/philosophy/ - Philosophy

This kinda questions would probably would probably get better answers from /fringe/. granted, it if where posted there you may get an increased chance of shoppers or word salady answers.

Sorry I meant to say shitposters.

>word salad

>default flag

>the wrong type of batteries

How am I supposed to shitpost if the OP is worse than anything I could come up with?

That's weird. If you realize that existence does not have an objective meaning, you should then realize that meaningfulness is subjective and so then you can ascribe any meaning that you desire to your life!

Covfefe

>>5178

why can't I hold all this meaning

Define 'meaning' and maybe we can have a discussion that isn't six people standing around facing away from each other, yelling into empty fields.

>>5072

Puberty.

I can't think of anyone of renown who has ever defended vanity.

If humanity is the struggle for permanence, then the goal of philosophy is to figure out how to serenely give up that struggle. Perhaps Siddhartha had some thoughts on this topic...?

Permanence would actually suck. Imagine that every mistake you made was eternal and ineluctable. Every time you hurt yourself, it was a permanent scar. Every time your hand slipped, permanent vandalism. And now all of a sudden you have some appreciation of impermanence.

>>5299

Which would you rather be, Siddhartha or Buddha?

Both achieved Nirvana, but only one lived on in the teachings they passed down to millions of followers.

>>5115

It's not vanity. After you're dead, there's no more pride. If it were about you, then you wouldn't care what happened to it after your lifetime.

It's security. Hope. The knowledge that while your life may be a fleeting moment in time, your legacy will love on.

>>5439

Fame is a cost, not a reward. Read your Epicurus.

>>5315

>Litterally all but 1 of the posts are by you OP, do you not know how IDs work?

It's a bug. Also 'literally' only has one 't' in it.

>>2409

The correct answer is whatever will result in killing the most ugly people, and sparing the best looking people. A human alive is not inherently better than a human dead, so you should do whatever will maximize the net value of the humans in question. Assuming they are strangers, the only metric available to you to determine their worth is their physical appearance.

>>2436

>If you do nothing doesn't that absolve you of responsibility since you've chosen not to be involved?

According to certain people, if you don't involve yourself on something, you're GUILTY

So for example, if a child is drowning nearby and you don't choose to save him you're GUILTY GUILTY GUILTY for leaving the child to die there

(Do remember that this post is just for reference on why this whole thought experiment can be created, and in my opinion it probably was created by some muggle.)

Whoever originally tied them to the tracks is ultimately responsible.

But, fun fact: everyone who let themselves end up tied to tracks fucked up. It's not a random act of god. They failed to secure their person against mad Snidely Whiplashes with sufficient enthusiasm, and are now paying the price. This breaks the symmetry between the 'kill' and 'let die' versions. The fat man did nothing wrong.

Whether you pull the lever or don't, Snidely Whiplash is guilty of murder, and you're not. Who you happen to save is purely down to personal taste. If they don't like it, they shouldn't have let themselves get tied to train tracks. Maybe their funeral attendees will learn better for next time.

However, as a private citizen, you will literally never see a trolley problem. Snidely Whiplash doesn't exist, nobody gets tied to train tracks, and even if they did you don't hang around manually-operable track levers. Not even metaphorically. The trolley problem is a problem for states.

E.g, do you execute murderers? If you don't, they may go and murder again. If you do, you might execute an innocent man. By the displacement theory you can lock them up until they're 35, but that's expensive. If you spent that on, say, blood drive advertisements instead, you might well save more lives than you lose in executed innocents. However, all of these options save different people. The distributions are dissimilar. Necessarily the state is saying they care more about one group than another.

And that's why getting the trolley problem right is important, but also why getting it right is irrelevant. States have never given the slightest shit about philosophy, so even if you work it out correctly and all agree, they're still going to do horrible corrupt state things instead.

