Видео

Glad you enjoyed it!

I’m still trying to figure it out myself!

Glad you enjoy it!

Thank you! Glad you enjoyed it❤️

The three concepts, RELIGION, METAPHYSICS, and LAW (“yogaḥ”, “tatva-mīmāṁsā/parabhautikī”, and “dharma”, in Sanskrit, respectively) are often confused and/or conflated by the typical religionist, and even more so by those who are critical of religion. For example, many detractors of Judaism and Christianity, condemn the metaphysical system contained within the first chapter of the Judeo-Christian scriptures, for being utterly inaccurate, and consequently, claim that the entire body of their doctrines must necessarily be counterfactual to confirmed scientific knowledge. However, apart from the inclination of those detractors for confusing the metaphysical claims with the religious precepts, this is a simple case of a “non-sequitur” fallacy. It is eminently possible that the metaphysics of “Genesis” is factually incorrect, but that does not mean that worshipping and serving a World Teacher or a prophet, like Lord Jesus Christ, is automatically “wrong”. In actual fact, devotion to a Divine Incarnation, such as Lord Jesus, is an extraordinarily-beneficial thing, because it leads to the true peace and happiness that we are all seeking! Likewise, yoga and dharma are often confused and conflated with each other, so it is recommended that one carefully study the entirety of this Holiest of All Holy Books (the only truly holy book, to be quite frank), in order to learn the actual distinction between these quite disparate notions. In brief, however, yoga/religion is the union of the individuated self with the Universal Self, whilst law/dharma/ethics/morality is the adherence to the only moral law, and that is, the avoidance of unjustifiable harm to any living organism, including to oneself, of course. In summary, METAPHYSICS is that field of study which aims to uncover the ultimate nature of physics itself, including naturalism/physicalism, any one of the varieties of Theism, Idealism, Monism, et cetera, and thus, has practically nothing to do with (actual) RELIGION, nor with the (moral) LAW. The fact that both religious and non-religious/irreligious individuals are known to condone dharmic (holy and righteous) ideologies, such as monarchical/patriarchal/hierarchical rule, anti (unjustified) abortion, and condemnation of perverse sexuality, is sufficient evidence of this. N.B. Here, “non-religious” and “irreligious” are used in the conventional sense of the terms, since, as demonstrated elsewhere in this treatise, a genuinely-religious person is one who adheres to dharma (the avoidance of non-justified-harm), and not necessarily a believer in any Deity.

“””””NiCe””””” WaLl Of TeXt “””””BrO”””””

Yea. And just imagine how creative the being must be that created such a creative god. Wow. Must be crazy

@@ahallabyThan it creates infinite regress?

This means that we should not take the contingency argument very casually.

@@MiladTabasy You're absolutely right. I was too derisive here, because I've spent my time with the argument and after a few years I'm less than impressed. But I kinda forgot that I spent years with it...

​@@vex1669Hey, I've been reading up a little on the contingency argument recently and I like the sound of it. Could you help me understand your qualms with it?

@@iwack In the world we can actually observe, it seems to be the case that either everything is contingent or everything is necessary, depending on your view. On the view that it could not have been any other way, the argument doesn't do anything. On the view that everything is contingent and therefore there has to be a necessary thing at the start, that's trying to argue about a point in time where even our current understanding of physics breaks down. I hate to be that guy, but sometimes "We don't (or even can't) know yet" is better than pretending to know what no one knows.

@@vex1669The problem with what you’re saying in my opinion is that you’re only accounting for a posteiori synthetic knowledge and discounting a priori analytic and a priori synthetic knowledge. We can know via reason alone that everything that exists has a reason for its existence (the PSR), we don’t need observation or empirical science for that and if one believes we do, they would fall into the Humean rabbit hole. The contingency argument is strong because the very endeavor of science itself is based on it, thus science itself is presupposed upon it. Its truthfulness thus supersedes any a posteriori knowledge, and reason itself is the necessary tool to see its legitimacy, not observation

I’m glad you enjoyed it!❤️

If your epistemology rejects intuition as a justification, you're not going to get very far. There's no independent reason to accept that fundamental truths of logic hold, or that your senses are reliable. You'd be an absolute pyrrhonist, without even reason to continue breathing for example.

