[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / abdl / caco / choroy / jp / komica / mde / miku / vietnam ]

/philosophy/ - Philosophy

Start with the Greeks

Catalog   Archive

Winner of the 75nd Attention-Hungry Games
/caco/ - Azarath Metrion Zinthos

March 2019 - 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: 590ef8b62114338⋯.jpg (86.93 KB, 1086x611, 1086:611, Here it come homeboys!.jpg)

c8c14f  No.7122[Reply]

Sony Center in Toronto, on Friday, April 19.

Tickets on sale!

So ... who's gonna go and respresent 8chan? And who are we rootin' for?

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

235a12  No.7225

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: c70f8b8f7b83c6d⋯.png (625.73 KB, 800x800, 1:1, existentialismanswersmapdr….png)

b3cf24  No.6918[Reply]

I’ve been playing around with clustering responses to existential crises.

The two axes I found most interesting for grouping are something like self-assertion/ambition/egoism/rigidity vs humility/permissiveness/tolerance/easygoingness (top to bottom) and spirituality vs materialism (left to right).

The “rule” cluster is more like “both rule over and serve under, according to one’s role in the cosmic order” but I couldn’t express that core idea in a single word like the other three.

I’ve had a messy go at putting different broad philosophical categories on this map. It’s just my ideas to start with, and I’d welcome some friendly suggestions or any thoughts you have.

What other/alternative axes would you consider, to categorise philosophical worldviews?

Where would you put philosophical branches that I haven't included (or shift the ones I have)?

I'm struggling with the top right corner, where the term “communism” awkwardly encapsulates a larger rebellion against nature itself (the blank slate view of humanity, postmodern attacks on scientific knowledge even without allowing for other kinds of spiritual knowledge etc.; including defiance of commonly-accepted natural laws about human nature, economic cause-and-effect, radical egalitarianism, etc.)

I'm not sure about where to put “social Darwinism”, but I think it's roughly a materialist version of imperialism/will-to-power.

Disclaimer that all of these will be interpretations and simplifications of things which are not so easily categorised.

It's just a bit of fun.

13 posts omitted. Click reply to view.

5d5c69  No.6970


i wish i was a burger

a1b336  No.6981


I am the guy you were replying to. Where would Situationism and/or Absurdism fit?

0c3cc4  No.7207


No, communism fits in with the egoists. You just need to meet more communists

5d5c69  No.7218



a38bd8  No.7234


>to ask what system would actually encourage them to earn their own success, rather than make life harder for those who try and easier for those who refuse to.

Sounds like meritocracy would fit the bill here.

File: 6cae4f7297d95f9⋯.jpg (20.73 KB, 500x500, 1:1, Philosoraptor.jpg)

4d2ed1  No.7228[Reply]

>Generally speaking, life itself is pointless. Unless you reach immortality, you're gonna die eventually, and you should realize that death is not "a black screen at the end of the movie," but there having never been any movie. It's an eternal void of absolute nothingness, like there had existed until you were born, except indefinitely. And even on the far-off-chance that you, personally, will acquire immortality - life is still going to be pointless. You'll just exist for the sake of existence, forever.



b9cbbe  No.7229


biologists say the sense of life is to reproduce

1d832c  No.7230


physicists say the sense of life is to dissipate energy

bcc2fc  No.7233

File: 9379780426cbb2d⋯.jpeg (55.38 KB, 600x400, 3:2, polar rabbit.jpeg)

>It's an eternal void of absolute nothingness, like there had existed until you were born, except indefinitely.

Have they ever died?

>It's been about a year since I've encountered an original idea around this 'sphere.

lurk more

>...but you know full well that you're gonna remain poor as fuck.

This needs an explanation.

>truecel, divorcel, youngcel, oldcel

Pathetic. Can't expect this guy to be a noncel.

Pessimistic nonsense, OP. Life's interesting if you do it correctly, and you (especially you personally, OP) most likely aren't sure of what, if anything, happens after death.

File: a08df3f744acf18⋯.jpg (26.42 KB, 224x250, 112:125, 20180208_232612.jpg)

3563e3  No.7222[Reply]

Please Help.

I need help condensing and improving my grammar.

The Ego has now become ones own God in the Newest century. By the taking of one's own personal beliefs and the application of the greatest ideas in the existential mind of it's philosopher, they can put the entirety of all their beliefs and faiths into the idea that a Sovereign God does not exist.

By killing their loyalty to the ultimate idea of God, the faith of a Sovereign God, they all also claim that God is subjective at either - the start of creation ( evolution, co-evolution, race theory or Abrahamic creation and it's sub-types) or at the end of life ( judgement, and eternal life ).

This also means that they are putting ego as their own God. Ego, being the combination of one's soul, and body. It is essentially the face of ones spirit, but not the mind of the spirt. Just as our Face is the way for our body to communicate, the ego is the face of the spirit.

