วีดีโอ

No one who fundamentally can’t understand why 1 x 1 = 1 and not 2 should be taken seriously in science/mathematics. That’s like 2nd grade basics that TH absolutely whiffs. Just because an idea seems “out there” and “novel” doesn’t mean it’s worth looking into or respecting. Loons say crazy stuff all the time that people with stunted critical thinking skills would eat up if said loon was as famous as TH. There are good reasons why only people like Joe Rogan and his regular listeners take TH seriously.

Dzięki za komentarz! Filozofia zawsze do pewnego stopnia była odbiciem swoich czasów, przesiąknięta kulturą miejsca i epoki. Przykładem jest chociażby przesiąknięta chrześcijaństwem filozofia średniowiecznej Europy. Rzeczywiście, filozofia wschodnia jest mało obecna na zachodnich uniwersytetach, a różnice kulturowe z pewnością odgrywają tu dużą rolę. Głównym powodem jest to, że mają one zupełnie inny charakter filozofowania. W dużej mierze filozofia wschodnia ma charakter mądrościowy i praktyczny, co odróżnia ją od bardziej systematycznego podejścia filozofii zachodniej. Silne poleganie w taoizmie i buddyzmie na introspekcji i subiektywizacja filozofowania mają działanie dyskredytujące z perspektywy zachodu. W dzisiejszym dyskursie filozoficznym, który jest silnie znaturalizowany i analityczny, różnice kulturowe stają się jednak mniej znaczące.

Thank you for sharing your thoughts! It reminds me of the philosophical debate around whether concepts have any reality outside of our minds. While it's true that some concepts are entirely abstract, others can represent things we experience in the physical world. Surely a challenge within metaphysics.

We’re made to get a grip on reality

Like anything else thoughts are a tool. They Can be used for greatness or wasted

@@vkurtisw agreed. Also tools are concepts. Exactly like words, like evry words in this sentence. A bit creepy but it is this... reality.

Thanks for the comment! In the past, studying philosophy was a usual part of the curriculum for well-educated (and wealthy) people. Today, it is mostly pursued by academic researchers, as in any other discipline. But of course, there are many different notions of what makes a philosopher. Researching philosophy doesn't necessarily make you a philosopher :) There is a cool book on this subject by Pierre Hadot, "Philosophy as a Way of Life." Many philosophers throughout the ages have questioned the existence of reality. Today's doubts about that are often expressed through examples like: the problem of living in a simulation or the brain in a vat scenario. A particularly strong philosophical position on this matter is 'solipsism' (the idea that only one's own mind is sure to exist), but today I don't think anyone truly believes that, it's more like a mental exercise.

Thanks for the comment! While personal experiences with non-physical phenomena under the influence of mind-altering substances can inspire questions regarding the fundamentals of our reality, I believe that integrating these insights into our broader understanding of reality requires a methodical approach.

@nikodemlewandowski379 yes absolutely, they're doing research at the imperial college of London but they don't seem to be releasing much information, the people who control the world would be aware of these phenomena and the knowledge must be suppressed

Thank you for sharing your thoughts! Interesting perspective that a purpose-free search for knowledge leads to stagnation. The practical prevention of all evil seems compelling, but surely unrealistic. I think that some people just like to be evil, or do evil things for the sake of being good.

@@nikodemlewandowski379 The goal mentioned above certainly is NOT an easy task. It involves a total reset of the fundamentals of current mathematics and particle physics to derive the mathematical model of the mechanism how particle interactions inside the earth develop PLANTS on its own surface, to then deliver and sustain living beings here through them. This earth is the only vessel in the entire known universe that manufactures living bodies in its bowels, delivers and sustains them on its own surface through the PLANTS it develops for that purpose. Understanding this mechanism implies discarding the sustenance of life irrelevant assumptions in almost all branches of current science, including The Cartesian System of Coordinates, the positive and negative directions of which, when applied to the center of the earth, has ABSOLUTELY NO PHYSICAL MEANING, the Copernican assumption that this earth is a mediocre ball of mass that revolves stupidly around a star without any relevance to how that elaborately calculated motions of celestial bodies serve to sustain life here, and the Standard Model of particles, where only the photon has any direct relevance to life function. So called natural sciences completely ignore life function as irrelevant for its investigations, while biology and the so called social sciences lack any fundamental principles to analyze how plants develop from soil due to particle interactions inside the earth. Once the absurd Cartesian System of Coordinates is substituted with a particle physics compatible system of arithmetic and geometry, many things nobody ever imagined as possible, like compelling lions and tigers to survive only on plant sources would become a reality. If one assumes a priori positive results that we desire are impossible, as you mentioned in your response, then there is no purpose in wasting time, efforts and funds searching for knowledge. It is far more rational then to enjoy life as much as possible instead, and let events flow whatever way nature (or god or whichever other name one prefers to call The Cruel Brute that created and sustains all the evil) decides they should.

