Philosophy has its merits on how to formulate arguments and structures and logic/ epistemology but not so good at getting "the answer" without scientific methodology ( which is also a Philosophy).
@mariomario146216 сағат бұрын
If math doesnt reflect reality then why can i test 2 + 2 = 4 as true or false emperically? I can go out and get 2 things and add 2 more things and get 4 and not 4000. Seems pretty objective to me
@RonaldoGasparzinni2 күн бұрын
Yo, when you doing a video on transgenderism? I need someone that finally puts this debate to rest. Other people would probably appreciate It too
@GMGMGMGMGMGMGMGMGMGM6 күн бұрын
Have you spergs not heard of Mandelbrot sets? They were discovered analytically, not invented.
@AntiCitizenX6 күн бұрын
@@GMGMGMGMGMGMGMGMGMGM They were very much invented. Sorry.
@curtmcd9 күн бұрын
SPD all the way. I've been known to walk on an occasional endless steep hill, up to a quarter of a mile at a time. And to walk around in stores and other venues without worry or guilt. And the double side clip-in hardly requires any conscious action. And I think extra play is less likely to cause injury than rigid motion control -- whether or not they're perfectly adjusted.
@EntropyEntropy-eq3ct12 күн бұрын
Random question, but I want to know if you affirm metaphysical nihilism and empiricism, this is due to some past videos I watched
@K.S_2008712 күн бұрын
This is Advait philosophy of hinduism 🕉️
@masscreationbroadcasts21 күн бұрын
5:00 This problem could be solved by reformulating the question, which 5:30 you agree with.
@masscreationbroadcasts21 күн бұрын
Ah, you're AntiCitizen X. That was such a better name than Philosophy Engineered.
@childintime645322 күн бұрын
For me the major part of philosophy is learning how to form and evaluate arguments and how to think as clearly as possible. In some sense it is just applied logic. When it comes to subject of philosophy, I would say that is anything that empirical science hasn't already established or may never do so
@AntiCitizenX22 күн бұрын
@@childintime6453 I wish philosophy was that simple. The main problem is that they only pretend to teach out how to evaluate arguments. The unfortunate reality is that they absolutely suck at it. That’s why philosophy is riddled with so much disagreement and fraud. They want you to think you’re thinking without actually teaching you how to think.
@apimpnamedslickback593624 күн бұрын
Meta medicine gets me every time I come back to this
@jonathanclement778824 күн бұрын
God is an anime girl! 😇
@lemmetellyousomething67924 күн бұрын
Come on man, where are your ?? Your are the reason I'm from proud Muslim to proud skeptic Atheist within a year. Need more education, you can't just change people's life help them break their chains and be free and then just disappear.
@kermit_boi216925 күн бұрын
Omnipotence Dictionary Definitions from Oxford Languages · Learn more noun the quality of having unlimited or very great power. "God's omnipotence"
@AntiCitizenX25 күн бұрын
@@kermit_boi2169 So you didn’t watch the video, I see.
@kermit_boi216914 күн бұрын
@@AntiCitizenXFirst of all thank you so much for replying :D anyway, I did but why did you never use this definition and instead imposed contradictory definitions of omnipotence? So sorry for the late response btw
@AntiCitizenX14 күн бұрын
@@kermit_boi2169 the dictionary is not the end-all-be-all authority on how a word is used. Christian philosophers use very specific definitions whenever they describe the supposed power of God. And even if we use the dictionary definition you provided, it still has the potential to run into the same ambiguities and paradoxes. So it doesn’t really change anything anyway.
@kermit_boi216913 күн бұрын
@@AntiCitizenXanyone who says omnipotence is "the ability do to anything" doesnt really know what theyre talking about it is logically impossible to do anything, could u please provide a paradox with the definition I provided?
@AntiCitizenX13 күн бұрын
@@kermit_boi2169 I already did exactly that in the video. Did you watch it?
@uglyfense775427 күн бұрын
Gonna play Devil’s advocate and say I disagree with Assumption 1. It is perfectly logical for an event to be more likely to not leave evidence for itself, for example, if an insect didn’t leave fossilized remains, more species than not don’t leave them. It might be a typo for P(X | E) > P(X | !E), that an event is more likely with evidence as to without evidence, which I agree with, yes.
@AntiCitizenX27 күн бұрын
@@uglyfense7754 I think you are misunderstanding the meaning of the symbols. An event may or may not leave evidence. But the probability of X given some sort of evidence to support is more likely than X in the absence of evidence. Like, this is intrinsic to the very meaning of evidence itself. It’s the stuff that justifies belief in some event.
@uglyfense775427 күн бұрын
@@AntiCitizenX I'm at 2:03 in your video right now, and it says, "6) Let P(X | E) denote the conditional property of X given E" With that being said, your expression of "the probability of X given some sort of evidence to support it" would be that, (X | E), and your expression of "X in the absence of evidence" would be X given !E, (X | !E), henceforth, your full claim: "the probability of X given some sort of evidence to support is more likely than X in the absence of evidence" would thus be written as P(X | E) > P(X | !E). However, assumption 1 reads P(E | X) > P(!E | X). As said, this is probably a typo, but it's what I was confused by when watching.
@uglyfense775427 күн бұрын
@@AntiCitizenX Just want to clarify, I'm indeed atheistic, and I agree with your overall claim. I'm just a bit confused by Assumption 1.
@AntiCitizenX26 күн бұрын
@@uglyfense7754 Oh I see now what you mean. Thanks for clarifying.
@AntiCitizenX26 күн бұрын
@@uglyfense7754 In this case, you’re right. I’m not necessarily saying this is a universal principle that applies to all events. I am stressing that for an event like God existing, then it is reasonable to expect there to be evidence of that fact. And if there is not, then you’re basically claiming that God literally “hides” by covering up His existence. Plus, if there is no evidence for His existence, then on what basis are we to believe He even exists at all?
@pxldsilz682827 күн бұрын
I always wanted to flargle a snuffin.
@patnewbie217728 күн бұрын
This series is GOATed.
@AntiCitizenX28 күн бұрын
@@patnewbie2177 thanks. :)
@macknovo9928 күн бұрын
Only thing I disagree with you on it if there is a god, I don’t think we can empirically say yes or no to that because a metaphysical being would likely be beyond the scope of our understanding. But your points still stand. I’m not a Christian but I do believe we go somewhere when we die and there may be a creator. Who knows?
@AntiCitizenX28 күн бұрын
@@macknovo99 What exactly is a “metaphysical” being? And if you cannot empirically detect such a thing, then how exactly is that qualitatively different from no being at all?
