PHILOSOPHY GENERAL

If it feels natural for you maybe. And sometimes i think a man has to go through those times and maybe become that way for a bit. But nothing is forever.

Attached: quote-so-i-simply-switched-over-to-wine-because-it-was-not-carbonated-peter-steele-28-18-76.jpg (850x400, 62K)

No. Emotions are part of what make us human and denying them makes us unhealthy (not to mention, most of the people who claim to be devoid of emotion in their words and deeds are mistaken). It's better to understand what makes you feel the way you do and why. Then you can better control how your emotions are expressed without trying to deny them.
I don't think there's an afterlife in the traditional Judeo-Christian sense because I don't believe in souls.

In a sense pursuing anything has the opportunity cost of not spending that time pursuing another thing. In that sense, they would be mutually exclusive.

False quote. Thucydides never wrote that. It's from a 19th century British colonel.

>No. Emotions are part of what make us human and denying them makes us unhealthy
NOT A PHILOSOPHER

Some zoomer larping faggot. /thread/

Attached: 8a50 stoic.jpg (236x295, 13K)

why would anyone vote for the interest of others?
Sure being selfish is bad but before you think about others you have to think about yourself. If you stop thinking about yourself then there is no one going to be who thinks about others.

Then why don't philosophers cure diseases like a doctor or make more money than an economist?

why is taxation theft, and how do you go about convincing people that they ought to be anarchists?

Philosopher here, AMA

Attached: 1526521808844.jpg (334x506, 42K)

Your job is worthless.

Id say do it for a time but dont let yourself become so clammed up that you cant have fun. When the opportunity to have some fun or show some vulnerability, dont be afraid to take it

Ive gone through long periods of stoic-ness. Sometimes its necessary.

Attached: ap,550x550,16x12,1,transparent,t.u1.png (549x413, 104K)

why are you a philosopher?

Give me back my money also fuck google

You've read Paulsen. The modern fascination with adopting other people's cause is disingenuous and leads to uninformed results.

I just googled the gist of the quote, i had no idea where it came from. Do you know who made it originally? Didnt know that

>everything in the universe follows laws and has a reason
>except for emotions
>emotions are the one random thing in the entire universe, everything else is deterministic

If we're talking about the benefit of society, in many cases, our own interests will coincide with those of others. In cases where they don't coincide, almost by definition, doing what's in the best interest of others would benefit society more. There's still the question of whether or not we ought to care more about ourselves or society in general or in any given case. That's harder problem.
Being attentive to our emotions has been part of philosophy for as long as philosophy has existed.
You should consider the difference between selfishness and self-interest. We never have to be selfish. We always have to be self-interested.

Today is the day, I'm going to be ending it now early in the morning just before my parents wake up. I haven't slept in almost 30 hours.
Goodbye everyone, and thank you for the fun times. I'll start in around 45 minutes. Zc

Livestream video link + explanation:
pastebin.com/MiC4H08J

Attached: 1562383535.859.jpg (360x640, 80K)

What jobs are commonly overlooked by philosophy majors? I'm at a crossroads, and advice is needed. Uni will say that dance therapy has good employment opportunities so I'd appreaciate an answer from an actual philosopher.

>What jobs are commonly overlooked by philosophy majors?
starbucks barista

What is a conscious being? For me, a conscious being is someone who is capable of introspection. He must be capable of remembering his past, understand his present, and imagine his future. It must be able to tell himself apart from the world that surrounds him. If any of these is not true, then such a being cannot be said to be a conscious being.

If it cannot introspect, cannot think through its actions, their causes and consequences, but is capable of memory, planning and learning, it may even be considered a smart being, but not conscious. Like a machine.

I forget the name of the guy, but he's no one of great consequence. Just someone who said something quippy that other people think sums up something profound.

Fake, no way could an Australian purchase a .45 pistol magazine for $29.99 even used.

you wont do it faggot

is curing diseases and making more money guide to greater happiness?

It's worth specifying this question is for a democratic society, or at least representative. The point is any person should act in vote in their own self interest, and in the aggregate the will of the people will be realized.
The current American situation exhibits people who vote and act on the interests of theirs, undermining the equilibrium of demand and response.

What do you think the purpose of life is?

why do you say so?

Most of the smart anarchists I've read or talked to go about it by questioning whether there really is any difference between a government and a random person/gang. There is a difference for some of them but they try to argue that the line isn't as clear or shouldn't be drawn where we think it should be.
I don't think I have your money. I agree fuck google, though.
Are you an undergrad? If you're very good at philosophy (and please be honest with yourself and ask your professors to be as well), you could consider grad school and end up researching, or, more likely, teaching philosophy. Many go into law school but that's also something I'd warn against unless you can get into a very good school and/or not have to pay for it. You could also get a teaching license and teach in k-12 or teach TEFL. I've known a lot of people who end up in insurance and real estate for some reason. A handful who have started their own businesses. Some end up as writers, copywriting or editing or something like that tend to be areas where philosophy students do well. You could also consider getting a double major or a minor in something with a career track that's more obvious. I'm sure you see the rewards that philosophy brings but, when it comes to the job market, you're going to have to work your ass off to even open certain doors.

that's the first priority. teaching, writing, editorial work, government work in the "department of knowledge", research and such come later. actually getting a job in this country makes you immune to being fired and median wage is roughly 15 dollars. cost of living is absurd though.

