Why do you read philosophy Yea Forums?

How's it coming so far?

Not bad. I have the general framework down pat. I'm going to explore it through some small creative works and probably once it's more concrete I'll write a dialogue between an initiate and a friend.

It's kind of a reconciliation of poetic naturalism with Max Tegmark's mathematical universe ontology and panpsychism, Epicurean ethics and an Aristotelian "god is thought" arche.

I'd like to stay updated on the developments. What's the appeal in creating a cult for you?

>Why do you read philosophy Yea Forums?
>from philo- "loving" + sophia "knowledge, wisdom," from sophis "wise, learned;"

And with regards to that pic: ignorance is bliss.

Attached: gogodio.jpg (1440x1249, 229K)

>Why do you read philosophy Yea Forums?
To figure out whether it's worth it or not.

As Aristotle-sensei said, as soon as we ask the question, "Should we philosophize?" regharless of the answer we are already philosophizing. There is just no way around philosophy: we all live by certain philosophical assumptions about the world, whether we want to admit it or not.

Attached: 1561791758516.jpg (646x640, 98K)

Cult is probably a goofy word to pick. I have concerns about environmentalism and population growth. So many of our problems are caused by fossil fuels and plastics, burning away so we can watch our nightly stories, or use our smart phones which are causing a plethora of social issues, but nobody acknowledges that they're simply meeting a market demand. So to "stop" climate change and microplastics and all of that, it's a massive cultural shift that's needed. A shift to not *wanting* any of that stuff. Not striving to afford a Gucci wardrobe, and so on. A shift to that materialsm and commercialism and consumerism being a faux pas, or embarrassing. That will require a worldview change, which can come through user-generated micro-media since mass-media won't try to harm itself.

Forgive my ignorance, but why is it bad to say that man is a featherless biped?

Because it includes plucked chickens in it's definition. "Behold! A man!" - Diogenes

Sounds like a worthy endeavor, best of luck.

BEHOLD, A MAN

Attached: The-scaleless-phenotype-Gross-appearance-of-a-sc-sc-chicken-The-majority-of-feathers.jpg (600x744, 64K)

Thanks mate.

also after diogenes pulled that little plucked chicken stunt, plato added "with broad flat nails" to the definition

Saying that man is a featherless biped does not imply that all featherless bipeds are human. "Man is a DNA based life form." Does that mean I'm saying that all DNA based life forms are human beings? No.

>a form of therapy

What these people need is relief from their sick lifestyles and ingrained traumas, not to read philosophical works and pretend that they are better people for it. How much better would the world be if people stopped abusing themselves?

Technically correct, but if you're talking in terms of subsets then you can do better than "featherless biped" anyway. It's just a cheeki ancient meme.

get off my board plato

Understand my place in the cosmos

It's long, grueling and not available for everyone, and many pitfalls exist, but it was worth it.

>rocks have feelings too

You're retarded. The Platonic Academy was offering that as a definition of man, not just a random description. A definition is always understood to work in both directions: if one states "a man is a featherless biped" it is also implied that "a featherless biped is a man". The same kind of omission happens in mathematics, where the definition "an isosceles triangle is a triangle with two congruent sides" tacitly implies that "a triangle with two congruent sides is isosceles".

Attached: jahy anakin.png (844x1200, 1.17M)

The short response to that is that if you classify consciousness as what information feels like to be processed (read Tegmark) then rocks don't "have feelings" because in the framework of poetic naturalism that's a meaningless thing to say. Rocks don't have dopamine, serotonin, memories, neurons, etc. They undergo entropy though, and therefore by unifying that definition of consciousness with panpsychism (or: gradient consciousness if you like) then rocks are simply not separate from that panpsychic consciousness, although would not be particularly active parts of it.

I don't know which is worse

the idiots who mock philosophy because they don't understand it

the idiots who mock philosophy because they think they understand it

what's the real difference between this all permeating minimal consciousness that is effectively the same as no consciousness and no consciousness?
>consciousness as what information feels like to be processed
doesn't explain what "feels like" is and consciousness is not just information processing.
>read Tegmark
pass

>no consciousness
I'm not arguing for a state of non-being nor its delineation with being in regards to consciousness.

Tegmark does all the explaining over his entire book Our Mathematical Universe so I'm going to delegate to him for now. I'm sorry you won't check it out.

>The same kind of omission happens in mathematics
Then what's the point of the "if and only if" connective?

didn't existential comics admit all his philosophy knowledge comes from wikipedia?
if not, it probably does cause his unfunny comics reflect that