The Ugly Decline Of Morality In The Digital Age - Alex O’Connor (4K)
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 15 พ.ค. 2024
- Alex O’Connor is a TH-camr, writer and a podcaster.
Grappling with difficult moral questions is a part of human life, but in the age of Wikipedia and ChatGPT, are we now outsourcing our morality? Are people becoming less moral over time?
Expect to learn why Peter Hitchens really does not like Alex, whether ChatGPT can be convinced of the existence of God, what the non-identity problem is, if Nihilism will make a comeback, the impact of the debate around free will, how much we can trust the historical accuracy of the bible and much more…
Sponsors:
Get a Free Sample Pack of all LMNT Flavours with your first box at www.drinklmnt.com/modernwisdom (automatically applied at checkout)
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?
1:38:01 What’s Next for Alex?
-
Get access to every episode 10 hours before TH-cam by subscribing for free on Spotify - spoti.fi/2LSimPn or Apple Podcasts - apple.co/2MNqIgw
Get my free Reading List of 100 life-changing books here - chriswillx.com/books/
Try my productivity energy drink Neutonic here - neutonic.com/modernwisdom
-
Get in touch in the comments below or head to...
Instagram: / chriswillx
Twitter: / chriswillx
Email: chriswillx.com/contact/
Hello you beauties. Access all episodes 10 hours earlier than TH-cam by Subscribing on Spotify - spoti.fi/2LSimPn or Apple Podcasts - apple.co/2MNqIgw. 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
1:37:10 Fukin. Brilliant. Statement right here by Skeptic. I encounter this all the time lately. I'm on Louise Perry's channel a lot, cause she's my age, breaking into intellectual commentator space in a big way, doing a great job helping with particular social issues, and has a good channel that deserves a signal boost. But I'm a Centrist Classical Liberal, determinist, consequentialist, pseudo Libertarian, pseudo utilitarian. Whether on LP's channel or Benjamin Boyce's NRx-infused Liberal heterodox channel, I always encounter virtue ethicists, religious Center-Right ppl etc., making exactly this kind of argument nowadays, in this online heterodox space that I like. They say, "it's what works most adequately in society, that's the argument for it, but I'm a deontologist, or I'm a virtue ethicist". I'm like, hold up y'all...which one is you, and which one is me?
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. 😂
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.
It’s always insightful to listen to you Alex.
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
The Freud joke Alex pulled off at 54:29 and the response from Chris was awesome - you can tell these guys are friends.
laughed my ass off seeing it
Is that the wrong time stamp? They're talking about their favourite paradoxes
here.
It's 53:56.
@@redmed10 Yeah, that was at the moment Chris responded to the joke, I should have starting it earlier.
I can’t tell anything.
The delivery was _flawless._
40:20 Chris’s request for clarification is simply, “Be more accessible”. Brilliant. I’m stealing that one.
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
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
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 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.🙂
"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!
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.
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
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 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.
The best of the best. Intelligence, generosity, friendship, humor, insight, generosity. It doesn't get better than this.
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
@@tecategpt1959 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.
Delightful, I am so pleased to see Alex getting his flowers and having this conversation with Chris! Hopefully he becomes a regular!
Love the work that both of you do. The honest search for interesting ideas is something that enriches everyone. Keep up the good fight. 🙂
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! 🎉
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.
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 ❤😚
This was amazing. Thank you gentlemen. I look forward to the day I sit across the table from 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 absolutely adore alex. Thanks for making content with him! Hearing him talk is always insightful
What a great conversation, lots of respect, lots of chemistry and good topics. Thank you!!
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
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".
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
This is such a sweet spot of interesting conversation, keep doing this guys!
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.
First time listening to an interview with Chris, love how he is such a sport about stuff and words he doesn't know.
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.
Just started this, and these two sound like me and my friends when we get together. We dig into each other every second. I love seeing the genuine comradery.
yeah it's also very much like a girl conversation, very uninspiring
@@marinasparks1675 take the negativity somewhere else.
@@ShiniGuraiJoker I go where I want. Bunch of groupies...
Love this conversation! Listened twice. Great topics. Great tone. I'm a fan of both you guys!
Glad Alex is back.
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.”
I very much enjoyed listening to this conversation. Thank you both.
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.
