l couldnt get through 3 minutes of my professors pre recorded lecture on this topic. The quality of this video is so high. The effort, energy, clarity, speaking ability, and the actual ability to teach the information in this video exceeds the accredited content I payed for by 100x. Thank you for caring about what you talk about and doing it so well.
@@ZanyProgressivePandawhy do you think he's cute because he is cute or because you think he's cute? And if it's because you think he's cute why do you think that?😊
@@virtue_signal_ I guess since attractiveness is subjective, I think he’s cute. Not sure why, sometimes it’s the personality that makes someone attractive in my eyes. I once fell in love with a guy over the phone and when we met he was very unattractive to me lol, BUT I already loved him for what’s inside, so he became more attractive over time. Why am I even telling you all of this. 🤦🏻♀️
@@ZanyProgressivePanda I was once attracted to someone over the internet until I heard their voice on the telephone... Some things are unexplainable I guess.
"Well, Edelcio, since you seem to know so much about olives, perhaps you could answer for me a question I have been pondering for quite some time: is there some sort of ideal form of an olive that all olives aspire to be? Or are all olives different, with no olive being more olive-like than another?"
@@harshkumar2473: 😇अहिंसा परमो धर्म 😇 ahiṃsā paramo dharma (“non-harm is the HIGHEST religious principle” or “non-violence is the GREATEST law”). Therefore, only a strict VEGAN can claim to be an adherent of the eternal religion (sanātana dharma).🌱
You're still young. Even if you were 85, it's never late for some Greek Philosophy. It's the foundation of our Western World, unlike only Democracy which also came from the Greeks. Most importantly, it's not mumbo-jumbo and "spiritual" nonsense some people are into. Full of meaning based in logic and reason. During the centuries, entire paragraphs have been interpreted in different ways by different Academies, except the most obvious ones, of course. We owe a lot to the Greeks. Today, they're doing OK, but the economic crisis in 2009 hit them hard which is sad.
@@Hades-Ares-PhobiaFortunately that horrible debt crisis helpes propel the man who restructured their economy into the public eye-- Yannis Varoufakis! Love that guy. Check him out if you haven't. Even if you disagree with him on some things, he has so many interesting ideas, and was one of the first voices calling for the Western world to wake up to the inevitable changes occurring in our world 🫡
Aristotle is the most important philosopher. Nobody brings up he is the FATHER 😂 LOGIC SCIENCE which is OBJECTIVE ABSOLUTE TRUTH. p isn't non p law of NON contradiction and p is non p law of contradiction. Evolution is p is non p impossible contradiction. Google it bro.
I love the tiny coincidental detail that he didn’t completely erase the question mark at the far right of the screen before he walks off. There are questions that will always need to be solved.
We don't actually learn the meanings of most words by being given definitions. No one told me the definition of chair vs table as a child. I was just exposed to examples of them and then my own brain had to categorize them by noticing differences and similarities between objects in the categories.
Which works for blatant things like tables and chairs, because there are clear differences between those things, and you're unlikely to encounter a gray area. This is not the case for virtue or moral. Take the most basic example, a guy tries to kill someone, someone else kills him. Was that moral? You can argue yes because someone was saved, but also no because someone died. You can't just go "well murder bad, not murder good, I guess I've got it figured out!"
@@Winasaurus It also works for other concepts that are not about physical objects. As I said we learn the meanings of words via contextual examples. I don't ever recall someone pulling out a dictionary to explain to me what cheating is via some definition. Instead someone had identified something as "cheating" and I deduced what they meant. I didn't even know dictionaries existed until I already knew the meanings of thousands of words, many purely conceptual like "cheating". As I said "most".
This is somewhat true. But it is also true that to talk about these issues really well, we need to agree on the definitions, at least for the sake of the discussion if not truly. Otherwise we are talking about completely different things. So we need to be able to say what the words mean.
Almost every religious concept has that problem. For example, define spirituality: "the quality of being concerned with the human spirit or soul". Ok, then define spirit: "the nonphysical part of a person which is the seat of emotions and character; the soul". Ok, then define soul: "the spiritual or immaterial part of a human being or animal, regarded as immortal". Starts from Spirituality and comes right back to Spiritual. Which is why I like the igtheistic position regarding any religion. It's basically a position that says the questions about the existence of gods are meaningless because they aren't defined well enough.
@@captainfury497 This is a good point. There's a distinction between asking what the nature of a thing is, and asking how it is defined. We know what piety is. It's 'respect and reverence to religious rules and principles as well as their observation'. The question remains, what makes piety 'good'? Or is it at all? Philosophy needs to be more than a pursuit of definitions, but there also needs to be agreement about the meaning of terms before any discussion is possible.
@@WalterLiddy The question "why is piety good" leads back to the question what is morality. Religious rules are said to be moral by the followers and one can make the case that people (or God) made these rules so that a community can get along and cooperate for the common benefit of the community. So in the end piety and morality are all about promoting human cooperation and thriving. Think of the virtues defined as pious by religions temperance, charity , justice etc . The purpose of all of these are to promote a functioning high trust society
philosophy: the love of wisdom, normally encapsulated within a formal academic discipline. Wisdom is the soundness of an action or decision with regard to the application of experience, knowledge, insight, and good judgment. Wisdom may also be described as the body of knowledge and principles that develops within a specified society or period. E.g. “The wisdom of the Tibetan lamas.” Unfortunately, in most cases in which this term is used, particularly outside India, it tacitly or implicitly refers to ideas and ideologies that are quite far-removed from genuine wisdom. For instance, the typical academic philosopher, especially in the Western tradition, is not a lover of actual wisdom, but a believer in, or at least a practitioner of, adharma, which is the ANTITHESIS of genuine wisdom. Many Western academic (so-called) “philosophers” are notorious for using laborious sophistry, abstruse semantics, gobbledygook, and pseudo-intellectual word-play, in an attempt to justify their blatantly-immoral ideologies and practices, and in many cases, fooling the ignorant layman into accepting the most horrendous crimes as not only normal and natural, but holy and righteous! An ideal philosopher, on the other hand, is one who is sufficiently intelligent to understand that morality is, of necessity, based on the law of non-violence (“ahiṃsā”, in Sanskrit), and sufficiently wise to live his or her life in such a harmless manner. Cf. “dharma”. One of the greatest misconceptions of modern times is the belief that philosophers (and psychologists, especially) are, effectively, the substitutes for the priesthood of old. It is perhaps understandable that this misconception has taken place, because the typical priest/monk/rabbi/mullah seems to be an uneducated buffoon compared with those highly-educated gentlemen who have attained doctorates in philosophy, psychology and psychiatry. However, as mentioned in more than a few places in this book, it is imperative to understand that only an infinitesimal percentage of all those who claim to be spiritual teachers are ACTUAL “brāhmaṇa” (as defined in Chapter 20). Therefore, the wisest philosophers of the present age are still those exceptionally rare members of the Holy Priesthood! At the very moment these words of mine are being typed on my laptop computer, there are probably hundreds of essay papers, as well as books and articles, being composed by professional philosophers and theologians, both within and without academia. None of these papers, and almost none of the papers written in the past, will have any noticeable impact on human society, at least not in the realm of morals and ethics, which is obviously the most vital component of civilization. And, as mentioned in a previous paragraph, since such “lovers-of-wisdom” are almost exclusively adharmic (irreligious and corrupt) it is indeed FORTUITOUS that this is the case. The only (so-called) philosophers who seem to have any perceptible influence in the public arena are “pop” or “armchair” philosophers, such as Mrs. Alisa “Alice” O’Connor (known more popularly by her pen name, Ayn Rand), almost definitely due to the fact that they have published well-liked books and/or promulgate their ideas in the mass media, especially on the World Wide Web.
Jeffrey's half-assed scientific statements in the examples he uses in all of his videos are my absolute favorite. He ends everything with "... or whatever" or "... I don’t know!" And then moves on with his real point.
It seems to me like Socrates just wanted to show Euthypro, why he's wrong without provocation. That's why he followed along with his answers, even if they were obviously wrong. He wanted him to realize it without portraying him like being shallow thinker. I've heard this is a negotiation tactic used to deescalate a tense situation. Leaving the opponent room to retreat, or make it appear like he came up with the solution/realization on his own in this case.
... the dialogues by Plato are fictions he invents in order to talk about philosophy. They're actually quite a neat trick, makes reading the philosophy more enjoyable to have his avatar make an argument to an interlocutor rather than directly to you.
It seems to me that all of the platonic dialogues are far too convenient to be a real life conversation, either Socrates was just genuinely a genius at navigating interlocutors through their thoughts until they get where he wants them to be… or the character Socrates takes on in said dialogues is just like a rhetorical device to get his points and philosophy across in a very approachable and understandable way. Doesn’t mean Socrates wasn’t real or that the conversations didn’t occur, just that they didn’t happen in exactly the way Plato says they did
@@finndaniels9139 Dude the conversations didn't happen, they are a rhetorical device used by Plato in his writing. Literally no historian thinks they were real.
I dont study philosophy in school/had limited exposure to it in university unlike lots of people in these comments. I’m a biochemistry/neuroscience student, but I feel everyone, especially scientists, should read and understand some of the ideas put forwards by Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, etc as well as the stoics like Epictetus and Aurelius. This channel does a good job at breaking things down for anyone to appreciate/understand.
Everyone, indeed. Of course there are those in our societies who have a natural proclivity for philosophical thought, as is true with all talents from basketball to singing, but we *all* are endowed with a sense of wonder and have a natural responsibility as powerfully creative beings to align our understanding of reality to reality itself, as best we can. One of the biggest cons enacted by power-mongering social engineers is having us overestimate that discrepancy such that we wholly abdicate that work to others. Then, it's simply a matter of granting the "right people" official credential to explain the world to everyone else, thereby shaping the worldview of the masses in a way that serves a particular end.
@bastiat4855 nobody is saying that lol of course we know science is birthed from philosophy. I was just saying aspiring scientists should be well read in the early philosophy from which the scientific method has evolved from. In my experience, science taught in university (at lest undergrad) focuses more on learning material and solving pre set problems rather than putting the emphasis on teaching students how to ask the right questions, and seek deeper understanding.
@@Answeriz42 There is a wise saying, “Any science which is separated from virtue, it looks cunning and not wisdom”! PS: I don’t remember if it is Latin or Greek. 🌺
Wilhelm Wundt said something along the lines of (I'm paraphrasing heavily) "once psychologists (scientists works) abandon philosophy and general thinking and instead specialize heavily they will become mere craftsmen, and poor ones at that."
@@randomnerd9088 That's precisely what the social engineers of our world have been trying to achieve, and they've been largely successful. Incomplete logic chains and obscured premises allow for easy manipulation of mankind's lifeward intent, turning it against him, to the benefit of thieves, death-dealers, and slavers (either without his knowledge, or with his misguided assent).
The Euthyphro dilemma feels like morality equivalent to the Set of All Sets That Aren't Part Of Other Sets. It just has that same Lovecraftian "ontological horror" vibe to it. Absolutely my favorite Platonic Dialog.
Having recently watch the lecture on Russell’s Paradox I totally agree with your comment. The thought had occurred before I read these comments. I keep thinking models are models and not exactly real life. That is to say they model the outcomes of the things we anticipated when designing the model; just as with this philosophical thesis. Then one day someone says what if, just as Russell did and the best model of Set Theory unpicks itself. It’s like the moment the early explores realised the flat earth model didn’t work. Yet both Russell Paradox and this philosophy do worse; they negate the old model or thesis without establishing a new one. It’s like knowing the world isn’t flat, but not actually knowing it is spherical either. Do you return to the flat Earth model and accept it is flawed of not?