Thank you for your comment! It raises an important point about the nature of reality. The nature of reality, how it works, is not obvious, which is why we delve into these questions in philosophy. You mention acceptance of our surroundings as reality, but philosophical inquiry examines for example: whether reality consists of one substance or two (monism vs. dualism). Idealism, in particular, argues that reality is fundamentally mental, challenging the notion that our surroundings are purely physical. Naturalism, by contrast, maintains that everything arises from natural causes and properties. While acceptance of the existence of reality is reasonable and valuable, philosophical exploration helps us better understand the complexities and nuances of reality.

But to what extent? Do we listen to the church and refuse to question their leadership because they obviously speak for god? Or is religion potentially a human construct? We need to question reality to reach this level of scrutiny

@@Mustachioed_Mollusk there is a thin line between objection rejection and questioning you can reject if it doesn't feel ok you can question if it affects you but you can not object unless you are not affected my statement stands for the present where most are allowed to follow their free will and to that I stand with keeping your reality to yourself.

It's actually a very common surname in Poland

What do you mean? 🤔

The idea of subconscious influence through media is a topic that has sparked various discussions. While there have been historical claims about subliminal messaging, scientific consensus today suggests that such methods are generally ineffective and often not supported by robust evidence. It's important to approach these topics with a critical eye and consider the sources of information we rely on. Media content, including movies and music, is subject to regulations to prevent unethical practices. If you're interested in exploring this further, I encourage looking into credible research and expert opinions on the subject.

<blushes>

Thank you for your feedback! I apologize for not noticing the issue with the light during the recording. I wasn't aware that the music might be distracting, for some people, and I will definitely take that into account for future videos.

@@nikodemlewandowski379 I'm usually annoyed by music interfering with the spoken audio, although in this video I found it fairly quiet and so not too notable. If you want more feedback: I'd probably held on to some of the "blackboard" pictures longer, e.g. the one at 5:28, to read it even if one doesn't try to.

Thanks for the feedback, I appreciate that!

Thanks! Nah, using a green screen is above my editing abilities. Plus, as a result, ticks were crawling on me!

Thank you for your thoughtful comment! I love how you point out that time and experience are crucial parts of our identity. It's true-our memories, experiences, and the knowledge we gain shape us in ways that go beyond just our physical makeup. Your comparison with string theory and infinite universes is really interesting. It highlights how, once we start down different paths, our experiences and identities become unique. Even if two ships start off identical, the storms they face and the journeys they take will make them distinct over time. This really captures how our lives work too-our experiences shape who we are in unique ways. Your thought that the Ship of Theseus could represent the collective human experience is a beautiful way to look at it. It suggests that we're all part of a larger story, constantly evolving and growing together. Thanks again for sharing your thoughts. They really add a new layer to the discussion, and it's great to see such deep engagement with this classic philosophical puzzle!

Thank you for your comment. Focusing on authenticity and meaningful actions can provide a sense of purpose and fulfillment, which can help alleviate the fear of death. By living authentically and investing in activities that resonate with our values, we can cultivate a sense of fulfillment that enriches our lives and gives us a deeper appreciation for the time we have.

Thanks for the comment! In medieval theology, there was a view of 'Apophatic theology,' which suggests that we should contemplate God only through negation, focusing on what cannot be said about God, as we cannot accurately describe the ideal, transcendent entity. You are probably right about religions, they have always been a tool of power (sadly), a way to control societies.

