I was just thinking about how the last time i learned any philosophy was 15+ years ago, so i wonder, what's something y'all know about philosophy? Let's talk about it!
I was just thinking about how the last time i learned any philosophy was 15+ years ago, so i wonder, what's something y'all know about philosophy? Let's talk about it!
137 Comments
cattywampas@lemmy.world · 37 pts · 11d
The only thing I know is that I know nothing.
SGGeorwell@lemmy.world · 6 pts · 11d
This is it.
sem@piefed.blahaj.zone · 3 pts · 10d
https://phdcomics.com/comics/archive.php?comicid=1056
Botzo@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 10d
Did a senior paper 20 years ago marrying the concepts of naturalistic and normative epistemology.
The takeaway was that it doesn't matter if you can't actually prove that you know or don't know anything. You have to live and have always lived as if you can/do know things.
Mac@mander.xyz · 2 pts · 10d
This is like, my favorite saying lol
Lo unico que se
es que no se nada
Valmond@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 1 pts · 10d
I'm not even there yet 😔
MutantTailThing@lemmy.world · 21 pts · 11d
The philosopher Schopenhauer absolutely HATED noisy people. He once threw a cleaning lady down a set of stairs because she was making too much noise.
Later he wrote a treatise where he posed that a persons tolerance towards noise is inversely related to their intelligence.
Also, one should not remove the anal beads as if one is attempting to start a lawnmower.
Demonmariner@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 10d
That's deep.
Botzo@lemmy.world · 7 pts · 10d
Depends on the number of beads.
Strider@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 10d
Yay that makes me a very intelligent person.
And I am allowed to throw people down the stairs!
(/s)
sem@piefed.blahaj.zone · 2 pts · 10d
That last one is kind of a natural philosophy
trxxruraxvr@lemmy.world · 19 pts · 11d
Almost everything I know I learned from existential comics. This is one of my favorites https://existentialcomics.com/comic/540
kinship@lemmy.sdf.org · 3 pts · 10d
Wow thanks for introducing me to this comics. They are amazing!!
trxxruraxvr@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 10d
You are very welcome. Here is another favorite https://existentialcomics.com/comic/582
sem@piefed.blahaj.zone · 1 pts · 9d
Rofl i don't think I've ever seen this spin on it before!
agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works · 2 pts · 10d
God damn nerd dragon
sem@piefed.blahaj.zone · 1 pts · 10d
I love this one especially the discourse on the luddites!
Almacca@aussie.zone · 19 pts · 11d
Time is an illusion. Lunch-time, doubly so.
hakunawazo@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 10d
Death is but a doorway, time is but a window, I'll be back.
-Vigo
sem@piefed.blahaj.zone · 3 pts · 10d
-- Terminator 2
Goldholz@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 3 pts · 10d
Reality is an illusion. The universe is a hologram. Buy gold. Bye!!!
eltrain123@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 10d
We can talk about normality until the cows come home…
What’s home?…
What is normal?…
What are cows?!
sem@piefed.blahaj.zone · 1 pts · 10d
What is the idea and cultural associations we both think of when we hear the word 'cow' ?
showmeyourkizinti@startrek.website · 18 pts · 11d
I know that Ayn Rand is an charlatan posing as philosopher
Unleaded8163@fedia.io · 17 pts · 11d
I watched The Good Place like 5 times, so I know just about everything about moral philosophy. I also took computer science, so I know to always give lots of chopsticks when serving a group of philosophers.
showmeyourkizinti@startrek.website · 8 pts · 11d
Have you read How to Be Perfect yet? The Audiobook is so much fun.
Notyou@sopuli.xyz · 1 pts · 10d
Thanks for the recommendation. I just downloaded it from my library.
sem@piefed.blahaj.zone · 3 pts · 10d
Did we watch the same show? I thought it was mostly about how Jacksonville, Florida was a weird place with weird people.
