?
Maybe logic doesn't even have anything to do with that, but I still feel that my undestanding of logic is lacking, so I ask you guys, do you have any starting points I could follow as to start developing my logic skills? Such as recommendations of books, websites, anything really, as I am really lost hahaha.
Picture related I suppose, just google image'd logic and that was the first thing that popped up.
Thank you for the attention
Philosophy in Matrix
Having watch the Matrix series again and more properly than before I've found some very interesting philosophical references, such as Plato's cave allegory, what's your favorite piece of philosophy from Matrix?
Is morality real?
Explain to me, why can computers never be man?
What do they lack that men lack?
How exactly do you know you are really self aware, and not just some dank memes installed onto some genes that has the meme that makes the gene think that it thinks it's self aware?
Socrates
Hello /philosophy/, great board you guys have here. I've recently begun reading a collection of texts from some of the most relevant western philosophers in history, and I was wondering if you guys could give me a hand.So let me tell you what I understood from reading "Socrates' Defense" by Plato, and "Memorabilia" by Xenophon.
The first and most obvious point in Socrates' philosophy is the importance of recognizing one's own ignorance. Although some people (mostly craftsmen) have actual knowledge of very specific things, most individuals live in a state of delusion regarding how much they really know. This is demonstrated by the philosopher on his quest to break down knowledge and statements to their most basic level, and sometimes completely "destroying" them. Could this be called a "reductionist dialectic"?
He gives great importance to temperance, basing this stance on two arguments. The first is that there is no difference between "an intemperate man and the most stupid of beasts", meaning that temperance is a requirement to being an actual human being. The second point is that one who is used to being deprived of things will not suffer when this deprivation is imposed, e.g. one who eats little will not suffer during times of scarcity.
Friends are the most valued things to have, and are worth the effort of spending time and money for keeping them, not necessarily because one enjoys their company but because they might be useful to you in the future. Is this a harsh understanding of his statements on this subject?
It is best to live a just life and die than to life an unjust life and live a lot. Being "just" means following the laws and following the will of the gods, which makes itself known to men through oracles and daemons. Death should not be feared because it is either the simple cessation of being or and opportunity to meet all those famous dead people and leave the pricks who killed you behind.
He also gives advice on some general things, like respecting your parents, becoming a good public speaker, being a good officer and so on.
Did I get the main idea behind those works?
Of all the philosophies and thinkers, which doctrines and philosophers have affected you the most?
Is there actually a good "new age" philosophy?
I can't think of one.
Does philosophy attract the introverts?
Carl Jung's 16 personality type test is said to be accurate and concise, I want to know what you people are like. I'm an INTP.http://www.16personalities.com/free-personality-test
Movies/documentaries etc
We post links to documentaries, movies and other pieces of visual media on philosophy and perhaps even discuss them. I haven't found any substantial works so far, just a radio interview here and a short BBC bit about Nietzsche, Heidegger and other hacks there. Where is my two hour biopic of Kant?https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6WzqyO-wIMI&list=PLCCD0FE223D6AB46E
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wp9SjZkc6bw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z9nEhrt5X1I
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YfoswFXa-PA
What is the worst philosophy and why is it communism?
Nick Land
Nick Land / Accelerationism / Speculative Realism thread.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GMdPLxbuc8Q
The Übermensch
What is it to you? What does it mean to you? Is it a mentality or are people truly born with it?Give me what you've got /philosophy/
What do people think about studying philosophy at a tertiary level?
In other words, would you study philosophy at university (Or college, for Americans) or not?
If you would, what would be your choice between majoring in philosophy (Generally easy to get admitted to where I live) or entering a degree specifically oriented towards philosophy entirely (Would require me to move states and is almost impossible to get accepted into)
Do you think there are any job opportunities in philosophy and is becoming an academic difficult?
>philosophy board
>cant post PDFs
What the fuck am I supposed to make of the simulation argument?
The Universe
Is the Universe finite or infinite?I want to say infinite (i.e. eternal); that makes us humans shards of eternity, capable of experiencing joy during life.
What about you?
philosophy is nothing but circlejerking and you will all die poor.
How can a person become Human?
