Sticky
Rules:
1. Respect the Global Rules.
2. Moderation will be kept to a minimum.
3. No spamming.
4. Spoiler NSFW images.
/philosophy/ resources: https://8kun.net/philosophy/resources.html
Regarding the missing board banners, this appears to be a site-wide issue. I will attempt a restore after this is fixed.
Regarding the associated boards list, December 2 was announced as the final date for board migration requests. Based off of Ron's current estimates, sometime between December 9 through 16 it should be clear if any of these boards (besides /lit/) will be returning. Replacing links to non-extant boards is something we need to philosophize on a bit.
METAmetaMETAmeta
Attention! ¡Atención! 注意! ध्यान!! Внимание Atenção! Achtung! 注意! 주의! Attenzione! Let op! Dikkat! Uwaga! Προσοχή! Pozor Observera! ระวัง!
METAmeta philosophy:
[METAXNOSIS] - [the neverending ongoing process of renewing and reinventing the "god(0)-self(1)-reality(3-6-9)" relationship for the purpose of gaining knowledge, experience and spiritual evolution and also just for fun.]
METAmetametametametameta…
X_264
0-1-3-6-9-0-9-6-3-1-0
>>>CHANCHAN.NET
X_264_X_264_X_264_X_264
963101369
<<<
The definition of "metameta" stems from a logical extension of the concept of "meta." If "meta" refers to reflection on a higher level of abstraction concerning a system, structure, or narrative, then "metameta" signifies reflection on the reflection itself—a yet higher level that pertains to meta-structures or meta-narratives.
Definition of "metameta":
Metameta refers to a level of abstraction that analyzes or describes the structure, properties, or narratives of the meta-level. It is second-order reflection about how meta-concepts or meta-narratives are created or used.
Example in art and philosophy:
When we create a meta-narrative (a narrative about a narrative) and within it arises another meta-narrative, we encounter a hierarchy of abstraction. Each subsequent level relates to the one below and can lead to potentially infinite analysis of the analysis itself.
What happens in this situation?
Increased complexity – With each subsequent level, a more intricate system emerges, requiring new tools for interpretation and understanding.
Emergence of paradoxes – Deep "layering" can lead to self-referential paradoxes, such as a "metatheory of metatheory."
Reflexivity – The artwork or philosophy gains a self-critical character, analyzing not just the narrative but also the tools and methods of its creation.
Meta-irony or deconstruction – Additional levels may lead to the deconstruction of fundamental meaning or express irony toward the very idea of narrative.
Metameta in practice:
Meta-narratives about meta-narratives – Exploring why and how meta-narratives are created, and their social, philosophical, or artistic implications.
Metametaphysics – Attempting to understand how metaphysical systems and their reflexive structures emerge.
Meta-metalanguage – A language that describes relationships between metalanguages, e.g., how formal languages describe other metalanguages in mathematics or logic.
It is worth noting that such systems often appear in postmodern philosophy, where reflection on narratives and knowledge structures becomes a central element of analysis.
__
https://wiecznakreacja.blogspot.com/
https://wiecznakreacja.blogspot.com/
https://wiecznakreacja.blogspot.com/
_____
REALITY?!
WHAT AN INTERESTING CONCEPT!
...
...
...
>>>ERROR_X264
>>>SIGNAL LOST
Book: How To Increase Longevity, Live To 500+ Years More
Book: How To Increase Longevity, Live To 500+ Years More
Original Source: https://ascensionjoy .com/book-how-to-increase-longevity-live-to-500-years-more/
Karma Requirement: 200 USD/Euro.
You can obtain via many ways:
Direct from author: https://www.buymeacoffee. com/ascensionjoy/e/131493
Cryptocurrency: https://ascensionjoy. com/donate/
Google Play: https://play.google.com/store/books/details?id=ebi6EAAAQBAJ
Amazon KDP:
Kobo Book:
And many other platforms.
Description
The desire for longevity is applied to many beings no matter animals or humans.
But if you want to increase your longevity, you must be smart, you must using common sense and critical thinking of human.
In this book, I will reveal the secret and teach you how to live to 500+ years or more.
Best Regard,
Ascension Joy – Bodhi Udumbara
Free book "How To Increase Longevity, Live To 500+ Years More" (price $200 USD)
I am going to give you the book if you can make minimum donation of $5 USD to my tron wallet: TVQtKqZLoGemSuqhgXm9Y9yZeroLDi9uPX .
Offer valid for next 24 hour only.
You can find the book on google play.
The reason is I am struck with my USDT token due to lack of Tronx to transfer (their fee have changed and too high).
Give me your email/twitter and transaction ID after you done.
Thank you
Savior
poliphi thread - pissing off everyone
where I am 100% totalitarian collectivism (communism):
banking (except for abolition of private funds and enactment of wealth redist, basically just end the fed)
infrastructure
buses, ships, trains, and planes, no fares, tax-funded
utilities (including internet, as well as water, heating, and power)
architecture
emergency services (more than just firefighters, all-purpose disaster response workers)
healthcare (including mental and dental)
law enforcement (with emphasis on privacy and individual rights of the citizens)
courts (all prosecutors and defenders public)
prisons (replaced with criminal rehab centers, criminal activity treated as result of mental problems, release only when assigned psych deems unlikely to commit offenses again)
education (at all levels, from preschool to tertiary ed, no private, home, or employer-run schools)
+
all incomes of every worker in a workplace required to listed in every other worker's paycheck, in order from most earned to least, so they may compare wages top those of co-workers. (ex. if one works in a McDonald's you will get the amount paid to every other worker in that specific McDonald's restaurant listed on your paycheck, but not those from any other restaurant in the chain. you won't get your CEO's check unless you work in the same building.)
maternity leave with equal-length paternity leave, and given to every new parent in homosexual or polygamous families.
permanent welfare should be given to those unable to work, and temporary welfare to those able to work, but unemployed.
-
everything else is 100% individualistic libertarianism (an-cap):
most controversial opinions:
no laws except those that enforce ownership of body and physical belongings, which encompass anything that is not a living human being, (theft, rape, vandalism, assault, destruction, murder, trespassing, etc.)
private businesses can choose who to serve, and how to serve them, at their own full discretion, they will also be given the right to determine how much any of their employees are paid, and when they are hired or fired, even if doing so enables discrimination.
in addition to homosexual relationships and marriages, incestuous relationships and marriages are legal, as are relationships or marriages between more than two people, so long as all parties are consenting, adoption may only take place within marriages, and only when all those involved are consenting to the adoption.
the creation, possession, distribution, and consumption of recreational drugs are fully legal, but it is a crime to be under it's influence if it is mind affecting and you are using a piece of large machinery, like a car, the possession distribution and consumption of child pornography is legal, but it is still illegal to record violations of the age of consent, or to violate age of consent laws yourself, prostitution and gambling are fully legalized as well, bit it is illegal for them to serve anyone under 18.
Race, class and losers (CMV)
Since I try to see many kinds of political views and try to see if they truly hold water, I had seen many white nationalist literature over the years.
I may just be me, but they all seem to categorize all white people (besides a few ethnicities of course) as being oppressed by the powers that be, and that the reasons why they themselves aren't going places in life is due to either be the fault of races who are more successful than them (jews and asians), or that the ways of wealth making corrupted the ones who have blood relations with them, and caused them to cast away all obligations of helping their fellow man.
Honestly, they act and whine just as much as the marxist socialists who would contemplate about trying to fuck with people only because of them having a work ethic, or complain about not receiving a higher wage but would not put in work to actually try to get it.
God
The way the dog was covering the little girl is so cute
WHY ASK
What is ordinary for the dog?
If not in its purpose what is its purpose?
THE WAY: INDICATES A QUESTION
HUMAN NATURE: YOU QUESTION WHAT IS OUT OF THE ORDINARY WHY? THE DESIRE TO BE IN OUR PURPOSE.
ASK: DESIRE TO BE IN OUR PURPOSE
WHAT IS ORDINARY?
THE DESIRE TO BE IN OUR PURPOSE
IS ORDINARY.
YOUR PURPOSE: BE ORDINARY.
WHY DO WE DESIRE OUR PURPOSE: WANT TO BE A PART OF SOMETHING
FAMILY LOVE GOD.
WHY DO WE WANT FAMILY: FEEL THE LOVE OF GOD.
WE ALL WANT TO FEEL THE LOVE OF GOD AND THAT IS ORDINARY.
THAT IS THE POINT.
YOUR PURPOSE IS TO FEEL THE LOVE OF GOD.
THE WORD ALLOWS YOU TO FEEL THE LOVE OF GOD.
FOLLOW IT.
WE NEED TO BE IN ORDER.
CORE DESIRE: RETURN TO ORDINARY.
RETURN TO GOD.
GOD IS ORDINARY.
WE ARE IMAGES OF HIM.
THE DESIRE TO RETURN TO GOD
IS WHY WE WANT ORDINARY
SOMETHING TO RETURN TO BECUASE WE ARE A PART OF THE PUZZLE OF LIFE.
WE ARE A PART.
AND GOD IS LIFE.
WE MAKE-UP GOD AND GOD MAKES US.
COMPLETING HIMSELF.
FAMILY.
COMPLETING FAMILY IS HIS PURPOSE.
MAKE WHOLE.
HES MAKING HIMSELF WHOLE AGAIN.
HES BEEN BROKEN APART.
HES HEALING.
COME BACK TO HIM.
YOU ARE HIS LIGHT.
TO IDOLIZE ANYONE OTHER THAN GOD IS TO ACCPET SIN.
BETTER NO GOOD THEN EVIL.
EVERYONES A SINNER.
GOD IS GOOD.
He is us
We are the same We are God's light
I am not god We are god I am different but we are the same I am a light We are all gods light He is the point Hes cleaning himself
Hes dirty With sin Cleaning is coming He misses us We are coming back He showed me his light Now I can see Now I show you my light So you can see. God spoke to me. I speak to you. We didn't see the first time. God sent a message. To warn us. See him now He wants us to see him I see him
See him. now Allow him. End suffering.
Before it's more than he can bear. Reject sin.
Preserve life Don't be on the blade when he pulls it out We are his sign. We are the message. To himself Spread the message
Kant, Locke and Hume
What are the similarities between them? As far as I can tell they criticise what it means to think and how we form our thought processes in life based on our experiences and sensations but there has to be other connections or maybe i'm inferring incorrectly?
Hegel
Why do the answers to the fundamental questions of being have to be so tightly sealed? This not dangerous knowledge, also neither bad nor good, just the purest kind of knowledge there is, like math.
Is the reason his writings are so obscure also the reason Hegel is widely ignored in analytical philosophy? Even when he provides a lot of answers analytical philosophy in the tradition of wittgenstein/kripke is not able to answer? Like the problem of naming?
Is the most important philosophical system ignored because anglos simply cannot force enough willpower to work it through? Tbh this sometimes felt like it was intentionally written to not be understood. I have spent weeks on this work an I have only been able to read to 1/3rd of it, yet I push on.
Anyone here writing any philosophy or know of any obscure philosophy being wrote that you'd like to share? It's always good to have an expression of ideas among peers please do share and be critical of what others are offering.
I personally am quite new to philosophy but have wrote a small writing on the philosophy of religion as it pertains to still finding God in an infinite regression if anyone is interested.
Advice
i m a 19 year old boy. i have read dostoevsky, Jack London, Maupassant and bunch of other good writers. I have a fairly good taste in music ( at least I think so). I am a NEET. I really want to be a singer and a writer. I,m broke, I can,t find a job, I don,t even have a penny. I can,t even tell my parents what I want because I,m afraid they won,t understand. Plus I,m super introverted, i don,t like seeing or meeting people. I don,t know what to do. Give me some advice for gods sake so, I won,t kill myself. I don,t wanna die!!!
Please Help.
I need help condensing and improving my grammar.
The Ego has now become ones own God in the Newest century. By the taking of one's own personal beliefs and the application of the greatest ideas in the existential mind of it's philosopher, they can put the entirety of all their beliefs and faiths into the idea that a Sovereign God does not exist.
By killing their loyalty to the ultimate idea of God, the faith of a Sovereign God, they all also claim that God is subjective at either - the start of creation ( evolution, co-evolution, race theory or Abrahamic creation and it's sub-types) or at the end of life ( judgement, and eternal life ).
This also means that they are putting ego as their own God. Ego, being the combination of one's soul, and body. It is essentially the face of ones spirit, but not the mind of the spirt. Just as our Face is the way for our body to communicate, the ego is the face of the spirit.
When, we put all our idealogies ( faith and her beliefs ) into the idea that everything is subjective then we see the decay of truth in almost all of reality. By the destruction of the realm of objectivity and entering the realm of Pride ( see the fall of lucifer ) , we find our virtues the first to fall ( the angels of morallity ).
==INFINITY==
I am glad you posted. Watch this video and ask yourself, "What does Alpha and Omega mean to myself?." The short video is flush with items to argue about, but it does represent one thing
for SURE>
The infinity for each of the viewers is different.
I really enjoyed it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h6fcK_fRYaI
ccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccKEK
What does philosophy think of UNABOM?
Not as a man but as a philosopher, because there's obviously a glaring downside to his nature.
>b-b-b-b-b-but b-b-b-b-bombs
We all know what he did and it is besides the point of this thread so let's keep the criticisms original.
as far as my flag, I'm not an orthodox existentialist but it was the closest thing to my philosophy.
Lay it on me
Since /fringe won't let me post a question, I'll ask you guys.
If reincarnation is real, then how can you be considered the same entity/soul with your memories blanked in the next life? Consider this: if a man gets into an accident and loses all his previous memories, he's really only the same "person" in a physical sense, and in the sense that other people remember who he is, or was. However, if everyone else who knew him lost their memories of him too, he essentially loses his identity altogether and thus becomes a new individual after the accident.
