Видео

youre saving me for my logic final much love

Nice video my man

Thank you for this, you explained it very well 🤘🏽

That spelling mistake of "valid" instead of "invalid" threw me for a loop at first, until I read your comment and my uneasiness quelled. You did a much better job at showing why this is useful and how to use this technique step-by-step than my accompanying book was showing. Just to double check, I fully expanded a truth table with 16 rows and filled it out for each premise and conclusion, and unsurprisingly it showed the same exact result as you derived in a fraction of the time, stunning. Thank you for the help, it was very enlightening. :D

Thank you!

Well explained

For me these tests show rather, that these cases are different. If my moral beliefs were different, why would I still have a problem, that discrimination is bad? I think a big problem is, that ppl are not really able to imaging different moral beliefs. How could we, for example, take the perspective of a slavery friendly alien folk, if we're still looking out of a human perspective to try to take the perspective? I think these tests are interesting, but there seem to be so many more differences then just subjectiv / objective. Also, like heavyness of topic, badness-charged notions and so on... Thanks for the video :)

What she's describing is explicitly a Creator/Creation relationship, which doesn't translate to much else, and that's probably why you didn't list any real use-cases. Trying to psych ourselves into seeing others as our mother or as our child is something that religions/spiritual traditions have attempted in the past, but I see no real compelling evidence to suggest that there's any meaningful benefit in it. I maintain that the other humans are our equals. And knowing that truth is enough on its own. Though perhaps Held's perspective might serve better when applied to our stewardship of non-human organisms.

Both absolutism and relativism can be true. You can't steal from yourself but you could be stealing from another. The "Borg" (Star Trek) cannot steal from themselves. Relativism requires two individuals.

nice video keep it up <3

Reid on one side, Hume on the other, Buddha in the middle and G-d listening from above!

very helpful video thank you

i have a test tmr on truth tables thank you for this video 🎉

This is SO helpful!!! I have a final on this tomorrow and this is amazing. thank you thank you thank you

There is another principles of distributive justice

I just noticed that on the whiteboard, I wrote "Valid: Premises are true, and Conclusion is False." That's a mistake: I meant to write that an argument is INVALID when the premises are true but the conclusion is false. It's not easy to write and talk at the same time :)

Thank you!!!!

Thank you so much for this! Ridiculously helpful.

thank you!!!

Where exactly is mind?

This helped me with my ethics homework. thank you so much!

Thanks dog u saving my grade

Thank you

This information is descriptory it doesnt has any apllicational value. You need to consider subject in an application manner. I need heuristics and abduction to generate new hyphothesis that doesnt exist. And i thought you have some kind of mathematical configurations to do so. But you dont. It is too academical and has no real value. Waste of time

Then mathematics dimension theory all based on abstraction and at the end it returns an error a void as the answer is the abstraction process itself. Lets pretenb we remove ourselves from that vision but then at the same time lets pretend we are there !

Nice lamb chops

Why would finding something funny be a sign of a belief that it’s objectively true? That’s a non-sequitur.

This video plays with two definitions of objective. Mackie argued against objective, intrinsic prescriptively - the existence of a strange metaphysical property that commands and has the capacity to cause is to perform or not perform certain actions independent of our desires. No such property exists. But Mackie himself - in the same book - argued that there is a type of objectivity that DOES exist. From ETHICS: “Something may be called good simply in so far as it satisfies or is such as to satisfy a certain desire; but the objectivity of such relations of satisfaction does not constitute in our sense an objective value.” The only thing you need to do to square Mackie with Enoch is to hold that the desires in question are not those of the agent. Again, Mackie, late in the book, says that he is a rule-right-duty-disposition utilitarian. But a type of utilitarian that does not have utilitarianism's characteristic mistake of objective, intrinsic prescriptivity. What makes an act wrong is that it violates a rule, right, duty, disposition - the general adoption of which is such as to fulfill all desires regardless of whose they are. This conception of objective wrongness passes all of Enoch's tests. Though, Mackie argues that this is a reforming definition - one that requires changing the standard definition (which assumes objective, intrinsic prescriptivity) to the definition he proposes (is such as to violate a rule, right, duty, disposition - the general adoption of which is such as to fulfill other desires, regardless of whose they are). Mackie uses an analogy . . . 19th century scientists changing the definition of "atom". The term "atom" originally meant "without parts" With this as a part of the definition, all claims of the form "Water is made up of two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom" are false. It means "Water is made up of two hydrogen things without parts and one oxygen thing without parts." We fix this by dropping "without parts" from the meaning of "atom". We fix morality by dropping "intrinsic prescriptivity" from the meaning of moral terms. Mackie is an anti-realist about moral facts in the same way that modern scientists are anti-realists about atoms. Under the original definition, they aren't real. Under the reformed definition, they are very real. ruclips.net/p/PL8Cix6TPWUST8VtwgsaJO1bIFQpZ5BUpI

Thank you professor.

