Give a welcome to 420chan's
first new board in four years - /vape/
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


afterlife implies meaning implies freedom of be-ing as well by Jarvis Blackstock - Sun, 02 Aug 2015 00:03:32 EST ID:y0CVOXzh No.202040 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1438488212338.jpg -(133370B / 130.24KB, 900x1344) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 133370
do you deny an afterlife? well who gives a shit about your bullshit ``philosophy'' then, you're just a nihilist in the end! nobody is gonna accept your nihilist shit as the truth other than drugged up kids like you or out of touch professors.
2 posts and 1 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
Jarvis Blackstock - Sun, 02 Aug 2015 09:08:33 EST ID:y0CVOXzh No.202050 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Give me an objective (non-natural therefore non-physical) reason to value that.
Ebenezer Billingbanks - Sun, 02 Aug 2015 11:15:50 EST ID:lPLz/e1I No.202058 Ignore Report Quick Reply
There is none, because you're to stupid and banned to comprehend it.
Fanny Manningpud - Mon, 03 Aug 2015 01:57:17 EST ID:RWORJU8H No.202064 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Listen I dont like the pomo nihlist bs as much as the other guy but youre being just as bad kiddo
Phoebe Fuvingsodge - Mon, 03 Aug 2015 03:59:20 EST ID:thKSFwxJ No.202065 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1438588760447.png -(171662B / 167.64KB, 357x415) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
pls stop shitposting. nb.
Walter Wuvingstone - Mon, 03 Aug 2015 12:17:05 EST ID:yHZPJws1 No.202067 Ignore Report Quick Reply
This is a bad thread and the OP should feel bad about making it, but it got me thinking about one thing in particular.

My line of thinking is like that: people do notice that moral relativism extends its justification only as far as the subjects in question do, and so, nothing is absolute, nothing is simple, and nothing is to be taken for granted. Similarily, naturalism bars the access to traditional beliefs such as dualism or the afterlife, which are commonly seen by people to be the harbringers of inherent meaning.
A relativist-naturalist existential nihilist (real or imaginary, most likely the latter) would derive from moral relativism and naturalism that nothing has intrinsic meaning, then reject extrinsic meaning as either unimportant or meaningless if no intrinsic meaning exists. Hence, nothing has meaning.
People like OP shy away from the resulting nihilism, decrying it unwanted (argument from adverse consequences), so, instead of finding a different way around the conclusion from the same starting premises (naturalism and moral relativism, which, by the way, happen to be cornerstones of things like the modern scientific method), they choose the simpler way and employ a particular mix of denying the antecedent and affirming the consequent with a dash of ad consequentiam. It goes like this "Nihilism is the result of materialism and moral relativism. Nihilism is bad, therefore, it is wrong. Since nihilism is wrong, materialism and moral relativism are wrong." From then on, the resulting statements can be looped.

What struck me is how widespread that is, and it stuck me while watching a tax debate. There was the token "tax cuts for the rich" guy, and some Keynesian. The Keynesian guy reasoned for his cause (details don't really matter, nor do the politics behind the example); the other party, rather than rebuking the evidence and/or showing alternative reasoning, ignored it altogether and instead assumed that high taxes lead to redistribution of income at the expense of economic slowdown. Since economic slowdown is undesirable, the redistribution of income and higher taxes are wrong. In came the Keynesian who showered the tax cut guy with examples of it not being the case, a…
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.

what is beauty? by Simon Murdshaw - Sat, 01 Aug 2015 15:56:29 EST ID:QeA0rqRz No.202018 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1438458989236.jpg -(89708B / 87.61KB, 500x512) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 89708
philosophically, what makes this family ugly and hideous?
6 posts omitted. Click Reply to view.
Jarvis Blackstock - Sun, 02 Aug 2015 00:01:27 EST ID:y0CVOXzh No.202038 Ignore Report Quick Reply

where's the gene for that?
nowhere to be found lol.

plato, kant, quantum mechanics.
what is love? something not physical and only conditioned by the physical for a specific (currently unknown) reason and for a finite amount of time.