@macknovo9928 күн бұрын
@@AntiCitizenX what we think of as metaphysical, is likely a being that is outside of our current scope of measurement due to the limitations of our technological capabilities. It could be a being that is of the fourth or fifth dimensions. (I’m meaning the different dimensions of theoretical physics, not the way it is misused by woo woo crystal idiots) while it may be a being that can influence events on our dimension, we would likely not perceive it. Kind of like if we were to interact with a being of the second dimension that only understood length and width. It would consider depth to be utterly absurd. This of course wouldn’t mean that this higher dimensional “god” would be the creator or whatnot but maybe there is a reason that mathematics and patterns are present in our observable universe. But this could also be the ramblings of a human who seeks meaning out of nothing.
@AntiCitizenX28 күн бұрын
@@macknovo99 If it is outside our scope of measurement, then by definition you cannot know anything about it. You literally cannot know if such a thing even exists. Any claims made about it, including any claims to its very existence, are no better than wild speculation. I am therefore very confused as to why anyone would want to dignify such claims with any serious consideration.
@macknovo9928 күн бұрын
@@AntiCitizenX at the end of the day, it would be down to faith but in all honesty we don’t need to go down that road tbh. I think eventually we’ll be able to perceive higher dimensions but until then, it’s all up to speculation for everyone and everything. Keep doing what you’re doing man. Different perspectives is what I like to see, especially in this space because I can listen to this while I work
@craaazer8869Ай бұрын
I may be misunderstanding you, but it seems quite odd to say that morality comes from evolution. Sure, our “moral sense” is a product of evolution. But, to say that evolution determines the actual fact of the matter of what we ought to do, does not seem to be substantiated whatsoever. We are talking about philosophy, not psychology.
@AntiCitizenXАй бұрын
@@craaazer8869 at no point did I ever say or imply that evolution determines “what we ought to do.” It only explains the existence of cooperative pro social behavior. These “objective moral oughts,” as they are often called, are a complete fiction that never existed. In fact, it is kind of a textbook example of how inept modern philosophers are, in that this exact brand of moral realism should never have been taken seriously. There are countless arguments that clearly demonstrate the total incoherence of the concept, yet it still persists somehow.
@craaazer8869Ай бұрын
@@AntiCitizenX You said "many of the traditionally deep philosophical questions have already been LONG solved by professionals in other fields. Take, for example, the NATURE of morality." So, you did not say it "only explains the existence of cooperative pro social behavior." You said, again, "the nature of morality." Maybe you ought to adhere to the clarity you proposed in this video. Moreover, there are also countless arguments demonstrating the incoherence of moral anti-realism. You actually need to give the argument to prove a point, rather than just saying there are arguments. An intro to philosophy class would have taught you this, sadly. Also, I never even mentioned moral realism. Odd that you were to even bring that up. You can still be a moral anti-realist and think that there are moral facts. For instance, even if morality is just dependent on the evolutionary functions of a given subject, given those evolutionary functions, there can still be a fact of the matter of what one ought to do. Again, you should adhere to conceptual clarity, my friend. And, on top of this, you said in another comment "Human beings do in fact share certain fundamental goals and values..." So, this would imply that there is a universal (sure, maybe a loose one) morality for human beings, meaning that there are objective facts of what one ought to do, given they are a human being.
@mohameda.444Ай бұрын
Great argument… really liked it… I think what is left is only few words to add in order to land on the “speed of light”… with extending the concepts used in this video you should easily figure out a relationship between this constant and the energy of the object. Then another extension will yield a relationship between the energy of the object (and hence the c contestant) with its mass. Then the finale! Massless objects has to be travelling at this speed limit C. Hence the speed of light (or any other massless object)! Voila!
@ljuhan2Ай бұрын
This is an impressive collection of misunderstandings, superficial analyses and tendentious reasoning. And falsehoods, too.
@AntiCitizenXАй бұрын
@@ljuhan2 I like how I can make a presentation with over 50 citations about how philosophy does not instill critical thinking skills, only for arrogant philosophy snobs to leave mindless comments that prove my point perfectly.
@ljuhan2Ай бұрын
@@AntiCitizenX Ok, that's a fair criticism. I didn't go in detail, because I don't have the time. And I don't have it now either, but I will state the gist of my view. Your claim here is at least twofold (I admit I dind't watch the video to the end): there are no criteria that can differentiate between good and bad philosophy, and there are no widely accepted proper goals or even methods of philosophy (you mentioned this particularly in relation to philsophy of science). The justification for both of these claims is persistent disagreement among philosophers. Your claims are false. First, one needs to bear in mind the distinction between analytic (or Anglosaxon more generally) philosophy and Continental philosophy. In a lot of ways, those two are different academic disciplines. So what I will say refers only to situation in analytic philosophy. It is false that there are no widely accepted criteria of distinction between good and bad philosophy. One clue to the fact that this is false should already be the relaization that philosphers, by and large, agree who the greatest philosophers in Western tradition were. Sur,e they might differ when it comes to precise ranking, but everyone agrees that Aristotle, Descartes, Kant, Leibniz, Russell...are among the best, and almost no one thinks that Franciscus Patricius is better than any of the aforementioned. That woiuld be inexeplicable if there were no accetped criteria of good philosphy. When it comes to contemporary philosphers, there also, there is wide agreement on who the good or bets philopshers are (Lewis, Kripke, Jackson, Williamson, Sider, Maudlin, Stalnaker, Perry, Putnam, Block, Pritchard, Goldman, Dennet...). There is also agreement on what makes a good philosophical paper: clear analysis, careful argumentation, sensitivity to distinctions and semantic subtleties, the ability to explain contrary intuitions... On that regard, you are just wrong. What there is disagreement about is what is the correct philosophy. Or, what philsophical claims are true and what are false. But that is a different matter than the issue of good philsophy. Just as science can be good even if it's false, but was reasonable to believe at the time of production, so too can false philosophy can be good, if it's argued for well. It is similar with your claim thazt philosphers dont agree on the goal or methds of philsoophy They largely do, and how much agreement there is depends in large part on how precisely you want to describe the questions on which they differ. They almost all agree that experiments can rarely, if ever, decide a philosophical issue. And they almost all agree that rational intuition play a much bigger role in philosophy than in science. And they almost all agree that a large part of philosophy is done by careful analysis of language, and so on... SO, your claims are rather extreme. You start with something that is an undeniable fact (disagreement), but then you infer false claims from it, because you mistakenly assume certain things (like, good philosophy=true philosophy). Not to mention that your claim is self-defeating. The only way to argue that disagreement is an epistemological problem for philsophy is to assume certain episptemological, that is, philosophical claims. But, if philosophy is rationally inadequate, then your assumption is also rationally inadequate. I would love to have more time to go into more detail on in what specific places you claim false things, but alas, I have a lot of obligations and cannot spare any more time to this discussion.
