ITT: We try to name all of the major philosophical dichotomies? I'll start, Free Will / Determinism

File: 529 KB, 1200x798, stoker6.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Wed Feb 19 11:29:52 2014 No.4584832 [DELETED]

ITT: We try to name all of the major philosophical dichotomies?

I'll start,

Free Will / Determinism

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 19 11:31:52 2014 No.4584835 Wet/Dry

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 19 11:33:51 2014 No.4584840 sad/happy

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 19 11:35:51 2014 No.4584849 Redpill/Bluepill

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 19 11:36:51 2014 No.4584852 OP/Faggot

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 19 11:37:51 2014 No.4584854 >>4584852 but thats an identity.

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 19 11:45:38 2014 No.4584884 freedom/security

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 19 16:33:38 2014 No.4585641 >>4584832 One / Many

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 19 16:39:38 2014 No.4585652 warm/cool

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 19 16:41:38 2014 No.4585656 >>4584832 That's not a dichotomy, it's well established, there is no free will.

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 19 16:42:38 2014 No.4585657 >>4584832 Materialism/Dualism

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 19 16:44:38 2014 No.4585663 >>4585656 It's still a fucking dichotomy.

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 19 16:45:38 2014 No.4585664 >>4585656 >it's on

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 19 16:46:38 2014 No.4585666 structuralism / deconstruction

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 19 16:48:38 2014 No.4585672 >>4585663 Maybe in your mind.

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 19 16:52:39 2014 No.4585692 >>4585656 >it's well established, there is no free will. Quarks

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 19 16:59:38 2014 No.4585711 >>4585656 Proof.

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 19 17:04:38 2014 No.4585723 Masculine / Left Wing

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 19 17:12:38 2014 No.4585742 File: 7 KB, 251x238, 1392819641787.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>4585723 daring.

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 19 17:20:38 2014 No.4585767 >>4585666 how structuralism is opposed to deconstruction? Derrida is a post-structuralist, which mean he is going over it. It is not opposed tho.

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 19 17:48:38 2014 No.4585852 / / \

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 19 17:49:38 2014 No.4585858 stoicism/romanticism

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 19 17:53:38 2014 No.4585874 self-awareness/sincerity

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 19 17:54:38 2014 No.4585880 A/notA

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 19 17:56:38 2014 No.4585890 >>4585874 >You cannot be both self aware and sincere What? Objectivism/relativism

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 19 17:57:38 2014 No.4585897 >>4585890 You can't be sincere at all. Unless you're senile, an infant, or maybe really intoxicated. I don't think an ordinary person can be unaffected.

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 19 17:57:38 2014 No.4585898 >>4585858 I disagree that these are opposites.

Anonymous Wed Feb 19 18:01:38 2014 No.4585921

>>4585898
going from the WIKI:
Romanticism
>validated intense emotion as an authentic source of aesthetic experience
Stoicism
>teaches the development of self-control and fortitude as a means of overcoming destructive emotions

One seemed to embrace, the other downplay the "passions" is my view

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 19 18:07:38 2014 No.4585944 >>4585921 your view/good view

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 19 18:09:38 2014 No.4585952 >>4585656 I wonder how is it like to be autistic

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 19 18:10:38 2014 No.4585956 >>4585944 LOL well what's your opinion fruitloop?

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 19 18:11:38 2014 No.4585963 >>4585921 If I may recommend a book, I think "Stoicism and Emotion" would blow your mind. It's an in-depth study of the ancient Stoics' actual stance on emotion, when feelings were considered acceptable or even good, etc.

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 19 18:14:38 2014 No.4585980 science / philosophy

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 19 18:15:38 2014 No.4585981 File: 84 KB, 192x231, Dirk Nowitzki game day.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >desperate manchildren clinging to the idea of free will o I am laffin

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 19 18:16:38 2014 No.4585988 >>4585981 >NEET neckbeards denying their free will in order to have a lazy excuse for playing video games instead of looking for a job my sides are in orbit

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 19 18:16:39 2014 No.4585990 tragic/comic raw/cooked essential/accidental/universal/particular

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 19 18:17:39 2014 No.4585992 >>4585980 This one has been solved. Science won.

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 19 18:17:39 2014 No.4585994 >>4585981 >i have no responsibility for the catastrophe that is my life! Projecting much?

Anonymous Wed Feb 19 18:20:38 2014 No.4586006

>>4585994
A man is completely responsible for himself regardless of Free Will.

However, a man can only do that which he wills, he cannot will what he wills. There is no will behind a man's willing, anything he has willed is the only thing he could have willed, and that willing is the fulfillment of his character.

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 19 18:22:38 2014 No.4586013 >>4585852 literal keks

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 19 18:22:39 2014 No.4586015 >>4586006 What a meaningless concatenation of words. Do you feel pseudo-intellectual after posting such diarrhea? I honestly hope you are no older than 13.

Anonymous Wed Feb 19 18:22:39 2014 No.4586016

>>4586006
>There is no will behind a man's willing, anything he has willed is the only thing he could have willed, and that willing is the fulfillment of his character.

Nice rationalization there asshat. This is a tautology and speaks just as much for free will as against it.

Again you deny your responsibility neckbeard.

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 19 18:23:39 2014 No.4586019 >>4584832 Your mom/my dick Oh no, wait...

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 19 18:23:39 2014 No.4586020 >>4586006 yes thank you. nice explanation. i.e. you can only speak french if you have learned it.

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 19 18:23:39 2014 No.4586022 >>4585992 science is a philosophy though, shouldn't it be science vs other methods of philosophy?

