A reupload from the previous channel of a brief interview with Bertrand Russell. More Short Videos and Clips: • Shorter Clips & Videos... #Philosophy #BertrandRussell
Smart man, but he was wrong. There are things of which we're certain, and there were things of which he was certain. Example. Something exists. All the brain-in-a-vats, all the all-is-illusions, can't refute that. Whatever is going on, whatever reality is, it's something.
Bertrand Russell changed my life, having been cheated by the priests in a Christian brother's school in Dublin because I questioned their beliefs, they failed me on every subject for my final leaving certificate, and I started reading novels, I eventually came across " SOPHIE'S WORLD " at the time I did not know it was an introduction to PHILOSOPHY, I loved the information so much that I decided to start reading PHILOSOPHY, and the very next book I bought was " HISTORY OF WESTERN PHILOSOPHY " I struggled to even understand the introduction, however, but as I said it changed my life, by the way, to spite the childish attempts by the CATHOLIC CHURCH to ruin my chances of employment, I went on to become an AIRLINE CAPTIAN. So if you take anything from this story it should be, DO NOT ALLOW RELIGIOUS FANATICS TO TRY AND BRAINWASH YOUR CHILDS MIND.
I relate to your story. Discovering philosophy in my early teens taught me how to think and inoculated me against all kinds of irrationality including religion. Thanks for sharing.
Here are some interesting quotes from the transcript: 1. "Science is what we know, and philosophy is what we don't know." 2. "The business of a philosopher is not to change the world but to understand it." 3. "Nobody should be certain of anything because nothing deserves certainty." 4. "A certain amount of disturbance is an essential part of mental training." 5. "The rise of science inevitably diminishes the importance of philosophy." These quotes provide insights into Bertrand Russell's views on philosophy and its role in understanding the world and human behavior.
"A certain amount of disturbance is an essential part of mental training." Did me good to be reminded of that. It's been difficult coming to terms with the psychological and emotional upheaval I experienced after a sudden religious deconstruction only a few years ago. During that time and since, science acted as a "ballast" for me just as Russell said it should, until such time I determined my own philosophies on various matters and found my preferred expression of them in Dudeism. But that's just me. As Russel's boat analogy implies, there is no trodden path to follow, but rather a vast sea of thinking that one must sail according to one's own compass.
The value of philosophy is "(to realize) that there are very big questions that science can't deal with and to make people aware that great many things which have been thought certain turned out to be untrue and there's no shortcut to knowledge and...we ought not to be dogmatic". (B. Russell)
@@drivinsouth651For example, science can’t answer whether the law should attempt to treat everyone equally. Instead humanity has had to learn through various other means, some peaceful others not so peaceful.
Thank you for sharing. I have the transcript of the 13 Interviews by Woodrow Wyatt as a book - "Bertrand Russell Speaks His Mind", only about 40 minutes as an audio (mp3 file). Bertrand Russell was one of the most progressive, liberal and enlightened philosophers of the 20th century. "The History of Western Philosophy" written by Bertrand Russell is considered to be one of the most important philosophical works of all time.
The explanations provided seem to me to be correct, if not entirely complete. The more I hear from Russell, the more I find my own views are in alignment with many of his.
I agree with Lord Bertrand Russell’s summary of Philosophy. The scientific attitude is not adequate to understand our world in all its completeness. Such understanding requires continuous speculation and logical thinking. To preserve the status quo or to change it(Karl Marx/Engels) is the question. We ought to ask rational questions that may advance our understanding of our universe and existence through the methods of Mathematics and Science.
Wow, just comparing the western civilization on morals ,values and knowledge in these era to nowadays. they used to have their own fingerprint and style . Greetings from Saudi Arabia
If you never want to feel torn between the wit of the man you love and the character of the man with that wit, never, ever, ever read Ray Monk’s two volume biography of Russell. Especially not volume 2.
