![Absolute Philosophy](/img/default-banner.jpg)
- Видео 63
- Просмотров 245 107
Absolute Philosophy
Великобритания
Добавлен 16 май 2021
I am a graduate of Cambridge University with a PhD in Philosophy. My thesis was on the nature of truth (soon to be a book with an academic publisher), and I specialise in metaphysics, logic, and the history of analytic philosophy. I believe philosophy should be made accessible to the curious and philosophers have a duty to reenter the public debate on the questions of importance to our age. This channel is my attempt to do that!
To take the ideas I explore on this channel to the next level with in-depth videos and more academic content, please become a member. Most of the videos I produce are exclusive to members. There are also options here to get in touch with me and do philosophy together. Also, with your support I will be able to spend more time reading, thinking, writing, and shooting video content for all you good people! But I need to keep my family fed too, so your membership is GREATLY appreciated.
It's a simple equation: more members = more videos. Thanks!
To take the ideas I explore on this channel to the next level with in-depth videos and more academic content, please become a member. Most of the videos I produce are exclusive to members. There are also options here to get in touch with me and do philosophy together. Also, with your support I will be able to spend more time reading, thinking, writing, and shooting video content for all you good people! But I need to keep my family fed too, so your membership is GREATLY appreciated.
It's a simple equation: more members = more videos. Thanks!
Why philosophy is our future - Prof James Tartaglia
In this episode I speak to James Tartaglia, who is professor of metaphysical philosophy at Keele University, and the author of several books aimed at general audiences. His books include Philosophy in a Meaningless Life, Gods and Titans, and his most recent book, which is what we will centre our discussion around called Inner Space Philosophy. These are all available on Amazon here: www.amazon.com/stores/James-Tartaglia/author/B001HD4046.
In this episode we discuss how philosophy could be presented, the importance of philosophy to culture, whether everyday life is real, the nature and consequences of materialism. In the extended version (only available to members) we continue to discuss ni...
In this episode we discuss how philosophy could be presented, the importance of philosophy to culture, whether everyday life is real, the nature and consequences of materialism. In the extended version (only available to members) we continue to discuss ni...
Просмотров: 1 262
Видео
The Logical Argument for Fate
Просмотров 1,4 тыс.Месяц назад
Do the laws of classical logic lead to fate and the rejection of free will? This is the question I explore in this video, by presenting an ancient argument for fate by Aristotle that has puzzled philosophers ever since. I then explain my own reply to the argument. #fate #freewill #logic Video Contents 0:00 - Philosophical fatalism 0:34 - The argument for fate 1:23 - A correspondence notion of t...
You HAVE Free Will (Alex O'Connor Critiqued)
Просмотров 23 тыс.Месяц назад
Here I argue we have free will by presenting my own, event-causal libertarian theory of free will, and by critiquing the argument used by Alex O'Connor and others to say we don't have it. To make my case I must discuss related topics like causation, natural laws, determinism and how to analyse 'could have done otherwise' claims. #freewill #alexoconnor #cosmicskeptic For more ways to connect wit...
20 BRUTAL INSULTS by philosophers
Просмотров 2,8 тыс.3 месяца назад
Philosophers are known to dish out cutting insults to each other. Here is a collection of twenty of the most brutal, along with some inteeresting background to them. For booking philosophy sessions with me please email: drnathanhawkins _AT_ gmail _dot_ com (calendar system coming). To become a member please hit 'join' (much appreciated). #philosophy #insult Video Contents 00:00 - Introduction 0...
The Case for Idealism: Truth, Facts, and Existence
Просмотров 8 тыс.5 месяцев назад
By considering the nature of truth, I argue for idealism via the claim that facts are in the mind, and that all that exists, exists in thought. For booking philosophy sessions with me please email: drnathanhawkins _AT_ gmail _dot_ com (calendar system coming). To become a member please hit 'join' (much appreciated). Video on Frege's sense and reference distinction: ruclips.net/video/Moo18_vbYIA...
