Видео

That monkey experiment totally neglected establishing a "secure attachment" between primary carer and the child- off course positive (Self-regulatory) Behaviourism isn't going to work in this experiment, as you have highly neurotic monkeys mal-developing. When I say Behaviourism, I really mean either robust schemas or fragile schemas internally developing, depending on the quality of nurture/mal nurture (nurture continuum) that the child receives, over Time.

Imma like! More thoughtful philosophy channels that are not simply relying on flashy aesthetics while avoiding nuance to push a particular view that will attract the most likes are welcome imo. And to add to the discussion: I think it's worth stressing that moralism is strictly about what is good and evil. Things can be good/bad, or right/wrong in an amoral sense. For instance, the words "bad" or "wrong" may be used in the context of a soccer game in the case of an offence resulting in a penalty, but it wouldn't be in a moral sense. This would also apply to most cultural norms. Another thing I think people get mixed up is the difference between post-metaphysics/amoralism, and relativism. An amoralist recognizing ethics as an ideological and historical construct, is not a moral relativist. Moral relativists still believe there is good and evil; they're still moralists. Thinkers who reject morality don't think that good and evil is relative; they reject the notion of good/evil to begin with.

like learn more

If a person were truly non-attached, the various conditions you mentioned, would not trouble said person.

Audio is way too quiet

Skinner strikes me as tragicomic and I never understood why he was taken seriously.

If this critical review of behaviorism was submitted as an essay in my PSY 101 undergraduate course, I would give it a D minus. I applaud your efforts, and I think you need to do more research before displaying a treatise.

well explained

Bibliografia de apoio Roberto!..... please

Well I dunno for certain, but I think there is an objective morality of sorts, that is to say a set of conditions best able to achieve the maximum welfare of our species in balance with the survival of the environment as a whole. However we can never achieve or even understand what this is because we are clouded by our own relative situation.

8:30 I feel like this is a poor example because most American's wouldn't eat Guinea pig because Guinea pigs are generally pets, so thus eating them makes people uncomofrtable, but that doesn't mean they morally oppose it. A more potent example is the consumption of cat and dog meat, which I don't see an issue with even if I wouldn't do it myself (Assuming the animals were raised in an ethical manner), and generally this is a standard sentiment in American culture.

Great video!

Necessity is the mother of invention. In the same way, suffering is the mother of adaptation. What doesn't kill you makes you stronger. If God exists, if he is all powerful and could have created perfect beings in a perfect world, why didn't he? Because what is perfect is unique. Creating a perfect being would mean making an exact copy of God. God did not create a perfect world because humans have free will, the only way to live with free will and still have purpose is to live in an imperfect world. This is basically "the eutopia mouse experiment" The world you live in dictates your behavior. Your behavior dictates the world you live in.

The real problem is perception. That definition of evil as a problem is the problem. Instead of viewing those types of natural sufferings as evil we should view them as solutions. An earthquake causes suffering and death until we learn to understand it and prepare for it. All those natural and deadly phenomenon can be understood and overcome. This gain in knowledge changes humanity and raises our perceptions as individuals and as a collective. It can be perceived as God teaching his children to grow into "adulthood" however a god perceives "adulthood". This way of thinking would use our suffering as proof that god does exist. The goal of a parent isn't to baby their children forever, the goal of a parent is to teach and help their children learn to be strong, overcome all suffering and become a better person because of that suffering.

Video barely started, there's absolutely nothing wrong with the video. I just can't understand how anyone can think natural suffering is "evil". Absolutely everything i can think of as "good" or beautiful comes from or has evolved from a place of natural suffering.

21st subscriber! nazieh was here

Amazing breakdown. You clarified and explained perfectly and understandably the concept, thank you so much. Given that we are things in themselves, other people's perspectives will never have any effect in our own free will as objects and things in themselves that we are. Amazing.

Awesome video

OH DIOS, ACABAS DE MARTILLAR EL CLAVO QUE ME HACIA FALTA

No se como llegue aqui pero acepto

:)