/philosophy/ - Philosophy

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.

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.

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

>>6537

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

>>6156

No. Read Stirner.

t. egoist anarchist

>>6539

Yes, and you need wealth and reputation to help your children pass their genes in the future by using them.

>>6547

>stirnerism as anything but consistent nihilism

Lol

>>6396

>implying the workers didn't build that with their labour

Lumpenprole detected

>>6408

>He has got a degree so I am not allowed to question him though

>appeal to authority

>defeatism

>>6416

Evolution is a self-defeating nonsensical Jewish concept

>>6560

faggot

>>>/pol/11638728

>>>/pol/11638732

>>6454

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.

>>6320

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.

Race exists and globalists do, but religion is bullshit.

>>6449

Sam Harris locked his ass in the Vancouver debate

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

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.

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

>>6512

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.

>>5401

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

Anarchist believes government propaganda. Wew lad.

http://nakamotoinstitute.org/shelling-out/

>>5401

>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.

>>5402

>I don't remember how it works

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

Read the links.

>>5406

>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?

>>5407

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.

>>5165

Mandom

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.

Being is specific, entity is general.

Who ever makes the claim first has to defend it, it's fairly simple. It falls on the person who starts it because he must uphold that he is correct, in response to being told he isn't.

Of course this is just a tool or possibility in an argument. Proof of burden can fall onto the person denying the claim by continuing to prove evidence to the contrary, there is nothing that defines proof of burden as being a rule.

It would be very disruptive to any field of inquiry and to society if people could make wild claims without accountability. Imagine being accused of murder, there would have to be an investigation not because of any evidence that you were guilty but simply because the accusation.

If the burden of proof lay upon the defendant then any claim would be have to be assumed as valid until it was proven otherwise.

>>6502

>>6503

But what if, for example, I claim something first, but it's a negative claim.

For example:

People can't think of perfect things in their heads (a perfectly round circle/sphere, for example)

Since it's a negative claim, wouldn't it be harder to prove than the reverse (positive claim of the same statement)?

Thanks for being patient with my autism, I'm just starting the presocratics

>>6504

>Since it's a negative claim, wouldn't it be harder to prove than the reverse (positive claim of the same statement)?

Define positive.

>>6505

>People CAN'T think of perfect things in their heads (a perfectly round circle/sphere, for example)

Negative claim

>People CAN think of perfect things in their heads (a perfectly round circle/sphere, for example)

Positive claim

I hope this clears it up. Wouldn't the negative be harder to prove?

>>6447

>>6475

>I see I was almost forced to admit the inadequacies of my argument but you named the jew so back to /pol/ with you.

>>6476

>>6474

>>6472

Ethno anarchism gang assemble.

>>6475

>>6473

>>6447

Shut up and die.

>>6483

Shine

>>6434

>commie

>but he uses le kikes meme xD

I'm unimpressed.

>That photo

>Linking RedditMatter2525

Meh. 4/10. Try harder next time.

>>930

No, if you want to be cynical then it teaches you that there is nothing wrong with eating dog food, sleeping under a bridge and urinating on dickheads.

IT CAN TEACH YOU TOO BUMP

>>5678

is bumping a thread that was approaching death a moral action?

>>5680

Impressive

>>918

It'll show you how you know that you can know nothing. Knowing of all form will be reduced to arbitrary differentiations of consciousness, simultaneously integrating them as affectively harmonic modalities. You will learn precisely what you are not, and in turn realize you are the nothing that is everything. Presently, eternally.

Our beliefs are ultimately supported by foundational axioms. Agrippa's Trilemma is only true insofar as it is impossible to explain why an axiom is true. Infinitism is only true in this inability. Coherentism is retarded in assuming inferences are more foundational if they are grouped together, which does nothing to explain away the epistemological vacuum. Foundationalism is true if and only if we accept the existence of the truth of axioms that, just because unexplainable, could still exist. I hold that either the truth of axioms exist, or there simply is no such thing as knowledge. But the very possibility that the former is true is enough reason to pursue it. Infinitism is also retarded and might as well just be an admission that there is no knowledge either.

Infinitist claims may be epistemically justified by unconditional probabilistic regress, so no foundation needs to be assumed.

>>6452

Only when women do it.

>>3260

https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/7DmA3yWwa6AT5jFXt/zombies-redacted

>>3260

No. The entire multiverse is one large interconnected system. So it's not so much that "I am the multiverse" as much as "the idea of a separate individual was factually incorrect to begin with and a bad assumption".

Next.

>>6253

>factually incorrect

Calling something "factual" doesn't make it "factual," you fucking idiot.

>Next.

You haven't said anything meaningful enough to warrant the arrogance necessary for the full stop at the end of a non-sentence. Kill yourself.

1. If solipsism were true, you wouldn't be subject to the world.

2. You are subject to the world.

3. Therefore, solipsism is false.

You're welcome. Now the absurdist idiot can come along and show us how validity doesn't real. Any honest contention should spend equal effort discerning how this is sound as not.

>>6429

>You are subject to the world.

How so?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_multiple_discoveries