It's a real shame we don't have more lectures from the late Rick Roderick. I just wanted to thank the folks at The Partially Examined Life for uploading these. Keep up the great work gang!
@ Chris Gumb There is no disrespect here but where do you think this gentleman got his knowledge from? From reading and studying the vast volumes of Classical Literature. While growing up, and in grammar school, high school and college, I read the same Classic Literature - because I love the classics. You can, too. Personally, I suggest the library.
@@lizziesangi1602no disrespect but you’re a dick. Also Roderick if anything seems to have been more stimulated by modern philosophy than anything “classic” but whatever.
As a German Biologist, when I first saw a video of Rick- I instantly, intellectually I feel a deep admiration for this wonderful, great man - An intellectual fossil to be cloned and revived - I like ALL of his presentations!
Thank you Partially Examined for uploading Rick Roderick from Great Courses!!! I am so sorry that the Great Courses have faded away from Professors like him on these topics and now focus on cooking, photography and knitting instead.
Thanks to all who loves Professor Roderick as much as I do. The Examined Life also. ❤️Rome was luting the world, we still are in 2022. Human nature 101 Roderick makes one laugh and love philosophy ❤️
I'm always looking for new interesting lectures on Psychology/Philosophy, please let me know if you guys have any recommendations, would be highly appreciated
The series by Robert Sapolsky 'Introduction to Human Behaviour Biology' is very good. But it's generally more of a biological perspective on psychology.
He doesn’t see what we all know now that Trump remains part of the political landscape on into 2024. Who could have seen the lengths the GOP would go to circle around him? Rick will be largely on target when he talks about Baudrillard. We’re headed towards further Hellscape today.
People generally think that the more hours they work the more money they earn. So people in the US work more hours than the people who did forty years ago. But an average American is poorer than an average American forty years ago. American culture encourages hard work and preaches the idea that hard working people will get rewarded for their hard work. Unfortunately that's not true, why? Because hard work and intense competition drive down wages. Slaves work very hard for their masters, do they get paid?
Well I agree to some extent on that. However we do not live in a society where things are abundant, someone somewhere has to work hard to mass produce food and other essentials(like the hard work of a farmer or factory worker). Perhaps in the future, doing lots of work wont be necessary and instead humans can focus more and things they love like art, philosophy, science etc.
Immigration is a huge factor in driving down wages. Increasing the pool of labor is a business/chamber of commerce strategy which works putting downward pressure on wages. Labor in America was always traditionally in short supply as the nation developed making upward mobility the norm rather than the exception. That situation has long been reversed.
I think people mistake the value of the work they do for the volume of work. For example making 100’s of fast food hamburgers doesn’t have the value of 1 quality financial analysis or 1 successful surgery. Working harder at low value tasks is a waste of time, and many people haven’t adjusted their behavior accordingly. Either do higher value work or drop the expectation of more money.
Seneca (stoic) tell Luciliius tha if he wishes to practice Stoicism - he will have to make it is his business to "learn how to feel joy". - adding that the reason he wants Lucilius to practice Stoism is because he does not wish Lucilius " ever to be deprived of gladness". The problem of generalization is that it misses out important details that could make the listener interpret things in a completely different way.
For those having trouble with the "proof of the existence of god [in reality]". 1. God is a "being" which is greater than which cannot be conceived [in the mind]. 2. It is greater to exist in the mind and in reality than in the mind in alone. The argument proves that if god exists and is greater than which cannot be conceived in the mind then it must exist in reality. It is pretty obvious because if God is something that is greater than what is conceived in the mind then the only other place that conception can "spill" over is in reality. The first argument pushes god to having to be in something "larger than" the mind alone. The second premise then says it is more to exist in the mind and reality than the mind alone and so that god, being more than mind, must exist in reality. This is basic Venn Diagram stuff where if M is mind and R is reality then since G = God is greater than mind(M is contained within G but G is strictly larger than M) then G intersect R is non-empty which proves G exists in reality.
But wouldn't this prove the necessity for the belief in god in the mind of the individual but not prove the existence of god in some 'objective' sense apart from the individual? In other words, if all humans were removed/dead would there still be a god?
