Leave these fields empty (spam trap):
You can leave this blank to post anonymously, or you can create a Tripcode by using the format Name#Password
[i]Italic Text[/i]
[b]Bold Text[/b]
[spoiler]Spoiler Text[/spoiler]
>Highlight/Quote Text
[pre]Preformatted & Monospace Text[/pre]
[super]Superset Text[/super]
[sub]Subset Text[/sub]
1. Numbered lists become ordered lists
* Bulleted lists become unordered lists



View Thread Reply
- Sun, 29 Jul 2018 16:02:30 EST m46LHA5y No.209420
File: 1532894550027.png -(17722B / 17.31KB, 611x529) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. skepnihilosopy
what is value? what the fuck is value? Define value? what the fuck is it? intrisic, extrinsic, objective, subjective allll tauntologies... I did see anybody define value?
Oliver Clayway - Mon, 30 Jul 2018 17:51:42 EST 2LwLwSlz No.209422 Reply
1532987502447.jpg -(25009B / 24.42KB, 300x259) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
Everything is subjective and tautological, if you have a problem with that then philosophy is not for you. All knowledge can only be known from a perspective (and thus is subjective, no matter what anyone else may try to tell you) and it is tautological, because all knowledge or even all definition is interdependent on all other knowledge and definition and has no actual base. The human mind is pic related.

So, with that in mind, what the fuck 'value' is is exactly what it appears to be; a quantitative or qualitative representation of the worth or content of something. This duality comes from the fact that the english word value covers a couple of different meanings: to have a certain quality or worth, or to have an associated mathematical quantity. Both are abstractifications of the concept of worth or contents, but those concepts themselves, like all others, are ultimately subjective tautologies.

On the subject of a diety, some nice writing

View Thread Reply
- Sat, 14 Jul 2018 19:53:25 EST QsklVX/N No.209407
File: 1531612405351.jpg -(57455B / 56.11KB, 1024x794) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. On the subject of a diety, some nice writing
At any rate, I found this "message" in a relatively archaic databank and thought some of you might find it of interest. Then again, I'm often either bemused or startled at the items you find interesting. ....................

It's an article about a believable God

1 posts omitted. Click View Thread to read.
mika sha - Mon, 23 Jul 2018 14:57:19 EST vEnuppAu No.209414 Reply
He didn't say only violent predators are capable of intelligence, he said they die out before reaching the next "stage| of global consciousness as a race
Hugh Toothood - Mon, 23 Jul 2018 19:25:29 EST 2LwLwSlz No.209415 Reply
No, that's the opposite of what is said. I think you need to read it a little more closely.
>>Without exception, intelligent species who gain dominance over their planet do so by becoming the most efficient predators.
>>Unlike the adaptors, who learn the point of cooperation fairly early on, manipulators battle on. And, once all lesser species have been overcome, they are so competitive and predatory that they are compelled to turn in on themselves....r this competition is vital to promote the leap from biological to technological evolution.

You need an arms race in order to make progress.

Your desire to dominate fuels a search for knowledge which the adaptors never acquire.
>>And although your initial desire for knowledge is selfish and destructive, it begins the development of an intellectual self awareness, a form of higher consciousness, which never emerges in any other species.
>> Not even while they are experiencing it, for example, can the intelligent adaptors - your dolphins - express the concepts of Love or Time.
Hugh Toothood - Mon, 23 Jul 2018 19:26:49 EST 2LwLwSlz No.209416 Reply
That said, I think your misunderstanding is much closer to the truth than what this article suggests, which may be why you assumed that is what was meant. Violent competition is important for the success of our species, but cooperation is much more vital and more unique to intelligent life.

Uniqueness & Alienation

View Thread Reply
- Mon, 09 Jul 2018 01:14:32 EST yG540JtQ No.209363
File: 1531113272985.jpg -(546490B / 533.68KB, 800x988) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. Uniqueness & Alienation
"You -- unique! What thought content is here, what sentence content? None! Whoever wants to deduce a precise thought-content of the Unique as if it were a concept, whoever thinks that with "unique" one has said about you what you are, would show that they believe in phrases, because they don't recognize phrases as phrases, and would also show that they seek specific content in phrases.

You, inconceivable and inexpressible, are the phrase content, the phrase owner, the phrase embodied; you are the who, the one of the phrase. In the unique, science can dissolve into life, in which your this becomes who and this who no longer seeks itself in the word, in the Logos, in the attribute.

The unique in Heaven, which Feuerbach places beside the unique on earth, is the phrase without a phrase-owner. The unique considered here is God. This is the thing that guaranteed that religion would last, that it had the unique at least in thought and as a phrase, that it saw it in Heaven. But the heavenly unique is only a unique in which no one has an interest, whereas Feuerbach instead, whether he likes it or not, is interested in Stirner's unique, because he would have to treat it oddly, if he wanted to chase his own unique from his head. If the heavenly unique were one that existed in its own head rather than in Feuerbach's, it would be difficult to chase this unique from its head."

