Say something philosophical to me, a sentence, paragraph. whatever man, anything that you want to share

say something philosophical to me, a sentence, paragraph. whatever man, anything that you want to share.

Attached: 28856324864_f6e807e51f_b.jpg (1023x675, 313K)

amor farti

Everyone that has ever existed...could fit into your mothers fupa cos she’s a fat cunt.

take this... it means a lot to me

Attached: 72A14257-42A6-4B0A-857D-7E4DFC01D715.jpg (750x711, 109K)

thank you, very sentimental

You too will wake up one morning with alot more memories than dreams.

Has anyone really been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like?

It's not the size of the rise that satisfies. It's the throb of the knob that does the job.

Attached: 1576707369348.jpg (1024x1011, 76K)

This sentence is a lie

no its not

"Fighting for peace is like screwing for virginity"

Attached: 793782545356.jpg (545x506, 30K)

“Shut up cucktard”

No one accepts their mistakes at the beginning.
True spirituality is when you put this burden aside.
And you understand that ... you're rubbish just like everyone else.
Fighting for a life you didn't ask for is absurd.
The world is only about sex and violence!

Attached: 1582949959046.jpg (512x288, 22K)

Here I sit broken hearted, came to shit and only farted.

Good ol' liar's paradox.

>"This sentence is a lie."
>Which sentence?
>The sentence is a lie.
> is a name, it's not a proposition; names don't have a truth value, only propositions do. (For example compare it to the proposition "This bike is a lie.") Therefore, the proposition is logically inappropriate since it assigns a truth value to a name.
>Since the sentence is logically inappropriate, the proposition "The sentence is a lie" is wrong.

Attached: 1500420808086.png (248x459, 249K)

This is true.

Everything is a Fractal of itself. True story.

How the fuck we have 2 moons now Sherlock?

If it's not Foamy logic, then it isn't logic.

Attached: tumblr_m8j03scm371rxqsj5o1_250.jpg (198x288, 22K)

If our brains are made up of atoms and particles which all behave in predictable ways, how can free will exist?

It’s not a moon but an object caught by our gravity. NASA just likes to say shit that isn’t real to make headlines to secure its over paid worthless existence of a government agency. Like the time they said they can stop super volcanoes from erupting and turn it into free energy during the time Yellowstone was having a series of quakes. No more mention of that plan though.

Say you see a penny
You think: who cares? Wish it woulda been 10 bucks
I think: fuck yeah free money!

See the difference.

Duh, it's the real F.O.Y

that's ridiculous.

you see a penny. you use electrons to access physical synapses to locate patterns to recognize it. you feel chemicals release that give you the idea that you like what you see. you use electrons to stimulate muscles to reach for it.

all the particles--electrons, elements that make up the chemicals you process, the elements that make up your body--started moving a long time ago. it might have been a "big bang". they had to move the way they did based on the laws of physics. if free will is possible, physics can't be true.

How to make bismuth using Peptobismol

To see is not to know.

Success is not a triumph, but a necessity
There's no mistaking it: you're only rewarded for the risks you're prepared to take
Once out of context, actions become indefinable
Any willpower or ambition that is brought to bear is arbitrary
There are no external, urgent necessities to justify choices of profession, hobbies, or partners
No force or coercion to render life
Everything must come from within

Attached: 9c95d5c52a24b920cc2e13c3e6c53807.jpg (720x1280, 36K)

life is pretty much meaningless.
Love is cultural construct, also meaningless
try to get your dick sucked as often as possible, that will soften the blow

Not all is as it seems.

If you can understand the upper and lower bounds of the digital realm, and how breaking those bounds transfers you to the physical realm where all the rules change, then you can start to comprehend how the same applies to the upper and lower bounds of the physical realm. This reasoning is the solution to the infinity paradox and effectively proves the existence of a higher power - though naturally there is no way to comprehend that power's role in our existence, as it might not even be aware we exist.

Who decides what constitutes a good life?

Attached: 1579056201740.png (519x480, 167K)

Nothingness cannot be a real concept. The very definition of nothingness would take the idea of "not respecting the boundaries of reality" and that would mean that a "nothing" idea wouldn't be bound by existence laws.

There is no objective meaning of life. The meaning of life is whatever meaning you assign to it.

Time is a flat circle.


love all,trust a few,do none wrong

NASA is a civilian agency you dummy

Once upon a time a merchant visited a zen temple and asked to speak with the master.
The merchant asked the master, "What it the most valuable object in the world?"
The master replied, "The head of a dead cat".
"Why?" asked the merchant.
"Because no one can name its price".

