A lot of adults are but I know some fantastic ones too. The question is are we, now that we are adults, going to be responsible and wise and selfless and all the right things for the next generation to look to
People need to understand that these episodes were made for us to have an insight about certain theme, but we still have to learn and read about it on your own. Great Crash Course team.
platos rebublic is a good start, if youre intrested in western thought, Id say look at the Greeks and romans. Marcus Aurilious Meditations is another one ive read. both of them present an interesting view on life.
@@ivanarellano3409 I am also new to philosophy, I am going through the book by Marcus Aurelius - Meditations. It's a great book. If not that then you can also read: "Letters from a Stoic - Seneca" or "Discourses of Epictetus - Epictetus". All these book I recommended are based on "Stoic Philosophy". But you can sure google about other philosophical book. If you find something amazing do let me know too! Cheerio!
Here's a humbling thought: The more you understand, the more you realize how little you understand. A fool thinks they know everything, or at least that they know a lot. The wise understand that their knowledge is actually very limited. That last point (cogito ergo sum) actually makes a lot of sense. I ask: How can you be sure you are doubting; what if you are being made to only think you are doubting? And how do you know you are actually thinking? What if you are only being made to think you are thinking? Now, there's a problem. If you are being made to think you are thinking, then you are actually thinking. If nothing else, you can be sure of that: I think, therefore, I am. Wow, that makes sense!
I came in the comments because I don't believe that the doubt, the thinking entails so surely my own existence. Then I saw your comment and it made me think about that problem, and I came up with one more doubt (that I address you, if you might): How can I be sure that this thinking that I think is mine is not actually some thinking that the Evil Genius of Descartes put in my mind? In this case, I would not being thinking that I am thinking, I would just being cheated by the Evil Genius. That is, why can't the "thinking" be some sort of an Evil Genius' trick? To illustrate this idea, imagine a videogame character that in some part of the game sit in a bench and start to think about his own existence, and doubting about it all. He clearly does not exist to the player as a person. How can we be sure that we're not in the same condition of that videogame character? Hank said "So Descartes decided that he couldn't know that he had a body - what he believed to be his body could've been part of the Evil Genius' deception. But he must have a mind, or he couldn't be having these thoughts", but according to the Evil Genius' definition (that Hank gave us), these "thoughts" we're having can be an Evil Genius' deception that we have no way of detecting this illusion.
igorpitty90 "How can I be sure that this thinking that I think is mine is not actually some thinking that the Evil Genius of Descartes put in my mind?" Because the Evil Genius would be making you think that you are thinking, you would actually be thinking. You can say the Evil Genius tricked you in whatever way. But, the very fact that they would be tricking you points to a "you" whom can be tricked in the first place. . . . . "imagine a videogame character that in some part of the game sit in a bench and start to think about his own existence, and doubting about it all." Bad analogy - the videogame character has no capacity to actually think. They have no self-awareness at all. They are merely programmed to present an illusion of "thinking" to the player. But, they are not in existence any more than what is programmed and displayed to the videogame player.
which brings us to the question WHY? Why would an evil do all this for what purpose.. it is getting Agent Smith Matrixy here. Agent Smith would say we are a virus.. bu I say we are gods only bound by our own minds. Are we the evil then? For this ride I'll put my seatbelts on.
About "Cogito ergo sum": 1: he did not write that in the Meditations, but in Discourse on Method, and 2: That book was actually in french, so the original quote is "Je pense, donc je suis". It's important, because it shows that Descartes actually believed his ideas should be spread wider than just the educated, latin-reading, elite.
ParamoreFan101 Well, unless I've been deceived by a nasty demon, that book was originally called "Discours de la méthode" and was in French. "Meditations on first philosophy" was intended for scholars, it was longer and in latin, but it doesn't have the famous phrase. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cogito_ergo_sum
KRIGBERT Good to know, I knew I should never trust my philosophy teacher on these things anyway. Thanks for correcting my faulty knowledge! Always appreciated.
This. I was just about to comment on that myth. It goes from „je pense, donc je suis“ (1637, Discours) to „Ego sum, ego existo; certum est. Quandiu autem? Nempe quandiu cogito“ (1641, Meditations) and finally to „ego cogito, ergo sum“ (1644, Principles). So he actually wrote the latin version as well - but only 3 years later in a different book.
"What is 'real'? How do you define 'real'? If you're talking about what you can feel, what you can smell, taste and see, then 'real' is simply electrical signals interpreted by your brain." Morpheus (The Matrix, 1999)
Love this series! I'm a high-school senior and there are no philosophy courses for me to take, so this is a fantastic way for me to expose myself to the material before I take it in college. Thank you!
Nice link back to Crash Course Physiology showing what happens after Hank's cycle ride from the credits of that series. I'm glad you mentioned how quickly Descartes jumped from cogito to the Ontological Argument. I'm looking forward to seeing how you follow that up. Much later on I'd love an episode on Karl Popper - my favourite philosopher.
+CrashCourse Yay! Will you explain the objections to Popperian logic as well? I like Poppers line of demarcation, and have my own thoughts on it that I'd like to share sometime when I begin to produce videos, but I have been made aware that not all Swans are white, and that I also can't assume that there will eventually be found a black swan, for reasons.
To be fair to Renee, even if he hadn't leapt to the conclusion that god exists based on him just really really wanting it badly, he would have had to do so anyway because the 1600s were not a safe space for radical thinkers. Safer than the middle ages, to be sure, but it's worth remembering that Descartes lived at the same time as the Thirty Years' War, a largely religious conflict so bloody and brutal that it nearly depopulated central Europe. Making enemies of both Protestants and Catholics by not rushing to a god-affirming conclusion could well have ended in tragedy for him.
It's pretty common to see other people wondering, "Is anything I'm seeing real? Is all of it a stimulation?" and for that I too once wondered it a lot as a child. However, those thoughts also made me think about something similar. Sounds weird at first, but we know that most humans feel self conscious about being seen naked. In the shower (yes, shower thoughts), I kept thinking, "Despite the bathroom being closed in every way possible so there's no way for anyone to see me showering, what if there is someone still watching me but I'm just unaware of it?". That thought eventually turned into, "What if everything I'm seeing right now isn't real - perhaps an illusion or a stimulation -, but the actions I'm doing [In this case, showering] are still occurring in the 'real' world and that I'm just completely unaware of it?". And as a kid I kept thinking of this strange thought: What if what I'm seeing right now seems to be a normal life, but in reality I'm just a naked person in a cage, and every action I'm doing right now is happening in that cage. People walk by and think I'm crazy or have a problem. Perhaps it was just the paranoia or embarrassing myself without knowing, but it's quite crazy looking back and thinking, "Wow, I thought of THAT!"
Dear Crash Course, I adore your work, but there's an inaccurate statement in this video: Descartes WAS NOT a Skeptic. He *Used a Skeptic Method* in the Meditations to prove that (1) God Exists, and that (2) The Soul and the Body are fundamentally separated. That's a huge and important difference. Cheers!
