This is a thread for sharing and discussing any pieces of literature relating to philosophy or any other subject in the humanities. In this thread feel free to provide titles of books you recommend reading and resources to use for accessing any books online, also if practicable upload any books to PDF format.
Library Genesis: https://libgen.is/
/his/tory 2: https://mega.nz/folder/51Q0waSI#4Ut-eePQr9YSjHJJTQs7Ew
/his/tory 3: https://mega.nz/folder/HbBXzIjC#AjsOUnEGMpcQPrWQG_MdEQ
This is the thread for people whose attention spans have been ruined by porn and video games. Feel free to post podcasts or videos about philosophy in this thread.
This is a board for the discussion of anything related to philosophy. It doesn't matter what your own philosophical worldview is or whether you're an academic or not, anyone with an interest in philosophy is welcome to post here. Obey the global rules and stick to serious discussion and everything should be fine.
Rule #1: don't spam/flood. Rule #2: spoiler NSFW shit. ― ITT: post banners, flags, etc. and discuss the board.
Jainism is the most superior philosophy of metaphysics and the meaning of life. vedic and buddhist homosexuals will never compete to its greatness. Jainism rejects the idea of an all powerful being who creates the world and dictates its laws. Rather the material realm exists, has always existed, and will never cease to exist. Perfect bliss, Omniscient knowledge, and Infinite power are inherent qualities of the soul that is present in every living being. This true nature is covered by karma and limited by the resultant bondage. The goal of jainism is liberation from the bondage and limitation of the soul caused by karma and the primary cause of all bondage is violence, thus forming the central tenant of jainism, non-violence (ahimsa). Jains are known to be fanatically obsessed with non-violence and this can be a major put off from many on the basis of it being impractical, but when one comes to understand the nature of the soul and the nature of bondage there is not any other conclusion.
The central text of the Jain doctrine is Tattvartha Sutra (That Which Is), these are the opening verses
>1.1 The enlightened world view, enlightened knowledge and enlightened conduct are the path to liberation
enlightened world-view begets enlightened knowledge which, in turn, begets enlightened conduct. so enlightened world view is the cause, enlightened knowledge and conduct the effect. the spiritual path is determined by this integrate trinity. this is referrred to as the triple ratna and is symbolized in the picture as the top 3 dots. right faith, right knowledge, right conduct, lead to liberation
>1.2 to possess the enlightened world view is to believe in the categories of truth
>1.3 the categories of truth are:
>1). souls [sentient entities],
>2). non-sentient entities
>3). the inflow of karmic particles to the soul
>4). binding of the karmic particles to the soul
>5). stopping the inflow of karmic particles
>6). the falling away of the karmic particles
>7). liberation from worldly (karmic) bondage
An ancient Greek ship sails the seas. Year by year, repairs are needed. Part by part, wood is replaced until all of the original pieces of ship have been replaced at least once. Is this ship still the original ship? Or a new ship? At what point would this become a new ship?
Are philosophy and religion one and the same thing? Both of them are ultimately just sets of cosmological (and metacosmological) theories and ways of rationalizing and dictating arbitrary stereotypes of human and animal behavior. Why are there censuses on christians and not e.g. nietzschists?
Wanted to make a comparison between the two,they seem to see any act in itself ultimately meaningless. Becker saw any attempt at creating purpose a distraction from death, which would render a creation of civilization useless and Eric Hoffer used the true believer argument to discredit any involvement with a common cause which through most of society forms. Just a random thought but these two have been the subject of my ire lately
How to get into philosophy without reading books?
t. 2 INT
Is "personality" just a made up word to justify how people act?
At what point does something become objective rather than subjective? Kojeve's book on Hegel from the literature thread states that Hegel said something becomes objective when there are multiple subjective views that all align. In other words multiple subjective views that are all the same = objectivity because if most people agree upon X then it's objective. But when I posed this question in a philosophy discord someone said I misunderstood the concept of inter-subjectivity. Can anyone elaborate on this?
Jerry Cohen in this book essentially made the claim that to truly be a libertarian a person must embrace the concept of self ownership. That is a person owns whatever they produce. So from this he seems to argue that only left libertarians are genuinely libertarian since they want to ensure the workers own and distribute the surplus value they produce, and so right libertarians aren't really libertarian.
This is more related to political philosophy of course, nonetheless it is an interesting question Cohen poses. If right libertarians are so libertarian why don't they support workers owning the surpluses they produced rather than allowing the bourgeoisie to appropriate that surplus? I haven't finished the book but it seems to be a devastating attack on right wing lolbertarians.
Also this begs the question: at what point does someone 'own' something? Is it whenever the law says so? Some laws are unjust though and legality =/= morality.