There is no God.

Can you give an example of true free will?

There's no fate but what we make for ourselves.

There exists a hole in everyone, that cant never be completely full
Some people fill it with religión, some other with love, money, you get the idea
For others, like me, they try to fill it with dank memes


Attached: Screenshot_20190712-211530.png (1280x720, 495K)

I'll answer your question with one of my own: How can all particles behave in predictable ways if the elementary particles they're composed of cannot be directly observed?

Our brains aren't made of just atoms and particles but instead, are made of things which are made of atoms and particles.
The predictably of atoms and particles don't line up with the complexities if the human brain.

Your foster parents are dead.

"Act like a civilized human in public, but treat yourself like the animal that you are."

My friend said this one night when we were drinking, and he doesn't remember nowhere he was going with it, but I think he was trying to say that when you're out and about in public, don't be an asshole. Treat everyone with respect. And when it comes to yourself when you're alone, make sure that your primal needs and instincts are fed. Eat well, fuck, and sleep comfortably. Don't waste your own free time on things that don't make you feel good

A promise made is a debt unpaid.

Atoms and particles are just as unpredictable and complex as the human brain. We have a fairly decent grasp on how certain particles and atoms SHOULD behave, but the more we look at them and study them, the less we understand

physics is not complete but there's no reason to believe it would turn out to not be based on rules.

i'm still thinking of the name for my book; i'm self-publishing on amazon and lulu after i get my philosophy degree. it's about the logical conclusion that we have no free will (and that it has no effect on whether or not there is a god).

also, you're out of your depth. to get a phil degree you learn all about neuroscience, connectionist networks, AI/machine learning, and conceptual symbols as well as the "readiness potential" which is a scientific test that seems to prove that we have no free will; we always act before we consciously realize it.

This, nothing is not real, nothing does not exist but something does

Very interesting

The only lesson to creating great art, is that one must first learn to see.

The world you think you live in is just sensory processed by your brain and that is all that ever will be.

There are no good people. Only good decisions.

if "This bike is a lie" is a preposition, then so is "This sentence is a lie", which is the subject referred to by the name "This sentence"

If i say "Greg is annoying", I do not mean "The name Greg is annoying", I mean "The person whom I refer to as Greg is annoying"

There is no incorrectness in the sentence "This sentence is a lie"


Elementary particles either behave in predictable ways or in random ways. Both imply the absence of free will.

No it isn't
Dead cats head for sale, $2
Nothing has a price until the price is named

"Kissing your homie goodnight aint gay"


Unless we live in a simulation and they are designed to look random.

by occams razor we do not

This sounds interesting, could I read some of it?

Let us first suppose that it is a member of itself. In that case it is one of those classes that are not members of themselves, i.e. it is not a member of itself. Let us then suppose that it is not a member of itself. In that case it is not one of those classes that are not members of themselves, i.e. it is one of those classes that are members of themselves, i.e. it is a member of itself. Hence either hypothesis, that it is or that it is not a member of itself, leads to its contradiction. If it is a member of itself, it is not, and if it is not, it is. - Russell

it's funny to see how many people drop a philosophy course when they realize it goes like this.

Would somebody who only makes good decisions not be a good person?

Okkam's Razor doesn't prove or disprove anything. It is merely a suggestion, albeit useful for many cases from the human standpoint.

As far as we can tell then, non predictable particles behave randomly and it would be sound to assume so until proven otherwise.

All languages know pain

Agree. The simulation hypothesis is unfalsifiable and therefore not useful. Doesn't mean it's false either.

Actually no, elementary particles behaving in random ways don't imply the absence of free will.

Bitches aint shit but hoes and tricks.

If we define free will as us humans having choice between multiple actions, and the choice boils down to randomness out of our control, that is definitely not free will.

What if, hear me out, what if only some particles behave randomly?

If you were a better person, you wouldn't be here.

is that the Rosette Nebula?


Many concepts have been hijacked bu philosophers, who then redefine the concept and attack the new definition. Be wary of this behaviour, as it corrupts the question. Free will being debated in this very thread is an excellent example of this. It is treated here (and elsewhere) as if the concept of "free will" consists of the definitions of "free" and "will." But it does not. It is separate from those two, sort of like how "golden shower" isn't actually describing a shower of gold. Free will is not the only concept misdebated by philosophers, but it is the most annoying by far.

Free will absolutely exists, but it is not an absolute, but a comparison. Or rather - that is how the concept is used outside of the circle jerk of philosophers.

If you water water, it grows.

As long as you are, death is absent. And once death is present, you are absent. You will never meet.