[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / random / ausneets / cyber / fit / kpop / pen / random / tingles / wtp ][Options][ watchlist ]

/philosophy/ - Philosophy

Start with the Greeks

Catalog  Archive

You can now write text to your AI-generated image at https://aiproto.com It is currently free to use for Proto members.

Name
Email
Subject
REC

0:00

Comment *
File*
Select/drop/paste files here
Password (Randomized for file and post deletion; you may also set your own.)
Archive
Flag*
* = required field[▶Show post options & limits]
Confused? See the FAQ.
Expand all images

[ Literature ] [ E-books ] [ Politics ] [ Science ] [ Religion ]

File (hide): 27448de4567b8c1⋯.png (65.05 KB,2455x1271,2455:1271,invention-process.png) (h) (u)

[–]

18f2eb No.7348 [Open thread][Watch Thread][Show All Posts]

hroughout the vast majority of history, as a species we have simply existed like other animals. Eat, breed, survive. Norma. Then came religion and philosophy, which dictated how to live. It regulated social relations and explained the unexplained, but it was still about survival.

However, somewhere at the end of the Middle Ages a different approach to improvement began to emerge in Western Europe. Not to survive, but to improve, to check. Change for the sake of change, not necessarily. This new way of thinking developed slowly and exploded with all its might in the 19th century. Eccentric people, inventors, crazy people discovering something became "pop stars". Inventing and discovering became fashionable. This lasted until the middle of the 20th century and became commonplace.

In my opinion, inventiveness is not fashionable nowadays but only desirable to satisfy consumers, so in part we return to thinking from before this revolution only at a different level. We expect that there will be inventions, but the people who design them are not famous, and these are just another anonymous work that we do not worship but demand.

Admittedly, there are universities, pop culture productions promoting slogans: "all the time forward", "don't give up", "it's up to you", "you make your way", but how many people listen to them?

There is no longer such pressure on these slogans and I am afraid that we are entering another period of stagnation, so much so that at a higher level of development, which in turn is more difficult to maintain in the case of "misfortune".

What do you think about the present imperative of the progress that our civilization has made. Why was it possible to create it? What do you see its origins in? Is it really burning itself out or has it just changed its form? And if not, how far will we go with the fumes?

Or do you think that it is a feature of our species and we were condemned to technical development?

____________________________
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.


File (hide): cc3ae79352a8782⋯.jpg (2.17 MB,2481x3289,2481:3289,152835690119.jpg) (h) (u)

[–]

95e8d8 No.7296 [Open thread]>>7300 >>7323 [Watch Thread][Show All Posts]

I'm just a kid who thinks, I don't know a whole lot.

I can do whatever I want, though I see no reason to.

Why should I attempt to do anything? I will die and so will everything else living. There no meaning, I can assign meaning but that subjective meaning will mean nothing in the end. Don't we do things to get to the end of the task? If the end of the task will be the same no matter the actions done to get there, why not kill myself?

____________________________
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

6f1adc No.7300>>7301

>>7296 (OP)

>Why should I attempt to do anything?

Are you trying to be convinced otherwise? Why? Is that not telling that you secretly want to do something, but seem to think you need more justification for it? If nothing matters then you don't need any justification.

>I see no reason to

Then you see reason to do nothing. Why do nothing?

Why haven't you killed yourself?

>Don't we do things to get to the end of the task?

We also do a lot of irrational things.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

95e8d8 No.7301>>7302

>>7300

I asked people and myself, why they/me hadn't killed them/myself? I don't think it needs a reason, we didn't choose a reason to be alive, do we need a reason to not be?

Killing myself is equally as right as doing anything else.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

6f1adc No.7302

>>7301

So why haven't you? Don't want to?

If you truly believe nothing matters then you wouldn't ask why you should attempt to do anything. You already have the answer.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

58256f No.7323

>>7296 (OP)

Have you read Camus? Only the beginning of the Myth of Sisyphus is needed if you're lazy, it might help. Also we do not do things to get to the end of the task, at least not always. Be careful, that is an easy attack vector for your argument. Also the inevitability of death is not necessarily related to meaning and actions. Your argument could be clearer in that respect.

