Summary of the step-by-step guide for analyzing arguments: docs.google.com/document/d/1Ox4vxAQmK83-Y4BC-IPw-9bFdJUstpXEkuZs_52kpqI/edit?usp=sharing CORRECTION: At 39:15, I *meant* to say "if some *reason* is needed but not presented..." 😄
Loved this at 47:24 "Those with intellectual perseverance see barriers, hardships, and obstacles in their intellectual lives as challenges to be overcome and opportunities for growth. Instead of giving up on their pursuit of truth when the going gets tough, they dig even deeper into the issues, read and investigate further, and grow in knowledge and understanding. Problems and puzzles are opportunities for discovery, not insurmountable barriers. Persist in the path of discovery, because treasures... await."
Oh my gosh. I just saw you lay out the steps you're going to go through in the video for evaluating arguments and I suddenly started having traumatic flashbacks about teaching undergrads argument assessment and the difference between validity and soundness.
Excellent video! I feel like the bit of virtues I struggle most with is "the game" mindset. Though I'm trying to change the game into a cooperative game where it's us searching for truth, instead of me vs them.
I am so happy this video that I needed (as one uneducated in philosphy) was only 1 hour long - also so happy about the 12 point list at 48:26 (warms the cockles)
I've recently gotten into your stuff and I've been legitimately searching for a video like this for the past week or so! Thank you!! Also COYG! Want to see a crossover of football and philosophy 😂
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.
@@MajestyofReason As a curious thinker free thinker, I would like to thank you for yoour work. I love your videos, they influence me in my journey in search for the truth. I will definitely watch this video later when I have more time
Developing grand logic systems of trancdental ideas of a thing in itself they just do it then try to charge you over it. The self positing in alterity everything is reversed. Or general opposition to what you're doing.
Question, when it comes to assessing definitions, there are some words that are kind of necessarily circular, for example what does it mean to be cool. There is no, imho, really good definition for that which isn't circular. These particular concepts, do not have a strict, fixed definition but are characterized by a network of overlapping similarities. the meaning of a term is not determined by a fixed definition but by its use within a particular language game or social practice. In this view, circular definitions are not problematic as long as they serve a practical purpose within a specific language game (Wittgenstein). Do you disagree with this?
Hi Joe, thanks for your awesome videos! I always love the humorous contrast between the rigorous philosophy and your famous philosopher impressions. Question: who is the "that is to say" voice? I don't think I heard it in this particular video but I've heard it several times in past videos. Is it Swinburne? Thanks in advance.
I think a blooper reel at the end would add to the flow of the video, keep the funny content, and give the videos a more professional presentation (not to knock your originality and character it allows through)
My best advice is really just to activeky practice using them in real time -- have discussions with people in real life, engage in discussions with people on Facebook or Discord or etc., and so on. In my experience at least, mastery with philosophical concepts comes with repeated, conscientious, active practice in real time :)
Only if that was useful against people who studied math in the past but forgot almost anything but think they still remember it and say things like, a function will never ever touch its own limit... But they argue in such a way that they don't even listen to you, then the only possible way is to show them some big name proved it
Hello, Mr. Schmid. I have a question about argument formulation that has bothered me ever since I took an Ethics class a year ago. Could somebody deny the antecedent or affirm the consequence in an argument that does not have a conditional statement? For example, take the Kalam cosmological argument. If I formulate it in the following manner, would it affirm the consequent? 1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause. 2. The universe has a cause. Conclusion: Therefore, the universe began to exist. Thank you!
Good question. Actually, premise (1) is technically a conditional statement. It may not look like it at first glance, but the proper way to logically formulate it renders it a conditional statement. Specifically, the way to formulate P1 in quantified logic is: (1) For any x, if x begins to exist, then x has a cause. By universal elimination, (1) entails: (2) if the universe began to exist, then the universe has a cause. If someone then tries to infer that the universe began to exist from (2) together with the claim that the universe has a cause, then they have fallaciously affirmed the consequent. So, to answer your question directly: yes, that hypothetical argument you gave affirms the consequent! Hope this helps :)
@@MajestyofReason Indeed it does. I’m going to need to look into how elimination works to fully understand, but this will definitely serve as a metric for my understanding. Thank you! :)
So on one hand I really like Josh Rasmussen but it does seem some of his own actions don't necessarily line up with his stance against tribalism. Just the Azusa about page seems to have a lot of tribalism going on. Not to mention the tribalism that fosters at these sorts of private religious universities. Would his own university even allow him the sort of freedom to declare he was an atheist or to come out as homosexual? Or would they kick him out of their tribe at that point?