@AntiCitizenXАй бұрын
@@ljuhan2 Thank you for elaborating. As the man said, "I cannot refute an incredulous stare." So let's take a look at your major criticisms one by one: *Your claim here is at least twofold ... there are no criteria that can differentiate between good and bad philosophy, and there are no widely accepted proper goals or even methods of philosophy (you mentioned this particularly in relation to philsophy of science). The justification for both of these claims is persistent disagreement among philosophers.* That is only ONE justification. I gave several more. You are also really downplaying the argument to an almost blatantly dishonest level. It's not just about "persistent disagreement." It's about the total inability of the profession to come to a consensus on the most basic questions of their field, including the question of what exactly the field is supposed to be in the first place. That is not some trivial thing you can ignore. You also seem to be strongly implying that this is some argument unique to myself. Um... hardly. This is a widely discussed topic within the philosophical journals. *It is false that there are no widely accepted criteria of distinction between good and bad philosophy. One clue to the fact that this is false should already be the relaization that philosphers, by and large, agree who the greatest philosophers in Western tradition were.* This is objectively incorrect for multiple reasons. First, if philosophers have such well-accepted criteria, then you should be able to list what those criteria are, and they should naturally compel agreement among expert practitioners within the field. Neither is demonstrable. Second, philosophers absolutely do NOT agree on who the "greatest" philosophers were. They only agree on who the most "influential" philosophers were. That's what they mean when anyone speaks of greatness in this context. Take your own example of Aristotle. Have you even bothered to read any of his writings? Because I have. The overwhelming majority is nothing but a bunch of demented, incoherent fever dreams. I'll even challenge you to demonstrate 3 significant findings of profoundly insightful fact that we can directly attribute to Aristotle. You can't do it. *There is also agreement on what makes a good philosophical paper: clear analysis, careful argumentation, sensitivity to distinctions and semantic subtleties, the ability to explain contrary intuitions...* So let me get this straight. The best example you have of agreement in philosophy is what, exactly? That philosophers have to follow rules when writing papers? Do you have any idea how absolutely pathetic this argument is? Because I've read what passes for "serious" academic literature in the philosophical world. They absolutely do NOT follow these rules. I even gave you a classic example with modern philosophers like Alvin Plantinga who are complete buffoons. I'm sorry, my friend, but this is hardly a compelling counter-point. You're just making blanket assertions that neither support your argument, nor have any significant foundation in reality.
@ljuhan2Ай бұрын
@@AntiCitizenX ''t's about the total inability of the profession to come to a consensus on the most basic questions of their field, including the question of what exactly the field is supposed to be in the first place. That is not some trivial thing you can ignore. '' False again. I agree it is not a trivial thing you can ignore, but you are making an extreme claim in the first part of the quotation. Most philosphers agree on 'what exactly the field is supposed to be in the first place'. Saying otherwise is either ignorance or lying. ''You also seem to be strongly implying that this is some argument unique to myself.'' I did not do that. ''First, if philosophers have such well-accepted criteria, then you should be able to list what those criteria are, and they should naturally compel agreement among expert practitioners within the field. Neither is demonstrable.'' False. First, I don't have the time to write long comments now. Secondly, I already hinted at the criteria: creative arguments related to important philosphical themes, intutivie support for the premises, explanation of contrary intutitons...all these criteria are satisfed by the great philosphers. ''Second, philosophers absolutely do NOT agree on who the "greatest" philosophers were. They only agree on who the most "influential" philosophers were. That's what they mean when anyone speaks of greatness in this context.'' False. They largely agree (to the degree to which scientist would garee on who are the greatest scientists). And ''great'' means, in part, but not solely, ''influential''. ''Take your own example of Aristotle. Have you even bothered to read any of his writings? Because I have. The overwhelming majority is nothing but a bunch of demented, incoherent fever dreams.'' You need to read it again, more carefully this time. ''I'll even challenge you to demonstrate 3 significant findings of profoundly insightful fact that we can directly attribute to Aristotle. You can't do it.'' I sure can. First, the analysis of scientific explantion in POsterior Analytics, in which he even grapples with the problem of intensionality; secondly, the distinction between actuality and potentiality, and the arguments to the effect that actuality is both ontologicllay and conceptually basic; thirdly, the comsological argument for the existence of God. I could write many more, but I don't have the time. ''The best example you have of agreement in philosophy is what, exactly? That philosophers have to follow rules when writing papers? Do you have any idea how absolutely pathetic this argument is?'' I was not talking about substantial agrrement there, I was talking about agreement on criteria of good philosophy. And that is much more than ''following rules when writing papers'', as you disparagingly put it. Try writing a philoosphical paper of yur own, and see how hard it is to clearly express the vague intuition you have in favor of some claim, and to explain away the rival intuition. Then get back to me. ''They absolutely do NOT follow these rules. I even gave you a classic example with modern philosophers like Alvin Plantinga who are complete buffoons.'' Read them again. More slowly and carefully this time. And this language you use to talk about famous philosophers, people much smarter than you, is completely unbecoming. ''You're just making blanket assertions that neither support your argument, nor have any significant foundation in reality'' It is you who is incorrect. You put forward extreme claims about the field you seem to have no patience with and insufficient understanding of. And you haven't replied to my criticism that you argument is self-defeating.
@macknovo99Ай бұрын
I am a very spiritual person and this video helped me a lot. Honestly it’s aggravating when apologetics use these arguments. I think morality and ethics stem from mostly Greco Roman sources at least for most of the philosophical practices nowadays. But I think doing the right thing is usually down to the way the human psyche works and how we are essentially a community based species which we need cohesion in order for us to thrive so we developed ethics in order to keep people in check but also as a way of teaching further generations. While I do believe in the realm of spiritual knowledge, influence and understanding, it does not shape what choices I make when doing right and wrong. Thanks for the video
@georgemacintyre2858Ай бұрын
It had some good points , but could not convince my faith, reason, experience, or common sense, when it said, basically, that there was no real, absolute truth, that there was nothing ontological about truth . He's walking on very thin ice, and his philosophy comes to an abyss .
@AntiCitizenXАй бұрын
@@georgemacintyre2858 It is not “thin ice” to simply explain the modern philosophical and logical consensus on what a word means.
@georgemacintyre2858Ай бұрын
Just one point that came up , about the possibility , any which way , of G-d owning a home in California . No ! G-d is sensible , therefore G-d would NOT own a home in California .
