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
wtf by Ernest Pashbid - Wed, 18 May 2016 20:10:48 EST ID:4do4rcf2 No.206006 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1463616648684.jpg -(23001B / 22.46KB, 500x454) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 23001
is it all really so complicated?
it seems to me that many philosophers overly complicate what it all really is.
why can't things be simple? i think the reality is that they are.
it's the most simple thing, as obvious as anything can be. but this very concept is paradoxically the most abstract concept.
fuck it yolo
1 posts omitted. Click Reply to view.
Ernest Pashbid - Thu, 19 May 2016 15:43:36 EST ID:4do4rcf2 No.206019 Ignore Report Quick Reply
i may be a cynic, but isn't all knowledge relative? even if we're talking the empirical sciences, there's always a degree of uncertainty.
life, as it seems to me, seems to be answer-less. there may be certain equations that can predict certain outcomes, but as a whole life seems to be something that transcends this kind of segmented knowledge
Tetragrammaton !!Gm+jdoM7 - Thu, 02 Jun 2016 13:47:11 EST ID:Nm/Cvaao No.206089 Ignore Report Quick Reply
I feel you on that. Look into the Tao Te Ching, Buddhism (to a degree), and some stuff by Manly Hall on the nature of reality or consciousness. Depending on your perspective, life/existence/reality can be eaither ultimately simple or infinitely complex. The fact of the matter is that it's both. Existence and nature are paradoxical in many ways. God is the universe is our experience of subjective reality is nonexistent and existent so on and so forth. It isn't something that can be put into a neat box absolutely. It can be imagined into a box to better understand it or some aspect of it in a given context but ultimately it isn't completely containable by the human mind.
Tetragrammaton !!Gm+jdoM7 - Thu, 02 Jun 2016 13:49:58 EST ID:Nm/Cvaao No.206090 Ignore Report Quick Reply
To finish that thought-
[...] but ultimately it isn't completely containable by the human mind. The only thing you can do is to explore as many different perspectives as possible and figure out which one works best for you as a tool to experience life the way you want to and to serve you as a tool for personal growth. I'm coming from the standpoint of someone very entrenched in the esoteric traditions of the east and west so someone going on standard western materialism will vehemently disagreee and that's okay.
Nathaniel Gockleman - Thu, 02 Jun 2016 21:43:21 EST ID:9PdOSkmz No.206099 Ignore Report Quick Reply
I think that you are right at some point. Philosophers always write in a very complex and abstract way without any reason to do it. I think that in this times it's necesary because the academy have the need to create an elite of people that can only understand talking to each other but all the things that they talk about have nothing to said about the human existence. Note that if you read Plato, for example, he is not THAT complicated, in fact it's pretty simple and I'm sure that it was simple for most the greeks since they lived in the same context.
If you ask me it's simple: what is the being? well the being is what we do and what we said with and about the world that we live in. And therefore you can ask: wich is the work of phylosophers? well, in my opinion they have to work to create those beings not to clarify THE being, suposing that there is only one and that it fell from the sky making all the others things be. For example, Plato lived in a time were there were others that tought that the education, wisdom and truth were not like he used to think about it. I'm talking about the sophist. So what did he do? well, he didn't just wrote a lot of stuff refuting all that sophist used to said he also creates a place were truth, wisdom and education were lived as he tought those things should be live. I dont know if I'm being clear or simple....
To conclude: phylosophers should work to create new beings, like magic, like a summoner. With their words they should make appear new beings in front of them. New ways to live the same things that we live everyday: education, work, production, politics, etc.
Phineas Pimbleridge - Sat, 04 Jun 2016 08:08:25 EST ID:DSUsjw9o No.206109 Ignore Report Quick Reply
It is simple my friend! You see the way, now follow the way, and bend the path of the way if it is your desire; though if you hold desires then be prepared for the outcome when you fail to reach them and for the hold they will take over your mind!

Do not disturb the muddy waters and they shall be clear again!

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?
7 posts omitted. Click Reply to view.
Nicholas Foshfuck - Fri, 29 Apr 2016 15:28:06 EST ID:W4KgL/IW No.205836 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Rawls, Nozick and Ronald Dworkin. I saw classics mentioned, Plato's Republic and the socratic dialogues are a good start.
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
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.

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