PHILOSOPHY GENERAL

PHILOSOPHY GENERAL

Ask a philosopher anything, discuss philosophy amongst yourselves, ask for book recommendations, etc.

Okay, let's talk philosophy.

What do you want to talk about, specifically?

Garbage.

Are we actually real

Or is our ego just another hallucination

Okay philosopher, is it worth it to put in the work to succeed, start a family, become important in the community, and leave behind a legacy? Or do you think it would be a better use of my time to just kill myself now?

Neitzche or Stirner?

Garbage in what respect? What makes garbage garbage? The ethics of garbage/recycling, its affects, etc.? Something else?

>Are we actually real
I think that we are in some sense. Our language and our concepts partially determine how we understand reality and what it consists in. For instance, we have a long history of first-person uses of language that imply the existence of a self, we have various ideas of what it is that a self is or is not, and what makes a person responsible for this or that (which also implies the existence of a self). Then again, some Buddhists and others either don't have these concepts/linguistic habits or train themselves not to, believing it to be better that way. So, I think the more important question is, "is it better to believe there are selves or not?" What do you think?

Work hard. It's its own reward and you'll, eventually, come to a point where that question looks silly to you. You don't necessarily need to start a family or be considered important to the community or leave a legacy though.

Nietzsche.

Why?

Why what?

The aesthetics of garbage. How wonderful garbage is. How we are all destined for the trash heap.

Why do you think garbage is wonderful in an aesthetic sense?

Just look at it. This is the sum total of all that we do. It is our destiny. And it is beautiful. Did you know that many landfills have a problem with leachate? The toxic waste water that percolates down through the trash collecting all the chemicals and collects at the bottom. It seeps into the ground, turning it sour and unusable. Isn't that magnificent?

looking at the thumbnail thought these are new images from vegas

As a philosopher, what is your current goal in life, and what do you think the general goal should be for humans in their lifetime?

60 dead, 500 injured.

How do you make the philospher's stone? I need it for some important transmutations

Is it even still worth it to keep living?

>This is the sum total of all that we do.
Not really. We also make each other and ourselves feel things. We also plant gardens. We also make music. The list goes on.

>It is our destiny.
As far as I'm aware, most people don't end up in landfills and, if they do, it isn't destined to be so.

>Did you know that many landfills have a problem with leachate?
I didn't know that.

>Isn't that magnificent?
Not especially.

>what is your current goal in life
I've thought I've known at various times in my life and then surprised myself or been surprised by life. Right now, I have some boring and some common goals. I'd like to be financially secure. I'd like to find love. I'd like certain material goods that I find enriching. Overall, though, I try to keep progressing in terms my knowledge, thoughtfulness, health, talents, and being a better person in general. I don't think I, or anyone else, can tell you what's right for you beyond general advice. Creating yourself is your own task.

Depends on the person.

it all turns to garbage in the end.

What are graveyards but landfills for the dead?

It's one of the biggest problems facing landfills today. What to do with all that leachate?

I disagree. We are destroying this planet just by living on it. I think that above all proves the magnificence of man.

Why is murder illegal yet we give people the death sentence and go to war? Surely you cannot say that killing is morally wrong when we practice such things as a society, yet here we are, punishing people who kill others by killing them ourselves as punishment.

We claim it is so that we might maintain order in society, yet people still commit crimes which are heinous. We steal, assault, and generally cause all manner of vexation within society, murder being considered one of the most heinous of crimes near the top with rape and child molestation.

Perhaps it is because we people are able to empathize with the victims of murder and assault, in that we know that killing someone brings them a great deal of pain, yet we continue to kill and consume livestock by the day, giving them no mercy as we slit their throats and drain their blood while they are quite alive, so that we may have more delicious meals in our plates and cheaper food in our freezers. Clearly we do not adhere to the morals that we claim apply ourselves to. Every second of every day we inflict pain on something.

Is it perhaps that we as a society are incapable of admitting that morality is subjective, and that perhaps murder is only illegal because it deprives society itself of a resource which it needs in order to function (that resource being people) and without the security of that resource, and without the assurance of safety within society, the entire machine would halt and crumble into dust?

Yet we still cling to the idea that killing is morally wrong while we fight wars, execute criminals, and eat the flesh of lesser creatures; creatures that themselves have had to endure pain and death.

By our own perceptions we are all monsters. We are monsters who disguised ourselves long ago to hide ourselves from our prey, only it has been so long that we do not recognized ourselves anymore, and we ourselves are fooled by our own masks.

>it all turns to garbage in the end. What are graveyards but landfills for the dead?
Now we're getting into the metaphysics. I suspect you think there is a difference between garbage and graveyards. Even non-religious people tend to have a respect for graveyards that they don't have for landfills. We also tend to produce landfills to get things permanently out of our sight and out of our way whereas we produce graveyards, in most cases, as monuments to visit and pay our respects. There are many differences between graveyards and landfills despite there also being the superficial similarities that you're relying on.

