/lit/ - Literature

>>15290290
This QUEEN is literal porn for eurasian gentlemen like myself.

>>15290290

>>15290290
I hope these fuckers derail your thread for posting coomer bait faggot

>>15290333
Nigger I don't get it

>>15290386
It's irl jezebelposting. Imagine if somebody held up a picture of a hot babe to initiate a conversation totally unrelated to hot babes. This is what OP did.

>>15290436
Thank you for helping a retard like me.

>>15290290
>pic
Yes

>>15290290
These ones
>When I see a dog, what is the object of my perception?
>Can the concept of belief properly be applied to animals?
and
>‘There is always a sensible alternative to revolution.’ Discuss.
Sound the most interesting. Especially if the 3rd actually has to pose a concrete example of such an alternative and how it might attain the same aims as revolution

>>15290892
Thank you mate, I agree with you on the third one also as it can really be expanded upon from many different prespectives.
Would you say an animal having recognised ideas/intuitions through consistent patterns to be beliefs? Or would it explicitly mean beliefs in the form of abstract thought.
>>15290346 >>15290333
I apologise, I did it since it had annoyed me in the past seeing people do the same and having it work, but it was shitposty of me.

>>15290436
>tfw you realize that BEING a woman is irl jezebelposting

THEY "HOLD UP A PICTURE" OF THEMSELVES (THEY ARE TARTED UP WHORES) AND SAY INANE THINGS NOBODY CARES ABOUT, AND MEN LOOK AT THE PICTURE AND GIVE THEM ATTENTION/MONEY ANYWAY

FINALLY I UNDERSTAND, WOMEN ARE BAD

>>15290290
There's a few I like.. But I'd pick this one:
>What is the solution to the problem of mental causation?
And this one:
>Is virtue ethics a circular theory?

>>15290892
>When I see a dog, what is the object of my perception?
>‘There is always a sensible alternative to revolution.’ Discuss.

These are nice choices too.

>>15290290
>Titles
Those are questions, not titles.
Btw, what's this? A Levels in anglo bugman philosophy, right?

>>15290290
>>When I see a dog, what is the object of my perception?
>Do you know that there is an external world?
>Does the mere existence of the world show there must be a necessary being?
>How does the existence of evil pose a problem for the existence of God?
>Can the concept of belief properly be applied to animals?
>‘There is always a sensible alternative to revolution.’ Discuss.
>Are lies morally worse than bullshit?
>Is regulating against hate speech an acceptable restriction of free speech?
>'The state that follows life is no different from that which precedes it.' Discuss

No offense but most of these (and most of the questions you provided) are some borderline retarded topics with obvious but unpleasant answers.

>>15291248
Believe it or not most of these topics have been (and still are) discussed to extenuation.

>>15291248
Like what?

>>15290290
I'm a pseud but I would prefer
>When I see a dog, what is the object of my perception?
or
>Do you know that there is an external world?
because I could bullshit my way with some cognitive science and insights I got on mushrooms
and
>How should a Marxist interpret the principle of self-ownership?
because I could bullshit with some Marxist theory

This picture break my heart, I hate it.

>>15291309
>>15291331
>>>When I see a dog, what is the object of my perception?
The manifestation of light hitting the physical body of the dog being interpreted by your sensory organs that allow you to know that the dog's physical body exists in the physical space.
>>Do you know that there is an external world?
Yes because your brain is inherently programmed to instinctively try to survive and avoid suffering and death, therefore it would not simulate any manner of danger or discomfort towards itself unless it suffers of a pathology such as schizophrenia. The world your senses perceive is natural because it goes against your instincts frequently, daily.
>>Does the mere existence of the world show there must be a necessary being?
Not necessarily a living being or a "supernatural" manifestation, but everything that exists originates from something that has existed before and every effect needs an originating cause
>>How does the existence of evil pose a problem for the existence of God?
It doesn't because an omnipotent being such as a God does not need to be moral, and there is no objective way to assert that God is not amoral, immoral or even evil.
>>Can the concept of belief properly be applied to animals?
Monkeys have been introduced to the concept of money before, dolphins and prairie dogs have a whole language of their own, and the simple hierarchies and symbolic positions in them are all forms of belief.
>>‘There is always a sensible alternative to revolution.’ Discuss.
There is and it is called Gradualism, Minarchism or attempts at changing the Estate from within, which are invariably stunted by the Estate's natural progression towards exponential growth, and are inferior to revolution in attaining their goals fast enough, however less liable to end in despotism as most revolutions turn out.
>>Are lies morally worse than bullshit?
Yes because they attack the root of a belief and transform it into something that it is not, while "bullshit" (which I am interpreting as being a false understanding of something) is merely an attempt at grasping something's true form without putting in the work of trying to learn and understand it.
>>Is regulating against hate speech an acceptable restriction of free speech?
No because the speech is either free or it isn't. Hate speech is necessary for civilizations so their members can tell who does and who doesn't expose hateful beliefs. If hate speech and vehemently forbidden, the Estate believes it is somehow changing human nature through shallow legalisms, but it is merely hiding the vehicle for one to expose what one truly thinks
>>'The state that follows life is no different from that which precedes it.' Discuss
In which we can not even know what they entail, and as far as all facts and evidence show they are more likely both states of non-existence, they are entirely similar as far as we understand it.