Why did Bertrand Russel said philosophy is something we don't know,I think philosophy is something we have to do critic or argumentation for something about the history
Bertrand Russell has a beautiful story….. A Christian priest had a dream that he had died, and of course reached heaven. But he was very shocked because the doors of heaven were so big that he could not see where they ended. In all directions, as far as he could see, there was the door. And he himself, compared to the door, looked like an ant. He was very shocked: ”This is very disrespectful. I was hoping that God would be here at the gate, and angels would be playing on their harps, ‘Allelujah!’” The gate was closed. He knocked, but he himself wondered, ”Who is going to hear?” The gate was so vast; his knock was such a small sound, almost inaudible. It took him three days continuously knocking. Then Saint Peter opened a window and looked down. He had one thousand eyes. The priest immediately fell on his knees, and said, ”God.” Saint Peter said, ”I’m not God, I’m just the gatekeeper. You must have heard, my name is Saint Peter. As far as God is concerned, I have not yet been able to see him. It is a very vast space. Although I have one thousand eyes, I have not yet been able, in two thousand years, to find him.”
The priest said, ”This is unbelievable. What about Jesus Christ?” Saint Peter said, ”I have not found him either, the place is so big. I have been searching for two thousand years. And who are you?” He said, ”I am a Christian priest from the earth.” Saint Peter said, ”This won’t do. What is the index number of your earth, which earth? There are millions of earths; each star has its own solar system, has its own planets, its own moons, its own earths. So you give me the index number, and I will run to the library to find out from which earth you are coming.” The priest said, ”My God! I have never heard about any index number. I’m coming from the solar system.” Saint Peter said, ”Each star has its own solar system, and there are millions of solar systems. Again, you will have to give me the index number.” It became a nightmare. There was no question of his getting a welcome. First, he had to give his identity; only then would the doors open. Saint Peter disappeared, telling him, ”I’m going to the library. Perhaps the librarian can help me.” Waiting, and waiting, and waiting… perhaps thousands of years passed… he woke up from this nightmare, and he said, ”My God! It is better to be alive; I don’t want to go to such a heaven. I cancel all the prayers that I have made before. It is so humiliating.”
I know Bertrand Russell wasn't a Christan, but with all due respect, this is a very flawed understanding of it. For your information, i am NOT a Christan
9:57 "If you're certain, you're certainly wrong.." If this proposition false, it is uncertain. If it is true, it is certain, and therefore a performative self-contradiction. Therefore, this proposition is either false, or a self-contradiction. Hence, it is either false in one way or another.
How did you get "if this proposition is false, it is uncertain" from the proposition? The only logically valid inference from the proposition is: (1) Affirming the antecedent: "If you're certain, you're certainly WRONG. But you are certain that this proposition is TRUE (or FALSE for that matter), then you are certainly wrong about that." (2) Negating the consequent: "If you are certain, you're certainly wrong. But you are NOT certainly wrong, therefore you are not certain". If Russell was certain that he was right, he'd be wrong, hence this is unacceptable because it would the logically valid inference of affirming the antecedent. But he can be UNCERTAINLY RIGHT because it doesn't violate (1) and is admissible in (2) (being uncertainly right is covered by "NOT certainly wrong") so Russell's uncertainty regarding his proposition of certainty is acceptable in both logically valid inferences. Furthermore, if the proposition *regarding the person* is true, that they are certainly false if they believe themselves to be true (or false), then it doesn't mean the proposition is certain. Certainty is not related to truth. A true proposition is not the same as a certain proposition. It can be "hypothetically true" (uncertainly true because it is only "hypothetical", not "necessarily"). The proposition itself is "hypothetical" and is not "necessary". So, Russell would not meet "performative contradiction" in uttering UNCERTAINLY this proposition and regarding it UNCERTAINLY as true and it is not false because if it is false, we cannot infer "certainty" from it through either logically valid inferences. You've in fact demonstrated Russell if you were certain that he was "wrong", which he was not, and you are CERTAINLY false because you've systematically excluded the possibility that Russell was both uncertain regarding the proposition's truth, (the uncertain truth) that his proposition is of a hypothetical (hence uncertain) logical form AND that you used an invalid logical inference which is certainly false. I am NOT certain of my understanding of your explanation and my criticism so you can elaborate it if you want to, hence the question in the beginning.
