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


Since there isn't any meaning to life by William Sendersture - Sat, 08 Oct 2016 07:19:30 EST ID:6RZMk6jO No.206985 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1475925570684.jpg -(23129B / 22.59KB, 500x427) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 23129
which gives any subjective meaning equal justification, does that mean that no life has been lived without meaning?

The only justification I can give for the statement of life not having any meaning is: the objective biological meaning of life doesn't support any spiritual, philosophical nor religious meanings.
9 posts omitted. Click Reply to view.
Albert Nammerridge - Thu, 27 Oct 2016 12:11:01 EST ID:hvs4h/ox No.207125 Ignore Report Quick Reply
The most interesting thing is, that the meaning could exist in billy after he has "failed it"

Billy could start to see that alot of the meaning was his own, and not look at himself as how appealing he is to others and how much he does make sense in a rational or objective quality as a subjective being. But how appealing it is to see this meaning.

How to make that appeal, and how to have that meaning and how to make it work around him.

Billy could become rich, do something crazy and change social phenomenon forever or for a brief period of time.

He could be one of those people they say is going to hell.

And that confidentially could be because of how he reacted to a pattern outside of that rules based pattern of dogma and how that made him tickle.

If he goes further with that, he might be able to see and experience some interesting things in life.
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
the flicker !FwnV7hV52I - Sat, 29 Oct 2016 05:24:00 EST ID:vano1wpA No.207131 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Your parable retrojects the notion of a meaning of life into premodernity. I'd suggest it doesn't even make sense to talk about any kind of "subjective meaning" in the Middle Ages because it presupposes liberal individualism. Meaning in feudal Europe is being a king, a lord, or a peasant, with no possibility of social movement. Everything is laid out in the great chain of being, from rocks and rivers, to grasses and trees, to animals, to humans, to the angels, cherubim, and seraphim, and finally God Himself. Value in this world is stable. Only if you conceive of yourself as an autonomous individual -- separate from your people, your class, your church, etc. -- can you begin to question your personal values. Only if axiology is generally atomized, subject to rational, empirical inquiry, could someone seriously debate whether life has meaning -- it's the only way the question makes sense at all. So there is something inherently deceptive about taking ideas which have arisen in our cultural climate of secular individualism, after all the noise of the Reformation, the French Revolution, and the triumph of scientific empiricism, and trying to find a place for them in the heads of people who precede these developments.

I believe thinking through the problem (of life's meaning) in this way also sheds some light on how to deal with the specter of existential nihilism. To assert
>meaning is just some retarded mindtrick our monkeybrains use to make sense out of the world
depends on so many historically contingent assumptions about the nature and function of the world that there is just as much reason to reject it as to affirm it.
Polly Smallspear - Sat, 29 Oct 2016 09:22:06 EST ID:nrMZmil1 No.207132 Ignore Report Quick Reply
"Meaning" is something we abstract from value-experience often with certain social-cultural categorizations. Value-experience will always exist as that's what being is. It's not just that that means each person has their own meaning or whatever though - experience is fundamentally an interaction with an environment and gets its value in large part from it i.e. it's relational.
Isabella Tootspear - Mon, 31 Oct 2016 06:36:01 EST ID:aEaeNBh+ No.207134 Ignore Report Quick Reply
The whole point of that post was to inject some modern perspective onto ancient thinking.
Sidney Honeydale - Wed, 02 Nov 2016 18:47:53 EST ID:BKJX7E+7 No.207140 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1478126873183.jpg -(37272B / 36.40KB, 350x321) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.

>The only justification I can give for the statement of life not having any meaning is: the objective biological meaning of life doesn't support any spiritual, philosophical nor religious meanings.

Spiritual and religious meaning can easily be discarded in a universe your question predispose.

So in a world were humans came to be as is, without any guy-in-the-sky or some mystical shittery going on, all that matters is your own view of things right?

Meaning is something which you're gonna have to deal with regardless of the nature of the universe, because you're human. You have a relationship with everything that you perceive, including your life. Now if you were to regard your existence as 'meaningless' that would still require you to make a judgment on value or rather meaning, which means no matter how nihilistic your sorry ass is, you're still gonna have to judge it; meaning it still fucking exist in your monkey brain.

