-  [JOIN IRC!]


Name
Subject   (new thread)
Message
File
Password  (for post and file deletion)
¯\(°_O)/¯
  • Supported file types are: BMP, GIF, JPG, PNG
  • Maximum file size allowed is 1000 KB.
  • Images greater than 400x400 pixels will be thumbnailed.
  • Currently 267 unique user posts. View catalog

  • Blotter updated: 2015-09-02 Show/Hide Show All


File 140227908953.jpg - (93.69KB , 719x863 , are you aroused.jpg )
562 No. 562 Stickied hide expand quickreply [Reply]
Welcome to /phi/, the board for the discussion of philosophy! To keep things on topic and discussions intelligent, we have a few basic rules:

1. No NSFW images, no idea how that would even relate to philosophy.

2. Don't be the person to bring up historical precedent for pedophilia, that guy keeps getting banned for a reason.

3. "High level" political discussion is permitted i.e. politcal philosophy, not FUCK OBABA HURRRR.

4. No ad hominem attacks, these don't add anything to your argument and just make you look stupid and inevitably derail the thread.

If you have issues with any of these rules, feel free to discuss them in this sticky. The goal here is to help each other learn and collectively stroke our e-beards.
1 post and 1 image omitted. Click Reply to view.
>> No. 578
File 140284298799.jpg - (746.17KB , 1600x1131 , image.jpg )
578
Admittedly I took this from /pol/, but I think that since philosophy is such a broad topic, it's better to have guidelines for how to discuss something rather than what to discuss.


File 132491659948.jpg - (4.66KB , 122x130 , sean.jpg )
1 No. 1 hide expand quickreply [Reply]
yo, whats yo' niggas understanding / thoughts regarding the mind-body problem?
1 post omitted. Click Reply to view.
>> No. 10
>>1
Want to narrow that down a bit? There are encyclopedias on this one subject.
>> No. 19
File 13257091831.jpg - (45.97KB , 460x188 , 1465442_460s.jpg )
19
and here i am
>> No. 22
body = hardware
mind = software

bugs are logged and will be released with the next patch
>> No. 23
Mind is a function of the body. Certain parts of the brain, to be more specific.

As far as dualism/determinism goes, I think most philosophers favor determinism, but I could be wrong.

There is of course the problem of consciousness, which may be what you're referring to. I believe that the problem states that biochemical reactions and whatnot cannot account for the existence of qualia, or what we experience.

A case for separateness of consciousness is often made by the "zombie" thought experiment, where, as I understand it, you imagine a world where "zombies" go around exactly the way we do, reacting to things, etc, but are not conscious of what they are doing or why they are doing it.

My problem with this is that in order for the zombies to go around exactly the way we do would require that they have the same cognitive functions as any of us, including memory, sensory processing, creativity, logic, and so on. Basically to say it's possible to imagine a world where zombies act exactly the same as people but don't have consciousness assumes that consciousness is something separate to begin with, so I think that makes the argument basically circular reasoning. I could be wrong, though.

There's also the question of whether a computer could be conscious in the same way as a human in that it could experiences qualia. Simply running a program to identify the color red based on wavelengths is not the same as *experiencing* redness the way we do. Our eyes essentially process wavelengths, and our brain identifies it as red, but subjectively when we look at something red, we're experiencing redness. The question this raises (or one of them) is not about the mechanics of visual processing, which a computer could conceivably accomplish, but whether it could experience redness the way we do.

Personally, I think it's likely that the determinists have it right in that the answer will not involve to some separate substance. It seems possible to me that qualia is just the output of how the brain processes information.
>> No. 679
You can be sure that your mind exists. You cannot be sure that your body exists.


File 140638454634.jpg - (900.26KB , 1536x2048 , 1386941125-491.jpg )
609 No. 609 hide expand quickreply [Reply]
Its time to get sociological you dweebs.

So with the wave of MtF transgender-ism and feminism going on over the recent years we are practically forced to discuss femininity and what it is, since so many people proclaim that it is something that they have been born with or something that makes them part of an oppressed group. Femininity has to become a standard if people keep using it as an argument for why things gotta change with or around them. It has to mean a specific thing.

I think there is a lot of double standards and hypocrisy about the subject. People are social animals and are easily tempted to have opinions that will gain them more popularity. I, as an opponent of consumer-culture powered individualism, would like to be the opposite of those people, so listen to my unpopular-opinion.

Femininity has nothing todo with gender. Being born with a specific gender may indicate chances of how feminine you are going to be in your later life, but it does not define whether you are feminine or not.

Femininity is a social and/or sexual role. Much like the administrative types, or the aggressive types, or the devote, the feminine type is a part of the social spectrum. If red is being emotional, and white is being pure and naive, then pink is being feminine.

Femininity is very superficial. This means that a feminine creature in its passive nature is something to be enjoyed and not something to relate to. A feminine girl is feminine because she is cute, not because she is skilled. A cute petite girl wearing a dress will always be more feminine than a girl who is hunky, smart and wearing a t-shirt and jeans. You don't say 'hmm this chess-move was very feminine of you', you say 'this dress you are wearing is very feminine'.