@@CjqNslXUcM There are at least two ways the word "intuition" gets thrown around. One is as something that forms the groundwork for propositions, which is the type of intuition you're appealing to. For example, I need the pure intuitions of space and time to form concepts, as Kant argued. That means that any argument that attempts to refute the existence of space and time is self-undermining. Logic of some form-at least in the primitive form of labelling some things true and others false, and maybe leaving others unevaluated-is one of these types of intuitions. To describe something that doesn't implement any form of logical inference whatsoever is just to describe something that has no subjectivity whatsoever. The other kind of intuition that Joe is relying on is, in my opinion, not really an intuition at all, but just a vibe. It's like the feeling you had as a kid that when you were hungry, you ought to start crying, or later on, the intuition you still probably have that your steering wheel isn't moving when you're driving a car, even though it obviously is, just not relative to you. These are all propositions which rely on, but are not themselves _really_ intuitions. They're actually just unconsidered opinions. Again, can you think of anything more hostile to this form of intuition than quantum mechanics, or Darwinian evolution, or even Newtonian mechanics? Maybe they don't feel unintuitive to you, and that's the point-you were talked into them at an early age, so you believe them. I see absolutely no reason to place epistemic weight on this sort of intuition, and recognizing the difference is crucial.

​@@bracero7628 Space and time being intuitions of a mind in some completely unexplained aether for no particular reason, rather than being features of the world, seems a lot less plausible than metaphysical contingency. Few contemporary philosophers take transcendental idealism seriously. I think what you're saying is that the only intuitions that exist are those that are necessary basis of a foundationalist epistemology. That is untrue. For example, people have ethical intuitions. One can create completely consistent non-classical logics, meaning any refutation on their terms would be "self-undermining". This is not strictly a counter-argument, those could still be intuitions, but I wonder if you had considered this. One could also be a coherentist, in which case one would have no intuitions? Something that does not make logical inferences can still have subjectivity, babies and most animals for example. Many people consider some true scientific theories contrary to their intuition, however, once they learn them they realize that denying them goes against much stronger intuitions. I don't want to regurgitate the common defenses of intuition here, but epistemologically it's much is the same boat as observation and memory, i.e. mostly reliable. Huemer's Knowledge Reality and Value is a good intro to philosophy book that contains a section about ethical intuitionism.

​@@CjqNslXUcM I'm not a transcendental idealist, but that doesn't erase the distinction I'm drawing from Kant. There are "intuitions" which ground propositions, and intuitions which are propositions themselves. Those are two very different things, even though we use the same word for them. People who defend intuition as an epistemic tool tend to equivocate the two, in the way you're using the necessity of sensation to justify Joe's reliance on the propositional intuition that things are contingent because it just feels like they must be. I certainly did not say that only non-propositional intuitions exist. Again, I'm simply sharpening the distinction. You can't validate an ethical intuition by an appeal to something like the intuition of space, because propositions presuppose spatial intuition. They do not presuppose ethical intuitions, which are always propositional. I didn't say we have an intuition of classical logic, I said we have intuition of logic per se-we necessarily assign truth values, which in and of itself is perfectly compatible with non-classical logics. I'm saying that when my cat eats her dinner, she's making a very rudimentary logical inference that the thing she smells corresponds to the thing she sees, which corresponds to the thing she then puts in her mouth. Even if she were to smell her food and start trying to eat the rug, she would still be making a logical inference, it would just be false. If she smelled her food and didn't react at all, I guess she'd be a dialetheist. Regardless, inferences are being made which assign truth values, even if she can't do any metacognition about her inferences and form logical axioms from them. I would argue those stronger intuitions you're talking about are the non-propositional and immutable intuitions I'm talking about, and that's why treating them like different species of the same thing is kind of problematic.

Much appreciated!❤️

I think you might just fancy yourself too smart for philosophy buddy calm down, it's a conversation about metaphysics your comment is nonsense

@@FuzionOptics You make an ad hominem, that is an obvious strawman (I never said that I understand the insanely complex math did I). You give an opinion, without providing an explanation as to why you hold that opinion. When you do these things I think that justifies calling your reply "nonsense".

If you'd stuck around, he explored plenty of naturalistic options for the necessary "thing". So that's a weird criticism given that you didn't even bother finishing the video. And I don't think many philosophers would want to claim that math is the necessary thing on which reality depends - particularly given that most theories about mathemtically entities have them being causally inert.

@@anthonydesimone502 I never said many philosophers would claim math is the necessary thing, did I. Math is the language that explains the possible necessary thing. When you don't understand the language you are not in a position to make any meaningful comment on the plausibly or otherwise of any naturalistic explanation for our observable universe.

@downenout8705 I didn't say you said philosophers would claim that. You didn't even claim that. You complained that the idea was explored here. And given that there's almost no conception of mathematics, even under various types of mathematical realism, that asserts mathematical entities have causal powers, I don't know why tou would've expected it to have been coveres.covered. Additionally, we can't just assume mathematics is foundational to reality. So you don't know that the necessary thing is described by math and can't just assume such.

You had already made up your mind before you saw that interview, and you're treating this like you're a member of a football fan club. Mature.

Glad you noticed! I won most of the trophies in debate. Some of the other trophies are from sports and singing competitions.