If Mr. O’Connor is interested in understanding why his interview with Mr. Hitchens went wrong, I’d like to share a few of my impressions, both after watching this podcast and the one in question: I have to admit after watching the interview between Mr. O’Connor and Mr. Hitchens, I feel for both sides. Peter Hitchens clearly didn’t come prepared to debate the topics at hand. Being interviewed is not the same thing as being debated, at least traditionally. Certainly, there are scenarios where an interviewer will ask tough questions but a good interviewer guides and directs conversation, they are not there to debate their guests but to lead a discussion. Mr. O’Connor is an incredible debater, a professional, and in many ways, an unparalleled one. But very few interviewees are. It takes time for most people, even those who have been in politics as long as Mr. Hitchens has been, to ponder and formulate their thoughts. Many writers, especially, find it easier to write their thoughts than to speak them. It would have been wise for Mr. Hitchens to research Mr. O’Connor’s podcasting style and professional history prior to accepting the invitation. But, it would have also been courteous of Mr. O’Connor to give Mr. Hitchens a heads up on his interview style. Certainly, Mr. Hitchens did not handle the situation well. But Mr. O’Connor has some things to learn as well. Rebuttals and questions are not the same thing. An interview is not the same thing as a debate. Most interviewees, if they knew they were going to be debating rather than discussing would turn Mr. O’Connor’s invitation down, not because their arguments aren’t valid but because they aren’t skilled in debate. If you’ve ever engaged in a debate, you’ll know what I’m talking about here. It is a very intense and highly practiced skill that most people are not versed in. You can see the point at which Mr. Hitchens’ demeanor turns, it is clearly when Mr. O’Connor’s speed of questioning increases and when his questions changed from more discussional to a simplified barrage of suggestion. Rather than reframing or finding a more patient and conversational approach when Mr. Hitchens starts to repeat himself, Mr. O’Connor turns to his debating background, realizing there is a seemingly weak point in Mr. H’s argument and using that weakness to exploit him. Mr. O values fleshing out weaknesses in arguments. It’s his career. But, again, an interview is not typically thought of as a debate. Mr. H did not go in to the interview expecting this. In between Mr. H’s incoherence, he was making some valid points that Mr. O should have recognized and respected as Mr. H was his guest, not his opponent. Unless a guest is made aware of the fact that they need to come prepared with notes in order to seriously argue certain points, it is, in my mind, bordering on rude to treat a friendly discussion as an argument that needs defending. It would be wise for Mr. O’Connor to give his future guests a heads up in his style before engaging them in this way. I found his point valid, but I also could see validity in Mr. H’s points as well. Walking out and becoming unfriendly was unprofessional of Mr. H, but his being triggered by the approach Mr. O took was not completely unwarranted. Just some thoughts. 🌿
This is the beat comment that has ever been posted on the internet, ever.
I agree. I think another reason why Hitchens got upset was that Hitchens, in other interviews, always fights for the interests of young, British people and often is the voice for disadvantaged young, British men. To this end and considering his age, he has seen firsthand the damage that drugs has had on the population of the UK over the decades. Peter Hitchen's has grown to see his country be brought down little by little, a death by a thousand paper-cuts, and has written many books about it ... only to then, have a young sophist-style interviewer keep going around in circles about how he believes that drugs should be legalised .... It is a triggering issue for someone that loves his country and grew up in his country under better times.
@@shanecle very good point. Makes a lot of sense.
@@shanecle It's not the drugs. It's the prohibition of drugs, and the culture changing that leads to the damage. In the very same country, within the lifetime of Hitchens, drugs like heroin were legal. There were no problems like we see today. There were less than a thousand addicts in the entire country. Outlawing drugs also obviously leads to more organized crime. If drugs were legal in the US, the cartels wouldn't exist. The data is against Hitchens. He has to appeal to emotion, and use anecdotes to bolster his argument. It always boils down to a personal moral stance. Not good enough.
I also hate how people act like a ban on drugs, and not using drugs, is a long and proud tradition. It's not. Most everything was legal in most countries until the 70s. Ritual, medicinal, and recreational drug use have been a normal part of life for most cultures in known history. Again, it is not the drugs themselves that lead to problems, it is the culture and mental health of the individual that matters. Use the rat cocaine experiment as an example. The rats that had friends and family, a community of rats, didn't get addicted to the cocaine infused water. The rats that were isolated became depressed and addicted to the cocaine water. It works the same way in humans. Given the choice between a happy, healthy family and community, and drugs, the vast majority of people would choose the former.
Well I'll repeat my own two cents of it that I commented on the original video, what was wrong with Alex O'Connor, was that he lied.
