Leave these fields empty (spam trap):
Name
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
Subject
Comment
[*]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
File

Sandwich


Sam Harris by Nathaniel Worthingwell - Wed, 04 Feb 2015 22:37:59 EST ID:zPp9d3s6 No.198276 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
1423107479579.jpg -(3904 B, 200x251) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 3904
So I've found myself agreeing with Sam Harris on many points, and am rereading his Waking Up right now because it seems like one of the better rational sources of information related to meditation.

Apparently a lot of the internet doesn't like Sam, thinks he is a hack, thinks his idea that science can address moral issues is complete bullshit.

What is this boards opinion of him? Also, can we keep it civil please, even if you really don't like the guy? Thanks.
52 posts and 1 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
>>
Jenny Shakeville - Mon, 09 Feb 2015 09:24:54 EST ID:dhrbwn0+ No.198419 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>198418
>*define happiness

nb
>>
Jenny Shakeville - Mon, 09 Feb 2015 09:25:55 EST ID:dhrbwn0+ No.198420 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>198418
also
>discussion of morality

nb

fuck my typing
>>
Reuben Dommlekan - Mon, 09 Feb 2015 09:47:48 EST ID:gqVFybCs No.198421 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>198418
>You're basically asking, "does happiness exist?" I'd say it obviously does, and there's nothing useful to be gained from attempting to deine happiness in such a way that it isn't a real thing
This is a strange argument coming from the camp that defines free will as nonexistent.

I recognize that happiness exists, but it is very subjective.

>At the very least, you have to concede that happiness and suffering are far more quantifiable than good and evil.
Not really. You run into the same problems of differing philosophies and inter-subjectivity.

A stoic will have different ideas of true happiness than an epicurean, and they would both have different ideals of happiness than a Buddhist monk or an axe murderer. I would wager that fMRI scans of those people in happy states would all look very different. The hormones they experience in a happy state would be different. The reason is that "happiness" has a large socially-defined component. It depends on the worldview of the person.

A catholic can pseudo-quantify good/evil in terms of venial or mortal sins, and the different prayers and sacraments. A Buddhist can quantify good/evil in terms of lack of desire, or suffering. A They can quantify all they want, but it doesn't make their measurements universally true.
>>
Albert Gabbersen - Mon, 09 Feb 2015 10:22:43 EST ID:jKeP5C9F No.198422 Ignore Report Quick Reply
SUDDENLY THE UTILITY MONSTER APPEARS AND TAKES GREAT PLEASURE IN THE SUFFERING OF OTHERS
>>
Lillian Fasslesture - Fri, 13 Feb 2015 01:49:54 EST ID:ljcGWOIO No.198529 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>198419
the ends by which is achieved through virtuous activity.


Education by Martha Turveyforth - Sat, 07 Feb 2015 17:06:36 EST ID:H0iuvgD/ No.198357 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
1423346796292.jpg -(29100 B, 600x428) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 29100
So I just came up with this idea and I'm wondering what you guys think of it. Let's assume that in a distance future I have enough (/a lot of) money to hire a bunch of people (20/30) people, for a couple of years.

An arbitrary amount, let's assume half, consists out of great teachers/ technicians/ video editors/etc. And the other half consists out of very talented (top notch) students, who will get their education paid for (in Europe: let's say about 2000 Euro per year), a laptop, some other stuff and a big enough salary to live on.

Let's say all these students do the same study (computer science/maths/chemistry/whatever) but do so at different universities. Now the thing I expect from these students (as a return for their free study and salary) is that they work together to create cheap/accessible/awesome study material. Study material in the form of videos/website/notes. This stuff preferably has to become better and more accessible than stuff like coursera and khan academy. With a big added bonus of documenting a complete university level bachelor and master.

The ultimate goal of this is to create an accessible source, from which one could completely get on the same level of education as doing a university study. Preferably all this material is free. I could perhaps get some money back through funds, donations and additional purchasable material (private lessons/advice/etc), maybe even in different ways (but without severely suppressing the accessibility). The main goal of this project is not to monetize, but to bring cheap/free education, breaking even in some way would be nice though.

This material could be helpful to both people enrolled in a university and people who are not and just want to increase their knowledge. If it becomes a success, we could start expending and documenting more university courses. Eventually you create one big source from where you can learn almost anything. All the material will probably be in English btw.

What do you guys think?
>>
Gaudeamus igitur - Sat, 07 Feb 2015 18:40:16 EST ID:ljcGWOIO No.198358 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>198357
So a non-profit organization that makes higher-education free?

