Hello you beauties. Get a free list of my 100 favourite books - chriswillx.com/books/ Here’s the timestamps: 00:00 Intro 00:18 The Peter Hitchens Incident 08:11 Alex’s Experience Debating Ben Shapiro 17:00 Has Philosophy Revealed Anything Impactful Recently? 29:40 What Everyone Needs to Know About Ethics 38:07 Making Nihilism Great Again 47:38 Why People Hate Talking About Free Will 54:34 The Sexy Paradox 1:07:49 The Fine-Tuned Universe Argument 1:12:36 Was Jesus’ Resurrection Historically Accurate? 1:20:07 Why Philosophers Go Mad 1:26:50 Is Society Experiencing Mass Cope? 1:38:00 What’s Next for Alex?
Big fan of Alex. First saw him in a number of debates with Capturing Christianity. Myself a Christian and him being Atheist/Agnostic, I see him as a great ally for genuine discourse.
Hes not genuine though. He derives his arguments from other failed debaters whose arguments fall under the "God is a big meanie" category. Anyone with honest intent would never use these fallacy arguments.
I'm probably the one-billionth person to say this on the internet, but we need more conversations like this. One fundamental issue, it seems, is that people just don't know what they don't know. This was fantastic, Chris. Alex is an intellectual treasure. Thanks for sharing!
Before the interview with Alex, Peter Hitchens had just spent a week in prison as an inmate as part of a documentary. During that stretch he had heated arguments about the drug issue with prisoners. Having spent a bit of time behind bars I can tel that the first few days are a fucking nightmare. He probably didn't know it himself but wasn't in the mental state to be having a debate. Especially on that topic.
@@plebiain I think so. Peter Hitchens is a classic stiff upper lip Englishman. To see him fly off the handle like that would suggest to me that he was still in a type of fight or flight mindset. The prisoners that they had him in with were the most aggressive against him out of everyone and was basically doing the "come and have a go if you think you are hard enough" stance with Alex. I hate seeing people in that position because it reminds me how nervous I was after being inside.
I’m 75 years old . My dad died when I was 5.Been the weird kid …and adult ,that wanted to talk about death..but no one else does…. til now in your generation.Finally…my people have showed up!
Chris had a quote the other day. “Loneliness is the tax we pay as deep thinkers”, I think it’s rather poignant and accurate. I was born in ‘80 and you are very much my parents generation(boomers), but I always felt that way about my generation too. It’s sometimes hard to find people to have interesting conversations with, most people don’t see it as a useful past time unfortunately
My dad died back in 2011. It taught me a few things. First, I am not my father. Second, we will all come to terms with our secrets, all will be laid bare. Third, hell is real, and of our own making.
Yeah, I went back to his first phrase four times trying to understand how it's equivalent to it's explanation. Hearing these two talk was like poetry to my ears, also because of the content but mainly because of their precision in word choice. Love to see it!
God, can you guys do this like, twice a month. I love hearing rational people deliberate and learn from one another. I feel like this is the conversation I’m always craving and never hearing, much less having.
You should probably try to find some more intelligent people to listen to. There is a world full of geniuses, these guys aren’t the world’s greatest minds.
@@MyThoughtsImJustSaying I don’t know Chris that well, but personally I’ve not come by many more philosophically and argumentatively adept than Alex. I listen to Sam Harris, but I tend to align more closely with Alex (though that’s possibly explained by the fact that Sam has simply voiced more opinions on a broader range of topics). These two are also nearer my age than most discussing similar topics and so I just more easily identify with them. I do like Tim Maudlin and Dawkins and for physics I go for Roger Penrose, Brian Greene, and Sean Carrol pretty much in that order. Who do you think I should be listening to?
@@Williamwilliam1531 you seem to be stuck on famous TH-cam atheistic philosophers. I think you would benefit from reading books from genius people that are dead. History is the greatest teacher. You should read religious texts, because western society was built on Christianity regardless if you believe in God or not. Plato, Aristotle, Socrates, Hermes, Pythagoras, Carl Jung, Sigmund Freud, Albert Pike, Manly P Hall, Albert Mackey, Rudolf Steiner. These are some people that are taught and studied in colleges + universities in the western world. Alex wouldn’t know shit if he didn’t read. He constantly has flaws in his thinking.
@@gips_123 okay 😂 sure lol. I’m zealous for good reasoning where religious people are zealous for bad reasoning. I’m not really sure that zealously is the main problem with religion - it’s probably the poor reasoning lol. And in any case, you have an amazingly low bar for zealously.
This was an absolutely brilliant interview! Your chemistry with Mr. O’Conner is outstanding and the conversation was very engaging. Great work both of you! 🎉
Loved that “be more… accessible” question/follow up. 40:28 Alex’s answers the question succinctly. Knowing he will need to explain. And you give him just that opportunity. Haha
I think it's very poignant how Alex describes "playing" with philosophical ideas in the context of entertaining them without becoming convinced by them. I play a lot of tabletop roleplaying games, and something which I have always done is consider the philosophy of every character I play or depict in the way they would see it, steelmanning it to be an honest version of how that character may see the world, even if it is very different from my worldview. So in my case these sorts of philosophical speculations are often very literally part of playing a game.
It's one of the most important skills a person can have. It unlocks a different tier of thinking. That's the reason I can and do enjoy fringe theories. The whackiest one I've heard so far is that all trees were actually the bushes of a previous epoch, and that real trees used to be thousands of feet tall. That's also why I don't hate people who disagree with me. I can almost always put myself in their shoes and understand how they came to their conclusions.
O’connor is also one of my favorite people to watch debate. He has good arguments, he articulates them very well, but he’s also very respectful and actually listens to the other side. When i was younger, i used to enjoy ben’s style of debate. But as i get older, i realized that style doesn’t actually accomplish anything. It’s loud and fast, and that can be really entertaining, but it doesn’t actually help. The more relaxed and engaged debate is the constructive type of debate, where both sides actually think and learn, and don’t just try to be faster and louder than the other one.
I've been following Alex for a while but hadn't seen Chris before. This was a fun interview; I enjoy the way Chris "humanizes" Alex by way of friendly banter.
I started following both these guys during the pandemic a few years ago.....to see them come together like this in a crossover is like watching your fave avengers battle thanos.
Great episode. As a math nerd I have to comment on the dice rolling game paradox. It is actually more of a math trick than a paradox. Typically you would need 6 throws to get a 6 (could be more or less, but over an infinite amount of throws you should get 1/6 of sixes). Now, what Alex is not taking into account, is the amount of “players” that didn’t get to play. If the game ends in round 5, you have 15 people that lived, 16 people than died, and 32 people who didn’t get to play and statistically speaking wouldn’t get a six. It’s easier to understand if you think this person kidnapped all the 63 players at once, but takes them to another room in rounds. The people who didn’t get to play are still alive. Play the game and infinite number of times and you will indeed get to 1/6
I think you nailed it. Each roll of the die is an independent event but there is a geometric distribution so you can get an idea of on average how many rolls it would take to get a certain outcome. If there are, on average, 6 rolls to get a 6 as you mentioned, if all you knew was that you were in the game, you would have a 1/6 or 16.7% chance of being in the final group or an 83% chance of being in any other group. It is irrelevant how many people are in the final group to your individual odds. It's even more clear in the original paradox where it is snake eyes, 1/36 chance. If it took, on average 36 rolls to get a snake eyes, you have a 1/36 or 2.8% of being in the final group. Don't push the button!
One of the best podcasts I've seen in some time. Alex serves as an ambassador of accessible philosophy for the masses (that includes me, a layman) and has refreshingly personalised takes that mean he isn't living in the shadow of new atheism. He's already my favourite person on the podcast and debate circuit, and I can't wait to see how his thinking develops in future. Re free will, for me the proof that you would always have made one specific choice is the fact that you did make that choice. You have to ask the question, "why did you make that choice?" and there is always a reason. Even if you flipped a coin to decide, you still chose to flip the coin and then act according to it rather than ignore it. The argument against no free will is essentially proposing total randomness where no decision is informed by anything. It seems paradoxical but no free will is actually the empowering world view. There are reasons you make the decisions you do, it isn't just random chaos. Re group hallucinations, trips induced by ergot wine seems perfectly legitimate to me, if one person thinks they hallucinate Jesus and then tells others and influences their trip. I think it's a very plausible explanation.
"The argument against free will is essentially proposing total randomness where no decision is informed by anything." That's not accurate at all, my dude. One of the more prominent arguments is rooted in determinism where all physical events are predetermined by preceding causes. Randomness is in contrast to that. The argument against free will points out that *either* it being random, or being determined, is incompatible with libertarian free will since it being random or determined implies elements outside ones conscious control.
"you make the decisions you do." Is the opposite of no freewill. You make no decisions is no freewill. How can no freewill be empowering? Empowered is a term denoting freewill. Empowered denotes extra freedom gifted by an internal or external force. Decision denotes freewill. Any description of a conscious agent presupposes freewill.
@@LinardsZ Consciousness doesn't require libertarian freewill. I am conscious, but I don't have undetermined choices. Everything I do belongs to a chianti of material cause and effect following the laws of nature.
The fine tuning section is interesting because Alex says that the arguments don't move him, and then gives a better summary of the strengths of the fine tuning arguments than most advocates of the idea can offer.
The idea has its strengths, but it has an overwhelming weakness: if relies on constants not being constants. You can say that if constant x was different, then we shouldn't be here, and that's probably true. But, it is even possible for constant x to have another value? We just don't know regarding those constants, but they could be like Pi, that can have only its actual value in any possible universe: we know that because we know where pi comes from, but we don't know where those other constants come from. The only thing we know for sure is that, when we measure those constants, the value is always the same. There are two more counterarguments: one, if universes can form with different sets of constants (that's an underlying assumption of the argument for fine tuning), then they probably do, so it's possible there is more than the one we can observe. Then, we can apply the anthropic principle again, with life asking about itself only appearing in the universes where that is possible, like we do with planets and ecosystems. two, we know out actual set of constants allows life to form in our universe (even if only in a incredible small portion of it), and we know that altering one constant, that specific life wouldn't exist. But we are taking this kind of life as the only possible kind of life, but probably we shouldn't do that. Life requires replicators, and a replicator is any structure that can replicate itself. It doesn't need, in principle, to be organic, or even be made of atoms. In another universe with another constants and different physics, it's pretty impossible to predict what structures of this kind could be possible. We can't even predict that this universe allowed our kind of life to exist. We only know that because we can observe we exist, but just looking at our physics, we can't deduce life was going to appear eventually.
@@juanausensi499 i don't find any of the points you raised compelling. I think you're definitely right that it could be the case that the laws/constants of nature can't vary and that's why the world is like it is. But I've heard this view describes by physicists as essentially mysticism because it proscribes such an exact and bizarre "purpose" or teleology to the universe. I think there's nothing logically inconsistent about this teleology but it's a lot closer to something like theism than some cosmologically darwinian universe/cosmos. There's BIG issues with the multiverse idea. I understand you were just putting out the idea of a multiverse as a counterpoint but I don't think it's a good idea at all. The final point, that yeah if the constants were tuned slightly our life wouldn't exist but maybe some other life would- I've always found this sort of argument incredibly weak. First off I think it's technically true that I think there's plenty of life like systems that could exist out there that are very different from ours. I think that's a valid point. But the point about the constants changing isn't, if the values were slightly different there would be another universe possibly capable of generating emergent structure. The argument is, if nearly any of the parameters were different, literally nothing vaguely interesting would have happened in the universe. Like there usually wouldn't even be atoms. Basically I favor your first point, that it's very possible that the universe can't be any way other than the way it is. But that feels SO close to theism. Like it's a very different view of the universe than is currently accepted.
@@mymyscellany I don't think constants just being constant is closer to theism. On the contrary: This scenario means it is impossible for this constants to be different, so no supernatural conscious being had the chance to choose the 'right' values at any time. So, that scenario doesn't require that kind of being, even in absence of a explanation for the values of the constants. The issue with the multiverse idea is that, unless universes interact, that idea is forever outside the realm of science, in the sense that it can't be tested. But the argument of fine tuning is also outside the realm of science, because we don't know if our constants could have been different, and, without interaction with universes with other values, even if we make theories in the future to explain those, we aren't going to be able to test those theories either (assuming 'variable constants', if constants are really constant, maybe we can find the explanation for their values by looking only in our universe). The argument of fine tuning is a philosophical idea, not a scientific idea (it can't be tested). It's a philosophical idead that takes information about our current knowledge of the world, but every other philosophical argument does exactly the same. So, this rebuttal is on the same level that the argument itself: constants not being constant is speculation, and multiverses are speculation too. Even better: the idea of multiverses arise naturally if you assume constants not being constant, because that assumes a process that makes the constants adquire a definite value from a set of possible values. So, if this process exists, then that process is part of reality, and can happen more than one time. Atoms exist in our universe, and life as we know requires those atoms and the chemistry that arises from their structure. If other universes with another values of the constants exist, probably lots of them don't have atoms. But that doesn't mean those universes don't have anything at all. Whatever they are made of, wathever their laws of physics are, it is possible for them to have some kind of patterns or structures, and then, it's conceivable that some of those patterns or structures could be replicators. Even if it's extremely unlikely: Life in this universe it's also extremely unlikely, with replicators only existing in one planet, that we know of.
