Видео

They’ve got to be out there!

Are you referring to their criticism of trying to define good without a unifying narrative?

That’s quite alright! But you care to comment about it?

You seem to care

That may the be the case :) but the experience of thinking is still an interesting mystery, do you think original thoughts are the remnants of God’s design?

And that god is supposedly omniscient and can perfectly predict the future even if he doesn't interfere with people's actions.

This criticism is valid for a total omniscient god, but a lot of theists argue for a maximum possible god, and that can negate what is impossible such as free will and omniscience.

the old "can god make a boob so big that even he cannot lift it"@@nineteenninetyfive

The "can god make a rock so big even he cannot lift it" argument is frankly incredibly weak. You have to pick a lane. Choose your definition of omnipotence: A) Omnipotence is bound only by what is logically possible - You can't object when god cannot lift the rock because you defined the power as being only that which is logically possible. B) Omnipotence is unbound by logic and is capable of all things, even the impossible - You can't complain on the basis of logic when you unconstrained the power by definition. As to MLaak's point - An unbound omnipotent God can do whatever the hell he/she/it wants by definition. Even worse than that for you, is the fact that within our own universe things that seem logically obvious are actually logically tenuous in certain contexts. For example - the law of identity has an identity crisis in the quantum realm. If something so fundamental to our logic is tripped up so readily by things just outside our typical human perception and understanding then it is absurd to think that some omnipotent being existing potentially outside of our universe might not be even less beholden to such rules. An analogy might be set theory from mathematics. You are attempting to apply an operation which has closure over the set of things within the understanding of human experience to the set of all things that can exist. But you have yet to prove that such logic has closure over the set of all things that can exist.

It was a joke man, lighten up francis. I don't have to pick a side. @@sqrlmonger

@@sqrlmonger I don't think we can talk too confidently about the quantum realm. There is obviously so much we don't understand.

It's an open question based on questions of highly complex philosophical debate about the nature of existence, particularly in relation to time, and I'd argue has to involve how brains actually function (ie how 'hardwired' do they become based on lived experiences as well as innate tendancies?).

I more or less agree with everything here. Ben's argument really seems to stem from an argument from incredulity that because he feels he has free will, he just can't accept arguments that we don't. He's really back-filling an argument for something he thinks is self-evident, or just a brute fact. At the core of it, I think our brains are just chemical machines that behave in predictable ways. If we had computers sufficiently powerful and enough information about how the brain works and the location of atoms and electrons we could probably be able to predict what I am and am going to think, the decisions I'll make, or anything else. But even though, at that level, I feel like things are determined, that doesn't mean I'm going to just passively take the world around me as Ben suggests. It turns out that the machine in my brain is structured to keep me moving on, even with that idea.

Sometimes you just gotta own it 🙌

That’s how it goes!

These are the comments I post for! I shared a reduced explanation of postmodernist principles and as a result, the above individuals' thoughts seem conflated. While they definitely vary across landscape (political and philosophical), the point was that even if it's not made explicit, moral relativism is expressed as a consequence when grounding Truth in subjective means and recursive language. Furthermore, thank you for the resource! Looking forward to learning more :)

I’m sure you’re incredibly bright

This is quite a brilliant exhibit of the human relation to the unknown; I would add that the reaction to authority is not necessarily based on an unproven foundation, but rather the claim that rationalism (The Enlightenment) is incapable of obtaining Truth, no matter how sophisticated - this leaves us with the mystery you’ve alluded to and definitely one we must continue to endorse through philosophical inquiry, writing and speaking alike. Thank you for your words!

Much appreciated!