I'd object to the notion that the Stoics had no answer for happiness and certainly they did not embrace the Christian ideal of an "other world". You should consider the Enchiridion and the idea put forth by Epictetus that there are things in our control and things not. Happiness comes from living in a particular way in which one knows the difference and thus modifies one's opinions and desires accordingly. Such a person who has accomplished this is Free. Freedom for the Stocis, was far more important than simple happiness. And who could be happier than one who was truly free? Also the Stoics were generally Monists. All things are God. The One is all and the All is one. There could be no other world to "believe" in nor would any Stoic buy into the idea that to get to that world should require certain beliefs. While I think the early Christians were no doubt influence by the Stoics. That Justinian banned their open practice also shows how much the early Church felt threatened by the Stoics.
I know it's a 7 year old post, but imma put my 2 cents in anyways: To be "truly free", as in completely free, would mean that one has the freedom to take freedom away. How can you be free if you aren't free to enslave other's? It makes me worried whenever I hear talk of freedom. It's usually a way to hide one's true intentions. Like a justification to attain or maintain greater power over other's. Saying "freedom is happiness" is like saying "power is happiness".
@@andrewgodly5739 It's more about freedom from fear than about freedom to do whatever you want. The stoics I've read advocate a life of living the best possible live for the things that are within your control, which is an ethical life in which others are treated just. You could even say that some amount of stoic (or other kind of) detachment is essential for living a life that's more or less just, because otherwise you will just get pulled in unjust behaviour by trying to fullfill expectations set by others or by pursuing your want for power/sex/status to the (unjust) detriment of others.
I gotta say, Rick's account of excellence really contradicts both plato and arstotle, who said that to concern yourself with only one thing was the way to get excellent at it.
kinda late response; there is no contradiction, one concerns how to be excellent in one activity while the other is a concept of excellence for the human being as a whole, that is, you can be an excellent painter only if you pend a ton of time on it, but you will not be an excellent human being unless besides painting you do/are these other things. For example to us its quite obvious you can be a good professional and a terrible father, and if you're both, you are not an excellent human being.
Plato and Aristotle were emphatically not typical Greeks. Rick was speaking about Greek culture as a whole, for which Homeric ideals were for a long, long time far more relevant and well regarded.
The Ontological Argument (and Logical Abracadabra), the chapter of "irreligion" of John Allen Paulos, page 34, you can use as a good response for Rick Roderick proof of god.
Did anybody ever go to school and read the CLASSICS like Aristotle, Plato, Voltaire, Epictitis(spell), Socrates? PHAEDO is Platos' eyewitness account of Socrates' suicide. I mean, they're out there. They help us form and shape OUR personal values in and of life. That's what this man did and guess what? So can we. Get off your duff and go to the library where these VOLUMES are at your fingertips - not over the computer.
The ontological argument for God is kinda interesting in that it follows the structure of the argument for a mathematical infinity. Say you were to ask me "What's infinity?" and I were to answer with "Name a number; it's bigger than that." So you say "Three." - "Bigger than that." "Four. Four is bigger." - "Bigger than four." "How about 1 billion?" - "Bigger than that." "1 billion and one..." and so on because you can always think of a number bigger than the one you mentioned even if it's by an infinitesimal amount. So here's my question to you philosophy buffs better educated than me: What do you make of the fact that Cantor discovered that there are different degrees of infinities? Like a hierarchy of infinities. Does that imply that the ontological argument actually points to a hierarchy of Gods?
Cantor was describing a fractal geometry in mathematical terms searching for infinities. They are Unending and numbers do not exist is the truth. Scales are real, energy and fields are real. Mathematics does not describe reality. Nothing does not even our senses or instruments. Objective reality is unknowable by anything inside and built by the energy in the universe.
@@the_famous_reply_guy that's an interesting answer. Was wondering about what you mean by saying scales are real. what sort of scales are you on about. The material in the cosmos for the most part dumb, lacking any consciousness as far as I can tell, yet its produced something conscious like us. Reality is out of our reach maybe , but we're aware of something nonetheless.