And something about whether Good Janet had free will, and if a Judge could be an alcoholic or something
crwth@piefed.zip · 15 pts · 11d
A philosophy major explained to me that studying philosophy isn't really as useless as it seems. That's because whenever philosophers start to understand what they're doing, they stop calling it philosophy and branch into real scientists. He said it's unfair to judge the value of philosophy by the useless proto-sciences currently under study, but to consider the whole history of philosophy which includes every other field of study one can get a PhD in.
AliasVortex@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 10d
I always get a kick out of the overlap between philosophy and math when it comes to formal logic/ proofs. Like, the underpinnings for dissecting an argument are exactly the same regardless of whether the discussion is about number theory or what it means to have consciousness.
CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org · 3 pts · 10d
It's true. They haven't done that in a few hundred years, though.
Saprophyte@lemmy.world · 14 pts · 10d
Cars have windows and can move.
Houses have windows and cannot move.
Therefore it's not the windows that make the car move, but something else entirely.
sem@piefed.blahaj.zone · 3 pts · 10d
Logical and correct!
hegus@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 10d
Not quite. It just follows that windows are not a sufficient condition to make something move.
Consider this:
A person has legs and can walk. A dead body has legs and cannot walk. Therefore legs are not necessary in order to walk?
No, legs are just not sufficient you also need to be alive and some other things.
sem@piefed.blahaj.zone · 1 pts · 10d
There's something about all Crows are black and everything that is not black isn't a crow
CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org · 2 pts · 10d
Profound.
Davel23@fedia.io · 12 pts · 11d
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana.
sem@piefed.blahaj.zone · 4 pts · 10d
Except for Zeno!
Dalvoron@lemmy.zip · 10 pts · 10d
Moral philosophy can be broadly divided into a few categories
Consequentialism - the idea that the morality of an action is determined by its consequences. For example, utilitarianism suggests that moral actions are the ones which produce the most happiness.
Deontology - the idea that there are moral laws, and that moral actions are those that follow the laws.
Virtue ethics - the idea that virtuous actions help us flourish and vicious (from vices) actions hinder us. There is also the concept that virtues exist in the middle ("golden mean") of a scale between two vices, for example bravery is a virtue between the vices of cowardice and recklessness.
Pragmatism - the idea that there can be a moral progression of society and knowledge via study and inquiry. This is not so much a category of its own, but it's compatible with the the main ones mentioned above.
On a personal note, I do not like consequentialism as a moral theory. I lean more towards pragmatic deontology but virtue ethics is also compelling.
sem@piefed.blahaj.zone · 3 pts · 10d
I got as far as foucault, and the main thing i took away was that even with wildly differing moral philosophies, two people can always come to understand each other's position if they can talk to each other long enough, though they won't always agree in the end. There is no universal truth that is true for all of us.
Is that post-modernist philosophy?
just_an_average_joe@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 3 pts · 10d
Yeah, modernity was about things to be discovered and post-modernity was all about "everything is relative to social context"
just_an_average_joe@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 3 pts · 10d
Wouldn't deontology and virtue ethics be same in your description? Like virtues are those moral laws? (I never took a philosophy course btw)
Dalvoron@lemmy.zip · 3 pts · 10d
Virtues are human traits, like bravery, honesty, kindness etc
Moral laws tend to be more about specific actions, like "lying is wrong", "it is good to give to charity".
They might arrive in the same place, but take different routes. In addition, with the golden mean aspect of virtue ethics, applying moral laws too much can be bad.
For instance, deontology might feel is it is wrong to lie and good to tell the truth and those will be absolutely, categorically true. Golden mean would suggest that it is possible to tell the truth too much, perhaps if we are too forthcoming with it, or too blatant/tactless with it, or needlessly offensive. I'm not a scholar on this stuff, but that's my best explanation!
just_an_average_joe@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 2 pts · 10d
That makes a lot of sense, thanks!
sem@piefed.blahaj.zone · 2 pts · 10d
You're making me remember a term exam I had in my only philo class, freshman world philosophy. The professor asked something like the following,
I thought this was brilliant because he got to have a room full of undergrads think and write about a real moral conflict he was having with another human, and also, good for having us use our educatuon as applied to a real question.