Bernardo Kastrup's Analytic Idealism CRITIQUED
Просмотров 23 тыс.7 месяцев назад
This video explains the two mistakes I believe Bernado Kastrup makes when defending his version of idealism: Analytic Idealism. Link to video about indirect realism: ruclips.net/video/ZF1sBHxa2Qc/видео.htmlsi=US2k9mNblOl_LFs7 #Kastrup #idealism #critique Video Contents 00:00 - Introduction 00:38 - Disclaimer 01:08 - Issue 1: Kastrup's method of argument 01:49 - The entropy argument 10:06 - The ...
FREGE: Interview with Prof. Michael Potter (2/3)
Просмотров 2,8 тыс.11 месяцев назад
Over three sessions I interview Michael Potter, Cambridge Professor and Frege expert, all about Frege. In this second session we cover his second book "Foundations of Arithmetic" [German: _die grundlagen der arithmetik_ ]. This book discusses logic and arithmetic in a philosophical rather than technical way. it is one of the most accessible and influential works on the philosophy of mathematics...
FREGE: Interview with Prof. Michael Potter (1/3)
Просмотров 4,1 тыс.11 месяцев назад
Over three sessions I interview Michael Potter, Cambridge Professor and Frege expert, all about Frege. In this first session we cover a brief biography, some background on Frege's overall project, such as his anti-psychologism, and then go in-depth on his first published book, _Begriffsschrift_ (or Conceptual Notation), and some of the key ideas in that work, such as scope and quantification an...
F.H. BRADLEY: Interview with Prof. Jean-Paul Rosaye
Просмотров 2 тыс.Год назад
I interview Jean-Paul Rosaye, professor of of British studies and the history of ideas at Universite d’Artois. Rosaye is an expert on British Idealism and has translated Bradley's Appearance and Reality into French (link to his translation below). NOTE: This is an edited version of our discussion. A full version (over 2 hours long) is available to members. In our discussion, Rosaye focuses on t...
FRANK RAMSEY: Interview with Prof. Michael Potter
Просмотров 3,8 тыс.Год назад
I interview Michael Potter, Cambridge Professor and early analytic philosophy expert, about Frank Ramsey's famous paper: Universals. In this paper Ramsey argues there is no logical distinction between objects and universals (or properties), and that this means there is no metaphysical distinction between them either. We discuss the paper's background: logical atomism, Wittgenstein's Tractarian ...
The world isn't real because of this...
Просмотров 6 тыс.Год назад
Since the ancient Greeks began considering illusions there has been a desire to establish what reality is like and how we can know. These days it is implicitly assumed physics provides us with clear and direct knowledge about the nature of reality. Philosophically, this idea often relies on the concept called the primary/secondary quality distinction put forward by the philosopher John Locke in...
Russell's Ramified Theory of Types | Frank Ramsey lecture 1 of 4
Просмотров 1,1 тыс.Год назад
Russell's paradox shook the logicist project to its core. But Russell attempts to solve it, and all paradoxes, by isolating what united these paradoxes and formulating a theory that will make them meaningless. This theory is his ramified theory of types, and it was in response to this attempted solution that Frank Ramsey wrote one of his most significant papers. This is the first part of a four...
R.G. COLLINGWOOD: Interview with Dr. Maarten Steenhagen
Просмотров 2,8 тыс.Год назад
I interview Maarten Steenhagen, a researcher at Uppsala University, all about R. G. Collingwood. We discuss his argument that realist and analytic philosophy will eventually result in fascism along with many other area of his philosophy, such as his metaphysics, logic, and critique of method. This is a long-form uncut interview. NOTE: Apologies for the distortion on my mic (at times). I'll redu...