I think there are certain legal stipulations involved with making school programs accessible through the public domain.

Aside from that, I'm totally for this idea. Let's make this happen.


what does this quote mean, especially in the context of zizek? by Thomas Bunfuck - Fri, 06 Feb 2015 21:30:02 EST ID:cS9mqAho No.198338 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
1423276202078.jpg -(85043 B, 640x431) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 85043
Zizek uses this quote a lot. Robespierre said "(A sensibility that wails almost exclusively over the enemies of liberty seems suspect to me. [this part if often omitted]) Stop shaking the tyrant's bloody robe in my face, or I will believe that you wish to put Rome in chains.". When Slavoj Zizek mentions this quote, it's without any explanation. What does this mean? Especially if you know what it means in the context of his writing; it seems he applies this quote in the way same to multiple books of his.
>>
Gaudeamus igitur - Fri, 06 Feb 2015 21:54:40 EST ID:ljcGWOIO No.198341 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>198338
So it seems to be that Zizek is saying through that quote: Liberty is to be favored over security; Freedom over freedom with exceptions.

>>"A sensibility that wails almost exclusively over the enemies of liberty seems suspect to me."
A man that cries for those that are against freedom is a suspicious man.
Why would a man that is free be concerned for those that hate his freedom?
Why ought he be ALMOST entirely concerned with those that are tyrants?

>>"Stop shaking the tyrant's bloody robe in my face,"
Don't remind me of the tyrant's death -- Julius Caesar, the tyrant.
As one with freedom, as one that values personal liberty, I care not for those that share values unlike mine.

>>", or I will believe that you wish to put Rome in chains."
If you continue to remind me, to tell me, constantly of the death of the tyrannical, I will think you are a man that shares their sentiment. I will find you to be someone that is just like them, in their hatred and opposition.
One that seeks to put all the citizens of his or her great fatherland in captivity, one that seeks to restrain for the sake of security.
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
>>
Syllogism - Fri, 06 Feb 2015 22:17:41 EST ID:y1lFILb+ No.198342 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Robespierre is referring to Marc Antony's address to the Roman public following the assassination of Julius Ceasar. He distracted the public from Brutus and his conspirators' intentions of restoring the republic, by presenting Ceasar's bloody robe to them. With Brutus effectively painted as a villain, Rome remained more or less a triumvirate dictatorship lead by Antony, Octavian and Lepidus.

This is somewhat similar to Robespierre's role in the French revolution. Following the downfall of the aristocracy there was significant internal culling of dissidence to maintain the rank and file, known as the Reign of Terror. Robespierre vehemently defended the necessity of terror, but it eventually fomented to a level which did not sit well with his contemporary. As the head of the Committee of Public Safety, he was used as a scapegoat, and sentenced to death.

This quote suggests that his accusers are simply using the face value of his actions to obscure the justifiable motivations.

i had no idea what Zizek means with it.
>>
Syllogism - Fri, 06 Feb 2015 22:57:31 EST ID:y1lFILb+ No.198343 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>198341

>So it seems to be that Zizek is saying through that quote: Liberty is to be favored over security; Freedom over freedom with exceptions.

i don't think so, or if he is, Robespierre strikes me as the least appropriate means to that end. Robespierre's actions would better depict the opposite. He fought to ensure the security of the republic at the expense of individual liberties, and this can be characterized by the extreme measures of the Reign of Terror, going so far as to execute dissidents without trial for even the hint of discontent with the new regime.

>"A sensibility that wails almost exclusively over the enemies of liberty seems suspect to me."

Robespierre's accusers were co-conspirators, not Crown sympathizers. The important historical context is that he /is/ the "enemy of liberty" his contemporaries are wailing over, and that concerning themselves with face value of his actions is, by his intuition, an opportunistic power play. As Antony did to Brutus, paint over the good intentions with gorey details of his actions, and when Brutus is out of the picture, seize power for yourself.

nb for dp
>>
Ian Grandstock - Sat, 07 Feb 2015 00:28:53 EST ID:ZGi1tDkn No.198345 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Can someone link me this guys work?
whats it relate to?


The egg andy weir by Alice Cenderfere - Mon, 02 Feb 2015 15:31:14 EST ID:H0iuvgD/ No.198219 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
1422909074699.jpg -(361227 B, 648x1920) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 361227
Wouldn't it be nice if reality looks something like described in this story? I also don't see a reason why any other belief about reality is more or less legitimate than this story. So due to the lack of any substantial evidence, why wouldn't I belief in the thing that I want to belief in?
5 posts omitted. Click Reply to view.
>>
Martin Shittingfuck - Mon, 02 Feb 2015 18:33:15 EST ID:ljcGWOIO No.198236 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>198234
>>198234
>>"I know logic...How does that make sense?"

