Batman & Identity: Crash Course Philosophy #18
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 28 июн 2024
- Hank explores different ways of understanding identity - including the Indiscernibility of Identicals, and essential and accidental properties. In what ways does affect identity? In what ways does it not? What does it mean for a thing to persist over time?
--
Images and video via VideoBlocks or Wikimedia Commons, licensed under Creative Commons by 4.0:
creativecommons.org/licenses/...
--
Produced in collaboration with PBS Digital Studios: / pbsdigitalstudios
Crash Course Philosophy is sponsored by Squarespace.
www.squarespace.com/crashcourse
--
Want to find Crash Course elsewhere on the internet?
Facebook - / youtubecrashc. .
Twitter - / thecrashcourse
Tumblr - / thecrashcourse
Support CrashCourse on Patreon: / crashcourse
CC Kids: / crashcoursekids
I'd like to think Hank made this entire episode because Nick broke his favorite mug.
and dug around in his wallet for a 20 dollar bill
+Joshua Walker and lost his dog
+wh4t And became Batman.
the OP has 21 likes and every reply (save my own) has 7 likes and there are 3 replies...3 x 7= 21. Crazy...
And we can all only aspire to be that level of Extra
I feel like Hank could become the actual Riddler.
Wait, Bruce Wayne is Batman?!?!
I know right?! Spoiler warning would've been nice
And Black is Goku! Omg!! :O
dun dun DUN!
Shhh don't tell anyone
Nope Bruce Wayne is Wonder Woman. Alfred is usually Batman and Krypto is Robin.
What I learned is to be suspicious if you ever let Hank dog-sit for you.
Hahaha, excellent call!
I'm sure that's what he wanted you to take away from this video 😂
Don't worry about your identity.
We are all bat people.
We see ourselves in the cracks in his facade.
thanks to your show I passed my exam :-) so keep up the good work!
I wore that shirt today 😃
😁👍 I had identical words
Thanks, you did it. You clearly didn't forget to be awesome.
Here's a thought experiment regarding fungibility:
Think back to Spongebob. Mr. Krabs has his first dollar up on the wall. In painting Mr. Krabs's house, Spongebob and Patrick get paint on his first dollar. Seeing the damage, Spongebob gets the dollar and hides it. He then gets a dollar out of his wallet and puts it in the exact same place so Mr. Krabs won't notice. Mr. Krabs returns home and several months pass, and Mr. Krabs maintains his sentimental value for his new "first dollar." Spongebob discovers a way to wash off the paint from the true first dollar. After doing this, he returns to Mr. Krabs and tells him the truth, but Mr. Krabs doesn't believe him, maintaining that the fake is his "first dollar."
Here even sentimental properties are completely interchangeable with identical items. What makes the first dollar a first dollar is not any actual properties but just the sentiment attached to it. The dollar is just a placeholder and any placeholder would do.
If my friend doesn't notice that I've replaced his mushroom, does that make it a fungible fungus?
I know it's a joke but yes. As long as he doesn't know that the original is gone he won't question it and the value stays the same for exactly this long. Likewise you can make his original mushroom fungible (if it isn't) by lying about it's authenticity in which case he will stop caring for it because he thinks it's not _his_ mushroom even though in reality it is.
Kazuya Mishima fungible is a stupid word filled with sound and fury, signifying nothing
bob polo
but it also has fun in it :D
Kazuya Mishima nonrefungible, yeah I see what you mean
bob polo
What's you're problem with the word anyway? it's just a word and a useful one at that...
"Change is the only constant"
-Heraclitus
I'm a simple man, I see batman in the title, I click.
same
Same.
same
You're stupid.
Not me..
Them: "Why are you digging around in my wallet?"
Me: "Philosophy."
Essential : Siblings
Accidental : Me
Lumpl is the medium, Goliath is the shape. When Lumpl is formed into Goliath, Lumpl does not cease to exist. Rather, it exists on a lower level than Goliath. A notebook is also a kind of shape, and it can be composed of dead trees. Batman is a shape, and his medium is primarily Bruce Wayne, and sometimes other people. The Ship of Theseus is a shape, and it takes place on a medium of crew members, planks, and sails.