This doesn't say anything about manliness and men by the way. I believe that there is no such thing as manliness. Manliness is a word that describes behavior that impresses or is meant to impress women. Femininity is always the same, no matter where you are in the world. Being manly isn't.

Being feminine is not good or bad. It can't define who you are as an individual due to its superficial nature. If anything, i'd say it makes you less of an individual if femininity is all you define yourself by. You can not feel feminine, you can only be perceived feminine or perceive yourself feminine. You can not be born feminine. Being feminine to someone can bring an advantage in social or sexual affairs, it can also mean that you could miss out on actually achieving those advantages by the means of skill, involvement, i.e. personal growth.
Message too long. Click here to view the full text.
5 posts omitted. Click Reply to view.
>> No. 626
>>625

>>

>>but in certain fields femininity is based on ability

I'd actually like to hear some examples here.

>>and masculinity on appearance

Here too.

People say things like, 'I always felt like a girl' or 'girls just think differently'. They imply that femininity is some profound aspect of the mind and soul of a woman, and I would simply like to question that.
>> No. 627
I already gave one for each.
Bodybuilding - Look muscular (not be able to lift things)- appearance not ability - This is what Arnold is, and he's pretty damn manly for it.

I gave cross cultural parallels [boat making (Hidatsa), woodworking (Pawnee)] for femininity being based on ability, but just so you don't have to step out of your comfort zone: The ability to sew or knit is certainly considered a feminine trait. If someone were to do these things very well that would be considered feminine of them. If you want to say that a lot of high fashion is male, sure, but they're also almost exclusively gay men who don't care that it's considered feminine.

Just because tasks are domestic isn't to say that one doesn't have to have a particular ability to do them.

>>People say things like, 'I always felt like a girl' or 'girls just think differently'.
Those that say they 'always felt like a girl' are mistaken. At least they are not phrasing their feelings correctly. There is no way for a man to actually know what it is to be a girl in the same way that there's no way for a man to know what it is to be any other person. I mean usually they mean to say that they identify more with our culture's female gender roles (that is to say cooking, cleaning, child rearing, being the passive one in relationships, being interested in fashion, etc.). Where I think you go off the rails is when you assume that our culture's definition of femininity is some sort of universal, and take one aspect of femininity (that women often like to look attractive) and try to say that that is the only basis for womanhood.

>>They imply that femininity is some profound aspect of the mind and soul of a woman, and I would simply like to question that.
Being a woman identifies them as much as being a man identifies you. There are a lot of things that define who we are, and each is integral to our person. Do I think that femininity is solely seen in women? Certainly not, there are a lot of feminine men, and a lot of masculine women. If you're using profound to be the opposite of superficial I'd have to disagree with you again. Being a woman is just as important to their character as being masculine is to yours.
>> No. 628
>>627
>I mean usually they mean to say that they identify more with our culture's female gender roles (that is to say cooking, cleaning, child rearing, being the passive one in relationships, being interested in fashion, etc.).
Umm I think it's that they identify with women around them. I think it's deeper, I know there's a neurological basis; it's probably something more like their internal picture of themselves being the opposite of their biological gender for some reason. Such an explanation would make sense because it separates what identifies as from sex and orientation. What gender roles a person identifies with don't reflect on self-professed gender. For example I'm a man but I'm really empathetic, I like taking care of kids, and I'm pretty into fashion; yet I never feel I identify as a woman. Somehow being masculine/feminine is a separate thing.
>> No. 705
In my experience, the 'femininity' expressed by MtF transexuals and gay men is actually a subtly different sort of state of being to the femininity traditionally possed by those born female. The male feminity, as I will call it, has more of a performative and hypersexual character; it is flamboyant and takes up a lot of social space and as such can be seen as a macsulinised feminity, whereas traditional feminity has undertones of maternality and is born of a much more cyclical mindset- possibly as a result of the cyclical fact of female biology.

I feel as if these two types of feminity have been falsely merged in today's society, to the extent that many biological females have taken on aspects of the male version, and I think recognising this difference will help us much better deal with the different issues affecting the respective groups.
>> No. 706
>>705
I feel like I should mention that I am speaking from a position of someone possessing said 'male feminity', for added legitimacy of course


File 144854479186.jpg - (924.52KB , 1100x863 , psx_772.jpg )
712 No. 712 hide quickreply [Reply]
dog?

bark bark bark

pic unrelated


File 140312283832.jpg - (43.38KB , 600x601 , image.jpg )
582 No. 582 hide expand quickreply [Reply]
What is the meaning of life, and what does the question "what is the meaning of life?" mean?
1 post omitted. Click Reply to view.
>> No. 585
“Hard question is not, ‘What is meaning of life?’ That is easy question to answer! No, hard question is what make happiness."
>> No. 700
The meaning of life is to survive and reproduce. Any further meaning is defined by the person asking the question.
>> No. 709
>>700
The "meaning" part of this question i think is implicitly spiritual in tone and not concerned with biological priorities, or even going meta with it and harnessing the power of stars and entire galaxies. You can quickly imagine these scenarios and then always end up adding a "and then what" to it, or a "that's it?"