If its presupposed to maximize happiness for the greatest number of people, how come it just ignores the suffering of the minority of people? Its often tied with Socialism but I guess some people may argue that I'm making a case for 'equality of outcome' and back around we go. It just seems like a dog chasing it's tail. Also general democracy and utilitarianism critique thread.
you have people like Rand, Stirner, Spooner, and Tucker who advocated individualism, but how far can you take it? I feel as if some of these 'anarchists' just set up arbitrary boundaries for themselves in the case of morals but who took it the farthest?
the fact that Newton had the gall to steal his ideas is just astoundingly a dick move, but it seemed there was more to Leibniz than one might think, whats your opinion on his Monadology and Metaphysics? apparently he tried to prove God's existence in a similar fashion to Spinoza and was friends with him even, during a time (((the enlightenment))) where everyone and their mother was trying to disprove him and gloat about it. thoughts?
Analytic or continental philosophy, which is better?
largely the movement has left-wing origins in Deleuze/Guattari and Nick Land, however its been co-opted by glowies, on the original movement, do you think that society should embrace increasing technological power or fall into collapse, like Kaczynski and Linkola would want or neither?
for me, being Gnostic, Dualism makes the most sense as thing tend to have two natures, that compliment each other
what about you?
also recommend books on Dualism if you can, maybe some Monist ones to compare, post pdfs in the books thread.
Redpill me on pic related.
Is he based or cringe or something in between?
Watched his lectures on personality and started byble series recently. Seems really logical and frequently acknoledge's his limitations on knowledge. I've heard all sorts of opinions, so having some cognitive dissonence rn.
Some of the arguments i've heard
>You should go straight to primary sources his talking about.
Went trough C. G. Jung's Red book. Total mindfuck, was kinda hard to understand withouth previous knowledge
>His daugher is a whore on instagram and he tell's you to clean YOUR room. He's been addicted to drugs (benzop-someshit).
How much is it nature vs nurture? Judging from the behaviour of today's women, they can be influenced really hard by ((media)). Also woman's nature is more submissive. So kinda mixed on that. But the guy seems to care after himself. Also they said that addiction was physiological but dunno. I mean I myself struggle with breaking porn watching habits. His wife has cancer, should be pretty hard, but again no idea.
>Haha, lobster, lol :-DD xD :)
Normal argument's please. Live up to boards standards.
Who are the essential greek philosophers to read?
What are the dialogues and books I should read?
How do I stop fearing death?
Let's say you are in a dream, having a conversation with someone you know well. Therefore, your brain can hold a conversation with the representation of that person. What if you did than consciounsly. You would talk with that person in your head all the time. You would react, how he would based on your observations of his real life actions. Then, let's say you completely scrap your personality and let the representation of that person controll you. Would it be like removing an OS from your computer and replacing it with a copy of that persons? If you do that with a dead person, would it make it a ressurection of a dead man? Would the personality still be you or would it be the other person? Can any other man's mind software be run on your brain hardware? Finally, if have a new experience like skydiving, would your reaction be as valid as the other persons if you were trying to imitate him? I come from a theatrical background and it seems to me the case that when people including myself act, our personality changes and your mind start's thinking like the play was real and you were that character. On the other hand, don't we constantly do that? It's unlikely you are the same person you were ten years ago. If nature and nurture shapes us, is it possible to just ignore it and stay the same? My main question is: is the personality static, like a painting or is it fluid, like a musical performance and therefore is there a difference to who'd be performing it?
What the fuck was his problem?
All these centuries later, now that the dust has settled what is the answer to Molyneux's Problem?
>On 7 July 1688 the Irish scientist and politician William Molyneux (1656–1698) sent a letter to John Locke in which he put forward a problem which was to awaken great interest among philosophers and other scientists throughout the Enlightenment and up until the present day. In brief, the question Molyneux asked was whether a man who has been born blind and who has learnt to distinguish and name a globe and a cube by touch, would be able to distinguish and name these objects simply by sight, once he had been enabled to see.
in many areas of ethics, there are different areas:
Ethics of care
Religion or divine command theory
Social contract theory
Rawls’s theory of justice
there is also moral nihilism, moral subjectivism, moral objectivism, moral absolutism, moral skepticism, and moral universalism. say if there is a law where a dog can be eaten in one country, fornicated with in another, both in even another, and none in the fourth. who is correct? in my system, the moral answer lies within the culture, so all are right and wrong at the same time depending on the place. being a deontologist myself it would depend on the means to do it, not the ends, as people are ends in themselves.
however does this extend to other creatures, and to what extent?
A lucid dream is a dream where you become aware that you are asleep. You still experience everything going on in the dream, but are able to consciously control your own actions (and sometimes the conditions in the dream environment itself).
In lucid dreams where you do not control the environment, if you are having a conversation with someone, you may start to wonder who you are talking to. Is it a separate personality within your mind that has its own free agency? What are we to make of these Others in our mind?
What are the ethics of our actions in lucid dreams? Is it immoral to kill, manipulate, or attack Others in a dream? What are the ethics of lucid dreams?
Is it right to throw away the ideas of Socrates because he was a paedophile?
Is deontological ethics legit?