immortal souls, u mad nihilists.
heaven or hell, your choice.
Jarvis Blackstock - Sun, 02 Aug 2015 00:01:58 EST ID:y0CVOXzh No.202039 Ignore Report Quick Reply
should have said FREE choice as nihilists absolutely (and they absolutely hate absolutes as well) hate freedom.
Cornelius Gabblestone - Sun, 02 Aug 2015 04:51:02 EST ID:yHZPJws1 No.202047 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Man, it's as I've said in the other thread, this is getting obnoxious really fast.
Jarvis Blackstock - Sun, 02 Aug 2015 09:09:38 EST ID:y0CVOXzh No.202052 Ignore Report Quick Reply
you cant do shit about it
make me
User was banned for this post
User was banned by: Senji for 7 days
Reason: Take a time out kiddo, this isn't /b/
Phineas Gunningsedge - Sun, 02 Aug 2015 10:51:53 EST ID:YVFgXrPz No.202055 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1438527113169.jpg -(52197B / 50.97KB, 500x652) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.

Pet psychology by Graham Copperhall - Sat, 01 Aug 2015 22:49:13 EST ID:EPt7BV5y No.202027 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1438483753984.jpg -(22223B / 21.70KB, 280x271) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 22223
the reasons your dog pees on the couch:
>1. it was allowed on the couch before but was kicked off because it peed on the couch to mark its territory
>2. It saw another pet or person other than its owner sit on the couch
>3. It pees on the couch to try and reclaim its territory
>4. Owner hits dog and dog gets scared for not knowing what it did wrong because marking their territory is natural to them and they don't understand that them peeing could be wrong and dont learn anything from their owners punishing them

Don't beat your dog for peeing on the couch. Let them on the couch whenever they want to go on and they'll stop peeling on it eventually. If they keep peeing on the couch then it means that the smell is going away and they need to remark their territories. Get a leather couch if that keeps happening
Martha Saffingbury - Sat, 01 Aug 2015 22:57:16 EST ID:AvtcdyfE No.202028 Ignore Report Quick Reply
My dog uses his free will to transcend all prior causes. He pees out of his own free will
Graham Copperhall - Sat, 01 Aug 2015 23:06:01 EST ID:EPt7BV5y No.202029 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Nah dude evolution caused dogs to behave how humans want which is to act just like humans. They make it look like they love you but they're just behaving like that because they're being fed by you so that's how they continue to behave because it works for them to get foot. Wild dogs don't behave how pets do. Anthroporomfism
Jarvis Blackstock - Sat, 01 Aug 2015 23:46:14 EST ID:y0CVOXzh No.202030 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>because evolution
this must be a fallacy
Ebenezer Billingbanks - Sun, 02 Aug 2015 02:34:41 EST ID:lPLz/e1I No.202044 Ignore Report Quick Reply
if it is, then all wild dogs must behave like domestic dogs.


A weirdly specific question by Eugene Wembledock - Fri, 24 Jul 2015 05:18:05 EST ID:yHZPJws1 No.201861 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1437729485808.jpg -(32727B / 31.96KB, 540x425) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 32727
'nuff said, I've got one
In ontological terms, how do we call the situation in which a being separates from its basis, gains autonomy, and contradicts its original basis? There was a word for that but I forgot what it was.

I've been thinking about it since a certain happening (to be precise, a stock exchange company floating its own stocks on its own exchange) has struck me as a case of this, but, again, I forgot the word.
3 posts omitted. Click Reply to view.
Lillian Fillydutch - Mon, 27 Jul 2015 08:38:01 EST ID:54PBc7Id No.201892 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Nobody here has the answer. Most people on this board aren't educated in logic or philosophy, they're just interested in it and probably have done a little reading about it. But I mean I even studied logic in university and I have no idea what the word for that would be. I'd love to hear the word if you've got it.
Ian Dusslewire - Mon, 27 Jul 2015 14:17:31 EST ID:yHZPJws1 No.201895 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Got it. Hypostasis was the word... kinda, it's more complicated than I remembered it to be. I'll try to explain.