@RonaldoGasparzinniАй бұрын
So, in a sense, morality is basically a huge experiment? We create an hypothesis (It’s in our best interest to commit genocide) -> We test this hypothesis through behavior (we commit genocide) -> We experience or observe the consequences of this behavior (conflict, lower quality of life, bad resource management) -> We determine that It’s actually not in our best interest to commit genocide (The idea that there are facts to be discovered about what is in our best interest) (Just an example)
@astrobullivant5908Ай бұрын
@1:43, How are you defining nature?
@redcamaro9401Ай бұрын
Annie must be related to Calvin...errr..."Spaceman Spiff"
@Hauserxx-u2fАй бұрын
I think you're disregarding the fundamental role of discourse in shaping what we consider to be truth. I wouldn't say truth is solely about pragmatic outcomes; it is also intertwined with the discursive frameworks through which knowledge is produced and legitimized. Truth claims are socially constructed and maintained within specific power dynamics. And just to be clear, I'm not saying you're wrong per se, only that you missed this important pertaining to epistemology in the video. But consider, for example, how, in the history of medicine, certain truths about health and disease were established based on empirical observations/clinical trials. The problem is that these truths were often framed in a way that priviliged certain demographics over others, leading to disparities in healthcare outcomes. I'd say the very process of defining what counts as evidence, how it is interpreted, and whose experiences are considered valid shapes what we accept as truth. How would you address this?
@AntiCitizenXАй бұрын
@@Hauserxx-u2f simple. If you are defining truth in terms of anything other than a pragmatic capacity to predict and shape the future, then I literally don’t care. You’re using the word in a way that is meaningless, irrelevant, and incoherent to me. If you want to twist facts to manipulate people, that’s your business. Just don’t call it truth.
@Hauserxx-u2fАй бұрын
@@AntiCitizenX Why do you think this way of using the word is meaningless? Since I'm supposedly expressing a kind of postmodern definition of truth, would you say that's your stance when It comes to postmodern arguments?
@AntiCitizenXАй бұрын
@@Hauserxx-u2f Remember the thought experiment I present in the middle of this video. Imagine a possible world where everything I believe about the world is technically "wrong." If, however, I am able to navigate the world, explain all of my experiences, predict the future, and even SHAPE the future, when what possible reason do I have to care about being "right?" What does it even mean to say my beliefs are "false" in such a context? Why would I even care about such a concept at this point? In contrast, you can imagine the opposite scenario. Everything I believe is "true," yet none of it allows me predict/shape the future in any capacity whatsoever. What possible reason would I have to even care about "THE CAPITAL-T TRUTH" in such a world? What purpose would there be in believing such things? The information is literally useless to me. This clearly demonstrates the meaninglessness of trying to avoid the pragmatic maxim. The moment you define truth in any other capacity, I literally stop caring. Any such epistemology is irrelevant to me and fundamentally worthless. I therefore have no use for it, and I'm not interested in it. *it is also intertwined with the discursive frameworks through which knowledge is produced and legitimized.* Except it's not. It doesn't matter who rules over you or how much privilege your neighbors have. The world is objectively built a certain way, and your actions will have consequences as a result of those conditions and interplays. You're welcome to lie to yourself or manipulate others, but this foundation will always cut through the bullshit and reveal the world as it really is. *Truth claims are socially constructed and maintained within specific power dynamics.* Says who? That sounds like abject speculation based on nothing. Power dynamics will not change the physical behavior of the moon and tides. *But consider, for example, how, in the history of medicine, certain truths about health and disease were established based on empirical observations/clinical trials. The problem is that these truths were often framed in a way that priviliged certain demographics over others, leading to disparities in healthcare outcomes.* You will have to explain to me how this has any bearing on the philosophy of pragmatism. Like, I'm genuinely struggling to understand what exactly the claim is supposed to be, here. It sounds like you're saying that people did science poorly, and somehow that is science's fault.
@Hauserxx-u2fАй бұрын
@@AntiCitizenX Alright man, got It. But let me try another example: What about the idea that sexuality, as a category, was socially constructed as a way of establishing power over other people? (I guess I'm oversimplifying here) The greeks, for instance, had no concept of homossexuality. Homossexuality would be nothing more than a modern invention designed to opress people who engaged in homoerotic acts, classifying them as "incorrect" or "vile". Same as Heterossexuality (understood as a good thing rather than a bad thing), or any other sexuality. How does that fit in the pragmatist framework?
@AntiCitizenXАй бұрын
@@Hauserxx-u2f you seem to be confusing the idea of a empirically predictive model with … well… whatever random manipulative bullshit that people make up to control each other. I fail to see how this is a challenge to pragmatism. If homosexuality is a thing that exists, then fine. It exists. If people want to make up blatant nonsense and value judgments about homosexuality causing the downfall of civilization, then that’s just called “lying.”
@RonaldoGasparzinniАй бұрын
I don't get It, do you mean that the only parameter by which we can judge whether a certain act is morally good or bad are the consequences that follow from this act with respect to a specific desire? If so, how do we go about determining whether we should desire something over another? Although you've said that this idea of "you should do x" is a fiction, and I think I agree, what I also understood from the video is that the primary factor that will determine our desires is natural selection. Like, wouldn't morality then just be "the will of the majority"? Is there any way we could scoop our desires in a certain direction without depending on natural selection to do the job blindly for us? Something like the idea of reintegrating people with ASPD back into society by making them develop what some call "cognitive empathy", for example.
@AntiCitizenXАй бұрын
@@RonaldoGasparzinni You can judge morality however the hell you feel like. It’s just a word. But other people also get to judge, and they universally judge actions according to certain standards. Those standards didn’t just appear by accident, nor did we just make them up out of nothing. It is a natural evolutionary response to enforce prosocial behavior onto others. It makes group cohesion stronger and thus promotes survival and reproductive fitness. So that’s your objective morality at the end of the day
@RonaldoGasparzinniАй бұрын
@@AntiCitizenX So the objectivity of morality is purely evolutionary, correct? In the sense that whether the consequences of an action are "good" or "bad" is dependent on the desires, and that the desires themselves are shaped through natural selection. Therefore, we fall into a sort of "limit", whereby there a things we cannot not desire simply because not desiring them would decrease our reproductive fitness and, overall, are not beneficial to the maintenance of group cohesion, which we naturally need. I mean, we can not desire them, but on evolutionary terms that would be objectively detrimental. Is this what you mean? Or, other than that, is there any other criteria?
@M0ONCommanderАй бұрын
6:47 this whole spiel could be so easily dissected by an intro to philosophy student by just pointing out actuality vs potentiality
@M0ONCommanderАй бұрын
2:52 reading this gave me flashbacks to the scary movie 4 village scene
@catalyst3713Ай бұрын
AntiCitizenX.. is that you?
