420chan now has a web-based IRC client available, right here
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


Community Updates

420chan now supports HTTPS! If you find any issues, you may report them in this thread
Does anyone deserve anything? by Eliza Honeyshaw - Thu, 12 May 2016 05:14:15 EST ID:DV+RWBaM No.205936 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1463044455615.png -(24604B / 24.03KB, 539x256) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 24604
I came across this picture browsing facebook of course. Putting aside my intense hatred for tumblr post screenshots, I was going to post this in /pol/ because of it's obvious political basis and motivation, but I didn't really want a political discussion. Do you think people inherently deserve these things? Do you think that anyone deserves anything at all simply for existing? Does anyone even deserve to live simply because they are already alive? My emphasis being placed on the word deserve.
13 posts omitted. Click Reply to view.
Fanny Greendock - Fri, 13 May 2016 10:30:01 EST ID:54PBc7Id No.205965 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Yeah, that's exactly what I meant. Like, if this was 4000 years ago I wouldn't even care about my fellow humans getting housing or healthcare, probably, due to how many problems every human had to face at the time, but today, in 2016, I definitely consider the amount of healthcare and housing we have to be vast, so vast that we can house 99% of people and heal 99% (of people in the USA) if we really wanted to.

I think we should find a happy medium with these things. Do I think society should have to (financially) take care of every deformed child and cancer patient that doesn't have money? No. But do I think that it's unreasonable to do things like, say, give out free health screenings and check-ups to low-income families, or make enough shelters to cheaply house all the homeless during the night hours, and tax society for those things? Absolutely not.

My only beef with more communistic set-ups is that I think we expect too much of certain situations. Like I think we just need to keep working on these things little by little, constantly improving them, rather than trying to do something to fix the situation permanently and then have it blow up in our faces. I think that's the ethically wise thing to do.
Oliver Turveylock - Sat, 14 May 2016 01:50:48 EST ID:aLUPZsOL No.205970 Ignore Report Quick Reply


Isabella Hublingville - Wed, 25 May 2016 18:44:55 EST ID:hvs4h/ox No.206070 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Given what we have, people that live here deserve this.

This statement is true, but it's based off the dream we see when we look out, and know something is right or wrong, nice or mean, based simply off of feeling.

Why do we deserve to be happy, simply because we recognize the universal longing to be.
Bombastus !RZEwn1AX62!!xXxJO70U - Wed, 25 May 2016 21:44:36 EST ID:D6gwXmSI No.206071 Ignore Report Quick Reply
This is a philosophy and social science board and the way you look at it is a very basic understanding about the concept of rights as well as the concept of humans.
Much like OP's picture, there just seems to be a limited understanding about the philosophy of "rights" as well as what it means to be "human". In other words: "citation please".

Depending on which political school you follow, necessities are given to you regardless of who you are. They can treat a 16 year old the same as a 30 year old.
Arguably, religious existentialism places the necessity of children to eat, be housed, and educated (past enlightenment). This is extended towards the entire family structure that has had 1.5 millenia of religious influence on being with families. Then once they become adults, they are both members of the church as well as the state. Before the 1950s, there was a tough family structure and there was less focus on individualism.

However, nowadays, the concept of "rights" have been more prevalent than ever because individualism is coveted. This is where the dawning of ethics comes in.
Kant would argue that before a certain age and life experience, you would not be considered a true "adult" and therefore not as a person. Therefore, you would deny their rights as an individual. In this current day, those are the various freedoms we enjoy such as consumption of legal drugs, voting, gun ownership, etc.
However, once you turn this age, you are then given various responsibilities along with the rights. Depending on the society you live in along with your political affiliations and which school of philosophy you belong to, these rights can then vary wildly.
In communist countries, theoretically, everyone has the right to food and shelter. No such right exists in a theoretically applicable capitalist country.
Samuel Sablingson - Thu, 26 May 2016 20:32:59 EST ID:a7f2BoJM No.206072 Ignore Report Quick Reply
What we deserve, our rights, is dictated by society. We can't know if we inherently deserve anything, so instead we've devised a system of rights, which is validated by its own invocation. Such is why other animals decidedly have no rights. We may have responsibilities to them, but a caribou can't thwart a lion's attack by threatening legal discourse.

It is our ability to invoke rights that validates them, and these rights are created and given to us by society.
Also, we're all ass holes here. Why is that?

Aristotelian Metaphysics and how it relates to quantum physics by Bombastus !RZEwn1AX62!!xXxJO70U - Mon, 04 Apr 2016 23:51:57 EST ID:rcU6pCY9 No.205547 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1459828317490.gif -(74594B / 72.85KB, 980x318) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 74594
Any time during my STEM degree when Aristotle is brought up, it is just so we could dismiss him. In history, he was violently and immediately purged from most scientific literature as science moved on. Aristotle didn't really have metaphysics down to a tee......... but at least he tried.

Little did he know (what with him being dead and shit) that his metaphysical works will one day be relevant again when relativity came along in the 1940s and his metaphysics somehow became relevant again. His concept of objects having innate values and inherent properties is probably the best way to describe quantum particles to people.
Arrie: Air is above water because it is meant to be higher and its natural tendency to be above water and ground. Alternatively: things fall on the ground due to their natural tendency to be close to the Earth.
Quannie: a proton is comprised of three quarks because of their tendency to be together and their natural attraction. Sure, it can be measured but WHY it happens is just because of their natural tendency to be a proton. In fact, during nuclear decay and an unstable neutron:proton balance is achieved, a neutron could transmutate into a proton by releasing another inherent particle.