Feuerbach would separate theology from speculative philosophy, finding in it the key to understanding man's uniqueness from nature even though man is a part of nature, anthropology. For "consciousness is given only in the case of a being to whom his species, his mode of being, is necessarily linked with knowledge. This makes consciousness again into something specifically human, because the animal is not capable of knowing. In being conscious, man knows himself as this conscious being: He is to himself an object of thought. But a being who is an object of his thought; a self-knowing being is also an other-knowing being. Because of this span, knowledge has the character of science: 'Science is the consciousness of species.' "

From the introduction of Fiery Brook, Zawar Hanfi distinguishes animal consciousness from human consciousness: "A caterpillar is confined to the world of a caterpillar; it is a limited being, because given its biological constitution, its instinctual pattern, it cannot transcend the boundaries of its limited world. It cannot make objects foreign to its own world -- and its world is its manifest being -- as the objects of its life-activity. There is no such limitation imposed upon the being of man. The self-expression of his being is neither limited to a particular segment, nor to a particular quality of nature."

"The anthropology of Feuerbach posits a correlation between a being and its object. [...] In this sense, the object is expressive of what a being essentially is; the object to which a subject essentially and necessarily relates himself is nothing except the subject's own, but objective being."

Or as Feuerbach puts it: "man's self-consciousness is his consciousness of the object. One knows the man by the object which reflects his being; the object lets his being appear to you; the object is his manifest being, his true, objective ego. This is true not only of intellectual but also of sensuous [material] objects."
32 posts and 28 images omitted. Click View Thread to read.
Barnaby Heshfare - Wed, 11 Jul 2018 23:20:21 EST yG540JtQ No.209397 Reply
1531365621421.jpg -(717699B / 700.88KB, 683x900) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
Of the post linked to, in >>209396 about ecopsychology, the quote:
>"To make contact with present reality, however, is also to confront the painful feelings that are masked or numbed-out by our technological mode of living. So learning to collectively bear, find meaning in, and move through the suffering we inevitably uncover in the course of counterpractise is essential."
is supposed to have an endquote " at the end of the second sentence there.

>That could be group therapy, carthatic events like shows or protests, to take action, to attend carefully to relationships, symbolic rites of passage through different stages of our lives, and honor the growth or sacred unfolding of things, reconnecting with nature outside (the world) and inside (our self), whatever works and seems right.
is my attempt to summarize suggestions from a few pages with my own skew, which both miss plenty of unknown alternatives, to overcome society's overarching apathetic malaise.
Phyllis Covingbod - Thu, 12 Jul 2018 22:17:47 EST 2LwLwSlz No.209401 Reply
1531448267833.jpg -(47448B / 46.34KB, 575x768) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>Are you suggesting biological evolution and/or a technologically augmented human?
Definitely a both/and scenario. Although once we start changing our own genome Darwinian forces will act on us on a higher order, I think ultimately we will become more, rather than less, responsive to it. I think human evolution will definitely eventually go the way of merger with the machine, but one not necessarily need think that to believe that as we evolve we will have to become more integrated with our environment, whether as organic, synthetic, or hybrid beings.

>> many of those societies don't view the world as something to control with the right to subjugate it.
Agreed, however, I think we can also see from the history of interaction between peoples at different modes of production (i.e. between hunter-gatherers and agriculturalists, agriculurtalists and industrialists, etc.) that there is a convergent trend in human societies to an 'othering' mode of consciousness, primarily because of the uni-directional nature of technological progress. Even as pre-linguistic hunter gatherers, we might not have had the idea that we had unlimited right to use the land, but for example we believed often that our use of fire was endorsed divinely, and so spread a technology that (minutely by today's standards, but still measurably) set our species on a collision course with environmental calamity (agriculture and the fertility gods of the fertile crescent and its subsequent collapse being another good example.)

However, clearly some myths are better than other to inculcate positive values. Nature abhors a vacuum, and in a valueless system people will cling to the things that provide the cheapest return on their value reward system. It's the responsibility of people who can see the danger in this to instill a positive value system -- even if it means broaching the icky topic of instilling myths (in the ideological, rather than conspiratorial, sense.)

But definitely not exclusively a western phenomena, agreed. The modern west is just the most egregious example in the most advanced stage of a civilization undergoing this process, which is most likely universal.

>> I've gotten that impression during hallucinogenic experiences
FWIW, (and having had the same myself) people have had similar impressions without the aid of hallucinogens, so hopefully there is some truth to it.

>>Wont there always be a divide of self though? The physical separation of our skin from the environment and nothing more...
For human (as in h. sapiens) consciousness, probably yes, definitely. The experience of separation is intrinsic to the perception of the ego, and is a physical structure of the brain that is always there to eventually bring it back, unless it is somehow permanently destroyed (there are interesting head trauma cases related to this.) However I don't think it is an essential condition of consciousness as such, so I think it is not a universal condition. The fact that you can subdue the awareness of this through phenomena like meditation, or hallucinogens, or head trauma, suggest to me that the perception of the distinct self, while undeniably useful in many circumstances, is just another mental program our brains evolved as a survival mechanism, and that often we are at our best when we can turn that perception off and see our connection with the greater whole.