@alst4817Ай бұрын
As a philosophy graduate this perfectly sums up my frustrations with philosophy. Basically, I think modern philosophers are sophists, a la majikthise and vroomfondel 😂
@AntiCitizenXАй бұрын
What do you think about the comments?
@alst4817Ай бұрын
@@AntiCitizenXwell…they’re certainly strident defenders of philosophy’s honour. I’m not sure she needs defending though… I admit I have a love/hate relationship with philosophy. I sometimes really enjoy thinking about abstract problems where empirical data doesn’t come into it. But then I get frustrated that what I’ve been thinking about for the past 2 hours (or days) is utterly useless. Modern philosophy at this point is basically a meta science- it exists outside of empirical evidence but may possibly, one day, sometimes be useful for science. But philosophy used to have another part- how should I live my life? I don’t think that exists anymore, but I think we need it.
@Person-ef4xjАй бұрын
When it comes to truth values informing actions and actions having consequences, I don’t actually need to conclude that the world outside my mind actually exists in order to conclude that I should behave a certain way. For instance I know that I have unpleasant experiences, such as pain, fear, and sadness, pleasant experiences such as excitement, happiness, and pleasure, and neutral experiences such as seeing and hearing regardless of whether or not the world outside my mind exists. It’s possible to conclude that I should behave in ways that I know are likely to have certain desired affects on those experiences without necessarily concluding that the world outside my mind exists. I can also conclude that the world outside my mind is a useful fiction that is unreasonably effective at predicting my experiences similar to how it’s sometimes argued that math is a useful fiction that is unreasonably effective at predicting how the world behaves.
@AntiCitizenXАй бұрын
How is it “useful fiction” to observe that actions have consequences, that those consequences are NOT determined by your whims, and that you are not immediately aware of the causal interactions that lead to them? That’s what we are talking about when we refer to the “external world.” It’s all the stuff beyond your immediate perception that appears to translate your actions into future consequences.
@EntropyEntropy-eq3ctАй бұрын
My original comment got deleted when I posted the refined one, if you see this (assuming it didn't get deleted). Judge this. P1: God is an omnipotent agent. [Definitional] P2: Omnipotence is the ability to do all that is logically possible. [Definition of omnipotence] C1: If an action is logically possible, then God can do it. [P1∧P2→C1] P3: If omnipotence is incoherent/contradictory, then God can't exist since contradictions don't exist. [¬(P∧¬P)] P4: A logically possible action is any action that does not involve any contradiction. [Definition of logical possibility] 1. Any action that has been done before, is logically possible. [P→□♢P] P5: It is logically possible to create a finite mass of rock that cannot be lifted by its own creator/maker. [P4¹] C2: Therefore, an omnipotent agent can create/make a finite mass of rock that can't be lifted by its own creator/maker. [C1∧P5→C2] P6: For any finite mass of rock, it is logically possible to generate a force that will lift it against a uniform gravitational field. [Newton's 2nd Law of Motion] C3: Therefore, an omnipotent being can lift any finite mass of rock. [C1∧P6→C3] C4: C2 & C3 contradict each other. C5: Therefore, omnipotence is incoherent/contradictory. [C4] C6: Therefore, God can't exist. [P3∧C5→C6] ----------- [P]: This represents any statement/proposition. [¬]: This indicates negation. [∧]: This indicates conjunction. [→]: This indicates implication. [□]: This indicates necessity. [♢]: This indicates possibility. [P→□♢P]: This expresses that if the statement/proposition P is true, then P is implied to be necessarily & possibly true. [¬(P ∧ ¬P)]: This expresses that P can't be both true & false at the same time. [P1∧P2→C1]: This expresses that if both P1 & P2 are true, then C1 is true. [P3∧C5→C6]: This expresses that if both P3 & C5 are true, then C6 is true. [C1∧P5→C2]: This expresses that if both C1 & P5 are true, then C2 is true. [C1∧P6→C3]: This expresses that if both C1 & P6 are true, then C3 is true.
@petermeyer68732 ай бұрын
"maximally great beeing" is childish language. This is the first of many objections coming to my head, whenever I hear someone bringing up the ontological argument. Its really hard from that point on, not to see the other one as inferior.
@Vlakrisk2 ай бұрын
Any philosophy books pertaining to the notion of challenging god's existence through the logical flaws that can be found within the relevant concepts at play?
@pascalostermann7202 ай бұрын
It's somewhat a silly argument: saint Anselm with new clothes. But I think the problem here is the polysemy of the adjective "possible". The proposition "p is possible can mean: a) "p is contingent", that is it doesn't contradict the laws of logics, or mathematics b) "some guys think that p" c) "p is legal", not forbidden by laws, and a lot of other interpretations, each on with its appropriate modal logic. For my part, in this context, I would use (b), and translate "God is possible" by "Some guy (call him stAn) think that God exists". And stAn can very well think that God is necessary, that is true in all the words he can imagine... That only speaks for the (poor) imagination of stAn, or for his (unflexible) faith. But that means nothing about the world, nor about the opinions of an other guy (call him me or I), and since I can imagine other worlds than a medieval monk, I can think that god is not necessary, or even that he is impossible, so... Game over for the MOA: there are a lot of "possible worlds" where there is no god. And by the way, the fact that I (or anyone) can think that god doesn't exist looks like a good argument against god, or at least again his or her or its necessity.
@rafaelallenblock2 ай бұрын
12:00 turns out some research shows that ADHD was an advantage when humans started farming. The ADHD humans couldn't plow a straight furrow so they were allowed to roam and it was they who brought back the occasional wild animal they tirelessly tracked. With the advent of industrialized society, that became a 'bad' behavior and is considered like the appendix.
@lucashendler86882 ай бұрын
Hey, hello again again, wanted to ask you something out of curiosity; what do you think of epistemological historicism? I have a teacher who is pretty adamant about It and, although I find that It goes against pragmatism which, based on my understanding, I agree with, I also find It hard to formulate a simple example of why historicism is incorrect (which basically means I understand what you say on a rather superficial level)
@AntiCitizenX2 ай бұрын
Does it help me predict and explain events in your experience? If yes, it’s pragmatism. If no, it’s worthless and irrelevant and I’m not interested.