I have believed this for a long time. Why would an omnielsecient being even care about the morality of humans who are smaller than particles of sands in a desert in the vast expanse of the universe. People tend to see everything from their lens which is in itself dishonest as the universe may be infinite having infinite points of views and moralities. Why is ours the most important? Also if you think about it god cannot work in our morality terms as think about the death of stars and the destruction of literal solar systems due to them. Why is so much destruction there? Do all these solar systems deserve it as no place is completely composed of evil. This in itself is a proof god does not have a moral code as us.

Non-regularity would not really explain the source of the irregularity, so it's a pointless demonstration anyway. It's quite hard to adequately define supernatural, as it could just be described as "natural we don't know yet."

@@Dizerner i do not understand your comment. Can you better explain what you wrote

Thank you for your comment! I agree that a god-like entity doesn't align with the naturalistic view of the world as defined by science. Such an entity would remain unobserved and would pose significant epistemological challenges, given its eternal, all-knowing nature. However, critics of the naturalistic worldview argue that scientific truths are, to some extent, conventional, and that science itself undergoes natural changes, which may not yet accommodate the concept of God. Therefore, they advocate for some respect for the idea that God exists, as the argument "God does not exist because it doesn't fit into the scientific description of the world" remains strong if the naturalistic worldview is the true one. Additionally, in certain interpretations, probability serves as a representation of uncertainty. With this perspective, it's plausible to use probability to model the likelihood of God's existence.

If you saw the stars align in the sky one night to say "Hello, it's God," you would not know for sure that was God talking to you. It could be aliens with technology you don't know about, it could be someone spiked your drink last night with some hallucinogens, it could be an extremely elaborate prank, it could be all along your entire life you're just living in a matrix and the programmer is messing with you, it could be some other supernatural entity you don't know about misleading you. The mere fact that you observed something you consider "supernatural" by some irregularity in nature, does not prove anything except there is something you do not know yet. And it's always good to have epistemic humility.

Awesome questions, very thought-provoking! The nature of faith is surely very complicated, as it's not just some kind of special doxastic belief, but also a personalized emotional stance. There is a significant difference between beliefs represented with statements, which are subjects of discussion in, for example, decision theory, and real-world beliefs that people have. The latter may not be easily accessible to agents, as humans are very prone to be stirred by emotions. Even in rational inferences, we use emotions to grasp preferences toward different sides. How does one justify their faith? Well, faith certainly comes from somewhere; it can be justified by personal experiences, emotional needs that are satisfied with accessible religious answers. And in many cases, the source is that in the community that a person grew up in, faith was passed down as an obvious answer to the fact that God exists

@@nikodemlewandowski379 I don't think you adequately answered his question, and I think it is a particularly perceptive one. If I were to ask you to "prove" that you experience self-awareness, you would be completely incapable of doing that for me, because anything you do or say could equally be done by an artificial intelligence that experiences no awareness. The reason I attribute awareness to you, is because I myself experience it, yet I can equally not prove to you that I experience that awareness. We both just accept it on blind faith, presuming that anything similar must be the same, which is guesswork. Everything you claim to know-and think-and deduce-necessarily stems from self-awareness, for if you are not the one there making the arguments, there is no adequate logical process that would be considered. Certainly a computer or a compass can give me "arguments" in a manner of speaking, but not such as that the mind makes, as they are on a much deeper and higher plane, taking into account ideas that computers and compasses are clearly unable to conceive of. If God were simply a similar thing as self-awareness, the same logical principles would apply. It would be immediately verifiable to the immediate sensation of the consciousness experiencing it, without being able to demonstrate that awareness to anyone else. Anything external could be manipulated by false sense data or advanced scientific laws (conceivably), thus even stars in the sky saying "God exists, I'm here," would not begin to be actual evidence or prove anything. The reason a person believes so deeply in pain, is because they experience it; this avenue must not be discounted.

@@Dizerner Self-awareness is indeed a complex concept, as exemplified by ontologists in what is known as the 'problem of other minds'-the quest to establish rational constraints that could enable the verification of whether someone else is also a conscious being (which also ties into the personal identity problem). Moreover, the nature of self-awareness is fraught with challenges extensively discussed in the philosophy of mind. Some perspectives even argue against the existence of a substantive self that the human mind can reference, proposing instead a more processual understanding. Furthermore, the necessity of self-awareness for making claims or acquiring knowledge is not universally agreed upon. Proponents of minimal-self or no-self views would contest its indispensability. Human direct experiences can be deceptive. Even if one's perception of God's presence stems from internal mental processes, does it constitute compelling evidence for its existence in the external world? Not necessarily. Some neuroscientists argue that there is a specific area in the brain responsible for acknowledging supernatural entities. Regarding faith, is an internal hunch or feeling (that God exists) a sufficient basis for adopting that personal stance? While I would hesitate to rely solely on evolutionary instincts, it undeniably serves as a foundation for many individuals. There exists an evolutionary inclination to seek supernatural explanations, as they sometimes offer simplistic cause-and-effect explanations for otherwise complex phenomena.