I can vaguely remember my answer, but I don't really remember any of the world philosophy...
Dalvoron@lemmy.zip · 2 pts · 9d
It's an interesting one! I haven't taken any classes but would love to do at least an introductory one. The Great Courses has a good series on moral philosophy and I enjoyed the book How to be Perfect by Michael Schur (creator of The Good Place tv show).
That question in particular would be difficult for me to answer in a purely philosophical sense. I suppose we'd need to define what good/bad for the environment mean etc.
The birds are fed, is that good for the environment? The birds are part of the environment, so yes I guess so.
Are the birds being fed appropriate food? We'd have to ask the professor.
Are at least some of the birds invasive or causing some other trouble in the environment? Have to gather more information.
Perhaps by feeding the birds, they are not eating as much other food like insects, which can cause pest issues?
I like to think your professor would grade on both your questions and your answers. Do you remember many of the specifics in your answer or any feedback you got?
sem@piefed.blahaj.zone · 2 pts · 9d
Kind of a sore memory. This might have been the exam that for years afterwards whenever I saw this professor at social gatherings. He would say, hey sem, I still have an exam to get back to you. And I'd say, okay, I'll come by your office, but I never did. We were a fairly tight knit small program, and he prof had a tradition of inviting people to his house on friday evenings for discussion or special guests, just to show you what the vibe was.
He knew i struggled with procrastination, which he didn't hold against me. He would tell me how he once turned in a paper a year past the deadline.
I might be mixing up memories. I do remember him sharing by name his favorite answer and which student wrote it, which I disagreed with. That kid was very religious and studious, and had a scripture-informed answer, but he supported with other techniques from the class, that much I remember.
How you answer the question depends on you you frame right and wrong, moral and immoral, and thinking through those decisions and questions like you were doing is what he was looking for.
Boozilla@sh.itjust.works · 9 pts · 11d
The philosophy of Antinatalism makes a lot of logical sense to me. I find it difficult to argue against without appealing to nature, traditions, emotions, etc.
People really, really, really hate AN, though. It's not something I enjoy engaging about. I don't really care if other people subscribe to it or not. I'm not an AN evangelist.
Unfortunately, AN attracts a lot of weirdos, childfree types, and suicidal people. There are some brilliant folks who subscribe to it, too. But the signal to noise ratio is awful.
sem@piefed.blahaj.zone · 2 pts · 10d
What is anti natalism? Not judging people if they aren't born here?
chunes@lemmy.world · 6 pts · 10d
It means that you think procreation is unethical.
Most antinatalists take issue with the concept of consent. The logic goes: the person you're forcing to be in this world by procreating didn't ask to be here; there is no way to obtain their consent; therefore, it would be unethical to procreate.
Most antinatalists are also negative utilitarians, which is a philosophy that says minimizing harm is more important than maximizing pleasure. This explains why they reject the 'gotta crack a few eggs to make an omelet' logic most people use where procreation is fine since most people want to be here.
sem@piefed.blahaj.zone · 2 pts · 10d
Are they related to the Zizians?
ChristerMLB@piefed.social · 9 pts · 10d
Modern formal logic is still considered part of philosophy, and is the basis of most programming languages. Ethics is very practical and specialized versions get taught in a lot of professional educations (medicine, law, economics, teaching, et.c.) - and it sure would be nice if people paid more attention to political philosophy.
sem@piefed.blahaj.zone · 5 pts · 10d
I knew someone who took an engineering ethics course in college that completely changed his career and i think made him a better person.
CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org · 2 pts · 10d
In this spirit, all of science used to be part of philosophy, under the umbrella of "natural philosophy".
luthis@lemmy.nz · 9 pts · 11d
Absurdism. Life, the universe, existence, is absurd and irrational.