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 19 18:24:02 2014 No.4586030 >>4586022 Empiricism / other

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 19 18:24:39 2014 No.4586027 >>4586022 Don't feed the troll

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 19 18:24:39 2014 No.4586028 >>4586022 "Philosophy" is a container for all nonsense that DOESN'T qualify as science.

Anonymous Wed Feb 19 18:25:02 2014 No.4586033

>>4586006
>A man is completely responsible for himself regardless of Free Will.
>However, a man can only do that which he wills, he cannot will what he wills. There is no will behind a man's willing, anything he has willed is the only thing he could have willed, and that willing is the fulfillment of his character.

Language itself can make the concept of free will very coning quickly.

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 19 18:25:02 2014 No.4586034 >>4586030 Empiricism / rationalism*

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 19 18:26:59 2014 No.4586037 >>4586006 >A man is completely responsible for himself regardless of Free Will. I'm so glad I'm not a man.

Anonymous Wed Feb 19 18:27:59 2014 No.4586039

>>4586016
>This is a tautology and speaks just as much for free will as against it.

Wrong. A Man's character defines his will, not any sort of arbitrary decision making progress.

If you made someone repeat their entire lives down to the most minute detail with no knowledge of the consequences they would make the exact same decisions every time.

Anonymous Wed Feb 19 18:27:59 2014 No.4586042

>>4586016
Neckbeard Lol. I personally think this is on the money (LACK of free will). I SAY because....i have begun looking back on my life recently and a common theme which has developed is...
"at the time, how things were..and knowing what i wanted...how could i have chosen differently?"

Just because you've been instilled with the good ole hard workin 'merican values of what constitutes a valued human life doens't mean you can take credit for all that is yours. For example, I was not born 6'5 and thus am barred from being a successful Post man in the NBA

Anonymous Wed Feb 19 18:28:59 2014 No.4586046

>>4586033

who even cares, how does it affect my everyday life, if free will is an illusion or not? In a way why is it worth thinking about?

I like the quote by the judge in Blood Meridian, "A man seeks his own destiny and no other, said the judge. Wil or nill. Any man who could discover his own fate and elect therefore some opposite course could only come at last to that selfsame reckoning at the same appointed time, for each man's destiny is as large as the world he inhabits and contains within it all opposites as well. "

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 19 18:30:59 2014 No.4586050 >>4586042 Yes if, the universe and life played in rewind, it would be obvious that the only things that could happen do.

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 19 18:30:59 2014 No.4586051 >>4586039 >A Man's character defines his will, not any sort of arbitrary decision making progress. A mans character is his decision making dummy, you are your actions, not your thoughts. You are rationalizing and deluded.

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 19 18:32:00 2014 No.4586055 >>4586051 If you think blindly acting out ones character means Free Will exists, good for you I guess.

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 19 18:34:59 2014 No.4586059 >>4585656 >it's well established, there is no free will. How can anyone live like this?

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 19 18:34:59 2014 No.4586060 See >>>/sci/6365117 for a perfect proof of free will.

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 19 18:34:59 2014 No.4586063 >>4586055 No it's mostly through conscious decision and it can be altered by thinking or interacting with others no matter what you will.

Anonymous Wed Feb 19 18:35:59 2014 No.4586064

>>4586051
a hall of mirrors.actions are a direct consequence of your thoughts. If you know descartes or the like you would be aware that an "evil demon" could put anything in your mind that you'd like. theres no choosing how or why you will interpret something a certain way, you continually hedge your bets with only the most vague sense of conscious direction. how often have you made a decision that years later became of consequence in a completely unpredicted way? even if free will had a basis there are too many external factors that will always be more powerful in shaping the direction . for example you could be the most talented musician in the world and so ahead of your time nobody recognizes you as such, and you die impoverished. but to everyone else you didn't have what it takes??

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 19 18:37:59 2014 No.4586078 >>4586064 Free will =/= control You seem to imply free will implies that you know what you are doing. Which is evidently not the case if you have spent 10 minutes observing humans.

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 19 18:38:59 2014 No.4586086 >>4586063 And you cannot will your innate responses to the external factors that shape your character. You are who you are and you cannot simply think yourself out of that. See >>4586064

Anonymous Wed Feb 19 18:40:59 2014 No.4586094
File: 42 KB, 625x351, 1392853222584.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

The question of free will vs determinism is a question of science, not philosophy. Keep your immature shit flinging in kindergarten where it belongs.

Science has solved the problem. Free will has been proven to exist by quantum mechanics. Deal with it.

Anonymous Wed Feb 19 18:41:59 2014 No.4586099

>>4586094
Not really. At most, quantum mechanics means that instead of everything being completely predictable, there is a slight chance of randomness. There's still not free will, though. Either you act exactly as you always would have, or you act slightly different. You don't actually decide either, though.

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 19 18:42:00 2014 No.4586101 >>4586086 Yes I can, by conscious choice. You can watch people break habits all the time. Just because we like our safe routines doesn't mean they absolutely define us.

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 19 18:42:00 2014 No.4586103 >>4586060 How is that a perfect proof, it's based on a ridiculous assumption and fails to acknowledge that if you could predict the future, and change your action based on it, that that too would be included in a predetermined universe.

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 19 18:42:00 2014 No.4586106 File: 274 KB, 948x1027, Lagrangian.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>4586099 Stop talking out of your ass. You know nothing about QM. I bet you couldn't even modify pic related to account for gravity.

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 19 18:43:00 2014 No.4586108 >>4586101 That still does not imply free will, it means they have new data to apply to choices.

