3k AMA Answers!
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 30 มิ.ย. 2021
- You asked, I answered! Enjoy :)
Like the show? Help it grow! Consider becoming a patron (thanks!): / majestyofreason
If you wanna make a one-time donation or tip (thanks!): www.paypal.com/paypalme/josep...
My book: www.amazon.com/Majesty-Reason...
My website: majestyofreason.wordpress.com/
😍. This is better than Avengers endgame.
I almost died when you said the first 2 God's not dead movies....
Everyone knows the 3rd one is the greatest movie of all time!
Thanks for answering my question. I'm definitely sympathetic to the view of epistemic justification you lay out, especially the inclusion of phenomenal conservatism.
Again, congrats on 3k!
You show yourself to be so likeable. Good vibes
man, am I glad that someone as smart as Joe leans more pro-life.
Seriously cannot believe how much fun I had watching/listening to this today.
Much love❤️
Oh God i love this channel so much
the impressions were actually pretty on point
Awesome, Joe!
Very interesting. This got me thinking about molinism and the different views of divine providence
Doesn't the seeming present a defeater FOR materialism? The seeming is already a mental object, the seeming is not in itself material, so the seeming of material objects as material(which is a seeming I've never had, and don't believe most have had) is in itself a very strong argument for idealism as the reason for materialism/physicalism would be a mental object(the seeming itself).
ur channel is gonna be a big one bro
38:06 TH-cam channels I should look into. 2:03:58 thnx for answering!
This made my day, thank you so much for taking the time to answer each question, you're so kind (nice spanish accent btw).
Which minute of the stream?
@@AdrielnerEPinto 3:11:26 :D
1:31:00 Im pretty sure this is really similar to Norman Malcolms assessment of the Anselmian argument, that "if God exists then God exists necessarily" is established by the argument, but not that God actually exists
This is without any doubt one of the 5 best phil channels on youtube. I have never considered donating to a youtuber before.
What are the others?
you can take all 3 horns the trilemma for different beliefs.
Que buena forma de celebrar uwu
I was just talking with my friends about how and then there was one was a fire book
you're a really interesting person!
Great video, but I think you overestimate Plantinga’s lobster-fighting abilities. :)
All he would need to do is bring some apple cider
Agreed. Lobsters are OP, bucko.
It's fine, Plantinga would have defeater-defeaters for lobsters
Your impression of Jordan peterson was really good
Hi Joe, you mentioned you love Pruss’ book on the PSR. Do you think Pruss defends a PSR which requires that anything necessary we come to ground an explanation in must explain itself by its very nature?
If so do you agree with that understanding of a necessary thing being sufficient for grounding a chain of reasons and if not why?
Great channel! I have the kindle version of the book; worth it!
Much love❤️
1:43:42
Theists: "Non-theists can't even explain existence ..."
Joe: Hold my beer ...
I missed the AMA. I'll have to wait until 6k subs. lol
Congrats btw. So much informative stuff in this - much appreciated.
Much love
Hey Joe, do you think you could make a video on objectivism? It might a bit tangential, however Rand’s epistemology seems to be cause for a lot of controversy aside from her political and economic beliefs.
If you're interested in the love question, check out "love and responsibility" by John Paul the second. He wrote it as a scholar before he became pope, his philosophy is really thorough.
One of the best books I have I read on Love
I never realized how funny you are until watching this video. The impression of Jordan Peterson killed me.
1:14:20 What was it that convinced you that thinking about identity claims between brain states and mental states etc isn't an opaque context?
Rationality rules sent me
Now I just got to push Ryan into troll mode more often lol.
Joe, just asking are you available on quora?
Please add a list of Philosophy books in the description
There’s a list of those at the end of my video “what is Philosophy?”
On the low Bayesian for resurrection: I think we see medical death followed by medical life on a daily basis in larger states in the USA eg NY TX CA
Hey Joe, I'm still a high school student and I probably want to study philosophy (particularly philosophy of religion). Where should I start in philosophy of religion and what are some branches of philosophy that I should know beforehand? Thank you!
Much love❤️
My first recommendation is undoubtedly to check out the books I mention at the end of my video “What is Philosophy?”. These are *crucial* to having an extremely solid foundation in philosophy and critical thinking to serve as a launchpad for your inquiry into phil rel.
