[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / animu / arepa / fast / leftpol / lewd / mai / sunny / vg ]

/philosophy/ - Philosophy

Start with the Greeks

Catalog   Archive

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

219831 No.6465[Reply]

I just wanted you to know.

37b38a No.6517


01aeba No.6544


>something isn't true if you were taught it as a kid

10/10 logic /r/atheism, Christcucks btfo

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.

e44bd7 No.6423

I should specify that under this model, "agnostic atheist" is either a belief in the (im)plausibility of God's existence, or it is a statement of feeling and therefore irrelevant.

2851dd No.6499

File: fffb18fb60607dd⋯.png (104.05 KB, 418x627, 2:3, ClipboardImage.png)


>that definition of 'gnostic'

9064a7 No.6510


The irony is you use projection or assumption to assert that agnosticism stems from feelings or beliefs. (That is a belief in and of itself)

The answer is simple: absolutism

For example, the absolutism of atheism is akin to the absolutism required to be religious.

Religious people are sure that there is a god just as they were sure that some women were witches. This is the same as atheists being absolutely sure that there is no deity based on what their own idea of what a deity is.

Of course the definition of what "god" is varies too. With that variable definition of what a deity is, you cannot have an unwavering absolute denial of every potential iteration.

Is it a collective consciousness that exists within the fabric of space-time?

Is it a humanoid figure?

Is it an entity capable of calculating the state of all matter in the universe and manipulating it as it wishes?

Is it the universe itself or the collection of all parallel universes together?

Is it something that can't be conceptualized due to it being beyond the current cognitive abilities of the human brain?

Imagination itself might not be what we currently think it is. If (for example) it's discovered that imagination is expressed by some sort of profound quantum "tether" to the universe then both imagining a deity and arguing against its existence is requisite to existence itself. Or that imagining a deity is its way of making its existence known.

--> One cannot be absolutely certain that things (that haven't been discovered or may be beyond human discovery) don't exist. Feelings aren't required.

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

File: e341ec85ca76d2c⋯.jpeg (692.86 KB, 1389x454, 1389:454, englightenment-hero-H.jpeg)

606fc5 No.5002[Reply]

Why do you dislike the enlightenment?

7 posts omitted. Click reply to view.

7c0c5e No.6535

It is gae

7c0c5e No.6536

Am I a retard or this entire thread contains the words of just 2 people and the first dude talked with himself?

48da36 No.6538

just what the fuck is going on in this thread??? 3 UIDs including mine wtf

852a39 No.6541


b5ff50 No.6542

The (((enlightenment))) was the end of nobility and chivalry.

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.
159 posts and 40 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.

33ae53 No.6507



>Ray Brassier

23e308 No.6508




Kono Diogenes da.

915d07 No.6524

1. Giovanni Gentile gave us fascism

2. Schopenhauer gave us the idea of the will to survive

3. Diogene gave us jizz and sleeping with dogs

ed87eb No.6532

Me, My partner, My neighbour.

187ef7 No.6540

File: 3a7b09b3daaf031⋯.jpg (127.34 KB, 504x470, 252:235, 3a7.jpg)

089282 No.6156[Reply]

Are atheism and nihilism mutually inclusive?

25 posts and 4 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.

a43cd2 No.6485


its the logical conclusion

ef7aed No.6526


If you add having a loving wife to that mix that'll be me. It's really weird to find someone that has almost the same purpose in life as me.

b72987 No.6533


What are you, are Darwinian? And why even care about your wealth and reputation when you die? It's not like you'll be worrying about that stuff when you're dead.

e08aa1 No.6537


Then shall we just breed like rabbits and give the children just enough food for all of them to be able to easily survive?

b72987 No.6539


By Darwinian, I meant the sole purpose of life is to pass on your genes by producing offspring.

File: 7ca75fc9bb67099⋯.jpg (31.9 KB, 640x421, 640:421, 7ca75fc9bb6709961bc70f6f0a….jpg)

File: 4ea768db464ac1a⋯.jpg (1.64 MB, 5244x2888, 69:38, 4ea768db464ac1a1eb760c46d9….jpg)

File: 7e32d820b6dcedb⋯.jpg (1.59 MB, 3434x4000, 1717:2000, 7e32d820b6dcedbf10a09abc1e….jpg)

fb4d90 No.5682[Reply]

The alt-right and /pol/ both have members who believe that god and the afterlife do not exist, but who also believe that public belief in such things is the only way for society to avoid falling into moral relativism and degeneracy.