We keep coming back to the question of meaning because it's something we can never properly make coherent, we've found a way to speak about our existence that we can't put to words, or we're unsatisfied with any words that could describe it.
>> No. 710
>>709
Spiritually, I don't think we were put here for any purpose. The meaning of life is whatever you want it to be. My meaning of my life is to have a good time.
>> No. 711
Order that brings disorder.


File 144010874388.jpg - (23.15KB , 344x471 , 1291912238638.jpg )
701 No. 701 hide quickreply [Reply]
Anyone prepared for a Post-Modernism thread?

Deconstruction, hyperrealism, etc.

Who do you read?


Or is everyone still contemplating Fischer-Price philosophy?

If you couldn't guess I enjoy Jacques Derrida, Jean Baudrillard, Jean-Francios Lyotard, Umberto Eco, Helene Cixous...

I'm nihilistically bored enough that I'm posting here to have an impossible exchange on wether or not someone will try to argue for Post-Structuralism haha
>> No. 702
New Realism is the new thing.
>> No. 703
File 144011588555.jpg - (10.55KB , 202x200 , 1342000605778s.jpg )
703
>>702

Yes i'm quiet versed on metamodernism, I was fishing for people who've gone super-saiyan 3 before we moved on to super-saiyan 4 so to speak.

I'm a reader of François Laruelle's non-philosophy as well.
>> No. 704
File 144011625050.jpg - (29.02KB , 276x276 , 1291523731017.jpg )
704
>>702

Also speculative realism remains so representationalist and thus plays into neo-hegelianism, any neo- or retro- plays into the symbolic/impossible exchange of the hyperreal and hence doesn't overcome the issues of post-modernism's deconstruction of 'Being' through differance.

in brief: that shit's still onto-theologically metaphysical


File 136176955314.jpg - (117.42KB , 500x498 , seasons.jpg )
418 No. 418 hide expand quickreply [Reply]
If I as a person am constantly changing, then what is there to remain fundamentally "me"?
8 posts and 2 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
>> No. 543
The self is a myth. It is a fable concocted by the brain, to make it possible to function and survive. In reality, your predispositions are simply correlations of dendritic connections. The more connections, the more used the pathways, the more likely the brain will default to these patterns.

In a social species, it is important to notice certain predispositions in others, because that must inform your interactions with them. Fight, flight, fuck, friend, etc. It is also important to signal your predispositions, in a manner that will likely not trigger negative response from others. So to use economic theory, the "self" is a signalling algorithm, that supposedly chooses the best response to observed environmental variables.

The concept of self evolved from the need to maintain a place in a social group. Baboons "present," apes puff out their chests, all to show their status in the tribe. This is no different from men who show off fancy cars, or get tatoos. Think of it as a highly evolved form of plumage. Your personality stems from the same instinctive process, the same need to present one's worth to others.

We have gotten so good at this, that we don't even think about it. Personality cannot exist in the absence of socialization. This is why schizophrenics and other types of shut in frequently describe themselves as not having a personality. On the other side of the spectrum are the autists, who have a dysfunction of observation. They cannot best respond to signals, because the signals are ignored or weakly recieved. The presence of these vestigial traits in the population demonstrates that personality as we know it is a relatively recent development in terms of evolution.


The essential question is whether animals who are not "self aware" have selfhood. Is it a characteristic of life? The litmus test seems to be whether an animal can recognize its reflection. But such creatures also engage in social signalling. The problem is describing the phenomena in terms of wonder and enlightenment, as opposed to hard observational science.
>> No. 573
>>540
A philosophical argument based on a controversial interpretation of mathematics.
>> No. 580
File 140298750547.jpg - (11.64KB , 348x264 , demaria_earthroom.jpg )
580
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haecceity
>> No. 696
>>580
seems like this is related to the thought of heidegger
>> No. 699
You are a pattern

This pattern is not totally static, but retains certain elements across time


File 143721290724.jpg - (181.41KB , 625x350 , billionaires.jpg )
698 No. 698 hide quickreply [Reply]
a lot of politics is sitting down going through legislation line by line by line...politicians don't get elected by advertising their skill in that..that's why they got advisors


File 140231894773.jpg - (77.87KB , 566x848 , image.jpg )
564 No. 564 hide quickreply [Reply]
What is the ideal size of a society? There are so many criteria that could define an ideal size. Is it one in which every member serves a unique role? Is self-sufficiency a requirement? If so, then is this "ideal" status lost as the population grows?

I'm not trying to advocate a return to tribalism, but I would argue that crime and unemployment are evidence of a society that has grown too large (though crime has more or less always existed), as an ideal population would theoretically employ every member and eliminate the need for crime. Assuming that this "ideal" size is rather small, does this make direct democracy a more viable form of government? Early societies had small populations, at least compared to modern cities/areas of governance, and yet they tended to rely upon a fairly vertical structure of government with authoritative leaders. Does this mean that in a society where every member has a role, the population would rather shift the role of governing to a small group of people than operate democratically?

Perhaps I am getting too far ahead of myself by asking all of these questions, but without shifting the discussion towards politics, the recent European Union elections somewhat inspired this train of thought. There seems to be a panic among some media outlets because the people democratically elected right-wing figures who want to limit immigration and foreign influence in the EU. Hopefully this isn't too wide of a topic, but it would be nice to have some discussion on this board.
>> No. 569
Smaller tends to be better, but the size of society is proportional to the amount of organized labor is needed to sustain that society. For example river valley civilizations such as the Xia Dynasty based their power on their ability to complete hydrological works and irrigation. Such a society could not be effectively split without severe famine.