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 19 18:43:00 2014 No.4586109 >>4586094 Quantum Randomness (A small part of QM) doesn't apply to medium or macro level physics. If Quantum Randomness applied to Free Will everyone would be Schizophrenic.

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 19 18:44:00 2014 No.4586115 >>4586109 Why do you feel the need to talk about things you don't understand?

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 19 18:44:00 2014 No.4586116 >>4586109 >If Quantum Randomness applied to Free Will everyone would be Schizophrenic. They are to varying degrees.

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 19 18:45:00 2014 No.4586118 >>4586094 QM is irrelevant I don't give a shit about stuff that only affects my everyday life in the outmost abstract of levels. It has nothing to say and I can't use it for anything. It's for scientists circlejerking useless questions.

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 19 18:45:00 2014 No.4586120 Compatibilism4lyfe

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 19 18:46:59 2014 No.4586123 >>4586118 And here we see the typical anti-intellectualism of a philosotard.

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 19 18:48:59 2014 No.4586133 >>4586108 If there's no free will there is no choice.

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 19 18:48:59 2014 No.4586134 >>4586118 Too bad you're too dumb to understand how it DOES affect your everyday life by enabling free will.

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 19 18:49:59 2014 No.4586138 >>4586123 I'm a booknerd please get the fuck out of my literature board with your voodoo.

Anonymous Wed Feb 19 18:49:59 2014 No.4586140

>>4586123
its just science is still only the physical realm. it has failed to even begin solving the most elementary of "experiential" questions posed by human beings since the dawn of time. for example the presence of qualia, which is what these questions are all coming from, how we relate to experience and hope to alter it for our selfish fucking benefit.

Anonymous Wed Feb 19 18:50:59 2014 No.4586142

>>4586123
it is irrelevant though. quantum mechanics don't explain everything, they explain the behavior of particles at a quantum scale. you can't export QM rules to larger phenomena especially the abstractions of 'the mind' like 'free will.'

that's like saying thermodynamics equations should be put into economics textbooks. learn to epistemology

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 19 18:50:59 2014 No.4586144 >>4586138 Reading trash doesn't make you a "booknerd".

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 19 18:50:59 2014 No.4586145 >>4586123 You can't unironically use the word "philosotard." Science is just a branch of philosophy.

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 19 18:51:59 2014 No.4586147 >>4586134 Only an idiot would have a sincere interest in QM have you looked at those "scientists" they are all weird and ugly.

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 19 18:52:59 2014 No.4586150 File: 106 KB, 650x406, 1392853928210.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>4586140 pic related >>4586142 If you're too dumb to understand QM, then refrain from commenting.

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 19 18:52:59 2014 No.4586151 >>4586144 Tell me one good book with decent prose about QM.

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 19 18:54:59 2014 No.4586158 >>4586145 Science has made philosophy obsolete. >>4586147 >dat delicious jelly >>4586151 You wouldn't understand it.

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 19 18:56:00 2014 No.4586161 >>4586150 >if you're too dumb even dumb people can understand why QM aren't relevant to metaphysics. i'm waiting for an actual reply.

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 19 18:56:00 2014 No.4586162 >>4586158 Name one. Don't hide what we all know, that you are pleb trash, with no discernible taste for good literature.

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 19 18:56:00 2014 No.4586163 >>4586158 Science is grounded in empiricist philosophy, and in no way can philosophy be said to be obsolete without also admitting the obsolescence of science - an absurd thing to admit.

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 19 18:56:00 2014 No.4586164 >>4586158 No, you don't understand. Science hasn't made philosophy obsolete because science literally is philosophy.

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 19 18:57:00 2014 No.4586166 >>4586161 What metaphysics? Free will is science. Keep your "cannot know nuthin" philosodrivel on /x/.

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 19 18:58:00 2014 No.4586172 >>4586162 >you >knowing "good" literature my sides are in orbit >>4586163 >>4586164 Science is applied intelligence and doesn't need philosophy.

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 19 18:59:00 2014 No.4586175 >>4586046 well now that's retarded

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 19 18:59:00 2014 No.4586176 >>4586172 I know you're probably just fucking with us, but saying "science doesn't need philosophy" is like saying "physics doesn't need math." Science literally is philosophy.

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 19 18:59:00 2014 No.4586178 >>4586172 You still haven't named one. I've won. Thanks for playing.

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 19 18:59:00 2014 No.4586179 >>4586164 >literally no

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 19 19:02:59 2014 No.4586189 >>4586176 See the definition of philosophy here: >>4586028 >>4586178 You want a QM textbook? Use google. I'm not gonna spoonfeed you, retard.

Anonymous Wed Feb 19 19:04:59 2014 No.4586197

>>4586166
"free will" is a metaphysical concept.it's an abstraction. it's not a thing you can observe or touch, like a particle. i'm not claiming 'cant know nuthin,' quite the opposite. your misunderstanding is revealing.

we can know things, just not everything. see: godel's incompleteness theorem. anyway this discussion is beside the point.

you've made a claim that QM proves 'free will.' but in order for you to even claim that you have to accept metaphysics (and not just physics) in the first place.

i'll reiterate my main point since you missed it the first time. it doesn't even have to do with 'philosodrivel,' it can be considered strictly within the natural sciences. you can't export knowledge and theory from one discipline to another. you can't take thermodynamics equations and put them into economics textbooks, the same as you can't take QM and put it into philosophy textbooks (which is where you would find 'free will vs determinism.' you wouldn't find it anywhere else)

Anonymous Wed Feb 19 19:05:59 2014 No.4586199

>>4586189
>You want a QM textbook? Use google. I'm not gonna spoonfeed you, retard.