Yea he’s was great with that, but I think he glazed right over the part where he briefly alludes to why he clearly finds it compelling, but that it doesn’t move him in his atheism. And it may be because it’s so self-evident to him. But I see it lost on many atheists and theists alike when they’re debating the argument, including in this comment section, and it’s very frustrating. The point he alluded to is that fine tuning, even if a perfectly valid argument, doesn’t get you to theism. At best, it gets you to a sort of vague deism. Discussing the truth claims of any individual religion is a completely different conversation that fine tuning doesn’t help inform at all.
@@keithmackenzie7680 Soft deism is almost indistinguishable from atheism. It's possible to argue that fine tuning points to a inteligent creator (i can argue against that, but that's not the purpose of this answer). But that, in itself, doesn't change much, if that entity doesn't seem to interact with us in any other way. This 'laissez-faire' entity is very different from any god theist religions propose, so, because you can reject all those specific gods, you can call yourself an atheist. The only difference is the name we use to identify that first cause: if you call it a 'god', then you are a deist.
I was living in Denver, in 1991/1992, when hundreds of people claimed to have had a Marian appirition at the Mother Cabrini shrine in the foothills outside of Denver. There were pilgrims from all over the country, some claiming to have seen Mary and other thinking they had seen Mary, while others knew someone who had seen Mary I have witnessed a mass hallucination. I have also witnessed people willing to die for an unfalsifiable concept. So, the argument from the resurrection and the "willing to die for... " argument have always seemed very weak to me.
I am from India where people are very religious. A huge percentage of people there claim to be literal gods and have a following in 100s of million. 100s of million people believe a guy is living god and are ready to die for him only to later be put in prison because they were rapists. Mass hallucination is not only real but very common across the world and diff time periods
Getting my head out of scientific literature to listen to some of these discussions is relaxing for me. I appreciate the intentional discussions and MOST appreciate a channel where the host attempts to clarify Scientific Fact, Social truths, Opinions etc and then buried 20ft below the totem pole of evidence is "bro-science" which is magnitudes better than "Influencer Opinions" / "Celebrity Opinion".
I never viewed a podcast fully, but you guys made me sit and watch this fully, You guys are really amazing and best role models for how to have a mature and healthy conversations 🎉❤, kudos to chris and alex ❤😚
I could listen to a lot more podcast with these two in Alex O’Connor the man of the moment it’s so good to listen to all debates and podcasts. Chris Williamson is complementary to most guests in terms of the conversational content.
DUDE. Chris just hit the nail on the head when he said this guy is gonna be a superstar. I have never seen him before and I was thinking the same damn thing. This is going to be so much fun to follow.
@garinbaker_ not really. He has done so many videos where he forms his own thoughts, ie his rebuttals to Jordan Peterson's philosophy. In fact Peterson does what you claim Alex does as far as I can tell.
A superb discussion with Alex. I wholeheartedly subscribe to his position on almost everything, including free will. I wish more humans were more receptive to these types of discussions in the real world.
I think many people are scared of philosophical conversations that could shake their existential beliefs, because those beliefs consist of stories (based on faith not logic) they tell themselves for psychological comfort. I just see these types of people as cowardly and I think the reason they get so defensive if you challenge their idea of free will for example is because they know there is truth to what you’re saying but that truth is literally threatening to them. I understand why people shield philosophical thinking and opposing worldviews from their lives but I believe they are more ignorant of life and humanity as a result and therefore have less empathetic scope which is problematic for society. I don’t think philosophy should be discussed all the time but everyone should have a basic understanding and it should be encouraged during serious conversations. Perhaps it should be mandatory in schools 🤷🏻♂️
First I stumble across Stephen Woodford making WoW references in his video today, and then I get this wonderful conversation from Alex with someone who has at least a toe dipped into the fitness side of things, which I would have never expected. Today is hitting all of my hobby checkmarks.
The point about “Judeo-Christian” values is interesting. A lot of what Christians take credit for was actually achieved by CHALLENGING their beliefs, not applying them. Things like the scientific method and democracy have roots that go way further back than Christianity, to places like Ancient Greece for example. These ideas are not new and they’re not linked to Christianity. They just happened to really take off in societies where Christianity was the dominant religion.
It’s funny that Socrates (actually Aristotle) quote was mentioned cos that’s what Alex’s disposition always made me think of… The quote being closer to “the mark of an intelligent man is to hold two opposing opinions in their mind at one time and choose neither” or “the ability to entertain a thought without accepting it”
I’m a Christian who has struggled with a lot of questions for many years. I even used to consider myself an atheist. Eventually I’ve reached the conclusion that I actually do believe it despite my confusion about certain aspects of it because I am open to the possibility that I will never be able to comprehend the truth about some of my doubts. I am also aware that I could be wrong, but on a personal level that is irrelevant to me.
@@knowledgeispower200 Thats great. I wish you all the best. My point, which seems germane to the topic, is that what you believe is not important, at least not to rest of us, its how you treat other people. By all means, find what meaning you can, but as long as you don't insist others find meaning the same way, then you are as good as an atheist.
@@ericb9804 I get your statement and I agree with it, but the topic of finding meaning has lost its way a lot in this discourse. I can’t help but consider that a large portion of our pursuit of knowledge or truth, whatever this venture is. Has the intention to encounter what is meaningful enough for today and stable enough for tomorrow. Finding it, and discussing it should be a larger area than “cool good luck cya later”
@@Kryptic712 Ok. But now you are behaving like a "good" theist - insisting that someone else's "meaning" is not good enough, and that you can just dismiss it with a slogan. But instead, if you choose, you could offer your pursuit of "meaning" that you find valuable, without insisting that alternatives are inferior.
@@ericb9804 if i avoid insisting on others sharing my belief; will i be allowed to avoid paying financially for the extreme results of the crumbling of civilization as we surge forward in a post christian dystopia. This is obviously rhetorical as the answere will be no. You want me to opt out on shatong my belief but remain in on paying for others to abort their babies or pay for rehab
@@mealovesyu The person who practices what he preaches acknowledges that for you to truly practice it comes with great sacrifice of ones own personal will, therefore "seldom" preaches it due to the nature of the masses who cant comprehend nor wants to truly give up their own will. The one who preaches but does not practice is the wolf in sheeps clothing, the lip service only believer and their will is firmly theirs not giving up what they desire. This enables him to delude himself and preaches the perfect what if scenario when he/she does not become a doer of their own words. This is the side by side; the Wheat and the chaff; the sheep's and the goats.
Nothing special about the Christian mythologizing/bibliolatry though. Not sure why Alex believes or appeals to that. Two wrong stories don’t make a right story “at core”, and witches and pagans did not always recant their previous preachings or experiences when Christian kings/generals tortured them, plus Christians even preachers sometimes recanted theirs. It does not make sense to say that because the preaching and crucifiction biblolatry ultimately kept 4 different versions, just like Noah’s flood story has 4 different versions, that it therefore makes it more true than Islam that burned the Iraqi version of the Quran to keep only the Caliphate’s version that they deemed “more authentic, more correctly translated.”
37:20 where Alex talks about needing more nihilist health influencers really struck with me. I think a great place for that are the Barbell medicine podcasts where the doctors there really having been trying to put some nail in the coffin for alot of attempts at hyper optmising diet, exercise movements (think injury risk reduction) and so on. The nihistic aspect there is to say that most of the fad stuff is really low return on effort and most of the battle is already won if you are generally exercising regularly (over many years) and are a healthy bodyweight + eat a generally balanced diet.
Damn Alex landed a stellar point in saying (indirectly) that religion often takes the fun out of philosophy by trying to make it too real, too serious, too substantive.
The Problem with Expressivism is that moral statements neatly fit into loads of contexts in which propositions fit. We can think things like "I wonder if murder is wrong?" and it's a question that sounds coherent. We can understand what it means. If moral statements aren't truth apt, then we'd actually be thinking something like "I wonder if boo murder?" which is unintelligible. Another example, we can use moral statements in propositional logic. We can use conditionals like "If murder is wrong, it's wrong to murder Dave", and again, it makes sense. However, conditionals ("if" statements) only make sense when using propositions. "If boo murder, boo murdering Dave" is incoherent. Expressivism just doesn't seem like a correct account of language. It definitely seems more like we're attributing the property of wrongness onto murder rather than expressing an emotional reaction.
@toppedtop5787 No. Even assuming emotivism, the question "i wonder *why* I feel negative emocions about murder" is not analogoes to "i wonder whether murder is wrong".
@toppedtop5787"I feel negative about murder" corresponds with "Murder is wrong." Therefore "I wonder why I feel negative about murder" corresponds to "I wonder why murder is wrong", NOT "I wonder whether murder is wrong."
@@authenticallysuperficial9874 So say, "I wonder whether I feel negatively about murder". Well, I hope you can answer that. But really, it's about whether the person being murdered feels negatively about murder. Or rather, about dying, as murder is already pre-charged with negativity. And then fire those mirror neurons.
@toppedtop5787 No there's a subtle difference here. Emotivism does not say that "Murder is wrong" means "I have a negative attitude towards murder" because the latter is a proposition. "I have a negative attitude towards murder" can be either true or false. Emotivism says that moral statements aren't truth apt, so "I wonder if murder is wrong" is literally "I wonder if boo murder?", and would be non sensical. I'm assuming you, like me, can't make sense of "I wonder if boo murder"
But than emotion is predicated on how you think about yourself and others - which can either be ethical or unethical Consider ones birth i would like to think we are conscious enough to frame around an beings existence something healthy, positive and good so they have a proper map to interpret both themselves and the world around them. I know people who still struggle with feeling their left hand from their right hand.......
@@dallynstevens7855 Indeed. I think it is wiser to see an emotion as a product, not a source. Emotion is a reaction to an action or situation, that goes according or contrary to your prior ethical standards. You can withhold emotions, but it doesn't negate the ethical position you hold towards an external stimuli. So in that sense, the ethical standard any given person holds is a result of long sequences of situations he have lived through with good and bad outcomes and explicit/implicit lessons derived from them. The only thing that can be seen as objective here is statistics - which actions and situations lead to which outcomes more of the time. It still comes down to brute facts, and not to some artificial absolutes, that supposedly underlines human's behavior.
@@EugeneParallax agreed for the most part, however i don't think it fundamentally works to hang ethics on stats, to hang it on stats only works through the predetermination model. If you think outside the deterministic model would mean you are holding your actions against something outside of time and space.
Discussion about free will is a discussion about perceived suffering, believing that you get to decide at the games you play changes the way you experience those games. It both allows you to experience less perceived suffering in the moment as it's a choice and it allows you to not feel guilty about winning because the other people lost on purpose.
It's exciting to see Alex collaborating with various influential thinkers and content creators! I'm delighted to witness how far he's come in recent years.
1:31:30 Alex wonders what can he do if he can't bring himself to have faith; please carry on being a good-faith adversary. That is so valuable to do and you are a master at it.
Quite possibly, but in a society that prioritises and requires increasing financial gain and monetisation, it was inevitable. The foundations that once stabilised and regulated people have been replaced with artificial aberrations. The truth is our best bet at an improved and prosperous future for all. Much love, Chris x
Interesting point. To be fair, most societies prioritize social advancement of some form, so it was inevitable that we had industrial revolution and modernization. At the same time, these principles inevitably leads to large, well-connected societies where terms like "equality" and "regulations" becomes prevalent and is enforced on every person without their direct interaction to it. This is in contrast to small societies that we used to have before the industrial revolution, where each of these small societies has their own set of rules (sometimes unwritten) unconsciously constructed from the direct interaction between the constituent members. I honestly really believe that the people today are "less diverse" in the sense that people are forced to follow a unified rule, while people before had more diverse character because they directly interacted with each other to find individual compatible solution. I find this to be the reason people "forget" the ethical/moral foundation, because any "unified" rules tend to be based on certain economically ideological premise. Take for example, women. Women are generally more agreeable than men, and the way women socialize and sort themselves are in contrast to how men do it. They do not like competition, they do not like fighting, they do not like outliers from their moral compass. This is actually incompatible with modern society because these societies prioritize competition, individualism, and setting unified rules for economic growth. Women being dragged into the world of competition made us lose our moral compass. We actually needed that feminine morality and I believe it got lost. I really think that modern world does not appreciate female contribution to the society even when they're not directly involved to the decision making process. I'm sure this comment will get flamed by the feminists.
Some people can’t bare to think about us not having free will because someone once hurt them very badly and they’re incredibly angry at that person. The thought that that person didn’t have free will isn’t something they want to accept.
I don’t believe so. People think that free will exists because, a lot of the times, it really feels like we’re autonomous. If I told myself, “i’m going to lift my arm in five seconds”, and then I lift my arm after waiting 5 seconds, it tends to feel as though I’m in control of something.
Do less harm is an ideal standard for modern morality. Individual greed prioritised over the wellbeing and happiness of others is the number one symptom of this sick society.
Well put, and agreed. As beneficial as the free market can be, it certainly has its fair share of downsides. Boeing is a great demonstration of both the good and then the bad.