Hypostasis denotes the underlying (fundamental) state from which ontic beings emerge as well as its manifestation itself. Going back to the stock market analogy, the stock exchange was one being that basically split into its underpinning (that is, the stock exchange's... exchangey part?) and its manifestation (that is, the stock exchange's company shares floated on the stock exchange *itself*), maintaining two distinct natures in one distinct existence, thus forming a seemngly contradictory internal relationship akin to that of Hypostatic Union as advanced by Christian Theologists in relation to the nature of Christ.
Eliza Bardridge - Thu, 30 Jul 2015 19:14:46 EST ID:RWORJU8H No.201972 Ignore Report Quick Reply
wow people asking questions on a philos board who woulda thunk it
the future elistism pls go
Ebenezer Cheffingwuck - Sat, 01 Aug 2015 23:55:15 EST ID:/K5GM6am No.202035 Ignore Report Quick Reply

"How do you call" is a common phrasing in romance languages like French or Spanish. He probably just isn't a native speaker of English.
Cornelius Gabblestone - Sun, 02 Aug 2015 04:16:29 EST ID:yHZPJws1 No.202046 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Well, good catch, although I must say I only learned French, which is the only Romance language I speak (and which is the likely culprit of this calque) years after I learned English. Still, shame on me.

Abortion by Reuben Wanderville - Sat, 11 Jul 2015 19:30:58 EST ID:chD4CFxl No.201718 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1436657458985.jpg -(39227B / 38.31KB, 620x235) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 39227
Let's discuss the moral and ethical implications of abortion, without relying on logical fallacies or calling other people Hitler.
23 posts and 1 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
Lydia Boshdock - Fri, 31 Jul 2015 14:25:32 EST ID:qbpfhgcl No.202013 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Oh I'm sure you're a real killing machine. very quickly violent holy shit dont hurt me

>natural perspective
Cyril Dullerford - Fri, 31 Jul 2015 17:35:49 EST ID:AvtcdyfE No.202014 Ignore Report Quick Reply

>Dawg a fetus inside a womb isn't sentient.

It develops sentience at some point during gestation.

>And even if it was, what would it be sentient of? The feeling of being warm and wet?

Yes. And maybe pain, and thoughts generated by its unconscious mind, and things we have no knowledge of at this point in time.

>It has no concept of death and wouldn't even notice dying.

Barring the existence of an afterlife, nobody "notices dying". If death is the cessation of consciousness, the idea that you "notice dying" is incoherent.
Phineas Gunningsedge - Sat, 01 Aug 2015 22:18:15 EST ID:YVFgXrPz No.202023 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>It develops sentience at some point during gestation
That is a pretty bold statement, considering we cannot even scientifically define sentient. This is why it is often debate whether or not animals, be it dogs, cats, or whatever, are even sentient. We know we are sentient but we cannot define the cut-off. And I vehemently contest that humans are fully sentient until at least a year or 2 into life.
Martha Saffingbury - Sat, 01 Aug 2015 22:43:49 EST ID:AvtcdyfE No.202026 Ignore Report Quick Reply

Sentient is the ability to have sensory experiences.

>This is why it is often debate whether or not animals, be it dogs, cats, or whatever, are even sentient

There is just as much evidence that a dog is sentient as there is that a man who is not me is sentient.

Maybe you're confusing sentience with sapience. It happens.
Jarvis Blackstock - Sun, 02 Aug 2015 09:10:24 EST ID:y0CVOXzh No.202053 Ignore Report Quick Reply