David Hume: On Miracles (Explained and Critiqued)
Просмотров 3,5 тыс.Год назад
David Hume's argument against miracles is one of his most famous. The claim is that anyone who believes a miracle has occurred is being irrational. This argument has provoked debate amongst philosopher's regarding both how it should be interpreted, and whether he is right. This video explores this famous argument at the level of a first year undergraduate course in philosophy. It should be help...
WITTGENSTEIN on LANGUAGE GAMES (interview clip)
Просмотров 4,4 тыс.Год назад
This is a clip from an interview with Michael Potter, Cambridge Professor and Wittgenstein expert, where we discuss Wittgenstein's notion of a language game. A link to the full interview is here: ruclips.net/video/-4O4hUwcpDw/видео.html. Michael Potter's books are available here: www.amazon.com/s?k=michael po... #Wittgenstein #languagegames #Interview Channel Details This channel features video...
WITTGENSTEIN on RELIGION (interview clip)
Просмотров 3,4 тыс.Год назад
WITTGENSTEIN on RELIGION (interview clip)
WITTGENSTEIN: Interview with Prof. Michael Potter
Просмотров 27 тыс.Год назад
WITTGENSTEIN: Interview with Prof. Michael Potter
Is Metaphysics Pointless? Discussion | F.H. Bradley's "Appearance and Reality" Introduction
Просмотров 2,5 тыс.2 года назад
Is Metaphysics Pointless? Discussion | F.H. Bradley's "Appearance and Reality" Introduction
Introduction. Appearance and Reality by F.H. Bradley (READ)
Просмотров 3,2 тыс.2 года назад
Introduction. Appearance and Reality by F.H. Bradley (READ)
Bertrand Russell: On Denoting Explained
Просмотров 27 тыс.2 года назад
Bertrand Russell: On Denoting Explained
Gottlob Frege: Sense and Reference Explained
Просмотров 33 тыс.2 года назад
Gottlob Frege: Sense and Reference Explained
Idealism vs Materialism vs Dualism (and others)
Просмотров 18 тыс.2 года назад
Idealism vs Materialism vs Dualism (and others)
Prove special relativity to be incorrect and I'll believe in free will. Prove general relativity to be incorrect and I'll believe in free will. Prove quantum mechanics to be wrong and I'll believe in free will...
Alt Right Literally Exists Due to there Karma of Removing there Free Will Due to Exploiting.
This video really opened my mind. I used to think that freewill was impossible, and I couldn't make sense of it. I'm still not entirely convinced that it exists but I feel these arguments deepened my understanding of what it means to have freewill
16:14 here's another way of framing that exact same argument. You wanted to go to Spain, and you wanted to go to Italy, but your want to go to one outweighs your want to go to the other. I think it covers all of the same bases but in a more simple format
12:43 No, the reason someone might be enlisting it into the army to fight in a war, is an example of them being forced, either by cultural or social norms among many other situational factors, I don't think this makes the point well for you
Or, even better if we're talking about somebody who is serving in the army to fight a war they think is justified, maybe their want of being a good citizen outweighs their dislike of war. On the flip side, there is also definitely being forced to serve in war, which is something like a draft, I don't think you've so much disproved Alex's point about they're only being wants and being forced, I think you've just numerated as the ways Of wanting something or being forced to do something.
10:00 I think it's funny how at this point in the video you've said that you don't think O'Connor's argument stands up because you've proven that free will exist under the constraints of your wants... So I don't think it's making the point you think it is, because your wants are still contraining that free will idea
You have a strong desire to believe in free will at all cost, no one's going to blame you for it, as you did not choose what you desire. Your fear of unknown chose it for you.
Literally all his alguments can still easily be explained using Alex's simple premises
By now its just arguing over semantics
Wanting to chess is a want, choosing moves to facilitate that are based on said want and picking a move between options is based on intuition which feels better and this is also a want.
