/philosophy/ - Philosophy

>>6552

Elaborate

>>6566

The OP is merely a pseudointellectual advocation of solipsism. The furthest one could get from subjective != objective (there is always a less pompous word that yet captures the same meaning of the statement in every possible meaningful way. qualiaty of thought > authority by obscurity) is not knowing whether there is an objective world - not knowledge grasped magically from the ether that there is no objective world.

>>6807

Is your argument that ontology contains all of metaphysics?

>>6816

That isn't my argument but would seem to be the case lest someone provide an example of otherwise.

>>5969

That's my nigga.

1. Rene Guenon

2. Thomas Aquinas

3. Blaise Pascal

>>545

1. Wilde

2. Stirner

3. Epicurus

>>5684

Imagine an entire wall of writes about bump

I hate theoretical history but honestly we would likely be harvesting the energy of our sun by now, if humans only respected such a treasure now lost setting us back probably 10,000 years.

>>1873

All of Aristotle's dialogues (yes, Aristotle wrote dialogues which were said by Cicero to be better than Plato's), and La Comedia were lost in the destruction of the Library. His lecture notes are all we have.

>>6846

we are now harvestign energy of sun...

>>1845

The early Christians destroyed the last of the books. Edward Gibbon wrote about how they burned them all because they thought some contained occult books or paganism. Christians created the dark ages.

>Twitch

Isn't Cytube more of 8chan's streaming platform?

I just want to comment that the religious boards like Islam and Christian are very censor happy, and fly against the original spirit of 8chan as a place of no censorship and very few rules. They're not indicative of the core idea of image boards which is freedom.

>>6746

/tv/ misses all 4 points.

>What ideas are they fundamentally based on?

anonymity

>How best is an image board operated? e.g. In terms of moderation, its culture, and what it generally does.

baning nonvirgins, flooders, cancer, spamers, advertisers

>And finally, what should the purpose or end result of an image board be?

pleasure

these could all make great flags

>>1759

>>1758

That is neither anthropocentrism nor collectivism

Interesting

>minimalism

>mr. agnostic, do tou believe in God?

>no

Reminder agnosticism does not exist and religion is on or off

>>6543

what if I answered the question "I don't know."?

>inb4 someone contests that I can't disagree with "established" epistemology

>Well, I can, and I don't. Nor does what you've read on wikipedia or from any atheist 'philosopher' constitute epistemology. The "science" is never "settled" so to speak, unless you're an idiot.

The problem is that by the looks of things you haven't even studied epistemology. Feel free to disagree with others in epistemology, but don't act like you can just ignore the major issues in epistemology and expect to be taken seriously.

For example, you haven't put forward clear definitions of the terms you are using. For example, do you hold the position that knowledge must be infallible or do you think that information gathered by a generally reliable means can be considered knowledge?

Without giving a detailed explanation of what you mean by 'knowing' something as opposed to believing in it, it isn't even possible to start a conversation on the distinction between gnostic and agnostic belief.

>>6702

Got'em

>>6620

I would say that your definition of a human’s biological makeup is too myopic. With our current knowledge of evolution, it is apparent that everything about every organic being, all actions, desires and urges (conscious or subconscious) have been programmed into the creature

via the principle of natural selection, so that traits which favour the survival of a species are passed down through the generations. This doesn’t simply mean the obvious biological urges - procreation, eating etc. It means the absolute totality of the being ultimately works to increase the probability of the survival of the species long-term, in the environment in which it evolved.

So essentially humans are born with an idiosycratic programming of different motivations, which, when summed across the species as a whole, benefit the continued propagation of that species. This means that a human motivation may only benefit the continued existence of a single human in a very specific scenario at one point or another. But because it was ultimately a positive, it remained in the gene pool. So at all other times where this motivation emerged, it seems useless or counterintuitive. But there’s only one reason why it’s there in the first place: it increases the probability of the propagation of the species. I call these motivations that emerge in a counterintuitive fashion imprecise motivations.

I think what I’m saying will make alot more sense with some examples. Let’s take a suicidal person (I can relate). When someone jumps off a bridge, we wonder how humans can be driven by the will to continue existing. However, let’s think about the motivations that drove the person to do this. Often the person has depression, a form of psychological pain which is a physiological response to perception of being on a lower strata in a dominance hierarchy (which means decreased probability of gene selection). This physiological system which causes depression evolved as a stimulus to prompt an individual to seek a way out of this potentially lethal situation (because they want to feel content/serotonin again). So the person seeks a way out of their pain. If the pain of the depression (which, as I just expPost too long. Click here to view the full text.

Fear comes from our lack of adaptability and understanding something similar.

eg. 1. We can fear trying new foods. You were raised to only eat western food you might feel fear to try food that doesn't look/smell like what you've adapted and understood.

2. You see a figure that is similar to a human but has an extended horror jawline, or like your pic. It's similar to humans what we're adapted and understanding of, yet from the differences it is hard to know for certain (doubt/fear)

3. Death, I say we fear death more in the western society because of the idea of keeping your physical body when you travel to the after life. What people fear is how there body is transported there and weather it is of their own volition.

Fear is about losing something you want to keep or gaining something you don’t.

>You need to know Y to appreciate X

That's a spook, boss.

>>6699

>banning anime

No.

>>6315

You Motherfucker

Moral relativism is moral nihilism. At any point, simply make a micro-culture that has the rules most advantageous to you at that moment.

>>871

Yes, but game theory can rescue most of the rules. Ironically, game theory meta-ethics is indeed sensitive to local culture. Game theory provides an objective function which spits out (non-moral) rules based on various inputs, which inputs basically boil down to 'what do you want, long term.'

>>876

>committing fallacies or outright lying to ourselves.

How do Aquinas/Aristotle do this?

If you are OK with modern-day ppl, you might give Stefan Molyneux (UPB) and Hans Hermann Hoppe (Argumentation ethics) a try.

Read Nietzsche, he doesn't specifically have "objective moral laws" but a general principle of "Affirming Life", which is pretty good