Would you rather save 1000 orphans from certain death or keep using the internet? by Walter Blessleshit - Thu, 23 Jul 2015 17:26:50 EST ID:/s1TOZVO No.201852 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1437686810968.jpg -(40812B / 39.86KB, 586x471) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 40812
31 posts and 1 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
Reuben Hongerdale - Fri, 31 Jul 2015 05:33:42 EST ID:yHZPJws1 No.201991 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>Good job, you described our current society, but conveniently left out the people who suckle at the teat of society with no valid excuse. I manage rental properties in a poor, minority neighborhood where violent crime and shootings are common. You know what else is common here? Defrauding welfare agencies and obtaining fraudulent disability status. At least 1/3rd of our tenants get benefits illegitimately. I.e. they are completely able-bodied and actually sought out government handouts instead of getting jobs. It's disgusting, and it's the culture out here. You've probably never been exposed to this type of behavior, so you think it's something fox news made up to make people angry, but it's not. I see it every day in our tenants and proof of income from applicants.
Here's something to think about: I'm not American, I've never even been to America, and I live in a place where only around 12% of the unemployed are on benefits, where welfare is woefully inadequate and the only people defrauding it are those in charge of it.
Reuben Hongerdale - Fri, 31 Jul 2015 07:39:05 EST ID:yHZPJws1 No.201992 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Also, if we drop any possible ethical concerns (such as "entitlement" or "equality"), then it turns out that, in larger perspective, well-introduced and well-regulated welfare is beneficial for the well-being of the society as a whole.

Turns out that, given a relatively healthy labor market, most people that are on welfare are on welfare for short periods, and usually for reasons such as "gaining qualifications to adapt to market conditions" or simply "looking for a new job". Welfare does funny things to a job market in such cases - it prevents the pool of active professionals from shrinking during recession, which causes the costs of inflating the pool during a period of growth to fall. In other words, it causes the labor market to be more robust and better withstand the market cycle.

As for homeless, orphans and the like, letting them go around begging and living in poverty isn't beneficial as well. Continuing the theme of dropping ethical issues, what's left is that, paradoxically, poverty is fucking expensive. Or, more precisely, poverty incurs losses as opposed to lack thereof. Increased police coverage costs, drop of neighbourhood attractiveness and property values etc. etc, and all that caused by pretty much non-consumer who do not drive growth. Providing them with basic means of sustenance not only prpovides them with means of rejoining the society and the labor market (which, contrary to what you state, research proves to be the case way more often than not), it also elevates them to the status of a consumer, which drives demand and provokes growth of supply in turn. Which, well, means more profit for the suppliers of both goods and services.

Expansion of supply, in turn, accomodates for the increased labor force - more consumers means more people needed to supply for these consumers, hence more work and more customers.

In other words, even from a cold, calculating economical standpoint, lining up people and shooting them up is a waste of untapped resource.

As for Fox News: I'm sorry to say, but for anyone with minimal economical and sociological training, Fox News is clear to make exactly zero sense. Mostly becaus…
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
John Dushwid - Fri, 31 Jul 2015 09:14:07 EST ID:YVFgXrPz No.201994 Ignore Report Quick Reply
The core disagreement between us then is I think it is bad because humans will pass, and it matters not to you. And that's not even true because you said we should care, so I'm not really sure the debate. Neither of us disagree on anything else, we sited and used the same facts and are in total agreement over them.

Nigga stfu, I am neither of those things, and the other poster asked me. Bitch-ass troll.
John Dushwid - Fri, 31 Jul 2015 09:33:54 EST ID:YVFgXrPz No.201998 Ignore Report Quick Reply
I think the 1 real thing we disagree on is:
>Moral is: we're not a special end-product of evolution and life, but we're also not a special threat to it, either.
And its not really a true disagreement, more of a difference in perception. Because I agree with that statement, but at the same time for the same reason I one day want to have kids, I also want to see the human race continue in a healthy state.

We are definately not an endstage since life is constantly evolving. But we are (presumably) the first species capable of such complex though on this planet.