@@claytonkeenan how can you used a skeptic method of argument to prove that god exists if very nature of skepticism is disbelief in pretty much everything?
the official sandidge02 They probably have covered math topics on another channel. But i was saying it would be cool to see a full series on Crash Course. Perhaps Calculus, or Statistics.
I dreamed that I woke up, began my morning routine, and started walking to school. I checked the time on my phone, it said 7:30. I woke up looked at my clock, it said 7:30. I was late that day.
I hope you get a chance to explore some non-western thought, because one of my favorite ideas ever comes out of Buddhism, the idea of anattā (which I know Hank is at least somewhat familiar with). It runs exactly counter to "cogito ergo sum," because it means "no self." This is the idea that the self, the I, the ego, the soul, is an illusion.
I remember when I was 12 yrs old I thought this: "I'm sure that I exist, but what about other people? Sure there are other people, but do they exist like I exist? Or they are just illusion God sent to me, like side-characters in one's story: I'm the main character, and they're side-characters. They don't matter, I matter." "What if the world isn't actually real, everything is not real. Like video games, you only know the things that are allowed by the gamemaker for you to know. Illusions." "What if our existence is a part of endless existences? We're the characters, and someone made us through another dimension, and someone from complex dimension made that someone that made us, and someone from far more complex dimension made someone from complex dimension that made someone that made us, and so on." I told my father about this, and he told me I played games too much XD
I remember when I asked myself whether all of life was an illusion and it's only our perception of life that makes it alive when I was four years old. And yes, even those doubts you had were also pondered about at that age. I still have those doubts. I often had an idea that only I existed and everyone else were just an illusion. But, I didn't tell anyone about this and now today I thank myself for not asking that. There's always that one person who says, " He's the Devil!" and the majority that says, " He's crazy". Xd
+Josh Derak I can vividly recollect having several dreams where I would woke up from a dream only to find out I was still dreaming. And had to force my eyes open or try to move a limb to actually wake up.
I had a nightmare once that I couldn't wake up and kept waking up falsely over and over and over and over. A hint to me that I was dreaming was that I couldn't turn any lights on. This caused me to panic and finally wake up. I've had this dream more than once. I just kept trying to turn the lights on each time I dreamt it until I stopped dreaming it.
I have questions like that when I was little too, I doubt everything's existence and consciousness. When I learnt about Rene Descartes, it felt like I am finally understood. I concluded that if some people have the same thoughts as I do, they must be exist and conscious too.
Descartes is one of the best examples to illustrate a general aspect of studying philosophy: We do not study the great philosophers because they were right about everything, but because the said something worse discussing, whether right or wrong. Either because they raised an interesting question, provided an interesting answer to a question or provided an interesting critique of an answer. Descartes had very debatable ideas for answering the challenge of scepticism and in other areas, his ideas have turned out to be flat out scientifically wrong (=> mind/body dualism), but his ideas were the foundation for so much worthwhile discussion.
Descartes exists as a thing, but not as a "thinking" thing. His thoughts could have been planted. All that he knows is that something exists, but what that thing is, or what it's capabilities are, are not actually known. He could be nothing but a tape recorder on loop, repeating to itself "i'm a thinking thing!", but that doesn't mean it's actually thinking. All it can solidly mean is that it exists.
+roidroid His thoughts could have been planted by the "demon". The demon could be taping on his computer screen what I am thinking right now. But the question is : Where is he planting those thoughts ? It stills requier the existence of a consciousness to put the toughts into and so you can be aware of those thoughts. It doesn't really rules out the existence of consciousness but it does put a doubt on the validity of the toughts and the logic that's suppose to rule them.
+roidroid He said "I think therefore I am." not "I am therefore I think." He was trying to establish his existence, not some quality of that existence. "Am I thinking? Or do I only think that I'm thinking? But in that case am I not thinking even if it's only thinking that I'm thinking?" was not what he was getting to.
"I think therefore I am" is actually considered begging the question since that statement is already assuming the "I" in the premise. The best way to rephrase the statement is "X thinks, I am that X, therefore I am thinking, therefore I exist" - Kierkegaard. This takes away the question begging.
Cogito ergo sum (Je pense, donc je suis), I think therefore I am, is in fact from *Discourse on the Method*. From the Meditations, the quotation is: "After considering everything very thoroughly, I must finally conclude that the proposition, *I am, I exist (Ego sum, ego existo)* is necessarily true whenever uttered by me or conceived in my mind." (Meditatio II, line 10)
Indeed. He spent a lot of time explaining why logic itself is unreliable, in his Meditations. Going on to then use a sentence that relies on the term "ergo" requies logic to function - ergo points to a deductive conclusion, but deduction has been previously doubted, because the manipulator could always manipulate you to believe that you had come up with a logical chain for arguments even though you have not, by messing with your memory midway through the thinking process. The "ego sum, ego existo" phrase no longer requires the use of logic (at least that's what Descartes appears to think), as it does not attempt to draw any conclusions - it is a mere observation without having to rely on any senses. Which, by virtue of being a sort of observation, ironically, is still somewhat empirical in my humble opinion, but that's a different argument. I think this is an important topic and should have received more screen time, at the expense of some of the basic explanation that was already done in the previous video.
Claire Louise _"There's loads of classic philosophy that's not European"_ is the purpose of this the history of the ideas, or the ideas themselves? which one should it be?
It's in both, as well as in Principles of Philosophy and The Search for Truth Discouse: je pense, donc je suis Meditations: ego sum, ego existo Principles: ego cogito, ergo sum Search: dubito, ergo sum, (vel, quod idem est,) cogito, ergo sum
It must be so convenient and nice to believe in a god that can fix your solipsistic crisis and then allow you to validate pretty much all previously held beliefs.
+ares106 Agreed, and I would generally say that the probability that you believe at least one false thing is high enough that going through your beliefs and not finding any false ones is a sign to be *more* skeptical, not to rest on your laurels and congratulate yourself on being right all along.
Hank, I must admit I was hoping John would do CC Philosophy (he tends to wax philosophic fairly regularly), but now I must say Thank You. You have such an objective approach and delivery (assuming anyone can be even partially objective), that is infinitely helpful with such heavy subject matter. I'm definitely learning new things with each new episode, for which I am grateful.
this made me laugh out loud several times. this is a brilliant series and channel - learning in depth is FUN. 3:18 haha the peering at the apple. too good - what a way to get the point across.
Love the video and this series! Hate to dive deeper into the skeptic tank, but Decartes' famous, "I think, therefore I am" presupposes an "I" which is a kind of circular reasoning, and not as significantly 'Eureka!' as commonly portrayed. In order to have "I am" one must (according to Decartes) have "I think". In both cases, the "I" is presupposed to exist to lend qualification for the "think" and the "am". It is very similar to saying, "The Bible was written by God, and God exists because the Bible says so." Awesome video!
"I have done it! I have removed every single assumption from my basket and am now free of all beliefs, ready to critically examine them all! Except for the God apple, that one can stay."
How do you know that thoughts require a thinker? Is it really the "I" that thinks, or do thoughts come as they please to the I? Thoughts exist, and an "I" that on some level perceives these thoughts exists and feels that its its own, but it is possible to doubt the origin of thoughts imo.