I don't know, I didn't quite get my point across here I think. I mean that to say that 'life has no meaning' means that you have an understanding of meaning and you have decided that your own life means nothing compared to that understanding of 'meaning'.

As fucking owner of an ape-brain, that way of thinking is ridiculous as all that matters is what you experience from that ape-perspective. Do you like to get drunk? Do you like the way the light reflects on the autumn leaves? Do you still wanna see where this absurd existence of yours ends? No? Then why haven't you off'd yourself? Unless, your life has meaning after all and you're just an edgy fag.

coping with being dumb by BorderlineMale28 !NkmH2xeNp2 - Thu, 13 Oct 2016 03:31:08 EST ID:j3mZet9D No.207020 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1476343868025.jpg -(192752B / 188.23KB, 1024x619) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 192752
F's from gradeschool until 8th grade when I dropped out. Never learned anything. Kids were mean. I took a psychological exam/IQ test last year and I scored 102. Not the online ones, but the kind a psychologist gives. Takes half a day. I don't have any trade skills.

I just wonder what I am. What I am good for. I like to think about the world, like what is going on, what is the truth. We live like people in a TV show, I know that much. About society. It is really deep, like hard for me or you or anyone to think outside of. Thinking outside of the box is not possible if you don't know what's the box and what's not. But I can't talk about it. People start talking about what I love to think about and they just go over my head. I don't get to share or understand. I can only think about it in my head, and I can't relate to anything anyone says. I think it is philosophy, but I'm dumb.

I feel like a lonely rock sitting in a brain that wants to jump off a bridge. I take meds so I don't kill myself but I want to anyway. I wish someone would hold me.
9 posts and 4 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
Nicholas Dullerville - Mon, 17 Oct 2016 10:26:10 EST ID:54PBc7Id No.207064 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Meh, you and I aren't in disagreement.
>Maybe you aren't always to blame for their formation, but you're responsible for them all the same.
That is exactly what I was trying to say. I know we're responsible for them, but we can't blame ourselves for their existence and for our position in life. We are responsible, and we are to be blamed, but the truth is that it wasn't our decision, it was the universe's decision. I'm just saying I'm a determinist.

Happiness is based on mental health, I say. Nothing more, nothing less. Yes, some people create a house of cards, people who live a life full of assumptions and precedents, but me, my foundation is solid steel, it has no errors. If I did find an error in it, which I have before, I'd fix it. Simple as that. My philosophy is entirely based on perfecting the basics.
Fuck Cogglepen - Sat, 22 Oct 2016 06:24:08 EST ID:hvs4h/ox No.207107 Ignore Report Quick Reply
"learned helplessness"

check out that concept it's not what it sounds like but it is a condition that can take place do to your experience of "success" and "failure" and how it relates to self defeating, removal of possibility, and beating yourself before you try.

It can go away and come back in life, but it ties itself to the structure of who you are and what you think you are good at.

It's kind of like the old saying. If you think you can win, you won't neccessarily do so, but if you are already thinking you have lost, you most likely will.

During the engagement you are in trying to "win" or "succeed."

That thought in the back of your mind that says you can't.

Imagine you are tackling something that in theory exists in variables, but you have an x factor that leads you to pursue something certain yet undecided. Undecided only being that it's all about a quality of bringing about something that is taking shape and you are taking shape of it.

When a human applies itself. When you do that in reality you are creating but the potential of mindset is always at risk of being understood by others, self, and aspects of others and the world you have absorbed into yourself through experience.
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
Phyllis Sucklehood - Mon, 24 Oct 2016 03:31:02 EST ID:dUlpdtml No.207110 Ignore Report Quick Reply
I am so depressed after reading about learned helplessness. It means that I programmed myself to be this way and it is my fault that after understanding it, I do nothing to better myself.

I don't want to live anymore, I don't have anyone anyway and I have been so lonely. Learned helplessness is another way of saying that everything is my fault, and it's all true.
Thomas Fasslehall - Thu, 27 Oct 2016 23:27:04 EST ID:hvs4h/ox No.207127 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Well if you were to be aware of the ability to notice something that you knew existed in theory but at this point in your "autobiographical record of flotating consciousness" or what is above you in your opinion as your life, but seemed to not neccesarily hostily but in some way seemed out of access to you.

Like every time you started it you felt a sense of fatigue. That is learned helpessness.