Not at all. And it's the set of all sets that don't contain themselves. The two options are more like a false dilemma. Euthyphro claims that he can tell what is virtuous and pious, and Socrates proves that Euthyphro, a diviner who takes for granted that virtuousness is what the gods like, not a trained philosopher or teacher of rhetoric, can't do just that. I'm not sure that the dialogue proves that you can't say at all.
@Matt Finish Being dumb is pretty smart; being able to think in a way which could be understood by anyone makes others understand a whole lot more stuff, too! :D
@Matt Finish Well, to be fair, usually intelligent people know their intellectual limitations. Those who are unintelligent often over estimate their own ability. Dunning-Krueger.
Wow…. since I could speak I’ve always thought in circles like this never really tried to put the thoughts to words until my 20’s. My friends and family get tired of listening to me try to get to the bottom of broad ideas they just give up. I usually listen in conversations and talk to myself later. When I’m able to I will sit for hours and contemplate all kinds of actions or emotions. I try to figure out a decent answer knowing I’ll have more solutions later when I experience more. That excites me like nothing else. I’m 31 years old and just getting into Philosophy (I had no idea what the word even meant until a few months ago) I did not goto college by choice but now I wish I went to learn about these philosophers. I might be further along with my answers and I’d have people to actually talk with me about what everything is, why it is etc. I wanted to share because I know I’m not the only one. Hit me up if you want to discuss any of your ideas I’m used to listening. I truly appreciate different perspectives.
I’m really enjoying your videos and I’m far from an academic, at 22mins i started to write you a comment in my head, about the use of the word love, and you didn’t disappoint me by mentioning the fact love can mean anything, i often tell people this, it confuses most people, i further explain that respect is quite possibly the most important thing, and also the least likely to mean something else, because if you respect someone, it has nothing to do with you, and everything to do with the person you are respecting
From email i sent last year: Dear Dr Kaplan, 20:40 Just wanted you to know that I was enthralled by your video and have subscribed to the series. I wish I had profs like that -- and I wish I had been a prof like that. Alas, as a 90-year-old long-retired philosophy professor, I can only wish. Keep it going! Best, Bob
Thanks for a great lecture! Loved the analogy with Kierkegaard. Eventually, I would suggest some insight… you say that Socrates/Plato didn’t consider seriously option 2 - “love explains the virtue”, but he does it indirectly, since if you choose the option 1 than if it turns to result in option 2 (as in the end of Euthyphro) you prove indirectly that both options lead to contradictions. What seems Socrates suggest (and somehow proofs dialogically) is that there is no real connection between God’s love and virtue (even accidentally), that looks to be in an accord with Greek’s polytheism. The idea of virtue would be than related to Greek concept of necessity as counterpart of Gods (which Socrates suggest in the dialogue as well). Would be happy for a comment here 😊
The philosopher Plato and the historian Xenophon were both Socrates pupils. The Athenian comic dramatist Aristophanes (Socrates's contemporary) mentions him in a play. We know his life's dates 470-399 BCE and the name of his wife Xanthippe and their three sons Lamprocles, Sophroniscus, and Menexenus. So Socrates existed.
I can tell you all about how Varian Wryn's wife died in 14 ADP, and that his friend Thrall spoke of him in passing. Their son, Anduine took the throne, then, after Varian was slain in the battle of the Broken Shore in the days leading up to the beginning of the 4th War. Anyone can reference fictional characters, this does not make them real. I'm not saying this makes Socrates fictional, only that your argument isn't iron clad.
Its very simple guys. All these guys did was hangout and chat about life and love. Countless iterations. And they would even debate as to how best to present specific arguments which they all knew well. And plato would scribe them in their essence. These books represent the best of their ideas and how their best resistors were conquered. Its an ideal conversation with the best representations for both sides. By the men most obsessed with love and truth manifest from ideality.
@@RMF49 Okay, but then how do we know what is right vs what is wrong? You say it exists independently -- what is Right and what is Wrong? That's the key question, isn't it? But I believe the shade was God asking Abraham to sacrifice his son. That becomes even more problematic than usual if the act is objectively wrong. Why ask Abraham to choose between his faith and doing right? I'd also be curious to know what verses you say are implying that right and wrong exist independently -- Romans 13:9-10, perhaps? And in any case, if Right and Wrong exist independently of God's Will, then I have a lot of questions. I'd generally agree with C.S. Lewis that Moral Good ("Right") must have been created/defined by God, or several things break. Why is God Perfectly Right? For that matter, why is Right Right? Why is it Morally Good? Because if you can't answer those, then you don't have a foundation to answer anything else. Did God have a Perfect understanding of what is Good from the very beginning? Why was it wrong to eat the apple? Why did God need to give us the 10 commandments, if right and wrong existed independently of his commandments? What made Baal-hermon and Asherah wrong? Is God always right? Can we, on Earth, know what is right? Can we, in Heaven, know what is right? Why was God right when [insert Old Testament story of your choice here]?
@@tomc.5704 I only have time to answer a few at the moment: The verse I had in mind is: Genesis 18:25 That be far from thee to do after this manner, to slay the righteous with the wicked: and that the righteous should be as the wicked, that be far from thee: Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right? Specifically “Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right?” implies that it’s conceivable for God to do wrong. If everything God does is right by definition then the question makes no sense. Yet God entertains the question. How do we know right from wrong? I’d say by empathy. “Do unto others as ye would have them do unto you.” That gives us a standard from which to decide right and wrong.
Am I the only one who appreciates his backward writing skill? Edit: Can't believe people are still actively replying to this even a year later lol... And yes I know the video was flipped/mirrored... ... Or is it?
I've been teaching philosophy for over 25 years. I have always prefaced any teachings of Plato with the Euthyprho, even though it is not included in most texts with the "Death Dialogues." I have always thought all else of Plato is based on this very short teaching.
philosophy: the love of wisdom, normally encapsulated within a formal academic discipline. Wisdom is the soundness of an action or decision with regard to the application of experience, knowledge, insight, and good judgment. Wisdom may also be described as the body of knowledge and principles that develops within a specified society or period. E.g. “The wisdom of the Tibetan lamas.” Unfortunately, in most cases in which this term is used, particularly outside India, it tacitly or implicitly refers to ideas and ideologies that are quite far-removed from genuine wisdom. For instance, the typical academic philosopher, especially in the Western tradition, is not a lover of actual wisdom, but a believer in, or at least a practitioner of, adharma, which is the ANTITHESIS of genuine wisdom. Many Western academic (so-called) “philosophers” are notorious for using laborious sophistry, abstruse semantics, gobbledygook, and pseudo-intellectual word-play, in an attempt to justify their blatantly-immoral ideologies and practices, and in many cases, fooling the ignorant layman into accepting the most horrendous crimes as not only normal and natural, but holy and righteous! An ideal philosopher, on the other hand, is one who is sufficiently intelligent to understand that morality is, of necessity, based on the law of non-violence (“ahiṃsā”, in Sanskrit), and sufficiently wise to live his or her life in such a harmless manner. Cf. “dharma”. One of the greatest misconceptions of modern times is the belief that philosophers (and psychologists, especially) are, effectively, the substitutes for the priesthood of old. It is perhaps understandable that this misconception has taken place, because the typical priest/monk/rabbi/mullah seems to be an uneducated buffoon compared with those highly-educated gentlemen who have attained doctorates in philosophy, psychology and psychiatry. However, as mentioned in more than a few places in this book, it is imperative to understand that only an infinitesimal percentage of all those who claim to be spiritual teachers are ACTUAL “brāhmaṇa” (as defined in Chapter 20). Therefore, the wisest philosophers of the present age are still those exceptionally rare members of the Holy Priesthood! At the very moment these words of mine are being typed on my laptop computer, there are probably hundreds of essay papers, as well as books and articles, being composed by professional philosophers and theologians, both within and without academia. None of these papers, and almost none of the papers written in the past, will have any noticeable impact on human society, at least not in the realm of morals and ethics, which is obviously the most vital component of civilization. And, as mentioned in a previous paragraph, since such “lovers-of-wisdom” are almost exclusively adharmic (irreligious and corrupt) it is indeed FORTUITOUS that this is the case. The only (so-called) philosophers who seem to have any perceptible influence in the public arena are “pop” or “armchair” philosophers, such as Mrs. Alisa “Alice” O’Connor (known more popularly by her pen name, Ayn Rand), almost definitely due to the fact that they have published well-liked books and/or promulgate their ideas in the mass media, especially on the World Wide Web.
I REALLY LOVE YOUR CONTENTS!!!! I've been looking for videos I can listen to while I'm busy, I do work subconsciously like I'm in autopilot so I have to keep my mind from wandering so I have to listen to something besides music and your contents are just perfect! Thank you so much!
Love that it all leads up and ends on a mic drop 🎤 “the problem with moral truths resulting from divine judgment…only seem to work if you accept that moral truths exist already”
@@toppcatt5113 Referring to God's character doesn't really solve the dilemma. The same questions can be asked of his character. Does his character cause God to choose acts that are good simply because his character produces/triggers those acts, or does God's character produce those acts or the inclination to see those acts as good because those acts are good for other reasons?
@@rizdekd3912 It would be the first, there are no other reasons apart from God since apart from God there are no other 'things'. God is the source of all things in existence so God IS good in this case and only things in alignment with that are also good. Anything else that you would debate arises from a lack of your understanding of God's character. Now I am more interested in does the fact that a God who is the source of all things, good and evil, change the question or just moves the goal post for 'in essence' the same question you are asking. Of course people debate if God is the 'source' of evil, but He does claim it in the bible that he 'creates evil' (Isaiah 45:7) of course some people cushion their fragile beliefs by saying it can only mean calamity, say a natural disaster. Still, the question for me remains, if God creates ALL Things then even if it isn't an active creation of Evil then Evil still exists because creates all that is Good, allowing that anything apart from that Good to be evil and still exist. So maybe you are correct in thinking that good and evil exist for 'other' reasons apart from just God's 'character'. My opinion would be that God is the other reasons also. Say God's desire for a end state, that end state will be a perfected Good (as in there are levels to Good and Bad, his 'end' goal is a perfect Good). So evil is allowed to exist in order to allow for a 'better' good. If I could explain that a little more, then Adam and Eve in a perfect garden paradise world with no 'evil' was 'good'. The universe God created was, according to God even, Good. But could good be better? Whats better than a perfect world without evil? A perfect world that has dealt with and overcome evil? Maybe. Either way the ultimate answer when you are looking at the Omni-everything that is the judeo-christian God is God. He is the ultimate answer for God is the originator of all things.
... That's WHY You Should ALWAYS Love Your LEADER!! Love HER or Love HIM... No One LISTENS Too Me Tho BUT All Want to GAIN' BENIEFT & Profit tho MY Pain and MY Misfortune
I am here because philosophy is an interesting subject, or is it because I am interested in philosophy, or that philosophy is a subject that interests some. A question also arises that, what am I doing here when I have 2 subjects finals hanging on my head neither of them is philosophy. Is it tha all of a sudden philosophy makes sense or because I am anxious of what I have to complete. It’s beautiful to see so much of knowledge on TH-cam.
