Am I the only one finding this terrible? I was really hoping for something more than this. I am not a huge fan of lessons where the speaker totally leans on a side, but this aside all the arguments that he presents are elementary and carried out more with body language and emotional emphasis rather than logical steps. I may have misunderstood everything, if so give me a hand here please.
I don't agree with the point about lady crossing the street, you could just argue that you just like feeling like a good person. Ans what makes you feel like that is determined by what society deems praiseworthy/horrible. (after all, how did you know it's a good thing to help a lady cross the street? Probably your parents/teachers.) That being said, yeah, while 45 minutes of this is a thinly-veiled rant about how psychological hedonism is utterly wrong, if you're a college professor, you can be extremely tangential about one topic, as a treat. The other lectures are genuienly very good (even though they focus more on english speaking philosophers than they probably should be) and more objective. You should also consider he must shove all of this into a 55 minute introductory lecture, so it has to be kinda surface level and cannot painstaikingly go through all the logical steps. Also I just think it's funny he is utterly unable to go one lecture without mentioning David Hume. This is not supposed to be some great refutation of what you have said, I'm just inviting you to introduce more flimsy into your life
Am I the only one finding this terrible? I was really hoping for something more than this. I am not a huge fan of lessons where the speaker totally leans on a side, but this aside all the arguments that he presents are elementary and carried out more with body language and emotional emphasis rather than logical steps. I may have misunderstood everything, if so give me a hand here please.
I don't agree with the point about lady crossing the street, you could just argue that you just like feeling like a good person. Ans what makes you feel like that is determined by what society deems praiseworthy/horrible. (after all, how did you know it's a good thing to help a lady cross the street? Probably your parents/teachers.)
That being said, yeah, while 45 minutes of this is a thinly-veiled rant about how psychological hedonism is utterly wrong, if you're a college professor, you can be extremely tangential about one topic, as a treat. The other lectures are genuienly very good (even though they focus more on english speaking philosophers than they probably should be) and more objective. You should also consider he must shove all of this into a 55 minute introductory lecture, so it has to be kinda surface level and cannot painstaikingly go through all the logical steps.
Also I just think it's funny he is utterly unable to go one lecture without mentioning David Hume.
This is not supposed to be some great refutation of what you have said, I'm just inviting you to introduce more flimsy into your life