I have to say, even though it is one of the few questions i instinctively disagreed with you on, I found your elaboration on why you don't find the ordinary boring quite beautiful, enough to make me misty eyed in fact. Edit: also your later elaboration on giving up on controlling the outside world. I hope you won't mind that i say this but in regards such as these i am tempted to say you are indeed a beautiful person
I really related to your answer about challenging authority. I find personality tests really difficult for two reasons, one being giving answers based on my idealized self vs actual behaviors, and the other being whether to answer the question based on what I think the author is getting at vs my personal interpretation. It seems like you also get thrown off by the second thing but consistently try to answer the “spirit” of the question, while I still get too hung up on certain details and end up giving a misleading answer.
3:43 The funny and bizarre thing is that the data shows when you reduce sociological differences between males and females (like in Scandinavia), they become more polarized into their gender roles. It's the opposite of what social constructionists predicted.
I'm not sure I would draw that conclusion; rather it seems that there is no obvious relationship between gender equality and gender segregation, at least within liberal democracies. Of course, even this spells trouble for social constructionists who argued that eliminating inequality would cause, or is constituted by, abolition of gender roles. I don't think social constructionism in general is committed to this claim, though. People often seem to assume something like this principle: (S) If X is socially constructed, then X is subject to rational control, or X can easily be eliminated. So since gender roles are socially constructed, we can enact policies to modify or eliminate those gender roles. The trouble is that there is no good reason to accept anything like (S). (Insofar as social constructionists tend to accept (S), they misunderstand their own theory). Societies are complex and composed of many competing factions. It is often extremely difficult to determine the casual factors involved in some social phenomenon, and extremely difficult to compel people to change, where any policy aiming to promote change will have a variety of unintended consequences. Consider how difficult it is to enact economic policies that successfully reduce poverty. Assuming that a country has sufficient productivity, poverty must be in some sense a social construct - in that it will ultimately be a matter of members of that society deciding to act in particular ways. No physical or even biological law prevents the society from redistributing wealth more equally. But this does not make such redistribution easy. By contrast, there are more "biological" things that are easy to control. It's a biological fact that fluoride enhances tooth remineralization. So to reduce truth decay, just fluoridate the water supply. As long as there is no significant social opposition to that policy, you have a straightforward method for controlling tooth decay.
Not all women get pregnant and not all chickens have feathers, but you normally associate the ability (and with that a "tightly correlated" proclivity) to become pregnant with a woman, and chickens normally have feathers. If these things are not true in either case, it is not due to anything inherent to womanhood or chickenhood per se, but due to some condition of their detriment or deprivation of what comes normally and properly to them.
70% Socrates. 40% Hegel. 80% Lao-Tse. 35% Aquines. 5% Heraclitus. 60% Kierkegaard. 40% de Beauvoir. Unfortunately I know almost nothing about these philosophers so I don't know what to make of these results haha.
@@s.lazarus Everyone is liberal. Lol What are you 15 year old or you are just an american? Communism is just one form of liberalism. Egalitarianism is liberal.
Incredible, I did it myself before watching your videos and... we've answered total opposites to almost every question, I am exactly the philosophers you are not in the same proportions, and viceversa... We would make for a big discussion.
30:28 "too much" seems like the question is trying really hard to beg itself - too much as opposed to the optimal amount (which is going to be different for different people at different times in their life)?
Some of the questions might seem strange but you can be assured that this test has been made by expert professionals using statistical controls to ensure maximum accuracy of the test scores. Who are we to criticise this?
Dress codes seem to mark out philosophical stereotypes: for example, highly motivated persons tend to dress-up when it comes to normative societal dress codes; appear to dominate through discourse those persons who tend towards non-extraversion with open mindedness and elements of neuroticism on the famed big five personality test where the other two being conscientious and agreeableness which are arguably not philosophically relevant for dress codes given we mostly all agree to be covered by cloth in public and are conscientious of doing so to details of being prudent not to expose parts that cause public offence. So a street observer of prototypes might spot the philosopher prototype through persons who deviate from normative dress codes. due to extraverts are other focused when it comes to appearance and aim to compete for being most prudent when it comes to exposing garments relative to flesh and closed minded to any deviations from normative styles of fashion along with the kind of emotional confidence within the state of affairs. So the question is why would this mark out the philosophical persona as a universal? Well the philosophical persona seems to correlate to contesting societal normative assumptions which ramp this up to high moderation is contesting everything form science to art/religion and hence those who dress up in tweed sports jackets inhabiting campuses are not included in the model due to their social functional ascriptive adaptations. However for the great uncleaned there is a distinction where the first sign of deviance is through forms of dress code ascription which imply the philosophical persona even in hunter gather groups.