What if everything is different? There is no same, two things cannot be the same or otherwise they would be one. What if the only constant is change? Change and difference overriding all things in to the ultimate un-understanding. Then even two tasks in their similarity of being and outcome could never be the same, in meaning or in any sense. Can anything be meaningless at all? Maybe to prescribe meaninglessness you must prescribe meaning.

Just some thoughts.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.



[–]

7cea04 No.7315 [Open thread]>>7316 [Watch Thread][Show All Posts]

Is this philosophically sadistic autistic sjw war porn something you fine intellectual folks might be into?

Give me ur take on this

Search YouTube for LSDP tv

Or click the link below

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCbBi9Yz3NlKerSD2_sBtp4g

____________________________
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

309042 No.7316>>7319

>>7315 (OP)

>youtube

All I'm seeing is a fairly random collection of vids, without an apparent overarching theme, without any descriptions. "temporary home for LSDP.tv." LSDP is obviously an acronym. What does it stand for? Who are they? What are they trying to do?

>sadistic

>autistic

>sjw

>war porn

There does appear to be some figurative "war porn," but nothing special. Nothing to motivate one to watch anything. Could you give some background and description beyond basic imageboard memespeak? Taken together, your adjectivals scream "waste of time," "random failed youtuber," and "do not click."

Help us out a little here.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

7cea04 No.7319

>>7316

OooOoOAAAAWWLAlala ARNT WE BEING SPECIAL HMM have u tryed watching the whole thing on a LSD/SROOMS/after a DMT hit hmm? I'm not guna spoil it for ya just get lose my niggas let the autizm flow through you it's sexy time folks enable me to go deeper

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

cd291d No.7321>>7322

youre mom gey

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

7cea04 No.7322

>>7321

Wow there bud u just simmer down there this is an intelligent sophisticated board Shure there's cp and gore next door but u keep it nice here buds....we're all aboot that neron n synapses fireing off n shit around here boy...

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.



File (hide): a1c95dae314b3f0⋯.gif (10.34 KB,72x72,1:1,tnstellate.gif) (h) (u)

[–]

9f3cc7 No.7276 [Open thread][Watch Thread][Show All Posts]

Proclus' Elements of Theology:

Proposition 11. All that exists proceeds from a single first cause.

For otherwise all things are uncaused; or else the sum of existence is limited, and there is a circuit of causation within the sum; or else there will be regress to infinity, cause lying behind cause, so that the positing of prior causes will never cease. But if all things were uncaused, there would be no sequence of primary and secondary, perfecting and perfected, regulative and regulated, generative and generated, active and passive, and all things would be unknowable. For the task of science is the recognition of causes, and only when we recognize the causes of things do we say that we know them.

And if causes transmit themselves in a circuit, the same things will at once prior and consequent; that is, since every productive causes is superior to its product (prop. 7), each will be at once more efficient than the rest and less efficient. (It is indifferent wether we make the connexion of cause and effect and derive the one from the other through a greater or a less number of intermediate causes; for the cause of all these intermediaries will be superior to all of them, and the greater their number, the greater the efficency of that cause.)

And if the accumulation of causes may be continued to infinity, cause behind cause for ever, thus again all things will be unknowable. For nothing infinite can be apprehended; and the causes being unknown, there can be knowledge of their consequents. Since, then, things cannot be uncaused, and cause is not convertible with effect, and infinite regress is excluded, it remains that there is a first cause of all existing things, whence they severally proceed as branches from a root, some near to it and others more remote, For that there is not more than once such first principle has already been esablished, inasmuch as the subsistence of any manifold is posterior to the One (prop.5).

____________________________
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

06c9d1 No.7280

typo:

>there can be knowledge of their consequents.

there can be no knowledge of their consequents.*

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

3e5cbc No.7281

typos:

>For that there is not more than once such first principle has already been esablished, inasmuch as the subsistence of any manifold is posterior to the One (prop.5).

For that there is not more than one such first principle has already been esablished, inasmuch as the subsistence of any manifold is posterior to the One (prop.5).

>And if causes transmit themselves in a circuit, the same things will at once prior and consequent;

And if causes transmit themselves in a circuit, the same things will be at once prior and consequent;

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

3e5cbc No.7282

mods should probably delete this thread

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

86e084 No.7283

I'm not certain what I say is correct(I haven't read Proclus), but it might be of some help to you.