LMMFAO!!! loved this very helpful and wish I had you to break my whole class/book down for me!! Euthyphro finally just gave up and wanted to leave lol he's like I'm out this is going nowhere, when he was the one doing it!!
🤣🤣 I'm so glad you did a lecture for the Euthyphro Dilemma right after the "God decides morality" Locke lecture. I was imagining how Locke would respond to Plato's Euthyphro.
@@Paraselene_Tao Seems that Locke's opinion was that God decides what's right, however horrifying those decisions may seem to the rest of us. We don't make the rules, God does. So sayeth Locke, at least, but he was pretty naïve. He even believed in the Endless Bounty of Nature. 😜
I just watched the Locke video. In fact, Locke begins by assuming that property rights are objective fact (shocker), then says, "Since God owns us…" 🤦♂
@@serversurfer6169 if you were placed by yourself on a random livable planet would you not objectively have full liberty of all property you obtain in such a situation? This is why it's "god given" it would exist in a vacuum with no other input with or without a society or community.
@@serversurfer6169 I haven't read locke, but the Biblical answer is greater than just "God says". Biblically based virtue and ethics flow from God's character - He is Justice, Love, Truth, etc. I assume Kaplan is Jewish, and it bewilders me why he would use the Hebrew Bible to attack morality via the story of Abraham. Assuming he is ignorant of his own Scriptures. And yes, nature does have endless bounty. You have to let Locke define his terms, and not you.
this is the first video ever on philosophy that i reeeaaalllyyyyy enjoyed and was astonished at. LOVE YOU SIR. Im searching now all of your CHANNEL to find more videos related to my course content
I need to know how he learned how to write things backwards so easily :D Fantastic content and explained in a manner that is both accessible and robust to the point that I am in awe as was Salieri when he talked about Mozart in that flawed and amazing film.
I believe Plato does consider this option at 20:53 and at great length, as after Socrates gets agreement from Euthyphro that the gods love pious things because they are pious, when he asks “is it being loved because it is pious or for some other reason” Euthyphro replies “no other reason”. He then goes to ask about the relationship between men and gods and how sacrifices and acts of service to the gods are pious actions. Now these actions are concluded to be pious because of the benefits to which the gods gain from such acts, therefore what is dear to them, as there would be no need for gifts to which the recipient did not need, and there would be no point in a need if it was not considered most dear to them, which circles back to Euthyphro’s original answer in the beginning, that what is pious is what they love and what is dear to them. In doing so Socrates highlights the inconsistencies in Euthyphro’s understanding of what piety is.
@@thyssaliki i see how it could be a spelling mistake, but actually, i think it's simpler than i'd like it to be if i only take into account my own understanding. so i wrote it as "too" simple to show that i think the explanation is oversimplified. however, i also did that to highlight the contradiction i feel, because even if i feel it's oversimplified, i simultaneously like that about it, and find it a charming characteristic, and one that i've associated into the identity of the channel as a whole. there are probably better ways to write this, but i did this one specifically to show the contradiction. and this reply got long because i also tried to simplify it a lot while writing it :)
@@lunaponta594 I think I understand. It's just that "too" connotes a judgment, while "so" would convey the level of simplicity without sounding dismissive, which you confirmed is how you felt.
I think the best part about watching educational content in video format is being able to experience a lecture while having a timestamp I can reference for moments of internal realization; when I come to understand something, I can look and see exactly how long it took me to do so from the moment the idea was introduced. More generally, however, it's interesting to note how long it takes for me to lose focus during the lecture. It always happens, no matter what the subject is or how invested I am in the content. Sometimes it's because boredom takes over or I didn't get good sleep and am exhausted, other times it's because the imagination takes over and I begin daydreaming, or perhaps I started taking the argument in a different direction in my head and the bifurcation causes me to lose track of both. I lost the thread at 14:25, roughly around the same exact moment Jeff said the sentence, "greenness of grass explains trueness of sentence". All this is just backstory for some feedback, if I may, on how to improve your videos for the future; I realize this is kind of a moot point because I'm 3 years too late, and also you've probably already heard this before, but I figured I'd write it just the same. The initial stage of any lecture is always the most interesting, because new ideas flood in and the mind is captivated by the sudden influx of possibility; there is an aspect of problem solving and creativity that is inherent in the human mind that can be called on spontaneously simply by introducing new ideas. The problem of distraction occurs when this specific creative aspect gives way to the concentration necessary to contract and individuate the concepts being proposed into a concrete model represented by the lecturer's syllabus. I believe that properly incorporating both of these mental aspects can greatly increase the learning capacity, and I think modern educational content creators like Vsauce are great examples. They use scene changes and graphic visuals to transition from point to point within the argument, and this provides the viewer with more unified exposure to the concepts being presented. I won't delve into arguments about the moral qualities of a shift away from standard blackboard lecture format, but suffice it to say that statistically speaking, a holistic approach does work. You don't have to change anything about your current model, it would just be helpful if sometimes you had a moving image or emotionally captivating landscape appear that the audience is most likely to associate with internalized memories; exposure to a meaningful image or idea will naturally cause the imaginative faculties to refocus and give depth to the ideas being presented. An example would be to show stock footage of people walking around a stoa or some dudes in Chitons debating next to a fruit stall or something. I lost focus at around the fourteen minute mark, so even a few seconds of scene change and ambient sound would reel me back into the moment without you having to say or do anything else. Thanks for reading, and I hope you enjoyed it as much as I did this video. EDIT: Another thought I had was that, during longer lectures especially, I also think it's helpful to have a moment of silence to allow what I just heard to settle in. It doesn't have to be long, maybe 45 seconds, but when I'm forced to look inward because of a lack of external stimulus, I find my mind refocus on the expectation of having additional dialogue to develop the ideas I'm processing.
The grass is green, because when white light hits it, the leaves absorb most wave lengths of that light but reflect others, which reach our eyes, our brains detect, and which we call green. Indeed the grass does this to optimise photosynthesis, but that is not why we see it as green, we hold explanatory priority when it comes to our own senses. But our eyes detect green but not UV light (although some insects do) because our senses were naturally selected to give us a decent chance at survival, and it is crucial for our survival to be able to destinguish a red fruit from a green leave. That is why we all know that grass is green, our life depends on it.
Absolutely brilliant! Shakes up the entire moral value systems virtuous acts & gods will ir whatever. Buddha defined it better before Socrates - Ahimsa - non violence is the only first virtue - whether god loves it or not. Removing suffering - control of desires to reach awareness of compassion is true enlightenment and you dont need god in this model. Superb presentation!
I ended up re reading Fear and Trembling after watching this. The teleological suspension of the ethical also places "faith in god's love" as higher than human virtue.
funny enough, I think Euthypro was right the first time around. piety is a word. giving examples is how you put objects (actions) into categories (description words). Our minds infer, though a method that is imperfect, a rule, and this understanding may be different to each speaker, and no understanding is more true than the other, as long as it is coherent within itself. That is why there can be a discussion if an action is pious, nefarious or ambivalent, as different people will have different rulebooks in their minds. The second definition, "what the gods want" is actually genius, because it comes from the realization that pious acts as defined by priests, conduit of the gods, are in contradiction with most human inferred rules for goodness. But since language requires some level of agreement, and priests have general agreement to say the truth, the guy decides that whatever gods want is virtuous because he cannot quickly decide on a different rulebook, so he follows the authority on it, as a matter of definition. So each example of gods will enters the definition of virtue as an example of virtuous acts. The contradiction arises when Plato wants to have a definition of virtue that is not based on examples. But that is not how language works...
Is THAT what Plato's Dialogues are?!? Holy crap I remember this from high school (30 yrs ago), and i distinctly remember not understanding this unit. I remember getting caught up in the word "dialogues." And I remember thinking it meant internal dialogues. So I went through the whole unit thinking Plato was just making shit up in his head, and I was like WTF? Why are we studying a crazy person?!? 🤣
@@xalaxie And that's the other problem I have. There's 2 possibilities of what I might say. Something extremely smart, or something extremely stupid. Alternatively, there's been times I've said something that appears to be extremely stupid and I get laughed at for it and it makes me feel so dumb I'm like yeah you're right, that's not it...only to eventually be proven correct...lol... basically most of the time I'm just guessing! 🤣🤣🤣
@@wulfstein3630 So weird. A Buddhist channel just got recommended to me a day or two ago, so I watched a few videos and subscribed. This is freaking me out man!
You can't have an internal dialogue (unless you're schizophrenic) as there's only you in there. It would Monologues, even if you're just debating yourself.
I've been watching this guy's videos the past couple of days - Russell's Paradox, the Chinese Room, this one, and it just occurred to me how good he is at writing backwards!
no genius it means there is no morality, ill make it simple. could you still cry out like some obnoxious Christian karen and say 'THATS OBJECTIVELY MORALLY WRONG" , when no one exist , whats the difference between stabbing a alive baby vs stabbing the ashes of a cremated baby, vs stabbing the semen of a human male. obviously nothing , because there is no morality , its just a opinion that someone took because someone existed
What if love and/or virtue was a part of the God or gods themselves, and not exclusive from one another? This would provide a solution, and this is logically consistent with the declarations of the Bible: "Beloved, let us love one another, for love is from God, and whoever loves has been born of God and knows God. Anyone who does not love does not know God, because God is love. " - 1 John 4:7-8
But the question would still remain. Is love good because it is what God wants or does God want us to love..ie want love...because love is good in its own right, ie for reasons? IF it is both, then the latter takes precedence because there are reasons for God to want it (love). There is nothing particularly wrong with that view, but it still means there are reasons for thinking love is good beyond or in addition to the fact that God wants it. It could just mean that if God exists, he sorts out the reasons more clearly than humans can/do so we would be advised to heed him.
I just wonder about the grass is green bit. For simplicity I’ll refer to it as Sentence and Plant. I understand the plant is green and so the sentence is true. But don’t we need a concept of green to say that the plant is green? Wouldn’t this mean the plant is green because the sentence says it is so? If this was about the sea being blue: in the Odyssey, they describe the sea as being wine red. This was because the Greeks didn’t have a concept of blue (as I understand it.) So, we can agree that the sea is blue, but is this only because we hold a concept of blueness? Because the sentences of the sea being wine red and blue are both true... and yet the sea remains one colour. So it strikes me that in the dialogue: what is holy is only what the gods describe as such. It cannot be that grass is green, because a plant doesn’t embody the concept of the adjectives added to it. Rather, isn’t the concept of green a construction separate of the plant? I could be wrong on this. I’m trying to get into philosophy, and I’m not sure if this is drifting out of the point into something else, or if I’m missing the point.😂 I’m welcoming of any correction - gratefully so.
"green" is just the word we assign to the previous characteristic of the plant. If instead of calling it "green" we called it "lulu" it wouldn't change anything. The answer lies in what makes us perceive the plant in that specific way.
It’s funny how you say kill the child and leave them on the mountain because a similar thing happened in scripture; and right before he was about to kill his child on the mountain as a “sacrifice” (ordered by god as an ultimate test of faith) an angel was quickly sent to the father by God, and the angel told him to stop and that it was a test of his faith because what god loves is faith in his will, not necessarily works (christian Bible). nobody died that day.
Yes, nobody died, because it didn't happen. You know what did happen though? Murder and genocide on massive scale justified by "I was just following orders."