Axioms are a priori, and are the result of a posteriori truths, friend.
So it would be wrong to say that "every" logical statement is based upon some axioms -- reason deduced. Rather, at the base of all axioms remain experience, and we accept this experience to be right.
Some logical statements can be based on axioms, like: God is immaterial, and is divine. which itself is derived from: That which is immaterial is unseen, and that which is divine exists elsewhere.


All I am saying is simply: We can make conclusions in a manner such that, reason is derived from reason, but prior to that, reason is firstly derived from experience.
(This is what's known as Kripke's a posteriori necessity.)

If your belief of religion is challenged, and the majority disagree with its implicit a posteriori claim because it does not make evident its deductions, then it would be considered worse in comparison to beliefs like physicalism, scientific materialism, etc.
>>
George Pandlebodge - Thu, 05 Feb 2015 17:24:02 EST ID:H0iuvgD/ No.198313 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>198236

First of I appreciate your replies, so thank you.

Though I am very much interested in (theoretical) physics, astronomy, chemistry etc, I must admit that I have not had any higher (/university level) education regarding these topics, but I do know some things about those topics from self-study. Also I do not try to disproof the validity of the current paradigms within these fields. But with my knowledge I have on these matters I would like to address two issues related to my initial post.

First of all, the things we know from those sciences neither disproofs or proofs the story of Andy Weir. From what I know theories on the big bang, dark matter etc, are still fairy speculative and change constantly. For example, what I know about dark matter (or at least a simple version of it) is that some scientist noticed that light from distant galaxies was bent in an odd way, indicating there was likely something in the way. This unexplainable matter was coined "dark" matter, because we know so little about it. Then later some other studies attained some other astronomical findings, for example regarding the formation of galaxies, which were unexplainable by gravity and therefore the scientists explained that there was likely another force from dark matter/dark energy in the equation. Now I do not attempt to argue that these are interesting and useful scientific findings. But I feel like the average self-appointed intellectual quite easily takes these findings as hard, definitive, unchangeable facts, even though in my mind the main findings of these studies is simply that we still have a lot to learn. For it could just as easily turn out that there are hundreds of types of matter/forces that we simply group together as one simple "dark matter"/"dark energy" concept. And there could fairy easily be other types of very important types of matter/energy forces we have not observed at all. The main point being, is that I feel that we sometimes might severely over-estimate our knowledge on important topics, simply because we have made a couple of ambiguous scientific observations.

And secondly, even if we eventually make tremendous progresses in these exact sciences, I fe…
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
>>
Edward Chuffingbury - Thu, 05 Feb 2015 18:11:13 EST ID:e5fOiWO3 No.198318 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>198313
>For it could just as easily turn out that there are hundreds of types of matter/forces that we simply group together as one simple "dark matter"/"dark energy" concept. And there could fairy easily be other types of very important types of matter/energy forces we have not observed at all.

just because something is unknown doesn't mean every explanation is equally likely
>>
Fanny Fanlock - Fri, 06 Feb 2015 14:42:52 EST ID:H0iuvgD/ No.198336 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>198318

That wasn't the point I was trying to make. Anyhow, so you instantaneously take something as definitive just because someone has made an weird observation and invented the term "dark matter" aka matter I do not understand. Seems a bit shortsighted imo.
>>
Gaudeamus igitur - Fri, 06 Feb 2015 21:38:47 EST ID:ljcGWOIO No.198339 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>198313
You ought not to thank me. For it would be like a friend thanking a friend for being his friend. It is totally unnecessary, because we should both understand that we appreciate one another.

In regard to your first claim:
>>"I feel that we sometimes might severely over-estimate our knowledge on important topics, simply because we have made a couple of ambiguous scientific observations."

This is why I feel philosophy remains pivotal, even in the technical fields, and deeply relevant to the advancement of our well-being. One should always be aware of how speculative one's theories are, and maintain good judgement so as to not be dogmatic in their beliefs. I completely agree with you.

In regard to your second claim: If it is true that science is primarily tasked with describing reality it will by necessity, only be able to give good descriptions. To some, the scientific "how" is the "why." Because it occurs, it occurs, and no other reason.

