Episode
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 28 ก.ย. 2024
- As usual this is a metamodernist steelmanning of different philosophical positions. We explore ideas from Zizek, Thomas Nagel and Phillip Goff.
Thank you so much for listening! Could never do this without your help.
Website: www.philosophi...
Patreon: / philosophizethis
Social:
Instagram: / philosophizethispodcast
X: / iamstephenwest
Facebook: / philosophizethisshow
Hello Stephen West. You are an absolute delight to listen to. I find your podcasts extremely helpful in understanding key concepts of philosophy.
I have a REQUEST.
Though I understand your podcast to a great degree, I am at times unable to grasp the scope and magnitude of these heavy words you use like epistemology, ontology,realism, metaphysics etc.
I do understand the basic meaning of these terms but find myself failing miserably when I try to think deep and long on these subjects. Online resources are much scattered to form a solid understanding of these concepts.
Do you think it is worthwhile making standalone episodes on these philosophical disciplines explaining chronologically the evolution of thought, its thinkers and the current frontiers of these topics?
I would really enjoy such episodes as much as I do others.
Thank you.
You are not alone. I for one appreciate your humility.
Most of us here bounce into one existential riddle or another, that's in part is why we keep showing-up.
You're failing nothing.
You are building a cathedral.
We are easy on ourselves.
If you have the time and are willing to obligate yourself independently to just the history of _Thought_
Copleston has a multi-volume series _The History of Philosophy_ and that is a pretty great introduction
to be had on the cheap.
On the day-to-day, West is one of the strongest educators online. You are in tremendous care and great company. Every second spent actively listening is worthwhile and you already sense that--kudos.
I had two near death experiences. I have been on full life support twice. I ain't here to be entertained.
Stay close. There is much joy here.
Cheers--be well.
Some heavy lifting goes on around here.
You fit in perfectly. Welcome.
Hey perion1, having listened to the whole series from beginning to end, i can attest to the episodes progressing in chronological order and expanding on previous topics and discussions. First is explanation of philosophy and antiquity and now by episode #197 we are with contemporaries.
The great teacher of philosophy that I have found on TH-cam is Michael Sugrue. Here is a lecture of his introducing the terms, problems and scope on philosophy: th-cam.com/video/8ZoQ7wh9pSQ/w-d-xo.html I hope that this helps you.
@@vitomarin101 Sugrue is great, I second this. Very articulate and coherent. His friend Darren Stalloff is great too. RIP Sugrue
Epistemology is the most important philosophical inquiry of all. How do you know what you think you know, and what is knowledge anyway?
Perfect for my sunny Sunday porch IPA session!
Homebrewed? ;)
@@RobRaptor49 nope, Centennial IPA from the fine folks at Founder's. My experience with home-brew finds store bought cost 80% less and taste much better.
Hey Stephen,
This semester is my first year as a philosophy teacher in Quebec, and I'm building a course PRECISELY on this division between materialism and spiritualism which was really well encapsulated by aristotle four causes. The moment I heard you make the connection between this ideological dichotomy and aristotle four causes, it was so gratifying for me because I was starting to doubt in myself regarding the quality of this idea. But seeing you articulating it so well gave me fuel to push forward in this direction with my class. Looking forward to buy this Philip Goff book, I think it's exactly the read I was missing.
Thank you again and keep this thing going, you're doing such an inspiring job !!
I think this is such an interesting topic because it's something I've been aware of from a very young age. I’m not entirely sure what developed this awareness, but I do believe my father’s personality and how we communicated played a significant role. Whenever I think about or theorize something, I always research multiple sources and try to get a deeper understanding before forming my own personal opinion. However, my personal opinion isn't solely based on my experiences and biases, which are inevitably influenced by how I grew up. I often find myself also forming a more global opinion one that’s not just about what fits me or my personal preferences, but on what might be better for society or the world at large.