@@nikodemlewandowski379 You are obviously well read on the matters, and I appreciate that. However we do need to think critically, just because a smart person says something doesn't make it true. For example in what you have written there are logical fallacies and enormous presuppositions, although I would not for one second cast doubt on the intelligence of the people involved; it's just that, we are not naturally trained to be strict with our own thinking, and it does take some discipline. If a proponent advocates "no self" or against self-awareness, you must realize I would consider that absurdity. It would be like telling me "No you don't feel anything," when only I can know if I feel something or not. It doesn't matter how smart a person is, or how well studied, they can not tell to me my personal experience, that's not logically possible, and they should realize and know that-it's extremely simple deduction, and if they don't understand that, how do they understand anything else? As for the concept and worry of deception, you need to think more deeply about it. Assuming the existence of an external world is not something I personally know a way of ever verifying. There is no logically justified path to verified true belief that I am aware of, as how can I ever exit my own mind or subjective experience to see if what I perceive is really what's "out there"? Deception-the objection from deception and argument from deceptive "feelings"-applies to all views, not just theistic, religious or supernatural ones. If you think you can verify the external world with other minds, they still get processed and go through your own mind, you have no direct connection to the mind of anyone, unless you are Vulcan on Star Trek. So it is good to step back from the literature at times, and give the ideas another chance to be examined and thought over, and make sure we are just not being "told" what we should believe instead of thinking it through ourselves, a weakness we all seem prone to.

While it's true that reproduction is a fundamental aspect of societal survival, it's important to recognize that gender roles and norms can vary significantly across cultures and historical periods. The reduction solely to the social aspect is overstated, but also reducing it to only reproductive role. Many scholars of different specializations point to the diversity of gender roles across cultures, signifying the dependence of the concept of gender on society (sociology, anthropology, psychology, philosophy). As you said, different societies have different ways of promoting reproduction. They are different exactly because of the relative character of social norms, which also create an image of gender. Societies evolve over time, and what may be considered "normal" or "natural" in one era or context can change as social, economic, and political dynamics shift. And the change is as arbitrary as any social structure.

@@nikodemlewandowski379 You write like an anthropologist or sociologist, not a philosopher. This is the way “different societies” look when you observe them scientifically. So what? In any particular society the mores regarding gender roles and sexual conduct are not arbitrary. They are certainly not regarded as arbitrary. No individual or group in the society just decided on them. Rather, they are seen as the way things are, much like any other natural fact about the world. If this were not so they could not fulfill their function, which is to regulate reproductive behavior in such a way as to assure the procreation, protection, and enculturation of succeeding generations. Stability in this area is extremely important. To stand back, as you do, and conclude that because mores vary (though within pretty strict limits) between societies, they are social constructs, with the clear implication that “diversity” and “inclusion” represent the only rational path, is unwarranted and extraordinarily ill-advised. Honestly, your thinking is unconscionably sloppy in this area and you come across more as a useful idiot of Western liberal radicalism than anything resembling a philosopher. Viable societies are coherent, and changes in them should be all but imperceptible across generations. They do not “evolve over time” in the sense you intend. Yes, they may need to adapt to certain exigencies, but what you call evolution over time is without exception decoherence and degeneration. Societies can become corrupted and begin to decompose. Something may be born out of the rotting compost, but that is another issue entirely. When things such as gender roles are considered mere options, the culture has become seriously maladapted.

Agree ....The Glass Bead Game is a masterpiece.

That's a strong claim. Do you believe that there is a moral obligation to have children? Is that a claim that can be argued on rational grounds, or does it stem from culturally based beliefs?