"Excellent food in moderate quantities". @ 6:50. Sorry, you got that wrong. Epicurus advocated a simple diet: bread, water, wine, a little cheese. Also your definition of hedonism does not jibe with actual life on the communes. For a more accurate and in depth account of epicurianism check out Wes Cecil: th-cam.com/video/UCBfWeJkrs8/w-d-xo.html
Fine, but it's simply not factual to say that Stoicism came after Epicureanism and was attractive only in the context of a declining Roman empire. The two philosophies were in competition for centuries. Panaetius of Rhodes introduced Stoicism to Rome in the first century BCE.
Yeah his account of societal context setting the conditions for a philosophy to get created/spread is interesting (not sure if it's a widespread idea in philosophy) but it does appear that he's overstating that point.
Wonder if Rick today would use the whole “house worker” meme - kind of reduces core human relations to wage pay jobs. Anti human. Also, Beavis and Butthead at @3:50
The god thing is silly, if god is part of reality but not the entire reality then god is not the greatest thing, but if he is everything then he is no single being, there is no reason to belive that linguistic twists like this makes sense, and to a beliver in the reality of reality, the mind must be real and its contents as well, there is no usefull distingtion to be had. Every isolated thing os born out of chaos, and the chaos only exsist in absence of perfect knowlagde, when everything is considered there should be nothing outside it, or real boundries within it. Our reasoning is kind of arbitrary.
When did receipt of full board and lodging, access to income earned by someone else and a major, if not equal, say in the spending of that income equate to "unpaid"?
@@cowboy4187 Only if a failure to ignore reality because if does not help your argument, as almost all feminist philosophies and philosophers do. Address my comment instead of demonstrating that its contents are inconvenient to you because they are true, forcing you to resort to mild abuse and attempts at derogation.
I like this guy, but I think he's just straight up wrong about Anselm's argument. It's not the most nearly proved. I have a dual degree in philosophy and computer science, and I had to take all the classes to get the philosophy degree as a normal degree requires. In one of my history of philosophy classes, we learned about Gaunilo at the same time we learned about Anselm. And it was pretty clear to me at the time that Gaunilo of Marmoutiers destroyed Anselm's argument. Anselm tried to say that Gaunilo missed the point, which is ridiculous. There was no point to miss. It's an invalid argument. And to suggest that it is a valid argument, or 'nearly proved', is simply wrong-headed. It makes it seem as though those who reject it are deficient in logic, when they're not.
I agree that Roderick might have overstated the case of Anselm’s argument. But I don’t agree that Gaunilo’s is all that good either. Plantinga and many others have refuted Gaunilo.
@@DanielWebbon ``In this discussion note, I defend Gaunilo's famous parody of Anselm's Ontological Argument for God's existence against a well-known objection due to Alvin Plantinga.``
I don't think it was a surprise that Christianity took hold in the late Roman Empire. A change of religion is frequently seen during civilsational transition. There were a number of cults circulating around the empire. Christianity was banned not because it was a different religion to the official state cult but because they claimed exclusivity of belief. The Romans were well used to appending other gods to their own collection and the Romans would have happily added Jesus except Christians want the entire spiritual platform and did not want to share it with other gods. SO it could be argued that it was the Christians who were intolerant and not the pagans.
Did not Seneca live during the height of the Empire, before everything was falling apart. So he was one stoic before the time Rick identified as the "season" of stoics.
![Rick Roderick on Socrates and the Life of Inquiry [full length]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/XQ_hUxuumk0/mqdefault.jpg)
![Rick Roderick on Socrates and the Life of Inquiry [full length]](/img/tr.png)
![Rick Roderick on Kant and the Path to Enlightenment [full length]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/m-JW4X6QpPk/mqdefault.jpg)
It's a real shame we don't have more lectures from the late Rick Roderick. I just wanted to thank the folks at The Partially Examined Life for uploading these. Keep up the great work gang!
You're in luck rickroderick.org/
@ Chris Gumb
There is no disrespect here but where do you think this gentleman got his knowledge from?