Proclus seems to be saying either all things are uncaused, there is a circular chain of causation, or there is an infinite chain backwards. He rejects the first by pointing out causes do exist, and also notes it would make scientific knowledge impossible(and we certainly do have scientific knowledge, so this can't be the case).

He rejects the second, by pointing out what produces is superior to what is produced, but if there were a circle of causes, then what produces would be both more and less than what it produces, and what is produces would be both more and less than what it is produced by. This cannot be, so we must reject a circle of causes as well.

He rejects the third by pointing out it also makes knowledge impossible. It might be argued here that it would only make certain knowledge impossible. For example, if we have a chain of causes A->B->C->D->E, then we might say "We know the causes of E, D, therefore we know E, even though we do not know D because C is unknowable". Proclus seems to reject such an argument. He seems to be saying "You say you know E because you know the cause D, but I ask you for anything about that cause, and you must answer, if you have knowledge, about the causes of D, C. At least, C cannot be excluded from the answer. But you say you cannot know C, and if you cannot know C, how can you know D, when D depends on C for explanation? You cannot."

It would be like me saying "I know that the power button on my phone turns it on and off" without knowing anything about electricity or circuitry or phone design etc. I do not know that the power button is what turns it on unless I know the cause of its turning on, and while that cause is the power button, if I say I know nothing of the power button, I certainly cannot say I know it is responsible for turning my phone on.

Now that Proclus has rejected all these alternatives, he can reaffirm what he has earlier built the basis for: That all things proceed from a single first cause.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

a42b3b No.7313

It occurs to me that the question of what caused the infinite regress of causes is on par with argument who made God, at first glance. But is seems to me to still be more plausible that an omnipotent being could survive this sort of boot strap fallacy. The refutation that you botched in copy-paste and that I don't feel like mentally piecing back together, is probably founded in an infinite regress of causes being equivalent to reality creating itself ad infinitum. No matter how infinite the list of causes, that just isn't possible.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.



File (hide): a1c95dae314b3f0⋯.gif (10.34 KB,72x72,1:1,tnstellate.gif) (h) (u)

[–]

1ee8d8 No.7275 [Open thread][Watch Thread][Show All Posts]

Proclus' Elements of Theology:

Proposition 11. All that exists proceeds from a single first cause.

For otherwise all things are uncaused; or else the sum of existence is limited, and there is a circuit of causation within the sum; or else there will be regress to infinity, cause lying behind cause, so that the positing of prior causes will never cease. But if all things were uncaused, there would be no sequence of primary and secondary, perfecting and perfected, regulative and regulated, generative and generated, active and passive, and all things would be unknowable. For the task of science is the recognition of causes, and only when we recognize the causes of things do we say that we know them.

And if causes transmit themselves in a circuit, the same things will at once prior and consequent; that is, since every productive causes is superior to its product (prop. 7), each will be at once more efficient than the rest and less efficient. (It is indifferent wether we make the connexion of cause and effect and derive the one from the other through a greater or a less number of intermediate causes; for the cause of all these intermediaries will be superior to all of them, and the greater their number, the greater the efficency of that cause.)

And if the accumulation of causes may be continued to infinity, cause behind cause for ever, thus again all things will be unknowable. For nothing infinite can be apprehended; and the causes being unknown, there can be knowledge of their consequents. Since, then, things cannot be uncaused, and cause is not convertible with effect, and infinite regress is excluded, it remains that there is a first cause of all existing things, whence they severally proceed as branches from a root, some near to it and others more remote, For that there is not more than once such first principle has already been esablished, inasmuch as the subsistence of any manifold is posterior to the One (prop.5).

____________________________
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

1ee8d8 No.7278

ignore thread, mods plz delete this one, has typos.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

776aa5 No.7284

"Threads aren't started - they're restarted. Including your own. It is one of the hardest things to accept, especially after the seventh respamming hasn't quite slipped passed the mods." --Nobody. But so a certain scifi writer might have said had he lived long enough. RIP M.C.

Thread locked and auto-saged for philosophical shits and giggles.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.