Nowadays, the best ways of accomplishing that are either societal engineering like you're suggesting, which is always difficult because you're trying to induce a new state of consciousness in society while the old one is still in effect, or are methods only useful briefly and are dangerous or difficult, like drugs or mental techniques. In a future where one can program one's own brain state, through nanomachines or advanced drugs or genetic engineering or whatever, one could still be 'human', and yet have absolute control over that sense of self, rather than being beholden to it more or less as we are in our present state. This will naturally facilitate other improvements (although it carries its own dangers, like everything.)

Still, your general point absolutely stands. Without some kind of intervention, human society will always be subject to the divide of self.

>> carthatic events like shows or protests, to take action, [etc]
I think this will be a key part of the revival of …
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
Cyril Wipperfield - Fri, 13 Jul 2018 04:31:20 EST yG540JtQ No.209406 Reply
1531470680674.jpg -(497230B / 485.58KB, 900x658) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>Even as pre-linguistic hunter gatherers, we might not have had the idea that we had unlimited right to use the land, but for example we believed often that our use of fire was endorsed divinely, and so spread a technology that (minutely by today's standards, but still measurably) set our species on a collision course with environmental calamity (agriculture and the fertility gods of the fertile crescent and its subsequent collapse being another good example.)
First Nations people used controlled fires to clear brush for growing crops in the wild. Even with technologically limited human people (by our present day standards) specialized and knew how to utilize their environment with the tools available to them, yet had a harmonious understanding of how and why to live as a part of nature.

Collapse is a great book studying past civilizations' factors that led to their calamity. Often it is from a sudden lack unsustaining of a concentration of people. Throughout history civilizations have risen and fallen and within the gaps of knowledge as to why, are many potential reasons. Perhaps revolt, or starvation, and/or migration, certainly a severing of trade (or transportation) of one's necessities.

I'll have to mull over other points, but:
>Nowadays, the best ways of accomplishing that are either societal engineering like you're suggesting, which is always difficult because you're trying to induce a new state of consciousness in society while the old one is still in effect, or are methods only useful briefly and are dangerous or difficult, like drugs or mental techniques.
I think of a heightened state of awareness and altered mode of perspective, or whatever, (sober) in relation to our way of life and other ways of life, is an individual path people choose to follow. Not something you can engineer in people, as if we're not unique with our own realized and unknown self right now. I don't think technology can reveal this awareness or perspective, the same way thinking will.


View Thread Reply
- Thu, 12 Jul 2018 07:12:24 EST VGeeHEV+ No.209399
File: 1531393944776.jpg -(70633B / 68.98KB, 586x680) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. trans
i posted this on /b/ earlier but the thread got locked after a few minutes so i'm coming here

basically i just spent most of yesterday reading articles about transgenderism as a whole

i had a negative perception of the whole thing before but i now realize that the fact that this mess has been allowed to attain the least bit of mainstrean acceptance and credibility is a downright travesty
this is not a medical mistake at the magnitude of lobotomy
it's way worse and if we don't stop this soon thousands of insecure and mentally ill youth will experience a horrible death at the hand of themselves, helped by the legions of psychologists and surgeons who are willing to ignore studies on the subject that very clearly paints a picture of transpeople as having severe psychological problems that will persist even after SRS

before today I thought that it was ok to call transpeople "freaks" and ridicule them
not anymore as i realize doing so would only fuel their movement which i now know has to be stopped at all costs

SRS needs to be banned asap as does transgenderism being classified as anything but the mental illness gender dysphoria

these people (most of whom grow out of this as long as they aren't encouraged to destroy their own bodies) are in dire need of psychiatric help
1 posts omitted. Click View Thread to read.
Phyllis Covingbod - Thu, 12 Jul 2018 22:42:25 EST 2LwLwSlz No.209403 Reply
Dear low quality troll, you have just demonstrated to yourself how easy it is to radicalize yourself reading propaganda that is designed specifically to radicalize you. This is apparently what you are railing against in others...even though you are admitting it is what you just did to yourself.

>>severe psychological problems that will persist even after SRS
people who have open heart surgery still have severe cardiac problems that persist after surgery. Where do you get this idea that a therapy for a problem removes a problem completely?

>>are in dire need of psychiatric help
As a rule, those who make it to SRS have already received hundreds if not thousands of hours of psychiatric help. They're the ones who recommend the procedure. Maybe you should do some research not from totally biased sources so you can at least know what the fuck you're talking about before you declare your little jihad?

It's a good thing society doesn't turn on your little imaginary crusades, because nothing is going to reverse the state of medical care for trans people, and even political attempts to stall progress are faltering in the 'last, best hope' for close-minded reactionaries, 'Murkur, where shadows fall...
Cyril Wipperfield - Fri, 13 Jul 2018 03:57:56 EST yG540JtQ No.209405 Reply
>>209399 My sole thought is of all there is to focus on in the world, why this?
Sophie Beshbedging - Sat, 21 Jul 2018 07:44:15 EST 4+oWREai No.209413 Reply
You're stupid. That's the only reply that you deserve. Get lost.