Because it's liberating.

The purpose of "life" is obviously to keep existing. It's not even to reproduce, it will be perfectly happy being still and keep metabolizing, for as long as it can.

The purpose of people, though, is another matter, and may go against the purpose of life entirely.

Do you believe in God?

I taught philosophy at a state university for 6 years. I'm here to steal the thread from OP

Attached: mGmv6FT.jpg (800x800, 145K)

>a philosopher
Is there anything gayer than a self declared philosopher? I’d much rather listen to a blue collar hourly monkey wax and wane on his thoughts about the meaning of life than someone who tries to separate themselves from it.
Fuck off

Are you scared shlomo

Not trying to be dismissive, your question is a great one, it's just not something I have a strong view on. One question I'd ask you, do you think there's a difference between being conscious and being self-conscious? I think many people would say that what you're describing is too high a bar for consciousness but sounds a bit more like self-consciousness, which not all conscious beings need have.

Hi baby brain,
Neitszche grew to reject Heidegger’s formulation of the will being all there is. Zarathustras central point is that the good and the bad come to pass whether people will them to or not, and you need to be able to move forward in lockstep with them to strive toward the overman, which itself is an unreachable goal.

there are plenty of philosophies dedicated to understanding emotion you retard

Anything?
I don't remember choosing to be born into my family, my country, my ethnicity or culture. I don't even remember choosing to be born at all.
How did that work, exactly? If I was born five minutes later, would I have been born a girl in China instead? Is it random, luck of the draw, or something more? Do you remember choosing?

Attached: canada most.jpg (720x480, 36K)

What do you mean by purpose and "life"
define your terms.

>There is a difference for some of them
like what?

NOT AN ARGUMENT

Yes, retard.

More psyop bullshit. Trying to blackpill people, hey ASIO? Dumb cunt.

Society is made up of individuals that act among each other for their own self-interest to begin with. When an individual decides society does not act his own self interest, he either seeks to change society or he seeks to oppose society.
Self-interest is the honest, prime motivator for all interaction.

What do you mean by God?

how do philosophers separate themselves from life?

If you were born five minutes later, you would have been you, born five minutes later, you braindead embarrassment

thanks for the candid advice. and no, I'm not great. the faculty is pozzed beyond belief, kills my motivation. one of my professors literally studied under Habermas, others are jesuit, communist and the like, with the rest being near pure analytics. so I consider switching over to PolSci for employment. besides, there the answers are given plainly.

tl;dr: should I switch to PolSci?

>except for emotions
>>emotions are the one random thing in the entire universe, everything else is deterministic
lies

He said Stoicism was anti-emotion you FUCKING IDIOTS

Attached: Stoic unhappy virtue.jpg (400x500, 47K)

Why?
also how?

fuck niggers

The action of declaring oneself a philosopher, like the action of declaring a thought “doing philosophy,” is to remove oneself from the ossature that makes the reflection possible in the first place. It’s hubris on an existential level. Fuck you, I hate you.

Attached: E13AA3B7-1713-4D15-9935-CB4E3E324A17.gif (200x200, 948K)

[sigh]

If your definition of happiness is avoidance of displeasure, then curing diseases is happiness.
If your definition of happiness is pursuing pleasure, then making money is happiness.

But why would you consider happiness to be the goal of your life? It's an illusion, after all. The basic state of man is despair.

It would make sense if you didn’t have autism

The only good comment itt

In your parents' house? Really? Make them clean up after you one last time? Fuck you, at least take it outside.

Attached: kermit disgruntled.gif (253x197, 932K)

>do you think there's a difference between being conscious and being self-conscious
I think a conscious being that is not self-conscious can't be told apart from a simple smart being. As I said, a machine. It will do the tasks it was programmed to do (whether biologically, through evolution, or literally programmed), without being capable of analyzing its own programming, and therefore, unable to change it. I think this definition is not very interesting. It's just a robot. Consciousness, would just be a short-hand for self-consciousness, since the other definition is really uninteresting.

But that's just how I see it. Why define such an important concept for humanity to an idea completely alien, and, ultimately, boring?

This is wrong. The only emotional state to which the amygdala does not contribute is contentedness, which is the default state when the mind is unperturbed by worry and anxiety.

Do something cool, like do it right after seeing the new Spider-Man in theaters, right in the theatre

Do you think it’s possible to be self conscious without an inner voice or “mind’s eye” that some people lack?

I am not satisfied with that answer.
Is there another side, and when I was there, did I deliberately choose this somehow or was it assigned to me, the same as my name was assigned to me, my family and race and all the rest. Who assigned it? Why?
And that's Mister braindead embarassment to you.

>If your definition of happiness is avoidance of displeasure, then curing diseases is happiness.

All healthy people are happy?

>If your definition of happiness is pursuing pleasure, then making money is happiness.

All rich people are happy and never feel empty?