Some of the things you describe match worryingly well to childhood trauma. Social anxiety, low interest in people, highly developed emotional resilience, ambivalence towards positive social recognition. This sounds like someone who did not have a lot of friends at school and who's psyche has adapted to that by becoming a master of suppression. I think you realize the inherent contradiction between not caring about others recognizing your achievements and caring if others disapprove of you in the moment i.e. being meek, conflict-avoidant, even if there is no physical threat.
I'm just mildly autistic (I was diagnosed with Asperger syndrome when I was a child). I had a wonderful childhood. I didn't have a lot of friends at school but that was because I didn't want friends.
@@KaneB I was diagnosed quite late and I had a similar experience. Obviously it's really rude and presumptuous to tell you about your own feelings, and maybe it's just me projecting, but you could reflect about what real clinical symptoms of autism are, and what are just the effects of childhood social isolation, brought on by delayed social skills. I didn't want friends because they didn't like me or care about anything I cared about. Socializing was torture and I would always leave early and go home the second I could. The one friend I had was also into computers, and that's the only thing we talked about, and I really enjoyed that. When he left my school I should have been devastated, but I just sunk deeper into my hobbies without noticing how I was changing. To me it it is obvious that you do want to be recognized by humans, maybe not in the way most people do, but you want to share your special interest in philosophy, otherwise, what are you doing with this youtube channel? why not waste away in an apartment, doing an easier job that pays more? Why not go on disability and philosophize in tranquility, never talking to anyone? I remember watching a video of yours a pretty long time ago where you talked about how your non-instrumental desires didn't need any justification. That struck me as so odd. As someone who has recovered from a severe addictive disorder I am much more skeptical about desires, assuming they exist, and their correlation with hedonic impact.
@@CjqNslXUcM I don't care either way whether the personality traits you drew attention to are due to mild autism or childhood trauma. The latter doesn't strike me as a plausible explanation in my own case but it wouldn't bother me if it were true, nor do I consider it rude for others to defend that explanation. Re symptoms of autism, as a child I was a textbook case of Asperger's; the fact that such traits are less obvious as an adult is also textbook… though given that "Asperger's syndrome" is no longer part of the textbooks, perhaps this doesn't mean anything to you. I started the TH-cam channel because I believed that the most effective way to learn a subject was to figure out how to teach it to others. I still believe this. I also feel that philosophy is valuable just in itself so I want to contribute to its continuation. These days, I get a small income from the channel, and I also use it to advertise tutoring services which is my main source of income. I'm much more happy doing this than an easier job that pays more. (This might be a "sour grapes" story I tell myself to feel better; my attempts to find more conventional employment in the past have been total failures. Maybe the real answer here is that I just can't find such a job.) As for the idea of going on disability and philosophising alone, that sounds like heaven to me. Unfortunately, there are practical issues with it. It would probably involve fraud on my part, since I'm not legally disabled; I'm not sure I'd get enough income to survive easily; and it would be difficult to get back into the job market, if the benefits were revoked. But if we stipulate that I receive the disability benefits for the rest of my life and at no personal risk, I would take that over my current life in a heartbeat.
I suspect the spread of notions that one has is telling in some fashion, but I am at this time not exactly sure of what and in what degree or degrees. 75% - de Beauvoir 65% - Heraclitus 50% - Hegal 50% - Lao-Tse 45% - Socrates 30% - Aquinas 30% - Kierkegaard
Dao and Tao a spellings in 2 different systems for transcribing Chinese pronunciations in the Latin alphabet. I'm not completely sure but I would think Dao is the version from the Hanyu Pinyin system in modern mainland China.
@@silverharloe a fun fact about mandarin chinese is that it doesn't distinguish between voiced and unvoiced plosives, so the difference, as we hear it, between t and d, does not exist. however, there is a distinction between Aspirated and Unaspirated plosives. consider the t in "stop" (unaspirated, at least in my dialect) and the t in "tower" (aspirated). this is the distinction that is marked in the pinyin system as "t" for aspirated and "d" for unaspirated, whereas in the previous system it used " t' " (t plus apostrophe) for aspirated and "t" for unaspirated. this is the reason for the two spellings.