There's something I noticed in critical theory/cultural marxist/leftist/sjw philosophy that seems like such a blatant contradiction.
Premise 1: "gender" is solely learned behavior that has nothing to do with biology
Premise 2: Transgenders are of a different gender as how they have been raised and need surgery and hormone treatment to alter their bodies to reflect this.
These positions are mutually exclusive, yet are held strongly by the people who make the claim, if a person makes one of the claims I mentioned, it's likely they also hold the other claim.
Am I missing something here, or is one of the most popular ideologies reallly that dense?
>see that there is a philosophy board
>"It must be another containment board"
>scope the place out
This is probably the most intelligent board I've ever been to in my entire life.
Do you own yourself?
Contemporary /(Pre-)/(Post-) Modernism:
Any one here subscribe any of those ideologies?Why or why not?
I am enjoying this board quite well and would like to present my own to you all.
>>>/eso/
what philosopers think that the mind creates reality rather than reality creates the mind?
was it that faggot hegel?
"And as it was in the days of Noah, so shall it be also in the days of the Son of man."
>>>/egy/
>>>/christian/
>>>/fringe/
>>>/baphomet/
This site is quite interesting isn't it? I believe we are at an "important place in time".
Is the internet a form of consciousness? Is it a reality?
Ricardo Semler
What's your thoughts on Ricardo Semler?He is CEO of Semco which he took over from his father when he was 21, his ambition was to create a democratic workplace, the company was worth 212 million us dollars in 2003.
Watch the interview below for more insight into the way he thinks.
Ricardo Semler VPRO Interview
https://youtu.be/zaX3NKFYeOI?t=18s
Do you know that the leftists are breeding themselves away?
White nationalists and traditionalists are the only groups that breed anymore. Religious rural populations are the only consistently breeding whites since ww2.
They are removing the self hating filth from the genepool. They don't even need help they are doing it all on their own in the name of their selfish freedom.
Is free pleasure itself inherently bad or somehow wrong?
I'm trying to divorce this question away from confounding and confusing questions about real life and actual things that exist like drugs, masturbation, sex, music and dance and tackle the core of the issue itself.
Anyone here read de Maistre or any other conservative political philosophers?
What use is philosophy in this day and age when science exists?
Don't try to pretend Philosophy is nearly as important in this day and age.
ITT: Good and Evil
Okay let's hear your definition.What is Good?
What is Evil?
Is there one that creates the other?
Is there one that dominates the other?
Any other anime that extensively reference philosophy?
Philosophy is Forbidden
All the modern patriarchs agree:Rape is the one true constant in the world.
It is the measurement by which you can tell a wise man from a fool.
It cannot be questioned and cannot be excused.
Further down, we have philosophical values such as obscene and offensive language, especially in the eyes of women.
You can go to any forum and challenge this, and you will be proven wrong by permaban.
Existence is entropic. Life is a cancer in the system of a existence, composed by multiplying feedback loops. The "divine" are capable of this self realization, and by this some cancer may be cure.
What is Postmodernism?
this guy claims that it is hardcore socialists that were forced to adopt skeptical epistomology to continue believing in socialism after the soviet union was revealed to be evil.
is he right? or is he a faggot?
/r/philosophy is full of SJWs and i dont trust them at all
Any philosophical views you have and live by?
What is your thoughts on Perspectivism?
Today I was sitting here thinking to myself, "There has got to be some sort of ideology surrounding this belief that no one is truly wrong, it's all a matter of perspective." With that I thought i'd' type in a simple word to see if there's foundation to my claim.
I typed had in mind to type "Perspectist" in google to see if there was a following with this belief, but instead google lead me to "Perspectivism." Now this isn't quite what I meant, but it grasps the concept I had in mind so well.
I'm new to this board and i've never even heard the name Friedrich Nietzsche, yet I see his name everywhere on here.
All this had nothing to do with my question, but I thought that was a huge coincidence. Fate lead me here.
Materialism = Spirituality
A. Take that after death is a state of non-existence with no form.B. Take that before birth is a state of non-existence with no form.