I personally believe that careful deduction IS the only way to transcend experience. Pascal for instance, from his comprehensive understanding of water, was able to formulate, by deduction, how air works in such a way that it does; and how air works in relation to water in apertures. He was able to flawlessly depict what was later proven through experimentation by his servant, purely on the basis of careful deduction and an open mind. He skipped, ENTIRELY, the experiential part of handling air and water. That to me, is truly divine.


Logic by Edwin Blytheman - Mon, 26 Jan 2015 12:39:29 EST ID:6PLphZZr No.198051 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
1422293969379.png -(106992 B, 297x183) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 106992
I've been getting into philosophy, but so far I've tread lightly (Schopenhauer, Camus, Nietzsche). Now I feel like I should get into logic. Where should I start? What's a good book on philosophical logic for a total doofus? All the ones I found with google were for people who have the basics down (I don't).
6 posts and 1 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
>>
Nigger Hobblehood - Wed, 04 Feb 2015 20:13:21 EST ID:ZGi1tDkn No.198264 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>198078
>All of philosophy concerns itself with the discerning of right and wrong.
>All of philosophy concerns itself with truth
FTFY
>>
Gaudeamus igitur - Wed, 04 Feb 2015 22:08:12 EST ID:ljcGWOIO No.198271 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>198264
>>FTFY
I think my claim still stands.
Philosophy can be defined as a myriad of things.
One can say that philosophy is the science of estimating values. For when one is considering what the worth of another life is, one does so through philosophy.
Additionally, philosophy concerns itself with the discernment of superiority and inferiority. As the superiority of any state or substance over another is determined by philosophy. Because it can assign a position of primary importance to what remains when all that is secondary has been removed, philosophy thus can become the index of priority or emphasis in the realm of speculative thought - what is right, and what is wrong; what is good, and what is bad.

In my opinion, the true mission of philosophy a priori is to establish the relation
of manifested things to their invisible ultimate cause or nature.

Philosophy to other philosophers as outlined by Sir William Hamilton:
"Philosophy has been defined [as]: "The science of things divine and human, and of the causes in which they are contained." - Cicero; "The science of effects by their causes." - Hobbes; "The science of sufficient reasons" - Leibnitz; "The science of things possible, inasmuch as they are possible." - Wolf; "The science of things evidently deduced from first principles." - Descartes; "The science of truths, sensible and abstract." - de Condillac; "The application of reason to its legitimate objects." - Tennemann; "The science of the relations of all knowledge to the necessary ends of human reason." - Kant; "The science of the original form of the ego or mental self." - Krug; "The science of sciences." - Fichte; "The science of the absolute." - von Schelling; "The science of the absolute indifference of the ideal and real." - von Schelling – or, "The identity of identity and non-identity." - Hegel.
>>
Nigger Hobblehood - Thu, 05 Feb 2015 13:51:29 EST ID:ZGi1tDkn No.198307 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>198271
right in wrong implies there is a right or wrong to discover
there could be a reality where neither exist and we don't know.
Some people define it as simply the first step of scientific discovery, taking something you take for granted in terms of logical thinking and then reevaluate it.

I agree with you, I was plugging my view of phlos and raising the statement I started with
>>
Frederick Worthinghood - Thu, 05 Feb 2015 23:35:32 EST ID:ZGi1tDkn No.198323 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>198307
I mean, doesn't truth fall into right or wrong, or neither, in any given situation?
They say that you question something, and when you are left with no leads, you are in a state where you must question all of the processes and mechanisms, every variable and disregard preconventional held beliefs.
Once you delve deeper into these questions and start gathering objective data, you could then easily be categorized by another scientific field.
The point is, philos is the root of all sciences, ya feel
>>
Gaudeamus igitur - Fri, 06 Feb 2015 21:11:45 EST ID:ljcGWOIO No.198337 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>198307
Right and wrong are to be thought of as directional gauges. Like when someone says you're getting "hotter" or "colder" when looking for something.

There is nothing right or wrong in itself to discover, but there remains something right in relation to something else: what is good and what is bad.

Right and wrong are better understood in relation to pleasure.

For example -
A happy life must include pleasure, and therefore pleasure is by its nature not bad. There are other pleasures besides those of the senses, and the best pleasures are the ones experienced by virtuous people who have sufficient resources for excellent activity.

And so it can be said that the best pleasures experienced by the virtuous are the "right" pleasures, and the pleasures experienced by those that practice vice are the "wrong."

Though pleasure derived by those who practice vice, say for instance, from an enjoyment of "feel good music" isn't itself a bad thing.

It can be enjoyed because: Vice practitioner: "It makes me move my body in weird ways; it makes me shake myself. I like that."
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.


