I do think that there are two worldviews, the teleological worldview that uses final causation as it’s primary mode of explanation. And the younger mechanical worldview that uses effective causation as its primary mode of explanation. I think that the ultimate form of the teleological worldview can be seen in metaphysical idealism. And the ultimate form of the mechanical worldview can be seen in eliminative materialism. Such ideas as what is the objective meaning of life can only make sense within a teleological worldview. Which is why the mechanical worldview demands to be one’s own creator of meaning or to accept meaninglessness.
There's a worldview that ties both mind and body together. It's not idealism, and it's not materialism. It's called objectivism. I highly recommend Harry Binswanger's book "How We Know."
if you read philosophers of science on what mechanism is, it seems to be a pretty ineliminable concept that if you don't use, you're just unintelligible regardless of your metaphysics. similarly ineliminable concepts are distinguishability, difference, existence. here are major philosophers' explications of mechanism: Carl Gustav Hempel (Philosopher of Science): "A mechanism is a systematic configuration of parts and operations that produces a specific outcome or phenomenon." Nancy Cartwright (Philosopher of Science): "Mechanisms are composed of entities and activities organized in such a way that they are responsible for the phenomenon in question." Ernst Mach (Physicist and Philosopher): "A mechanism is a set of interconnected components that work together to produce a particular physical effect." Stuart Kauffman (Complexity Scientist): "Mechanisms are networks of interacting components where the behaviour of one component can influence the behavior of others, leading to emergent properties." Herbert A. Simon (Cognitive Scientist and Nobel Laureate): "A mechanism is a structured process or set of processes that can produce certain outcomes or behaviors, often involving information processing." William Bechtel (Philosopher of Science): "Mechanisms consist of entities, activities, and their organization, which together explain how a system produces a particular phenomenon." Peter Machamer, Lindley Darden, and Carl F. Craver (Philosophers of Science): "Mechanisms are entities and activities organized such that they produce regular changes from start or input conditions to finish or output conditions." philosophers’ patchwork distilled: mechanism = dynamic, structured configuration, of entities/distinct existents/singular but patterned existent + activities/processes/operations of the existent(s). result: explanation of phenomena. otherwise, it's just a fleshing out of realism, which bernardo also agrees with. reality stance-independently exists, it is exactly as it is and not otherwise, and it is always in some particular way. so the idea that anything is not mechanistic, is expressing that reality is somehow in some unintelligible sense non-structural, isn't explainable, or that whatever happens, whatever *just is* , doesn't somehow exist in a comprehensible, explainable, at least approximately trackable way. the claim may even be a-priori mystification-assuming whatever to be in principle off limits to empirically grounded inquiry, worse if this+making positive claims about nonempirical existence. but further, to decouple from our comprehension, from the limited epistemic activity of dissociated alters, why suppose that the mind at large isn't mechanistic? why this inference? it's just gesturing at unknown-ness, or inability to imagine, but that doesn't seem to me to motivate the inference that whatever can be/is not mechanistic. same with experientiality. bernardo infers after theory comparison that mind at large is experiential because experientiality is the only datum, and it's poorly motivated to postulate some non-experiential category of existents. mechanism seems to be just doubling down on the idea that reality exists independently of dissociative subjectivity, reality *just is as it is* (which bernardo agrees with), with the added flair that however reality is, there is always a fact of the matter about how reality is, and its structure can be at least approximately discovered/experienced/comprehended by/...well, 'itself', but through the dissociated perspectives. so i take the idea of mechanism to just mean that there is structure, difference, configuration, distinguishability, in some sense. regardless of 'substrate', or intrinsic properties (if such properties exist whenever, whatsoever). this is as general and abstract as i can comprehend; a minimal limit of operational coherence. as long as there's structure, difference, distinguishability-in any sense, i will guess/infer/conjecture mechanism. if there's any existent without distinguishability, difference, structure in any sense - then that's unintelligible & i don't think that there's any motivation to make positive claims about that reality.