C. Take that life attains a unique form from a state of non existence that is considered a self.
D. Take that all states of non-existence are indistinguishable, being absent of form.
If we accept A,B,C and D, one must conclude after death experience is not precluded to begin again in any form. Also that form can be experienced by an entity considered to be yourself.
This perplexes me, because a materialistic philosophy logically concludes some element of dualism in a continued yet disjointed experience. It is not a contradictory belief.
If anyone disagrees please speak up.
Power vs Integrity
Is Integrity THE Value beyond good and evil, life affirming, and the main defense against power? Or is the value beyond good and evil some unknown value that the average inexperienced teenage Nietzsche reader thinks that they follow and then completely screw themselves over thinking that HURF DURF, I'M BEYOND GOOD AND EVIL, LET'S JUST STAB EACH OTHER IN THE BACK AND THEN JUSTIFY IT WITH THIS UNKNOWN VALUE.
Did Nietzsche intend for integrity to be the "hidden" value while asserting that the unknown value was the value beyond good and evil? Or was it the other way around?
Or was it something else?
Discuss.
Can somebody be so nihilistic that they recognize nihilism as an institution and reject it? What comes then?
Hey guys /leftypol/ here.
Was walking around town and some dude gave me a letter named "Is it wise to be an Atheist?" and it states.
"God has given us plenty of evidence of His existence. There are tremendous marks of design, order and complexity all around us. Someone said of our solar system that it has been put together like a finely tuned clock. If we know anything about clocks, we know: a) they have to have a beginning and b) they don't come about by chance. An intelligent designer is behind the planning and the making of every clock that has ever existed.
If those things are true of the humble clock hanging on the kitchen wall, how much more must they be true of the wonderful planets of our solar system that hang on nothing at all."
What is it called again when you go X is like Y and Y is like Z so X is like Z?
Nothing is forbidden
Everything is sacred
The point is to transcend pointlessness
The greatest hero is the one who's okay being labeled the villain. The greatest villain is the one whom all think of as a hero.
The illusions we cast on ourselves as the grand, living universe are impressive to say the least.
It's clear to those who own bodies that mind is over matter... so why should things matter if you don't mind?
Why do we thirst for objective truth?
What is will?
Do others exist?
Niccolò Machiavelli
Hello my dear philosophers,I am in search of NOT political literature of Niccolò Machiavelli. I already have searched for a list of titles but i can not find one and all I have found is politcal stuff. Maybe I am too stoned why i hope for your help.
Thnks m8s
Tried this on /lit/, they didn't answer quick enough. Can someone explain the C.S Lewis part to me?
Hey /philosophy/,
I get the impression that a lot of you seem to believe that there is a set of objective moral laws. I made the mistake of majoring Human Geography in college and minoring in Philosophy. Since I took several classes examining different societies and cultures; I of course came away with a moral relativist point of view. I want to give equal weight to those who say that are objective truths to moral and immoral actions.
For me the two who best did it were Aristotle and Kant. (Not sure how anyone can take the Utilitarians seriously.) However, I'm a little underwhelmed by both of them. In my current mixed state of philosophical knowledge and ignorance, I think Aristotle did the best job. However, I still don't think he did so conclusively or even particularly close.
So can I ask you /philosophy/, who did the best job, and why?
Can suicide be justified?
What is a man?
Who Did Better?
This is an excerpt from a debate between Noam Chomsky and Michel Foucault in 1971
I wrote this essay on ethics. 'Why Ethics Isnt Consequentialist'.
Advice, criticism, or commentary welcome.
I am new to this board. Please suggest me Philosophers and their creations that i would look upon to. Suggestions?
LessWrong
What does /philosophy/ think of LessWrong? Do you like their epistemological approach?
Ancient Greek philosophy
I'm currently reading Eduard Zeller's Outlines of the History of Greek Philosophy, and I'm wondering if it is generally still considered accurate. I'm up to Aristotle now and so far most things seem to make sense from the little I knew about pre-Socratic and Socratic philosophy, but there are some interesting claims (e.g. that the original Greek worldview was that the body was the real, and the soul a sort of secondary hazy thing, and that the Orphic religion changed this entirely). He doesn't provide source for that one.Does anyone know of any more modern treatments of ancient Greek philosophy that I could read to get another perspective on the development of pre-Socratic thought?