Focusing on the Ship of Theseus, we can define the 'shape' of the ship as a sort of 'goal' its constituent pieces work towards. Of course, that goal can change over time, but it is still technically the same. Shapes can be transformed, yet still be considered the same figure. If the ship were to, let's say, experience a mutiny, that would change its shape, but we would still consider it the same ship. If a person changes his or her mind about something, we don't consider that individual to be a new person. The tricky part occurs when Theseus orders an identical ship to be made in the other's absence. What is the difference between the first ship and the copy? To answer this, we can think of the new ship as an independent shape from the original. While the old ship and the copy might, at one point, have an identical shape, there is nothing to stop them from diverging; they are independent.
A shape-medium perspective can be applied to everything. An atom is a shape taking place in a medium of subatomic particles, a molecule is a shape taking place in a medium of atoms, a cell is a shape taking place in a medium of molecules, a neural tissue is a shape taking place in a medium of cells, and you are a shape taking place in a medium of neural tissue. I'm not sure who came up with this first, but it is my world view.
a bit of jung philosophy can help with identity- the substance is the thinker behind the mask. Batman and bruce wayne are BOTH masks of the man Bruce Wayne. one mask he wears has his name but not his nature-one has his nature but not his name.
Goliath can be turned back into Lumpl but a notebook can't be turned back into a tree. What do you say to that?
IML I agree.
I think you have to attribute that to Plato and Aristotle, they were obsessed with the idea of form and matter. Aristotle improved upon it by providing the four causes but I'm not too sure if you can apply this to personal identity of a person.
I like where are you going, but I have a different spin. I think that Lumpl is the essence(soul) while Goliath is the form(body)
Please never stop making these philosophy videos. I'm hooked.
Is the Gardevoir I caught in Pokemon Ruby in 2003 that I transferred all the way to ORAS via system links and Pokebank still the same Gardevoir?
No, since it gained new movelist and stats
Also, possibly a new name as well :D
was it your favorite and still is? Then yes it is still the same, with more power
Yes it is, because it falls under the category of accidental properties. The gender, the nature and level it had before didn't change. Only the type, movepool and partners capable of breeding that furthered it's range of versatility and use. In this case the dog, instead of losing his tail, grew a new one.
Yes, if you love her in the same way, because we all love Gardevoir
At 6:02, Hank definitely says "meow".
He says now
Okay but what about Hannah Montana and Miley Stewart um who's gonna ask the real question here
she was acting.
She was the best of both worlds.
+Ophelia Franco (a.k.a. ღ Flamefeet ღ) yesssssss
+Ophelia Franco (a.k.a. ღ Flamefeet ღ) I am trying to solve for this problem, but my arguments are just not twerking.
You mean Miley Stewart is Batman ?
I think identity is purely subjective. That ship is only the Ship of Theseus if you think it is. You can not put an object under a microscope to find what physically gives its identity. Like beauty or goodness, identity is something we assign to objects and people.
I see Batman in the Title and i Click on IT!!!
Same.
I am vengeance. I am the night. I AM BATMAN!
I'm batman
Aisha Hassan
Uh uh. Tell me, if you are Batman, which villain have you put into Arkham Asylum last?
what a batclick,
Bruce Wayne couldn't be Batman! That billionaire playboy is too busy running Wayne Enterprises.
More like sleeping through board meetings. That lazy playboy could never be a vigilante.
It's more like "ruining" Wayne Enterprises, rather than "running" it.
+Sarosh one might say he was running it but went on a trip. :>
Yeah, the next thing they'll say is that Superman is actually some washed out journalist. Preposterous.
Lawrence Tider Well played.
This was the first episode in the series that felt like a flood of new ideas and questions, without much rationalization or... you know, answering. I guess we're supposed to form beliefs about this stuff! I choose the neurological approach: identity comes from perspective, so nothing has an identity without an observer, but the more observers you have, the more identity isotopes you are likely to have (you also count as an observer of yourself).
You guys TOTALLY should have discussed the Star Trek transporter paradox in the video.
Holy moses I wasn't expecting you to actually reference Batman from an educated position. When you layed down the Batman & Robin Reborn and the recent Superheavy arc, I was thoroughly impressed!
I know you will most likely never see this but Hank you are the only person I can listen to and learn from you have a gift when it comes to teaching.