Very true 😂 we have to see it as simply more than a political statement

I think part of it is lack of contact with the literature, but part of it is also accounting for the infohazardousness rather than wrongness of an ideology and not expressing that well. To give an analogy, Peterson often speaks against hedonism and when he does, he brings up things like delaying gratification and avoiding hedonic treadmills. But hedonism *as an ideology* is actually entirely compatible with those two things, as they do, by definition, increase total pleasure. It's just that hedonism as an ideology tends to disproportionately appeal to people who *do* lack discipline and have addictive personalities to begin with, and work as an excuse that makes it get worse . Similarly, he sees the people around him who call themselves postmodernists, and the bad traits they have that are shared with each other he attributes to the ideology (not necessarily because the ideology may prescribe them, but because it nurtures them). Now, there is a counterargument to my prediction, but it's a counterargument to your prediction too: Peterson, including in this very Harris interview, pinpoints postmodernist *writers* by name and blames them for such and such. This shows that he's not necessarily prioritizing the ideological consequences over the ideological skeleton, but it also shows that he's, um, read shit :).

It was a stellar conversation indeed. I've been sure to transmute that anxiety into creativity. I can see a potential collaboration where we dissect the nuances of behavior to current thought movements from differing demographic perspectives. If you'd like, your team can reach out at a3boschi@gmail.com. Sharing positivity and looking forward to it!

☀️❤️

Love this, as if it’s just a goal without action, it further evades us

@@anthonyboschi Now that you mention it I think love is similar. Not a "being in" but a showing by doing. (Just this Human Doing's opinion.)

Indeed! It is in the doing that is our greatest teacher, and in the remaining present that allows us to integrate it

Your explanations are deeply admired and appreciated, I would agree and echo the merit in what you said. However, it seems there’s a missing piece here, that there is actually a distinction between religious acts (that many of us engage in whether we are aware of them or not) and organized religion. The claim is not to “prove” God or some ontological argument through science, but instead that science serves its yearning to study Truth, which again is religious in nature, similar to when we: hope, display virtue, behave in accordance with our values & principles, etc. because we recognize there is more unknown than known. Again, grateful for your expressions :)

Your statements are difficult to be answered, because I think I already answered them in the first place. But let's entertain some of your ideas. Why would you need a God or any form of religious acts or beliefs, if you want to find truth. Truth is a complicated term. Define it please. I can define a 'true statement' with: A phrase or a work of description that can be proven to be equivalent to reality by independent people with various methods, entertaining the possibility of multiple explanations, trying to disprove everything until you can't deny the fact that is left over. - Every religious statement is based on something that can be disproven in any way. And then the arguments are starting, about definitions of words. I don't say, people should stop being religious. I don't say, it is wrong to be religious. My point is, that reality doesn't care about what God you prefer or what spirits you believe in or any other religious belief you have. Because religion takes not place in the overwhelming reality of everything. Religion takes place in your personal reality. In the way you see the world. And because of your beliefs you'd tend to get as many other people as possible to belief the same as you. Because that way you can tell each other, that you are right in your statements. That is not quite a way to find out about the truths that lie in reality. You had another point, that i hope to not forget. I have to get ready for work now. Later

Solid framework. I agree with most of this and would add that Truth is actually synonymous with a universal order that exists outside of the individual. And therein lies the distinction; you’re conflating religion and the way someone personally sees this world, which is true in some cases (which I agree with you) and not in others Being that Truth exists outside of oneself, Truth can be seen as religious (not through organized religion, we need to separate these) in the same way that Money, Romance, Excellence can be viewed as “religious” in nature This implies that the religious (not religion) is inescapable (as per the initial video), not that it has to be agreed with but if you care about exploring, I urge you to consider that the abstract conceptions you act upon are religious, but don’t have to involve religion As a conclusion, Jordan mentioned that we define this as God (to whatever capacity you’d like), and is tied to these abstractions because they exist outside of our personal views, not within them

That's deeply appreciated! I would say to just keep on reading, it really does wonders :) Further, Nietzsche's work contains an abundance of aphorisms while Kierkegaard's is quite poetic - both keep the mind on its feet

No, this is a misunderstanding and I should have been clearer. The claim is that religious behaviour and organized religion are two different entities so you do not have to be affiliated with a particular religion to believe in Truth, but the act of faith that Truth exists is a religious act and one that science holds as a principle

And yes, Nietzsche’s quote refers to the demise of God and religion among European societies which led to the removal of hope and belief structures that had previously unified communities, whether or not they were the most effective way is up for debate

Quality comedy for sure needs to be tasteful to be effective