When it comes to death, I have said for years that people have a tough time comprehending what exactly death is. For example, there is the notion of "saying goodbye" to a loved one on their death bed moments before they pass away. There is no time that is more pointless to say goodbye to the person then when that person is moments from death.
@@davidpowell3469 Yes, that's what I am saying. It's for the living who think the dying are taking the sentiments of the goodbye with them on some kind of after-death journey.
its probably to comfort both parties. saying goodbye probably comforts the dying more than saying "i will soon cease to exist i hope you have a good time in my absence" which is the only alternative i see lol@@threeofive9401
47:30 - I have LITERALLY LAST NIGHT watched that Stanford lecture by Sapolsky that was in my Watch Later playlist FOR YEARS, that I have been putting off from watching because I just never got around to it. Now I randomly clicked on this video and hear his name. WTF are these Matrix glitches...
The conversation around death denialism was fun but it’s deeper than the depths you guys reach. Universally I’d say most of our species has feared death despite our long march of progress. The fear of death still has a reason behind it which is fear of having our life’s work be pointless and beyond that fear of the unknown. The main thing we love about life is our convictions and beliefs which we hold quite dearly even in a era where less people would admit it. We look to be part of something greater through our convictions such as religion, law, etc something that last beyond death that gives us some validation we lived our lives for a reason. Why we fear death is beyond fear of the unknown it’s the fear of the answer of whether we were correct or not and whether we made any impact.
Could you do a lil tldr of his major point there or describe what you mean people like this. Not a alex stan or anything but he seems to make alot of sense to me 🤷
@@Valdrex I don't think you should be so easy to discount what someone else says when you dont know theyre position, certainly not enough to tell me it doesn't matter when I was just curious what this guy's justification was and what he means when he refers to Alex as "people like this".
I truly don’t understand how whatever energy that created existence wouldn’t be called god. And why dors there have to be a religious element to the concept of god. There will never be a scientific experiement to prove what energy created all of this. Whatever that is is god and there’s no argument in the world that can disprove that there is an ultimate energy that’s good, bad and everything in between.
About the Anthropic dice killer paradox there is a conversation on reddit risen after the podcast. And basically some people to which I agree says is a misconception of conditional probability not a paradox
@matth254 I think his arguments about Galileo etc. are silly and historically innacurate, even though some of the people who he's using it against are silly themselves. The Catholic Church at the time of Galileo was far more of a political organization than a religious one. The pope was closer to an Emperor than a religious teacher. It's only a valid criticism of Catholicism, not Christianity. It kind of feels like pointing to King Henry XIII as an example of Christianities failings because he was the head of the Church of England, or similarly looking at King Charles today. Nothing in the Bible says how the solar system is layed out, and Galileo was not persecuted for espousing this belief. The Church was acting in a political manner, and part of this was trying to stop misinformation. Galileo submitted his works to the Church for approval, and they allowed them to be published and had no problem with it. Where he ran afoul was in his later works he presented heliocentrism as fact rather than a theory, while the scientific concensus at the time was that geocentrism was more likely. This caused him some problems, but the bigger issue is that he had started to interpet heliocentrism in contrast with theology. The Catholic church had declared only theologians could disseminate their interpretation of biblical texts, and a mathematician who was not an expert in the field disseminating his views was in violation of the Council of Trent. The Pope had no problem with heliocentric theories, and Copernicus had presented heliocentric theories and models privately to the pope a full century prior. I also think that there is an important distiction between slavery in the old and new testament, mainly that in the New testament, the distinction between Jew and Gentile was erased and that Christianity was widely accepting of all converts. You can easily argue than Christianity only allows indentured servitude to pay off a debt, and that it was relevant to the abolitionism movement in the US as chattel slavery of those who were brothers in Christ was unacceptable the same as it was unacceptable towards other Jews in the old testament. I'm not 100% sure about this 2nd argument on slavery and haven't heard much input on it from other people, so I can't really speak too strongly on it. I am a fan of Alex though and I think he's particularly good at interviewing people. I don't disagree with him so much as I disagree with some of his conclusions e.g. veganism.
As much as I think that Alex is a great mind and incredibly well educated, he still has to learn to admit when he knows not enough about science and maths to really meaningfully comment on it. There was this one point in the conversation where Chris called him out for "just using space words", and there were other points in the conversation like this. Eg when he talked about the foundations of maths (non-Euclidean geometry) this was barely comprehensible. Of course, in the long term I would love to see Alex read up on this stuff instead of being silent about it. But I also know that there is only so much time in ones life. When I read math/physics, Alex read theology/philosophy, and one cannot read everything. This is why it is so important to know ones own limits for commenting on stuff.
Concerning the point about art and religion that was posed to Alex: I was actually recently reminded of this phenomenon while reading On Fairy Stories (by J.R.R. Tolkien) which was one of his numerous essays, but it’s actually one of his most philosophical ones. In particular, the concluding pages are in essence a grand stance for the link between the act of creation and being, not just religious, but Christian in particular. And that being able to enter into a sub-creation is akin to having the ability to believe in and trust in the existence of God. For me, it was a bit heavy-handed as the, “So, about GOD” kinda just comes out of nowhere and forms the entire epilogue. And no, I don’t agree with the notion that the ability to suspend disbelief is mutually exclusive with being Christian. But religious people do inherently seem to have a greater association with creation as being something divine.
Hitchens didn't "throw the pillow at the microphone". He picked it up and set it down. It looked like he may have thought about it, but he didn't throw the pillow at anything or anyone.
I'm assuming (always dangerous) the "to be announced" interview/debate/discussion they believe will act as a springboard to mass recognition for Alex would be with Jordan Peterson.
I hope not. I find Alex to be insufferable and dishonest. Also, if it's JBP it's two years too late for that to matter. JBP is slowly fading into boomer irrelevance. I only hope he stops pussyfooting around and just accepts Christianity.
It's true the way adults approach younger people with the attitude that they feel they know more or feel a specific way about someone and rather than attempt to prove themselves wrong and just try and converse, they attempt to prove themselves right and do so much harder and just make themselves look unrelatable and stark, like an unreasonable father without compromise. As a father who dealt with one as described, I have found a much better person in myself by always going against a visual first impression, or, 10 second audio, ending it with an infinite judgemental description and argument as if its valid. Once a first impression is negative based on a bias its best to argue with yourself and join in as an open book.
1:15:28 "The gospel of Mark ... contains no post-resurrection appearances". The gospel of Mark contains post-resurrection appearances to Mary Magdalene, then two disciples walking into the country, then he appeared to the eleven as they sat at table. Alex is a smart guy, I wonder why he got this wrong?
I can't believe this isn't a top reply. I would love to hear what the explanation for this lie is. Mark literally ends with Christ initiating the Great Commission to the Apostles....Post Resurrection.
@@naiginod Some of the earliest manuscripts of Mark do not include 16:9-20. Due to this many scholars believe that 16:9-20 was a later addition to the gospel and Mark himself was not involved in it. Thus Alex is probably referring to Mark with having understood this.
I don’t understand why one would craft their whole identity into one of nihilism. He wants more nihilistic gym instructors. There are many of those, the body positivity movement is literally just that, overweight peoole telling themselves they’re healthy and able to eat what they want. He gave the scenario, “If someone walks into a gym, white bread or wheat, ask them how much value they place on life” That’s stupid because the fact that someone is asking that question means they do place some sort of value on their life, hence it’s no longer philosophy but realism, which means, “I have placed value on my ‘death denying instincts’ and I want to do something practical about it”. People like this are rarely trying to do good in society, they just attempt to find intellectual ways to tell everyone life is meaningless without providing any real solutions to the supposed “Lack of meaning”.
Also, it seems like everything for him is just a denial of death, why can’t you also decide to frame it as pursuit of meaning? You can’t because you’re a nihilist. But even if I agreed with that axiom-which I don’t- what’s wrong with that? Our time on earth is limited so people attempt to do the best they can before their time is up. He phrases it like death isn’t inevitable, we know death is inevitable so again, it’s practicality, not just a mere denial of death. “If you write a book, you do so because it’s going to outlive you”. What if you were also writing the book to provide something useful to others? And even if you didn’t look at it that way, again what’s wrong with leaving your mark on the earth. For someone that engages in Philosophy, he has such simple answers, “It’s just a denial of death”
Been watching Alex since he started his You Tube as a teenager. He was clearly showing he was very talented and had a future in speaking and thinking critically back then and has only hyperdrived his skill since Univesity and progressed his value to the 'podcast circuit'. I await his first best seller *which is inevitiable and encourage.
First, great talk…! After that, this discussion, reminds me of two different scenarios… 1) When I was your age(s), I would’ve considered myself agnostic. I never went far enough to say atheist, but I always firmly believe that you could never really know if God existed or not. At some point in my life, things got so bad that I cried out to God to just show me if he was real. It took a couple of years, and then a chain of events ensued that left me with no doubts… God exists! - This journey has gone on for nearly 20 years now, and my faith gets stronger every day, not weaker. 2) Second, is the journey of a man demonstrated by King Solomon; aside from Jesus Christ, the wisest man who ever lived. Solomon wrote three books of the Bible; the first was Song of Songs, it was all about the love of a woman. The second, when he had matured into a man (maybe as you two are now) was the book of proverbs, where Solomon seemed obsessed with wisdom. And 3) Finally he wrote the book of Ecclesiastes, where he says everything is meaningless here, and a chasing after the wind… Perhaps a man’s life is divided into segments that he can’t escape. As a little kid you throw tantrums and feel justified in doing so, but later, as a teenager, you feel like you’re no longer a kid, so you become defiant. This seems reasonable as a teenager, but a man in his 30s realizes how ridiculous teenagers are, and develops different strategies to deal with life. The middle aged man, is a master of industry, and realizes the foolishness of young men… And the old man, finally at the end of his journey, realizes the futility of all of it and realizes that this world is not his home at all. Can these stages be escaped?
I think one of the problems with the free will argument is what it does, not just to you, but to everyone around you. Everyone you ever knew only did the one thing that was available to them to do. There is no improving our situation or making it worse. It just is what it is, and will be what it will be. On what basis do we insult or praise people for what they do? Why are we looking at the interview with Peter Hitchens and suggesting he acted rudely or giving condolences to Mr. O'Connor? For existing, for being born into a situation that set them on this inevitable path? They had nothing to do with it. There was no choice in the matter. There was even a deal made about the 17 minutes that Hitchens stood there and acted a fool while O'Connor took it. As if anything else could have occurred. That just falls flat with so many people.
Choice still exists, it’s just that what guides you to make choices is beyond your control. There is still a responsibility to do good it just changes how we handle people who do bad.
@@henrytep8884 Good question, a will is a desire, free will is the option to pursue that desire, there are several synonyms for desire that work there. The argument for if we have free will or not defines a more complicated conception of free will though.
@@beartankoperator7950 I had to ask myself the question. "Free will" and "will" are terms often used in philosophy, psychology, and general discourse, but they have distinct meanings: 1. Free Will: This concept primarily deals with the ability to choose, make decisions, and act independently of any constraints or determinism. It's a foundational concept in ethics, philosophy, and law. The debate around free will centers on whether individuals are truly free to make their own choices, or if their decisions are predetermined by factors like biology, environment, or a divine being. 2. Will: In a broader sense, "will" refers to the mental faculty by which a person decides or maintains a course of action despite any challenges, distractions, or obstacles. It often involves determination and persistence. In psychology, it's related to concepts like willpower and motivation. It's less about the freedom to choose and more about the capacity to persist in one's choices or desires. In summary, while "free will" is about the freedom and independence in making choices, "will" is more about the strength and determination to follow through on decisions or desires.
Christian here and a huge fan of Alex and now Chris. Great conversation, you got yourself a new subscriber. One thing of quick note as far as the mass hallucination theory goes. To entertain that really complicates matters as it demands a myriad of additional problems/ conspiracies to accompany it. Consider the following: - The hallucination theory now also must include the stolen body theory to deal with the empty tomb issue. - The hallucination hypothesis cannot explain how in a short time the hallucinations transform into the unifying gospel appearance accounts. - What about the eyewitnesses of the mass hallucinations? How would it be that they allowed the false narrative of the gospel account to permeate through the very cities and places where these "lies" were said to take place? William Lane Craig wrote a small but powerful book that covers this topic in more detail called "The Son Rises". Certainly worth a read and consideration. I appreciate the reluctance of the non-believer to believe in the resurrection but I think group hallucinations is a particularly poor explanation. I understand Alex was not taking this position personally but just figured I would comment on it.
I think the most likely explanation is they didn't check he was dead as well as they thought and he heal enough after a few days of bed rest in the tomb that he came back out of a coma for a few days where he talked to people before finally succumbing to his injuries. Back in those day people were buried alive commonly and just jabbing him with a spear doesn't seem like enough to tell he was dead. If Jesus came back from being stabbed through the heart and sent through a meat grinder, that would be a lot harder to explain. Its not like he suddenly regrew a leg or did something totally impossible and even in todays world with full on medical technology, people in deep comas sometimes get declared dead and wake up in the morgue. Still it was so long ago that it could easily be a myth, and without physical evidence it didn't happen. If someone has faith they should not need my approval to believe in something without evidence, they just need to own the belief.