Hank skipped a step or two. You don't even need the evil genius: or rather, you could be your own evil genius. Maybe the world was created 5 min ago, but that still implies a world. Take it a step farther and doubt even that. Maybe you're a brain in a jar, and the world you know an illusion: that still implies a brain, a jar, and an illusionist. What if you're a mind in the void... Driven mad, engaging your own illusions like a daydream just to survive? Well... There we still must admit something exists- even if it's just you. We can doubt everything but one thing- because that must still be the source of the doubt- or more generically, any thought. If, as you say, that thought originates elsewhere, it still exists- it is self-proving... Perhaps the only thing that is self-proving. Whatever it originates from or interacts w/ then is also proven- after all, what does not exist cannot, by definition, interact with anything. Thus, you can at least prove yourself... If nothing else.
+ARedthorn It's really the only thing you can prove, I agree. Attempting to objectively prove anything else with 100% certainty is an exercise in futility
when I was small I had a very simple rule to tell if I was sleeping: If I ponder about the nature of reality or wonder if I am dreaming, I am not dreaming. So by simply asking, I already new the answer. 3 years later, I asked myself this exact question in a dream, and I felt destroyed. I btw worked with the premise, that I can destinguish between dream and reality if I am awake, but only if I am awake.
We learned a bit about him and other philosophers in my high school theology class, and again in college ethics, but it never clicked like it has now the way you tell it. Thank you so much for these high quality videos!
I was never happy with Des Carte's "I think, therefore I am" claim. It seemed very presumptious to me, so I refined it. How can we know for certain that we are truly thinking? How can we declare that we are, on such tenuous circumstantial evidence? We CAN doubt our existence. Even if it appears we are having such a thought, we cannot be certain of it. So my re-working of Des Carte's axiom is: I THINK I think, therefore I THINK I am. Much better. No more arrogant assumptions about what's going on. We don't truly know we are thinking, we only appear to do so, and we don't truly KNOW that we are, we can only be certain that we THINK we are. This is a much more accurate and supportable statement, leading to much the same place, but without any of the arrogant assumptions along the way, so please tell everyone that Des Carte may have overstepped the mark, and explain the new, sounder reasoning to humanity, so they don't continue to arrogantly assume that they exist without actually having any hard evidence for it.
+DarkPages Also he found no problem doubting his body but not his mind.. Pre-supposing dualism much? Pretty convenient since that then allows disembodied minds i.e. souls
I'd say that if the 'evil demon' can plant false experience of a body then what's to stop the 'evil demon' from planting false experience of a mind that has thoughts?
This is a really great way to learn about philosophy. It feels like people either know nothing about philosophy or know so much it's impossible to have a real discussion. I did learn a bit of philosophy in my "Making of the Modern World" college class, which spent the whole semester asking the question: what is modernity? It was really enlightening but my professor was insufferable. So thanks Hank for being educational, probing, but not a pompous asshat! (it's not swearing if I'm talking about a donkey)
Trying to binge all Philosophy episodes about knowledge and Popper etc, before my exam about it, it's really useful and helped me understand things I really didn't understand :)
The way you know you're not dreaming is by pinching your nose and trying to breathe through it. In real life you can't, in dreams you can. It's a lucid dreaming technique.
Descartes had a great experiment, but coming out of the experiment thinking there is proof of God, yeah... I can't really credit his outcome, but the experiment is great.
so, forgive me for this, but... how can we be sure that even thinking entails existence? I remain skeptical that even I exist, thoughts or no thoughts. how do I know I'm not an illusion, that my thoughts are not an illusion, and that my experience of having thoughts and experiences are not an illusion? and I would like to remind you that I am not alone in this. there is an entire religion which holds this belief -- that even experience itself is illusory. that even thought itself is illusory. in Hindu thought, the Advaita school of thought holds that the only thing which really exists is Brahman, the ultimate Godhead, which has neither quality nor form, but holds all possibility within itself. in the Tao Te Ching, Lao Tzu also explains that the only existence is that of the Tao, which cannot be described, because all things are merely a division from the infinite possibilities within it.
+Zachery Hall I'm so sorry for bursting anyone's worldview, but I believe it to be the Buddhist's understanding that the self is an illusion constructed from desires with the aid of mental faculties. That consciousness without a self can be experienced by means of letting go of desiring. Buddhism is also considered to be more of a science than a religion by its practitioners. "The highest wisdom is seeing that in reality, all phenomena are incomplete, impermanent and do not constitute a fixed entity. True wisdom is not simply believing what we are told but instead experiencing and understanding truth and reality. Wisdom requires an open, objective, unbigoted mind. The Buddhist path requires courage, patience, flexibility and intelligence."
Great comment, another modern philosopher, Spinoza who's also a Rationalist like Descartes posits and explores those very ideas in his book, Ethics. He believes in a system very similar to what you just said and explains it in soooooo much detail, really an incredibly unique philosopher.
What if we're globally dreaming and death is the only way to wake up? And the only way you attain the realization is to die and that everything is an illusion but we sense this illusion and all of our minds are tricking us and making us to believe that we sense and perceive everything when in fact, everything is just a mutual perception of everyone who experiences the false platform? I don't know. Maybe I just need a good sleep.
As someone who has never invested any thinking about philosophy (despite having had classes on epistemology), this episode got me spinning and spinning in my thoughts.....
+D' Otter All the first episodes have been filmed in a short period of time, and when they get near the end of editing the first set of episodes, they'll film the next however many episodes.
+Jonathan Wilkinson I would say that this is not true, because I've done it myself. But, for argument, let's ignore the anecdotal "I've done it myself", and say there's no reason to believe that even if we really could not decipher written language, that we could not decipher symbolic representations of "books" or signage; I may not be able to read, but I can see a stop sign, and know that it says stop. Furthermore, this is something that is impossible to empirically observe since there's no basis for ability to read in dreamland. My 2 year old nephew thinks he can read by staring at a book and holding it like the adults do. If you ask me after I've dreamed if I read, I'll tell you yes, even if I only though that I was reading; there is no objective criterion to meet, because there is no objective dream state since it's 100% subjective. Even after starting my whole post by telling you that "yes I can, I've done it," I am no more or less correct than you saying that no one can read in dreams, because there is no way to validate it. I THINK I can read in my dreams, but it's entirely possible that it's post-hoc rationalization. I was holding a book at staring at it, so I was "reading".
That's a rule the dream we're in gave us. If we were in a simulation that stated "If you are dreaming, clocks don't tick" and a clock ticked in the simulation, that cannot be founded as sufficient evidence to prove we are not in a simulation. Therefore, we can still be in a dream or simulation.
+Jonathan Wilkinson There could be an even more cohesive version of reality than this one. Much as this one seems compared to a dream but similarly, in ways we cannot determine from inside the experience. People do claim to awaken much as we sometimes realize we are dreaming.
I love you guys-- you're one of the most knowledgeable teams out there today. I appreciate all the content you put out-- you deliver impeccably. Thank you.
