/philosophy/ - Philosophy

Op ear, my philosophy eh that I know nothin, so because I know this Im b3tt3r then u.

Why didn't scientists put meal worms on styrofoam faster instead of assuming it wasn't biodegradable?

http://news.stanford.edu/pr/2015/pr-worms-digest-plastics-092915.html

>>4216

"Herp therefore I derp."

-Discrete

zach here, thanks man

Good thread

wtf is traching.also youre retarded; this is an autisticly roundabout way of getting the opportunity to say "no u."

it's called satire

>>4277

>Satire

What's that taste like?

if a smoker said "don't smoke, it's bad for you"

and proceeded to smoke

you could call the smoker "a lying hypocrite"

but you'd only be half right

>>4277

was gonna say reverse psychology, but i guess satire works fine

>he doesn't believe dragons exist or existed

If not physical they surely exist in the collective consciousness of mankind for every culture has draconic myths.

Read Hegel, particularly his Phenomenology chapters on religion and mysticism, the Unhappy Consciousness.

>The most optimistic estimate in the literature claims that in a presidential election, an American voter could have as high as a 1 in 10 million chance of breaking a tie, but only if that voter lives in one of three or four “swing states,” and only if she votes for a major-party candidate (Edlin, Gelman, and Kaplan 2007). Thus, on both of these popular models, for most voters in most elections, voting for the purpose of trying to change the outcome is irrational. The expected costs exceed the expected benefits by many orders of magnitude.

This is why I've never bothered to vote and never will.

>>4334

Bad game theory.

Almost everyone is very similar to a whole load of other people. It's hard to have just one person decide not to vote - their whole voting bloc decides not to vote at once, because they all think alike.

That said I'd love to see fewer folk vote, to the point where my own voting bloc becomes decisive.

What voting proves epistemically speaking is not clear at all. Perhaps most votes are essentially cast at random and can be discarded, as they cancel out and don't reflect any deeper desire of the voter? In other words I can think of lots of ways their probability estimate is wrong. It's only right if every voter is basically random, meaning the vote carries no information at all, but this can't be right due to the law of large numbers. Some fractal error there.

>"To refute a philosophy is to exhibit the dialectical movement in its principle, and thus reduce it to a constituent member of a higher concrete form of the Idea."

No time for sophists.

>"Das Wahre ist das Ganze."

Okay...?

>"So ist vielmehr der Fall, daß das Volk, insosern mit diesem Worte ein besonderer Theil der Mitglieder eines Staats bezeichnet ist, den Theil ausdrückt, der nicht weiß was er will."

Good one, Plato.

>"Abstraktionen in der Wirklichkeit geltend machen, heißt Wirklichkeit zerstören."

>Assuming knowledge of reality.

Hegel is bible tier, you can interpret his retarded writings to support whatever ideology you already hold and what little of actual theory can be distilled out of his ramblings when you cut away all the bullshit falls apart when it's not hidden behind 20 tons of lyrical nonsense.

>>4285

>>4280

t. sore dualists

I tried to read him today. Busted my gut laughing at how autistic his writing was from the very first page of phenomenology." If you want to make a funny video, all you need to do is walk up to people with a camcorder and filming their wtf reaction faces when you recite a page from his encyclopedia of spiritual gibberish.

Apparently he believed he'd found proof of God too. I think I'll drop him from my to read list.

>>4317

read epictetus. then you can at least take solace in the fact that your problem is not a new one

>Discourses 2.19: Against those who embrace, philosophical opinions only in words

> The argument called the "ruling argument" appears to have been proposed from such principles as these: there is in fact a common contradiction between one another in these three positions, each two being in contradiction to the third. The propositions are, that everything past must of necessity be true; that an impossibility does not follow a possibility; and that thing is possible which neither is nor t at a t will be true. Diodorus observing this contradiction employed the probative force of the first two for the demonstration of this proposition, "That nothing is possible which is not true and never will be." Now another will hold these two: "That something is possible, which is neither true nor ever will be": and "That an impossibility does not follow a possibility," But he will not allow that everything which is past is necessarily true, as the followers of Cleanthes seem to think, and Antipater copiously defended them. But others maintain the other two propositions, "That a thing is possible which is neither true nor will he true": and "That everything which is past is necessarily true"; but then they will maintain that an impossibility can follow a possibility. But it is impossible to maintain these three propositions, because of their common contradiction.

