It's single player complete isolate we don't get involved with other discipline only as prerequisites - we hang out with our buddies isolated from the demographic of the university they don't do that here. Barely ever speak only write papers, read. Learn music.
I really appreciate Joe's commitment to intellectual honestly. And, if you're going to take a shot at anyone, I think presuppositionalists are the most deserving...
Love the advocation for the principle of charity within discourse 🙏so important and can be extended to your personal relationships as well, wholeheartedly seeking to understand someone’s perspective when it differs from your own and going the extra mile to see truth within it.
5:00 about subjectivity If I recall correctly your stance on intuition, that would qualify as a typical argument in phylosophy and as something that is entirely subjective. The characterization I remember you offering was of the result of "deep reasoning" by someone on the basis of their unique perspective and mental faculties. I'd say that this is as subjective as it gets. More over, the very fact that there's no standard by which one can even assess objectively if something is "conceivable" or "making intuitive sense" also leads to considering philosophy subjective given how frequently these are used in argumentation in philosophical circles. On the matter of the topics for philosophical inquiry, metaphisics can be considered inherently a subjective endeavour: with metaphysics one ventures to try and make sense of things without any empirical discriminant between differing views. And the whole effort is about constructing a narrative that therefore can only be subjectively evaluated by whatever standard the individual philosopher likes. Of course there are epistemic virtues that can be assessed, but they can also be ignored and often are. In particular the cardinal issue that makes philosophy not objective is the fact that no matter how ludicrous, wrong, plain stupid or improper one's arguments are, they are still treated as a valid philosophical endeavour. I'm thinking for example of asinine statements like swinburne saying that there can't be a "part of a thinker" (we've observed that in neuroscience at least since the '90s) or plantinga's idea that's just fine to have a prejudice (in the so-called reformed epistemology). The fact that such positions are considered philosophically valid shows that there's no objectivity in philosophy.
“The fact that such positions are considered philosophically valid shows that there is no objectivity in philosophy” hmmm interesting is this proposition objectively true? :)
@@sillythewanderer4221 yes. Yes it is. Yes, it's an objectively true fact that keeping for respectable objectively false statements makes the whole discipline not objective. And if you beg to differ, argue for it, I'll gladly reply and show where it's mistaken.
@@paskal007rThere is nothing even in science that would be inherently objective, something can be valid but I don't think u understand what valid really means in philosophy. "Valid" just means conceptually correct, for something to be conceptually correct it just has to follow the main 3 laws of logic, and be logically possible, it doesn't have to connect or reach practical applications just be possible. Even then, the same way it would be Circular reasoning to prove with logic that logic holds true, that's why logical absolutes are the highest our understanding can go, so is it the case that facts themselves, while being observable, are ultimately unprovable in the sense that they are not 100% certain to be happening the way we as humans perceive them, there are a lot of illusions and sense deprivations, we are ultimately limited by our senses, so if u for some reason hold subjectivity for philosophy in this manner, you would also have to take the view that science is subjective since every information passes down to our subjective senses and understanding of the objective world, if it is even real at all and not just an illusion to begin with.
@@ibukisunshine-gaka3832 "There is nothing even in science that would be inherently objective, " Of course there is. Measurements for example. But also checking whether a set of measurements support the rejection of the null hypothesis up to a certain p-value is an objective operation. It's so objective it's often left to computers to execute. If you think that these operations aren't objective, you are likely just unfamiliar with the matter. "is it the case that facts themselves, while being observable, are ultimately unprovable in the sense that they are not 100% certain to be happening the way we as humans perceive them" That is utterly irrelevant. You are confusing the ultimate source of the phenomenon with the phenomenon. We can't of course have a 100% certainty in science, that doesn't translate at all to it not being objective. But even then, the measurement isn't about the source of the phenomenon, it's about the phenomenon itself, namely the appearance we experience. ""Valid" just means conceptually correct" In philosophy, specially in logic, "valid" doesn't at all mean conceptually correct, given that validity it's not predicated about concepts. It's only predicated about the structure of a reasoning and the sole criteria is that said reasoning must make it impossible to start with true premises and conclude a false conclusion. This too is an objective matter. You seem to be confusing objective with absolutely grounded. Which is completely wrong. For something to be objective it only needs to be mind independant. There's no requirement for it to be absolutely grounded. Math for example is based on arbitrary, ungrounded axioms AND its theorems are objective. Contrast this with philosophy where there's no rhyme or reason as to whether it follows from the definition of what a mind is to whether one can have a part of a thinker and even having demonstrated one thirty years ago isn't sufficient to stop people from claiming its impossible and still be taken for serious philosophers and not ignorant jackasses.