The cyanide joke is actually pretty funny.

This is super helpful! If you ever feel like summarizing chapter by chapter, I wouldn’t object!

"Yum,cats!" what a example lol

second

I understand the difference principle now! Very clear explanation - thank you!

You my guy are a life saver. Bless your soul, thank u for your help!

So if the argument from relativity is as follows, Which point does Enoch disagree with? 1: Moral codes and moral beliefs differ 2: The best explanation is that they reflect different ways of life, not caused by distorted perceptions of objective moral values. 3. If the best explanation doesn’t involve positing objective moral values, we shouldn’t believe in them.

Thank you! This helped to clarify a few points.

Enjoy the clarity (for me) of your descriptions. Any chance you would allow a transcript?

You are certainly correct in stating that drug induced happiness typically reduces our motivation or ability to pursue greater goods in life. I often wonder how much more I could have achieved by now at the age of 36, had i not began smoking methamphetamine at only 15 years old. But there's one very important point that you are missing here, although to no fault of your own. It is something you could only know have you been a long time drug addict yourself or from being told about it by a long time drug addict such as I am about to tell you now. People such as myself are very aware that drug induced fake happiness is nowhere near as great as the real thing. But for those of us who have lived lives in which sources of real happiness have been extremely limited, or in some cases even non existent, then we are more than willing to take whatever happiness we can possibly manage to get. I mean sure, its not as good as the real thing, but its something. and its certainly better than no happiness at all. And in cases such as my own, that same drug induced fake happiness may have held me back in life in certain ways, but it allowed me to continue having a life at all, because it ultimately kept me from wanting taking my own life, by offering me just enough of a feeling of happiness and hope that if i stuck it out for just a little bit longer, someday things might get better. And they certainly have.

Awesome! I was having trouble understanding in my class. But you have explained perfectly

These arguments are subjective in nature, particularly Enochs argument for objectivism. I personally do not believe that morality is objective. Following his criteria, my belief is justified.

Thank you very much indeed Nathan for making these brilliant videos. You've got a great skill at explaining philosophical concepts. Please keep making them. Thanks again from the UK

What if I don't believe in determinism as a concept? When I observe how the world works, I don't see that there is only one outcome to every event, like determinism says. I see that we live in a universe that features reliable causation, so living things are able to control what happens at lower levels by setting up situations that lead to desired outcomes. It is true that if you were to check the positions and velocities of all the particles after the event, it would all follow the laws of QM, but you can only do this after the fact. Atoms are passive objects, so they will react according to their nature, depending on the conditions, and the conditions aren't known until after the event. In short, the parts do not control the whole and the past does not control the present.