No, I asked you to provide me with one example of QM literature with decent prose. Google can't suggest what you specifically think is decent prose.

You've just lost hard and your cheap rhetoric can't save you.

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 19 19:05:59 2014 No.4586202 >>4586197 >you can't take thermodynamics equations and put them into economics textbooks Your retardation is truly unlimited. Have you never heard of econophysics?

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 19 19:06:59 2014 No.4586206 File: 29 KB, 720x504, si-phonon-dos-conv.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] how does science prove that science can prove everything?

Anonymous Wed Feb 19 19:07:59 2014 No.4586208

>>4586197
>you can't take QM and put it into philosophy textbooks

1. There are no "philosophy textbooks" because philosophy has no truth value.
2. As I explained, free will is not a problem of philosophy. Once again philosotards are too dumb to understand science. Free will is a problem of QM and it has been solved.

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 19 19:08:17 2014 No.4586213 >>4586202 >anno 2014 >unironically mentioning econophysics without the intent to inspire serious lels.

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 19 19:08:17 2014 No.4586214 >>4586208 Present the solution.

Anonymous Wed Feb 19 19:09:17 2014 No.4586216

>>4586202
no, i haven't. has econophysics replaced economics? will it provide the world with stable economic policy?

my only retreat from my original point is that it may be possible, but not without problems and likely not yielding anything useful. you also didn't deal with the part of my point that you must accept METAphysics in order to claim anything about 'free will.' if you are taking a perspective of strict scientism, physicalism, or materialism, 'free will' as commonly understood does not exist.

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 19 19:10:17 2014 No.4586220 >>4586208 You need explain how randomness entails intentional choice; last time I checked, a die doesn't choose which number to land on.

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 19 19:10:17 2014 No.4586222 >>4586172 g8 b8 m8

Anonymous Wed Feb 19 19:11:17 2014 No.4586225
File: 16 KB, 288x337, Dogen.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>4585692
Don't matter.

but to the anon you're responding to, grow the fuck up, you make choices ALL THE CUNTDAMN time.

you determinismfags make me rage SO HARD but i guess it's inevitable /LOLJOAK

Anonymous Wed Feb 19 19:11:17 2014 No.4586228

>>4586213
Is it 2hard4u?

>>4586214
The solution: Free will exists.

>>4586216
>no, i haven't.
Why don't you fucking google it?

>likely not yielding anything useful
QM proving free will is a very useful result. You're just mad because once again philosophy got #rekt by science.

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 19 19:11:17 2014 No.4586229 >>4586208 1. there are 'philosophy textbooks.' as you so kindly suggested to others in this thread, just google around. 2. 'free will' isn't in the domain of QM. the key word you're not considering is "will." a particle does not "will."

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 19 19:12:16 2014 No.4586231 >>4586189 HOOOOOOLDS IT HOOOOOOOOLDS IT HOOOOOOOOOOOLDS IT also, check em

Anonymous Wed Feb 19 19:13:16 2014 No.4586234

>>4586220
You are too uneducated to talk about QM.

>>4586229
>1. there are 'philosophy textbooks.'
Let me guess: They are 300 pages full of loquacious repetitions of "u cannot know nuthin"?

>2. 'free will' isn't in the domain of QM.
But it is. Your lack of education isn't my problem.

Anonymous Wed Feb 19 19:14:16 2014 No.4586235

Why are people responding to this thread? Isn't that, in itself, a convincing argument against free will? Anyone should be able to see that this is a troll thread, nothing more than an excuse for a guy to pretend to espouse viewpoints of scientism so as to provoke undergrads. Yet you all posted in it anyway. Will you stop posting because of my post? Of course not, but I posted it anyway.

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 19 19:14:16 2014 No.4586240 >>4586197 Autism getting really high right now, guys. Watch out.

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 19 19:15:16 2014 No.4586242 male / female

Anonymous Wed Feb 19 19:16:16 2014 No.4586244

>>4586235
>Anyone should be able to see that this is a troll thread

And I chose to respond even though I usually don't to have some fun with this guy trying to take him somewhere new. 1863 utitles. Universe be like it.

He dances to it. Gadle ladle doo.

Anonymous Wed Feb 19 19:17:16 2014 No.4586246
File: 337 KB, 732x1092, 1392855435582.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>4585723
'masculine' and 'feminine' are such fucking bullshit.

it's fucking contingent bullshit, our species happens to have THE SMALLEST FUCKING DIFFERENCES between genders and we make that THE defining thing for what you can do. know what's considered feminine? empathizing. literally the basic act of 'giving a shit about your fellow human' is assigned to an arbitrary category that's FURTHER arbitrarily less valued that it's alternative.

i'm not even a super-duper all-hail-ovaries feminist, i honestly think the distinction is arbitrary and moronic.

pic related

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 19 19:17:16 2014 No.4586248 >>4586244 Are you sure you chose to do so? Could you really have done anything else?

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 19 19:18:17 2014 No.4586252 >>4586234 >You are too uneducated to talk about QM. implying

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 19 19:19:17 2014 No.4586256 >>4586006 Am I dumb for thinking this was 2deep4me?

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 19 19:19:17 2014 No.4586257 >>4586248 Yeah I could be watching ancient aliens on history channel. He baited me along time ago, I learned, I stopped now I just casually bite with new angles to watch him dance for me.