Great video and greatly impressed by your mirror writing…well done. I taught myself when I was a teenager…after learning Leonardo Da Vinci used it in his journals. It has been useful periodically through my life. I also notice you are left handed which might have made it come easier to you possibly.
so essentially are you gojo satoru because you are the strongest or are you the strongest because you are gojo satoru? great job on the video! you explained the topic thoroughly and at the perfect pace, thank you!
Thank you for making education accessible, I firmly believe that such content is what makes the platform a healthy environment. There's only one thing that hinders my appreciation for some of the argumentation : oftentimes, the premises agreed upon use language as an object to confirm or validate their theory without acknowledging key aspects of our understanding of language in this day and age, and even previously. For instance in a previous video there was mention of syntax and semantics, syntax as the shape of language and semantics as the ideas, this is vaguely true, but not exactly, and it kinda makes a difference. I understand that there isn't really the need to dive in details everytime, but seeing these words thrown around as if they meant nothing makes me feel like people greatly undermine the importance of naming and defining things correctly in the context of research. Syntax in linguistics is the set of rules that command how sentences are made in a given language (generally). Semantics in linguistics is conceived as an ensemble of theories that aspire to explore the mechanisms behind meaning, that inside of languages in a broader sense. These two are entertwined to a certain degree in many languages, for instance there are preffered orders for SUBJECT, OBJECT and VERB across languages, where changing the place of a word changes it's meaning among other things. According to Wikipedia, 45 % of recorded languages use the structure SOV, the second most common being VSO with 42 % of the share (there are between 6K and 7K estimated languages in the world according to research in 2008, this number is rapidly decreasing, not all of these languages are recorded). In this video, my issue is with the point : "is it true that the grass is green because of the English lge or the other way around" (14:04), I agree with the conclusion. However, the sentence means something first and foremost because us, a group of people, collectively agrees upon it. We can see it as a four step process, a) receiving a stimuli ; b) recognizing it's shape as something we know ; c) recognizing it's meaning ; d) applying said meaning to a given context. Just a little more detail on an itty-bitty bit of contention with regards to the steps used in the development. This is J-M. Klinkenberg's model for a semiotic model of the sign. I also highly recommend Peirce's theories relative to semiotics, I believe they are wonderful. Now, here it doesn't work exactly like this but in theory language works like that in practice. However as an object in itself, a word or sign is often defined as a triangle : significant, signified, and the referent. The cool thing now is that all these things function as a unit (or can be thought of in this manner) because they exist in relation with other words in the english language, because we define the meaning of things opposite to other things in this given system. A small rant that became a (short) attempt to propaganda (I study linguistics and the field seems to be dying out kinda, I find it sad because it's truly wonderful, but whatever really). Hope this was clear, I never tried to explain this in English before. Let's all try to enrich ourselves with all the knowledge out there, lotsa love Edit : Check out C.-S. Peirce, F. Saussure, André Martinet, semiotics and linguistics if you found that interesting. I think most of these things can be found explained better and in further detail on the internet. I would highly recommend reading/watching things about it, it raises many interesting questions, perhaps not so many answers, but that's the fun of it !
Piety means to lower oneself to the Gods, to be a subject instead of a ruler. Virtuousness is explained by submission to given rules. I think virtue is decided by the Gods, to enslave their subjects. (to the rule of their law). The Gods themselves do not have to keep these virtues, but expect their subjects to adhere to them because the Gods think they are mightier than their subjects. Might makes the Gods right and their subjects are not allowed to be mighty. In other words, the Gods can do whatever they want but their subjects are enslaved by laws and virtues as a function of submission. That would be my third option.
I love that towards the end Jeffrey parenthetically throws in a couple of other little bits that, I believe, should lead one to assume how he answers to this question: One is from Genesis where God asks Abraham to sacrifice Issac; The other being John Locke's ideas of "objective moral truth." Interested in any ideas others have and to what conclusion you think one should draw.
Its a false dilema, at least in the case of the biblical God. Neither option is right. God doesn't will something because it is good, nor is something good because he wills it. He wills something because God is good. Morals are founded in the very nature of God. Its not an arbitrary decision by God. Goodness flows necessarily out of God. What he does is good because he is good.
Exactly. God - IS - Good. That good isn't independent of Him. It is Him. It's fundamental. He's the source, like the sun and it's rays or oceans and rivers. Morals are tributaries to Him. He's the Logos.
I appreciate the lesson and video, no special effects or virality gimmicks, but interesting by virtue of making you think. As a bonus, I love that he looked and sounded like Charlie from It’s Always Sunny!
My first time watching one of your videos, super engaging content! It's a massive relief to find this corner of the internet to communicate ideas. It has me thinking, if there was a feedback loop scenario. For example if the God's loved an act, say murdering your child, and then that act was considered virtuous, then the precedent is set. Then the Gods love murder more and perpetrate it more. However, suppose the Gods loved virtuous behaviour then by acting virtuous the Gods loved virtue more, and then virtuous acts would be perpetrated more. However, that's as far as I can delineate this arguement. It supposes that the Gods love influences events assuming they had the power to do so.
I very much enjoyed this lecture. I am introducing my son to Plato and this content is very helpful. One critique - Jacob does not kill Isaac. I understand the prof was being careful not to run off into rabbit trails, being an introductory class. Still there is a lot left to unpack with such an example. As a response, I would say that the “greeness” (AutoCorrect says not a word!) of grass is part of the identity of grass. If I waved a magic wand and removed all the chlorophyll of the grass it would no longer be grass or even a plant anymore. It would be dead matter (see Hamlet’s Yorick - someone who WAS a man but is now dead). Such is the case with God’s morality and goodness - they are an inseparable unity. I know this is just one of the classical responses. Just wanted to drop this in here for your personal consideration.
l couldnt get through 3 minutes of my professors pre recorded lecture on this topic. The quality of this video is so high. The effort, energy, clarity, speaking ability, and the actual ability to teach the information in this video exceeds the accredited content I payed for by 100x. Thank you for caring about what you talk about and doing it so well.
Helps that he's cute and funny 😅
You should watch the one on Russell's paradox. My favorite by far... so far.
@@ZanyProgressivePandawhy do you think he's cute because he is cute or because you think he's cute? And if it's because you think he's cute why do you think that?😊
@@virtue_signal_ I guess since attractiveness is subjective, I think he’s cute. Not sure why, sometimes it’s the personality that makes someone attractive in my eyes. I once fell in love with a guy over the phone and when we met he was very unattractive to me lol, BUT I already loved him for what’s inside, so he became more attractive over time. Why am I even telling you all of this. 🤦🏻♀️
@@ZanyProgressivePanda I was once attracted to someone over the internet until I heard their voice on the telephone... Some things are unexplainable I guess.
Can't stop thinking how it should be to meet Socrates back then... "Socrates, dude, I'm just trying to buy some olives, give me a break..."
"Well, Edelcio, since you seem to know so much about olives, perhaps you could answer for me a question I have been pondering for quite some time: is there some sort of ideal form of an olive that all olives aspire to be? Or are all olives different, with no olive being more olive-like than another?"
@@voskresenie- they all aspire to be wine but their dreams are crushed because they aren't grapes and grapes are the superior fruit!
@@bigmoneymandan360 lol 😂
@@harshkumar2473:
😇अहिंसा परमो धर्म 😇
ahiṃsā paramo dharma
(“non-harm is the HIGHEST religious principle” or “non-violence is the GREATEST law”).
Therefore, only a strict VEGAN can claim to be an adherent of the eternal religion (sanātana dharma).🌱
You might enjoy Assassin's Creed Odyssey. They spent a good bit of time creating a 'taste' of Socrates, in his character.
Absolutely love your videos!!! I’m 55 years old and will be starting my philosophy degree in January!! Thanks for the inspiration!
Hi, im 55 and recently embraced stoicism. Thanks!
You're still young. Even if you were 85, it's never late for some Greek Philosophy. It's the foundation of our Western World, unlike only Democracy which also came from the Greeks. Most importantly, it's not mumbo-jumbo and "spiritual" nonsense some people are into. Full of meaning based in logic and reason. During the centuries, entire paragraphs have been interpreted in different ways by different Academies, except the most obvious ones, of course. We owe a lot to the Greeks. Today, they're doing OK, but the economic crisis in 2009 hit them hard which is sad.
@@Hades-Ares-PhobiaFortunately that horrible debt crisis helpes propel the man who restructured their economy into the public eye-- Yannis Varoufakis! Love that guy. Check him out if you haven't. Even if you disagree with him on some things, he has so many interesting ideas, and was one of the first voices calling for the Western world to wake up to the inevitable changes occurring in our world 🫡
Aristotle is the most important philosopher. Nobody brings up he is the FATHER 😂 LOGIC SCIENCE which is OBJECTIVE ABSOLUTE TRUTH. p isn't non p law of NON contradiction and p is non p law of contradiction. Evolution is p is non p impossible contradiction. Google it bro.
Hopefully you'll live long enough to enjoy what you learn
You explain the topics in a CRUSHINGLY simple way. Anyone could understand these videos easily. Thanks for the uploads!
I love the tiny coincidental detail that he didn’t completely erase the question mark at the far right of the screen before he walks off. There are questions that will always need to be solved.
We don't actually learn the meanings of most words by being given definitions. No one told me the definition of chair vs table as a child. I was just exposed to examples of them and then my own brain had to categorize them by noticing differences and similarities between objects in the categories.
I agree with this to a large extent. Even in philosophy definitions get very murky and sometimes cause more problems than they solve.
Which works for blatant things like tables and chairs, because there are clear differences between those things, and you're unlikely to encounter a gray area. This is not the case for virtue or moral. Take the most basic example, a guy tries to kill someone, someone else kills him. Was that moral? You can argue yes because someone was saved, but also no because someone died. You can't just go "well murder bad, not murder good, I guess I've got it figured out!"
@@Winasaurus It also works for other concepts that are not about physical objects. As I said we learn the meanings of words via contextual examples. I don't ever recall someone pulling out a dictionary to explain to me what cheating is via some definition. Instead someone had identified something as "cheating" and I deduced what they meant. I didn't even know dictionaries existed until I already knew the meanings of thousands of words, many purely conceptual like "cheating". As I said "most".
this feels like an argument for family resemblance theory
This is somewhat true. But it is also true that to talk about these issues really well, we need to agree on the definitions, at least for the sake of the discussion if not truly. Otherwise we are talking about completely different things. So we need to be able to say what the words mean.
I love how the various dictionaries define piety as being pious or dedicated. Circular definitions are the best.
Only if you looked up ‘pious’ and it said ‘to be pious is to act with piety’. 😊
Almost every religious concept has that problem. For example, define spirituality: "the quality of being concerned with the human spirit or soul". Ok, then define spirit: "the nonphysical part of a person which is the seat of emotions and character; the soul". Ok, then define soul: "the spiritual or immaterial part of a human being or animal, regarded as immortal". Starts from Spirituality and comes right back to Spiritual.
Which is why I like the igtheistic position regarding any religion. It's basically a position that says the questions about the existence of gods are meaningless because they aren't defined well enough.
piety is defined as respect and reverence to religious rules and principles as well as their observation
@@captainfury497 This is a good point. There's a distinction between asking what the nature of a thing is, and asking how it is defined. We know what piety is. It's 'respect and reverence to religious rules and principles as well as their observation'. The question remains, what makes piety 'good'? Or is it at all? Philosophy needs to be more than a pursuit of definitions, but there also needs to be agreement about the meaning of terms before any discussion is possible.