Jung by Alice Clibbertat - Sun, 01 Feb 2015 20:28:50 EST ID:7sJ/68Ak No.198183 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
1422840530608.jpg -(40953 B, 533x600) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 40953
What do people think of Jung nowadays? He seems worth looking into from what I've heard/read.
1 posts omitted. Click Reply to view.
>>
Molly Fuckingwell - Sun, 01 Feb 2015 22:12:11 EST ID:kBZi8/id No.198189 Ignore Report Quick Reply
he's the man, will take you on a journey
>>
Henry Genderlot - Mon, 02 Feb 2015 05:59:34 EST ID:/I8deqLU No.198213 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Seems like a faggot that couldn't let go of magic.
>>
Clara Grandbanks - Mon, 02 Feb 2015 11:02:24 EST ID:6fn2/8K2 No.198217 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>198183
The typology system is still applicable and has no real weaknesses or blind spots. Well, I guess it makes it difficult to diagnose a psychopath, but there are other systems to do that. You don't have to pick just one.
>>
Ernest Hebblehall - Mon, 02 Feb 2015 19:17:48 EST ID:kBZi8/id No.198237 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>198213
he did he let go of most things outside of science.

Until one day.....

Go read the red book
>>
Alice Murdbury - Tue, 03 Feb 2015 04:58:40 EST ID:b1TacAuc No.198238 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Pseudoscience.


Capitalism by Hedda Pushpedging - Mon, 12 Jan 2015 17:28:24 EST ID:4LkM4Gbl No.197733 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
1421101704295.jpg -(45151 B, 481x450) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 45151
Many cultures and economic systems didn't last that long the past hundred years.
Now we have capitalism since already over 100 hundered years in the western world as it exists today but it feels like it won't last that much longer anymore considering all the shit thats been going on the past years like recession of 2008, the euro crisis, currencies are dropping, all western countries are in huge depth and capitalism needs infintie growth to secure prosperity (which obviously not possible)
now on the other hand china is on the rise and other countries along with it are getting more important
how much longer do you think wil capitalism still exist?
33 posts and 1 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
>>
George Fingermit - Sun, 01 Feb 2015 03:26:06 EST ID:mDPHx73Y No.198129 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>197775
>Scarcity is only an issue now because capitalism is completely shit at making use of resources.
>>197766
>Capitalism [,,,] is a great system for making use of scarce resources


I don't know what to believe anymore.
>>
Sidney Sonnermin - Sun, 01 Feb 2015 11:13:12 EST ID:dhrbwn0+ No.198135 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>198129
Look at it this way.

Is there enough food produced to feed the whole world?

Yes.

Are millions of people still starving?

Yes.
>>
George Fingermit - Sun, 01 Feb 2015 11:24:27 EST ID:mDPHx73Y No.198136 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>198135
That implies capitalism doesn't make good use of abundant resources (a position highly contested itt), but nothing about its efficiency in using scarce resources which is what I'm confused about.

I kinda get that the problem with starving people has a lot to do with infrastructure and transportation and such, ignoring starvation in rich and capitalist countries (like the US).
>>
Sidney Sonnermin - Sun, 01 Feb 2015 14:07:59 EST ID:dhrbwn0+ No.198138 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>198136
Aah, I see.

I don't agree with the argument that capitalism makes good use of scarce resources, since the growth of capitalism was all about exploiting resources on a massive scale.

Capitalism produces goods in vast quantities, but that doesn't make it efficient. An efficient lightbulb isn't hte one that converts the most energy into the most light, it's one that converts the least possible energy to produce the amount of light required. In this sense capitalism is anti-efficient, and in fact anti-economic. Consider that more money is spent on advertisement than on production, and that advertisement is by its very nature unnecessary; if you have to be sold something, that means you didn't need it to begin with. Then consider that of what is produced, most of it is wasted; technology is designed to become obsolete landfill, and most of the food consumed in the west is thrown away, while people unlucky enough to have been born in the wrong parts of the planet struggle for the most basic necessities of life.

Capitalism has never been efficient. This was fine once upon a time, but now we know we can't afford it and we need efficiency.
>>
Wesley Durryspear - Sun, 01 Feb 2015 14:39:41 EST ID:5q+Zf1cH No.198141 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Capitalism is geared towards benefiting the ruling class. Not progress (it will stifle progress, social, scientific or otherwise, if it endangers the ruling class), not rational exploitation of resources, not sane distribution of goods/means of production. Capitalism is a system that functions with the sole purpose of enriching the powerful and empowering the rich.