It isn't your fault, it's admitting that the way we learn is faulty. That could be depressing, but in it's own cartwright it's helplessness gets you to admit belief.

You are in a position that is a negative, but the cause of concern is that in learning this should not be, based on a predestination we see in the cartography of the day we enter school.

Or a positive optimism of learning. Why is that in learning, because learning's flaw is also it's potential. The outlet of learning you have learned helplessness is the meta. The metacognitive position of seeing thoughts, thinking about thoughts. When you see that in a structure you see that belief. That's when you know it hasn't been your fault.

It came because you were learning. Have you ever been belief. Chances are as a young child you swallowed a great deal of heart crushing through amazing resilency. That came to be expected in all the social circles around you and you carried yourself nursing your optimism somewhere far away from the place you were learning. And acted in the way you were expected to act.

All that learning because you were in school, came through behavior. Because you had to behave, there wasn't any time to step out of that and try to learn the way you were hoping to. Because that in theory is disruptive, not that in theory not doing that when you had the opportunity would be your fault either.
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
Thomas Fasslehall - Thu, 27 Oct 2016 23:28:11 EST ID:hvs4h/ox No.207128 Ignore Report Quick Reply
It's not your fault, but what you are seeking is not that vindication, but the end to the nagging. Something that a coach would say is self defeatism. But a teacher might describe as something that exists in psychology itself. Because we are in philosophy in order to assert this, i may have to explain something else. So you see the philosophies are not so kind to a person who has experienced this yet, they have a unique way of relating or finding a person in this condition, because it's about seeking knowing. You have to realize the uncertainty, and self conciousness, eventually is controlled by a locus in you, but yet one that is external.

Perhaps if i were to offer advice i would do all the continuing before reconciling that contradiction. Because philosophy wants to discuss this in a manner through provacation, which will exacerbate it.

If you are in this state you will assume you are all the people that are cast as a subject of critque, especially in the associations that involve in or out groups. Or the ones who are good and the ones who are not.

You in reality have to keep doing it, in order to understand the semi vague and intense significance of what is being lets say "hurt" in you. And that what is often being anchored as controlling it, is in reality disrupting you.

The way people talk about the economy, the world, race, class will make you feel to one side or the other because the opinion is critical. The real assertion is that you are actually what determines it.

But not many people are going to be able to communicate to you, that you are the only thing that is real, without experiencing the same classic sense of regret.

Because that assertion was made often after the kind of cynicism you are experiencing.
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.

ancient symbols are anathema toLGBT people? by Angelwoman !Y5l541i8x. - Tue, 18 Oct 2016 21:08:37 EST ID:bl/5SlpY No.207084 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1476839317485.jpg -(85394B / 83.39KB, 416x448) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 85394
the duality of man and woman, the penis and vagina and ying and yang. but now we know those symbols were wrong and transgendered and gay people existed all along. how do they fit into our system? are we living in a false system of man and woman and is LGBT breaking barriers (explains the worldwide resistance), basically forcing people give up their comfortale BUT FALSE way of life?
Phoebe Claydock - Tue, 18 Oct 2016 21:26:11 EST ID:+xn4V4fu No.207085 Ignore Report Quick Reply
you're overthinking it.
Hamilton Pezzlegold - Wed, 19 Oct 2016 00:30:01 EST ID:0aDGMcny No.207089 Ignore Report Quick Reply
The male and female when in esoteric symbols are themselves just symbols of the polar, positive and negative aspects of reality, the active and the passive, the light and the dark, etc. The connection to biological sex is coincidental, and of course LGBT people still participate in and can celebrate the polar quality of reality.

Smarts by Esther Diblingdadge - Fri, 23 Sep 2016 10:06:03 EST ID:54PBc7Id No.206910 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1474639563804.jpg -(121004B / 118.17KB, 625x352) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 121004
Anyone else here feel like they're just smarter than everyone else around them?
Not literally everyone on every subject, but just simply in general, like if you meet someone 9 times out of 10 they'll be sharing ideas with you that you've already climbed over or disproven or something of that sort, and then you're stuck teaching them things they never thought about before or some shit.

Idk, I'm like obsessed with self-education and I can clearly see that not only has our school systems failed the American people in a lot of ways but also most people have no interest in learning about things outside their own careers or interests.
40 posts and 1 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
Nigel Goodworth - Sat, 15 Oct 2016 16:28:24 EST ID:aEaeNBh+ No.207057 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Intelligence is a bit from all the columns.