You should consider creating a series of videos that are short in which you provide simple and straight answers for all philosophy questions that you seek to answer. P.S. the series is a straight forward without presentation all arguments and complexities
If all beliefs are false then you wouldnt raise then you wouldnt maximize true beliefs by believing more truths. And there is a third option to have the same attitude towards maximizing true beliefs and minimizing false beliefs.
Great as always. Do you have any tips on how to remember so much friggin information? As an undergrad it feels intimidating how you as a recent graduate already know and remember so much.
@@naparzanieklawiatury4908 Agreed. When I hear presuppers all I hear is a series of assertions that attack their interlocutors willingness to be epistemically humble. Their argument seems to me to be, “you can’t solve the problem of induction, therefore my interpretation of God is the only option!” I’m not especially philosophically literate so when I hear them put so much philosophical lipstick on that pig I end up wondering what I’m missing and think there surely has to be more to what they are saying. Joe is a fellow who could shine some light on that for me.
@@boowens7247 I also think it's mostly rhetoric and debate bro tactics / bullying into submission. I have watched a lot of content like that and have engaged with some presuppers at length. They do regurgitate something close to an argument though, to be fair to them. It's along those lines: only the theistic worldview can account for x (x being sometimes knowledge, sometimes intelligibility of the universe, maybe something else which escapes me now), so in short it's the "impossibility of the contrary" argument. The problem is they ignore the state of academic philosophy entirely and simply cannot come close to showing that every other worldview entails a contradiction / can't account for x properly.
@@naparzanieklawiatury4908 I appreciate the feedback. It seems like "impossibility of the contrary” is one of those phrases like “Irreducible complexity” that appears only in apologetics.
What do you think of virtuous circularity with regards to these anti-philosophy claims? It's too simple to just say it's self defeating when what's what it's trying to demonstrate
At 7:00 you say that scientists have to use philosophy if they want to argue that philosophy is not worth doing, which vindicates philosophy. But I think this is a weak defense for philosophy. Because at most you really only need to know a very basic amount of philosophy at a fundamental level in order to critique it - i.e. to say whether philosophy is good or bad. Nothing about that really requires one to study philosophy in depth, or get into questions of whether moral realism is true vs moral antirealism etc. Like I think science (not scientism...no one practices that unlike what your interviewer suggested) basically would agree that some basic level of philosophy is needed when it comes to logic and so on for doing mathematics and writing proofs, and that has a role in science since we employ those mathematical theorems in our work. But to say that philosophy is valuable as a general field of study, just because we need a few axioms or an understanding of what a logical negation implies, is really overstating the case for philosophy. At most we just need it as a foothold to get started. I think there is continued value in being able to think clearly and logically and that should be the domain of philosophy, but outside of that, honestly...you don't make progress in philosophy. It is largely a dead field when it comes to serious discoveries about the world for good reason; the mind and rational thought alone can only take you so far. We can apply the things we've learned to new questions, like how we should treat AI or ethics when it comes to digital technology in the modern world, but often in order to get meaningful answers we do need data, and studies to answer them instead of just "broad reasoning abilities". So once again you need science to make real progress. Frankly when you read some of the latest works produced by post-modern philosophers, it just seems like total garbage. Have you read Baudrillard? Deleuze? lol...after reading enough of them I just can't stand it any longer. The deliberate obfuscation and obscurantism, which almost certainly leads nowhere. I'm done with it. I'd be curious to see you try to tackle that and come away with a useful message. On the other hand, scientists, at least the good ones, try their best to be comprehensible, not incomprehensible Frankly I think serious philosophy is more of an entertaining hobby for those people who like looking deeply into certain subjects. But if you are serious about making valuable contributions to the world, you ought to study some form of science/engineering/programming or get some business/political savvy.