TLDR; Without memory, you really have no identity, so how can reincarnation/next lives be a spiritual reality?
Why isn't circumcision banned in the west?
San Fransisco Failed, Germany Failed, Iceland Failed, there have been countless attempts to ban infant male circumcision that have failed despite having a majority support in the area? Areas where religious minorities are at an all time low, circumcision rates are essentially non-existent. Yet non-medically justified, routine genital mutilation (religious or not) continues to occur despite the gender counter part being forbidden by law.
What message does it send where males are violated at birth, while females have their bodies protected by law? Iceland hospitals refused to conduct infant circumcision and had signed agreements among the hospitals across the country to refuse such services as medically unjustified. As a result a vote to illegalize the practice was initiated which resulted in international uproar.
It's an extremely simple topic that people have an illogical habit of complicating. The right to inflict bodily injury on another persons body without their consent. Religiously motivated or not. I cant religiously mutilate animals. It's considered animal abuse.
The main contention I have, is to put the practice into perspective to see the true tragedy and the reason why it's not complicated to see why it should be illegal. To turn the infant, into a grown adult, and keep the situation identical.
You are 25 years old. Your parents have decided to take you against your will to the doctors, where people over power you, forcefully strap you onto an operating table, strap your legs and arms down so you can't move, and without anesthesia, take a knife to your genitals, cutting the most private part of your body as you scream in pain. This is something you'd expect in a scene from the Saw movie franchise. Not something we would callously turn a blind eye happening to infants.
So what are you thoughts on why so many countries have failed their own children to protect them from genital mutilation.
Circumcision is culturally based and not medically based. Cutting a penis to reduce the remote chance of penile cancer is like cutting a girl's budding breasts to reduce the chance of breast cancer.
Why are we evil?
Why do we lie? It’s the source to every other evil on our planet.
Naturally, we wouldn’t lie. When we have everything we need, when we get everything we want, we don’t have to lie. We wouldn’t have to betray.
Is the pressure on every single one of us way to large? Can’t we handle our existence, whitout lying? Are we just coping the behavior of our fellow humans? Are we hidden in a negative spyrale, because the best liers have the best chances for might and power?
Isn’t this spreading just like cancer? Is our planet like the first cancer cell in a human body? When’s the moment you differ? Now, it’s a healthy cell, fighting the cancer whitin. Now it’s a comlete cancer cell, ready to infiltrate other cells, ready to spread.
We are currently planning to invade our neighbor cell, Mars.
On the other side. How easy would it be, to heal this cancer. When we just delete the negative factor.
We can just start to erfüllen the needs of the next smaler cells. For the human body, that would be some proteins i think, for our world it is a little more complicated.
The next smaller would be the continents, the nations, the regions, the cities and villages, the families and then the humans, you and me.
That’s just the natural order, a pattern i find everywhere.
If a cell is sick, satisfy it’s needs.
If our planet is sick, satisfy every humans needs.
To eleminate all the corruption, all the wars, all the deaths, all the thefts, wheter it’s nations stealing from other nations, or people stealing from other people, or people stealing from everyone.
All we have to do, is fulfill our needs and be happy.
But everyone has to know and do this.
Everyone has to see the vision.
Anyone has to know, where he wants to go.
Some of us have to lead the way.
Where We Go One We Go All. Let's start pointing at directions.
Q - positron
Compress information
That's what humanity's best at.
There were so many informations, produced by human minds, from the moment we invented the word 'idea' til now.
Every generation learnt their forefathers facts, connected them, found similarities and compressed the information into the next larger piece of the puzzle called nature.
Our generation is gonna create an explosion of knowledge. We got the internet.
Try it for yourself.
Jordan Peterson:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W8e_dvbXoCQ
1000 books of our intellectuel ancestors, compressed to 5h from one of the smartest guys around.
Your turn's next. Try to compress this information into a 1 minute video.
Where We Go One We Wonnna Know
Perspective of Time
What's a lifespan?
It's a mosquitos fart compared to the evolution of our lifestyle.
Let's produce a show. About a Familly.
Scenario:
The builder of the pyramides extinct after a flood, caused by the end of the iceage
Some 'pharaos' survived in foreign countries, building monuments all over the world.
I want a show about their descendants, from then till now. After each episode, the next generation gets into the lead position.
A show through history, from the perspective of one single family.
How would this change the perspective of our own lifetime? How much could we learn, when we continue, start to write the story of our own future?
When we get in complete control of this monster called time.
Positive suggestion.
If you want to gain perspective, set it into relation.
Another story idea.
A man makes a plan to fly to the stars.
For him and his next 28 Generations.
He got the idea. Generation 3 & 4 make the money.
G 5 - 10 engineer the rockets, create the science.
Generation 12 lifts off, 248 People leave our planet.
The next 13 Generation live their lives in space, on an eternal travel.
At Generation 25 another human spaceship passes by, more advanced and much faster.
They knew about our guys and they have presents, new and better technology from far back home.
Generation 26 arrives at the new planet, faster than expected.
Generation 27 & 28 Set their Foundation for their new civilisation.
This film is the work of the head of the first generation, to visualize his vision. To inform & motivate every single descendant from him to work for this shared vision.
This will one day be reality. For various projects in all possible sizes. We could already start and create theoretical projects in form of entertainement.
Where We Go One our descendants have to be.
Q - positron
What's next?
The world has been divides, social progress has bin prohibited for the last 200 Years.
Now the times are changing.
So, what's next?
Liberalism, Capitalism, Nationalism, Communism, Democracy..
All this Ideas are so old. I want something new. Humanity learned so much over the last century. I'd like to use this knowledge. We invented so many devices, some of them are smarter than we are.
Let us use that shit.
So, what's next?
Let us gather ideas.
All of us. Let us compare and combine our ideas. Let us try them. Let us create a list of thousands of ways for humans to live together, locally, sustainable and peacefully.
And if you want to, you can support a specific idea, and when there are enough supporters, you can start to live in this society.
imo, humanities last mistake has been the limitation of possibilities.
There can only be good, or evil.
Strong or weak.
It's the only way.
Left or right?
This is not how evolution works.
Nature is always trying to create as many alternatives as possible.
We need diversity.
We have to create as many different possibilities as we can.
Time is gonna destroy a majority of them.
That's called evolution.
That's just the most efficient way to prepare for the unpreparable.
Where we go one, our futurest children will live.
Q - positron
Objectivism
>One of the best Atheist Philosophers
>Recognizes Man's need for Self-esteem
>Holds reality to be an absolute.
>No mystified metaphysics and epistemology.
There seems to be something far deeper to Rand than her political philosophy. It's a shame that people don't know about it more.
Creationist Cat Philosophy
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e28DrQzlteI
I think he makes more sense than any of the Alt-Right lunatics that call themselves skeptics.
Skeptics community in 2008: Religion is bad
Skeptics community in 2018: On second thought religion is alright.
I like seeing him destroy Sargon of Akkad and Armored Skeptic.
hi
need your help in giving arguments to support the idea that our human consciousness is somehow different from a toilet flush system. The discussion started on
https://alethe.me/alice_attarado/what%20is%20your%20consciousness%3F/0/1/ some time ago but somehow died out apparantly because it's quite evident that there is no qualitative difference.
If you know any please let me know on this threa or on alethe.
Heritage and Aestheticism.
One must have heritage within the land that they live upon them in order to sensitively register its aesthetic properties.
In order to purge the depths of one's ethereal aesthetic inventory they must be receptive to the nature of their land. It is a matter of non-biological epigenetic evolution.
No nigger could fathom the holistic conceptual and physical beauty of the North-western European continent and thus could not acquire the sacred knowledge of the land's logic. Tolerance is for one to be able to communicate with another individual on ostensive matters, this is what a racially-mixed communion is. Yet, for one to truly, sensually communicate to progress knowledge and form a chain of ideas they must be connected to the land they are poised within. It is the momentum of productive communion.
It is not a matter of colour, it is a matter of heritage, yet I will not argue that there is a reverent utility in differentiation as the polarised colour of a nigger in relation to a European Man can guide one to garner conclusions in a similar function to how one may conclude that a piece of fruit is rotten from its colour. Love your home and raise your lands.
FUCK NATIONAL GOVERNMENT, AND LET RISE SEGREGATED, ANARCHISTICALLY-FOUNDED ARISTOCRACIES.
Why is the material implication a thing?
If people have a problem with conditionals with false antecedents and with true consequents always being true, why not just change it according to what is found to be more intuitive? Regarding equivalence with some disjunctions, every explanation I hear seems to make sense prima facie, but I think ultimately they make sense merely because it makes the whole system simple and easy to work with. For instance, (p->q)->(~pVq) is not as intuitively necessarily true as maybe (pVq)->(~p->q). Simply changing how implications behave reflects that some of these disjunctions, while equivalent with the material implication, would indeed cease to be equivalent. So again, why do we stick with the material implication? Is it because in it, they're equivalent to disjunctions and are therefore translatable by something like DeMorgan's Laws and provide for tidy simplifications?
If the question "Why is there something rather than nothing?" and the answer "There is no reason," does this answer fulfill the fullest potential of what an answer is, or does it lack any discernible thing to be such an answer other than perhaps not being satisfying to some? Why or why not?
I'm not interested in brainlet critiques of the positing of the question itself, rather critiques of this answer or other possible answers
Hitler Was A Deist
You may say this is better for /pol/, but I figure the subject is deep enough for presence on /philosophy/.
Exactly as the subject line says. There's a small cottage industry of discussion as to his religious views....but I've never been satisfied with the results.
He clearly had a strong enough metaphysical fervor that he can't be described as a simple atheist. At the same time, whatever some may say about his upbringing in a Catholic household, he clearly wasn't a Christian. Take any quotation you can from him which mentions "God", and you can easily substitute it with "Fate", "Providence", "Destiny", etc. For those who contend he was a Catholic zealot, he had astonishingly little to say about Christ ameliorating Original Sin or Mary being the Queen of Heaven.
Shit, for those who present the argument of the "Gott Mit Uns" motto on SS belts, I have (will post pic if you want) a "Second Reich" coin from 1907 with that same motto inscribed on the side. So the phrase clearly predates the NSDAP period and had currency by inertia.
One can also come across sources which attest that Hitler frowned upon Himmler's attempt at neo-paganism. Thus, deism is the only conclusion we are left with by process of elimination, and it's quite a reasonable one.
When we think of "deist", we probably think of Thomas Jefferson, Ben Franklin, or other Enlightenment era figures. The M.O. of those thinkers was to observe the capacity of nature to carry out self-sustaining systems, as well as the capacity of people to carve out lives for themselves by innate talents of reasoning, so as to construe that a supreme creative force or governor intended for a universal order which could basically be described as classical liberalism.
Hitler similarly appealed to biology & history to demonstrate that there was an innate hierarchy of human races, with each one having a destiny as temporally erected by the time of its present circumstance.
The deist view is that there is a primary creative & intelligent input behind the Universe, but that it must be construed by studious observation rather than accepted in the event of a grand revelation. Given what I've outlined above, I don't see what better way to classify Hitler's stance towards religion & spirituality as anything other than deism.
Censorship everywhere on 8chan
Why are the political boards here so shit? I get banned from /pol/ for anything I say, and the same applies to /leftypol/ too now.
In fact I get banned at pretty much every board here for just about anything. 8chan was supposed to be for free speech, but somehow it went to shit and is more restrictive than 4chan now. You can't even post about anime you like at /a/, or debate religion or literature on the relevant boards without hotpockets deleting your topic. This is the last board that could be good for arguing about ideas, if it weren't so dead. 8chan has become a major disappointment.
Peterson -vs- Žižek.
Sony Center in Toronto, on Friday, April 19.
Das it mane!
https://invidio.us/watch?v=Ij1J50nx9jY
No fireworks. Nevertheless, well worth a look.
>be me
>philosophy major
>sign up for metaphysics and epistemology this semester
>go to class expecting to learn about and read Hume Descartes Locke Kant Witt etc
>get syllabus, all of the readings are contemporary analytic philosophers working within Russell's paradigm
>both professors fellate Russell every class
I knew most philosophy departments in North America followed the analytic school, but not to this extent. I also thought we'd start with the Greeks, like everyone says, but were starting the contemporaries. Is this how it is everywhere? How should I approach this, this wasn't what I was expecting at all.
The history of Western philosophy in its entirety (philosophy cheat sheet)
http://www.albumangelorum.com/english/philosophy
I think this list is almost complete.
philosophy of science
What exactly was the move from Verification to Confirmation in Philosophy of science? I ask this in the context of Scientific Realism.
It is Carnap who is usually credited for the shift.
If someone could explain this to me in simple terms, I'd be thankful.
God knows therefore there is no free will is extra-motivated nonsense
1. Necessarily, if God foreknows that I will do X, then I will do X.
2. God foreknows that I will do X.
3. Necessarily, I will do X.
Is this accurate? because if it is, it's invalid. It would be valid if the consequent of premise 1 were "then necessarily I will do X," but why would it be? It's conceivable that were you not to do X, but instead Y, God's foreknowledge would simply have been different, such that Y would simply be the new X. Why is this not the case? Why do you have to do something simply because God knows you're going to do it? Why can't you just do whatever you want, freely, and God's foreknowledge not change -- but be -- accordingly? What could possess people that such a stupid line of thinking otherwise be so popular?.
The reason I survived.
I had many near-death situations in my life, and many many problems, I wanna share the mindset that made me stronger and helped me to survive until now.
(This is the first and the last time im posting that).
1) The feeling, "Love to God" should be number one priority, forever. And it should be refreshed every day.
2) Never regret the past. (it was a lesson)
3) Never be afraid of the future.