Gender equality in the West might have actually tipped over towards favoring women in some aspects. Women out preform men in pre-adult school and adult education. Once all the unfair anti-female bias got removed it quickly became apparent that women can handle the system way better. At an early age girls mature faster than boys, and thus girls have more concentration and long term perspective to recognize the importance of school, this pattern continues into adult education.
Yeah, it seems to me that there are some important contexts, especially in Western countries, where women are doing better than men, and where this might be partly due to anti-male attitudes or to systems being set up in such a way that women are favour. This is one reason why I disagreed with the claim that gender equality has been achieved.
I don't know where to stand on this anymore. I want women to have freedom and opportunities but I can't deny the reality that the way feminists have made it happen is by very deliberately overburdening men. They've outsourced the cost, risk, and accountability onto men. And they keep pushing for more. If feminists argued for women to bear the cost, risk, and accountability that men have to bear, and that bore out in society, I'd have no complaints. That would be just and equal. A lot of the struggle of talking about this issue is folks have this feminism de jure floating around in their heads, and it's completely different than feminism de facto. And the emotions get heated.
I got Heraclitus, I think more for the personality section than anything, with de Beauvoir and Hegel being my least (which sounds right, I don't like either of them - I think Hegel is a D-tier philosopher and only GE Moore ranks lower in my estimation).
Can you make vid about art you like? I myself a big minimalism fan and guys like morton feldman and john cage are close to my hart. Would be cool to see other things you like. Bet you like philip guston
I think you skipped a very interesting part of the video. Which was talking about the philosophers you got compared to... i was hoping you developed on that. Also, i think the anti realist conclusions of your thought align ironicly with lao tse's intuitions about the world. I dont understand how you got any hegel thou.
I unironically wonder what specific philosophers would track with answering affirmatively to question 21. Not the type of thing you would admit to in an academic setting :))
Its not necessarily a bad thing to say if it is the truth. What is important is that your opinion does not get in the way of being able to work with others. Edit: Besides there are very many other ways to pick apart that question. What does it mean by need? What is I? and whom might the others be?
@@vorpalweapon4814 I mean I take the question to mean "necessity" not as something strong like logical necessity, but as something weak like utility, and "others" as peers rather than laypeople. Sure, it can be interpreted otherwise, but if that's not what the test makers intended, it has no bearing on how the answer adjusts the final result.
Interesting. Makes me wonder, what would you take as a convincing evidence for existence of god. I remember that one english scientist, who once said something like : even if our space telescopes see writing in the deeper space which says "God exists", I wouldn't take it as evidence for god, because we can explain it by laws of physics. Or another english biologist, who said he would believe that god created humans, if we find fossils of rabbits in precambrian strata or some other physicist said he would believe god exists, if there is a miracle which defies second law of thermodynamics, or some want aristotelian arguments for first mover or first cause etc. What kind of atheist are you?
It's difficult to see how physics could provide a satisfying explanation of something like that. Of course, we could say that it's simply a coincidence, and this arrangement of stars is consistent with the laws of physics. I take it though that mere consistency doesn't suffice for an explanation. I wouldn't take this to be evidence for God because it can easily be explained by alternative hypotheses. Maybe the stars were arranged that way by aliens. Or maybe they were arranged that way by a very powerful being - perhaps not God but a Cartesian evil demon. In principle, no empirical evidence could establish the God hypothesis over these kinds of alternatives.
I have to say, even though it is one of the few questions i instinctively disagreed with you on, I found your elaboration on why you don't find the ordinary boring quite beautiful, enough to make me misty eyed in fact.
Edit: also your later elaboration on giving up on controlling the outside world. I hope you won't mind that i say this but in regards such as these i am tempted to say you are indeed a beautiful person
I don't mind at all! Thank you
The Hegel questions stood out as so obviously Hegelian.
you want them to hide the questions?
I really related to your answer about challenging authority. I find personality tests really difficult for two reasons, one being giving answers based on my idealized self vs actual behaviors, and the other being whether to answer the question based on what I think the author is getting at vs my personal interpretation. It seems like you also get thrown off by the second thing but consistently try to answer the “spirit” of the question, while I still get too hung up on certain details and end up giving a misleading answer.