Rape is an equivalent crime to adultery

View Thread Reply
- Mon, 02 Jul 2018 20:02:42 EST jcTfBHx5 No.209306
File: 1530576162738.jpg -(284750B / 278.08KB, 1051x951) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. Rape is an equivalent crime to adultery
On a primal psychological and biological level, rape takes away a woman's right to choose the genes of her mate while adultery takes away a man's right to choose who he provides resources for. Most women (and men for that matter) consider raping a woman to be a crime more heinous than murder. Most men consider getting stallioned as their biggest fear. In both cases, these are crimes of an evolutionary nature. It explains why women get so traumatized when they're raped, while it's just standard operating procedure for men in prison. It also explains why men typically seem to care far more about their woman cheating than vice-versa.

Rape has the added element of verbal or physical coercion, that's true. But we already have laws for that: assault and battery. We don't have a separate law for, say, coercing someone to eat a bunch of eggs. The only case in which we do this is when physical threats/violence are used to gain access to a woman's holes because deep down, we all know that is their most valuable possession. Moreover, for all intents and purposes (and in some countries in the actual letter of the law) rape is a crime that can only be perpetrated on women.

Yet look at how adultery is treated in America. It's legal in all 50 states, while rape carries not just legal punishments, but can effectively destroy your entire life if you so much as get accused of this. Consider if the roles were reverse. How would you feel if women got imprisoned for committing rape while a guy who sleeps around just has slightly more streamlined divorce proceedings? Seems silly right?

I'm not saying rape is in any way a good thing. But we need to either bring back the criminal penalties for divorce or remove the penalties for rape (while solidifying the penalties for coercion) because the way it is now simply isn't just.
43 posts and 20 images omitted. Click View Thread to read.
Albert Nicklebanks - Sun, 08 Jul 2018 21:30:27 EST 2LwLwSlz No.209360 Reply
Essentially, are the majority of rapes rape for it's own ends, or rape for the purpose of inflicting trauma?

I'd be inclined to think the former, as people are more likely to be merely greedy and careless about the boundaries of others than truly sociopathic. But there's probably some concrete data on this.
Thomas Hammerwater - Sun, 08 Jul 2018 23:28:44 EST ogjfl7YN No.209361 Reply
>Essentially, are the majority of rapes rape for it's own ends, or rape for the purpose of inflicting trauma?

Well that's one set of questions, but the other is whether trauma itself is what makes rape difficult to report and get justice for.

I heard the point from Zizek that we authenticate guilt by detail, but we authenticate trauma by lack of detail. Ie, if someone calmly walks through the technical description of what happened to them, we emotionally distrust that narrative. However, if they are so overwhelmed by the experience that they can't even say what happened, there is less evidence to go on.
Albert Nicklebanks - Mon, 09 Jul 2018 00:33:41 EST 2LwLwSlz No.209362 Reply
>>whether trauma itself is what makes rape difficult to report and get justice for.
Possibly, and quite probably, but I'm not sure it would be the biggest contributor to the underreporting -- I imagine that would be shame, and fear that one would not be taken seriously (thus sociological rather than psychological reasons.)

Consider for how much of human history (i.e. to this day in parts of the world) the victim of rape is murdered or otherwise ostracized, and even in the west, how quickly (frequently male) police will go to the 'well what were you wearing? did you lead him on? How many drinks did you have?' angle. Women in particular are socialized to minimize the discomfort of others by taking up as little space as possible, which also certainly contributes both to their lack of being taken seriously and the belief that they won't be taken seriously, a vicious cycle.

It would probably take a very carefully designed and complex study to suss out exactly how much of the underreporting each of these factors contributes to, though.


View Thread Reply
- Fri, 13 Apr 2018 16:34:14 EST YBVc1XtN No.209081
File: 1523651654247.jpg -(642101B / 627.05KB, 1000x667) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. COLLEGE
The US is fucking its economy by putting students in debt to get useless educations.

I don't believe college is worthless, and I even think there's value in the arts and humanities. HOWEVER, at least 3/4 of the colleges in the US are bad or in low standing, so if you get anything other than a technical degree from those schools, it's literally useless.

For example, 8/24 colleges in Colorado have degrees of any value, and 20/84 colleges in Massachusetts are worthwhile.

The United States should only keep open the quarter of its schools that provide valuable degrees in the arts or humanities. The other 3/4 should be shut down, or converted to either technical or trade schools.
4 posts omitted. Click View Thread to read.
Edward Mollytedge - Thu, 03 May 2018 09:55:24 EST MdrXzUYs No.209170 Reply
1525355724417.jpg -(76981B / 75.18KB, 500x449) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
The pursuit of knowledge for the sake of knowledge is a noble cause.

That said we have a serious problem in America where most jobs require a college degree and still don't pay a living wage. Even in the stem field there are plenty of shit pay jobs. And if everyone just switched over to a stem major tomorrow all that would do is run down the wages of stem jobs. That's why silicon valley is pushing coding education so hard, because once everyone learns the basics of coding in middle school, suddenly it's not that unique of a skill.

Education should be free, anyone who works a full week should earn a living wage and rent should be illegal.
Clara Turveywater - Wed, 06 Jun 2018 19:47:47 EST t87tpTXY No.209288 Reply
>Education should be free
>Anyone who works a full week should earn a living wage
>Rent should be illegal

While we're at it...