At the same time, I fully acknowledge that the way we perceive things could be completely false. We only understand reality based on how we perceive it. There’s always that lingering idea that we might be living in an illusion, and everything we experience could be fake. I think about that quite a bit, but I don’t incorporate it into how I make decisions or form opinions, because if I were to base my actions on the idea that everything is fake, it would make talking about anything pointless. Even though it’s an interesting concept to explore, I still rely on the reality we perceive to base my opinions and thoughts. I recognize that I could be completely wrong about everything, but in the world we experience, that’s where my opinions come from.
When it comes to more philosophical or theoretical topics, I always have two different perspectives: my personal, emotionally charged viewpoint and a broader, global perspective. For example, if you consider the prison system, my personal reaction is to lean towards harsher punishments, especially for extreme crimes. My emotional side would say offenders should face hardcore punishments, never be let out, and perhaps even be tortured for particularly heinous acts. But when I think from a more global perspective, I realize that rehabilitation, prevention, and reintegration into society would likely work better in the long run.
Then, I confront the reality of society today how resistant we are to change, how stubborn we can be as a collective, and how much control individuals actually have. This leads me to consider more anarchist-type ideas, like people forming groups to take justice into their own hands. In the short term, that might seem like a solution, but when you think about it long-term, it would just lead to bigger problems by normalizing violence and creating an endless cycle of retribution. I see the short-term appeal, but I know that it wouldn’t work in the long run. This is just one shallow example of how my thinking works, but I could easily dive deeper into it.
A lot of this thinking comes from how my father and I would discuss things. When we talked about theoretical or philosophical topics, he wouldn’t just challenge my beliefs he’d help me expand my entire perspective. He’d push me to fully flesh out my ideas, break them down, and rebuild them by considering all sides of the argument. Just when I thought I had a complete understanding, he’d introduce a new perspective that shattered what I thought I knew. He’d constantly throw in questions like “what if?” or present scenarios I hadn’t considered, forcing me to revisit my conclusions and rethink my ideologies. This way of thinking shaped how I approach almost everything, pushing me to always consider multiple angles before forming an opinion.
That’s why I try to think from a more universal perspective. I accept that I could be wrong about everything I believe, but I still need to form opinions based on the reality we perceive. This ability to hold both personal and global views comes from constantly being challenged to see things differently, to question everything, and to be okay with not knowing all the answers. However, while I’m okay with not knowing, not understanding something fully is what really fucks with my head. I can handle the idea of not having all the information, but when I can't even grasp how something could work or fit into reality, that’s where it frustrates me. I need to at least comprehend the possibilities, and when I can’t, it leaves me unsettled.
When it comes to concepts like "nothing," it really messes with my mind. You can understand "nothing" as a concept in a general sense, but to fully grasp it is incredibly difficult. For example, take the concept of a vacuum scientifically, a vacuum is where there are no particles, but I like to take it a step further. Imagine an experiment where you have a sealed vacuum cube, with a base made of opaque glass. Even in this vacuum, there’s still the presence of light, or at least the interaction of light with the base. You can still see a shadow pass over it, meaning there’s still something there. That presence of "something" existing even in "nothing" really screws with my mind. It leads me to think that true "nothing" may not exist in this universe at all. But at the same time, it could exist, and my mind simply isn’t equipped to fully understand it.
This complexity extends to the concept of infinity. Like "nothing," infinity is something you can understand in theory, but truly grasping what it means is an entirely different challenge. Infinity is a concept that can exist both in science and philosophy, but when you try to think about its implications, it becomes nearly impossible to comprehend. I have my ideas on infinity, but again, this comment would become way too long if I went too deep into that right now.
Now, when we talk about consciousness and how our brains work, there’s a lot of evidence that our experiences affect our neurological structure. You could even argue that we're not truly conscious beings that a lot of what we do is a result of neural reactions, and we’re more "reactive" than "sentient" in the way we typically think. However, even if that’s the case, our experiences still play a huge role in shaping how we operate. This understanding of neurology doesn't completely undermine my belief in personal and global viewpoints it actually reinforces it. The fact that our experiences physically change our brain's structure means that what we go through does affect our thinking, whether or not we're fully aware of it.