Can you explain me below questions i am beginner of philosphy it will really help me in understanding like what is relation between hegelain philosphy of embrace of contridictions and colin mcginn philosphy of new mysterianism which say some questions like conciousness and as chomsky desrcibe matter is also mysterious we no conception of matter etc is not in our grasp and we can never understand it.from your view in today modern world which is correct if they have no relations.? My other question is embrace of contridictions and making of logical arguments which is more mentally demanding and diffcult? Also colin mcginn mysterianism is based on kant noumenal realm ?please answer thank you
There's no actual philosophical content in the interview. Why and how did he come to believe in such an unpopular view? Why do the best steel manned arguments on the materialist side miss the mark? What's the best/seemingly inescapable argument for idealism? Why do the best counterarguments to it miss the mark? Just a friendly critique
Thanks for becoming a member. These would be good things to explore. The reason we didn't is because I had agreed to discuss his newest book, which was about the relevance of philosophy to what he thought was the coming state of our culture. Plenty of idealism discussion will come on the channel.
Great discussion guys. Maybe you could convince Bernardo Kastrup to come on as a geust. It would be great to hear a rebuttal of your Analytical Idealism critique from several months ago. I think he has a book in the works too.
@@raindogred, Bernie has declined an invitation to appear on this show. Superficially, Bernardo Kastrup SEEMS to be promulgating the most ancient spiritual teaching of Advaita Vedanta (as found in the Upanishadic texts of India) but due to reasons I won't go into at length here, his understanding is rather flawed. If one carefully listens to any of his monologues or interview videos, it is obvious (at least it is obvious to those who are truly enlightened) that he regularly confuses and conflates discrete consciousness (as emerging from the neural networks of animals) and UNIVERSAL Consciousness (which is the all-pervasive, eternal ground of all being, more appositely termed "The Tao", "Brahman" or "Infinite Awareness"). He also believes in (limited) freedom of volition, which is, of course, ludicrous, and his understanding of suffering is truly infantile, which is unfortunate, since the eradication of suffering is the goal of life. In order to PROPERLY understand the distinction between the two aforementioned categories of consciousness, you are welcome to email me for a copy of "A Final Instruction Sheet for Humanity", which are the most authoritative and accurate precepts extant. My address is on my RUclips homepage. However, my main criticism of Kastrup is not with his metaphysics, it is, rather, his METAETHICS. He is, objectively speaking, afflicted with a demonic mentality, as demonstrated with his support of all things contrary to Dharma (the law, and societal duties), such as egalitarianism, feminism, homosexuality, and socialism. In a recent interview, for example, Bernie displayed abject ignorance when discussing the topic of animal consumption. Hopefully, he will one day realize how incredibly hypocritical he is in this regard, and become a compassionate VEGAN. 🌱 After all, to criticize Bernardo for his teachings being only, let's say, ninety percent accurate, would be silly, since, compared with almost every other person who has ever lived, his philosophical understanding is fairly sound. Yet, what is the point of being even TOTALLY correct about metaphysics, when one's metaethics and normative ethics is fundamentally flawed? Furthermore, Bernardo has admitted that he has struggled with mental health issues for several decades. I would suggest he flee to the loving arms of an ACTUAL spiritual master in order to learn Dharma (as well, of course, to correct his flawed metaphysics). Peace! P.S. It seems Bernie Boy has BLOCKED at least one of my RUclips accounts, so if you are reading this, you are indeed fortunate. ;)
I agree that a focus on philosophy is our future, but there was no talk of how philosophy can objectively help us in our everyday lives. How does philosophy help us establish an ethical system? What even is ethics? Which ethical system is correct? How do we know that? How do we know anything? These are questions only philosophy can answer.
You should see if you can get Yaron Brook of the Yaron Brook Show on your show. I'm sure he'd love to. He's not a philosopher per se, but he knows a lot about what i think you were going for here, which is how important philosophy is to our lives and future flourishing as a species. He's charismatic and knowledgeable, and i think it would make for a great show. Then, if you liked what he had to say, you could get an actual philosopher trained in objectivism on the show like Harry Binswanger. He's not as high energy as Yaron, but he's an amazing and knowledgeable guy.
Atheism isn't a philosophy. It's simply not believing in any type of God. It has no particular beliefs attached. For example, I'm an atheist, but the actual philosophy I embrace is objectivism.
I don't think there is a legitimate distinction between 'negative' and 'positive' claims/beliefs. If atheism means anything, and if you affirm it, then it must be a belief with some content. Perhaps it amounts to saying 'reality is such that it precludes an ultimate divinity' or, perhaps more controversially, 'the ultimate nature of reality is non-personal'. Of course, that still leaves scope for a lot of other positions/beliefs.
@AbsolutePhilosophy philosophy is a guide to life. Being atheist can't be considered any guide. It's a small part of an actual philosophy. It'd be like me saying, "Trees are real, and therefore trees are my new philosophy." It's just an observation based on facts.
