[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / bestemma / christ / eris / jewess / komica / marx / pawsru / vg ]

/philosophy/ - Philosophy

Start with the Greeks

Catalog   Archive

Winner of the 62rd Attention-Hungry Games
/eris/ - Wherein Is Explained Absolutely Everything Worth Knowing About Absolutely Anything.

November 2018 - 8chan Transparency Report
Comment *
File *
Password (Randomized for file and post deletion; you may also set your own.)
Flag *
* = required field[▶ Show post options & limits]
Confused? See the FAQ.
(replaces files and can be used instead)

Allowed file types:jpg, jpeg, gif, png, webm, mp4, pdf
Max filesize is 16 MB.
Max image dimensions are 15000 x 15000.
You may upload 5 per post.

Sister Boards [ Literature ] [ History ] [ Christ ] [ Religion ] [ Politics ]

File: 1411489462074.jpg (83.18 KB, 322x421, 322:421, Plato&Aristotle.jpg)

ccf87a  No.86[Reply]


1. Respect the Global Rules.

2. Moderation will be kept to a minimum.

3. No spamming.

4. Spoiler NSFW images.

/philosophy/ resources: https://8ch.net/philosophy/resources.html

Post last edited at

ccf87a  No.3643

File: 1456239360186-0.jpg (513.08 KB, 2048x1366, 1024:683, philosophy.jpg)

File: 1456239360188-1.jpg (1.07 MB, 3672x3024, 17:14, Start with the Greeks.jpg)

File: 1456239360188-2.jpg (415.66 KB, 1858x1354, 929:677, lit guide to philosophy.jpg)

For beginners:

File: 1435290374061.jpg (51.33 KB, 950x1343, 950:1343, Absolutism.jpg)

70aede  No.1754[Reply]

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.

33 posts and 51 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.

70aede  No.1793

File: 1435574390266-0.jpg (419.94 KB, 3508x4961, 3508:4961, Monism.jpg)

File: 1435574390267-1.jpg (346.41 KB, 3508x4961, 3508:4961, Solipsism.jpg)

70aede  No.1794

File: 1435574503193.jpg (439.57 KB, 3504x4960, 219:310, Socialism.jpg)

70aede  No.3142

these could all make great flags

70aede  No.3148



That is neither anthropocentrism nor collectivism

9fcdb0  No.6834


File: 6e5f514c2b4469c⋯.jpg (39.51 KB, 500x775, 20:31, phenomenology of thots.jpg)

83ea49  No.6256[Reply]

What's the best introduction to the philosophy of Hegel (specifically the aspects of it that have been relevant to Marx and the young-hegelians)? Is there any work by Hegel himself that's actually comprehensible without spending hours on one page?

7abe26  No.6826


His "Introduction to the Philosophy of History" is a fairly easy read compared to his other works (it wasn't written by him, rather a compilation of his own lecture notes and his students').

Hegel would have slapped Marx if he had the chance. Marx, like a typical Jew, adulterated the novel Ideas of others for his own philosophy. If you really want to understand Hegel, read his work while frequently referencing a dictionary of Hegelian terminology.

ebc106  No.6829


Steven Pinker says fuck Hegel and niezsche because they're both anti-enlightenment "romantic" philosophers. People who justify totalitarianism and anti-democratic ideals like hereditary birthrights.

1c2319  No.6831


One /lit/ anon has put together a very comprehensive philosophy reading list. Two of which are "Introduction to the Reading of Hegel Lectures on the Phenomenology of Spirit" and "Genesis and Structure of Hegel's Phenomenology of Spirit".




Typical contemporary brainlet proponent of the democratic-egalitarian-neoliberal status quo. Nothing good has ever come out of "enlightened" industrial society. It's nothing but trash.

File: aaf0587fd7e5aca⋯.jpeg (8.12 KB, 203x248, 203:248, images (4).jpeg)

c66f37  No.6821[Reply]

Why was he so reviled in his time?

Also side question:

Why was Kojeve so critical of Spinoza and Descartes? I know a lot of people (liberals usually) are enthralled by the latter two, and I rarely see Kojeve mentioned anywhere.