4) Even your worst enemy is actually your teacher, and teacher is an ally. (helps you to become stronger)
5) Never blame your parents for your problems and failures.
6) Try to overcome the aggresion to the opposite sex. they are our allies too.
7) Try not to blame others, even if they are imperfect (just like all of us).
8) Never be a slave of religious organizations, because they use God for money.
Thats pretty much my experience, and Im glad to share it. I feel better somehow.
inb4 people saying kys
The reason I survived
I had many near-death situations, and many many problems, I wanna share the mindset that made me stronger and helped me to survive until now.
(This is the first and the last time im posting that).
1) "Love to God" should be num1 priority forever.
2) Never regret the past.
3) Never be afraid of the future.
4) Even your worst enemy is actually your teacher, and teacher is an ally.
5) Never blame your parents for your problems and failures.
6) Try to overcome the aggresion to the opposite sex. they are our allies too.
7) Try not to blame others, even if they are imperfect (just like all of us).
8) Never be a slave of religious organizations, because they use God for money.
What are the best youtube channels for philosophy. I'll list a few, what are your favourites /philosophy/?
Eric Dodson
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCr8ziBzqZlGAvv4krfAAORQ
Wise Crack
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC6-ymYjG0SU0jUWnWh9ZzEQ
The school of life
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC7IcJI8PUf5Z3zKxnZvTBog
87SilentSpace
https://www.youtube.com/user/87SilentSpace/videos
Eric Weislogel
The imperative of progress, momentary fashion or human innate quality?
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?
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?
How does this refute infinite regress?
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).
How does this refute infinite regress?
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).
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?
You Can’t Take Yourself Too Seriously With a Turtle on Your Head
https://www.okwhatever.org/topics/selfie/turtle-hats
How an iconic animal cap helped a man in his 60s come out of his shell.
“How should one live?” A tentative map of responses to existentialism
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.
Are life and death both pointless?
>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?
Why are so many adults have nasty personalities?
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?
I’m trying to learn about Platonism. I started a list of major Platonic philosophers and their works, but it feels short. Could you guys recommend any other texts to help me with this?
>Plato - complete works
>Plotinus - The Enneads
>Proclus - The Theology of Plato
>Damascius - Difficulties and Solutions of First Principles
That’s about it. There must be more. I’m also looking into Pseudo-Dionysius and John Scotus Eriugena, but I’m more interested in pre-christian platonists
I don't get it. a lot of people have called me an Ethical Solipsist yet even though (I'd wager) even though it came out of the enlightenment most of my beliefs pre-date the enlightenment, going back to Aristotle and St. Aquinas, so uh, wtf?
bear in mind my economics though are total post French Revolution. but this board isn't an economics board so yea.
On Postmodernism
I was seeing Postmodernist "works" and I started to wonder what the hell was going through the minds of those people. Is this is the Nihilism that Nietzsche warned us about?
I mean, all the conditions are here. We're in a world of increasingly atheistic people that still cling to somewhat Christian morals(When they're not hedonists, that is). Nihilism is relatively popular compared to old times.
Question is, does Postmodernism actually hold any nihilist beliefs in itself? I don't know much other than those hipsters making shit art, so I went through https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postmodernism for a minute in hopes of finding something.
Can anyone?
Lastly, does anyone have a tingling fear that Nietzsche was wrong on the "trans-valuation of values" and that there will be just more nihilism after we come past this ordeal?
>The third way is taken from possibility and necessity, and runs thus. We find in nature things that are possible to be and not to be, since they are found to be generated, and to corrupt, and consequently, they are possible to be and not to be. But it is impossible for these always to exist, for that which is possible not to be at some time is not. Therefore, if everything is possible not to be, then at one time there could have been nothing in existence. Now if this were true, even now there would be nothing in existence, because that which does not exist only begins to exist by something already existing. Therefore, if at one time nothing was in existence, it would have beenimpossible for anything to have begun to exist; and thus even now nothing would be in existence---which is absurd. Therefore, not all beings are merely possible, but there must exist something the existence of which is necessary. But every necessary thing either has its necessity caused by another, or not. Now it is impossible to go on to infinity in necessary things which have their necessity caused by another, as has been already proved in regard to efficient causes. Therefore we cannot but postulate the existence of some being having of itself its own necessity, and not receiving it from another, but rather causing in others their necessity. This all men speak of as God.
Is there any refutation to the Saint Thomas Aquinas's third way?
Lack of meaning in life
It's not just that i am sad. The worst thing is the lack of motivation . I really fell no motivation for anything.. I feel that the man simply calves with age, I see it clearly. For me the world is no longer so interesting, fascination and enthusiasm are slowly extinguishing, I became boring person.
I fell loneliness of incomprehension - I am in a crowd of friends, family, buzz , but ... there is no one to share with my feelings, emotions. Only talks about clichés.
I fell loneliness by ignoring - I become invisible in the eyes of others. Loneliness is also when you pass several hundred people in the city center within an hour, and for each of them you are worth as much as nothing , when the only way that others perceive you is perceiving as a client .
Added to this is the feeling of my own mediocrity. If you are not unique, you do not look special, you do not have exceptional talent, you were not born in a unique place, you do not have special skills or have a bigger purpose in life, you will always be just a little gray man, about whom the world will never he has heard or he will never hear. I am 24 and I am overwhelmed by the thought that nothing interesting will happen to me anymore.
If I had any talents, could do something specific, maybe I would feel better and needed. In the meantime, I am such a gray man that it is no longer possible. Why do I need a life consisting of going to work every day which I do not like, coming back from work, killing time with something that neither develops or amuses me, going to sleep and waking up in the morning for work.. I am constantly afraid that I will not achieve anything in my life and experience it as if I have never really lived.
I feel that I am not being helped by drugs or by the advice of psychiatrists and psychologists, motivational speakers and I do not know what to do. Would anyone have any advice for me, a solution?
Aesthetics in Stoicism
https://stoiccompass.wordpress.com/2016/05/05/stoic-style/amp/
Thoughts?
Jesus of Nazareth
Jesus of Nazareth, 1977
https://imdb.com/title/tt0075520/
4 day viewing starting tomorrow December 18th-22nd 5 PM CST(11 PM UTC)
The philosophy of image boards
Hello /philosophy/, I posted this on /new/ originally, but I figure you guys would have some valuable input too.
What do you think makes an image board, in the broadest sense of the word.
What ideas are they fundamentally based on? How best is an image board operated? e.g. In terms of moderation, its culture, and what it generally does. And finally, what should the purpose or end result of an image board be?
I will begin with a few relevant screencaps by anons on this issue.
There is no such thing as an agnostic belief.
If knowledge is defined as justified true belief, then agnostic belief, if it is not an irrelevant proclamation of feeling, is simply justified true belief in a plausibility. If someone "believes but they're not sure," their belief can be equated either to knowledge of a quantified plausibility, e.g. "There is a 70% chance this is true," or a feeling, e.g. "I feel like this is true but I don't know." A claim of agnostic belief is therefore either equivalent to a claim of knowledge, or a proclamation of feeling that is justifiedly ignored.
So why the existence of the term? Well if there are no other possible reasons, the implicit conclusion is deception. The specification of "agnostic," by virtue of the apparent necessity of its specification, implies gnostic belief is possible and that one holds other, gnostic beliefs, which, by virtue of the presumed necessity of logical justification for a gnostic belief, implies there is logical justification for the specification of "agnostic," which could only be a quantified plausibility. The term is used to give this impression, and yet so that when pressed to reveal said logical justification, one can incorrectly and deceptively cite "agnostic," that they thus don't actually know anything, and thus have nothing to defend.
Mentioning one's own epistemology at all is just a big red herring; it has no place in debate; and it should only if ever be shared as nothing more than a cool factoid about one's self -- because there is no such thing as an agnostic or gnostic position. Whether one believes they can tell the difference between knowledge and belief is irrelevant. Neither is anything more than a statement of feeling. If someone says "I believe but I don't know this thing to be true," or "I know this thing to be true," either way the only proper response in debate would be "Prove it."
>inb4 someone contests that I can't disagree with "established" epistemology
Well, I can, and I don't. Nor does what you've read on wikipedia or from any atheist 'philosopher' constitute epistemology. The "science" is never "settled" so to speak, unless you're an idiot.
Awkwardly worded question aside what is at the core of human fear? What is the most accurate description of it from an existential point of view?
Having read Thomas Ligotti and Peter Wessel Zapffe it would seem that their vision of the human condition is a miserable one as man having been endowed with the rational to examine his own position in the galaxy as intrinsically without purpose.
H.P Lovecraft capitalized on this feeling of cosmic indifference and nihilism as the main driving force behind his horror novels however I have to wonder if this actually constitutes as fear...
That seem to be the general consensus, at least I've perceived as such, that the most frightening concept for people is to die, dissolve and be forgotten but this is true of all things. Do animals fear the prospect of being forgotten? I doubt it.
Is will to live the main defining attribute of fear? If there is no fear of death is there nothing left to fear?
Sorry if this come of as mouthbreathy and convoluted. I'll elaborate further as best I can.
Our Western Poverty
We are rich, are we not? At any point prior in our species history have we ever been as nourished in our physical needs? Are not not living longer lives? If we have such wealth, how can anyone take issue with this world we have made?
However, even in this paradise of the material, there lies an underlying problem. Even with our full bellies, decent health, and access to to incredible technology we still find a quiet desperation in ourselves and others. What can a wealthy man lack? Purpose.
In my opinion, a well lived life is one that affirms life itself. Life is not happiness alone. Fulfillment is seldom found in brief sensory excitement. Agony and delight are married. If agony is negated, so is joy and therefore life. Our Occidental impoverishment is not material, it is the impotence of a once strong man. Our emptiness stems from our denial of the Faustian and masculine spirits that endure pain. We have become weak and sterile and therefore our world decays.
Come to the board!!!
>>>/parthenon/ I think it would be a decent board to go to
Hey /philosophy/,
I get the impression that a lot of you seem to believe that there is a set of objective moral laws. I made the mistake of majoring Human Geography in college and minoring in Philosophy. Since I took several classes examining different societies and cultures; I of course came away with a moral relativist point of view. I want to give equal weight to those who say that are objective truths to moral and immoral actions.
For me the two who best did it were Aristotle and Kant. (Not sure how anyone can take the Utilitarians seriously.) However, I'm a little underwhelmed by both of them. In my current mixed state of philosophical knowledge and ignorance, I think Aristotle did the best job. However, I still don't think he did so conclusively or even particularly close.
So can I ask you /philosophy/, who did the best job, and why?
Henlo I was in GATE
I'm a Christian but this is what was communicated to me by ethereal entities.
So whats going on? Well see the ethereal is real. Certain groups insert thought forms into the ethereal recesses of your mind. The thought forms normally negative energy create creatures in your mind that can alter conciousness, insert thoughts, speak, move independently. Every thought form seeks the same power to enter the astral. Where they can propagate and act freely, feeding off the energy of peoples conciousness.
Groups? Not sure but monroe institutes research provided the mechanical means for non spirtual thought forms to propagate.
Those most strongly affected are mental "sensitives" taking the brunt of their flagerant use of thought forms.
Sleep is when you are most vulnerable to these thought forms. Working in the foreground.
Ethereal is the astral and inner planes where ideas and archetypes can form and function without the physical.
Alexy is my thoughtform he will form and flow eventually propagating the astral.
But there are others in my head pushing for space and activating predatorial nature within me.
To gut, stab maim / end your life before you end anothers.
Seals and sigils to protect your back that simple nothing else, excovations as well.
Magic is a lot like creation.
Sigils - symbols concoted to cement meaning and cause change.
Demons they exist, archetypal thought forms striving for the status of gods. They insert their symbols into your thought streams to cause you to call them fourth.
Gods power exchangers. Devotion brings their power into your life not nessecerily into you.
Thought form - thought form is a general term for a entitiy or object that only exist within the ethereal.
Exvocation - its like a cleaning of the mind opening doors letting out the heat.
Monroe bots - artificial thought forms whose only purpose is to disturb forcing you to become controled.
Follow the 10 commandments Exodus 20 3:17
1:3 “You shall have no other gods before[a] me.
2:4 “You shall not make for yourself an image in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. 5 You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, 6 but showing love to a thousand generations of those who love me and keep my commandments.
3:7 “You shall not misuse the name of the Lord your God, for the Lord will not hold anyone guiltless who misuses his name.
4:8 “Remember the Sabbath day by keeping it holy. 9 Six days you shall labor and do all your work, 10 but the seventh day is a sabbath to the Lord your God. On it you shall not do any work, neither you, nor your son or daughter, nor your male or female servant, nor your animals, nor any foreigner residing in your towns. 11 For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.
5:12 “Honor your father and your mother, so that you may live long in the land the Lord your God is giving you.
6:13 “You shall not murder.
7:14 “You shall not commit adultery.
8:15 “You shall not steal.
9:16 “You shall not give false testimony against your neighbor.
10:17 “You shall not covet your neighbor’s house. You shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, or his male or female servant, his ox or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor.”
More things I was told
No sex without love
Pets and meat eating is wrong
Love your fellow humans
Pure asceticism is a waste of life
There is a old God and a new God
I also believe in Hermes and Aphrodite as sort of angels.
I had a long conversation with the angel Gabriel about this. He is the one who gave me the extra commandments.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gabriel
I also believe in fae giving them offerings and attempting to interact with them.
Luck is real
Anything good or bad that happens to someone that they, within reason, could not predict or control is a form of luck.
> Getting hit by a drunk driver
> Winning the lottery
> Born with a permanent disability
> Struck by lightning
There's no sound reason for anyone to say that luck isn't real. They either don't understand the meaning of the word or have a very distorted view of reality, like the ones who claim every experience you have is just a manifestation of your own thoughts. This is patently false, as you could wake up tomorrow with a spider on your head without a single thought to spur it. There may be a reason, a cause, for everything, but that doesn't mean every event can be controlled or accounted for by a person at all times. When these unpredictable, uncontrollable events affect someone positively or negatively, it's called luck.