Anonymous Wed Feb 19 19:20:16 2014 No.4586262

>>4586197
Except philosophy is the study of everything which exists (so you could apply anything to philosophy, even physics, history or spaguetti monster theology). It is much like science in this case, however, science pressuposes silogistic logic and/or empirical evidence. But empirical evidence cant prove a series of things which we know to be real from phenomena, for example: aestethics, morality, mathematics (science uses it but cannot justify it empirically, it would be walking in circles), and even science itself cannot be justified by science alone.

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 19 19:21:16 2014 No.4586269 >>4586256 yes If the verbal defecation from a 13 year old's facebook wall are too deep for you, you might be cognitively impaired.

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 19 19:22:16 2014 No.4586272 >>4586256 Yes. It's just good old Schopenhauer, it's seriously flawed logic. It's basically Buddhist sophism.

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 19 19:23:16 2014 No.4586276 >>4586272 Demonstrate the flaw in Schopenhauer's logic.

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 19 19:24:16 2014 No.4586278 >>4586276 >logic That word doesn't mean what you think it means.

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 19 19:24:16 2014 No.4586279 >>4586276 His method. Foundations. Don't be a fanboy in philosophy pls. It's not a religion.

Anonymous Wed Feb 19 19:25:16 2014 No.4586283

>>4586246
It's basic hermeticism. You're retarded. We havent made a "big deal" out of anything, masculine and feminine are opposed forces/ideals which exist and drive everything in such a vibration which maintains cosmology.

It's not a matter of fucking marxist-materialist sociology 101, it's metaphysics, ma nizzle

Anonymous Wed Feb 19 19:26:16 2014 No.4586284

>>4586279

What gives you the impression that I'm a fanboy, or even that I've read Schopenhauer (though I have)? I'm asking you a question, no need to get all threatened. Since you know that Schopenhauer's logic is seriously flawed, surely you can demonstrate his logic and the flaw in it.

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 19 19:27:16 2014 No.4586286 >>4586283 Kreeft pls leave

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 19 19:28:16 2014 No.4586287 File: 448 KB, 900x1260, Lord_Vivec_by_Nata_eslava.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>4586283 metaphysics isn't about 'vibrations that maintain cosmology' you fucking idiot. why do i come here. what do i expect out of 4chins.

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 19 19:29:16 2014 No.4586290 >>4586284 He's pure deduction and unfalsifiable claims, without any disclosure of where he got his propositions from. It's pure opinion. Good well written opinion but opinion without a serious truth claim.

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 19 19:30:16 2014 No.4586296 >>4586287 You clearly do not know what metaphysics mean.

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 19 19:31:16 2014 No.4586299 File: 24 KB, 289x301, Kukai.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>4586296 define metaphysics. out of pics of vehk and vehk.

Anonymous Wed Feb 19 19:32:16 2014 No.4586302

>>4586287
Here, take some straight-from-Wikipedia-tier:

>Metaphysics is a traditional branch of philosophy concerned with explaining the fundamental nature of being and the world that encompasses it,

Congratulations, you are now less retarded.
You're welcome.

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 19 19:34:17 2014 No.4586308 >>4586302 i know this. the things you said, though, are not related to this. i don't know why i'm having this argument

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 19 19:37:16 2014 No.4586317 >>4586308 Of course they are, dumbfuck. It deals with cosmology in essence, it deals with what is there and how is it like (what is the origin of the universe and what are the componentes of the universe in its totality). My god, you're autistic.

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 19 19:38:16 2014 No.4586322 >>4586317 how educated are you in philosophy?

Anonymous Wed Feb 19 19:40:16 2014 No.4586327

Why did secular scientists/doctors in the medieval era adhere to crazy shit like hermeticism, while medieval philosophers were relatively sensible about things. I've read texts by medieval secular scientists who thought 'essence' was a physical substance that could be extracted from things. Do peasants always think in strictly physical terms?

It's much worse now, what with the high literacy, constant barrage of peasant materialism and abuse of language.

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 19 19:41:16 2014 No.4586329 slave/master

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 19 19:41:16 2014 No.4586333 File: 24 KB, 230x296, hermestrismegistus1.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>4586322 How ad hominem-ish are you in discussions? Talk to my friend Hermes.

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 19 19:43:16 2014 No.4586342 >>4586327 >implying modern hermeticism isn't the last strive agains't "peasant materialism"

Anonymous Wed Feb 19 19:45:16 2014 No.4586351
File: 102 KB, 500x497, 1365428081942.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>4586333

honestly, i'm just curious how you ended up with such a confused understanding of metaphysics that 'masculine' and 'feminine' seem like ontologically fundamental materials/categories/whatevers, i've totally given up on you (and most of /lit/) having ANYTHING to say that's philosophically meaningful

Anonymous Wed Feb 19 19:45:16 2014 No.4586355
File: 52 KB, 500x333, 1392619058337.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>4586342
What in the ever-loving fuck are you nerds talking about? Something that probably matters absolutely 0% in the real world.
Go outside. Just go outside.
>You pimple-laden, fedora-sporting fucks

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 19 19:46:16 2014 No.4586357 >>4584832 Those two aren't mutually exclusive.

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 19 19:46:16 2014 No.4586358 >>4586206 Can't you do some philosophical analysis that a closed system that has certain rules, and certain ways to find truth is consistent within itself. Obviously that's not science proving itself, just a question.

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 19 19:49:17 2014 No.4586363 >>4586355 I'm now blessed with an euphoric feeling

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 19 19:49:17 2014 No.4586364 >>4586355 wow u sure showed them xD

Anonymous Wed Feb 19 19:51:16 2014 No.4586372

>>4586351
It's straight out of the fourth of the Seven Hermetic Laws/fundamental principles of the Kybalion (The Law of Polarity (Balance, Objectivity, Neutralization, Non-resistance, Integrity, Transcendence, Compassion). You should really educate yourself on this matters.