When you consider that the VAST majority of matter in the universe is totally inanimate, it is kind of cool that there is 1 little bit of it that is alive, capable of reproduction, and an even smaller amount is capable of reflection on its existence and recognition of itself in the grander scheme of things. Now I am not saying that that right there is the reason we should keep going, that we are better than everything else, more that we definately are special and as a living member of this species I think that life is a gift and would like to see the continued enjoyment of it by others. Others that are capable of comprehending it to some degree.
Reuben Hongerdale - Fri, 31 Jul 2015 10:00:55 EST ID:yHZPJws1 No.201999 Ignore Report Quick Reply
You're right, the difference between us is that of perception.
The very fact of humans passing matters not to me, because humanity as we know it will pass, regardless of what happens. Just as Australopithecus passed, just as Himo Habilis, Erectus etc. passed. The question is whether we will die off or evolve on.

Broadly speaking, human die-off would most likely spell the end of intelligent life on Earth. Not life in general, but intelligent life; increasing solar output, lunar drift and slowing plate tectonics are likely to bring about an end to the favorable conditions we came to be so familiar with, and considering the rate of evolutionary rebound after extinction events, it's rather unlikely that we'd find a successor fast enough for the bic picture not to change.

But that's the extreme scenario; even foregoing that prediction, if the enviornment becomes too hostile for humans to live comfortably, it could shift the mode of society from one permitting the leisures of discovery and progress to one permanently centered on mere survival. This would hamstring progress as we know it, bound humanity to the confines of the earth, where we would live until our sun dies and buries us forever. Not a very fun scenario, that. But a very probable one, as well, at least I'm inclined to think so.

As you've mentioned, the core difference between us is that of perception. I do not consider humans to be a threat to the planet. The planet's fate is quite set; that is, as sun's luminosity increases, it will become barren, as Mars became nearly four billion years ago for that very reason. We've little chance of influencing that. We can only leave for greener pastures, hoping our notion of progress will save us. Maybe it will, maybe it won't. But what happens to us matters to us. Not the planet, not the environment, not the world. Us.
Perhaps there will be some other lifeform to take over, maybe it's natural that we will die off, perhaps it will be for the best. I'm not the one to say.

Heh heh. With all this musing on the effects environmental change might have on intelligent life, I felt compelled to type "climate change" in my browser an…
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.

Defenitive by Eugene Sablingbene - Tue, 28 Jul 2015 17:15:32 EST ID:Ktt8djye No.201917 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1438118132678.jpg -(10929B / 10.67KB, 480x360) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 10929
To be definitive on a statement is to confirm that which will inevitably change, but Is that not a definitive statement?
Eliza Bardridge - Thu, 30 Jul 2015 19:11:42 EST ID:RWORJU8H No.201971 Ignore Report Quick Reply

There are things that we want by Hugh Fublinglid - Sat, 18 Jul 2015 23:49:58 EST ID:rTsGhC9N No.201808 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1437277798962.jpg -(55226B / 53.93KB, 600x415) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 55226
that we don't want to want.

This may just be true for some people, but I think it could well be true for all, or almost all people.

There are things that we want that we don't want to want.

I feel like this relates to compatibilism somehow.

If I'm "free to do what I want", what if I want to want something other than what I want?

Where is my "freedom" then?
10 posts and 1 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
Ebenezer Buckleworth - Wed, 22 Jul 2015 22:46:48 EST ID:gHvCsT5H No.201848 Ignore Report Quick Reply
it's secondary, or another way to look at it is it's an example of it.

i understand it's potentially misleading, and this is good practical advise. It's like in plato, where people accidently chase the shadow when there looking for the form. But in life sometimes it's not far to understand that you can see yourself drinking even if you don't like to drink because of one time you had a good experience drinking and you miss it. The same reason you want to want to go back to mcdonalds even though now you're older and you get sick.

You could say what you really want is your past. but the truth is that could be failing to acknowledge it's not only the memories or the old times you want or the nostalgia you're seeking. It may be that the memories are making you want mcdonalds, because contained within them is the seed of knowledge of that great mcdonalds.

So it's possible you just want it again, cannot physically want it because it makes you sick, but you want to want it. You may have gotten socially anxious within the last few months after a bad break up, you are in a deep depression and haven't left the house, you don't want to leave the house. Yet while you're in the house all you do is think about the life you know is out there and going out with your friends, the experience that you are craving that is also utterly terrifying in another sense. Completely driven for it and eager, yet pushed away from it as well and second guessing.

