วีดีโอ

That coaster is blue!

Great video.

Was Galileo the first to postulate that the quality of senses are bodily reactions, and what is real are the outside material constituents? Also, I though this was Descartes idea.

Sub atomic particles are form and function of energy, e=mc2, as is everything. The most important part of Spinoza’s philosophy, is the substance monism, and relating his thought through discrete particles as opposed to an omnipresent substance and subject like energy is misleading.

OOOOOOH DESCARTES JUST BLUNDERED INTO THE SHIP OF THESEUS

You know it's actually impossible to talk about nothing at all :))

Thank you for this video. What caused Protestants to believe in predestination and Catholics to believe in free will?

wonderful explaination. loved it... keep making more videos like this!!!

singer is a psychopath

Goat

Is there an argument for Singer starting with a moral judgment of evil?

Cool cool fall down a rabbit hole on a looking up context to a philosophy joke, have a good one fellas

It really pisses me off how there are good philosophy teachers out there like Elliot, and I'm stuck with a stuck up loonatic ethics teacher. I'm here because my ethics teacher sucks I need help from another one.

But I think we have to reckon with the second categorical imperative. That if all follow the same maxim due to the same underlying principle they have to realize it themselves rather than to be made to follow that principle. It has to be realized on their own…

Thank you! You explained these concepts so well!!

Molitva menja nasu motivačiju preko podsvesti pa implicite menja i boziju volju u domenu covekovih moci .

Great recap of cartesianism and explanation of the question the mind-body dualism has to answer!

This video was so helpful thank you so much! I'm writing a paper on this right now for a phil class and you helped clarify everything

A MORE SUCCINCT CRITIQUE..................ANY THOUGHTS?....................1. Hume surrenders to the understanding that entities are distinct in what they are and by that, that which they are not. A square is distinctively that which it is for its characteristics (squareness) and that which it is not, possessing no characteristics of a circle (circleness). 2. That an entity can be that which it is distinctively and not other things is due to its “distinctive” physical characteristics or physicality. E.g., the billiard ball in his analogous refutation of the deterministic nature of cause and effect is distinctively just that, a billiard ball and not an apple or beach ball or the like. 3. He thus, by definition, accepted that entities are that which they are by the assertion of their form and function (characteristics) into materiality (quantum mechanics validates this unequivocally). Were this not so, he could not have appealed to them that they would be employed in his propositions. 4. He also, by definition, accepted that entities are material, i.e., physical, defined by their physical characteristics (a ball is round and not square, etc.) or they could not be considered at all and could not be participants in his propositions. That he specifically chose billiard balls for the players in his analogy demonstrates his acceptance of this (above) as a recognition. 5. By this he submitted to the understanding that motion for being intangible, could NOT be a characteristic of the billiard ball which is moving but a phenomenon in the context of consideration, it moving toward a stationary billiard ball that it might cause it to move when struck. Motion of the billiard ball in this context is only a phenomenon of concern with the billiard balls physicality or characteristics. 6. Given the above, we know analytically that the motion of the billiard ball had to have been imparted to it by the force of another entity of which it was concerned when it struck the billiard ball. 7. Thus, by that same means by which the motion of the billiard ball was imparted to it by a prior entity also effected by motion, it would be imparted to the stationary billiard ball by the moving billiard ball. 8. We are able then to induce that the stationary billiard ball would in fact move if struck by the first because of the nature of motion as opposed to that of the physicality of the billiard balls for we know analytically that motion cannot be a part or characteristic of the physicality of the billiard balls but only an imparted phenomenon. So if it was imparted to the first billiard ball by it being struck, so too would it be imparted to the second when being struck.

You make it easy to understand. Thanks a lot

Great video! Thank you.

Would you say Reid proves the most attractive arguments against Berkeley’s doctrine of subjective idealism and immaterialism?

