AnonAccount: What is it, and what does it do? - Q&A Thread
Leave these fields empty (spam trap):
You can leave this blank to post anonymously, or you can create a Tripcode by using the float Name#Password
A subject is required when posting a new thread
[*]Italic Text[/*]
[**]Bold Text[/**]
[~]Taimapedia Article[/~]
[%]Spoiler Text[/%]
>Highlight/Quote Text
[pre]Preformatted & Monospace text[/pre]
1. Numbered lists become ordered lists
* Bulleted lists become unordered lists


Why is Phil included in this board? by Hugh Hanningcheck - Tue, 17 Jun 2014 11:26:00 EST ID:WL4/i0g9 No.194430 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
1403018760976.jpg -(60149 B, 466x466) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 60149
Philosophy is not a Social Science at all.

It's not a Science.

It's what we call ideas when there's not enough evidence to call it a Science. Back in Ancient Greece, everything was philosophy. Then we did some science to the thoughts, and we got Chemistry, Physics, Biology, Psychology, Sociology etc.

Not trying to shit on Philosophy, it's interesting, but it's not a Social Science.
8 posts and 3 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
bobhughes - Thu, 19 Jun 2014 10:06:33 EST ID:kuQbBV3z No.194451 Ignore Report Quick Reply
i get what you mean, i think... it's just a completely different thought process and method of observing than the sciences..
Oliver Blicklekudge - Thu, 19 Jun 2014 18:43:57 EST ID:nBPGFvqe No.194466 Ignore Report Quick Reply

>Why do you need to include this part? Just to be a prick?

I saw it there and leaned in close to my computer monitor. My eyes grew wide and my mouth contorted into a grotesque half-grin as I saw that pronunciation guide. I realized to my delight that I couldn't even be sure that the fool could even say "philosophy", considering he didn't even know word's meaning.

"That will show the little philistine", I said out loud, drool dripping from my lips. My jaw clenched as I carefully held my cursor over the lines, taking special care not to exclude anything from the glorious blue bars that formed around these words of power.

My jaw clenched with as I saw the pronunciation guide transferred to the 420chan text box. Looking over to make sure I had copied everything I needed, I scarcely could contain my laughter as I clicked "submit post".

I got up to pour myself a celebratory glass of whiskey and sat back at my desk, sipping leisurely as I basked in my intellectual superiority and imagined the crushed heart of the fool who dared to question philosophy, the discipline in which I discovered the true superiority of my intellect.


No bump! No bump, I say!
Esther Clillerford - Fri, 20 Jun 2014 02:01:07 EST ID:PMR6/8EW No.194468 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Sounds about right.
Archie Pockshaw - Fri, 20 Jun 2014 21:21:52 EST ID:efYeYQjn No.194487 Ignore Report Quick Reply

>It's what we call ideas when there's not enough evidence to call it a Science.

philosophy is not necessarily a Science, but this is so retarded that you couldn't possibly know why, and therefore you're wrong even though you are "right"
Whitey Werryham - Tue, 24 Jun 2014 02:20:07 EST ID:vCbJur1/ No.194621 Ignore Report Quick Reply
it is when you think of it as a history of ideas

Simply the best? by Wesley Hassleville - Mon, 16 Jun 2014 18:25:42 EST ID:d0vLb9yI No.194421 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
1402957542593.jpg -(7403 B, 259x194) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 7403
I have a burning question, who, in your subjective opinion is the most morally good individual to grace the earth?
Define good however you like, but I mean in the most general sense with traits like compassion, selflessness, unconditional love etc
Also it can be a person you know personally but you'll have to follow it up with a rad story about why that person is the shit.

I just find it difficult to decide, all the individuals through the ages looked up to for being supremely good tend to have a very unappealing side to them eg;
Ghandi was racist, Mother Teresa was obsessed with suffering in order to get her closer to God, the Dalai Lama preaches living without greed, letting go of the material things in life as a Buddhist but he rolls around the world like some kind of rockstar, no doubt 5 star hotel accommodated.
Ian Sattingferk - Mon, 16 Jun 2014 22:32:54 EST ID:nBPGFvqe No.194424 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1402972374341.jpg -(73739 B, 1533x949) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 73739
I think it is very possible that the best individual to grace the earth may not even be famous or well-known at all. Imagine a forgotten hero from some time in these thousands upon thousands of years that we've been around.

They could have been the greatest, most ethical person ever, but, having never achieved fame, were forgotten from all knowledge. Perhaps they took no pains to ensure that their greatness would be remembered, and so it isn't.

Dear hero: If you were ever out there...this one's for you.
Walter Honeyshaw - Tue, 17 Jun 2014 03:45:41 EST ID:7sJ/68Ak No.194426 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Maybe Jesus if all the "I'm god" shit was made up by other people and not him.

I don't think being famous and being a good person go hand in hand very often.