>What to do with all that leachate?
Idk. Ask people with expertise in toxic waste management or something more relevant to the problem you're talking about.

>I think that above all proves the magnificence of man.
Maybe by a certain definition, but "magnificent" has positive connotations, making it a strange word choice unless you think our destroying the planet we live on is a good thing, in which case, I'd be curious to know more about that.

I treat landfills with the respect and reverence they deserve. I go regularly and stroll around. There is an island of garbage in the Pacific the size of Texas. What better monument to man is there than that? The single largest man made object floating in the ocean forever. I have no reverence for the dead, graveyards are just that, landfills where we put people who can no longer serve their purpose.

I say we dump it all into the rivers and lakes and seas and oceans.

I do. I feel we either need to embrace the destruction we are causing fully and get on with it, or we reverse it totally and do all that is within our power to save what we can. The power structure has spoken and destruction has won.

>Why is murder illegal yet we give people the death sentence and go to war?
Because legality and morality aren't one and the same.

I agree with some of the sentiments in your post. We delude ourselves regarding our motivations and the facts that pertain to morally relevant scenarios in our lives and we're often hypocritical. However, I don't think morality is subjective and I think murder is illegal for a number of reasons (at least one of them moral, and one of them, possibly, being the reason you cite). There are also consistent ways of reasoning that murder is wrong and war, meat-eating, execution, or some combination of the three is at least sometimes morally permissible.

>I treat landfills with the respect and reverence they deserve. I go regularly and stroll around.
This is a reason to infer that you're strange, not that you have the right idea about the nature and value of landfills and graveyards. You might be right to behave in the way that you do, but what's the justification?

>I feel we either need to embrace the destruction we are causing fully and get on with it, or we reverse it totally and do all that is within our power to save what we can.
Why are these the only options?

The justification is that I have embraced what man has become.

What other options are there besides destruction and salvation?

>The justification is that I have embraced what man has become.
Please elaborate. We clearly disagree over what man has become and I'm interested to know your line of reasoning here.

>What other options are there besides destruction and salvation?
That wasn't the original dichotomy you suggested. The original one was between going full-tilt toward destruction or full-tilt away, implicitly acknowledging that there are conceivable degrees between but explicitly stating that we shouldn't opt for those. One of the other options besides destruction and salvation are any of the degrees between, which you acknowledged to exist.

Man has become a vile wicked parasite that destroys the planet they inhabit. We cause nothing but destruction. War, pollution, infrastructure, expansion of our cities. We wipe out entire ecosystems because they are in our way. We make animals go extinct for entertainment. We have bombs that when detonated can destroy the planet.

I acknowledge they exist, but reject them entirely out or principle. If you are going to do something, go all the way or don't go at all.

Lets talk about time.
Do you think it has a direction?
Does time really exist or is it just a byproduct of our phenomenological experiences?
Do you think believe in the concept of a present?

>I don't think morality is subjective.
Would you mind elaborating on your basis for objective morality.

can you show your feet

What is your full-time job?

pls respond

>GOD ME DO
>ME
>I LIVE DIE

I think I understand the point you're trying to make but it seems like you have a habit of opting for the bizarre and thinking in extremes to the point that you can't, or won't, recognize other possibilities. Sorry if I'm wrong, but it makes me suspect that you're more interested in being provocative than sincere.

I'm far from home when it comes to this topic but I've had more of those fleeting thoughts about time lately than I have in the past and I wish I knew more about different views on the topic.

My initial reaction is that we have different conceptions of time that play different roles. Most of the time (hehe), it feels natural to think in terms of linearity. There are other moments where there's a seeming circularity or repetition: routines, rituals, deja vu. My pragmatist leanings make me have a hard time conceiving of a sharp division between the "really existing" and "just byproducts of our phenomenological experiences." I don't think you can really separate the two. I believe in the concept of a present but I think it would be hard to articulate in a manner that you probably have in mind. I'd be more inclined to look at how people use the concept, which doesn't depend on having a worked out theory of time.

are psychedelics the only way to explore the nature of reality? if not, are they at least the most effective?

I am entirely sincere.

any book recommendations for someone who would like to catch up with modern day ideas? my knowledge about modern philosophy reaches ~1950s.

lucid dreaming, mostly same as psychedelics but occurs naturally

...

Why not just kill yourself then?

I flipped a coin to decide that.

"Subjective" and "objective" are used in a variety of ways so I'll just tell you a bit about my views on morality (they might turn out to be subjectivist in your eyes). I'm going to try to summarize as much as a can but I'd be happy to elaborate more where needed.

I think values, in general, are trained in us from a very early age via emotional conditioning. Morality is subset of these values. Most people have some subset of these values because most people aren't neurologically abnormal in the relevant ways and it's difficult to dramatically change ones values (it usually takes trauma or something equally dramatic). The extent to which we feel the relevant emotions at a given time might vary from person to person but the corresponding judgments tend to vary less often the less culturally distant one person is from another. For instance, I was raised in a community with very traditional protestant values. Just like most other youths I knew, I was disgusted by the sight of two men kissing and the other youth and I would make the same judgment that the men's action was morally shameful even if I felt more disgusted than the other youth or vice versa.

