You are not alone. I for one appreciate your humility. Most of us here bounce into one existential riddle or another, that's in part is why we keep showing-up. You're failing nothing. You are building a cathedral. We are easy on ourselves. If you have the time and are willing to obligate yourself independently to just the history of _Thought_ Copleston has a multi-volume series _The History of Philosophy_ and that is a pretty great introduction to be had on the cheap. On the day-to-day, West is one of the strongest educators online. You are in tremendous care and great company. Every second spent actively listening is worthwhile and you already sense that--kudos. I had two near death experiences. I have been on full life support twice. I ain't here to be entertained. Stay close. There is much joy here. Cheers--be well. Some heavy lifting goes on around here. You fit in perfectly. Welcome.

Hey perion1, having listened to the whole series from beginning to end, i can attest to the episodes progressing in chronological order and expanding on previous topics and discussions. First is explanation of philosophy and antiquity and now by episode #197 we are with contemporaries. The great teacher of philosophy that I have found on KZfaq is Michael Sugrue. Here is a lecture of his introducing the terms, problems and scope on philosophy: kzfaq.info/get/bejne/bsCfhJqozZ_Ug4U.html I hope that this helps you.

@@vitomarin101 Sugrue is great, I second this. Very articulate and coherent. His friend Darren Stalloff is great too. RIP Sugrue

Epistemology is the most important philosophical inquiry of all. How do you know what you think you know, and what is knowledge anyway?

Violating the law of contradiction leads to irrationality, not knowledge. So Hegelian dialectics leads to insanity.

Is your ideology self-refuting irrationality?

@@ThomasCranmer1959 just your regular shit take on Hegel floating around in the aether as usual.

Agreed. Seems like a quite speculative leap to make.

Yes we should rerun the creation of the universe with different parameters and see how it changes things.

@@baronbullshyster2996 Might as well. It sounds as sane as the hypothesis.

But with many constants of nature, slight changes would result in no matter forming at all. No stars, no galaxies, no planets. Hard to imagine abiogenesis from that-what would it come from? It’s possible that such a universe might have an entirely different form of matter. But that could hardly be considered an analog of our own cosmos in any useful sense.

@@wmpx34 What can be considered constant within the span of several billion years? After only a hundred years of exploration with the technology we know of today? What I find surprising is that we believe we understand what is said to have taken billions of years to produce, after a hundreds years of research, using technology we have today. You can even say 50 years because 100 years is being nice.

What ?

Brilliant tautological statement. A=A. Petitio principii.

@GKCanman I am skeptical, wonder regarding the world is exactly what leads us to inquire, if we would not be surprised, there would be no need to inquire into the nature of things in the first place.

Right action and wrong action both have consequences in the aggregate of humanity.

Meant "Enjoyed this." Wasn't being bossy. Should start using pronouns; would be clearer and easier to catch mistakes.

I used to really like the new atheists but have recently cooled off on Dawkins and Harris. I still like some of their books but of the 4 horseman Dennet and Hitchens are more my jam. As for recommendations I think all atheists should start at Hume. To me he is the pinnacle of atheistic reasoning and a great starting point. He's hard to learn but it's worth it. Also "reaching across the aisle" is important. Read theology too. Aquinas, Augustine, and Aristotle (Metaphysics from him specifically) to gain perspective. It's important to have compassion for opposition.

@@Gruso57 Same, I really liked Dawkins and Hitchens, but never really Harris, something about him just always felt wrong about him. Other good Atheist writers (not as blunt as the four) would be Shephen Fry and Sean Carrol! I most certainly agree, Hume is a must read for Atheist and Theist alike if they want any hope of fruitful dialog! I personally think Kant and Decarte strangely enough to be a important thinkers in both fields as well, just really modern philosophy all together. Tho my base Philosopher is Hegel. And yes please for the none existence God, read your oppositions work actually. It helps round out your thinking, or even if you just want to dunk, makes sure you aren't so arrogant fool. For Theology I personally recommend GK Chesterton! Everyone has an opinion on Marx, good or bad, Few ever read him, drives me crazy.

Correct. Atheism is not empirical science. It is a materialistic philosophical world based in outright contradictions.

​@@animefurry3508David Hume devastates the atheist cosmological argument for evolution.

⁠@@ThomasCranmer1959 Atheists (agnostic atheist here) are just not convinced by any religion. You might be and that’s alright, more power to you. Not accepting any religion is my position. Don’t find any of the texts convincing, many of the ideas contradicting and clearly written by man in that time (where are the kangaroos on Noa’s arc?). Agnostic atheism is a humble position. Accepting we don’t know all the answers and try our best in life according. The million dollar question to give you some food for though: do you have the same religion as your parents/grandparents? Why aren’t you Muslim/Hindu/Jewish?

If there is no purpose, the logical conclusion is that morality is an illusion. You cannot get an "ought" from what "exists".

Correct. Atheists cannot escape anthropomorphism. Just like the fact that their arguments reduce to logical positivism, which is still self-refuting.

You're so full of yourself its hard to read, its not the poor jargons fault!

That already assumes a universe devoid of inherent purpose

No. But you can.