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 19 19:53:16 2014 No.4586376 File: 312 KB, 500x506, 1391652263730.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>4586372 Ooooooooooooooooookay so you're not doing philosophy?

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 19 19:54:16 2014 No.4586377 >>4586358 You could, but a closed system is going to fail a priori at giving knowledge about the external world. eg. Categorical imperative

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 19 19:56:16 2014 No.4586388 >>4586377 But isn't every philosophy closed in itself? Like, based on certain defined ways to look at the world? Sorry if this is a dumb question, I'm not well versed in philosophy.

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 19 19:57:16 2014 No.4586393 >>4586376 It is philosophy. Hermeticism is philosophy. Esoteric philosophy, not the usual dialetic philosophy.

Anonymous Wed Feb 19 20:00:17 2014 No.4586405
File: 7 KB, 240x210, what if chim.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>4586393

i'm talking doing big-boy, grown-up philosophy here. real shit. offer coherent, fact-and-reason based arguments that things like 'masculine/feminine' or 'compassion' even belong in metaphysics. as someone who's done this shit, that stuff usually ain't anywhere near metaphysics.

Anonymous Wed Feb 19 20:06:16 2014 No.4586437

>>4586405
You belong in science, then, not in philosophy. You belong in materialism, in progressivism, in the in-itself and directed-to-itself logic that lays irrelevant truths which have only practical use. You belong to the group of people who will always be in a void of absurdity and whose life won't have any meaning at all, you will live in the emptiness and clueness which in nothing adds to human condition. You will never know of trascendence or the absolute.

Anonymous Wed Feb 19 20:06:16 2014 No.4586438

>>4586388
It isn't a dumb question, it's actually a really tough one.

Some philosophers (empiricists) will say that experience can be used as evidence for a particular belief or system of belief about the world. Phenomena are not polluted by frameworks, theories, etc. Many scientists believe this is the case, too, in that they believe the outcome of an experiment will not be affected by the way measurements are taken.

Others will say that appearances can deceive, and that reason/logic/rationality alone gives knowledge. These are the rationalists. A lot of the time they appeal to God or some sort of special sense that we have that lets us "see" that something is true.

Then there is the middle, where most people are: where measurements are perspectives and theories are representations (van Fraassen); there is no one right way of looking at things (Derrida); we're stuck in one world view because of the history of philosophy and need to break out (Heidegger); or that reason and evidence can give us knowledge (analytic and post-analytic tradition in America and the UK).

Honestly, I'm in university for nanoscience – quantum, chemistry, electronics –but am much more interested in philosophy. My philosophical training consists in a few 4th year courses and a lot of hobbyist reading.

I dunno if this is all fucked up then I welcome someone telling me I dun goofed

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 19 20:08:16 2014 No.4586443 >>4586438 Dude, you totally skipped Kant and the idealists.

Anonymous Wed Feb 19 20:11:16 2014 No.4586452

>>4586269
>>4586015
>I have neither the patience nor intellectual capability to understand this post, so I'll call it useless drivel shat out by a pseudointellectual!
You're not fooling anyone with your projection, kiddo. Everyone else who read his post got the point.

Anonymous Wed Feb 19 20:11:16 2014 No.4586453
File: 150 KB, 504x650, Amida Buddha.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>4586437

>doesn't understand philosophy
>telling me where i belong

good laughs, anon, good laughs.

i'm gonna peace on this thread cause i've been trolled enough for one night

have a good one,

you stupid little shits

Anonymous Wed Feb 19 20:13:16 2014 No.4586461

>>4586388
(same guy you're replying to)

I posed the original question because I've become disillusioned with contemporary science and think that it has lost its footing.

There are and have been many successful scientists who have realized the explanatory limits of science (see all of the original contributors to QM including Einstein, Planck, Born, Heisenberg, Schrodinger, etc., Polanyi and Kuhn, Putnam, etc.)

But, from my experience within my university and by keeping up with scientific commentary from the inside and outside, I am starting to think that scientists are falling into the same trap as the logical positivists.

So to rephrase my argument:
P1. If science is the sole route to knowledge, then all propositions must be scientifically testable.
P2. P1 is not scientifically testable.
C1. Science is not the sole route to knowledge (MT)

or formally:
P1. K -> T
P2. ~T
C1. ~K

Anonymous Wed Feb 19 20:17:16 2014 No.4586469

>>4586443
I kinda lumped them in with the rationalists because
1) I started reading "Being and Time" and, instead of getting confused and frustrated, it kind of opened my eyes / let me articulate why I don't like the cogito.
2) Kant is scary and his books are so fucking long. I've only secondary/tertiary/... experience with Kant; I'm only really familiar with his ethics.
3) Same as (2) for Berkeley etc.

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 19 20:20:17 2014 No.4586482 >>4586028 Comte, pls go.

Anonymous Wed Feb 19 20:26:16 2014 No.4586501

>>4586225
Your decisions are based on past experiences though. Free will is the illusion passed by liberals who don't like to think things are out of their control - of course, not that you can't control a situation, but that in the grand scheme of things it neither matters and is pre-determined by prior events anyway.

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 19 20:28:16 2014 No.4586505 >>4586501 >passed by liberals Is this like the go-to scapegoat for anyone who disagrees with you on 4chan? Does anyone even care about the term "liberal" being accurate?

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 19 20:45:16 2014 No.4586580 >>4586461 Do you think there is a philosophy where P2 isn't true?