So, even with all these factors at play, I think my statements still hold weight. But I can also see how there could be discrepancies in this line of thinking. There’s always room for different interpretations or arguments, and that’s just part of the complexity of human thought.
I could go on about this, but I think it’s time to wrap it up before I end up writing 300 pages.
edit: made this 13min in had no clue it would go to some things i mentioned
I was once a new Atheist, I'm still an Atheist, just not a new one lol.
I think my time as a new Atheist was a useful time that was the perfect early ground to grow my philosophy journey in, but I eventually out grow it and now can look back on it critically.
The thinkers of the new Atheists are still worth looking into, but with a few grains of salt. I would not take them as base level thinkers for ones believes.
I used to really like the new atheists but have recently cooled off on Dawkins and Harris. I still like some of their books but of the 4 horseman Dennet and Hitchens are more my jam.
As for recommendations I think all atheists should start at Hume. To me he is the pinnacle of atheistic reasoning and a great starting point. He's hard to learn but it's worth it.
Also "reaching across the aisle" is important. Read theology too. Aquinas, Augustine, and Aristotle (Metaphysics from him specifically) to gain perspective. It's important to have compassion for opposition.
@@Gruso57 Same, I really liked Dawkins and Hitchens, but never really Harris, something about him just always felt wrong about him.
Other good Atheist writers (not as blunt as the four) would be Shephen Fry and Sean Carrol!
I most certainly agree, Hume is a must read for Atheist and Theist alike if they want any hope of fruitful dialog!
I personally think Kant and Decarte strangely enough to be a important thinkers in both fields as well, just really modern philosophy all together.
Tho my base Philosopher is Hegel.
And yes please for the none existence God, read your oppositions work actually. It helps round out your thinking, or even if you just want to dunk, makes sure you aren't so arrogant fool.
For Theology I personally recommend GK Chesterton!
Everyone has an opinion on Marx, good or bad, Few ever read him, drives me crazy.
Correct. Atheism is not empirical science. It is a materialistic philosophical world based in outright contradictions.
@@animefurry3508David Hume devastates the atheist cosmological argument for evolution.
@@ThomasCranmer1959 Atheists (agnostic atheist here) are just not convinced by any religion. You might be and that’s alright, more power to you.
Not accepting any religion is my position. Don’t find any of the texts convincing, many of the ideas contradicting and clearly written by man in that time (where are the kangaroos on Noa’s arc?). Agnostic atheism is a humble position. Accepting we don’t know all the answers and try our best in life according.
The million dollar question to give you some food for though: do you have the same religion as your parents/grandparents? Why aren’t you Muslim/Hindu/Jewish?
“Material science” may one day “hit its wall”, leaving us yet wondering and pondering the still unresolved questions that persist to plague mankind. Humility must reign over ego. We reap what we sow ! not because it’s written in any book, but because it just is a consequence of nature(natural law)
Right action and wrong action both have consequences in the aggregate of humanity.
Enjoy this. Not so easy to discuss complicated ideas in a clear way, and without being pretentious or tendentious -- even being entertaining!
Meant "Enjoyed this." Wasn't being bossy. Should start using pronouns; would be clearer and easier to catch mistakes.
The notion of ‘purpose’ strikes me as a typical anthropomorphism. Maybe it’s out there. Most likely not.
If there is no purpose, the logical conclusion is that morality is an illusion. You cannot get an "ought" from what "exists".
Correct. Atheists cannot escape anthropomorphism. Just like the fact that their arguments reduce to logical positivism, which is still self-refuting.
Wonderful..
The scientists I've heard don't talk in reductionist terms much anymore because complexity and self-organization is a better model. As far as purpose, science doesn't cover that. That's up to you to make up for yourself.