Liebniz is correct. Consider the concept of Pride. In platonic dialectics, pride is exemplified in arrogance and ignorance, but we dont identify arrogance and ignorance by seeing them directly. We identify the arrogant or ignorant in how they project their opposites outward onto others. Ignorance projects outward as knowledge lorded over others, and arrogance is projected outward as weakness onto others. This means that arrogance is "at distance" from weakness, and ignorance is "at distance" from knowledge. All four of these platonic subforms can be described as diameteically opposed pairs orbitting Pride. To draw a diagram of this relation: Arrogance---------\|/--------Knowledge ---------------------Pride------------------- Ignorance---------/|\---------Weakness Likewise "Shame" Pride's subconscious cause, is only a half opposite to Pride because it shares two bases with Pride: Ignorance---------\|/---------Weakness --------------------Shame------------------ Sin(failure)--------/|\--------Humiliation Pride's actual opposite is a subconsciusly muted trait: Strength-----------\|/-------Awareness -------------------Humility---------------- Humiliation-------/|\----------Patience And it shares two bases with Wisdom, shame's true opposite: Knowledge-------\|/----------Success -------------------Wisdom--------------- Strength-----------/|\-------Awareness And all four of these platonic forms orbit philosophical "Truth" Pride--------------\|/------Wisdom -----------------Truth--------------- Shame------------/|\-------Humility If you imagine this construct as a pyramidal tetrad, the reason why modern philosophy confuses obejctively relative Truth with Subjective experience, is because this platonic Tetrad also has an inversed pyramidal tetrad which shares all four bases with "Truth": Pride--------------\|/------Wisdom --------------Experience---------- Shame------------/|\-------Humility How these two forms; experience and Truth, differ, is that truth is an intellectual and psychological aspect at center of pride shame wisdom and humility, whereas experience is the subjective emotional experience of "feeling" pride shame wisdom and humility. As per Leibniz' law, this is what differentiates them. This concept is mirrored across math as well: -------------------(cos*sin)------------------ Cosine--------------\|/--------Cosecant Cotangent--------(1)-------Tangent Sine------------------/|\--------Secant -------------------(sin*cos)----------------- And physics: ------------------------(Photon)------------- Electromagnetism----\|/-------------Heat (Electron)------------Energy-----(Phonon) Gravity-------------------/|\------------Sound -----------------------(Graviton)-------------- The Ancients greeks called it "The Logos", the repeated pattern of transferrence mirrored across all aspects of reality, physical, psychological, and spiritual in origin. In fact the word "Origin" derives from the Omphalos stone Rhea feeds Cronus in Zeus' stead. Ultimately, Aquinas writes about this in Q64 of Summa Theologica as "The Mean of Virtue", and if Locke were correct, it would be impossible for this correlation to exist. >Special Relativity E^2 = (mc^2)^2 + (pc)^2 E^2 = (m*c/g)^2 + (p√(c/g))^2 E^2 = (m/g^2)^2 + (p/g)^2 >Let E=C; Let mc^2 = A; let cp = B >Pythagorean Theorem C^2 = A^2 + B^2 >Let C = 1, Let A = cos(x), Let B = sin(x) >Trigonometric Identity Property 1^2 = sin^2(x) + cos^2(x) 1^2 = 1/sec^2(x) + 1/csc^2(x) 1^2 = sin(x)/csc(x) + cos(x)/sec(x) >Let 1= Truth; Let sin(x) = Pride; csc(x) = Humility; Let cos(x) = Shame; sec(x) = Wisdom >Truth^2 = Pride/Humility + Shame/Wisdom Pride^2 = Arrogance/Weakness + Ignorance/Knowledge Shame^2 = Ignorance/Humiliation + Weakness/Failure Humility^2 = Strength/Patience + Humiliation/Awareness Wisdom^2 = Awareness/Knowledge + Strength/Success Proofs: The shame of wisdom and the pride of humility is Truth The wisdom of shame and the humility of pride is Truth The arrogance of weakness and the ignorance of knowledge is Pride The weakness of arrogance and the knowledge of the ignorant is Pride The failure of weakness and the ignorance of humiliation is shame The weakness of failure and the humiliation of ignorance is shame The strength of patience and the humiliation of awareness is humility The patience of strength and the awareness of humiliation is Humility The strength of success and the knowledge of awareness is wisdom The success of strength and the awareness of knowledge is wisdom Are you familiar with Max Tegmark's universal mathematical hypothesis theory? The sum of two squares formula is one of the fundamental mathematical formulas that summarizes a large volume of human knowledge for it contains the kernel of the abstract mental process of identification through differentiation itself. Ultimately, this concept is also mirrored across the literary device of a Palindrome: Palindromic poem regarding the nature of the Universe: God, as a devil, deified, lived as a dog Reliever deliver a reviled reveiler Photon not “oh” p Devil never even lived Added rater as a retarded D.A. Some A notes set on a E//M OS Red root six, a live evil axis to order Trap “A”, redraw a Spiral set on DNA and no tesla rips a warder apart Me? E/M? Not A Devil, I lived a ton Technically, cognitive dissonance is a psychological analogue to the physical phenomena of Ohmic resistance, which is largely electron-phonon scattering. The fact that a very significant volume of our crucial scientific breakthroughs are accredited by their founders as having "came to them as an epiphany" in dreams is proof enough the Lockean Empiricism is not a sufficiently explanatory system for describing the whole of epistemology, yet this fact is largely brushed under the rug and dismissed as coincidence by modern philosophers and scientists building their work off of these fundamental innate ideas in the first place. The fact that the most recent development of LLM AI frequently "lies" (we can generously call it "making stuff up") when dragged into the weeds outside of its knowledge base (pre-approved and manicured data set) instead of just saying "I don't know" is also proof of this errant thought regarding thought.