It's comforting and liberating to accept.
BranBucket@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 10d
Grasping the idea that things don't always make sense, and that's it's okay when they don't, is like setting down a heavy load you didn't realize you were carrying.
CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org · 1 pts · 10d
Absurd, sure. Irrational? Good luck living according to that for any length of time.
luthis@lemmy.nz · 1 pts · 10d
It doesn't matter if you try or not, you will anyway. It's unavoidable. The canvas has a colour, no matter what paint you put on top
CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org · 1 pts · 9d
So what, you mean that in just a relative way, compared to some kind of platonic, maximally-ordered alternate possibility? If the world was actually irrational, as in defying logic, basic planning, like walking in the direction you want to go, would not work.
Instead, it's extremely orderly if you look closely at any given thing, only becoming unpredictable with scale and influence by other, unknown-to-you parts. Even quantum mechanics has utterly predictable probabilities. And interpretations where the randomness is, itself, an illusion.
dogzilla@masto.deluma.biz · 1 pts · 7d
@CanadaPlus @asklemmy We assume that “rational” is a platonic ideal. I would argue that what we consider “rational” is a product of the environment we evolved in. Had we evolved in a different environment (eg: a binary star system with unpredictable seasons or even day/night cycles) we would likely have a very different definition for “rational”.
CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org · 1 pts · 7d
I mean, you can bring up hypothetical "other logics", although it's hard to go much further than that. By definition, we can't reason about them.
On your Three Body Problem binary star world, we'd still be dealing with the same kind of energy scales, in the same universe; every mathematical theorem that's ever existed, and all known physics, would still work. What might be different, though, is which tasks the aliens find easy or hard.
When we invented computers, nobody was expecting them to be great at chess but poor at detecting if an image is of a bird. For humans, chess is hard, but seeing a bird is easy, and we assumed that was fundamental. In the 50's, the first chess algorithms were developed, and it led to the first wave of predictions the singularity was nigh. Obviously, that didn't happen.
As it turns out, ancient humans spent a lot of time looking for creatures, and evolved a lot of brain anatomy devoted to it. With chess we're starting from scratch, just like the computers. It wasn't until 2010 or so we solved the bird problem with software. Maybe your aliens are really good at chess, but blind. Or maybe, because their homeworld is unpredictable, they can learn all kinds of patterns and tasks very easily, but have no attention span and a poor memory.
Apeman42@lemmy.world · 8 pts · 11d
Time is a river. Life is a journey. The door is ajar.
solrize@lemmy.ml · 6 pts · 11d
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like an orange.
Rhynoplaz@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 11d
The first time I ever saw this phrase, I read it as "Fruit (travels through the air) like an orange."
And I was like, I guess that makes sense, cause it is one. I just thought it was silly and stupid.
sem@piefed.blahaj.zone · 1 pts · 10d
I thought it was fruit flies like bananas
thirteene@lemmy.world · 8 pts · 10d
Identifying an arguments fallacy by name usually doesn't resolve an argument
sem@piefed.blahaj.zone · 3 pts · 10d
The fallacy fallacy!
CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org · 2 pts · 10d
Most of the time when you see this, the person being accused straight-up doesn't seem to know their fallacies, so it doesn't work.
If they do know, and try to explain why they're not doing whatever fallacy, the conversation descends into a weird semantic debate, and the original point tends to be forgotten.
Explaining the problem with the argument in plain terms has a far better track record.
Goldholz@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 8 pts · 10d
Stoicism helps massively in a chaotic world like today
monotremata@lemmy.ca · 7 pts · 10d
My favorite is Lakoff's category theory. He notes that philosophy largely pretends that categories are defined based on rules of inclusion and exclusion, but in fact human thinking is mostly based around categories defined by a prototypical example and various relations to that example. So, e.g., a penguin and a sparrow are both birds, but a sparrow is more like the prototypical bird, since it's smaller and it flies.
