The level of abstractions smh. Some glitches in between.

1. Emotional inaccessibility is not a display of strength.

2. You are not a machine made to produce.

3. It’s not kitsch to mournful,or to be exuberant.

4. We were not made to sit in silence and grovel for crumbs.

5. You can dance to the metronome of time when no music is in your ears.

6. Your dreams are what allow you change.

Don’t lose them, and make one shimmy that way when it crosses your mind.

7. Swallow your pride and humble yourself in the dust you kick up.

Hey r/badphilosophy,

Lately, I’ve been on a bit of an existentialism kick while working on an AI game inspired by tabletop classics like D&D. The goal? Throw players into moral dilemmas and philosophical questions with AI characters that might make them question everything—or at least have some fun.

Socrates is the first NPC you’ll meet (gotta love that dude’s commitment to questioning), and if people dig it, I might throw in a few more philosophers who’d enjoy judging our every move.

Feel free to give it a spin and roast it, analyze it, or just enjoy Socrates grilling you: Link to Game

Are there any texts anywhere about that? Do you have your own opinions on that? Concepts like synchronicity and superposition and time travel come to mind.

So many abstractions

https://newcriterion.com/article/the-difficulty-with-hegel/

Bakamono, kono yarou, bononia ducet, Farsi, Urdu, Goblin, Sherlock and Wato-san

Or are they one and the same usually?

All throwaway jokes, memes, and bad philosophy up to the length of one tweet (~280 characters) belong here. If they are posted somewhere other than this thread, your a username will be posted to the ban list and you will need to make Tribute to return to being a member of the sub in good standing. This is the water, this is the well. Amen.

Praise the mods if you get banned for they deliver you from the evil that this sub is. You should probably just unsubscribe while you're at it.

Remember no Peterson or Harris shit. We might just ban and immediately unban you if you do that as a punishment.

hey so i heard about this wittgenstein guy and he seems to be one of the funniest people that ever existed based on the three things i've read about him online that may or may not be true so i felt inspired to switch my college major to philosophy so i can be really funny and unemployed. is this a good idea? can i get a girlfriend by being weird? thank you for your time.

Can highly recommend the rest of the YouTube channel as well.

https://youtu.be/gl3fOAmLnxg?feature=shared

While I’m working my way through Heidegger’s “Letter on Humanism” I have on my mind an idea.

First, I’d like to start by introducing a loaded term that is equally archaic atm 🤪.

Humanism:

It would seem humanism has evolved and changed greatly, and like most institutions has had its fair share of ups and downs.

Humanism seems to be founded by like likes of Erasmus and other Renaissance men, traveling polymaths who during a time of religious war and tension allowed themselves to be open to a reinterpretation of creed. (1400s) They devoured Aristotle and Cicero and fuck I bet some other really great stuff from people who were condemned by the church or state.

I guess then the enlightenment happened and this bitch named Diderot started pushing secular humanism. Which attached rationality to humankind or some shit.

Probably because of Erasmus’s plans being foiled by Martin Luther or whoever idrk.

So then the humanist agenda is further warped through the obvious flaws with the logical positivism resulting from the enlightenment.

Then there’s American Pragmatism???

Fuck it seems high time some anti-humanism came around.

Anyways,

My point and question:

Are we a human that is also a being?

It seems entirely possible, that we have a self determining ability and it may be because of the phenomenon of dual being.

https://open.spotify.com/episode/7E2onI8R3wdnxAS0p1O9j8?si=sgR1E44lRTGOY17mUikUFQ

https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/if-books-could-kill/id1651876897

https://pca.st/episode/0e155eb9-93e0-4fe8-bde3-5f115f9b374a

Keep the trolley

So I was in an argument with a friend today, and he made an argument that kinda makes sense, but I’m not sure. So he had all these “premises”, right? And then from those “premises”, he did what he calls “inferences” to find a “conclusion”.

Personally I feel like I’ve been duped at some point. Like clearly he’s using some kind of fallacy, or he’s just moving words around or something. I’ve spent the last few years making sure I know all of the fallacies so I can be good at logic, but I can’t seem to find a name for this one. Could someone help me with this?

tl;dr My friend is using weird terms instead of arguing correctly and I think he’s using some kind of fallacy.

What exciting topic would you like to teach AI? https://www.reddit.com/u/appenofficial/s/55Cb27JACd

What is the philosophy of among us?

In this thread OP tells his family about the foundation of modern morality, the categorical imperative (also known as the golden rule apparently)

https://www.reddit.com/r/neoliberal/comments/1gg686i/do_republicans_comprehend_the_categorical/

Decree #1: I shall not interfere with the workings of the universe and everything will carry on as normal (Laissez-faire)

Decree #2: I shall give up my powers as the most powerful entity in the universe. To give up one's own power is the ultimate sign of a Supreme powerful being

Then join r/ImpromptuWriting. A growing community of thinkers who shape stories by just commenting. We already finished our first story, Hives In Madness (7 chapters), and just started blueprinting ideas for the next story. So act now! Chapter 1-3 is out but you can still contribute with chapter 4.

My brain can only think using circular reasoning. Why is that? Well, because circles are my favourite shape.

Now, some might be wondering: "Why are circles your favourite shape?" Well, that's because my brain can only think using circular reasoning.