Maybe there is a way to provide objective morality and purpose, I believe that the forbidden science promoted by the alt-right holds the key to this.

Ayn Rand was right about the law between the individuals within a tribe, but she refused to accept tribal differences, or even that there were tribes to begin with.

If we can combine Ethno-nationalism and the most useful bits of Objectivism, and use the empirical evidence supporting the existence of tribal differences, the need for tribal separation, etc. I feel like we would be on track to a new morality.

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

503e2d No.6341

>Freedom of religion causally promotes people abandoning religion

>Abandoning religion causes low birth rates, high divorce rates, more single moms, more government welfare, less happiness

I am nonreligious, but should religion be mandatory (no freedom of religion) to prevent total social collapse?

2cfb1d No.6348

>Should religion be mandatory (no freedom of religion) to prevent total social collapse?

No because that's literally impossible. Trying to prevent social collapse by appealing to cultism is like trying to beat a forest fire into submission with gasoline covered rag. Smh.

931fbb No.6350

File: 4c16497ae90c94f⋯.jpg (916.66 KB, 3840x2160, 16:9, 1407adb576b0cae8cde239adc8….jpg)


No, it doesn't work and the idea of lying to people for their own good is a slippery slope. I hate positive thinking which is a kind of self-deception, I want to see the world as it is and then improve myself. Existentialism or something like it should be the basis of how we perceive the world. Existentialism will give us freedom to evolve into the best people we can be, but religion prescribes only one way of doing it.

There's a podcast where Sam Harris tells to the apostate granddaughter of the guy who started the Westboro church. Her story is a good description of how religion will always cause good meaning people to do bad things because religion always has a tendency to hold old ways of thinking even when we have new knowledge that shows the old beliefs to be wrong and harmful.

3848a9 No.6358


I wasn't advocating for positive thinking I was advocating against societally manufactured white guilt which I believe is the main driving force behind alt-right and alt-left thinking.

Alt-right recruiters will use the anger felt by whites who feel singled out as objects of blame and offer them simple solutions in the form of vapid third-rate philosophies and allusions to greatness in the form of existential purpose.

It's a dead end is what I'm trying to say and to acknowledge this instead of trying to justify it is the way to go.

2fb1a7 No.6534


I think we could teach people the dangers of not breeding and even making a China-esque law that makes people have around 3 children trough lowering of the taxes and the annihilation of child support and government backing to single moms, along with the educational system encouraging women to be stay-at-home moms. This would make the population to grow like wildfire.

File: 5a595154beabfa4⋯.png (625.35 KB, 812x460, 203:115, 11-18-15-Phylliroe.png)

c5a837 No.6529[Reply]

Is monogamy natural?

I personally believe that the human body is programmed to be both monogamous and polygamous at the same time. The more sex you have with random women the more your body programs itself to become polygamous. And I think this might be why virgin-until-marriange couples have the lowest divorce rates.

91e9fd No.6530

There's nothing that dictates this by nature. Monogamy and polygamy are both sexual preferences even if they aren't counted as such. The reason marriage became a monogamous thing is because men realized instead of fighting for women it would just be better to fairly divide the women. There's nothing in relation to nature about it.

e49a34 No.6531


Men made marriage up for men and not for there significant other. lol

File: 1432064624599.jpg (97.79 KB, 879x593, 879:593, slave.jpg)

eefd88 No.1587[Reply]

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?

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

90a221 No.5942


>Slavery is self-imposed

You may have a point. Consider the demographic of cigarette use, lottery tickets, and so on. Those who spend the little bit of extra they get from work on comfort, addictive, and luxury goods, ensure that they will never escape their social class. The chains of slavery today is that of frivolous expenditures. I like to call them Slaves to the Ephemeral.

53532c No.6513

It says absolutely nothing about the concept of philosophy.

af9765 No.6522


Genetics and IQ play a role in the income of a person and if he or she has a child, chances are that the child is also going to be high IQ

319a3c No.6523


Living amongst fuckwits like >>1601 isn't slavery, it's a 80-90 year prison sentence.

09d76f No.6527

the more pertinent question is what it says about slavery

File: 48f1195cdc449c3⋯.png (7.98 MB, 4152x3060, 346:255, 9562227593.png)

1ffa42 No.6320[Reply]

I want your honest opinions on this. what do you think about it? what would you do to improve it? I'm looking for some really serious deep philosophical critical thinking discussion on this. I love the good conversations. lets go for it then.


