When you talk about average ages around 3:00, that includes child mortality, which was very high. Most people throughout human history, if they lived to adulthood, lived to at least around 50 or so years old. The hard part was getting to adulthood, mostly due to disease.
I think he was talking about average life expectancy of women; at that time in history it was not that uncommon for pregnancy to risk the life of a mother. I think that is the main reason that number is so low. Many women lived past that age.
Hal he’s talking about both - it’s still inaccurate. I love Wes Cecil’s lectures, but he does make little mini mistakes in details. I think this comes part in parcel with ‘grand thinkers’.... people like Spengler or Gibbons for instance who see the bigger picture
Wes couldn't be more spot on. Ethics, the question that asks, *_"How should I live or what the hell should I do?"_* is paradoxically flawed because its answer can only be given *after* you select a possibility. For example, If you're a child who has never experienced ice cream before and you go to an ice cream parlor with unlimited flavors - which of the possibilities _should you select?_ Barring any influence of others, the only possible answer is that you must sample a taste of several of them before you can arrive at any selection - and even then you'll never know if you made the best possible selection.
Everyone possible in India had a TV even if they had no electricity. Unfortunately they associated Christianity with western soaps thus they thought Christians were immoral. Funny enough i grew up without TV myself or even radio.
I’m a wee bit disappointed with the opening premise which rehashes an old narrative regarding “primitive” society, a Hobbsian generalisation that life was nasty, brutal and short. In contrast because of our freedom (of limited) choice we’re as free as it gets materially and intellectually. Yet modern man can’t provide the basics of life for himself, he is the most passive and dependent upon systems of any generation. His wide ranging and academic knowledge, his literacy? Most men neither know or care to know anything of those few miles surrounding him; what grows and when for starters. What he’s achieved in literacy and a very restrictive numeracy he’s lost tenfold in efficacy. If the systems surrounding him fail, he dies.
Patrick Webb Well stated & I gleefully accept the trade off. The pleasure of intellectual pursuits while outsourcing the generation of sustenance comes at a price I’m willing to pay, particularly if I don’t have to do any farming (did it through my childhood and it sucks).
![สาวเมืองเพชร - ธีเดช ทองอภิชาติ [Official MV]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/kEt7F9PvO3I/mqdefault.jpg)
This is so incredible, what a privilege to be able to listen to these lectures.
And this great series continues.Can't wait to get back home from work and listen. Wes Cecil rules.
This lectures explains so much, like on how politics breaks up societies. The endless dividion.
Yes! It's a new lecture and I'm pumped.
Maybe, one fine day I could meet you Wes. It's incredible you sharing your thoughts with us.
Thank you professor
Hey Wes Cecil! Just wanted to say thanks for making these cool vids... Thanks! I just found your channel, I'm excited to get into it.
When you talk about average ages around 3:00, that includes child mortality, which was very high. Most people throughout human history, if they lived to adulthood, lived to at least around 50 or so years old. The hard part was getting to adulthood, mostly due to disease.
I think he was talking about average life expectancy of women; at that time in history it was not that uncommon for pregnancy to risk the life of a mother. I think that is the main reason that number is so low. Many women lived past that age.
Hal he’s talking about both - it’s still inaccurate. I love Wes Cecil’s lectures, but he does make little mini mistakes in details. I think this comes part in parcel with ‘grand thinkers’.... people like Spengler or Gibbons for instance who see the bigger picture
Wes couldn't be more spot on. Ethics, the question that asks, *_"How should I live or what the hell should I do?"_* is paradoxically flawed because its answer can only be given *after* you select a possibility.
For example, If you're a child who has never experienced ice cream before and you go to an ice cream parlor with unlimited flavors - which of the possibilities _should you select?_
Barring any influence of others, the only possible answer is that you must sample a taste of several of them before you can arrive at any selection - and even then you'll never know if you made the best possible selection.
"Know thy self" - I'd say is a very useful question, and one that continues through your whole life, and keeps giving :)
Philosophy's job is to show all the options because no two humans are exactly the same and no one solution is good for all...
Just fucking great man.
People mostly take the easy route...let's not think...
Have you listened to his "Introduction to thinking" lecture. One of my favourites.
Wes confused the Cynics with the Skeptics...
Did he? I doubt the cynics give a shit.
Everyone possible in India had a TV even if they had no electricity. Unfortunately they associated Christianity with western soaps thus they thought Christians were immoral. Funny enough i grew up without TV myself or even radio.
I’m a wee bit disappointed with the opening premise which rehashes an old narrative regarding “primitive” society, a Hobbsian generalisation that life was nasty, brutal and short. In contrast because of our freedom (of limited) choice we’re as free as it gets materially and intellectually. Yet modern man can’t provide the basics of life for himself, he is the most passive and dependent upon systems of any generation. His wide ranging and academic knowledge, his literacy? Most men neither know or care to know anything of those few miles surrounding him; what grows and when for starters. What he’s achieved in literacy and a very restrictive numeracy he’s lost tenfold in efficacy. If the systems surrounding him fail, he dies.
Patrick Webb Well stated & I gleefully accept the trade off. The pleasure of intellectual pursuits while outsourcing the generation of sustenance comes at a price I’m willing to pay, particularly if I don’t have to do any farming (did it through my childhood and it sucks).
So in the end you’re agreeing with the whole idea behind people changing faiths or religion every few years?
"Life is change" The whole Universe is all about change.
Woooooosh! Derp… Clang.
Become no longer human
Abandon Humanity
I am a sheep, thumbs down.
Not your best talks. Just went through a list of what other people or group-thinks have done in western history. Meh talk.