Putting these episodes together takes a lot of research and a ton of time. If you enjoy my high effort philosophy and theology podcast episodes, consider supporting me on Patreon: www.patreon.com/parkers_pensees
I have seen today three of your videos talking with philosophers and your channel is awesome. I appreciate your content from my heart. I was surprise you didn't know Huemer's views in political philosophy, I thought he was famous because of it. Btw, taxation is theft and the state is organized crime. God bless you.
Many report that when you take apart and put back together an old air cooled VW engine you wind up with enough extra parts to build a second engine, presenting a kind of corollary problem to Theseus's.
Very cool to hear that Huemer is a libertarian in regards to free-will. Seems like it might be a commonality for moral-realists, since Russ-shafer Landeau has also said that he's a tentative libertarian.
1 hr 5m: I wonder why Michael Huemer is strongly convinced that Christianity is false? How much should this kind of Peer/superior disagreement lower our confidence that, in this case, Christianity is true? It certainly has an effect on me. Two thoughts: 1) Giving up a belief just because people disagree with it can be epistemically spineless, even if those who disagree are rational, well-informed, and intellectually virtuous. 2) There's a symmetrical effect of peer/superior *agreement* which acts as a counterbalance.
he was just about to get into why he thinks the omnicompetent God is contradictory but I didn't want to push him too hard on it. I think your 1 & 2 are right on the mark!
What would it be called if you solve the ship of Theseus problem, as the identity of the ship being pragmatic. Every change to the ship means it’s a new one, but it’s pragmatically easier for it to keep its original identity.
What's going on with that mustache there? You going for the World War I German soldier look? Hey I dig it - please start wearing one of those helmet's with the spike on top 🫡
Actually Parker, science does not derive so much from philosophy as from law: Law was first to establish the principle that admissible evidence is that least set of mutually exclusive non contradictory facts. Law was also first to come up with the idea that the preferred theory, the theory most likely to be true was the simplest one which could still account for each of the established facts. It is when the techniques of law were transposed from the legal realm onto the natural realm that modern science emerged. And the person who explained this was Foucault.
![YoungBoy Never Broke Again - Missing Everything [Official Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/dTYeMZGzOzw/mqdefault.jpg)
Putting these episodes together takes a lot of research and a ton of time. If you enjoy my high effort philosophy and theology podcast episodes, consider supporting me on Patreon:
www.patreon.com/parkers_pensees
Watched a couple of his debates on Gun control. He knows what he’s talking about.
P: So are you an Analytic Philosopher and should we hate Continental Philosophy? H: uhh Yes lol
I have seen today three of your videos talking with philosophers and your channel is awesome. I appreciate your content from my heart. I was surprise you didn't know Huemer's views in political philosophy, I thought he was famous because of it.
Btw, taxation is theft and the state is organized crime.
God bless you.
helping the algorithm
For the ship is with the sailing
Many report that when you take apart and put back together an old air cooled VW engine you wind up with enough extra parts to build a second engine, presenting a kind of corollary problem to Theseus's.
Very cool to hear that Huemer is a libertarian in regards to free-will. Seems like it might be a commonality for moral-realists, since Russ-shafer Landeau has also said that he's a tentative libertarian.
Most moral realists are compatibilists, as far as I know. Check the phil papers survey.
1:06:30
Good talk. I really think Humer ought to reconsider the value of other fields of study that he talked about right at the beginning.
1 hr 5m: I wonder why Michael Huemer is strongly convinced that Christianity is false? How much should this kind of Peer/superior disagreement lower our confidence that, in this case, Christianity is true? It certainly has an effect on me. Two thoughts: 1) Giving up a belief just because people disagree with it can be epistemically spineless, even if those who disagree are rational, well-informed, and intellectually virtuous. 2) There's a symmetrical effect of peer/superior *agreement* which acts as a counterbalance.
he was just about to get into why he thinks the omnicompetent God is contradictory but I didn't want to push him too hard on it. I think your 1 & 2 are right on the mark!
What would it be called if you solve the ship of Theseus problem, as the identity of the ship being pragmatic. Every change to the ship means it’s a new one, but it’s pragmatically easier for it to keep its original identity.
What's going on with that mustache there? You going for the World War I German soldier look?
Hey I dig it - please start wearing one of those helmet's with the spike on top 🫡
Isn't this "1950 Theory" a lowkey argument for Young Earth Creationism?
Haha totally! I think I raised that point in the debate between Humer and Oppy on this very channel
Actually Parker, science does not derive so much from philosophy as from law: Law was first to establish the principle that admissible evidence
is that least set of mutually exclusive non contradictory facts. Law was also first to come up with the idea that the preferred theory, the theory most
likely to be true was the simplest one which could still account for each of the established facts. It is when the techniques of law were transposed from
the legal realm onto the natural realm that modern science emerged. And the person who explained this was Foucault.