You are free to be who you are and nothing else. Answers all sides and not reliant on definition. To expand, we hold you accountable for your actions because it helps you do better which matters more than moral responsibility after an action.
this is alex taking existing information and reframing it in a way that fits his view. “if you do something it’s because you wanted to” no, take the gym example - you can want to go the gym more than you want to stay at home but can’t bring yourself to do it - which *almost* is an argument for there not being free will; because you can’t bring yourself to do what you want - but if the “want” is the arbiter of what is and isn’t free will - then there would be no way to fight yourself from going to the gym; it’s not always want vs not-want that influences your decisions. sometimes it’s ability - and there is an inherent aspect of volition that exists that you need to activate when you “want” something long term that conflicts with your wants in the short term. that’s the clearest example to me of where free and will and volition come into play and it really can’t be articulated but we all experience it. Like breathing, it happens without you; but you can WILL your lungs on command; and then leave them back to themselves, then take the wheel/will again. ya dig
I would question premise 3 as well - whether you control your wants.. Even if you don't question your wants at the time of taking an option your wants could be questioned. Take an example - the "decision" at a point in time want to save money. You want to save money - where did this want come from? Your want to want to save money probably comes from your experiences and learnings in earlier life. For example perhaps you were broke at some stage, didn't like the experience and swore (i.e. you wanted) to never be in that position again. So saving money becomes part of what you do - it is the reason behind your want to save money. When you have an opportunity to save money or splash out you usually save - because that is your previous experience. Could you do otherwise? Absolutely. You could take the opportunity to completely re-evaluate you life choices for the current particular opportunity to save. That you don't is a convenience. To re-evaluate you life choices even on a single matter (let alone multiple options confronted daily) is not or should not be a quick decision. So for your flow of life you simply do what you previously decided. But it does not mean that you could not have questioned your want to save money and decided then and there not to. And anyway even if you don't question your wants at the time of the recent choice you still controlled what you wanted at the earlier time. The decision to want for what you want was just displaced in time. Supporters of determinism would still say that both decisions were determined - your initial decision to adopt saving as an approach and the current particular savings decision. They say this because they don't believe there is a Self to make a decision so they are left with either cause and effect or randomness (and this choice is clearly not random) as to why the option was taken. My opinion is that it is most likely that there is a Self that has free will though this can't be proven. Neither can the determinist position.
The argument is without merit. There currently is no way to demonstrate a universal metaphysical principle with local argument (even based on [necessarily local] empiricism. All one can reasonably do is attack the arguments; not the metaphysics.
You couldnt have chosen to go to Spain, if Spain never became a country.
If you are not the source of the action, it's implicit that you couldn't have acted differently. Or if you could, that would require something outside your control, so that would obviously not be free will. Your alternative motivations are weak. You do your duty, get convinced of religious beliefs and have moral values because you are either forced to or want to. You have to explain why that is not so if you disagree.
Both the reasons and the "choice" is determined by your knowledge, passion, background and such. You don't like wine just because. You like it because you have a palate for it, you like the buzz etc, all of which you do not control. It seems like you are saying that free will is in non-rational decisions. Aren't non-rational decisions by definition outside your control?
Nice video! i also like how you presented your ideas wish a debate would happen between you two :)❤
Thanks! Maybe it will 😊
Joining the army due to feeling like it's your duty would come under being forced. You have been conditioned over years of your life to feel that you had to do it. That's not free will
Hard determinists' goal is to do away with morality, personal responsibility for one's actions, good or bad, praise for achievement and no accountability for failure. If this ever came to pass, it would be total anarchy on a global scale.
Responsibility comess from practical reasons, we do not need free will for that. We do not want to be robbed etc, so it is useful to punish such behavior to create incentives not to do it out of fear or social pressure plus allows us to isolate dangerous individuals and hopefully change them to reintegrate in our society as more productive individuals. We do not need to think "they deserve punishment" for that.
You ARE your brain. There is no "ghost" in there, making choices for you. If you are driving at 65 mph and have to suddenly swerve or brake to avoid an accident, you are consciously making these choices. If it's something trivial like which sock to put on first, where you're not even thinking about it, then your subconscious may make that choice a few milliseconds before you're aware of it. But not for important decisions or choices or actions.