My second recommendation would probably be to get ahold of (1) William Rowe’s introduction to phil religion, (2) Wainwright’s intro to phil religion, and (3) Brian Davies’ intro to phil religion.🙂
@@MajestyofReason Thanks for the reply! After that it‘s pretty much up to me what I read next? I guess you would recommend the same books as you did on your „Why am I agnostic?“ video. And one more question, how do academics look up all these papers in philosophy of religion (or any other field) and get updated? Is there a particular website or mutliple? And lets say you want to respond to someones paper, book or argument, how do you make sure that the person notices your paper (response)?
@@buffendene9996 can you send me these questions via a personal message on FB? I can respond via voice message
With regards to your PC argument contra idealism, how would you respond to an idealist who pointed out that we can already know that our first glance empirical seemings don't reliably tell us what reality is fundamentally like. (For examples, take space time curvature, or B theory in general, quantum mechanics, perhaps the possibility that space time is not fundamental). While both the science and the implications is contestable, it seems like some of our best scientific theories don't sit well with our "seemings". Things are intelligible of course, but that seems to give grounds to the idealist who can then say your PC argument proves too much and should be rejected.
I think scientific theories and the empirical evidence behind them can and often do provide defeaters for the initial seemings; but we should be careful not to conclude, from this, that the seemings were not evidentially or justificatorily salient. They were; it’s just that they were defeated by stronger considerations.❤️
debate me, coward
@@dogsdomain8458 lol on what?
@@joshuaphilip7601 idk god or something
@Joseph the Wanderer your mom likes me
When's the next AMA. I have a lot of questions for you on metaphysics and modal collapse arguments.
If you want, you can Direct message me on FB messenger, and I can answer some of your questions there :)
@@MajestyofReasonYou're awesome Joe.
Wow, we aren't far from the same age. I was born in August as well. But you have obviously aged centuries ahead of me in brain years lol.
Excelent video, amazed that you are not into anime hahaha
Hi Joe, thanks for looking at my question. Because I was inhibited by length, I couldn't really go into all the details about the virtues of this model, and fully articulate the model itself. So let me explain here (where I can write an essay that you're not going to spend time reading and answering on video) about why I think splitting things up is helpful.
The main reason has to do with the Patchwork Principle. I've seen you and Malpass argue with Elephant Philosophy and Rasmussen about this a lot, and it doesn't seem like a lot of resolution comes out of the conversations as I watch them. Further I've seen some concerning comments on Pruss's blog about this too. The fundamental disagreement seems to boil down to something like this:
Suppose I have a possible world with an infinite number of reapers.
Suppose I have a possible world in which a taskmaster is about to apply a Benardete rule to a finite set of reapers.
Why can you not use the Patchwork Principle to put these two worlds together? Or, as usually put, what mysterious force would stop a would-be Benardete task master from dictating this rule to an infinite set of reapers, producing a contradiction? The way this is presented is to say that the Patchwork Principle seems reasonable, and the only way you can have this infinite set of reapers is to just declare that the Patchwork Principle must be shackled by this "mysterious force" which seems a high cost.
My response is to say "not so fast!" Because conjunctions are associative and commutative, I think a reasonable clarification on the patchwork principle would go something like this:
Suppose that world: W* = worlds: W2 & W3
Suppose we want to use the Patchwork Principle to conjoin W & W*
Then we're conjoining: W & (W2 & W3).
By using associativity, commutativity, and the fact that W is equivalent to W & W, we get:
(W & W2) & (W & W3)
So my principle simply goes like this:
If the Patchwork Principle would be used to conjoin two worlds, and at least one world has a compound conjunct in its definition (if AND only if for example) then you must be able to apply the patchwork principle by conjoining the original with one rule at a time, and then finally conjoining the results. If you cannot conjoin them in this equivalent way, then you cannot use the principle on the original conjunction.
Applying this principle here, suppose we don't just conjoin the infinite reapers and the whole Benardete rule, but instead one piece at a time, according to the principle rule above.
Infinite Reapers & Benardete Rule (Infinite Reapers & "if") & (Infinite Reapers & "only if")
One of the piecewise conjunctions is that Fred is always dead.