> If then any man should ask me which of these propositions do I maintain? I will answer him that I do not know; but I have received this story, that Diodorus maintained one opinion, the followers of Panthoides, I think, and Cleanthes maintained another opinion, and those of Chrysippus a third. "What then is your opinion?" I was not made for this purpose, to examine the appearances that occur to me and to compare what others say and to form an opinion of my own on the thing. Therefore I differ not at all from the grammarian. "Who was Hector's father?" Priam. "Who were his brothers?" Alexander and Deiphobus. "Who was their mother?" Hecuba. I have heard this story. "From whom?" From Homer. And HellPost too long. Click here to view the full text.

>>4324

> The wind from Ilium to Ciconian shores

> Brought me.

> "Of things some are good, some are bad, and others are indifferent. The good then are the virtues and the things which partake of the virtues; the bad are the vices, and the things which partake of them; and the indifferent are the things which lie between the virtues and the vices, wealth, health, life, death, pleasure, pain." Whence do you know this? "Hellanicus says it in his Egyptian history"; for what difference does it make to say this, or to say that "Diogenes has it in his Ethic," or Chrysippus or Cleanthes? Have you then examined any of these things and formed an opinion of your own? Show how you are used to behave in a storm on shipboard? Do you remember this division, when the sail rattles and a man, who knows nothing of times and seasons, stands by you when you are screaming and says, "Tell me, I ask you by the Gods, what you were saying just now. Is it a vice to suffer shipwreck: does it participate in vice?" Will you not take up a stick and lay it on his head? What have we to do with you, man? we are perishing and you come to mock us? But if Caesar sent for you to answer a charge, do you remember the distinction? If, when you are going in, pale and trembling, a person should come up to you and say, "Why do you tremble, man? what is the matter about which you are engaged? Does Caesar who sits within give virtue and vice to those who go in to him?" You reply, "Why do you also mock me and add to my present sorrows?" Still tell me, philosopher, tell me why you tremble? Is it not death of which you run the risk, or a prison, or pain of the body, or banishment, or disgrace? What else is there? Is there any vice or anything which partakes of vice? What then did you use to say of these things? "What have you to do with me, man? my own evils are enough for me." And you say right. Your own evils are enough for you, your baseness, your cowardice, your boasting which you showed when you sat in the school. Why did you decorate yourself with what belonged to others? Why did you call yourself a Stoic?

> Observe yourselves thus in your actions, and you Post too long. Click here to view the full text.

>>4325

>And now I am your teacher, and you are instructed in my school. And I have this purpose, to make you free from restraint, compulsion, hindrance, to make you free, prosperous, happy, looking to God in everything small and great. And you are here to learn and practice these things. Why, then, do you not finish the work, if you also have such a purpose as you ought to have, and if I, in addition to the purpose, also have such qualification as I ought to have? What is that which is wanting? When I see an artificer and material by him, I expect the work. Here, then, is the artificer, here the material; what is it that we want? Is not the thing, one that can be taught? It is. Is it not then in our power? The only thing of all that is in our power. Neither wealth is in our power, nor health, nor reputation, nor in a word anything else except the right use of appearances. This is by nature free from restraint, this alone is free from impediment. Why then do you not finish the work? Tell me the reason. For it is either through my fault that you do not finish it, or through your own fault, or through the nature of the thing. The thing itself is possible, and the only thing in our power. It remains then that the fault is either in me or in you, or, what is nearer the truth, in both. Well then, are you willing that we begin at last to bring such a purpose into this school, and to take no notice of the past? Let us only make a beginning. Trust to me, and you will see.

>>4326

fugg 4got sours http://www.constitution.org/rom/epicdisc2.htm

>This is because I have little idea how to APPLY the information and ideas being presented to me in my daily/weekly/yearly life.

These books are not engineering documents and aren't intended to be, even though their adherents normally present them as such. It's some sort of trick for making monkeys sit up and listen; I can't be arsed to figure out which one.

What you're supposed to do is, having said, 'lolwut so deep' is go ask a living practitioner about the specifics. Most people can't rationally plan their actions though, so what you really have to do is go watch them and copy them, which is not only possible, but automatic if you're nearby and don't consider them outgroup.

Wattshitposter pls go.

Nice bald assertions there anon.