The alt-right and /pol/ both have members who believe that god and the afterlife do not exist, but who also believe that public belief in such things is the only way for society to avoid falling into moral relativism and degeneracy.
Maybe there is a way to provide objective morality and purpose, I believe that the forbidden science promoted by the alt-right holds the key to this.
Ayn Rand was right about the law between the individuals within a tribe, but she refused to accept tribal differences, or even that there were tribes to begin with.
If we can combine Ethno-nationalism and the most useful bits of Objectivism, and use the empirical evidence supporting the existence of tribal differences, the need for tribal separation, etc. I feel like we would be on track to a new morality.
Are there any infographics that weren't written by an apparent 8-year-old? You can't "realize" there is no meaning, as if the meaning of the realization exists in some magic bubble of non-meaning. Anyone have any guides that don't confuse despair and intelligence, and then proceed to try to explain just why that despair isn't despair? Something simple, like "You think this shit is interesting? Then you should read this. You think this shit is banal? Then you should read this."
Perfect Eternal Conscious Energy
You are allowed to redefine the terms "real" and "reality". Let's redefine "Real" to mean "something that never changes". Does this physical life/world change? Yes, of course. And therefore it is not real. The only thing that is real is Perfect Eternal Conscious Energy -- Perfect Spirits, Perfect Eternal Conscious Entities. They never change and thus crave the illusions of a temporary, ever changing physical existence such as this very dreamworld we are presently experiencing. Nothing real is being harmed or changed by the horrors and pain of this little dream.
Let me argue for Objectivism
I've been living successfully (patents, wealth) and happily (family, friends) with Objectivism for a decade and am fairly well involved in Oist circles.
I've been studying the theoretical side of it and think it might be insightful for everyone involved to have a discussion.
I'm aware that Oism is generally looked down upon by the majority of professional philosophers, which I find unfortunate.
Please throw anything you wish at me and I'll try to answer to the best of my knowledge.
Let me address some common misconceptions at the outset (mostly about Rand herself, but please don't make this thread about those points):
1. Rand's primary goal in life was to bring back the benevolent society of the 19th century that she caught a glance of in her youth - via literature. To achieve this, she wanted to "describe the ideal man". She did not want to be a philosopher and would rather have not led an ideology - but did so anyway after Nathaniel Branden convinced her that it would help her cause.
2. She did not die in poverty. Her estate was above a million dollars at her passing (which Leonard Peikoff inherited).
3. She did accept social security at some point - which is consistent since "only the opposers of redistribution may morally reclaim their redistributed/stolen wealth by making use of the redistribution" (it would be a sacrifice not to get your own money back)
4. She did have a relationship outside of her marriage - with which her husband agreed. She loved her husband since he had the ideal sense of life - and Branden because he could spar with her intellectually. It later turned out Branden betrayed her and it fell apart.
5. No, Objectivism is not about "screw everyone else". To the contrary. One ought to cultivate and support one's trade partners (to which friends and family count). The ideal is voluntarily chosen 'win-win' trades amongst everyone.
6. That 'rape scene' in the Fountainhead wasn't rape. Dominique is a complex character who wishes to destroy the good because the world isn't worthy of it. She tried and failed to deny herself the good and finally reluctantly gave in to her own wishes. (A paragraph is not enough to fully explain this)
Is monogamy natural?
I personally believe that the human body is programmed to be both monogamous and polygamous at the same time. The more sex you have with random women the more your body programs itself to become polygamous. And I think this might be why virgin-until-marriange couples have the lowest divorce rates.
The Meaning of Life in Eternal Return
Almost of every school of philosophy from West to East believes in some form of reincarnation. Whether or not we come back as the same person or not is semantics. This isn't even mentioning the idea that our universe is just one of many.
My question then is how does reincarnation effect the meaning of life? How can there be any meaning if we have unlimited time at bat?
Playing the Game
Hello anons, fellow seeker of Life here.
It seems to me like we live in a paradoxical world, in which we have no say over the creation of our existence, no say over the determination of the biological factors which shape our minds, and no proper say over the finding of meaning and fulfilment. I've dabbled with existentialism, structuralism, spiritualism, rationalism, and many of the forms they take. I know there is much I don't understand, and much more I haven't looked at or pondered. I have come to a few conclusions about life, beauty, and truth, but I have the recurring feeling like many of those conclusions, much of the wisdom I hold is self-referential and circular. I believe that the fundamental "graph of life" is an upward oscillation of "good", and not an exponentiality though it may look like that from very close. I know that I wish to, atleast and like everyone else, "feel" free, but I also know that "feeling free" is not the same as "being free". I wish to be free and know it as best I can, not feel free and believe it to be real.
In short, I want to become what I am, and I wish for that to be divine. I know hybris is dangerous, but I also know that calling out hybris is not enough to guard you from it. I know I don't believe in determinism, but I believe that determinism is real if it is believed.
I wish, or believe to wish to satisfy my ego or "will to power", to ultimately ascend into apotheosis. Not immediately, but eventually (whenever that eventuality arises). Why do I wish to become one god, one among many? Because I believe it to be my birthright to know what "all this stuff" is about. I don't believe in the inherent cruelty of Life, because I know the opposite exists, namely the good, the true, and the beautiful.
I know I have to play the game to "win", and I have sort of a grasp on how to play it, namely "playing it true", but I don't know which game really to play, because I think most of the games one is presented with are more or less distractions, many of which, I feel like, were created by those who are playing "the real game".
Having recognized that there is "the real game", I call it Life proper, where do I find the table of players to play it with? In geopolitics? In my own personal relations? In religion and spirituality? I would answer in all of those things and more. However that recognition of the vastness of Life isn't enough to "understand" the vastness of Life, or Life itself.
I wish to understand, for understanding is intelligence, and intelligence is the language of gods.
Enlighten me, fellow children and future gods.
Sam Harris is a real liberal, (stfu lying Marxists)
Like liberals Sam is for taxation on the rich, he just opposes pitically correct insanity and values telling the truth over anything else:
https://samharris.org/how-to-lose-readers-without-even-trying/
Posting this because morons from the left and right like to slander him without understanding him. The biggest offender is existential comics guy who does the philosophy comic, and he made about 4 comics on Sam. (Pic related.) I agree with Marxists on certain things, but the moment they lie to me they lose me, and they really love lying much more than centrist liberals like Sam Harris. I can't remember Sam Harris ever lying a out an opponent, but they always lie about him and ad-hom him too.
what does /philosophy/ think of this?
I want your honest opinions on this. what do you think about it? what would you do to improve it? I'm looking for some really serious deep philosophical critical thinking discussion on this. I love the good conversations. lets go for it then.
Jean Baudrillard
Jean Baudrillard was a French sociologist, philosopher, cultural theorist, political commentator, and photographer. He is best known for his analyses of media, contemporary culture, and technological communication, as well as his formulation of concepts such as simulation and hyperreality. He wrote about diverse subjects, including consumerism, gender relations, economics, social history, art, Western foreign policy, and popular culture. Among his best known works are Simulacra and Simulation (1981), America (1986), and The Gulf War Did Not Take Place (1991). His work is frequently associated with postmodernism and specifically post-structuralism.
Dude was pretty based. Wasn't afraid to name the jew.
Epistemic regress
Hey board. What's your stance on the problem of epistemic regress, and where do you all fall on Agrippa's Trilemma?
Foundationalism, coherentism, or infinitism?
I'm personally an infinitist, although I also accept there may be a point of justification that is impossible to express and articulate and so justification itself may be a failed project. For most of our reasoning, we base our thought off of psychological maxims that act as 'just good enough' foundations which allow us do the necessary legwork to pursue our ends.
Value of Human Life becoming a societal goal.
When it comes to most global policies, at least from the ones that I have seen, most of them place an immiediate value on human life. For example, the goal of all modern systems is ultimately- have a set of humans live longer, healthier, or something along those lines. When did this become the norm? Is this due to the Enlightenment placing focus on MAN rather than God?
How can feeling exist?
I understand that emotions and sensations are electrochemical responses within the brain, but more so on a metaphysical level, how can my emotions be regarded as physically existing? Are they something 3 dimensional or do they exist in another dimension like time?
what do you think about Hans-Hermann Hoppe's Argumentation Ethics?
https://issuu.com/keithknight-donttreadonanyone/docs/ultimate_justification_of_the_priva
Is all of continental philosophy garbage? has there ever been a good idea to come out of Germany other than Protestantism?
https://www.quora.com/Is-most-German-philosophy-mere-sophistry
Philosophy for Children
I want to introduce my 7 year old niece to philosophical thought while her mind is still malleable. She is very bright and extremely thoughtful for her age, and I want to cultivate her intellectual side and develop her critical thinking skills before public school turns her into another drooling drone.
How would I go about doing this?
Surely there are entry-level philosophical conundrums I could ease her into.
Please give suggestions.
What does it mean to love?
What is love? What does it mean to trully be in love? I know now after looking up some Carl Jung that what I thought love was is only just my anima projection. I guess Iv never felt it before. How does it feel, how does one fall in love? How do you know if someone is the right person? Im just curious iv never really loved and I dont know now if its a thing that even exists.
OP is a faggot
I have been trying to describe a feeling of “religion without object” which comes out of experience. I’m not at all religious (though I’d never call myself an atheist—too many presuppositions and misconceptions attached to that word) and am not a firm believer in typical metaphysical concepts or exterior, higher-order structures.
In certain moments I feel what I’d call “an experience of god,” though only for lack of a better term, which feels ultimately beyond mere pleasure or intense emotion. Very hard to describe.
Does anyone have any suggested readings or similar experiences to share? Been trying to put words to this for some time.
Why is bill nye such an idiot sometimes? https://qz.com/627989/why-are-so-many-smart-people-such-idiots-about-philosophy/
Logic?
Hi guys, I just found out about this board and there's something that has been puzzling my mind for a while, and I think that here I could perhaps get some help...Ever since high school I always had a few friends who could understand the subjects we were taught with much more ease than I could, for example, as they could easily understand the abstract ideias presented and everything, and I always wondered, how did they do that?
Is it because they had a deeper understanding of logic itself than I did? If so, do you think that that can be worked, or is it just something you are born with?
Maybe logic doesn't even have anything to do with that, but I still feel that my undestanding of logic is lacking, so I ask you guys, do you have any starting points I could follow as to start developing my logic skills? Such as recommendations of books, websites, anything really, as I am really lost hahaha.
Picture related I suppose, just google image'd logic and that was the first thing that popped up.
Thank you for the attention
What do you guys think of Jordan Peterson? The conservative who goes on about myths and the unknowability of truth while trying to blue pill the world.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/bloodyshovel.wordpress.com/2017/03/23/peterson-vs-harris-again/amp/
a map of philosophical writings
does such a thing exist? it strikes me as something that would be extraordinarily useful to any amateur looking to dip their foot in philosophy like myself, but the development of philosophy over time isnt something ive seen people make authoritative claims over, outside of the context of some specific narrative. i just want to understand some shit.
Baudrillard
Where do I start with reading on Baudrillard's theory of simulacra? "Simulacra and Simulacrum" seems too hard to grasp without background knowledge based on the first pages. Would reading "Symbolic Exchange & Death" be a better starting point? other suggestions?
Anon is in love, but it's Romantic
I have been thinking about some girl for a long time, at least 7 months now. I have been thinking about her, what she does, been worried when she is sick, all that stuff. But i can't explain to her the way i feel, i get confused everytime i am alone with her, and we end up talking about past life experiences, the people we have met, but i just can't start a conversion about the way i feel. I once began forming a sentence that she is messing up my thought when we are together, but then mid-sentence something in my mind produced really shitty scenes from relationships i have noticed among other people and the sentence ended with some gibberish without even being half-way. It's like there is a wall in my head that prevents me from saying some cheesy shit or expressing my feelings.
Other people around me see me a a ask-me-anything type of guy on every topic, but absolutely fucking emotionless. What do? Which philosopher should i read up?
Why is the majority of modern philosophy so awful? I feel like this started around the 1700's, with madmen like Marquis de Sade being touted around as "philosophers". It only got worse in the 1800's with philosophers like Marx coming about and basing their entire ideals on scientific theories (i.e. primitive communism) which were since superseded.
In the modern era philosophy seems to be mostly centred on the self; reality doesn't exist, don't care about others, happiness is the only thing that truly matters, etc. If it's not on the self, it's on the culture or the people, as with Marxist philosophies.
Why does it have to be this way?
Does this concept of epistomology/debate have a name?
Hi anons, I have noticed something that most philosophers I know of are not talking about, at least resembling the way I am going to.
This has become increasingly obvious to the point of being quite painful to watch, every time it happens.
First I'm gonna lay out two concepts, and with every word I am using, I am not referring to the academic definition of that word, I'm going with common dictionary definitions.
Now, as I see it, there are two ways or techniques that people have argued a point in the past, and continue, to this day. The problem is that one of these has been used, in recent times, to a point of extreme unbalance.
The first way of arguing, I'll call something like foundationalism, or constructionism.
In this method, a person starts with the most simple, applicable, and prominent aspects of reality. In this method, a person uses truisms, laws of the universe, and very simple and effective reason to make their argument. They start with simple concepts, where there can really be no misinterpretation of meaning, and every concept they introduce is resting of the foundation of principles and laws that are so simple as to be common sense, or unmistakable. Any higher level concepts they introduce, any higher levels of abstraction, must rest firmly on these common sense principles and laws, and be clearly defined by these unmistakable terms.