Many of the great philosophical questions over the years have been about trying to decide on precise rules of inclusion and exclusion for categories, even though the closer people look, the less it seems like there's a meaningful boundary (e.g. "life" vs "non-living," where you start to see things like viruses, prions, etc. that don't fit cleanly into either category).
just_an_average_joe@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 3 pts · 10d
Wouldn't that be structuralism? Ie the truth (category in this case) is defined by the relations an entity (penguin or sparrow) has with some other entity (the example bird) rather than something intrinsic to that entity
monotremata@lemmy.ca · 1 pts · 9d
Definitely related, yeah. Lakoff was primarily making a linguistic observation, but he did think it was reflective of the way humans really think about these kinds of categories, and that seems right.
sem@piefed.blahaj.zone · 2 pts · 10d
That is a neat insight!
There is a whole category of misunderstandings that happen when contexts collide.
I feel like science tries to get specific so they can make predictions and explain phenomena, but using the same language the rest of us gives us things like the penguin and sparrow conflict, tomato is a fruit, strawberries aren't berries, etc.
Meanwhile I'm over here like, not only can you call all insects "bugs", you can call spiders, small arthropods, anything that fits the general vibe of small and bug-like, so long as you're not causing misunderstandings in a scientific context.
luthis@lemmy.nz · 7 pts · 11d
Knowledge is power, but France is bacon.
sem@piefed.blahaj.zone · 2 pts · 10d
Nods, France is bacon.
chicken@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 6 pts · 10d
People get upset if you try to say they aren't real
CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org · 2 pts · 10d
It's alright, I'm not real either.
AbouBenAdhem@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 11d
The last two and a half millennia of western philosophy has been the slow realization that Epicurus and Heraclitus were closer to the truth than Plato or Aristotle.
sem@piefed.blahaj.zone · 1 pts · 10d
I know about the cave and Aristotle's whole bag but who are the other guys?
fubarx@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 10d
There are many branches in philosophy, and it's easy to mix them up. Depends on what you're into.
SmoothOperator@lemmy.world · 7 pts · 10d
How does phrenology belong in that list? It's a pseudoscience.
sem@piefed.blahaj.zone · 3 pts · 10d
I was about to say, just gonna sneak phrenology in there. The bogus racist study of skulls, unless op meant something different
GreenKnight23@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 9d
I know the world suffers so today because not enough people understand philosophy.
philosophy was replaced by philanthropic endeavors by the grossly rich. recorded and streamed online for all to see how "good christans" treat the destitute and needy.
morals are obligations only the poor are required to pay.
the world as we know it is dying horrifically and there's nothing any one person can do to stop it.
the call to the danger is drown out by the incessant shrill bells of subscriptions releasing hourly, 24 hours a day. nobody will hear it before it's too late.
we are already dead.
njordomir@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 9d
I majored in PHIL and took significant personal interest in it before that. I also deconstructed my faith in the 5 years prior to that. Philosophy asks all the questions, not just the ones that have immediate practical meaning or application or serve the will of those in power. Beyond that, it helps us develop better question asking and reasoning skills that are applicable to many other topics and pursuits. In some ways, philosophy is what education should be. It encourages you to discover and try to understand rather than just flip open your noggin on a hinge for someone to shovel in a bunch of junk for you to mindlessly repeat. If every school aged kid was introduced to philosophy the world would be a better place.
melsaskca@lemmy.ca · 4 pts · 9d
All philosophy is based on the two opposing views "Cogito Ergo Sum" vs. "Esse Est Percipi".
sem@piefed.blahaj.zone · 2 pts · 9d
I recognize the first (i think therefore i am, Descartes big innovation) but my Latin is not great, what is the 2nd? Something like "that is perceived?“
melsaskca@lemmy.ca · 1 pts · 9d
"To be, is to be perceived".
leaky_shower_thought@feddit.nl · 4 pts · 11d
the modern golden rule is all about gold and rule.
i also believe it takes strength to be kind. in the same sense that being cruel and chaotic follows the entropy of the universe.
sem@piefed.blahaj.zone · 2 pts · 10d
He who has gold makes the rules
Valmond@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 4 pts · 10d
PhD is philosophy doctor.