I guess off the top of my head without thinking about it too much, St. Francis of Assisi would be my answer.
Walter Pingerkudging - Sun, 22 Jun 2014 17:07:29 EST ID:3JSz7e5h No.194573 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1403471249845.jpg -(37745 B, 464x320) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 37745
it is very difficult yes but i think this is atleast one of the morally better politicians
Esther Nandernedge - Mon, 30 Jun 2014 20:11:26 EST ID:oOb8DiPm No.194827 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Ive read this shit before on another board I envy saints we get it

afflicted by a disease by elohelcatz - Mon, 09 Jun 2014 03:33:04 EST ID:wmsthOV+ No.194213 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
1402299184227.png -(86982 B, 502x460) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 86982
honestly I got over the whole religion debates a while ago, there are far more important debates to be had, ones that would resolve the issue of organized religion altogether (education et al)
but whatever, I want to explore a few questions if anyone's down
everyone says "if it works for them, if it comforts them, just let them be, they're not hurting anyone" the same can be said of drug addicts, and the reality of both instances is quite different. not only does Christianity ruin a person's nature and their potential paths and goals in life, but their indoctrination hurts the collective, hurts humanity. Christianity is anti-scientific, anti-intellectual, homophobic, misogynistic, it encourages acceptance of real evils while focusing on imaginary evils, is based on fear, it depreciates the natural world, the list goes on. obviously it's as harmful as any disease and the analogy is just.
I think opinions on the modern impact of Christianity can be summed up into three views by outsider observers:
1- it's not harmful to anyone
2- it's harmful to the individual, not the collective
3- it's harmful to the individual and the collective
84 posts and 3 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
Nell Drarringsot - Fri, 20 Jun 2014 22:28:34 EST ID:5q+Zf1cH No.194490 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Also, the belief in deities that intervene in earthly matters necessitates the belief in the immaterial world acting upon the material world, which stands in direct conflict with, like, all of science. So YES, it could be called an opposite end of an axis (although religiosity is not the only thing that's in there).
Sidney Greenforth - Fri, 20 Jun 2014 22:56:35 EST ID:hgfltBKL No.194493 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>it will no longer distract people from real issues

i'm not sure if you mean to imply this or not, but what seems implied here is that religiosity precludes skepticism, either in the individual, or on a macro level. that if skepticism were to replace religiosity, you think the real issues would be tackled, our problems in our world might be fixed. this is connected with what i said about religion being a fetish.

the master-signifier can determine a fetish. the master-signifier can any number of things, democracy, traditionalist harmony, liberation, love or God, or even reason. for the active anti-theist, religion prevents them as a political subject from realizing their ultimate desire. which could be any number of things - a harmonious liberal democratic order, a radical order, something return to a traditionalist order, maybe something technocratic.

>Isn't that enough?

yeah. as such, it's been real. see ya in another thread
Nell Drarringsot - Fri, 20 Jun 2014 23:13:33 EST ID:5q+Zf1cH No.194495 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>i'm not sure if you mean to imply this or not, but what seems implied here is that religiosity precludes skepticism, either in the individual, or on a macro level.
Well, holding statements to be true without an proof even if they are inconsistent with themselves is kind of the opposite of scepticism.

>hat if skepticism were to replace religiosity, you think the real issues would be tackled, our problems in our world might be fixed
To a larger degree than they are now, at least.

>the master-signifier can determine a fetish. the master-signifier can any number of things, democracy, traditionalist harmony, liberation, love or God, or even reason. for the active anti-theist, religion prevents them as a political subject from realizing their ultimate desire. which could be any number of things - a harmonious liberal democratic order, a radical order, something return to a traditionalist order, maybe something technocratic.
Oh, right. Zizek/Lacan. I should've known.

In any case, first, I'll get on board with Chomsky's criticism of postmodern theories like these by saying that its contents are (usually) either obviousnesses enveloped in obfuscating language or straight-up bullshit (as would be the case with most of what Lacan wrote).

>for the active anti-theist, religion prevents them as a political subject from realizing their ultimate desire. which could be any number of things - a harmonious liberal democratic order, a radical order, something return to a traditionalist order, maybe something technocratic.
True to the point of being obvious as well as meaningless, the only purpose this statement seems to serve is to reduce antitheism to a personal sentiment regarding social position and conveniently dismiss well, everything else about it.
Sidney Greenforth - Sat, 21 Jun 2014 16:27:12 EST ID:hgfltBKL No.194544 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>true to the point of being obvious

but is it? is this ultimate desire really thwarted by religion? supernatural belief didn't stop the neolithic revolution, religion didn't halt the emergence of feudal society, didn't halt bourgeois society, and there are differing theologies within most of the major religions that encourage any number of political coordinates.

my question to you is, what evidence do you have of this obvious truth?
Jack Fuffingdock - Sat, 21 Jun 2014 17:21:14 EST ID:ardh95AY No.194547 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>but is it? is this ultimate desire really thwarted by religion? supernatural belief didn't stop the neolithic revolution, religion didn't halt the emergence of feudal society, didn't halt bourgeois society, and there are differing theologies within most of the major religions that encourage any number of political coordinates.
And yet, the Library of Alexandria burned because of a religious conviction. And yet, "De revolutionibus orbium coelestium" has been shunned by the Church, slowing progress in astrology for years to come, Galileo was bullied into shutting up, Giordano Bruno was burned to death...
Even today, churches in various parts of the Christian world burn with hate towards scientific progress, Imams in their Mosques throw bolts at social progress, saintly men in Hindu India actively push for the promotion of "traditional medicine" as a vaild form of disease treatment etc.