+Mariana Farfán and if enough people keep saying this at each episode, they will end up doing it at some point after this series, hopefully. but they will probably give it a different name which will make it feel like euro philo is different (better/more important) than mid-eastern and Asian philosophy. sad face
The reason I'm certain I'm not dreaming right now because I am not smart enough to articulate all this in my head. I'm also pretty confident that I couldn't come up with any of the music I've listened to or information that I've read since I've woken up today. I'd have to be a godlike savant at everything in order for it to all be so coherent. These are the strongest arguments against solipsism that I personally have.
Actually 2400 years ago in ancient China, there is also a story written by Zhuangzi, a philosopher and founder of Tao, called 'Zhuang Zhou dreaming butterfly'. One day, Zhuangzi dreams of himself becoming a butterfly. When he woke up, he questioned about whether is he dreaming of becoming a butterfly, or a butterfly dreaming of becoming a man named Zhuangzi. This made him realised human is unable to distinguish between reality. This lead him to conclude that nothing should be distinguished, whether awake or asleep to alive or dead.
This video is making me like life more. I prayed for a fun video with philosophical teaching and immediately found this 18-yr-old-looking young man with such knowledge and eloquence? Feels surreal. Our world might be just an imitation of the ultimate reality, but this video must reflects a little bit of how the wonderful human beings can be. Oh I forgot to mention that the he IS thin and handsome, smooth skin, stylish suit, cute glass frame. I just don't pay attention to appearance that much anymore these days
René Descartes walks into a bar
Barkeeper: Do you want a beverage, sir?
Descartes: I think not
* *ceases from existence* *
Victor Hugo lol ...good one!!
Rene decartes is a spy!
Wow.
A big truth for me growing up was that adults knew what they were doing. Turns out adults are as irresponsible as children.
Mike Keller Especially the US president.
Adults are childs with more childs
A lot of adults are but I know some fantastic ones too. The question is are we, now that we are adults, going to be responsible and wise and selfless and all the right things for the next generation to look to
Very sad... Still going through that realization now.
Julian Vázquez a lot of them are like that unfortunately.
Hank knows we dream about him. ABORT ABORT
Guys with pretty faces and minds are the hottest guys around
we need to start a fan club
or are we actually in his dream(inception)?
Well he IS super-cute........wheteher he exists or not!!
He is god
philosopher: * exists *
also philospher: but what if... no?
People need to understand that these episodes were made for us to have an insight about certain theme, but we still have to learn and read about it on your own. Great Crash Course team.
Do you recommend any specific books on philosophy? I’m new to philosophy and wish to expand my knowledge on the subject.
Any recommendations?
I would be really grateful if anyone recommeds some good books to help us understand more..
platos rebublic is a good start, if youre intrested in western thought, Id say look at the Greeks and romans. Marcus Aurilious Meditations is another one ive read. both of them present an interesting view on life.
don't do this to me man
@@ivanarellano3409 I am also new to philosophy, I am going through the book by Marcus Aurelius - Meditations. It's a great book. If not that then you can also read: "Letters from a Stoic - Seneca" or "Discourses of Epictetus - Epictetus". All these book I recommended are based on "Stoic Philosophy". But you can sure google about other philosophical book. If you find something amazing do let me know too! Cheerio!
I'm watching this at 8am, it's too early for an existential crisis
+nojerama1996 I'll add fuel to the fire. Read Jed Mckenna.
Never too early
😂😂😂
I am watching this at 12:44am. Is it too early or too late?
Never too early @-@
Irony: a philosophy teacher saying, "take my word for it." 🤔 😆
But you thought didn't you?
but like a philosopher, he said it had problems
He may just reading scripts written by someone else (not really a teacher, 🤔)
Descartes also kind of does that in the middle of explanations. It's acceptable because it will be explained in the future.
Rowan Brown so can you take a side. If I tell you I question my reality. Do I cease to exist?
Are you sure you're doubting? Are you SURE?
TheFireflyGrave 😂lol
this is my favorite comment on here lol
Yes.
Yes, because if you doubt that you are doubting that would affirm that you are doubting.
I am absolutely sure that I am absolutely not sure.
Here's a humbling thought: The more you understand, the more you realize how little you understand. A fool thinks they know everything, or at least that they know a lot. The wise understand that their knowledge is actually very limited. That last point (cogito ergo sum) actually makes a lot of sense. I ask: How can you be sure you are doubting; what if you are being made to only think you are doubting? And how do you know you are actually thinking? What if you are only being made to think you are thinking? Now, there's a problem. If you are being made to think you are thinking, then you are actually thinking. If nothing else, you can be sure of that: I think, therefore, I am. Wow, that makes sense!
Are you John C(ena)? Because I can't see you :/
Biprodev Sarker No. I don't know who John C(ena) is?
I came in the comments because I don't believe that the doubt, the thinking entails so surely my own existence. Then I saw your comment and it made me think about that problem, and I came up with one more doubt (that I address you, if you might):
How can I be sure that this thinking that I think is mine is not actually some thinking that the Evil Genius of Descartes put in my mind? In this case, I would not being thinking that I am thinking, I would just being cheated by the Evil Genius. That is, why can't the "thinking" be some sort of an Evil Genius' trick?
To illustrate this idea, imagine a videogame character that in some part of the game sit in a bench and start to think about his own existence, and doubting about it all. He clearly does not exist to the player as a person. How can we be sure that we're not in the same condition of that videogame character?
Hank said "So Descartes decided that he couldn't know that he had a body - what he believed to be his body could've been part of the Evil Genius' deception. But he must have a mind, or he couldn't be having these thoughts", but according to the Evil Genius' definition (that Hank gave us), these "thoughts" we're having can be an Evil Genius' deception that we have no way of detecting this illusion.
igorpitty90 "How can I be sure that this thinking that I think is mine is not actually some thinking that the Evil Genius of Descartes put in my mind?"
Because the Evil Genius would be making you think that you are thinking, you would actually be thinking.
You can say the Evil Genius tricked you in whatever way. But, the very fact that they would be tricking you points to a "you" whom can be tricked in the first place.
. . . .
"imagine a videogame character that in some part of the game sit in a bench and start to think about his own existence, and doubting about it all."
Bad analogy - the videogame character has no capacity to actually think. They have no self-awareness at all. They are merely programmed to present an illusion of "thinking" to the player. But, they are not in existence any more than what is programmed and displayed to the videogame player.
which brings us to the question WHY? Why would an evil do all this for what purpose.. it is getting Agent Smith Matrixy here. Agent Smith would say we are a virus.. bu I say we are gods only bound by our own minds. Are we the evil then?
For this ride I'll put my seatbelts on.
About "Cogito ergo sum": 1: he did not write that in the Meditations, but in Discourse on Method, and 2: That book was actually in french, so the original quote is "Je pense, donc je suis". It's important, because it shows that Descartes actually believed his ideas should be spread wider than just the educated, latin-reading, elite.
I go to a french school and I learned it as "Cogito ergo sum". Are you sure? :V
ParamoreFan101 Well, unless I've been deceived by a nasty demon, that book was originally called "Discours de la méthode" and was in French. "Meditations on first philosophy" was intended for scholars, it was longer and in latin, but it doesn't have the famous phrase. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cogito_ergo_sum
KRIGBERT
Good to know, I knew I should never trust my philosophy teacher on these things anyway. Thanks for correcting my faulty knowledge! Always appreciated.