​@@nikodemlewandowski379You are essentially running away from life, if you choose not to have children for arbitrary reasons. You are running away from what life entails, from being born and dying and consisting of flesh. You are running away from the responsibility of ensuring that life is good for your children. If you were rational, you would contemplate what this life entails, and that producing healthy offspring is absolutely vital. You are also negating the wisdom of everybody who preceded you, because they all had children or you wouldn't be here. It is not a moral obligation to any society or group of people, but simply stems from understanding life and taken the responsibility to ensure that life is good.

​@@gosugosu1280 "You are running away from what life entails, from being born and dying and consisting of flesh" So who said life entails having children? Aren't you just begging the question? Being born and dying and consisting of flesh does not equate to having children? Just because life granted us the ability to do things does not mean we have to do them. Some people would be terrible fathers and their children would die of starvation. "If you were rational, you would contemplate what this life entails, and that producing healthy offspring is absolutely vital" But there is nothing rational about your position that you have demonstrated. And it isn't vital at all. A person can live and die without children perfectly well. "You are also negating the wisdom of everybody who preceded you, because they all had children or you wouldn't be here." What wisdom? Two teens got horny and had sex one night? Give me a break dude, these are just animal impulses. No one is negating any "wisdom". They didn't have to have children either. Its mandatory for nobody. They just decided they wanted to, fortunately for you and me. But no one said it is required. Not for us, not for our ancestors, and not for our progeny if we decide to have any. "simply stems from understanding life and taken the responsibility to ensure that life is good." Nothing in life requires every organism to have children. Nothing about taking responsibility requires having children. Nothing about living a good life requires having children. I think you are seriously confused

​@@radscorpion8"Who said life entails having children?" Because you literally cannot ask this question without people having children in general and all your parents specifically. Since the rest of your comment is based on this fallacy, I need not go any further - I've already proven you wrong. You, of course, intrinsically know that I'm right, but you want to rebel against God. That's what this all boils down to, and you might even be too dishonest to admit that, but that's okay. I know it is this way. God said to Man to multiply, and God is not any old person, but reality. The reality you deny by whimsical, in-love-with-yourself thought patterns that aren't actually more than mental farts, but the universities have told you otherwise and equally dishonest people have patted your back, so you at least got that comfort, but it isn't true. If you think I need to elaborate further, you're merely being a coward and avoiding the issue at hand, which is that everybody dies. Because you haven't faced your own death and taken responsibility for it, you're afraid to give life. What you consider to be meaning in your pointless argument is just mental masturbation, which is what you're left with, if you cannot make glorious love that leads to reproduction. Goodbye.

What about individuals who choose to go into Religious Orders (for the sake of the Kingdom/ betterment of humanity in general and who serve the most desperate people ?)

Happiness doesn't feel good when there is no suffering. The moments are worth living for

@@sattes so you are saying we recognize happines because we know suffering. We run between these opposites and say it is life. And when a person sees this nonsense and pointless of all this. People give it these names of existentialism anti something and make it look bad. People bring children into this world because they yearn for some form of continuity. Their continuity. They are okay to let children suffer just because they can't live with the fact that they have no continuity and anything they do doesn't matter in universe and nothing matters what's the point of living. All this they escape.

I believe that those values represent a very subjective judgment. As humans, we have an unfortunate tendency to pay more attention to negative events and not be aware of all the small things that we take for granted. Life will always be a composition of preferable and not preferable events, and the proportion will naturally vary from person to person.

You said We focus on more negative things and became insensitive to positive things. Why is it the case ?Is it not because that our life is continous suffering with moments of happines. And we work again and again to reclaim that. A simple example is that most people work for entire day say sell their life their time and energy to earn money. And then use that money to do things they wanna do. Basically we sell life to live life.

everything in life is a form of suffering. its just that we choose our form of suffering. suffering on a job we dont like to afford food and shelter, or suffering from poverty. suffering a bad job or suffering the rigorous study schedules. suffering death or suffering in grief of our loved one's death. i see you hold a lot of similar views to schopenhauer, but thats a bad place to be, to read his works at all, if youre in a bad mental state. one of the big students of his works was nietzsche, but he disagreed with schopenhauer's views on suffering and didnt see it as evil, but rather as a vital part of life that makes us stronger and more corageous. he didnt just hold this view, he embodied it as most of his major works were written in agony due to his medical conditions.