I'm not saying that religiosity acted as a switch that turns off *all* capacity for rational thought. I am saying, though, that it did slow the progress of science.
>my question to you is, what evidence do you have of this obvious truth?
It's impossible to prove that a supernatural belief in isolation hampers the progress of rationality (other than that what I consider obvious, which is that holding an unsupported and unjustified statement to be true is inherently irrational), because no purely supernatural belief (that is, a belief that concerns ony supernatural and does not concern the material world in any way) occurs in isolation (to my knowldedge, at least). Noone really believes in deities for shits and giggles - I've yet to see a religious belief that didn't have some kind of interpretation attached, and these interpretations are by their nature unscientific because they stem from conviction, and not from an available body of evidence.

I agree with Dakins (which, surprisingly to some, doesn't happen all that often) in his opposition to NOMA. Religious statements are indistinguishable from any other statements concerning unfalsifiable theories, and should be treated exactly as the rest of them - by placing them in the realm of "unknow…
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.

Desperation over meaninglessness. by David Chizzlehall - Thu, 12 Jun 2014 03:38:08 EST ID:SDbGlSLI No.194310 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
1402558688814.jpg -(95179 B, 1079x878) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 95179
This keeps me up at night a lot.

I'm just 18, and I've been reading about all sort of different philosophies and religions there are. Zen Buddhism, "Existentialism", Christianity...etc

I can't sleep at night, because there are no absolutes, and I'm too weak to live without the guidance of a higher being. It's soul crushing, and personally defined meaning is still not fulfilling enough for me. Even after all the LSD I've done and all the meditation that made me aware of the "mind-at-large" concept and the concept of oneness, I can't still be certain.

Since there are no absolutes, and I can't believe in free will or in determinism, I want to "subscribe" to a philosophy or religion of love and caring, that will give me peace of mind.

I consider this, however, as giving up or throwing the towel, as swallowing the entire oxycontin stash, you get me? I have no idea what to do, and my life hasn't been able to continue due to this. I do not want to rush, I've got all the time in the world, as long as I can finally find what is that I'm looking for.

Empathy and love. Empathy and love are my main drives. I can find meaning in it, even if it's a brain soup of serotonin, dopamine and oxytocin. I just want give up and subscribe to a philosophy based on empathy and a higher being, and be able to delude myself into believing it.

Sounds edgy as fuck, I know, but I'm truly desperate. The only thing that as been able to drive me lately is knowledge.

I'm sure many of you here are philosophers and theologists. I'm asking for your advice.
14 posts and 2 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
William Druckleham - Mon, 16 Jun 2014 21:52:29 EST ID:NCmIS1Dw No.194423 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>even if it's a brain soup of serotonin, dopamine and oxytocin

Pain, suffering, desperation, pride, etc are a brain soup of chemicals too. Just a really shitty one. You're not giving up anything of value. You're drugged either way: might as well choose the drug you like.
Esther Clillerford - Fri, 20 Jun 2014 02:23:18 EST ID:PMR6/8EW No.194469 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Might it help, OP, to know that perhaps pain is a part of the process?
>And now look again, and see what will naturally follow if the prisoners are released and disabused of their error. At first, when any of them is liberated and compelled suddenly to stand up and turn his neck round and walk and look towards the light, he will suffer sharp pains; the glare will distress him, and he will be unable to see the realities of which in his former state he had seen the shadows

You can't see the shadows or regard them as real anymore, and it hurts deeply. But there are certain pains that are bad and certain pains that are good. The pains of growth hurt, but they are good and they are only a process.

Here is Socrates on the nature of Love.
>How can I oppose your motion, who profess to understand nothing but matters of love?

Socrates professed to know nothing on any subject, except on the manner and nature of Love. It is because Love is the only thing that can be known. All other manners of knowledge can be examined and shown to be but mere shadows against the wall, masquerading as reality or truth. Except for love. The only thing that may be known.
Esther Clillerford - Fri, 20 Jun 2014 02:28:07 EST ID:PMR6/8EW No.194470 Ignore Report Quick Reply
It is a bright light that love emits, being the sole source of any knowledge. But if we can learn to become accustomed to its intensity and light, if we endure that pain for long enough so that it no longer hurts so much, we will be so much the better for it. And it is all together that we must endure this journey. All together as a species, so that we can turn this planet into a paradise.
David Blackshaw - Fri, 20 Jun 2014 07:28:01 EST ID:hASLvNLT No.194471 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1403263681270.jpg -(339627 B, 904x1354) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 339627
<--- this book helped me out with some of the things you bring up OP.
Isabella Suckledure - Fri, 20 Jun 2014 09:37:01 EST ID:DLt8+eaY No.194472 Ignore Report Quick Reply
This is indeed a great book.
Check it out OP.

