4 Books That Awakened My Mind
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 22 июл 2024
- Here are 4 books that changed the way I think.
Each of these are quite short, yet intellectually dense, which keeps them engaging from page to page. It also makes them easier to come back to and re-read.
What book sparked your curiosity or nourished your mind? Let me know in the comments!
Get Books Here:
#1 - amzn.to/3PKUS1Q
#2 - amzn.to/3ZAeiLe
#3 - amzn.to/3RIqkQU
#4 - amzn.to/3PxhPoW
Timecodes:
0:00 - Intro
0:31 - Discourse on Method & Meditations on First Philosophy, René Descartes
2:59 - On the Genealogy of Morals, Friedrich Nietzsche
5:32 - Fear & Trembling, Søren Kierkegaard
9:02 - The Myth of Sisyphus, Albert Camus
11:52 - Wrap Up
My Instagram: / brockcovington
My Substack: brockcovington.substack.com
#philosophy #bookrecommendations 
Развлечения
Finally a list that doesn't contain any "self-help" books, but actual life changing books.
Great video as always! Myth of Sisyphus was life-changing to me. Planning on getting into Nietzsche this year, so it was useful to hear more about his philosophy in Genealogy of Morals.
Loving the channel keep it up
Great selection
Nice video. keep it up.
if you want some book recs, let me know
You have named one objective moral truth, that murder is wrong/Or killing of the innocent is evil. Subjective is what changes from person to person. Objective is true regardless of opinion. I take the stance murder is wrong, is a moral truth, and objective.
It doesn’t matter if a culture takes a stance that killing innocent people is good, that will objectively still be wrong. Therefore, it is not subjective morality because it changes from culture to culture. Just some cultures are wrong, like North Korea or nazi Germany for example.
If we agree on something as a society it doesn’t make it a moral truth. Just like a society that condones slavery. They may “think it’s true”. But they are morally wrong.
If you believe any moral stance is true.
For example: Killing innocent humans is wrong. Or Rape is evil. Or Hitler’s genocide was evil. You have just left subjective morality. And stated it was wrong regardless of the cultures subjective viewpoint of what “they thought was right”.
I follow your logic, but I'm not sure if you can deem a moral claim as objective. Morality is a concept, an abstraction through rationality. Therefore it cannot be objective. Most of our moral truths stem from valuing life and positing life as the standard of value. In that way, we can go from biological/physiological evidence and see how an action/belief impacts that standard of value (life). That's my thought process, but I am open and interested to understand what you're saying
@@TheActiveMind1 More than an abstraction because we have laws that uphold certain moral values. And consequences for breaking those moral values. Ex: If you rape or murder you are on trial before a court for due process of law. Surely there is truth behind the court case when deciding the verdict. Whether what they did was wrong or if they are innocent.
If moral subjectivism were true there would be no need for a court to uphold any laws, and we wouldn’t have a just society. Because no one would be “morally fallible”.
Consider the premises.
1. If moral subjectivism were true, then all of our moral judgements would be infallible.
2. Moral judgements are not infallible.
3. Therefore, Moral subjectivism is not true.
Interesting topic, but we can also agree to disagree. My brother and I also disagree on this topic of moral relativism haha.
Ok I see what angle you’re coming from. I would argue your skipping a step, because the laws, which you judge an objective innocence or guilt, originate from subjectivity. We decided what is a law in the first place. Either way, it’s an interesting debate and I appreciate you engaging with me