>Access to medical treatment should be free - US healthcare is double what most other developed countries pay, and yet all other developed countries provide healthcare as a human right
>Loans should be regulated and required by law to be interest-free, as Lybia had made things before we destroyed their country
>Universal Basic Income - all the money goes to the rich, and the wealth gap continues to widen - redistribute the money to the poor masses

And to the prototypical conservative or neoliberal, who would ask, "where is the money going to come from?"...

The DoD's own investigative branch found that $24,000,000,000,000 (trillion) went missing from the US in 2015, enough money to provide all of the shit outlined above for over a decade. Add to that that most of our tax dollars go to crooked subsidies (corn, sugar, oil) and war companies, who encourage genocide in countries like Yemen, and it's clear that the money is available.
Basil Dennerfoot - Wed, 06 Jun 2018 20:11:15 EST 2LwLwSlz No.209291 Reply
Add to that the fact that money is a made up human contrivance for coordinating behavior and it's clear. We throw away more food than needed by people starving. We have more unsold houses than homeless people. If we don't even have the capability to feed, clothe, and shelter ourselves, then what is the point of all this excess? The illusory promises of capitalism are slowly killing the planet.

Are we at a turning point?

View Thread Reply
- Sun, 29 Apr 2018 17:50:52 EST 4YtPS+TM No.209151
File: 1525038652283.jpg -(72194B / 70.50KB, 633x758) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. Are we at a turning point?
11 posts and 2 images omitted. Click View Thread to read.
Phineas Wittingfuck - Wed, 09 May 2018 15:47:58 EST Irsa/pK4 No.209190 Reply
yeah dude, and if kids have more time to run around in general then they will definitely stil be able to find and meet other kids and form friendships.

when kids are herded together, it reduces the incentive to be sociable, hence technology addiction and all thr stupid habits that go with it.

A number of the coolest motherfuckers in history were home schooled. Kierkegaard for example grew up learning from his dad just looking and walking around Copenhagen.
Betsy Chankinhood - Sat, 12 May 2018 22:32:55 EST 9Tl5h2ty No.209210 Reply
Also the worst of the inept assholes tend to be homeschooled. If your parents are cool and they homeschool you, then fine, but if they are assholes and homeschool you, you dont get the chance of being that one kid in the family who left the westboro baptist church.


View Thread Reply
- Wed, 29 Nov 2017 19:54:41 EST f7VKYGuq No.208552
File: 1512003281885.jpg -(157533B / 153.84KB, 780x800) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. Compassion
Rejecting any and all forms of transgenderism is an act of compassion.

If a person announces they are going to kill themselves, the compassionate action is NOT to allow them to continue. The compassionate action is to prevent them and help them no longer humor that idea. The same for trans individuals. Hormones are a direct assault on one's genetics. That is a slow form a suicide.
Mental illness is to be treated and compassionately guided.
76 posts and 8 images omitted. Click View Thread to read.
Molly Drusslechare - Fri, 18 May 2018 11:27:35 EST V8N/5kWg No.209216 Reply
>Fucking closet fags. The whole lotta those alt-right neonazi wankers.
Yeah it's no secret anymore just how much of the far right mindset is motivated by sexual pathology.

cuties, gays, stallionoldry, interracial sex, BBC, pimps, MGTOW, PUAs, alpha/beta mentality, obsessing over testosterone levels, fear that soybeans will steal your masculinity, arguing about the age of consent, obsessing over little anime girls, pedo pizza party conspiracies...

It sure is ""suspicious"" how so much of the political animus of these people seems to always come back to weird sexual hangups.
William Donderkidge - Sat, 26 May 2018 01:33:52 EST ogjfl7YN No.209222 Reply
Well, how else would you be able to recruit horny teenage retards who can't get laid?
Eliza Mirringshit - Mon, 04 Jun 2018 18:27:06 EST 2LwLwSlz No.209280 Reply
Hey man, as if it weren't obvious enough that you are trying to troll every thread in this board like the immigrant 4skin scum you are, did you really have to post a variation of the same pic in every one?

It's low energy and depressingly pathetic. Are you low t? I assume so because otherwise your smooth brain would realize that saying "X Ys are Xs now" (femi nazis are nazis now) is so circular it's tautological. Maybe if you weren't such a beta you could see how weak your reasoning is. Plz stay out of the way of the chads actually running the world k thnx bye.

Holism Fractalism

View Thread Reply
- Fri, 01 Jun 2018 11:28:45 EST pEHNHTp/ No.209257
File: 1527866925305.jpg -(465583B / 454.67KB, 2153x1136) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. Holism Fractalism
**i. Introduction**
I tried to make a link elsewhere between Lambda Calculus and computational thinking and what that means in regards to our existence. This triangulation led to Philosophical Lambda (a personal interpretation of Lambda Calculus with regards to existence). Philosophical Lambda is supposed to be a system like Lambda Calculus but a bit informal and with different symbols; but with similar principles behind everything and with SETS! Its purpose is mainly to illustrate an idea and so its a bit superficial.

The link between Lambda Calculus and existentialism was made through Descartes’ cogito

**ii. Cogito**

In cogito, Descartes states, “I think, therefore I am.” Thus, tying his ability to think logically to his existence. Meaning that thinking, including the ability to doubt, is used by Descartes as proof of existence. Or rather, proof of certainty. Descartes can doubt or trivialize everything as inessential except for the ability to think. He seeks to establish certainty with this line of thinking.