@@johngleue Philosophically speaking, it is the position of no gods. So it's quite narrow and specific position in that sense. That's compatible with a plethora of other positions.
@anteodedi8937 Saying there is a God is philosophical belief. You're then using God to explain casual relationships on the metaphysical and epistemological level, and this belief will guide your decisions in life because it will proceed to define your ethics and politics. But not acknowledging there is a God because there literally isn't any is just an observation. The choices that guide your life would be based on something else entirely. For example, you're reason. Or you could be atheist and make your standard the proletariat, or the fuhrer, or whatever. If you were born and were never told of God and therefore never gave the existence of God a thought, would you call your philosophy you lived by atheism? Philosophies cover multiple branches of philosophy, and atheism doesn't advocate for anything. Philosophies are defined the same way any other concept is defined, by its essence. They're defined by the unique ideas you use as a road map to living a moral life that set themselves apart from other beliefs. An example is that nihilism is the belief that life is meaningless and that belief encompasses all branches of philosophy and when embraced will act as a premise for any conclusion you come to. Building knowledge on faulty premises is self-destructive. Using your logic that atheism is enough to justify an entire philosophy, I could safely say that altruism is a philosophy. But altruism is merely the ethical system of making others the standard of morality. Christianity, Marxism, Stoicism, these are all philosophies that hold altruism as the standard of morality. So altruism isn't the defining characteristic of these philosophies. Saying your atheist doesn't tell you anything about what someone believes. It's simply not enough to be considered a real philosophy.
I find the conversation misleading and completely unfair to the continental philosophy. You were misrepresenting it all along throughout the video, while trying to prove that philosophy is useful and needed today. In this way, the analytic thought seems as the only option left, while in fact, it is totally insufficient and inadequate.
This guy preaches the same old mind body dichotomy we've heard time and time again. You can have existential wealth (focusing on material success), or you can be psychologically happy and know that you're moral (focusing on spiritual values that counter whatever is in your self-interest). This view typically advocates for some kind of "balance" between these two worlds. The physical and the moral. These two worlds have to clash because the ethics that's chosen here is that of altruism, i.e., putting others first. The two worlds, physical and moral, are actually one in the same. Morality is tied to your own happiness on earth and not everyone else's. This does not mean simply living for hedonistic immediate pleasures, and it doesn't mean never valuing others. This simply means living with your long-term best self-interest in mind. This requires one's values to be made explicit to oneself through a process called introspection. A real philosophy for living on earth understands that values are life-giving and necessary for survival as well as happiness. The constant achievement of values never ends. We continue and build on our past achievements and even off of the achievements of others. Your personal values will fall into a hierarchy of most important to least important. These are liable to change as you find more out about yourself and experience the world. Not compromising higher values to lesser values is how one maintains a principled happy life. Our souls, as humans, are just a culmination of all our values. These values are chosen by ourselves, hopefully, and not thrust onto us from others out of some sense of duty. This makes us all beings of self-made soul. We choose our own purpose for living and are responsible for ourselves and our values.
@danielpaulson8838 I love comments that are just "you're so logical and intelligent! I'm so glad such educated and articulate individuals grace us with their calm and reasoned explanations."
@kuningaskolassas4720 I was explaining how the mind-body dichotomy arises in philosophy. It's because morality is tied to sacrifice. I know that there's such a thing as spiritual values that don't conflict with someone's rational self-interest. The practical and the moral actually go hand in hand. They're not enemies. I was only explaining how altruism turns trying to live a happy life on earth on its head. You can't have be both wealthy and moral when embracing altruism. “It's easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter the kingdom of God”
@@kuningaskolassas4720 That's what we call, "showing support a comment." Just arrive on Earth? You're comment is because you don't like his comment. Just fess up and be honest. And bring something to the table besides fallacy.
I find the claim that materialism is anti-philosophical totally off the mark. Materialism is itself a metaphysics. It is a metaphysical view that makes claims about what nature essentially *is*. Once you begin talking about what exists or what the fundamental essence of nature is you are doing philosophy. Materialism may be anti plenty of things, but it is not anti-philosophical. There is a conflation going on there. The same way materialism is often conflated with atheism (which btw this video correctly points that they should not be conflated). Also, non-reductive materialism is quite stable and not wishy-washy as being portrayed here. That's useless rhetoric.