15 posts and 6 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.
Post last edited at

8efba9 No.6463

File: c58cbe4dc4b42fa⋯.jpg (3.35 MB, 5007x3060, 1669:1020, disregard answers accuire ….jpg)


>ignores all constructive criticism from the thread

>makes a new one with almost the same false information.

>>what would you do to improve it?

>Try making it intelligible to people who use means of communication other than greentext stories and memes.

8efba9 No.6470



8efba9 No.6471


Anon, you're amazing paranoid, at least argue against the points made against your pictures, you're making everyone who understands the secret Saturn worship look bad, like me.

da297b No.6500


It is an incoherent mishmash of ideas with no through line but, rather, several arguments with no cohesive holistic argument.

>Trying to tie politics into religion should be it's own argument.

>Trying to tie politics into race should be it's own argument.

>Trying to tie religion into internet culture should be it's own argument.

>Symbology doesn't tie into any of previously mentioned topics.

>Neither does trying to tie gnosticism together with internet culture.

Although I must say, as a collage, it really is quite representative of out times, no?

Trying to find cohesive spirituality and meaning in a vapid, meaningless and oversaturated culture.

But there's already a cure for that, atleast for a start , pry your fat ass away from the computer and take a walk.

a57c9a No.6525

Race exists and globalists do, but religion is bullshit.

File: 41e582c00d088f4⋯.png (386.03 KB, 426x640, 213:320, C__Data_Users_DefApps_AppD….png)

bbf6d2 No.6442[Reply]

Any advices in life that was useful to you or that you still remember today? Would you share it in this thread, please ? Thank you

3 posts omitted. Click reply to view.

e7cb54 No.6460


Sam Harris locked his ass in the Vancouver debate

da95e5 No.6482

If you want to do something, you do it! - dad

a9f143 No.6512

Imagine a group of people jogging together. It is not a straight line but a cluster of joggers. There is a leader and the leader does exercises while jogging and the other joggers follow the leader.

The leader does every exercise for 10 seconds. The person that is last can not see the leader. The person who is last has to see what the person in front of them is doing to know which exercise is next. Same goes for the person in front of that person and so on...

When the leader starts a new exercise the person who is last has just begun the last exercise but they will still do it for the same amount of time, the new exercise still needs to reach them, which will be 10 seconds.

a9f143 No.6519

Not really a citation but if you analyze is you will get it

c9918c No.6521


Ah, yes I can see the moral now. In a pitiless, pointless cosmos, what's the point of jogging when you could be fucking? You can't get left behind if you're coupled to the group's toot-train, what an eye opening and brilliant parable.

File: 07ec7fa2bd1ee2a⋯.jpg (169.94 KB, 753x800, 753:800, maxstirn.jpg)

1a66fd No.6466[Reply]

Hello anons, fellow seeker of Life here.

It seems to me like we live in a paradoxical world, in which we have no say over the creation of our existence, no say over the determination of the biological factors which shape our minds, and no proper say over the finding of meaning and fulfilment. I've dabbled with existentialism, structuralism, spiritualism, rationalism, and many of the forms they take. I know there is much I don't understand, and much more I haven't looked at or pondered. I have come to a few conclusions about life, beauty, and truth, but I have the recurring feeling like many of those conclusions, much of the wisdom I hold is self-referential and circular. I believe that the fundamental "graph of life" is an upward oscillation of "good", and not an exponentiality though it may look like that from very close. I know that I wish to, atleast and like everyone else, "feel" free, but I also know that "feeling free" is not the same as "being free". I wish to be free and know it as best I can, not feel free and believe it to be real.

In short, I want to become what I am, and I wish for that to be divine. I know hybris is dangerous, but I also know that calling out hybris is not enough to guard you from it. I know I don't believe in determinism, but I believe that determinism is real if it is believed.

I wish, or believe to wish to satisfy my ego or "will to power", to ultimately ascend into apotheosis. Not immediately, but eventually (whenever that eventuality arises). Why do I wish to become one god, one among many? Because I believe it to be my birthright to know what "all this stuff" is about. I don't believe in the inherent cruelty of Life, because I know the opposite exists, namely the good, the true, and the beautiful.

I know I have to play the game to "win", and I have sort of a grasp on how to play it, namely "playing it true", but I don't know which game really to play, because I think most of the games one is presented with are more or less distractions, many of which, I feel like, were created by those who are playing "the real game".