I've just recently got interested in the whole philosophy thing. Pic related has been my introduction into the entire thing.
>Is this book a good introduction, or does it misrepresent/skew ideas?
Philosophy is fucking difficult to get into. It's use of language is different, and many of the books not targeted at laymen are quite difficult to get into. Where do I go from here. Books similar to pic related are nice.
>Where can I fin books that are about existentialism, pragmatism, stoicism, and utilitarianism that I'll be able to understand
>What is the best way to condition oneself to be able to get into philosophies that are difficult to get thorough.
I apologize in advance for the faggotry my ignorance will spread.
HOW TO DO PHILOSOPHY
>>780 and I were talking, and it drifted off course to an off topic discussion about the nature of philosophy. So I made that topic here.> You seem to expect philosophy to yield results in the shape of answers
No. I dont actually. Attention to questions, answers, topics, and theses is guaranteed to wreck the philosophical effort.
> that doesn't make them inhrently worthless
I agree. A lot of the best philosophy is bad philosophy, so to speak.
>Isms are a reductionistic but nonetheless useful way to distinguish between different approaches or different premises
If its your aim to distinguish between approaches, then you simply arent doing philosophy. Its amazing how difficult philosophy is, simply because the historical and scholarly periphery are so distracting. Despite this great distraction, it remains unvirtuous to use Ism terms. The moment you do, you stop doing philosophy.
Its not an advantage in philosophic technique to ‘duck’ in and out of philosophy and identify which Ism you are coming at. Good philosophy wouldnt require such efforts. Claiming such a technique would be worthwhile would be like claiming copious ‘smoke breaks’ at work increase your productivity: dubious, and certainly depriving you of productive time.
What are the flaws of moral relativism?
you guys seem ok
A few things.First, this guy and his concept of philosophical zombies. The idea there could be a person who acts (and thinks? I forget its been a while) like a normal person, but has no mental content. I'm more interested in one philosopher who proved him wrong, who demonstrated that such a person does need content, but I forget the person/argument.
Also, another thing that pisses me off: why do most sources of pop philosophy never discuss further discourse of base philosophies? For example, Descartes and his meditations were immediately put to scrutiny by a princess who basically asked "how can a non tangible entity interact with a physical being (in regard to his concept of a soul)" but you almost never hear of her, and plebs treat the meditations as some infallible truth. People need to know philosophy only really gets started once serious discussion occurs in opposition to those base arguments, but maybe I'm rambling….
Immediacy of Perception
Can anyone explain to me this specific part of Hegel´s The Phenomenology of Spirit:“we find that neither the one nor the other is only immediately present in sense-certainty, but each is at the same time mediated” (Hegel 1977, 59)
Im stuck on a article and coudn´t figure this part out. Hegel is to much a obscure motherfucker.
Thank you.
Scholars with vast knowledge of philosophy, those who studied many works, many books, essays and treatises.
Was it worth the time investment? Is there something out there?
Does a mind sharper than mine want to examine "Social Justice" in relation to actual justice?
Is it just to appeal to the demands of a nonsensical emotional mob? What, after all, is justice if it doesn't serve the want of the greater community? If you are guilty in the eyes of the majority, are you not guilty? After all, aren't all laws made by men? Are the laws of the mob no different than the refined laws of a state? Does not majority rule in our democracy? Is the mob not the majority?
Under new management.
Suggestions / all related discussion should go here.
I will be getting around to editing the sticky at some point. Any suggestions (mainly links) for that would be appreciated.
Do we want a custom CSS?
Free Educational Resources
Hey /philosophy/, come visit us at >>>/freedu/ for free educational resources and materials. Contributions very welcome - if you want to make a Philosophy General that would be great.Much appreciated!
Any love for Hippias Minor on here?
My favorite part is towards the end, where Socrates argues that it is better to commit evil voluntarily than it is to commit evil voluntarily. I recognize that Plato likely makes poor arguments on purpose, and I take this to be an example of that. What is your favorite Platonic Dialogue?
I find it difficult to argue civilization is anything besides convenience.
We still behave like animals.