Thanks for the comment. Of course, materialism is a philosophical position. But it is one that, once made, tends to pass the baton of understanding reality on to science. If everything is material, then those that study the material, i.e. physicists, study everything. The materialist philosophers that remain tend to see their role as justifying the scientific (or scientistic) worldview against philosophical objections. David Lewis has a particularly curious rant about how useless philosophy is in the face of maths and science in his book Parts of Classes. He mocks the way philosophers have 'proved' motion cannot happen, that time is unreal, etc. And then basically tells philosophers not to dare telling scientists that there are any issues with the way they do things. I think it is this sense, that materialism becomes anti-philosophical.
@@AbsolutePhilosophy Doesn't that translate more to “materialism is anti other philosophical positions”? Because the target of that attack are philosophers who disagree with materialism as a philosophical view. I would agree with that, but that's no news in the town. Worth mentioning that materialism of a non-reductive variety doesn't pass everything to physicists/physics. Though you may object that's not really materialism. It isn't if materialism is defined in reductionist terms, but I don't think that definition is appropriate.
@@anteodedi8937 I think the idea is more that materialism as a philosophical _position_ undermines philosophy as a _discipline_ or as a knowledge generating pursuit. It has led to a perception that science is where the action is, and has led to the retreat of philosophy from the public space.
@@AbsolutePhilosophy How can it possibly do that if it is in itself a philosophical position? Like any philosophical position, it undermines other philosophical positions or any further philosophical dialogue if it can be successfully established but not philosophy itself. It fundamentally rests on philosophy, so I don't see how that's possible. There is a sort of misperception or conflation going on there.
Recently I audited your RUclips Channel. Your video quality is good but your video are not geeting more views as much as you deserve because of SEO problem. If you want i can fix your problem.
![Jack Harlow - Hello Miss Johnson [Official Music Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Q86_nlRoIGw/mqdefault.jpg)
This is the best channel on youtube.
Great first episode!
@@TempehLiberation
Great and lowly are RELATIVE. 😉
Incidentally, are you VEGAN? 🌱
I do think that there are two worldviews, the teleological worldview that uses final causation as it’s primary mode of explanation.
And the younger mechanical worldview that uses effective causation as its primary mode of explanation.
I think that the ultimate form of the teleological worldview can be seen in metaphysical idealism.
And the ultimate form of the mechanical worldview can be seen in eliminative materialism.
Such ideas as what is the objective meaning of life can only make sense within a teleological worldview.
Which is why the mechanical worldview demands to be one’s own creator of meaning or to accept meaninglessness.
There's a worldview that ties both mind and body together. It's not idealism, and it's not materialism. It's called objectivism.
I highly recommend Harry Binswanger's book "How We Know."
if you read philosophers of science on what mechanism is, it seems to be a pretty ineliminable concept that if you don't use, you're just unintelligible regardless of your metaphysics. similarly ineliminable concepts are distinguishability, difference, existence.
here are major philosophers' explications of mechanism:
Carl Gustav Hempel (Philosopher of Science):
"A mechanism is a systematic configuration of parts and operations that produces a specific outcome or phenomenon."
Nancy Cartwright (Philosopher of Science):
"Mechanisms are composed of entities and activities organized in such a way that they are responsible for the phenomenon in question."
Ernst Mach (Physicist and Philosopher):
"A mechanism is a set of interconnected components that work together to produce a particular physical effect."
Stuart Kauffman (Complexity Scientist):
"Mechanisms are networks of interacting components where the behaviour of one component can influence the behavior of others, leading to emergent properties."
Herbert A. Simon (Cognitive Scientist and Nobel Laureate):
"A mechanism is a structured process or set of processes that can produce certain outcomes or behaviors, often involving information processing."
William Bechtel (Philosopher of Science):
"Mechanisms consist of entities, activities, and their organization, which together explain how a system produces a particular phenomenon."