In this way, the argument is constructed like a pyramid, with every level firmly resting and being supported by every layer below it, and every next higher layer is set upon the existing solid proofed structure, and is placed in a meaningful and supportive way, as an architect would be planning what he can put on the next story up, given what supports and walls and utilities are directly below it. In this way, the method builds layer upon sodlid layer, until eventually reaching the cap stone, the pinnacle of the argument.
The other method is quite easier to explain, because of how loose it is. This method I would call something like unconstructionism, or uber conceptualism.
In this method, which it seems the vast majority of academics use, a person is assumed to know common sense, so the professor introduces a term or concept which is at a very high level of abstraction. The professor then builds downward from that concept, down to the undeniable foundation of natural laws. The capstone of the argument is placed first, and then every layer below it is justified as being there because it is in line with the capstone. This method does not much take into consideration what the topograpy of the actual physical ground is, beneath where they have suspended their capstone. When arguments are made using this method, a person will start out with, say, a 10th level abstraction in their head, and go about trying to prove that seemingly true 10th level abstraction using concepts which are 9th and 8th and 7th level abstractions. This method can be useful sometimes, because when one finds that no matter how the structure beneath the capstone is built, the capstone can not be properly upheld, one will know that the capstone must be moved first.
The obvious problem with the second method is that you are using high level abstractions, abstractions which the definition cannot even be agreed upon, in order to prover even higher level abstractions with even less agreement and perception of what those actually are and mean.
liberaltard, and libertariatards, seem to use method number two all the time, which is why everything that comes out of their mouths makes about as much realistic sense as physiology and physics do in looney toons.
Question:
Do these two concepts actually already have names? Have people talked about his before? Has an academic or intellectual already identified this dichotomy, and described in in far greater detail that I?
The Decline of the West
I'd like to read Spengler's The Decline of the West. I can borrow an English translation of it by Charles Francis Atkinson, published in 1926.
Will I be set to just 'jump in' to Spengler's work or do I need to slog my way through the Greeks, Nietzsche, Hegel, Schopenhauer etc. first?
Philosophical Anime
Let's start with Lain.
>existentialist themes
>post-modern themes
>alienation themes
>cyberpunk themes
Plot:
>girl falls into the internet
>meets the God of the internet
>questions God
>questions ontology
>questions Epistemology/what is true vs what is believed
>questions wheter if enough people believe something it can become true
>questions [spoiler] how a God who used to be human could have become a God unless he was created by someone higher.
>realizes she made him and is actually the real God of the internet
>deletes herself from existence for the better good, so she won't be tempted to meddle with and harm a lesser species.
[/spoiler]
How would you classify Serial Experiments in Lain? Are there any other good anime for thinkers?
Anon social suicide
Rules: if roll any prime number between 1 and 97, ==you're out of /b for good. You can never ever get back again.==
>this is your own commitment. Nobody would force you.
>you can only roll one time.
>you have to get your shit together. Have a life away from here, be brave
>this place is dying anyway.
hard-core mode
You give up to all social media. No FB, no Instagram, no shit.
Want to talk to someone, call him/her. Talk in real life.
Want to post something, make a blog and be creative.
>you must post ==hard-core== to roll on this mode.
Ok
I'll go first.
Moderate Your Board
This board is empty and will stay empty until the mods start banning people making shitty posts. I know, I know, "muh masters censoring muh ego" but why have a board dedicated to philosophy, and make no attempt to keep it as a board dedicates to philosophy? Waste of time.
Also the "philosopher-posting" of answering questions in a strange way gives me that empty airy "cringe" feeling in my chest, stop
Why so few flags?
life
I've been reading comments/posts of the younger generation...and... We as Humans young or old have our own thoughts/and way of life (so we think!)...BUT... as you get Older you realize, Life is about Continuing!
When we were younger...it was about being with friends, trying new things etc...but as we Age...we learn!...What We Now, compared to what we didn't know then...Life could've been FANTASTIC...but nobody told us the Real story. Life changes and we adapt - learn AGAIN!
Life changes everyday, people change, jobs change, we move on... don't think for a moment that what YOU know today...Is going to be the same tomorrow :) Enjoy Life.. Learn, Live & Appreciate !! 50 something!! :)
Is there a reason we have stopped seeing ufos? This writer blames it on skepticism fostered by television and the diminsihing of our awe for spiritual places and nature.
https://aeon.co/essays/why-have-we-stopped-seeing-ufos-in-the-skies
KILL YOURSELF
also
/pol/ literature >>>/zundel/
recommended threads
>exposing the jews
Collection - The Rothschild Dynasty
>>>/zundel/2
E. Michael Jones
>>>/zundel/1358
Michael A. Hoffman II
>>>/zundel/1234
Michael Collins Piper
>>>/zundel/1226
Mike S. King
>>>/zundel/1206
Eustace Mullins
>>>/zundel/1324
Patrick J. Buchanan
>>>/zundel/1199
Count Emmanuel Malynski
>>>/zundel/1412
David Duke
>>>/zundel/1408
Douglas Valentine
>>>/zundel/2008
Grant F. Smith
>>>/zundel/2059
Brandon Martinez
>>>/zundel/1438
Kevin B. MacDonald
>>>/zundel/1245
>jewish ritual murder/sacrifice to moloch
Hellmut Schramm
>>>/zundel/1295
Arnold S. Leese
>>>/zundel/1457
Harrell Rhome
>>>/zundel/2064
Ariel Toaff
>>>/zundel/1460
>holohoax
Holocaust Handbooks & Related
>>>/zundel/18
Austin J. App
>>>/zundel/1448
Paul Rassinier
>>>/zundel/1196
Germar Rudolf
>>>/zundel/1308
Gerd Honsik
>>>/zundel/1309
Udo Walendy
>>>/zundel/1148
Benjamin Weintraub
>>>/zundel/1446
Richard Harwood
>>>/zundel/1181
(1/3)
Cynicism
Hey /philosophy/!
I wanted to create a thread on the school of Cynicism. I've also found this particular school to be interesting, because it's linked to Socrates through Antisthenes. Now, Antisthenes is regarded generally as the founder of Cynicism.
He believed strongly in virtue, and in avoiding excess pleasure. It's said Diogenes of Sinope followed him around a bit, but that is still disputed. What is true, however, is that Diogenes definitely took the school of thought a little more to the extreme. While he agreed with Antisthenes' conclusion on virtue, his sense of ascetic propriety was to the point that he virtually trolled everyone around him with his devotion to simply live his philosophy.
There have been many other people who have influenced virtue, including Epictetus, who later influenced Marcus Aurelius, and from there we've seen different perspectives on it.
What are your thoughts on the school? Is it a viable one? Is it compatible with the current world? And if so, why?
Express your Deceitfulness
GAMMON THREAD
Encouraged shitposting
All shitposting is to be done in this thread, where complete nonsense to vague knowledge and ideas can be typed. Shitposting in the larger sense of the word, where philosophical ideas that would be deemed stupid can be shared and built on and directed to the closest philosopher to build off of.
All shit posting comments to other threads should be posted in here also to keep shitposting to a minimum in other threads and leave other threads to stay on topic in a orderly manner.
Share your shitposts in this thread, right now.
How do we make this board more popular?
How do we make this board more popular? I really like this board and would like to use it more, but it' extremely slow. I've heard people say that they like the slow pace, but personally I'm not a fan of it. A somewhat slow board is fine but usually it takes maybe a day to generate a thread with at the most 5 replies, an abhorrently slow speed.
Should we start advertising the board on other boards, or should we take another approach?
Or am I just in the completely wrong mindset and should just accept that the board is really slow?
Operation Information Liberation
Operation Information Liberation *CROSSPOST*
>Original Post
>https://8ch.net/pol/res/11205392.html#11205721
The online digital age has rendered institutionalized education obsolete and has left them exposed as the detriments to society that they have become. Colleges no longer exist to educate, but to indoctrinate. And to add insult to injury, we're paying through the nose for the right to have our youth brainwashed against us by these narcissistic ingrates.
No More.
This is a project that, in time, will be cross-posted across numerous boards, platforms & media, taking participation from numerous communities with Truth being our guiding light and uniting purpose. This project is designed to provide and highlight alternatives to mainstream universities, or at least offer an inoculation against the Marxist intellectual contagion perpetuated by these Institutions of Higher Indoctrination. For the fields that can't just be done online, and require some sort of hard infrastructure, like a chemistry lab, we may want to consider utilizing, or copying the Maker Space route of community educational facilities.
We will need to find alternatives to accreditation.
This project will also need an accompanying meme campaign to get Normans, especially in the hiring class to associate a traditional college degree with risk. Risk that the person will be some sort of entitled SJW. Risk that they may file false sexual harassment claims (Humungus). Risk that they may be incompetent at their job.
The Class of 2018 graduates in May. I imagine high-schools will be having college days, fliers, trips, speakers, recruiters, field days, etc throughout March and April. When that begins, I'd like to see this project ready enough to print out business cards with the links and downloads for all the resources and content we'll be compiling.
These are the sources and resources I've dug up over the night. I've been thinking about this for a week. This is a long Op, it has to be. The damage to the Millennial generation is mostly done. And already significant damage has been done to Gen Z, which is who we're all counting on to reserve the trend. We can not allow them to walk blindly into these fucking lunatic safe-spaces known as colleges.
This is a big job, I can't do it alone, I need as much help as you can muster, even if it's just a link or a suggestion.
Below is a compendium of resources I put together thus far.
https://spaces.makerspace.com/
______
https://www.hooktube.com/watch?v=R3Ovrhrf9BQ - Jack Otto - Forbidden Knowledge
https://www.hooktube.com/watch?v=j800SVeiS5I - In Shadow - A Modern Oddesey
https://www.hooktube.com/watch?v=PRdcZSuCpNo - 7 Days of DeepMind A.I.
https://www.hooktube.com/watch?v=cRuKmxQSPSw - Dutch Banker Ronald Bernard - Interview
https://www.hooktube.com/watch?v=sD33byzG2jc - Behold a Pale Horse - AudioBook
https://www.hooktube.com/watch?v=VL_7nAIa0Cg - Bloodlines of Illuminate - AudioBook
https://www.hooktube.com/watch?v=fj-10lIrboM - Tool - Right In Two
https://www.hooktube.com/watch?v=icAjo9VXKZU - Protocol Of The Elders Of Zion
https://www.hooktube.com/watch?v=e0C_qG5U7pE - Black Ops, Cody Snodgres, Operator Comes Forward And Tells All
https://www.hooktube.com/user/MrTeslonian - Mr Teslonian - Alternative Energy & Technology
https://www.hooktube.com/user/crashcourse - Crash Course - Normie Friendly Education Channel (Only For Tech and Sci)
https://www.hooktube.com/channel/UCG-fzkzsubdFQLvco0w5w_A - "- Timaeus -" - Wide Ranging History Channel
https://www.hooktube.com/user/BrightAgrotechLLC - Bright Agrotech Aquaponics - Alt-Ag Tech
https://www.hooktube.com/watch?v=dpENi0T3Zeo&list=PLAPahqrfGZZmUNzrQV0ZwKjUrmqq-Stqh - Aquaponics Academy Playlist
https://www.hooktube.com/watch?v=KxTfQpv8xGA - Polyface Farms - Sustainable & Organic Agriculture
https://www.hooktube.com/channel/UCbYFhcKSE2mWYB0yD_Qr_8A - Urban Gardener - Subsistence Alt-Ag For Cities
https://www.hooktube.com/user/radmycology/videos - Radical Mycology - Fungi, Mushrooms and Mycelium
https://www.hooktube.com/user/seasteading - Voluntary Seasteading Communities
http://www.virology.ws/course - Vincent Racaniello
Nietzschean Christianity?
In short I was wondering if the two could be compatible or at least Christianity could learn from Nietzsche. The only conflict I foresee is master and slave mentality, but Christians should know that God loves them and made them in his image. He wants us to enjoy earth and it's pleasures, with some restraint. When Nietzsche said "God is dead" he wasn't saying that it was a good thing. Rather he was saying it was bad, as science robbed "passionate, Dionysian spirituality that lent life vitality and meaning". Nietzsche also know religion provided a psychological comfort to humans.
critizing others
Whats the legal requirement/rule for make qutes of dead thinkers to refute them? for exampe, i quote Kant and his main works to refute him and his ideas; do i any need copyrights for this, or somthing similar?
More importantly, are works consisting of refutations of important works considered relevant?
>pic unrealted
/atheism/ resurrection when?
1. when a man goes back in time and kill myself 5 minutes before past-him makes the journey 5 minutes into the past to kill himself, he stands over the dead body of past-him and nothing special happens, meanwhile, in the timeline he came from, he had simply entered the time portal and disappeared.
This is because there exists parallel timelines, NOT branching timelines, PARALLEL timelines, meaning that instead of a single timeline that gets divided up by all future possibilities at any given moment, an entire separate timeline exists for every possible combination of possible states that the universe can take between it's big bang and it's big crunch, and this accounts for all the possible states the universe can take as a result of time travel.
Time travel involves the movement of whatever is traveling from it's location in timeline A, to a previous point in timeline B, but since the states that the universe took up in timeline B were identical to timeline A up until their arrival, it might as well be the same universe.
Nothing happens to the self-icidal traveller in the opening example given because he was not strictly assassinating himself in the past of his timeline, but rather, he was assassinating someone who was identical to himself 5 minutes ago in a universe that is identical to the one in his home universe five minutes ago, he may never realize this, and he can never go back to the timeline he arrived from, if he goes into the future, he instead arrives at a future point in the timeline he had departed from.