This is a muddy muddle from the start, since a sentence which starts with 'if' is merely a conditional proposition, thus cannot lead to a 'therefore'. since it hasn't made a substantive proposition from which anything can be inferred. Start again, but better...
I"If you're certain, you're certainly wrong."I think he means about the certainty of our knowledge because it changes constantly. In the 4th century B.C.E. the great philosopher Plato and his student Aristotle (384 B.C.E.-322 B.C.E.). who was a towering figure in ancient Greek philosophy, who made important contributions to logic, criticism, rhetoric, physics, biology, psychology, mathematics, metaphysics, ethics, politics etc. believed that Earth was in the centre of the Universe. He was certain that heavier objects fall faster than lighter objects because he believed that heavier objects felt a larger force and a larger force made the object move faster. In the late 16th century, proved Aristotle wrong by conducting physical experiments, He devised a test to determine whether it was true that lighter bodies fall at a slower rate than heavier ones, as Aristotle claimed. Now almost every school child can do this "Galileo's Gravity Experimental" in a Vacuum at the school lab. Greek philosophers established that the Earth was round as far back as the third century BC, but it wasn’t until the 15th century that it became commonly accepted. Thanks to Christopher Colombus. Although scientific evidence says the Earth is a sphere orbiting the Sun, there are some people around who still are certain that our mother planet is flat and organise even a congress every year where the Flat-Earth believer meet. Although the idea the Earth is flat has been scientifically discredited, there seems to be a growing belief in the conspiracy theory. The flat Earth community uses various social media platforms in distinct, overlapping ways in order to create a kind of ecosystem around their beliefs. The great Sir Isaac Newton (1643-1727) nearly singlehandedly invented classical mechanics and applied calculus, and his approach set the course of physics for the next 200 years. Having discovered the Universal Law of gravitation and formulated it into the famous gravitational equation. F=(GMm)/r^2 , he combined the fall of objects and the motion of planets in his theory. After propounding such a theory, Newton still didn't have any idea why gravitational force actually exist. He had some misunderstanding about gravity. He thought the gravitational force is instantaneous. Newton never considered time to be a part of physics. Despite these problems, he was very successful to explain the motion of planets, Kepler's Law and the motion of falling bodies precisely though. Almost after 200 years, Albert Einstein (1879-1955) was to prove that time is not absolute by giving a better theory of gravity which even works for very large objects with great precision whereas Newton’s didn’t. Scientists have demonstrated that Einstein's theory of general relativity is correct to a remarkable degree of accuracy. For e.g, according to Newton if Sun is removed from our solar system, Earth will fly from its orbit instantaneously. But according to Einstein, this will happen after only 8 mins because gravity has to travel at the speed of light (300,000 km/s) to have its effect on Earth. According to Albert Einstein’s special theory of relativity, no known object can travel faster than the speed of light in a vacuum. Recently US-American Astrophysicist, Erik Lentz claims Spacecraft in a ‘warp bubble’ could travel faster than light. ...Some cosmologists think that all objects outside of the Hubble volume move away from the centre faster than the speed of light. Yes, galaxies outside of our Hubble sphere are seemed to be receding from us faster than the speed of light. But the galaxies themselves aren’t breaking any cosmic speed limits. To an observer within one of those galaxies, nothing violates special relativity at all. It is the space between us and those galaxies that is rapidly proliferating and stretching exponentially. Hence we cannot certain about anything.
He states: “science cannot tell us what is right or wrong.” This is true of a culture of science characterized by and borne of a mechanistic consciousness that has dominated for centuries. But science can determine what is right or wrong -by itself - when characterized and borne of holistic consciousness. But to achieve this collective consciousness does indeed necessitate a “priming” by life affirming philosophy. Vitalism will precede the science that by itself can determine right and wrong. Here, at this juncture, right will mean optimal instinctual, emotional and physiological health- Nietzsche’s yay to life, Wilhelm Reichs uninhibited orgone streaming. Wrong will be anything that inhibits this organic vitality.