File (hide): 2302a4dc006026e⋯.jpg (93.48 KB,843x800,843:800,1555553055117.jpg) (h) (u)

[–]

fcd662 No.7252 [Open thread]>>7269 [Watch Thread][Show All Posts]

For a long time, I have been bothered by what seemed to be either willful ignorance or complete lack of understanding whenever I present an argument in opposition to somebody. My thought was that the person either submitted to dissonance to maintain their world view, ignored my point completely because they felt it was a personal attack, or simply lacked the capacity to understand a more intellectually rigorous refutation.

The thought has just occurred to me, however, that it could be a result of the way in which we process information. Are we fundamentally unable to communicate in a truthful manner?

2 posts omitted. Click [Open thread] to view. ____________________________
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

074f2b No.7262>>7264 >>7268 >>7269

File (hide): 6ae6b6edd8f0d63⋯.png (609.97 KB,1544x2372,386:593,Four Stages.png) (h) (u)

>>7259

Any given person possesses an internal frame of reference through which they process interactions with the outside world. This frame of reference is constructed through a combination of factors including genetic predispositions, social conditioning at several layers (family, peers, community), and anecdotal experience/observations.

When two people meet and engage in conversation it would seem that the outcome is predictable by the degree to which their frames of reference overlap.

A complete lack of overlap will result in outright rejection and conflict between the two, producing nothing of substance. (Punch a Nazi, deplatforming of 'right wing' forums of discussion)

A high amount of overlap will result in parroting and reinforcement of shared beliefs. (feminists encouraging each other with slut walks, the_donald boomers espousing 'as long as they do it legally')

The middle area, where there is some common ground, but not enough to be completely comfortable, is where people may be encouraged to change their beliefs. I believe this to be the mechanism by which the overton window may be shifted for any particular community.

From this, it is apparent that it is nearly impossible to persuade somebody to your way of thinking if there is no common ground on which you may meet to hold a discussion.

For example, if I, someone who holds fascistic beliefs that are contrary to the norm, were to debate completely honestly, I would instantly be rejected and shunned. My arguments would be seen as not being worthy of consideration, because they are so far removed from their frame of reference. Thus, I am able to have more productive discussion by emulating a position that holds more common ground (pic related may be used as an example of various degrees 'intensity' one may choose to emulate). Playing the role of a libertarian is extremely useful in this way, but it is obviously an inherently dishonest tactic.

It would then seem that human interaction is inherently anecdotal, rather than a cohesive effort to arrive at Post too long. Click here to view the full text.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

1d591d No.7264>>7271

>>7262

>For example, if I, someone who holds fascistic beliefs that are contrary to the norm, were to debate completely honestly, I would instantly be rejected and shunned. My arguments would be seen as not being worthy of consideration, because they are so far removed from their frame of reference.

That may be what happens, but I think you are making a mistake when you say this happens because of the frame of reference. The frame of reference may play a part, for example when people say "AI can think like us" even though it's clear machines don't have souls to think with, my frame of reference and theirs would be very far apart, but there is nothing that stops us from understanding one another. Perhaps this is because no one can really deny that they have a soul, and that machines don't, and that provides a common ground to work with for discussion even if the other side is not aware of it. However, I think that is a less than satisfactory answer, since there are many things no one can really deny that you use in your discussion, I hope, but you don't get through. So I think it is not the sharedness of the worldview that prevents honest discussion going forward for you. I think it's largely a social phenomenon. But what is this social phenomenon that allows some ideas but not others, and why does it form sub groups like yours so contrary to the mainstream? I will suppose it is something like morphic fields. We all generate and share the morphic field, which seems to not be bound by the body, and while we all receive the same information from it, some people are aberrations that draw from it differently. So most people draw the mainstream view, in fact it is the mainstream view because most people draw from it, but you and some others draw differently from it, and thus subgroups are formed. Then we might ask why some ideas go from small to large, like Fascism did, while others stay small, and some go from large to small. I think this is where the social phenomenon comes in. A person, having drawn out some belief from the field, like fascism, naturally spreads their belief through talking and what not. In doing so, the person they are talking to somehow becomes more in tune with drawing that same information out from the field. This in turn promptPost too long. Click here to view the full text.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

85a5f4 No.7268

>>7262

Saved image

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

85a5f4 No.7269>>7271

>>7252 (OP)

>Are we fundamentally incapable of truthful communication?

As an anon who has gone through the stages in the picture here >>7262 fully, I think I might have some clout when it comes to human communication (and lack thereof). My recent experience has been all about how to break through mental barriers, both my own and those of others. This lead to among other things my improbable conversion to Christianity.