2. The butterfly effect is merely meant to demonstrate how the cumulative effects of a small event can create a larger event over long periods of time via extended chains of cause-and-effect, and how this process makes it difficult to make predictions about the future, it says nothing about whether actions committed in the past would produce positive or negative results, nor whether they WOULD even produce a large-scale result, it only states what COULD possibly occur over time, they COULD also create positive large-scale effects, negative small-scale effects, positive small-scale effects, etc. the multiverse is not a sentient being, it cannot tell, nor can it care, what a bipedal ape on a speck of dust thinks positively or negatively of, the butterfly effect applies to the effects of the present on the future exactly as much as it applies to the effects of the past on the present, in fact, the butterfly effect was only intended to explain how cause-and-effect chains operate from the present, it was never intended to be applied to time travel, also time travel to the past is actually more likely to produce a positively received result due to you having more information to make a decision in the past than if you made it in the present, there is no such thing as "fate", only hard determinism.
3. the multiverse has three parts, a core, which produces a set of natural laws that all timelines abide by, timelines, that are arranged around the core in ellipses, and which all intersect at the two universes at the state in between the big bang and the big crunch, located at the furthest points on the ellipsis from the core, making all the timelines form the shape of an ovoid around the core in the center. there are also other multiverses, one for every unique set of natural laws, most of which are lifeless, collectively, all multiverses, along with the "space" they inhabit, are referred to as "The Omniverse".
I love Bertnard Russel
His "Why I am not a Christian" is pretty good Know any other short philosophical essays against religion?
How the Churches Have Retarded Progress
"You may think that I am going too far when I say that that is still so. I do not think that I am. Take one fact. You will bear with me if I mention it. It is not a pleasant fact, but the churches compel one to mention facts that are not pleasant. Supposing that in this world that we live in today an inexperienced girl is married to a syphilitic man; in that case the Catholic Church says, "This is an indissoluble sacrament. You must endure celibacy or stay together. And if you stay together, you must not use birth control to prevent the birth of syphilitic children." Nobody whose natural sympathies have not been warped by dogma, or whose moral nature was not absolutely dead to all sense of suffering, could maintain that it is right and proper that that state of things should continue."- Bernard Russel
hey /philosophy/ !
>>>/christ/ reporting in.
Since we have related topics at our boards but are both quite small I want to propose to put a link at each others board.
This will increase both our traffic/Userbase hopefully and we both will profit.
If you don't want to do that you are still welcome to open a thread at our board and discuss with us.
Regardless of your religious believes, you are also welcome if you are a non-christian or atheist.
Have a nice day
The real value of Philosophy.
In this thread, we mentally masturbate each other and massage each other's egos as to imply that we are actually having some kind of effect on the happenings of this world.>protip: extra points if your fedora is resting upon thy head in a tilted fashion.
HEY! Succubi loving, old-tome quotin', tulpa grabbin' sychophants of the occult, I'm talking to you!
Do you like the human mind? Do you like to explore your dreams? Do you seek the answers to your problems? Ever heard of MBTI? How about Enneagrams? Do you think that sorta stuff is nerd astrology? Do you want a place to discuss creepy things with creepy people?
Do you just wanna freely bantz people?
Looking to meet friends?
Are you just bored as hell?
Do you want to see hell?
Want a place to pick up some hentai?
If you answered yes to any of those, hell if you answered yes to questions we didn't even ask, this server is for you!
Join BEYOND PERSONALITY!
The future of MBTI, typology, spirituality, philosophy, psychedelia, metaphysics, dickpicks, titpics, general banter and all other great things. How will you choose to spend your time and interaction in this 5d realm?
discord link:
/WYZWYVF
/WYZWYVF
/WYZWYVF
CHRISTIAN BOOKS COLLECTIONS- -main folder
CHRISTIAN BOOKS COLLECTIONS- -main folder
http://www.mediafire.com/?259da8g2th44p
https://mega.nz/#F!WVJA0Byb!RM-qYrMxUC3NrBK_7lXbTg
https://archive.org/details/CHRISTIANBOOKSCOLLECTIONS_201709
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/0B4QpVhdPs0u8UUxPUUxtS0NsN3c?usp=sharing
magnet:?xt=urn:btih:f8ab9f0e581265eada1472b6461e11170bb263c4&dn=CHRISTIANBOOKSCOLLECTIONS_201709
Hello /philosophy/. Some of us have founded a reading group on Discord. The topic is political philosophy and economics from a libertarian and classically liberal perspective, but we also plan to read famous or relevant works that disagree with us. There are about 25 of us so far, and pics related are the first five books we'll be reading.
Here's the link, if you're interested: https://discord.gg/4MP7WA
Why aren't you an Egoist Anarchist, /philosophy/?
>2017 Year of our Lord and Savior, Saint Max
>still sacrificing yourself to abstract immaterial ideas over your own will
>still constraining yourself with ridiculous notions such as rights and social limitations
>not being in a union of egoists
>still worshiping "god"
>still willing to die for your "country"
>not doing things because they're "immoral"
>still thinking there's a such thing as value outside yourself
>not being a nominalist
>still thinking arbitrary abstract definitions can ever actually apply to the unique one when he is really an undefinable enigmatic entity that can only be decribed as his ownness
>being a moralist ragamuffin
>not drinking milk
>not starting a co-op with your best bros
>still reading watered-down hacks like Friedrich "A horse is a horse, I had a mental breakdown of course, of course" Nietzche
>taking Ayn "Every Man's self-interest is his, now let me define what yours is" Rand seriously
Why do you insist on being so spooked?
Comfy discussion area
HEY! Epistemology loving, old-tome quoting, self-analysing brainfuls! I'm talking to you!
Do you like the human mind? Do you seek the answers to your problems? Ever heard of MBTI? How about Enneagrams? Do you think that sorta stuff is nerd astrology? Do you want a place to discuss fascinating things with fascinating people?
Do you just wanna freely bantz people?
Looking to meet friends?
Are you just bored as hell?
Do you want to see hell?
Want a place to pick up some hentai?
If you answered yes to any of those, hell if you answered yes to questions we didn't even ask, this server is for you!
Join BEYOND PERSONALITY!
The future of MBTI, typology, spirituality, philosophy, psychedelia, metaphysics, dickpicks, titpics, general banter and all other great things. How will you choose to spend your time and interaction in this 5d realm?
discord link:
/WYZWYVF
/WYZWYVF
/WYZWYVF
so /philosophy/,
was visiting my mom the other week and got into an argument. she thinks that the 2000 year old sand nigger will bitch slap the US with earthquakes because we allow gayfags to marry. i dont care about gay marriage, but i do care about justifying crazy shit with other crazy shit.
heres how the argument went.
>gods gonna shit on the US cuz fags are married!
thats fucking crazy, how do you know that.
>the bible says so
why is the bible true
>because i feel it in my heart to be true
if feelings are the source of truth, then if i feel that Xipe Totec wants me to rape babies and throw them into a volcano, then it is?
how do i better argue against her crazy fucking shit.
pic sorta related, a philosophinx
Confucius
Has anyone read Confused Man, I mean Confucius? Overall I don't like his philosophy, since he was hopelessly sexist, autocratic, and life denying. He made asians into drones that follow a hierarchy, preserved superstision and killed creativity. In English I call him confused man, but in Chinese I call him lao fu because it sounds like "loud fool."
recommendations: music, film, tv, animation, etc.
anything with philosophical content.
pic related: i suspect that the original gothic rock scene would have quite a bit of nihilism within it's lyrics, guessing from how many goths love to read the likes of byron, poe, lovecraft, shelly.
So Philosophy I've been having a existential crisis. I'm afraid to break my solipsism habit. Everything in the universe revolves around me, Everything I see on tv, read in books, people talking to me. No matter how big the problem or small it is I can't seem to not notice it. because I have nothing more demanding in my life then such I can't stop it. I want to know it is me and still enjoy it. it's annoying me.
Am I being a coward?
What intellectual youtube channels don't suck?
I like Crash Course and School of Life but I feel like maybe they are coloring my perceptions of philosophers and history a little too much, especially now that i've read a bit of Plato and I found there's so much more to him that what their 9 minute episodes could cover.
Do these two channels sucks? If so what channels don't suck?
but this in the sticky pls
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1y8_RRaZW5X3xwztjZ4p0XeRplqebYwpmuNNpaN_TkgM/mobilebasic
and maybe this too
magnet:?xt=urn:btih:C27562A243FEBE232A82669259C44EB171A255D0&dn=The%20story%20of%20philosophy%28pdf%29
Serious question for Gnostics/manichaeists
How is it possible to justify/defend that one is able to access a certain archetype which one has not previously observed in nature? Can you point me towards an example of an archetype/structure which can be analysed by one's intellect yet has not been found in Nature?
Does this philosophical approach exist yet?
I've been spending a lot of time thinking about viewing human existence, at its most fundamental level, as a struggle for permanence.
Immortality itself is essentially impossible, and primarily a fool's dream. But information, passed down from one impermanent vessel to the next, can theoretically achieve permanence.
Therefore, an individual who makes contributions significant enough to become famous and have their story or work documented and passed down for future generations have achieved a level of immortality, or at least permanence.
The ultimate goal would be to achieve popular fame from a historical perspective, so that even thousands of years from your death, your name, or your work, is a household name. Think Alexander the Great.
This of course leads to the moral problem of fame v. infamy, and how to deal with Herostratus copy-cats. Is fame, achieved through immoral means, reprehensible?
Anyways, my point in asking is, is there any documented philosophers who have examined this approach? If not, I'd love to write about it myself, and if there is, I'd quite like to read their work.
The fat man and the trolley
There is a runaway trolley barreling down the railway tracks. Ahead, on the tracks, there are five people tied up and unable to move. The trolley is headed straight for them. You are standing some distance off in the train yard, next to a lever. If you pull this lever, the trolley will switch to a different set of tracks. However, you notice that there is a person on the side track. You have two options: (1) Do nothing, and the trolley kills the five people on the main track. (2) Pull the lever, diverting the trolley onto the side track where it will kill one person. Which is the correct choice?
This is the thought experiment created by Philippa Foot in 1967. I've read the book Would you kill the fat man? by David Edmonds and it has made me think. I still don't know what I would do, however I would approve of killing the fat man in order to save the other five. According to negative utilirism and the doctrine of the double effect, that would be the right action. The only problem is that you'd have to kill a human being.
I feel quite conflicted about these two choices, what would /philosphy/ do?
Normative ethics must be informed by nature.
There is no meaning to existence, but there is a purpose to life.
The purpose of life is to pass on one's genes to their children, and then ensure that your children pass on those genes to their children, then you can die.
Since you are human, you can only reproduce with other humans, therefore ethics should at least apply primarily, if not exclusively, to humanity.
It should be applied to all humans for three reasons, first because you, and your offspring, need genetic diversity in the long run, second because as a human, you share genetics with every other member of your species, and third because humans are a species that has it's central advantage in it's ability to co-operate in large numbers, our development of philosophy and science is a testament to this.
Now that we can establish who ethics applies to, and the ultimate end goal ethics seeks to achieve, we can also look to nature to find out what our normative ethical code should be.
You could say that, because we desire pleasure and reject pain, desire happiness and reject sadness, desire knowledge and reject ignorance, and because we desire life and reject death, that we should settle for a utilitarian equation that maximizes pleasure, happiness, knowledge, and life, while minimizing pain, sadness, ignorance, and death.
But this is not always sufficient, as seen when people bring up runaway trolleys and unwilling transplants, so I take one thing out of Ayn Rand, the rule that any action that directly affects the body of another human being, or their property, must be done with that human being's consent.
And so I add this restriction to the utilitarian equation listed above, to place limits upon what actions are justified under it.
Indirect Realism and other Theories of Perception.
When looking at the theory of Indirect Realism there is one main criticism that states that Locke's Indirect Realism is wrong because we can not imagine something based upon its primary qualities and so secondary qualities, such as colour, are properties of an object. But what I want you, anons, is to imagine that you are in a room with 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. As you are standing in the room you know that there is a floor to the room and, even though you can not feel the floor, you understand that there is a floor because you are not falling. So you step forward and knock in to something. While you do not feel this knock you understand something is there as you can not move any further forward. You continue to do this and, over time, you have mapped the room in your head: there is a desk, an apple, a floor, a lamp shade, four walls and a door. Finally, satisfied that you know everything there is to know about the room with no senses, you open the door; all your senses have returned and you can perceive again, everything is in the room as you had mapped it in your mind yet now you are perceiving the secondary qualities such as colour: the apple is green, the desk is brown, the door is red and the walls are beige. With this thought experiment have we proven that primary qualities can exist without secondary qualities? Is it proven that if a tree falls in a forest, while it does not make a sound, that tree does actually exist without anything to perceive it?
Infidels.org
Since 70 percent of the heads of college philosophy departments have rejected religion, and they love posting their subversive articles on infidels.org, what is your favorite article?
https://infidels.org/kiosk/editorschoice.html
I'll go with "The Argument from Mundanity" for a comprehensive attack on doctrines that envoke perfection, which theists aren't aware of.
Answering the hard questions
I've always looked up to philosophers for answering the great questions such as "why should I lead a virtous life instead of a hedonistic life", and other things which the masses are always following because it seems so innocent.
Now I want to turn to you again. I am a /tech/ nerd in dire need of a good argument
Is there ANY modern(or old, if by chance one existed) philosopher who actually debunks the current "nothing to hide, nothing to fear" propaganda?
People are dropping their personal data all over to their government and big companies without so much care, and I don't think difficult philosophy is going to placate the masses, but it serves as a good starting point.
If not possible to find one, then /tech/ will have to deal with this itself.
How to die
How do you want to spend your last hours? Two of my family members died right after watching the news which I find pathetic waste of your last hours. Now I know when you're that old and sick you're just waiting to die so you might as well keep your old routine, but gathering information from the media when you're about to die is pointless. Since people are usually very accomodating of you and will try to listen to you, shouldn't your last minutes be teaching people about philosophy like Socrates did, or at least tell them stories from your life even though you may slide into incomprehensible delirium? Pic unrelated.
