/philosophy/ -Philosophy

>>6768

This is not philosophy

>>6768

Wait so is this the Amazing Banana's new persona?

>>6859

Pfffft. Don't make me laugh. There is no democracy but instead Edward Bernays style crowd control imposed on the inner desires of the people. The rich impose their will onto the people and they vote accordingly.

no, the question is really if they are qualitatively different. Both are made of interconnected particles, both react to incoming disturbances. So I don't see any difference. Do you?

did I just reply to my own post? How can I add further reply to a reply? It doesn't look like the most comfortable discussion engine...

>>7570

You'll have to elaborate further, what does two things being made of the same material have to do for them being qualitatively different or not? Further, you'd have to justify the "both react to incoming disturbances", what exactly do you mean?

ok I see the question became rather meaningless. So again I have to bring a bit of context. Originally I wondered about consciousness which is usually thought to be confined in a humans' heads. And since everything is to comprehended by comparison I decided to compare it with a toilet flush and didn't find any qualitative differeneces. By qualitative I mean something that would be completely absent in one of the considered object.

>>7573

If I might suggest so, we ought to follow the learned exampe of the Stranger from Elea and divide as we can along the real classes until we reach what we are interested in. Otherwise we should fall into the same trap, and place our statesman alongside the pig farmer. And that won't do, not at all for us.

So let's try to start from the top, at the highest level you can imagine, and we will divide each time until we reach our answer. You can choose if you'd like to approach first an attempt at consciousness, or if you'd like to locate the brain and toiler flusher in their appropriate places.

Can you back any of that up or is it cool to just spout off whatever we want without worry?

>>7564

Typical fallacious presumption of blind physicalised realism when regarding logic. Read up on G.E. Moore's concept of intuitionism before you moronically criticise logical ideas within the field of abstract aesthetic phenomenology on the basis of empirical inevidence. You can see the implicit contradiction there, and that you are entirely misunderstood you fucking kike.

Eh. For one to avoid the madness of krauts one must disguise.

The last one isn't. I don't remember where I saw it, but I too was bugged by the Kant portrait autism. And so was whoever set up that site tracking the portraits.

A-ha.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Friedrich_Heinrich_Jacobi_portrait.jpg

Anyway, for more on Kant's protraits:

https://users.manchester.edu/FacStaff/SSNaragon/Kant/Helps/Life/K-IconFrames.html

the 4head lol

It's the eighteenth century.

What are you expecting, a photograph?

Because of application.

That which isn't a part of reality can not operate with in it, nor should it serve a representative of it. Anything that doesn't apply to reality is pure fantasy, nor mater how "intuitive" it is.

>>7552

What are you talking about anon?

>>7551

I don't know, but I don't think these disjunctions are very useful anyways anymore. Perhaps you would be better served by dropping the system entirely?

>>7545

>2417 years since the death of Socrates

>still living the unexamined life

>>7546

Here I was sitting, unsatisfied with my non-affirmative negation, thinking "Who am I to object to that great thinker pythagorusiminides?" or whatever the fuck that faggot's name was, and then it hit me: Pfuckimitis presupposed the question "why," asked right now, implies the question or its implications would have to exist before something. We can ask any number of questions about the beginning of something and they wouldn't therefore magically exist before something by their mere utterance. "Why is there something rather than nothing?" therefore remains a perfectly valid -- and unanswered -- question.

>>7547

I am sorry for you anon. Perhaps one day you will come to be a philosopher.

>>7545

>"why is there something physical, rather than nothing

You do realize you're still same question. You just transitioned the question to a specific characteristic of existence. It's no different that asking "why is there something blue, rather than nothing?". My answer would still be the same. In total, you're asking "why does existence exist?"

>>7549

You're still asking the*

>>7459

>I was on a /leftypol/

>>7490

I never stated I enjoyed any minute of it but I have strong anticapitalist viewpoints. Everything else they disagreed with me on

Ayn Rand. As retarded as Objectivism is, it's at least one of the few positive contributions to philosophy in the 20th century. To her credit, she wasn't one of those female "philosophers" that only discussed political philosophy, particularly feminism. But yeah, women typically can't transcend gender and talk about anything out the terms of 'muh vagina'. The same also goes for black philosophers, and any minority that talks about race or sexuality too.

>>7516

I've only ever seen objectivism shit on, can you explain a bit more why you consider it a positive contribution to philosophy?

>>7517

I was using the term positive in the sense that Rand creates an ethical system from the ground up, which is different from saying that it is a "good" contribution.

I find Perennialism superior to Deism..they at least know they are all connected anyways. Except talmudic judaism. They worship satan. I admire the Voluntaryist attitude of Deism but it never makes any sort of connections Perennialists do. If everyone follows a universal order and uses that, like say in Pascals Wager that they reason and live as if God existed, but that's a very agnostic system that has too much basis in gross materialism. The entire scientific method is why we have child trannies existing

>>7493

Pantheist if you ask me...