The other of the conjunctions is that Fred is always alive
(Fred is always dead) & (Fred is always alive)
These two worlds, forming an explicit contradiction, cannot be Patched together. So it's not the infinite reapers that can't mix with the Benardete rule, but rather it's the two halves of the Benardete rule that can't patch together, given the infinite reapers.
So when Pruss writes a blog post like this: alexanderpruss.blogspot.com/2009/10/from-grim-reaper-paradox-to-kalaam.html
"Argument for (1): If there could be a backwards infinite sequence of events, there could be a backwards infinite sequence of events during each of which a hotel room is created, none of which are destroyed. An infinite number of hotel rooms would then be the result.
Argument for (2): If Hilbert's Hotel were possible, each room in it could be a factory in which a GR is produced. Moreover, it is surely possible that the staff in room n should set the GR to go off at 11 am + 1/n minutes. And that would result in the GR Paradox."
Further, Pruss laments:
"For about two years, I've smelled this argument coming, but I think my vanity has kept me from seeing it. I still have to confess that I have a really hard time accepting the corollary that Hilbert's Hotel couldn't exist-that corollary seems extremely counterintuitive to me. I wish I had some good way out."
Notice that (1) isn't the problem. There's no contradiction in assuming a hotel has just been building rooms from eternity past. That's the gist of HIlbert's Hotel. Pruss, as he laments, likes the concept of Hilbert's Hotel and "wishes he had a way out". The problem then is how the hotel is used in (2).
Suppose we break (2) up into bite sized pieces and list the conjuncts clearly. What's being patched together is:
1. An infinite number of rooms having been built from eternity past.
2. A GR produced in each room (infinite GR).
3. The times at which the reapers "go off".
4. By "going off" I'm assuming Pruss means the Benardete rule, so...
4i. If rule on the reapers.
4ii. Only if rule on the reapers.
1, 2, 3 aren't a problem. I think everyone would agree that these 3 can be Patched into a world without contradiction, so we'll just make that a default world and discuss 4. What Pruss is asking, and what everyone seems to be asking is, what prevents 4 from being patched into a world in which 1 - 3 are patched? My response is: nothing, IF you can create parallel worlds patching 4i and 4ii individually, and then patch the parallel worlds.
But we can't patch the parallel worlds in which 4i is patched and 4ii is patched as discussed above.
So we can't patch 4 into the world in which 1-3, not due to some mysterious force keeping 4 out, but rather due to the fact that if you implement 4 one conjunct at a time, the two conjuncts of 4 itself will not meet in the middle. Therefore, we need not accept the corollary that Hilbert's Hotel cannot exist. Pruss's Cantorian paradise is spared.
One more argument I've seen attempt to be made goes something like:
Suppose you have finite reapers and a Benardete rule. No contradiction there.
Possibly you can take this world and add in another reaper.
And another
And another
...
Possibly, you have an infinite number of reapers and a Benardete rule, which is a contradiction.
I take several responses to to this:
1. The proponent of this argument usually believes that you can't achieve an infinite number of reapers through successive addition on a finite set of reapers. So if their argument is right (I think it is, even after reading Malpass's paper, but that's for another day) then this use of the patchwork principle is impossible. For you'd never end up with the infinite reapers through this algorithm, thwarting the contradiction.
2. Suppose they can construct an infinite number of reapers this way. I'm just going to say that by my principle above, we can re-order the way in which things are patched. Instead of:
A. Finite reapers
B. Benardete rule
C. Add until infinite reapers
I'm going to re-order the patching to be:
A. Finite reapers
B1. "If" rule
C. Add until infinite reapers
and
A. Finite reapers
B2. "only if" rule
C. Add until infinite reapers
The original patch of A & B & C only holds if (A & B1 & C) & (A & B2 & C) holds. It doesn't hold, therefore the original patch is impossible.
3. Suppose that we alter the patchwork just a bit to say:
A. Finite reapers
B. Benardete rule
C. Add reapers, but each reaper added has a probability, p>0, of being an angel instead. Still add until there are an infinite number of reapers.
Then you still have an infinite, ordered set of reapers. You still have a Benardete rule applied to those reapers. But because you intersperse them with angels breaking up the Benardete rule for all but finitely many chunks of reapers at a time, the contradiction is avoided (yay Murphy's Law!). Note I could have applied this option throughout the examples, but I didn't want to belabor the point.