Sovereignty of Consciousness by Samuel Blythespear - Sun, 15 Jun 2014 03:43:44 EST ID:S7swen12 No.194396 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
1402818224883.jpg -(113732 B, 770x590) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 113732
The health and environmental effects of GMOs are one thing, but that's not only the thing that concerns me. I've taken an intro to biotechnology class before and I'm aware that just because you give an organism certain attributes that it didn't have before means it'll become a health risk, unless it was say crossed with something poisonous/carcinogenic (*cough BGH) or increased something in a weird way like IGF-1 or anything else. What really concerns me is, and mind that this may seem a little far-fetched at first thought to those who probably haven't been following a lot of emergent research in science and technology over the past few years, but even if the technology isn't there all the way yet, it's not exactly in the realm of fantasy anymore to consider what can be put into foods in terms of nano-scale robotics. The control and use of food by a state to control it's inhabitants is nothing new as was the case with Stalin and the forced famines and with the direction of current technologies, such as with the "Lieber Group" and their research into integrated organic and non-organic mechanisms/computers not to mention also Obama's funding of, what like a billion or more, into neuroscience and the effect that The Human Connectome Project will probably bring about what is to keep things like whatever new codename MK-ULTRA is under, through the use of say a corporation that has a monopoly on seeds, say like with what Monsanto, to introduce some sort of self-organizing, neuron targeting, hormone/neurotransmitter regulation, wifi enabled nano/micro-machinery into the food supply? Not to sound like a schizophrenic conspiracy theorist, but eventually, it might not be this decade or the next, but I think eventually GMO is going to entail the issue of the sovereignty of consciousness and the of relation of such to the state.
5 posts omitted. Click Reply to view.
Jack Sillyshaw - Mon, 16 Jun 2014 05:05:27 EST ID:5q+Zf1cH No.194414 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Oh, by the way, I forgot to mention that the "usual methods" are no less awe-inspiring than nanorobots. Umbrellas with guns that shoot microscopic ricin containers upon the tip contacting a body, rolled newspapers carried under one's arm that sprays toxins behind to kill anyone who's passing by, extravagant interrogation techniques, crowdsourcing proxy wars... you get the idea.
Edwin Dickleridge - Mon, 16 Jun 2014 05:43:01 EST ID:S7swen12 No.194416 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Interesting thoughts so far. especially >>194414
I'm looking for some inspiration to do some cinematics via interfaces that would be unlocked after completing a each "part" of a certain gameplay mechanic, that in the cannon of this universe would serve as like a sort of history lesson of how a world came to be. Basically it's sort of like imagining what a "Nihilist" run world would be like and what that would entail. Of course what that would entail is dependent on what kind of nihilism we're talking about, but at least part of it is that these rulers sort of feel free to practice the creative functioning of their government sort of like how a post-modern artist might reappropriate things, they adopt a sort of revised Italian futurism, in that there is an emphasis on the merging of man and machine, and part of it was done by a corporation (analogous to Google in our world) that has a sort of controlled hierarchy in which different levels of the bureaucracy might work on “parts” of something, but not really have knowledge of the whole.
Jack Sillyshaw - Mon, 16 Jun 2014 17:03:09 EST ID:5q+Zf1cH No.194419 Ignore Report Quick Reply
> practice the creative functioning of their government sort of like how a post-modern artist might reappropriate things
>they adopt a sort of revised Italian futurism
So, Slaughterhouse-Five: The Game with added Filippo Tommaso Marinetti?

I'd tell you to shut up and take my money, if I had any money in the first place.

>that has a sort of controlled hierarchy in which different levels of the bureaucracy might work on “parts” of something, but not really have knowledge of the whole.
So, like, the way bureaucracy works right now?

Anywho, you might consider weaving in some corporate personhood early warnings for added relevance and to serve as a base for moral and ethical conundrums.
Jack Sillyshaw - Mon, 16 Jun 2014 17:18:53 EST ID:5q+Zf1cH No.194420 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Again, forgot the last part: if you want inspiration, lurk tvtropes, if you haven't already.

*warning* if you're not familiar with the site already (in which case, I feel *so* sorry), then be prepared to sink into and not see daylight for a week or so.
Lillian Besslewell - Tue, 17 Jun 2014 02:55:06 EST ID:S7swen12 No.194425 Ignore Report Quick Reply

I've been told that Slaughterhouse 5 is an interesting book and I've yet to read it, but thanks for bringing that to my attention. Not sure if I could get the connections (if there is much, since i just looked up the game and it seemed to have some objectional sort of critique) but I'll read the book first before I make my own observation of it and then compare that with Marinetti.

As far as like corporate characters go, that'll still have to be worked out a bit. But yeah tvtropes is a good reference too, I've visited it before and I've seen it's quite a good reference, I'll have to explore it some more. But yeah thanks for the feedback, seems they had a copy of Slaughterhouse 5 on 7 chan.