Literally any attempts at integrating elements of social justice into a capitalist system are motivated either by long-term projections of growth (ie. when it's cheaper and benefits the ruling classes) or as a form of appeasement. The original goal is preserved, and it's what matters - no matter how much bones capitalist govts throw at its subjects, the meat still goes to the rich, so the plasticity of capitalism as a system is largely illusionary.

As for its long-term viability it remains to be seen. Once oil runs dry, stopped cars will be the least of our worries. Fertilizer shortage will shake up the food production process, and a more egalitarian food distribution scheme will be required, lest 80% of the world will starve and cheap labor will be a thing only read about in history books. That alone will chop a few of the monster's heads, although if the lower echelons of the affected societies will buy into the inevitable bullshit, blame-shifting, and random sand-hole invading the power structure itself won't fall, despite the opportunity.


The status of academic philosophy in US American colleges and universities by DicklessWonder !8x8z91r9YM - Thu, 29 Jan 2015 17:35:20 EST ID:fuIjhdHl No.198075 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
1422570920529.jpg -(96377 B, 581x510) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 96377
Did you ever have a great philosophy professor, who really taught you some incredible stuff?

Or, did you ever have one who was just a total fool, by any reasonable standard?

Those from elsewhere of course can reply, but I have the US in mind since that's where I'm from.
>>
Emma Demmledale - Thu, 29 Jan 2015 23:22:18 EST ID:hgfltBKL No.198076 Ignore Report Quick Reply
i took an ethics course, and the prof was phenomenal. he was a bit of an asshole, but he was a good teacher.
>>
David Nittingpuck - Fri, 30 Jan 2015 13:21:47 EST ID:ZGi1tDkn No.198082 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>198075
>he was a bit of an asshole
you try teaching philos to the general public let alone be someone smart enough to grasp basic logic and live in the general public or public school systems

its fucking highschool, it never ends, nobody ever leaves it
>>
DicklessWonder !8x8z91r9YM - Fri, 30 Jan 2015 19:53:32 EST ID:fuIjhdHl No.198089 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>198076

Was his name Fred, by any chance?
>>
Thomas Smallgold - Fri, 30 Jan 2015 21:28:55 EST ID:hgfltBKL No.198090 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>198082
You sound like a cop

>>198089
I dont remember. He was nice to me, because I read the material and actually engaged him in it. But he was ruthless with the people who didn't get it, and sometimes I think he confused those people with the kids who weren't paying attention
>>
Edwin Nerringmog - Fri, 30 Jan 2015 23:42:05 EST ID:q+dVyNYa No.198092 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>198082
You sell people short. I've known many in HS that would have loved a philosophy class. In fact, we had a guy come in special and he would just discuss things that blew our minds but his stay was limited but everyone appreciated it and participated. Some interesting discussions were had.

There was also the electives such as Forensics that many including myself loved to learn about. Aside from a couple kids trying to get the teacher to identify their pubes in a microscope, most were into it (even pube guy).


Modern philosophers by Simon Semmlewore - Sat, 10 Jan 2015 12:13:36 EST ID:nhLsZOhD No.197682 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
1420910016551.jpg -(111231 B, 450x450) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 111231
Why aren't there great thinkers in our time like they had in ancient Greece?

Why has humanity dumbed down? Are we regressing or are we progressing?
69 posts and 1 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
>>
Esther Sibblespear - Sat, 24 Jan 2015 10:59:13 EST ID:FqJYi18c No.198023 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>198017
>No it isn't, that's how your mind works.

No, it's obvious that if speech is non-literal then some kind of contextual clue is needed to understand what the non-literal meaning is. That contextual clue could be as simple as knowing what language you're speaking, or it could be as complex as what time of day it is plus who you're talking to plus how their day has been going.

>"i really belong here" is not based on here owning you nor is here a group of people it's a place.

No, that would fall into the second meaning, which is referencing "belongingness". I would interpret that sentence first as meaning "I belong here [at this place]", but "this place" can mean both a physical location and an organization or group associated with a physical location, so since the latter is more usual I'd assume the sentence was actually saying "I belong with the group/entity that is here."

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

>You don't understand what "finally the idiom is not the extent of figurative language, nor is is poetry, nor is metaphysics" means?

No. I can GUESS, of course.
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
>>
Polly Bammlestatch - Sat, 24 Jan 2015 12:06:14 EST ID:kBZi8/id No.198026 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>198023
its needed by you if you don't recognize it. the same way you can recognize a definition of a word by context, without the context being the reason for the definition.