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 19 20:56:16 2014 No.4586611 >read thread >no self/other The fuck is wrong with you epistemologists?

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 19 21:07:17 2014 No.4586644 >>4586580 Well, no, you'll never find "P1" out in the world in the same way you'd find that an emerald is green.

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 19 21:08:16 2014 No.4586650 >>4584852 You're uhh.. doing it wrong

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 19 21:09:16 2014 No.4586653 You see an apple and an orange on a table, and you walk over and pick up the apple. If you ran that scenario a billion times would you ever pick the orange?

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 19 21:09:16 2014 No.4586656 >>4586246 Yeah but men are stronger, so women comply. You can't change that, nigger.

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 19 21:11:16 2014 No.4586661 >>4586653 Nope

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 19 21:12:16 2014 No.4586667 >>4586653 Yep

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 19 21:12:16 2014 No.4586670 >>4586653 what? well I mean if I was told "go pick up that apple on the table" and i had to do it a billion times I'd probably pick up the orange at least once to see what would happen, or through exhaustion.

Anonymous Wed Feb 19 21:18:16 2014 No.4586690

>>4586670
No the scenario is just the event being set up the exact same in every way. Nobody is telling you to do anything. You just walk into the same room with everything the same and the same thoughts a billion times over. Lets say in the original scenario (first) you pick the apple. In the rest of the scenarios would you ever pick the orange.

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 19 21:24:16 2014 No.4586707 >>4586461 >>4586644 I have lots of conflicting ideas about this, but I'm just gonna say thank you for now because that's a really interesting way of thought.

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 19 21:25:16 2014 No.4586712 >>4586690 well it depends on how I feel

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 19 21:26:16 2014 No.4586717 >>4586707 You're welcome! I'd recommend introductions to philosophy but I don't really know any good ones, I sort of just jumped in and have been reading for years so...

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 19 21:26:16 2014 No.4586719 >>4586501 >liberals I agree with you about free will, but what the fuck does this have to do with politics?

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 19 21:26:16 2014 No.4586720 >>4586712 And what do you think determines 'how you feel'?

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 19 21:33:16 2014 No.4586737 >>4586690 You pick up the apple every time as it's defined in the hypothetical Your point is right, free will doesn't exist, it's trivial to prove neurologically, and compatablists/free will idiots are living under a rock

Anonymous Wed Feb 19 21:35:16 2014 No.4586748

>>4586670
He's talking about a slightly modified groundhog day scenario; imagine you keep running the same day over and over and don't remember that you are. Literally every day you were the same person you were before you made your decisions, and all other factors are the same. Do you make different decisions? No, of course not, which is the whole point

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 19 21:42:16 2014 No.4586777 Dichotomies are not.

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 19 21:58:16 2014 No.4586838 >>4584884 le franky b man quote

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 19 22:01:17 2014 No.4586858 >>4586453 Well you won the argument anyway.

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 19 22:32:16 2014 No.4586986 >>4585952 I wonder how is it like not to be able to put together properly senteces

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 19 22:37:42 2014 No.4587014 >>4585944 I really dont see the problem with his view?

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 19 22:39:42 2014 No.4587019 File: 19 KB, 566x400, you high, nigga.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>4585852

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 19 23:11:41 2014 No.4587134 >>4586737 >>4586748 >imagine a world where you cannot make decisions >therefore you don't make decisions! wow guys nice thought experiment you really got me

Anonymous Wed Feb 19 23:13:41 2014 No.4587142

>>4587134
Did you really not understand the first question? It was intentionally paradoxical, you're just too stupid to understand why it was a really good question.

"You go into a room and pick up an apple a billion times."

It's literally defined that you picked up the apple, so you can't pick up the orange. Not that a cretin like you can understand basic sentence syntax and meaning

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 19 23:31:41 2014 No.4587220 >>4587142 ok, wise sage, why don't you explain to this lowly cretin why this thought experiment teaches me anything about free will?

>>	Anonymous Thu Feb 20 00:06:31 2014 No.4587338 >>4586059 They don't have a choice.

Anonymous Thu Feb 20 00:12:31 2014 No.4587360

>>4585656
It isn't well established, sorry. Especially in light of recent evidence for the more controversial theories of consciousness.

http://phys.org/news/2014-01-discovery-quantum-vibrations-microtubules-corroborates.html

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/01/140116085105.htm

http://www.kurzweilai.net/discovery-of-quantum-vibrations-in-microtubules-inside-brain-neurons-corroborates-controversial-20-year-old-theory-of-consciousness

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q9WVt44cvZg

>>	Anonymous Thu Feb 20 00:17:31 2014 No.4587379 >>4586099 >At most, quantum mechanics means that instead of everything being completely predictable, there is a slight chance of randomness No it doesn't.

>>	Anonymous Thu Feb 20 00:20:34 2014 No.4587383 >>4586208 What does truth value even if mutually exclusive from philosophy?

>>	Anonymous Thu Feb 20 00:24:33 2014 No.4587396 >>4586611 I was just scrolling through myself to see if it had been mentioned. Is kinda weird that it took so long.

>>	Anonymous Thu Feb 20 02:14:38 2014 No.4587576 >>4586006 >A man is completely responsible for himself regardless of Free Will. >You are responsible for yourself even if you ultimately have no control over your actions Not really.

>>	Anonymous Thu Feb 20 02:17:37 2014 No.4587578 >>4586094 >I am ignorant of views of quantum mechanics which are consistent with lack of Free Will

Anonymous Thu Feb 20 02:23:37 2014 No.4587581

>>4586246
>THE SMALLEST FUCKING DIFFERENCES between genders and we make that THE defining thing for what you can do.
What? It is feminine to have limited body hair, that in no way defines what you can do.