Map quiz, or casual study tool thing by Ian Debblewot - Sun, 13 Apr 2014 04:14:04 EST ID:vWeHm0X5 No.192851 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
1397376844262.png -(57092 B, 1425x625) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 57092
My apologies if this is better suited to like history or something.

Basically, I've been wanting to teach myself how to id everything on a blank world map. Reasons are mine but it's mostly a /lang/ and to a lesser extent /pol/ and /m/ thing. Technically, I guess, I'm more than capable; in the to below, I've named every country multiple times, just not all at once.

But the thing is I feel like this isn't my fault.

The sporcle one is horrifically designed. The labels obscure everything, so you can't tell what you've done already, and because of the way it works, the labels do shit like label Peru Venezuela (because all the fucking island countries push the label away), making it bafflingly hard to tell what you're doing and really ruining your mojo if you're doing the sort of "semantic" run thing I do and I suspect everyone who learns this does (where you go about all countries of a particular type like the maghreeb or turkic nations instead of trying to just memorize with no outside context or go in an arbitrary order).

The other one by contrast is much more elegant, filling in a list below and colouring the map green, but it A) lacks any sort of zoom and the palatte choice makes it absolutely stupid to try and tell places like Malawi or Qatar or Kosovo from their surroundings and B) has a time limit that I can't overcome by typing. I'm slow enough that even if I maintain a constant rate of my fastest I have about 5 seconds to start peering back over the map to look for anything I stupidly missed (like going czech > slovakia, thinking serbia, going "I better do the other yugos before I do slovenia since serbia is in my brain" and then stupidly forgetting slovenia because serbia got you macedonia and into greece>cyprus>turkey>the turkic countries").
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
13 posts and 3 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
Edward Ballersick - Sun, 15 Jun 2014 04:57:33 EST ID:+SnlwztM No.194398 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>194397 From the top of my head, all the ex soviet countries, plus Czechoslovakia... I guess it's just that I'm older than you.
Isabella Cliddlekatch - Sun, 15 Jun 2014 09:02:07 EST ID:nBPGFvqe No.194400 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Asia on the LEFT side of the map?

I don't know man. That makes me feel really disoriented
Isabella Cliddlekatch - Sun, 15 Jun 2014 09:02:57 EST ID:nBPGFvqe No.194401 Ignore Report Quick Reply

The various countries after the breakup of the USSR
Henry Drockleworth - Sun, 15 Jun 2014 13:44:23 EST ID:5q+Zf1cH No.194405 Ignore Report Quick Reply
There aren't *that* many, though. *sarcasm on* Belarus, Ukraine, Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, Tadjikistan, Turkmenistan, Azerbaijan, Georgia and Armenia, unless I'm missing something *sarcasm off*
Thomas Clevingnare - Sun, 15 Jun 2014 15:59:57 EST ID:gNyY+Voh No.194407 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Didn't count that, that was a given in my mind. Born 86.
I didn't even know which ones they were, guess I should learn that. I can place them though.
On the other hand, fuck Oceania and the Caribbeans.

"1st world countries" vs. "3rd world countries" by bobhughes - Fri, 13 Jun 2014 04:34:33 EST ID:kuQbBV3z No.194352 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
1402648473560.png -(263555 B, 568x643) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 263555
i am of a mixed race background. i am half colombian and half american. i was born and raised in the usa. but i never had much contact with my father's side of the family (the american half) so i was raised with colombian values and visited colombia almost every year of my life. this deep understanding of these two different cultures has led me to favor colombia because of the following reasons. first, the prevalence of mental illness and suicide is much, much higher in "1st world countries", especially the usa. this is because of a few different factors: individualistic vs. community based society, capitalism/ materialism, devaluing spiritual growth, and encouraging instant gratification/ pleasure seeking behavior over hard work.

here is an example of how the usa is an individualistic society vs. how colombia is a community based society: i was at my great uncle's birthday party in a rural town that didn't even have paved roads. there was a 60 year old or older woman there who was obviously severely mentally challenged. she couldn't even talk. i was concerned so i asked someone there who takes care of her since obviously her parents had been dead for a long time. they answered that the whole town took care of her and because of that she is able to live in her own home. they just all check in on her and feed her and bathe her every day. this blew my mind. here she would be thrown away into a nursing home to be alone and unhappy. humans were meant to be pack animals. because of technology and cultural reasons "1st world" citizens are far more isolated from each other, even from their families and friends. this isolation is a perfect breeding ground for mental illness.

the next point i would like to make is that the emphasis we make on capitalism and materialism values things more than people. this makes life cheap. it's more about how much you make and how much you have rather than how good of a person you are or how good to people you are the way it is culturally in colombia.

