How to Discuss the Nature of Reality | Dr. Josh Rasmussen
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 22 ส.ค. 2024
- How do we facilitate the flow of insights across ideological barriers? How do we have productive, loving dialogue? Is there such a thing as rational disagreement, and (if so) how should we respond to it? What are some neglected intellectual virtues?
Today I'm joined by Dr. Josh Rasmussen to discuss these questions and more. Warning: this episode is amazing.
Outline
1. Productive and loving dialogue across ideological barriers
2. The nature of rational disagreement
3. Extra-rational barriers to belief
4. Intellectual virtues
5. The tension between maximizing true beliefs and minimizing false beliefs
Links
Josh's website: joshualrasmuss...
Josh's youtube: / @worldviewdesignchannel
My website: majestyofreaso...
My book: www.amazon.com...
I just bought your e-book. You're a nice person, one day I hope to buy your future book "Why I am now convinced God exists". :)
THANK YOU!!!!! MUCH LOVE
At this date, this video has 1300 views. It should have 1.3 million. I think this video should be a requirement before you create a Twitter account. Absolutely awesome. Thank you both so much for this.
Edit: Just bought your book because of this video, Joe.
MUCH, MUCH LOVE
Josh is one of the best models for loving worldview discussion.
Conrats joe :) josh is always such a great guest
Thanks for the talk, I enjoyed it very much. I always knew something's up with Josh, he seemed to be unusually considerate, emotionally aware and empathetic for a philosopher. Turns out his wife is a psychotherapist, could have figured that out:D I have had the good fortune of being in a relationship with a psychotherapist-in-the-making and It's had a tremendous impact on who I am today. Maybe some day I'll be able to disagree as gently and kindly as Josh does. Cheers guys, I really appreciate you.
That's super cool! It's nice to see the integration of different elements of the human person (the philosophical-analytical side with the intellectual-and-emotional-empathy side)
We need to respect each other and sometimes a point missed can be learned by better listening to the other interlock at dialogue partners.
Imagine if we as humans could actively engage in open discourse with one another to the point where we are willing to admit the possibility of error and that we dont know everything. I think everyone would eventually arrive at ultimate truth and purpose to reality if such were the case :)
The content in this video is beautiful. How did Joe become so wise so quickly? It isn’t even a matter of knowing a ton of facts.
I was definitely in the game mindset for awhile, it's definitely an easy mindset to fall into.
That's a very good discussion. Something I've been thinking about for a long time. Thank you to both of you.
If we think We win or learn but we never lose that helps us to keep going forward
Your advice is great, Joe. Too often, I've talked with others because I wanted to win a debate. Sometimes I felt angry. Other times made trivial linguistic points about vagueness, ambiguity, inconsistency, and more. For me, it's a big mistake to make nitpicky minor points only because I wanted to increase my self-esteem,, my self-confidence, or both.
Much love
@@MajestyofReason Right back at you, Joe. I would love to get to know you. Years ago, I talked with a fine philosopher who bragged because he thought had just demolished another philosopher's position when they debated it. Another graduate student told me that the philosopher I knew treated philosophy as a game. I don't do that. I'm not trying to win. Sometimes during a debate, I need learn how to lose gracefully.
@QQminusS That makes me glad I'm not popular enough to brag about my popularity, because I need to see myself the way I am. So I don't want to overestimate my good qualities or underestimate my flaws. If people say they're humble, that usually suggests that they're proud instead.
@QQminusS I don't know what to say now when I'm wondering whether you're being sarcastic.
@QQminusS Maybe you are humble. But if I'm humble, I need to thank God for my good points. Someone who denies that he has a talent when he knows he has it is probably showing false humility or lying. If I brag that I'm very humble, I hope others will take my exclamation with a pillar of salt because bragging suggests pride. Some people are proud when they say they don't have a good quality that other people see in them. If I have that quality, I may be too proud to admit that they're right. I might even suspect that they're lying, flattering me, or both when they're right and sincere.
If someone praises me for something, I probably will thank him for his kindness. But I don't want anyone or anything to inflate my ego. Many other people can be objective about my good points, my mediocre ones, and my bad ones when I'm thoroughly biased about myself.
In graduate school, where I studied philosophy, I learned to be grateful to others, especially when they prove me wrong. Whether I'm right or wrong, I can still get new knowledge. If someone disproves a false belief I hold, I'll know that its denial is true.
I finished watching the video, I enjoyed the different tips and learned a lot about epistomological things. This is was a fun video to watch.
"Look inside. Trust that inner light. . . . I don't want you to feel afraid." -Josh Rasmussen
"Why on earth are we here? Surely not to live in pain in fear." & "We all shine on..." -John Lennon, "Instant Karma"
"I deal with the source of light which exists in all of our hearts." -Bill Hicks, comedian
"Some things you see with your eyes. Others you see with your heart." -Littlefoot's mother, The Land Before Time
I live on quotes from songs and movies. Talk about autism!
Perhaps the value of truth seeking from a Christian perspective has to do with this verse- “in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge.”
Colossians 2:3 NIV
If God exists and has objective value, then perhaps seeking true beliefs is seeking the same beliefs that God places value on, which would then have supreme value. Just a quick thought.
Josh uses this phrase: truth-seekers -- even if they aren't consciously aware of it -- are swimming in the depths of the foundation (i.e. in God)
Rasmussen's book _When Heaven Invades Hell_ was a great read for me. I strongly identify with being a citizen of Heaven, but I do understand how quickly the literary scene can turn on a man.
W h o l e s o m e
we should havet his guy on our discord
Great discussion!
The Francis Schaeffer Institute - dialogue across worldview barriers. This has been going on for a long time. We need to understand what others believe not criticize what others believe. It's about dialogue. The Francis Schaeffer Institute has been going on since the 1960's.
I enjoyed this video, I found you by EP, I enjoyed this video.
10:46 is great
yes a new video
A bunch of philosophical junkies out there are going to hear this, have an argument with their wife in the near future, and then start applying these tips to the situation.
Joe might have just saved some marriages.
Dr. Joe Schmid, Renowned Marriage Expert, board certified
^ this guy
"'Have you not looked at the text? Have you not studied the scholars on it?'" -Josh Rasmussen
"I actually think you'll end up knowing less if you limit your knowledge to what has been deemed established according to the authorities." -Ibid
"Arranging narrative is a bourgeois mania." -Georges Bataille
Very few people could read or write in ancient times. We don't know the feelings of the average Joe or Sally. Perhaps the common view was that life is hard and that everybody makes it to heaven, not just the folks who were morally lucky (who chose A over B with the inputs identical for both outcomes).
Speaking of heaven: if you haven't gotten a chance to read Josh's latest book on universalism ("When Heaven Invades Hell"), I think you would love it!
William James "The Will to Believe" is worth looking at if you haven't already
BTW, what are the insights you think are there?
@@nathanketsdever3150 Principally the insight that skeptics often are more apprehensive of being wrong than they are anxious to be right, but it could be I was thinking of something else from that essay when I wrote this almost a year ago.
@MajestyofReason why does truth matter?
can you have an anti-realist on the show. Don Loeb for example. or Richard Joyce
Btw, Joe, the intro is too loud and the outro's volume is borderline dangerous xD please adjust that
Good to know LOL