These two concepts are miles apart but have the same essence, in the end.
When my quantum physics teacher teaches, she uses words like "because the molecule needs to become what it is supposed to be" or what it "wants" to be.
This kind of terminology is core to Aristotelian metaphysics. And it's something I wish they still referenced when talking about quantum physics.

What does /pss/ think?
16 posts and 3 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
the flicker !FwnV7hV52I - Tue, 26 Apr 2016 19:38:23 EST ID:RJWzMG+n No.205819 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Is the language that your teacher uses actually reflective of the mathematical theory, or is a phrase like "wants" simply a pedagogical device?
Does quantum physics describe objects, like Aristotelian metaphysics, or is it just a model we use to understand objects?
Eliza Suttingfoot - Wed, 27 Apr 2016 09:35:08 EST ID:54PBc7Id No.205823 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Where did you get all these big words? You some kind of English student or student of theocracy? Because I had to google like 3 of the terms you use, which I see are all religion-based terms.
press !QUHukXEvkY - Wed, 27 Apr 2016 19:20:50 EST ID:dKvwsnko No.205825 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1461799250240.png -(138882B / 135.63KB, 425x1000) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
so youre comparing a way of describing the world by gathering directly observable phenomena that aristotle used to the way scientists do it nowadays?
i dont remember who said it, propably somebody that wasnt a fan of plato or goedel, but "all models are wrong, yet some are very useful"

theres no direct need to have a model that explains why things behave the way they do, the most desired thing is often to join already observed phenomena in a model that makes them look coherent or atleast not opposing.
the basic aristotelian idea of everything being composed of five founding elements was very useful for describing wether or not a rock would fall down or sink in water, yet it at least to me seems very useless if you want to explain why girl get pregnant, how is babby formed? the QM teacher also doesnt need to explain why shit happens, she just has to explain how it happens and how her students can use QM to explain other phenomena.

the idea of the scientific method or any form of empirisicsm gaining value by not just explaining what we already learned about the way stuff happens but by being able to make predictions based on reasoning within those models is very fucking young.

the idea of models being surpassed by models that withstand the same test of falsification is a very popper thing and could easily be critisized in a found way even by somewhat unreasonable people such as feyerabend.

how ever much i dislike the false dichotomy between continental and analytical philosopy, im afraid that while philosophy is the art - art meaning almost anything that has a system of beauty/truth/soundness - that should be considered the freest of them all, its at the same time something that suffers from that very freedom. id call math a daughter of philosophy but atleast that girl gets her axioms sorted out most of the times.
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
Matilda Ducklock - Thu, 28 Apr 2016 05:57:48 EST ID:/3eoXSbg No.205828 Ignore Report Quick Reply

>thats the problem with induction.

As a philosophical concept, induction obviously doesn't prove that the pool cue actually causes the movement of the billiard ball you hit with it. However, this issue is of a philosophical nature and has no bearing on the actual world. The position that you can't directly know that A causes B is much like solipsism. You can't directly know the external world exists outside your mind, yet you still act like it does.

What we've been discussing in this thread is a result of the relationship between events and the natural limits of the observer. It has nothing to do with reality itself.

>thats a very funny thing about induction and empirisiscm, they seem to be right because they havent been wrong yet.

And this makes the case for the pragmatic 'leap-of-faith' required to actually function in the world. For example, if you're going to be working with small-pox sufferers, you'll make sure you're vaccinated. You can induce that you won't be infected if you're vaccinated, even though philosophy might poke a hole in the validity of induction itself.

Induction, if done right, just works. If it didn't, then reality would work differently than what induction tells us about it.
Bombastus !RZEwn1AX62!!xXxJO70U - Fri, 20 May 2016 02:38:21 EST ID:qiVkRTJI No.206024 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1463726301057.png -(119507B / 116.71KB, 680x509) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.

The Founding of the USA and religious influences on it by Archie Drezzlefield - Mon, 16 May 2016 12:26:03 EST ID:54PBc7Id No.205986 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1463415963529.jpg -(497569B / 485.91KB, 800x1208) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 497569
So, the other day I got into an argument with some Christians about the foundation of the USA. They claim that the USA is a Christian (Protestant) country in origin, where as I claimed that it was an Agnostic country in origin. They did make mention of some good points, like the fact that the Enlightenment thinkers were religious and that the Founding Fathers were religious. But at the same time, it seems clear to me that even though the Enlightenment thinkers and the Founding Fathers were religious, that they did not support the Church or institutionalized religion, but rather saw those things are perversions of Faith, humanity perverting religion into something of an empire. Like, while I understand the founders of the USA were protestant, I see them all as rebels against religious institutions, and I truly believe that they intended on creating an Agnostic country so that anyone could practice any religion freely without any other religion getting in their way. The very first amendment claims that no religion may be respected by law. But, then they mentioned that plenty of Enlightenment thinkers considered religion to be a staple of civilization and necessary, and indeed quite a few Enlightenment thinkers did think that.

