Hey, Daniel. Hope you're seeing this! :D I just found your channel, and im impressed you're still uploading and teaching from home. I saw your video on postmodernism, and it was good. Keep up the good work! I'm interested in philosophy, and would love to see more of your videos.
these are fantastic! but you should spread the uploads out. I'm doing my masters in Chinese phil in China, at the same time, i'm doing pr part time to support myself. my understanding of social media is that you should space these uploads out like once a week, or once every two days or something to get the most views, and (eventually) monetize this! you deserve it!
Skepticism cannot be taken to such extremes. For one to say "I do not know", means they know that they do not know, and to know that you don't know means you have reasons to believe you do not know, in that case you believe those reasons allow you to also believe you don't know, in that case not only do you know that you don't know, but you also know why you and others don't know, you know how to identify to not know. Skepticism cannot be formulated to such an extent as it's illogical
@@TheMorhaGroup Classic logic is the logic that the majority of people are taught, so it is not a strawman, you just don't have knowledge of logic which is funny.
The skepticism can be solved by adjusting how we explain science. Science is based on our perceived experiences of reality or how our brains interpretation of reality. So it's not wether we are in don't know anything but we know the laws that govern our perceived reality. Wether it's an illusion or not, we still know the laws that govern that our brains then interpret as reality
The ethos of Aristotle and the trial of Socrates are the early assumptions to apply ones genuine skeptic ambiguities to moments when one is in deep rational faith belief based on each breath of Arjuna to say the Atman is the noble truth.
Hi Sir, thank you for the video regarding the topic. It is a really great introduction to Pyrrhonism. Yet, I would argue that "the world" is to be replaced with "truth" and dive 1 step deeper. Truth being, what is in accordance with reality (all that is). This breaks the division you created between what one experiences and truth, as ones own experiences fall within it. There are three types of Pyrrhonians often described: - zetetics, those who still seek truth but refrain from any conclusions; - aporetics, those who as you said, rather say nothing, as any statement seems to contradict their position; and - epthectics, to whom practising epoché has become a habbit. Judgement consists of both a consideration and conclusion. Why would one even consider what is true, if one sees no way to discern truth? Perhaps the zetetic Pyrrhonian would like this sort of seeking. They might refrain from conclusions, but consider out of a sort of enjoyment or participate with non Pyrrhonians in debate. I'd say a more practised Pyrrhonian is likely to give up both consideration and conclusion. They do not consider even about their own experiences. Consideration preps one up to draw a conclusion. What use is there if no conclusion is drawn? I think this is where the aporetic is at. They see no point in even considering anything, they merely might refute what others consider. If one were to stop considering, it would not however result in a absence of thinking, wondering and reasoning. I'd say an epthectic would not only refute what others argue, but engage in debate also. The views a Pyrrhonian have, are not ones hold with trust or any sort of reliability. They are not backed up by a belief. The views here being direct concepts, such as that of a horse. The more you seek to refine the concept, the sharper it'll be. If a epthectic would argue in regards to a horse, it is basically an engagement in of reasoning and association. If a Pyrrhonian sees a horse one does not consider whether it is a horse or not. Either it appears to be a horse, something similar or related or not. One does not question, "is it a horse?" and then conclude it is or isn't. That seems a silly way to about in life. If all horses so far seen, were brown and a new experience is that of something similar but grey, it either will naturally be associated with being a horse or not. There is no right or wrong in this. What is intruiging, is gaining more experiences and an understanding (the concept of consequence). Why most people ask themselves, whether it is truly a horse or not, is a fear of being wrong. As if there is a standard to which something is indeed a horse. "It has to have two eyes" what if it is missing an eye? Would it still be a horse? That is a silly question, one epthectics avoid.
I love your channel, Daniel! Amazing content! I am a skeptic. In my view, Popper and Nassim N. Taleb also are skeptics - because they argue that it is possible to say how things are not (via negative). What do you think?
How does a supporter of global skepticism answer the question: What would you do if a car/horse was running at you? Would you move or take your chances on the mismatch between mental and physical state? By moving wouldn't they be not practicing their belief? I am new to this topic so sorry if I misunderstood the skeptic's argument.
Suspension of judgement about non-evident things like the nature of things, truth, knowledge, and the only or best criterion for coming to those conclusions. Doesn't mean that you cannot act. You can act without making absolute claims about the nature of things. So we don't imply suspension of action when we suspend judgement about the non-evident. I can still go to sleep and sleep on a bed while questioning the nature of both of those things or not caring about the nature of both of those things.
@@_VISION. It's not just about making verbal claims, it can be argued that your belief in truth is expressed moreso in actions than verbal articulation. So if you jump out of the way of a horse, you can claim skepticism about reasonable beliefs all day long, but good arguments can be made that, implicitly through your actions, you did have reasonable belief concerning the danger you were in, no matter how many times you deny it through your vocal cords.
Hey, Daniel. Hope you're seeing this! :D I just found your channel, and im impressed you're still uploading and teaching from home. I saw your video on postmodernism, and it was good. Keep up the good work! I'm interested in philosophy, and would love to see more of your videos.
I really appreciate these videos thanks a bunch!
structuralism and skepticism are so fascinating to me as a 17 year old
Skeptics "nothing can be known"
Me "How do you know that?"