I would also say that playing music is a form of proving your existence. And dancing. And drawing. But thinking proves existence in a more intellectually-stimulating kind of way.

I’m going to interweave prose (these words here) with symbols that carry within them the logic behind prose (philosophical lambda (ΦΛ)). Thus, “I think, therefore I am” can be said in symbolic logic as:

I think → I am (If I think, then I am)

Since we can frame it in formal logic, we can also frame it in Philosophical Lambda. This is the portal we use to connect everything.

When Descartes reached the conclusion “I am,” he basically said “I can doubt everything and anything except that I am.” Again, trying to reach certainty.

Let’s dip our toes in some of that Philosophical Lambda with introducing sets.

Let’s create a set of what is “I”:

I = [culture, language, race, sex, gender, arms, legs, torso, brain, thought….etc]????

We can say that “I” is a set that is composed of our culture, our language, our race, our sex, our gender, our body parts, out thoughts, etc.

Descartes said that we can remove everything from inside that set except for thought, since “I” only exist as a thought. Thus:

I = [thought(thinking)]
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.

Better alternative

View Thread Reply
- Tue, 08 May 2018 21:23:25 EST Irsa/pK4 No.209180
File: 1525829005146.jpg -(19154B / 18.71KB, 189x267) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. Better alternative
Its evident that anyone who initiates themselves into contemporary United States politics will effectively have no self-agency at all. Notice how Bernard Sanders was brought down and how the obstensively bright Elizabeth Warren is simply ignored and it goes without saying the Republican party is a perverse cabal.

So how can anyone be expected to have confidence in new leadership branded by either group when these impressionable, and desperate, folks must submit to party lines without deviation?

There remains nothing inspiring at all to be witnessed in contemporary United States politics. I have the impression whatever faceless dipshits either party would round up for the next cycle effectively have zero testicles.

My point is, they’re coming for us again, so what exactly gives them any credit whatsoever c o m p a r e d t o a new party, possibly a coalition of defectors, who would be capable of ushering in some delicious innovation?

I presume its been attempted before, even so given the current state of things, they have simply not done it right.
14 posts omitted. Click View Thread to read.
Thomas Blambleham - Sat, 12 May 2018 14:36:58 EST Irsa/pK4 No.209208 Reply
1526150218750.jpg -(69380B / 67.75KB, 500x454) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
You may be correct though many people need food right now.

Government subsidies can establish agricultural practices like you have described.

Indeed we wont need hillbilly farmers anymore if greenhouse projects are established. In fact, such farms may become public institutions.

However, its necessary to have people take care of and raise the crops. If the general public is so inclined, there may be no difficulty finding people willing to participate.
Phineas Summerfeg - Sat, 12 May 2018 22:14:11 EST 2LwLwSlz No.209209 Reply
1526177651067.jpg -(151037B / 147.50KB, 1080x578) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
So many of the problems we have in the world today wouldn't exist if we had superior technology. Many of the things we fervently debate are made completely irrelevant by certain technologies, and most people don't seem to deny this point. So my question is, why don't people just focus on increasing the rate of technological progress as the most expedient political philosophy in general?
For example, why debate endlessly between capitalism and communism when we all know that post-scarcity manufacturing would make both obsolete and most people seem to agree it is possible and imminent?

It's like being fervently committed to a side in horses vs mules for moving carriages when you already know Benz is in the workshop putting together the first automobile. Why isn't everyone able to see the writing on the wall, say 'fuck horses AND mules' and go see if Benz needs a hand?
Esther Hengerhidge - Sun, 13 May 2018 02:39:34 EST Irsa/pK4 No.209211 Reply
1526193574041.jpg -(251521B / 245.63KB, 914x1280) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
You are correct. However we must consider the consequences of such progress.
For one, we must consider the finitude of certain resources. Oil us an example of a soon to be extinct resource. So what then of essentials like food?

This is why comprehensive studies and reviews are necessary of topography, seasons, and weather patterns. The public may participate if they can. Communal farming can be made possible on a grand scale with technological advancement, and our common man can be employed at such farms to maintain, grow, and harvest. However, this would require subsidies, which is undeniably possible provided the public is enabled and Monsanto does not interfere.

Politic Board

View Thread Reply
- Sun, 04 Mar 2018 10:10:22 EST pq+VuhoO No.208893
File: 1520176222269.jpg -(17989B / 17.57KB, 470x264) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. Politic Board
Havent been on here in years? Anyone know what happened to /pol/?
37 posts and 6 images omitted. Click View Thread to read.
Phoebe Turveyhall - Sat, 28 Apr 2018 11:06:29 EST SGCbMw+u No.209142 Reply
Yeah cus a bunch of retards from /pol/ came here. Like /pol/ was literally where we quarantined the commies and politically active/politically retarded children, but then Spunky just haaaaad to start secretly banning literally every right-wing poster on /pol/ like a fascist dick, and then some of them went crying to 4-chin saying ‘hey let’s go to 420chan pol and troll these alt-left fascists that keep banning right-wing thought’ and then /pol/ became the worst cesspool it’s ever been and was deleted. And now the entire 420chan now has to deal with the faggots usually contained in /pol/ and they’re going to /pss/ and /b/ and shit.
Hugh Sushshit - Wed, 02 May 2018 16:36:09 EST 4+oWREai No.209166 Reply
What really happened was people that go to sad-chan found this website and simply posted the vile they tend to post elsewhere. That vile isn't welcome here, so the bans were more than justified. The posts, over 90% of the time, went into the quackery and race baiting garbage you'd expect from orange-chan.