@@WalterLiddy The question "why is piety good" leads back to the question what is morality. Religious rules are said to be moral by the followers and one can make the case that people (or God) made these rules so that a community can get along and cooperate for the common benefit of the community. So in the end piety and morality are all about promoting human cooperation and thriving. Think of the virtues defined as pious by religions temperance, charity , justice etc . The purpose of all of these are to promote a functioning high trust society
Fantastic lecture, Professor, much appreciated.
hey, youre here too
@@dagemabebe8049, kindly repeat that in ENGLISH, Miss.☝️
Incidentally, Slave, are you VEGAN? 🌱
philosophy:
the love of wisdom, normally encapsulated within a formal academic discipline. Wisdom is the soundness of an action or decision with regard to the application of experience, knowledge, insight, and good judgment. Wisdom may also be described as the body of knowledge and principles that develops within a specified society or period. E.g. “The wisdom of the Tibetan lamas.”
Unfortunately, in most cases in which this term is used, particularly outside India, it tacitly or implicitly refers to ideas and ideologies that are quite far-removed from genuine wisdom. For instance, the typical academic philosopher, especially in the Western tradition, is not a lover of actual wisdom, but a believer in, or at least a practitioner of, adharma, which is the ANTITHESIS of genuine wisdom. Many Western academic (so-called) “philosophers” are notorious for using laborious sophistry, abstruse semantics, gobbledygook, and pseudo-intellectual word-play, in an attempt to justify their blatantly-immoral ideologies and practices, and in many cases, fooling the ignorant layman into accepting the most horrendous crimes as not only normal and natural, but holy and righteous!
An ideal philosopher, on the other hand, is one who is sufficiently intelligent to understand that morality is, of necessity, based on the law of non-violence (“ahiṃsā”, in Sanskrit), and sufficiently wise to live his or her life in such a harmless manner. Cf. “dharma”.
One of the greatest misconceptions of modern times is the belief that philosophers (and psychologists, especially) are, effectively, the substitutes for the priesthood of old. It is perhaps understandable that this misconception has taken place, because the typical priest/monk/rabbi/mullah seems to be an uneducated buffoon compared with those highly-educated gentlemen who have attained doctorates in philosophy, psychology and psychiatry. However, as mentioned in more than a few places in this book, it is imperative to understand that only an infinitesimal percentage of all those who claim to be spiritual teachers are ACTUAL “brāhmaṇa” (as defined in Chapter 20). Therefore, the wisest philosophers of the present age are still those exceptionally rare members of the Holy Priesthood!
At the very moment these words of mine are being typed on my laptop computer, there are probably hundreds of essay papers, as well as books and articles, being composed by professional philosophers and theologians, both within and without academia. None of these papers, and almost none of the papers written in the past, will have any noticeable impact on human society, at least not in the realm of morals and ethics, which is obviously the most vital component of civilization. And, as mentioned in a previous paragraph, since such “lovers-of-wisdom” are almost exclusively adharmic (irreligious and corrupt) it is indeed FORTUITOUS that this is the case. The only (so-called) philosophers who seem to have any perceptible influence in the public arena are “pop” or “armchair” philosophers, such as Mrs. Alisa “Alice” O’Connor (known more popularly by her pen name, Ayn Rand), almost definitely due to the fact that they have published well-liked books and/or promulgate their ideas in the mass media, especially on the World Wide Web.
Jeffrey's half-assed scientific statements in the examples he uses in all of his videos are my absolute favorite. He ends everything with "... or whatever" or "... I don’t know!" And then moves on with his real point.
birds be birding
Typical yid.
@matthewphilip1977I actually enjoyed reading this, good stuff. How do you know so much?
"Are you the strongest because you are Gojo Satoru or are you Gojo Satoru because you are the strongest?"
Damn they used this for real😊
Are you saitama because you kill your enemies in one punch, or do you kill your enemies in one punch because you are saitama?
It seems to me like Socrates just wanted to show Euthypro, why he's wrong without provocation. That's why he followed along with his answers, even if they were obviously wrong. He wanted him to realize it without portraying him like being shallow thinker.
I've heard this is a negotiation tactic used to deescalate a tense situation. Leaving the opponent room to retreat, or make it appear like he came up with the solution/realization on his own in this case.
... the dialogues by Plato are fictions he invents in order to talk about philosophy. They're actually quite a neat trick, makes reading the philosophy more enjoyable to have his avatar make an argument to an interlocutor rather than directly to you.
That's pretty typical of the "Socratic Method."
It seems to me that all of the platonic dialogues are far too convenient to be a real life conversation, either Socrates was just genuinely a genius at navigating interlocutors through their thoughts until they get where he wants them to be… or the character Socrates takes on in said dialogues is just like a rhetorical device to get his points and philosophy across in a very approachable and understandable way.
Doesn’t mean Socrates wasn’t real or that the conversations didn’t occur, just that they didn’t happen in exactly the way Plato says they did
@@finndaniels9139 Dude the conversations didn't happen, they are a rhetorical device used by Plato in his writing. Literally no historian thinks they were real.
@@hoagie911 yeh bro that’s what I said, just used my own logic to explain it
19:50 that was unexpected lmao, but exactly what I thought. Thank you so much for your content, it's just amasing, I can't stop watching these vids
I LOL’d😂
Caught me off guard. 😂
Lets just take a minute to appreciate the quality of this lecture.....
The way you write backwards so we can read it, absolute madness! it must feel cool. High quality, good video!
I dont study philosophy in school/had limited exposure to it in university unlike lots of people in these comments. I’m a biochemistry/neuroscience student, but I feel everyone, especially scientists, should read and understand some of the ideas put forwards by Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, etc as well as the stoics like Epictetus and Aurelius. This channel does a good job at breaking things down for anyone to appreciate/understand.
Everyone, indeed. Of course there are those in our societies who have a natural proclivity for philosophical thought, as is true with all talents from basketball to singing, but we *all* are endowed with a sense of wonder and have a natural responsibility as powerfully creative beings to align our understanding of reality to reality itself, as best we can.
One of the biggest cons enacted by power-mongering social engineers is having us overestimate that discrepancy such that we wholly abdicate that work to others. Then, it's simply a matter of granting the "right people" official credential to explain the world to everyone else, thereby shaping the worldview of the masses in a way that serves a particular end.
@bastiat4855 nobody is saying that lol of course we know science is birthed from philosophy. I was just saying aspiring scientists should be well read in the early philosophy from which the scientific method has evolved from. In my experience, science taught in university (at lest undergrad) focuses more on learning material and solving pre set problems rather than putting the emphasis on teaching students how to ask the right questions, and seek deeper understanding.
@@Answeriz42
There is a wise saying, “Any science which is separated from virtue, it looks cunning and not wisdom”!
PS: I don’t remember if it is Latin or Greek. 🌺
Wilhelm Wundt said something along the lines of (I'm paraphrasing heavily) "once psychologists (scientists works) abandon philosophy and general thinking and instead specialize heavily they will become mere craftsmen, and poor ones at that."
@@randomnerd9088 That's precisely what the social engineers of our world have been trying to achieve, and they've been largely successful. Incomplete logic chains and obscured premises allow for easy manipulation of mankind's lifeward intent, turning it against him, to the benefit of thieves, death-dealers, and slavers (either without his knowledge, or with his misguided assent).
The Euthyphro dilemma feels like morality equivalent to the Set of All Sets That Aren't Part Of Other Sets. It just has that same Lovecraftian "ontological horror" vibe to it. Absolutely my favorite Platonic Dialog.
Having recently watch the lecture on Russell’s Paradox I totally agree with your comment. The thought had occurred before I read these comments.
I keep thinking models are models and not exactly real life. That is to say they model the outcomes of the things we anticipated when designing the model; just as with this philosophical thesis.
Then one day someone says what if, just as Russell did and the best model of Set Theory unpicks itself. It’s like the moment the early explores realised the flat earth model didn’t work. Yet both Russell Paradox and this philosophy do worse; they negate the old model or thesis without establishing a new one. It’s like knowing the world isn’t flat, but not actually knowing it is spherical either. Do you return to the flat Earth model and accept it is flawed of not?
Not at all. And it's the set of all sets that don't contain themselves. The two options are more like a false dilemma.
Euthyphro claims that he can tell what is virtuous and pious, and Socrates proves that Euthyphro, a diviner who takes for granted that virtuousness is what the gods like, not a trained philosopher or teacher of rhetoric, can't do just that. I'm not sure that the dialogue proves that you can't say at all.
+
Godel.
The answer to this conundrum, of course, is the same as for most philisophical dilemmata: it's a purely semantical problem.
Man, I just love how you are so enthusiasm about philosophy, this video helps me alot especially the explaintory priority part. Thank you do much
Thank you for dumbing this down for me lol. This helped me SO MUCH for my philosophy class. Definitely subscribing =]
Happy to help!
@Matt Finish the alternative is just not understanding it at all
@@caymansharp623 or apply more? lol
@Matt Finish Being dumb is pretty smart; being able to think in a way which could be understood by anyone makes others understand a whole lot more stuff, too! :D
@Matt Finish Well, to be fair, usually intelligent people know their intellectual limitations. Those who are unintelligent often over estimate their own ability. Dunning-Krueger.
Wow…. since I could speak I’ve always thought in circles like this never really tried to put the thoughts to words until my 20’s. My friends and family get tired of listening to me try to get to the bottom of broad ideas they just give up. I usually listen in conversations and talk to myself later. When I’m able to I will sit for hours and contemplate all kinds of actions or emotions. I try to figure out a decent answer knowing I’ll have more solutions later when I experience more. That excites me like nothing else. I’m 31 years old and just getting into Philosophy (I had no idea what the word even meant until a few months ago) I did not goto college by choice but now I wish I went to learn about these philosophers. I might be further along with my answers and I’d have people to actually talk with me about what everything is, why it is etc.
I wanted to share because I know I’m not the only one. Hit me up if you want to discuss any of your ideas I’m used to listening. I truly appreciate different perspectives.
This is the second video I've watched because of the random algorithm. Subbed for the thought or lectures and the God Tier backwards writing!
I’m really enjoying your videos and I’m far from an academic, at 22mins i started to write you a comment in my head, about the use of the word love, and you didn’t disappoint me by mentioning the fact love can mean anything, i often tell people this, it confuses most people, i further explain that respect is quite possibly the most important thing, and also the least likely to mean something else, because if you respect someone, it has nothing to do with you, and everything to do with the person you are respecting
I'm glad this video came out as a first result when I searched for "Euthyphro". Great explanation and channel!
Thank you so much for this lesson, it helped me understand Euthyphro in such a better way. Looking forward to more such content.
From email i sent last year:
Dear Dr Kaplan, 20:40
Just wanted you to know that I was enthralled by your video and have subscribed to the series. I wish I had profs like that -- and I wish I had been a prof like that.
Alas, as a 90-year-old long-retired philosophy professor, I can only wish. Keep it going!
Best,
Bob
I never thought I’d be both laughing out loud and fully understanding Plato. Thank you for this video!!
Was trying to understand the dialogue for like an hour and a half when I could've just watched this 30 min video. Thank you, so helpful!