IIRC, being breastfed up to the point where you start eating solid foods will automatically give you a 10-20 IQ points boost compared to people that drank formula milk. Few diseases and no starvation also will get you some extra IQ points.

Basically the less effort your childhood body has to take to keep you alive and healthy, the smarter you'll become as an adult.

Then there's of course the nature element, if your parents are smart, you're probably going to be smart too, even if you'll become an orphan or adopted.

And finally, nurture. Doesn't matter if you're smart, if no one ever teaches you how to use your brain, you'll never display any signs of meaningful intelligence.
Hannah Shakestock - Sat, 15 Oct 2016 17:59:05 EST ID:j3mZet9D No.207058 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1476568745097.jpg -(94493B / 92.28KB, 750x613) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
took a real IQ test. you can drop or rise in points by misspelling words. it's a pop culture quiz that people take way too seriously. IQ isn't actually something at all. it was invented, and the invention has taken on a life of its own. originally developed to measure idiocy and such, it is now a 'thing' people believe they possess, that their ability to perceive, understand, and interact with the world can be measured from 0-200.

it's a tool, it helps box people in.

>your IQ is permanently raised because mom breastfed you, experts say.

Martha Clemmlehidge - Sun, 16 Oct 2016 16:19:15 EST ID:6RZMk6jO No.207061 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Archie Nicklehood - Mon, 17 Oct 2016 05:21:52 EST ID:aEaeNBh+ No.207062 Ignore Report Quick Reply
IQ doesn't measure anything concrete yes.

But that doesn't mean it's completely useless. Drinking mother milk for a long time will still improve your intelligence in places.

What does the difference in IQ between 100 and 130 mean? Who knows, but statistically speaking it's the difference between... let's Americanize this for you guys, it's the difference between getting C's in school and A's in school. (Remember, IQ's purpose when it got invented was to put a nice easy grade on the performance and intelligence of workers in the early 1900's).
That's not really a big difference, I mean if you're getting C's from just sitting in class, you could put some effort in and get A's too.

But the difference in IQ between 100 and 200, that's a sea of difference. That's noticable. You still won't be able to tell what the difference is, but you can tell there's one.

As you said, IQ is a tool. A very shallow tool with very limited purposes. But it has purposes.

Especially when you want to investigate the effects of beneficial and negative things on the development of intelligence in children.

Mother's milk is good. Car exhausts are bad.
Nicholas Dullerville - Mon, 17 Oct 2016 10:32:30 EST ID:54PBc7Id No.207065 Ignore Report Quick Reply

I think therefore I think by The Boat - Wed, 12 Oct 2016 19:08:19 EST ID:MRj8fmcP No.207018 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1476313699310.jpg -(56237B / 54.92KB, 640x360) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 56237
Like if you just athithetically speak in like circles you create the philosophy, I took a philosophy class once and almost every I would raise my hand and be like "so why did this country elect... George... W... Bush... but this was all an elaborate ruse to get them to call me bush man awww yeah! So see even philosophy can be manipulated to serve the hair dawg! Woof woof!

Weekly Classic phillosofical questions! #1 by Jarvis Turveywill - Sat, 01 Oct 2016 19:50:50 EST ID:aZIQO4pB No.206952 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1475365850364.jpg -(2142B / 2.09KB, 93x93) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 2142
>does good or/and bad really exist?

I'll try to give once a week a typical, classic question and begin a discussion. Should bring a bit more life to the board and action. don't forget to spam on the other boards
However i won't do it every week because i'm a lazy, forgetting and postponing guy (proscinating? i forgot the word in english....) So every one is invited to put the question at the beginning of a new week.
16 posts and 1 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
Molly Sepperwell - Sat, 08 Oct 2016 15:10:43 EST ID:P/dExdeU No.206989 Ignore Report Quick Reply
In the context of this discussion, not much, since they both have the upper hand over the people of each respective nation.
Lydia Pabbletatch - Sun, 09 Oct 2016 10:40:34 EST ID:FSjrOHi0 No.206997 Ignore Report Quick Reply
The POTUS has a lot more restrictions and is more liable to the people he governs, but is in a much better position than the Supreme Leader due to the power of the people governed, and the social institutions that can be built on that power.