@lucashendler86882 ай бұрын
@@AntiCitizenX Well, I think my doubt involves determining if It is pragmatism or if It is irrelevant. Because I wanted to be able to communicate to my teacher which one It is, with the aim of making him understand. From what I've gathered, epistemological historicism affirms that whether a proposition is true or false is determined by It's historical context. For example, my teacher argues that the concept we have of "mental illness" today didn't exist back then. Therefore, in the past, saying "you're mentally ill' would be automatically false. Saying that today, however, could be true. At first glance I would conclude that epistemological historicism is irrelevant, but I also thought that It could predict certain consequences on a given time period or society(?) (making It pragmatism). Don't know. I considered you'd probably have a simple solution to this I haven't thought of
@AntiCitizenX2 ай бұрын
@@lucashendler8688 truth values are not these objective things determined by the universe. You have to assign them however you want. Under pragmatism, a true synthetic proposition is one such that it facilitates my desires to make testable, reliable, empirical predictions. That is literally all I care about at the end of the day, and so does everyone else. Therefore, by definition and admission, that is the ultimate standard. If you want to go around utilizing some other standard, the go ahead. I won’t stop you. I also won’t care, and neither will anyone else. I don’t say this to be crass, but to express a point. That’s the fundamental argument behind pragmatism. If you’re not facilitating that goal, then by definition, I’m not interested and you’re not helping me navigate the world. So the basic choice is either pragmatism or irrelevance
@lucashendler86882 ай бұрын
@@AntiCitizenX Uhhh, alright, so you mean that epistemological historicism can't make any empirical predictions, which in turn makes It irrelevant? Or do you think It can make some predictions (turning It into a sort of "pragmatism in disguise")? Because I think I understand your points, since I've watched your videos, but I'm not sure if you answered my question. Sorry in case I'm just being obtuse
@AntiCitizenX2 ай бұрын
@@lucashendler8688 Reading again, the only thing you’ve basically said is that the meaning of language changes over time. That’s not really an “epistemology.” It’s just a fact about human language. So it’s not really in conflict with pragmatism.
@capliced2 ай бұрын
How ironic to claim that philosophy isn't keeping up with the times, as if understanding philosophy through a progress oriented lens was still relevant.. fair play to you for "keeping up with the times", except when it comes to philosophy apparently..
@AntiCitizenX2 ай бұрын
What in God’s name are you babbling about? And what point of fact are you even disputing? I swear, you people seem to be going out of your way to prove the central thesis of this video.
@capliced2 ай бұрын
@@AntiCitizenX Firstly you don't need to bring god into this or get so defensive of the video nor do you have to attack philosophy by painting it with my comment. Secondly, to reiterate, the notion of progress is a modern notion which by it's own logic is now not as progressive as contemporary philosophy which is more skeptical of the notion of progress, thus ironic. Not that philosophy should completely dispense with the notion of progress but perhaps it shouldn't be the measure of philosophy as a discipline. Lack of consensus is precisely what vitalises philosophy and consensus as progress seems to be a central argument made in this video.. totally up for debate if you are but not if you keep "babbling on" like that
@AntiCitizenX2 ай бұрын
@@capliced You argue like someone who didn’t actually pay attention to the video. You make vague references to things that were discussed, but you ignored all supporting data, you ignored the arguments, and you didn’t specify any particular point of fact that you’re disputing. The best I can figure out is that you think philosophy shouldn’t make “progress,” which is so baffling to me that I can’t even begin to explain how insane you sound. You’re ignoring the fact that philosophers themselves openly promote the field as a place to find “truth” about the world. You’re ignoring the fact that philosophy has no standards and no definition, and you’re ignoring the obvious prevalence of self serving propaganda that permeates the field. Maybe try watching the video again and try paying attention to the facts, evidence, and arguments. You know, put that philosophy skill to use that you people seem to love so much
@lucashendler86882 ай бұрын
Hey, hello again, wanted to ask you something out of curiosity; what do you think of epistemological historicism? I have a teacher who is pretty adamant about It and, although I find that It goes against pragmatism which, based on my understanding, I agree with, I also find It hard to formulate a simple example of why historicism is incorrect (which basically means I understand what you say on a rather superficial level)
@AntiCitizenX2 ай бұрын
Sir, this is a physics video…
@ichthyostegaxd37272 ай бұрын
The problem here is that the creator of this video doesn't understand omnipotence enough to understand the argument
@AntiCitizenX2 ай бұрын
This video has nothing whatsoever to do with omnipotence, which tells me everything I know about your philosophical honesty and competence.
@ichthyostegaxd37272 ай бұрын
@@AntiCitizenX The Ontological Argument is about Omnipotence. Ad hominem attacks also won't help your red herring.
@AntiCitizenX2 ай бұрын
@@ichthyostegaxd3727 It’s really not. Not sure where you got such a bizarre notion in your head. Please go back and study the issue properly before pretending to have a discussion about it.
@ichthyostegaxd37272 ай бұрын
@@AntiCitizenX You yourself defined God as a "divine agent" and noted that omnipotence would be one of his aspects. Substitute "God" with "an omnipotent agent" in the modal ontological argument. How would the argument be any different?
@AntiCitizenX2 ай бұрын
@@ichthyostegaxd3727 The MOA isn’t about omnipotence. It’s about necessary existence. If I honestly have to explain that distinction to you, then you are in no position to offer serious criticism of this video. By all means, ask questions and discuss, but don’t pretend to know enough to tell others how they’re wrong.
@alittax2 ай бұрын
Math is not like any language. You can describe the same state of affairs in different languages, but only language (math) works for describing the real world. So math is unique among the languages, since not only does it have to make sense in terms of what is analogous to grammar in languages (i.e. the internal consistency of math statements), but also in that only certain statements are true, while others aren't. An equation that works vs one that doesn't isn't like a language that works vs a language that doesn't, but more like a statement that makes sense in language M and one that doesn't in language M. But, more importantly, even if you insist that math is just another language, the fact that we humans are using something (math as a language) to describe something else proves that that something else exists apart of humans. So, even if math is just a language, its subject matter isn't. Another proof of this is that if math didn't make statements about something external to it, there would be no way to evaluate different math statements, since the there would be nothing to compare them against. But, if there is a reality outside of the math we create, and our math describes that reality, we can compare how the description matches what is described. The fact that you're making the statement that math describes something implies that there is something to be described. What do you think? Thanks for reading my long comment.
@AntiCitizenX2 ай бұрын
Just because math is really special, that does not negate the fact that we define our mathematical language through axioms and rules of inference. Math is therefore an invention, whether you like it or not. The proof is right there in the very fundamentals of math itself, and the debate is effectively settled.