How come when an ignorant person is asked a question regarding philosophy, their responses are either "no ones perfect" or something along the lines of "I don't care"?
Is there anything about the phenomenon I've noticed? Don't these people want to expand their minds?
Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance
I'm reading this book at the moment. Anyone read it? Did you like it?
Transhumanism
Hello, philosopher-kings.I came here to test this board with one of my recently very liked subject - transhumanism.
What do you see under the term?
What is transhumanism for you?
Can humanity ascend above istself with the help of technology?
Can we achieve biological immortality, post-scarcity and colonize the space and what can be done to achieve those?
are people necessarily really better than animals
We supposedly have free will and we still decide to do shitty things: that unarguably makes us worse then someone who does shitty things without a choice.
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experience_machine
So what if everybody was already using the experience machine, and you were the only one who wasn't? Would you feel the urge to conform or merely depressed and isolated?
What if you had an experience machine that also alleviated one's negative feelings about the experience machine? What if it granted you the experience of being an "experience machine advocate"?
Internal Relations or External relations
At the end of the 19th and early 20th century there was a small philosophical debate between some philosophers regarding two exclusive philosophical doctrines concerning the status of objects and relations. The two doctrines are:1) that the relationships of an object to other objects are to be considered as constituting said object as well (internal relations)
2) that relations are between independent objects and were not to be thought of as anything essential to the object (external relations)
This argument was important not because it was ever resolved, but because it had implications for one’s ontology. If relations were internal then monism of some sort was necessarily true, and if external then pluralism was necessarily true.
The doctrine of internal relations basically states: Any object that we can conceive of empirically rests in a net of historical relations in this world which themselves rest in a historical net into spatial and temporal infinity. Because the empirical reality of any object we know is historical, ahistorical definitions of concepts are inadequate. A proper concept of any object must include its entire relationship web since its existence is impossible in the real world without it, e.g. In order to bake an apple pie you must first create the universe (based Sagan). Because all objects are composed as arbitrary nodes in a web of relations and are relations themselves sustaining and resting upon other relations ad infinitum, the very concept of objects becomes useless and one ends with an immaterial relational processism in which the monad is what I can only call in chan terms “The Happening”.
Ex: A fridge can be defined as a box that cools things within it and keeps them cool. The empirical reality of what a fridge is, however, is more complex. Fridges are made by a particular species, in a particular place, at a particular point in history. The proper concept of a fridge then would not only be its simple function and structure, but would also include that it is made by humans in a certain epoch in a certain universe.
This concept also carries a rather strange concept of truth with it. The truth of any single portion of reality, since the concept must logically contain the entire relational structure of reality, is the entire Happening and is only True as The Happening. Any concept containing less than a full identity with The Happening isn’t necessarily false, only not fully True. As such, if we knew the Truth of any object we would know everything about its universe. If some alien in the far future found a fridge that survived a human extinction event, if it knew the Truth it would know that if fridge, therefore humans; likewise, if humans, therefore fridges.
If any of you have ever delved into eastern philosophies, the Buddhist concept of dependent origination is basically the same thing stated differently. Hegel’s own metaphysics can be said to assume internal relations even though he never mentioned such a doctrine.
I may have rambled too much. Pic is GOAT
Let's talk about opinions.
Opinions are something very unique; in that no matter how many people are backing you up, there's bound to be someone who'll disagree with you.It's also unique in a sense that one will always think of their opinions are the correct or the best one, unless of course they have their own doubts of their own opinions; in which they might change their own views if they identify another idea to be more correct than theirs'.
One might tolerate other opinions, one might even appreciate other opinions, but one will still disagree with the other opinion.
One who stands on the white side will get opposing voices from the black side, and vice versa. One might try to be on both sides to have the best of both worlds, but they will be scorned for being two-faced and hypocritical. One might say it's safer to stand on the neutral grey area, but still they will be called out by both the black and white for indecision. One might think it's wiser to stay silent, but others will call them out for not voicing out their minds.
What do you think? What exactly is the closest thing to a "perfect opinion?"
why is he so pretentious and worthless?