Well aware here that I'm disagreeing with a genius... but isn't science a philosophy in its own right? It's based on Empiricism, which is an issue of Epistemology, and that was in turn developed as a philosophical tool...
Well philosophy as an entire area is the love of knowledge - literally speaking, so yes all branches of the sciences stem from 'natural philosophy' empiricism and rationalist dogma have become self limiting, we need philosophy to give us the means to escape the rationalist 'peer reviewed' dogmas of today.
@@spenter9711 Yes of course it is, Empiricism is based on Philosophical Naturalism. But in a more general sense, Empiricism is an idea, and all ideas are philosophies.
@@Deliquescentinsight It's purposely self-limiting, and the knowledge we're acquiring is proving to be more useful than by any other method we have, what better way is there? I'm neither a Rationalist or an Empiricist, I'm both, I think we all are in the natural course of thinking.
‘’Scientific societies are as yet in their infancy… It is to be expected that advances in physiology and psychology will give governments much more control over individual mentality than they now have even in totalitarian countries. Fitche laid it down that education should aim at destroying free will, so that, after pupils have left school, they shall be incapable, throughout the rest of their lives, of thinking or acting otherwise than as their schoolmasters would have wished. Diet, injections(vaccines) and injunctions will combine, from very early age, to produce the sort of character and the sort of beliefs that the authorities consider desirable, and any serious criticism of the powers that be will become psychologically impossible...’’ - Bertrand Russell, 1953 He wants to Bring about the New World Order and make the world into 1984. Wake Up! He's Controlled Op. Still Gives A lot of Good Advice though.....
Most "Modern Philosophy" leads to extreme evil, immorality, irresponsibility, death, destruction and loss. These guys were mostly promoting criminality. Anyone with any common sense ignores 90% od
He had very poor ideas on bacteriological warfare and eugenics in an attempt to address the alternative horrors of overpopulation, but I suspect that these views were short lived, and possibly even delivered with a certain wryness as a means of placing birth control opponents in an unenviable moral position. Regardless, it is silly to wholly condemn a person who's life's work was an attempt to reason humanity's way into a brighter, more humane future. We've all said stupid things in our lives, and he lived in a time where it was very easy to be persuaded by some retrospectively horrific views. This is not an excuse, but an attempt at finding a balanced view on the man.
![[Live] : ONE FIGHT NIGHT 22 วันนี้!! "สมิลลา vs นาตาเรีย"](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Hmzh7heFvx8/mqdefault.jpg)
"If you're certain, you're certainly wrong."
@Jay Em if you're certain of your opinion, dude.
that's a paradox tho
hence he mentioned probability
Classic modern thought. Such silliness
Smart man, but he was wrong. There are things of which we're certain, and there were things of which he was certain. Example. Something exists. All the brain-in-a-vats, all the all-is-illusions, can't refute that. Whatever is going on, whatever reality is, it's something.
To put it another way. The assertion that nothing exists is false.
Bertrand Russell changed my life, having been cheated by the priests in a Christian brother's school in Dublin because I questioned their beliefs, they failed me on every subject for my final leaving certificate, and I started reading novels, I eventually came across " SOPHIE'S WORLD " at the time I did not know it was an introduction to PHILOSOPHY, I loved the information so much that I decided to start reading PHILOSOPHY, and the very next book I bought was " HISTORY OF WESTERN PHILOSOPHY " I struggled to even understand the introduction, however, but as I said it changed my life, by the way, to spite the childish attempts by the CATHOLIC CHURCH to ruin my chances of employment, I went on to become an AIRLINE CAPTIAN. So if you take anything from this story it should be, DO NOT ALLOW RELIGIOUS FANATICS TO TRY AND BRAINWASH YOUR CHILDS MIND.
That's deep.
So you went from having your mind in the air to having your body in the air. Nice.
@@alfredomulleretxeberria4239 With that remark, I believe it would be fair to say, at least I have a mind, and not a contaminated ACCULTIST FANATIC.