It depends on what you compare the hallucination theory with. Compared to the resurrection theory, even alien abduction doesn't sound too crazy to consider. Also, before we can start talking about mass hallucinations, we must establish that this phenomena (or something that looks like it) actually occurred. If I remember correctly, it was the Paul who mentioned 500 (or so) witnesses. We don't have testimony of those witnesses, we know nothing about them, and taking Paul's word as the ultimate evidence doesn't look like a good idea to me. So I would agree with you that that group hallucination is a poor explanation. We must find out whether something existed in the first place before we should attempt explaining it And on a side note: would you consider your disbelief in any other religion's supernatural claims a mere "reluctance", as you called it?
I’m on an Alex O’Connor binge this evening. Almost non-consensually. Dawkins, Peter mf Hitchens… two radically incredible and deeply entertaining conversations. In two radically different ways. Now THIS. Three in a row. All different levels of podcast gold. This one is mega meta. A podcast star in the making interviewing another podcast star in the making talking about podcasting. And how they met. Also Ben Shipro BTS. Damn it’s fascinating. One thing: I cringed a bit where Alex mentioned the first email from Chris and that he was club promoting. Not sure it was relevant or even needed?! Anyway. Loved this.
I have to admit that I also discovered Alex yesterday, and I'm hooked. His ability to debate is truly amazing, i find him extremely articulate and insightful, yet clear and concise. A humble seeker of truth, a legend in making. ❤
Kids aren't smoking anymore because they're all vaping. My thirteen year old niece says she doesn't know anyone in her school who doesn't vape, and that the girls all carry them into school hidden in their bras.
Tragically the number of kids who vape today is greater than the number of kids who smoked cigarettes a generation ago. The vape industry is peddling nicotine and getting away with it.
It's almost like kids do stupid things, and it's the parent's responsibility to monitor their children's activities. It's almost as if nothing the government can reasonably (even unreasonably) do will change this fact. It was telling the truth that got people to stop smoking in such large numbers. If we tell the truth about vapes, I suspect something similar will happen.
Being that I'm a massive nerd, I wanted to comment on the infinite universe paradox. Alex said that if the universe were infinite, then the sky would be fully lit at night, looking like an overcast day, but instead we have darkness, which means there is a beginning. Interestingly, the darkness is not because the edge of the universe makes it so, but rather because of intergalactic dust. If there were no intergalactic dust, the sky would be entirely white because there is indeed a star in every direction.
The math "paradox" about the man in the hotel was stated incorrectly, in such a way that there is no contradiction. The paradox is usually stated with 3 men walking into a hotel, splitting the bill of 30 into 3 groups of 10. The manager realizes that 5 needs to be given back, and the bellboy keeps 2 in order to split the amount evenly among the three men. Now, each man has been given back 1, so they've each paid 9, and the bellboy has 2, so the total is 29, and it would seem that 1 is missing. However, if you really looked at where all the money has gone, you would see that the hotel had gained 30, then gave back 5 (so the hotel now has 25), the bellboy has 2, and the men collectively have 3, which does total to 30, as desired. Jan Misali has a great video on paradoxes, in which they go over this kind of paradox (which they call a "math prank"). I believe they talk about this paradox, if you'd like a full explanation on the math and similar paradoxes. Also, I'm not so sure about the probabilities of the dice serial killer. It seems to me that assuming that one group is guaranteed to die and that each group's probability of dying is proportional to the number of groups so far is fallacious. I think it has the same problem of misrepresenting the math in such a way that something seems wrong while in reality the math works out completely fine. However, I've never heard of it so maybe there is some paradox there. Still, great discussion!
I think a discussion on what people mean by "truth" needs to be had. It would be great if Alex could sit down with Jordan Peterson, Jonathan Pageau, and John Vervaeke.
It would be a train wreck. Alex isn’t qualified. Peterson talks about thought on a meta level that most listeners cannot comprehend. They tell themselves it’s word salad because they aren’t clever enough to follow his thoughts.
@@demodiums7216 JP is the antonym of truth? I would argue he's a beacon. One of his most common phrases is "Tell the truth, or at least don't lie". He also says "If you want an adventure in life, then speak the truth." Please explain where he's a liar or misleading others. Let me grab a chair, because I feel I'll be waiting a long while for an honest response.
@@Dubbadizzo86 the fact that hr works for the Daily Wire...whose sole purpose is too further enrich the already rich...and deny climate change. The fact that he pushes a carnivore diet...which is ridiculous and unscientific. The fact that hes a self help guy who had to be put into a coma to get off drugs. Not to mention he cries every 5 minutes and is clearly mentally unstable. Pay attention to what he does...not what he says.
To Alex’s point about ‘what would it look like to live as if there were no free will’ - this line of reasoning is exactly why I subscribe to Sam Harris’s notion that I genuinely do not feel as if I have free will. When you really pay attention to what underlays your actions, you’ll notice that you are the audience disguised as the symphony.
Studies do show that people who believe in freewill behave more charitably. Also, denial of freewill threatens to "take away" a person's most prized possessions; everything they've worked so hard in life to achieve - work, family, schooling, awards etc - are NO LONGER accomplishments, but inevitable outcomes they can't take any responsibility for. It takes away their PRIDE.
Is this really any different from people from rich families refusing to accept that maybe their family fortune is a bit more responsible for their situation than their "hard work"? I think the main difficulty with accepting the argument is the fact that the way our entire society is organized is based on it being false. We often simplify things by pretending that people have choices that they really don´t have, at least not in any practical way.
Can a study on these topics be trusted. I think I might have got to the point where I don't believe one of these studies that says something like "behave more charitably" unless I've heard the entire methodology because conclusions don't always follow.
Thank you Chris. You have quickly become one of my favorite intellectuals along with Dr. Huberman and Dr. Peterson. Really impressed with what you’re doing. Thank you man. I’m doing my masters in Addiction Counseling and consider myself a bit of an amateur philosopher. I really like all these podcasts you’re putting out.
@@leod-sigefast he is having a crisis of mind, I've watched about 2 minutes it's obvious. I think he feels guilty of being influenced, question is, was it lube covered Inference or just dry slamming. I'm glad it shows he still has elgalartarin views in there...
I feel like the best example of a revolution in philosophy is Kripke in naming and necessity, the idea that there can be necessary but a postiori truths. I've seen one argument that it put realist analytic philosophy on better epistemic ground than it literally ever had been before.
The philosophy book "Freedom from reality" argues that the notion of freedom as Alex explains it: "Authorship over your actions" completely independant of any context or relationships, is absolutely absurd. It is as the titles sais: seperate from reality itself. Relationships seem to be very base of reality, context is everything. Just listen to Ian McGilchrist of John Vervaeke to better understand that notion. The better notion of freedom is one where you are free to do what is Good, without being hindered by either the tirany of your own hedonic desires (e.g., addicts are the least free people), or from other people (The state forbidding you with tyranic laws). And of course you cannot decide for yourself what is Good or not, that would make you god. That's why god is seen as the concept or essence of Good itself.
The paradox as described isn't really a paradox at all. A fair die has a 1/6 chance of landing on any one number, including 6. This is independent of the number of people being included in each individual trial and while I will grant that you have an increased probability of belonging to a group in one of the latter trials, any one group would have the exact same chance of living or dying, which is less than 1/2, so if you want to be selfish you should let the die roll. Now, if you want to be utilitarian, then the geometric probability distribution, has an expectation of 1/p. This would tell us the expected number of trials until the first roll of 6 is 6 as 1/(1/6) is 6. If the number of people included in each trial doubles starting with 1 person in trial one, then by trial six we would have 32 people. This means that on average, 32 people would die. It is trivial to assume then, that a button that allows you to increase the probability of any one individual trial (yours) to 1/2, regardless of which trial it is, would reduce the total expectation of any resulting distribution, this means that less than 6 trials would be needed on average to roll a 6 and thus, less than 32 people would die. So a utilitarian should press the button.
Glad you said this already, I was listening and shaking my head that Alex was suffering from something akin to the gambler's fallacy. I thought for sure there was going to be some ethical twist like, if you die on the coin flip everyone else is let free or something.
I love Alex. I put huge stalk in *how* people debate, and appreciate that he consistently puts in the effort to have a good faith debate. Sometimes, I think he's dead wrong, such as his contention that religion is a net harm because you can't reason with a religious person, but you can with an atheists is just simply in-group/out-group bias. The truth is that there are reasonable and unreasonable people in both camps, or a severe misunderstanding that faith is the opposite of reason.
Chance is not such a ludicrous proposition for understanding the fine tuning of our universe if one considers how our observation of the natural world show us that systems find equilibrium. Our universe exists the way it does because the disparate natural forces within it have established a balance. If we changed some of the natural laws to different values, we might not have a universe which we recognize, but there would still be a fine-tuned equilibrium that would likely be reached.
Hello you beauties. Get a free list of my 100 favourite books - chriswillx.com/books/ Here’s the timestamps:
00:00 Intro
00:18 The Peter Hitchens Incident
08:11 Alex’s Experience Debating Ben Shapiro
17:00 Has Philosophy Revealed Anything Impactful Recently?
29:40 What Everyone Needs to Know About Ethics
38:07 Making Nihilism Great Again
47:38 Why People Hate Talking About Free Will
54:34 The Sexy Paradox
1:07:49 The Fine-Tuned Universe Argument
1:12:36 Was Jesus’ Resurrection Historically Accurate?
1:20:07 Why Philosophers Go Mad
1:26:50 Is Society Experiencing Mass Cope?
1:38:00 What’s Next for Alex?
Already watched it where's the next one
I would definitely watch a whole episode on an in depth discussion of free will!!!
Chris you didn't put the link up to the Douglas Murray episode at the end
You can tell Chris has been missing roasting people in the British loving way whilst he’s been in the USA. 😂
@TreeTrinity Alex has a couple videos on his channel on free will, compatiblism, and determinism.
Thanks for having me again, Chris!
If I see you on any platform, it's an instant click for me. Looking forward to the conversation.
Check out John Haldane's argument for the existence of God in Atheism and Theism second edition. It's an account of the origins of concept formation.
Love you Alex! My fav debater
I love your content Alex, continue speaking truth
Ben Shapiro fan who is a determinist loved y'all's debate. Both great orators
40:20 Chris’s request for clarification is simply, “Be more accessible”. Brilliant. I’m stealing that one.
A chuckled when I heard that, Chris is keeping his audience in mind
So simple, yet masterful. What a podcast God 🙏
Big fan of Alex. First saw him in a number of debates with Capturing Christianity. Myself a Christian and him being Atheist/Agnostic, I see him as a great ally for genuine discourse.
Hes not genuine though. He derives his arguments from other failed debaters whose arguments fall under the "God is a big meanie" category. Anyone with honest intent would never use these fallacy arguments.
@@davidmuller1958 He doesn't
@@RoninTF2011 ill wait for your evidence. My evidence is, go watch all his videos about God. 😂. Ill wait for your evidence now.
@@davidmuller1958 He merely points out the inconsitencies in the bible stories...that you perceive this as "god is a big meanie" is a "you" issue.
@@RoninTF2011 once again, your opinion does not debunk a literal fact that i gave you. Smh
I'm probably the one-billionth person to say this on the internet, but we need more conversations like this. One fundamental issue, it seems, is that people just don't know what they don't know. This was fantastic, Chris. Alex is an intellectual treasure. Thanks for sharing!
I'll jump in here and be number one-billion and one.🙂
More than the billionth lol but agree
1:36:50 "I think we might need to actually start acting in accordance with what's true" said as a warning is such a perfect absurdist quote, I love it
Before the interview with Alex, Peter Hitchens had just spent a week in prison as an inmate as part of a documentary. During that stretch he had heated arguments about the drug issue with prisoners. Having spent a bit of time behind bars I can tel that the first few days are a fucking nightmare. He probably didn't know it himself but wasn't in the mental state to be having a debate. Especially on that topic.
Interesting points
This honestly seems like critical information, I can't believe nobody was talking about this when the debate was released
@@plebiain It still doesn't excuse the behaviour, but it does give an insight into why it might have occured.
@@plebiain I think so. Peter Hitchens is a classic stiff upper lip Englishman. To see him fly off the handle like that would suggest to me that he was still in a type of fight or flight mindset. The prisoners that they had him in with were the most aggressive against him out of everyone and was basically doing the "come and have a go if you think you are hard enough" stance with Alex. I hate seeing people in that position because it reminds me how nervous I was after being inside.
@@neighbourhoodmusician I almost think it does excuse it to be honest. On the fence a bit to be honest.
I’m 75 years old . My dad died when I was 5.Been the weird kid …and adult ,that wanted to talk about death..but no one else does…. til now in your generation.Finally…my people have showed up!
Chris had a quote the other day. “Loneliness is the tax we pay as deep thinkers”, I think it’s rather poignant and accurate. I was born in ‘80 and you are very much my parents generation(boomers), but I always felt that way about my generation too. It’s sometimes hard to find people to have interesting conversations with, most people don’t see it as a useful past time unfortunately
my mannnnnnnnnn
Check out step hen Jenkinson if you haven’t
it’s where were all headed, best to talk about it rather than to go in (or out) unprepared!
