/philosophy/ -Philosophy

it is respectable as the sole ancient philosophy that recognised the value of freedom

LOOK AT THIS A BUMP

>>1434

Didn't he attack the idea that the past was backward?

>>1468

Yeah he was gay and liked to use drugs occassionally. So what?

>using drugs

>being gay

KYS

>>5751

He might've been drugged and homo, but at least he wasn't a fucked up faggot like you.

It's not even wrong.

>ideology is one dimensional.

1/10 troll, made me reply.

>>4689

ADD TERRY A. DAVIS!

what is this image implying of people listed?

>>4689

>reading communists

>>5799

>choosing to stay stupid

>>5769

>moderates dies first

thank g-d for that

Are you talking about /pol/ or this board?

>>4791

of course he does, as iran is a threat to Israel, our greatest ally.

does /[philosophy]/ have anti-raid measures enabled when the moderation isnt available?

you may wish to do so. someone has been going around and wiping small boards. if you dont believe me, look at these boards.

>>>/liberty/

>>>/his/

>>>/svidya/

>>>/late/

Be vigilant, moderation, or this could be your fate. reminder that you can limit how many threads are made in an hour, as well as disable posting duplicates of images. you may wish to turn these features on during hours in which no moderation is available.

thankfully, beta.8archive.moe is back up, so the threads can theoretically be re-posted if anyone's autistic enough to do so

>>4815

To the extent possible, yes.

written "philosophy" is nothing but highly defined opinions.

Is FakeApp morally bad if you put celebrity faces over pornstars?

they're not, that's like saying "no offense, but your mother is a whore"

Emotion is the primal root of all human action. Action cannot come from pure logic alone. We require drive.

>>5759

>Emotion is the primal root of all human action.

I would argue that emotion is the primal root of all animal action (which humans also are, physically). The higher logic is what is actually Human.

>>5560

>>5562

From a cursory glance, /christian/ is a multi-denominational board, so bear in mind the approach to religion between one poster and the next can be as different as between a Jew and a Muslim. :^)

For example, Catholics have for centuries spent much effort intellectualizing their beliefs and even lean certain philosophical points heavily on classical Greek and Hellenistic schools. As an example, the entry from the Catholic encyclopedia on reason: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12673b.htm

Even newer denominations have complained about a "dumbing down" of beliefs, ie. churches focusing solely on emotional appeals to garner belief (https://ethanrenoe.com/2017/12/06/the-dumbing-down-of-christianity/). Note that in the comment section, however, not one mention is made of Thomas Aquinas or St. Augustine, two of the most influential Christian philosophers.

All in all, if you want your logical and philosophically literate conversation with a Christian, I'd wager you'd have a better discussion with a priest with a graduate degree rather than the average churchgoer or even the average evangelist, who do not have to extensively study the logic and philosophy of their beliefs, if at all.

>>5760

What drives men to think, but emotion?

>>5764

Lower animals also think due the drive of emotion. But their thinking is of a lower order.

For example, some dogs experience anxiety (aka. fear) during thunderstorms, fireworks, or other loud events, driving them to attempt to escape the situation. Humans who have intense phobias can perform similar actions, but humans have also created alternate methods for dealing with such situations due to their more extensive and deeper thinking about the root of their emotional response. One of these alternate methods is the taking of anxiolytic drugs created by other humans - drugs which are even now prescribed by vets to be given to anxious dogs, with similar sucessful emotion modification.

Please do not mistake these statements as me claiming that emotions are bad in humans because they come from a place shared by all physical creatures. Emotions are inspirational, but it is the way that Man thinks about them that makes the difference.

>>2999

I saw it. I am not such a fan of the idea. History and philosophy are too distinct imo, and the humanities are far too broad. I would prefer if they stayed separate but had a concurrent userbase.

https://8ch.net/philosophy/res/2634.html

Also, 3K, W00T!

>>3000

3K?

>>3001

Look @ my post #.