Completely possible for you to have those opposing wants.
Priscilla Honeydock - Thu, 23 Jul 2015 02:00:20 EST ID:RWORJU8H No.201850 Ignore Report Quick Reply
wanting anything material or beyond your means, I feel Ive conquered it well
Basil Caffingfoot - Thu, 23 Jul 2015 18:31:07 EST ID:H0iuvgD/ No.201854 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>There are things that we want that we don't want to want

I think usually this is because we want conflicting things.
Lillian Fillydutch - Mon, 27 Jul 2015 08:42:41 EST ID:54PBc7Id No.201894 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Freedom doesn't exist, OP. All you are is an entity perceiving reality, you have no control over it whatsoever.
Everything you want and do is based on your genetics and your surroundings, and you had absolutely nothing to do with the genetics that created you nor the surroundings that will inevitably make you who you are alongside your genetics. Freedom of choice is just an illusion.

You want to make a choice that has nothing determining it? That's absolute randomness, therefore not a choice, anyway.
Reuben Brimmledad - Mon, 27 Jul 2015 22:45:53 EST ID:sviFT3nS No.201901 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Googled random stuff and picked 2 links, higher order volitions is what I think you're referring to, right?
Well, yeah, something like that

Sacred Geometry by Charles Nickleville - Wed, 22 Jul 2015 02:41:10 EST ID:H9K4xwF+ No.201834 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1437547270085.jpg -(597722B / 583.71KB, 1920x1080) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 597722
Proof of a plan?
6 posts and 3 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
CrazyFolksTribe !loJSOMZg0g - Wed, 22 Jul 2015 21:46:21 EST ID:9U3o2HtV No.201846 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1437615981974.jpg -(87062B / 85.02KB, 800x533) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
The proof is in the pudding.

Yes, I know that one was way too easy.
Hannah Bizzlestone - Thu, 23 Jul 2015 00:18:44 EST ID:IulfS/LU No.201849 Ignore Report Quick Reply
And for all that the cosmic cycle continues.
Basil Hickleville - Thu, 23 Jul 2015 23:11:16 EST ID:YVFgXrPz No.201858 Ignore Report Quick Reply
A plan of what, exactly? That things occur in patterns?
Given enough randomness, patterns will eventually form somewhere. Its statistics man. But in terms of geometry, I don't get what is so sacred about sacred geometry. Most of it is subject interpretation anyway.
Jenny Huffinghat - Mon, 27 Jul 2015 01:19:51 EST ID:b0VYjKuX No.201888 Ignore Report Quick Reply
More interesting is what patterns get established as reality and which ones get relegated to not being there.

And before anyone says the ones that actually exist physically. That doesn't explain how cultural, political, ideological or any other "philosophical patterns" become valid over others.
Other than popularity
Lillian Fillydutch - Mon, 27 Jul 2015 08:35:47 EST ID:54PBc7Id No.201891 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Proof of a plan? No. Proof of order and stability permeating the universe? Yes.

The whole, 'if one single thing was different nothing would exist, therefore someone must have created it' idea is ridiculous bullshit. The universe couldn't exist without stability holding it together, so no shit things like sacred geometry exist. It's not a coincidence, it's literally what has to be. Yeah, if there was a single discrepancy, the universe as we know it wouldn't exist; it would still be here, just completely different.

no more pressure by Samuel Crittingbure - Tue, 16 Jun 2015 21:35:14 EST ID:H0iuvgD/ No.201350 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1434504914199.jpg -(79488B / 77.62KB, 1024x768) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 79488
What would the world be like if people would not have to work for a living anymore?Would people be able to still accomplish much?
43 posts and 1 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
Bombastus !!HToBa9dh - Fri, 24 Jul 2015 17:52:59 EST ID:2fcbIenj No.201871 Ignore Report Quick Reply
This is the basis of the Swiss "base salary" proposition. That country largely thinks like you and would benefit from a widespread voted socialist revolution. America would definitely not.