My dad died back in 2011. It taught me a few things. First, I am not my father. Second, we will all come to terms with our secrets, all will be laid bare. Third, hell is real, and of our own making.
"Be more accessible"
Thanks for being a great host and helping the guest to flesh out their ideas.
Yeah, I went back to his first phrase four times trying to understand how it's equivalent to it's explanation. Hearing these two talk was like poetry to my ears, also because of the content but mainly because of their precision in word choice. Love to see it!
God, can you guys do this like, twice a month. I love hearing rational people deliberate and learn from one another. I feel like this is the conversation I’m always craving and never hearing, much less having.
You should probably try to find some more intelligent people to listen to. There is a world full of geniuses, these guys aren’t the world’s greatest minds.
@@MyThoughtsImJustSaying I don’t know Chris that well, but personally I’ve not come by many more philosophically and argumentatively adept than Alex. I listen to Sam Harris, but I tend to align more closely with Alex (though that’s possibly explained by the fact that Sam has simply voiced more opinions on a broader range of topics). These two are also nearer my age than most discussing similar topics and so I just more easily identify with them.
I do like Tim Maudlin and Dawkins and for physics I go for Roger Penrose, Brian Greene, and Sean Carrol pretty much in that order. Who do you think I should be listening to?
@@Williamwilliam1531 you seem to be stuck on famous TH-cam atheistic philosophers. I think you would benefit from reading books from genius people that are dead. History is the greatest teacher. You should read religious texts, because western society was built on Christianity regardless if you believe in God or not. Plato, Aristotle, Socrates, Hermes, Pythagoras, Carl Jung, Sigmund Freud, Albert Pike, Manly P Hall, Albert Mackey, Rudolf Steiner. These are some people that are taught and studied in colleges + universities in the western world. Alex wouldn’t know shit if he didn’t read. He constantly has flaws in his thinking.
You sound like a religious zealot. “God I love this guy, he is so holy and God loving” but Atheist version
@@gips_123 okay 😂 sure lol. I’m zealous for good reasoning where religious people are zealous for bad reasoning. I’m not really sure that zealously is the main problem with religion - it’s probably the poor reasoning lol. And in any case, you have an amazingly low bar for zealously.
This was one of my favourite episodes. Hope to see Alex come on again, and eager to see him elsewhere.
Eren Eager?
Nice one.@@komrel
This was an absolutely brilliant interview! Your chemistry with Mr. O’Conner is outstanding and the conversation was very engaging. Great work both of you! 🎉
Loved that “be more… accessible” question/follow up. 40:28 Alex’s answers the question succinctly. Knowing he will need to explain. And you give him just that opportunity. Haha
I think it's very poignant how Alex describes "playing" with philosophical ideas in the context of entertaining them without becoming convinced by them. I play a lot of tabletop roleplaying games, and something which I have always done is consider the philosophy of every character I play or depict in the way they would see it, steelmanning it to be an honest version of how that character may see the world, even if it is very different from my worldview. So in my case these sorts of philosophical speculations are often very literally part of playing a game.
Interesting observation. I do something similar when creating a background or head-cannon for characters I play in RPGs.
It's one of the most important skills a person can have. It unlocks a different tier of thinking. That's the reason I can and do enjoy fringe theories. The whackiest one I've heard so far is that all trees were actually the bushes of a previous epoch, and that real trees used to be thousands of feet tall. That's also why I don't hate people who disagree with me. I can almost always put myself in their shoes and understand how they came to their conclusions.
O’connor is also one of my favorite people to watch debate. He has good arguments, he articulates them very well, but he’s also very respectful and actually listens to the other side. When i was younger, i used to enjoy ben’s style of debate. But as i get older, i realized that style doesn’t actually accomplish anything. It’s loud and fast, and that can be really entertaining, but it doesn’t actually help. The more relaxed and engaged debate is the constructive type of debate, where both sides actually think and learn, and don’t just try to be faster and louder than the other one.
I've been following Alex for a while but hadn't seen Chris before.
This was a fun interview; I enjoy the way Chris "humanizes" Alex by way of friendly banter.
I started following both these guys during the pandemic a few years ago.....to see them come together like this in a crossover is like watching your fave avengers battle thanos.
Alex is brilliant at steel manning arguments. And that’s what makes conversation interesting.
Great episode. As a math nerd I have to comment on the dice rolling game paradox. It is actually more of a math trick than a paradox. Typically you would need 6 throws to get a 6 (could be more or less, but over an infinite amount of throws you should get 1/6 of sixes). Now, what Alex is not taking into account, is the amount of “players” that didn’t get to play. If the game ends in round 5, you have 15 people that lived, 16 people than died, and 32 people who didn’t get to play and statistically speaking wouldn’t get a six. It’s easier to understand if you think this person kidnapped all the 63 players at once, but takes them to another room in rounds. The people who didn’t get to play are still alive. Play the game and infinite number of times and you will indeed get to 1/6
Do u know what this paradox he's referring to is called
I think you nailed it. Each roll of the die is an independent event but there is a geometric distribution so you can get an idea of on average how many rolls it would take to get a certain outcome. If there are, on average, 6 rolls to get a 6 as you mentioned, if all you knew was that you were in the game, you would have a 1/6 or 16.7% chance of being in the final group or an 83% chance of being in any other group. It is irrelevant how many people are in the final group to your individual odds. It's even more clear in the original paradox where it is snake eyes, 1/36 chance. If it took, on average 36 rolls to get a snake eyes, you have a 1/36 or 2.8% of being in the final group.
Don't push the button!
One of the best podcasts I've seen in some time. Alex serves as an ambassador of accessible philosophy for the masses (that includes me, a layman) and has refreshingly personalised takes that mean he isn't living in the shadow of new atheism. He's already my favourite person on the podcast and debate circuit, and I can't wait to see how his thinking develops in future.
Re free will, for me the proof that you would always have made one specific choice is the fact that you did make that choice.
You have to ask the question, "why did you make that choice?" and there is always a reason. Even if you flipped a coin to decide, you still chose to flip the coin and then act according to it rather than ignore it. The argument against no free will is essentially proposing total randomness where no decision is informed by anything. It seems paradoxical but no free will is actually the empowering world view. There are reasons you make the decisions you do, it isn't just random chaos.
Re group hallucinations, trips induced by ergot wine seems perfectly legitimate to me, if one person thinks they hallucinate Jesus and then tells others and influences their trip. I think it's a very plausible explanation.
"The argument against free will is essentially proposing total randomness where no decision is informed by anything."
That's not accurate at all, my dude. One of the more prominent arguments is rooted in determinism where all physical events are predetermined by preceding causes. Randomness is in contrast to that. The argument against free will points out that *either* it being random, or being determined, is incompatible with libertarian free will since it being random or determined implies elements outside ones conscious control.
"you make the decisions you do." Is the opposite of no freewill.
You make no decisions is no freewill.
How can no freewill be empowering? Empowered is a term denoting freewill. Empowered denotes extra freedom gifted by an internal or external force.
Decision denotes freewill.
Any description of a conscious agent presupposes freewill.
How can you believe if you have no free will? He sayed pigs are concious beings? Did he forget free will argument?
@@LinardsZ Consciousness doesn't require libertarian freewill. I am conscious, but I don't have undetermined choices. Everything I do belongs to a chianti of material cause and effect following the laws of nature.
@@zacharyshort384 sorry I made a huge typo there, it should have said "the argument against NO free will". I'll fix that.
The best of the best. Intelligence, generosity, friendship, humor, insight, generosity. It doesn't get better than this.
Indeed so generous, even those mentioning their generosity will do so twice! :P
The fine tuning section is interesting because Alex says that the arguments don't move him, and then gives a better summary of the strengths of the fine tuning arguments than most advocates of the idea can offer.
The idea has its strengths, but it has an overwhelming weakness: if relies on constants not being constants. You can say that if constant x was different, then we shouldn't be here, and that's probably true. But, it is even possible for constant x to have another value? We just don't know regarding those constants, but they could be like Pi, that can have only its actual value in any possible universe: we know that because we know where pi comes from, but we don't know where those other constants come from. The only thing we know for sure is that, when we measure those constants, the value is always the same.
There are two more counterarguments:
one, if universes can form with different sets of constants (that's an underlying assumption of the argument for fine tuning), then they probably do, so it's possible there is more than the one we can observe. Then, we can apply the anthropic principle again, with life asking about itself only appearing in the universes where that is possible, like we do with planets and ecosystems.
two, we know out actual set of constants allows life to form in our universe (even if only in a incredible small portion of it), and we know that altering one constant, that specific life wouldn't exist. But we are taking this kind of life as the only possible kind of life, but probably we shouldn't do that. Life requires replicators, and a replicator is any structure that can replicate itself. It doesn't need, in principle, to be organic, or even be made of atoms. In another universe with another constants and different physics, it's pretty impossible to predict what structures of this kind could be possible. We can't even predict that this universe allowed our kind of life to exist. We only know that because we can observe we exist, but just looking at our physics, we can't deduce life was going to appear eventually.
@@juanausensi499 i don't find any of the points you raised compelling.
I think you're definitely right that it could be the case that the laws/constants of nature can't vary and that's why the world is like it is. But I've heard this view describes by physicists as essentially mysticism because it proscribes such an exact and bizarre "purpose" or teleology to the universe. I think there's nothing logically inconsistent about this teleology but it's a lot closer to something like theism than some cosmologically darwinian universe/cosmos.
There's BIG issues with the multiverse idea. I understand you were just putting out the idea of a multiverse as a counterpoint but I don't think it's a good idea at all.
The final point, that yeah if the constants were tuned slightly our life wouldn't exist but maybe some other life would- I've always found this sort of argument incredibly weak. First off I think it's technically true that I think there's plenty of life like systems that could exist out there that are very different from ours. I think that's a valid point. But the point about the constants changing isn't, if the values were slightly different there would be another universe possibly capable of generating emergent structure. The argument is, if nearly any of the parameters were different, literally nothing vaguely interesting would have happened in the universe. Like there usually wouldn't even be atoms.
Basically I favor your first point, that it's very possible that the universe can't be any way other than the way it is. But that feels SO close to theism. Like it's a very different view of the universe than is currently accepted.
@@mymyscellany I don't think constants just being constant is closer to theism. On the contrary: This scenario means it is impossible for this constants to be different, so no supernatural conscious being had the chance to choose the 'right' values at any time. So, that scenario doesn't require that kind of being, even in absence of a explanation for the values of the constants.
The issue with the multiverse idea is that, unless universes interact, that idea is forever outside the realm of science, in the sense that it can't be tested. But the argument of fine tuning is also outside the realm of science, because we don't know if our constants could have been different, and, without interaction with universes with other values, even if we make theories in the future to explain those, we aren't going to be able to test those theories either (assuming 'variable constants', if constants are really constant, maybe we can find the explanation for their values by looking only in our universe). The argument of fine tuning is a philosophical idea, not a scientific idea (it can't be tested). It's a philosophical idead that takes information about our current knowledge of the world, but every other philosophical argument does exactly the same. So, this rebuttal is on the same level that the argument itself: constants not being constant is speculation, and multiverses are speculation too. Even better: the idea of multiverses arise naturally if you assume constants not being constant, because that assumes a process that makes the constants adquire a definite value from a set of possible values. So, if this process exists, then that process is part of reality, and can happen more than one time.
Atoms exist in our universe, and life as we know requires those atoms and the chemistry that arises from their structure. If other universes with another values of the constants exist, probably lots of them don't have atoms. But that doesn't mean those universes don't have anything at all. Whatever they are made of, wathever their laws of physics are, it is possible for them to have some kind of patterns or structures, and then, it's conceivable that some of those patterns or structures could be replicators. Even if it's extremely unlikely: Life in this universe it's also extremely unlikely, with replicators only existing in one planet, that we know of.
Yea he’s was great with that, but I think he glazed right over the part where he briefly alludes to why he clearly finds it compelling, but that it doesn’t move him in his atheism. And it may be because it’s so self-evident to him.
But I see it lost on many atheists and theists alike when they’re debating the argument, including in this comment section, and it’s very frustrating.
The point he alluded to is that fine tuning, even if a perfectly valid argument, doesn’t get you to theism. At best, it gets you to a sort of vague deism. Discussing the truth claims of any individual religion is a completely different conversation that fine tuning doesn’t help inform at all.
@@keithmackenzie7680 Soft deism is almost indistinguishable from atheism. It's possible to argue that fine tuning points to a inteligent creator (i can argue against that, but that's not the purpose of this answer). But that, in itself, doesn't change much, if that entity doesn't seem to interact with us in any other way. This 'laissez-faire' entity is very different from any god theist religions propose, so, because you can reject all those specific gods, you can call yourself an atheist. The only difference is the name we use to identify that first cause: if you call it a 'god', then you are a deist.
im an atheist, and completely fueled by empathy and a thirst for knowledge. no god required.