From reading and studying the vast volumes of Classical Literature.
While growing up, and in grammar school, high school and college, I read the same Classic Literature - because I love the classics.
You can, too. Personally, I suggest the library.
@@lizziesangi1602no disrespect but you’re a dick. Also Roderick if anything seems to have been more stimulated by modern philosophy than anything “classic” but whatever.
As a German Biologist, when I first saw a video of Rick- I instantly, intellectually I feel a deep admiration for this wonderful, great man - An intellectual fossil to be cloned and revived - I like ALL of his presentations!
I will never get tired of these lectures, and never stop wanting more. Rick should be more we’ll known and loved. Shame he’s not still with us.
His talks have Been a good companion over the years . I would care to keep the company of more chaps like rick
Agreed 10 years on from first lission .. and still interesting!
Thank you Partially Examined for uploading Rick Roderick from Great Courses!!! I am so sorry that the Great Courses have faded away from Professors like him on these topics and now focus on cooking, photography and knitting instead.
Thanks to all who loves Professor Roderick as much as I do. The Examined Life also. ❤️Rome was luting the world, we still are in 2022. Human nature 101 Roderick makes one laugh and love philosophy ❤️
Lol what kind of songs did they play?
this was 10x better than my $700 uni class on the stoics.
Man, I don’t have anything clever to say. I just love this guy!
I love finding these random digs at Trump in Rick's talks - throwing shade from beyond the grave 25 years later haha
I also enjoy how prophetic it is. At one point I would have voted for a Republican but not sure anymore.
God, I wish the guys at PEL all had accents like his
I think we need more talks from this guy
There are quite a few. His talks on Hegel are brilliant.
2024 pure intellectual pleasure
20:10 Oh, if only you knew, Rick...
Trump will have more than 3 limousines at his funeral, but he is still equal to Rosie O'Donnell in death.
Lol
that one really hurt
at around 20:10 or so Roderick speaks on the phrase "The one who dies with the most toys wins" and then makes a remark about Trump's funeral :')
booty from all over the world
Wow, Luke Skywalker's really let himself go
lol Mark Hamill really DOES look like Slavoj Zizek
@@livelyy. ahahaha
Thanks for uploading!
I'm always looking for new interesting lectures on Psychology/Philosophy, please let me know if you guys have any recommendations, would be highly appreciated
The series by Robert Sapolsky 'Introduction to Human Behaviour Biology' is very good. But it's generally more of a biological perspective on psychology.
@GGPlato is right 9:21 is marcus aurelius
such a good summation of blade runner's appeal...
Im listening and not watching, and its like if Mr. Garrison from south park was an actual professor.
Ive been binging this guy, great stuff
20:14 really funny he says this right after talking about how we cannot predict the future.
He doesn’t see what we all know now that Trump remains part of the political landscape on into 2024. Who could have seen the lengths the GOP would go to circle around him? Rick will be largely on target when he talks about Baudrillard. We’re headed towards further Hellscape today.
He’s the best.
People generally think that the more hours they work the more money they earn. So people in the US work more hours than the people who did forty years ago. But an average American is poorer than an average American forty years ago. American culture encourages hard work and preaches the idea that hard working people will get rewarded for their hard work. Unfortunately that's not true, why? Because hard work and intense competition drive down wages. Slaves work very hard for their masters, do they get paid?
Well I agree to some extent on that. However we do not live in a society where things are abundant, someone somewhere has to work hard to mass produce food and other essentials(like the hard work of a farmer or factory worker). Perhaps in the future, doing lots of work wont be necessary and instead humans can focus more and things they love like art, philosophy, science etc.
Immigration is a huge factor in driving down wages. Increasing the pool of labor is a business/chamber of commerce strategy which works putting downward pressure on wages. Labor in America was always traditionally in short supply as the nation developed making upward mobility the norm rather than the exception. That situation has long been reversed.
@@unclejj13er75 this is a stupid take pushed by right wing idiots. It isnt workers driving down wages, its the parasitic capitalist class. Read marx
I think people mistake the value of the work they do for the volume of work. For example making 100’s of fast food hamburgers doesn’t have the value of 1 quality financial analysis or 1 successful surgery. Working harder at low value tasks is a waste of time, and many people haven’t adjusted their behavior accordingly. Either do higher value work or drop the expectation of more money.