So because we had a political board with the same exact tagname from orange-chan, it often tended towards attracting their ilk and then they would spill over to the rest of the site. It was attracting alt-right/lite nutjobs; They didn't like getting banned so they took out their grief on the rest of the site.
Charles Pellersodging - Wed, 02 May 2018 17:09:26 EST kon48sdM No.209167 Reply
Yeah, as has been said many times ITT, faggots from 4chan and cripplechan mistakenly believe that all chan's will put up with their shit.

Most people don't actually have the kind of cognitive dissonance required to waste hours on end watching anime, playing video games and beating it to traps and tentacle porn while at the same time believing they have some moral conservative high ground.

I never let it get to me though. It's awful rich being called a "degenerate" for being bi and doing drugs by someone who never went to college, lives with their parents at age 25, masturbates 5 times a day and pisses in bottles.

"In a real fourth Reich you'll be the first to go" and all that.

dont hurt me

View Thread Reply
- Wed, 11 Apr 2018 19:13:03 EST cR5+dCK2 No.209072
File: 1523488383497.jpg -(8916B / 8.71KB, 480x360) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. dont hurt me
what is love?

I am kind of stuck with what I interpreted as a Nietzschean conception of Love. So basically in terms of determinate desire and full mutual power over the other.

Where am exploring right now but its hard to find anything is the phenomenology of love. What also would be interesting is a kind of history of love where one could see how malleable the conception is
3 posts omitted. Click View Thread to read.
Phineas Dipperway - Wed, 18 Apr 2018 10:07:15 EST T1mjyx/4 No.209121 Reply
there so many way to approach that shit. When I said power over the other its kind of one determines the others identity and ditto. how this happens no clue.

Think anybody this deep into philosophy to answer such a question is either anti social, dilluted by self imposed philosophcial dogma or doesnt think its worth exploring cuz its derivable from implicit statments from other philosophers
Phoebe Turveyhall - Sat, 28 Apr 2018 11:20:02 EST SGCbMw+u No.209148 Reply
OP, I think the issue with love is I think a lot of people love wrong. Plain and simple. They’re too stupid and too trapped within societal expectation to love properly. Hell, the vast majority of people who ‘loved’ me in my life all loved out of fear and selfishness. I didn’t care for it. Love stemming from fear and selfishness is disgusting. I only take part in love that stems from passion and altruism. And I’ve never been happier or more romantically/sexually active. And yes, I have multiple partners. I don’t care, and neither do they, because we’re not afraid nor selfish toward one another.
Cornelius Subblepet - Sun, 29 Apr 2018 22:03:49 EST brei4qhw No.209153 Reply
I think we could pare down the scope of debate if you would specify what kind of love we are talking about. As I'm sure you know the Greeks had several words for love;
are we talking about eros? Erotic, sexual love? (It seems so from the general discussion)
are we talking about philiae? Companionate love?
Or are we talking about love in a more abstract, universal sense? Like agape?

The only thing the different feelings have in common is the quality of the emotion they bring up, so to really analyze their causes and effects I think we need to specify particular types.

Am I wrong to be pissed off about reductionism in rhetoric?

View Thread Reply
- Mon, 09 Apr 2018 22:17:38 EST VhdWon+z No.209054
File: 1523326658031.png -(249250B / 243.41KB, 500x491) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. Am I wrong to be pissed off about reductionism in rhetoric?
Can- can I just through this out here while I'm baked enough to do so.

Am I an asshole for getting legitimately intellectually pissed off when I see some fucking reductionist bullshit either in Political news or otherwise?

I ultimately understand that from a "ethical" standpoint I should let people believe "that which they wish to" but when it's so fucking stupid and either morally or factually too simplistic or out of context or talking cross purposes or using logical fallacies or literally any god dam thing any rational person can think of.

Am I WRONG for getting actually "annoyed" on an intellectual level, not a personal one? I've studied, I'm read, I'm in college, I've suffered the bullshit of academia, I've been in this since BEFORE 2016. So- am- am I wrong to be insulted?
5 posts and 1 images omitted. Click View Thread to read.
Henry Blorringway - Mon, 16 Apr 2018 16:09:57 EST KdSY7mf7 No.209103 Reply
OP means 'sophistry' when he says 'reductionism.' He does explain what's wrong with sophists, which everyone should already know.
Jack Nattingsutch - Mon, 16 Apr 2018 21:41:38 EST VhdWon+z No.209105 Reply
I did.