I think there is a need to return philosophy to the laymen, and I tend to agree with your view that (especially) postmodern philosophy is deliberately obfuscating. I think this idea of scientism is largely held in online spaces, typically by uninformed peoples so I also agree with your point there. I think philosophy is useful for laying the foundation on which we build our science. I've been thinking on it for a while, and I'm just a hobbyist but I believe it coincides with your point of view. You talk of philosophy as being a "foothold" and I think this is a succinct way of putting it. And the best we can do is ensure that foothold is as stable as possible such that science can continue to act as a means of producing contribution to society. I'm unable to expound further on what this looks like because the ideas are still forming in my head but thought I'd jot this down as a quick reply to you.
I completely agree with you that philosophy is needed, I remember back when i was an atheist, i never really liked the new atheists one of the reason was that they were terrible at philosophy. Graham Oppy in an interview and in one of his books completely destroyed the new atheists when came to philosophy.
In my life I have done a lot of memorization and I know what I am talking about. It is not easy to memorize what I just said, let alone around 600 pages of ofuscated, confusing, unintelligible, vague, umbiguous, unrelated text. I am talking about the Quran, is not the end of Islam what you have always wanted?. The Quran has not been memorized or the claim tested. Why? Belittles me the belief that someone can memorize the entire Quran when I struggle to memorize my first memory of my existence. I managed to memorize in russian a few pages from books for beginners from adventure and fantasy tales. Nice books easy to read and difficult to remember. I don't believe anyone has ever memorized the Quran because you would want to prove yourself to the world, it would be kind of a miracle such memory to prove the true God is Allah. Can anyone train the memory so much as to be able to memorize the Quran? I would convert if a muslim writes from memory the entire book in front of me. Proof first hand, the resurrection in front of my eyes. I am a psychologist, not a charlatan looking for attention, and I have discovered atheism is a logical fallacy that assumes God is the religious idea of the creator of the creation to conclude wrongly no creator exists because a particular idea of God doesn’t exist. The true God is Spinoza's God. Life and Death are connected. I think when the body dies causes the mind to transform to know all for eternity, like you would like reality to be, perfect. God is simply everything, that's all, past present and future. Thank you.
Um nope we learned that with ottoman empire genocide you touch that thing boom.....the point of philosophy as an academic discipline is an antithesis to memorizing facts that are synthesized through philosophy itself.
@@jordanh1635 Interesting, I prefer his videos about direct arguments and discussions about a particular topic. I always disliked guides on how to do a certain thing, and preferred just doing it and figuring out what others are doing. So I like his videos about particular arguments more, because its directly applied and I can observe his thought process directly if you know what I mean. For me, it works more for being a better philosopher than these videos which are boring and more talk about a thing rather than the thing itself. But everyone has their own style and preference =^_^=
The part about maximizing true beliefs and minimizing false beliefs was really interesting. I have never thought about it in that way before 🙂
Listen to Matt Dillahunty - he often mentions and expands on this idea
It's single player complete isolate we don't get involved with other discipline only as prerequisites - we hang out with our buddies isolated from the demographic of the university they don't do that here. Barely ever speak only write papers, read. Learn music.
I really appreciate Joe's commitment to intellectual honestly. And, if you're going to take a shot at anyone, I think presuppositionalists are the most deserving...
based and intellectually virtuous-pilled
Love the advocation for the principle of charity within discourse 🙏so important and can be extended to your personal relationships as well, wholeheartedly seeking to understand someone’s perspective when it differs from your own and going the extra mile to see truth within it.
Thanks for this, Joe.
Thank you for all the helpful, free snippets!
A video of joe or an assignment that is due in an hour? I guess the answer should be straight forward.
