Пікірлер
@walterdaems57
@walterdaems57 3 күн бұрын
You can find a gazillion clips on YT showing animals who behave morally towards their own kind, different species and us humans and I don’t think they all come together in some underground cave on Sunday to study the bible.
@secretweapon8367
@secretweapon8367 5 күн бұрын
your guest assumes ancestral humans could only exist in one, warlike mode. according to the theory of regal and kungic societal structures, this is not the case. humans are only warlike when their environment is hostile. when their environment is peaceful, humans prefer an egalitarian and tolerant society where they live in collective safety. this characterizes modernity. in this state, evolutionary pressures for survival become subtle, indirect, and culture-dependant.
@dadsonworldwide3238
@dadsonworldwide3238 11 күн бұрын
Now I know that my primordial self soul agency + dualistic brain can triangulate thermodynamical systems . Definitely energy density of astronomical measure places this unartiiculation on par with at minimum subjective hamiltonian feilds and waves that once we corrected idealized time it's Far more sensible than when hiesenbergs approach that falls into yoo hoo woo uncertainty. But of course that does run into statistical anylitical measure failures. But we already knew this once the keys to the cosmos was found this all fell out. Dacarte stayed with the dualistic notion being in Europe and all . That subjective medium is in inevitable unless you want marduk basisn mind model with loopholes or possibly inverted. Idk If monds theory lazy light methusela equation can save the over time math mapping dark matter spirits in the sky stuff with our cmb so all that really shouldn't play such a role. I like niechtze but he hated this and thought for a moment that the old world nature is a judge of all things would work but max plank burst his bubble..he never got to find out. As a sepretist pilgrim puritan classical American decendants who re compromised while we pretended neitzche in 1900s structuralism, it's only fair the world do so while the evidence is here. Future generations may get lost in translation and sell out soul agency like America has . Xyz manmade time hierarchy knowledge of good evil equations fundamental feature of America and pragmatic common sense objectivism proper. It's not to say it is no time but that it's more that we share attributes with subjective medium of complexity that emerging energetic actors indirect lines detected and more directly measurable ones. Physicalism and idealism are emerging statistical anylitical intellect ,vision, memory, dreams ,consciousness proper awareness and control systems.. Calling this what unites us with bots potentially and the more subjective properties what unites us with animals for ease of access works for me. . When statistical anylitical scraper goes over subjective objects physical objects idealistic objects it leaves a lot of meat on the bone in each category. Defined words for such strong identifiers
@andreasplosky8516
@andreasplosky8516 13 күн бұрын
Cultural moral evolution strongly influences natural moral evolution. It is not hard to understand at all, because we see our culture influence evolutionary processes all over the place. Basically he says the evolution does not explain morality, because compared to ancient times our morality has evolved. Just think about that: Morality has evolved, but evolution does not explain that it has evolved. Modern human Morality is not so much a product of natural biological evolution, but a product of cultural evolution. This is not a mystery at all. And even then it is not homogeneous. Morality has very strong heterogeneous aspects to it, and what really holds back the evolution of morality are backward, primitive religions.
@john211murphy
@john211murphy 14 күн бұрын
Yes, morality is easily explained by a "MAGIC MAN" who POOFED EVERYTHING into existence and the POOFED man from DUST and POOFED morality into its brain. No Evolution, that would be silly.
@claudiamanta1943
@claudiamanta1943 15 күн бұрын
One more stupid than the other.
@markjosemanders9778
@markjosemanders9778 Ай бұрын
All Religions Are False! god does not exist! 1.everything comes from everything! that has been proven! and can't come from nothing! is the same for god cannot come from nothing! and can make everything from nothing! evidence! god does not exist! 2.energy! the cosmos! the universe! cannot be created or destroyed! that has been proven! has no beginning and no end! evidence! god didn't create universe!
@Coteincdr
@Coteincdr Ай бұрын
If you accept a metaphysical structure that contains values and morals, then you accept theism. That's because values and moral can only reside on an agent.
@MatheusBenites
@MatheusBenites Ай бұрын
Not necessarily. The structure of values could be self-existing. That was the point of the question
@Coteincdr
@Coteincdr Ай бұрын
I understand that. What I'm saying that if values are self existing they imply a mind. Since the only thing that we know of that contains values are minds.
@zupremo9141
@zupremo9141 Ай бұрын
Atheism is built on the fact that anything is possible if you can't prove the opposite position, but we all know that proving anything 100% is impossible. Atheism is not a honest or even logical position and possibility is not a good argument because a absurd proposition like "My shit can become a human if you throw it in a blackhole and it end up in a different universe that can turn shit to a human being". The argument is totally absurd, but because you cannot 100% disprove it, the argument is still "possible".
