Відео

A Clockwork Orange, Anthem

You are using the straw man fallacy when you tell me that life isn't about money. That doesn't mean I can't have a home. And it also doesn't mean that I can't get paid for the work that you use of mine.

Wow! You steel man both sides and made the most interesting video about God’s omnipotence on all of youtube. Outstanding video!

Like this channel generally, but I think Pascal's Wager is misrepresented here. Which it often is. When he says 'you will lose nothing' he means, 'you will lose nothing of great value.' He states ' It is true you will lose noxious pleasures, glory and good living, but will you not have others?' The dialogue is with someone who is somewhat interested in Christianity, but is unsure: 'You want to be cured of unbelief and want to know the remedy.' Secondly, Pascal does not talk about an eternity of torment at all (though, from other writings, it seems clear that he did believe in hell, though he found it a miserable and incomprehensible state of affairs). Further, he does not say that you gain eternal Heaven, but rather that 'You will be faithful, honest, humble, and a true and sincere friend.' When the interlocutor reasonably declines to play the game at all, the line 'you must choose; you are already embarked,' foreshadows Existentialism quite clearly. Lastly, it should be noted that the Pensees were still in draft form, and only published after his death. It's brilliant stuff, in my opinion.

If Adam, by virtue of being Adam, is depraved in all possible worlds, can it be said that Adam has free will? If evil necessarily results from the existence of Adam, is Adam free, or do the dominoes just fall inside him, instead of outside?

my answer through islamic belive: YES ALLAH (=theGOD) can create a stone, that cant be lifted and YES ALLAH can lift this stone, that cant be lifted 1. the stone is creation... like all creation it needs space and time to be created. So it is withhin the universe, it becomes limited and dependent. 2.but ALLAH is the creator of everything and he is not dependet on the limits of universe,space and time, he is above all creation 3 so ALLAH create the stone, that cant be lifted within the universe... then ALLAH lift up the whole universe, all space, time and creation, including the stone... 4. ALLAH lift up the unliftable stone without lifting it itself... because ALLAHU akbar... and at the end ... the unliftable stone is nothing more then the limited mind in your head ... but ALLAH is greater then all limits of your and our mind... in the name of the greatest most mercyful most gracious....read

Good point and counter point. Love the animation, voice talent, and layout of both sides of the argument. I’ve been into esoterica for a while, but just now exploring Plato’s forms. I had an understanding of the allegory of the cave “story”, but this is the first I’ve heard of an explanation of it. It’s really funny, , because the bit at the end was literally EXACTLY what came across my mind at the beginning…. Is it a calico or witches black cat? Is it a lazy boy or a church pew? I thought of evil as well. Only difference (and I’m serious), was I was wondering how far off peoples ideas of a vagina could be from the perfect form. Like- some guys like the little Barbie pussy, and some guys like the roast beef, but how far off are they(how far off am I?!) from the perfect form?! I guess if you’re a real man it doesn’t matter as long as you can have it for a night, lol!

Thank you gentlemen. I listened to The Republic by Plato (Audiobook) from WatchTheJRE Channel. Loved your sumarry here and points of view. Thank you for everything. The biggest thought in my head right now is that this book is a psyop created by the ruling class to wear down and deflate the mind of modern day philosopher kings. That's my skepticism and paranoid disposition talking. I think there is a Power of Goodness available to mankind and it communicates through our conscience using intuitive feelings, not a spoken voice. This thing seems to have what i call a dream, where it's in battle with a Power of Evil for the will of man to follow it and get its dream established, a dream which will be totally beneficial to the positive aspects of nature which i hope includes man himself. Where the Evil Power wants to persuade us to destroy the planet. I know what the Power of Goodness wants us to do. It's very simple and pretty obvious actually. I think it would have to work on a make it up as you go along basis and i think Socrates would have a field day talking to me personally. I know for a fact he would wipe the floor with my thoughts as at the moment i just havent got the skills he has to see and explain things like he can. But i have to be honest with myself and i'm realising that i need to try and adopt Socrates' ways of deliberating and spend probably the next few years trying to bring the dream into a realistic plan in my mind. Not sure. Thank you so much for yesterday convincing me to get started on The Republic. An excellent experience.

... what is a stone and lifting based on wich reference are the questions

The 3 stages are not objective as they are spirtual stages. 1is material 2 is metaphysics 3 is super natural.