Medical ethics of abortion. Better check what the popes got to say about this 😂

would be better if you upgraded your microphone

truely a savior for all of us college students confused af in philosophy rn

Good work. Great topics to discuss

You have a very irritating speaking style.

This video is very helpful to me at the moment! I'm taking a course on the Empiricists and was just given a task on this exact topic. You explained it great! Much appreciated :)

Really interesting

Thank you for this video!!

Hume's objections are unconvincing. He's writing: "In such a ... succession of objects, each part is caused by that which preceded it and causes that which succeeds it. Where then is the difficulty? But the whole, you say, wants a cause. I answer that the uniting of parts into a whole, like the uniting of several distinct countries into one kingdom, .. . is performed merely by an arbitrary act of the mind and has no influence on the nature of things. Did I show you the particular causes of each individual in a collection of twenty particles of matter, I should think it very unreasonable should you afterwards ask me what was the cause of the whole twenty. This is sufficiently explained in explaining the cause of the parts." Responses: "Consider an illustration. Suppose that the series of contingent beings were merely a series of self-propagating robots, each one bringing the next into existence. No matter how far back in time you go, there was just one of these robots functioning. Each robot functions for, say, ten years, then, in the last few minutes of functioning, propagates a new robot. (Just as the new robot starts to function, the old one ceases to function and disintegrates.) Now, in this scheme, we have a cause for the existence and functioning of each of the robots. But we have not identified a cause of the robot series as a whole. For example, what causes (or caused) the series to be one of robots rather than one of rocks, roses, rats, or reindeer? What is the cause of there being any robots at all? That question has not been answered. In the same way, even if we know that each contingent being is caused to exist by some other contingent being, we still do not have an explanation for the fact that there are contingent beings. There might have been nothing at all or only necessary beings. " (Stephen Layman "Letters To Doubting Thomas") "Hume's objection has force only if he is correct to suppose that the parts of any whole none of which exist necessarily in and of themselves can each and all be fully explained in terms of other members of that same whole. This supposition may be doubted. The causal explanations of the parts of any such whole in terms of other parts cannot add up to a causal explanation of the whole, if the items mentioned as causes are items whose own existence stands in need of a causal explanation. The fatal flaw in Hume's supposition has been well put by James Sadowsky. He asks, how any member [of any such causal series] can do any causing unless it first exists. B cannot cause A until D brings it into existence. What is true of D is equally true of E and F without end. Since each condition for the existence of A requires the fulfilment of a prior condition, it follows that none of them can ever be fulfilled. In each case what is offered as part of the solution turns out instead to be part of the problem." (David Conway "Rediscovery Of Wisdom")