Thanks for a great lecture! Loved the analogy with Kierkegaard. Eventually, I would suggest some insight… you say that Socrates/Plato didn’t consider seriously option 2 - “love explains the virtue”, but he does it indirectly, since if you choose the option 1 than if it turns to result in option 2 (as in the end of Euthyphro) you prove indirectly that both options lead to contradictions. What seems Socrates suggest (and somehow proofs dialogically) is that there is no real connection between God’s love and virtue (even accidentally), that looks to be in an accord with Greek’s polytheism. The idea of virtue would be than related to Greek concept of necessity as counterpart of Gods (which Socrates suggest in the dialogue as well). Would be happy for a comment here 😊
🎉🎉
Plato really coming out here without thoughts I had when picking my nose as a toddler. The greatest of us all
The philosopher Plato and the historian Xenophon were both Socrates pupils.
The Athenian comic dramatist Aristophanes (Socrates's contemporary) mentions him in a play.
We know his life's dates 470-399 BCE and the name of his wife Xanthippe
and their three sons Lamprocles, Sophroniscus, and Menexenus. So Socrates existed.
Yes his presentation makes that a little melodramatic
It would be more apt to say that we are unsure if Socrates existed historically as Plato presented him
I can tell you all about how Varian Wryn's wife died in 14 ADP, and that his friend Thrall spoke of him in passing. Their son, Anduine took the throne, then, after Varian was slain in the battle of the Broken Shore in the days leading up to the beginning of the 4th War.
Anyone can reference fictional characters, this does not make them real. I'm not saying this makes Socrates fictional, only that your argument isn't iron clad.
Its very simple guys.
All these guys did was hangout and chat about life and love.
Countless iterations. And they would even debate as to how best to present specific arguments which they all knew well.
And plato would scribe them in their essence.
These books represent the best of their ideas and how their best resistors were conquered.
Its an ideal conversation with the best representations for both sides.
By the men most obsessed with love and truth manifest from ideality.
The casual shade he throws at Locke at the end because Plato wound up at the same place 2000 years earlier is fantastic
Threw shade at YHWH too lol
And we're still making the same errors. At least we have more good explainers
@@jimmythe-gent How so? The Bible implies that right and wrong exist independently of God.
@@RMF49 Okay, but then how do we know what is right vs what is wrong? You say it exists independently -- what is Right and what is Wrong?
That's the key question, isn't it?
But I believe the shade was God asking Abraham to sacrifice his son. That becomes even more problematic than usual if the act is objectively wrong. Why ask Abraham to choose between his faith and doing right?
I'd also be curious to know what verses you say are implying that right and wrong exist independently -- Romans 13:9-10, perhaps?
And in any case, if Right and Wrong exist independently of God's Will, then I have a lot of questions. I'd generally agree with C.S. Lewis that Moral Good ("Right") must have been created/defined by God, or several things break.
Why is God Perfectly Right?
For that matter, why is Right Right? Why is it Morally Good?
Because if you can't answer those, then you don't have a foundation to answer anything else.
Did God have a Perfect understanding of what is Good from the very beginning?
Why was it wrong to eat the apple?
Why did God need to give us the 10 commandments, if right and wrong existed independently of his commandments?
What made Baal-hermon and Asherah wrong?
Is God always right?
Can we, on Earth, know what is right?
Can we, in Heaven, know what is right?
Why was God right when [insert Old Testament story of your choice here]?
@@tomc.5704 I only have time to answer a few at the moment:
The verse I had in mind is:
Genesis 18:25 That be far from thee to do after this manner, to slay the righteous with the wicked: and that the righteous should be as the wicked, that be far from thee: Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right?
Specifically “Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right?” implies that it’s conceivable for God to do wrong. If everything God does is right by definition then the question makes no sense. Yet God entertains the question.
How do we know right from wrong? I’d say by empathy. “Do unto others as ye would have them do unto you.” That gives us a standard from which to decide right and wrong.
Am I the only one who appreciates his backward writing skill?
Edit: Can't believe people are still actively replying to this even a year later lol... And yes I know the video was flipped/mirrored...
... Or is it?
Or his skill to click the “invert” button
Look at his wedding ring and watch. He's writing forward and mirroring the video.
Socrates would give you a hard time with this question. 😑
… you still have a lot to learn my friend🤣
🤣🤣
I've been teaching philosophy for over 25 years. I have always prefaced any teachings of Plato with the Euthyprho, even though it is not included in most texts with the "Death Dialogues." I have always thought all else of Plato is based on this very short teaching.
philosophy:
the love of wisdom, normally encapsulated within a formal academic discipline. Wisdom is the soundness of an action or decision with regard to the application of experience, knowledge, insight, and good judgment. Wisdom may also be described as the body of knowledge and principles that develops within a specified society or period. E.g. “The wisdom of the Tibetan lamas.”
Unfortunately, in most cases in which this term is used, particularly outside India, it tacitly or implicitly refers to ideas and ideologies that are quite far-removed from genuine wisdom. For instance, the typical academic philosopher, especially in the Western tradition, is not a lover of actual wisdom, but a believer in, or at least a practitioner of, adharma, which is the ANTITHESIS of genuine wisdom. Many Western academic (so-called) “philosophers” are notorious for using laborious sophistry, abstruse semantics, gobbledygook, and pseudo-intellectual word-play, in an attempt to justify their blatantly-immoral ideologies and practices, and in many cases, fooling the ignorant layman into accepting the most horrendous crimes as not only normal and natural, but holy and righteous!
An ideal philosopher, on the other hand, is one who is sufficiently intelligent to understand that morality is, of necessity, based on the law of non-violence (“ahiṃsā”, in Sanskrit), and sufficiently wise to live his or her life in such a harmless manner. Cf. “dharma”.
One of the greatest misconceptions of modern times is the belief that philosophers (and psychologists, especially) are, effectively, the substitutes for the priesthood of old. It is perhaps understandable that this misconception has taken place, because the typical priest/monk/rabbi/mullah seems to be an uneducated buffoon compared with those highly-educated gentlemen who have attained doctorates in philosophy, psychology and psychiatry. However, as mentioned in more than a few places in this book, it is imperative to understand that only an infinitesimal percentage of all those who claim to be spiritual teachers are ACTUAL “brāhmaṇa” (as defined in Chapter 20). Therefore, the wisest philosophers of the present age are still those exceptionally rare members of the Holy Priesthood!
At the very moment these words of mine are being typed on my laptop computer, there are probably hundreds of essay papers, as well as books and articles, being composed by professional philosophers and theologians, both within and without academia. None of these papers, and almost none of the papers written in the past, will have any noticeable impact on human society, at least not in the realm of morals and ethics, which is obviously the most vital component of civilization. And, as mentioned in a previous paragraph, since such “lovers-of-wisdom” are almost exclusively adharmic (irreligious and corrupt) it is indeed FORTUITOUS that this is the case. The only (so-called) philosophers who seem to have any perceptible influence in the public arena are “pop” or “armchair” philosophers, such as Mrs. Alisa “Alice” O’Connor (known more popularly by her pen name, Ayn Rand), almost definitely due to the fact that they have published well-liked books and/or promulgate their ideas in the mass media, especially on the World Wide Web.
@bastiat I can't go 5 mins onthe internet without hearing about dioceses and the chicken. It's the nickelback of references.
@Elijah Cademartori So true, made me giggle hahaha
I enjoy your lectures, professor. You genuinely do a great job of explaining the material I failed in the 80s👏
why a guy like this can't be my professor I have to search through TH-cam to understand my class. Thank you.
this helped me so much with my philosophy class.. thank you so much
Glad it helped!
I just discovered your channel and I absolutely love it! 😃
Reading the dialogue and watching this video together makes so much sense :D
I REALLY LOVE YOUR CONTENTS!!!!
I've been looking for videos I can listen to while I'm busy, I do work subconsciously like I'm in autopilot so I have to keep my mind from wandering so I have to listen to something besides music and your contents are just perfect!
Thank you so much!
I love how the question mark on the right didn't get completely erased at the end, mirroring how the question never got properly answered.
This is great stuff! Underrated channel for sure
i dont know how can i say thank you to you
its really helpful to me and once again i wanna say. thank you 💓
Love that it all leads up and ends on a mic drop 🎤 “the problem with moral truths resulting from divine judgment…only seem to work if you accept that moral truths exist already”
Not merely from Gods judgment but from his character.
@@toppcatt5113 He’s got multiple characters though: jealous, genocidal, loving, forgiving, merciful, vengeful, e.t.c. So there is that.,
@@oluwolechaviro9937 Those aren't characters, those are characteristics.
@@toppcatt5113 Referring to God's character doesn't really solve the dilemma. The same questions can be asked of his character. Does his character cause God to choose acts that are good simply because his character produces/triggers those acts, or does God's character produce those acts or the inclination to see those acts as good because those acts are good for other reasons?
@@rizdekd3912 It would be the first, there are no other reasons apart from God since apart from God there are no other 'things'. God is the source of all things in existence so God IS good in this case and only things in alignment with that are also good. Anything else that you would debate arises from a lack of your understanding of God's character. Now I am more interested in does the fact that a God who is the source of all things, good and evil, change the question or just moves the goal post for 'in essence' the same question you are asking. Of course people debate if God is the 'source' of evil, but He does claim it in the bible that he 'creates evil' (Isaiah 45:7) of course some people cushion their fragile beliefs by saying it can only mean calamity, say a natural disaster. Still, the question for me remains, if God creates ALL Things then even if it isn't an active creation of Evil then Evil still exists because creates all that is Good, allowing that anything apart from that Good to be evil and still exist.
So maybe you are correct in thinking that good and evil exist for 'other' reasons apart from just God's 'character'. My opinion would be that God is the other reasons also. Say God's desire for a end state, that end state will be a perfected Good (as in there are levels to Good and Bad, his 'end' goal is a perfect Good). So evil is allowed to exist in order to allow for a 'better' good.
If I could explain that a little more, then Adam and Eve in a perfect garden paradise world with no 'evil' was 'good'. The universe God created was, according to God even, Good. But could good be better? Whats better than a perfect world without evil? A perfect world that has dealt with and overcome evil? Maybe. Either way the ultimate answer when you are looking at the Omni-everything that is the judeo-christian God is God. He is the ultimate answer for God is the originator of all things.
Plato really loved, admired his master Socrates! Not every philosopher then did that. This makes me respect Plato more!
... That's WHY You Should ALWAYS Love Your LEADER!! Love HER or Love HIM... No One LISTENS Too Me Tho BUT All Want to GAIN' BENIEFT & Profit tho MY Pain and MY Misfortune
The human conceptualisation of God and the human conceptualisation of virtue come from the same place: humans
I am here because philosophy is an interesting subject, or is it because I am interested in philosophy, or that philosophy is a subject that interests some.
A question also arises that, what am I doing here when I have 2 subjects finals hanging on my head neither of them is philosophy. Is it tha all of a sudden philosophy makes sense or because I am anxious of what I have to complete.
It’s beautiful to see so much of knowledge on TH-cam.
LMMFAO!!! loved this very helpful and wish I had you to break my whole class/book down for me!! Euthyphro finally just gave up and wanted to leave lol he's like I'm out this is going nowhere, when he was the one doing it!!
🤣🤣 I'm so glad you did a lecture for the Euthyphro Dilemma right after the "God decides morality" Locke lecture. I was imagining how Locke would respond to Plato's Euthyphro.
This makes me curious about Locke's opinion on the Euthyphro Dilemma. Did he have an opinion on this?