Thanks for posting this! Super helpful
5:00 about subjectivity
If I recall correctly your stance on intuition, that would qualify as a typical argument in phylosophy and as something that is entirely subjective. The characterization I remember you offering was of the result of "deep reasoning" by someone on the basis of their unique perspective and mental faculties. I'd say that this is as subjective as it gets.
More over, the very fact that there's no standard by which one can even assess objectively if something is "conceivable" or "making intuitive sense" also leads to considering philosophy subjective given how frequently these are used in argumentation in philosophical circles.
On the matter of the topics for philosophical inquiry, metaphisics can be considered inherently a subjective endeavour: with metaphysics one ventures to try and make sense of things without any empirical discriminant between differing views. And the whole effort is about constructing a narrative that therefore can only be subjectively evaluated by whatever standard the individual philosopher likes. Of course there are epistemic virtues that can be assessed, but they can also be ignored and often are.
In particular the cardinal issue that makes philosophy not objective is the fact that no matter how ludicrous, wrong, plain stupid or improper one's arguments are, they are still treated as a valid philosophical endeavour. I'm thinking for example of asinine statements like swinburne saying that there can't be a "part of a thinker" (we've observed that in neuroscience at least since the '90s) or plantinga's idea that's just fine to have a prejudice (in the so-called reformed epistemology). The fact that such positions are considered philosophically valid shows that there's no objectivity in philosophy.
“The fact that such positions are considered philosophically valid shows that there is no objectivity in philosophy” hmmm interesting is this proposition objectively true? :)
@@sillythewanderer4221 yes. Yes it is. Yes, it's an objectively true fact that keeping for respectable objectively false statements makes the whole discipline not objective. And if you beg to differ, argue for it, I'll gladly reply and show where it's mistaken.
@@paskal007rThere is nothing even in science that would be inherently objective, something can be valid but I don't think u understand what valid really means in philosophy. "Valid" just means conceptually correct, for something to be conceptually correct it just has to follow the main 3 laws of logic, and be logically possible, it doesn't have to connect or reach practical applications just be possible. Even then, the same way it would be Circular reasoning to prove with logic that logic holds true, that's why logical absolutes are the highest our understanding can go, so is it the case that facts themselves, while being observable, are ultimately unprovable in the sense that they are not 100% certain to be happening the way we as humans perceive them, there are a lot of illusions and sense deprivations, we are ultimately limited by our senses, so if u for some reason hold subjectivity for philosophy in this manner, you would also have to take the view that science is subjective since every information passes down to our subjective senses and understanding of the objective world, if it is even real at all and not just an illusion to begin with.
@@ibukisunshine-gaka3832
"There is nothing even in science that would be inherently objective, "
Of course there is. Measurements for example. But also checking whether a set of measurements support the rejection of the null hypothesis up to a certain p-value is an objective operation. It's so objective it's often left to computers to execute. If you think that these operations aren't objective, you are likely just unfamiliar with the matter.
"is it the case that facts themselves, while being observable, are ultimately unprovable in the sense that they are not 100% certain to be happening the way we as humans perceive them"
That is utterly irrelevant. You are confusing the ultimate source of the phenomenon with the phenomenon. We can't of course have a 100% certainty in science, that doesn't translate at all to it not being objective. But even then, the measurement isn't about the source of the phenomenon, it's about the phenomenon itself, namely the appearance we experience.
""Valid" just means conceptually correct"
In philosophy, specially in logic, "valid" doesn't at all mean conceptually correct, given that validity it's not predicated about concepts. It's only predicated about the structure of a reasoning and the sole criteria is that said reasoning must make it impossible to start with true premises and conclude a false conclusion. This too is an objective matter.
You seem to be confusing objective with absolutely grounded. Which is completely wrong. For something to be objective it only needs to be mind independant. There's no requirement for it to be absolutely grounded. Math for example is based on arbitrary, ungrounded axioms AND its theorems are objective. Contrast this with philosophy where there's no rhyme or reason as to whether it follows from the definition of what a mind is to whether one can have a part of a thinker and even having demonstrated one thirty years ago isn't sufficient to stop people from claiming its impossible and still be taken for serious philosophers and not ignorant jackasses.
its all about definitions, just learn them.
great video and thanks for answering my question
You should consider creating a series of videos that are short in which you provide simple and straight answers for all philosophy questions that you seek to answer.