Moral relativism is an objective reality independent of personal beliefs. Society often labels it as a debatable belief due to the truth being a hard pill to swallow. Many prefer to hold onto the happy little idea that morality is objective, but the diversity of social norms and laws across different societies demonstrates its subjectivity. This diversity is the essence of moral relativism-an undeniable fact unaffected by individual beliefs. It is a fact that cultural diversity extends beyond customs to encompass varying social norms and legal systems, providing concrete evidence for the objective nature of moral relativism. Just as demonstrating the hardness of a rock proves its physical property, the observed diversity of moral norms across cultures substantiates moral relativism as an objective reality. Even if you were to assert the whole argument of there being a set of universally accepted moral truths such as "murder is wrong" you would still be stating something entirely subjective. Many people within many cultures still believe killing other humans is an okay thing to do. Whether the majority agrees, or the minority disagrees doesn't change the fact. Groups of people with similar moral views often come together to form societies, which is why different countries and cultures have distinct social norms and laws. Humans are not superior to other creatures simply because they possess morals. Humans, their societies, and their moral frameworks are a natural phenomenon just like animals. It would be utterly childish to think humans are capable of viewing what righteousness even is let alone that they are capable of achieving such a thing.

For an introduction to philosophy check out the Philosophy Vibe paperback anthology book set available on Amazon: Volume 1 - Philosophy of Religion US: www.amazon.com/dp/B092H42XCS UK: www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B092H42XCS Canada: www.amazon.ca/dp/B092H42XCS Volume 2 Metaphysics US: www.amazon.com/dp/B092H5MGF9 UK: www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B092H5MGF9 Canada: www.amazon.ca/dp/B092H5MGF9 Volume 3 Ethics and Political Philosophy US: www.amazon.com/dp/B092H9V22R UK: www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B092H9V22R Canada: www.amazon.ca/dp/B092H9V22R

Top 10 should start from number 2. Number 1 will always be Dostoevsky

You did a good job here :)

Did the book of life not exist before the world was ever created? My former pastor once referred to god as 'the author of life.' Consider the credibility of the source here, a pastor. So he manipulates the outcome of EVERYTHING, and is STILL gonna hold man responsible for his transgressions?!? Does it not also say that no one can thwart the efforts of god?- Isaiah 14:27 pretty much says that does it not?

Purple guy was coming through for me in this episode. Yaaaaas

I disagree when he said we only use the senses in science to come to know the world. We also use rational mind to explain what we see and make logical deductions about what we see. It seems to me a combination of both but to discard one or the other is rather foolish to me, but that's just me.

😂 tht the ontological argument is flawed is obvious for anyone not biased by religion.

something isnt possible just because it is logically possible.

seems that it is impossible to prove the real existence of contingent truths. how coukd you ever show that anything could be different that it is..

Imagine the best proof that Brahma created the universe. If it exists, then it is better than if it doesnt exist. It follows immediately that he did !

Apologies for confusing 'logical determinism' with 'absolute determinism' in my comment below. I've no idea how I made such an egregious error, but I've fixed it, and it doesn't change my argument.

Should have had Pirsig in place of Rand. And Death in Venice fits the "philosophy" bill a bit better than at least half of these.

This video keeps conflating the terms 'brute fact', 'necessary fact' and 'necessary being'. Here is the difference: - A brute fact is a fact for which there is no explanation, not even an unknown one. It simply is and that's all that there is to it. - A necessary fact is a fact that is necessarily true meaning that it cannot be any other way without contradiction. It is true in all possible worlds. - A necessary being is a being that necessarily exists to ground all of contigent reality. Necessary beings by definition don't depend upon anything else, they explain their own existence. Tldr: Necessary facts and necessary beings do have (self-contained) explanations whereas brute facts lack explanations entirely.

I thought Property Dualism would be ranked slightly higher than Substance Dualism. I recently did a course in philosophy and on the units covering metaphysics of mind, Substance Dualism was considered easier to refute than Property Dualism. Property Dualism was seen as a way of circumventing the weaknesses of Substance Dualism. Property Dualism is also supported by ‘philosophical zombies’ (Chalmers), which seemed pretty convincing, though not to Daniel Dennett if I can recall the course content correctly.

unsubbed

ew

I really enjoyed this video. However, I am not at all convinced by the arguments distinguishing atheism from pantheism. I do no agree that atheism necessarily involves a rejection of the idea of consciousness as a fundamental part of the universe. I am quite sure you can be an atheist panpsychist. After watching this video, I am still not convinced that the pantheistic use of the word god is adding anything meaningful. What exactly is 'god' according to pantheism? We already have a word for the universe, it is 'universe', why use the word 'god' for this?

Now do Harry Potter.

How about law? Lawyers-especially those in my country, Singapore-remain largely unconvinced that a philosophy degree would help one integrate into the legal industry.

The Lord of the Flies by William Golding is book I would also consider very philosophical.