When, we put all our idealogies ( faith and her beliefs ) into the idea that everything is subjective then we see the decay of truth in almost all of reality. By the destruction of the realm of objectivity and entering the realm of Pride ( see the fall of lucifer ) , we find our virtues the first to fall ( the angels of morallity ).

36ddd0  No.7227

Keep a journal and write philosophic stuff in it. The more you write, the more laughably bad the stuff you started with looks, and you begin to hone your attention on the important stuff. By the end of your life you will have more than just condensed grammar mastered.

3563e3  No.7231



de7a98  No.7232


Watch Shakespeare plays.

File: 058ddafe94beec0⋯.jpg (209.72 KB, 800x1400, 4:7, rzhaB.jpg)

e186b3  No.5998[Reply]

Excuses for browsing /philosophy/ and not looking like pic related go in here.

“No man has the right to be an amateur in the matter of physical training. It is a shame for a man to grow old without seeing the beauty and strength of which his body is capable.”

7 posts and 2 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.

dae8d3  No.7211

File: a117022b4bc71a1⋯.jpg (39.12 KB, 501x373, 501:373, 421566_110052819134743_182….jpg)


"Muh dick"

7aabe7  No.7212

I hate Stoics. Epicurus for life.

9265eb  No.7217


fuck physicality

02a89e  No.7224


>fuck physicality

Why have you not offed yourself then?

9265eb  No.7226


i want to get happiness

File: 00db7b55a94c3fe⋯.png (28.58 KB, 300x250, 6:5, y4aMkhxqxs-10.png)

ba2450  No.6599[Reply]

>be me

>philosophy major

>sign up for metaphysics and epistemology this semester

>go to class expecting to learn about and read Hume Descartes Locke Kant Witt etc

>get syllabus, all of the readings are contemporary analytic philosophers working within Russell's paradigm

>both professors fellate Russell every class

I knew most philosophy departments in North America followed the analytic school, but not to this extent. I also thought we'd start with the Greeks, like everyone says, but were starting the contemporaries. Is this how it is everywhere? How should I approach this, this wasn't what I was expecting at all.

3 posts and 2 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.

81d7bb  No.6890

File: 67303e4f936cee8⋯.jpg (117.64 KB, 750x499, 750:499, 1henja.jpg)

413b48  No.6891


Wittgenstein is interesting, Russell is boring, but you can have fun with A.J. Ayer's thoughts especially on Igtheism. They wont teach you the greek classic stuff first as you need to know what we did with all of that stuff, where it all lead to before you can appreciate where it all came from

413b48  No.6892



90d45f  No.6895


>within Russell's paradigm

Which is?

759912  No.7223

File: d07232e7a8fefdf⋯.jpg (81.76 KB, 500x500, 1:1, 2twqy0.jpg)

File: 79eb41b2d6592d3⋯.jpg (130.56 KB, 800x500, 8:5, 2sf3rz.jpg)

File: 042991b6eb7000a⋯.jpg (123.68 KB, 800x500, 8:5, i87yu7.jpg)

File: 6c089581e92ad4f⋯.png (236.51 KB, 600x300, 2:1, 6c089581e92ad4f54189d3006c….png)

a1a48c  No.6623[Reply]

Since /fringe won't let me post a question, I'll ask you guys.

If reincarnation is real, then how can you be considered the same entity/soul with your memories blanked in the next life? Consider this: if a man gets into an accident and loses all his previous memories, he's really only the same "person" in a physical sense, and in the sense that other people remember who he is, or was. However, if everyone else who knew him lost their memories of him too, he essentially loses his identity altogether and thus becomes a new individual after the accident.

TLDR; Without memory, you really have no identity, so how can reincarnation/next lives be a spiritual reality?

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

37dbdf  No.7014


Because you are the same consciousness in a different body. Your brain is a bodypart. Your brain is physical matter, and it doesn't generate your consciousness, it merely houses it (Maybe not even that)

97df6e  No.7032


they have a thread for questions. and they have 30 threads 750 posts long full of questions. And your question has already been asked many times. But you can asked many more times.

59ddb4  No.7034


Let me explain this in an Earthly/physical way, if I may.

>You have a cassette tape. You copy the contents onto another tape so you have a record of it, then you completely erase the tape. Let's say your soul is that first cassette tape and the second tape is a spiritual record kept of your past life. Even though all the data has been erased from your first cassette tape (soul) that tape (soul) is still intact, fully functional and ready to be put into a recorder (physical body) to be filled with all new recordings.

>Get it, now?

b45b87  No.7167

Because Joe Blog who lives his life IS NOT the one being reincarnated. Entity X becomes Joe Blog - is incarnated - lives the life of Joe Blog, dies as Joe Blog, and is then reawakened/returned to Entity X.