@@Paraselene_Tao Seems that Locke's opinion was that God decides what's right, however horrifying those decisions may seem to the rest of us. We don't make the rules, God does. So sayeth Locke, at least, but he was pretty naïve. He even believed in the Endless Bounty of Nature. 😜
I just watched the Locke video. In fact, Locke begins by assuming that property rights are objective fact (shocker), then says, "Since God owns us…" 🤦♂
@@serversurfer6169 if you were placed by yourself on a random livable planet would you not objectively have full liberty of all property you obtain in such a situation? This is why it's "god given" it would exist in a vacuum with no other input with or without a society or community.
@@serversurfer6169
I haven't read locke, but the Biblical answer is greater than just "God says". Biblically based virtue and ethics flow from God's character - He is Justice, Love, Truth, etc.
I assume Kaplan is Jewish, and it bewilders me why he would use the Hebrew Bible to attack morality via the story of Abraham.
Assuming he is ignorant of his own Scriptures.
And yes, nature does have endless bounty. You have to let Locke define his terms, and not you.
this is the first video ever on philosophy that i reeeaaalllyyyyy enjoyed and was astonished at. LOVE YOU SIR. Im searching now all of your CHANNEL to find more videos related to my course content
I need to know how he learned how to write things backwards so easily :D
Fantastic content and explained in a manner that is both accessible and robust to the point that I am in awe as was Salieri when he talked about Mozart in that flawed and amazing film.
I'm about to shatter your entire worldview...
he writes normally, he just flips the video in post
@@zack_420 Thank you!!!
THIS WAS ONE AMAZING LECTURE
Now I finally get it !!! Thank you! Great Lecture !!
I believe Plato does consider this option at 20:53 and at great length, as after Socrates gets agreement from Euthyphro that the gods love pious things because they are pious, when he asks “is it being loved because it is pious or for some other reason” Euthyphro replies “no other reason”.
He then goes to ask about the relationship between men and gods and how sacrifices and acts of service to the gods are pious actions.
Now these actions are concluded to be pious because of the benefits to which the gods gain from such acts, therefore what is dear to them, as there would be no need for gifts to which the recipient did not need, and there would be no point in a need if it was not considered most dear to them, which circles back to Euthyphro’s original answer in the beginning, that what is pious is what they love and what is dear to them. In doing so Socrates highlights the inconsistencies in Euthyphro’s understanding of what piety is.
So piety is just a glorified mercenary system?
I'm a 13 year old who's intersted in philosophy and ethics. And this video is just perfect, it explained it in such a simple way.
Amazing Video. I don’t know why this isn’t talked about more in regards to religion.
Thank you, I’ve always thought Plato was boring and hard to read but this was very helpful 👍
Thank you for your lecture so much, it was amazing and so helpful!!!!
just found this channel. i love it. your way of explaining is too simple, but really really captivating
"too" simple? or "so" simple?
@@thyssaliki i see how it could be a spelling mistake, but actually, i think it's simpler than i'd like it to be if i only take into account my own understanding. so i wrote it as "too" simple to show that i think the explanation is oversimplified. however, i also did that to highlight the contradiction i feel, because even if i feel it's oversimplified, i simultaneously like that about it, and find it a charming characteristic, and one that i've associated into the identity of the channel as a whole. there are probably better ways to write this, but i did this one specifically to show the contradiction. and this reply got long because i also tried to simplify it a lot while writing it :)
@@lunaponta594 I think I understand. It's just that "too" connotes a judgment, while "so" would convey the level of simplicity without sounding dismissive, which you confirmed is how you felt.
You are a great educator thank you for your support and avocation for accesable information.
Hearing a philosophy professor say someone or something definitely existed? Priceless!
I think the best part about watching educational content in video format is being able to experience a lecture while having a timestamp I can reference for moments of internal realization; when I come to understand something, I can look and see exactly how long it took me to do so from the moment the idea was introduced.
More generally, however, it's interesting to note how long it takes for me to lose focus during the lecture. It always happens, no matter what the subject is or how invested I am in the content. Sometimes it's because boredom takes over or I didn't get good sleep and am exhausted, other times it's because the imagination takes over and I begin daydreaming, or perhaps I started taking the argument in a different direction in my head and the bifurcation causes me to lose track of both. I lost the thread at 14:25, roughly around the same exact moment Jeff said the sentence, "greenness of grass explains trueness of sentence". All this is just backstory for some feedback, if I may, on how to improve your videos for the future; I realize this is kind of a moot point because I'm 3 years too late, and also you've probably already heard this before, but I figured I'd write it just the same.
The initial stage of any lecture is always the most interesting, because new ideas flood in and the mind is captivated by the sudden influx of possibility; there is an aspect of problem solving and creativity that is inherent in the human mind that can be called on spontaneously simply by introducing new ideas. The problem of distraction occurs when this specific creative aspect gives way to the concentration necessary to contract and individuate the concepts being proposed into a concrete model represented by the lecturer's syllabus. I believe that properly incorporating both of these mental aspects can greatly increase the learning capacity, and I think modern educational content creators like Vsauce are great examples. They use scene changes and graphic visuals to transition from point to point within the argument, and this provides the viewer with more unified exposure to the concepts being presented.
I won't delve into arguments about the moral qualities of a shift away from standard blackboard lecture format, but suffice it to say that statistically speaking, a holistic approach does work. You don't have to change anything about your current model, it would just be helpful if sometimes you had a moving image or emotionally captivating landscape appear that the audience is most likely to associate with internalized memories; exposure to a meaningful image or idea will naturally cause the imaginative faculties to refocus and give depth to the ideas being presented. An example would be to show stock footage of people walking around a stoa or some dudes in Chitons debating next to a fruit stall or something. I lost focus at around the fourteen minute mark, so even a few seconds of scene change and ambient sound would reel me back into the moment without you having to say or do anything else. Thanks for reading, and I hope you enjoyed it as much as I did this video.
EDIT: Another thought I had was that, during longer lectures especially, I also think it's helpful to have a moment of silence to allow what I just heard to settle in. It doesn't have to be long, maybe 45 seconds, but when I'm forced to look inward because of a lack of external stimulus, I find my mind refocus on the expectation of having additional dialogue to develop the ideas I'm processing.
This is gold. He also lost me at that time-frame. I had to speed up to 1,25 to keep me focused. Great insights and good tips.
Great explanation. Hope to see your channel grow more
HOW ARE YOU ABLE TO WRITE BACKWARDS
Good question. Here is a video that I made explaining it: th-cam.com/video/6_d44bla_GA/w-d-xo.html
😂😂 still trying to figure it out
can't he just mirror the recorded video of him writing properly?
The grass is green, because when white light hits it, the leaves absorb most wave lengths of that light but reflect others, which reach our eyes, our brains detect, and which we call green. Indeed the grass does this to optimise photosynthesis, but that is not why we see it as green, we hold explanatory priority when it comes to our own senses. But our eyes detect green but not UV light (although some insects do) because our senses were naturally selected to give us a decent chance at survival, and it is crucial for our survival to be able to destinguish a red fruit from a green leave. That is why we all know that grass is green, our life depends on it.
My gollygodgee. What a great teacher of essence, and lover of life you are. Thanks!
1min in I'm just blown away you can write backwards. It's like watching tenet in reverse
Bro.. he's writing the usual way, then just flipping the video afterward.
lovely stuff
I just cant get over the fact that he is writing it all backwards 😂
Yeah, the first time he did it I was like: "Whoa! Broo!!! "
He’s not lol, he writes forward and a program flips it. I had a chemistry professor use this same thing
I just realized you must be writing backwards this whole time for us! Hats off!!
Absolutely brilliant! Shakes up the entire moral value systems virtuous acts & gods will ir whatever.
Buddha defined it better before Socrates - Ahimsa - non violence is the only first virtue - whether god loves it or not. Removing suffering - control of desires to reach awareness of compassion is true enlightenment and you dont need god in this model. Superb presentation!
thanks for this! great lecture
Came for the philosophy, stayed for the marker shakes
needs more cowbell
"are you the strongest because you are satoru gojo or are you satoru gojo because you are the strongest" - Suguru Geto
I have waited for an explainer for a long time and here he is , Great job
I ended up re reading Fear and Trembling after watching this. The teleological suspension of the ethical also places "faith in god's love" as higher than human virtue.
funny enough, I think Euthypro was right the first time around.
piety is a word.
giving examples is how you put objects (actions) into categories (description words).
Our minds infer, though a method that is imperfect, a rule, and this understanding may be different to each speaker, and no understanding is more true than the other, as long as it is coherent within itself. That is why there can be a discussion if an action is pious, nefarious or ambivalent, as different people will have different rulebooks in their minds.
The second definition, "what the gods want" is actually genius, because it comes from the realization that pious acts as defined by priests, conduit of the gods, are in contradiction with most human inferred rules for goodness. But since language requires some level of agreement, and priests have general agreement to say the truth, the guy decides that whatever gods want is virtuous because he cannot quickly decide on a different rulebook, so he follows the authority on it, as a matter of definition. So each example of gods will enters the definition of virtue as an example of virtuous acts.
The contradiction arises when Plato wants to have a definition of virtue that is not based on examples. But that is not how language works...
You’re awesome keep it up!
Thank you! Will do!
Is THAT what Plato's Dialogues are?!? Holy crap I remember this from high school (30 yrs ago), and i distinctly remember not understanding this unit. I remember getting caught up in the word "dialogues." And I remember thinking it meant internal dialogues. So I went through the whole unit thinking Plato was just making shit up in his head, and I was like WTF? Why are we studying a crazy person?!? 🤣
there is no evidence you were wrong. ;-) we just happen to read these dialogues as if they were actual dialogues, but nothing requires that.
Haha look into Buddhism and both are the same. We could be very well talking to ourself.
@@xalaxie And that's the other problem I have. There's 2 possibilities of what I might say. Something extremely smart, or something extremely stupid. Alternatively, there's been times I've said something that appears to be extremely stupid and I get laughed at for it and it makes me feel so dumb I'm like yeah you're right, that's not it...only to eventually be proven correct...lol... basically most of the time I'm just guessing! 🤣🤣🤣
@@wulfstein3630 So weird. A Buddhist channel just got recommended to me a day or two ago, so I watched a few videos and subscribed. This is freaking me out man!
You can't have an internal dialogue (unless you're schizophrenic) as there's only you in there. It would Monologues, even if you're just debating yourself.
I've been watching this guy's videos the past couple of days - Russell's Paradox, the Chinese Room, this one, and it just occurred to me how good he is at writing backwards!
Maybe it's a layer of second video which is revered and superimposed on the lecture video.?
Brilliantly explained. Socrates nicely portraits the dilemma of God. It’s much simpler when we take God out of the equation!
no genius it means there is no morality,
ill make it simple. could you still cry out like some obnoxious Christian karen and say 'THATS OBJECTIVELY MORALLY WRONG" , when no one exist , whats the difference between stabbing a alive baby vs stabbing the ashes of a cremated baby, vs stabbing the semen of a human male.
obviously nothing , because there is no morality , its just a opinion that someone took because someone existed
What if love and/or virtue was a part of the God or gods themselves, and not exclusive from one another? This would provide a solution, and this is logically consistent with the declarations of the Bible:
"Beloved, let us love one another, for love is from God, and whoever loves has been born of God and knows God. Anyone who does not love does not know God, because God is love. " - 1 John 4:7-8
But the question would still remain. Is love good because it is what God wants or does God want us to love..ie want love...because love is good in its own right, ie for reasons? IF it is both, then the latter takes precedence because there are reasons for God to want it (love). There is nothing particularly wrong with that view, but it still means there are reasons for thinking love is good beyond or in addition to the fact that God wants it. It could just mean that if God exists, he sorts out the reasons more clearly than humans can/do so we would be advised to heed him.