@fuma9532
@fuma9532 Ай бұрын
Atheism is not "built" on anything: atheism is the default position, if someone had never heard any theory about god or gods it's very hard they'd form a theory about one of the modern religions on their own. Perhaps animism, polytheism, or maybe even monotheism could arise in the individual, but almost certainly not in the currently widespread form. If anything, your example works in favor of atheism, as they're not the ones trying to disprove religions, the burden of proof doesn't fall on them.
@zupremo9141
@zupremo9141 Ай бұрын
@@fuma9532 Do you even know what default means? Every tribe and civilization in history believed in god. Atheism is like a civilizational mind rot that only appears in time of great prosperity.
@zupremo9141
@zupremo9141 Ай бұрын
@@fuma9532 Default? every tribe and civilization on earth believes in a god. It's very odd if we get thirsty but there's no water to drink.
@shornoMALONEY
@shornoMALONEY Ай бұрын
what the hell are you on about, you've been brainwashed and seem to misunderstand the burden of proof.
@GreyZone7
@GreyZone7 Ай бұрын
"Even though reality has a metaphysical structure". You know what a tautology is?
@Tletna
@Tletna Ай бұрын
Personally, I agree that reality has metaphysical aspect to it. But, is that a necessity to all possible realities? I don't think "Even though reality has a metaphysical structure" is really an example of tautology.
@MatheusBenites-Philosophy
@MatheusBenites-Philosophy Ай бұрын
Well, of course it is a tautology. But it was necessary to point it out in order to elucidate the question, my friend. Some materialists, for instance, think reality has no metaphysical structure.
@narendrasomawat5978
@narendrasomawat5978 Ай бұрын
​@@MatheusBenites-Philosophymaterialist view that we can understand facts without caring about its value is so dumb that's postmodernist criticism of modernity. Jordan Peterson uses post modernism to criticize modernity and that's how traditionalist view come backs. I think Jordan Peterson is meta modernist not a post modernist, modernist or traditionalist. Empiricism is true then why we have caltural war. We can't even understand what's woman. In current caltural war they're only two sides exist postmodernist or traditionalism. Modernity and enlightenment is dying. That's what Jordan Peterson also gonna talk in his book.
@GreyZone7
@GreyZone7 Ай бұрын
@@MatheusBenites-Philosophy Are you confusing ontological metaphysics with 'supernatural metaphysics' `?
@lucacuradossi1040
@lucacuradossi1040 Ай бұрын
Profesor I have a question about Nietzsche thought. I'm not a scholar but in my understanding Nietzsche didn't believe in free will and didn't believe you can get rid of the chains of determinism but still you could wear them in a more authentic way. When Peterson says there is something technically right about his values I think he is speaking from a place where the status quo of society is the highest end, Nietzsche thought wasnt for the masses but for radical people. I think Paterson is very emotionally biased in his views. You can see this same flaw of him when talking about antinatalism and starting a family, he only gives his opinon as fact and gives reasons to appeal to emotion and practicality. So the question would be if you think peterson actually understands Nietzsche because it dosen't seem that way to me
@MatheusBenites-Philosophy
@MatheusBenites-Philosophy Ай бұрын
Good question. I think he did understand Nietzsche well, and disagreed with him. For Nietzsche, there were no values built in a metaphysical structure of reality. Nietzsche wanted us to create our own values, our own metaphysical systems, which was impossible. The ubermensch is impossible. Peterson got that right, I think. However, it does not imply theism.
@lucacuradossi1040
@lucacuradossi1040 Ай бұрын
@@MatheusBenites-Philosophy in his wrestle with God lecture he acknowledges Greco Roman society and how it was basically a will to power. Peterson never proved the metaphysics of morality but instead gives his opinion about how nice it is to have kids for example. Also the over man it isn't an end but a means to live more authentically, living in authentic manner would be your morality, you wouldnt create it per se but you would live it. Peterson definitely dosent understand Nietzsche criticisms of christianity, I heard him talking about how Nietzsche disliked fundamentalism when Nietzsche never said that and also he thought communism is christianity's way of surviving the scientific revolution. It comes out very disingenuous to misinterpret his views
@lucacuradossi1040
@lucacuradossi1040 Ай бұрын
@@MatheusBenites-Philosophy I would like to know why you think the Ubermensch is impossible and if the answer is people's incapacity of creating values I would like to know why is that
@Quwucuqin
@Quwucuqin Ай бұрын
Am wondering whats a atheist philosopher is, it sound quite absurd in philosophy we dont mean god as a being of theology like old man in the sky or allah we mean god as the principle,forces and the laws the universe itself thats what modern science as a whole shows us and questioning this guy does he think god of theology doesn't Exists if he does then in a way he's right but if he thinks god as a concept doens't Exists he is vaguely wrong
@lucacuradossi1040
@lucacuradossi1040 Ай бұрын
You are very ignorant. There isn't a common view in philosophy. You have many waves of thought and there are atheists philosophers just as Christian philosophers, agnostic, etc.