File: d821c70e5d048bf⋯.jpg (120.85 KB, 360x162, 20:9, spiritualpilgrim-crop[1].jpg)

d183af  No.6807[Reply]

Name one metaphysic that isn't ontological

1c3009  No.6816


Is your argument that ontology contains all of metaphysics?

File: 1418506693462.jpg (110.92 KB, 640x868, 160:217, 640px-Nietzsche187a.jpg)

8ee877  No.545[Reply]

Your favorite 3 philosophers in order

1. Socrates
2. Nietzsche
3. Plato

pic related, that's Friedrich himself.
172 posts and 40 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.

7e419c  No.6653

Abu Bakr al Baghdadi

aef280  No.6692


That's my nigga.

ac9c07  No.6739

1. Rene Guenon

2. Thomas Aquinas

3. Blaise Pascal

000000  No.6787


1. Wilde

2. Stirner

3. Epicurus

9a5cf4  No.6810

File: 8fe53d1f2d3fa3b⋯.jpg (69.65 KB, 722x349, 722:349, nidemare.jpg)



File: 1447995062019-0.jpg (44.06 KB, 490x700, 7:10, kierkegaard.jpg)

File: 1447995062019-1.jpg (201.86 KB, 1381x874, 1381:874, albert-camus.jpg)

d74768  No.2456[Reply]

Who is your favorite existentialist, /philosophy/?

31 posts and 8 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.

efe126  No.5809


discordians are apparently religiously forbidden to believe in anything

9c17b7  No.5813


>A nihilist is not one who believes in nothing , but one who does not believe in what exists.

They're all three pretty related I guess, but also very different, I guess.

Nihilists - there is no purpose

Existentialists - man's purpose is his own

Absurdist - man's purpose can not be known


For Camus perhaps but certainly not for Kierkegaard.


>Once you label me you negate me.

311a24  No.5818


Discordianism is even less serious than worshipping the god-emperor of mankind

c3ffba  No.6693


Me desu. All other's answers are incorrect

fbf246  No.6809


I appreciate the advice. I think the problem really lies in where we are, 8chan. It's the common attitude to be ranting about anything, and most of the time antagonise anyone we talk to. It doesn't fit well with philosophy as a whole, but I guess we can't do much about it. Though so far the conversations I've seen here are way more polite than on /v/, it's a good thing.

File: 9f40544533d4461⋯.png (218.22 KB, 602x582, 301:291, main-qimg-c088ee8c02024475….png)

4b99e2  No.6422[Reply]

If knowledge is defined as justified true belief, then agnostic belief, if it is not an irrelevant proclamation of feeling, is simply justified true belief in a plausibility. If someone "believes but they're not sure," their belief can be equated either to knowledge of a quantified plausibility, e.g. "There is a 70% chance this is true," or a feeling, e.g. "I feel like this is true but I don't know." A claim of agnostic belief is therefore either equivalent to a claim of knowledge, or a proclamation of feeling that is justifiedly ignored.

So why the existence of the term? Well if there are no other possible reasons, the implicit conclusion is deception. The specification of "agnostic," by virtue of the apparent necessity of its specification, implies gnostic belief is possible and that one holds other, gnostic beliefs, which, by virtue of the presumed necessity of logical justification for a gnostic belief, implies there is logical justification for the specification of "agnostic," which could only be a quantified plausibility. The term is used to give this impression, and yet so that when pressed to reveal said logical justification, one can incorrectly and deceptively cite "agnostic," that they thus don't actually know anything, and thus have nothing to defend.

Mentioning one's own epistemology at all is just a big red herring; it has no place in debate; and it should only if ever be shared as nothing more than a cool factoid about one's self -- because there is no such thing as an agnostic or gnostic position. Whether one believes they can tell the difference between knowledge and belief is irrelevant. Neither is anything more than a statement of feeling. If someone says "I believe but I don't know this thing to be true," or "I know this thing to be true," either way the only proper response in debate would be "Prove it."

>inb4 someone contests that I can't disagree with "established" epistemology

Well, I can, and I don't. Nor does what you've read on wikipedia or from any atheist 'philosopher' constitute epistemology. The "science" is never "settled" so to speak, unless you're an idiot.