>>7093

Libertarianism is just a extension of Jewish overreach, theft, is a natural Jewish impulse, whether it be rent money, usury, taxes or land that is not their own, the ideas of other countries (Machiavellianism being a prime example), and the ideas of Socialism (was presented in the middle ages before Marx, using guilds)

lul

>>7237

What is this garbage. You shouldn't be ruled by your libido and you shouldn't be physically unfit; just those two things (libido controlled, physically fit) makes it possible to get laid. The point is that you shouldn't construct yourself just to be attractive, unless a lot of what is attractive is just objectively good/better than the alternative (looking healthy because you're healthy, looking fit/athletic because you are, looking confident/assertive because you are, et cetera). A lot of what is attractive to women is just masculine and better than the alternative, despite the work required -- and we're men, so masculine things naturally interest us (unless you're damaged or have a complex surrounding it, such as trying to emotionally shut yourself off instead of just developing masculine emotions > motives?).

/pol/ may not be coming back so you may get your wish.

A most satisfying engagement.

Initial impressions. Both Peterson and Žižek are accomplished in their mutual field, and their differing specialties. Žižek is, however, legendary, and for good reason. Naturally, this was viewed as a bit of a David versus Goliath match up.

Peterson was on the hunt for some blood sport with the topics of Marxism and postmodernism, but was taken off guard by his opponent's stance. Žižek is indeed an oddball Marxist to debate. Kudos to Žižek for employing his status to keep the audience in check, emphasizing to them the worthy seriousness of the subject matter over any potential to fall into a circus act. Both sides kept the discussion fairly down to Earth without going into full geek out mode. Both approached this professionally, in a lively manner, and acquitted themselves admirably. The moderator's summation was succinct: it should have gone on for another three hours. We need another match up!

This wasn't really an alt-right versus alt-left rumble. If you come at it expecting a meme war you will be disappointed. Otherwise, I think you will find their debate to be educational, exciting, and (philosophically speaking) thoroughly entertaining.

I may have more comments to come. I want a re-watch with proper note taking this time around, and dig up a written transcript if possible. I think we need a "Peterson resources" link to the board guide as well. I'm (BO here) open to suggestions.

I think Peterson was too caught off guard for this to have been fruitful. It was interesting, but they were too constrained by time. It felt like it was over before they could even dig into anything deep. They should arrange a place where they can talk for an entire day, 6+ hours or so, with breaks in between. Otherwise it's just not going to go anywhere since both like to get side-tracked.

>>7250

I should say I'd like to see lengthier debates/talks in general, not just from those two. ~3 hours is just too short.

derp?

Most recent philosophically interesting event bump.

>Anything of substance

Sounds exactly right to me.

t.Autistic science men

>>4624

That's the poorest Nietzsche joke I've ever chuckled to.

>>2643

Wittgenstein was sort of a sperg I see

Would actually love to see a breakdown of that meme

>>7450

How do you figure quantum logic works with anything? Do you think it can be consistent with AI? (Also wats ur degree? )

>>7451

I'm not well versed in the quantum logic debate, but many-valued logic is supposed to work better for quantum, since it looks like truth value indeterminacy (also relevant in the debate on vagueness) has a possible place in quantum. I know AI stuff less, sorry to say (just not my area of focus). I have a master's in philosophy, bachelor's was also in philosophy.

>>7453

Do you have a reading list for analytic philosophy or philosophy in general I can read?

>>7454

Not specifically for AI/quantum logic, but if you are interested in some logic stuff (like the earlier-mentioned indicative, causal, and counterfactual conditionals) you can find some stuff on SEP (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy). When it comes to philosophy in general, it's not a bad idea to get some basic feel from a rough historical survey. At least know some basic Presocratics, Socrates/Plato/Aristotle, and the early moderns (Descartes to Kant). For analytic philosophy, area of interest will probably determine what things you'll want to prioritize reading, but a safe place to start analytic philosophy in general would be some of Frege's work ("Sense and Reference" would be ideal) and Russell's ("On Denoting" would be ideal) on descriptivism. I'd recommend reading those two articles at the very least.

>>7446

What is well-known isn't relevant, nor is the possibility that the material conditional makes sense in some other paradigm. You glossed over the point of the OP entirely, sorry to say: to rate my truth table. You shouldn't make assumptions about people's intentions that aren't implicit, then pretend like your commentary is relevant still.

>>6599

This is normal and fair, you should read older accounts on your own. Read Anthony Kenny's 4 part history of philosophy series and stop being a pseud

>>6599

You will read those guys in history of modern philosophy classes. Of course a class on metaphysics/epistemology will talk about the contemporary stuff, where else will they do that? That's why the contemporary stuff exists, to advance those fields, and that's why they get taught. Mind you I love the early moderns and I would love to go back to them for more epistemology/metaphysics in their style. But you will get taught contemporary stuff in those kinds of classes and you have to expect that from the start. Yes, this is how it is everywhere (in my experience). Do you know what topics you're studying?

>>6609

People make a lot of money and fame by peddling that sort of stuff to others like you and you think they're not telling you exactly what you want to hear?

>>7449

>That's why the contemporary stuff exists, to advance those fields, and that's why they get taught

But philosophy hasn't been advanced appreciably since it was murdered and usurped during the scientific revolution, so that can't be the reason it gets taught.

>>7457

This. The scientific method treats everything based on a gay mathematical construct