That already assumes a universe devoid of inherent purpose
Once again we touch on the importance of humility when considering ideologies. Once you accept that all worldviews will inevitably have contradictions (or at least things we can't fully wrap our heads around because we're limited) it becomes freeing and enables one to take a more synergistic approach to finding Truth where we recognize the values in different, even opposing ideologies (Hegel's Dialectic ig)
People who view certain ideologies as incompatible (religion and science for example) are making the exact mistake thinkers like Zizek and Socrates try to avoid.
Looking forward to the next episode!
Violating the law of contradiction leads to irrationality, not knowledge. So Hegelian dialectics leads to insanity.
Is your ideology self-refuting irrationality?
@@ThomasCranmer1959 just your regular shit take on Hegel floating around in the aether as usual.
Fun fact about complex systems (a society, your brain, etc.) - the properties of the system are emergent. Meaning that the system is more then the sum of its parts. You can't look at the parts and predict what it will do. Material reductionism really stumbles on this.
Impressive work!
As a mathematician, I was concerned with the question, especially in relation to materialism, in which possible world mathematical theorems and ideas exist. In fact, this issue has been going on for 2,300 years and Plato thought about it differently than Aristotle. The existence of mathematics or its coherence and perfection is in my opinion not tied to materialism as it is classically defined. It exists in a world of ideas or is the world itself. Also similar is the question of whether we derive mathematics or whether we “discover” it from our environment. There are interesting arguments there. Kantor's theorem could be interpreted like this as infinities are not necessary found in "reality" . Leibnitz had similar thoughts. Today some would call it the Mathematical Universe Hypothesis
Can you make an episode about New Materialism? I'm also very interested in how our society still relies on the Cartesian mind/body dualism that Spinoza already called occultism. Seems like all the philosophers after Descartes just ran with that assumption. From today's perspective, Descartes looks like a cult leader that created an artificial split between the mind and the body and then published self help books to get people to train his meditative methods.
A great book to get someone started in that direction would be Genevieve Lloyd's "Part of Nature: Self-Knowledge in Spinoza's Ethics".
Fine tuning can be explained by survivorship bias. If it is true that only a thin selection of universes with the correct properties can sustain life, it is only natural that we find ourselves in one of those universes. Otherwise we would not be here to make the observation.
Tautological arguments are circular. We live in the universe we live in because it is only natural that we live in a natural universe? Really?
@@ThomasCranmer1959 Figure it this way: You are stuck behind a door that will only open if you roll a 12 on a pair of dice. You can roll as many times as you like. Would it not be ridiculous, once you eventually get past the door, to wonder to yourself "How is it possible that I live in a world where I rolled a 12 and made it through the door?" That's like a thought that a jar of mayonnaise would have.
Thats assuming you can roll the dice more than once. Assuming a multiverse@@undecidedmajor1664
Could really have used a sparring partner for some of this, frankly. The reading of Zizek is degenerating a bit from what was already an issue in the previous episode: understating ideology as being delineable to a point of decision ("I am x [like post-ideological 'truth-seeker', or material reductionist]") or a collection of singularities ("ideology x is not the ideology of y or z; it is opposed to them") rather than totality ("x, y and z are ALL q"). Worse, we carry on to reading Hegel and dialectics as a two party negotiation rather than an opposition immanent to a matter itself. In my experience, these constitute the most common errors to expect from layreaders of Zizek & Hegel, so a bit disappointed to discover them in the place people go to begin.
This is further muddled in positioning it in a critique of materialism, where, indeed, Zizek classifies his project as a materialist one (though not in the naive scientistic way which you again aptly critique). This has been the primary theme of his work for some 15 years now.
To the unwitting reader: pardon the jargon. Unwrapping it would take a lecture of one's own!
You're so full of yourself its hard to read, its not the poor jargons fault!
If there's nothing new under the sun, then how do re-hashed, half-baked ideas served up in a sloppy mess constitute new, original, creative philosophical theories? I'm probably missing something in this philosopher's (Zizek's) propositions and proofs(?!)
Goff and ID, and "fine tuning", doesn't sound like a moderate view. It's just commonly presented as such. There's no evidence that there can be or can't be infinite different universes suitable for life. There could be primordial fields precluding our current configuration of fields. All we can work with are the current parameters.