I was living in Denver, in 1991/1992, when hundreds of people claimed to have had a Marian appirition at the Mother Cabrini shrine in the foothills outside of Denver. There were pilgrims from all over the country, some claiming to have seen Mary and other thinking they had seen Mary, while others knew someone who had seen Mary
I have witnessed a mass hallucination. I have also witnessed people willing to die for an unfalsifiable concept.
So, the argument from the resurrection and the "willing to die for... " argument have always seemed very weak to me.
I am from India where people are very religious. A huge percentage of people there claim to be literal gods and have a following in 100s of million. 100s of million people believe a guy is living god and are ready to die for him only to later be put in prison because they were rapists. Mass hallucination is not only real but very common across the world and diff time periods
Getting my head out of scientific literature to listen to some of these discussions is relaxing for me. I appreciate the intentional discussions and MOST appreciate a channel where the host attempts to clarify Scientific Fact, Social truths, Opinions etc and then buried 20ft below the totem pole of evidence is "bro-science" which is magnitudes better than "Influencer Opinions" / "Celebrity Opinion".
First time listening to an interview with Chris, love how he is such a sport about stuff and words he doesn't know.
I love all the little joke jabs at hating Alex and the reverse too, very funny and you can tell you guys both are genuine friends, very great!
I never viewed a podcast fully, but you guys made me sit and watch this fully, You guys are really amazing and best role models for how to have a mature and healthy conversations 🎉❤, kudos to chris and alex ❤😚
I could listen to a lot more podcast with these two in Alex O’Connor the man of the moment it’s so good to listen to all debates and podcasts. Chris Williamson is complementary to most guests in terms of the conversational content.
DUDE. Chris just hit the nail on the head when he said this guy is gonna be a superstar. I have never seen him before and I was thinking the same damn thing. This is going to be so much fun to follow.
Alex has one of the sharpest minds going around. Love listening to him.
he just regurgitates the great literature that he’s read
@@garinbaker_More importantly, he seems to understand it for the most part. Which is clearly more than most people can do
@@huxleybennett4732It's academia's biggest problem
@@garinbaker_ And theists just regurgitate the Bible....without evidence.
@garinbaker_ not really. He has done so many videos where he forms his own thoughts, ie his rebuttals to Jordan Peterson's philosophy. In fact Peterson does what you claim Alex does as far as I can tell.
A superb discussion with Alex. I wholeheartedly subscribe to his position on almost everything, including free will. I wish more humans were more receptive to these types of discussions in the real world.
I think many people are scared of philosophical conversations that could shake their existential beliefs, because those beliefs consist of stories (based on faith not logic) they tell themselves for psychological comfort. I just see these types of people as cowardly and I think the reason they get so defensive if you challenge their idea of free will for example is because they know there is truth to what you’re saying but that truth is literally threatening to them. I understand why people shield philosophical thinking and opposing worldviews from their lives but I believe they are more ignorant of life and humanity as a result and therefore have less empathetic scope which is problematic for society. I don’t think philosophy should be discussed all the time but everyone should have a basic understanding and it should be encouraged during serious conversations. Perhaps it should be mandatory in schools 🤷🏻♂️
I guess more humans just don’t really have much of a choice in matter😅
Freewill is a strong illusion to overcome, like God and morality and meaning.
@@someonesomeone25indeed
@@someonesomeone25How do you "overcome" free will?
First I stumble across Stephen Woodford making WoW references in his video today, and then I get this wonderful conversation from Alex with someone who has at least a toe dipped into the fitness side of things, which I would have never expected.
Today is hitting all of my hobby checkmarks.
The point about “Judeo-Christian” values is interesting. A lot of what Christians take credit for was actually achieved by CHALLENGING their beliefs, not applying them. Things like the scientific method and democracy have roots that go way further back than Christianity, to places like Ancient Greece for example. These ideas are not new and they’re not linked to Christianity. They just happened to really take off in societies where Christianity was the dominant religion.
It’s funny that Socrates (actually Aristotle) quote was mentioned cos that’s what Alex’s disposition always made me think of…
The quote being closer to “the mark of an intelligent man is to hold two opposing opinions in their mind at one time and choose neither” or “the ability to entertain a thought without accepting it”
I’m a Christian who has struggled with a lot of questions for many years. I even used to consider myself an atheist. Eventually I’ve reached the conclusion that I actually do believe it despite my confusion about certain aspects of it because I am open to the possibility that I will never be able to comprehend the truth about some of my doubts. I am also aware that I could be wrong, but on a personal level that is irrelevant to me.
That's great and all, but as long as you don't start telling the rest of us what to do because you know what god wants, then tbh, no one cares.
@@knowledgeispower200 Thats great. I wish you all the best. My point, which seems germane to the topic, is that what you believe is not important, at least not to rest of us, its how you treat other people. By all means, find what meaning you can, but as long as you don't insist others find meaning the same way, then you are as good as an atheist.
@@ericb9804 I get your statement and I agree with it, but the topic of finding meaning has lost its way a lot in this discourse. I can’t help but consider that a large portion of our pursuit of knowledge or truth, whatever this venture is. Has the intention to encounter what is meaningful enough for today and stable enough for tomorrow.
Finding it, and discussing it should be a larger area than “cool good luck cya later”
@@Kryptic712 Ok. But now you are behaving like a "good" theist - insisting that someone else's "meaning" is not good enough, and that you can just dismiss it with a slogan. But instead, if you choose, you could offer your pursuit of "meaning" that you find valuable, without insisting that alternatives are inferior.
@@ericb9804 if i avoid insisting on others sharing my belief; will i be allowed to avoid paying financially for the extreme results of the crumbling of civilization as we surge forward in a post christian dystopia. This is obviously rhetorical as the answere will be no. You want me to opt out on shatong my belief but remain in on paying for others to abort their babies or pay for rehab
We have in fact, two kinds of morality, side by side: one which we preach, but do not practice, and another which we practice, but seldom preach.
what does this mean and why do they exist side by side? 🙂
@@mealovesyu The person who practices what he preaches acknowledges that for you to truly practice it comes with great sacrifice of ones own personal will, therefore "seldom" preaches it due to the nature of the masses who cant comprehend nor wants to truly give up their own will.
The one who preaches but does not practice is the wolf in sheeps clothing, the lip service only believer and their will is firmly theirs not giving up what they desire. This enables him to delude himself and preaches the perfect what if scenario when he/she does not become a doer of their own words. This is the side by side; the Wheat and the chaff; the sheep's and the goats.
Absolutely loved this conversation - particularly the discussion of religion towards the end.
Nothing special about the Christian mythologizing/bibliolatry though. Not sure why Alex believes or appeals to that. Two wrong stories don’t make a right story “at core”, and witches and pagans did not always recant their previous preachings or experiences when Christian kings/generals tortured them, plus Christians even preachers sometimes recanted theirs. It does not make sense to say that because the preaching and crucifiction biblolatry ultimately kept 4 different versions, just like Noah’s flood story has 4 different versions, that it therefore makes it more true than Islam that burned the Iraqi version of the Quran to keep only the Caliphate’s version that they deemed “more authentic, more correctly translated.”
37:20 where Alex talks about needing more nihilist health influencers really struck with me. I think a great place for that are the Barbell medicine podcasts where the doctors there really having been trying to put some nail in the coffin for alot of attempts at hyper optmising diet, exercise movements (think injury risk reduction) and so on. The nihistic aspect there is to say that most of the fad stuff is really low return on effort and most of the battle is already won if you are generally exercising regularly (over many years) and are a healthy bodyweight + eat a generally balanced diet.
Damn Alex landed a stellar point in saying (indirectly) that religion often takes the fun out of philosophy by trying to make it too real, too serious, too substantive.
The Problem with Expressivism is that moral statements neatly fit into loads of contexts in which propositions fit. We can think things like "I wonder if murder is wrong?" and it's a question that sounds coherent. We can understand what it means. If moral statements aren't truth apt, then we'd actually be thinking something like "I wonder if boo murder?" which is unintelligible.
Another example, we can use moral statements in propositional logic. We can use conditionals like "If murder is wrong, it's wrong to murder Dave", and again, it makes sense. However, conditionals ("if" statements) only make sense when using propositions. "If boo murder, boo murdering Dave" is incoherent. Expressivism just doesn't seem like a correct account of language. It definitely seems more like we're attributing the property of wrongness onto murder rather than expressing an emotional reaction.
@toppedtop5787 No. Even assuming emotivism, the question "i wonder *why* I feel negative emocions about murder" is not analogoes to "i wonder whether murder is wrong".
@toppedtop5787"I feel negative about murder" corresponds with "Murder is wrong."
Therefore "I wonder why I feel negative about murder" corresponds to "I wonder why murder is wrong", NOT "I wonder whether murder is wrong."
@original poster, This is a really interesting point and I hope Alex addresses it.
@@authenticallysuperficial9874 So say, "I wonder whether I feel negatively about murder". Well, I hope you can answer that. But really, it's about whether the person being murdered feels negatively about murder. Or rather, about dying, as murder is already pre-charged with negativity. And then fire those mirror neurons.
@toppedtop5787 No there's a subtle difference here. Emotivism does not say that "Murder is wrong" means "I have a negative attitude towards murder" because the latter is a proposition. "I have a negative attitude towards murder" can be either true or false. Emotivism says that moral statements aren't truth apt, so "I wonder if murder is wrong" is literally "I wonder if boo murder?", and would be non sensical. I'm assuming you, like me, can't make sense of "I wonder if boo murder"
Realizing emotion is often being behind ethical conduct has just "something" pulled me. It's layer below the surface but a fire insight
Read The Righteous Mind by Jon Haidt. It'll be up your alley.
But than emotion is predicated on how you think about yourself and others - which can either be ethical or unethical
Consider ones birth i would like to think we are conscious enough to frame around an beings existence something healthy, positive and good so they have a proper map to interpret both themselves and the world around them.
I know people who still struggle with feeling their left hand from their right hand.......
@@dallynstevens7855 Indeed. I think it is wiser to see an emotion as a product, not a source. Emotion is a reaction to an action or situation, that goes according or contrary to your prior ethical standards. You can withhold emotions, but it doesn't negate the ethical position you hold towards an external stimuli. So in that sense, the ethical standard any given person holds is a result of long sequences of situations he have lived through with good and bad outcomes and explicit/implicit lessons derived from them.
The only thing that can be seen as objective here is statistics - which actions and situations lead to which outcomes more of the time. It still comes down to brute facts, and not to some artificial absolutes, that supposedly underlines human's behavior.
@@EugeneParallax agreed for the most part, however i don't think it fundamentally works to hang ethics on stats, to hang it on stats only works through the predetermination model.
If you think outside the deterministic model would mean you are holding your actions against something outside of time and space.
I absolutely adore alex. Thanks for making content with him! Hearing him talk is always insightful
1:12:36 Crazy how a pronounced atheist gives one of the strongest arguments for Christianity
And a very strong counter argument about Mark not initially mentioning a ressurection
Yet it’s not that strong of an argument lol just goes to show how shaky the evidence really is.
Discussion about free will is a discussion about perceived suffering, believing that you get to decide at the games you play changes the way you experience those games.
It both allows you to experience less perceived suffering in the moment as it's a choice and it allows you to not feel guilty about winning because the other people lost on purpose.
It's exciting to see Alex collaborating with various influential thinkers and content creators! I'm delighted to witness how far he's come in recent years.
1:31:30 Alex wonders what can he do if he can't bring himself to have faith; please carry on being a good-faith adversary. That is so valuable to do and you are a master at it.
Well said.
Quite possibly, but in a society that prioritises and requires increasing financial gain and monetisation, it was inevitable. The foundations that once stabilised and regulated people have been replaced with artificial aberrations. The truth is our best bet at an improved and prosperous future for all. Much love, Chris x
👏
Interesting point.
To be fair, most societies prioritize social advancement of some form, so it was inevitable that we had industrial revolution and modernization. At the same time, these principles inevitably leads to large, well-connected societies where terms like "equality" and "regulations" becomes prevalent and is enforced on every person without their direct interaction to it. This is in contrast to small societies that we used to have before the industrial revolution, where each of these small societies has their own set of rules (sometimes unwritten) unconsciously constructed from the direct interaction between the constituent members. I honestly really believe that the people today are "less diverse" in the sense that people are forced to follow a unified rule, while people before had more diverse character because they directly interacted with each other to find individual compatible solution.
I find this to be the reason people "forget" the ethical/moral foundation, because any "unified" rules tend to be based on certain economically ideological premise. Take for example, women. Women are generally more agreeable than men, and the way women socialize and sort themselves are in contrast to how men do it. They do not like competition, they do not like fighting, they do not like outliers from their moral compass. This is actually incompatible with modern society because these societies prioritize competition, individualism, and setting unified rules for economic growth. Women being dragged into the world of competition made us lose our moral compass. We actually needed that feminine morality and I believe it got lost. I really think that modern world does not appreciate female contribution to the society even when they're not directly involved to the decision making process.
I'm sure this comment will get flamed by the feminists.
Some people can’t bare to think about us not having free will because someone once hurt them very badly and they’re incredibly angry at that person. The thought that that person didn’t have free will isn’t something they want to accept.