What do you guys think of this? Is the USA a Protestant or Agnostic country?
Hannah Fonningmot - Mon, 16 May 2016 12:33:11 EST ID:tyk7r1Q9 No.205987 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Protestant /Puritan technically yes.

In favour of religious diversity? Probably.

Agnostic? Well a lot of believers have doubts at some point in any religion so I find this term a bit vague and useless.
Archie Drezzlefield - Mon, 16 May 2016 13:18:28 EST ID:54PBc7Id No.205989 Ignore Report Quick Reply
When I use the term Agnostic, I mean specifically the complete lack of faith in both theism and atheism.

I'm starting to think those Christians didn't quite understand my vocabulary, either. I know for a fact that the Enlightenment thinkers valued Rationalism over religion, to the extent that they had no faith whatsoever but instead used science to back up their religious ideologies, but when I claimed that the Enlightenment thinkers 'had no faith' I think they mistook the word faith as meaning 'belief in something spiritual' rather than my definition, which is 'belief in something without scientific reasoning'.

But you said this country (the USA) is technically Protestant/Puritan. Why is it 'technically' either of those?
I know that places like Virginia were Protestant, politically, but again, like I said, the Constitution makes no mention of supporting Protestantism, so I want to know why you see it as Protestant. I consider the English colonies of North America as Protestant, but I really felt like all religious ideologies were left out of the Constitution.
Nathaniel Nemmerdot - Mon, 16 May 2016 17:06:52 EST ID:XBnR1a57 No.205990 Ignore Report Quick Reply
based on where they came from (can't remember where exactly in Europe but I think a lot of the anabaptists were from Austria) and the theology which prompted them to abandon the Catholic church (Zwingli, Luther, Calvin) I guess you can be reasonably confident that you can refer to these migrants as Protestants or Puritans and they would likewise agree.

I used the word technical just because if you were to quiz them one by one on their faith then I bet few of them would be v into theology and would have a huge variation in their definition of God.
Fuck Gedgeforth - Tue, 17 May 2016 11:11:01 EST ID:FSAozKjO No.205994 Ignore Report Quick Reply
The founders of the United States were largely deists, and when using the term "God," were not actually referencing the Yahweh of Christianity. The Constitution of the United States, Declaration of Independence, etc. make no reference to a Christian God and Christianity does not nor should have any legal bearing on its laws. It was founded to be a secular state. I think they were intelligent enough to see what religious wars and dogma had done to Europe.

Biblical contradictions by Cornelius Dupperpidge - Thu, 12 May 2016 09:17:31 EST ID:LDks7/Vc No.205940 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1463059051035.png -(279534B / 272.98KB, 1080x1920) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 279534
We know of course there's a lot of contradictions in the Bible. But I think Solomon did exist and so did Yeshua. However whilst the Bible claims Jesus was a descendant of Solomon, it also claimed that Joseph wasn't really his father because Mary had immaculate conception. I tend to think the latter was made up because of them not being married at the time. Anyway strange that this is so obvious yet they tried to claim both as being true
6 posts omitted. Click Reply to view.
Kocoayello !jxaL03vL/Q - Fri, 13 May 2016 07:41:33 EST ID:gvdNptq8 No.205961 Ignore Report Quick Reply
So, what would the point of the story of Jesus be if it was basically "made up" by what amounts to the powers he was fighting against? A tale in which when you fight the man, you get arrested, tortured and crucified? Is the story of Jesus a ploy, a cautionary tale, by TPTB to basically weed out dissenters, people who would be threats to power structures and to tell them they will fail? I've had this thought before, and I think it really comes down to the "resurrection" part of Jesus' story. For, even if you are made null by the man, forgotten by your people and even cast out by them, your good deeds and what you stood for will never disappear. Ideas can't be killed, and even if you are crucified for what you fight for, the halls of time and the effect of what you did cannot be expunged.

Which brings me back to the notion that Christian scripture and documents have been edited over the millenia to tell a story different from how it happened. If it has been edited by TPTB, well, I'm not sure what their goal is because I already explained that fighting for what you believe in has it's own inherent rewards, crucifixion be unto you or otherwise. I actually seriously doubt that the story of Jesus hasn't been tampered with in some way, so it really just makes me scratch my head as to why TPTB would write a story that basically says to fight against what they represent? Makes me think the Bible is the ultimate bait, a sedative, or even dogmatic catalyst for some, and a book that will get you killed if you try and follow Jesus' path of doing things the establishment can't control or doesn't want you doing. I personally would look for the goodness in the Good Book, the verses and passages that make me want to make peace and well being in my fellow man, but that's just me.
the flicker !FwnV7hV52I - Fri, 13 May 2016 12:57:47 EST ID:RJWzMG+n No.205966 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>Which brings me back to the notion that Christian scripture and documents have been edited over the millenia to tell a story different from how it happened.
Cute idea, but the Gospels are attested almost completely from the end of the third century CE. The actual textual variation present among manuscripts does not support any such conspiracy. There are thousands of extant NT manuscripts, mind you.
Basil Wirryput - Sat, 14 May 2016 17:11:00 EST ID:BRK0xYWK No.205975 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1463260260362.jpg -(1630421B / 1.55MB, 4640x2784) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
Interesting words from Pontius.
I am a wholehearted Christian but moreso in the "Christ" part than in the biblical sense or even historical. The J man did exist but his role as the "spotless lamb" is the one I try to embody.
Bumping this bread.
The bread of Life.
Nathaniel Grandville - Mon, 16 May 2016 07:26:04 EST ID:OoTYAE4u No.205984 Ignore Report Quick Reply
The jews didn't build the pyramids like it implies in the Bible. They were never enslaved. And actually, there are some traces of polytheism in the Bible typically through words like "el elyon" and so forth. YAHWEH is pretty much El, which was the father god of the ancient canaanite pantheon. Never was a flood. Jesus' philosophy goes against abrahmic philosophy. Funny thing is Moses' story in the bible was ripped straight from Sargon of Akkad's origin story and edited a bit. Something with the flood. It's literally a book of content plagiarized from older religions, and edited and changed around to seem different.
Nathaniel Grandville - Mon, 16 May 2016 07:28:01 EST ID:OoTYAE4u No.205985 Ignore Report Quick Reply
There never was a flood to the magnitude like Noahs' story proposes. This is just from the epic of gilgamesh*