3 posts and 1 image reply omitted. Click reply to view.

e87433  No.6520

File: 22bd9975ea5ff51⋯.png (715.4 KB, 1280x720, 16:9, vlcsnap-4359-08-28-09h59m1….png)


Beginning my first foray into the study of epistemology, so forgive me if I turn out to be a dumbass.

First, why ignore someone's epistemology? People can and do have different standards for what the "justified" part of "justified true belief" is. You even kind of agree with this when you claim, "The science is never settled-". My threshold for justification could theoretically be so absolute and unyielding that I refuse to accept anything outside of the existence of my own awareness as knowledge.

Second, my understanding of what an agnostic belief is, is that it's simply a belief that one does not hold as knowledge. That could mean anything from, "I feel really strongly that X is true," "I have blind faith that X is true" or "I have 52% confidence that X is true based on the data, but that does not meet my threshold for what I consider justification." An agnostic belief is simply a belief without claiming truth and justification.

A gnostic belief, on the other hand, would be an actual claim to knowledge, justified and true. It's right there in your image, too.

>then agnostic belief ... is simply justified true belief in a plausibility

This is a gnostic belief if it's justified and true. It's a justified true belief that a proposition is =possible==, not an agnostic belief in that proposition. A proposition cannot be true if that same proposition cannot ==possibly== be true.

Have a good one.

9d674a  No.6543

>mr. agnostic, do tou believe in God?


Reminder agnosticism does not exist and religion is on or off

f8ffed  No.6702


what if I answered the question "I don't know."?

c76de7  No.6750

>inb4 someone contests that I can't disagree with "established" epistemology

>Well, I can, and I don't. Nor does what you've read on wikipedia or from any atheist 'philosopher' constitute epistemology. The "science" is never "settled" so to speak, unless you're an idiot.

The problem is that by the looks of things you haven't even studied epistemology. Feel free to disagree with others in epistemology, but don't act like you can just ignore the major issues in epistemology and expect to be taken seriously.

For example, you haven't put forward clear definitions of the terms you are using. For example, do you hold the position that knowledge must be infallible or do you think that information gathered by a generally reliable means can be considered knowledge?

Without giving a detailed explanation of what you mean by 'knowing' something as opposed to believing in it, it isn't even possible to start a conversation on the distinction between gnostic and agnostic belief.

13152d  No.6808



File: 828fab9229fc1cf⋯.jpg (110.25 KB, 736x611, 736:611, 46932cae4593fbfeda000bd7a9….jpg)

219831  No.6465[Reply]

I just wanted you to know.

6 posts and 1 image reply omitted. Click reply to view.

7bee04  No.6656

If I were born a fish, I'd probably be swimming

If I were born a tree, I'd probably stand in one place all my life.

If I were born a monkey, I'd probably howl and climb trees

I truly don't see the reasoning behind the if-you-were-born-something-else-you'd-be-something-else argument.

236f66  No.6660


Well of course you don't if you're using animals and plants as analogous to sentient humans making decisions of their own volition.

The reasoning of this post is that just because you've grown up in a part of the world that has a majority christian/jewish/muslim/hindu/whatever rule that doesn't justify the existence of religion just because you and everyone you know happen to be devoted to it.

If you are devoted then it is more likely because of geographical location, regional traditions, institutions and cultures, peer pressure and in-group bias than of any real divine influence.

7bee04  No.6661


if i were to be someone else, i wouldn't be who i am now Remains a tautology, it's also self-contradictory, for if you had been someone else, somewhere else, you wouldn't have made this very post.

236f66  No.6663


True but if I were to still have access to a computer I would still have the possibility to make this post that's the difference.

I probably would spend my time on different sites doing different things but I would always have the option to come to this site and write, the only way for that not to happen would be if I was born in a time or a place that didn't have access to the internet.

There are factors beyond my control which are the reason why I spend so much time on the internet, this is true, but I don't have to.

Until I make conscious effort to brake away I will stay infront of the computer.

Same with religion, until you question it you're stuck with a fate that others have made for you.

Joining a religion isn't instinctual like a fish swimming. I know people from the US who choose to be atheist even though through probability they should be christians.