On the other extreme, the carrying capacity of the arctic tundra may only allow for a low population density, hence the inuit tend to live in small family bands.

It comes down to location, location, location.

The funny thing is, globalization is the one thing that transcends these boundaries. Want to have an ideal platonic society on an island somewhere with no natural resources? You can, the market can provide everything you need, and you can provide twilight hours tech support in return.
>> No. 697
at one point i remembered reading something about the highest number of people that we know and can keep in our heads at one time - it came out to about 100. Later, I read about the lowest number of people in an organic community that can exist where everyone is at most 2 degrees of separation from each other. It was also about 100 people.


File 142010826486.jpg - (810.10KB , 1242x1024 , january origin janus.jpg )
666 No. 666 hide quickreply [Reply]
Romans 12:2 New Living Translation (NLT)

2 . Don’t copy the behavior and customs of this world, but let God transform you into a new person by changing the way you think. Then you will learn to know God’s will for you, which is good and pleasing and perfect.

_____________________________________________________________________________________

Did you say happy new year to someone yesterday-today, then you gave them best wish's from a Satanic God you just worshipped through them words - Believer in Jesus (Yeshua) or not.

_____________________________________________________________________________________

http://www.novareinna.com/festive/janus.html

The first of January was dedicated by the Romans to their God of Gates and Doors, Janus. A very old Italian God, Janus has a distinctive artistic appearance in that he is commonly depicted with two faces...one regarding what is behind and the other looking toward what lies ahead. Thus, Janus is representative of contemplation on the happenings of an old year while looking forward to the new. Some sources claim that Janus was characterized in such a peculiar fashion due to the notion that doors and gates look in two directions. Therefore, the God could look both backward and forward at the same time. Originally, Janus was portrayed with one bearded face and the other clean-shaven, which may have symbolized the moon and the sun, or age and youth. Later, he is most often shown with beards on both faces and frequently holds a key in his right hand. Very early statues of Janus (around the Second Century B.C.) depict him with four faces.

http://www.crystalinks.com/janus.html
Message too long. Click here to view the full text.
>> No. 667
weak troll
>> No. 695
Next time use the New Revised Standard Version. It's the best translation from the original Greek. Not that I care, particularly. I'm a Jew, so to me your argument is meaningless.


File 13335843961.jpg - (213.73KB , 415x588 , Cargo-Cult.jpg )
203 No. 203 hide expand quickreply [Reply]
All religions are man-made. The "Cargo Cult" incident flawlessly explains the basics and the premises for the creation of deities and other deliriums when the point of view of the observator lacks knowledge of unexplainable things.
20 posts and 3 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
>> No. 689
>The object of science is to say as little as possible, to simply state the undeniable, that water is a fluid at room temperature, that one plus one equals two, etc.

>Physics doesn't prove anything, it is merely a model based on rules we bullshit, and anything proved in math is specious and artificial, not what's really "out there". If something is undeniable it is not science, and one plus one is not always two in mathematics.

So much ignorance of physics and maths. But then again this is /phi/, where people come to make questions that have already been answered by science or aren't answerable because they're empty statements.
>> No. 690
>>689
Cmon man. They may have only a tenuous grasp of stem stuff but you clearly only have a tenuous grasp of philosophy (and the English language) and no one is hassling you about it. Well... I mean I am now.

>make questions that have already been answered by science
If you're talking about ancient philosophy regarding science you should remember that it was a precursor to science, and that science would not exist without it. If instead you are talking about ontology I would argue that the questions it poses are not, in fact, answered by science. The underlying assumption of science is that our observations are accurate, which is not necessarily true, so when a philosopher asks about the universe it is far different from a scientist asking the same thing. The scientist is interested in the practical, observable universe. The philosopher is asking about what it might be, knowing that evidence is most likely unavailable to them. You could argue that based on that definition, there is 'no point' to philosophic investigation of the nature of the universe (as we can't do anything with their answers), but that doesn't change that their questions are not 'answered by science'.
>or aren't answerable because they're empty statements
This is where you really show your ignorance. Are you really saying that deciding upon one's life's goal is inherently meaningless? That is the question that underlies all of ethics, and it is quite important to answer as without answering this, we are no different from animals. You could say it is 'unanswerable' in an objective sense, and you would be right, but that doesn't mean that the answer that we arrive at isn't important. Science is about estimation and refinement, and Philosophy is no different. At the end of the day, the only objective metric we have for philosophic ideas, however, is their logical consistency. We, as humans, are just balls of cognitive dissonance and just having an answer to the question of what it is we strive to do helps to make us more rational. You could say that the answer is meaningless in the grand scheme, but really everything we do is. The point is that on the granularity of everyday life philosophy is both answerable (on a personal level) and useful (in that it makes us more rational), so I have a hard time seeing what is so 'empty' about it. Sure there are questions that may seem meaningless, but philosophy is occasionally done for philosophy's sake just as science can be done for science's sake. Often discoveries of this type turn out to be meaningful later.