I love how the more modern we get in this series the less answers we get and more pure unknowns. These are uncharted waters folks, make notes and keep thinking about these things, maybe yours will be the next great paper that will ind it's place in the halls of history.
That joker fighting batman animation was class!
Bruce Wayne is Batman but Batman is not Bruce Wayne. It's like saying is a rectangle a square? No. A rectangle is not a square but a square is a rectangle.
Bruce Wayne = Square
Batman = Rectangle
In the Lumpl and Goliath example:
Goliath is Lumpl but Lumpl is not Goliath.
So Lumpl is therefore the identity that really matters?
If we break down all the properties of what constitutes both Batman and Bruce Wayne then they are both the same thing. Bruce Wayne isn't really Bruce Wayne if he wasn't also the Batman and while there can be multiple different Batmen, there is only one specific Batman who is also Bruce Wayne in the costume. It's semantics, the only difference is how specific Batman is defined like the Ship of Thesues. Two people can talk about Batman, but if one is talking about Batman in 1990 and the other in 2000 then they are a both different Batmen even though they are both Batman.
+Jackboy019 Interesting points that I need to consider. The question then is whether or not Bruce Wayne is also deceiving himself by becoming Batman. Is Bruce also hiding his true identity from himself be pretending to be someone else?
+Greg Chess So anyone can be Batman of they wore the suit? Is Batman merely a prop to be used? If so, is this anyone different for Clark Kent/Superman?
The emotional value that you associate with the mug doesn't exist in the mug, it exists inside of your mind, and if you're unaware that the mug was replaced, then those same values can be associated with this new mug because you think it's the same one, but as soon as you're aware of the change, you wouldn't be able to associate those emotional values with the new mug.
so the physical mug is fungible, but the concept of the mu that exists inside of your head isn't fungible, because that is what the value is connected to.
Lol you beat the show
Nienke Fleur Luchtmeijer I thought of this just now but with the Mr Krabs "first dollar" spongebob episode
But does it mean something that before the mug was replaced, no one had to keep the accident a secret from you? Whereas now, the mug exists in such a state that it does act as an identical object both physically and sentimentally, BUT it now has “baggage” where if the person who broke the original slips up in a conversation, suddenly the illusion is shattered?
(Also, I’m now wondering what the implication is when you consider that without anyone ever breaking your original mug, someone could tell you it had been broken and replaced, and the exact same object may no longer have the same value to you)
In the case of the mug, and even the money, I feel like the way you perceive it actually reflects the people around you as much as it reflects the original object. If someone steals $20 from you to buy lunch and then replaces it before you notice, your life will not change one iota until you find out about the switch. At that point, you will realise that you are no better or worse off financially, but because of the dishonesty involved in the switch you will feel unpleasant.
That kind of ties back to the old thought experiment where you find out that you and your partner, and another couple had your children switched at the hospital, and you have to wonder at what stage you feel compelled to keep the child you’ve raised, rather than switch back to end up with the one you’re genetically related to. Surely if you find out within a few days you’d switch back, but after months of caring for a child, would it become too hard to give it up? Or would it take until the child is able to speak and has a clear personality for it to seem too weird to switch? How and when you find out about the mistake can change the perception of the change
How am I supposed to argue with anybody down here now that you quit talking about God?
....use the same principle regarding Identity and then talk about the God in Old Testament, New Testament as well as the Quran and then argue whether they are different identities or one identity.
+Rata Touille HOW DARE YOU, SIR!?!
...thanks. I feel better now.
David Rutledge
Ur welcome, I guess.
+hk78901 That escalated quickly...anyway, who are you talking to? Because no one here fits that description.
+
I think the solution that makes the most sense is that there's just no such thing as identity (As something that makes a thing uniquely itself) because of the fact that there is no absolute identity, or at least nothing we can point to as being wherein identity lies. Similar to our perception of time, absolute identity is just an illusion that makes the world make sense, even if it's nothing more than an illusion.
This is my favorite Crash Course series at the moment, thank you to the Crash Course team for these interesting and enjoyable videos!
I just want to express to all of you at Crash Course how much I love your videos, especially the videos on philosophy. Every Monday whether it be a school morning or a summertime afternoon, I always look forward to the philosophy videos. It is the best way to start a day and has become a Monday ritual. Thank you
I love Rick and Morty, because Rick dont cares about in wich reality he is in. Overall mindblowing
Maybe it's because, even when reality changes, Rick never changes. Not over time, not even much between realities. Rick actually does have identity with himself. They actually explore this in the first episode of season two, where they show Rick is almost never of a split-mind on anything.