*academic skeptics
these are fantastic! but you should spread the uploads out. I'm doing my masters in Chinese phil in China, at the same time, i'm doing pr part time to support myself. my understanding of social media is that you should space these uploads out like once a week, or once every two days or something to get the most views, and (eventually) monetize this! you deserve it!
I want him to get monetized but I am also loving these frequent videos 😭😭
Skepticism cannot be taken to such extremes. For one to say "I do not know", means they know that they do not know, and to know that you don't know means you have reasons to believe you do not know, in that case you believe those reasons allow you to also believe you don't know, in that case not only do you know that you don't know, but you also know why you and others don't know, you know how to identify to not know. Skepticism cannot be formulated to such an extent as it's illogical
You're using classical logic which is not something an ancient skeptic believes in.
@@encouraginglyauthentic43 Doesn't't change the fact that their wrong
@@TheMorhaGroup Classical logic is not right.
@@encouraginglyauthentic43 you're arguing a strawman, I never once mentioned classic logic
@@TheMorhaGroup Classic logic is the logic that the majority of people are taught, so it is not a strawman, you just don't have knowledge of logic which is funny.
Thank you!
The skepticism can be solved by adjusting how we explain science. Science is based on our perceived experiences of reality or how our brains interpretation of reality. So it's not wether we are in don't know anything but we know the laws that govern our perceived reality. Wether it's an illusion or not, we still know the laws that govern that our brains then interpret as reality
This sounds like Chalmers' solution to skepticism.
@@HangrySaturn yes it does
The ethos of Aristotle and the trial of Socrates are the early assumptions to apply ones genuine skeptic ambiguities to moments when one is in deep rational faith belief based on each breath of Arjuna to say the Atman is the noble truth.
Soccrates was a martyr of skepticism. 😉
Hi Sir, thank you for the video regarding the topic.
It is a really great introduction to Pyrrhonism.
Yet, I would argue that "the world" is to be replaced with "truth" and dive 1 step deeper.
Truth being, what is in accordance with reality (all that is). This breaks the division you created between what one experiences and truth, as ones own experiences fall within it.
There are three types of Pyrrhonians often described:
- zetetics, those who still seek truth but refrain from any conclusions;
- aporetics, those who as you said, rather say nothing, as any statement seems to contradict their position; and
- epthectics, to whom practising epoché has become a habbit.
Judgement consists of both a consideration and conclusion. Why would one even consider what is true, if one sees no way to discern truth? Perhaps the zetetic Pyrrhonian would like this sort of seeking. They might refrain from conclusions, but consider out of a sort of enjoyment or participate with non Pyrrhonians in debate.
I'd say a more practised Pyrrhonian is likely to give up both consideration and conclusion. They do not consider even about their own experiences. Consideration preps one up to draw a conclusion. What use is there if no conclusion is drawn? I think this is where the aporetic is at. They see no point in even considering anything, they merely might refute what others consider.
If one were to stop considering, it would not however result in a absence of thinking, wondering and reasoning. I'd say an epthectic would not only refute what others argue, but engage in debate also. The views a Pyrrhonian have, are not ones hold with trust or any sort of reliability. They are not backed up by a belief. The views here being direct concepts, such as that of a horse. The more you seek to refine the concept, the sharper it'll be.
If a epthectic would argue in regards to a horse, it is basically an engagement in of reasoning and association. If a Pyrrhonian sees a horse one does not consider whether it is a horse or not. Either it appears to be a horse, something similar or related or not. One does not question, "is it a horse?" and then conclude it is or isn't. That seems a silly way to about in life. If all horses so far seen, were brown and a new experience is that of something similar but grey, it either will naturally be associated with being a horse or not. There is no right or wrong in this. What is intruiging, is gaining more experiences and an understanding (the concept of consequence).
Why most people ask themselves, whether it is truly a horse or not, is a fear of being wrong. As if there is a standard to which something is indeed a horse. "It has to have two eyes" what if it is missing an eye? Would it still be a horse? That is a silly question, one epthectics avoid.
So your just redefining what truth means.
I love your channel, Daniel!
Amazing content!
I am a skeptic. In my view, Popper and Nassim N. Taleb also are skeptics - because they argue that it is possible to say how things are not (via negative). What do you think?
Thanks for lecturing so I don't have to.
what was the song in the beginning?
How does a supporter of global skepticism answer the question: What would you do if a car/horse was running at you? Would you move or take your chances on the mismatch between mental and physical state? By moving wouldn't they be not practicing their belief? I am new to this topic so sorry if I misunderstood the skeptic's argument.
Language and Programming Channel thnx loll I’ll rewatch
Suspension of judgement about non-evident things like the nature of things, truth, knowledge, and the only or best criterion for coming to those conclusions. Doesn't mean that you cannot act. You can act without making absolute claims about the nature of things. So we don't imply suspension of action when we suspend judgement about the non-evident. I can still go to sleep and sleep on a bed while questioning the nature of both of those things or not caring about the nature of both of those things.
@@_VISION. It's not just about making verbal claims, it can be argued that your belief in truth is expressed moreso in actions than verbal articulation. So if you jump out of the way of a horse, you can claim skepticism about reasonable beliefs all day long, but good arguments can be made that, implicitly through your actions, you did have reasonable belief concerning the danger you were in, no matter how many times you deny it through your vocal cords.
@@carnivorous_vegan How is this an appropriate response to my claims at all? I'm strictly talking about epistemological claims.
Buddha and Soccrates make no assertions but question the assertions of others. 🤔😉
I really appreciate these videos thank you!