THEY ARE MENTALLY PREPARING YOU
the most important thing about transhumanism and singularity is that everyone must have freedom and choice to change or not change, NO ultimatum, no backing into corners, no forcing however direct or indirect.we must have freedom and we must have infinite choices. nobody must ever be forced to be a part of something they don't want to be.
technology is COOL, but we need to have the freedom to evolve or to stay who we are in any way or combination.
we must not force ourself on others. we must live and let live.
do not let this become something bad.
the propaganda is everywhere but we must all come to an agreement that we will not be bad, but instead free and loving.
Peace.
whats some beginner philosophy books i can get myself. like high school with pictures tier ones?
plato and nietzsche interest me, so does some italian fascist ones.
What do you guys think are the key things of morality?
You know like basic concepts that you think every human should have in order to be a moral being in your eyes.
I don't mean this in a derogatory way, although it will come off as that. In a completely curious motivation, what has philosophy done for humankind in the last 100 years? I don't even mean economic benefit, but what are the benefits to the lives of the average human or non-philosopher in the last century? Has academic philosophy, for example, changed social behavior?
Do you think Aristotle still has a place in modern discussion?
I'm particularly interested in Medieval thought that expands his system, most notably Thomism.
Is teleology in nature a justified view? How about actuality and potentiality?
>decide to check out /philosophy/
>Jim Profit
"That is a katana; it is not a human. But we, humans, made it. The sword was not made by heaven. If that's the case, then the measure of becoming strong was defined by humans, as how many people the blade can kill. Because of that are we separated from our own, true strength?"
Are we?
Has man gone from a short-lived glorious and honorable life to a lengthy outstretched dull life?
I've been struggling with the idea of free will.
For the sake it of argument let's pretend I'm talking about a god-given free will.
Case A
Is free will considered to be something intrinsic to an individual? Like everyone carries their own algebra from birth that allows them to make decisions?
In this case:
Event A > Response B
Is that a decision? Doesn't that just mean you are a mathematical function for turning stimula into responses?
Case B
This case is the same as case A except it includes memories and experiences in the process.
Event A (seeing a fire) > Response B (touching it)
but
Event A + accessing memory (fire is hot) > Response C (not touching fire)
Case C
Same as above but with randomising element
Event A + accessing memory (fire is hot) > 97% Response C (not touching fire), 3% Response
I can't really see any of these involving freedom or will. Am I missing something?
Does any philosopher have a decent explanation of how this thing works?
tl;dr: Not only do not not believe in free will, I also have no idea what it even means.
I used to be fully asexual and apathic for like a year (i was not like this before, with logic and thinking i just arrived to the conclusion that this is how it should be), my only purpose in life is to think and read and learn, know stuff, (i am not getting in the philosophical part right now because thats not what this post is about, but we can talk about it in the thread) i used to play games and shit all the time but all i do since a year is just sit and think or read but these couple of weeks are my exam weeks and i need to be studying all the time, but the problem is i cant even take time to sit and think about stuff let alone reading, also i am sleepy all the time which makes me even more idiotic than i normally am, because of not thinking and all those stuff i started feeling sexual attraction and shit again, i wanna play games and not study and i know its illogical and shit but it started again and i have this constant feeling like anxiety i dont know in my chest that bothers me, theres still one more week till the examd end but i cant study like this, only reason i started studyig hard was because of the way i thought, the apathy amd stuff, before that i didnt used to study at all, anybody got suggestions on what i can do? İ think i would be fine if i just sit and think for a couple of hours but i really dont have the time
Pic unrelated
The Trimūrti is a concept in Hinduism "in which the cosmic functions of creation, maintenance, and destruction are personified by the forms of Brahma the creator, Vishnu the maintainer or preserver and Shiva the destroyer or transformer."[1][2] These three gods have been called "the Hindu triad"[3] or the "Great Trinity." They are different forms of the One person called the Supreme Being or Svayam Bhagavan/Lord Krishna/Parabrahman.