God I have to start watching that show
+illdiewithoutpi plz do, it's the best recommendation a friend of mine ever made to me to watch. I am now an absolute fanboy,
+Bananaman has the new season started ?
might hit you in the feels sometimes just so you know
I absolutely love the subject of identity, if only because it challenges what it means to be you. And also because the Ship of Theseus is my favourite paradox/thought experiment.
6:32 This also touch in something about how your beliefs affects your feelings, and "good lies" or "bad truths". And the idea of our judment being more based on perception than actual data.
"I'm always saying I won't change, but I ain't the same" -Mac Miller
you know, every time i hear the intro for crash course i feel comfort. Learning with you guys is a education I am thankful for and i appreciate your influence and i hope you know how many you help and assist in gaining new skills thought through and critical thinking in every subject. the direct one on one contact helps so much. but you all talk so fast i need to watch this is 0.75 haha.
Finally! I've been waiting for the Batman episode since episode 1! I really like this series because it reminds me of a class I took which used a lot of philosophy and psychology.
I love this whole Philosophy series! Fantastic
I love this series especially the philosophical series. I wish they was more vids on RUclips as entertaining as this channel.
One of the best episodes yet!
Go crash course!
The Ship belonged to Theseus and hence it was called as such, it wasn't called that because it left from a port called 'Theseus!'
This has easily been my favorite series on this channel since astronomy.
Loving this video series. Please keep doing them.
There is a pretty good example of this. Years ago somebody got a Shelby Cobra sportscar restored, but the car was so bad the workshop made a new chassis and moved it working parts to it. Without telling the owner. The old chassis was then sold as scrap, but the buyer decided to rebuild the car from it. So now you have two versions of the same rare car, both claiming that the other car is a replica. It ended in court and the owner of the repaired car with the new chassis won, with the persistent identity of the car being the reason.
I have never heard that description of the ship of Theseus before.
The one I've always heard was that it was the ship used by the hero Theseus, and upon his return, was preserved for posterity with various rotting or destroyed pieces being replaced over the years to keep it in good condition.
I love this entire series, and have watched all the episodes (some multiple times); I have determined that for comprehension i must watch at .75 speed.
Best episode yet. I never want this series to end!
Thanks for mentioning the boat thing, I'll be awake pondering that question all night now.
*Explains a fascinating philosophical problem*
6:10 "WhY ShOuLD YoU CaRE??'
possibly the only time you're gonna see the term "Fungibility" used correctly on the internet these days.
Looking forward to the next video- your channel is a gem, I am so enjoing this enriching kind of thinking, great presentation, great work, thank you so much!
Thanks! I have been watching these identity videos for one hour now. Great work!
Never let Hank petsit your dog, is what I got from this
This entire philosophical topic is arguing semantics. Human language is an abstraction of reality. We don't define words by particular sets of atoms in particular relative positions. We make a rough idea of what a particular collection of matter is and make up a word for it. If our language directly represented reality, particle by particle, then this problem ceases to exist. It's a lack of perfection in our language.
Now, onto the ship: When you replace a part of the ship, it is still Theseus' ship. It is not he *same* Theseus' ship, but it still the ship fitting the abstract human language definition of that phrase.
Any particular collection of particles is just that, a collection of particles. Giving it a name with human language does not impart any special identity to it in reality.
What I love most about rivers is you can't step in the same river twice
The water's always changing, always flowing
- -Pocahontas-
-Heraclitus
If you haven't seen it already, the opening reminded me of the scene from Only Fools and Horses where trigger was like:
"This broom has been in my family for generations, from my great great granddad...
It's had 12 different handles and 16 new heads"
"I'm Batman", or so he thought....
sour about being named Nick
That's our director's name. But he probably sympathizes with your plight, as he didn't actually do anything to justify these accusations of mug smashing.
-Nicole
he also has a corgi.
If Nick, the director who broke your mug, changed his name to Mark, then is Mark the same person as Nick and therefore is he the same person who broke your mug?
"he didn't actually do anything to justify these accusations of mug smashing."
