![Intro to Philosophy Videos for students](/img/default-banner.jpg)
- Видео 35
- Просмотров 69 610
Intro to Philosophy Videos for students
США
Добавлен 17 фев 2014
These videos contain the essential concepts of philosophy for students presented in creative and easy to follow, short videos. "What is philosophy?" "Branches of philosophy" "Ethics" "Theism and Atheism" and more. These videos are an excellent study companion for Intro to Philosophy students.
Видео
Twin Ontological Motives and tribalism
Просмотров 952 года назад
A brief discussion of Ernest Becker's ideas about the motivations driving human behavior.
The Boy Who Cried Wolf Revisted
Просмотров 213 года назад
Essential concepts of philosophy explained in short, easy listening videos. Covers common college introduction to philosophy topics.
Motors, General Overview
Просмотров 514 года назад
A discussion of pump motor type and identification.
How to determine Total Dynamic Head for pumps
Просмотров 11 тыс.4 года назад
Demonstration of how to read a pump curve and calculate head or duty point.
Atheism and the problem of evil
Просмотров 1656 лет назад
Essential concepts of philosophy explained in short, easy listening videos. Covers common college introduction to philosophy topics.
Sensation and Perception - Mind/Body
Просмотров 1906 лет назад
Essential concepts of philosophy explained in short, easy listening videos. These questions are discussed in the video: - How do we tend to think of the process of perception through the senses? - Light, odor, sound, flavors, and tactile sensations become what in the brain? - Is the brain ultimately the location of our experience? - What is the compelling mystery that sensation and perception r...
Karl Marx and Communism
Просмотров 1116 лет назад
Answers to these questions in this video: Why did Hegel claim that the nature of human beings is incompatible with materialistic theory? Over what did Marx disagree with Hegel? What is the Problem of History? What did Marx mean by dialectical materialism? What did Marx teach was the key determining factor in the direction of history? Who are the proletariats and the bourgeois? Why did Marx refe...
Kant's Copernican Revolution in Epistemology
Просмотров 13 тыс.6 лет назад
Emmanuel Kant believed he offered a new way to understand how we gain knowledge that was so new he claimed it was like a Copernican Revolution in thinking.
Kant's Ethics and the Categorical Imperative
Просмотров 9086 лет назад
Kant's ethics are formally known as "deontological ethics," but commonly referred to as simply Duty Ethics. This video explains what Kant means by duty as well as his famous "categorical imperatives" that arise out of his ethics. Answers to these questions in this video: - What two characteristics about humans should always be protected? - According to Kant, how does "motivation" determine the ...
Ionian and Pre-Socratic Philosophy
Просмотров 3096 лет назад
Answers to these questions in the video: - How did the Greeks of the "pre-scientific age" think about nature? - In what way did the Ionian Greeks change this way of thinking? - This Ionian method of thinking caused an explosion of " speculation?" - Name three basic truths of Democritus' atomic theory concerning atoms? - What is a definition of "Materialistic Metaphysics?" - Why was Socrates mor...
Ethics: Consequentialism or Utilitarianism
Просмотров 2326 лет назад
Answers to these questions in this video: • Consequentialism/Utilitarianism looks at the "utility" or "consequences" of actions to determine if those actions are . • Who are the two "modern" philosophers considered to have made the greatest contributions to Consequentialism/Utilitarianism? • Quote Bentham's "seventh category of pleasure," the model for Consequentialism/Utilitarianism. • Accordi...
The Three Main Branches of Philosophy
Просмотров 8 тыс.6 лет назад
Answers to these questions in the video: - What is the meaning of the word philosophy? - In philosophy we often engage in thinking about . - What are the traditional three branches of Philosophy? - What are two types of reality? - What are three main approaches to epistemology? - How does moral absolutism and moral relativism relate to ethics?
Aristotle's Virtue Ethics and Golden Mean
Просмотров 7 тыс.6 лет назад
Aristotle's Virtue Ethics and Golden Mean
Very insightful
Thankyou sir. Do more ethics topic pls
sweet
Your voice sounds just like Schrader from Breaking Bad 😂
6:40 Obviously not only human animals are capable of being "autonomous" and/or "rational", but I suppose those words are being used loosely
Thank you you help me .
Hello sir! Thank you for sharing your thoughts about Philosophy. Hope you will continue to do more videos.
Sir can you create more philo terms videos.
Instead of believing that the brain generates the experience we can say that we are experiencing sight with our eyes. We see with our eyes, not our brains. There’s no processing to create an experience within the brain. Our brains limit the eyes perceptual ability through focus and attention. The brain activity that occurs while we see things is the way the eyes communicate with the rest of the body. Every perception presents us with a perspective of the environment in order to organize our potential actions. So the eyes need to communicate with the rest of the body so we can respond to whatever might be happening around us. The brain is more like the communication center, helping us prioritize which actions should be taken when according to our perceptions and memory.