Koops The Poet Thanks!
This. I was just about to comment on that myth. It goes from „je pense, donc je suis“ (1637, Discours) to „Ego sum, ego existo; certum est. Quandiu autem? Nempe quandiu cogito“ (1641, Meditations) and finally to „ego cogito, ergo sum“ (1644, Principles). So he actually wrote the latin version as well - but only 3 years later in a different book.
Right when i get home from school there is a video that i can actually get educated from!
Same
+Evan Nelson What were you doing for 8 hours?
Justspent1k your mom
+Evan Nelson there are always plenty of videos to get educated from. You just have to seek them out.
+SangoProductions213 I was not talking about to other videos, i was talking about to me being able to learn about interesting stuff!
"What is 'real'? How do you define 'real'? If you're talking about what you can feel, what you can smell, taste and see, then 'real' is simply electrical signals interpreted by your brain." Morpheus (The Matrix, 1999)
They blew my mind by putting the Five Minute Hypothesis six minutes into the video.
Love this series! I'm a high-school senior and there are no philosophy courses for me to take, so this is a fantastic way for me to expose myself to the material before I take it in college. Thank you!
" i think there for i am " that phrase sounds so clear now
What if we're just a thought bubble?
......whoa......
+GentleFist Brewer lol my thoughts exactly
Milo curry
What's "thoughts",precious?!
Thought bubbles,having thoughts about being thought bubbles.
+superj1e2z6 I'd be OK with that.
Nice link back to Crash Course Physiology showing what happens after Hank's cycle ride from the credits of that series.
I'm glad you mentioned how quickly Descartes jumped from cogito to the Ontological Argument. I'm looking forward to seeing how you follow that up.
Much later on I'd love an episode on Karl Popper - my favourite philosopher.
+David Durant That's Thought Cafe's typical brilliance for you! :D
And yes, we will be getting to Popper soon :)
+CrashCourse when you get onto aesthetics some Levinson would be amazing.
+CrashCourse what about carl sagan?
+arichards761 Not a philosopher, but maybe CrashCourse will cover Kuhn (to get your philosophy of science kick).
+CrashCourse Yay! Will you explain the objections to Popperian logic as well? I like Poppers line of demarcation, and have my own thoughts on it that I'd like to share sometime when I begin to produce videos, but I have been made aware that not all Swans are white, and that I also can't assume that there will eventually be found a black swan, for reasons.
To be fair to Renee, even if he hadn't leapt to the conclusion that god exists based on him just really really wanting it badly, he would have had to do so anyway because the 1600s were not a safe space for radical thinkers. Safer than the middle ages, to be sure, but it's worth remembering that Descartes lived at the same time as the Thirty Years' War, a largely religious conflict so bloody and brutal that it nearly depopulated central Europe. Making enemies of both Protestants and Catholics by not rushing to a god-affirming conclusion could well have ended in tragedy for him.
I actually had to stop eating my muesli and laugh when Hank said "Hey, who can blame you?" xD
+Zwerggoldhamster I made an audible ayeeeee in response
+Zwerggoldhamster I mirrored him as if I could be so handsome as he is.
XD I laughed because I was lying down in bed watching this video lol. XD
lol same
I somehow really like the sound of the snaps he makes with his fingers.
I watched the whole series back in 2017 and now watching it again!
This version of the Crash Course music is awesome.
I've a degree in philosophy and I think this is a nice video! Well done Hank + team!
"Choosing truth at the cost of comfort and happiness"
It's pretty common to see other people wondering, "Is anything I'm seeing real? Is all of it a stimulation?" and for that I too once wondered it a lot as a child. However, those thoughts also made me think about something similar.
Sounds weird at first, but we know that most humans feel self conscious about being seen naked. In the shower (yes, shower thoughts), I kept thinking, "Despite the bathroom being closed in every way possible so there's no way for anyone to see me showering, what if there is someone still watching me but I'm just unaware of it?". That thought eventually turned into, "What if everything I'm seeing right now isn't real - perhaps an illusion or a stimulation -, but the actions I'm doing [In this case, showering] are still occurring in the 'real' world and that I'm just completely unaware of it?".
And as a kid I kept thinking of this strange thought: What if what I'm seeing right now seems to be a normal life, but in reality I'm just a naked person in a cage, and every action I'm doing right now is happening in that cage. People walk by and think I'm crazy or have a problem. Perhaps it was just the paranoia or embarrassing myself without knowing, but it's quite crazy looking back and thinking, "Wow, I thought of THAT!"
Dear Crash Course,
I adore your work, but there's an inaccurate statement in this video:
Descartes WAS NOT a Skeptic. He *Used a Skeptic Method* in the Meditations to prove that (1) God Exists, and that (2) The Soul and the Body are fundamentally separated. That's a huge and important difference.
Cheers!
+Arnon Rosenthal * attempted to prove
+Tommy Meyer Yes, off course it didn't turn out to be convincing :)
@@claytonkeenan how can you used a skeptic method of argument to prove that god exists if very nature of skepticism is disbelief in pretty much everything?
@@alexhood3966 Metaphysical Skepticism* There are different skepticisms.
You guys should do a math series eventually, with violin intro music, and CHALKBOARDS! MILES AND MILES OF CHALKBOARDS!
the official sandidge02 nope
the official sandidge02 They probably have covered math topics on another channel. But i was saying it would be cool to see a full series on Crash Course. Perhaps Calculus, or Statistics.
I love these courses. This one is turning into one of my favorites. Before this, I thought philosphy was boring, and now I'm loving it. Thanks!
I love this series. I hope it's a long one.
+FirstRisingSouI Yeah me too, I'm so damn excited every time there's a new one.
48 Episodes
When he said Renee I sighed loud enough for my coworker to ask “crash course bothering you again” yes this is a common thing
I dreamed that I woke up, began my morning routine, and started walking to school. I checked the time on my phone, it said 7:30. I woke up looked at my clock, it said 7:30. I was late that day.
Ok
X
You can’t see details in a dream
proxima centauri b Then maybe it wasn’t a dream
I hope you get a chance to explore some non-western thought, because one of my favorite ideas ever comes out of Buddhism, the idea of anattā (which I know Hank is at least somewhat familiar with). It runs exactly counter to "cogito ergo sum," because it means "no self." This is the idea that the self, the I, the ego, the soul, is an illusion.
"Don't stop...disbelieving..." - Descartes sings Journey
I remember when I was 12 yrs old I thought this:
"I'm sure that I exist, but what about other people? Sure there are other people, but do they exist like I exist? Or they are just illusion God sent to me, like side-characters in one's story: I'm the main character, and they're side-characters. They don't matter, I matter."
"What if the world isn't actually real, everything is not real. Like video games, you only know the things that are allowed by the gamemaker for you to know. Illusions."