>>5379

>Put infinity in an equation instead and it's valid

but that's wrong you fucking retard

infinity is just like apples. take a calculus class some time. infinity is only valid when applied from limits. and limits is not ordinary math

applying limit to apple as time approaches infinity, you will get rotten apples decay and death with a possibility for giving birth to more trees

sounds like an infinite series

anyways. I didn't read your post after that. don't want to be infected by stupid

>>5379

>Something that interacts exists

no. all things that exist maybe have interaction with something, but all things that interact doesn't mean they exist. unless you like to think that illusions exist

anything that interacts, means it's not self-justifying. lmfao do you even hear what you say

>it existing is equivalent to it not existing, which means it doesn't exist

wrong. you're trying to say there is a fallacy. oh look, an example of an illusion that interacts but doesn't exist

but it's not a fallacy. it's merely a paradox.

infinity transcends existence more like. there are an infinite attributes for infinity, and transcendence is one of them

>>5384

>take a calculus class some time

I have a degree in physics, genius.

I guess my professors just let me get away with not knowing the math...? I'm just that awesome, they couldn't bear to see me fail.

>applying limit to apple as time approaches infinity,

Actual apples are mathematical objects. They are not apples (as apples). As soon as it starts to rot, it's not as an apple anymore.

Sorry, I'll recalibrate for your retardation in future. I forgot not everyone can think clearly.

>unless you like to think that illusions exist

Of course illusions exist. A: something existed for you to perceive. B: the illusion exists as a thought in the mind. That's what an illusion is.

Your mind is cucked.

You have illusions about illusions, kek.

>infinity transcends existence more like. there are an infinite attributes for infinity, and transcendence is one of them

I experience that thing where contrary information actually bolsters my belief.

Well, information-intended-to-be-contrary. "Infinity transcends existence => infinity doesn't exist." Cool, let's discuss alien unicorns now. (You did a bad.)

Recalibration time.

Your illusion cuckery is something I'd do to someone whose mind I felt like crippling. It makes you stop acknowledging consciousness as its own thing. The illusion, existing only in the mind (you've heard that phrase before, surely) is said to not exist. This implies the mind doesn't exist. And now I've got you thinking your mind, the source of all thoughts, impulses, and instincts contrary to my will, doesn't exist and only fools believe in it. You take one of the most significant tools a human has and simply discard it. My mind gets to move into the power vacuum.

Someone who can think clearly only has to be handed the possibility that illusions are real in some sense, and they can work all this out (as a possibility) on their own. And then they'll realize it's true. But then if they could think clearly, the idea that illusions aren't real wouldn't have been able to take hold in their mind in the first place, being as it makes no sense.

You can see the consequences clearly in being unable to recognize existence for what it is. You think this is limited to purely academic topics? It wouldn't be such popular propaganda if that were so. Lots of things stop making sense...meaning, to maintain this illusion about illusions, you need to be handed how it's supposed to work by authorities. It won't make sense, but it will work, allowing the authorities to steal your trust in yourself and arrogate it to themselves.

>>5387

>>5386

Look at this legendary battle of the sagers. You don't even know what aspect OP meant to apply infinite to, but you still managed to create a math debate out of it.

>>5253

>claiming that empiricism and rationalism are opposed

They're not, they're united in dethroning God and replacing His epistemological role as truth-definer with human beings, whether through human reason or human perception. The logical end of this is Postmodernism, since when man is God, what he says goes.

>>5257

I was ready to say you were going to be the worst poster but then this post's stupidity seemed a bit intentional.

>>5260

>Voluntarism

opinion discarded

>>5260

>post's stupidity seemed a bit intentional.

That's my impression too.

Anyone who's still poisoned enough by postmodernism to believe the second-above post-modernism countersignalling should go read about what Al-Ghazali did to Islam, then read about Robert Grosseteste for comparison.

>>5263

>Al-Ghazali did to Islam

What'd he do? Seems legit to me

does googling oh god wtf ty for red pill Muslims are even moire ignorant that I had ever imagined, coming to this realization yet again I still think islam is great, before ghazali was it's golden period or rather only good period I guess

>>5250

don't put words in my mouth fuckface. I'm not talking about atheism. but I will say that faith is retarded, one should only have "faith" in logic

I will say though that everyone should be some sort of agnostic

>>5252

> but I will say that faith is retarded, one should only have "faith" in logic

You're a logotheist

>>5254

>Some theists include some outside rationale or even ignore the bible during atheistic argumentation, which makes arguments actually possible

That's not an argument on the grounds of Christianity. Interaction is still possible here, in fact know it can be meaningful.