Very interesting! For me the mystery remains as to where exactly the experience or event of the eyes delivering visual sensation into the brain (perception) happens.
@@Dr.DonAshe At the eyes. The eyes see. Perception doesn’t happen in the brain. The visual array of light is rich in information and our brain just modulates the way in which our eyes pick up particular information according to our needs and desires. So if I’m thirsty my brain will modulate the way in which my eyes can pick up information that might signal sources of water. The brain limits the eyes perceptual ability to focus on particular sources of resources our body needs to consume. The perception is right there in front of you.
@@Dr.DonAshe granted, these ideas are just the way that I make sense of the problem. It seems like a false problem to begin with. If we just don’t posit that perception occurs in the brain we can sort things out differently to gain a better understanding of our bodies and perception. So I’m just speaking from my own personal point of view in philosophy. I don’t mean to sound like I have the final word here.
@@kylerodd2342 I like what your suggesting and others have as well. But if you eye's optic nerve is severed visual perception ceases, yes?
@@Dr.DonAshe Severing the optic nerve doesn’t mean that the perception is gone. It’s still out there, so to speak, ready to be experienced. Manuel DeLanda recently spoke about a device that allowed a blind man to be able to perceive information from the visual array through a camera by translating the information about occlusion and boundaries into sensations of touch on the skin (forgive me for I don’t remember the experiment. I’ll try to find it). In other words, the man was able to use his sense of touch to visualize his surroundings by tapping into the relevant information in the visual array. The man couldn’t experience colors or textures through sight but he did gain a new sense of depth perception by being able to detect this visual information. Vision, as we know it, ceases with the nerve severed since we have no way of detected the information in the visual array. If you sever the means of communication then there’s nothing your eyes are communicating with the rest of the body. An eye doesn’t see for its own sake. It’s part of a body that needs particular information about the environment in order to direct itself and survive. Our bodies aren’t passive receptors of information. Our bodies are in different states, as they need particular resources in particular rhythms, and this is what specifies what information in the perceptual field is relevant. I do realize I’m saying all this very matter of factly, but I do recognize this is largely just the way I’ve come to relate these concepts and I’m definitely engaging in conversation to see how they hold up. Thank you for giving me your time! I appreciate it.
such a concise explanation.loved it
Epistemology; the study of knowledge, comes from two words: Epistēmē, which is Greek for knowledge. And Ology, which is Latin for... knowledge. I cannot conceive another word that better describes the beauty and lunacy of the English language.
Vv cool king
Thank you for the lecture!
great video thanks so much
You’re a great lecturer , & much underrated. Please , keep up a good work and upload more on this . Thank you and God bless you
Thank you so much, Abel.
beautiful videos
Very lucidly explained 👌
Great video!!!
17242 1804
KANTS COPERNICAN REVOLUTION IN EPISTOMOLOGY Copernicus pointed out that the Earth goes around the sun in stead of the other way around the ideas of Copernicusmade everything turned Inside Out an upside down and made everybody to think everything all over again that's exactly what can't didn't philosophy he came upon the works of David Hume Immanuel kant's onwards I was awakened from my dogmatics slumbersbhai reading David Hume KANTS COPERNICAN REVOLUTION KNOWLEDGE DOESN'T CONFORM TO OBJECTS, OBJECTS CONFIRM TO KNOWLEDGE e.g taking pictures with a camera David Hume sad quotation marksthe future is not obligated tomimic the best constant conjunction David Hume was not big and dosa of the cause and effect phenomenonfor example if two billiard balls Clyde one pushes the other we assume that there is some transference of energy we don't really know that always see is one event happening and then another eventhappening Emmanuel can't said to himself about him that in order toobserve a constant conjunction you must presuppose the existence of time and space new team said that we must stick to what we observe only but can't reminds him that in order to observe any thing you have to have time and space neither of which can be observed
A ccorrdin g to r esear h in a egnislh..... cholesterol is not dangerous..... The brain makes sense of the information and the objects conform to knowledge
1:43 - I don't think that metaphysics requires us to adopt an externalist framework, does it? "Out there in the real world?" Or else internalists would be incapable of even holding their own position. They can't be internalists because metaphysics is the study of the real, external world, right?
Very helpful. Thank you.
Thanks for this simply explanation
You are most welcome, Judy, and thanks for the endorsement!
I enjoyed this, it was cut off. Enjoyed his voice and delivery.