I think it is a question of talent, which it is debatable if I possess such talent at all; but I've learned that such a talent exists, and that's a start I think.

You see, people when they are confronted with an argument don't perceive a personal attack, not really. We are vain creatures, so when you start to argue with us, we shut our ears, because we have an egoic need to appear intelligent. I remember when I used to do this, when I was younger and more insecure. You see the easiest way to conceal a problem is to deny it exists, and when an argument comes along, it's the easiest thing in the world to deny: The structure of logic may be mathematical and aesthetically pleasing, but out of pride and vanity I am liable (as a sinful, ordinary human being) to vandalize what contradicts my particular moods and inclinations. This is why we can't have nice things.

This means that in order to communicate in a truthful manner, you have to invite your interlocutor to play in your sandbox (yes it is quite like child's play). To cross swords intellectually is dangerous to the esteem of the parties, it's too risky to be honest when fighting.

You can even see this when there is a grand debate between public intellectuals. It's either friendly, the debaters are well-matched, and the point of disagreement unimportant for the esteem of either, or it is hopelessly dishonest. It's the difference between building a sand castle together, and arguing whose sand-castle is better. Of course when the latter road is taken, there are ruined sand-castles and cryingPost too long. Click here to view the full text.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

074f2b No.7271

>>7264

I'm not familiar with the concept of morphic fields, but from your text I gather that they may just be a method of expressing the collective unconscious. There may be some merit to analyzing this concept through the lens of fluid dynamics. I have learned that the universe is incredibly macrocosmic, patterns repeat throughout various levels of complexity. For example, the phenomenon of what people are willing to believe is widely known at the societal level as the Overton window.

Most people recognize any belief they hold to be truth, otherwise they would not hold it. I and others like me have recognized this cognitive error and have thus taken a more active role in filtering information that we receive. Instead of holding in belief I hold as abject truth, I hold it to be probable truth and assign varying probabilities to various beliefs based on the quantity and quality of information I have at my disposal relevant to the topic. This allows me to communicate in a more truthful manner, but I am obviously not immune to error. The issue is, when I move my position to one that is easier for a person to attune themselves to, I am inherently engaging in a dishonest act as I have obviously already discarded those beliefs as not being true. This is something that my ideological opponents do as well, but I doubt they are similarly conscious of it. It would seem that the only honest way of making my beliefs more easily digestible would be to attack and cannibalize what you call the mainstream morphic field.

>>7269

I often say that the most intelligent thing I have ever done is realize how unintelligent I am and how little I actually know.

I have a good speaking voice and when I speak to people in person, I don't have a hard time persuading reasonable people because I speak with conviction they are not used to. I also avoid and actively avoid escalation into a kind of 'fight or flight' response by realizing they are fallible humans just like me. The problem is there are people who will pretend not to have hPost too long. Click here to view the full text.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.



File (hide): 2880c32bde842aa⋯.jpg (57.14 KB,1000x500,2:1,turtle hat illo.jpg) (h) (u)

[–]

beb664 No.7266 [Open thread][Watch Thread][Show All Posts]

https://www.okwhatever.org/topics/selfie/turtle-hats

How an iconic animal cap helped a man in his 60s come out of his shell.

https://www.okwhatever.org/topics/selfie/turtle-hats

____________________________
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

5b5b65 No.7267

"America was just a stopping over point in that journey, the grubby market place to set up your booth, lay out your wares, hire a manager, and then get the fuck out. Civilization is the least concern of a plutocracy. Don't I know it! I have to live here, breast-fed the notion that popular culture and the lies of advertising somehow legitimately replace more serious efforts of artistic expressions. Conditioned to be satisfied with puffed-up hype and capitalist cliches. One is never graduated from High School in America." --John Mitzel

Remember kids, the key to your happiness is to find you a product and launch it. Convince your market of such product's substantial beneficent intangibles, that the consumers may better share in your happiness, somehow, someway, yet not financially. So much the better! The very philosophy of America.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

bb6d42 No.7270

Looks like Radar O'Reilly with a turtle hat, I keked

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.



[–]

e53910 No.6918 [Open thread][Watch Thread][Show All Posts]

I’ve been playing around with clustering responses to existential crises.