11:00 There's a lecture by the late Hilary Putnan on Philosophy Overdose about non scientific knowledge - the importance of non scientific thinking (or something like that).
Great episode! I have a question though. If the constants would have been different, life wouldn't have existed, so it must have a purpose. And it's not a wild coincidence either as you pointed out.
But let's suppose the constants were indeed, different. Would we be able to make this statement? would we even exist to say such a thing? Because remember, we, too are bound by the laws of the universe, we're not looking at the universe from outside of it, we are a part of the universe.
Would love to hear your response on this one ❤
@@pyrix-t8m I agree :). Have you heard of the term 'selection bias'?
@@AbAb-th5qeyes it's called the anthropic principle iirc
@@pyrix-t8m well that too. The anthropic principle is a special case of selection bias
I wouldn't consider Wifi signals to be material. Materialism is kinda outdated as a scientific hypothesis. Isn't the idea that things have 'purpose' part of human nature rather than anything else? Perhaps 'applicability' is a better term to use than 'purpose'. In theory you can push keys on a computer keyboard with your tongue. Can we then say that the tongue's purpose is to type with? A lot of this talk of goal driven-ness seems like an appeal to emotion to me.
agreed
For one who believes truly, that God invented science, I just love this. Genius... I'll have to listen to this again it's so good. Jesus rules, and this takes you deeper than seeing Him in your toast. Looking forward to your next podcast.
All knowledge originally exists in God's eternally timeless and immutable mind. God is eternally omniscient.
I thought Satan was the trickster
Satan is a fallen angel. In case you missed it, angels are not omniscient. God alone is omniscient. Therefore, Satan cannot deceive God.
@ThomasCranmer1959 but he can and has decieved you 😉
IMO. We may never achieve a full understanding of the “wonders of the universe”(as it were) but also; material reductionism within current modernity, seems to ignore a fundamental principle of what,by all measures,has-inexplicable order and nature to it. And the
“Reason” for its/our existence.
4:17 Can science empirically prove what we ought to do?
No. But you can.
@@Gruso57 Animals have no morality.
@@Gruso57 What is your proof that morality exists?
I do not get the maths on the multiverse thing 32:34
This doesn't add up. Have I learned statistics in a wrong way. Please explain this.
Quote:
We’re talking about 1 in 10 to the 136. That’s the equivalent of sitting at a table, rolling a dice and it coming up six 174 times in a row.
What I don't get about this thinking is how would you apply it.
Let's say you have two ideologies through which lenses you look at a certain problem. Zizeks advocates that any position I take is one through an ideological lense, so now I have two positions (e. g. Capitalism is good (Neoliberal lense) / Capitalism is bad (Marxist lense)). Now I am basically at square one, either I again decide to subscribe to one of the ideologies two inform my opion on or I choose two abandon both ideologies and basically make up my own.
So I guess what I'm getting at is, that I need someway to compare/evaluate different ideological positions to find the truth (though the belief in the existence of a certain truth may again be ideological in itself) or I end up in a position in which I can just throw my hands in the air and say "I give up, there is no truthful or correct position".
Maybe Zizek is thinking more about how different Ideologies interact with each other or combine to new ones leading asymptotically to some truth? (atleast thats how I think a hegelian would think about this, but I don't really know anything about Hegel)
These guys have been new atheists since the olden days.
Nothing new here.
Pretty much. Doesn't take much to not believe in magic. Best to focus time and energy on more pragmatic things, for me at least. I spent 5+ years debating theists.@@ThomasCranmer1959
It seems to me that the argument about "perfectly tuned" universal constants ignores vast scales of time. We don't actually know how often the universe has sprung into existence, possibly billions upon billions. We're here now because we can be, we won't be when we can't. That's not purpose.
Now, consciousness? That's a true mystery that materialism will never solve.
Spinoza's heretic god is the only style of singular god I can even think about believing in.
Is consciousness and sentience just brain matter?
Consciousness is required for reality to exist.