I. Brahma argument courtesy of KCA
1 Everything that has a beginning of its existence, has a cause (creator) of its existence.
2 The universe has a creation of its existence (Big Bang)
3 Therefore, the universe has a creator(Brahma)
II. Shiva argument
1 Everything that has an ending of its existence, has a cause (destroyer) of its existence.
2 The universe has an ending of its existence (heat death)
3 Therefore, the universe has a destroyer (Shiva)
III. Vishnu argument (my own but I've read an article by feser a while ago defending the principle of divine conservation. So this argument shouldn't be controversial among the classical theist camp)
1. Everything that presently exists, has a sustaining cause (maintainer) of its existence.
2. The universe presently exists.
3. Therefore the universe has a maintainer(Vishnu)
1. If arguments 1-3 are valid, the Hindu triumvirate exists.
2. Arguments 1-3 are valid.
3. Conclusion, the Hindu triumvirate exists
Should people have a right to be forgotten? For example, if someone posted nudes on the internet, your right to be forgotten means that that person must take the nudes down or it should be enforced by a company such as google. Pic unrelated
I need some help.
How can human personalities be properly categorized, analyzed, and assessed?I know about the MBTI theories, Big 5 theories, etc, but I also know that most of them are either shallow or, well, flawed.
Can anyone help, I don't understand. "The use of appearances"
Be not elated at any advantage (excellence), which belongs to another. If a horse when he is elated should say, I am beautiful, one might endure it. But when you are elated, and say , I have a beautiful horse , you must know that you are elated at having a good horse. 2 What then is your own? The use of appearances. Consequently when in the use of appearances you are conformable to nature, then be elated, for then you will be elated at something good which is your own.
Epictetus (2012-03-01). Enchiridion.
Can someone explain this shit to me in simple English: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/leibniz-ethics/
Particularly the bit about "harmony".
What does /philosophy/ think of Buckminster Fuller?
Hello friends!
Civcraft is for all intents and purposes a minecraft server, but it is much more than that. I would like to invite you to join me there. From the website:
"Civcraft is an experiment for communities, political ideologies, debate and discussion. Our backstory is based on history, not fiction. We’re forming a new direction for game-play, not just about surviving the elements, but about surviving each other, where players can work together to create and shape civilization or to watch it crumble. A world open to any idea, manifesto or philosophy, created by the players. We hope to push minecraft to it’s fullest potential in order to foster discussion, experimentation and community building. This is the great pastime and challenge of mankind: Civilization."
Sound fun/interesting to any of you? There are a few 4/8chan boards with established towns including /int/ and /v/. There's also a town founded by /pol/ which is, as one might suggest, headed by a fascist government.
I'm founding the city from /lit/ as it has a 4chan board and can otherwise fit into the general game world well. The /lit/izenry would be a proud people on Civcraft, known across the world for their intellect and wit, and for their grand ivory towers. Our library would surely be the most expansive and well stocked.
An interesting question this raises, also, is the question of governance. I'd suggest we democratically vote on what we consider to be the most effective form of government, and abide by the community's choice. In keeping with the culture of /lit/, political candidates ought to submit a written personal manifesto and list of aims. This will only be relevant, of course, if we decide on a hierarchically structured government. I for one like the idea of syndicalism.
Want to join me? Feel free to ask any questions you might have. The Civcraft project is hosted across reddit as well. Visit reddit.com/r/civcraft for the main page, and message me at Eeazt on reddit if you'd like to contribute to /lit/'s state.
We can call it /lit/huania or /lit/tle Rock or /lit/hea. Any other ideas?
Looking forward to speaking with you all!
Instinctual bullying
People of /philosophy/, I need your input. Have you ever been bullied in school or at work? Have you ever partaken in bullying?Please read my posts in this thread and tell me, what your stance is.
ITT:Existentialism
I'll start with a quote from my favorite film:
In this contemplative, existential experimental film, The Dreamer (Wiley Wiggins) encountered various individuals during a dream state, and listened to their philosophies of life.The Dreamer (Wiley Wiggins) then listened to a lecture from a Philosophy Professor (Robert C. Solomon), and afterwards as he continued their discussion on existentialism, they walked along and went to a coffee shop:
>The reason why I refuse to take existentialism as just another French fashion or historical curiosity, is that I think it has something very important to offer us for the new century. I'm afraid we're losing the real virtues of living life passionately in the sense of taking responsibility for who you are, the ability to make something of yourself and feeling good about life. Existentialism is often discussed as if it's a philosophy of despair, but I think the truth is just the opposite. Sartre once interviewed said, he never really felt a day of despair in his life. But one thing that comes out from reading these guys is not a sense of anguish about life so much as a real kind of exuberance, a feeling on top of it. It's like your life is yours to create.