3:43
The funny and bizarre thing is that the data shows when you reduce sociological differences between males and females (like in Scandinavia), they become more polarized into their gender roles. It's the opposite of what social constructionists predicted.
I'm not sure I would draw that conclusion; rather it seems that there is no obvious relationship between gender equality and gender segregation, at least within liberal democracies. Of course, even this spells trouble for social constructionists who argued that eliminating inequality would cause, or is constituted by, abolition of gender roles. I don't think social constructionism in general is committed to this claim, though. People often seem to assume something like this principle:
(S) If X is socially constructed, then X is subject to rational control, or X can easily be eliminated.
So since gender roles are socially constructed, we can enact policies to modify or eliminate those gender roles. The trouble is that there is no good reason to accept anything like (S). (Insofar as social constructionists tend to accept (S), they misunderstand their own theory). Societies are complex and composed of many competing factions. It is often extremely difficult to determine the casual factors involved in some social phenomenon, and extremely difficult to compel people to change, where any policy aiming to promote change will have a variety of unintended consequences.
Consider how difficult it is to enact economic policies that successfully reduce poverty. Assuming that a country has sufficient productivity, poverty must be in some sense a social construct - in that it will ultimately be a matter of members of that society deciding to act in particular ways. No physical or even biological law prevents the society from redistributing wealth more equally. But this does not make such redistribution easy.
By contrast, there are more "biological" things that are easy to control. It's a biological fact that fluoride enhances tooth remineralization. So to reduce truth decay, just fluoridate the water supply. As long as there is no significant social opposition to that policy, you have a straightforward method for controlling tooth decay.
the data does not show this
Not all women get pregnant and not all chickens have feathers, but you normally associate the ability (and with that a "tightly correlated" proclivity) to become pregnant with a woman, and chickens normally have feathers. If these things are not true in either case, it is not due to anything inherent to womanhood or chickenhood per se, but due to some condition of their detriment or deprivation of what comes normally and properly to them.
Excellent video Kane! You express your philosophy in the most concise and coherent way. I really appreciate you!
❤🙏
70% Socrates. 40% Hegel. 80% Lao-Tse. 35% Aquines. 5% Heraclitus. 60% Kierkegaard. 40% de Beauvoir. Unfortunately I know almost nothing about these philosophers so I don't know what to make of these results haha.
I got 95% de Beauvoir...maybe I should start reading her work 🧐
Same here. Should be worth checking out
You only need to read 5% of her work, right?
Because she is a widely read liberal feminist author. People who made movies, policies etc., which you have consumed, certainly have read her.
@@saimbhat6243Get your facts right. She's not a liberal.
@@s.lazarus Everyone is liberal. Lol What are you 15 year old or you are just an american? Communism is just one form of liberalism. Egalitarianism is liberal.
Incredible, I did it myself before watching your videos and... we've answered total opposites to almost every question, I am exactly the philosophers you are not in the same proportions, and viceversa...
We would make for a big discussion.
43:00 i did the test myself, and this one was really wierd. Which option is fuck the state?
Weird? It's blatantly asking how much of a Hegelian you are.
30:28 "too much" seems like the question is trying really hard to beg itself - too much as opposed to the optimal amount (which is going to be different for different people at different times in their life)?
Some of the questions might seem strange but you can be assured that this test has been made by expert professionals using statistical controls to ensure maximum accuracy of the test scores. Who are we to criticise this?
@@KaneB bwahaha haha ha ha . you're very funny.
Dress codes seem to mark out philosophical stereotypes: for example, highly motivated persons tend to dress-up when it comes to normative societal dress codes; appear to dominate through discourse those persons who tend towards non-extraversion with open mindedness and elements of neuroticism on the famed big five personality test where the other two being conscientious and agreeableness which are arguably not philosophically relevant for dress codes given we mostly all agree to be covered by cloth in public and are conscientious of doing so to details of being prudent not to expose parts that cause public offence. So a street observer of prototypes might spot the philosopher prototype through persons who deviate from normative dress codes. due to extraverts are other focused when it comes to appearance and aim to compete for being most prudent when it comes to exposing garments relative to flesh and closed minded to any deviations from normative styles of fashion along with the kind of emotional confidence within the state of affairs. So the question is why would this mark out the philosophical persona as a universal? Well the philosophical persona seems to correlate to contesting societal normative assumptions which ramp this up to high moderation is contesting everything form science to art/religion and hence those who dress up in tweed sports jackets inhabiting campuses are not included in the model due to their social functional ascriptive adaptations. However for the great uncleaned there is a distinction where the first sign of deviance is through forms of dress code ascription which imply the philosophical persona even in hunter gather groups.