I don’t believe in anything anymore!
Not after I found out about Father Christmas
There’s some bullshit here because obviously Slavoj Zizek wouldn’t just eat one hotdog, no he would eat two hotdogs because that is the dialectical method
Balls
8:51 God causes evil. Amos 3:6: Isaiah 45:7; Proverbs 16:4. KJV
Being 70, lifelong learning, understanding, observation, experience, re-examination 24/7 365.
There was no 'big bang'.
Explain
youtube shadow ban test
Naa I can see you man
@@AbAb-th5qe I'm surprised because my comments have still not appeared on a few other videos from other channels and when I refresh the page they don't seem to have been sent. It was the case for this comment too but it's showing up now.
@@Maverick_Mad_Moiselle I've noticed a similar lag intermittantly. My working theory is that moderators are reviewing comments on certain channels before allowing them to appear.
Philosophy and empirical science are not compatible. Philosophy deals with metaphysics.
Sapolsky disaproves, mainly the religious side of science...
Of course, Sapolsky believes that there isn’t any choice but to disapprove. Such is his ideology.
what is this garbage?
I do need to say that we should not be surprised to be living in a world that we can live in.
What ?
Brilliant tautological statement. A=A. Petitio principii.
@GKCanman I am skeptical, wonder regarding the world is exactly what leads us to inquire, if we would not be surprised, there would be no need to inquire into the nature of things in the first place.
The problem I have with saying that if you change a constant that life wouldn’t exist is that it’s a hypothesis, an idea, and not based on an actual experiment.
What’s to say that when you change a particular constant that the changes made wouldn’t cause changes that make life possible in other forms, or in the same forms we know of now?
Agreed. Seems like a quite speculative leap to make.
Yes we should rerun the creation of the universe with different parameters and see how it changes things.
@@baronbullshyster2996 Might as well. It sounds as sane as the hypothesis.
But with many constants of nature, slight changes would result in no matter forming at all. No stars, no galaxies, no planets. Hard to imagine abiogenesis from that-what would it come from?
It’s possible that such a universe might have an entirely different form of matter. But that could hardly be considered an analog of our own cosmos in any useful sense.
@@wmpx34
What can be considered constant within the span of several billion years? After only a hundred years of exploration with the technology we know of today?
What I find surprising is that we believe we understand what is said to have taken billions of years to produce, after a hundreds years of research, using technology we have today.
You can even say 50 years because 100 years is being nice.
I love this series so much. Best of youtube. Thank you
Consciousness seems to be an emergent property of a brain. Just look at how people change after brain injury\disease.
as a new atheist myself, I ask you to please explain the best approach to reality since you want to deduce scientists to the level of a creationist. this is why like Mr Hitchens once said, Philosophy is dead.
Keep in mind that Stephen is trying to flesh out those philosopher's ideas those are not necessarily his own opinions.
And for what you say, i dont think anyone here is trying to imply that science is not useful, nor diminish the value of the scientists, but, for what ive learnt from lacanian psychoanalysis, that we need to consider that we would project a faith or belief on anything we do, as a imperative need for our existence. Not being able to have faith (and i dont mean in religion, but still something like blind expectations), could lead us to a kind of depression,as we need to believe that something that we dont have yet, can be achieved as a result from doing.
As far as i understand, the thing in itself, the kantian noumenon, "reality", its impossible to reach for us, since we cannot comprehend what it is without what zizek calls ideology, a narrative, basically the words, symbols, and images that place that "reality" that thing in itself, in a conceptual framework for us to make sense of it.
The quest for. or the ideological goal of "truth" of "reality" is what these thinkers aim to unravel. Scientists's intrinsic failure to find "reality" doesnt render science nor their work useless, only recontextualizes the result of their work. We need to keep in mind that we proyect our faith in science as our god, which will show us truth, even if we consciously try to avoid all religious thought, we cannot operate in meaninglessness, if we tend towards it, we will become increasingly depressed, as if we were lacking a bodily need. Thats what ive understood about zizek and lacanian psychoanalysis at least.