@alittax2 ай бұрын
@@AntiCitizenX Thanks for the response. Even if the axioms and rules of inference in math are human-defined, the applicability and effectiveness of math in describing the real world go beyond these definitions. If you say that we can tweak math to match reality (i.e. take an arbitrary theory of math and keep adjusting it), then you're already agreeing that there is a reality to be matched by our descriptions of it, and that that given tweaked math somehow resembles that reality. I.e. math is not just in our head, because a part of reality looks just like its description (e.g. a formula describes how a process works to some level of accuracy). Also, math statements are not just evaluated for internal consistency. If that were the case, why wouldn't every mathematician work on his own pet theory of math? If the invention of axioms and rules of inference were completely arbitrary, all internally consistent mathematical systems would be equally valid, and equally worth studying. However, this is not the case - or perhaps the majority of mathematicians are wrong, and everyone should just study their own invention of math rules? To look at an extreme thought experiment: even if you could take an infinite amount of mathematicians, isolate them from the world (as in a brain-in-a-vat scenario), and they would come up with an infinite number of different kinds of math, one of those would have to be a perfect description of reality. So, the origins of all of those maths would be arbitrary. But, that doesn't mean THAT reality doesn't fit any one of those possible mathematical theories. In fact, logic (another "arbitrary" human invention) even gives at least one reason WHY at least one of them must fit reality: because if reality has mathematically describable regularities, then by definition there must be some math that describes those. And this can only be true if reality also follows the rules of logic. The only way reality wouldn't fit any math would be if there were no regularities in the world, but all of our experiences tells us that there are. And math describes those regularities. It's a system of describing something, just like other languages, but just like in other languages it can describe something other than itself. When I say "There's a tiger", there really is a tiger that I'm describing, and when I say "2+2=4", I'm also talking about something external to the statement. Thanks for reading another long comment. What do you think?
@AntiCitizenX2 ай бұрын
@@alittax No one is disputing the existence of a mind independent reality. You can have a real world all you want, and that changes nothing about the fact that math is a human invention. You asked why mathematicians aren’t dabbling with let theories. Bro, they do it all the time. I’ve done it myself.
@alittax2 ай бұрын
@@AntiCitizenX Thanks again for the response. So then you agree that there is some part of reality that resembles our mathematical models of it (or more precisely, that some of our mathematical models resemble it)? Some part of our descriptions of it (like the mathematical notation we use) is a human invention (e.g. we could write the number 1 as a random squiggly line, or we could write out equations in words, making them incredibly cumbersome to manipulate, etc.). But, what the human part of the description refers to is not our invention, because it exists independently of us. And it is that part which is the subject of math, and the human parts serve the purpose of finding new things out about it. Also, the fact that of an infinite number of mathematical theories, at least one must be correct, necessarily proves that the object of math exists (since reality also follows the rules of logic). This idea by itself seems to prove that math must necessarily be about something external to the human mind. What do you think? I'd be happy to read another response.
@AntiCitizenX2 ай бұрын
@@alittax *So then you agree that there is some part of reality that resembles our mathematical models of it (or more precisely, that some of our mathematical models resemble it)?* You're using very vague, loaded language. We invent models to help us describe our experiences and make quantifiable empirical predictions. If that's what you mean by "resemble," then sure, but it's nothing profound. "I think it will rain tomorrow because the fairies in my head told me so" is a perfectly valid English sentence that expresses a model without math. Why does this suddenly become all magical and supernatural, just because a formal language is involved? *But, what the human part of the description refers to is not our invention, because it exists independently of us. * So? There's an objective mind-independent reality. Why is this so profound to you? We still need a language to describe it with, and the mere existence of a pretty language says nothing about the existence of a magical bearded sky fairy. *Also, the fact that of an infinite number of mathematical theories, at least one must be correct,* There is no such thing as a "correct" mathematical theory. That's meaningless gibberish. There are only axioms, rules of inference, and the theorems that follow. Some of those systems are useful in some situations. Others are not.
@RaidenDEVOUR2 ай бұрын
It is logically possible for humans to lie, but not logically possible for God to lie. So God can still do all things logically possible.
@AntiCitizenX2 ай бұрын
I like how you just blindly repeated a claim that was specifically addressed and debunked in this very video. Why are so many Christians such bad listeners?
@RaidenDEVOUR2 ай бұрын
@@AntiCitizenX sorry, didn't have time for the whole 30 min video. I watched up until you made that point about its logically possible to lie so omnipotent beings should be able to lie. I'll watch the rest later today and make another comment. Why are so many non-Christians such bad assumers?
@RaidenDEVOUR2 ай бұрын
@@AntiCitizenX nice video! The current definition does indeed not work. I think people use the current definition because it makes it easy to understand the idea. Perhaps we should have a dictionary for normal people, and then a much larger dictionary with overly complicated, ever-changing definitions for philosophers? Two points of concern though: 1. Since you can lift small weight, but cannot lift a 1,000 pound car over your head, that is a physical limitation. It is against your nature to lift a 1,000 pound car over your head, but it is not against your nature to lift 1 pound over your head. Lifting is not against your nature, yet you are limited. God however cannot tell a lie. A big lie, a small lie, doesn't matter. He is not limited by anything in his nature. If Mr. Mick Ear can only scratch his ear, what about the speed that he scratches his ear? If Mr. Mick Ear can't scratch his own ear at an infinite speed, that would be a physical limitation and thus, he wouldn't be omnipotent. If he could however scratch his ear at an infinite speed, then he would be omnipotent, assuming he has no other limitations such as how far he can see, hear, how big he is, etc. This would technically be infinite power. 2. If God created the Universe and the laws that the Universe follows, wouldn't He be able to just rewrite laws so He can complete any task you could possibly think of? Even the logically impossible? Regardless, true omnipotence is not possible. I agree that the current definition does not fit. Seems like the main problem you have is how most Christians defend God's power.
@AntiCitizenX2 ай бұрын
@@RaidenDEVOUR You can’t think in terms of “true” omnipotence. That’s not a thing. There is just “omnipotence,” the word, plus a handful of definitions we may try to give it. Some definitions may work, others may not. Some definitions are rigorous and meaningful, others are incoherent and sloppy. The goal of the philosopher is to pick apart the “bad” definitions and try to think of something better. We also need to fix your concept of logic. It is not an ethereal energy field that interweaves itself throughout space and time. It is a system of rules built into language. Anyone can “violate” logic all they want. The result is just meaningless gibberish. It is not up to God to create illogical entities like married bachelors. It is up to YOU to follow the rules of logic when you describe such things. That’s why it is meaningless to think of God as being “above” logic in some sense. It’s not up to Him. It’s up to YOU. It doesn’t matter what God does. You’re the one who has to use language to describe it.
@RaidenDEVOUR2 ай бұрын
@@AntiCitizenX I like your funny words, magic man. On a serious note, is that really what logic is? Say you could lift a 1,000 pound car over your head. That would be illogical, but we would be able to use language to describe it perfectly fine.