Some of the things you describe match worryingly well to childhood trauma. Social anxiety, low interest in people, highly developed emotional resilience, ambivalence towards positive social recognition. This sounds like someone who did not have a lot of friends at school and who's psyche has adapted to that by becoming a master of suppression.
I think you realize the inherent contradiction between not caring about others recognizing your achievements and caring if others disapprove of you in the moment i.e. being meek, conflict-avoidant, even if there is no physical threat.
I'm just mildly autistic (I was diagnosed with Asperger syndrome when I was a child). I had a wonderful childhood. I didn't have a lot of friends at school but that was because I didn't want friends.
@@KaneB I was diagnosed quite late and I had a similar experience. Obviously it's really rude and presumptuous to tell you about your own feelings, and maybe it's just me projecting, but you could reflect about what real clinical symptoms of autism are, and what are just the effects of childhood social isolation, brought on by delayed social skills.
I didn't want friends because they didn't like me or care about anything I cared about. Socializing was torture and I would always leave early and go home the second I could. The one friend I had was also into computers, and that's the only thing we talked about, and I really enjoyed that. When he left my school I should have been devastated, but I just sunk deeper into my hobbies without noticing how I was changing.
To me it it is obvious that you do want to be recognized by humans, maybe not in the way most people do, but you want to share your special interest in philosophy, otherwise, what are you doing with this youtube channel? why not waste away in an apartment, doing an easier job that pays more? Why not go on disability and philosophize in tranquility, never talking to anyone?
I remember watching a video of yours a pretty long time ago where you talked about how your non-instrumental desires didn't need any justification. That struck me as so odd. As someone who has recovered from a severe addictive disorder I am much more skeptical about desires, assuming they exist, and their correlation with hedonic impact.
@@CjqNslXUcM I don't care either way whether the personality traits you drew attention to are due to mild autism or childhood trauma. The latter doesn't strike me as a plausible explanation in my own case but it wouldn't bother me if it were true, nor do I consider it rude for others to defend that explanation. Re symptoms of autism, as a child I was a textbook case of Asperger's; the fact that such traits are less obvious as an adult is also textbook… though given that "Asperger's syndrome" is no longer part of the textbooks, perhaps this doesn't mean anything to you.
I started the TH-cam channel because I believed that the most effective way to learn a subject was to figure out how to teach it to others. I still believe this. I also feel that philosophy is valuable just in itself so I want to contribute to its continuation. These days, I get a small income from the channel, and I also use it to advertise tutoring services which is my main source of income. I'm much more happy doing this than an easier job that pays more. (This might be a "sour grapes" story I tell myself to feel better; my attempts to find more conventional employment in the past have been total failures. Maybe the real answer here is that I just can't find such a job.) As for the idea of going on disability and philosophising alone, that sounds like heaven to me. Unfortunately, there are practical issues with it. It would probably involve fraud on my part, since I'm not legally disabled; I'm not sure I'd get enough income to survive easily; and it would be difficult to get back into the job market, if the benefits were revoked. But if we stipulate that I receive the disability benefits for the rest of my life and at no personal risk, I would take that over my current life in a heartbeat.
I suspect the spread of notions that one has is telling in some fashion, but I am at this time not exactly sure of what and in what degree or degrees.
75% - de Beauvoir
65% - Heraclitus
50% - Hegal
50% - Lao-Tse
45% - Socrates
30% - Aquinas
30% - Kierkegaard
Dao and Tao a spellings in 2 different systems for transcribing Chinese pronunciations in the Latin alphabet. I'm not completely sure but I would think Dao is the version from the Hanyu Pinyin system in modern mainland China.
and, yes, both are pronounced the same, "dow"
@@silverharloe a fun fact about mandarin chinese is that it doesn't distinguish between voiced and unvoiced plosives, so the difference, as we hear it, between t and d, does not exist. however, there is a distinction between Aspirated and Unaspirated plosives. consider the t in "stop" (unaspirated, at least in my dialect) and the t in "tower" (aspirated). this is the distinction that is marked in the pinyin system as "t" for aspirated and "d" for unaspirated, whereas in the previous system it used " t' " (t plus apostrophe) for aspirated and "t" for unaspirated.
this is the reason for the two spellings.