>I've read the post-modernists with some interest, even admiration, but when I read them I always have this awful nagging feeling that something absolutely essential is getting left out. The more that you talk about a person as a social construction, or as a confluence of forces, or as fragmented or marginalized, what you do is you open up a whole new world of excuses. And when Sartre talks about responsibility, he's not talking about something abstract. He's not talking about the kind of self or soul that theologians would argue about. It's something very concrete. It's you and me talking, making decisions, doing things, and taking the consequences.
>It might be true that there are six billion people in the world, and counting. Nevertheless - what you do makes a difference. It makes a difference, first of all, in material terms. It makes a difference to other people, and it sets an example. And in short, I think the message here is that we should never simply write ourselves off and see ourselves as the victim of various forces. It's always our decision who we are.
Is third wave feminism the (il)logical conclusion of identity politics?
Sorry if this isn't the right board to ask this.
I'm writing two very deep characters and I'm a little over my head. I need to do a lot of research on some mental illnesses before I truly begin.
I've read a great deal of articles about it on the internet but it's all most vague and not as in-depth as I had hoped it to be. I'm hoping there's more.
Character 1 was kidnapped at a young age, held against their will in a small office alone, and the rare instances when they were not alone, they were being manhandled and raped.
Before all of this occurred, they were exposed to murder and sociopath behavior. The closest real life comparison I could make would be a child being raised by Brazilian drug kingpins.
Character 2 is both a psychopath and a narcissist.
tl;dr what is some dependable material one could read about the effects it has on a child to grow up in an extremely toxic 3rd world environment, the long term effects rape has on a child, and characteristics and mannerisms people suffering from psychopathy and narcissistic personality disorder have?
Is there a physical proof of our instincts? Like we know stuff about consciousness and memory, maybe not too detailed but still it exists physically, what i wonder is if there's anything specific that causes our instincts biologically or are they learned afterwards
Who was correct in the idea of a perfect society: Locke or Socrates?
Socrates-no formal parents or families, religion with the myth of metals to keep 'inferior people' submissive, strong ,military for defense
Locke- reap what you sow and own what you work, small government only for protective purposes, all people fundamentally equal
Continental vs. Analytic philosophy
round one: Zizek vs. Chomsky
What is your thoughts on murder, killing, and execution of the like philophiles?
Book thread
Can we get a book/texts thread going? Maybe create a sticky?Post your must reads
>my favorite philosopher?
>nietzche of course! god is dead!
Ok why don't we have a metaethical fight thread
Deontology vs Consequentialism vs Virtue Ethics vs Special Snowflake theories
Please post positive points for your theory and a couple arguments you think are particularly biting for the other theories.
I think I've misunderstood Kant's "Axeman at the door" scenario this whole time. So he says that you can't lie to the guy who asks if the people he's looking for are inside, but does Kant's philosophy also extend to actions rather than simply words?
I mean like you have to always tell the truth, and let other people do their own moral choices. So let people kill or rape or do other morally wrong things because they have to make their own decisions and you can't intervene.
Is that what Kant would say? Or would it just be "yes mr.axeman they are here, now just let me call the police and grab my knife to defend them" or something like that?
Let's talk about robots.
What's necessary to accomplish better artificial intelligence? Is the Turing Test too weak? How would society change if lifelike robots were introduced?
Couldn't you call the board /phi/ or something?
You don't name boards with that many letters, fuckwad
How do i reference plato
I am struggling with a particular excerpt. how do i reference to you, the part of the text with which i am having trouble? Merely copying and pasting it seems crass.there are numbers and letters like [a] [2] peppered throughout the text, i have an inclination these are part of how something shoud be done, but i do not see the lines that join the dots
Picture related is the text i am working from
Thomas Jefferson is the greatest philosopher in all of history.