Peter Machamer, Lindley Darden, and Carl F. Craver (Philosophers of Science):
"Mechanisms are entities and activities organized such that they produce regular changes from start or input conditions to finish or output conditions."
philosophers’ patchwork distilled:
mechanism = dynamic, structured configuration, of entities/distinct existents/singular but patterned existent + activities/processes/operations of the existent(s). result: explanation of phenomena. otherwise, it's just a fleshing out of realism, which bernardo also agrees with. reality stance-independently exists, it is exactly as it is and not otherwise, and it is always in some particular way.
so the idea that anything is not mechanistic, is expressing that reality is somehow in some unintelligible sense non-structural, isn't explainable, or that whatever happens, whatever *just is* , doesn't somehow exist in a comprehensible, explainable, at least approximately trackable way. the claim may even be a-priori mystification-assuming whatever to be in principle off limits to empirically grounded inquiry, worse if this+making positive claims about nonempirical existence.
but further, to decouple from our comprehension, from the limited epistemic activity of dissociated alters, why suppose that the mind at large isn't mechanistic? why this inference? it's just gesturing at unknown-ness, or inability to imagine, but that doesn't seem to me to motivate the inference that whatever can be/is not mechanistic. same with experientiality. bernardo infers after theory comparison that mind at large is experiential because experientiality is the only datum, and it's poorly motivated to postulate some non-experiential category of existents.
mechanism seems to be just doubling down on the idea that reality exists independently of dissociative subjectivity, reality *just is as it is* (which bernardo agrees with), with the added flair that however reality is, there is always a fact of the matter about how reality is, and its structure can be at least approximately discovered/experienced/comprehended by/...well, 'itself', but through the dissociated perspectives.
so i take the idea of mechanism to just mean that there is structure, difference, configuration, distinguishability, in some sense. regardless of 'substrate', or intrinsic properties (if such properties exist whenever, whatsoever). this is as general and abstract as i can comprehend; a minimal limit of operational coherence. as long as there's structure, difference, distinguishability-in any sense, i will guess/infer/conjecture mechanism.
if there's any existent without distinguishability, difference, structure in any sense - then that's unintelligible & i don't think that there's any motivation to make positive claims about that reality.
Can you explain me below questions i am beginner of philosphy it will really help me in understanding like what is relation between hegelain philosphy of embrace of contridictions and colin mcginn philosphy of new mysterianism which say some questions like conciousness and as chomsky desrcibe matter is also mysterious we no conception of matter etc is not in our grasp and we can never understand it.from your view in today modern world which is correct if they have no relations.? My other question is embrace of contridictions and making of logical arguments which is more mentally demanding and diffcult? Also colin mcginn mysterianism is based on kant noumenal realm ?please answer thank you
There's no actual philosophical content in the interview. Why and how did he come to believe in such an unpopular view? Why do the best steel manned arguments on the materialist side miss the mark? What's the best/seemingly inescapable argument for idealism? Why do the best counterarguments to it miss the mark?
Just a friendly critique
Thanks for becoming a member. These would be good things to explore. The reason we didn't is because I had agreed to discuss his newest book, which was about the relevance of philosophy to what he thought was the coming state of our culture. Plenty of idealism discussion will come on the channel.
Make a vidio about stupiditi of direct and indirect realism . Thank you.
Great discussion guys. Maybe you could convince Bernardo Kastrup to come on as a geust. It would be great to hear a rebuttal of your Analytical Idealism critique from several months ago. I think he has a book in the works too.
@@raindogred, Bernie has declined an invitation to appear on this show.
Superficially, Bernardo Kastrup SEEMS to be promulgating the most ancient spiritual teaching of Advaita Vedanta (as found in the Upanishadic texts of India) but due to reasons I won't go into at length here, his understanding is rather flawed.
If one carefully listens to any of his monologues or interview videos, it is obvious (at least it is obvious to those who are truly enlightened) that he regularly confuses and conflates discrete consciousness (as emerging from the neural networks of animals) and UNIVERSAL Consciousness (which is the all-pervasive, eternal ground of all being, more appositely termed "The Tao", "Brahman" or "Infinite Awareness").
He also believes in (limited) freedom of volition, which is, of course, ludicrous, and his understanding of suffering is truly infantile, which is unfortunate, since the eradication of suffering is the goal of life.
In order to PROPERLY understand the distinction between the two aforementioned categories of consciousness, you are welcome to email me for a copy of "A Final Instruction Sheet for Humanity", which are the most authoritative and accurate precepts extant. My address is on my RUclips homepage.
However, my main criticism of Kastrup is not with his metaphysics, it is, rather, his METAETHICS. He is, objectively speaking, afflicted with a demonic mentality, as demonstrated with his support of all things contrary to Dharma (the law, and societal duties), such as egalitarianism, feminism, homosexuality, and socialism.