For a more theoretical argument, see Prof. Scott E. Page's diversity prediction theorem (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KtaaCAJjGr4). Diversity can generate better predicitons that individuals can, so e.g. an investment club of diverse peers can do better than one dominated by a single point of view.
Priscilla Bardwater - Tue, 11 Oct 2016 01:08:24 EST ID:P/dExdeU No.207005 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Yes, but what you seem to be forgetting and the point I'm trying to make is that Barack Obama would not have chosen the position if he didn't have the upper hand. Anyway, we're talking about good and bad, not diversity. Diversity is a quantitative measurement of a system. When you try and communicate it as a qualitative thing, you impose your own biased judgement on the matter.

Whether the conclusions derived from this measurement are good or bad is subjective. A person would have to be annointed with godlike power to be able to claim something as "universally good". They might think they have that power, but there will always be something out there that disagrees, and so it really isn't universal after all.
Hamilton Wezzlewock - Wed, 12 Oct 2016 17:21:26 EST ID:O5hl5Ujj No.207016 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Are you still going on about good and bad being subjective? No-one is arguing that they're objective. I already qualified good and bad in the context of goals in

"Good and bad is subjective" also isn't the final word on the topic. We can do better than throw our hands in the air. Every concept exists in the mind, that doesn't invalidate good and bad. We can look at the ontological status of good and bad, the categories it can be applied to, and how they relate to each other. We can compare the judgments over time and at different scales, and discuss whether short-term good/bad corresponds to or contradicts long-term good/bad, and whether individual good/bad is necessarily in line or opposed to collective good/bad.
Hamilton Wezzlewock - Wed, 12 Oct 2016 17:27:25 EST ID:O5hl5Ujj No.207017 Ignore Report Quick Reply
The point of bringing up diversity was to show that an individual may benefit more from being part of a group that isn't dominated by single member, than by dominating the potential members of that group. Families, teams, organizations, cities, nations in general demonstrate the value of group membership. Such arrangements aren't only good for the leaders.

Meaning of white in the United States by James Weffinghidging - Sun, 29 May 2016 19:27:33 EST ID:ryqaNXqr No.206075 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1464564453693.jpg -(109777B / 107.20KB, 600x797) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 109777
According to most I've read, white means European caucasian in the U.S. Is that true and if it is, why are non-European caucasians thought to be a different race?
34 posts and 4 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
David Fanman - Sun, 11 Sep 2016 07:09:30 EST ID:3AOFBN19 No.206753 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Youre so full of shit. America has bought us almost to extinction roughly 3 or 4 times during the cold war. They dropped charges on russian subs and nuclear holocaust was avoided due to the actions of the sub commander. He disobeyed orders.

Stop acting edgy as if the global human society is some fucking competition where the americans have the right to fuck over the third world because theyre top dogs.

I can assure you that if you start the fight the united states will be wiped off the map very quickly after the first strike.

You fuck heads risk everybodys lives, fuck everything up then wonder why everybody hates you.

The world is turning back on us imperialism because of the information available nowdays. Whatever bullshit youre governments have planned, free trade agreements, foreign policy strategies, state emails and phone calls will be leaked by hackers for all the world to know.

This will be an asian century whether you like it or not. Next recession will fuck americans hard, and with such a short sighted economic strategy, maybe itll be a good thing.
Doris Sablingfield - Thu, 15 Sep 2016 14:04:12 EST ID:54PBc7Id No.206822 Ignore Report Quick Reply
So it has just come to my attention that the word 'Caucasian' in the dictionary can represent all white people, and that the word 'Indian' in the dictionary can represent all Native Americans.

Literally fuck the dictionary and fuck every English speaker who normalizes erroneous speaking. Like those fucking heathens who say stupid sentences like 'But it's only a theory.'
My English is superior to this dictionary English, and I shall not use the word Caucasian to denote anyone outside the caucuses, nor use Indian to denote anyone outside of India, because I'm not furthering these erroneous definitions of words.
Edward Pudgefatch - Sun, 18 Sep 2016 06:47:54 EST ID:aEaeNBh+ No.206861 Ignore Report Quick Reply
I'm pretty sure that the total amount of times the USA and Russia almost started WW3 numbers in the 10 times. Possibly the true number is 15 or 20. You never know how many close calls are still kept under red tape.
Augustus Pocklock - Sat, 08 Oct 2016 20:40:05 EST ID:hvs4h/ox No.206994 Ignore Report Quick Reply
what would a non european caucasian be ethnically speaking.

