The script to this video is part of the Philosophy Vibe "Plato & Aristotle" eBook, available on Amazon: mybook.to/philosophyvibe6 The Philosophy Vibe Paperback Anthology, Vol 2 'Metaphysics' available worldwide on Amazon: mybook.to/philosophyvibevol2
Astonishing explanation and questioning, you asked every single questioned I had, can't say that about every philosophy video I watch. Keep the exceptional work!
I'm studying my masters in Psychology and we are discussing Aridtotles idea behind causality and I have to say this video does a fantastic job of explaining this concept in great detail. Cheers!
I really like the idea that the universe is eternal without a definitive beginning or end. That is so much easier to wrap my head around LOL.. Every time I watch a Philosophy Vibe video a new can of worms opens up and I find 30 new topics to study haha. Thanks guy :P
I love your videos. I have had two philosophy classes in my first year of university and have found these to be very informative and comprehendible. Thank you!
Interesting. Both sides are perfectly probable views, but if you’re concidering which philosophy to live by. Then Aristotle’s Philosophy has a much higher probability of providing you positive results in life. Therfore I must argue that he’s right in the end
The conversation starts on its feet but it later gets confused. Here are some corrections: (a) Aristotle’s theory of “causality” is not about causes as in what it means in a modern sense. Aristotle’s four causes are an explanation of the given individual thing. The modern causality answers who or what pushed a ball. Aristotle wants to teach how to comprehend what a ball is. That directly connects to his syllogism as it wouldn’t mean much to make valid deductions unless your comprehensions of each premise were true. (b) He uses the words movement and change interchangeably. Movement is an attribute of nature, things that exist. Things do not move or change because an external force makes them so. They change (move) because it is how they are. Just like Newtonian Physics discard angels as agents that make planets move, Aristotle assigns the power of being to individual things that are. (c) The Prime Mover or god is the highest form of being in a hierarchical universe. It doesn’t move or change. It is perfection. Everything else that exists strives to be like the Prime Mover. (d) Stating the obvious, what follows from the above about Aristotle’s teleology has nothing to do with an external agent’s assigning purpose to things or events. Aristotle claims each individual thing has a purpose by its nature, by itself. None of the above means Aristotle’s philosophy doesn’t have issues. It does. But the conversation in this video doesn’t seem to be on-level with those matters. Let’s wrap up with their final criticism they think is on the spot: Aristotle says you can know truths within the limits of your nature. So, yes, you will make mistakes by working up from empirical evidence. And you will find out your mistakes because you can tell when you catch one.
I think there is room for considering the existence of a prime mover. I will first state by saying that prime doesn’t necessarily mean supreme, nor does it mean that one can’t be many all at once.
This is an impoverished caricature of Aristotle’s Prime Mover. Further Aquinas built on his demonstration and perfected the proof of the God of classical theism. If one is looking to legitimately learn the Prime Mover argument I would recommend reading Feser & Trent Horn for a simple to grasp reasoning.
Your recommendations are worthy, especially Feser's book Aristotle's revenge. But considering the source of knowledge, that is RUclips, and a short span of time, I would argue that the target audience wouldn't be much interested in an in-depth analysis and critique, that which encompasses the wide developments of the argument. Such videos would be helpful to obtain the ability to conceptualise the terminologies of Aristotelian philosophy and partly metaphysics.
@@MM-KunstUndWahrheitAristotle’s revenge is an excellent read. I agree with your input and have considered myself making a short video explaining a modern and also accurate explanation of the prime mover demonstration of God’s necessary existence - Maybe one day
Aquinas distorted and Christianized Aristotle's argument and doctrines. Actually, that's what early Christians did. They stole from Greeks and built their Christian ad hoc. If you want to legitimately learn Aristotle's view, stay away from Christian sources.
@@anteodedi8937This comment does not merit an intelligent response but for the purpose of those to read in the future I will comment. Truth is universal. Aristotle, specifically with his metaphysics grasped truths of which unknowingly to him aligned with the God of classical theism. Aquinas married these, the supernatural with the natural. With all this said I do agree that if you want to learn of Aristotle, go to the source. The Nichomichean Ethics is a great start. You will see how Aristotle being a noble pagan discovered many truths, and those that he couldn’t have by reason alone were brought about in Revelation through Christ Jesus.
@@Ajwahed What's intelligent about that response, exactly? That's the typical response coming from a biased kid who watches Trent Horn. And just like the content of your idol, it consists of rhetoric and little to zero substance. Aristotle's philosophy is not even compatible with Christianity unless you start distorting it, let alone it being true or Christianity consisting of any revealed truth. But if you want to preach go ahead, I won't stop you.