Ish. Sophistry- as I understand it, implies that the argument is plausible. I have no issues with arguments that can be described as "incomplete" what I do, more specifically, have issues with are arguments which begin with an overly simplistic understanding of the subject matter (read: literally anything) and then proceed through the argument.
Phoebe Turveyhall - Sat, 28 Apr 2018 11:15:09 EST SGCbMw+u No.209146 Reply
OP, the less info and the less complexity used to argue something, the less logical it is. Reductionism always leads to greater illogic, always. Ever heard of Occam’s Razor? It’s ugly and everyone abuses it to win arguments.

God should be VAC b&

View Thread Reply
- Tue, 06 Feb 2018 12:54:26 EST xc7CY0zb No.208664
File: 1517939666716.jpg -(152017B / 148.45KB, 1920x1200) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. God should be VAC b&
God is a concept that defies logic and language.
30 posts and 6 images omitted. Click View Thread to read.
William Hebbletid - Thu, 19 Apr 2018 07:53:10 EST 8gq7GAVV No.209131 Reply
>alue claim about the goodness of home, food, and drink

No you fucking retard. That's not a value claim. That's simply a physical necessity of your biological existence. You need a safe clean place to sleep, clean yourself and expel waste for your health, and you need food and drink to continue your existence. There is nothing to discuss on those points, they are cold hard biological facts.
You can go say "yeah but let's discuss the value claim on food and drink and sleep, but that's fucking bullshit because without it you fucking die a horrible death.

You have got a point on the second one, but it's only a slight point. Following dreams does require some philosophical thought on value, meaning etc. in a universe that lacks these. But you still don't need religion for any of those.
Lydia Hecklekick - Thu, 19 Apr 2018 11:33:28 EST bz58Upde No.209132 Reply
Jesus why do you have to be so vitriolic. Here's my advice to you; stop doing a bunch of coke before you log onto /pss./ Pack exactly one marijuana, put it to your lips, ignite, and inhale before you post again.

>>That's not a value claim.
Yes, it is. I'm sorry this degenerated into Philo 101 but actually it's you who should be sorry so not really. It might be an extremely basic value claim that almost everyone would readily assent to without any argument, but that doesn't change the fact that it is a value claim. Did you never learn to analyze which parts of a philosophical statement are claims? (Have you never even been in an actual philosophy class? It's ok I won't tell.) If I were a nihilist, I would argue that it is an unwarranted leap to claim that you can ascribe 'goodness' to things that are intrinsically meaningless and only lengthen the amount of time you suffer before dying. And if those statements weren't philosophical value claims and I said that, you would literally have no recourse to defend your opinion. So you better damn well hope they are value claims!

If you want to follow this idea to a deeper level (and I don't mean you, because you will sperg out on some minor misplaced turn of phrase and never actually engage the substance of my comments, but I mean anyone else who may be reading) you could say that sentient (not sapient) life itself must make a value claim even in order to maintain biological existence. What I mean is, a cell maintains homeostasis completely instinctually...instinctual isn't even the right word as it doesn't really have discrete behaviors, it just exists and its various organelles operate. So it does not need to have the opinion that it is 'good' for it to continue eating to survive.
But, as soon as something has a brain stem big enough to coordinate complex behaviors and select between them, every living organism on earth must, at a fundamental, pre-verbal level, assent to the idea that it's daily quest for food is 'good'; it's neuronal pathways balance and coordinate desires and output from different brain regions to select the food seeking behavior over others. But it doesn't always happen this way. Sometimes, for various reasons, an animal will refuse to eat and starve. Even without making a claim about animal consciousness, we can say that the neuronal pathways of the animal in question altered their philosophical opinion about the value of food, thus even for animals these aren't just 'cold hard biological facts;' the idea that food is good, that life is good, is something that the information processing capacity of life constantly weighs out, and occasionally rejects. It's not a given, there's nothing intrinsic about life that says it *has* to seek survival (many organisms fundamentally fail to survive) so the claim that survival or any of the things necessary to it is a given that doesn't constitute a value claim is false.

>>does require some philosophical thought on value, meaning etc. in a universe that lacks these. But you still don't need religion for any of those.
To say that something has value and meaning we have to reach into the branch of philosophy that is metaphysics. We cannot get it from physics (using these terms in their Platonic distinctions.) And we're back to my earlier claim that you ignored that 'religion is metaphysics for the masses.' All religions are watered down metaphysical ideologies pre-packaged for mass consumption. Now that doesn't mean they are all equally valid or good, and the vast majority of them aren't. But if you say religion is useless as such, then you're basically saying metaphysical thinking is useless as such, which means you can only be a logically atomistic materialistic reductionist or else a nihilist, as all other philosophical stances become incoherent without metaphysics or are forced to hide their metaphysics in different places and claim that's not what it is.

Everything you are saying is in defense of some bullshit you claimed earlier which was clearly indefensible, and you were just hoping it wouldn't come up and you wouldn't actually have to defend it by chesting up and acting goofy. Essentially in order for us to be talking about the same thing and for you to win this argument you have to prove both that you don't use metaph…
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
Phoebe Turveyhall - Sat, 28 Apr 2018 11:09:50 EST SGCbMw+u No.209144 Reply
>OP thinks humans are rational
There’s the giant hole in your argument, OP. Humans just believe whatever the fuck they want to believe.

Report Post
Please be descriptive with report notes,
this helps staff resolve issues quicker.