9a5805  No.6801


This makes the assumption that a specific religion is correct in its grasp of God, or that these religions are even able to grasp God or a god. If the scope of their belief is limited, as belief often is, then either the God(s) of which they speak do not exist, or perhaps they grasp at some greater being from which all is sourced. Point being that the example posted is not a reason to believe that God or an intelligent source doesn't exists, merely that it is plausible that many conceptions of God do not exist or are incorrect. If I were raised to not believe in evolution, my belief would be irrational given current theories. If I were raised to believe in evolution, then my belief would be much more rational. Likewise with the different theories of religion. If one is so religiously inclined, then they ought to follow the most plausible theory. If one were to say that the plausible theory is to not believe in God, so be it, as long as they can recognize and counter and contradict these "most plausible" theories of religion.

File: b1c21506df93f91⋯.png (299.79 KB, 610x480, 61:48, 9146c21e0d1e396226f611f618….png)

5ed989  No.6799[Reply]

What are the similarities between them? As far as I can tell they criticise what it means to think and how we form our thought processes in life based on our experiences and sensations but there has to be other connections or maybe i'm inferring incorrectly?

File: 98aeea0480db2dc⋯.png (114.7 KB, 624x434, 312:217, 98aeea0480db2dc9467046d730….png)

File: 77c25576cb73a22⋯.png (98.29 KB, 1146x550, 573:275, you need to know why this ….png)

File: d8980629a7659f7⋯.png (172.25 KB, 1167x313, 1167:313, imageboard hivemind, pure ….png)

File: 63317b0f46b8cf6⋯.png (55.91 KB, 1267x462, 181:66, paradigms of internet disc….png)

a8d13e  No.5845[Reply]

Hello /philosophy/, I posted this on /new/ originally, but I figure you guys would have some valuable input too.

What do you think makes an image board, in the broadest sense of the word.

What ideas are they fundamentally based on? How best is an image board operated? e.g. In terms of moderation, its culture, and what it generally does. And finally, what should the purpose or end result of an image board be?

I will begin with a few relevant screencaps by anons on this issue.

10 posts and 10 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.

c24df7  No.6682

Imageboards are the mosaic and participatory press that McLuhan predicted in his Press chapter in Extensions of Man.

The anonymity has enabled imageboards to gain inordinate power because controversial truths only survive here, while the rest of the identified world speeds toward complete partisan top down censorship of wrongthink.

c183cf  No.6687

File: 502ac904bec09d8⋯.jpg (218.17 KB, 520x1865, 104:373, 82d194710ea2dfb4cd2137ec0c….jpg)


I'll be honest and admit I used to be a narcist who had no interest in imageboards because you can't much make friends over time, or have a persona there. I only took an interest in image boards when I began to see 2ch as the online nexus of Japanese thought, and when I was unfairly banned from traditional forums for having non-PC thoughts. I have heard about how image boards used to be, but back then I was on real forums with avatars, signatures and private messing.

The lousy aspect about image boards is you cannot quickly differentiate who is uneducated from someone who is reputable. A vocal minority can take over a board like /pol/ and lower the common denominator to the toilet even if they have no background in political science. Traditional forums have longer posts because you're inclined to bother when come to you know other people, and feel assured they aren't simply trolling for responses. Image boards in time just devolve into stale memes.

084336  No.6723

I just want to comment that the religious boards like Islam and Christian are very censor happy, and fly against the original spirit of 8chan as a place of no censorship and very few rules. They're not indicative of the core idea of image boards which is freedom.

1a2171  No.6746

File: bca0cea62acb7d8⋯.png (71.51 KB, 545x1837, 545:1837, ClipboardImage.png)

Saw this post on endchan (https://endchan.net/operate/res/7122.html#7133) discussing similar topic. Summary:

>The foundations of the contemporary imageboard culture scenery can be generalised as:

>1 - Against online personal identification (anonymity)

>2 - Satirism and Irony (lulz)

>3 - Suspension of Belief (disregard about most of the mainstream media)

>4 - Subversion of authority (all mods are always treated as

someone not so important; see point 2)

>Although not a rule for all boards, it can also be generalised that:

>5 - Japanese culture is a influence

>6 - Most of the people are introverted

a285ec  No.6798


/tv/ misses all 4 points.