"What if our existence is a part of endless existences? We're the characters, and someone made us through another dimension, and someone from complex dimension made that someone that made us, and someone from far more complex dimension made someone from complex dimension that made someone that made us, and so on."
I told my father about this, and he told me I played games too much XD
we all wish we had fathers that might say to that: "what a little philosopher!"
I remember when I asked myself whether all of life was an illusion and it's only our perception of life that makes it alive when I was four years old.
And yes, even those doubts you had were also pondered about at that age. I still have those doubts. I often had an idea that only I existed and everyone else were just an illusion. But, I didn't tell anyone about this and now today I thank myself for not asking that. There's always that one person who says, " He's the Devil!" and the majority that says, " He's crazy". Xd
This video has been my favorite out of the series so far :)
Once and only once, I had a dream that I fell asleep and had a dream. Then I had to essentially wake up twice.
Mr. Tenandstuff Precisely!
+Josh Derak I can vividly recollect having several dreams where I would woke up from a dream only to find out I was still dreaming. And had to force my eyes open or try to move a limb to actually wake up.
Wh3tst0nE Ever woken and had sleep paralysis? It's terrifying but doesn't last long.
yeah i think it was that state between dreaming and being awake (that can go back and forth depending on your tiredness, stimuli or lackthereof etc)
I had a nightmare once that I couldn't wake up and kept waking up falsely over and over and over and over. A hint to me that I was dreaming was that I couldn't turn any lights on. This caused me to panic and finally wake up. I've had this dream more than once. I just kept trying to turn the lights on each time I dreamt it until I stopped dreaming it.
I have questions like that when I was little too, I doubt everything's existence and consciousness. When I learnt about Rene Descartes, it felt like I am finally understood. I concluded that if some people have the same thoughts as I do, they must be exist and conscious too.
You guys should talk about animal consciousness and the Problem of Other Minds. That'd be really interesting.
When is Crash Course Physics coming out
+Boneyard Broadcast at the end of March!
+CrashCourse Flippin Sweet!
+CrashCourse Who's going to present it?
+Hayden Kingsley I forgot her name, but just check the video. It covers a majority of these questions.
+Hayden Kingsley
Hot Indian-British lady
This whole series is a valuable and most appreciated addition to RUclips. Thank you for producing it.
Descartes is one of the best examples to illustrate a general aspect of studying philosophy: We do not study the great philosophers because they were right about everything, but because the said something worse discussing, whether right or wrong. Either because they raised an interesting question, provided an interesting answer to a question or provided an interesting critique of an answer.
Descartes had very debatable ideas for answering the challenge of scepticism and in other areas, his ideas have turned out to be flat out scientifically wrong (=> mind/body dualism), but his ideas were the foundation for so much worthwhile discussion.
I love how you can just see Diogenes in a barrel for just a bit while the camera pans over in the intro 1:14
(he's on the left)
Descartes exists as a thing, but not as a "thinking" thing. His thoughts could have been planted. All that he knows is that something exists, but what that thing is, or what it's capabilities are, are not actually known.
He could be nothing but a tape recorder on loop, repeating to itself "i'm a thinking thing!", but that doesn't mean it's actually thinking. All it can solidly mean is that it exists.
+roidroid His thoughts could have been planted by the "demon". The demon could be taping on his computer screen what I am thinking right now. But the question is : Where is he planting those thoughts ? It stills requier the existence of a consciousness to put the toughts into and so you can be aware of those thoughts.
It doesn't really rules out the existence of consciousness but it does put a doubt on the validity of the toughts and the logic that's suppose to rule them.
+roidroid
1) can we learn about the thing?
2) can we make predictions based on our understanding of the thing?
+roidroid Actually, all one's doubt proves is that something exists and that it is capable of doing something.
+roidroid He said "I think therefore I am." not "I am therefore I think."
He was trying to establish his existence, not some quality of that existence.
"Am I thinking? Or do I only think that I'm thinking? But in that case am I not thinking even if it's only thinking that I'm thinking?" was not what he was getting to.
Since certainty seems impossible here, why bother dwelling on it. Seems like a waste of energy.
Uh oh, we're gonna talk about God? Can't wait to see the comment section of that video!
Actually, people kept it fairly mature. Either that, or CrashCourse removed all of the controversial comments.
"I think therefore I am" is actually considered begging the question since that statement is already assuming the "I" in the premise. The best way to rephrase the statement is "X thinks, I am that X, therefore I am thinking, therefore I exist" - Kierkegaard. This takes away the question begging.
"Defeated the threat of the evil genius" that he created himself with his own doubt
Cogito ergo sum (Je pense, donc je suis), I think therefore I am, is in fact from *Discourse on the Method*. From the Meditations, the quotation is: "After considering everything very thoroughly, I must finally conclude that the proposition, *I am, I exist (Ego sum, ego existo)* is necessarily true whenever uttered by me or conceived in my mind." (Meditatio II, line 10)
Indeed. He spent a lot of time explaining why logic itself is unreliable, in his Meditations. Going on to then use a sentence that relies on the term "ergo" requies logic to function - ergo points to a deductive conclusion, but deduction has been previously doubted, because the manipulator could always manipulate you to believe that you had come up with a logical chain for arguments even though you have not, by messing with your memory midway through the thinking process.
The "ego sum, ego existo" phrase no longer requires the use of logic (at least that's what Descartes appears to think), as it does not attempt to draw any conclusions - it is a mere observation without having to rely on any senses. Which, by virtue of being a sort of observation, ironically, is still somewhat empirical in my humble opinion, but that's a different argument.
I think this is an important topic and should have received more screen time, at the expense of some of the basic explanation that was already done in the previous video.
This is nice, but in the correction of this fault you've distracted those attempting the learn,from the point of the information
I don't believe in 5 minute hypothesis, I believe in last Thursdayism
... the only difference being last-Thursdayism sounds more ridiculous when you say it out loud.
+YellowFlareMC True. Those five minutes guys are just ridiculous!
Occam's Razor whoops (whoops sorry)
Will you be doing any East Asian or Arabic philosophy? There's loads of classic philosophy that's not European folks.
+Claire Louise From the looks of the intro and flash segments, I'm afraid this is going to be rather Eurocentric.
+Claire Louise It wouldn't fit onto the same timeline, it would have to be a separate, parallell series.
+Doc Eon philosophy is philosophy.
regardless of where in the world it was thought of, or when.
Ebon Hawk
Well, in a sense that's true. But if you disconnect philosophical ideas from their historical context you lose something in the process.
Claire Louise
_"There's loads of classic philosophy that's not European"_
is the purpose of this the history of the ideas, or the ideas themselves? which one should it be?
*"I think therefore I am"* was in *Discourse on the Method*, not Meditations.
It's in both, as well as in Principles of Philosophy and The Search for Truth
Discouse: je pense, donc je suis
Meditations: ego sum, ego existo
Principles: ego cogito, ergo sum
Search: dubito, ergo sum, (vel, quod idem est,) cogito, ergo sum
"God good, everything bad"- Descartes
If Descartes saw CPG Grey's new video, he would lose his shit.
yeah that one took me back a little.
yeah that one took me back a little.