P.S. the series is a straight forward without presentation all arguments and complexities
If all beliefs are false then you wouldnt raise then you wouldnt maximize true beliefs by believing more truths.
And there is a third option to have the same attitude towards maximizing true beliefs and minimizing false beliefs.
doing philosophy playlist >
commenting for the algorithm and to remember to download this as mp3 and listen on the way ; )
then I realised there's a podcast, yay!!!
Great as always. Do you have any tips on how to remember so much friggin information? As an undergrad it feels intimidating how you as a recent graduate already know and remember so much.
1st comment ❤
Always excited for Joe's content!
Because?
@@TheWorldTeacher he makes detailed useful videos and they are kind of fun with impressions and stuff
Joe, do you have a video in which you address presuppositional arguments? If not would you consider making one? Thanks.
Arguments? What arguments? 😅
@@naparzanieklawiatury4908 Agreed. When I hear presuppers all I hear is a series of assertions that attack their interlocutors willingness to be epistemically humble. Their argument seems to me to be, “you can’t solve the problem of induction, therefore my interpretation of God is the only option!” I’m not especially philosophically literate so when I hear them put so much philosophical lipstick on that pig I end up wondering what I’m missing and think there surely has to be more to what they are saying. Joe is a fellow who could shine some light on that for me.
@@boowens7247 I also think it's mostly rhetoric and debate bro tactics / bullying into submission. I have watched a lot of content like that and have engaged with some presuppers at length. They do regurgitate something close to an argument though, to be fair to them. It's along those lines: only the theistic worldview can account for x (x being sometimes knowledge, sometimes intelligibility of the universe, maybe something else which escapes me now), so in short it's the "impossibility of the contrary" argument. The problem is they ignore the state of academic philosophy entirely and simply cannot come close to showing that every other worldview entails a contradiction / can't account for x properly.
@@naparzanieklawiatury4908 I appreciate the feedback. It seems like "impossibility of the contrary” is one of those phrases like “Irreducible complexity” that appears only in apologetics.
What do you think of virtuous circularity with regards to these anti-philosophy claims? It's too simple to just say it's self defeating when what's what it's trying to demonstrate
peter parker and mike morales of philosophy?
Philosophy is cool. 😎
Hello Joe, can you recommend books on logic and philosophy for those you have minimal time?
I have seen your list its kind of long.
See the end of this video or the end of my Analyzing Arguments like a Philosopher video👍
The Logic Book - Bergmann
i have adhd.....i love philosophy just not anything i cant remember, which is everything
the question being, what if god has adhd and forgot everything.
At 7:00 you say that scientists have to use philosophy if they want to argue that philosophy is not worth doing, which vindicates philosophy. But I think this is a weak defense for philosophy. Because at most you really only need to know a very basic amount of philosophy at a fundamental level in order to critique it - i.e. to say whether philosophy is good or bad. Nothing about that really requires one to study philosophy in depth, or get into questions of whether moral realism is true vs moral antirealism etc.
Like I think science (not scientism...no one practices that unlike what your interviewer suggested) basically would agree that some basic level of philosophy is needed when it comes to logic and so on for doing mathematics and writing proofs, and that has a role in science since we employ those mathematical theorems in our work. But to say that philosophy is valuable as a general field of study, just because we need a few axioms or an understanding of what a logical negation implies, is really overstating the case for philosophy.
At most we just need it as a foothold to get started. I think there is continued value in being able to think clearly and logically and that should be the domain of philosophy, but outside of that, honestly...you don't make progress in philosophy. It is largely a dead field when it comes to serious discoveries about the world for good reason; the mind and rational thought alone can only take you so far. We can apply the things we've learned to new questions, like how we should treat AI or ethics when it comes to digital technology in the modern world, but often in order to get meaningful answers we do need data, and studies to answer them instead of just "broad reasoning abilities". So once again you need science to make real progress.