This is exactly what he wants you to think.
what if mark was a mug, could nick replace the broken mark with another mug and would that mug be mark?
Another episode where I was reminded intensely of Dear Hank and John. There was even a question about loving a now broken mug a few episodes back.
Great video. Felt kind if incomplete so can't wait for part 2
Hi Hank,
Don't steal my dog. I'm no Batman, but I'll know it'll be you who stole it.
As long as you don't tell anybody it's not the same mug, it's the same mug.
I watch yours and school of life's videos over and over to cement all this inside my mind.
He's helping you make it concrete!
love these crash course. keep them coming.
Does Batman identify as a bat or a man?
Yes.
6 people liked your comment( including me). Now the question is, did they like it because you said yes, which is a correct answer to the question if we interpret it logically. XOr because it is tumblr-funny?
... Yes.
And even more important:
s there really a difference between Batman and Manbat ?
Justice.
But what happens if you don't know nick destroyed your mug? does any abstract properties that you place on the mug transfer to the new mug so long as you believe it? That is is something fungible as long as you think it is?
Incrível o quão o curso é dinâmico e bem explicado. Meus parabéns ao Crash Course!
Thank you, Mr. Hank Green! CrashCourse wouldn't be the same (identical) CrashCourse to me without You. :')
I am afraid Theseus is a guy not a place
I think you missed an opportunity to talk about recognisability here. Batman is batman as long as he is recognisable as batman by most. A large part of an object or idea's identity is what is assigned to it by those using it.
That can also be applied to people when they pass some threshold of popularity?/iconism? At what point does Che Guevara end and "The Rebel" begin? How influential is the individual person to the identity of the PotUS, and any leader to the identity of the governed nation? How important are the actual idea of those people compared to the perception of the MASSIVE amount of people projecting their ideas into that identity?
Philosophy. It tries to answer a question yet raises a million more. Gotta love it.
doing a PH.D thesis related to identity, this really helped me a lot. looking forward for the next episode...locke, descarte...tHANKs
@CrashCourse I don't want to be overly picky but "Theseus" was the mythical king of Athens, and the commander of the ship. I don't believe there is a place called "Theseus"
No love for Terry McGinnis :C
This is a fascinating subject for so many reasons. My own personal belief is that we are always changing even when we don't realize it. Even that singular idea of self is questionable because, as the example of Bruce Wayne/Batman proves, our core identies are up for grabs even within our own concepts of ourselves. While I would not go so far as to say that we can never know who we really are, I do believe that to a certain degree that we can compartmentalize ourselves so that the many sides of our personality can be hidden even from ourselves without ensuring cognitiive dissonace.
This is more than mere abstract philosophy for we systems engineers. Configuration Identification, Configuration Management, Functional Analysis etc.
Is Doctor Who the same Doctor that left earth with Ian and Barbra?
-For the case of Batman: Bruce is Batman, but Batman isn't necessarily Bruce. Batman is a symbol and therefore cannot be identical to the entities that take up the mantle, but can be identical to any other Batman. Each instance of Batman has an entity that is Batman, but is also not Batman
- For the case of the ship of Theseus: It starts out as the ship and remains that way; if the old parts and crew are reassembled, the recreated ship is the ship of Theseus as well. The ship of Theseus is a symbol, and at least one entity can be that symbol.
-For the case of the clay: Lumpl is the whole and what it can be (an idea). Goliath is Lumpl, but Lumpl isn't necessarily Goliath.
-For the case of the tree: It can be identical to other trees as the word "tree" is a concept. Once it is chopped down though, it is called a snag, which is a different concept. Chopped further it is called logs and sticks. Each of these represents a different concept, so they cannot be identical.
Basically anything that is an abstraction (an idea, a symbol, a concept, a notion, or a thought) can be identical and anything that is not an abstraction cannot be be identical.
Each video you narrate cements your voice further as my inner monologue.
This is the best series i've ever seen. It's even better than Breaking Bad. I love it so much.
Theseus isn't a port. All you have to read is the wikipedia page to figure that out. Who is doing the research for these videos?
6:38 I will never trust Hank with my dog.
Such a great video! I understood every second of it!
Great video as always! Question, could you guys do an episode on whether or not we actually have free will? I've been increasingly interested with this topic since I learned of Benjamin Libet's experiment.