Already, morality looks to have a wider scope than the individual. It's at least cultural, if not broader. However, we all belong to many cultures and, just like there were a handful of liberal kids where I grew up who would've felt and judged differently than me in the gay kiss incident and many other incidents, there would also be minor variations between conservatives. This obviously applies to adults as well as children. This first point is that the very nature of value formation, which includes morality, makes morality something non-subjective in the sense that it isn't just whims that vary from person to person. There are large areas of overlap.

cont'd

Where did you do/are you currently doing your phd (or masters or whatever fucking level you are at)

What makes you a philosopher?

...

...

The second point has to do with the nature of moral discourse and how we could come to know whether any of our moral judgments are true or not. In a moral disagreement, the source of our disagreement could conceivably be over 1. What are the right basic values to have and 2. Which values follow from the basic ones and what are the relevant facts. For example, take an easy to imagine debate over abortion. Suppose A and B agree that murder is wrong. It would seem that A and B agree on values but disagree on either facts or what it is for something to count as murder (maybe both agree that any act of taking life is murder but B doesn't realize that a fetus is alive and, if he learned this, he would change his mind. Or, maybe B thinks that murder only applies to people and that a fetus doesn't count as a person, in which case, A and B turn out to have different values with the further question of who, if anyone, has the right value). Anyways, the only way for us to find out the real variance in basic values is through discourse and the only way to discourse is to assume the possibility that there could be a resolution, i.e. that an agreement can be reached. So, if some version of relativism or subjectivism is true, the only way to find out would be to act the same way you would if you assumed that it was false (i.e. give and receive reasons for our beliefs that X is right or wrong).

cont'd

So, to recap, I think the formation of values makes morality something inherently social and the nature of moral disagreement is such that the truth of some degree of relativism/subjectivism could make no practical difference (unless we somehow get to the point where there's no more disagreement), we go on giving and receiving reasons, which implies that we take ourselves and others to be accountable to those reasons and that, therefore, moral disagreement can potentially be resolved. I was going to go on but I think that should be enough to get a sense of where I'm coming from. So, I'm clearly not objectivist in the sense that I think there is a certain and provable basis for saying things like, "abortion is morally wrong," but I'm not a subjectivist in the sense that I think anyone can say anything in the form of a moral judgment and it's akin to saying, "pie is tasty."

no

I bag groceries.

I think drugs can make some people more open-minded in some cases but they can also be very detrimental and make people stupid.

What topics/figures are you interested in?

That I think a lot about issues that have historically been understood as philosophical, have formed some of my own ideas about the issues, can articulate them relatively well and understand and articulate opposing views, can explain a large amount of the history of the discipline, some universities also say that I am, etc. That's a hard question. A lot of people think philosophically more than they might know and there are a lot of philosophers who aren't necessarily strictly within the discipline.

How important is it for you to cum?

Do you think NFL players should stop protesting during the anthem?

It's nice and it's hard to imagine how life would feel without it. I don't think it's necessary for sex though, if that's what you're asking.

I don't care if they do or don't. So, maybe I should say, "no," since I don't care if they continue.

bump

yes
>muh freedom of speech
it's disrespectful
apparently blacks are still being oppressed
mfw

Philosophy ≠ questioning stuff like a retarded 5 years old kid who had his tooth removed

/Thread (yes i can /thread)

delete this embarassment

How do you reconcile the physical, animal instinct of humans with the society we built that separated us from nature and survival of the fittest?
Our species conquered the planet by killing anything that threatened us and then killing everything we thought MIGHT threaten us. This and only this allowed us the freedom and control of our environment to erect a civilization powerful enough to grant us time to think, and clarity to be something else.
It was perfectly human to be so unnaturally murderous, and it's so uniquely human to be so unnaturally peaceful.
We crave to build a better world and our hormones are screaming bloody vengeance. How do you interpret these opposing natures of man?

Are traps gay?

anyone who bases their ideology on the existence of God is not a philosopher. they are at best a theologian or theodicist

Why the fiction writer Neitzche is considered to be a philosopher.

Not all of them.

50% gay (not bisexual)
You fap to it instead of manly men because it's feminine.
But you still prefer it over a woman with a real pussy. (If you like it as much as women or less you are >50% gay)
It can be more of a fetish thing but in terms of homosexuality it's not is gay as having sex with a guy -or browsing Sup Forums- but not as hetero as fucking a fine woman with a big pair of perky tits and a fine ass.
I am not 100% sure about what i said But i am 100% sure it's degeneracy

Sartre or Camus?

Baudrillard

You can't not talk about god when discussing how the universe was created

You can talk about no God when discussing creation. The universe doesn't need a bearded fairy man to exist. It may well be just a burst chemical reaction in a larger system that we are oblivious to. Look up branes.