If it will make you feel more comfortable with the idea that philosophy is an ok field, you can think of the fact that philosophy eventually boils down to logic (predicate logic in fact) and that logic is math (which you seem to think is good).
>> No. 692
A corollary theme in science is to make statements without bias. Observations made by an observer must be neutral.

Philosophy is most often a fanciful defense of idiosyncrasy; anyone with intellect can justify bias. Philosophy is bias incarnate. Sure it has spawned many related disciplines. But compared to it's descendants, philosophy is a veritable dinosaur. Astronomers would hardly consult astrology, at least during office hours.

Sure, it may be interesting to read up on logical statements derived from linguistical jokes that no longer fit any form of usage, but it could hardly be considered useful.

Ex: The character for woman combined with the character for beard, means ploy, or trick. Thus the it's a trap meme predates the common era. Because the written language is the highest form of art, the implied negative connotation is certainly true!

Of course that is a very literal interpretation. Philosophy is very language dependent, however, and truths that do not exist cross cultures can hardly be considered universal.

Philosophy works quite well as a process, but is indefensible as a viable discipline.
>> No. 693
File 143062097493.gif - (257.38KB , 640x854 , 02.gif )
693
There is something going on behind your senses that is called reality. Religion is a tool to discover that reality. What is actually man made is all of our projections based on faulty perception onto that reality.
>> No. 694
>>693

Eastern Dialects do the same, but cheaper.


File 139622234573.jpg - (76.07KB , 445x632 , Aristotle_GoldenMean_pdf.jpg )
523 No. 523 hide quickreply [Reply]
Hey guys, I'm in college and I got forced into doing philosophy, it's alright and I'm usually on top of it but this semester has been a mountain of work. 7 essays, 4 exams and loads of other smaller assignments and I've run out of steam. I've 4 out of 7 essays done, but time is running out.

On top of that I've a 2 week old baby to look after along with a gf who has had a caesarian section and needs my help to do a lot of things.

I'm utterly exhausted and now resorting to the desperate idea of paying someone to write two 1000 word philosophy essays for me. One would be on Marx and the other would be on metaphysics.

What can you guys advise me to do? how much should I pay? where would I go to get someone to do this for me? Or should I just churn out some quick shit and hope for a mediocre grade?
>> No. 524
>>523
Churn it out, or simply tell your instructor the truth.

Don't pay for somebody else to do it - use the money for better things.
>> No. 525
>>524
I could get extensions alright, but my mind is in turmoil until the workload has been taken care of, and I need it to be done sooner rather than later for any kind of peace of mind. I've started the ground work to churn them out though that being said. Hopefully I can fire out some shitty essays and be done with it if I can't find someone to do them for me in the next 24 hours
>> No. 526
Getting someone to do your essays equals plagiarizing, which can have serious consequences depending on your institution. So basically just writing some bullshit barely coherent scramble is better then buying a decent one, at least in my view.

Also, lmao at the Germans, one minister plagiarized his Ph.D. thesis. I mean come on, I can sort of understand it for a random term paper or essay, but your goddamn thesis? Believing that that shit won't get checked out is just blind stupidity.

Probably can't help OP anymore, but 1000 words on each of those topics is ridiculously easy. That is, we are talking about an entire branch of philosophy and one of the most influential philosopher there has ever been, which equals lots of shit to just copy-paste from your textbook(s). In your own words, of course, you know what the deal is.

What I'd do is just give an broad description of the development of metaphysics from Plato and Aristotle through Descartes to Kant and Hegel, gloss over the existentialists and then describe the declining interest during the late 19th and 20th centuries, and end with a pointer or two of the current status.

Another aspect would be to describe what metaphysics is, namely it's various subfields such as ontology and epistemology. Then on each give a couple of major theories throughout the times.

With Marx you could either talk about his philosophy, the material dialectic or w/e, and gloss over its impact, or focus on the impact and gloss over the philosophy part. The impact naturally being communism in its various forms, and do bring up the ways in which different communist ideologies differ from Marx's original thoughts, for extra points.
>> No. 531
>>529
I churned out a mediocre essay and turned it in. Am doing the same right now with the other essay. It was the easier solution just to fling something together with what time I could spare.
>> No. 691
>>531
academiccomposition.com

It's legit


File 142089512943.jpg - (33.96KB , 629x512 , 7fd12446ebbd3763337c841dd29b1275.jpg )
668 No. 668 hide expand quickreply [Reply]
So, I've been looking into the psychology of pyromaniacs and have gotten a basic understanding of it, but by now i'm more curious about /phi/s opinion on them, destructive pyros, or simply ones who like fire, how do they work, and why are they so much more fascinated with fire then the average person?
My theory is starting to head into the primal uses, fire is one of the best cools in human history
1 post omitted. Click Reply to view.
>> No. 670
>>669
Pyromania would probably fit best
>> No. 671
File 142089564099.jpg - (4.40KB , 153x153 , bazinga.jpg )
671
I like fire..I like to burn things. Would you like to get together and have some coffee OP. We could talk about fire and maybe burn a few things.
>> No. 672
>>671
I would like that stranger from the internet, as I to, like to light things on fire
>> No. 673
>>670
Yes, pyromania is a beautiful way of life. Just this morning I set a preschool on fire, what a way to start your day.
>> No. 675
File 142163869622.jpg - (83.34KB , 300x300 , Def_Leppard_-_Pyromania.jpg )
675
There was a point in my life when I was really into the idea of arson, but it turned out that I was actually into pyromania. The common distinction (I read this a long time ago so it probably isn't accurate) is that pyromaniacs stay around to watch the fires they set, while arsonists flee since their only goal is destruction.