>Emotional argument

You should probably learn what an emotion is

>Just because a particular position is not explained or filled completely yet, does not mean it is not true

You should also learn what an epistemology is

>>5255

yeah you can say that. I love neoplatonism. start with the greeks, that's all you need!

>>5254

>Can we all agree that this conversation has been a waste of time and will continue to be so?

No. Hume's guillotine was right and moral nihilism obtains. Game theory can rescue most of the prohibitions, however.

For morality to be real, it has to be objective. If it's objective, it has to follow the same rules as physics. It has to be local, and mereological nihilism obtains. Morality clearly doesn't apply to isolated electrons, and therefore it doesn't exist.

The difference between monkey 'morality' and game theory is definitely noticeable. We repeatedly see morality being used exactly as it is accused of being used - as a club. Specifically, to fool people into cooperating with defectors. E.g. just war theory restrains the genuinely just from making war, but does nothing against the genuinely unjust. The former don't need the rule, and the latter will never follow it.

The theory is highly relevant. Indeed that's probably why there's so much bullshit in the water.

>>3882

x is hard to make out, smells like nothing, has no texture, are all characteristics therefore secondary qualities

"lack of" is just another way of saying "is"

>>3883

This would be correct if the object we are defining did not actually have these characteristics. Since we are in this room and we are mapping everything in the room by their primary qualities, we are able to deduce what these objects are when the door is opened and our senses return; we are ignoring what we are directly perceiving but are instead referring to our sense data in order to understand that the characteristics of the table in the room (a colourless, texture-less, odourless object) is false and different to what it would be when the door to the room is opened. Therefore, the Secondary Qualities of the object in the room do not effect how you are perceiving the objects as you are referring to your Sense Data that you had obtained before you had entered the room.

Hitler is our hero, however I think it's hard to...

>>5240

What

>>3873

>no senses, a colourless, odourless, completely senseless room, there is nothing in there and you can not experience touch... yet you are standing in the room

Mere contradiction.

>not falling

No senses + sense not falling => contradiction.

>While you do not feel this knock you understand something is there as you can not move any further forward.

Not feeling it go further forward is exactly what knocking into something feels like in the micro. Another contradiction.

>Finally, satisfied that you know everything there is to know about the room with no senses

*snrk*

>>5161

>How can you deny religion without first presuming a definition for God?

By denying the definitions offered by religions. Or their vague assertions, if they lack a definition.

Suspending belief seems perfectly sufficient.

>>5230

Well then that's denying a specific religion (due to lack of coherency or something)

but one can't "deny" a proper definition that's delusional

you can invalidate a definition though.

>>5231

You can assert that it is merely a theoretical definition.

>>5233

literally everything is

The counterargument is Jordan Peterson. A fortiori if you don't have a love affair with truncating your reasoning once you find an answer you like. He's merely the most obvious and direct counterexample, there's been several nukes for busting the atheist bunker floating around the web for years now.

That said, JBP also shows that Christians are incredibly awful at being Christian. Turns out even Aquinas is fedora-tier nonsense. There's even noticeable fedora-ism in Augustine. Being shit at this is old, and it's always been fedora-on-fedora arguments.

Oh I already posted this in another thread, so chances are you already read it. Was gonna make it look real nice for later but whatever.

>>5167

LOL it's not very hot sorry to say

The one single only substantial objective phenomena

There is nothing truly objective, except

one single only substantial objective phenomena

It is simply that phenomena exists. Nothing else can be proven. This comes from cogito ergo sum being further broken down by it's critiques

It's not I think therefore I am, It's I think therefore SOMETHING IS, and that is all I can ever be sure of. one cannot be sure of anything else in the substantial objective sense.