@lucacuradossi1040
@lucacuradossi1040 Ай бұрын
Philosophy isn't a political party, there are atheist, agnostic, polytheistic...etc philosophers. Read the history of philosophy and you will see
@AL-ll3qr
@AL-ll3qr Ай бұрын
How can you know the God of theology doesn’t exist
@lucacuradossi1040
@lucacuradossi1040 Ай бұрын
@@AL-ll3qr you can't but those claims aren't to be taken seriously because they are inventions of ancient people. All of those texts that describe the nature of the world fail and with science we see that.
@Quwucuqin
@Quwucuqin Ай бұрын
@@lucacuradossi1040 you can find a atheist, agnostic, polytheistic and a religious in a group of scientists and In a governing body but that doesnt defy absolute truth but yeah I get it although philosophy should aim towards truth but there's a whole different field for it, we Modern philosophers we should have a peak understanding of Epistemology and Logic
@s33ur3lv3lvly
@s33ur3lv3lvly Ай бұрын
Literally tried to sell his book off the question.
@Fatality2013
@Fatality2013 Ай бұрын
Good I fcking love capitalism, especially when it’s him profiting! Great man he deserves it!
@s33ur3lv3lvly
@s33ur3lv3lvly Ай бұрын
@@Fatality2013 I don’t how to respond.
@Petter_GM
@Petter_GM Ай бұрын
​​@@s33ur3lv3lvlyHe probably means it is a difficult question to answer and that he answers it in the book. Don't be so cynical
@zarbins
@zarbins Ай бұрын
@@s33ur3lv3lvly Just accept the reality that the it makes sense for an individual to profit off of their lives work - using their labor to write and market their thoughts, that they have developed over a lifetime, into a marketplace of ideas that finds it of some value. It is a beautiful thing. Technically the public is exploiting Peterson for his knowledge as there is demand and interest for him to produce, so he does so, rather assiduously, and is rewarded in outsized measure because of his innovation. He was early to KZfaq, early to leave the failing university system, early to embrace AI and has set a new precedent for what a public intellectual can look like. Millions have found it valuable regardless of the controversy around him. This is what @Fatality2013 celebrates and I agree.
@cynthiaharvey6155
@cynthiaharvey6155 Ай бұрын
I myself totally agree with David Benatar, putting it simple no matter how huge your house is and how much joy you have or HAD in life you’re STILL GOING TO DIE, so what was all of that for in the end. Surely everyone has their own opinion and will not agree with that way of looking at life but I most definitely do, and I had said the same thing before I came across David Benatar a couple of weeks ago. I couldn’t believe that there was someone else that thought the same thing as myself. How does anyone know whether we lived before we came here or not, I’ve never heard that one before, how would again, how would anyone know that…. The pain and suffering and grief, and the ultimate DEATH is too much to me, and that’s what makes life so unpleasant, uncertain, and HORRIFIC, therefore i totally agree with Benatar. I’ve taken a long hard look at life and still can’t figure what this is really about. I’m glad that there is some joy in life but my opinion is that it would have been better not to have been…..
@lanceindependent
@lanceindependent Ай бұрын
At 1:58, Huemer talks about moral intuitions, like that you "shouldn't cause harm to people just for the fun of it." I do hold the view that you shouldn't cause harm to people just for the fun of it. But this does not present itself to me as an "intuition" any more than my preference for some kinds of food or music are "intuitions." I simply have attitudes, preferences, judgments, and beliefs. Nothing about them seems to me to require invoking special terminology like an "intuition." I'm skeptical that the sorts of intuitions philosophers talk about are a genuine feature of human psychology. I think they may instead be a pseudopsychological state philosophers have made up. Also, Huemer talks about that remark seeming "correct" but correct in what sense? Antirealists can think it is "correct" in ways that don't entail moral realism. For instance, I think it's obviously correct that chocolate cake is tasty, but I don't think it's obviously *objectively* tasty. Just the same for morality: I'm against hurting people just for fun, but nothing about this seems *objectively* true to me. One issue I have with Huemer's ethical intuitonism is simply that I don't have Huemer's intuitions, and am not sure why I or anyone else who doesn't share those intuitions should be moved by Huemer's position. If I don't have realist intuitions, what then? Why should I be a realist?