It must be so convenient and nice to believe in a god that can fix your solipsistic crisis and then allow you to validate pretty much all previously held beliefs.
+ares106 It does help patch a few cracks, or at the very least wallpaper over them.
+Joshua Pelfrey You are one of relatively few who use him responsibly.
What solipsistic crisis is there that needs to be resolved, really? No need for a "god" nor worry about any solipsism, vat brains, etc.
+ares106 amen
+ares106 Agreed, and I would generally say that the probability that you believe at least one false thing is high enough that going through your beliefs and not finding any false ones is a sign to be *more* skeptical, not to rest on your laurels and congratulate yourself on being right all along.
Hank, I must admit I was hoping John would do CC Philosophy (he tends to wax philosophic fairly regularly), but now I must say Thank You. You have such an objective approach and delivery (assuming anyone can be even partially objective), that is infinitely helpful with such heavy subject matter. I'm definitely learning new things with each new episode, for which I am grateful.
this made me laugh out loud several times. this is a brilliant series and channel - learning in depth is FUN. 3:18 haha the peering at the apple. too good - what a way to get the point across.
i've attended dozens of lectures on this topic, this 10 minute video is one of the best
Love the video and this series! Hate to dive deeper into the skeptic tank, but Decartes' famous, "I think, therefore I am" presupposes an "I" which is a kind of circular reasoning, and not as significantly 'Eureka!' as commonly portrayed. In order to have "I am" one must (according to Decartes) have "I think". In both cases, the "I" is presupposed to exist to lend qualification for the "think" and the "am". It is very similar to saying, "The Bible was written by God, and God exists because the Bible says so."
Awesome video!
+Adam Madaris Are there thoughts? What is producing thoughts? If yes and it is I. Then am I thinking?
"I have done it! I have removed every single assumption from my basket and am now free of all beliefs, ready to critically examine them all!
Except for the God apple, that one can stay."
How do you know that thoughts require a thinker? Is it really the "I" that thinks, or do thoughts come as they please to the I? Thoughts exist, and an "I" that on some level perceives these thoughts exists and feels that its its own, but it is possible to doubt the origin of thoughts imo.
+deadagain33 As long as we're being especially skeptical, it's always possible that there isn't an "I" and we just can't imagine an alternative.
+deadagain33 But if it can't be differentiated from what's "really real"... Does it matter?
Hank skipped a step or two. You don't even need the evil genius: or rather, you could be your own evil genius.
Maybe the world was created 5 min ago, but that still implies a world. Take it a step farther and doubt even that.
Maybe you're a brain in a jar, and the world you know an illusion: that still implies a brain, a jar, and an illusionist.
What if you're a mind in the void... Driven mad, engaging your own illusions like a daydream just to survive?
Well... There we still must admit something exists- even if it's just you.
We can doubt everything but one thing- because that must still be the source of the doubt- or more generically, any thought.
If, as you say, that thought originates elsewhere, it still exists- it is self-proving... Perhaps the only thing that is self-proving.
Whatever it originates from or interacts w/ then is also proven- after all, what does not exist cannot, by definition, interact with anything.
Thus, you can at least prove yourself... If nothing else.
+ARedthorn It's really the only thing you can prove, I agree. Attempting to objectively prove anything else with 100% certainty is an exercise in futility
+Tommy Meyer An exercise in futility? My counterexample is the law of non-contradiction. Gotcha.
4:44 is the best part in this entire lesson
i never did philosophy in college as a unit but the simplicity in explanation, that this course does, makes its so much fun and interesiting. WOW!
4:05 Falafel!
yessss
falafel can become a symbol of this course
i really like how it sounds
FALAFEL!
+Kingwut117 Has Hank finally gone Veg? He's been mulling it over for like 2 months
Crash Course Falafely.
4:41-4:48 Best Crash Course moment ever!!!
Rene Descartes was a drunken fart "I drink, therefore I am."
when I was small I had a very simple rule to tell if I was sleeping: If I ponder about the nature of reality or wonder if I am dreaming, I am not dreaming. So by simply asking, I already new the answer.
3 years later, I asked myself this exact question in a dream, and I felt destroyed.
I btw worked with the premise, that I can destinguish between dream and reality if I am awake, but only if I am awake.
We learned a bit about him and other philosophers in my high school theology class, and again in college ethics, but it never clicked like it has now the way you tell it. Thank you so much for these high quality videos!
Do Schopenhauer!!
I love how the false memory of how his character got the scar is the after math of the Crash Course A&P intro. 6:05
Wait… what's this about Santa Clause and the tooth fairy?
Mike Hermida don't worry, according to my psuedo science santa must exist since there's proof of him everywhere
Mike Hermida lol jk, the majority of us have been lied to since childhood
I was never happy with Des Carte's "I think, therefore I am" claim. It seemed very presumptious to me, so I refined it.
How can we know for certain that we are truly thinking? How can we declare that we are, on such tenuous circumstantial evidence? We CAN doubt our existence. Even if it appears we are having such a thought, we cannot be certain of it.
So my re-working of Des Carte's axiom is:
I THINK I think, therefore I THINK I am.
Much better. No more arrogant assumptions about what's going on. We don't truly know we are thinking, we only appear to do so, and we don't truly KNOW that we are, we can only be certain that we THINK we are.
This is a much more accurate and supportable statement, leading to much the same place, but without any of the arrogant assumptions along the way, so please tell everyone that Des Carte may have overstepped the mark, and explain the new, sounder reasoning to humanity, so they don't continue to arrogantly assume that they exist without actually having any hard evidence for it.
2023... I can't tell you how many times this guy has helped me out. Thank you. Philosophy is quite difficult
Doubt everything, but dont doubt god. Good job mate
+DarkPages Also he found no problem doubting his body but not his mind..
Pre-supposing dualism much?
Pretty convenient since that then allows disembodied minds i.e. souls
I'd say that if the 'evil demon' can plant false experience of a body then what's to stop the 'evil demon' from planting false experience of a mind that has thoughts?
I'm a Sarkeesian sceptic
decentradical hello Morty.!!!!!!
I just had a terrible dream with Hank Green in it.....oh
This is a really great way to learn about philosophy. It feels like people either know nothing about philosophy or know so much it's impossible to have a real discussion. I did learn a bit of philosophy in my "Making of the Modern World" college class, which spent the whole semester asking the question: what is modernity? It was really enlightening but my professor was insufferable. So thanks Hank for being educational, probing, but not a pompous asshat! (it's not swearing if I'm talking about a donkey)
Trying to binge all Philosophy episodes about knowledge and Popper etc, before my exam about it, it's really useful and helped me understand things I really didn't understand :)
The way you know you're not dreaming is by pinching your nose and trying to breathe through it. In real life you can't, in dreams you can. It's a lucid dreaming technique.
Makes me wish I had _you_ as a philosophy teacher.
Well, I guess I do now.
Descartes had a great experiment, but coming out of the experiment thinking there is proof of God, yeah... I can't really credit his outcome, but the experiment is great.