Sources:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=PGNiXGX2nLU&pp=ygUXeW91IHNwaW4gbWUgcmlnaHQgcm91bmQ%3D

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=S4v4bEzHRZY&pp=ygUSV2FudGVkIGNpcmNsZSBzaG90

https://www.reddit.com/r/philosophy/comments/1gfk89f/metaphysics_vs_consciousness_panpsychism_has_no/

r/philosophy back at it again? It seems that no matter what year we're in, the comment section to any post discussing consciousness on that sub looks exactly the same.

It's okay to be unfamiliar with the positions being discussed in the post. Perhaps the commenters simply didn't have the time to go through the actual contents of the post before commenting on it anyway as well. Though it's still no less strange that, in response to a post arguing for the empirical equivalence of different theories of mind, these are the comments receiving the most upvotes:

It's not satisfactory to me to posit panpsychism and not have a theory with some explanatory value as to why you'll lose your consciousness if I smack you over the head with a hard and heavy book. The idea that consciousness is a result of normal brain function may not be a complete theory of consciousness, but at least it adequately explains that.

But with consciousness, it's actually an even worse explanation than this daft example I've made up, because it doesn't explain how selective or partial disruption to the brain can change consciousness - for example how someone can completely recover from a stroke except that their personality is left different. 

But I would contend the fundamental fact that consciousness is a product of brain function is so self-evident, it doesn't even warrant any debate. I wouldn't seriously debate that with anyone any more than I would debate whether the origin of species is a process of evolution.

No panpsychism, like any good woo garbage, is completely unfalsifiable.

I don't know much about philosophy, but materialism has the same empirical support as panpsychism and dualism?

Pretty sure we could mess with the brain to see how it affects consciousness.

It has the the largest amount of evidence, by far.

The very fact that a dead brain cannot show any sign of consciousness, is the most convincing proof.

One can disagree with and critique panpsychism. Many people do. Those who defend the position must respond to these critiques, which is why discussion around the topic exists. But is it really that difficult for some people to know what it is a position is even saying, or why a position is being posited to begin with, before leaving their takes on it? Because it's not clear where these people get the idea that positions like panpsychism deny that affecting the brain affects consciousness, or that under such views, consciousness isn't still a product of brain function. Certainly not the very post that they're commenting under!

The rest of comment section isn't any better. Though seeing the abstract getting downvoted and the response to it is amusing.

Hey everyone, here's an impression video of JBP analyzing the children's book "If You Give a Mouse a Cookie" (links for whatever socials you have):

TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@motivationbyz/video/7425719888024440095

Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/p/DBHfyTby12P/

Twitter: https://x.com/motivationbyz/status/1849518262201028803

"What's it like to be a bat?"

Okay buddy, more like:

"What's it like to have a bat penis."

Just another classic sex obsessed Freudian spewing filth into my virgin protestant ears.

Yes, it's funny how some people will write extremely complicated and technical "proofs" that the mind is not a product of the brain, but if you think 5 seconds about the alternative, it's just postulating the existence of ghosts and spirits, a whole series of mechanisms to keep them attached to a physical person, have some interdependence with what happens to their brain while somehow not being actually on the same level of existence... Just admit you're religious!

It's interesting no one figured out answer to such a big philosophical question takes only 5 seconds of thinking to answer. Also I didn't know people like David Chalmers were secretly religious, talking about ghosts and spirits.

My boss said it was bring down team morale. Apparently, there was a clause in the employee handbook which allows an employee to cry 5 times a month. Since I cried 6 I received a formal write up, and at my most recent performance review they sited my formal write up as a reason for them to “pursue other candidates”

Now since I can’t file for unemployment I have to fall into credit card debt while I try to replace this job.

I'm a philosophy professor, and sometimes I forget to switch off "professor mode" at home. Last night, my daughter wouldn't go to bed, and instead of normal parenting, I made what my wife calls "a typical mistake."

When my daughter insisted she wasn't tired, I reflexively started explaining how her position was merely a thesis that required examination. I thought I'd confuse her into compliance, but she got weirdly interested. "What's a thesis, daddy?" And like an idiot, I actually explained.

Things snowballed when she grasped the basic concept surprisingly well. She started arguing that my position (bedtime now) and her position (no bedtime) were equally valid starting points. I was simultaneously proud and horrified as I realized I'd given a 5-year-old philosophical ammunition.

I tried steering us toward a synthesis: "How about we read one story and then sleep?" But she'd already internalized the format: "But daddy, that's just your antithesis pretending to be a synthesis." I'm still not sure where she learned the word "antithesis."

My wife came in around 10 PM to find us at the whiteboard (yes, she has one for drawing), mapping out the logical progression of bedtime arguments. My daughter had moved on to questioning the fundamental nature of time itself and whether "bedtime" as a concept had any meaning outside of socially constructed parental authority. My wife just wanted us to use a sticker chart.

She finally fell asleep hours after her normal bedtime, but only after declaring her temporary physical surrender to biological necessity didn't constitute acceptance of my philosophical position.

This morning she demanded we revisit our discussion with "fresh dialectical perspectives." My wife is not speaking to me.

So, it would seem all the big dog shit in high school, proving we slept with more women and had bigger dicks was just an exercise in signaling our virility.

I mean fine by me, but I think maybe the general public and their children might appreciate the spectrum of virility. I feel like it would ease some of the pressure to behave like a pig.

Idk this isn't very coherent. Im proud of my hornyness. There's someone for everyone.

That means I hope all my engineering co workers get wife's with extremely low sex drives.

Edit: Shout out to all the slutty philosophers.

i heard girls like smart guys. i realize now that they do not care much for my pvp rating in world of warcraft (2600)