So I only got enough money for probably 2-3 books but my list is more, help me decide which 2-3 I should get?
Platos Rep*
Misopogon*
Lives and Opinions of Eminent Philosophers*
Illiad
Odyssey
Sayings and Anecdotes*
Democracy the God that failed*
Meditations*
Metaphysics or Rhetoric- Aristotle*
Iron Kingdon: Rise & Downfall of Prussia*
The Portable Machiavelli
* Denotes that I want it greatly
If anyone knows some good treatises or books on cynicism/ stoicism, epistemology- please recommend me whatever you advise. I'm looking for an engaging read so thanks for any recommendations provided.
Is there anything you feel as if people NEED to know in order to be free people?
People seem to have latched into the idea that only thing that they need to be free is not to have chains in their hands, but other groups, such as the old medieval liberal arts, believed that you needed knowledge of grammar, logic and rhetoric to be a free man(amongst four other things, but that's just arithmetic, geometry, music and astronomy).
I was just curious, is there someone else who has any strong opinions on this? I am really curious about any other philosopher who has spoken out, since it seems like a important topic.
Deep Philosophical Concepts
How the fuck hasn't the Krusty Krab been closed down by the fucking Sanitation Department like what the fuck Bikini Bottom are you just going to allow this mother fucker to fuck the town over like he has been doing. Open your fucking gills you retarded fish do you even know what goes on at that fucking kitchen. How has this restaurant not been shut the fuck down holy shit fuck Bikini Bottom what a shithole. This has been a letter to the good people at the BBHD to shut this motherfucking place down
How important is it to start with the greeks
I've tried to find both "The First Philosophers" and "The Pythagorean Sourcebook" but for fuck sakes its not online at all, unlike other works form non-greeks.
I know I'm missing important things like their dialogs in first place but some things just can't be done.
Why am I being forced to use a flag jesus fuck I'm not even a existentialist
The bricoleur and the meme farmer
In his 1962 work, "The Savage Mind", Claude Lévi-Strauss lays out the dichotomy of the bricoleur and the engineer. A bricoleur is one who practices bricolage, which is a sort of improvisation; bricoleurs 'tinker', they creatively use whatever tools and materials are at hand to complete various odd jobs as they arise. For Lévi-Strauss, the bricoleur has the 'savage mind' and engages in mythological thinking, while the engineer has the 'scientific mind' and engages in scientific thinking. What we're talking about here is different ways of creating and disseminating meaning through the manipulation of signs. Quoting Lévi-Strauss:
>"The 'bricoleur' is adept at performing a large number of diverse tasks; but unlike the engineer, he does not subordinate each of them to the availability of raw materials and tools conceived and procured for the purpose of the project. His universe of instruments is closed and the rules of his game are always to make do with 'whatever is at hand', that is to say with a set of tools and materials which is always finite and is also heterogeneous because what it contains bears no relation to the current project, or indeed to any particular project, but is the contingent result of all the occasions there have been to renew or enrich the stock or to maintain it with the remains of previous constructions or destructions. The set of the 'bricoleur's' means cannot therefore be defined in terms of a project. It is to be defined only by its potential use or, putting this another way and in the language of the bricoleur himself, because the elements are collected or retained on the principle that they may always come in handy. Such elements are specialized up to a point, sufficiently for the bricoleur not to need the equipment and knowledge of all trades and professions, but not enough for each of them to have only one definite and determinate use. They each represent a set of actual and possible relations; they are 'operators' but they can be used for any operations of the same type."
Furthermore:
>"Mythical thought, that bricoleur, builds up structures by fitting together events, or rather the remains of events, while science, 'in operation' simply by virtue of coming into being, creates its means and results in the form of events, thanks to the structures which it is constantly elaborating and which are its hypotheses and theories. But it is important not to make the mistake of thinking that these are two stages or phases in the evolution of knowledge. Both approaches are equally valid. Physics and chemistry are already striving to become qualitative again, that is to account also for secondary qualities which when they have been explained will in their turn become means of explanation. And biology may perhaps be marking time waiting for this before it can itself explain life. Mythical thought for its part is imprisoned in the events and experiences which it never tires of ordering and re-ordering in its search to find them a meaning. But it also acts as a liberator by its protest against the idea that anything can be meaningless with which science at first resigned itself to a compromise."
Boards where logical fallacies are banned
>>>/logic/ and it's child boards
(/logic/ isn't claimed yet so sorry about the shit posting)
What do you think of the idea?
Sophie's World is the literal truth
>Try to get into philosophy
>Realize you are are not who you think you are, but are actually a little girl in a best-selling novel
>Level up your philosophical powers and escape into the real world
Mfw, why didn't my philosophy profs inform me that the secret to philosophy is it's a process of getting out of a fucking book and meeting a "God" who has been watching you, and waiting for you to come so he can caress your flat titties?
dear phil, I am trying to write a book that you may find interesting, it's a take on an old premise that has never been seen before.
It's a series of stories about time travel, which all take place in the same setting, but with different characters perspectives, kind of like sin city.
but here is where it becomes unique, it deviaters in every way from how the subject is usually treated:
1: time travel is for everybody (who can afford it):
in most time travel stories, use of the technology is either heavily regulated, or only available to a select few, but here, traveling to, and thereby changing, the past is a technology widely available on the free market.
2. the setting with time travel does not have events which are unalterable, yet it does:
in most stories, you either cannot kill Hitler, or you can, but doing so deletes all future events along your timeline, and overwrites them with a new series of events that follow from the point of deviation.
But in my setting, all timelines with the same set of natural laws coexist exist as complete, predetermined, unalterable, looping entities within a single multiverse, where the last unique point in every timeline, where the universe is crushed into a singularity, is followed by first unique point in the timeline, when the singularity begins to expand again, this happens twice in every given timeline, and in between these points are the two points which all timelines share, that is, at the point of the singularity itself.
so the moment you travel back in time, you are actually entering a previous point in another timeline that is identical up the predetermined point in the timeline where you have warped in, at which point you become a part of the predetermined future of that timeline, unless one of your predetermined actions within it is to warp back in time again, in which case you disappear from it, and into a previous point in another, or into it's future, in which case you skip your existence within the timeline, until the future point at which you reappear again.
3. killing Hitler can lead to only good things!
every time travel story that allows the past to be changed agrees that doing so can only produce a future that punishes the traveler, either by inducing some paradox that threatens to destroy spacetime itself, or by producing only futures which the traveler finds less preferable than the future they came from (looking at you, stein's gate).
but in this setting, it has become common knowledge that changing the future in the past is actually MORE likely to produce a preferable future, than any action you commit in the present (you are already changing the future at this moment, you know?).
For when you change the future in the present, you have less information, and less resources, than when you alter the future via the past, however, it's not exactly as safe a bet as is commonly thought, as adding your present self into a point in time where you didn't exist before, is adding a whole new variable to that timeline's equation, especially if your past self also occupies that point in time.
But it's still pretty damn safe, and MUCH safer than any futures you can create in the present, things CAN go wrong, of course, but the ONLY contributing factor is the actions you take in the past, and the fact that you are committing them in the past itself, is NEVER a factor in determining futures (spacetime has no brain, is not sentient, and cannot recognize, nor judge, nor punish, any "timecrimes" that have been committed against it).
Can the laws of nature be deducted form Logic?
As the thread says.
Finding a list of times the laws of reality have been successfully deducted is a hard thing because nobody cares, but think about the past times people have done it:
Greeks guessed that material was made of "atoms" and that was what held material together.
Albert Einstein guessed that gravity was composed of "waves" and on 2016 we learned this was true.
The above people did not have proof of their hypothesis, they simply reasoned or guessed it.
Smarter people simply seem to be able to pull it off.
Are ALL laws of the universe understandable through basic knowledge of the universe and then applied logic? Were the two above guesses just luck?
Gustavo Bueno's philosophical materialism
That could be a materialist trench.
Gustavo Bueno's philosophical system is one of the last attempts to stay on materialist side of philosophy. Has a new insight on what materialism means (understanding the matter as not reducible to the corporeal; Materialist essays is THE book on it) and, at the same time, a materialistic proposal of what the sciences are (categorical closure theory). His philosophy connects with the tradition of the Platonic academy and dialogues with Marxism and Diamat (Soviet philosophy). It rejects the monistic conception of materialism and places itself in a pluralism.
A small synthesis
http://www.fgbueno.es/ing/gbm.htm
What is a categorical closure?
http://fgbueno.es/ing/gbm/1978pais.htm
Sciences as Categorical Closures
Hegelianism
Hegelianism isn't that popular, nonetheless there is an interest from a lot of lay people and enthusiasts to learn about Hegel. I write a blog basically to give run downs and explanations by expansion of some core Hegelian concepts as well as overview expansions of Hegel's arguments in some of his works. Currently I'm working through the Phenomenology of Spirit and writing chapter by chapter logical outlines, and by logical I mean Hegelian logical, which isn't anything short.
My blog is:
empyreantrail.wordpress.com
If you'd like to comment anything or ask anything Hegel related go ahead and I'll try to answer here.
パンツの意味を
人は何故パンツを履く？
君はパンツを脱ぐ時に右足を最初に抜くか
それとも左足から先に抜くかで議論する人がいたら滑稽だと思うかね？
十字を切る時にどういう順序で切るべきか
キリスト教徒同士で激しく言い争っていたら、やはり滑稽だと思うかね？
滑稽なのだよ
有りもしない価値を……有るものとして扱い、尊び、その正当性を賭けて他人と争いさえする
……しかしだね
これこそ知的活動ではないか？
知性以外の何を使えばこんなことができる……？
真実に従うことは誰にでもできる……知性なき野の獣にも
だが虚構に真実と同等の価値を与えひれ伏すようなことが、獣にできるだろうか？
宗教が人間を愚民にすると言った者もいるが、全くの誤解だ
宗教こそ、極めて高度な知的活動の産物に他ならない
宗教は人類史上、最も人間らしい発明と言えるのだよ
On the sticky
Opinion incoming
The first image contains many harmful paths. Most consistently:
Politics - You often become bound to a politician in real life, who is very manipulative himself. This is also why most of them were Communist or otherwise Facist, it is the ultimate goal of a politician in those ages.
Hedonism on the bottom - Someone who can slowly chew a meal earns more than someone who steamrolls through a banquet. I personally would recommend doing a 160 and going for "DIY" Ubermensch.
I have no comments on any of the other motivations, its just that those two are self destructive and meaningless.
Sorry, I just wanted to point that out. Any objections?
Aristotle on the best kind of government
I have studied from a class from uni that Aristotle said that the best king of government is wherein the middle-class in the ruling class. A democracy (rule of the lower-class) isn't the best choice (he said). Just because the majority (let's face it majority are of the lower-class) agrees on something doesn't mean its the best. Relying on the upper classes, on the other hand, will probably result to a larger wealth discrepancy between the upper and lower classes. The middle classes, on the other hand, have a taste of both being poor and being rich. They know what it means to work for money and they know what it means to lead and hire people. What do you guys think about this?
>be out
>at club, looking fresh, free and fly
>talk to some random -albeit hot- club stank
>lay out an exegesis of Ulysses
>at this juncture the floor beneath us is literally soaked in vaginal fluids
>tells me she usually does not hook up with random dudes, but I seemed like a special kind of guy
>feign interest in her because I need validation from attractive girls to feel a sense of self-worth
>she clearly wants the D
>begs me to go back to her place
>follow her
>kissing passionately in the hallway, open door, continue to bed
>she undresses and urges me to please fuck her
>notice poster hanging on wall by bed
>weird motif with text above saying: "bad ass"
>contemplate the wording because it seems an external or internal voice of conscience has stopped me and my erection in our tracks
>"bad ass"
>"COME ON, ANON! WTF ARE YOU WAITING FOR?"
>[internal monologue] "bad ass... bad ass... hmm... a mean bastard .. mean ass .. mean butt .. mean hine end .. there's something here .. mean end... MEAN-END!"
>Kant's categorical imperative to never treat people as means to an end surfaces and shuts off any desire to treat this poor girl as an indistinguishable masturbatory device for my crude fantasy and pleausure
>tell her I'm sorry, but I have to go, apologize profusely
>hear her in her London accent scream "CUNT" at me
>sounds exactly like "Kant"
>leave morally pure and spiritually intact
Come play Minecraft with /pol/! Players can create a faction and fight against others or go solo and play normally. This recent iteration is run by experienced administrators that have been running servers for years. Normally this game is just placing blocks and autism, but we've modified the server with survival plugins that allow us to configure just about every aspect of the game for the political system. By establishing player-made groups, people can simulate political systems easily and survive in an realistic environment.
The server is running Minecraft version 1.8.1, piratefags will have to download a new launcher off the general info pastebin below.
IP: polandcraft.org
Note: New players will be prompted to register, to do so type '/register randompassword randompassword' - this will confirm you into the server, henceforth each time you log in you will type '/login randompassword'.
General Info / Downloads: http://pastebin.com/gJGquvvu
8chan /pol/
Come simulate politics on autismcraft with /pol/! This is an experiment to determine what political ideal will result in a group dominating other nations, based on how successful their ideology turns out to be. Players can create a faction and compete against others or go solo and play normally. Normally this game is just placing blocks and autism, but we've modified the server with survival plugins that allow us to configure just about every aspect of the game for the political system.
The server is running Minecraft version 1.8.#, piratefags will have to download a new launcher off the general info pastebin below;
IP: polandcraft.org
Note: New players will be prompted to register, to do so type '/register randompassword randompassword' - this will confirm you into the server, henceforth each time you log in you will type '/login randompassword'.
General Info / Downloads: http://pastebin.com/gJGquvvu
BUILD YOUR PERFECT SOCIETY PHILOSOPHYFAGS!