Good for you! You did well.
I relate to your story. Discovering philosophy in my early teens taught me how to think and inoculated me against all kinds of irrationality including religion. Thanks for sharing.
Here are some interesting quotes from the transcript:
1. "Science is what we know, and philosophy is what we don't know."
2. "The business of a philosopher is not to change the world but to understand it."
3. "Nobody should be certain of anything because nothing deserves certainty."
4. "A certain amount of disturbance is an essential part of mental training."
5. "The rise of science inevitably diminishes the importance of philosophy."
These quotes provide insights into Bertrand Russell's views on philosophy and its role in understanding the world and human behavior.
thank you chat gpt bro
@shaonsingha9682 Thanks. "Nobody should be certain of anything because nothing deserves certainty." Was he certain of that?
"The rise of science inevitably diminishes the importance of philosophy."
Sounds about right.
"Donald Trump is a wank." I find myself in agreement with Lord Russell on that.
@matthewphilip1977 🤔🤔. I am not certain that he was certain about it.
I love Bertrand Russell!
And he loves you
Lord Russell is a giant of Humanity. We have much to learn from his philosophy. Elegant man.
Thank you.
"A certain amount of disturbance is an essential part of mental training." Did me good to be reminded of that. It's been difficult coming to terms with the psychological and emotional upheaval I experienced after a sudden religious deconstruction only a few years ago. During that time and since, science acted as a "ballast" for me just as Russell said it should, until such time I determined my own philosophies on various matters and found my preferred expression of them in Dudeism. But that's just me. As Russel's boat analogy implies, there is no trodden path to follow, but rather a vast sea of thinking that one must sail according to one's own compass.
My dog is laying besides me on the couch. He's the ultimate practitioner and lives up to his name, Dude. I try to emulate him.
The value of philosophy is "(to realize) that there are very big questions that science can't deal with and to make people aware that great many things which have been thought certain turned out to be untrue and there's no shortcut to knowledge and...we ought not to be dogmatic". (B. Russell)
What big questions are there that science can't deal with?
@@drivinsouth651well science presupposes a ton of philosophy so all of that.
@@drivinsouth651For example, science can’t answer whether the law should attempt to treat everyone equally. Instead humanity has had to learn through various other means, some peaceful others not so peaceful.
Thank you for sharing. I have the transcript of the 13 Interviews by Woodrow Wyatt as a book - "Bertrand Russell Speaks His Mind", only about 40 minutes as an audio (mp3 file).
Bertrand Russell was one of the most progressive, liberal and enlightened philosophers of the 20th century. "The History of Western Philosophy" written by Bertrand Russell is considered to be one of the most important philosophical works of all time.
I was afraid this channel was gone for good!
I absolutely adore him!
The explanations provided seem to me to be correct, if not entirely complete. The more I hear from Russell, the more I find my own views are in alignment with many of his.
He was both a great man and a great scholar.
didn't he sleep with T.S. Eliot's wife?
He was 87 in this interview and still sharp!
very neat video
Hey! Is it okay to use some clips from here? Is this copyright material? Thanks for answering.
I agree with Lord Bertrand Russell’s summary of Philosophy. The scientific attitude is not adequate to understand our world in all its completeness. Such understanding requires continuous speculation and logical thinking. To preserve the status quo or to change it(Karl Marx/Engels) is the question. We ought to ask rational questions that may advance our understanding of our universe and existence through the methods of Mathematics and Science.
I agree with what Bertrand Russell is saying. THUMBS UP, PLEASE.
Philosophy consists of speculations about matters where exact knowledge is not impossible.
Science is what we know, philosophy is what we don't know.
Wait till this guy finds out where the foundation of science - falsification, comes from.
Wow, just comparing the western civilization on morals ,values and knowledge in these era to nowadays. they used to have their own fingerprint and style .
Greetings from Saudi Arabia
Philosophers have an different opinion on how the cosmos operates depending on what side of the bed they rose up of that morning . . Descartes
A minute in, and his answer to why is philosophy and it’s difference to science is spot on.