(timestamps are for the video published by Alex O'Connor)
At 12:38 it is said by Alex O'Connor that he has been reading Peter Hitchen's book and wants to follow up on undeveloped arguments, following this at 14:40 Alex O'Connor makes an argument concerning other illicit susbtances, chapter 7 of Peter Hitchen's book already developed this argument. (accesible by internet archive)
Therefore Alex O'Connor lied.
Particularly the lie either breaks the premise of the discussion or the integrity of it, what is the case is either Alex O'Connor did not read Peter Hitchen's book (removing the purpose of the interview) or Alex O'Connor did read the book and lied about wanting to follow up undeveloped arguments (removing the integrity of the interview).
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?
What a great conversation. Glad to see Alex on the interviewee side instead of being the interviewer or a debater.
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.
Alex O'Conner is one of the only atheist I have followed that is honestly looking for the truth. He never is buried in his beliefs and has the humility to admit when he's wrong. I have huge respect for the guy one of the smartest people I've ever listen to.
Did you start following before or after he integrated the argument that religion has utility? Cause now its a different game. Being an atheist in a world where religion is "real". One that i assume many people play.
So theists are looking for the truth? You really haven't heard many atheists have you?
@@brian_phillip Well, I have. I've been an atheist for all my life. As far as I can tell, it's hard to find one of these atheist "activists" who tries to be objective and is not driven by some kind of adolescent thirst for apostasy. I appreciate Alex or Sam Harris, I think they're honest and intelligent, even if, from what I've seen of them, they don't know much about the things that they like to discuss (his video on Galileo, for example, comes to mind).
Isn't the entry point for literally every major religion that you have found absolute truth? not much sense in looking for what you've already found is there. I'd go further to say atheists are probably the only one's open to finding out they might be wrong.
Are there aggressive atheists dead set on their stance? Yeah of course. But why should I seek the truth that I don't believe in? My stance is that we will never know, as it's impossible to know. But suddenly taking this as a reason to believe in anything is a delusion to me.
Not a single religion to this day has provided an answer that works in relation to the reality, and the more time passes the less anchored in reality they are. To me that points to the fact that none of the current religions is correct, and that's why I'm an atheist. And I bet if you provide me, or any other atheists with an evidence most of them will change their mind.
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 love the relationship between you two! Such a fun listen.
Always glad to see Alex. This was great.
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.
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?
@@IamnotfromUSA 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.
Very interesting conversation. It's very enjoyable to watch to friends have a deep discussion but still have some good hearted humor to lighten up the mood.
Was watching this at half past three when Alex explained the case with the Capitol clock... freaky!
Great podcast!
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.
Isnt the "boo" just a negative emotional reaction, so how is it incoherent.
If i have a negative emotional reaction to murder, i have a negative reaction to killing dave.
And the other one wouldnt it just change from i wonder boo murder is wrong to , i wonder why i have a negative emotional reaction to murder, doesnt that essentially answer the same question?
@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.
@@authenticallysuperficial9874but isnt emotisvsm about how our judgments of these things as expressions of feeling or attitude.
So if i ask why wouldnt an investigation into the reasoning behind these emotional attitudes be the next step how would that be different from why is murder wrong from and emotivist standpoint its an ethical question.
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.
Great conversation Alex is the best 👏🏻
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.
Great podcast. Already have listened to it on spotify. Alex O' Connor brings up a lot of interesting thoughts, which give me a lot to think about during the day.
You are great together, I’d love to see another episode soon ❤❤
Great conversation. Love to you both.
I've been subscribed to this man for 3 years now. The first time I bothered checking his sub count this year, I was sent into shock.
This man will go far if he continues to find passion in public speaking.
700k is a lot
26:24 When I was a math major 20 years ago, there was a lot of talk of non-Euclidean geometry even back then.
I hear “science changes” a lot as an argument to discredit science; the problem is that new models don’t necessarily negate the old ones. Non-Euclidean geometry may be more useful in certain situations, but that doesn’t discredit Euclidean geometry.
Always an interesting listen. Thanks for the content.
I love this!! It spoke to my spirit!! Let's get it done!!!
Its cute how these 2 geniuses know so little about astronomy. Love you guyz
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.
What is uplifting about this interview is how well Alex sounds and looks. Was worried there for awhile.
Cuz he's not vegan anymore
Alex is brilliant at steel manning arguments. And that’s what makes conversation interesting.
O'Connor definitly one of my favorite modern philosophers
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.