nb dp

Crash course in epistemology by Hannah Trotforth - Mon, 02 May 2016 13:02:56 EST ID:/3IPZG2N No.205847 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1462208576921.jpg -(312441B / 305.12KB, 1360x1600) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 312441
Hey guys, so basically Im on foreign exchange at the moment, with Sociology (and Political Science) as my major as you Americans would say. I took a class in epistemology but I went in maybe once - the language barrier was too much and I didnt really feel like I was learning anything no matter how hard I tried. Regardless, I have an exam in 8 days on epistemology, and even though theyll understand Im a foreign student etc etc I have to write SOMETHING. But as it stands, I know next to nothing. I havent studied it at home, nor here.

Sooo... where the fuck do I start? What the fuck exactly IS epistemology? I know its the study of knowledge but its obviously more nuanced than that. Apparently, in the Francophone world (where I currently am), epistemology is more so a critical study of the social sciences rather than the outright study of knowledge.

I am very lost and confused right now, if anyone could help itd be greatly appreciated. Im not looking to excel in my exam, just the minimum to pass. I just need to write something because as it stands Im clueless. Thank you.
1 posts omitted. Click Reply to view.
Rebecca Billinghood - Mon, 02 May 2016 17:04:41 EST ID:LdHLS4vG No.205850 Ignore Report Quick Reply
FYI my class talked about Dretske and Goldman both. Look into their ideas, they are linked on the Gettier article
Rebecca Darryshaw - Wed, 04 May 2016 09:42:45 EST ID:5vNF2aHl No.205861 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Ayy OP I got you mane. First, smoke up some weed if you're down.

Alright so you can learn epistemology from specific examples, like the Gettier problem, which are created by other philosophers, or you can pry into questions of knowledge on your own. Either way will help with your understanding of epistemology.
>What the fuck exactly IS epistemology? I know its the study of knowledge but its obviously more nuanced than that.
Actually that's a pretty great way to put it. Think of the study as an examination. Epistemology is about asking questions about knowledge.
What is knowledge?
Can it be measured or otherwise quantified?
How do we obtain it?

You can tell these are questions that move you in the right direction because you can't, with certainty, answer them. Most philosophy is like that, and that's why it's worth studying.

Let's dive into a few example questions. Where does knowledge come from? Perception. We learn from what we perceive, but if that is true, then how can we know that our sensory outlets, our ears, noses, mouths, and so on, are accurate? Remember, you don't have to answer the questions- you just have to understand why they were asked and what's important about them.

Remember the 1990's hit film, The Matrix? They perceived a world that seemed identical to ours, and yet it was all a facade. Their perceptions were full of shit. They were fucking trapped inside red bubbles having the energy sucked out of them. That's why this shit is important, why we ask these questions. Questions about our perception for example, bring into question everything we believe we know. Those are some important fucking questions.
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
Rebecca Darryshaw - Wed, 04 May 2016 09:45:35 EST ID:5vNF2aHl No.205862 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>you might also have to identify that knowledge our line of reasoning as Cartesian Doubt
OR line of reasoning. nb
Nicholas Pemmercocke - Sat, 07 May 2016 12:27:15 EST ID:rjNqFZmN No.205898 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Thanks a million dudes, but I've decided to not do the exam. It's not the end of the world - it just means I have to do extra work when I'm back home, in order to obtain the credits.