Very well put! Also, during their Convo, Jones (IP) put it to O'Connor along your very same conclusive lines: if you attest that something is actually the opposite of how I naturally, subjectively perceive it, then you have to present a very strong proof to set it as truth. If my subjectively experienced perception is that the sun moves in the sky while the earth stands still, you got to bring convincing and undeniable proofs in order to convince me that what I experience is a mere illusion. Idem with Liberum Arbitrium. And also: I think that the latin serves better the understanding. In fact, Arbitrium means "that pertains to an arbiter"; an Arbiter (can be translated as judge, referee...a decision-maker of some sort) acts inside a given set of possibilities, be it the Law, the rules of the game, the present contingencies. In my experience, often the objection is that "if Will is not absolutely free, than it's not free at all"...but the arbiter moves inside a set of possible choices, hence "Arbitrium" already circumscribes the need for plausibility and physical feasibility of the array of choices I'm given, more than the term "will" (voluntas, in latin) does. Just a tought, do what you like with it, trash it if it's useless. 👍
Best Frege content on RUclips?
Honestly, while I respect him as a philosopher and as someone who is contributing to the philosophical debate, I cannot help but feel that this video is just weak. If I as a total lay person in philosophy, can easily dissect and disprove every single one of your arguments without having to put too much work in, then you should be doing better
You’re not reducing enough when it comes to breaking down the mental experience of choosing. Why did u prefer beaches and architecture over wind? Perhaps it’s amusing? why do you think its amusing? Now it becomes absurd. Like nietzche once point out that we do not really will our thought into existence but rather just appear.
The problem with your idea of the choice of reasons being an act of pure will is that that choice itself is also a decision made by prior reasons, which themselves are made based on prior reasons which ultimately end in a causal chain back to factors you don’t control, like your genetics and upbringing, so this idea fails to prove free will exists
Bingo. Any choice is just an action determined by a complex set of reasons & motivations. It's impossible to be aware of all those gazzilion reasons and proces them consciously, hence the illusion of having free will.
@@kennydolby1379 perfect
Neh, you dont have free will. People usually come up with a definition that perfectly copes with how illusionary the concept of free will even is. I remember at some point, some dude said that the fact that he thinks that he has free will, is perfectly enough to consider him having free will. So naturally I asked him if thinks he's a genius...
47:22 the graphic here makes no sense as an argument for free will. granted you could have done otherwise given an alternative world, but that otherwise is one specific alternative outcome associated with the alternative world. this seems to essentially be 'if you like vanilla ice cream, you will get vanilla, but in an alternate world where you like chocolate, you'll get chocolate', which is really stretching the definition of free will imo
I can’t help but comment on how dumb the free will debate is. It’s impossible to prove anything other than reality (done different argument) and it’s impossible to pinpoint where the “self” is (source argument). This is the reality: some of the choices we make are conscious and others are not. Any discussion beyond this is basically nonsense and wasteful Let’s put this debate to rest, stop feeding the trolls, and discuss more interesting things like the preservation of our ecosystem or the advancement of technology 😂 🤦
Do you have the free will to change your position and be convinced of Alex's?
Why does it matter whether or not the state of the universe could be sufficiently described with language?
Because the (supposedly) deterministic laws are described in language, so they need to operate on linguistic descriptions of world states. That's why van Inwagen couches the argument in logical terms, where propositions about world states follow logically from propositions of other world states combined with the laws.
I wanted to agree with what was said in the video but it was impossible because I don't have free will
You need more reach! The first part of your critique reminds me of the „philosophy of freedom“ by Rudolf Steiner - more of an esoterist than a philosopher but the argument is similar: according to him we have three soul qualities: thinking, feeling and willing. And only in thinking we are truly free. But through thinking we can influence the other two aspects.