Aquinas was full of shit and so are you. Plz into unknown unknowns and/or humility.

Have you ever heard of this little thing called "Existentialism"?

What are you referring to, and why should philosophy help with it at all?

>>4312

I love everything this guy writes.

What do you mean?

>>4278

> I have seen little discussion of it

have you looked inside a philosophy book by any chance? fucking idiot

>science to be an important factor in considering things or philosophical tenants

What?

Also that should be 'tenets' not apartment residents.

Should I say science isn't an important factor for considering things? What's this about things -or- philosophy's tenets?

>study of reality

Oh good we're the field of everythingology now. Cool.

>>4294

What's Christian thought to you? A literal reading of the bible? Just the words Jesus supposedly said and nothing else? The spirit of the doctrine of love your neighbor?

>>4295

The word as law

Why would I try to reconcile some errors with other errors? Why am I maybe throwing in some irrelevant truths as side dishes?

>>4295

This question is kind of important!

>>4296

What?

0/10

>>4286

Probably not a lot. Shit thread though

>>4293

>0/10

>>3999

while i lack the facultis to tackle the majority of your questions at the moment, i can at least illuminate a few.

>Should we chase it and try to live our lives with always pleasure, or try to keep away from it as much as possible?

we toil so that we may have leisure, which is to say that we should have leisure in our life, but not banal, sensuous hedonism. the best leisure is the leisure of the best.

i know thats not well thought out but its a starting point.

>>4000

You'd make a fine interlocutor to our dear friend Socrates.

>What is pleasure?

The state you are temporarily in when you meet a want or need.

However this also amounts to boredom as your need has been met and you no longer have the driving force of want/need.

In other words, you are constantly deprived and in pain, pleasure temporally makes you stop suffering; however this is felt by a person as a state of normalcy.

Pleasure is the void left when you eliminate pain. And it feels just like that, a void.

>Why and how do we feel it(I'm also looking for biological answers here if you guys can provide)?

I think you mean neurological, as in dope; though i'm not experienced enough to elaborate.

But philosophically we feel it due to the meeting of our inborn natural impulses (however perverted from nature they may be)

>And when we feel it, why do we want it to last forever?

Because otherwise we are in agonizing pain.

>Should we chase it and try to live our lives with always pleasure, or try to keep away from it as much as possible?

This I do not know.

Up to you really.

>How does hedonism affect a man?

I makes him bored.

Hedonism is actually the proposition that a man's sensations are sufficient to figure out what's good or not. It's not what a newspaper calls hedonism.

The simplest form is when what feels good is in fact good, and what feels bad is in fact bad, so...

>>4261

>>How does hedonism affect a man?

>

>I makes him bored.

Newspaper hedonism makes you bored, which feels bad, so newspaper hedonism is bad, according to philosophical hedonism.

Hedonism doesn't have to be this simple, though. (Newspaper hedonism is bad regardless.) There are various kinds of pleasure. Some are more satisfying than others, giving hedonists a hierarchy of positive sensations. It's not hard to unify hedonism and virtue ethics, for example.

>A and B theories of time

>people still unable to accept the truth of time as such as merely the negativity of the totality of space over and against itself

>>4156

Cool, thanks. Another 8channer put forth his own theory and he got me excited to read him in the end. Have you guys read him? What do you think his key ideas are?

If you're into paradoxes and radical subjective individualism, there's a lot you can gain from reading K. Having read a little bit of Hegel's Phenomenology of Spirit, you can view Kierkegaard's conception of individualism as an inversion of Hegel's socialized reason (insofar as his project describes the structure of being as rational).

He hated the public as he felt that it ultimately devalued the individual.

>>4157

I've read Two Ages and Fear and Trembling for a 19th Century Philosophy class. I'm getting to Either/Or this summer.

His key ideas deal with paradox, irony and the tension between faith and reason. He looked up to Socrates and Jesus Christ (JC for obvious reason) as he believed both were authentic ironists. Socrates admits he knows nothing while being the wisest man of Athens. God, an omnipotent and transcendent being, incarnates as a finite man, Jesus Christ, voluntarily sacrificing Himself to save humanity.

>>4155

He's a shitty Nietzsche basically.

>>4223

>Existentialist

>Kierkegaard is just like Nietzsche but worse

>Nietzsche is an existentialist not a nihilist meme

You cannot understand what you are reading.

Read Heraclitus.