Having recognized that there is "the real game", I call it Life proper, where do I find the table of players to play it with? In geopolitics? In my own personal relations? In Post too long. Click here to view the full text.

bf2a46 No.6467

I have no idea what you're saying but I'm going to hijack the thread to call out the anon on this board who told me to listen to "Great Idea of Philosophy" by Prof. Daniel N. Robinson.

I skipped to the last audio track and he's a theist. His last few sentences are moronic. What we need is a philosopher who is an atheist to record a 60 track CD for profit to counter this over hyped romantic who thinks humanity deserves pain, and who who hates skepticism.

9420be No.6468

Every time I come to this board, every few weeks or so, I come expecting that there will be no new threads or posts. Despite how dead it is, that still often isn't the case. But I still hold hopes for the future.

a59e01 No.6469

File: ea82613b68c51c9⋯.jpg (16.96 KB, 625x357, 625:357, DiU3rFoWsAAGElM.jpg)

File: ff0403ed479f224⋯.jpg (105.6 KB, 800x800, 1:1, DiVI-azV4AAsL54.jpg)


We're all gonna have to go to Reddit or Instagram soon. Wherever we go we have to outrun the boomers menace or we will lose IQ without convincing them of anything, which means Facebook and now Twitter (hello Donald) are no gos.

b1d0e6 No.6518

Many of that which you state is paradoxical and a contradiction to other words... you can not prove true nihilism/whateverthefuckyoubelieve

File: daaa6ad93b708db⋯.jpg (225.23 KB, 1536x877, 1536:877, god.jpg)

bd4d57 No.6302[Reply]

Humanity = God ?

11 posts omitted. Click reply to view.

9ff218 No.6330


Wanna a look at my cock?

bd4d57 No.6334


god would be the sum of all humans not one individual human

but one could argue that an individual human might be god to/of the cells of his particular body using my same logic

its basically like the difference between egoism and altruism: scale


that said im pretty sure ur scale of god might be broader and thats fine god is infinite scale does not confine him, yet humans are bound to the finite so before we ascend we need to unite on our current scale.

a54315 No.6367

Man created God in his own image.

23c0aa No.6381

File: c594865a8479a8f⋯.jpg (99.18 KB, 690x640, 69:64, This is for research purpo….jpg)

Muh New Ager interpretation of metaphysics. Everything is a though form, even though a god form wouldn't give you choice.

c90044 No.6516


File: 98e886863750c26⋯.jpg (80.58 KB, 677x650, 677:650, 1477547182764.jpg)

69e3a5 No.4736[Reply]

What's a will?

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

69e3a5 No.4753

My universe.

69e3a5 No.4758


No. You don't have the universe.

The universe is everyone's will though.

69e3a5 No.4769


b79ce0 No.6515

A will is that which an individual wants for x reason.

164246 No.6528

A biologic reaction to environment. Two things to remember, First memory is just biology, and Second there is nothing special about biology, it's just a complex physical and chemical reaction.

Proof: You can't will what you will you can only operate based on your will. Also it's impossible to have a non-deterministic mechanism made of determinate components which is what the mind would be if there was free will in our universe.

File: 5f7ddffd2bd40c7⋯.jpg (15.91 KB, 200x200, 1:1, b19f3a0c64f507566aa3d7218e….jpg)

9494c4 No.5165[Reply]


What does it mean to be yourself?

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

2115d9 No.5406


>Money traditionally acquires value because all citizens require it to pay the government.

Anarchist believes government propaganda. Wew lad.



>I meant Bitcoin

AND you're on about the labour theory of value. Please tell me you're a troll/shill and not genuinely that dumb.


>I don't remember how it works

That's okay, it was just some clay-footed authority speaking ex cathedra.

Read the links.

704c89 No.5407


>AND you're on about the labour theory of value

What the fuck do you mean? Did you misunderstand what I mean by "Bitcoins are numbers" or something?

2115d9 No.5408


It's called proof of work not proof of value, which is good, as value is not provable. If it was we wouldn't have to use money to measure it. Bitcoin? Pff, Sisyphus dollar. As if all the worthless altcoins weren't also 'backed' by complex math.

5d5a66 No.5442



6109ec No.6514

It may not be subjective.

You also may not ever truly be yourself.

Understanding the biological body you reside in is not you is a start.

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 / animu / arepa / fast / leftpol / lewd / mai / sunny / vg ]