Many of Hume's objections can be answered. Objection (1) :"A great number of men join in building a house or a ship, in rearing a city, in framing a commonwealth: why may not several deities combine in contriving and framing a world?" Responses: "And, to jump ahead a bit, there are two further problems with polytheism as an explanation of the existence of not merely a universe but a universe governed throughout space and time by the same natural laws . If this order in the world is to be explained by many gods, then some explanation is required for how and why they cooperate in producing the same patterns of order throughout the universe. This becomes a new datum requiring explanation for the same reason as the fact of order itself. The need for further explanation ends when we postulate one being who is the cause of the existence of all others, and the simplest conceivable such-I urge-is God. And, further, the power of polytheism to explain this order in the world is perhaps not as great as that of theism. If there were more than one deity responsible for the order of the universe, we would expect to see characteristic marks of the handiwork of different deities in different parts of the universe, just as we see different kinds of workmanship in the different houses of a city. We would expect to find an inverse square of law of gravitation obeyed in one part of the universe, and in another part a law that was just short of being an inverse square law-without the difference being explicable in terms of a more general law." (Richard Swinburne "The Existence Of God") "If the physical universe is the product of intelligent design, rather than being a pure accident, it is more likely to be the handiwork of only one rather than more than one intelligence. This is so for two broad reasons. The first reason is the need for theoretical parsimony. In the absence of any evidence for supposing the universe to be the handiwork of more than one intelligence rather than only one, then, faced with a choice between supposing it the handiwork of one or of more than one intelligent designer, we should choose to suppose it to be the creation of only one. For it is not necessary to postulate more than one to account for the phenomena in question. The second reason for preferring the hypothesis of there being only one designer of the universe to supposing more than one is that the general harmony and uniformity of everything in the universe suggest that, should it be the product of design, it is more likely to be the handiwork of a single designer, rather than a plurality of designers who might have been expected to have left in their joint product some trace of their plural individualities. " (David Conway "Rediscovery Of Wisdom") Objection (2) :"[I]f we survey the universe ..., it bears a great resemblance to an animal or organized body, and seems actuated with a like principle of life and motion. A continual circulation of matter in it ...: a continual waste in every part is incessantly repaired: the closest sympathy is perceived throughout the entire system: and each part or member ... operates both to its own preservation and to that of the whole [I]t must be confessed, that... the universe resembles more a human body than it does the works of human art and contrivance [Y]et is the analogy also defective in many circumstances ...: no organs of sense; no seat of thought or reason; no one precise origin of motion and action. In short, it seems to bear a stronger resemblance to a vegetable than to an animal." Response: "Hume's argument seems weak. Hume's claim is that the physical universe - more specifically, our solar system - bears a closer resemblance to some animal or a vegetable than it does some machine or other artefact. The claim is unconvincing. In its manifest workings, the physical universe in general, and our own solar system in particular, exhibits a degree of regularity and predictability that far exceeds that which is exhibited by any animal or vegetable. After all, it is by the sun that we set our clocks and not by the comings and goings of sun-flowers or salamanders! That this is so suggests that the physical universe more closely resembles some regular and predictable machine or artefact, for example a clock, than it does any far less regular and predictable animal or vegetable. " (David Conway "Rediscovery Of Wisdom") Objection (3) :"But how this argument can have place where the objects, as in the present case, are single, individual, without parallel or specific resemblance, may be difficult to explain." Response: "From time to time various writers have told us that we cannot reach any conclusions about the origin or development of the universe, since it is the only one of which we have knowledge, and rational inquiry can reach conclusions only about objects that belong to kinds, for example, it can reach a conclusion about what will happen to this bit of iron only because there are other bits of iron, the behaviour of which can be studied. This objection has the surprising, and to most of these writers unwelcome, consequence, that physical cosmology could not reach justified conclusions about such matters as the size, age, rate of expansion, and density of the universe as a whole (because it is the only one of which we have knowledge); and also that physical anthropology could not reach conclusions about the origin and development of the human race (because, as far as our knowledge goes, it is the only one of its kind). The implausibility of these consequences leads us to doubt the original objection, which is indeed totally misguided." (Richard Swinburne "The Existence Of God") Objection (4) :"Nature seems to have formed an exact calculation of the necessities of her creatures; and like a rigid master, has afforded them little more powers or endowments, than what are strictly sufficient to supply those necessities. An indulgent parent would have bestowed a large stock, in order to guard against accidents, and secure the happiness and welfare of the creature, in the most unfortunate concurrence of circumstances. Every course of life would not have been so surrounded with precipices, that the least departure from the true path, by mistake or necessity, must involve us in misery and ruin." Response: "The third consideration which Hume proffers in support of his claim that (at least some of) the natural evil in the world is gratuitous is that, were the universe the handiwork of some benevolent intelligence, its inhabitants might have been expected to be better provisioned than they are with the wherewithal for their enjoying felicity. Again, Hume fails to supply adequate reason for supposing this to be so. For example, were sheep better able to evade the fox, then foxes would have been less well able to survive and flourish. Should it be suggested that the world would have been a better place had sheep been allowed to graze without any predators, we might wonder whether they might not then have reproduced beyond the point at which pastures might have been able to sustain them, ... and so on. " (David Conway "Rediscovery Of Wisdom")