also, in this country spiritual growth is devalued as some kind of closed minded and medieval thing to be left behind. i'm not saying that religion is the right way to go for everyone bu…
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
20 posts omitted. Click Reply to view.
bobhughes - Sun, 15 Jun 2014 00:28:30 EST ID:kuQbBV3z No.194391 Ignore Report Quick Reply
whatever dude, i was high when i wrote it and would write it differently but i'm taking my sources from what i've been taught in college and what i've experienced in life... i'm not saying every single person in those countries is exactly the same...
bobhughes - Sun, 15 Jun 2014 00:42:44 EST ID:kuQbBV3z No.194392 Ignore Report Quick Reply
this is exactly the kind of answer i was hoping for... thanks... but i mean i feel like that kind of community closeness doesn't exist here... but i mean i've only lived in florida and michigan. when i lived in the country in michigan i did feel like people were shockingly nice and easy to make friends with versus growing up in a city in florida.. maybe it is more a country living vs. city living thing..
bobhughes - Sun, 15 Jun 2014 00:55:19 EST ID:kuQbBV3z No.194393 Ignore Report Quick Reply
yeah, i guess now that i think of it it does have more to do with country living... but i mean even in popayan, neiva and bogota people i've met seem like they are more capable, happy and friendly. but yeah, i guess there's people like that everywhere.. but to me it just seems like the way that the government and media work in the us creates this bubble where that kind of behavior is pretty much encouraged at a certain age... i at least feel like hispanic culture and traditions value responsibility, hard work, maturity and family more while american culture seems like it values the opposite of these things. i didn't mean that colombia was advanced philosophically... just that sometimes it feels like the usa is a little behind in relation to the rest of the world emotionally, spiritually and academically.
Beatrice Crellerchidging - Sun, 15 Jun 2014 02:59:19 EST ID:a/FpxrNF No.194394 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Why... do you use... so many... ellipses...

Are you... William Shatner?
bobhughes - Sun, 15 Jun 2014 13:10:19 EST ID:kuQbBV3z No.194404 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1402852219602.jpg -(24558 B, 400x302) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 24558
i thought... that no one..... would notice

Alan Watts~ Why Try To Change The World... by Augustus Hucklefeg - Fri, 13 Jun 2014 23:48:30 EST ID:+5HMs+Sw No.194379 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
1402717710333.jpg -(45213 B, 540x745) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 45213

causation and laws of nature by Phoebe Pimmlewater - Sat, 07 Jun 2014 17:15:24 EST ID:ox1h66Se No.194170 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
1402175724932.jpg -(28966 B, 650x477) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 28966
How does a materialist account for the laws of nature?

I was watching this guy's video: on philosophical failings of Christian apologists, and his first point was that Christians fail to comprehend the analytic/synthetic distinction. Specifically, he addressed the challenge by theists that atheists have some difficulty in accounting for the laws of logic, implying they must have some metaphysical Platonic essence (and he addressed their obsession with Platonism shortly after and also made a separate video on mathematical Platonism), when in reality, the 'laws of logic' are simply analytic statements which are true by virtue of the meaning of the words we use. By contrast, synthetic statements are statements which are not true by the meaning of the words we use, rather, their truth value is contingent upon how the world actually is (and the assumption therefore is that we verify them using empiricism). His argument is essentially that logic demands no metaphysical essence because the logic itself is just our analytic contemplation of concepts we have abstractly created and their meaning and relationships to one another. 'Logic' itself does not have a truth value, because 'logic' is simply a process we use to determine the truth value of other statements.

Why is this relevant to the laws of nature? Well, most atheists would also claim be materialists, i.e. they don't believe anything has any concrete objective existence outside of the scientific processes of matter and energy that we can observe empirically. This of course goes for anything we might arguably naively assume has a metaphysical existence, such as thoughts, consciousness, the self, concepts, numbers, et cetera. However, most materialists seem to believe in the existence of 'laws of nature', i.e. that to explain phenomena in the universe, we use science to observe general patterns in nature (let's completely ignore the problem of induction) and posit the existence of a general law which governs the causal relationship between events. At least in the common sense understanding of science, we would think of these laws as having some kind of transcendent exist…
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
14 posts omitted. Click Reply to view.
Oliver Mucklesat - Mon, 09 Jun 2014 11:33:55 EST ID:gNyY+Voh No.194219 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>You should probably read the thread.
I did now, and it seems the discussion is latching on to this "fine-tuned" thing. I don't know what I can say, I just disagree with the notion and tried to explain why. I've kinda given up on this idea of convincing people on the internet.
But it seems to me the question is actually about the function of life : why does life appear? What does it allow the universe to do?
Because the fine-tuned aspect is strictly about life as we know it, be it at the level of earth (and even then there are huge discrepancies, life under immense pressure at the bottom of the ocean, or in toxic environments, etc.) or the universe. The universe is what it is, it changed over time according to its laws, and there we are. Suppose a different universe with different laws, why would life be impossible? You'd just have some other kind of life working differently. The entire point here is to define what we mean by "life". Under other circumstances, maybe life wouldn't be carbon-based, work with a different chemistry, etc. but would still fulfill the same functions : self-preservation, consumption of other lifeforms (thus hunting), reproduction... This is what should be defined. Yes, the universe may appear "fine-tuned" for life/us, but what really happened is life appeared in the universe and "worked with what it had", to achieve those goals I mentioned. No why are those goals such, we don't know, and that may be because of some type of forces we don't know about yet, but the point is life just appears and does what it can. The idea of fine-tuning is inversing the perspective in my opinion.
Kocoayello !jxaL03vL/Q - Mon, 09 Jun 2014 13:24:00 EST ID:TrFcKVc0 No.194220 Ignore Report Quick Reply
No I agree completely with everything you have said. Our universe is probably just one of many many different kinds if universe where a version of life arose to be able to say "these laws are fine tuned" etc. of course in the early days of the multiverse there may have been more chaotic and "breaking" universes. Idk, cladistical as a way for universal regeneration seems like a viable option for me.
Thomas Panninghone - Mon, 09 Jun 2014 14:50:37 EST ID:ODId6GzL No.194224 Ignore Report Quick Reply