Could the prime mover not be seen as entropy which drives all things in the universe forward towards one particular end (the heat death of the universe) and yet is not capable of knowing about us or interacting with us? Obviously, this is not something Aristotle could have thought of but it seems like an apt comparison.
Yes, the prime mover is also called as the unmoved mover (this is the wording used in my copy of Aristotle's book Metaphysics) and I did some research concluding that entropy really is just a modern manifestation of the unmoved mover. Aristotle believed the unmoved/prime mover (god, possibly one who does not know or have an ability to intervene anything except themself) was the origin of all things because things can not exist if they do not move. Analogously, a human body is bound to die unless the human gets at least a little bit of physical activity, or birds will die if they do not perform the physical activity of flying enough. Sidenote Aristotle is the father of biology and 2/3rds of all his books are in fact biology books!
Hello philosophy vibe can you please do a video on Refutation of innate ideas by John Locke... Because I quickly learn and understand from your channel....
A thing may be moving towards its completion, but from that it may quite likely perish. So one could say that it is moving towards its perished state. I think that the essence of the τἐλος is not so much the movement towards, as the form of the perfection of, the object. A τἐλος is not a kind of attractor, but is a fulfillment. Perhaps it isn't clear how much Aristotle recognised this? I would like to know.
9:25 ironically Darwinian evolution would just be proof of teleology. Philosophers advocating for teleology bring this up again and again. How he doesn’t know this is astonishing.
Not really, causes of evolutionary systems such as mutations and selections are pretty random. For example, let's hypothesize a mainly blue coloured habitat, we wouldn't be fascinated to see some blue coloured birds there, we would think these birds evolved the blue feathers so they could hide in this habitat. This perfectly fits teleology, but that's not really what happened here. Ancestors of this blue bird species, let's say were coloured various shades of green when they migrated into this habitat, evolved randomly into different colours such as blue red or black. The non-blue birds would be easy targets for predators, this explains why there are no non-blue predecessors of that green bird specie in this habitat. We can find an answer to why only blue birds survived, but saying that, blue birds evolved teleologically, is a mere overvaluation of animal existence. One of the reasons why I put Democritus over other ancients is that he accepted randomness of existence and did not try to find teleological answers.
@@jakelm4256 I disagree with the former statement. "Survival of the fittest" means that among a fixed number of species, the most environmentally adapted species will have an easier time passing on their genes to the next generation compared to other species. If these species have a teleological purpose in this context, it is simply to live and adapt, but these species just live, adaptation is caused by genetic changes which randomly occurs. What I meant was that I put democritus [in a higher regard] over other ancient[Greek philosophers]. I can leave a passage from one of Bertrand Russell's books as a reason; ''It was common in antiquity to reproach the atomists with attributing everything to chance. They were, on the contrary, strict determinists, who believed that everything happens in accordance with natural laws. Democritus explicitly denied that anything can happen by chance. † Leucippus, though his existence is questioned, is known to have said one thing: “Naught happens for nothing, but everything from a ground and of necessity.” It is true that he gave no reason why the world should originally have been as it was; this, perhaps, might have been attributed to chance. But when once the world existed, its further development was unalterably fixed by mechanical principles. Aristotle and others reproached him and Democritus for not accounting for the original motion of the atoms, but in this the atomists were more scientific than their critics. Causation must start from something, and wherever it starts no cause can be assigned for the initial datum. The world may be attributed to a Creator, but even then the Creator Himself is unaccounted for. The theory of the atomists, in fact, was more nearly that of modern science than any other theory propounded in antiquity. The atomists, unlike Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle, sought to explain the world without introducing the notion of purpose or final cause. The “final cause” of an occurrence is an event in the future for the sake of which the occurrence takes place. In human affairs, this conception is applicable. Why does the baker make bread? Because people will be hungry. Why are railways built? Because people will wish to travel. In such cases, things are explained by the purpose they serve. When we ask “why?” concerning an event, we may mean either of two things. We may mean: “What purpose did this event serve?” or we may mean: “What earlier circumstances caused this event?” The answer to the former question is a teleological explanation, or an explanation by final causes; the answer to the latter question is a mechanistic explanation. I do not see how it could have been known in advance which of these two questions science ought to ask, or whether it ought to ask both. But experience has shown that the mechanistic question leads to scientific knowledge, while the teleological question does not. The atomists asked the mechanistic question, and gave a mechanistic answer. Their successors, until the Renaissance, were more interested in the teleological question, and thus led science up a blind alley.''
@@emyrronain6983 just about everything you stated in your first paragraph has an underlying assumption of teleology. Even trying to explain it away you resort to it. Speciation, generations, “to live”, “to adapt.” All teleological. Appealing to that passage of Russell’s in attempt to explain why Demcritus is on the whole greater than any other is just baffling, and is honestly not even worth addressing further.