The tripartite view of the soul mentioned here echoes a tradition in philosophy I'm very sympathetic with. Except, if we take our souls to be mirrors or microcosms of reality itself (as idealists like me ought to) then I prefer to emphasise the objective correlates of those soul qualities: the True, the Good, and the Beautiful. The True being the objective of thinking, The Good being the objective of willing (or acting), and The Beautiful being the objective of feeling.
Does a chess playing computer executing a program have free will? The decision of the computer obviously has a rational explanation. Once the program is loaded and runs, all of the decision making is located within the computer. Was the decision made within the computer? Yes. If the compter program includes monitoring the environment, or perhaps a Monte Carlo simulation to model the effects of a given choice (in this case, the exthernal input can be a series of random numbers, which could be provided by monitoring Brownian noise in another electronic component of the computer). it could have done otherwise. It is obvious to me that it does not have free will. But how is this different than the chess player that does have free will? It seems to me that the only difference is that we don't have a clear understanding as to how the wetware Baysean inference engine between our ears work. We can even use proper functional programming, so that every decision by the program is determined by the inputs to the program, so that the program is analogous to the laws of physics. Now all the decisions are the result of functions of state and a random number generator, all of which are contained 'within the computer'.
Thanks for the comment. This is a good line of thinking, but I would say the answer is 'no'. What the computer does is not a 'decision' since it involves no rationality, which requires a mind. The rational explanation you allude to is one that _we_ provide and not one deliberated by the computer. Also, the notion of the decision being 'within' is not about the location of the decision, as it is in the computer case, but of 'proceeding from' the rationality of the human mind. And, finally, computers cannot value anything, and so, technically, I don't even think they can play chess. Sure, they can process information to result in a given set of board positions (ones we would call checkmating the opponent) under conditions of what pieces can legally move where, but they have no concept of 'winning', which is a value concept, and so cannot, strictly speaking, play chess (this is an argument made very well in a paper called _Truth_ by Michael Dummett).
Free will is an illusion and this has been proven scientifically with for example fMRI-scans.
Good luck with this channel! It’s an educational breath of fresh air, esp. compared with the ghoulish Alex O’Connor and whatever Ben Shapiro thinks he’s doing.
I think you missed his point.
Interesting. Was there a response indirectly or otherwise I wonder.
Hello. Do children have freewill, at what age do we get/ have freewill?
Yes, they do. They develop the notion around 4 to 6 years old. Look at the article I reference in the description for more info.
Kastrup wrote in his paper about postmortem survival that the large-scale structure of the universe mirrors a neural network. If this is true, i’m not sure why such a network wouldn’t be meta-conscious
Agreed.
Can't we just say: surely, the prophecy "You will drown." is either true or false, but we have no way of knowing (yet) what it is? Where's the problem? Even in math we have conjectures that are believed to be true, but there's no proof (yet). And it could nevertheless be useful, like in "If the Goldbach conjecture holds, then …"
Yes. The problem for free will only comes in when you think it's truth now somehow means you lack free will. But I argue it isn't true "now", it's just true. And its truth depends on the future. Since knowledge is temporally restricted, we lack knowledge of future events.
@@AbsolutePhilosophy Right. But just for completeness: there are also countless statements regarding the past where we will never know whether they're true or not. Ask any historian, but here is an example: "The evangelist Mark drowned."
The concept of free will is absurd.
Could you make a video about reference vs denotation. What do "refer" and "denote" mean as common words and what is their technical meaning. And perhaps explain which philosophers have meant which things when they used these words? As a non-native speaker it is hard to get a grip for the difference.
Or at least point to a source where the difference between denotation and reference is clearly explained with examples.