>know what's considered feminine? empathizing. literally the basic act of 'giving a shit about your fellow human' is assigned to an arbitrary category that's FURTHER arbitrarily less valued that it's alternative.
I'd guess that being empathetic is valued more than an absence of empathy, in general.

>>	Anonymous Thu Feb 20 02:25:37 2014 No.4587583 >>4586290 >Pure deduction and unfalsifiable claims >The axioms of math and logic and what proceeds from them is pure opinion without a serious truth claim

>>	Anonymous Thu Feb 20 02:51:37 2014 No.4587618 File: 190 KB, 371x415, such question.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>4587581 >It is feminine to have limited body hair not the anon you're replying to, but have you ever seen a woman

>>	Anonymous Thu Feb 20 02:52:37 2014 No.4587619 Jumping back to the original topic here. Exegesis/Eisegesis.

>>	Anonymous Thu Feb 20 02:56:37 2014 No.4587624 File: 232 KB, 863x752, theride.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>4586287 I know right :/

>>	Anonymous Thu Feb 20 02:57:37 2014 No.4587625 >>4587618 I'm guessing you haven't. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Androgenic_hair

>>	Anonymous Thu Feb 20 02:58:37 2014 No.4587628 >>4584832 Rationality / Empiricism Morality / Nihilism

Anonymous Thu Feb 20 03:04:37 2014 No.4587638

>>4587625
> Due to a normally higher level of androgen, men tend to have more androgenic hair than women

So you are saying that femininity is based in genetic averages?
So you are saying that feminine qualities are only found in female humans with less body hair than the average male
So you are saying that a woman with substantially more body hair is not as feminine as a woman with the average amount
So you are saying that the substantial body hair of a particularly hairy woman cannot be considered as a feminine facet of her being

what are you saying

Anonymous Thu Feb 20 03:11:11 2014 No.4587646

>>4587638
>a woman with substantially more body hair is not as feminine as a woman with the average amount
>the substantial body hair of a particularly hairy woman cannot be considered as a feminine facet of her being

Yes, these statements are absolutely correct and even realistically accepted.
I can only imagine them being wrong if you consider "femininity" as the purely binary attribute shared by all females--a category only, with no shared attributes. I.e., all things of women are feminine, and all things of men are masculine. If a woman is hairy, hair is feminine. If a man is hairless, hairlessness is masculine. But for a hairless woman hairlessness is feminine and for a hairy man hairiness is masculine. The problem with this definition is that it makes the words useless! The word "feminine" begins to contradict itself and takes on any imaginable meaning at all; a totally useless word.

So, yes, aspects of a woman that deviate from the norms shared among other women that are also simultaneously distinct from aspects shared among most men are not her feminine attributes.

>>	Anonymous Thu Feb 20 03:15:11 2014 No.4587647 >>4587646 >The word "feminine" begins to contradict itself and takes on any imaginable meaning at all; a totally useless word. Ya got there in the end

>>	Anonymous Thu Feb 20 03:15:11 2014 No.4587648 >>4585657 materialism/idealism you mean dualism/monism

>>	Anonymous Thu Feb 20 03:21:11 2014 No.4587655 >>4586103 you missed the point matey not that that particular example proves free will - it just proves randomness

>>	Anonymous Thu Feb 20 03:21:11 2014 No.4587656 OP/Heterosexuality

>>	Anonymous Thu Feb 20 08:55:58 2014 No.4588102 >>4584852 ya blew it

Anonymous Thu Feb 20 10:56:20 2014 No.4588371

>>4587638
>feminine
>having qualities or an appearance traditionally associated with women

>So you are saying that femininity is based in genetic averages?
That's one way to look at it. Genetics determine whether you're male or female, and have some influence on other physical attributes. It seems reasonable to say being able to grow abundant facial hair is masculine and not being able to is feminine.
You may point out that there are categories that more strongly influence sexed traits than gender. E.g. men on average are taller than girls, but there's lots of diversity due to genes / environment.

>So you are saying that feminine qualities are only found in female humans with less body hair than the average male
No.

>So you are saying that a woman with substantially more body hair is not as feminine as a woman with the average amount
If all other traits reasonably classified as feminine remain equal between these two women, then yes.

>So you are saying that the substantial body hair of a particularly hairy woman cannot be considered as a feminine facet of her being
If the amount of body hair is equal or greater to the average amount of body hair on a man, then yeah, by definition it doesn't seem a feminine facet of her being.

Is this a hot topic, I thought this would be a common sense way to look at things.

>>	Anonymous Thu Feb 20 11:17:21 2014 No.4588404 >>4587656 lol

>>	Anonymous Thu Feb 20 11:34:20 2014 No.4588427 >>4586228 present the solution and show your workings

Advanced search
Text to find
Subject [?]Search by post subject. Leave empty for any.
Username [?]Search for user name. Leave empty for any user name.
Tripcode [?]Search for tripcode. Leave empty for any.
Email [?]Search by email. Leave empty for any.
Filename [?]Search by image filename. Leave empty for any.
From Date [?]Enter what date to start searching from. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
To Date [?]Enter what date to start searching until. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
Image hash
Search in	All Posts OPs Only
Deleted posts	Show all posts Show only deleted posts Only show non-deleted posts
Internal posts	Show all posts Show only internal posts Show only archived posts
Order	New posts first Old posts first
Capcode	All Posts Only by Users Only by Mods Only by Admins Only by Developers
Results	Posts Threads
Action	[ Simple ]

/lit/ - Literature