>But why would you consider happiness to be the goal of your life?

It's an illusion, after all. The basic state of man is despair.

But you just said there are certain ways of acquiring happiness?
How is it an illusion if you just pointed out ways to acquire it
Also how do you know that happiness is an illusion?

If you point it out when you see it occur it is an enduring meme. Self interest wins the day ... again.

Red herring fallacy

I think what I said before still holds, in this case. Luckily, most of the time, individual and collective interest go hand in hand.
We make our own purposes as we go along.
No.
I don't think you, or anyone else, pre-exist your own existence so I think questions like this are nonsensical.
I've heard some anarchists argue for some kind of minimal state that provides some kind of security. I think they wouldn't like calling it a state though. Anyway, you'd have to talk to anarchists about that.
Your prospects in polisci aren't that much different except if you go to grad school, there are more non-teaching jobs available in polisci.
There are people who disagree, and if that's you, fine, but the general understanding of stoicism is what I described. There are plenty of self-described stoics who are happy to be attentive to emotions, and if so, great. You'd have ask me about that specific thinker's views. or some school's views, on how we ought to go about living for me to be able to give my opinion on anything but "stoicism in general."

Peace just means fighting someone else’s enemies for someone else’s war for someone else’s reasons.

Attached: ACDEE0BC-A354-42FD-889C-17CDF69C97D3.png (1000x1000, 177K)

Today is the day, I'm going to be ending it now early in the morning just before my parents wake up. I haven't slept in almost 30 hours.
Goodbye everyone, and thank you for the fun times. I'll start in around 45 minutes. GB

Livestream video link + explanation:
pastebin.com/MiC4H08J

Attached: 1562384910.473.jpg (360x640, 80K)

what is your phd in?

There was probably something before, as there will probably be something after, but why do you presume these spooks were assigned to you? That’s a loaded term

We all know what a philosemite is, what is philosophy supposed to be then? Philosophism? I rest my case.

Oh, for sure. It's easy to imagine intelligent (or conscious, for now the distinction does not matter) "life" for which the importance of sound, and thus speech, is not as great as it is for humans, and so it never developed an inner voice to begin with, but some other medium to parse self-awareness. Or some species to which vision is secondary, and thus they developed an "inner-scent", maybe? Without a mind's eye is more difficult to imagine how planning would occur, but abstracting we can surely say that too. Blind people from birth probably can't imagine as we do, for example. Unless I misunderstood what you meant by "mind's eye"?

Not only you shifted away from conversation you also called me an autist
You really didn't prove anything all

It’s not, if you need it explained why health and financial security can make a person more easily attain happiness, it’s because you have autism. Having autism, you are unable to put yourself in the shoes of a hypothetical person, and you become indignant when your broken brain processes are pointed out to you.

>We make our own purposes as we go along.
The only good post you’ve made, spooknigger

I wasn’t insulting you, I was explaining that you are like the blind asking about colors

>discussing philosophy on an eastern asian knitting board

Don't tell that to me, tell it to Jean-Paul Sartre.

We treat certain things as being conscious but not self-conscious and there does seem to be an interesting difference. We still hold certain animals responsible for their actions and don't conceive of them or treat them in the way that we treat, say, a microwave. Part of that, I think, has to do with thinking that they're not quite the same as machines just doing what they're programmed to do. For example, it's easy to imagine an elephant making a dog making a decision but hard to imagine it writing a memoir in its mind. It's hard to imagine a microwave doing either. So, there seems to be some important difference between what non-conscious, conscious, and self-conscious.

No diseased people are happy if happiness is the avoidance of displeasure.
No poor people are happy if happiness is the pursuit of pleasure.

Happiness is ephemeral at best, but in the main illusory. That's the one thing the film The Matrix gets right. If humans are happy, they get bored and reject their happiness.

The bible says God made me and cares for me personally. I would assume He made the choice to make me a white Leaf. If so, thank you so very much. it doesn't say so explicitly though.
Did I have any choice? Did you? Do you remember?

Attached: ensoulment.jpg (600x424, 116K)

The dissertation related to metaethics and pragmatism, if that's what you mean.

Does fiction literary fiction create a more empathetic society if its fiction isntead of non fiction?

My purpose is to rape your daughters and you better thank me for cumming in your wife too since you don't believe in god.

Camus or Sartres
Which one started the fight?

That's an empirical question but I'd lean towards saying that it does. Or, that it would if we could get people to actually read.

I thought this was a Mongolian basket-weaving board

Attached: sgt pepper hitler i.jpg (700x468, 249K)

>It’s not, if you need it explained why health and financial security can make a person more easily attain happiness, it’s because you have autism.

But I asked you do all healthy and rich people feel happy and you didn't answer.You dodged it called me an autist

>Having autism, you are unable to put yourself in the shoes of a hypothetical person, and you become indignant when your broken brain processes are pointed out to you.

More name callings
Can you put yourself in a shoes of a hypothetical person?
For example how do you put yourself in a shoes of a woman who just lost a child?
Are you a woman or do you have a child?

If all of Jow Forums had to be forced to read one book, what would it be and why is it Meditations?