Hi. I'm not quite sure I understand the objection so maybe we could discuss it so I can better understand where you're coming from. I don't endorse stance-dependent accounts in particular. My view of stances also isn't restrictive to actual stances or to the stances of people; I think stances refer to any real or hypothetical standard to which a claim could be indexed. Sorry for the short sketch of a view

@@lanceindependent Your endorsement (or lack thereof) could be construed as a stance: The claim would be indexed as a hypothetical one. My accusation was that any endorsement you (or another) may have, would be a 'real' (or "descriptive") matter. I hope that helped explain it a little!

@@ReX0r I'm sorry, but I'm still unclear on what you're saying. My endorsement of what? And indexed as a hypothetical what? //My accusation was that any endorsement you (or another) may have, would be a 'real' (or "descriptive") matter.// If the claim is if I endorse some moral claim, like "stealing is wrong," that this would be a descriptive fact about me, that would be true. I'm not sure what the "accusation" is though.

@@lanceindependent Your endorsement of science such as sociology and social psychology to discover the stances people have (descriptive or empirical or stance-independent or real part). Indexing (hypothetical) stances as hypotheticals regardless of actual (that is to say, descriptive/real/non-normative/not-merely-hypothetical) stances. "actual" stances here refer to "the stances people have". Which you've decided to investigate (outside or merely hypothetical/normativity/moral realism/philosophy). The "accusation" would be that you're limiting yourself to descriptive facts, thus begging the question of excluding normative facts (anti-realism stance you've committed yourself to in doing so). The only (?)* alternative to this would be to include normative facts (or leave this possibility of moral realism open). Or, perhaps not even this is an alternative*, as rather than question begging, what I'm getting at is a tautology (rather than something that can be assumed, or proved either by deductive logic or by some set of descriptive facts we've arrived at through induction). Perhaps indexing hypotheticals does a lot of work here (in what is normatively/deductively possible or some other set of innovations and alternatives to what has been traditional in the field). I'm entirely sure what semantic work it's doing here (dichotomy/antonym/as opposed to "real" stances people have that we can investigate and you've started doing as scientific -opposed to philosophical?- part). In short: If it's a descriptive matter (asking people what they think morality is) if morality exists (if lots of people have the stance that it's stance independent, than it's stance independent) or if there are other ways (indexing hypotheticals?) of discovering this.

@@ReX0r Gotcha. Not sure how I'm begging any questions here. I don't think there are any irreducibly normative facts. That's just my position, not an argument for any particular conclusion. If someone wants to explain what an irreducibly normative fact is and then present a case for why I should think there are such things, they're welcome to do so. But operating without a belief in such things, and a belief that they do not exist, is not itself begging questions in any way I recognize.

are you talking about someone who is stupid? or babies? intellectual birth defects? regardless, those beings are not lesser than or equal to animals simply because they are biologically lesser than the average person, they are human beings regardless and therefore get to share the moral value that all human beings share. human beings have this moral value because human beings are superior to all other life any way you could measure it, including any negative emotion such as pain (before or during being slaughtered for meat) or disgust (slaughtering, eating or witnessing the slaughtering of other human beings) or something like human life inherently being morally superior simply because of how separated we are from nature and other animals, so there's no way to really justify your misanthropy or even suggesting that factory farming is similar to the holocaust, one being the mass killing of animals to feed people and the other being pointless, large-scale genocide to push an agenda

Yes I’d also like a conversation between you and Richard Carrier. Perhaps a drilling down on his foundations of morality. I believe he draws a lot from Philippa Foot and the hypothetical imperative.

Much appreciated!❤️

No, thank you! I’m glad that you appreciate the content, more will be coming soon!

Perhaps. My assessment is that often the moral intuitions that many people have drives a large part of their belief in objective morality. This may have further countenance after one reflects upon the question of whether morality seems to be the type of thing dependent upon subjects, where some would say that it doesn’t (e.g, Dr. Sampson, Dr. Huemer, Dr. McPherson, etc)

@@BraylenSamuel Intuitions can scarcely be called evidence. They differ widely from culture to culture. Our ‘moral’ feelings are entirely dependent upon our biology and social environment. There really isn’t any great mystery here.

@@davethebrahman9870 Good! It may very well be the case that our moral intuitions can be undermined as an evidential consideration favoring moral realism. However, my initial response was merely claiming that from my encounters with moral realists, they often believe in the verity of moral realism as a derivative of those moral intuitions. Whether the intuitions truly epistemically justify their moral and/or meta-ethical beliefs or not is a different concern.

@@BraylenSamuel OK, I took you to be saying you agreed. What do you think?

@@davethebrahman9870 Good question. Simply put, I’m highly skeptical of objective morality (if we are referring to moral facts that are mind-independent and categorically normative). I lean more towards moral error theory!