Keep in mind that Keynes imagined a world where we would only NEED to work 15-20 hours. Whether he believed in the free-market principles of socialism is irrelevant. Both those ideals would require a highly educated and motivated populous which very few countries are in reach of.
emperorkuzco - Fri, 24 Jul 2015 19:50:16 EST ID:MvgBqzHx No.201872 Ignore Report Quick Reply
society would fall apart as we know it.
Hugh Fuckingham - Sat, 25 Jul 2015 18:22:54 EST ID:yHZPJws1 No.201875 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Whenever I see this argument I think of Late Bronze Age collapse. Climate changes that favored pastoralism in conjunction with the spread of ironworking spurred a mass migration of nomadic peoples and brought a rather swift end to the sedentary palace economy of the Mecenean Greece, the Hittite Empire, and the New Dynasty in Egypt. Doom, destruction, cities abandoned forever and disrupted trade routes galore. Surely a lot of people from Pylos to Gaza saw that happening and thought "this is the end of the society as we know it".
Now, nearly three millenia after all that happened, we're here and we don't seem to be any worse for the wear. Not that it happened only once. The dawn of behavioral modernity, the neolithic revolution, the invention of bronze, then iron and steel, various discoveries, plagues and invasions each have ended the society, or even the world, as the people then inhabiting it knew it.
My point is, nothing lasts forever, not even the world we live in; and from a historical perspective, the tragedy of the end of society is overrated.
Sidney Shittingwill - Sat, 25 Jul 2015 19:11:56 EST ID:iAquTtgI No.201876 Ignore Report Quick Reply
America is at that point right now we just haven't put anything in place to make it possible.

Most American jobs don't really matter, you go to work to make money to put back into the economy. Unless your job has you actually building something bigger than a sandwich and you aren't educating the public most people would contribute equally to the country if they were just given 40K a year and just spend it how they normally would for the year.

I'm sure a lot of people would just check out of society move somewhere cheap and just consume, but I've met plenty of people passionate about they work they do and if you're passionate about bettering society freeing up 40+ waking hours a week is a great way to not let the economy get in the way of bettering society.
CrazyFolksTribe !loJSOMZg0g - Thu, 30 Jul 2015 23:11:06 EST ID:XBKiTRST No.201976 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Capitalism will be a form of art instead of an economic system. Everything will turn into more of an art and less of a means to an end.

Theories of Mind by Hamilton Pickwell - Thu, 16 Jul 2015 21:28:51 EST ID:pUtySIP2 No.201784 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1437096531213.png -(332672B / 324.88KB, 1090x613) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 332672
Forget Mad Pain (which isn't really pain) and Martian Pain (which can simply be explained by functionalism).

What theory of mind explains Phantom Limb Pain and Near-Death Experiences?
Charlotte Shittingridge - Thu, 16 Jul 2015 23:13:35 EST ID:fm1S8rNj No.201787 Ignore Report Quick Reply
It's the same mechanism that causes us to dream: A falsely triggered neural impulse, possibly located within a network of noradrenaline pathways in the case of phantom near-death experience, or within the dorsal posterior insula which is now thought to be the pain-processing part of your brain. If conditions are right, the impulse sets off a cascade of neurotransmitters that manage to bubble up to your thoughts and momentarily alter alter your perception of reality.

Your brain is more sensitive to falsely triggered impulses during REM sleep, when the cerebral cortex is active enough to formulate thoughts and interact with memories. Unlike dreams however, the cascade is brief and localized in the case of phantom pain or anxiety, because the rest of the brain is awake and fully aware that it didn't really happen. The falsely triggered cascade is drowned out by a stronger torrent of impulses that carry information about reality (unless your brain happens to be wired in a particular way that causes the pain or anxiety to self perpetuate).
George Chillerbet - Tue, 21 Jul 2015 17:09:20 EST ID:AqbPm5Oi No.201833 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1437512960823.jpg -(108705B / 106.16KB, 560x560) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
Because nothing is real, really.