If you want something hot, it's realizing that within the all encompassing substantially objective single phenomena, all that remains is subjective phenomena. Fortunately, subjective phenomena has objective mechanisms. The idea of objective mechanisms, at least for science, stems from the axiom of causality. This is the assumption of cause and effect. All of science is subjective to this assumption.

But consciousness, morality, and other subjective phenomena, also have their own objective mechanisms

I basically (think I) know everything, I should probably make a new thread l8r

>>5170

I had no particular understanding of the term in mind, I merely assumed pretty much what you've just said, that the proposition would be true depending on the individual. But notice that, in so far as the word "objective" is commonly used to describe something thought of as real, there being a consensus that something is true doesn't make it actually so. There might be a consensus among the patients in the lounge of some mental hospital that there's a literal elephant in the lounge with them, but that doesn't make it actually so, unless there be no other defined set of states of the world other than the set of the states of their own minds.

Also, although common language conflates the opposition between subjective and objective statements with the opposition between personal and impersonal statements e.g. between 'I think this is pretty' and 'This is a flower', that wasn't the original meaning of these words at all. They were originally pieces of philosophical jargon that got lost in common language.

>>5176

I perceived a slight ambiguity from your first paragraph, but I think it is legit

Yes that may be true, but a full understanding of the concepts means you can reconcile all the meanings and usages of these two terms. They definitely are very important. Along with the term logic (something that appears to be more objective than objectivity itself) these two terms may be the most important terms in philosophy, or at least in metaphysics.

Objective as an adjective is not necessarily the same as the noun objectivity. To say this is a flower, this claim is considered to be (more) objective. The more is implied, as in colloquial usage of these terms, they aren't used in the objective binary sense, but in the contextual sense.

I feel like I have more to say, maybe l8r

I think substantial and related words like substantive and substance are my new favorite words

essence is a buzzword though.

I have not yet considered the nuanced differences between essential and fundamental, possibly along with other similar terms

it probably doesn't matter tho LOL

If you've found truth is useless, then redefine it until it's useful again.

You want truth for something. Your desire for that thing is not negotiable. Define truth as the thing which gets you to that desire.

>>5052

It doesn't really matter and I'd rather get this meme out of my head.

>>5049

Morals are developed naturally in babies and continue developing into young adulthood.

Ethics are not natural but are "morals" according to a group, religion or philosophy.

Example:

>Moral

Knowing not to steal from others is a moral because we exhibit this position as babies. It's not taught but rather inherited behavior.

>Ethic

Marriage is between a man and a woman. While I agree, this is not a moral but an ethic because it must be learned.

Ethics and morals are important in philosophy, but the distinction between them isn't for the most part.

Both are the study of what one should do, and that is what the branch of philosophy known as "ethics" is concerned with. If you asked multiple random philosophy professors this question, most would probably say the difference between ethics and morals isn't a philosophically important distinction.

I would say that morals are conceptual, and ethics are how these morals can be put into practice. for example, you have code of ethics but no one says code of morals. thus, ethics are more like a set of rules than morals are.

morals come from morality (I mean logically, not etymologically). There's no equivalent for ethics, so it's safe to say that ethics come from morals, or they also come straight from morality

And then there's morale. hmm

Sounds like there isn't any clear distinction.

I'm off to go make one. Hope you like it! Sorry, that was a lie. I hope you hate it.

I dunno what's most emotionally resonant, so let's play a few tunes and see which one works.

1.

Legally, you do have something to hide. Estimates are 3-7 felonies a day, due to a bloated law code. In most cases they're not enforced, but if the government suddenly decides it doesn't like you, there's barrels of rope to hang you with.

2.

Bunch of rioters saying it's okay to punch nazis. Only, they get to decide who is a nazi or not.

How this plays out practically is, if they have your life on file, they find something to demonize that grabs you and not them, demonize it, and now you're a nazi.

3.

You do have something to hide. Nobody is perfect, but humans are such that we all have to pretend. If the government decides it doesn't like you, it drags your dirt into the light, but not their own, making it seem like you're particularly dirty.