I don’t believe so. People think that free will exists because, a lot of the times, it really feels like we’re autonomous. If I told myself, “i’m going to lift my arm in five seconds”, and then I lift my arm after waiting 5 seconds, it tends to feel as though I’m in control of something.
What a great conversation. Glad to see Alex on the interviewee side instead of being the interviewer or a debater.
Its cute how these 2 geniuses know so little about astronomy. Love you guyz
Do less harm is an ideal standard for modern morality. Individual greed prioritised over the wellbeing and happiness of others is the number one symptom of this sick society.
Well put, and agreed. As beneficial as the free market can be, it certainly has its fair share of downsides. Boeing is a great demonstration of both the good and then the bad.
When it comes to death, I have said for years that people have a tough time comprehending what exactly death is. For example, there is the notion of "saying goodbye" to a loved one on their death bed moments before they pass away. There is no time that is more pointless to say goodbye to the person then when that person is moments from death.
Why?
@@davidpowell3469 Yes, that's what I am saying. It's for the living who think the dying are taking the sentiments of the goodbye with them on some kind of after-death journey.
its probably to comfort both parties. saying goodbye probably comforts the dying more than saying "i will soon cease to exist i hope you have a good time in my absence" which is the only alternative i see lol@@threeofive9401
@@threeofive9401"For the living" I think means it has a self focused component for psychological comfort for the person who isn't going to die.
47:30 - I have LITERALLY LAST NIGHT watched that Stanford lecture by Sapolsky that was in my Watch Later playlist FOR YEARS, that I have been putting off from watching because I just never got around to it. Now I randomly clicked on this video and hear his name. WTF are these Matrix glitches...
The conversation around death denialism was fun but it’s deeper than the depths you guys reach. Universally I’d say most of our species has feared death despite our long march of progress. The fear of death still has a reason behind it which is fear of having our life’s work be pointless and beyond that fear of the unknown. The main thing we love about life is our convictions and beliefs which we hold quite dearly even in a era where less people would admit it. We look to be part of something greater through our convictions such as religion, law, etc something that last beyond death that gives us some validation we lived our lives for a reason. Why we fear death is beyond fear of the unknown it’s the fear of the answer of whether we were correct or not and whether we made any impact.
Glad Alex is back.
Alex is so wonderfully gifted with language, thought, and imagination. A truly creative speaker. Very inspiring and educational.
Father Seraphim Rose wrote a great book about Nihilism where he warns about people like this.
Could you do a lil tldr of his major point there or describe what you mean people like this. Not a alex stan or anything but he seems to make alot of sense to me 🤷
@@mai7201x North Korea is the 2nd most secular country in the world
@@Fuckingboredrn Google it. There’s a free pdf online. Read, read and read. It will benefit your life.
@@Valdrex I don't think you should be so easy to discount what someone else says when you dont know theyre position, certainly not enough to tell me it doesn't matter when I was just curious what this guy's justification was and what he means when he refers to Alex as "people like this".
I truly don’t understand how whatever energy that created existence wouldn’t be called god. And why dors there have to be a religious element to the concept of god. There will never be a scientific experiement to prove what energy created all of this. Whatever that is is god and there’s no argument in the world that can disprove that there is an ultimate energy that’s good, bad and everything in between.
About the Anthropic dice killer paradox there is a conversation on reddit risen after the podcast. And basically some people to which I agree says is a misconception of conditional probability not a paradox
Such a shame that Alex never had the opportunity to converse with Christopher Hitchens
Love the work that both of you do. The honest search for interesting ideas is something that enriches everyone. Keep up the good fight. 🙂
I love this set. I think MW is definitely the most watchable podcast 👍🏼
I disagree with Alex on just about everything but I always appreciate his charitable demeanor. It goes a long way
Just curious, what do you disagree about in particular from him? I am a Christian myself but I'm trying to see perspective.
@@matth254this, I don’t see how one could disagree with him aside from his lack of belief in God
@matth254
I think his arguments about Galileo etc. are silly and historically innacurate, even though some of the people who he's using it against are silly themselves.
The Catholic Church at the time of Galileo was far more of a political organization than a religious one. The pope was closer to an Emperor than a religious teacher. It's only a valid criticism of Catholicism, not Christianity.
It kind of feels like pointing to King Henry XIII as an example of Christianities failings because he was the head of the Church of England, or similarly looking at King Charles today.
Nothing in the Bible says how the solar system is layed out, and Galileo was not persecuted for espousing this belief. The Church was acting in a political manner, and part of this was trying to stop misinformation. Galileo submitted his works to the Church for approval, and they allowed them to be published and had no problem with it. Where he ran afoul was in his later works he presented heliocentrism as fact rather than a theory, while the scientific concensus at the time was that geocentrism was more likely. This caused him some problems, but the bigger issue is that he had started to interpet heliocentrism in contrast with theology. The Catholic church had declared only theologians could disseminate their interpretation of biblical texts, and a mathematician who was not an expert in the field disseminating his views was in violation of the Council of Trent.
The Pope had no problem with heliocentric theories, and Copernicus had presented heliocentric theories and models privately to the pope a full century prior.
I also think that there is an important distiction between slavery in the old and new testament, mainly that in the New testament, the distinction between Jew and Gentile was erased and that Christianity was widely accepting of all converts. You can easily argue than Christianity only allows indentured servitude to pay off a debt, and that it was relevant to the abolitionism movement in the US as chattel slavery of those who were brothers in Christ was unacceptable the same as it was unacceptable towards other Jews in the old testament.
I'm not 100% sure about this 2nd argument on slavery and haven't heard much input on it from other people, so I can't really speak too strongly on it. I am a fan of Alex though and I think he's particularly good at interviewing people. I don't disagree with him so much as I disagree with some of his conclusions e.g. veganism.
As much as I think that Alex is a great mind and incredibly well educated, he still has to learn to admit when he knows not enough about science and maths to really meaningfully comment on it. There was this one point in the conversation where Chris called him out for "just using space words", and there were other points in the conversation like this. Eg when he talked about the foundations of maths (non-Euclidean geometry) this was barely comprehensible. Of course, in the long term I would love to see Alex read up on this stuff instead of being silent about it. But I also know that there is only so much time in ones life. When I read math/physics, Alex read theology/philosophy, and one cannot read everything. This is why it is so important to know ones own limits for commenting on stuff.
“Well now you’re just saying space words at me” 😂 this was such a great discussion
Concerning the point about art and religion that was posed to Alex: I was actually recently reminded of this phenomenon while reading On Fairy Stories (by J.R.R. Tolkien) which was one of his numerous essays, but it’s actually one of his most philosophical ones.
In particular, the concluding pages are in essence a grand stance for the link between the act of creation and being, not just religious, but Christian in particular. And that being able to enter into a sub-creation is akin to having the ability to believe in and trust in the existence of God.
For me, it was a bit heavy-handed as the, “So, about GOD” kinda just comes out of nowhere and forms the entire epilogue. And no, I don’t agree with the notion that the ability to suspend disbelief is mutually exclusive with being Christian. But religious people do inherently seem to have a greater association with creation as being something divine.
Hitchens didn't "throw the pillow at the microphone". He picked it up and set it down. It looked like he may have thought about it, but he didn't throw the pillow at anything or anyone.
16:25 - totally agree. Alex will reach great heights
I'm assuming (always dangerous) the "to be announced" interview/debate/discussion they believe will act as a springboard to mass recognition for Alex would be with Jordan Peterson.
@@MrVvulfyes ! Would definitely watch that !
I hope not. I find Alex to be insufferable and dishonest. Also, if it's JBP it's two years too late for that to matter. JBP is slowly fading into boomer irrelevance. I only hope he stops pussyfooting around and just accepts Christianity.
@@sevencrickets9258 fair enough if you Can justify the "unfairness"
@@sevencrickets9258 I agree on JBP. But what has Alex said that is dishonest?
What is uplifting about this interview is how well Alex sounds and looks. Was worried there for awhile.
Cuz he's not vegan anymore
It's true the way adults approach younger people with the attitude that they feel they know more or feel a specific way about someone and rather than attempt to prove themselves wrong and just try and converse, they attempt to prove themselves right and do so much harder and just make themselves look unrelatable and stark, like an unreasonable father without compromise. As a father who dealt with one as described, I have found a much better person in myself by always going against a visual first impression, or, 10 second audio, ending it with an infinite judgemental description and argument as if its valid. Once a first impression is negative based on a bias its best to argue with yourself and join in as an open book.
God I love Alex and the way he articulates his thoughts, amazing guest
1:15:28 "The gospel of Mark ... contains no post-resurrection appearances". The gospel of Mark contains post-resurrection appearances to Mary Magdalene, then two disciples walking into the country, then he appeared to the eleven as they sat at table. Alex is a smart guy, I wonder why he got this wrong?
I can't believe this isn't a top reply. I would love to hear what the explanation for this lie is. Mark literally ends with Christ initiating the Great Commission to the Apostles....Post Resurrection.
@@naiginod Some of the earliest manuscripts of Mark do not include 16:9-20. Due to this many scholars believe that 16:9-20 was a later addition to the gospel and Mark himself was not involved in it. Thus Alex is probably referring to Mark with having understood this.
I don’t understand why one would craft their whole identity into one of nihilism. He wants more nihilistic gym instructors. There are many of those, the body positivity movement is literally just that, overweight peoole telling themselves they’re healthy and able to eat what they want.
He gave the scenario, “If someone walks into a gym, white bread or wheat, ask them how much value they place on life”
That’s stupid because the fact that someone is asking that question means they do place some sort of value on their life, hence it’s no longer philosophy but realism, which means,
“I have placed value on my ‘death denying instincts’ and I want to do something practical about it”.
People like this are rarely trying to do good in society, they just attempt to find intellectual ways to tell everyone life is meaningless without providing any real solutions to the supposed “Lack of meaning”.
Also, it seems like everything for him is just a denial of death, why can’t you also decide to frame it as pursuit of meaning? You can’t because you’re a nihilist. But even if I agreed with that axiom-which I don’t- what’s wrong with that? Our time on earth is limited so people attempt to do the best they can before their time is up. He phrases it like death isn’t inevitable, we know death is inevitable so again, it’s practicality, not just a mere denial of death.
“If you write a book, you do so because it’s going to outlive you”.
What if you were also writing the book to provide something useful to others?
And even if you didn’t look at it that way, again what’s wrong with leaving your mark on the earth. For someone that engages in Philosophy, he has such simple answers, “It’s just a denial of death”
@@timiwithane "For someone that engages in Philosophy, he has such simple answers, “It’s just a denial of death”
It's because he's a naïve empiricist.
Been watching Alex since he started his You Tube as a teenager. He was clearly showing he was very talented and had a future in speaking and thinking critically back then and has only hyperdrived his skill since Univesity and progressed his value to the 'podcast circuit'.
I await his first best seller *which is inevitiable and encourage.
First, great talk…!
After that, this discussion, reminds me of two different scenarios…
1) When I was your age(s), I would’ve considered myself agnostic. I never went far enough to say atheist, but I always firmly believe that you could never really know if God existed or not.
At some point in my life, things got so bad that I cried out to God to just show me if he was real. It took a couple of years, and then a chain of events ensued that left me with no doubts… God exists! - This journey has gone on for nearly 20 years now, and my faith gets stronger every day, not weaker.
2) Second, is the journey of a man demonstrated by King Solomon; aside from Jesus Christ, the wisest man who ever lived.
Solomon wrote three books of the Bible; the first was Song of Songs, it was all about the love of a woman. The second, when he had matured into a man (maybe as you two are now) was the book of proverbs, where Solomon seemed obsessed with wisdom. And 3) Finally he wrote the book of Ecclesiastes, where he says everything is meaningless here, and a chasing after the wind…
Perhaps a man’s life is divided into segments that he can’t escape. As a little kid you throw tantrums and feel justified in doing so, but later, as a teenager, you feel like you’re no longer a kid, so you become defiant. This seems reasonable as a teenager, but a man in his 30s realizes how ridiculous teenagers are, and develops different strategies to deal with life. The middle aged man, is a master of industry, and realizes the foolishness of young men… And the old man, finally at the end of his journey, realizes the futility of all of it and realizes that this world is not his home at all.
Can these stages be escaped?
I think one of the problems with the free will argument is what it does, not just to you, but to everyone around you. Everyone you ever knew only did the one thing that was available to them to do. There is no improving our situation or making it worse. It just is what it is, and will be what it will be.
On what basis do we insult or praise people for what they do?
Why are we looking at the interview with Peter Hitchens and suggesting he acted rudely or giving condolences to Mr. O'Connor? For existing, for being born into a situation that set them on this inevitable path? They had nothing to do with it. There was no choice in the matter. There was even a deal made about the 17 minutes that Hitchens stood there and acted a fool while O'Connor took it. As if anything else could have occurred.
That just falls flat with so many people.
Choice still exists, it’s just that what guides you to make choices is beyond your control. There is still a responsibility to do good it just changes how we handle people who do bad.
What’s the difference between free will and will??
@@henrytep8884 Good question, a will is a desire, free will is the option to pursue that desire, there are several synonyms for desire that work there. The argument for if we have free will or not defines a more complicated conception of free will though.