It's a shame, really, because this is actually really interesting, but FUCK trying to study it in French, especially when I've got other shit to study, and especially when I'm so close to going home that I just don't give a fuck anymore.
Angus Greenway - Fri, 13 May 2016 13:30:51 EST ID:OmFmlgL2 No.205967 Ignore Report Quick Reply
it's the knowledge of knowledge. go to wikipedia and start there

good philosophical works and why people should read them by Walter Shakeridge - Mon, 18 Apr 2016 03:49:46 EST ID:di4PvVP1 No.205711 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1460965786251.png -(1314651B / 1.25MB, 1000x1514) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 1314651
hello /pss/,
I am a political science major so I've always been interested in political philosophy, reading Marx, Engels, JSM, Locke, Hobbes, Rousseau, Machiavelli, and a few others both for fun and for class assignments. what other philosophical works (doesn't have to be purely political philosophy) would you recommend I, or any random John Doe, should read and why?
9 posts omitted. Click Reply to view.
Ernest Manderstock - Sun, 01 May 2016 11:18:19 EST ID:54PBc7Id No.205837 Ignore Report Quick Reply
I recently was checking out Vonnegut and I must say I'm not impressed. I like Vonnegut and what he has to say about living life and being free to be yourself, but I don't think Vonnegut had any understanding of just how wealthy the USA was in his time. He seems like one of those anti-capitalists that are in the sweetest spot in the world yet can't understand how capitalism helped create it.
Martin Cashshaw - Sun, 08 May 2016 03:29:30 EST ID:di4PvVP1 No.205906 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>I don't think Vonnegut had any understanding of just how wealthy the USA was in his time
That's exactly what he was trying to say. Sure, the US as a country was rich and prosperous but this wealth and prosperity was mostly confined to a small segment of society rather than being shared equally with all those involved
George Gunnerdale - Sun, 08 May 2016 08:34:12 EST ID:xE0XtBFr No.205907 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Jenny Blumblefoot - Fri, 13 May 2016 04:42:34 EST ID:CcAJ01Mh No.205954 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Schopenhaur. Goethe. Arhhenius. Camus. Hegel. Kant. Descartes.
Ahaha. just kidding.
Bombastus !RZEwn1AX62!!xXxJO70U - Fri, 20 May 2016 02:35:14 EST ID:2BUykYck No.206023 Ignore Report Quick Reply
I agree with a shitload of those.

Stoicsm by Isabella Nickledale - Sat, 07 May 2016 21:31:10 EST ID:KwTwX1YG No.205905 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1462671070789.jpg -(57761B / 56.41KB, 460x318) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 57761
How does one truly put stoicism to practice?
William Woffingworth - Sun, 08 May 2016 12:00:01 EST ID:1iJ/Y3fp No.205908 Ignore Report Quick Reply
I don't know.
But I bought The Meditations of Marcus Aurelius and plan on reading it soon.
Emma Sebblechadge - Mon, 09 May 2016 00:49:39 EST ID:SdJ2BE4b No.205914 Ignore Report Quick Reply
distance yourself from society
Caroline Gedgefuck - Mon, 09 May 2016 14:28:07 EST ID:54PBc7Id No.205921 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Do you really want to be a Stoic?
Why not be a Cynic? Seems more fun.

Dude, don't be a Stoic. All of the Ancient Greek philosophy schools are dope as shit, but none of them are perfect.

But here's a rule of thumb; don't let your emotions rule you, but don't shy away from things that feel right to you just because others disagree with them, regulate your happiness so you don't overdose on dopamine, and realize that nothing is good/bad but always in-between, literally everything, and that good choices can result in bad things happening, and vice versa. And stop taking so many things for granted. You and I and everyone here take a lot for granted. The less you take for granted, the happier you'll be, but the less driven you'll be to gain more.

That being said, all of this is easier said than done and requires practice and conditioning, trial and error.
The Fool !oj3475yHBQ - Wed, 11 May 2016 18:10:32 EST ID:G2LMnx/t No.205933 Ignore Report Quick Reply
To understand Stoicism one should ask the question: How does one truly put oneself into practice?

Stoicism is IMO the true heart and intent of philosophy. It is the application of reason to all things, so that one may live in reason by reason.

Ugh, though one should not think any school is any heart, as the categorization of philosophies into "schools" is ludicrous, and leads people into believing there are great differences between true philosophers, when in reality we share the same spirit; as a single transcendental mind interacting with reality through our individual parts.

Through the ages, Stoicism has procured a public reputation as a school which concerns itself with the the concealment of ones emotions and intentions. This misconception arises from the consequences of applying reason to ones interactions with others, for there are many situations in which the highest virtue calls for a concealment of ones thoughts to prevent a negative effect on others... but I digress.

Stoicism is the art of cultivating Free-will; the understanding of who we are, and what we have the power to change.

To me this is the highest goal anyone can aim for, and is a subject which is central to almost all great works of philosophy. From Kant, Nietzsche, and Schopenhauer, to Plato and Aristotle, all concern themselves with the application of reason to the art of living. To use the words of someone who truly "got" my posts, "It is about attaining spiritual sovereignty over deterministic forces."

BTW good timing on the thread OP, as I've recently been juggling Kant and Epictetus. The latter being an extremely potent yet bitter medicine.To give you a better Idea of what has been categorized into the school of "Stoicism" I'll drop some quotes I've saved. So you have some background... Epictetus was a Grecian Roman slave who was eventually freed, and became one of the founders of what is considered the "Stoic" school. Marcus Aurelius admits in his Meditations that discovering of the discourses of Epictetus had the single greatest influence on his intellectual development...and for a Roman Emperor to openly admit that the biggest influence in his life was a Greek slave, is huge. Without further delay, please enjoy these small tidbits of Epictetus's Discourses.