I wouldn't necessarily call myself a pyromaniac, but fire is really pleasing to my senses, with bigger fires being more pleasing. While candles are pretty boring, the roar and swirling tongues of a large fire are pretty hypnotic, and when I'm around a campfire I like to be right on the edge of burning to feel the heat, since you can't really get that sensation anywhere else. Fire also brings back really good memories for me (I wonder if there is a higher incident rate of pyromania among former boy scouts). One of the highlights of high school for me was watching a neighbor's house burn down, and while burnt wreckage isn't necessarily exciting, the progression of something burning is usually cool.

I don't know why you are looking for opinions about a disorder on a philosophy board, but while I'm not a pyromaniac, I can understand how somebody could be so attracted to fire that they are unable to control the urge to start fires.


File 142250281233.jpg - (187.31KB , 720x960 , image.jpg )
680 No. 680 hide quickreply [Reply]
What is the question?
>> No. 681
No it's not
>> No. 682
What is delicious.


File 140227589437.jpg - (21.64KB , 220x567 , max stirner.jpg )
559 No. 559 hide quickreply [Reply]
Max Stirner: Great philosopher, or Greatest philosopher?


File 140841698758.jpg - (38.37KB , 853x480 , PDVD_006.jpg )
630 No. 630 hide expand quickreply [Reply]
I have been thinking, that most religions discount the value of human life. Your life is of secondary importance; by extension all lives are of secondary importance.

The king james bible changed one passage: "thou shalt not suffer a poisoner to live," swapping "witch" for poisoner. That's the same king james that hanged an eleven year old girl for witchcraft, on the testimony of her nine year old brother.

I've found the following moral excuses for these actions. One, that the soul is more important than any life, thus the cleansing of the fire (in scotland, hanged women were burned after - as opposed to france, where they omitted the hanging) would purify the soul of the afflicted, in a belated attempt at salvation. So it is an act of mercy...

The other is that god knows his own. The belief (and i'm channeling Zimbardo here) that god has the prerogative of intervention leads to an eclipse of responsibility. When a judge condemns, the king has the right to pardon. When the king condemns, only god has the right to pardon. The belief in a god simply lends finality to impulse, and removes self control as one becomes validated by a toxic mix of faith and fatalism.


Unfortunately given the paradigm, there are few circumstance of belief that would lend one to completely discount the feasibility of either of these arguments.

Atheism on the other hand puts no pedestal before life, thereby valuing life more highly through omission. An atheist has to accept total responsibility for his actions. Whenever a secular ruler commits atrocity, everybody knows who exactly is responsible. But, when religious people commit atrocities, there's always that lingering suspicion that maybe they were witches after all. The moral lesson becomes grayed, and hollywood amps up the special effects budget.

I say a religious person is permanently handicapped when it comes to understanding the gravity his or her actions (oh they're in a better place). The only people who really benefit from religious morals are those naturally bereft of intrinsic conscience, and need a reward/punishment paradigm to get anything done.
1 post omitted. Click Reply to view.
>> No. 632
As a side note, I can't believe people still use the King James edition. The man was a fucking lunatic.
>> No. 633
"During a very famous moment, Krishnamurti asked the audience if they wanted to know his secret. The lecture hall went silent, and everyone leaned forward.

“You see,” he said, “I don’t give a shit.”"
>> No. 634
It's pretty much the opposite. The vast majority of religions believe that our actions in this world matter. I mean you can't really have a dogma if you don't value the physical world at all can you? Not only do most religions believe our actions matter, but just as many believe that we ought to try our best to do good. This generally extends to not murdering people, I mean it's one of the commandments in Christianity. Some religious believers even go to the extreme and try to preserve potential lives by banning abortion. So what I'm getting at is that there is not a religion I can think of that explicitly outlines in its texts that human life or experience is of little value. Even religions which see the physical world as a horrible place we must escape from (Buddhism, Gnosticism) STILL maintain that our actions here matter and we ought to do good.

I always find it really ignorant when people blame religion for things. Religion is words and ideas, it exists as much as James Bond does. Religion doesn't do good or bad, people do.
>> No. 640
File 141090268288.png - (282.38KB , 624x352 , Coon2Hindsight10.png )
640
>>634

But our concept of blame is religious in origin. I guess I'll be blunt and say I'm not really talking about religion, but rather Abrahamic religion (as the most egregious and popular example).

If people don't murder because of religion, then what happens when a religious figure issues a fatwa (declaration) that sanctions murder? Religion is the lens through which many, many people see the world.