I think the term is nomenclating it's way back to a time when all caucasia was in one place.

Other wise it's us citizens getting out of being called white
Ghengis Dong - Fri, 14 Oct 2016 02:03:48 EST ID:mQSzo9rp No.207034 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1476425028680.png -(775823B / 757.64KB, 800x622) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
Armenian, Georgian, Chechen, Ossetian, Balkar, Kabardian, Ingush, Abkhaz, and Azeri people to name a few.

ethics by Plato - Wed, 14 Sep 2016 17:32:14 EST ID:6FMjnYNY No.206805 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1473888734260.jpg -(32131B / 31.38KB, 600x596) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 32131
lets talk ethics

Is it a virtue to throw ham on a cat for the laughs of people on the internet?
5 posts omitted. Click Reply to view.
Charles Fammerson - Mon, 26 Sep 2016 20:03:53 EST ID:0aDGMcny No.206933 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Those would be vices, the opposite of virtues.

>>can anyone really know anything?
Probably not. At best, knowledge is relative.
Martha Siblingfoot - Tue, 27 Sep 2016 11:23:01 EST ID:km8PyPWR No.206935 Ignore Report Quick Reply
I know I exist.
Molly Clerrydale - Tue, 27 Sep 2016 12:05:39 EST ID:Pn8OQSEF No.206936 Ignore Report Quick Reply
It was a joke friends. It was supposed to be ironic because in the same post where I mention that OP's question of virtue is not one of ethics, I also mistake epistemology for metaphysics. hue hu
Matilda Fellyhall - Wed, 28 Sep 2016 20:47:31 EST ID:GViFPk9x No.206944 Ignore Report Quick Reply
i like cats
Bombastus !uYErosQbLM!!Mybq1UbK - Sat, 08 Oct 2016 17:09:21 EST ID:lJKwg7RK No.206991 Ignore Report Quick Reply
I'm glad this is the first thread I read when I haven't been on /pss/ in 2 months.

philosophical crickets by Fanny Turveyshit - Fri, 30 Sep 2016 18:40:38 EST ID:0aDGMcny No.206947 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1475275238486.gif -(36790B / 35.93KB, 267x200) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 36790
If a philosophy thread falls in a chan, and nobody replies to it, does it really make a sound at all?

What is the sound of one troller trolling?

plz no ban 4 stupid thread just complaining the board has been dead for days
Walter Beddleworth - Sat, 01 Oct 2016 07:46:55 EST ID:+vYB2HV+ No.206948 Ignore Report Quick Reply
its always been dead. HOwever you could start another mysoginyst hate thread feminism thread, this is pretty much the only board on the chan that allows extended trolling rational and logical discussion on the subject. they are usually quite lively.
Ebenezer Hecklesturk - Sat, 01 Oct 2016 10:16:40 EST ID:37fjOf8M No.206949 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>its always been dead
it's always been shit too. Even without the feminism thread this board has historically been nonsense and wankery. usually anyways.
Barnaby Wabblebanks - Sun, 02 Oct 2016 03:24:35 EST ID:wQ+xU09t No.206955 Ignore Report Quick Reply
/pss/ was born deformed and retarded. However, I have good memories of /ph/.
Frederick Lightshaw - Wed, 05 Oct 2016 09:07:19 EST ID:54PBc7Id No.206972 Ignore Report Quick Reply
I lol'ed so hard at this.
God damn those fucking feminism threads used to make me so mad. So many retarded feminazis. So many retarded MRAs.
"You saw the new Mad Max!? You're a fucking traitor! They're trying to feminize our culture! We need more masculinity!"

4 branches of government by Lydia Drublingcocke - Sat, 01 Oct 2016 15:38:27 EST ID:ffaKH0UR No.206950 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1475350707763.gif -(2090821B / 1.99MB, 318x241) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 2090821
We all know the "3 branches of government" (executive, legislative, judicial) having checks and balances sounds good in theory, but in practice is pretty ineffective. Moreover, it results in the common people having little say.