Frankly when you read some of the latest works produced by post-modern philosophers, it just seems like total garbage. Have you read Baudrillard? Deleuze? lol...after reading enough of them I just can't stand it any longer. The deliberate obfuscation and obscurantism, which almost certainly leads nowhere. I'm done with it. I'd be curious to see you try to tackle that and come away with a useful message. On the other hand, scientists, at least the good ones, try their best to be comprehensible, not incomprehensible
Frankly I think serious philosophy is more of an entertaining hobby for those people who like looking deeply into certain subjects. But if you are serious about making valuable contributions to the world, you ought to study some form of science/engineering/programming or get some business/political savvy.
I think there is a need to return philosophy to the laymen, and I tend to agree with your view that (especially) postmodern philosophy is deliberately obfuscating. I think this idea of scientism is largely held in online spaces, typically by uninformed peoples so I also agree with your point there.
I think philosophy is useful for laying the foundation on which we build our science. I've been thinking on it for a while, and I'm just a hobbyist but I believe it coincides with your point of view. You talk of philosophy as being a "foothold" and I think this is a succinct way of putting it. And the best we can do is ensure that foothold is as stable as possible such that science can continue to act as a means of producing contribution to society.
I'm unable to expound further on what this looks like because the ideas are still forming in my head but thought I'd jot this down as a quick reply to you.
Had to check and see if I had the speed set at 1.5.
Nope. had it at "normal." You were just talking at your normal speed ;-)
kinda like hitting a fastball. The more you see the slower and bigger they get.
I completely agree with you that philosophy is needed, I remember back when i was an atheist, i never really liked the new atheists one of the reason was that they were terrible at philosophy. Graham Oppy in an interview and in one of his books completely destroyed the new atheists when came to philosophy.
Ok, now I really need to hear about these other horrible epistemic communities 😂
In my life I have done a lot of memorization and I know what I am talking about. It is not easy to memorize what I just said, let alone around 600 pages of ofuscated, confusing, unintelligible, vague, umbiguous, unrelated text. I am talking about the Quran, is not the end of Islam what you have always wanted?. The Quran has not been memorized or the claim tested. Why? Belittles me the belief that someone can memorize the entire Quran when I struggle to memorize my first memory of my existence. I managed to memorize in russian a few pages from books for beginners from adventure and fantasy tales. Nice books easy to read and difficult to remember. I don't believe anyone has ever memorized the Quran because you would want to prove yourself to the world, it would be kind of a miracle such memory to prove the true God is Allah. Can anyone train the memory so much as to be able to memorize the Quran? I would convert if a muslim writes from memory the entire book in front of me. Proof first hand, the resurrection in front of my eyes. I am a psychologist, not a charlatan looking for attention, and I have discovered atheism is a logical fallacy that assumes God is the religious idea of the creator of the creation to conclude wrongly no creator exists because a particular idea of God doesn’t exist. The true God is Spinoza's God. Life and Death are connected. I think when the body dies causes the mind to transform to know all for eternity, like you would like reality to be, perfect. God is simply everything, that's all, past present and future. Thank you.
Um nope we learned that with ottoman empire genocide you touch that thing boom.....the point of philosophy as an academic discipline is an antithesis to memorizing facts that are synthesized through philosophy itself.
These are my least favorite types of videos on your channel, just sayin, I stiill luv u btw
I feel the opposite way, these are some of my favorite cause Joe is a great philosopher, and we could all learn how to be better ones ourselves
@@jordanh1635 Interesting, I prefer his videos about direct arguments and discussions about a particular topic. I always disliked guides on how to do a certain thing, and preferred just doing it and figuring out what others are doing. So I like his videos about particular arguments more, because its directly applied and I can observe his thought process directly if you know what I mean. For me, it works more for being a better philosopher than these videos which are boring and more talk about a thing rather than the thing itself. But everyone has their own style and preference =^_^=
@@bonbon_nextlevel That makes sense, I enjoy the other topics as well
Find nearly all of them, these types, and the topic types helpful. Hoping you maintain a balance.
:D