I mean, if he teaches at a religious university, then it would sorta make sense. Like if I was a member of an atheist organization and I became a Christian, I wouldn’t expect them to keep me on the payroll
@@sneakysnake2330 Why does that make sense in a university setting and when your goal is pursuit of truth? He's teaching philosophy at a university. Why would they kick him out if he was suddenly gay or an atheist or was living with someone outside of marriage? That just seems like tribalism that is unrelated to the pursuit of truth. I wouldn't disallow my kids from being taught philosophy or even atheism by Joe even though he is an agnostic and I'm an atheist. I also wouldn't have a problem with a young earth creationist teaching my child English. It just isn't relevant to the domain and IMO is what distinguishes tribalism from having reasonable exclusionary criteria.
2.4 you are both killing and not killing your grandfather, if you kill him you aren't born and can't kill him, making you born. But you can exist if you exist, and if you exist you could exist in the past, so you chose not to hurt grand pap!
Should have used Hannity as the example. He's far more Jim-Bob worthy. Or Maddow for the left wing Jane-Bob that can't detect nonsense. Out of neutral curiosity, in today's social climate (different, of course, from social weather), are you sure "man is a necessary term for bachelor" was the right example? And what of Tate fans that think bachelor is a necessary term for man?
If you're referring to gender with "social climate," bachelor would be a gender-dependent term that is applied to men (both trans and cis), though because language rules are mostly just suggestions, it wouldn't really be incorrect to use it in a gender-neutral manner either.
I don't think it's advisable for a grad student to potentially commit career suicide. I'm looking forward to seeing Alex Byrne's upcoming philosophy book on sex and gender -- Trouble with Gender, Polity Press.
@@richarddoan9172 I mean, he could just explain various positions and the respective arguments for and against it without taking a stance on one and in a way that won't get him cancelled...ig? (Thanks for the recommendation btw)
@@richarddoan9172 Avoiding an entire topic just because there's controversy surrounding it is cowardice. Something I appreciate about Joe is his openness to have big conversations. Personally, I'd love to see a convo on this.
@@Djdu7228xnxj Considering what happened to Rebecca Tuvel, who wrote an inoffensive philosophy article on gender and race, I wouldn't make that assumption, unfortunately. And in my opinion, since gender theory developed largely outside of analytic philosophy, it's concepts and assumptions aren't likely to escape a critical, yet fair, analysis, which I bet would be ill-received and misunderstood. In any case, gender isn't a traditional topic of discussion of analytic philosophy, so I doubt Joe has much interest in talking about it on his channel.
Appeal to absurdity fallacy. Saying something is false just because it's absurd. Reality has no bearing on wheather it should accord with our intuition/senses. There are so many examples like quantum mechanics, Evolution, general relativity.
![เป็นไปได้ไหม - WanMai [Official MV]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/_6lZ6b3_7Vo/mqdefault.jpg)
![เปิดคำทำนาย นอสตราดามุส - บาบา วานก้า ปี 2025 คนทั่วโลกต้องเจออะไรบ้าง? | แฉ 11 ธ.ค. 67 [2/3] |GMM25](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/xmTIKWJUMPM/mqdefault.jpg)
Summary of the step-by-step guide for analyzing arguments: docs.google.com/document/d/1Ox4vxAQmK83-Y4BC-IPw-9bFdJUstpXEkuZs_52kpqI/edit?usp=sharing
CORRECTION: At 39:15, I *meant* to say "if some *reason* is needed but not presented..." 😄
😇 May God Bless You Always! 😇
It’s me, uncle Jim Bob. Thanksgiving this year will be mine 😈😈😈
Thank you, Spiderman
I clicked on this video for the sole reason of leaving a comment like this. Thank you!
@@staudinga I always provide
Thank you Mr Spoon
Nice thumbnail but I'm already a masterb... wait read that wrong 💀💀💀
Loved this at 47:24
"Those with intellectual perseverance see barriers, hardships, and obstacles in their intellectual lives as challenges to be overcome and opportunities for growth. Instead of giving up on their pursuit of truth when the going gets tough, they dig even deeper into the issues, read and investigate further, and grow in knowledge and understanding. Problems and puzzles are opportunities for discovery, not insurmountable barriers.
Persist in the path of discovery, because treasures... await."
Oh my gosh. I just saw you lay out the steps you're going to go through in the video for evaluating arguments and I suddenly started having traumatic flashbacks about teaching undergrads argument assessment and the difference between validity and soundness.
Excellent video! I feel like the bit of virtues I struggle most with is "the game" mindset. Though I'm trying to change the game into a cooperative game where it's us searching for truth, instead of me vs them.
Got my like just for that intro!