When a secular person does something wrong, there's no doubt about it. But in a religious context, you can never truly eliminate the possibility that what happens is god's will. Thus religion lends to cynical manipulation, even more than the regular con act, because with salesmen you're supposed to do due diligence; with Abrahamic religion you subordinate yourself, you conform, driven by the guilt of something your ancestors have done (even if your ancestors would have rejected the notion, as polytheists). It's a wicked cult that curses one's revered ancestors, and tramples upon all legacy and tradition for this "religion 2.0" mockery. They even set a fucking Year Zero. Can you imagine the arrogance of these people?

If you ask your wife who's watching the baby. "God's watching the baby." You'd
have that bitch committed, right?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diffusion_of_responsibility

The theory takes effect with three or more people, even if the third person is a completely made up entity.

Message too long. Click here to view the full text.
>> No. 649
File 141255528024.png - (235.78KB , 720x304 , vlcsnap-2010-07-05-18h59m19s148.png )
649
>>641


File 136002216631.jpg - (14.42KB , 400x350 , head in hands.jpg )
394 No. 394 hide expand quickreply [Reply]
Have any atheists here ever experienced a serious crisis of non-faith? Specifically, a crisis of faith NOT brought on by adversity?

A number of non-religious people will suddenly turn to God or whatnot when faced with something traumatizing in life, when they need a comfort mechanism (and of course, the archetypal "deathbed conversion")... But that's not what I'm experiencing. In fact, my life is pretty chill right now.

However, I'm starting to feel like it'd be really, really... well, frankly fun to be part of a religion. Have a sense of community, have meditations and prayer that help you focus on what makes you a better person and make this world a better place, and a sense of solace (not necessarily certainty of the hereafter or any security blanket, but y'know... solace).

I serious have been lying awake at night some nights thinking in my head "Hey, God, come in God... what's happenin', Dude? Y'know, I've done some thinking about You, and Ya know I was a Religious Studies Minor during my undergrad... NO, NO, FUCK, GOD ISN'T REAL, I WON'T BE A SLAVE TO ANY DEITY..." But the same thoughts keep repeating in my head again and again, night after night.

I hate it, I don't want to be a slave to an imaginary friend. I want to stay a rebel, a freethinker, a force of logic in this world. But each evening I find myself with my nose stuck in one sacred text or another from my bookshelf (like I said, I was a Religious Studies Minor during my B.A.).

Anyway, for those atheists who have experienced it, how did you overcome it? How did you snap yourself out of it? Cuz all I can see everywhere is the Divine, and it's driving me crazy.
18 posts and 6 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
>> No. 493
first god and religion are not the same. you can believe in god and not be religious.

second-ironically, you sound like s sheep-believing that being an atheist makes you a "rebel, free thinker" is a load of bs. thats very much part of the atheist movement and thats all it clings to because thats all its has. if you want to be a real free thinker, follow what you want to. but not doing what you want because of a group you are in is rather ironic that being atheism but not surprising, given the movement has become what it for so long has bitched about.
>> No. 557
You should see if there is a Unitarian Universalist church nearby where you live. Basically, the idea behind these places is that people of all faiths or non-faiths come together to seek personal growth. Services are generally lay-led, meaning that members of the congregation contribute segments to each gathering rather than a preacher just taking over the show. My favorite service was when a classical guitar major just brought his instrument in, had everybody meditate, and then played a few songs. No mention of God, just a bunch of people trying to get that "church feel."

I should mention it did start out as a Christian Church, and some would say that it is still affiliated with Christianity, but the church I used to go to had more atheists and agnostics than Christians.
>> No. 601
I think I know how you are feeling, OP. I am an atheist and have never had a crisis like the one you are going through, but I may have something that could help you.

Look into artistic muses. These are totally made up figures, whether defined or shapeless, that the creator can lean on in times of creative trouble. I am not sure of the psychological or philosophical grounding behind the idea, but having these muses seem to allow the user to be okay with failings and helps them along to the next project.
>> No. 608
We are always serving someone. Its sometimes more, sometimes less apparent to whom and why.
It really depends on how you want to look at it and whether you need to feel comfortable with the things you see from those angles.

Brains are funny.
>> No. 636
You should let your curiosity lead you. Don't let your misunderstood fear stop you from a path that feels right. Have no fear and take the plunge, don't be afraid to become another person.

I was an atheist in my teenage years and slowly wound up being quite spiritual. I grew curious and began reading about different religions and ideas. I slowly began to stitch together my own faith rather than subscribing to any one path. So now I believe in a strange mixture of Gnosticism, Hermeticism, and Buddhism.

If being a rebel is so important to you, Gnosticism might be a good place to start reading. In a nutshell Gnostics believe that the Christian God of Abraham is actually a Demiurge, a false creator god. They believe humans are apsects of God's mind that have been trapped in the physical world by the Demiurge. As you can imagine Gnosticism was quickly classified as a Christian heresy and so the ideas of it were advanced mostly in secret among small circles of people. The belief system also encourages creativity and flexibility since the belief system itself was never the subject of a centralized authority. Rather, it came into being slowly through the discussion and ideas of esoteric thinkers. The Secret Book of John is the fundamental Gnostic text. Give it a read.


File 140628399166.jpg - (30.50KB , 500x288 , image.jpg )
605 No. 605 hide quickreply [Reply]
Have you ever used psychoactive drugs before, and if so, did they alter your personal philosophy or leave any lasting impressions on how you view the world? What actions/thoughts let you to these conclusions?