@LostAndDiscouraged
@LostAndDiscouraged Ай бұрын
Yes, that's an interesting concern. 'A chocolate cake looks better than a pile of dirt' - you can call this an intuition, after all it does seem immediately true upon reflection to me. But isn't this just a preference?
@IcePeak99
@IcePeak99 Ай бұрын
3:12 How do you know that? What is your evidence for that?
@joepvans5035
@joepvans5035 Ай бұрын
yeah i was flabbergasted as well. He just states this without any evidence and goes from there.
@IcePeak99
@IcePeak99 Ай бұрын
@joepvans5035 Honestly, as I grow older, I have less and less patience with bullshit. Where do these people get the audacity from to assert these kind of claims without any evidence? It just baffles me.
@Toylandsrs
@Toylandsrs 2 ай бұрын
There would have to be a YOU that communicates to each eon. Also, information about you has to be translated from one "incarnation" of the universe that has information about YOU.
@michalm7404
@michalm7404 2 ай бұрын
surprised he is an actual professor. really bad at thinking
@anthonyspencer766
@anthonyspencer766 2 ай бұрын
Have you read his books or his blog (Daily Nous)? I don't agree with major points of his metaphysics, incl. his moral ontology, and his politics, but it is very obvious that he is not a bad thinker.
@LostAndDiscouraged
@LostAndDiscouraged Ай бұрын
I don't think he's a bad thinker either, I just think he hasn't looked too deeply into Benatar's arguments
@wv6538
@wv6538 2 ай бұрын
Bom demais o Huemer conversando contigo.
@MatheusBenites-Philosophy
@MatheusBenites-Philosophy 2 ай бұрын
Obrigado por se inscrever aqui também! Thanks for subscribing here too
@lanceindependent
@lanceindependent 2 ай бұрын
Whether most people throughout history were moral realists is an empirical claim, as is the claim that moral realism is a commonsense position. There is no good empirical evidence to support either claim. I don't know why Huemer and other seem to believe most people are and were moral realists. There just isn't any good evidence this is true.
@MatheusBenites-Philosophy
@MatheusBenites-Philosophy 2 ай бұрын
Good point!
@naturalisted1714
@naturalisted1714 2 ай бұрын
He should look into Generic Subjective Continuity. Also, not existing didn't stop this life from being imposed, so why would it have stopped some other life from being imposed had this one not been born? Not existing hasn't stopped a life from being imposed for every single living being that has ever existed, so why would not existing stop a life from being imposed had you not been born? All it took was a life (in the generic sense) coming to exist, for a life to be imposed. So not existing doesn't impede or block suffering. We all know this because we all didn't exist, and it was ineffective at protecting us. If it isn't one life it's another.
@MatheusBenites
@MatheusBenites 2 ай бұрын
Good argument!
@badamson
@badamson 2 ай бұрын
Because we can make decisions about who we will bring into existence and that has an impact on the total number of people who exist, and the total number of people who could have existed but don’t. If you resist comparing against the never-existant, then you run into trouble when comparing the absence of pain with the presence of pain in a life of only pain. If you think that never existing is no better than existing that is. Your view is like saying that when we are born we are incarnated from a collective group of never existing souls, that can be harmed later down the line if we don’t decide to bring one into existence in that moment. That is not the right way to conceptualise it
@kartik9892
@kartik9892 2 ай бұрын
A question to YOU now. if you had a button could peacefully wipe all sentient lives in universe and it also guarantees NO LIFE EVER ARISES AGAIN TILL ETERNITY. The one opportunity to liberate all innocent beings from the vicious ways of universe. Would you press the button? YES or NO.
@user-cn7mz7bt8y
@user-cn7mz7bt8y 2 ай бұрын
@naturalisted1714, life was imposed on you and on me. If our parents had not produced us we would not suffer, we would not experience anything.We are born, we suffer, and we impose suffering on other beings. When we are not born, we do not suffer. When we do not procreate we do not impose suffering on another being. We end that cycle of suffering for our lineage. It seems that you are arguing that life is imposed suffering and because others suffer it's fine to procreate and impose suffering on your child. Your argument disregards the individuality of each existence.