Er. I was under the impression that Theseus was a personage, fictional or otherwise, instead of a place. The ship of Theseus was the fellow's ride from Crete back to Athens.
The sculptor is black?
Been looking forward to this since it was mentioned on Dear Hank and John, and, yep, mind properly blown.
I think the flaw of essentialism is that many of the definitions we have are arbitrary and fluid and thus have different essential properties to different viewers. Consider all the things that can be considered a chair. If the first time we see an object, someone is sitting on it, we might call it a chair, but the person who was sitting on it might, to their view, have been irreverently sitting on a cooking table and not consider the object a chair at all. Or one person might consider a big beach ball a toy, and another person consider it their ball chair.
what if Identity just straight up doesn't exist?
2 deep 4 me, m8
Real talk, that's actually something I would like to hear more about
Actually, some Buddhism says that the "self" doesn't actually exist because how much it constantly changes and thus, we can't pin down a "self" at any point. Of course, Buddhism specifically refers to people than objects, but maybe the same thing applies. If you are interested in reading about Buddhism, then you could read a lot here: www.sacred-texts.com/bud/
What do you mean by "identity" no existing? The concept of identity? Clearly it exists and is quite useful in a conversation. Do you mean specific identities, like say an identity of a dog? It exists as a label, clearly, though it's very difficult to pin down exactly what that means because you clearly have a whole lot of assumptions about any given identity. At what point is that thing not the actual identity you were thinking about? Are you trying to talk about an actual identity, or maybe an ideal identity that isn't the thing itself but your idea of a thing? Is there a meaningful difference, since ultimately only your perception counts to you?
I don't know! This is something we're gonna argue for a next couple hundred years probably. Philosophy develops pretty slowly.
well we're all just fecken particles anyway
I give you16points out of 32 for that first line...
It stops being a tree when it can accurately be described using a different noun.
Anything can always be accurately described using a different noun, even a made-up one, provided people agree.
Arrakiz666
So you make the claim that truth comes not from objective standards but from consensus?
Andrew Mabon This isn't a matter of epistemological truth, it's a matter of language. Whether objective truth is a thing or not clearly natural language isn't the best tool at discerning it and identity has everything to do with subjective labeling of objects.
Basically, would a rose smell any differently and have fewer thorns, if it wasn't called a rose?
Arrakiz666
And really this all boils down to the difficulty of determining the essential properties of objects. In some cases, like geometric shapes, it can be extremely simple - with living multi-faceted organisms the complexity rises drastically.
Also realize now that arguing for consensus is just ad populus (not insinuating you are).
And what logic dictates when it can start being described with a new noun?
I was just reading Hume's philosophy of the self mere minutes before this video came up. I'm excited to see if they incorporate Hume's ideas in the next video!
Azreal also took over as Batman during the Knightfall storyline, when Bane broke Bruce Wayne's back. Also in the 1966 tv show, Alfred the butler took over as Batman for an episode to trick the police into believe that Bruce Wayne and Batman were different people.
help, my ears bleeding for learning philosophy in fast paces lol
WE ARE ALL BATPEOPLE
Joker was hitting Batman with his tiny hands and those slapping noises were hilarious!
Thanks a lot for spoiling the story of Batman for me, mate. Bloody marvellous.
I spot an umpa lumpa at 2:36
Umpa Lumpas are orange, tiny and likely have their own set of genetic properties. Green hair doesn't make someone an umpa lumpa you fascist!
:P JK
Hahahahaha. Looks like your an umpa lumpa!
Oh jeez... There are no comments yet..... ummm... FIRST?
Just kidding.... Second.... :(
Or 8th.... Whatever....
7865379067568437765703486=34-897yij4ujrdklu094376903rd
Last then
Batman, philosophy, Hank Green... Awesome!!!
A lot of this seems to revolve around how we perceive something. Hank's new cup has a new 'identity' only to those who broke and replaced it. The rest of us won't find out whether the identity has changed. So the existential stance seems to require perfect knowledge.
And some musings about Theseus's ship. We say that the ship's identity changes when we change parts. It happens when we place the new part. But what if we only remove a part, such as the plank, and never replace it. The ship does gain a new identity, but rather than some of its parts becoming something new, the ship just becomes a diminished version of itself.