What are the foundations that stabilised and regulated us, to stop us from being immoral, which are now removed?
Great conversation! Regarding the anthropic killer paradox, it seems to arise from two reasonable definitions one might adopt for the probability of dying if you are a victim of the killer:
1. Given a game of length N, what is the probability you wake up on the last round? This clearly depends on the exponentially growing population, giving the paradoxical result.
2. Given you wake up on round N, what is the probability that the game ends this round? This, I'm pretty sure does not depend on the population size of round N or other rounds. Instead a fraction P of hypothetical games that reach round N end there, and (1-P) continue, where P is the chance for the killer to kill his victims.
I favour the second option for the particular wording of the question: 'you wake up knowing you are a victim on an unspecified round'. Option one favours a different scenario: 'if you are a victim tomorrow, what is the probability you will survive?'
Isn't the answer that it does not matter what happened before. You have a 1/6 chance OR 1/2 chance. Chance doesn't have memory. Even it's hasn't rolled 6 once for 100 times it's still same 1/6.
Very interesting conversation! I just saw Alex did an interview with John Vervaeke - gonna listen to it after this one.
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.
I love this set. I think MW is definitely the most watchable podcast 👍🏼
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
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.
Great to see Alex on your podcast.
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
Great conversation gents ❤ thank you x
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.
Alex’s points on Christianity strangely strengthens my faith. Bless you sir! “Christ has died. Christ has risen. Christ will come again.”
bless up homie
There’s nothing like the cold hearted nonsense of an atheist that strengthens one’s faith!
@@aimhigh3701 where does this view that one must be religious to care about others come from? I'm an atheist and one of the most empathetic person towards others you will come across... you don't need to believe some make believe fairy-tale about Adam and eve or a god in the skies, to feel compassion towards other members of your own species... or even of other species.
@@anab0lic I don't doubt you truly care about people. It's simply that based on the presuppositions of your own worldview, your behavior is either irrational, or in some way self serving. If I care about no one and you care about everyone, we simply have different belief systems. There is nothing based on facts and evidence that dictates that you are right and I am wrong. There are no "oughts".
Fairy tales for children
Epic....this show rekindles my thirst for intellectual debates I used to watch with
C. Hitchens! Thank you
40:12 "Be more accessible" I love this, I wish people would ask their guests to do this more often.
Nerd
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
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.
Ahh i remember this dude being so hyped over their 10 thousand subs plaque
How wholesome it is to see things work out
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.
Love Alex and Chris so always smile when I see they have another episode!
Fantastic interview not least of which because if the genuine friendship . Chris you bring out the best in your interviewees i’m guessing because you invest in really getting to know your guests & that comes across . I have always had such respect for Alex but didn’t ever see his real
personality come out but here it is that and the classy way he dealt with Hutchins endears him even more . Like you he is destined for even greater things & deservedly so
1:32:45
"Would you press a button that gives you $1,000,000 but a random person dies?"
I think the idea that over half of people saying yes is a sign of any kind of moral decline assumes that there was ever a point in history when the majority of people *wouldn't* press that button.
I think part of the issue with these scenarios is that people see this and think, "That's horrifying, but at least there aren't buttons that you can press to instantly get $1,000,000" and don't extrapolate that out further. People die when buildings get constructed, people die due to semi-truck accidents, people die due to car malfunctions. At some point along the way someone decided, "this much risk is worth this many dollars" and as a direct result people have died
People having the power over life and death and using it to make money isn't anything new
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.
The "death bed" goodbye is for the living...not the soon to be deceased.
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.
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?