What if we added a fourth branch of government that was effectively direct democracy? Imagine there's an additional "congress" made up of every citizen who's not an elected official. People generally cry "tyranny of the majority" when direct democracy is brought up but if it was just another branch of government with checks and balances, even they'd no longer have any ideological problems with it.

Other than The Powers That Be not wanting you to have control over your life, why isn't this a thing?
4 posts omitted. Click Reply to view.
Eliza Chunnernedge - Mon, 03 Oct 2016 00:03:16 EST ID:kmTPwmWm No.206959 Ignore Report Quick Reply
If your concern is that government isn't listening to you, we currently have not one, but three options that most people in America would never even think of doing.

  1. You can contact your representative and tell them your concerns. Did you know people used to actually call their congressmen and talk to them (or their staff)? It sounds crazy doesn't it.

2. If that doesn't work, you can vote their asses out.

3. If you aren't happy with either of those options, you can run for election on your own platform and see if enough people support it.

What more do you need? Do you want them to hang a microphone in front of our mouths 24/7 and somehow take heed of every word? It would be a cacophony! Everyone would want what's best for them and nobody would be able to make sense out of any of it, let alone translate it into a feasible plan.
William Conkinbedge - Mon, 03 Oct 2016 08:36:37 EST ID:aEaeNBh+ No.206960 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Sounds like shit.

It might have worked in simpler times, but our current society is so complex you need experts running government. And it's only going to get more and more complex.

The only reason how I can see direct democracy work is in the far future, when we have access to intelligence-increasing drugs, and intelligence-enhancing implants, etc.
Lydia Guvingridge - Mon, 03 Oct 2016 12:18:47 EST ID:ffaKH0UR No.206962 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>contact your representative
I do know people used to do that but you'll get put on a watch list if you do it now. I'd prefer that personally but it hasn't been a viable option for decades

>vote their asses out
>run for election on your own platform and see if enough people support it.
These are ineffective for actually changing society because republics are not about governance. They're about getting elected. And it's not like the people we elect are "experts" either. They hire/get a team (their cabinet). Shit, I'd bet the average person on this board is honestly better suited to be in congress than the average person in the House.
Emma Drenderway - Mon, 03 Oct 2016 12:28:12 EST ID:Uo2Tvgaj No.206963 Ignore Report Quick Reply
What people want and what people need are not the same thing. The best form of government is benevolent dictatorship, but since we can't trust anyone, democracy gives us a peaceful mechanism of revolution - vote for someone else. That brings competition into government and makes people work to get in power or to stay in power. That's the total value of democracy, what people want on a day-to-day basis is irrelevant if not harmful to government, since the masses are easily swayed by the media and fashion.
Molly Bunkinpadging - Wed, 05 Oct 2016 09:05:10 EST ID:aEaeNBh+ No.206971 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Eh, that's actually a good description of how democracy works. I like it. I'll remember that.

Are concepts real? by Frederick Focklelin - Thu, 15 Sep 2016 17:12:36 EST ID:i0p+MvmF No.206828 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1473973956133.jpg -(250254B / 244.39KB, 1000x377) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 250254
Is a concept real? Concepts can obviously impact reality, for example the concept of a nation, but the concept is not physically real, there is no physical America. Yet at the same time, to deny that America exists would be ridiculous.

Can something that is not real impact physical reality? Luke Skywalker is not real, but he's impacted our reality. So is he real then?

What do you think 420 chan? Are concepts real? Is there any non-physical thing that you think is objectively real?
59 posts and 1 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
Ian Hingerbanks - Mon, 26 Sep 2016 07:28:46 EST ID:aEaeNBh+ No.206931 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>very clear concise technical language