@kmerczerwony17392 ай бұрын
I myself became much more optimistic about progress in philosophy semi-recently. I see now that modern analytic metaphysics is more sophisticated, scientifically accurate, precise, relevant to age-old as well as contemporary problems and historically conscious than any project in philosophy since, I think, the nineteenth century. But philosophy education is still horrendously inadequate. It's impossible to grasp, for example, Kant (as people working on deciphering Kant's texts have realised in the last 40-ish years) without knowledge of the work of people like Euler, Lambert, Leibniz and Newton. Yet he's taught in history of philosophy classes by people who sometimes don't have the slightest idea about physics. It's not just that history of philosophy is often irrelevant to contemporary concerns - it is taught *as if* it were entirely irrelevant to contemporary concerns. People often get taught myths or trivia about philosophers which don't help them understand their influence (by e.g. showing how to decipher outdated terminology which often reappears in other texts) or relate their work to contemporary ideas. Education in history of philosophy is, in other words, rarely ever influenced by the discipline called 'history of philosophy', practiced by some historians and some philosophers. And this discipline, just like history of science in general, has made enormous progress since the nineteenth century when writing about history of philosophy became a thing. But I am a hobbyist so my knowledge might be a bit outdated here (although it is based on opinions of people who studied philosophy aswell as reading major sources on history of philosophy). EDIT: It seems like most people in the comments don't know much about either philosophy or natural science and haven't watched the video with any caution.
@kmerczerwony17392 ай бұрын
I don't understand your point regarding the possibility or impossibility of defining "philosophy". That seems to be the case about a lot of disciplines. It seems hard to come up with a definition of "physics", for example. An empirical science that studies spatio-temporally located stuff at the most fundamental level? Sure, but some models in contemporary physics and cosmology don't assume space-time as fundamental. This doesn't necessarily mean this is a bad definition - but if you want to treat it as a normative standard, then it becomes a problem (for the reasons outlined above, i.e. space-time being non-fundamental in some theories that are studied by physicists). And you're asking for a definition of philosophy to impose more rigor on the practice of doing philosophy (whatever it is). This can only help to engender contemporary view of the nature of the discipline. Imagine if we stuck to the Aristotelian definition of physics as the study of the natures of things and shouted on everyone who didn't use the word "nature" in their physics papers (since they're, by our definition, not doing physics!).
@AntiCitizenX2 ай бұрын
I’m afraid I have no idea what claim in this video you are trying to dispute.
@kmerczerwony17392 ай бұрын
@@AntiCitizenX My point is that our current metaphilosophical understanding, expressed in the definition of the word philosophy, cannot constraint the future development of philosophy forever. Our current definition will reflect our current standards, methods etc. All future definitions should be roughly coextensive with it - and therefore valid, broadly speaking. But if we treat such definitions as saying what the essence of some discipline is, then I think we risk getting stuck in a failed paradigm. The logical empiricists defined philosophy as 'logical analysis of language', then Michael Dummett, along similar lines, advanced the view of philosophy as being concerned primarily with solving metaphysical questions through semantic (metamathematical) analysis. We see how these definitions reflect their understanding of how philosophy should be done. And, indeed, a lot of contemporary work can be paraphrased to satisfy these definitions, probably, but most philosophers nowadays don't see themselves as pursuing primarily, e.g. semantic analysis. Just like most physicists don't see themselves as pursuing the empirical study of natures of things (which is what Aristotle thought physics was), although perhaps there is a sense in which there is a continuity between Aristotle's efforts and the work of, e.g. Richard Feynman. In other words, I think that your point that philosophers cannot define philosophy is wrong. They can and sometimes do, but the normative power of their definitions lasts only as long as the paradigm they work in is successful. Nevertheless, various definitions now seen as outdated (missing the 'essence' of a given field) are still (almost) nominally equivalent, since they never exclude major figures, like Kant in philosophy or Galileo in physics. And since the definition we can give at the moment reflects our current methodological predispositions and knowledge (Bourbaki defines mathematics as study of abstract mathematical structures... I don't think Euclid or Gauss could've come up with such a definition, even though they were definitely studying these structures), it won't help to fix a field in crisis. A successful redefinition, I believe, can only reflect a paradigm shift (for example from Aristotle's physics to Cartesian physics as study of spatial stuff), not be a cause of it.
@AntiCitizenX2 ай бұрын
You’re still not pointing out any particular claim that was made in this video. If you watch it again, I very clearly discuss what philosophy is. Are you agreeing? Disagreeing? I can’t tell. Remember. The complaint is that the traditional definitions for philosophy are directly contradicted by the actual content of philosophical textbooks/classes. On top of that, I demonstrate that philosophers are essentially lying to you when they try to promote philosophy as a reliable avenue to truth. Philosophy has no standards for truth or progress, and so no progress is ever made. Debates are never settled, and the field inevitably ends up sheltering frauds and incompetents. Most of this stuff is admitted to openly by mainstream philosophers themselves, so I’m honestly still not sure why people take so much offense at it.
@davidhoffman69802 ай бұрын
The reason any argument for God's existence works is because God was included in at least one of the premises. Logic doesn't tell us anything except what we tell it. You get out what you put in. The Modal Ontological argument and the Kalam argument both beg the question by assuming the very thing we are trying to find out. The Ontological argument defines God as a being who exists if it's possible that he exists and then premise one is "it's possible that God exists" which is the very thing we're trying to find out. It's a trick because it sounds reasonable and it's designed to make anyone who disagrees sound unreasonable or to have a burden of proof (i.e. "You disagree? So you're saying it's not possible that God exists?). The apologist knows there are two kinds of possible: epistemic possiblity-which means "for all I know it might be true." Then there's metaphysical possibility-which means "there's some possible world where this is true." The Modal Ontological argument uses the metaphysical definition of possible, but the audience is supposed to think of epistemic possibility and thus agree with premise one. If someone asks you "wouldn't you agree that it's at least possible that God exists?" A good reply would be "I don't know if it's possible. Can you demonstrate that it is?" The Kalam Cosmological argument does the same thing: it smuggles the conclusion into the very first premise. "Everything that begins to exist has a cause." Hold on a second, wouldn't that include the universe? And isn't that the very thing you're trying to prove? If your conclusion is that the universe has a cause, then your first premise shouldn't be that "everything" has a cause because that's circular. An honest version of Kalam would look like "Most things that begin to exist have a cause. The universe began to exist. Therefore the universe likely has a cause as well." Again, any syllogism that has God existing in the conclusion does so because God existed in the premises.
@S.D.3232 ай бұрын
I think the analytic synthetic distinction is something people really dont understand in general like with the whole transgender debate both sides seem not to get that the word woman is just a word that can be defined how people want to define it so thats it not a matter of objective fact whether or not transgender people are women its a matter of pure definition alone and thats all