Seneca (stoic) tell Luciliius tha if he wishes to practice Stoicism - he will have to make it is his business to "learn how to feel joy". - adding that the reason he wants Lucilius to practice Stoism is because he does not wish Lucilius " ever to be deprived of gladness".
The problem of generalization is that it misses out important details that could make the listener interpret things in a completely different way.
How does that contradict anything he said?
For those having trouble with the "proof of the existence of god [in reality]".
1. God is a "being" which is greater than which cannot be conceived [in the mind].
2. It is greater to exist in the mind and in reality than in the mind in alone.
The argument proves that if god exists and is greater than which cannot be conceived in the mind then it must exist in reality.
It is pretty obvious because if God is something that is greater than what is conceived in the mind then the only other place that conception can "spill" over is in reality. The first argument pushes god to having to be in something "larger than" the mind alone. The second premise then says it is more to exist in the mind and reality than the mind alone and so that god, being more than mind, must exist in reality.
This is basic Venn Diagram stuff where if M is mind and R is reality then since G = God is greater than mind(M is contained within G but G is strictly larger than M) then G intersect R is non-empty which proves G exists in reality.
But wouldn't this prove the necessity for the belief in god in the mind of the individual but not prove the existence of god in some 'objective' sense apart from the individual?
In other words, if all humans were removed/dead would there still be a god?
I can prove that your God was a specific cultural event relating to specific time and place and thar the same applies to many other gods.
I'd object to the notion that the Stoics had no answer for happiness and certainly they did not embrace the Christian ideal of an "other world".
You should consider the Enchiridion and the idea put forth by Epictetus that there are things in our control and things not. Happiness comes from living in a particular way in which one knows the difference and thus modifies one's opinions and desires accordingly. Such a person who has accomplished this is Free.
Freedom for the Stocis, was far more important than simple happiness. And who could be happier than one who was truly free?
Also the Stoics were generally Monists. All things are God. The One is all and the All is one. There could be no other world to "believe" in nor would any Stoic buy into the idea that to get to that world should require certain beliefs.
While I think the early Christians were no doubt influence by the Stoics. That Justinian banned their open practice also shows how much the early Church felt threatened by the Stoics.
. h
I know it's a 7 year old post, but imma put my 2 cents in anyways: To be "truly free", as in completely free, would mean that one has the freedom to take freedom away. How can you be free if you aren't free to enslave other's?
It makes me worried whenever I hear talk of freedom. It's usually a way to hide one's true intentions. Like a justification to attain or maintain greater power over other's. Saying "freedom is happiness" is like saying "power is happiness".
@@andrewgodly5739 you’re conflating a lot and i don’t think you’ve really read any stoic literature
@@sheppycider123 What am I conflating?
@@andrewgodly5739 It's more about freedom from fear than about freedom to do whatever you want. The stoics I've read advocate a life of living the best possible live for the things that are within your control, which is an ethical life in which others are treated just. You could even say that some amount of stoic (or other kind of) detachment is essential for living a life that's more or less just, because otherwise you will just get pulled in unjust behaviour by trying to fullfill expectations set by others or by pursuing your want for power/sex/status to the (unjust) detriment of others.
The older I get, the more I think the Stoics were correct.
I gotta say, Rick's account of excellence really contradicts both plato and arstotle, who said that to concern yourself with only one thing was the way to get excellent at it.
Yeah, I think he mixed up some stuff here!
kinda late response; there is no contradiction, one concerns how to be excellent in one activity while the other is a concept of excellence for the human being as a whole, that is, you can be an excellent painter only if you pend a ton of time on it, but you will not be an excellent human being unless besides painting you do/are these other things. For example to us its quite obvious you can be a good professional and a terrible father, and if you're both, you are not an excellent human being.
Liberalism is a mental disorder.