@@henrytep8884 Re: 'What’s the difference between free will and will??' See my Hegel quote.
@@beartankoperator7950 I had to ask myself the question.
"Free will" and "will" are terms often used in philosophy, psychology, and general discourse, but they have distinct meanings:
1. Free Will: This concept primarily deals with the ability to choose, make decisions, and act independently of any constraints or determinism. It's a foundational concept in ethics, philosophy, and law. The debate around free will centers on whether individuals are truly free to make their own choices, or if their decisions are predetermined by factors like biology, environment, or a divine being.
2. Will: In a broader sense, "will" refers to the mental faculty by which a person decides or maintains a course of action despite any challenges, distractions, or obstacles. It often involves determination and persistence. In psychology, it's related to concepts like willpower and motivation. It's less about the freedom to choose and more about the capacity to persist in one's choices or desires.
In summary, while "free will" is about the freedom and independence in making choices, "will" is more about the strength and determination to follow through on decisions or desires.
Christian here and a huge fan of Alex and now Chris. Great conversation, you got yourself a new subscriber.
One thing of quick note as far as the mass hallucination theory goes. To entertain that really complicates matters as it demands a myriad of additional problems/ conspiracies to accompany it. Consider the following:
- The hallucination theory now also must include the stolen body theory to deal with the empty tomb issue.
- The hallucination hypothesis cannot explain how in a short time the hallucinations transform into the unifying gospel appearance accounts.
- What about the eyewitnesses of the mass hallucinations? How would it be that they allowed the false narrative of the gospel account to permeate through the very cities and places where these "lies" were said to take place?
William Lane Craig wrote a small but powerful book that covers this topic in more detail called "The Son Rises". Certainly worth a read and consideration.
I appreciate the reluctance of the non-believer to believe in the resurrection but I think group hallucinations is a particularly poor explanation. I understand Alex was not taking this position personally but just figured I would comment on it.
All of those unlikely things are still more likely than a dead person coming back to life.
I think the most likely explanation is they didn't check he was dead as well as they thought and he heal enough after a few days of bed rest in the tomb that he came back out of a coma for a few days where he talked to people before finally succumbing to his injuries. Back in those day people were buried alive commonly and just jabbing him with a spear doesn't seem like enough to tell he was dead. If Jesus came back from being stabbed through the heart and sent through a meat grinder, that would be a lot harder to explain. Its not like he suddenly regrew a leg or did something totally impossible and even in todays world with full on medical technology, people in deep comas sometimes get declared dead and wake up in the morgue. Still it was so long ago that it could easily be a myth, and without physical evidence it didn't happen. If someone has faith they should not need my approval to believe in something without evidence, they just need to own the belief.
It depends on what you compare the hallucination theory with. Compared to the resurrection theory, even alien abduction doesn't sound too crazy to consider.
Also, before we can start talking about mass hallucinations, we must establish that this phenomena (or something that looks like it) actually occurred. If I remember correctly, it was the Paul who mentioned 500 (or so) witnesses. We don't have testimony of those witnesses, we know nothing about them, and taking Paul's word as the ultimate evidence doesn't look like a good idea to me. So I would agree with you that that group hallucination is a poor explanation. We must find out whether something existed in the first place before we should attempt explaining it
And on a side note: would you consider your disbelief in any other religion's supernatural claims a mere "reluctance", as you called it?
I’m on an Alex O’Connor binge this evening. Almost non-consensually. Dawkins, Peter mf Hitchens… two radically incredible and deeply entertaining conversations. In two radically different ways. Now THIS. Three in a row. All different levels of podcast gold.
This one is mega meta. A podcast star in the making interviewing another podcast star in the making talking about podcasting. And how they met. Also Ben Shipro BTS. Damn it’s fascinating.
One thing: I cringed a bit where Alex mentioned the first email from Chris and that he was club promoting. Not sure it was relevant or even needed?! Anyway. Loved this.
I have to admit that I also discovered Alex yesterday, and I'm hooked. His ability to debate is truly amazing, i find him extremely articulate and insightful, yet clear and concise. A humble seeker of truth, a legend in making.
❤
Great talk
I love the relationship between you two! Such a fun listen.
what an iconic duo! pleaseee collab again!! this is one of my favorite conversations
O'Connor definitly one of my favorite modern philosophers
Morality and Empathy is something I know for sure is dying out.
Yeah, there's no choice. People have no money.
Kids aren't smoking anymore because they're all vaping. My thirteen year old niece says she doesn't know anyone in her school who doesn't vape, and that the girls all carry them into school hidden in their bras.
Tragically the number of kids who vape today is greater than the number of kids who smoked cigarettes a generation ago. The vape industry is peddling nicotine and getting away with it.
That's what Peter Hitchens said actually
That's horrifying. I'm in my early 20s and when I was in school it was maybe 30-40% of kids who did it sometimes, and maybe 20% habitual users.
It's almost like kids do stupid things, and it's the parent's responsibility to monitor their children's activities. It's almost as if nothing the government can reasonably (even unreasonably) do will change this fact. It was telling the truth that got people to stop smoking in such large numbers. If we tell the truth about vapes, I suspect something similar will happen.
nice anecdote but that’s not true teen vaping is still down compared to what teen smoking used to be
Being that I'm a massive nerd, I wanted to comment on the infinite universe paradox. Alex said that if the universe were infinite, then the sky would be fully lit at night, looking like an overcast day, but instead we have darkness, which means there is a beginning.
Interestingly, the darkness is not because the edge of the universe makes it so, but rather because of intergalactic dust. If there were no intergalactic dust, the sky would be entirely white because there is indeed a star in every direction.
The math "paradox" about the man in the hotel was stated incorrectly, in such a way that there is no contradiction. The paradox is usually stated with 3 men walking into a hotel, splitting the bill of 30 into 3 groups of 10. The manager realizes that 5 needs to be given back, and the bellboy keeps 2 in order to split the amount evenly among the three men. Now, each man has been given back 1, so they've each paid 9, and the bellboy has 2, so the total is 29, and it would seem that 1 is missing. However, if you really looked at where all the money has gone, you would see that the hotel had gained 30, then gave back 5 (so the hotel now has 25), the bellboy has 2, and the men collectively have 3, which does total to 30, as desired. Jan Misali has a great video on paradoxes, in which they go over this kind of paradox (which they call a "math prank"). I believe they talk about this paradox, if you'd like a full explanation on the math and similar paradoxes.
Also, I'm not so sure about the probabilities of the dice serial killer. It seems to me that assuming that one group is guaranteed to die and that each group's probability of dying is proportional to the number of groups so far is fallacious. I think it has the same problem of misrepresenting the math in such a way that something seems wrong while in reality the math works out completely fine. However, I've never heard of it so maybe there is some paradox there.
Still, great discussion!
I think a discussion on what people mean by "truth" needs to be had. It would be great if Alex could sit down with Jordan Peterson, Jonathan Pageau, and John Vervaeke.
Jordan Peterson is the antonym of truth lol.
The truth doesn't care if you believe it or not. It just is.
It would be a train wreck. Alex isn’t qualified. Peterson talks about thought on a meta level that most listeners cannot comprehend. They tell themselves it’s word salad because they aren’t clever enough to follow his thoughts.
@@demodiums7216 JP is the antonym of truth? I would argue he's a beacon. One of his most common phrases is "Tell the truth, or at least don't lie". He also says "If you want an adventure in life, then speak the truth." Please explain where he's a liar or misleading others. Let me grab a chair, because I feel I'll be waiting a long while for an honest response.
@@Dubbadizzo86 the fact that hr works for the Daily Wire...whose sole purpose is too further enrich the already rich...and deny climate change. The fact that he pushes a carnivore diet...which is ridiculous and unscientific. The fact that hes a self help guy who had to be put into a coma to get off drugs. Not to mention he cries every 5 minutes and is clearly mentally unstable. Pay attention to what he does...not what he says.
To Alex’s point about ‘what would it look like to live as if there were no free will’ - this line of reasoning is exactly why I subscribe to Sam Harris’s notion that I genuinely do not feel as if I have free will. When you really pay attention to what underlays your actions, you’ll notice that you are the audience disguised as the symphony.
Interesting point.
@@someonesomeone25 hey, thanks :)
So give me all your money, since you don't have free will
@@karlinwilliamson9329 I’d rather not, but I’d be at pains to tell you exactly why not
@@Williamwilliam1531 no problem, to each is own
4:50 is such a smooth line. You have my prayers Alex O’Connor.
I love the talk about how much harder and more important it is to build than to tear stuff down.
"I've been thinking a lot recently about that" - great podcast, lots of thinking :)
This is such a sweet spot of interesting conversation, keep doing this guys!
Studies do show that people who believe in freewill behave more charitably. Also, denial of freewill threatens to "take away" a person's most prized possessions; everything they've worked so hard in life to achieve - work, family, schooling, awards etc - are NO LONGER accomplishments, but inevitable outcomes they can't take any responsibility for. It takes away their PRIDE.
Not just pride; it takes away their inherent worth, their dignity. You're literally reduced to a cog in a pointless machine.
Could you share the studies?
Is this really any different from people from rich families refusing to accept that maybe their family fortune is a bit more responsible for their situation than their "hard work"? I think the main difficulty with accepting the argument is the fact that the way our entire society is organized is based on it being false. We often simplify things by pretending that people have choices that they really don´t have, at least not in any practical way.
And what exactly does that have to do with whether free will exists or not?
Can a study on these topics be trusted. I think I might have got to the point where I don't believe one of these studies that says something like "behave more charitably" unless I've heard the entire methodology because conclusions don't always follow.
Thank you Chris. You have quickly become one of my favorite intellectuals along with Dr. Huberman and Dr. Peterson. Really impressed with what you’re doing. Thank you man. I’m doing my masters in Addiction Counseling and consider myself a bit of an amateur philosopher. I really like all these podcasts you’re putting out.
Yeah how about JP lately? Not impressed personally
Peterson?! I was impressed with him for all of one video. I then found him to be rambling and incoherent. He is just attracting incel types.
@@leod-sigefast he is having a crisis of mind, I've watched about 2 minutes it's obvious.
I think he feels guilty of being influenced, question is, was it lube covered Inference or just dry slamming.
I'm glad it shows he still has elgalartarin views in there...
Look at beads 3rd comment down on his chanel, ' I found JP sad, not usual self'
I wasn't 100% meaning I just thought of it, but I pulled it off again.
I feel like the best example of a revolution in philosophy is Kripke in naming and necessity, the idea that there can be necessary but a postiori truths. I've seen one argument that it put realist analytic philosophy on better epistemic ground than it literally ever had been before.
You are great together, I’d love to see another episode soon ❤❤
The philosophy book "Freedom from reality" argues that the notion of freedom as Alex explains it: "Authorship over your actions" completely independant of any context or relationships, is absolutely absurd. It is as the titles sais: seperate from reality itself. Relationships seem to be very base of reality, context is everything. Just listen to Ian McGilchrist of John Vervaeke to better understand that notion.
The better notion of freedom is one where you are free to do what is Good, without being hindered by either the tirany of your own hedonic desires (e.g., addicts are the least free people), or from other people (The state forbidding you with tyranic laws).
And of course you cannot decide for yourself what is Good or not, that would make you god. That's why god is seen as the concept or essence of Good itself.
Freedom is the capacity, not the ease.
The paradox as described isn't really a paradox at all. A fair die has a 1/6 chance of landing on any one number, including 6. This is independent of the number of people being included in each individual trial and while I will grant that you have an increased probability of belonging to a group in one of the latter trials, any one group would have the exact same chance of living or dying, which is less than 1/2, so if you want to be selfish you should let the die roll.
Now, if you want to be utilitarian, then the geometric probability distribution, has an expectation of 1/p. This would tell us the expected number of trials until the first roll of 6 is 6 as 1/(1/6) is 6. If the number of people included in each trial doubles starting with 1 person in trial one, then by trial six we would have 32 people. This means that on average, 32 people would die. It is trivial to assume then, that a button that allows you to increase the probability of any one individual trial (yours) to 1/2, regardless of which trial it is, would reduce the total expectation of any resulting distribution, this means that less than 6 trials would be needed on average to roll a 6 and thus, less than 32 people would die. So a utilitarian should press the button.
Glad you said this already, I was listening and shaking my head that Alex was suffering from something akin to the gambler's fallacy. I thought for sure there was going to be some ethical twist like, if you die on the coin flip everyone else is let free or something.
I love Alex. I put huge stalk in *how* people debate, and appreciate that he consistently puts in the effort to have a good faith debate. Sometimes, I think he's dead wrong, such as his contention that religion is a net harm because you can't reason with a religious person, but you can with an atheists is just simply in-group/out-group bias. The truth is that there are reasonable and unreasonable people in both camps, or a severe misunderstanding that faith is the opposite of reason.
Chance is not such a ludicrous proposition for understanding the fine tuning of our universe if one considers how our observation of the natural world show us that systems find equilibrium.
Our universe exists the way it does because the disparate natural forces within it have established a balance. If we changed some of the natural laws to different values, we might not have a universe which we recognize, but there would still be a fine-tuned equilibrium that would likely be reached.
“Be more… accessible.” Pure class 😂