A great series! It is awesome how physics and philosophy are coming out at the same time
OMG! Love "Crash Course", "Pagan Philosophy", and "Religion for Breakfast"! Sub'd to all three!!!
so, forgive me for this, but... how can we be sure that even thinking entails existence? I remain skeptical that even I exist, thoughts or no thoughts. how do I know I'm not an illusion, that my thoughts are not an illusion, and that my experience of having thoughts and experiences are not an illusion?
and I would like to remind you that I am not alone in this. there is an entire religion which holds this belief -- that even experience itself is illusory. that even thought itself is illusory. in Hindu thought, the Advaita school of thought holds that the only thing which really exists is Brahman, the ultimate Godhead, which has neither quality nor form, but holds all possibility within itself. in the Tao Te Ching, Lao Tzu also explains that the only existence is that of the Tao, which cannot be described, because all things are merely a division from the infinite possibilities within it.
+Zachery Hall
I'm so sorry for bursting anyone's worldview, but I believe it to be the Buddhist's understanding that the self is an illusion constructed from desires with the aid of mental faculties. That consciousness without a self can be experienced by means of letting go of desiring. Buddhism is also considered to be more of a science than a religion by its practitioners.
"The highest wisdom is seeing that in reality, all phenomena are incomplete, impermanent and do not constitute a fixed entity. True wisdom is not simply believing what we are told but instead experiencing and understanding truth and reality. Wisdom requires an open, objective, unbigoted mind. The Buddhist path requires courage, patience, flexibility and intelligence."
that's another one we can add, then. :)
Great comment, another modern philosopher, Spinoza who's also a Rationalist like Descartes posits and explores those very ideas in his book, Ethics. He believes in a system very similar to what you just said and explains it in soooooo much detail, really an incredibly unique philosopher.
By going outside
Oh and if you were ever tortured by being flayed.. I'm sure no one would doubt there existence
Without the absolute truth. Nothing is truly known and every thing is a just possibility.
+Zeldas Champion Exactly, nothing is truly known
But is this absolute truth? i think, therefore i am. But what am I?
+Zeldas Champion The near-consensus among contemporary philosophers is that certainty isn't a necessary condition for knowledge.
+Collin Bruce (OKMC) _what_ I am is also unknown. ;-)
***** so therefor there is no absolute truth. Just skepticism, and questions.
What if we're globally dreaming and death is the only way to wake up? And the only way you attain the realization is to die and that everything is an illusion but we sense this illusion and all of our minds are tricking us and making us to believe that we sense and perceive everything when in fact, everything is just a mutual perception of everyone who experiences the false platform?
I don't know. Maybe I just need a good sleep.
As someone who has never invested any thinking about philosophy (despite having had classes on epistemology), this episode got me spinning and spinning in my thoughts.....
In this episode a frenchman discovers solipsism
If you haven't filmed episode 6 yet, I hope you'll deal with David Hume.
+D' Otter It's all filmed in advance
+D' Otter All the first episodes have been filmed in a short period of time, and when they get near the end of editing the first set of episodes, they'll film the next however many episodes.
Nillie
Oh. NVM then.
You dreamed that you were going to the bathroom but when you wake up you realize that you peed the bed. :) lol :)
You can't read in a dream. That is how you know whether you are dreaming or not.
+Jonathan Wilkinson I would say that this is not true, because I've done it myself. But, for argument, let's ignore the anecdotal "I've done it myself", and say there's no reason to believe that even if we really could not decipher written language, that we could not decipher symbolic representations of "books" or signage; I may not be able to read, but I can see a stop sign, and know that it says stop.
Furthermore, this is something that is impossible to empirically observe since there's no basis for ability to read in dreamland. My 2 year old nephew thinks he can read by staring at a book and holding it like the adults do. If you ask me after I've dreamed if I read, I'll tell you yes, even if I only though that I was reading; there is no objective criterion to meet, because there is no objective dream state since it's 100% subjective.
Even after starting my whole post by telling you that "yes I can, I've done it," I am no more or less correct than you saying that no one can read in dreams, because there is no way to validate it. I THINK I can read in my dreams, but it's entirely possible that it's post-hoc rationalization. I was holding a book at staring at it, so I was "reading".
That's a rule the dream we're in gave us. If we were in a simulation that stated "If you are dreaming, clocks don't tick" and a clock ticked in the simulation, that cannot be founded as sufficient evidence to prove we are not in a simulation. Therefore, we can still be in a dream or simulation.
+Jonathan Wilkinson There could be an even more cohesive version of reality than this one. Much as this one seems compared to a dream but similarly, in ways we cannot determine from inside the experience. People do claim to awaken much as we sometimes realize we are dreaming.
I love you guys-- you're one of the most knowledgeable teams out there today. I appreciate all the content you put out-- you deliver impeccably. Thank you.
This paticular episode really helped recenter me. Thanks Crash Course team!
Would be really interesting to learn about middle eastern and Asian philosophy!
+Mariana Farfán and if enough people keep saying this at each episode, they will end up doing it at some point after this series, hopefully.
but they will probably give it a different name which will make it feel like euro philo is different (better/more important) than mid-eastern and Asian philosophy.
sad face
Hank, if this was a dream, those glasses and that jacket would've been gone thirty seconds into the video. Check and mate.
Gurl what you talking about it looks great on him
IDon'tHaveARUclipsChannel, IJustWantToComment Yeah I don't think you get it.
"I think, therefore I am" is far less motivational than my previous PE teachers led me to believe.
religious people as well as die hard atheists really need to take a geek at this series
The reason I'm certain I'm not dreaming right now because I am not smart enough to articulate all this in my head. I'm also pretty confident that I couldn't come up with any of the music I've listened to or information that I've read since I've woken up today. I'd have to be a godlike savant at everything in order for it to all be so coherent. These are the strongest arguments against solipsism that I personally have.
8:13
yeaaaaaaaaa...... The comment section of that upcoming video will be fun (sarcasm).
+Nakolas Thanks for pointing out your use of sarcasm, it was vital to the comedic value of your comment.
@@SirGamerismify Wait... are you being sarcastic?
Monday is over! Where's my Ep 6!?
The drinker's conclusion; Imbibre ero sum.
I drink, therefore I am.
+Cookie MonstA Bibo* ergo* sum.
Cogito ergo sum eggo
Actually 2400 years ago in ancient China, there is also a story written by Zhuangzi, a philosopher and founder of Tao, called 'Zhuang Zhou dreaming butterfly'. One day, Zhuangzi dreams of himself becoming a butterfly. When he woke up, he questioned about whether is he dreaming of becoming a butterfly, or a butterfly dreaming of becoming a man named Zhuangzi. This made him realised human is unable to distinguish between reality. This lead him to conclude that nothing should be distinguished, whether awake or asleep to alive or dead.
This video is making me like life more. I prayed for a fun video with philosophical teaching and immediately found this 18-yr-old-looking young man with such knowledge and eloquence? Feels surreal. Our world might be just an imitation of the ultimate reality, but this video must reflects a little bit of how the wonderful human beings can be. Oh I forgot to mention that the he IS thin and handsome, smooth skin, stylish suit, cute glass frame. I just don't pay attention to appearance that much anymore these days