Thank you so much!❤

Much appreciated!❤

Likewise! dhamma: the Pāli cognate of “dharma”. However, in this case, it invariably refers to the teachings of Gautama Buddha, rather than the eternal law (“sanātana dharma”, in Sanskrit). In this book, it is used in the former sense, that is, of “holy and righteous concepts and deeds”. Therefore, the term “Buddhist dhamma/dharma” is somewhat nonsensical, since dhamma/dharma is fundamentally non-sectarian. Despite being the most atheistic human being to have ever existed, I often PRAY that I am not in the process of consuming a meal whenever I hear a Buddhist monk or lay teacher referring to his or her lecture as being a “dhamma talk”. If you have carefully read the entirety of this Holy Scripture, “F.I.S.H”, and you have listened to many Buddhist sermons, you may have already guessed the reason for my fervent prayer. This is because the assertion that the overwhelming majority of Buddhist monks are teaching authentic dharma, is so excruciatingly cringe-worthy and laughable, I am genuinely fearful of choking on my food upon hearing such silly claims! First of all, the founder of Buddhism himself, Siddhārtha Gautama was hardly a paragon of virtue, having abandoned his family in order to become a mendicant monk, being an animal-abusing carnist, and encouraging females to become loose women (so-called “nuns”). In my half a century of life, I have only ever encountered one or two Buddhists who adhered to (actual) dharma, so in that sense, they were factually SUPERIOR to Gautama himself! For instance, the abbot of the largest Buddhist society in my homeland, Australia, believes that it is dharmic (legitimate) for men to insert their reproductive organs inside the faeces holes of other men, and of course, like his idol, Gautama, he is a murderer of poor, innocent, defenceless animals, and a filthy feminist. Furthermore, despite being an indigenous Englishman, and a graduate of one of the most prestigious universities on earth, University of Cambridge, he is entirely unable to coherently speak his native tongue! Should not a supposed “spiritual leader” be an exemplar in at least his own language? Of course, no human being (including so-called “Avatars”) who has ever lived was morally perfect, but those who claim to be spiritual masters ought to be beyond reproach in respect to their own ethical practices. In the aforementioned case, Gautama should have returned to his family as soon as he understood the immorality of his actions, just as I, when I began adhering to dharma, repaid two persons from whom I had stolen goods and cash. Furthermore, assuming that Gautama was really a carnist (and knowing the typical diet of Bhārata, it would be safe to assume that he was at LEAST a lacto-vegetarian, and therefore an animal-abusing criminal), he was certainly sufficiently intelligent to understand that it is unnatural for an adult human to suckle the teats of a cow or a goat, and that human beings are fully herbivorous. Otherwise, how could he possibly be considered a member of the priestly class of society (“brāhmaṇa”, in Sanskrit) if he was not able to even comprehend some of the most basic facts of life? Make no mistake, carnism (see that entry in this Glossary) is a truly abominable, horrendous, wicked, hateful, evil, immoral, sinful, demonic ideology, as is feminism and unlawful divorce (in the case of Prince Gautama, the abandonment of his wife and son would be considered an act of divorce). When a so-called Zen Buddhist priest asks another MALE so-called Zen Buddhist priest (as occurred in a video interview I just watched on the Internet), "Do you and your husband have any kids?”, one can be fully assured that the lowest point in the history of humanity has been reached. The fact that both the aforementioned so-called priests are American men, is not coincidental, since the most decadent religionists seem to be of Western/first-world origin. I don't believe I have come across a single Western Buddhist monastic who is not at least slightly left-leaning (“leftism” being a common term in the English-speaking world for “adharmic”).

Right and wrong are RELATIVE. 😉 Incidentally, Slave, are you VEGAN? 🌱

Right and wrong are RELATIVE. 😉 Incidentally, Slave, are you VEGAN? 🌱

I would like to add, wrt intuition and moral access, that if a philosopher goes out of his way to say (36:45) "but that's just what EVERYONE is using!", then _he's probably dead wrong._ Just an observation of mine. Everyone has lots of mistaken assumptions about what everyone else is doing.

Also, I'm a math nerd, and that phrase of yours "description, truncated of its stances, and now flying above the mundane" gives me huge "Yoneda Lemma" vibes. Maybe the mathematical world can have its own "normativity" in a similar fashion?

@@user-qm4ev6jb7d Sometimes I imagine myself pretty good at math and then I try to read about "Yoneda Lemma" and my engine bursts into flames

Great and lowly are RELATIVE. 😉 Incidentally, Slave, are you VEGAN? 🌱

Kindly repeat that in ENGLISH, Miss.☝️ Incidentally, Slave, are you VEGAN? 🌱