In short, I think one should reject that there is such a thing as "a" Benardete rule applied to the reapers. There are two: if, and only if, separately and later conjoined. And I think the conversation would be a lot more clear if Patchwork Principle proponents were forced to patch one of the two conjuncts for the rule at a time, and explain how the individual worlds would be patched, rather than being able to cheat in the whole conjunction "at once".
Hmm, I thought coherentism just said beliefs are justified if they fit in with all of your beliefs not that they are justified due to some circular path.
So given that my beliefs and their entailments are internally consistent I am justified in believing them even if they aren't actually true.
There are various articulations of coherentism. It’s tricky because some of them talk about the structure of our beliefs; others talk about the structure of our justifications; still others talk about other things. I was simplifying rather considerably🥰
@@MajestyofReason Fair enough, it was just a mention. Was just worried people would think it was weirder than deserved. I quite like it myself.
What do you think of james fodor
cool dude, and I'm happy that he points out some of the epistemic vices in popular apologetics presentations of various arguments. Of course we [James and I] don't agree on everything, but that shouldn't stop us from seeing value :)
@@MajestyofReason that's nice to hear,I'm a fan of both of you and like to se you collab on something
1:49:24 Joe definitely watches anime. LOL
Great vid! On your point about prudential reasons for being pro-life. Do you find that a parody argument for it which shows that using the same logic should entail we be vegan (because we don't know if these animals are morally significant or not and so we should avoid eating them) succeeds? Just a question that popped up when you mentioned that :)
With regard to your laying out your issues with trinitarianism, Jehovah’s Witnesses are non-trinitarians and naturally believe/argue their view is the best understanding of the scriptures. I myself have likewise never been moved by trinitarian arguments - whether theologically or philosophically. I’ve been in situations where I’ve discussed the issue of the trinity, when I point out seeming contradictions the response is often “it’s a mystery” - which seems unsatisfying…
I don’t think the historical case would be so good for Christianity considering how the Bible got composed lol
Great video 🙂 Thanks for taking the time to answer those interesting questions. But since when are you afraid of putting out "controversial stuff"? 😉
Ahahaha
True. I guess to me, I’m so immersed in phil religion that God’s existence isn’t really something I view as a “super controversial topic”. Though that’s simply because I’m so used to talking about it! By contrast, I have never-and I mean never!-talked about politics on my channel haha! Anyway, I’m glad you enjoyed the video❤️
@@MajestyofReason
Joe: You really want me to finally say some super controversial stuff, don't you?
Classical Theists: WHAT??? 😁
I did not watch the whole video (only the questions I'm interested in, sry bro) but what are your thoughts on Dr. Greg Sadler?
How did you know where to look for each question? There are no time stamps.
@@trevoradams3702 The time stamps are in the description.
@@trevoradams3702 description
@@theunnoticable6780 wow 😳 my bad. Didn’t even see a description section on my phone.
I think you underestimate Danny Devito my friend…
Ahaha
God not Dead is an interesting and fun movie to watch even though they got philosophy wrong.But God not Dead 2 is bad.
Disappointed you aren’t an anarcho-communist
lol
Don’t see why you’d collab with Stephen. He’s a typical new atheist.
We shouldn’t facilitate the way to treason against reason.
I can raise the level of discourse by collabing with him!🥰
Basically, it’s an opportunity to explain to a huge audience some *serious* scholarly criticisms - from Malpass, Morriston, Oppy, and company.
The goal, then, is to educate a wider audience about good philosophical criticisms of the Kalam. And this, I venture, can lift them up to the heights of the Majesty of Reason😉
@@MajestyofReason
Understand where you’re coming from.
Sometimes while anticipating to raise the bar, we may be oblivious to the greater harm.
As for Malpass & Co clearly admits they have no positive argument for the eternality. Only supposed objections for the beginning that’s it. So it seems like a massive conspiracy theory.
Thanks for interaction Joe much appreciated 😇💙
Can I get your email?
Stephen is not a new atheist.He may was a new atheist but now he has changed a lot.He use philosophy to establish his conclusions.
@@philosophyofillusions2270 Stephen was a new Atheist type of person but He is now Good and his recent videos are really good also he is a friend of joe now
And Objections are enough for Atheists and agnostics theist who believe in Kalam need to do the defending
I challenge you to debate a competent vegan, you will get clapped