? I don't understand
Plato and Aristotle were emphatically not typical Greeks. Rick was speaking about Greek culture as a whole, for which Homeric ideals were for a long, long time far more relevant and well regarded.
I wonder what kind of lecture Rick would have given if he was alive to see Trump on the throne. He saw Reagan make it, but Trump?
can anybody tell me the name of classical music intro ?
bach brandenburg concerto 3
I see only Kinison giving the greatest ironical set layered in contemporized Ancient Greek ethos
The Ontological Argument (and Logical Abracadabra), the chapter of "irreligion" of John Allen Paulos, page 34, you can use as a good response for Rick Roderick proof of god.
I LOVE Roderick! A 19th century Fossil-Extinct! He should be resurrected and cloned!
mentioned trump 20:21
The hedonism of boomers can only result in deepening stoicism of subsequent generations.
Good lecture.
Apathy- Grateful Indifference
Lol even Professor Roderick got a pop shot at Trump. Would pay money to see his analysis of todays political environment.
Did anybody ever go to school and read the CLASSICS like Aristotle, Plato, Voltaire, Epictitis(spell), Socrates?
PHAEDO is Platos' eyewitness account of Socrates' suicide.
I mean, they're out there. They help us form and shape OUR personal values in and of life.
That's what this man did and guess what?
So can we. Get off your duff and go to the library where these VOLUMES are at your fingertips - not over the computer.
I agree with your sentiment but I am having a hard time believing that this rhetoric will change anyone’s mind
Someone throw stoic losers out of a window, if you're so stoic why cant you shut the fuck up and stop being annoying.
Or you can do both
And Hegel and Marx.
you might be a stoic if...
LOL!
if you don't believe in hell.
if you want to be an excellent human like marcus aurelius or epictetus
omg...
You wake up in the morning and piss excellence
The ontological argument for God is kinda interesting in that it follows the structure of the argument for a mathematical infinity.
Say you were to ask me "What's infinity?" and I were to answer with "Name a number; it's bigger than that."
So you say "Three." - "Bigger than that."
"Four. Four is bigger." - "Bigger than four."
"How about 1 billion?" - "Bigger than that."
"1 billion and one..." and so on because you can always think of a number bigger than the one you mentioned even if it's by an infinitesimal amount.
So here's my question to you philosophy buffs better educated than me: What do you make of the fact that Cantor discovered that there are different degrees of infinities? Like a hierarchy of infinities. Does that imply that the ontological argument actually points to a hierarchy of Gods?
Cantor was describing a fractal geometry in mathematical terms searching for infinities. They are Unending and numbers do not exist is the truth. Scales are real, energy and fields are real. Mathematics does not describe reality. Nothing does not even our senses or instruments. Objective reality is unknowable by anything inside and built by the energy in the universe.
@@the_famous_reply_guy that's an interesting answer. Was wondering about what you mean by saying scales are real. what sort of scales are you on about. The material in the cosmos for the most part dumb, lacking any consciousness as far as I can tell, yet its produced something conscious like us. Reality is out of our reach maybe , but we're aware of something nonetheless.
It doesn't point to any gods.
Someone ought to re animate Rick so he can talk about the Cynics.
mr garrison!!
mmmkay!
OMG! You're right!
donald trump at 41:xx. this is relevant in 2016.
He upgraded from a limosine to Air Force One.
not soon enough, he'll be "re-accommodated" into a paddy wagon..
Even more in 2018 😡
"Excellent food in moderate quantities". @ 6:50. Sorry, you got that wrong. Epicurus advocated a simple diet: bread, water, wine, a little cheese. Also your definition of hedonism does not jibe with actual life on the communes. For a more accurate and in depth account of epicurianism check out Wes Cecil: th-cam.com/video/UCBfWeJkrs8/w-d-xo.html
Trump mentioned @20:15!!!
20:13
1:36
Lol so true about Texas :D
Fine, but it's simply not factual to say that Stoicism came after Epicureanism and was attractive only in the context of a declining Roman empire. The two philosophies were in competition for centuries. Panaetius of Rhodes introduced Stoicism to Rome in the first century BCE.