While most people will tell you that nature is a better environment for most psychedelic trips (and I would agree but for a lack of experience), I had the opportunity to take mushrooms in the middle of New York City. The majority of my trip after the standard "I'm on mushrooms" fare was focused around examining how my position in the room influenced how I regarded the objects in it (more of an artistic/visual insight), but eventually I began to think about all the people outside my window and had sort of an anti-spiritual experience. All I "realized" was that people are ultimately motivated by an attempt to justify their existence, and that despite often drastic differences in the means, we all seek the same end. Even with this similar goal, the fact that people attempt to reach it so differently made me think that it is impossible to justify one's own existence, and yet that does not necessarily mean that the attempt itself is pointless. I think my reasoning at the time was that if there were an objective "truth" to existence, people would be guided by basic principles that would prevent the majority of ideological conflicts that seem so prevalent today.

It should be apparent that these realizations (only briefly summarized here) were heavily influenced by all the existentialist writings that I'd been reading for the past few months, and looking back on the trip perhaps I was just thinking of a shroomed-up version of basic absurdism. While the insight seemed profound at the time and the comedown felt really good, I'm not sure if I even believe any of it now, despite the fact that it only happened 2 months ago. Nonetheless, I am interested in your experiences with philosophy and drugs. If possible, keep it objective/secular/non-spiritual, because while I'm sure that you learned a lot from talking to your spirit animal, threads that allow discussion of hallucinations tend to derail into people using overly vague terms that they don't define and talking about how they met God (see 420chan).

Pic related because I'm pretty sure that the block I could see out my window while tripping was the area that served as the inspiration for the set of Rear Window.
>> No. 611
I think at an underlying level, certain basic philosophies are drilled into us subconsciously through culture. The brain already organizes these into discernible units, it is only through LSD that we become aware of them.

LSD was more of a collective brain meltdown for me. I even became benched on my NBA 2k team, because I was fool enough to play while on LSD.

DXM was the trip worth mentioning. The entire universe unfolded and I saw life as an entropic cascade that spilled throughout the stars in a wondrous cosmic flush.

Is life not like any other process, another sustained reaction that throws the universe into greater disorder through the appearance of order; enzyme regulation, and organization.

But life is categorized as any intrinsically sustaining and heritable process. So machines can be extension of life, so can holograms, but it can all start from a single domino.

We rescue the universe from inertia.

I also saw my infinitesimal part in this grand opera, and disabused myself of imperious ambition, because I am a big picture kind of guy. The universe asks nothing more of me than to chug a few beers and procreate.
>> No. 629
Psychedelics actually didn't change my thinking, although I could never get any good stuff. Other psychoactive like opiates, stims, marijuana, etc taught me a lot though. It made me realize that life really is the desire for powerful and pleasant sensations, followed by unpleasant sensations. It's a very buddhist sort of thinking, though I'm not a buddhist in any way. I do practice moderation and avoidance of a lot of things now, and I'm much happier for it. It's like the ups and downs of drugs tuned me into that pattern and make me very aware that by indulging less I could be much happier.


File 140413067839.jpg - (71.23KB , 620x400 , rifle guitar (1).jpg )
591 No. 591 hide quickreply [Reply]
Why do you think getting points on a website from anonymous strangers, IE: imgur, feels so good?

What part of ancient human culture hardwired us to crave recognition from everyone around us?
>> No. 593
Among hunter gatherer societies, it is never the case that anyone is self sufficient. So if you want people to share their food with you, you gotta walk the walk, do the talk, etc.


File 140264456119.jpg - (819.70KB , 1080x1080 , 1352853866527.jpg )
571 No. 571 hide quickreply [Reply]
I am trying to find a worldview of my own (or rather, further define it), and I am as such reading up on philosophies. I have somewhat of obsession with the ancient Greeks. Constant self-improvement is something I highly idealize, and philosophies that deal with this are of my interest.

While I find the Stoic worldview interesting, admirable and agreeable, I cannot agree with the excessive use of such a vague term as "nature". I also disagree with the dualist ideas they had, although I imagine that the dualist view was probably a result of the times (and that given the modern knowledge, they would perhaps view the mind as part of nature rather than extranatural). They seemed not to go overboard with asceticism either, rather focusing on the emotional implications of being "passionate".
>> No. 574
The issue with basing your worldview upon ancient philosophies is that you risk having an antiquated view of the world. Since most ancient philosophies were based upon observation, their conclusions come from a world very different from ours, making them antiquated or just plain wrong. In this sense, a philosophy which tries to explain observable or physical phenomena is much less likely to have any lasting impact (sorry Pythagoreanism) than one which deals with logic and ethics. Maybe I am just dissing metaphysics but I'm not too worried about that.

Stoicism is pretty cool though, it certainly makes some valid ethical and logical points, but don't lose sleep because you don't agree with their scientific ideas and definition of nature. Remember, it's *your* worldview, don't feel the need to commit to a school.
>> No. 575
I like Xunzi, not because he inspired me to espouse his philosophy, but because my personal philosophy coincidentally has many overlaps with his.


Delete post []
Password  
Report post
Reason  
Previous [0] [1] [2] [3]