>Our mind cannot be forced to believe what is false, nor our will compelled to love something that makes it unhappy.
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
The Fool !oj3475yHBQ - Fri, 13 May 2016 00:20:04 EST ID:G2LMnx/t No.205950 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1463113204029.png -(597605B / 583.60KB, 1000x1500) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>It seems we would rather study anything than how to remain free and unenslaved.

>Philosophers speak in paradoxes, and what of the other arts -- are they different? What is more paradoxical than cutting into a persons eye to restore their vision. If someone suggested this procedure to someone ignorant of medicine, they would laugh in the practitioners face... little wonder then, if many of the truths of philosophy also impress the masses as paradoxical.

>This is the beginning of philosophy, -- an awareness of ones own mental fitness. Consciousness of its weakness will keep you from talking difficult subjects. As it is though, some people strain at a pamphlet and still want to devour an entire treatise. Naturally they can't digest it, and get heartily sick of the whole business. They need to first figure out what their capacity is. In the realm of logic it is easy to refute someone ignorant of a subject. But in the affairs of life no one offers themselves to be examined, and whomever presumes to examine us we resent. Yet Socrates used to say that the unexamined life was not worth living.

>When did anger ever teach someone to play music or pilot a ship? Do you imagine that your anger is going to help teach me the far more complex business of life? I know of a man who cried, clinging to Epaphroditus' knees saying how miserable he was now that he was down to his last million... and what did Epaphroditus do -- laugh at him as you are laughing now? No, he was appalled, and said "dear man, how did you keep silent up till now? How have you endured it?"

>If i cherish my body, I make a slave of myself, if I cherish my property, I make a slave of myself; Because I've disclosed the means to make me captive. When a snake pulls back its head, right away I think "hit it just there, on the part it is protecting." In the same way you may be sure that whatever you are seen to protect, that will become your enemy's focus of attack. Keep this in mind, then there will be no one you will need to fear or flatter.

>Remember that it is we who torment, we who make difficulties for ourselves -- that is, our opinions do. What for instance does it mean to be insulted? Stand by a rock and insult it, and what have accomplished? If someone responds to insult like a rock, what has the abuser gained with his invective? If however, he has his victim's weakness to exploit, then his efforts are worth while.

>Produce a person who can get the better of someone whose judgments are superior. You can't, though try as you might. This is gods law and nature's: "let the best man win" But "best" in his area of expertise.
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.

Cultural appropriation by Phoebe Papperham - Sat, 07 May 2016 14:56:59 EST ID:NSNH98hj No.205899 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1462647419850.jpg -(12407B / 12.12KB, 180x180) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 12407
I've lately heard a lot about the injustices of cultural appropriation.

What if being born into a certain culture or ethnicity endowed you with tradeable permits for the use of certain cultural artifacts? You could then sell or rent these permits for use by people in other cultures and ethnicities. No longer you would have to worry about the hipster with the keffiyeh as you'd know that he is paying for the right to wear it!
7 posts omitted. Click Reply to view.
Nigel Mecklenet - Tue, 10 May 2016 04:34:40 EST ID:SHGsCWKc No.205926 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1462869280943.jpg -(183668B / 179.36KB, 780x770) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>minorities whom are highly racist
Bahahaha, the only thing better than people saying "whom" is people using it wrong.
>I hold nothing as sacred, and it offends a lot of people, and I'm OK with that because their offense means nothing to me.
pic related.
Isabella Sivingdudge - Tue, 10 May 2016 14:37:39 EST ID:baKi3kG2 No.205928 Ignore Report Quick Reply
is it cultural appropriation if I start selling HIFFWE shirts and it catches on in the mainstream and people who have never visited this site are wearing the shirts?
Eliza Cennerstock - Wed, 11 May 2016 20:46:08 EST ID:oaKR9q1M No.205935 Ignore Report Quick Reply
yes, but cultural appropriation isn't necessarily bad. People do it with Ramones tshirts in my neck of the woods. It's just fashionable for a while.
It's shitty because they have no respect for the band or punk or music at all. That shouldnt mean that I forbid it from mainstream use. If other people want to appear as retards to me, then fine, wear a ramones shirt, I will never give a damn about you.
It's not particularly good. for any reason...
Samuel Goodlock - Thu, 12 May 2016 13:22:59 EST ID:54PBc7Id No.205944 Ignore Report Quick Reply
I guess you could say that's appropriation of punk culture by a non-punk, or rocker or whatever you want to call the people who listen to the Ramones. But I mean that's the thing about being free; it comes with some costs. If you want to freely exchange things like ideas and inventions, then you have to accept that sometimes things will be taken for granted by outside parties. Cultural appropriation (negative cultural sharing) and acculturation (positive cultural sharing) are two sides of the same coin, a coin that is required in order for culture to keep progressing and not stagnate in an ultra-conservative manner.