Yeah that would fall into a broader meaning of what you specically narrowed out as inclusion in a group of people, which was the only reason you got that response. One isn't more usual to another, outside of an individual or a group. One might utter that they belong here in the mountains, one might feel belonging in isolation.
One might belong to an ideology, a love, a passion, or a cause.

Thoreau certainly wasn't referring to a group of individuals, nor would it be more usual for him to say so.

are you giving me definitions now for pieces of concepts you were leaving out. It was your definition of belonging as being understood to mean literal ownership exclusively that led to this conversation.

Even though you didn't explain what you misunderstood in the previous sentence, since your claiming it has to do with a specific part of a sentence that doesn't exist in the original text you were responding to, i can help you with your misunderstanding.

You don't understand how these things are not, because apparently if you bracket off "are the extent of figurative language" from none of these things, you can't put them together. Or else you don't understand extent?

"unless it is idiomatic" that's not an example, that was you saying it was the only case specifically in which it could be understood differently.
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
>>
Esther Sibblespear - Sat, 24 Jan 2015 13:11:03 EST ID:FqJYi18c No.198028 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>198026
>You're assuming i'm trying to say "they don't make a delination" this is the source of your misunderstanding.

What the fuck does "make delineation" mean, then?

I give up, your writing is too hard to follow for me to bother trying to decipher it anymore - really, must you write every sentence on its own line? I feel like I'm talking to NetJester.
>>
Polly Bammlestatch - Sat, 24 Jan 2015 13:54:23 EST ID:kBZi8/id No.198029 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>198028

It's really exactly the opposite.

One half of your posts would agree with me.
>>
Hugh Drittingwell - Fri, 30 Jan 2015 00:00:43 EST ID:6Uy67auM No.198079 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>197682
Because materialism.
/thread


Jainism by Isabella Pickbury - Tue, 27 Jan 2015 08:08:00 EST ID:nhLsZOhD No.198061 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
1422364080238.jpg -(14998 B, 316x320) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 14998
Is this the most bizarre religion ever?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j-lYQ8blHb4
>>
Esther Bunfuck - Tue, 27 Jan 2015 20:07:04 EST ID:8IvP648R No.198066 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>198061
Besides all the dongs, it doesn't seem that bizarre.
>>
Barnaby Gingerspear - Wed, 28 Jan 2015 00:40:48 EST ID:nhLsZOhD No.198067 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>198066
They take non violence and compassion to another level. It's one thing to be kind to animals but it's another thing to be kind to microorganisms.


"Human nature" by Archie Feblinghood - Sun, 25 Jan 2015 13:57:32 EST ID:7sJ/68Ak No.198042 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
1422212252126.png -(34498 B, 336x335) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 34498
Where does this idea come from? What does it mean? Why do people think they can just handwave things away with this as if it's some kind of trump card?

"We'll always have X shitty thing because human nature."

The fuck does that mean? It never actually gets explained.
3 posts omitted. Click Reply to view.
>>
Ebenezer Fummerbit - Sun, 25 Jan 2015 22:49:12 EST ID:6DEYsSI3 No.198047 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>198042

What would you prefer we do? blame adam and eve for getting us kicked out the garden of eden?
>>
Betsy Honeybury - Mon, 26 Jan 2015 15:57:07 EST ID:ZGi1tDkn No.198056 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Biology and reward systems - eating, fucking, fighting
those three things people wish to do all the time and everything their life does in terms of success is only enabling those three things
This is supported by anatomy, biology, psychology
as the body and mind are seperate and one, the body controls the mind etc
It is then upon yourself to be aware of it, to notice your impulses as not your thoughts but your reward system working on your consciousness
Much like the bystander effect where, unless you are aware of the bystander effect, you will more than likely be a bystander.
Same with the body, once you realize and take in the basic prinicpals of human nature do you equip yourself to fight against it, or enable it as you see fit.
I find that in my life and personal experience (anecdote, not valid in argument) that if I satiate those three basic primal instincts and cause harm to nobody in the process of satiating those things, my life feels grand.
Also like the bystander effect, you notice those slave to the same impulses they are aren't aware of
>>
Betsy Honeybury - Mon, 26 Jan 2015 15:58:09 EST ID:ZGi1tDkn No.198057 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>198056
to take it to a deeper level, I could be confirmation biasing myself into narcissism or elevated ego, which is a psychological form of battle or superiority
>>
Angus Handerpig - Tue, 27 Jan 2015 05:32:26 EST ID:JIRxIDMx No.198060 Ignore Report Quick Reply
It means that saying "I don't know" is not pretentious enough.
>>
Hugh Drittingwell - Thu, 29 Jan 2015 23:50:39 EST ID:6Uy67auM No.198077 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>198042
Because you see, without deliberation and virtue we tend towards the "bad." We become less "just" amongst each other without order. And when we are not managable with ourselves, we cannot be manageable with others. It is our nature, in the very brutish, primitive sense to tend toward what is not good. This is why it is said. and it is used. It is a very intrinsic property of being a human being. People say it, because it has a meaning behind it. And they use it as justification because what they witness agrees with its notion. Of course speaking of the particulars wouldn't make much a difference either. People do good, and people do bad. That is what it means to be human. And that is in our nature.