One last thing: I think in speech act theory, reference is something that involves intentional thought directed towards things but I think that outside of speech act theory "refer" means something different. What do you think of this attempt to spell out the distinction between "refer" and denote" in the context of Russell: Names (and as far as I know for Russell only proper names like "this") refer, that is, they pick out their meaning (the extension/Bedeutung/ the thing in our world) directly. An referring expression is like a harpoon or a spear. To use a denoting phrase is more akin to casting a net or a sieve: you set up conditions that reduce the amount of objects you want to talk about.
There's no strict meaning of these terms. It depends on who is using them. They generally both mean the objects or properties in reality that we indicate with our words.
I would like to throw my hat in the ring. Kastrup takes a large portion of his thinking on meta consciousness and phenomenal consciousness from Jung. In Jungs Answer to Job Jung observes that God is only phenomenally conscious but not Meta conscious, this is why God is unconscious because He is unable to reflect and understand His actions and state. This is also why He is unable to use his Omnipotence, as he is not self reflective and thus not conscious. We developed meta cognition due to us being mortal, and thus needing it to grow and evolve, whereas God does not because he is perfect and complete. This I think is his view on this particular point. We are a dissociation of God that developed meta cognition due to our inherent smallness and mortality. We are, in a sense, bringing God to metacognition through us by existing and allowing God to incarnate in us. This is mainly taken from Jung and Kastrups book on Jung, so I am be wrong. But yeah, hope to hear from the creator!
Interesting. Perhaps he is taking this position following Jung. I know little about Jung's metaphysics. And maybe he has other theological motives for following Jung too (besides those I hinted at in this video). But the issues I raise remain. They come from the tension between the denial of metacognition to universal mind alongside the claim we are dissociated alters of that mind. If this is also akin to Jung's position, it is a problem for Jung too. And appeals to evolution won't cut it philosophically.
@@AbsolutePhilosophy Thank you for the response! There really isn't a way to save it, unless you institute what you suggested. It needs to be noted this would even fit with the Jungian findings, as well as with logic if you do take it all the way. Thank you for the great video and I appreciate the response once again!
I have a degree in philosophy and have been revisiting and deepening my understanding of math, logic, and the more analytical side of the discipline. I've watched many videos on Russell's Theory of Descriptions and have read his essay "On Denoting" multiple times. However, I always felt like I never fully grasped it-until now. This is, without a doubt, the best video on the subject I have found after years of searching. If anyone ever asks me where to go to fully understand it, I will send them here. Keep making these great philosophy videos!
Thanks for the high praise!
If you want your heart to keep beating and it stops, then can you freely will it to begin beating again?
quote alex- you will either do something if you want to or are forced to, Jesus said- can this cup be lifted from me, (Jesus,s will / want) none the less let your will be done, Jesus chose Gods will , He didnt want it and wasnt forced to do it. He chose Gods will, I dont want to do the dishes (my moms will) im not forced to do them, I choose to do them.
34:00 You recognize that in order for could have to make any sense you need to hold certain facts fixed and others variable, and which ones you hold fixed depend on the _relevance_ to a problem situation. In other words, it's entirely subjective. Objectively speaking, you could NOT have done otherwise. 46:40 Once you understand the argument, it's a no shit sherlock indeed. Precisely nothing could have been otherwise. This is determinism. Nothing more. If you call this trivial, it makes determinism trivially true! I guarantee you this is all alex means with determinism. I don't know what else you expected determinism to mean but yeah whatever you imagined it to be is probably contradictory. All counterfactual reasoning is a (very) useful fiction. Does that mean free will doesn't exist? Not in the same way as I used to believe it does. We can still make decisions and choices. As humans we tend to see useful fictions as objective realities. Understanding determinism is simply recognizing this isn't the case. 55:50 Whether you buy a sword indeed depends on your decision. However, your decision depends on your beliefs and preferences of the concequences. Like you say, precisely because the future is somewhat predictable, you can have _reasons_ to make decisions. Which I would interpret as those reasons having caused your decision.
I saw this in the comments also "I feel most of your criticisms might be misunderstandings. ", This is the great problem we have in our life