In a recent interview, for example, Bernie displayed abject ignorance when discussing the topic of animal consumption. Hopefully, he will one day realize how incredibly hypocritical he is in this regard, and become a compassionate VEGAN. 🌱
After all, to criticize Bernardo for his teachings being only, let's say, ninety percent accurate, would be silly, since, compared with almost every other person who has ever lived, his philosophical understanding is fairly sound. Yet, what is the point of being even TOTALLY correct about metaphysics, when one's metaethics and normative ethics is fundamentally flawed?
Furthermore, Bernardo has admitted that he has struggled with mental health issues for several decades. I would suggest he flee to the loving arms of an ACTUAL spiritual master in order to learn Dharma (as well, of course, to correct his flawed metaphysics).
Peace!
P.S. It seems Bernie Boy has BLOCKED at least one of my RUclips accounts, so if you are reading this, you are indeed fortunate. ;)
Hmm, maybe it is time to try inviting him again.
I agree that a focus on philosophy is our future, but there was no talk of how philosophy can objectively help us in our everyday lives.
How does philosophy help us establish an ethical system? What even is ethics? Which ethical system is correct? How do we know that? How do we know anything? These are questions only philosophy can answer.
You should see if you can get Yaron Brook of the Yaron Brook Show on your show. I'm sure he'd love to. He's not a philosopher per se, but he knows a lot about what i think you were going for here, which is how important philosophy is to our lives and future flourishing as a species.
He's charismatic and knowledgeable, and i think it would make for a great show. Then, if you liked what he had to say, you could get an actual philosopher trained in objectivism on the show like Harry Binswanger. He's not as high energy as Yaron, but he's an amazing and knowledgeable guy.
Atheism isn't a philosophy. It's simply not believing in any type of God. It has no particular beliefs attached.
For example, I'm an atheist, but the actual philosophy I embrace is objectivism.
@@johngleue
Ayn Rand was a full-time CRIMINAL!
I don't think there is a legitimate distinction between 'negative' and 'positive' claims/beliefs. If atheism means anything, and if you affirm it, then it must be a belief with some content. Perhaps it amounts to saying 'reality is such that it precludes an ultimate divinity' or, perhaps more controversially, 'the ultimate nature of reality is non-personal'. Of course, that still leaves scope for a lot of other positions/beliefs.
@AbsolutePhilosophy philosophy is a guide to life. Being atheist can't be considered any guide. It's a small part of an actual philosophy. It'd be like me saying, "Trees are real, and therefore trees are my new philosophy." It's just an observation based on facts.
@@johngleue Philosophically speaking, it is the position of no gods. So it's quite narrow and specific position in that sense. That's compatible with a plethora of other positions.
@anteodedi8937 Saying there is a God is philosophical belief. You're then using God to explain casual relationships on the metaphysical and epistemological level, and this belief will guide your decisions in life because it will proceed to define your ethics and politics.
But not acknowledging there is a God because there literally isn't any is just an observation. The choices that guide your life would be based on something else entirely. For example, you're reason. Or you could be atheist and make your standard the proletariat, or the fuhrer, or whatever.
If you were born and were never told of God and therefore never gave the existence of God a thought, would you call your philosophy you lived by atheism? Philosophies cover multiple branches of philosophy, and atheism doesn't advocate for anything.
Philosophies are defined the same way any other concept is defined, by its essence. They're defined by the unique ideas you use as a road map to living a moral life that set themselves apart from other beliefs. An example is that nihilism is the belief that life is meaningless and that belief encompasses all branches of philosophy and when embraced will act as a premise for any conclusion you come to. Building knowledge on faulty premises is self-destructive.
Using your logic that atheism is enough to justify an entire philosophy, I could safely say that altruism is a philosophy. But altruism is merely the ethical system of making others the standard of morality. Christianity, Marxism, Stoicism, these are all philosophies that hold altruism as the standard of morality. So altruism isn't the defining characteristic of these philosophies.
Saying your atheist doesn't tell you anything about what someone believes. It's simply not enough to be considered a real philosophy.
I find the conversation misleading and completely unfair to the continental philosophy. You were misrepresenting it all along throughout the video, while trying to prove that philosophy is useful and needed today. In this way, the analytic thought seems as the only option left, while in fact, it is totally insufficient and inadequate.
This guy preaches the same old mind body dichotomy we've heard time and time again. You can have existential wealth (focusing on material success), or you can be psychologically happy and know that you're moral (focusing on spiritual values that counter whatever is in your self-interest). This view typically advocates for some kind of "balance" between these two worlds. The physical and the moral. These two worlds have to clash because the ethics that's chosen here is that of altruism, i.e., putting others first.