@@PepePerez-x1x Stephen West is very suspicious regarding the new atheist movement, to say at least. In the David Hume episodes he ridiculed them in a manner I did not see anywhere else :-)
@@albertjurcisin8944 I looked through those episodes a little bit too fast, i found only the mention of dawking's spaghetti monster with hume's skepticism, i dont know much about new atheism, im only seen a couple of videos being critic of sam harris' moral landscape where it would seem he misrepresents some philosophers, and even that quote in the OP "Philosophy is dead" seems a bit too aggressive towards the field of study.
Stephen does get a bit rattled and self-righteous when someone misrepresents philosophy it would seem, as he said, i think, in his kant videos that if someone teaches philosophy poorly and alienates people from it, then that person is like cheating on you.
His aura of being a perfectly calmed, composed and all contemplating person is his persona in the podcast, the kind of message he wants to get across, i guess some of his stances or opinions do come through. I wouldnt really know them, and i guess, the spirit of the podcast would suffer if he just came to the comments to explain all that.
@@PepePerez-x1x There is also a possibility that I am just too sensitive about the New Atheism movement and I see the things that are not there. If I cannot demonstrate Stephen's attitude by anything more than his scoff at 13:06 Episode #055 ... Interview on Hume with Massimo Pigliucci, then it is probably the case 🙂 However I remember that every time he mentioned the movement, there were some disapproving tones present. It felt to me like it was a surprisigly emotional issue for him, not just "another crazy philosopher" relaxed attitude as is usually the case.
It is easy to find flaws in Harris' philosophy, I believe after listening to a few podcasts. He is more of a guru than a philosopher these days. He overstretched.
I remember when walking the dog and listening to the podcast one night that the New Atheists movement would be the first thing I would discuss with Stephen should I talk to him. I do not care about the movement anymore - it served as a ladder that was used and discarded, however I believe Stephen´s answer would tell me more about his personality than whether he believes in god (s).
It is an excellent podcast overall.
The purpose of life is to experience it, to experience Existence.
,,,or the earth is the centre of the universe and we just been measuring it all wrong ,,, probably not , Love the show !
Can we please get another Byung Chul Han episode?
yes please
You're doing gods work 😅
Nice meditation . And it seemed pull d together nicely.
But why not hit contradictory grounds with dielethe, and why not wrap the Jesus intent / aspects of Ordered coincidence as a recognition of cosmic-ordering's intent?
Seems like Narration which you utilize is akin to Abrahamic narratives, no?
So somehow I suspect that your channel will be running one step too shallow for my tastes.
But hey, I'm just a dude, that subbed , so maybe I'll each crow while you eat Poetic Irony
Ideals are like seeds. They need time and tending to mature.
The fact that our worldviews have shifted from 'tiny marble' to 'raisin filled dough' to 'atom with electrons' to tiny tiny TINY little mass with an electron cloud surrounding it shows the natural progression of our models. Just like the creatures on our planet, our models evolve as we learn more, as time progresses. Ideals are the same.
I hit a wall this past week. Guess who showed-up, gawddamn, Kierkegaard.
It is very dangerous to go into eternity with possibilities
which one has oneself prevented from becoming realities.
A possibility is a hint from God. One must follow it.
--Kierkegaard, _The Sickness Unto Death_
Einstein made brief notes on some kind of particle that once split and
separated by thousands of miles still interacted with one another.
I forgot what work has followed since then but in a round about way, it goes far to acknowledge
certain coincidences. Synchronicities.
Otherwise, I got no complaints. I am lucky to be alive. hahaha.
West is a gawddamn Rockstar!
I was hyped for this episode after readng Why?, talking with professor Goff on Twitter, and generally following New Atheist movement from its rise to its downfall... but the whole episode seems like an introduction and a bit lackluster. :) Does not matter, keep doing the good work Stephen!
Zizek is now being called the most racist philosopher on the left. I'd dodge him in the future. He's in the eye of the storm for his rants on the news now.