This video is pretty good. Thank you so much.
I wonder whether Kant was claiming to himself that he was a rationalist or empiricist?
he takes the middle path i think
loved it... it helped alot in my project.. ❤️
Great content
Great video! Doing a philosophy course at university and this helped me understand a bit about this concept (the texts my teacher provided were very vague and the assignment was tough with the little information provided). Greetings from Argentina!
I really like the 2nd formulation. As a society, we have become so self-obsessed to the point where it's almost become "universal" to use people as a means to our selfish ends.
Had to listen on 1.5x speed but it was good
Great video!
I can percieve a Chilegon if i use reason to count the points
Well said!
@@Dr.DonAshe in that respect wouldn't that contradict what you said, how you said someone can't simply perceive a chillegon by looking at it and saying yeah that's a chillegon...? Idk what you meant exactly... because if someone told you what a chillegon is, i figured one could be considered capable of perceiving it by simply looking (if that entails counting the points also)
@@timesn7774 You can use both means to perceive anything. The point is to understand the definition of rationalism as a means to knowledge. Remember, even if you sit down with a chiliagon and counted each side to arrive at 1000, you are still defining it by a numerical symbol, namely "1000" which is a rational thought. So sometimes we use the method of rationalism to move forward in our knowledge of our world, rather than taking the time to count one thousand side every time we see a chiliagon in order to verify what it is.
@@Dr.DonAshe Ah i see what you mean so when you or i see a chillegon you would consider it, perceiving one? Or conceiving one? Or objectively seeing one? Just wondering how you would give a term to someone seeing one and all the while knowing it is one.
The Holy Spirit of the Lord will give you knowledge and wisdom beyond human capabilities
The Koki have you got yours?
Amen 🙏🏽
false
This video is so underated. Thank you so much this video really helped me in studying the subject.
I hope you'll enjoy the others as well! Thank you, Jam.
Playback speed 1.5x 👍
You shouldnt call him a c word
conjunction
gr8 vid bro goes hard aye?
Destiny Haz
I signed up for philosophy 101 for college, so far I learned how stupid and unprepared I was. The subject of philosophy is like a flock or birds to me, it all flies over my head. I will say this video did help me more than my text book did. So I thank you Don Ashe.
I signed up for philosophy 101 for college, so far I learned how stupid and unprepared I was. The subject of philosophy is like a flock or birds to me, it all flies over my head. I will say this video did help me more than my text book did. So I thank you Don Ashe.
This video basically helped me with my take-home exam. Thanks! Although admittingly, the narration is quite boring, it actually helped a lot.
Same here. From what school are you? 😂
Haha. Hello Claire
@@jobnavarro4334 secret ;)
Wow, great video!
Thanks. Keep in mind, I taught Intro to Philosophy which was a required course so I had a majority of students who emotionally were not invested in the topic to say the least! The video are meant to act as a supplement for student to "kick start" them in the right direction on deep topics.
@@Dr.DonAshe Wow, you teach Philosophy, that's awesome! I'm sure teaching an introductory class is a challenge. Excellent video, I learned a lot.
I signed up for philosophy 101 for college, so far I learned how stupid and unprepared I was. The subject of philosophy is like a flock or birds to me, it all flies over my head. I will say this video did help me more than my text book did. So I thank you Don Ashe.
Wow - with your analogy you are showing ready engagement!
this is extremely helpful! thank you so much!
so informative
The problem of evil is most powerful amidst religious theology. It is intended as an internal critique, yet something that I've noticed is most religious apologists will nearly always address the argument from the philosophical perspective of certain atheist or an imagined atheist. Lewis is guilty of this too, which is probably why that way to try to address the argument is so popular. It totally misses the point, though. Take Christianity, for example. It is Christian theology that tells us that pain and suffering is a bad thing. According to conventional Christian doctrine, pain and suffering are the hallmarks of a fallen state of how God intended things. We see this when we contrast the world we inhabit with the fantasies of Eden and the new Heaven and the new Earth. The issue of bone cancer in children and eye burrowing insects (to use Stephen Fry's examples) is virtually never addressed, usually the excuses made for the existence of evil focus on our supposed free will. God is often said to not want robots worshipping him, but rather people who choose him freely. And so, where there is freedom, there is the freedom to sin; to fall short of God's glory. The great conundrum comes with the concept of the supposed age to come with the new Heaven and the new Earth. This is an everlasting state where pain and suffering are said to be no more. Of course, the question is what then about free will? And it would seem that there is no space for free will any longer. The reasonable conclusion is that the occupants are righteous automatons worshipping God into eternity. So, we come back to the point of our current state of existence, and ask 'what then _is_ the point of pain and suffering?' The most rational conclusion would seem to be that fantasies of gods, creation and hereafter were never intended to be thought through critically, but rather to be accepted by faith. Hense why numerous religions are a patchwork of "God works in mysterious ways;" code for 'even though is it completely nonsensical believe it anyway so that the story holds together.'