...my uncle is named Jack though, and he's a wealthy preacher from Florida 😅
Great video, Joe! I can definitely feel my brain gaining mass, my mind expanding, and my powers of argument analysis intensifying! 💪
This man is truly the GOAT! Well done!
I especially like the part of explaining the dialectical merits of the reasons.
I have nothing to add but to say I enjoy your videos and you're doing a great job, Joe.
❤❤❤
I am so happy this video that I needed (as one uneducated in philosphy) was only 1 hour long - also so happy about the 12 point list at 48:26 (warms the cockles)
Great video!!!
(It was published 5 minutes ago)
Lol nice
Become a master debater with me UwU
I've recently gotten into your stuff and I've been legitimately searching for a video like this for the past week or so!
Thank you!!
Also COYG! Want to see a crossover of football and philosophy 😂
❤️
🔴⚪️
@@MajestyofReason
Socrates. Brazilian midfield legend.
well done, certainy learned alot. Much praise joe! ty
What do you think about the argument "With great power comes great responsibility?"
Absolutely fabulous video. I loved it.
fantastic video, thanks for your work!
Awesome video, you're a very good speaker!
Thanks Joe, this was very helpful
Thanks, very good guide
Your a good man joe thanks
This is great. Being a socsci major planning on going to philosophy grad school, this is awesome.
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.
Thank you! With love from Russia)
Great video!
I was thinking about this and then I saw the video notification...
I can read minds
@@MajestyofReason As a curious thinker free thinker, I would like to thank you for yoour work. I love your videos, they influence me in my journey in search for the truth. I will definitely watch this video later when I have more time
Thank you very much for this video Joe!
Upload more videos like this
wonderful video buddy
Thanks Spiderman!!👍💓
Before I engage could you define philosopher?
I kid. Thanks for this video! Great stuff!!
Developing grand logic systems of trancdental ideas of a thing in itself they just do it then try to charge you over it. The self positing in alterity everything is reversed. Or general opposition to what you're doing.
Question, when it comes to assessing definitions, there are some words that are kind of necessarily circular, for example what does it mean to be cool. There is no, imho, really good definition for that which isn't circular. These particular concepts, do not have a strict, fixed definition but are characterized by a network of overlapping similarities. the meaning of a term is not determined by a fixed definition but by its use within a particular language game or social practice. In this view, circular definitions are not problematic as long as they serve a practical purpose within a specific language game (Wittgenstein).
Do you disagree with this?
17:44 oppy lol
Pro tip: If the person you're debating does one of these 13:48, you're probably going to lose the debate
I will now proceed to use this knowledge to debate the philosophy behind whether Miguel or Miles was right.
I guess it's my math background, but I like the word "lemma" for sub-conclusions
Hi Joe, thanks for your awesome videos! I always love the humorous contrast between the rigorous philosophy and your famous philosopher impressions. Question: who is the "that is to say" voice? I don't think I heard it in this particular video but I've heard it several times in past videos. Is it Swinburne? Thanks in advance.
thanks
@@MajestyofReason thanks for the reply! I look forward to using your guide to analyze arguments!
I still can't believe I found you on TH-cam a year ago..
I think a blooper reel at the end would add to the flow of the video, keep the funny content, and give the videos a more professional presentation (not to knock your originality and character it allows through)
I love master debating
🙄
@@ReverendDr.Thomas 🤓
Thanks for this Joe. What is your best advice for memorising philosophical concepts? Flashcards, mind maps etc.
My best advice is really just to activeky practice using them in real time -- have discussions with people in real life, engage in discussions with people on Facebook or Discord or etc., and so on. In my experience at least, mastery with philosophical concepts comes with repeated, conscientious, active practice in real time :)
You're probably one of my favorite agnostics as a Muslim
Only if that was useful against people who studied math in the past but forgot almost anything but think they still remember it and say things like, a function will never ever touch its own limit... But they argue in such a way that they don't even listen to you, then the only possible way is to show them some big name proved it
Tom Leykis: Cunning Linguist and Master Debater.
LETS GOOOO
I struggle with the intellectual empathy part.
At what point is ignorance purposeful, stubborn, crafted and spiteful?
8:30
I am already a master(de)bater though
Was scrolling through the comment section to look for this lol
Dude, there are some Christians here! 😅😅
Hello, Mr. Schmid. I have a question about argument formulation that has bothered me ever since I took an Ethics class a year ago. Could somebody deny the antecedent or affirm the consequence in an argument that does not have a conditional statement? For example, take the Kalam cosmological argument. If I formulate it in the following manner, would it affirm the consequent?
1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe has a cause.
Conclusion: Therefore, the universe began to exist.
Thank you!