Alex, your debate with Ben Shapiro was not just good, it was extraordinary. ALL debaters could learn from what the two of you did there. Simply extraordinary. I find your approach to most topics not only interesting but compelling, even in the area of religion, though I am a believer. Two things to consider. 1. Where I find you least compelling is on the topic of monarchy. I am an American, so I don't really much care what the Windsors are doing or not doing, or whether you yourself have to pay £1 per year or £5000 pounds per year out of your pocket to support the monarchy. But I find whenever you discuss the subject, you go off onto an emotional tangent that doesn't help me understand your argument. My advice: Divest yourself of the emotion, concentrate on the argument. 2. You brought up the progression of post-resurrection claims beginning with Mark then to the other Synoptics and finally John. Sure, the progression of post-resurrection claims could constitute accretions over time. Absolutely. But I pose an alternative that I don't know you've considered. Consider Paul's description of the liturgy. You've certainly attended Anglican or RC liturgies, so you know there is a Liturgy of the Word followed by a Liturgy of the Eucharist. Trace back the origins of those two parts of the liturgy. To end Mark at the entombment is natural, because right after you read from Mark or from the Hebrew Bible (or likely both, even early on)--in Mark's community, of course--you're going to go right into what was, very early on, a well-defined liturgy around the bread and wine. All the stuff about resurrection plays out in the Liturgy of the Eucharist, then as now. The Liturgy of the Word is passive, the Liturgy of the Eucharist requires involvement of every person in attendance. Think of the very kinetic Eastern Orthodox Easter liturgy, wherein the entire congregation goes outside and walks around the church. Jesus is not in the tomb, but has risen, the priest proclaims. You don't have to write this stuff down because it's already in the Liturgy of the Eucharist, and thus you naturally arrive at the way Mark is written and the way it ends. I'd love to hear your counter-argument after you take the time to trace back the two aspects of the greater liturgy to their origin in home-churches in the early church. Chris, great interview of a fascinating intellect!
I was with you at the beginning of your comment because I found your humility genuinely endearing, and on I read.
But you lost me after I read liturgy for the 13th time.
My advice: I have none. Just wanted to compliment your take. I unironically enjoyed how comprehensive you endeavoured to be 👏🏿👏🏿
@@jonnysenditThanks so much for your comment. I know I went heavy into 'church-speak' but I did so in the knowledge that Alex would be able to follow what I was saying. But I confess I can be a bit technical and dry, too, and this negative tendency can pull others away from my analysis. Mea culpa. I spent 36 years in the laboratory doing pharmaceutical R&D, and I was known for my technical precision. I thought this would serve as worthy basis for non-technical, creative writing, but in fact I had to unlearn big chunks of the communication style that served me well in research but was an untenable burden to writing as novelist or explainer of science. Alex is just plain one of the best advocates for what I want to call a non-religious viewpoint. I respect and learn from his work because he conducts himself always in a civil manner and I believe he is equally open to learning from any opponent. I see myself as researcher in him, and I respect a well planned and executed research sequence, which Alex invariably provides. Honestly, I can immediately envision sitting down for a cup of coffee with Alex, and I thought until this debate I would be unable to do so with someone like Ben Shapiro. Maybe if I had more of Alex's humility and honesty I would be able to break bread with conservatives. Perhaps even Bernie liberals like me can learn from conservatives. They're as human as you and I are, after all, so their experience must have some value to us. PM 2024
I disagree with Alex on just about everything but I always appreciate his charitable demeanor. It goes a long way
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.
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.
This guy is so brilliant. Love his content and this podcast!
Knowledge is past experiences that help us guide our future expectations. This distinction is VERY important. Knowledge itself does NOT relate to the future, it relates to our confirmed experiences that then help form our expectations of the future.
So when you talk about seeing an event where your mind fills the blanks of the unknown by using your experience that is based on knowledge (of the past), that expectation of the future does not become knowledge until you make a confirming observation. I don't know why Alex went through so many odd hoops to discuss this topic when it's pretty simple. You Chris actually hit the nail right on the head, but then Alex picked it up and just ran with it to some place that turned it into a convoluted mess. Knowledge is not truth, because knowledge is not static. Knowledge can be influenced by new data, new observations. What we know can be right, even if the expectations it helps us base are sometimes wrong. That doesn't make the knowledge wrong, it makes our application of the knowledge wrong. Big difference, yet very simple difference.
I think this is where philosophy and debates have some of their pitfalls, where you can easily be lured into overanalyzing and distancing yourself from the original soul of the topic being raised. It ends up being talking for the sake of talking, which dilutes the original discussion.
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
@@FuckingboredrnIt doesn't really matter what Rose has to say. Each year that passes it becomes more and more clear that there is almost certainly no god. We have to create our own meaning outside of religion as that ship has already sailed.
@@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".
The crucial point on the dice example is that the trials are independent. It' not a multiplicative probability problem, as the speaker seems to believe.
I listened to this podcast yesterday. Today I put on a watch that i wear maybe once/month and was going to set the time because it had stopped(batteryless watch that I need to wind up. I look at the time on my phone, it showed 9:21, then looked at the watch, lo and behold, my watch had stopped at 9:21 after the previous wind-up. My mind was so blown for the following minute I almost entered another dimension. What are the odds?
I love the talk about how much harder and more important it is to build than to tear stuff down.