Thank you for sharing your knowledge with us. Not just politicizing or deconstructing everything, which I find unhelpful and would simply ruin the experience for me.
Hello sir you are the best professor of ethics department. I am a big fan of your Sir I requested to you that please make a video upon probity in governance
I looked him up one time and if I remember correctly he's a professor at UT Austin, so I'm pretty sure all these videos he uploads might be for his class. So I don't think he takes requests.
Hume relates to immediate decisions which do not require deliberations - whereby prescription and reasoning are unavoidable. Kahenman addressed this dichotomy, which I would the professor to mention.
Intent would be needed to connect description with evaluation. Ironically, Hume derives prescription from a description when he says reason ought to be the slave of passions.
I think he touches on that on the video, its our sentiment that drives us to act not reason. In that sense, intent or will is really just born out of our sentiment. Hence our feelings are the real source of our moral sense not reason.
Nietzsche was looking at the ancients. He got many of his ideas very early and not through contemporary scholarship (maybe with exception of Schopenhauer? but I wouldn't know). if you read Nietzsche's book on tragedy in Greeks, you get a sense of how much the circles of people whom Hume would respect, address and debate with were irrelevant to Nietzsche. He had a very historically informed conception of morals, one which reflects the weight of hundreds of years of experience - this is developed in genealogy of morality. For Hume, principles [a la Newton or Aristotle] are the device for explanation, and he is far from treating history like Vico, Herder or Hegel (which is also Nietzsche's, a "high-resolution" sense of what historical experience does to morals) They do have similarities however, in treating of moral philosophy (just not thorough learning from each other), so it is a good question where and how much they differ
I'm not a formal student of philosophy. Nevertheless, it seems to me that it can be reasoned that autonomy is a fact that leads to violence to that 'space' being immoral. I'm not educated enough to say all morals can be factually reasoned but I do believe that person good is sufficient for many morals under the heading of honesty or nonviolence.
Hume and the empiricists have so many of their observations verified by modern science to be true, e.g cognitive biases. Can you do a video on how Philosophy still applies in the 21st century despite us being provided with so much data and technology? It appears that today big data and statistics dominate most of our lives.
big data and statistics are only useful, they go towards answering a question, and it is philosophy's job to formulate and ask and use the right questions.
Hey all. I had a question. Western Philosophy is based on three schools of thought: Virtue Ethics, Consequentialism, and Deontology. Which of these does Hume's philosophy fall under?
However, in my opinion, reason should not remain the slave of passions and feelings. Indeed, a thorough investigation of the latter should reveal the fact that our feelings are the result of our conditioning, mainly of social, cultural and/or religious origins and nature. Then the rational validity of such a conditioning ought to be inquired and questioned-and possibly adjusted or even rejected if deemed necessary by reason. The claim or argument that "it's just our human nature" that reason must be overruled by feeling when making moral decisions, seems to be more of a philosophical laziness to me than anything else. In conclusion, while it is true that feelings always tend to precede reason, such feelings can and should be investigated by reason itself, always. For example, why is it wrong to kill or to torture someone for pleasure? According to Hume, well it's firstly because witnessing such an act would make one feel very uncomfortable, angry, or revolted, etc. Now, let us not stop there, but let us investigate instead the rational validity or basis of such a feeling. Let us in other words attempt to find a rational justification for feeling so. I would argue that there must be a number of rational reasons for us to find, which would justify and validate our feeling of disapprobation or repulsion toward homicide or torture for example. One possible reason could be that by tolerating such an act, it could potentially happen to us in the future; or we must have been taught (i.e. conditioned to think) that homicide and torture were wrong because they would most probably lead to an unstable or dangerous society, or an unsustainable life, chaos, death, etc. Most of us butcher and probably torture animals and living beings every day without being bothered at all. There must be a *reason* therefore... Feeling may be the law, but it should still be checked and justified by reason. This issue becomes even more relevant as we witness the dawn of the AI era: Moral sense, although based on feeling, that feeling must have a valid and codifiable rational basis.
Even if he did, he wouldn't say it'a fact of nature that we ought to be logical. He would point to the practical benefits of logic, with respect to some other presupposed goals, like clear communication or thinking.
Hume doesn’t outright say we ought to be logical. However, it is presupposed in the process of logic itself that there is a right and wrong and we should choose what’s right over what’s wrong.
OK, that's a good description of Hume's (idiotic) philosophy, but where is the critique? Hume was obviously wrong, even if we can cut him some slack due to his preceding Darwin by quite a bit, but still. It would be interesting to also have a clear explanation of why this is all nonsense.
thank you for your lessons - you are a wonderful teacher - thank you!
Thank you so much! This was so easy to follow along with and understand!
Thank you so much I've been looking for a channel like this
Thank you for sharing your knowledge with us. Not just politicizing or deconstructing everything, which I find unhelpful and would simply ruin the experience for me.
"Reason is a slave to the passions."
#Cancelled
Thanks so much for this. Very clear.
Extremely interesting explanation, I really found profound your thoughts. Thanks a lot!
You’re a beast man! Thank you!! 🙏🏻
Awesome - as usual.