I just wonder about the grass is green bit. For simplicity I’ll refer to it as Sentence and Plant.
I understand the plant is green and so the sentence is true. But don’t we need a concept of green to say that the plant is green? Wouldn’t this mean the plant is green because the sentence says it is so?
If this was about the sea being blue: in the Odyssey, they describe the sea as being wine red. This was because the Greeks didn’t have a concept of blue (as I understand it.) So, we can agree that the sea is blue, but is this only because we hold a concept of blueness? Because the sentences of the sea being wine red and blue are both true... and yet the sea remains one colour.
So it strikes me that in the dialogue: what is holy is only what the gods describe as such. It cannot be that grass is green, because a plant doesn’t embody the concept of the adjectives added to it. Rather, isn’t the concept of green a construction separate of the plant?
I could be wrong on this. I’m trying to get into philosophy, and I’m not sure if this is drifting out of the point into something else, or if I’m missing the point.😂 I’m welcoming of any correction - gratefully so.
check out for "descriptivism ".Welcome to the rabbit hole of philosophy of language xD
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Descriptivist_theory_of_names
also, semiology
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ferdinand_de_Saussure#View_of_language
@@pedrova8058 thanks for your response. I’ll have a good read. 😊
"green" is just the word we assign to the previous characteristic of the plant. If instead of calling it "green" we called it "lulu" it wouldn't change anything. The answer lies in what makes us perceive the plant in that specific way.
It’s funny how you say kill the child and leave them on the mountain because a similar thing happened in scripture; and right before he was about to kill his child on the mountain as a “sacrifice” (ordered by god as an ultimate test of faith) an angel was quickly sent to the father by God, and the angel told him to stop and that it was a test of his faith because what god loves is faith in his will, not necessarily works (christian Bible). nobody died that day.
Yes, nobody died, because it didn't happen. You know what did happen though? Murder and genocide on massive scale justified by "I was just following orders."
Great video and greatly impressed by your mirror writing…well done. I taught myself when I was a teenager…after learning Leonardo Da Vinci used it in his journals. It has been useful periodically through my life. I also notice you are left handed which might have made it come easier to you possibly.
Man I love your stuff. It's so refreshing and spot on.
About 4000 years BEFORE Socrates the answer to the question "What is virtue?" is given in the Old Testament. Exodus 20 and Ecclesiastes 9😂❗
Yes, it's the second option. "God's love explains virtue."
That is some good shit. Thank you !
You're welcome. Glad you enjoyed it!
so essentially are you gojo satoru because you are the strongest or are you the strongest because you are gojo satoru?
great job on the video! you explained the topic thoroughly and at the perfect pace, thank you!
Thank you for making education accessible, I firmly believe that such content is what makes the platform a healthy environment.
There's only one thing that hinders my appreciation for some of the argumentation : oftentimes, the premises agreed upon use language as an object to confirm or validate their theory without acknowledging key aspects of our understanding of language in this day and age, and even previously. For instance in a previous video there was mention of syntax and semantics, syntax as the shape of language and semantics as the ideas, this is vaguely true, but not exactly, and it kinda makes a difference. I understand that there isn't really the need to dive in details everytime, but seeing these words thrown around as if they meant nothing makes me feel like people greatly undermine the importance of naming and defining things correctly in the context of research. Syntax in linguistics is the set of rules that command how sentences are made in a given language (generally). Semantics in linguistics is conceived as an ensemble of theories that aspire to explore the mechanisms behind meaning, that inside of languages in a broader sense. These two are entertwined to a certain degree in many languages, for instance there are preffered orders for SUBJECT, OBJECT and VERB across languages, where changing the place of a word changes it's meaning among other things. According to Wikipedia, 45 % of recorded languages use the structure SOV, the second most common being VSO with 42 % of the share (there are between 6K and 7K estimated languages in the world according to research in 2008, this number is rapidly decreasing, not all of these languages are recorded).
In this video, my issue is with the point : "is it true that the grass is green because of the English lge or the other way around" (14:04), I agree with the conclusion. However, the sentence means something first and foremost because us, a group of people, collectively agrees upon it. We can see it as a four step process, a) receiving a stimuli ; b) recognizing it's shape as something we know ; c) recognizing it's meaning ; d) applying said meaning to a given context. Just a little more detail on an itty-bitty bit of contention with regards to the steps used in the development. This is J-M. Klinkenberg's model for a semiotic model of the sign. I also highly recommend Peirce's theories relative to semiotics, I believe they are wonderful. Now, here it doesn't work exactly like this but in theory language works like that in practice. However as an object in itself, a word or sign is often defined as a triangle : significant, signified, and the referent. The cool thing now is that all these things function as a unit (or can be thought of in this manner) because they exist in relation with other words in the english language, because we define the meaning of things opposite to other things in this given system.
A small rant that became a (short) attempt to propaganda (I study linguistics and the field seems to be dying out kinda, I find it sad because it's truly wonderful, but whatever really). Hope this was clear, I never tried to explain this in English before. Let's all try to enrich ourselves with all the knowledge out there, lotsa love
Edit : Check out C.-S. Peirce, F. Saussure, André Martinet, semiotics and linguistics if you found that interesting. I think most of these things can be found explained better and in further detail on the internet. I would highly recommend reading/watching things about it, it raises many interesting questions, perhaps not so many answers, but that's the fun of it !
You might find Wittgenstein useful especially the juxtaposition of his early work (Tractatus ) Vs his later work in Philosophical investigations.
I listened to this whole at the gym and thoroughly enjoyed it
But are not Gods and Moral truths Man made?
Piety means to lower oneself to the Gods, to be a subject instead of a ruler. Virtuousness is explained by submission to given rules. I think virtue is decided by the Gods, to enslave their subjects. (to the rule of their law). The Gods themselves do not have to keep these virtues, but expect their subjects to adhere to them because the Gods think they are mightier than their subjects. Might makes the Gods right and their subjects are not allowed to be mighty. In other words, the Gods can do whatever they want but their subjects are enslaved by laws and virtues as a function of submission. That would be my third option.
I'm sorry, is he writing backwards inverted? hello? anyone?
He writes normal, but then inverts the video. *he holds the pen left handed but prob is right handed
I love that towards the end Jeffrey parenthetically throws in a couple of other little bits that, I believe, should lead one to assume how he answers to this question: One is from Genesis where God asks Abraham to sacrifice Issac; The other being John Locke's ideas of "objective moral truth." Interested in any ideas others have and to what conclusion you think one should draw.
I'm impressed with the mirrored writing.
unless he's wearing women's clothing, the video frame is simply reversed.
Its a false dilema, at least in the case of the biblical God. Neither option is right. God doesn't will something because it is good, nor is something good because he wills it. He wills something because God is good. Morals are founded in the very nature of God. Its not an arbitrary decision by God. Goodness flows necessarily out of God. What he does is good because he is good.
Exactly. God - IS - Good. That good isn't independent of Him. It is Him. It's fundamental. He's the source, like the sun and it's rays or oceans and rivers. Morals are tributaries to Him. He's the Logos.
I appreciate the lesson and video, no special effects or virality gimmicks, but interesting by virtue of making you think. As a bonus, I love that he looked and sounded like Charlie from It’s Always Sunny!
Plato’s works are not only incredibly informative they’re also very interesting and fun to read!
Ya know, the idea that most people who argue these points never stop to consider is WHAT God was Plato referring to, and why? Greece, at his time, the 6th Century BC, had a pantheon of gods and goddesses, none of whom resembled the God of the Israelis, except in His most fire-and-brimstone appearances, when He resembled Athena at her worst. Who was Plato referencing, in his moral debate?
I believe Plato was channeling earlier avatars of his discipline, passing on wisdom from the past, as he did in The Republic, about Atlanteans. Just because WE don't "know" what, or when, these story fragments came from (we do, but we pretend the sources are less than convincing) does not mean they weren't valid evidence of earlier Greeks, and other peoples around the g, having an understanding of the world they inhabited. In fact, the ancient Greeks are the source of much of what we take for granted.
WHY was there an outpouring of Knowledge and Accomplishment, following the last half of the 7th, through the 4th Century BC, when an impressive list of people established Law, Literature, Philosophy, History, Mathematics, and the Sciences? We see Solon, Pythagoras, Buddha, Confucius, Aeschylus, Diogenes, Lao-Tse, Herodotus, Socrates, Hippocrates, Aristophanes, Plato, and Aristotle emerge in the 250 years following 638BC, with no comparable factors in the years before. Solomon lived so long before these people, some consider him "mythical", today. He lived in the 14th Century BC, 800 years before Solon, before much of the turbulent history that caused the gap I mention.
So, whose "god" was Plato referring to? He lived in the Golden Age of Greece (the Athens version, not the Mycenae), unconcerned with the upstart God of the Jews, who demanded morality, piety, and obedience. Plato's "gods" were a motley crew of super-mortals, many of whom visited Earth and interacted with humans. Not so, the God of the Jews. He destroyed, killed, and rampaged, not a whimsical thought or action. Why are the two so different, barely separated by 1,200 miles of water?
The Phoenicians serviced the eastern Mediterranean, were later conquered by the Greeks, around Plato's 50th birthday, so he would have known of, but undoubtedly not accepted, the Israeli Yahweh. Somehow, he incorporates alien concepts of God and religion? Probably not. The same events the Jews wrote of in the Tanakh (only codified in the 7th Century BC, Jews only becoming "monotheistic" in the 12th Century BC), must have happened to the Greeks, and, indeed, the Mycenae fade from history, around the time of the Fall of Empires.
This leads one to believe the events described in various books of our Old Testament were (heavily-edited, and highly religionized) descriptions of extraterrestrial forces acting on Earth. Such descriptions are more common in ancient "literature" (and Earth's scars), than is presumed in most modern philosophies of knowledge. It's almost as if Will Shakespeare had been prescient, schooled in arcana, when he wrote, "There are more things in heaven and Earth, than are dreamt of in your philosophy, Horatio!"
©BW2023 11/24/2023
anarchitek™
My first time watching one of your videos, super engaging content! It's a massive relief to find this corner of the internet to communicate ideas. It has me thinking, if there was a feedback loop scenario. For example if the God's loved an act, say murdering your child, and then that act was considered virtuous, then the precedent is set. Then the Gods love murder more and perpetrate it more. However, suppose the Gods loved virtuous behaviour then by acting virtuous the Gods loved virtue more, and then virtuous acts would be perpetrated more. However, that's as far as I can delineate this arguement. It supposes that the Gods love influences events assuming they had the power to do so.
I very much enjoyed this lecture. I am introducing my son to Plato and this content is very helpful. One critique - Jacob does not kill Isaac. I understand the prof was being careful not to run off into rabbit trails, being an introductory class. Still there is a lot left to unpack with such an example.
As a response, I would say that the “greeness” (AutoCorrect says not a word!) of grass is part of the identity of grass. If I waved a magic wand and removed all the chlorophyll of the grass it would no longer be grass or even a plant anymore. It would be dead matter (see Hamlet’s Yorick - someone who WAS a man but is now dead). Such is the case with God’s morality and goodness - they are an inseparable unity.
I know this is just one of the classical responses. Just wanted to drop this in here for your personal consideration.