This is a very good video. Some of the issues I’m more familiar with than others. I agree with most of your arguments and assessments, though some I may move up or down a tier - no major difference. Except one, and that’s ‘Logical Determinism’, which I admit I hadn’t seen or heard before, though I’ve seen a lot of arguments about determinism, both for and against, including ones I’ve made myself. So, I looked it up on Wikipedia to see if their description was the same as yours, which it is, more or less. I distinguish between ‘weak’ and ‘strong’ determinism, where weak determinism simply states that every event has a causal relationship with something preceding it, and strong determinism is effectively that everything’s predetermined, an attribute of Einstein’s ‘block universe’. Logical determinism appears to be an argument for ‘strong determinism’ (by my definition). Logical determinism is premised on an 'excluded middle' (according to Wikipedia), so it can only apply to events that can be true or false, which is a reasonable condition. In effect, it is a prediction, and all predictions are either true or false (excluding probabilities), which doesn’t make them deterministic or not. A premonition would support the argument for predeterminism, but that’s not the issue here. Most discussions on determinism ignore chaotic phenomena, which are determined by initial conditions that can’t be determined, even in hindsight, which applies to most natural phenomena, as well as some human-generated ones. The thing is that a chaotic event, if rerun, would give a different result. A coin toss is the most common example. Note that its 'degree of chaos' is dependent on the surface it hits, not the mechanism for the toss. Absorbent surfaces can make it more predictable. So I would give Logical Determinism a C at best, possibly a D.

Excellent video. Summary of 100s of pages packed within 10 minutes. Wonderful explanation!!

Really great. It's like pelagianism controversy a little bit. Ultimaately you need to ask: Do you have a choice to make? If so, than it doesn't matter how you were "shaped" by environment. If you had a choice and you made it (you really can't escape making a choice if you have it) than you created you. So we may say you co-create your essence, but it is more, cause the sum of influences that shaped you without your choice is not... YOU! It's just a mere part or reflection of environment, what is really YOU starts with YOUR first real choice and than you create you. So YOU in that part which is an answer or reaction to part that was ingrained in you. So we differentiate the part of YOU that comes from outside (aka environment) and part of YOU which is an effect of your every choice you can't avoid to make. We are not responsible for the first part, but the first part is not US. We are creators nor followers, we create ourselves, not realizing imposed plan. In that case something new appear in the world. And if we choose not to choose than we create a pattern of a human which is uncreative, passive, which is not human per se.

1984 is not philosophical. Its actually speculative fiction. There is no actual philosophy in the book. Contrary to modern popular opinion, it isn't about communism. Its about what could happen, if..... Same as all speculative fiction.

Sir please upload distribution justice and procedural justice with example

Iam very interested to watch.sir please upload more ❤

God is the infallible source of all knowledge.

You should add a link to "Philosophy Tier List - 35 Philosophy theories & ideas ranked".

Can somebody help me about this argument please contact me thru comments?

I’d get off the track because I’m not an idiot.

It is peculiar to me that you place Russell's Teapot in C tier, not because of the substance of the view, but rather because of how you see it commonly used. Furthermore, your characterization agnosticism as a religious claim in lieu of a knowledge claim is ridiculous along with your characterization of atheism as the disbelief in god instead of the mere non-affirmation of a religious proposition, which would encompass an agnostic position on a god's existence.

I doubt we will ever solve the problem of solipsism. Unless we discover a way to for and individual to experience more than one consciousness at the same time the only consciousness anyone can truly know exists is their own. It is actually best to ignore solipsism because it has no way to be validated and it just isn't productive.

4:27 Ohh wait till you hear about the world of quantum physics

Philosophically, IG Locke is better that Hobbes to live in lol but considering a State is a monopoly on violence in real life the state can do whatever it wants. Everywhere Locke's liberal democracy spread modern states were created and they accrue more and more power as time went on [which lead to modern libertarianism, as they think allowing the state any power inevitably leads to totalitiarianism, as power seeks to accrue more power]

Have you ever read "the theory of mind as pure act" by Giovanni Gentile? He created his own form of idealism inspired by Hegel, and put immense belief on "the State" to the point he ended up becoming the leading philosopher of fascist Italy. His philosophy is called "Actualism" and is expressed in the aforementioned work [philosophically, that is, politically he also wrote the small important explainer of fascism "The Origins and Doctrine of Fascism" which is also an interesting read and other philosophy books about pedagogy and other areas explaining Actualism more in-depth]

Please consider doing a video on constructivism as a meta-ethical theory! There's very little material on UA-cam covering it, and I would enjoy hearing John and George explain and debate it.

I need to have sensory experiences in order to reason and obtain true knowledge. You cannot obtain true knowledge without the use of both rationalism and empiricism.

For the most part I would think some would either be one tier higher or lower but not too much different than what you presented except for Plato republic. If you were reading it as a political treatise much like Poppers open society then I would concur that it would be bottom of the barrel; however there is another option. In book 2 of the republic around 368 and following, Socrates changes the discussion of the just person to talking about the Just city. Seeing man writ large. I see the republic more about the development of the just man via the development of the tripartite soul. In this sense it a great piece of moral philosophy and metaphysics and would put it on A tier.