We are saying that gods _specifically defined_ as omnipotent omniscient and omnibenevolent are demonstrably incompatible with the existence of evil, and therefore they don’t exist. We aren’t saying that evil demonstrates that no gods of no kinds exist. Yes, omnipotence absolutely precludes suffering. It absolutely does. Human doctors can’t preclude pain. For human doctors with limited power, there is such a thing as necessary suffering. They can’t help but to cut people open and cause them pain and leave them with permanent scars and possible side effects. They have no choice. It’s not within their power to perform their tasks completely free of pain and suffering. But omnipotent gods _are_ able to perform their tasks completely free of pain and suffering. They are omnipotent; that’s the point. That’s the definition we’re responding to. An omnipotent god could absolutely perform even the most complicated operation; no cuts, no scars, no pain, no suffering, no far, just snap the fingers, and boom, the illness is gone. If that patient was left with as much as hiccup after that operation perform by a god, it would by definition be unnecessary. For omnipotent beings, there is no such thing as “necessary suffering”. Nothing is necessary. “Necessary” implies boundaries and limitations. Omnipotent beings don’t have that. They are omnipotent; they have no boundaries or limits to what they can do. Omnipotence renders any amount of suffering unnecessary. Simply by asking “Couldn’t this omnipotent being have done it _without_ that suffering, to which the answer would always necessarily be yes. This is of course provided that the god character in question is also motivated to not cause unnecessary suffering. There could exist a god out there that is able to prevent any suffering what so ever, but he just loves the sight of blood and the smell of burning flesh so damn much that he can’t get enough of it. Such a god may exist out there. We aren’t saying it can’t. We are making a response to a specific kind of god often believed in and often defined by believers of several religions; a god that is both omnipotent (able to stop suffering) and omniscient (aware of existing suffering and aware of a way to use his omnipotence to stop it or prevent it) and omnibenevolent (motivated to not cause any suffering). Such a being _is_ in fact incompatible with the real world. And it’s self-contradictory in its definition alone, as it is also incompatible with several of the stories they define into its being too, about this god performing horrible acts of mass genocide, flooding the entire planet, sending people to suffer in a lake of fire, hardening the heart of an Egyptian king to show off some more plagues, asking people to slaughter animals to show this omniscient being where not to enter when he is killing innocent children to prove a point to a man whose hears he had hardened, etc etc etc. Such a being is logically impossible as defined. You’re free to adjust your definition and remove one or more parts. And there’s no problem, other than the fact that there’s not no evidence to indicate that it’s real. But it would no longer be logically self-contradictory or incompatible with the real world.
Don Ashe, EdD is entirely correct in defining the Atheism that he is discussing as being the belief in the non-existence of God. Someone might say that it would be better described as the belief that no gods exist, but that would not be addressing his point. He is not addressing the social distinction that whose members are called Atheists. He said that he is discussing the subject of Atheism in the philosophy of religion. There is no reason to believe that he is discussing the social distinction, he said that he intended to be discussing the theological position of Atheism. To be recognized as a theological position, a philosophical proposition must reflect on the possible existence of God, and by embracing that proposition the individual's search for an answer to the question of God's existence must be brought to a close. Only three philosophical propositions have ever met the definitional criteria to be recognized as theological positions. The first two of those three positions are named Atheism and Theism, the third, which was identified thousands of years later, is produced by Agnosticism. All three of those positions are antithetical to the others, one cannot embrace any one of those positions and be able to embrace either of the other two at the same time. Many people do not occupy any of the three theological positions, they may embrace a proposition that counts as reflecting on the possible existence of God but does not inevitably lead to the closing of the question. Of course, it is possible that people may choose not to embrace any position at all regarding theology. Theism is the proposition that God does exist. That does reflect on the possible existence of God, and embracing that proposition does bring to a close the individual's search for an answer to the question of God's existence. So, this is clearly one of the three recognized theological positions. Atheism is the proposition that no gods exist, That does reflect on the possible existence of God, and by embracing that proposition the individual will bring their search for an answer to the question of God's existence to a close. So, this is also clearly one of the three recognized theological positions. Agnosticism is an ideology and its proposition requires a little more explanation than the exquisitely uncomplicated propositions of the other two. The original precept of the ideology was that scientific reasoning and principals can yield useful results when applied to other things in life besides science, including theology. This included the extension of the epistemic responsibility found in science to the consideration of theology and thus extending the responsibility it entailed to be towards the whole of society. Soon, the