If you never want to feel torn between the wit of the man you love and the character of the man with that wit, never, ever, ever read Ray Monk’s two volume biography of Russell. Especially not volume 2.
Was Russell a cad and a bounder?
Wise man
Pilosophers are the most advanced brains
Why did Bertrand Russel said philosophy is something we don't know,I think philosophy is something we have to do critic or argumentation for something about the history
What is mind? No matter. What is matter? Never mind.
That journalist sounds like a prosecutor
Bertrand Russell has a beautiful story…..
A Christian priest had a dream that he had died, and of course reached heaven. But he was very shocked because the doors of heaven were so big that he could not see where they ended. In all directions, as far as he could see, there was the door. And he himself, compared to the door, looked like an ant. He was very shocked: ”This is very disrespectful. I was hoping that God would be here at the gate, and angels would be playing on their harps, ‘Allelujah!’”
The gate was closed. He knocked, but he himself wondered, ”Who is going to hear?” The gate was so vast; his knock was such a small sound, almost inaudible. It took him three days continuously knocking.
Then Saint Peter opened a window and looked down. He had one thousand eyes. The priest immediately fell on his knees, and said, ”God.”
Saint Peter said, ”I’m not God, I’m just the gatekeeper. You must have heard, my name is Saint Peter. As far as God is concerned, I have not yet been able to see him. It is a very vast space. Although I have one thousand eyes, I have not yet been able, in two thousand years, to find him.”
The priest said, ”This is unbelievable. What about Jesus Christ?”
Saint Peter said, ”I have not found him either, the place is so big. I have been searching for two thousand years. And who are you?”
He said, ”I am a Christian priest from the earth.”
Saint Peter said, ”This won’t do. What is the index number of your earth, which earth? There are millions of earths; each star has its own solar system, has its own planets, its own moons, its own earths. So you give me the index number, and I will run to the library to find out from which earth you are coming.”
The priest said, ”My God! I have never heard about any index number. I’m coming from the solar system.”
Saint Peter said, ”Each star has its own solar system, and there are millions of solar systems. Again, you will have to give me the index number.”
It became a nightmare. There was no question of his getting a welcome. First, he had to give his identity; only then would the doors open. Saint Peter disappeared, telling him, ”I’m going to the library. Perhaps the librarian can help me.”
Waiting, and waiting, and waiting… perhaps thousands of years passed… he woke up from this nightmare, and he said, ”My God! It is better to be alive; I don’t want to go to such a heaven. I cancel all the prayers that I have made before. It is so humiliating.”
I know Bertrand Russell wasn't a Christan, but with all due respect, this is a very flawed understanding of it.
For your information, i am NOT a Christan
Like it
And the moral is?
TH-cam pls get rid of comments. They are abusing opinions
Extraordinary man. Aldus Huxley and alan watts were great Brits too
Russell is Irish not British
@@user-mn5ci2oj3t I always thought he was British, born in Wales.
@@user-mn5ci2oj3the is not irish
My belief is that Philosophy is when a person lives only speaking and thinking in questions, yes?
9:57 "If you're certain, you're certainly wrong.."
If this proposition false, it is uncertain.
If it is true, it is certain, and therefore a performative self-contradiction.
Therefore, this proposition is either false, or a self-contradiction.
Hence, it is either false in one way or another.
How did you get "if this proposition is false, it is uncertain" from the proposition? The only logically valid inference from the proposition is:
(1) Affirming the antecedent: "If you're certain, you're certainly WRONG. But you are certain that this proposition is TRUE (or FALSE for that matter), then you are certainly wrong about that."
(2) Negating the consequent: "If you are certain, you're certainly wrong. But you are NOT certainly wrong, therefore you are not certain".
If Russell was certain that he was right, he'd be wrong, hence this is unacceptable because it would the logically valid inference of affirming the antecedent. But he can be UNCERTAINLY RIGHT because it doesn't violate (1) and is admissible in (2) (being uncertainly right is covered by "NOT certainly wrong") so Russell's uncertainty regarding his proposition of certainty is acceptable in both logically valid inferences.