The two worlds, physical and moral, are actually one in the same. Morality is tied to your own happiness on earth and not everyone else's. This does not mean simply living for hedonistic immediate pleasures, and it doesn't mean never valuing others. This simply means living with your long-term best self-interest in mind. This requires one's values to be made explicit to oneself through a process called introspection.
A real philosophy for living on earth understands that values are life-giving and necessary for survival as well as happiness. The constant achievement of values never ends. We continue and build on our past achievements and even off of the achievements of others.
Your personal values will fall into a hierarchy of most important to least important. These are liable to change as you find more out about yourself and experience the world. Not compromising higher values to lesser values is how one maintains a principled happy life. Our souls, as humans, are just a culmination of all our values. These values are chosen by ourselves, hopefully, and not thrust onto us from others out of some sense of duty. This makes us all beings of self-made soul. We choose our own purpose for living and are responsible for ourselves and our values.
An intelligent comment. Clear thinkers emerge from the myst.
You're assuming that all effort not directed towards material success is inherently against one's self interest.
@danielpaulson8838 I love comments that are just "you're so logical and intelligent! I'm so glad such educated and articulate individuals grace us with their calm and reasoned explanations."
@kuningaskolassas4720 I was explaining how the mind-body dichotomy arises in philosophy. It's because morality is tied to sacrifice.
I know that there's such a thing as spiritual values that don't conflict with someone's rational self-interest. The practical and the moral actually go hand in hand. They're not enemies.
I was only explaining how altruism turns trying to live a happy life on earth on its head. You can't have be both wealthy and moral when embracing altruism.
“It's easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter the kingdom of God”
@@kuningaskolassas4720 That's what we call, "showing support a comment."
Just arrive on Earth?
You're comment is because you don't like his comment. Just fess up and be honest.
And bring something to the table besides fallacy.
Still grouping in the dark.
I find the claim that materialism is anti-philosophical totally off the mark.
Materialism is itself a metaphysics. It is a metaphysical view that makes claims about what nature essentially *is*. Once you begin talking about what exists or what the fundamental essence of nature is you are doing philosophy.
Materialism may be anti plenty of things, but it is not anti-philosophical. There is a conflation going on there. The same way materialism is often conflated with atheism (which btw this video correctly points that they should not be conflated).
Also, non-reductive materialism is quite stable and not wishy-washy as being portrayed here. That's useless rhetoric.
❤
Thanks for the comment.
Of course, materialism is a philosophical position. But it is one that, once made, tends to pass the baton of understanding reality on to science. If everything is material, then those that study the material, i.e. physicists, study everything. The materialist philosophers that remain tend to see their role as justifying the scientific (or scientistic) worldview against philosophical objections. David Lewis has a particularly curious rant about how useless philosophy is in the face of maths and science in his book Parts of Classes. He mocks the way philosophers have 'proved' motion cannot happen, that time is unreal, etc. And then basically tells philosophers not to dare telling scientists that there are any issues with the way they do things. I think it is this sense, that materialism becomes anti-philosophical.
@@AbsolutePhilosophy Doesn't that translate more to “materialism is anti other philosophical positions”?
Because the target of that attack are philosophers who disagree with materialism as a philosophical view.
I would agree with that, but that's no news in the town.
Worth mentioning that materialism of a non-reductive variety doesn't pass everything to physicists/physics. Though you may object that's not really materialism. It isn't if materialism is defined in reductionist terms, but I don't think that definition is appropriate.
@@anteodedi8937 I think the idea is more that materialism as a philosophical _position_ undermines philosophy as a _discipline_ or as a knowledge generating pursuit. It has led to a perception that science is where the action is, and has led to the retreat of philosophy from the public space.
@@AbsolutePhilosophy How can it possibly do that if it is in itself a philosophical position?
Like any philosophical position, it undermines other philosophical positions or any further philosophical dialogue if it can be successfully established but not philosophy itself.
It fundamentally rests on philosophy, so I don't see how that's possible. There is a sort of misperception or conflation going on there.
I am a Ger Man Bio Log ist
No Future....
Recently I audited your RUclips Channel.
Your video quality is good but your video are not geeting more views as much as you deserve because of SEO problem.
If you want i can fix your problem.
So you do philosophy to tell others how to live ?
Yes