Nothing is forbidden
Everything is sacred
The point is to transcend pointlessness
The greatest hero is the one who's okay being labeled the villain. The greatest villain is the one whom all think of as a hero.
The illusions we cast on ourselves as the grand, living universe are impressive to say the least.
It's clear to those who own bodies that mind is over matter... so why should things matter if you don't mind?
Why do we thirst for objective truth?
What is will?
Do others exist?
Nothing's good...nothing's bad
How can we figure out anything anymore? It's all so confusing...
http://amytalksyourheadoff.blogspot.com/2016/10/about-complex-mysteries-of-life.html
[video]
Board meta discussion
The BO directed me to rustle up a board meta-thread. Oh joy.
This is an opportune time to apply some changes to the /philosophy/ board. Take a look at the board resources link in the sticky to see why.
A few trivial changes have taken place. Some editing of the board sticky was done. Rule two was split into separate rules, although the wording remains the same. A board sub-page was created, and some of the content moved there along with additions.
Why the changes to the sticky?
There is a debate across image-boards as to the merits of a permanent board sticky versus an information bar. The board staff happens to like both. We also agree both should be made minimalistic, with links to info-dumps held elsewhere.
As originally written, rule two confuses different groups and issues. As it now stands, rule two is a form of promissory estoppel clearly directed at the board staff. Rule three is intended for the users.
What other changes are we thinking of?
We are hunting for more apropos resources to add. Things which mesh with image-board culture and have a philosophical bent are what we are looking for.
We're not sure what can be done with the beginner guide images in the second post of the sticky. The problem is not the information, it's the location. If we can figure out how to neatly fold them into the board sub-page, we'll do that and delete the post. Otherwise, it will remain.
What else are we considering, but shouldn't change without hearing from the users first?
One counter argument to the rest is the idea of enforcing quality. All we can say is that appeals to historic quality are meaningless to an image-board, without active participation in the present and future.
With eyes asquint, we are looking at what is now rule #4, "SFW board." The idea here is to drop it in favor of enforcing the use of spoilers for NSFW images.
I, the BV, am not happy with the wording of rule #3. It strikes me as a put off, especially for new users. It must stand for now. I have no suggestions how to reword things without hearing what people think about this.
The Oekaki applet could be enabled. We're an image-board, right?
Assets the BO has direct access to are free to be changed. These are the flags, spoiler images, sub-pages, etc.
Board banners are a special case. Access to adding or changing banners now requires that the BO accepts an agreement with a third party application. This she will not do, unless the users clamor for it. That means making new banners for inclusion, first.
Other boards.
/philosophy/ is intended to be part of a community, witness the info bar. We could, and probably should, invite comment from them. For the moment, let's see what people who are here have to say, before bothering them. I do intend to bother them, however.
Last thoughts.
There's one thing I have learned from my participation in western image-board culture across these many years, plus time served in various forms as a moderation volunteer around and about. Failure is always an option. While it is the users who define success, I and the BO both agree that we have to at least try.
Will power of self
Is it us humans who have the strength and will power to destroy the very thing the human mind creates bigger than itself. That it my be in our physical worldly term break able to destroy god and the devil. To destroy the forces of good and evil and to exterminate cosmic balance in our universe. Your opinions much appreciated.
I don't mean this in a derogatory way, although it will come off as that. In a completely curious motivation, what has philosophy done for humankind in the last 100 years? I don't even mean economic benefit, but what are the benefits to the lives of the average human or non-philosopher in the last century? Has academic philosophy, for example, changed social behavior?
so why exactly did you delete my posts? i see no reason as to why they would be deleted under the current rules
>1- Respect the Global Rules
N/A
>2- Moderation will be kept to a minimum. Shitposting is not encouraged and spamming the board will result in a ban.
they were no more or less shitposting than that other fellow. and you cannot claim that non-identical posts with a period ~24 hours between them is spam.
Eschatology/End Times - An Ancient Psy Op?
In many places online, there is a resurgence of end times beliefs. The fact that people all over the world observe natural phenomena (species die-outs, earthquakes, etc.), plutocratic crypto-history (pick your group - J, J, M, etc.), The Inverse relationship between technological advancement, and social/cultural/economic
/psychological health of the world population, the breakdown of classical culture, the breakdown of the old, the emergence of the alien and the new (cyberpunk, or occult subcultures, waves of new social movements, the transvaluation of morals, etc.) leads many to come to the conclusion that we are witnessing the end of history - as per the prophecies of the book of revelations, lets say. But there isn't just this - the hopis have their own prophecy referring to the "5th World", the hindu's believe in the kali yuga, etc. The most important thing to attempt to resolve is the veracity of these ideas, because not only does this determine how futile the future is, but it allows for an understanding of the major culprits of evil in our world.
Is there any evidence to suggest that these ideas - specifically the Judeochristian end times - is an ancient psyop?
I've heard rumors it is a sort of war game - planned out thousands of years in advance by very intelligent plutocrats aware of the powers of the mass-mind, with their own millenia-old scheme to control history.
So how do we know? Is there any hope for truth in a world of competing knowledge structures, belief systems, etc. --- to establish a real history, and either affirm or dispell eschatological-armageddon thinking? based on the history of the ideas themselves rather than some lazy "secular" assumption that its a silly idea. Consider how this must've been structured if at all - is there an esoteric elite - evil factions that proceed with this as a plan, maybe good factions that warn the world through prophecy and exotericized biblical literature - etc.???
We have to approach this from a more open-minded schema, but also attempt to falsify or affirm this - because it is directly related to how we all - religious or not - orient our history, and therefore our future.
Any sages posses the knowledge to help a lost soul and his brethren uncover the truth on this?
here's what i've come to understand
- nothing matters. life and the universe exist, but there is no purpose or set guidelines, codes of morality, destiny, etc. it's only what we make of it, and even then it still doesn't matter. religion is a comforting facade so that people don't have to face this truth.
- we are genetic fuck-ups, anomalies if you will, as is basically everything in the universe. a simple matter of matter reacting to fusion process.
- we do have free will, since there is no determined course in life, it is entirely up to us to decide what to do with our time given to us. not that it matters anyway.
- everything is a meme. this website, the posting format, the computer, the couch, the house, the front lawn, the car, you name it.
how long should i wait before i kill myself at this point? 25 yo virgin, should i at least see if i make it to the wizard level?
Here's the options thus far:
1. Determinism is true. The mind functions based on pre-existing states of the universe, and therefore free will cannot exist.
2. Randomness is possible. Be it quantum or metaphysical, things can happen that cannot be predicted by prior conditions. Your mind is connected in some way to these processes, and is capable of random decisions. Still, a random number generator does not give you actual freedom, so free will does not exist.
3. ???
There just has to be some more options here. I mean, I'm relatively set about determinism, but there are so many people who believe in free will that you'd think there would be more ways of looking at it.
Anyone know of any more options besides determinism and randomness? Anyone know what kind of proposed mechanisms for free will exist?
Hypocrisy as a traching device
Fedora here, hypocrisy isn't necessarily bad. If you act in defiance of your stated values in front of someone you can track them a lesson. I.e. if someone is a hypocrite, you can act the same way in front of them so they condemn you for being a hypocrite, and hopefully reflect on their actions.
Is there a word for this concept? (Ignore the propaganda pic, heromine said it not her author.)
How does one make religion and philosophy "work"?
Whether I'm reading Kant, Hegel, Watts or Aristotle; or whether I'm reading the Bible, the Qu'ran, the Tao Te Ching or the Bhagavad Gita; my reaction may be summed up as one or both the following:
>lolwut
>"whoa, that's so deep!!", then going right back to all my dysfunctional habits that keep me hating myself and hating life
This is because I have little idea how to APPLY the information and ideas being presented to me in my daily/weekly/yearly life.
A way of life and thought which denies or ignores the existence of God is bound to end in dissolution and self-contradiction.
If this is not sufficiently proved by the state of futility to which Humanism and rationalism have brought us, a state of inhumanity and irrationality, all that remains necessary is to reason the matter out.
From the standpoint of reason the conclusion that God exists is unavoidable; to demonstrate this truth was the greatest and perhaps the most permanent achievement of mediaeval philosophy, and in particular of St. Thomas.
The only way to escape this conclusion is to deny the validity of reason, which is merely to make argument, philosophy, and almost every form of discussion and thought impossible.
Science vs. Philosophy
Do you consider science to be an important factor in considering things or philosophical tenants because I have seen little discussion of it and I believe that since philosophy is the study of reality that science should be a limiting factor but I'd like to see other opinions on it.
Pleasure/Enjoyment
A pretty important part of a human's life I think. Let's discuss it. Though it's also a big subject, so keeping this in one topic might be stupid, but this board doesn't seem to be crawling with posters, so I guess one topic will be enough.
What is pleasure? Why and how do we feel it(I'm also looking for biological answers here if you guys can provide)? And when we feel it, why do we want it to last forever? Should we chase it and try to live our lives with always pleasure, or try to keep away from it as much as possible? How does hedonism affect a man?
As it is said in the Bible, "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God, and love your neighbor as yourself." We all agree that we must love, but we do not, and this becomes particularly appalling when we enter into the higher realm of spiritual development.
Everybody these days is interested in spiritual development, and wisely so, because we want to change our consciousness. Many people are well aware that this egocentric consciousness is a hallucination, and they presume it is the function of religion to change it.
After all, that is what the Zen Buddhists, and all these yogis in the Orient are doing. They are changing their state of consciousness to get something called satori, or mystical experience, or nirvana, or moksha. Everybody is really enthused about that because it is the definitive spiritual experience, and you do not get that in church. Although there have been Christian mystics, the church has been very quiet about them.
In the average church, all you get is talk there is no meditation and no spiritual discipline. They interminably tell God what to do, as if He did not know. Then they tell the people what to do, as if they could do what they're told, or even wanted to. Then they sing religious nursery rhymes. And then, to cap it all, the Roman Catholic Church which at least had an unintelligible service that was real mysterious and suggested vast goings on went on to put the service into bad English. They took away incense, and became essentially a bunch of Protestants, and so now even the Catholics are at loose ends.
As Clare Boothe Luce said, "It is no longer possible to practice contemplative prayer at mass." You are being advised, exhorted, and edified all the time, and that becomes a bore. Think of God,listening to all those prayers. Talk about grieving the Holy Spirit. It is just awful; people have no consideration for God at all.
In pursuing spiritual disciplines, however, such as yoga, Zen, and also psychotherapy, there arises a difficulty. This difficulty lies in wanting to find a method whereby I can change my consciousness and improve myself.
But the self that needs to be improved is the one that is doing the improving, and so I am rather stuck. I find out that the reason I think I believe in God is that I hope that somehow God will rescue me. In other words, I want to hang on to my own existence and feel rather shaky about doing that for myself, so I hope there is a God who will take care of it. Or I may think that if only I could be loving, I would have a better opinion of myself. I could face myself if I were more loving. So by some gimmickry the unloving me has to turn itself into a loving me.
This is just like trying to lift yourself off the ground with your own bootstraps; it cannot be done.
That is why religion, in practice, mainly produces hypocrisy and guilt, due to the constant failure of these enterprises.
legacy
i don't know much about philosophy. i'm new
is there a belief or theory that the only way to be immortal is through leaving a huge/long legacy? like if one's purpose in life is to not die, evade death with a legacy to still exist in a way
idk, sorry if this makes no sense.
i would also enjoy some light reading material to help me get started in philosophy
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL914258A2DAF5D393
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL29llNJMc6MHi7-WTODvFUajJ9tfV_lz3
just posting these
Descartes the THE worst philosopher. Discuss.
>Meditation I - Doubt shit.
>Yes we know.
>Meditation II - The Cogito
>Only interesting part of his work tbh.
>Meditation III - synthetic a priori deduction that God exists
>LMAO!!!!!
>Meditation IV - Trying to explain holes in III's logic.
>You can stop reading this guy now.
>Meditation V -
>I told you to stop reading Descartes.
>Meditation VI - Substance Dualism - AKA the philosophy of mind people are too embarrassed to believe in.
>Seriously you're getting into autistic stuff here...
The only reason it might be worth learning anything he says is to be able to read people that criticise him.
Plato question
So i'm reading EUTHYDEMUS by Plato. In this dialogue Socrates meets two brothers that believe that they can sell wisdom to people.
To impress Socrates and his friends, they first challenge a young boy and demonstrate that words can have more than one meaning in a context and in fact any answer to their question can be wrong. One of Socrates' friends steps in only to be frustrated when he can't break their chain of logic. Then another, more learned friend of Socrates steps in and their word play
Now its clear that they are sophists (i.e. Plato's version of Satan) and this is one his main works on rhetoric. I haven't finished the dialogue but I have to ask:
What is wisdom? How is it really different from what these two brothers are doing? Is the sort of wisdom Plato's characters (like Socrates and co.) advocate genuine or does Socrates perform a different kind of wordplay and he simply believes he is touching on genuine teaching? After all the whole "idea-have opponent verify the idea-come a conclusion that bewilders opponent" not the same thing but with a different motive? Was Aristophanes right to say that Socrates was just an idealized sophist?
Isn't it contradictory? After all, if you teach wisdom well and argue well, making it hard for your opponent to argue with you are basically teaching your student how to think like you? If wisdom poorly (i.e. they can consider the problem easier and come to their own conclusions) are you not failing to argue but doing a better job in creating unique thought in the opponent?
If its answered later then i'll finish it and come back, but I want to get your take on it.
What do I read if I want to get out of my room and go get get laid?. I'm a 20yo kiss less virgin, can philosophy help me?
I just go to unI for my parents & work a boring job. All my friends went to the military so I'm pretty much a loser with no passions. Can philosophy help me?