Fantastic explanation! I feel both prepared and excited to start reading Spinoza after this :)

So is it the natural equality amongst men which essentially leads to a war of everyone against everyone / the state of war?

Thank you so much for your video! You did a great job at explaining everything. Also I love the aesthetic of your videos. Everything is nicer in pretty colors. :)

schopenhauer liked that

There may be a synthesis view that one about the externalist view and the internalist view

Hello there...I watched most of your latest videos, and I want to say that they are enjoyable and informative...I'd also say pretty detailed. So I would like to see more of the like in the future. Thanks for your work!

thank you for this so helpful with my lectures. can you please share the slides ?

Thanks for this video, it has helped a lot in trying to comprehend the works of Lady Anne Conway. I needed to grasp her metaphysics of mind and body for an essay and I probably couldn't have done it without this video. So again, Thanks a bunch this video was great!

Do you think that this could impact the debate as to whether or not minorities are 'ENTITLED' to reparations? Insofar as this is largely relating to the practicality, feasibility and moral repercussions of doing so. Is a question about entitlement, perhaps, largely unaffected by these questions? If so, it feels to me like normative arguments relating to 'entitlement' operate within their own closed philosophical framework as it largely contingent on liberal theories of property rights and liberal rights - thereby preventing a criticism of reparations from a normative judgement. I'm not sure - wanted to get your opinion on this, as I wrote my paper last week arguing that there was not an entitlement, but struggled with the ontological assumptions of such a question. Great videos though man, really helped me out last week :))

Thanks for this! Very clear, and you're pretty funny and charismatic, great stuff. Happy birthday month :) I did watch this on x1.75 fyi.

Thanks so much for your generosity in sharing this with the public. It really helped me understand Leibniz

Picture this. *A Realist goes to an Idealist and starts whacking him around the head* ‘Actually, you are right. I’m not beating and belittling you at all. It’s is just a thought in your head. It’s not real, get over it. You say it’s a beating, I say it’s not. Of course I am right and you are deluded’. Idealism falls flat on its face when considering the fact that a person who has a profound intellectual disability who is also deaf and blind would experience pain when hitting the corner of the table. One might object that the human senses and the human brain architecture which is shared amongst species make reality. It’s possible but, then, how would one know (and prove this theory in a tangible way), and, most importantly, why (what for) would someone say that the physical reality is an illusion? This is akin to those who religiously sermonise that this world is just a transit phase and that the riches don’t count whilst they amass wealth and power. That’s odd, don’t you think? 🤨

Very good and interesting lecture. Thank you very much!

Thank you so much for this video! Currently taking a modern philosophy class and this video has helped me a lot!

"If this really is the best of all possible Worlds, Voltaire responded, Egads! I'd hate to see the second best possible one."

thanks for this. you made it simple and enjoyable to understand

educational video thank you