No you're not doing that. I've read plenty of actual English philosophical texts. And you're not posting replies in that kind of English. You are using too many flowery words nigga.
Charles Fammerson - Mon, 26 Sep 2016 20:11:23 EST ID:0aDGMcny No.206934 Ignore Report Quick Reply
No, I'm just using words I would expect educated people to know. Are you for real still going on about this? I don't come into a conversation in your native language and start complaining that people are using too fancy of words for me to understand. It is not my job to speak at a level you understand, if you can't understand an argument made using a high level of vocabulary, then don't complain about it. I can't even believe I'm having to make this argument. The things I'm saying are grammatically correct English that convey the ideas I'm trying to get across, I refuse to speak less precisely just so any random person can understand it. I wouldn't anticipate a 6th grader could understand my arguments, nor would I try to find a way to convey what I am arguing to a 6th grader. If I was speaking incorrectly you might have some justification for telling me to speak differently, but I am being absolutely correct, and you're asking me to speak differently just so you can understand, when what you need to do is either improve your comprehension or not interfere with what you don't understand. It's exactly the same as me coming to your country and shouting at everyone 'why don't you idiots speak in English?!'
Eugene Fiblingwater - Tue, 27 Sep 2016 12:06:18 EST ID:4do4rcf2 No.206937 Ignore Report Quick Reply
words will never be "real," all labels are simply metaphors. humans, with our thought process bound by language, will be the ouroboros for as long as we are addicted to language
Rebecca Bunstone - Tue, 27 Sep 2016 23:25:15 EST ID:cLVVDDMN No.206940 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>words will never be "real,"

Surely a concept is more than just a spelled out word, though. When I think of math, I don't think "M-A-T-H... there, that's all there is to math". It's theorems, formulas, and proofs. We must acknowledge the existence of the concept as a foundational proof. That's what makes it real.

But I really do get what you're saying. In order for us to understand math or anything else in reality, including an object like an apple, we need to use symbols. Not just written or vocalized symbols in language, but mental symbols. The mind evokes ideas about the object whenever it senses a similar pattern. The shape, the taste, and perhaps even a more basic sense of the nature of the thing. Reification is the mental process that evokes the concept of whatever it is we think we're observing. And you're right, the symbols are not yet perfect.

>all labels are simply metaphors

Yes, but metaphors of what? Is it really an apple that we're trying to define, or is the concept of an apple too inaccurate to represent what's actually there? Obviously it's real enough for us to carry on with our daily lives. But at a fundamental level, if it isn't a picture-perfect apple, then can we really say that apples exist outside of the concept of the thing? Or is the notion of an apple a trick that the mind plays when trying to cram the ineffable, infinite world into a very finite set of symbols?

Can there ever be anything in reality that's capable of painting a perfectly accurate picture of the world, if not symbols? How many different variations of a symbolic thing can there be? No two apples are exactly the same, so is there really such a thing as an apple in the first place?
Matilda Fellyhall - Wed, 28 Sep 2016 20:45:28 EST ID:GViFPk9x No.206942 Ignore Report Quick Reply

is this like plato and his forms?

Post modern arguments by Rebecca Banderwitch - Sun, 18 Sep 2016 18:11:59 EST ID:vs7quCaP No.206867 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1474236719285.jpg -(169678B / 165.70KB, 525x680) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 169678
Does post-modernism make having any kind of substantive argument literally impossible in this day and age?

There's no way to really have a back and forth, if people are coming from two different positions, the argument immediately devolves into semantics and personal attacks or implications about identity and bias.

There's no way to convince people of anything anymore, you can't point to any scientific fact without people questioning it's validity. Morality is even more ambiguous, people can justify or decry any act no matter how depraved or altruistic.

Am I being dramatic or has it always been this way?
2 posts omitted. Click Reply to view.
Ebenezer Cashsutch - Mon, 19 Sep 2016 00:17:19 EST ID:C45Vc/AJ No.206872 Ignore Report Quick Reply
> the argument immediately devolves into semantics
Sounds like post-modernism is saving you time. During debates in modern times, it took me many rounds of back-and-forth to get that far.
Ebenezer Cashsutch - Mon, 19 Sep 2016 00:19:24 EST ID:C45Vc/AJ No.206873 Ignore Report Quick Reply
> Am I being dramatic or has it always been this way?
the flicker !FwnV7hV52I - Mon, 19 Sep 2016 02:29:00 EST ID:vano1wpA No.206874 Ignore Report Quick Reply
All of these things have existed since the beginning of disputation, they're not particular to modernity. All philosophical disagreement is ultimately linguistic.
Beatrice Hashlock - Mon, 19 Sep 2016 09:01:45 EST ID:aEaeNBh+ No.206877 Ignore Report Quick Reply
I think you're fucking retarded, Rebecca Banderwitch.
Cyril Baddleham - Mon, 19 Sep 2016 14:39:17 EST ID:U7ynDDaE No.206880 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Prolly some high guy who thought he was on /b

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