the thing is there is no guarantee that coupling constants can even be 2% larger or smaller

any speculation on just how fine-tuned the universe is will have no scale to base it on, we don't know the true range of possible universes, the constants may be defined by hidden variables that only give specific outputs
Kocoayello !jxaL03vL/Q - Mon, 09 Jun 2014 15:34:00 EST ID:AK4Vkp84 No.194233 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Ye, I never really understood how they came up with those values and constants, unless they are referenced off each other. EM force may be the standard at 1 perhaps? Lemme check:

Nope, it's Strong at 1, EM at 1/137, and the others at much much smaller strengths.
Ebenezer Fezzleforth - Mon, 09 Jun 2014 22:18:00 EST ID:ODId6GzL No.194244 Ignore Report Quick Reply

everything is in relation to some value, the metric system was invented partially after we discovered all the physics, if I'm not mistaken, and so it uses units/constants that fit nicely into the equations of science that utilize them, for instance:
>The joule is equal to the energy expended (or work done) in applying a force of one newton through a distance of one metre (1 newton metre or N·m), or in passing an electric current of one ampere through a resistance of one ohm for one second

How do you know what sacrifices are worth making? by Shit Dadgefotch - Tue, 03 Jun 2014 19:49:02 EST ID:fYriP8BD No.194091 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
1401839342644.jpg -(536181 B, 720x1000) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 536181
Reposted from /qq/

How do you know when you should sacrifice what you believe is right, for the benefit of someone else?
For example.

>You believe it is not right to kill
>There is someone about to be killed, who has done nothing wrong, you've witnessed the occurrence from the start, and know exactly who is at fault
>The only way to save the innocent is to kill the offender

How do you reconcile the action with your moral absolutism?

Now, what if, despite your best intentions, you accidentally killed not only the offender, but bystanders who were not involved with the situation at all to begin with? What if you kill the person you were trying to protect?

How would THAT be reconciled? Would it be forgivable due to your better intentions? Would there be no excuse for your mistake? Or is the terrible tragedy of innocents lost, simply the fault of the assailant who forced your hand into using lethal force to begin with?
1 posts omitted. Click Reply to view.
Esther Cammleteck - Tue, 03 Jun 2014 20:24:54 EST ID:fYriP8BD No.194096 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1401841494558.jpg -(100030 B, 700x788) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 100030
...holy shit
Oliver Ponnerstat - Sat, 07 Jun 2014 11:22:56 EST ID:hgfltBKL No.194161 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>when should you sacrifice what you believe is right?

never. under any circumstances. in fact, if your actions contravene your ethics, you don't actually have the code of ethics or morals you thought you did.

on the other hand, we're probably not capable of perfect fidelity to anything - though that doesn't change what is good or right. the real world is more urgent, more complex than the scenarios that we use to test ethical systems.

would i kill the aggressor given the opportunity? i don't know. probably. would i instead risk my life to preserve the innocent and the aggressor, to the point of spending my life to do so? i don't know...i don't think i'm that good.

beyond this example, there are things that many people have decided that are worth more than human life. we consider them real, but also abstractions - like justice, freedom, liberation, power, truth, honor, duty, love, even beauty.
Oliver Ponnerstat - Sat, 07 Jun 2014 11:33:32 EST ID:hgfltBKL No.194162 Ignore Report Quick Reply
also you seem to be wondering whether intentions (kantian ethics) matter, or whether only outcomes (utilitarian ethics) matter. i'd suggest that if you're interested in ethics, pick up some introductory text at the library that will present the various ethical systems and the arguments between them.

this is assuming that you maybe haven't done that, and that's OK if you haven't, because you're showing good insight into ethics without it. if you have, and you're just trying to provoke discussion, well, then i guess that's OK, too
Cyril Hibblegold - Mon, 09 Jun 2014 16:04:37 EST ID:PKW/y/mn No.194235 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>implying there's an absolute right
All morality is subjective, what's right and wrong is up to the person to decide. Whether it's ethical or not depends on what the majority have agreed (something vaguely similar to law).

OP, what do you mean by right? Do you think there is some perfect way to behave that is known by the universe innately?