Good question. Actually, premise (1) is technically a conditional statement. It may not look like it at first glance, but the proper way to logically formulate it renders it a conditional statement. Specifically, the way to formulate P1 in quantified logic is:
(1) For any x, if x begins to exist, then x has a cause.
By universal elimination, (1) entails:
(2) if the universe began to exist, then the universe has a cause.
If someone then tries to infer that the universe began to exist from (2) together with the claim that the universe has a cause, then they have fallaciously affirmed the consequent.
So, to answer your question directly: yes, that hypothetical argument you gave affirms the consequent! Hope this helps :)
@@MajestyofReason Indeed it does. I’m going to need to look into how elimination works to fully understand, but this will definitely serve as a metric for my understanding. Thank you! :)
Become a master what?!
So on one hand I really like Josh Rasmussen but it does seem some of his own actions don't necessarily line up with his stance against tribalism. Just the Azusa about page seems to have a lot of tribalism going on. Not to mention the tribalism that fosters at these sorts of private religious universities. Would his own university even allow him the sort of freedom to declare he was an atheist or to come out as homosexual? Or would they kick him out of their tribe at that point?
I mean, if he teaches at a religious university, then it would sorta make sense. Like if I was a member of an atheist organization and I became a Christian, I wouldn’t expect them to keep me on the payroll
@@sneakysnake2330 Why does that make sense in a university setting and when your goal is pursuit of truth? He's teaching philosophy at a university. Why would they kick him out if he was suddenly gay or an atheist or was living with someone outside of marriage? That just seems like tribalism that is unrelated to the pursuit of truth. I wouldn't disallow my kids from being taught philosophy or even atheism by Joe even though he is an agnostic and I'm an atheist. I also wouldn't have a problem with a young earth creationist teaching my child English. It just isn't relevant to the domain and IMO is what distinguishes tribalism from having reasonable exclusionary criteria.
2.4 you are both killing and not killing your grandfather, if you kill him you aren't born and can't kill him, making you born. But you can exist if you exist, and if you exist you could exist in the past, so you chose not to hurt grand pap!
Ooooooo only 1 hour! Are you kidding me?!
Idk...I kinda want to see Jim Bob throw mash potatoes. Lol
So when do we get to see the 8 hour video arguing why Arsenal is the best team in the world?
Should have used Hannity as the example. He's far more Jim-Bob worthy. Or Maddow for the left wing Jane-Bob that can't detect nonsense.
Out of neutral curiosity, in today's social climate (different, of course, from social weather), are you sure "man is a necessary term for bachelor" was the right example?
And what of Tate fans that think bachelor is a necessary term for man?
If you're referring to gender with "social climate," bachelor would be a gender-dependent term that is applied to men (both trans and cis), though because language rules are mostly just suggestions, it wouldn't really be incorrect to use it in a gender-neutral manner either.
With this vídeo, i gonna be the máster of /pol/ HECK YEAH 🗿🚬.
I am now a masterdebater
Joe, I'd really love to hear your opinion on the whole Philosophy of Gender stuff
I don't think it's advisable for a grad student to potentially commit career suicide. I'm looking forward to seeing Alex Byrne's upcoming philosophy book on sex and gender -- Trouble with Gender, Polity Press.
@@richarddoan9172 I mean, he could just explain various positions and the respective arguments for and against it without taking a stance on one and in a way that won't get him cancelled...ig?
(Thanks for the recommendation btw)
@@richarddoan9172 Avoiding an entire topic just because there's controversy surrounding it is cowardice. Something I appreciate about Joe is his openness to have big conversations. Personally, I'd love to see a convo on this.
@@Djdu7228xnxj Considering what happened to Rebecca Tuvel, who wrote an inoffensive philosophy article on gender and race, I wouldn't make that assumption, unfortunately. And in my opinion, since gender theory developed largely outside of analytic philosophy, it's concepts and assumptions aren't likely to escape a critical, yet fair, analysis, which I bet would be ill-received and misunderstood.
In any case, gender isn't a traditional topic of discussion of analytic philosophy, so I doubt Joe has much interest in talking about it on his channel.
Aren’t Joe’s obvious talents better used for more fundamental stuff, like God, existence, modality, and so forth?
Appeal to absurdity fallacy. Saying something is false just because it's absurd. Reality has no bearing on wheather it should accord with our intuition/senses. There are so many examples like quantum mechanics, Evolution, general relativity.
Thank you, I'm a masterbater now
th-cam.com/video/uD5_2p-vUjs/w-d-xo.html caught me off guard!
hmm. Seems like a lot of effort when you've got a nice dish of mashed potato handy....
I would rather become a master baiter
Doesn't the skeptic just retreat into not knowing anything when confronted with anything he doesn't like?