Furthermore, if the proposition *regarding the person* is true, that they are certainly false if they believe themselves to be true (or false), then it doesn't mean the proposition is certain. Certainty is not related to truth. A true proposition is not the same as a certain proposition. It can be "hypothetically true" (uncertainly true because it is only "hypothetical", not "necessarily"). The proposition itself is "hypothetical" and is not "necessary".
So, Russell would not meet "performative contradiction" in uttering UNCERTAINLY this proposition and regarding it UNCERTAINLY as true and it is not false because if it is false, we cannot infer "certainty" from it through either logically valid inferences.
You've in fact demonstrated Russell if you were certain that he was "wrong", which he was not, and you are CERTAINLY false because you've systematically excluded the possibility that Russell was both uncertain regarding the proposition's truth, (the uncertain truth) that his proposition is of a hypothetical (hence uncertain) logical form AND that you used an invalid logical inference which is certainly false.
I am NOT certain of my understanding of your explanation and my criticism so you can elaborate it if you want to, hence the question in the beginning.
This is a muddy muddle from the start, since a sentence which starts with 'if' is merely a conditional proposition, thus cannot lead to a 'therefore'. since it hasn't made a substantive proposition from which anything can be inferred. Start again, but better...
philosophy to me is just out of box thinking or creative thinking... discovering new ways to see a scenario!!
Do people even ask questions of each other anymore? I'm afraid that's what AI chatbots are for. (Apologies for the rhyme.)
In my opinion Phylisophy is just notional maze
Damn, back when I was -25 years old
I"If you're certain, you're certainly wrong."I think he means about the certainty of our knowledge because it changes constantly. In the 4th century B.C.E. the great philosopher Plato and his student Aristotle (384 B.C.E.-322 B.C.E.). who was a towering figure in ancient Greek philosophy, who made important contributions to logic, criticism, rhetoric, physics, biology, psychology, mathematics, metaphysics, ethics, politics etc. believed that Earth was in the centre of the Universe. He was certain that heavier objects fall faster than lighter objects because he believed that heavier objects felt a larger force and a larger force made the object move faster.
In the late 16th century, proved Aristotle wrong by conducting physical experiments, He devised a test to determine whether it was true that lighter bodies fall at a slower rate than heavier ones, as Aristotle claimed. Now almost every school child can do this "Galileo's Gravity Experimental" in a Vacuum at the school lab.
Greek philosophers established that the Earth was round as far back as the third century BC, but it wasn’t until the 15th century that it became commonly accepted. Thanks to Christopher Colombus.
Although scientific evidence says the Earth is a sphere orbiting the Sun, there are some people around who still are certain that our mother planet is flat and organise even a congress every year where the Flat-Earth believer meet. Although the idea the Earth is flat has been scientifically discredited, there seems to be a growing belief in the conspiracy theory. The flat Earth community uses various social media platforms in distinct, overlapping ways in order to create a kind of ecosystem around their beliefs.
The great Sir Isaac Newton (1643-1727) nearly singlehandedly invented classical mechanics and applied calculus, and his approach set the course of physics for the next 200 years. Having discovered the Universal Law of gravitation and formulated it into the famous gravitational equation. F=(GMm)/r^2 , he combined the fall of objects and the motion of planets in his theory. After propounding such a theory, Newton still didn't have any idea why gravitational force actually exist. He had some misunderstanding about gravity. He thought the gravitational force is instantaneous. Newton never considered time to be a part of physics. Despite these problems, he was very successful to explain the motion of planets, Kepler's Law and the motion of falling bodies precisely though.
Almost after 200 years, Albert Einstein (1879-1955) was to prove that time is not absolute by giving a better theory of gravity which even works for very large objects with great precision whereas Newton’s didn’t. Scientists have demonstrated that Einstein's theory of general relativity is correct to a remarkable degree of accuracy.
For e.g, according to Newton if Sun is removed from our solar system, Earth will fly from its orbit instantaneously. But according to Einstein, this will happen after only 8 mins because gravity has to travel at the speed of light (300,000 km/s) to have its effect on Earth.