Yeah his account of societal context setting the conditions for a philosophy to get created/spread is interesting (not sure if it's a widespread idea in philosophy) but it does appear that he's overstating that point.
Miller Edward Garcia Amy Wilson Cynthia
What language is he speaking?
Trump might only have a blue bus at his funeral
Does Trump represent a "falling in power" for us now?
Wonder if Rick today would use the whole “house worker” meme - kind of reduces core human relations to wage pay jobs. Anti human. Also, Beavis and Butthead at @3:50
I'd strongly argue that it's not a good trick at all, and that Anselm was a hack - eg: th-cam.com/video/FmTsS5xFA6k/w-d-xo.html
The way Trump is going he might only have 1 rather than 3 limousines at his funeral!
There is NO God.... But God
The god thing is silly, if god is part of reality but not the entire reality then god is not the greatest thing, but if he is everything then he is no single being, there is no reason to belive that linguistic twists like this makes sense, and to a beliver in the reality of reality, the mind must be real and its contents as well, there is no usefull distingtion to be had. Every isolated thing os born out of chaos, and the chaos only exsist in absence of perfect knowlagde, when everything is considered there should be nothing outside it, or real boundries within it. Our reasoning is kind of arbitrary.
When did receipt of full board and lodging, access to income earned by someone else and a major, if not equal, say in the spending of that income equate to "unpaid"?
Boomer comment
@@cowboy4187 Only if a failure to ignore reality because if does not help your argument, as almost all feminist philosophies and philosophers do.
Address my comment instead of demonstrating that its contents are inconvenient to you because they are true, forcing you to resort to mild abuse and attempts at derogation.
@@davidmonteith-hodge901 lmao cry more little incel bitch
@@cowboy4187 Generationist!
You talking about Joe Biden?
Thee
Imagine if he knew we let Trump be president
mmmkay!
I like this guy, but I think he's just straight up wrong about Anselm's argument. It's not the most nearly proved. I have a dual degree in philosophy and computer science, and I had to take all the classes to get the philosophy degree as a normal degree requires. In one of my history of philosophy classes, we learned about Gaunilo at the same time we learned about Anselm. And it was pretty clear to me at the time that Gaunilo of Marmoutiers destroyed Anselm's argument. Anselm tried to say that Gaunilo missed the point, which is ridiculous. There was no point to miss. It's an invalid argument. And to suggest that it is a valid argument, or 'nearly proved', is simply wrong-headed. It makes it seem as though those who reject it are deficient in logic, when they're not.
I agree that Roderick might have overstated the case of Anselm’s argument. But I don’t agree that Gaunilo’s is all that good either. Plantinga and many others have refuted Gaunilo.
@@DanielWebbon ``In this discussion note, I defend Gaunilo's famous parody of Anselm's Ontological Argument for God's existence against a well-known objection due to Alvin Plantinga.``
Why does nobody discuss the evidence for gods non existence ?
I'd like to add that he forgot that other democratic institution without which there would be no Death --- Life.
What a bumpkin.
Ken Able And you’re a bumpkin-acolyte.
@Ken Able 100 planes! I LOVE Roderick! A 19th century Fossil-Extinct!
You would have said the same about Socrates and Jesus of Nazareth.
The occasional nod to some post modernist notions. A pity because this is otherwise a good lecture.
I don't think it was a surprise that Christianity took hold in the late Roman Empire. A change of religion is frequently seen during civilsational transition. There were a number of cults circulating around the empire. Christianity was banned not because it was a different religion to the official state cult but because they claimed exclusivity of belief. The Romans were well used to appending other gods to their own collection and the Romans would have happily added Jesus except Christians want the entire spiritual platform and did not want to share it with other gods. SO it could be argued that it was the Christians who were intolerant and not the pagans.
Did not Seneca live during the height of the Empire, before everything was falling apart. So he was one stoic before the time Rick identified as the "season" of stoics.
@@coweatsman They were intolerant against the intolerant
Stoics are the worst philosophers by far.
LMAO no one found the joke funny 4:56
it was not a joke just the realization that the us are the rome of the present
In a joke vorm, no?
14:36