Besides, not only can you differentiate culture by geography, but also by time. Like, 80's punk and 2010's punk are two different punk cultures, for instance, with people in them that may not have been in both but only 1 of the two since they're both different but come from the same roots. But nobody ever mentions the time aspect of culture differentiation. Hell, most fucking people just over simplify the whole god damn subject and then just throw every single little culture together in a big bowl and call them the same thing. "Oh, black culture is inherent within all black people, whether they're Jamaican or American or African." Like, no it doesn't, all of those different geographical areas are going to have different cultures. People make such a big fucking deal about skin color these days when it's one of the most basic and unnecessary aspects of culture.
Eliza Cennerstock - Thu, 12 May 2016 19:53:57 EST ID:oaKR9q1M No.205949 Ignore Report Quick Reply
The thing is that words like appropriation and acculturation have specific meanings and uses. So it's actually wrong to say
>appropriation of punk culture
because we're only talking about one element: the Ramones t-shirt. Punk culture itself has not been appropriated, it still exists independently. Cultural appropriation also refers only to the appropriation of ELEMENTS ( I don't know how to do italics or i'd use them ). Acculturation is more like cultures gradually growing together or getting assimilated to one another.
Cultural appropriation is also sometimes used as a tactic, often subversively. So the Ramones logo was itself a reworking of the US presidential seal. The band wanted to be seen as an 'all-american' band. So a symbol of the United states, the establishment, political order etc. became a symbol for anti-establishment rockers....
appropriation has also been part of colonisation, so a way of destroying a colonised culture. Which is why people start shitstorms about it.

Gender a race identity by Isabella Brishdale - Fri, 01 Apr 2016 10:43:30 EST ID:fT4NxqpW No.205510 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1459521810057.jpg -(57646B / 56.29KB, 618x412) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 57646
Give me a logical argument on why it is socially acceptable to identify as another gender but not as another race.
22 posts and 2 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
Hannah Hannergold - Fri, 22 Apr 2016 10:02:46 EST ID:54PBc7Id No.205751 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Wait until 2250 when moving your consciousness to a near-perfect mechanical body becomes the new norm and suddenly gender and race are a thing of the past, as is child birth.
Hugh Dommerwere - Fri, 06 May 2016 11:42:17 EST ID:kPFtvti2 No.205890 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Still waiting for said logical argument.
Wesley Fuckingshit - Fri, 06 May 2016 13:18:06 EST ID:7sJ/68Ak No.205891 Ignore Report Quick Reply

Set aside your ideological box for a moment and look up the differences between transgender brains and non-transgender brains of the same physical sex. This thread reeks of agenda.

Emma Sebblechadge - Mon, 09 May 2016 00:50:22 EST ID:SdJ2BE4b No.205915 Ignore Report Quick Reply
i think you mean the people holding the whip behind the SJWs
Jenny Blumblefoot - Fri, 13 May 2016 04:39:48 EST ID:CcAJ01Mh No.205953 Ignore Report Quick Reply
because women control the men around them but men can't choose where they're born

Happiness by Doris Fabblewatch - Fri, 06 May 2016 15:09:32 EST ID:mTXiwGo4 No.205892 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1462561772636.jpg -(899851B / 878.76KB, 1024x1012) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 899851
So what I want to ask is this:
What are your thoughts about the happiness of wild animals, or any animals, including humans.

I say wild animals because thinking about it from that perspective got me to the not-fully-formed conclusion that only change affects overall happiness in living beings.

I mean, prosperity only leads to mere survival eventually, right?
2 posts omitted. Click Reply to view.
Martin Sisslenark - Fri, 06 May 2016 21:31:22 EST ID:NGWktGCi No.205895 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1462584682008.jpg -(107712B / 105.19KB, 690x388) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
It's all about insight man. Any animal that can reason is capable of figuring out what they need to survive is actually stuff that brings them "pleasure". Thats why humans and other primates can reason that having a surplus of food is great, and also why we crave those things that can (although inadvertantly) bring us more resources. Although I define happiness as something totally different than pleasure.
Hannah Drillertut - Sat, 07 May 2016 05:03:36 EST ID:jhKA/xCp No.205897 Ignore Report Quick Reply
When I stopped trying to be happy, I found something else. I don't define it, I don't give it a name, I don't examine it. I know who I am and what I am doing every moment of the day and I like it.

When I wanted to be happy, I understood what sad was, and I mostly felt sad. I think happiness is, like, one of those paradox ideas that we humans get stuck in and don't realize we're in a box or whatever. I'm not a philosopher, but I am sure it's true.
Polly Crarringkid - Sat, 07 May 2016 16:28:22 EST ID:mTXiwGo4 No.205901 Ignore Report Quick Reply
What? Happiness is specific? What word should I use?
I mean happiness in the sense that can very easily be applied to all beings.
Am I being naive?
>Few animals exhibit signs similar to outright human depression when in captivity if I remember my behavorial biology correctly.
I strongly disagree, and I'm not some new-age animal loving ununderstanding hippie. Grew up on a farm, didn't see much depression in the animals, but I learned to read their emotions and did not get the impression that they were limited in the way you imply.
>Any animal that can reason is capable of figuring out what they need to survive is actually stuff that brings them "pleasure".
I'd say that association is instinctive. What you're thinking of is just a psychological exercise not really applicable here.
Polly Crarringkid - Sat, 07 May 2016 16:36:08 EST ID:mTXiwGo4 No.205902 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Not that I don't love animals.
I might love them to much, hence me questioning if I'm being naive.