@@Gruso57 Animals have no morality.

@@Gruso57 What is your proof that morality exists?

yes please

Nothing new here.

Pretty much. Doesn't take much to not believe in magic. Best to focus time and energy on more pragmatic things, for me at least. I spent 5+ years debating theists.@@ThomasCranmer1959

Tautological arguments are circular. We live in the universe we live in because it is only natural that we live in a natural universe? Really?

​@@ThomasCranmer1959 Figure it this way: You are stuck behind a door that will only open if you roll a 12 on a pair of dice. You can roll as many times as you like. Would it not be ridiculous, once you eventually get past the door, to wonder to yourself "How is it possible that I live in a world where I rolled a 12 and made it through the door?" That's like a thought that a jar of mayonnaise would have.

Thats assuming you can roll the dice more than once. Assuming a multiverse​@@undecidedmajor1664

All knowledge originally exists in God's eternally timeless and immutable mind. God is eternally omniscient.

I thought Satan was the trickster

​Satan is a fallen angel. In case you missed it, angels are not omniscient. God alone is omniscient. Therefore, Satan cannot deceive God.

@ThomasCranmer1959 but he can and has decieved you 😉

IMO. We may never achieve a full understanding of the “wonders of the universe”(as it were) but also; material reductionism within current modernity, seems to ignore a fundamental principle of what,by all measures,has-inexplicable order and nature to it. And the “Reason” for its/our existence.

Keep in mind that Stephen is trying to flesh out those philosopher's ideas those are not necessarily his own opinions. And for what you say, i dont think anyone here is trying to imply that science is not useful, nor diminish the value of the scientists, but, for what ive learnt from lacanian psychoanalysis, that we need to consider that we would project a faith or belief on anything we do, as a imperative need for our existence. Not being able to have faith (and i dont mean in religion, but still something like blind expectations), could lead us to a kind of depression,as we need to believe that something that we dont have yet, can be achieved as a result from doing. As far as i understand, the thing in itself, the kantian noumenon, "reality", its impossible to reach for us, since we cannot comprehend what it is without what zizek calls ideology, a narrative, basically the words, symbols, and images that place that "reality" that thing in itself, in a conceptual framework for us to make sense of it. The quest for. or the ideological goal of "truth" of "reality" is what these thinkers aim to unravel. Scientists's intrinsic failure to find "reality" doesnt render science nor their work useless, only recontextualizes the result of their work. We need to keep in mind that we proyect our faith in science as our god, which will show us truth, even if we consciously try to avoid all religious thought, we cannot operate in meaninglessness, if we tend towards it, we will become increasingly depressed, as if we were lacking a bodily need. Thats what ive understood about zizek and lacanian psychoanalysis at least.

@@user-hr7lm3pm3d Stephen West is very suspicious regarding the new atheist movement, to say at least. In the David Hume episodes he ridiculed them in a manner I did not see anywhere else :-)

@@albertjurcisin8944 I looked through those episodes a little bit too fast, i found only the mention of dawking's spaghetti monster with hume's skepticism, i dont know much about new atheism, im only seen a couple of videos being critic of sam harris' moral landscape where it would seem he misrepresents some philosophers, and even that quote in the OP "Philosophy is dead" seems a bit too aggressive towards the field of study. Stephen does get a bit rattled and self-righteous when someone misrepresents philosophy it would seem, as he said, i think, in his kant videos that if someone teaches philosophy poorly and alienates people from it, then that person is like cheating on you. His aura of being a perfectly calmed, composed and all contemplating person is his persona in the podcast, the kind of message he wants to get across, i guess some of his stances or opinions do come through. I wouldnt really know them, and i guess, the spirit of the podcast would suffer if he just came to the comments to explain all that.

@@user-hr7lm3pm3d There is also a possibility that I am just too sensitive about the New Atheism movement and I see the things that are not there. If I cannot demonstrate Stephen's attitude by anything more than his scoff at 13:06 Episode #055 ... Interview on Hume with Massimo Pigliucci, then it is probably the case 🙂 However I remember that every time he mentioned the movement, there were some disapproving tones present. It felt to me like it was a surprisigly emotional issue for him, not just "another crazy philosopher" relaxed attitude as is usually the case. It is easy to find flaws in Harris' philosophy, I believe after listening to a few podcasts. He is more of a guru than a philosopher these days. He overstretched. I remember when walking the dog and listening to the podcast one night that the New Atheists movement would be the first thing I would discuss with Stephen should I talk to him. I do not care about the movement anymore - it served as a ladder that was used and discarded, however I believe Stephen´s answer would tell me more about his personality than whether he believes in god (s). It is an excellent podcast overall.

Naa I can see you man

@@AbAb-th5qe I'm surprised because my comments have still not appeared on a few other videos from other channels and when I refresh the page they don't seem to have been sent. It was the case for this comment too but it's showing up now.

@@Maverick_Mad_Moiselle I've noticed a similar lag intermittantly. My working theory is that moderators are reviewing comments on certain channels before allowing them to appear.

Explain

Of course, Sapolsky believes that there isn’t any choice but to disapprove. Such is his ideology.