>>2916

that name alone is gonna bring a lot of people that I'm gonna get into heated debates with. not sure if that's a good or bad thing

>>2890

Quality

Structured

OPs

>and dank memes

>>5749

because not everyone is a hedonist anon, there is no such thing as a secular saint. Most people in wealthy countries aren't ascetic anyways. If I had to wager a guess to why people look at ascetics with awe, its because ascetics have amazing willpower and determination in order to cast aside the things that regular people look upon as superficial and take for granted.

>we mak stuf

Such Materialism.

>>5628

His rejection of Plato irritates me

>>5628

>didn't someone else come up with falsification first anyway?

Did someone do that first? I don't know.

Mainly I find him retarded because

>Marxism is unfalsifiable

I like his philosophy of science but I disagree with his political philosophy also George Soros.

>>5714

Zhuangzi my dude

Learn Chinese,

Christianity is dead. Quit performing CPR.

It's time to switch metaphors and begin salvage. There's some good wood in between the cancer masses. Get it out so it can be incorporated into Christianity's successor.

I've pondered this before. Enoch Powell comes to mind.

>>4992

one of my favorite philosophers

Look into Soren Kierkigard. He's a Christian Existentialist. That's probably about as close as you'll get afaik

>>4992

he was one of the greats predated Nietszche

>>1804

>New and original idea

>critiquing Schopenhauer

Bruv, I suggest you find a bigger target if you want your critique to actually have something new. Schopenhauer is widely ignored in academia precisely because he wasn't anything original in his own time.

>>1804

That's not ipso facto. You criticise and then suggest your own ideas, but the two aren't connected by necessity. Though there might be a nunace to the term "critique" I'm unaware of.

>>1805

Philosophical academia isn't necessarily as linear as that though. Even 'discarded' ideas can be reevaluated or made fruitful at any given time, provided it's done well enough.

I assume that the majority of copyright laws make exceptions to quotations in scholarly works, given that they are properly cited.

>>1798

CRITIZING BUMPS?! NOWAY!

>>1805

modern academia is full of "empowered wimmins" now. Schopenhauer would be a blow to their fragile egos.

>>5534

You seem to be very confused about the words you're using.

If the purpose of an action is that some intrinsically ideal circumstance obtains, then by definition the action was not nihilistic.

But maybe you're thinking of pragmatism.

Not a big fan of existentialism but I'm pretty sure it postulates that morality is subjective. So the question would not really be

< do "good people must do bad things sometimes"

but

> do good actions exist

idealism postulate that there are metaphysical forms of the our material reality, which are perfect and unaltered. Therefore material reality is the corruption of perfect metaphysical objects into the physical. At first I'd be tempted to say that it does apply. However if you look at this closely the question would be, I believe; >does morality exist as a physical object or metaphysical object?

If the former then it must be corrupted, as an physical object (assuming you are in the idealist mindset) by its material form.

If the latter then it cannot be corrupted so morality is objective but since people (who apply it) are material they cannot be the elite of moral because of their material corruption hence the can do bad thing even if the are good.

ok coming back to this very inactive thread, it seems I fall between Idealism and Compatiblism (strange as there is no flag on here for that, nor Determinism)

Si, But understanding the volume of it seems impossible. Not enough red pills.

Hell yeah it does check mah dubs

epistemic randomness as in unpredictability, sure

metaphysical randomnes as in acausal top jej eventuation independent of experience, no

metaphysical randomness posits an entity acting out of accordance with its identity

which violates the law of identity, and is therefore incoherent

even if the notion were both coherent poopies haha & instantiated, you could never know if and when

it happens, since any instance of metaphysical randomness is consistent with epistemic randomness

you could never rulel out epistemic randomness

also, there's nothing logically incoherent in positing metaphysical determinism

and there are deterministic xd interpretations of QM

so, you can't really argue for metaphysical randomness either conceptually or empirically

Randomness approximately exists the way the speed of light is approximately infinite for the purposes of Newtonian physics, and the way the size of atoms is approximately zero.

>>4288

No.

Actually the more you make random decisions the more it ends up the same result. Scale nullify randomness.

However there is far too many parameters we cannot take into account, so it might as well exist.