Not Bearded
But Circumcised
Dat Penis
Polly Crarringkid - Sat, 07 May 2016 16:38:24 EST ID:mTXiwGo4 No.205903 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1462653504085.jpg -(13970B / 13.64KB, 394x467) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
Forgot to not be bearded
killing self ASAP

Thread about this guy by Phyllis Mazzlestere - Sun, 01 May 2016 21:01:47 EST ID:zJR5wuFK No.205841 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1462150907817.png -(57885B / 56.53KB, 220x220) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 57885
A bookstore sells books by Sam Harris in the philosophy section. Should I buy one and burn it on Liberation Day?

completely hypothetical
Let's have a good old internet-mediated chinwag about Sam Harris. and why he's so shitty.
11 posts and 1 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
Archie Clankinfield - Wed, 04 May 2016 05:16:34 EST ID:49qmKpRL No.205860 Ignore Report Quick Reply
> I 100% do not want to let people in from a culture that cheers when the Paris attacks happen. I 100% do not want to bring in immigrants or refugees who absolutely believe that Sharia law should replace secularism.
You should not be so afraid and actually meet some muslims because the vast majority do not chaer for terrorism. They are not bad people. Being a muslim does not make you bad. Being a bigot makes you bad, supporting Islamic State makes you bad, committing acts of terorism and other barbarism makes you bad. You should not otherise these people so much, for they will recognise much more in a peaceful man of a different religion than in a violent man of their own religion. You should understand also that Sharia is a rather similar concept to the American constitution and that muslims in the ME often call for sharia when they feel the government is no longer listening to them, much like american conservatives call for their own constitution. When muslims call for sharia in western countries, they are often surveilled, sometimes their groups are banned, individuals are arrested and deported, and rightly so, they try to rally young muslims to go to their death in 'holy' wars
Simon Goodwill - Wed, 04 May 2016 12:18:50 EST ID:WLinKu+3 No.205869 Ignore Report Quick Reply
I've seen it m8000. I was in Indonesia when Paris happened and people literally cheered. They seemed like overall nice people who can fuck right off.
Archie Clankinfield - Wed, 04 May 2016 12:37:25 EST ID:49qmKpRL No.205870 Ignore Report Quick Reply
i really doubt you are telling the truth.
Polly Tillingstone - Wed, 04 May 2016 14:56:42 EST ID:54PBc7Id No.205872 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1462388202584.gif -(191216B / 186.73KB, 499x499) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
Is that you, Trump?
Nathaniel Bresslefack - Thu, 05 May 2016 18:01:44 EST ID:1iJ/Y3fp No.205889 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>Sharia is like the US constitution
>Indonesians like literally cheered at terrorist attacks
I hate both of you so fucking much.

Mckenna by Betsy Baffingridge - Sun, 27 Dec 2015 06:41:19 EST ID:Ym9weT5z No.204565 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1451216479679.jpg -(11947B / 11.67KB, 236x354) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 11947
I am in my late 20s now nearly 30 and have had a wide experience with all kinds of substances from the age of around 14 aside from say heroin and DMT if we are going by the most notorious ones.

I have been really inspired by Terrence Mckenna's talks and ideas on life itself, on the whole link between DMT and consciousness etc. I am all too eager to try it myself but live pretty far away from that ability right now; that is besides the point however.

What are your opinions on the guys outlook on life, on DMT and on the mind / consciousness? He has been gone for a while now so time has been able to wash over his words.
26 posts and 3 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
Eliza Puckledock - Sat, 23 Apr 2016 18:57:12 EST ID:sviFT3nS No.205781 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Jesus christ, what a burnt out retard. He sounds like a kid who just made his first animal-to-human connection, like the first time a kid sees how some animal males compete for females in the wild so he starts to apply it by being an aggressive territorial asshole to others in front of women.
Well, you get the point, I think.
It takes literally 10 minutes of reading literature on this kind of stuff to realize how baseless a claim like "50/50 is too many" is; did he ever even read anything ever or did he just spout dumb shit off the top of his head? What is he even saying in any of this video?
Jarvis Wangerspear - Sat, 23 Apr 2016 20:14:52 EST ID:gXJXBtKQ No.205783 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>... off the top of his head
That's what I'm saying! He is reversing logical thinking. Instead of building an understanding on observations which he turns into an argument he just puts forward an argument and says "MUSHROOM TOLD ME CUNT". It is literally mind control.
Jarvis Wangerspear - Sat, 23 Apr 2016 20:21:18 EST ID:gXJXBtKQ No.205784 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Sorry i meant to take the "it is literally mind control" sentence off there because it appeared as baseless as mckennas shit. I based that sentence on a lot of work done by Jan Irvine, who has done a lot of research on McKenna. nb
Doris Drammlehall - Wed, 04 May 2016 17:34:54 EST ID:/nyzBoLy No.205873 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1462397694415.png -(130841B / 127.77KB, 269x300) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
I would like more good psychedelic resources. Any form welcomed.

But personally, I'm searching for good audio lectures, audio podcasts, audio books relating to the psychedelic experience.
Terence McKenna is great, but I yearn for more.
Caroline Blodgeway - Thu, 05 May 2016 05:09:06 EST ID:gXJXBtKQ No.205876 Ignore Report Quick Reply
If a lack of critical thinking and pseudo science which supports eugenics is your thing you'd probably also like Zweites Buch (sequel to Meine Kampf)

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