I just want to say that if only I can make our personal meeting (i.e., us having a get-together) a necessary condition (i.e., as to say universal), then that will best thing the unifying force has to offer. My purpose is just to thank you to your works. Your name lives within my endeavor.
Loved this. I'm currently reading Spinoza and i'm really stuck why he puts intuition above reason.. after seeing this, i think I kinda got what he is saying.
If there is a form of an object, what determines all the instances of it's appearances? The form of an object itself cannot determine how the "imperfect" given appearance will turn out. This must be contained in another form, right? We could call this form "scramble", encrypt, encode or something like that 😀
I could, but there wouldn't be much meat to it. There are some basic arguments for and against (from moral perspective). And there is Singer. There is a good Oxford Debate recently on TH-cam.
@@teachphilosophy the dad joke makes your refusal worth it. 🤣 Ok sounds good. I know you had one up a long time ago, but for the life of me I cannot find it. As well as the slavery one.
@@teachphilosophy are you aware of any compelling philosophical arguments against veganism? I'd imagine any argument against veganism will entail an attack on utilitarianism, but I'd love to hear any spare thoughts you have!
@@JonathanB00K3R Hi Jonathan, one approach is to begin with marginal cases. For example, in the recent Oxford Debate, Makayla Peterson argued that an all-meat diet saved her life (autoimmune disease, lost hip, etc). Nothing else worked. First Step: argue it is ok for at least some people to kill and eat other animals.
@@teachphilosophy Ok, I feel like I can get on board with that idea. Just because of the necessity involved in her needing the meat to survive, much like our ancestors. I cant see any problems with a "marginal case" argument.
You're overthinking it. Republic VI 508 b "The Sun is not sight. But, is it not the cause of sight and seen by it? Certainly." Another words.Your theories are not the Cause of the Universe. But rather. The Universe. Is, The Cause of Your Theories.
Good point, Papa. I am so confused by math/numbers. They aren't just relations of ideas as Hume argued. They seem to be synthetic a prior truths (Kant).
@@teachphilosophy "They seem to be synthetic a prior truths (Kant)." - Mathematical intuitions *seem* to be necessary results of essential faculties of humans. But this can be explained by the fact that we can only communicate with humans who have the same intuitions (and communication faculties). Looking at the history, we will deem "civilized" only those who demonstrate the same intuitions as we have. That's just an hypothesis, but so is the assertion that mathematical intuitions are synthetic a priori. Picking any one of those as the definite truth is a form of gnosticism. Just to clarify. In order for a priori assertion to be synthetic, there must exist an essence to human reasoning faculty (something necessary about human mind) and that a priori assertion must be indeniable by any mind with such essence. It overwhelmingly seems to be the case that most human ideas and assertions are not necessarily believed by all healthy human minds. Math seems to be an exception. But as i say, it might just be that we make it work, not the other way around.
I just want to say that if only I can make our personal meeting (i.e., us having a get-together) a necessary condition (i.e., as to say universal), then that will best thing the unifying force has to offer. My purpose is just to thank you to your works. Your name lives within my endeavor.
Loved this. I'm currently reading Spinoza and i'm really stuck why he puts intuition above reason.. after seeing this, i think I kinda got what he is saying.
Thank you! Love your videos, incredibly helpful!
Excellent video!
If there is a form of an object, what determines all the instances of it's appearances? The form of an object itself cannot determine how the "imperfect" given appearance will turn out. This must be contained in another form, right? We could call this form "scramble", encrypt, encode or something like that 😀
Good job.😊
💎✨👍
Paul! Can you do a video on veganism?
I could, but there wouldn't be much meat to it. There are some basic arguments for and against (from moral perspective). And there is Singer. There is a good Oxford Debate recently on TH-cam.
@@teachphilosophy the dad joke makes your refusal worth it. 🤣 Ok sounds good. I know you had one up a long time ago, but for the life of me I cannot find it. As well as the slavery one.
@@teachphilosophy are you aware of any compelling philosophical arguments against veganism? I'd imagine any argument against veganism will entail an attack on utilitarianism, but I'd love to hear any spare thoughts you have!
@@JonathanB00K3R Hi Jonathan, one approach is to begin with marginal cases. For example, in the recent Oxford Debate, Makayla Peterson argued that an all-meat diet saved her life (autoimmune disease, lost hip, etc). Nothing else worked. First Step: argue it is ok for at least some people to kill and eat other animals.
@@teachphilosophy Ok, I feel like I can get on board with that idea. Just because of the necessity involved in her needing the meat to survive, much like our ancestors. I cant see any problems with a "marginal case" argument.
Who is here after 1899 webseries.
You're overthinking it. Republic VI 508 b
"The Sun is not sight. But, is it not the cause of sight and seen by it?
Certainly."
Another words.Your theories are not the Cause of the Universe. But rather. The Universe. Is, The Cause of Your Theories.
5:07 I'm not sure that math is limited to describing just what's happening "in" the simulation...
Good point, Papa. I am so confused by math/numbers. They aren't just relations of ideas as Hume argued. They seem to be synthetic a prior truths (Kant).
@@teachphilosophy "They seem to be synthetic a prior truths (Kant)." - Mathematical intuitions *seem* to be necessary results of essential faculties of humans. But this can be explained by the fact that we can only communicate with humans who have the same intuitions (and communication faculties). Looking at the history, we will deem "civilized" only those who demonstrate the same intuitions as we have. That's just an hypothesis, but so is the assertion that mathematical intuitions are synthetic a priori. Picking any one of those as the definite truth is a form of gnosticism.
Just to clarify. In order for a priori assertion to be synthetic, there must exist an essence to human reasoning faculty (something necessary about human mind) and that a priori assertion must be indeniable by any mind with such essence.
It overwhelmingly seems to be the case that most human ideas and assertions are not necessarily believed by all healthy human minds. Math seems to be an exception. But as i say, it might just be that we make it work, not the other way around.