This seemed appropriate for /pss/ by Fanny Ciddlebury - Sun, 18 Jan 2015 15:01:39 EST ID:2yaLic6U No.197876 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
1421611299694.jpg -(201178 B, 1024x819) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 201178
Apparently there's been increasing interest in AI in the private sector. According to this article, with the hopes of creating AI programs that can perform financial forecasting and make decisions based off that forecasting.

Well, lets say an AI system can make a successful decision based off of statistical analysis. That same system should be able to forecast business, economics, weather, maybe even gambling, sports outcomes, and live combat.

AI systems may even grow to such a point that it can take over programming and research.

I would imagine that once a self learning AI comes into existence, we will experience another technological boom on par with the introduction of the internet. Teach one AI to self replicate, and you then have an infinite amount of AI programs who can develop even more compact computational systems and methods of assembly that we humans may not be able to imagine.

All this being said, if technology takes over itself, that is our own technology develops itself, where does the human element come in? Where do we actually fit into any of this?

The only thing I can see humans contributing to is expressions of emotion such as art, creative problem solving, and bravery. Other than that, we humans would be rendered obsolete.

What are your thoughts on this? The technological takeover of blue collar and white collar jobs may come sooner than you think.
>>
Fanny Ciddlebury - Sun, 18 Jan 2015 15:02:05 EST ID:2yaLic6U No.197877 Ignore Report Quick Reply
oops, forgot article

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/019b3702-92a2-11e4-a1fd-00144feabdc0.html?ftcamp=traffic/social_promo/Artificial_Intelligence_Jan/facebook_US/essence/auddev&utm_source=facebook_US&utm_medium=social_promo&utm_term=Artificial_Intelligence_Jan&utm_campaign=essence#axzz3PCeP3jrk
>>
Wesley Dracklechat - Sat, 24 Jan 2015 13:02:02 EST ID:10eS65U3 No.198027 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>197876
I'm kinda scared honestly
>>
Phyllis Smallforth - Sun, 25 Jan 2015 12:40:14 EST ID:S1q/sNml No.198040 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Honestly, I'm worried - but probably not for the same reason as most.

There's no fundamental reason we can't co-exist with AI. Humans co-exist with all kinds of lesser organisms all the time, and a lot of them (pets come to mind, but even going out to watch nature would count) can enrich our lives.

All these big-buisness capitalists are treating it as a tool to make more money than a chance to create new life, and that's the part that worries me. Can you imagine what kind of culture humans would have if we were bred entirely on intelligence and our ability to make money?

If you just teach your child to make money, what's the chance that they're actually going to a be decent individual and not go around destroying peoples' lives? If you just teach it how to solve puzzles what are the chances that it will actually enjoy things that have no 'solution', like a conversation?
Or even enjoy anything at all?

So yeah. My main fear is that we're forgetting something. Our pets don't have jobs, but if the owners are decent they live great lives anyway. The trick is teaching the pet owner not to kick his dog when it gets an upset stomach and shits on the carpet.

Hopefully that made sense, I'm a bit baked.
>>
Phyllis Smallforth - Sun, 25 Jan 2015 12:49:28 EST ID:S1q/sNml No.198041 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>198040
Sorry for the double post, but I think I should have gone with our elderly rather than pets. You don't kill grandma just because she's so inept with technology that she calls internet explorer "the internet" - you love her anyway, even if she can't understand arguably the biggest invention in the last 40 years.

I think we'd get into a similar situation with AI. Hopefully when they are operating on that higher level, they can still understand that we're dumb and operating on a lower level than them. And hopefully someone, somewhere along the line manages to actually teach them about the human condition and empathy.
>>
Hugh Drittingwell - Fri, 30 Jan 2015 00:04:22 EST ID:6Uy67auM No.198080 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>197876
I see nothing wrong with technology becoming its own technician.
We'd have more time to ponder the edge of the universe; or the heavens.


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