Filozofski vicevi i mnogo vise od toga

msvmn · Pristupio: 03 Mar 2008 Poruke: 435 Studijska grupa: Filozofija

http://consc.net/phil-humor.html

Meni je ovaj omiljeni:
http://consc.net/misc/dialogue.html

Uzivajte.

lastofthesane · Moderator

AHhaha... boles'! Kez

Sebastijan · Moderator

Hehe, zabavno.

lastofthesane · Moderator

How many Marxists does it take to change a lightbulb?
None. The lightbulb contains the seeds of its own revolution.

How many Kantians does it take to change a light bulb?
Two to change the phenomenal bulb; and one to explain that we might not have actually changed the bulb-an-sich at all.

How many Heraclitians does it take to change a light bulb?
None--its never the same light bulb again anyway

How many skeptics does it take to change a light bulb?
Actually, they won't do it--they have no sense of urgency about the situation--they aren't sure they're really in the dark...

Ovo je zaaakooon:
What is Mind? No Matter.
What is Body? Never Mind

.

Ovo je sjajno!

Tuluz · Pristupio: 31 Jan 2007 Poruke: 543 Studijska grupa: Filozofija

meni su odlicni i uzroci smrti filozofa...

Zeno: Run over by tortoise
Spinoza: Substance abuse
Ockham: Shaved beyond necessity
Locke: No idea LOL

i naravno:
Moore: By his own hand, obviously Bow

lastofthesane · Moderator

Hahaha, odlicni su, pogotovu ovaj sa Spinozom! Kez

Meni su i ovi dobri:

Bacon, F: Hit by idol in market place
Descartes: Stopped thinking (ahahahaha)
Fichte: Non-ego takeover (fenomenalnoooo!!!)
Laudan: Progressive debility (ma, daaaj:))
Plato: Caved in

Tuluz · Pristupio: 31 Jan 2007 Poruke: 543 Studijska grupa: Filozofija

lastofthesane ::

Descartes: Stopped thinking (ahahahaha)

haha, a ima i onaj vic za Dekarta i to, mislim da ga ima na tom sajtu - I think not LOL

i odlican je universal refutation - "That's what you say."

locky21 · Moderator

Unger:
Suppose it were the case that not-p. It would follow from this that someone knows that q. But on my view, no one knows anything whatsoever. Therefore p. (Unger believes that the louder you say this argument, the more persuasive it becomes).
Kez

Fodor:
My argument for p is based on three premises:
q
r
and
p

From these, the claim that p deductively follows. Some people may find the third premise controversial, but it is clear that if we replaced that premise by any other reasonable premise, the argument would go through just as well.

LOL

i kripke za koga je ubedljivo najjache

Outline Of A Proof That P (1):
Saul Kripke

Some philosophers have argued that not-p. But none of them seems to me to have made a convincing argument against the intuitive view that this is not the case. Therefore, p.
_________________

(1) This outline was prepared hastily -- at the editor's insistence -- from a taped manuscript of a lecture. Since I was not even given the opportunity to revise the first draft before publication, I cannot be held responsible for any lacunae in the (published version of the) argument, or for any fallacious or garbled inferences resulting from faulty preparation of the typescript. Also, the argument now seems to me to have problems which I did not know when I wrote it, but which I can't discuss here, and which are completely unrelated to any criticisms that have appeared in the literature (or that I have seen in manuscript); all such criticisms misconstrue my argument. It will be noted that the present version of the argument seems to presuppose the (intuitionistically unacceptable) law of double negation. But the argument can easily be reformulated in a way that avoids employing such an inference rule. I hope to expand on these matters further in a separate monograph.

tzarskiiiiiiii LOL