@anthonyspencer766
@anthonyspencer766 2 ай бұрын
I'm having a hard time understanding how this doesn't amount to saying that, for some moral X, there is no obligation not to ~X, because even if you don't, others will. This implies that there is no obligation to do anything, as an individual, if your effort and those of others who behave like you do isn't eliminating the unwanted thing universally. That's clearly implausible. Imagine you looked at human existence economically. At least as far as we can tell, there won't ever be "enough to go around" of some highly desirable thing to satisfy every possible desire. It follows that, in the case of that item (whatever it may be), there will always be somebody in a state of wanting without having. Does this fact make it true that you have no obligation to give to those in need? That is, even if your giving couldn't possibly eliminate the problem of needfulness simpliciter from the universe?
@natecw4164
@natecw4164 2 ай бұрын
Is it wrong to create someone who is guaranteed a life of suffering? For example, advocating for a meth baby to be brought to term? If so, where would we draw the line? 70% suffering? 49%? My 30s consisted of 3 dvt clots, 2 major brain surgeries and 2 tumors to go along with that. And 2 years of chemo. And bankruptcy. And failed loved. My 30s were mostly pain. I'm eternally grateful for that time, suffering or not. However, if I ultimately reach the point where all that's left is to suffer and die, that's back to the meth baby situation.
@MatheusBenites
@MatheusBenites 2 ай бұрын
Thank you for sharing your experience.
@Toylandsrs
@Toylandsrs 3 ай бұрын
Physics was ok with the Universe as uncaused, that it had n beginning, right up to the 1930's...when it was found to be expanding. Then Physics and Atheists ha to cope wit h a beginning (and something from nothing.)
@MatheusBenites-Philosophy
@MatheusBenites-Philosophy 2 ай бұрын
Yes. Although, the universe can still be infinite according to theories such as the multiverse.
@consciousbeing7785
@consciousbeing7785 4 ай бұрын
Thanks for that. These arguments by Bertrand are surprisingly shallow and disappointing. Maybe a century ago they were impressive. I expected more from him.
@MatheusBenites
@MatheusBenites 4 ай бұрын
Given his talents in other areas, I also expected more from him on the Philosophy of religion. However, the part where he analysis Christ`s character is good, as well as his response to Kant`s moral argument.
@consciousbeing7785
@consciousbeing7785 3 ай бұрын
@@MatheusBenites I watched only half of the video because I know and admire his achievements in other, more formal areas. I got discouraged because he is obviously biased. I mean his argumentation against God is inconsistent and self-defeating.
@rd9831
@rd9831 4 ай бұрын
No one really cares what russel is.
@pedroguzman6387
@pedroguzman6387 4 ай бұрын
I've recently turned to Christ after being an Athiest all my life, and i completely relate to alot of Russells points on the emotional damage that threatening in everlasting punishent for our sins, and that alot of people follow dogmas because its instilled into us from birth. I still cant help but believe in an all encompassing awareness. A divine intelligence seems like a natural idea to be more inclined to when you pick apart patterns in your every day life, observing the golden spiral in everything. While there is great evil, i strongly believe is necessary to have evil in order to have good. I love the idea you mentioned where evil was actually our natural state and good was the corruption. I dont think this would necessarily disprove the existence of a God, rather give humanity a purpose. Infecting the world with goodness and love.
@MatheusBenites
@MatheusBenites 4 ай бұрын
Topics: 0:00​. Introduction 1:10​. Truth and Anti-Realism 4:10​. Perspectivism in Philosophy of Science and Nietzsche 9:10​. Nietzsche`s style and Experimentalism 10:00​. The revaluation of values 15:00​. Nietzsche, GE Moore and consequentialism 17:50​. How far can we go with Nietzsche? 19:50​. Nietzsche and Metaphysics
@MatheusBenites-Philosophy
@MatheusBenites-Philosophy 4 ай бұрын
Visit Dr. Steven Hales's Website: stevenhales.org
@spikerdark
@spikerdark 4 ай бұрын
@ribeiro7466
@ribeiro7466 5 ай бұрын
Bravo 🎉🎉🎉
@kllecyhannah6608
@kllecyhannah6608 5 ай бұрын
Thanks for your lecture.
@gustavo.xavier
@gustavo.xavier 5 ай бұрын
Excelentes reflexões.
@tomandotomas.
@tomandotomas. 5 ай бұрын
My essence is so grateful for this class!
@andreoliveira585
@andreoliveira585 5 ай бұрын
Great!
@rodrigoarantes2651
@rodrigoarantes2651 5 ай бұрын
Congrats, man!🙌🏻✌🏻
@MariaClara-jh8sg
@MariaClara-jh8sg 5 ай бұрын
Muito FODAAAA
@cleodbelo1034
@cleodbelo1034 5 ай бұрын
Ótimo !