Much appreciated.
great explanation 🎉
Verry good channel
awesome lecture way easier to understand than the Wikipedia page
Hello sir you are the best professor of ethics department. I am a big fan of your
Sir I requested to you that please make a video upon probity in governance
I looked him up one time and if I remember correctly he's a professor at UT Austin, so I'm pretty sure all these videos he uploads might be for his class. So I don't think he takes requests.
@@qwerpasdf okay sir for replying
I’ve got a series on Justice coming up in May. And I’m interested in requests that I could work on over the summer.
@@PhiloofAlexandria thank a lot sir for taking the request
Very good .
Thank you!
amazingly outlined Hume's approach on ethics; reason don't lead to morality.
Great to see you back Profesor. I will like to be profesor like you.
Do you have a study method to learn that much?
Passion is the method.
Hume relates to immediate decisions which do not require deliberations - whereby prescription and reasoning are unavoidable. Kahenman addressed this dichotomy, which I would the professor to mention.
Intent would be needed to connect description with evaluation. Ironically, Hume derives prescription from a description when he says reason ought to be the slave of passions.
I think he touches on that on the video, its our sentiment that drives us to act not reason. In that sense, intent or will is really just born out of our sentiment. Hence our feelings are the real source of our moral sense not reason.
Normativity by analogia is Microplastics. It's everywhere and yes "EVERYWHERE"
His kind of reasoning moral values later taken up by Nietzche? it seems to me, am I correct sir?
Nietzsche was looking at the ancients. He got many of his ideas very early and not through contemporary scholarship (maybe with exception of Schopenhauer? but I wouldn't know). if you read Nietzsche's book on tragedy in Greeks, you get a sense of how much the circles of people whom Hume would respect, address and debate with were irrelevant to Nietzsche. He had a very historically informed conception of morals, one which reflects the weight of hundreds of years of experience - this is developed in genealogy of morality. For Hume, principles [a la Newton or Aristotle] are the device for explanation, and he is far from treating history like Vico, Herder or Hegel (which is also Nietzsche's, a "high-resolution" sense of what historical experience does to morals)
They do have similarities however, in treating of moral philosophy (just not thorough learning from each other), so it is a good question where and how much they differ
I'm not a formal student of philosophy. Nevertheless, it seems to me that it can be reasoned that autonomy is a fact that leads to violence to that 'space' being immoral. I'm not educated enough to say all morals can be factually reasoned but I do believe that person good is sufficient for many morals under the heading of honesty or nonviolence.
Hume and the empiricists have so many of their observations verified by modern science to be true, e.g cognitive biases. Can you do a video on how Philosophy still applies in the 21st century despite us being provided with so much data and technology? It appears that today big data and statistics dominate most of our lives.
big data and statistics are only useful, they go towards answering a question, and it is philosophy's job to formulate and ask and use the right questions.
Hey all. I had a question. Western Philosophy is based on three schools of thought:
Virtue Ethics, Consequentialism, and Deontology. Which of these does Hume's philosophy fall under?
However, in my opinion, reason should not remain the slave of passions and feelings. Indeed, a thorough investigation of the latter should reveal the fact that our feelings are the result of our conditioning, mainly of social, cultural and/or religious origins and nature. Then the rational validity of such a conditioning ought to be inquired and questioned-and possibly adjusted or even rejected if deemed necessary by reason.
The claim or argument that "it's just our human nature" that reason must be overruled by feeling when making moral decisions, seems to be more of a philosophical laziness to me than anything else.
In conclusion, while it is true that feelings always tend to precede reason, such feelings can and should be investigated by reason itself, always. For example, why is it wrong to kill or to torture someone for pleasure? According to Hume, well it's firstly because witnessing such an act would make one feel very uncomfortable, angry, or revolted, etc. Now, let us not stop there, but let us investigate instead the rational validity or basis of such a feeling. Let us in other words attempt to find a rational justification for feeling so. I would argue that there must be a number of rational reasons for us to find, which would justify and validate our feeling of disapprobation or repulsion toward homicide or torture for example. One possible reason could be that by tolerating such an act, it could potentially happen to us in the future; or we must have been taught (i.e. conditioned to think) that homicide and torture were wrong because they would most probably lead to an unstable or dangerous society, or an unsustainable life, chaos, death, etc.
Most of us butcher and probably torture animals and living beings every day without being bothered at all. There must be a *reason* therefore...
Feeling may be the law, but it should still be checked and justified by reason. This issue becomes even more relevant as we witness the dawn of the AI era: Moral sense, although based on feeling, that feeling must have a valid and codifiable rational basis.
But doesn’t Hume presuppose that we “ought” to be logical?
No he doesn’t.
Even if he did, he wouldn't say it'a fact of nature that we ought to be logical. He would point to the practical benefits of logic, with respect to some other presupposed goals, like clear communication or thinking.
@@sriveltenskriev6271 😆
Hume doesn’t outright say we ought to be logical. However, it is presupposed in the process of logic itself that there is a right and wrong and we should choose what’s right over what’s wrong.
OK, that's a good description of Hume's (idiotic) philosophy, but where is the critique? Hume was obviously wrong, even if we can cut him some slack due to his preceding Darwin by quite a bit, but still. It would be interesting to also have a clear explanation of why this is all nonsense.