The two axes I found most interesting for grouping are something like self-assertion/ambition/egoism/rigidity vs humility/permissiveness/tolerance/easygoingness (top to bottom) and spirituality vs materialism (left to right).

The “rule” cluster is more like “both rule over and serve under, according to one’s role in the cosmic order” but I couldn’t express that core idea in a single word like the other three.

I’ve had a messy go at putting different broad philosophical categories on this map. It’s just my ideas to start with, and I’d welcome some friendly suggestions or any thoughts you have.

What other/alternative axes would you consider, to categorise philosophical worldviews?

Where would you put philosophical branches that I haven't included (or shift the ones I have)?

I'm struggling with the top right corner, where the term “communism” awkwardly encapsulates a larger rebellion against nature itself (the blank slate view of humanity, postmodern attacks on scientific knowledge even without allowing for other kinds of spiritual knowledge etc.; including defiance of commonly-accepted natural laws about human nature, economic cause-and-effect, radical egalitarianism, etc.)

I'm not sure about where to put “social Darwinism”, but I think it's roughly a materialist version of imperialism/will-to-power.

Disclaimer that all of these will be interpretations and simplifications of things which are not so easily categorised.

It's just a bit of fun.

13 posts omitted. Click [Open thread] to view. ____________________________
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

9c037f No.6970

>>6969

i wish i was a burger

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

e4c20c No.6981

>>6944

I am the guy you were replying to. Where would Situationism and/or Absurdism fit?

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

978f61 No.7207>>7218

>>6922

No, communism fits in with the egoists. You just need to meet more communists

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

9c037f No.7218

>>7207

0/10

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

cb4828 No.7234

>>6949

>to ask what system would actually encourage them to earn their own success, rather than make life harder for those who try and easier for those who refuse to.

Sounds like meritocracy would fit the bill here.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.



File (hide): 6cae4f7297d95f9⋯.jpg (20.73 KB,500x500,1:1,Philosoraptor.jpg) (h) (u)

[–]

2bdeee No.7228 [Open thread]>>7229 >>7230 [Watch Thread][Show All Posts]

>Generally speaking, life itself is pointless. Unless you reach immortality, you're gonna die eventually, and you should realize that death is not "a black screen at the end of the movie," but there having never been any movie. It's an eternal void of absolute nothingness, like there had existed until you were born, except indefinitely. And even on the far-off-chance that you, personally, will acquire immortality - life is still going to be pointless. You'll just exist for the sake of existence, forever.

https://suicide.is/threads/10-reasons-to-drop-dead-already.113/

Thoughts?

____________________________
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

0676e8 No.7229

>>7228 (OP)

biologists say the sense of life is to reproduce

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

6a74ba No.7230

>>7228 (OP)

physicists say the sense of life is to dissipate energy

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

110bbe No.7233

File (hide): 9379780426cbb2d⋯.jpeg (55.38 KB,600x400,3:2,polar rabbit.jpeg) (h) (u)

>It's an eternal void of absolute nothingness, like there had existed until you were born, except indefinitely.

Have they ever died?

>It's been about a year since I've encountered an original idea around this 'sphere.

lurk more

>...but you know full well that you're gonna remain poor as fuck.

This needs an explanation.

>truecel, divorcel, youngcel, oldcel

Pathetic. Can't expect this guy to be a noncel.

Pessimistic nonsense, OP. Life's interesting if you do it correctly, and you (especially you personally, OP) most likely aren't sure of what, if anything, happens after death.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.



File (hide): 1447995062019-0.jpg (44.06 KB,490x700,7:10,kierkegaard.jpg) (h) (u)

File (hide): 1447995062019-1.jpg (201.86 KB,1381x874,1381:874,albert-camus.jpg) (h) (u)

[–]

d93f4f No.2456 [Open thread]>>7216 [Watch Thread][Show All Posts]

Who is your favorite existentialist, /philosophy/?

39 posts and 8 image replies omitted. Click [Open thread] to view. ____________________________
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

19744f No.7194

File (hide): ec2d38afce14215⋯.jpg (76.95 KB,624x830,312:415,IMG11370391.jpg) (h) (u)

Mulla Sadrā

>Existence precedes the essence and is thus principal since something has to exist first and then have an essence.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

c3c8fd No.7198

Foucault and Heidegger. I dunno maybe Nietzsche too, does Schopenhauer qualify?