If there's a God or deity[/ies] that you believe in, it's surely what they say in any scriptures or texts. If it's not, consult with them.

If you're atheistic, how can you believe in a moral system that is detached from consciousness? Surely that which thinks is that which has morality, so whether something's "right" is whether or not you think it's right. Whether it's ethical is up to the community to decide through discussion and debate.
Charles Carringchug - Wed, 11 Jun 2014 17:29:43 EST ID:gNyY+Voh No.194304 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Is there even any point in trying to answer questions like this in complete abstraction? "Hurrr what if you go back in time and could kill Hitler but he didn't do bad stuff yet"
This is stupid.

Time Wave Zero by Time Wave Zero - Sat, 07 Jun 2014 11:48:04 EST ID:sQs7/AF0 No.194163 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
1402156084527.gif -(6752 B, 409x276) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 6752
Is there any relationship between Time Wave Zero and Violent Unknown Event (VUE)? Please provide useful materials considering VUE
6 posts omitted. Click Reply to view.
Time Wave Zero - Sun, 08 Jun 2014 04:43:22 EST ID:sQs7/AF0 No.194183 Ignore Report Quick Reply
See: Cave allegory by Plato
Basil Crunnershaw - Sun, 08 Jun 2014 05:32:11 EST ID:ox1h66Se No.194184 Ignore Report Quick Reply

Plato's cave is just a story it doesn't prove shit.
Time Wave Zero - Sun, 08 Jun 2014 13:57:21 EST ID:sQs7/AF0 No.194193 Ignore Report Quick Reply
It is not a story, it is an allegory for nature of reality
Barnaby Breggleridge - Sun, 08 Jun 2014 23:24:31 EST ID:a/FpxrNF No.194200 Ignore Report Quick Reply

Not all allegories are useful. Or meaningful.
Thomas Panninghone - Mon, 09 Jun 2014 00:47:46 EST ID:ODId6GzL No.194203 Ignore Report Quick Reply

its an assertion, not an argument though, is the key

the guy asked for justification of this post


plato's cave is not a justification for that post, its just a story

Publishing by Nigger Nullershaw - Wed, 04 Jun 2014 13:23:11 EST ID:2yfFsGTg No.194113 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
1401902591266.png -(44444 B, 749x946) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 44444
What are some philosophy publishers who would accept and publish shitty papers? I have a few ideas I want to publish, but I fear rejection so much that it blocks me from publishing in any even mildly respectable journals.

Plus, I'm not sure as to whether my ideas are good at all, and English is not my primary language.

tl;dr: where could one publish shitty papers which would never get published in any other respectable philosophical journal?
2 posts omitted. Click Reply to view.
Lydia Werringson - Wed, 04 Jun 2014 15:28:24 EST ID:IGKMm2X9 No.194116 Ignore Report Quick Reply

Wow that's awesome, man. I'm not sure about philosophical journals though.

Your school doesn't have anything like an editorial section of its usual publication where people can just write about any old thing?
Phoebe Blackletere - Thu, 05 Jun 2014 12:29:29 EST ID:2yfFsGTg No.194123 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>Your school doesn't have anything like an editorial section of its usual publication where people can just write about any old thing?


Anyone? If not a journal, where *should* I publish my ideas?
Thomas Shakestock - Thu, 05 Jun 2014 13:26:48 EST ID:OhN+XHOe No.194124 Ignore Report Quick Reply
A blog?
Thomas Fuffinggold - Thu, 05 Jun 2014 16:19:07 EST ID:5q+Zf1cH No.194125 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Find someone interested in the subject whom you trust enough not to plagiarize the papers, have him/her read it, let the peer review commence, then fire up a blog and post it there.

While blogging seems to take flak for a lot of obtuse bloggers being around, the medium itself is sound, and is the best way for vocal folks to get picked for further publishing. If you have a solid blog with a sizeable following, you're going to be a much better candidate for publishing - not to mention the comments section of the blog will provide you with (sometimes irrelevant, sometimes extremely valuable) criticism, which you can use to improve upon your work. Adapt the way your ideas are written in to the medium and off you go.

I've been thinking about doing exactly that, but I've run into the same problems - fear of rejection. Well, that, and the fact that I while I can shit out academic papers with little problems, I have difficulties with adjusting my style to an actual audience (an academic essay will get the point across just as well, argumentation-wise, but COME ON, who'd want to read something that in his/her spare time). People tell me I should publish what I write all the time (whether they're right in their assumptions that others will want to read it, we'll see; I'm less than optimistic, though I want to give it a shot just for the hell of it), but actually getting around to do that is much more of a chore than I initially expected. So yeah, I can relate.

>English is not my primary language
Mine neither. Don't let that stop you; If your english isn't good enough for you to say what you want to say, just make it better.
Walter Fibbleshaw - Sun, 08 Jun 2014 18:02:16 EST ID:gNyY+Voh No.194194 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Internet forums. And >>194124

<<Last Pages Next>>
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Report Post
Please be descriptive with report notes,
this helps staff resolve issues quicker.