>>15291018
>Would you say an animal having recognised ideas/intuitions through consistent patterns to be beliefs? Or would it explicitly mean beliefs in the form of abstract thought.
I think that's why I picked it because I don't know.
First you gotta define what is 'belief' as a concept. Maybe belief implies capacity of imagination, to imagine a posited future or attributes and objects occluded from immediate sense data. Say "based on that voice I believe there's a woman behind that curtain".
Dunno mate.

>>15291465

>Does inference to the best explanation solve the problem of induction?
No because the best explanation is not necessarily the objective truth, until proved so by the facts and the evidence, so it is also part of the problem of induction.
>What is the solution to the problem of mental causation?
You account for the fact that many people's opinions and actions are born from their emotional responses to the world around them and that their conclusions towards things come from emotional states rather than from an actual reasoning with the facts, like David Hume brought up.
>What makes consciousness a hard problem?
The fact that different people have different beliefs and experiences (as in baggage of learning and understanding) of the world and even different hormonal "layouts" and will have different reactions to the world based on those, thus bringing "subjectivity"
>Does van Inwagen provide a convincing argument against compatibilism?
No because he does not account for the fact that despite having limited options, one still has the capacity to choose just the same. Even if a person only has a certain array of choices to make, they are still able to make those choices, and the limites of physical reality still allow for infinite conscious choices to be made, showing that determinism and freedom can somehow coexist, perhaps in a spectrum.
>Must we be the source of our actions in order to be morally responsible for them?
No, one can induce others to commit immoral actions and be responsible for them as well, such as Fascist leaders and military authorities.
>What is the problem of other minds? Describe and evaluate Ayer’s proposed solution to the problem.
Bullshit problem to begin with invented just for some intellectual masturbation.
>Evaluate Russell’s attempt to resolve the problem of induction.
>Evaluate Russell’s attempt to resolve the problem of induction.
>Can a pain occur that does not hurt?
Pain describes the sensorial response of hurting as to show that the physical body is being damaged. If it does not hurt then it is not pain, but a different sensory response.
>Is virtue ethics a circular theory?
No, it proposes that a virtuous character brings moral conducts, thus showing a cause and its effect.
>How should a Marxist interpret the principle of self-ownership?
They can not because their ideology goes naturally against individualism and against one's right towards self-property being above the Estate's right to control said individual.
>Is it wrong to abort a foetus?
It is in the sense that it allows a ruthless relativism of the value of a fetus, in which a mother may kill one out of convenience but nurture and raise another in a time where it's the most convenient for her, which shows that her convenience and comfort are more important than the existence of the fetus that she would otherwise choose to bear, lacking the naturally self-sacrificial nature of a parent.

>>15290290
Anymore of this Goddess?

>>15291791
>>Evaluate Russell’s attempt to resolve the problem of induction.
Russel tries to argue that induction shows that we are instinctively able to reach for our baggage of knowledge and information in order to make judgement about the world, even touching on a priori knowledge as being part of the information that we instinctively reach for when judging that which we have never experienced before. The problem is that this judgement is entirely instinctive, based on information that may not be objectively true and often muddled by emotional responses and blind faiths born from the natural instinctive desire for collectivism.

>>15291926
@ilayserah on instagram
she's much more gorgeous with less makeup

>>15290290
>>What makes consciousness a hard problem?
Chalmers already wrote about this, he calls it the meta-problem of consciousness. it's even on the wikipedia page, which is likely your only exposure to the topic.