Though I'm not a fan of existentialism in general too much of a Plato and Hegel fanboy.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

c3c8fd No.7199

>>6844

Likely. One can hope. Based Kojeve. Doesn't get enough credit. People would rather Jack off to Spinoza all day.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

c3c8fd No.7214

>>5809

Most are feminist so they must believe in something, like cuckery

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

4e5107 No.7216

>>2456 (OP)

dead one

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.



File (hide): 4ba8fdbb4064520⋯.jpg (24.83 KB,328x400,41:50,montesquieu[1]_0.jpg) (h) (u)

[–]

44c5d1 No.7213 [Open thread][Watch Thread][Show All Posts]

why was Montesquieu such a jackass?

of the French Revolution thinkers he was one of the worst.

____________________________
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.


[–]

449868 No.6465 [Open thread]>>7206 [Watch Thread][Show All Posts]

I just wanted you to know.

18 posts and 2 image replies omitted. Click [Open thread] to view. ____________________________
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

c6886c No.7061

furthermore, modest living and a modicum of hedonism was all a man needed, now its a drive towards an eternal cult of MDMA.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

c6886c No.7062

>>7050

Atheism was a modernist mistake. Savages back then would have you skinned alive for thinking you were above your given tribe and the same goes for feminists too. Pure unadulterated ritual cannibalism. You should be so lucky we live in a capitalist, Democratic society to allow the filth of your kind to be proliferated throughout technology. Without it you're a societal liability.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

d508b9 No.7063

>>7050

You can't equate the psychic with the physical without proper evidence. Being able to monitor neural activity does not prove that the psychic originates in matter unless you can prove that neural activity and psychic activity are equal. Not merely correlated, but the same thing.

As it stands, our understanding of the physical world cannot explain the existence of consciousness.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

11f791 No.7206

>>6465 (OP)

>All men always believed in God with the same definition.

>Atheist comes in

>"You're all wrong because you use different terms"

Kid...

>>6635

This.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

e8396b No.7210

I'm a Muslim born to a Southern Baptist family from Alabama. You're wrong.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.



File (hide): e653575750e492b⋯.jpg (593 KB,900x900,1:1,Nietzsche1871.jpg) (h) (u)

File (hide): 4d8850aeb2656e2⋯.jpg (103.53 KB,720x1175,144:235,Nietzsche187b.jpg) (h) (u)

[–]

57f762 No.7183 [Open thread][Watch Thread][Show All Posts]

Post any rare pictures of Friedrich Nietzsche that you would like to share. Here are a few:

____________________________
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

266e17 No.7209

One of those few persons who look better with a mustache than without it.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.



File (hide): dd01a853c7cd2fc⋯.gif (26.46 KB,337x199,337:199,choice-sign.gif) (h) (u)

[–]

b2220d No.7119 [Open thread][Watch Thread][Show All Posts]

What really a man head to?

3 posts omitted. Click [Open thread] to view. ____________________________
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

14b937 No.7130

>>7129

>It is not the case that at the moment of making decisions I see the whole spectrum of possibilities, but rather irrevocably I choose the one that is the closest to my devotion, determined in turn by external factors.

But you have made a mistake, for it is by the external factors that you judge, but the act of judging itself is internal and within your own control. You do care that the beggar is actually a rich man, but it is within your power to not care, and this cannot be taken away. Further, we should not rest philosophy on science, but science must conform to sound philosophy. Science has no voice. To the extent it can speak, it can only speak of particular facts. It measured a certain activity in the brain at a certain time, it measured a certain signal in a certain nerve at a previous time. Beyond this science can say nothing, because science has no mechanism to justify saying more.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

8d5096 No.7132

>>7129

Once again you don't understand what free will is. Free will is not the power to know everything and make decisions on it. It is simply the power to act on your own decisions.