theological proposition's phrasing was changed to explicitly state the epistemic responsibility and leave the application of scientific standards implicit. This can be phrased as, _it is ethically wrong to develop beliefs in, or claim to know, things which cannot be justified scientifically to others._ If the possible existence of God is examined under this proposition it will be found that there is not sufficient justification for developing a belief that there is a God, nor that there is not one. Through a lens of scientific reasoning, each avenue of exploration can be examined and exhausted, thus leaving the Agnostic without sufficient grounds to draw any firm conclusion. Not having found sufficient reason to draw a conclusion does not count as bringing the question to a close, even if the individual has exhausted all avenues of exploration and has no expectation of changes in those circumstances or results. Others have worked their way through all of those very same challenges and eventually did arrive at a conclusion. In order for not drawing a firm conclusion on the grounds of insufficient justification to count as a conclusion, the individual would have to demonstrate that all of the others that did come to a conclusion were wrong, which should be impossible without having sufficient evidence to draw a firm conclusion. To prove that one conclusion was wrong, one would have to prove a conflicting positive claim, proving such conflicting positive claim would prove that the other conclusion was right. For those reasons, those that simply have not found sufficient reason to draw a firm conclusion regarding the possible existence of God are correctly regarded as belonging to the broad category called "seekers", a category into which everyone that has considered the issue but has not yet drawn a conclusion is sorted. However, the Agnostic has arrived at that point because of ethical considerations, and by the ethical standards of Agnosticism the Agnostic can demonstrate that it was ethically wrong _'of'_ those others to have drawn a firm conclusion at that point. So, the proposition of Agnosticism, if embraced, causes the individual to refuse to draw a firm conclusion regarding the possible existence of God, based on ethical considerations that indite those that have drawn a firm conclusion, and therefore has brought that individual's search for an answer to the question of God's possible existence to a close. It is thus that Agnosticism produces a third recognized theological position.
No. Atheism is essentially nothing more than saying "I don't believe you" when people claim the gods exist. It does not have to be, although it could be, an assertion that no gods exist. They are two different positions.
Andrés64B It doesn't really matter what definition is used. All of Western Civilization is held up and still exist to this day... only because of the principal values of the judeo Christian religion it came from. The most intelligent atheists, are the ones least outspoken about their atheism.
Andrés64B I am glad to see that you understand that a claim "I do not believe you" can sometimes be grouped with, but is still separate from, a belief that no gods exist. They are not really two different positions though, because only one is actually a position. A claim not to have believed someone or some group of someones on a given subject does not imply taking any position on that subject, much less indicate taking a particular position on that given subject. It would be possible for someone to not believe that very same person or persons about that very same issue and yet have embraced a very different position on the issue in the end, possibly for very different reasons. You see the problem is that "I do not believe you" does not describe a position at all, so it is possible to join you in that not believing and to hold virtually any position on the central subject at the same time.
Brett There is an awfully good argument that Western Civilization has made most of the advancements that it has, despite Judeo Christian religious influence. As with so many things, the truth is probably somewhere in between the extremes. In my experience, the most intelligent Christians are not necessarily the least outspoken, but they are the ones that recognize that it is a personal choice and that it is one that is not embraced based on reason, it is an act of faith after all. They do not make boastful claims in the name of God, most especially ones that they cannot support in an absolute sense. So, the most intelligent Christians are the ones that do not say the kind of things that you have been saying, make of that what you will.
hmmm
the last part is cut off. Would you be able to extend it? This has been very helpful and insightful. Thank you.
What do you mean by "cut off"? How long was the video you watched?
Here's why these arguments will never be evidence for a god/s because even when you accept the conclusion, you are still no closer to proving any particular God exists. *Cosmological Argument's conclusion* : _"the universe has a cause"_ *Flaw* : Nothing about that conclusion identifies the cause. *Teleological Argument"s conclusion* : _"The universe is too specific not to be designed"_ *Flaw* : That does nothing but support a deistic God not any specific God/s *Ontological argument's conclusion* : _"Because it is possible for a God to exist...a God must exist."_ *Flaw* : This argument could be used for anything you want. "Because it is possible for a Unicorn to exist...a Unicorn must exist." *Contingency Argument's conclusion* : _"what it takes for the universe to exist must transcend both space and time."_ *Flaw* : Just like the Cosmological argument the conclusion does not identify the cause. *Moral Arguement's conclusion* : _"Objective moral values and duties do exist, therefore God exists."_ *Flaw* : That does nothing but support a deistic God not any specific God/s