File: 5a56908d3b57155⋯.jpg (625.94 KB, 1024x683, 1024:683, parthenon-golden-ratio-ori….jpg)

794774  No.6790[Reply]

File: 2ce323353666eea⋯.jpg (42.84 KB, 391x520, 391:520, asdsda.jpg)

2d005f  No.6762[Reply]

Not as a man but as a philosopher, because there's obviously a glaring downside to his nature.

>b-b-b-b-b-but b-b-b-b-bombs

We all know what he did and it is besides the point of this thread so let's keep the criticisms original.

as far as my flag, I'm not an orthodox existentialist but it was the closest thing to my philosophy.

Lay it on me

90dc44  No.6770

What did Ted do wrong again? The only thing he did wrong was get caught

537c48  No.6789


Read Jacques Ellul instead. Not saying ISaIF is bad, but it's a dumbing down of Ellul for mass consumption.

File: c214453336f9371⋯.jpg (29.02 KB, 400x400, 1:1, QVcXf0MC_400x400.jpg)

ca582f  No.6768[Reply]



I think he makes more sense than any of the Alt-Right lunatics that call themselves skeptics.

Skeptics community in 2008: Religion is bad

Skeptics community in 2018: On second thought religion is alright.

I like seeing him destroy Sargon of Akkad and Armored Skeptic.

3baaed  No.6771

>Skeptic posting


99a95e  No.6772


This is not philosophy

d29976  No.6776


Wait so is this the Amazing Banana's new persona?

File: dec14e2f8148c18⋯.jpeg (134.92 KB, 960x720, 4:3, A93C76F6-1EB3-4C2D-8381-C….jpeg)

50465f  No.5981[Reply]

I’m trying to learn about Platonism. I started a list of major Platonic philosophers and their works, but it feels short. Could you guys recommend any other texts to help me with this?

>Plato - complete works

>Plotinus - The Enneads

>Proclus - The Theology of Plato

>Damascius - Difficulties and Solutions of First Principles

That’s about it. There must be more. I’m also looking into Pseudo-Dionysius and John Scotus Eriugena, but I’m more interested in pre-christian platonists

10 posts omitted. Click reply to view.

408cf6  No.6749


Math is a valid pursuit. Even Proclus wrote a commentary on Euclid's Elements, faggot.

ec089f  No.6752


I would definitely recommend Pseudo-Dionysius. Eriugena is a bit atypical for Neoplatonism though, and his Periphysion is very long so I wouldn't bother.

Proclus also wrote a book called the Elements of Theology that tries to systematize Neoplatonic metaphysics by deriving it all from a basic set of axioms and historically it was influential.

a9c902  No.6760

File: cf0b26541e631ce⋯.gif (97.75 KB, 300x230, 30:23, hegel.gif)


Naw, only Hegel is valid.

a2dc12  No.6766

Since this thread is semi-relevent, I was gonna ask, is platonism and Aristotelianism simply different ways of arriving at the same truths? Is classical theism essentially the same?

ec089f  No.6774


Aristotle developed a good number of his ideas as reactions against some of the ideas of Plato and even when he isn't critiquing Plato, he clearly takes different positions than him.

That being said, there is a long tradition among Neoplatonists of reinterpreting Aristotle in a way that makes it easier to harmonize their views. Usually this would be done by saying that Aristotle presents his teachings just as an explanation of the world around us, and that it is Plato who teaches the truths of higher realities.

The different western theological traditions vary quite a bit in their approach to Greek philosophy. Some of these philosophical ideas were very appealing, such as the existence of a single utterly simple and transcendent God, and were adopted eagerly. Other ideas, like the idea of an eternal universe were much more controversial. Some figures adopted them (like Avicenna or Averroes) others had a moderate rejection of them that nonetheless showed respect to the philosophical traditions (Such as Maimonides or Aquinas) and others vigorously rejected and condemned what they saw as the error of the Philosophers.

Delete Post [ ]
Previous [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25]
| Catalog | Nerve Center | Cancer
[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / bestemma / christ / eris / jewess / komica / marx / pawsru / vg ]