To your second point, what you are describing is a reflex. Your reflexes also come from your brain, just not a conscious part of it. You can train your reflexes to do what you want. It does not disprove free will at all. Reflexes don't overpower your free will, they predict it and act accordingly.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

737b24 No.7133

Both. Free will by the grace of God determines his ends

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

561abe No.7146

Determined by who? Determined by whose presumably free will? If by determinism you just mean that all things are a logical consequence of another, we have free will so long as "free" isn't defined as breaking the physical, consequential laws of the universe.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

c11d83 No.7201

>some metaphysical external force pushes people towards a certain "good" direction, a "maximum potential" that is the best self one can be

>people choose to ignore these "signs", wander from the path

>the longer one strays from the path, the further one distances themself from their maximum potential

>these signs become larger, more detrimental, more punishing the further one strays from it

>once the person makes choices to wander so far from the path, a cataclysmic life event occurs

>people can learn from this and work back to the "good" path towards their goal or not

>people who do are able to get back on the "good" path relatively quickly and with few (if any) true obstacles

>people who do not are permanently stuck outside of this good path and will face nothing but hardships for the rest of their lives

>many/most people balance bad and good to the point of never understanding their true goal, but never seeing cataclysm

>people generally "know" what they "should do" to stay on the path, but very few (if any) people ever truly reach that max potential

I don't believe in determinism in the sense of Greek Fates, but there is a given purpose. Free will does only harm. People know this and try to do what they can to cast it away in attempts to rid themselves of suffering and responsibility for the potential failures of their actions.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.



File (hide): ac96c00ca5a0f67⋯.jpg (58.05 KB,758x1024,379:512,Du0d97DW4AY0r-D.jpg) (h) (u)

[–]

fd06fe No.7138 [Open thread][Watch Thread][Show All Posts]

Why are adults such fucking assholes?

I'm only in my mid 20's, autistic, and trying to find my place in my life but the amount of people in adulthood that expect you to live as miserably as they do is insane. Its like they want me to put on a disguise to fake every emotion I have possible just to rot my soul away to my grave, I don't fucking get it.

Its like its a crime to be happy around them the moment you hit 21 and if you object and try to live your life to the fullest degree, apparently your a huge fucking problem to the world.

How do I tolerate this kind of behaviour?

____________________________
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

1cdf27 No.7139

Maybe you're just surrounded by assholes for some reason? As for why, they know they're miserable. They want other to be too, so they're not alone. Preferably they'll find someone to be more miserable than them so they can pretend to be superior.

>How do I tolerate this kind of behaviour?

Don't. Cut off as many assholes as you can and interact as little as possible with the ones you can't get away from or find a way to deal with them.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

2eea01 No.7165

We are social, hierarchical apes, and so must conform to get on and even survive. Quite simple really.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

885a1d No.7170

Most people are arseholes.

That includes you and me.

I'm also in my mid-20's, I haven't been diagnosed with clinical autism, but that was one of the ideas they tried to bounce off me en route to deciding I had "Ptsd".

I think, people don't really have innate personalities as such; only formative experiences and situations that they are placed in.

I wouldn't go so far as to say that the human soul is "Tabula Rasa", but before experience, there's only that a-priori framework presumably instilled by your genome.

If you put a person in a situation where they suffer intensely, then they will act like an asshole.

Modern society basically gives you two options; toe the line or eat shit and die.

When an adult comes to terms with this, it can ruin their outlook forever., especially considering that we all seem to be inescapably trapped therein.

I myself have been cast out by my family, but I also found that cutting them out of my heart was the best thing to do.

They did not want me, so what need had I for them?

Being close to them made me miserable, but so did being parted from them; I had to come to terms with the absurdity of this situation, and opted to embrace separateness.

Now my mother tries to send me money every christmas or birthday, and I tell her no, and that her money is dirty, because she won't even look at or talk to me.

One day she'll probably stop trying; then I'll know I've won, and that her heart is broken.

I guess there isn't really any such thing as an asshole; just bad winners and sore losers.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

6ce850 No.7188

I think the world just generally hates spergs, esp. Women because thinking is hard.

T. Actual sperg here, late 30s here

We're the silently oppressed minority and aren't allowed to speak many of us (not me in particular though) are incels too. That creates more problems. Also tell the mod to unpin that locked thread. I fucking hate imageboard moderators sometimes. You only locked it because it's rabbit hole stuff you can't handle.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.



All
[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25]
| Catalog | Nerve Center | Random
How High I Fly
[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / random / ausneets / cyber / fit / kpop / pen / random / tingles / wtp ][ watchlist ]