Entity X then becomes Sarah Jane - is REincarnated - lives the life of Sarah Jane, dies as Sarah Jane, and is then reawakened/returned to Entity X.

Entity X is the real idenity. Entity X is the one being reincarnated. Joe Blog and Sarah Jane are like books upon the shelf.

48cd1e  No.7219


> it doesn't generate your consciousness

read science

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/?

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

0bacc3  No.7194

File: ec2d38afce14215⋯.jpg (76.95 KB, 624x830, 312:415, IMG11370391.jpg)

Mulla Sadrā

>Existence precedes the essence and is thus principal since something has to exist first and then have an essence.

b42ef2  No.7198

Foucault and Heidegger. I dunno maybe Nietzsche too, does Schopenhauer qualify?

Though I'm not a fan of existentialism in general too much of a Plato and Hegel fanboy.

b42ef2  No.7199


Likely. One can hope. Based Kojeve. Doesn't get enough credit. People would rather Jack off to Spinoza all day.

b42ef2  No.7214


Most are feminist so they must believe in something, like cuckery

4e7d5b  No.7216


dead one

File: 1445718533545.png (547.6 KB, 1600x900, 16:9, augustine.png)

219385  No.2230[Reply]

h-humour thread?

57 posts and 26 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.

82d735  No.7196


Hmm, I think there must be limits to this that cut both ways.

>Metaphysics cannot tell me about nature generally, but it can inform me about my nature

>I can reasonably assume that I'm not unique

>Therefore self-knowledge is the path to knowledge of others

Anyway it's a certainly interesting point, clearly some transformation occurred in the west 500 years ago that allowed us to cease gazing at our navels, or perhaps our culture was never so infatuated with it as we assume today.

82d735  No.7197

1215b4  No.7200

82d735  No.7203


That's the poorest Nietzsche joke I've ever chuckled to.

1215b4  No.7215


Wittgenstein was sort of a sperg I see

File: 4ba8fdbb4064520⋯.jpg (24.83 KB, 328x400, 41:50, montesquieu[1]_0.jpg)

f443c4  No.7213[Reply]

why was Montesquieu such a jackass?

of the French Revolution thinkers he was one of the worst.

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

219831  No.6465[Reply]

I just wanted you to know.

18 posts and 2 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.

2c3d69  No.7061

furthermore, modest living and a modicum of hedonism was all a man needed, now its a drive towards an eternal cult of MDMA.

2c3d69  No.7062


Atheism was a modernist mistake. Savages back then would have you skinned alive for thinking you were above your given tribe and the same goes for feminists too. Pure unadulterated ritual cannibalism. You should be so lucky we live in a capitalist, Democratic society to allow the filth of your kind to be proliferated throughout technology. Without it you're a societal liability.

1c059a  No.7063


You can't equate the psychic with the physical without proper evidence. Being able to monitor neural activity does not prove that the psychic originates in matter unless you can prove that neural activity and psychic activity are equal. Not merely correlated, but the same thing.

As it stands, our understanding of the physical world cannot explain the existence of consciousness.

c659ab  No.7206


>All men always believed in God with the same definition.

>Atheist comes in

>"You're all wrong because you use different terms"




6b9227  No.7210

I'm a Muslim born to a Southern Baptist family from Alabama. You're wrong.

File: e653575750e492b⋯.jpg (593 KB, 900x900, 1:1, Nietzsche1871.jpg)

File: 8fda1f760006b79⋯.jpg (218.4 KB, 776x1024, 97:128, gettyimages-537134857-1024….jpg)

File: 465f47b6fbb8e13⋯.jpg (243.91 KB, 643x1024, 643:1024, gettyimages-515181306-1024….jpg)

File: 4d8850aeb2656e2⋯.jpg (103.53 KB, 720x1175, 144:235, Nietzsche187b.jpg)

b86a9b  No.7183[Reply]

Post any rare pictures of Friedrich Nietzsche that you would like to share. Here are a few:

2865b6  No.7209

One of those few persons who look better with a mustache than without it.

File: 49eed776181aa3d⋯.png (43.58 KB, 550x287, 550:287, illusionism-free-will.png)

1f17be  No.7145[Reply]

1. Necessarily, if God foreknows that I will do X, then I will do X.

2. God foreknows that I will do X.

3. Necessarily, I will do X.

Is this accurate? because if it is, it's invalid. It would be valid if the consequent of premise 1 were "then necessarily I will do X," but why would it be? It's conceivable that were you not to do X, but instead Y, God's foreknowledge would simply have been different, such that Y would simply be the new X. Why is this not the case? Why do you have to do something simply because God knows you're going to do it? Why can't you just do whatever you want, freely, and God's foreknowledge not change -- but be -- accordingly? What could possess people that such a stupid line of thinking otherwise be so popular?.