/pss/, help me find an -ism by Beatrice Lighthall - Sat, 18 Jul 2015 22:13:17 EST ID:H9K4xwF+ No.201806 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1437271997030.jpg -(64329B / 62.82KB, 500x659) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 64329
I try to be good at things like music, video games, art, but everything I do is beneath everyone else's work. I suck. This is frustrating to me because other people seem motivated to practice and better themselves. I feel like a double loser for sucking at something, and then giving up on getting better. Truly I am nobody special.

I want a philosophy that comforts me and tells me that in doing nothing, I am actually doing something. Like I am closer to the 'truth', that in standing still and not participating in society, I am evolving toward something. I feel suicidal most of the time because I am a failure, but I want to turn that on its head and actually feel good about my life BECAUSE I have never achieved anything.

I think that hedonism is getting pleasure from physical things in life, but I am very much the opposite, I get no pleasure from life and I do not really seek out physical pleasure at all. So scratch that one.

Can you offer me some philosophies to make me feel better about being ADHD/depressed and giving it up? Thanks guys.
4 posts omitted. Click Reply to view.
Doris Bisslelitch - Sun, 19 Jul 2015 07:34:05 EST ID:gHvCsT5H No.201817 Ignore Report Quick Reply
to put a long story short they were the people that solved the problem of self image with out throwing it away
Esther Bebblehot - Sun, 19 Jul 2015 20:52:22 EST ID:vWvBiMC9 No.201823 Ignore Report Quick Reply

OP maybe try rebalancing your seratonin levels through better:
  • nutrition and eating habits
  • sunlight
  • exercise

Instead of looking for a philosophy to make you feel more content about things.

If you're unhappy and or depressed and or unable to make or maintain meaningful progress towards your goals then you should probably consider something real and probably lifestyle-related as the cause.
Shitting Gorrybury - Sun, 19 Jul 2015 21:46:44 EST ID:dDfmtX5x No.201824 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1437356804184.jpg -(23789B / 23.23KB, 512x512) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
Daoism, my friend, Daoism.

Read the Zhuangzi, Yi Jing, and the Dao De Jing for starters.

Here's a good translation of the Dao De JIng:
Angus Crinkinshaw - Mon, 20 Jul 2015 21:13:05 EST ID:D8tJ5vV5 No.201828 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Daoism aka Self-Honestyizm
Frederick Battingput - Tue, 21 Jul 2015 13:03:26 EST ID:lPLz/e1I No.201832 Ignore Report Quick Reply
> want a philosophy that comforts me and tells me that in doing nothing, I am actually doing something. Like I am closer to the 'truth', that in standing still and not participating in society, I am evolving toward something.

Good news for you, this is how the universe works by default! Nowhere to go, Nothing to do, No one to be.

Do you feel no pleasure ever doing anything, or do you feel no pleasure from your every day life currently? Do you think you would be happier living out of a tent in the woods fishing for your food? You can do this. It's okay to. It's actually more or less how we should be living.

Do you like all the modern appliances we are able to take advantage of and feel like you can't live without them? Then there is a price to pay. Putting aside all of the corruption or just general incompetence that can lead to your access of these services being delayed:

Modern living is really expensive. Where is all of your electricity and gas going to come from? Are you going to generate it all yourself? You need to source it from somewhere. You would have to balance your resource collection with the enjoyment of everything you are powering with said resources. It would be a lot of work.

Hence a society forms, creating social contracts to provide itself with resources and essentially alternating sleep cycles while the other half of the earth enjoys their commodities.

It's easy in an environment like ours to feel like something is expected of you, being born into this society which works tirelessly to provide resources you have been using your entire life - in fact our society is notorious for promoting the idea that you could not possibly live without these resources, or without this sense of owing someone something.

But you really don't owe anyone anything. If someone walks up to me and hands me a months worth of gas, I now own a months worth of gas. I owe this person nothing. They were well aware of that when they handed me the gas. You never give someone anything unless they are giving you something at the same time, else you should expect not to see it again.
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.

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