Gentryfried@feddit.uk · 3 pts · 11d
I know that i know nothing. I know that i think, therefore i amsem@piefed.blahaj.zone · 2 pts · 10d
Descartes. Makes sense to me that this is the only thing anyone can know with true certainty
_NetNomad@fedia.io · 1 pts · 11d
i know nothing, therefore i am nothing
palordrolap@fedia.io · 1 pts · 11d
Were existence based not on thought, but on the quality of it, the world might be better off.
(I may have accidentally crossed Sartre with Descartes here.)
gigastasio@sh.itjust.works · 3 pts · 11d
Few years ago I picked up a random philosophy magazine out of curiosity. Single thing I remember is an article with a guy arguing that all inanimate objects have rights.
solrize@lemmy.ml · 3 pts · 11d
Philosophers used to be nearly unemployable but suddenly there is high demand for them in the AI industry. Shudder.
https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/2026/06/ai-companies-hiring-philosophers/687417/
leanleft@lemmy.ml · 2 pts · 11d
i was thinking this would be related to ontology
"What ontologies in both information science and philosophy have in common is the attempt to represent entities, including both objects and events, with all their interdependent properties and relations, according to a system of categories. In both fields, there is considerable work on problems of ontology engineering (e.g., Quine and Kripke in philosophy, Sowa and Guarino in information science),[5] and debates concerning to what extent normative ontology is possible (e.g., foundationalism and coherentism in philosophy, BFO and Cyc in artificial intelligence)."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontology_(information_science)
sem@piefed.blahaj.zone · 1 pts · 10d
I heard this on the radio!
greedytacothief@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 3 pts · 9d
Some philosophers have written in intentionally hard to understand language.
sem@piefed.blahaj.zone · 1 pts · 9d
True. I've also read an article recently that philosophers get taught now a day's to write really boringly and get made fun of if they use fancy words when simple words would have worked.
HubertManne@piefed.social · 3 pts · 10d
Machiavelli was not saying to be mean as much as be prepared to be mean.
sem@piefed.blahaj.zone · 1 pts · 10d
I think Ender of enders game had the same philosophy, and he ended up xenociding a whole species.
gandalf_der_12te@feddit.org · 3 pts · 10d
eat shit have fun :)
edit: i should clarify that is what philosophy is all about
sem@piefed.blahaj.zone · 1 pts · 10d
The corrolary to fuck around and find out!
pech@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 9d
There's a Canadian mechanic on YouTube and one of his sign-offs was "if you don't fuck around, how will you ever find out?" Which does feel kind of philosophical to me lol
sem@piefed.blahaj.zone · 2 pts · 9d
To get serious about this i think there are two broad tracks: 1. Learn through education and 2. Learn through experience.
Sometimes I've wanted to experience something that other people have told me, no you can learn the lesson without having to do it. But i know that I'll learn the lesson better if i experience it first hand, in context.
For other things, i can learn from others. E.g., take a science-based COVID vaccine. When the risks are great for myself and others, i don't have to "fuck around and find out."
I first encountered this phrase as a coping mechanism for nurses and other healthcare professionals who had to care for people who had gotten sick and died after getting COVID, so it's always had a specific flavor for me.
pech@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 9d
That seems like a very balanced approach beyond what I was even considering; I like it.
The guys channel is full of mad science slapdash stuff to make things work that otherwise, just shouldn't lol. I take that approach to my homelab (with some caveats, since I'm not trying to lose all my data lol), and just kind of throw things together with some minimal understanding of how they fit conceptually.
DougPiranha42@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 11d
Lots of inspiring thoughts in the comments section! Way to go!
volore@scribe.disroot.org · 3 pts · 11d
I know that I know not enough, and nothing more.