According to Albert Einstein’s special theory of relativity, no known object can travel faster than the speed of light in a vacuum.
Recently US-American Astrophysicist, Erik Lentz claims Spacecraft in a ‘warp bubble’ could travel faster than light. ...Some cosmologists think that all objects outside of the Hubble volume move away from the centre faster than the speed of light. Yes, galaxies outside of our Hubble sphere are seemed to be receding from us faster than the speed of light. But the galaxies themselves aren’t breaking any cosmic speed limits. To an observer within one of those galaxies, nothing violates special relativity at all. It is the space between us and those galaxies that is rapidly proliferating and stretching exponentially. Hence we cannot certain about anything.
act with vigour without complete certainty . . .
He states: “science cannot tell us what is right or wrong.”
This is true of a culture of science characterized by and borne of a mechanistic consciousness that has dominated for centuries. But science can determine what is right or wrong -by itself - when characterized and borne of holistic consciousness. But to achieve this collective consciousness does indeed necessitate a “priming” by life affirming philosophy. Vitalism will precede the science that by itself can determine right and wrong. Here, at this juncture, right will mean optimal instinctual, emotional and physiological health- Nietzsche’s yay to life, Wilhelm Reichs uninhibited orgone streaming. Wrong will be anything that inhibits this organic vitality.
Well aware here that I'm disagreeing with a genius... but isn't science a philosophy in its own right? It's based on Empiricism, which is an issue of Epistemology, and that was in turn developed as a philosophical tool...
Well philosophy as an entire area is the love of knowledge - literally speaking, so yes all branches of the sciences stem from 'natural philosophy' empiricism and rationalist dogma have become self limiting, we need philosophy to give us the means to escape the rationalist 'peer reviewed' dogmas of today.
Science is based on empiricism, but is not itself a philosophy.
@@spenter9711 Yes of course it is, Empiricism is based on Philosophical Naturalism. But in a more general sense, Empiricism is an idea, and all ideas are philosophies.
You are the genius. He is promoted as a genius but actually an evil Pied Piper.
@@Deliquescentinsight It's purposely self-limiting, and the knowledge we're acquiring is proving to be more useful than by any other method we have, what better way is there? I'm neither a Rationalist or an Empiricist, I'm both, I think we all are in the natural course of thinking.
Old goat
John Harwood Hick
‘’Scientific societies are as yet in their infancy… It is to be expected that advances in physiology and psychology will give governments much more control over individual mentality than they now have even in totalitarian countries. Fitche laid it down that education should aim at destroying free will, so that, after pupils have left school, they shall be incapable, throughout the rest of their lives, of thinking or acting otherwise than as their schoolmasters would have wished. Diet, injections(vaccines) and injunctions will combine, from very early age, to produce the sort of character and the sort of beliefs that the authorities consider desirable, and any serious criticism of the powers that be will become psychologically impossible...’’ - Bertrand Russell, 1953
He wants to Bring about the New World Order and make the world into 1984. Wake Up!
He's Controlled Op.
Still Gives A lot of Good Advice though.....
He is evil. Keep studying. He is not what he appears.
Madam, why is he evil. ? A man fought his whole life for world peace.
@@RamasamyArumugam1927 exactly
Most "Modern Philosophy" leads to extreme evil, immorality, irresponsibility, death, destruction and loss.
These guys were mostly promoting criminality.
Anyone with any common sense ignores 90% od
He had very poor ideas on bacteriological warfare and eugenics in an attempt to address the alternative horrors of overpopulation, but I suspect that these views were short lived, and possibly even delivered with a certain wryness as a means of placing birth control opponents in an unenviable moral position. Regardless, it is silly to wholly condemn a person who's life's work was an attempt to reason humanity's way into a brighter, more humane future. We've all said stupid things in our lives, and he lived in a time where it was very easy to be persuaded by some retrospectively horrific views. This is not an excuse, but an attempt at finding a balanced view on the man.