Gender equality in the West might have actually tipped over towards favoring women in some aspects. Women out preform men in pre-adult school and adult education. Once all the unfair anti-female bias got removed it quickly became apparent that women can handle the system way better. At an early age girls mature faster than boys, and thus girls have more concentration and long term perspective to recognize the importance of school, this pattern continues into adult education.
Yeah, it seems to me that there are some important contexts, especially in Western countries, where women are doing better than men, and where this might be partly due to anti-male attitudes or to systems being set up in such a way that women are favour. This is one reason why I disagreed with the claim that gender equality has been achieved.
I don't know where to stand on this anymore. I want women to have freedom and opportunities but I can't deny the reality that the way feminists have made it happen is by very deliberately overburdening men. They've outsourced the cost, risk, and accountability onto men. And they keep pushing for more. If feminists argued for women to bear the cost, risk, and accountability that men have to bear, and that bore out in society, I'd have no complaints. That would be just and equal.
A lot of the struggle of talking about this issue is folks have this feminism de jure floating around in their heads, and it's completely different than feminism de facto. And the emotions get heated.
I got Heraclitus, I think more for the personality section than anything, with de Beauvoir and Hegel being my least (which sounds right, I don't like either of them - I think Hegel is a D-tier philosopher and only GE Moore ranks lower in my estimation).
1:13:00
Aporia says "zetsubou"
Can you make vid about art you like? I myself a big minimalism fan and guys like morton feldman and john cage are close to my hart. Would be cool to see other things you like. Bet you like philip guston
I think you skipped a very interesting part of the video. Which was talking about the philosophers you got compared to... i was hoping you developed on that.
Also, i think the anti realist conclusions of your thought align ironicly with lao tse's intuitions about the world. I dont understand how you got any hegel thou.
I always get either Kierkegaard or Kant
Those seem incompatible. Maybe the value of living a virtues life is in both of them. What do you think are the similarities between the two?
Maybe you like the letter K?
@@rodrigogomes2064they are both sort of Christians? But that’s about it
@@bds8715 they also valued a life of virtue ig
I unironically wonder what specific philosophers would track with answering affirmatively to question 21. Not the type of thing you would admit to in an academic setting :))
Its not necessarily a bad thing to say if it is the truth. What is important is that your opinion does not get in the way of being able to work with others.
Edit: Besides there are very many other ways to pick apart that question. What does it mean by need? What is I? and whom might the others be?
@@vorpalweapon4814 I mean I take the question to mean "necessity" not as something strong like logical necessity, but as something weak like utility, and "others" as peers rather than laypeople.
Sure, it can be interpreted otherwise, but if that's not what the test makers intended, it has no bearing on how the answer adjusts the final result.
perhaps lao zi would answer affirmatively
Right, though a lot of philosophers historically weren't employed by academic institutions. That probably created more space for arrogant curmudgeons.
@@KaneB I definitely insufficiently account for that, valid.
Interesting. Makes me wonder, what would you take as a convincing evidence for existence of god. I remember that one english scientist, who once said something like : even if our space telescopes see writing in the deeper space which says "God exists", I wouldn't take it as evidence for god, because we can explain it by laws of physics. Or another english biologist, who said he would believe that god created humans, if we find fossils of rabbits in precambrian strata or some other physicist said he would believe god exists, if there is a miracle which defies second law of thermodynamics, or some want aristotelian arguments for first mover or first cause etc.
What kind of atheist are you?
It's difficult to see how physics could provide a satisfying explanation of something like that. Of course, we could say that it's simply a coincidence, and this arrangement of stars is consistent with the laws of physics. I take it though that mere consistency doesn't suffice for an explanation.
I wouldn't take this to be evidence for God because it can easily be explained by alternative hypotheses. Maybe the stars were arranged that way by aliens. Or maybe they were arranged that way by a very powerful being - perhaps not God but a Cartesian evil demon. In principle, no empirical evidence could establish the God hypothesis over these kinds of alternatives.
22:31
48:34
i got like 90 percept Hegel. Which makes sense bcz im reading hegel a lot these days