Z745812939054@lemmy.zip · 2 pts · 11d
we really don't actually know wtf is going on, and there's a good chance we never will
Strider@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 10d
I can just say the old Greek already knew everything.
iatenine@piefed.social · 2 pts · 10d
I do know about something and don't call me Philosophy
sem@piefed.blahaj.zone · 1 pts · 10d
What's something you know about, then? Let's talk about that
Treczoks@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 10d
We had philosophy as a subject in school, but it was less about learning to think and more about interpreting texts written by some philosophers. Most (including me) dropped the class after the year.
And that was forty years ago...
k_rol@lemmy.ca · 3 pts · 10d
I think that's pretty common to start that way. Although where I live it's only the first semester, then it's about how to think by using those methods we just learned about.
Treczoks@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 10d
The problem here was the teacher. We had heard from others that he does the same style for all three years. Luckily, I needed only one for my set of subjects.
Maiq@piefed.zip · 2 pts · 10d
Oh waiter, this conversation isn't very good.
Sly2@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 10d
Waaaait a minute, Monty Python does not have an S in it! ALWAYS knew it. Bunch of frauds.
sem@piefed.blahaj.zone · 2 pts · 10d
Wow, gotta love the Mythons!
Maiq@piefed.zip · 2 pts · 10d
Doesn't it make you wonder...What's it all about?
NotASharkInAManSuit@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 9d
Like all things, 90% of it is just idiots egotistically gazing into their own assholes insisting that every aspect of their subjective self-revelation is universal, and in between that there are some good things here and there. Treat any philosophical concept as a filter, not a sponge.
wraekscadu@vargar.org · 1 pts · 10d
Idealism is intellectual jerking off. Quite fun!
Kolanaki@pawb.social · 1 pts · 10d
Cogito ergo sum.
Nothing really matters.
Diogenes was a cool dude.
Quazatron@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 10d
I would add:
sem@piefed.blahaj.zone · 1 pts · 11d
I'll start: my high school had an ad on school tv which went like this.
sem@piefed.blahaj.zone · 1 pts · 10d
I looked them up
Property is theft, and property is impossible:
Pierre-Joseph Proudhon
French politician, philosopher, anarchist and socialist (1809-1865)
Sly2@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 10d
All marxist analyses are analyses of failure.
Goldholz@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 2 pts · 10d
Care to elaborate, im afraid i dont quite understand. Do you mean the countries that claim(ed) to be socialist or that marx' analyses and argumentation is wrong?
sem@piefed.blahaj.zone · 3 pts · 10d
I've always thought that was one of the successes of Marx, is that even if his system has never existed in the world, it was such an interesting framework to work with that it spanned a whole discipline of thought. Not a failure at all in my eyes, even if it wasn't the success Marx intended.
Goldholz@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 2 pts · 10d
If you only read to page 64 of the capital. You'll have noticed how scientificly he went on about making his case. And while every proper attempt to create his idea, has been crushed by either capitalists or authoriarians, i agree. His biggest legacy is the IDEA and the mass spread of it. Sure it was always a fight peasents vs nobility, but never so well organized and public than after his work
BaraCoded@literature.cafe · -2 pts · 9d
The most philophically inclined people I've known in my life all ended up being frustrated little nazi cunts. Philosophy is used waaaaay too much as religion is, to rationalise the unacceptable. I avoid "philosophers", it's just brainbloat for the sake of brainbloat because they have to compensate for the size of their lil dick.
sem@piefed.blahaj.zone · 2 pts · 9d
I met a few libertarians like that. It's not great.
BaraCoded@literature.cafe · 2 pts · 9d
Libertarians are the worst.
PointyFluff@lemmy.ml · -7 pts · 11d
It's religion with extra steps
Valmond@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 3 pts · 10d
Well no it isn't.
Objection@lemmy.ml · 3 pts · 9d
Religion, famous for encouraging you to critically examine your beliefs.
CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org · 2 pts · 10d
Or religion is it with extra steps.
There is a relation.