8 posts omitted. Click reply to view.

aaa0fb  No.7186


wtf are you on about reddit-spacer?

4ee5dd  No.7187


I was probably tired that night

000000  No.7191

What about Gods free will though? He could choose to let you choose.

b966b7  No.7204


I just got into this argument with a Calvinist. I think premise 2 is the most suspect. You've implied subtly that God's form of knowing is like the human form of knowing. You've also ruled out the possibility that God chooses to be ignorant of certain things, which He would uniquely be able to do, since he is omnipotent.

You could live in one of many universes based on your hypothesis:

>1) Hard Determinism, God knows everything, free will is a fiction

>2) God would foreknow everything, but he chooses ignorance in order to maintain your free will.

>3) God's knowledge transcends the human understanding of knowledge, therefore there is no incompatibility.

>4) This is a form of Schrodinger's cat style thought experiments, but God can look inside the Schrodiner's cat experiment without collapsing the probability wave.

207e0e  No.7205

File: 63fe3f3c788b94f⋯.png (82.76 KB, 238x233, 238:233, 76d5d0957e5b080567f8fa3ad1….png)


That's simple.

God is outside time. Therefore everything that exist is in him in an "eternal present". There can be no past or future for God, who is perfect and can't have change. You do X because you determine yourself, then God knows this from all eternity because he sees everything in an instant (or else he is not perfect). Hope this answers you.

Now, how are we free ? Because we can become God image, which mean we can free ourself from this world. And are our actions free from determination from this world ? Yes, because God can act through us (and ultimately he is the one acting through the determinations of this world but that's another story) and in God we can be free from anything external to us (as saint Augustine said, God is more intimate to ourself than we are to ourself).

So, don't be so quick judging free will. Free will is the truth but there is no free will outside of God. Why ? As saint Gregory of Nyssa (a father of the Church) said, we can realise we are the image of God, and one of the attributes the make us the image of God is our free will. But without God acting acting being our self, we can't be free, because he is freedom, and he is the freedom in us.

Why is God free ? Because he have no determination, he is what he want and nothing stop his freedom of will.

Hope I'm clear.

File: dd01a853c7cd2fc⋯.gif (26.46 KB, 337x199, 337:199, choice-sign.gif)

a25942  No.7119[Reply]

What really a man head to?

3 posts omitted. Click reply to view.

94fc32  No.7130


>It is not the case that at the moment of making decisions I see the whole spectrum of possibilities, but rather irrevocably I choose the one that is the closest to my devotion, determined in turn by external factors.

But you have made a mistake, for it is by the external factors that you judge, but the act of judging itself is internal and within your own control. You do care that the beggar is actually a rich man, but it is within your power to not care, and this cannot be taken away. Further, we should not rest philosophy on science, but science must conform to sound philosophy. Science has no voice. To the extent it can speak, it can only speak of particular facts. It measured a certain activity in the brain at a certain time, it measured a certain signal in a certain nerve at a previous time. Beyond this science can say nothing, because science has no mechanism to justify saying more.

a165c2  No.7132


Once again you don't understand what free will is. Free will is not the power to know everything and make decisions on it. It is simply the power to act on your own decisions.

To your second point, what you are describing is a reflex. Your reflexes also come from your brain, just not a conscious part of it. You can train your reflexes to do what you want. It does not disprove free will at all. Reflexes don't overpower your free will, they predict it and act accordingly.

1156f1  No.7133

Both. Free will by the grace of God determines his ends

933224  No.7146

Determined by who? Determined by whose presumably free will? If by determinism you just mean that all things are a logical consequence of another, we have free will so long as "free" isn't defined as breaking the physical, consequential laws of the universe.

51a2f7  No.7201

>some metaphysical external force pushes people towards a certain "good" direction, a "maximum potential" that is the best self one can be

>people choose to ignore these "signs", wander from the path

>the longer one strays from the path, the further one distances themself from their maximum potential

>these signs become larger, more detrimental, more punishing the further one strays from it

>once the person makes choices to wander so far from the path, a cataclysmic life event occurs

>people can learn from this and work back to the "good" path towards their goal or not

>people who do are able to get back on the "good" path relatively quickly and with few (if any) true obstacles

>people who do not are permanently stuck outside of this good path and will face nothing but hardships for the rest of their lives

>many/most people balance bad and good to the point of never understanding their true goal, but never seeing cataclysm

>people generally "know" what they "should do" to stay on the path, but very few (if any) people ever truly reach that max potential

I don't believe in determinism in the sense of Greek Fates, but there is a given purpose. Free will does only harm. People know this and try to do what they can to cast it away in attempts to rid themselves of suffering and responsibility for the potential failures of their actions.

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 / abdl / caco / choroy / jp / komica / mde / miku / vietnam ]