4.

So look, basically with sufficiently low privacy, the government can just nail anyone it feels like nailing. Zero privacy is equivalent to jailing political prisoners and letting the king have the power of life and death. Historically, governments uniformly abuse their power.

No privacy takes away the fun games of min/maxing which requires the keeping of secrets.

You should read Discipline and Punish by Michel Foucault. In it, he describes the Panopticon, a kind of prison built upon the principle of permanent surveillance of the prisoners, and the effects it has on the psychology of the inmates. It should be a good starting point for what you are looking for.

Has everyone gone mad?

This is such a simple thing. If the government becomes an enemy of the people, it's only through their abuse of privacy that they are able to censor, inhibit or suppress dissent.

Has no one read 1984? Or ever heard of civil disobedience?

>>5155

>Has everyone gone mad?

No, just Slothful.

I am not op but I would have started a thread with ' I am God ask me anything' when I figured out how to make it not look like a shit post. I'll post here though

I know everything ask me anything

>>5131

What did Hannibal Barca say to his intimidated lieutenant before the Battle of Cannae?

>>5042

Your will is not stagnant, yes? Over the years, then, the nature of reality would change as your will does. If your will is static, and is not physically part of you, than what makes it yours?

How do you know that every other human you encounter isn't an intelligent observer of the universe the same of yourself? How do you know your ability to perceive and participate in reality is unique?

If reality exists before and after your temporary existence, than how is this universe explicitly tied to you or your will? What happens to your will when you die?

The answer to all of these questions, of course, is that there is nothing inherently unique or important about your individual existence and perspective in this universe. Your actions and their consequences are what define your significance in the universe, it is no one's birthright. Your claim is derived purely from the enjoyment the idea gives you, not any semblance of reflecting reality. It's a silly and quaint position discovered by every thinking​ man when they realize they can choose to view the nature of reality in any way they close. The novelty and pleasure of the idea will fade shortly and you will move on.

>>5135

What does this have to do with philosophy? He may have said somethings, or he may not have said anything at all. It was one or the other, and we can say this assuredly

>>5136

>Your will is not stagnant, yes?

Depends on how you perceive infinity

>Over the years, then, the nature of reality would change as your will does.

Of course, The "nature of reality" would be subjective

>If your will is static, and is not physically part of you, than what makes it yours?

Are you implying that we are physical beings? We very well could be nonphysical beings, just as willpower, motivation, ambition, etc, are nonphysical concepts and metaphors to correlate and provide a narrative for physical phenomena.

>How do you know that every other human you encounter isn't an intelligent observer of the universe the same of yourself? How do you know your ability to perceive and participate in reality is unique?

How do you know that everyone isn't the same person?

>If reality exists before and after your temporary existence, than how is this universe explicitly tied to you or your will?

How do you know we aren't eternal beings?

>What happens to your will when you die?

The mechanism of will's connection to being changes.

>The answer to all of these questions, of course, is that there is nothing inherently unique or important about your individual existence and perspective in this universe.

I can't hold all these logical fallacies

>Your actions and their consequences are what define your significance in the universe, it is no one's birthright.

True but irrelevant. Also, isn't it your birthright by definition? This might arguably be our only birthright actually. Well not really this is all still Post too long. Click here to view the full text.

I propose polysolipsism. I am the only consciousness in my whole universe. Coincidentally, there are other universes, and e.g. yours overlaps with mine.

Dying from old age is stupid. I'll die bungee jumping or skydiving or too much salvia or some other fucked up shit

>>5124

I would rather die like this if I could, or like Socrates and become a hero.

Old age, surrounded by a family who loved and appreciated me.

Working to be honest.

>>4879

>gather information from the news

kek

News is not for education.

Fact is your family members probably wasted their entire lives, not just the bits before they died. They reproduced for the sake of reproducing, which is done for the sake of having reproduced.

If they were anything other than complicated-looking bacteria they would have thought about what they were doing and changed their behaviour when their incentives changed.

For normies, thinking is a 'not even once' sort of thing.