Did you say yellow?🤣

Many of Hume 's objections can be answered. Objection (1) "A great number of men join in building a house or a ship, in rearing a city, in framing a commonwealth: why may not several deities combine in contriving and framing a world?" (Dialogues) Response: "And, to jump ahead a bit, there are two further problems with polytheism as an explanation of the existence of not merely a universe but a universe governed throughout space and time by the same natural laws . If this order in the world is to be explained by many gods, then some explanation is required for how and why they cooperate in producing the same patterns of order throughout the universe. This becomes a new datum requiring explanation for the same reason as the fact of order itself. The need for further explanation ends when we postulate one being who is the cause of the existence of all others, and the simplest conceivable such-I urge-is God. And, further, the power of polytheism to explain this order in the world is perhaps not as great as that of theism. If there were more than one deity responsible for the order of the universe, we would expect to see characteristic marks of the handiwork of different deities in different parts of the universe, just as we see different kinds of workmanship in the different houses of a city. We would expect to find an inverse square of law of gravitation obeyed in one part of the universe, and in another part a law that was just short of being an inverse square law-without the difference being explicable in terms of a more general law." (Richard Swinburne "The Existence Of God") "If the physical universe is the product of intelligent design, rather than being a pure accident, it is more likely to be the handiwork of only one rather than more than one intelligence. This is so for two broad reasons. The first reason is the need for theoretical parsimony. In the absence of any evidence for supposing the universe to be the handiwork of more than one intelligence rather than only one, then, faced with a choice between supposing it the handiwork of one or of more than one intelligent designer, we should choose to suppose it to be the creation of only one. For it is not necessary to postulate more than one to account for the phenomena in question. The second reason for preferring the hypothesis of there being only one designer of the universe to supposing more than one is that the general harmony and uniformity of everything in the universe suggest that, should it be the product of design, it is more likely to be the handiwork of a single designer, rather than a plurality of designers who might have been expected to have left in their joint product some trace of their plural individualities. " (David Conway "Rediscovery Of Wisdom") Objection (2) "[I]f we survey the universe ..., it bears a great resemblance to an animal or organized body, and seems actuated with a like principle of life and motion. A continual circulation of matter in it ...: a continual waste in every part is incessantly repaired: the closest sympathy is perceived throughout the entire system: and each part or member ... operates both to its own preservation and to that of the whole [I]t must be confessed, that... the universe resembles more a human body than it does the works of human art and contrivance [Y]et is the analogy also defective in many circumstances ...: no organs of sense; no seat of thought or reason; no one precise origin of motion and action. In short, it seems to bear a stronger resemblance to a vegetable than to an animal." (Dialogues) Response: "Hume's argument seems weak. Hume's claim is that the physical universe - more specifically, our solar system - bears a closer resemblance to some animal or a vegetable than it does some machine or other artefact. The claim is unconvincing. In its manifest workings, the physical universe in general, and our own solar system in particular, exhibits a degree of regularity and predictability that far exceeds that which is exhibited by any animal or vegetable. After all, it is by the sun that we set our clocks and not by the comings and goings of sun-flowers or salamanders! That this is so suggests that the physical universe more closely resembles some regular and predictable machine or artefact, for example a clock, than it does any far less regular and predictable animal or vegetable. " (David Conway "Rediscovery Of Wisdom") Objection (3) “But how this argument can have place where the objects, as in the present case, are single, individual, without parallel or specific resemblance, may be difficult to explain.” (Dialogues) Response: "From time to time various writers have told us that we cannot reach any conclusions about the origin or development of the universe, since it is the only one of which we have knowledge, and rational inquiry can reach conclusions only about objects that belong to kinds, for example, it can reach a conclusion about what will happen to this bit of iron only because there are other bits of iron, the behaviour of which can be studied. This objection has the surprising, and to most of these writers unwelcome, consequence, that physical cosmology could not reach justified conclusions about such matters as the size, age, rate of expansion, and density of the universe as a whole (because it is the only one of which we have knowledge); and also that physical anthropology could not reach conclusions about the origin and development of the human race (because, as far as our knowledge goes, it is the only one of its kind). The implausibility of these consequences leads us to doubt the original objection, which is indeed totally misguided." (Richard Swinburne "The Existence Of God") "By tracing the origin of the physical universe to a supposed 'Big Bang', modern cosmology places Hume in the following dilemma. Either, he must deny that the physical universe as a whole is singular and unique, on the grounds that it resembles other things besides it that explode, such as grenades. Or, alternatively, should he insist on the uniqueness of the physical universe, he must concede that there are some unique things which are capable of standing as terms of causal relations. " (David Conway "Rediscovery Of Wisdom") Objection (4) "In such a ... succession of objects, each part is caused by that which preceded it and causes that which succeeds it. Where then is the difficulty? But the whole, you say, wants a cause. I answer that the uniting of parts into a whole, like the uniting of several distinct countries into one kingdom, .. . is performed merely by an arbitrary act of the mind and has no influence on the nature of things. Did I show you the particular causes of each individual in a collection of twenty particles of matter, I should think it very unreasonable should you afterwards ask me what was the cause of the whole twenty. This is sufficiently explained in explaining the cause of the parts." (Dialogues) Response: "Consider an illustration. Suppose that the series of contingent beings were merely a series of self-propagating robots, each one bringing the next into existence. No matter how far back in time you go, there was just one of these robots functioning. Each robot functions for, say, ten years, then, in the last few minutes of functioning, propagates a new robot. (Just as the new robot starts to function, the old one ceases to function and disintegrates.) Now, in this scheme, we have a cause for the existence and functioning of each of the robots. But we have not identified a cause of the robot series as a whole. For example, what causes (or caused) the series to be one of robots rather than one of rocks, roses, rats, or reindeer? What is the cause of there being any robots at all? That question has not been answered. In the same way, even if we know that each contingent being is caused to exist by some other contingent being, we still do not have an explanation for the fact that there are contingent beings. There might have been nothing at all or only necessary beings." (Stephen Layman "Letters To Doubting Thomas")

THANK YOU SO MUCH!!!! This video was so helpful :) best teacher ever

Yo brah this video like really helped me on my essay dude

Very good

sowwy

nigga