1.The theory of evolution is just a theory..it is based on inference..you cannot put a philosophy to test by a theory..if it is not certain that animals did perform evolution how can one say that since..animals who survive the world are living and thus nothing really has any telos when it is not proven at the first hand that animal evolve or not..and also we are not seeing any kind of evolution right now..do we...we see many birds die of various continuous method but no one is ever seen a bird which has evolved at the present time of the factor which has be hampering its cause of death... 2. The 2nd point I agree with that guy..God cannot be powerful and ignorant at the same time.. Also according to Aristotle as there was never a point of time when a Supreme power would have started this universe..it doesn't have to go with that logic..even ideas are something that are beyond space and time..And GOD is the cause of causes therefore He is also the cause for ideas..so if GOD can be the cause of ideas at the same time ideas can be beyond space and time..then why GOD create this universe at the same time it doesn't have to be a particular point of time..like Sun and its rays...we know that sun is the cause of sun rays..but no one can argue that..it was a particular point of time when sun manifested the sun rays..similarly it can be the relation with GOD and Universe that is the existence of Universe and the existence of the GOD can be something inseparable.
Why should I give a crap about what some superstitious bonehead from 2000 years ago thought about causality? Physics and philosophy have made a few advances since Aristotle's time.
Homie, its great to see you take your channel in a new direction. It might have been an easy and natural progression for you to consider how to improve, but for me and many others, I suspect that these (4) causes can guide an integrated, virtuous and meaningful growth without being overwhelmed by creeping doubts that our pursuit of purpose might be too performative, misdirected or subject to being hijacked. Here are some specific ways that this concept is very meaningful to me, an engineer and educator, who likely has a few shared interests with you: 1. The (4) causes integrate materialism, scientific causality, bulk properties, and our sense of purpose. 2. The (4) causes can scaffold a sequence of experiences and considerations, to assist with concept development and refuting misconceptions when teaching. 3. The (4) causes can frame the construction of a fishbone diagram, to ensure that a root cause analysis (RCA) is on the lookout for invisible causes which might commonly go unconsidered. 4. The (4) causes can frame the consideration of a 'Failure Modes and Effects Analysis' (FMEA), again helping to address common blindspots. 5. The (4) causes clarify how antifragile mechanisms result in emergent properties that can scale up, introducing new and exciting things to our universe. 6. The (4) causes can frame an inquiry into game theory, from which it can be proven that a virtuous 'will to meaning' is strictly dominant over a will to pleasure or will to power. 7. The (4) causes can collectively act as a philosophical razor for identifying and rejecting dubious claims of teleology without causality. 8. The (4) causes help identify the enormous amount of processes and structures that we rely on to experience life. 9. The (4) causes reveal how nature provides a blank canvas for us (and any other highly intelligent creatures throughout the universe) to improvise, hypothesize, and improve our sense of meaning and purpose. 10. The (4) causes remind us that we are more than the sum of our parts, we are subject to little variations which go beyond what can be accurately modeled by science, and so the imaginary boundary lines which divide each of us and allows for highly accurate predictions, can never be 100% right, because at a fundamental level the imaginary boundary line doesn't account for the sense of unity and belonging that we are all a part of the entire universe. If ever you have to endure unnecessary suffering or a cruel fate, you may find solace in knowing that you are part of something greater.
I am not sure to be on board here. Beyond the "prime mover" we have the idea of the "unmoved mover". A consquence without cause. And it makes no sense. Nowadays, most modern physicists, not all of them I admit, but most, agree on the concept of the Block Universe: a universe which is eternal, and where past, present and future equally exist. In other terms, no origin, no unmoved mover/prime mover.
Don’t worry: everything is known. There are no doubts, no mysteries. A seeker is one who wants to know the absolute and how to implement absolute truth into daily life There are very very few genuine seekers and many many deluded pseudo-seekers who, whilst seeking comfort and consolation, are unable to separate themselves from pursuing the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. They deludedly believe they can benefit from Christ’s promised salvation without following Christ’s instructions Their lives, full of sound and fury, signify nothing “Take up your cross and follow me”
Your interjection of Darwin shows you are out of date. Darwin has been disproven in terms of primary evolution that is the explanation for human development - ape to human. Yet his theory may have some validity in terms of non-essential changes seen in nature.
The script to this video is part of the Philosophy Vibe "Plato & Aristotle" eBook, available on Amazon:
mybook.to/philosophyvibe6
The Philosophy Vibe Paperback Anthology, Vol 2 'Metaphysics' available worldwide on Amazon:
mybook.to/philosophyvibevol2
Astonishing explanation and questioning, you asked every single questioned I had, can't say that about every philosophy video I watch. Keep the exceptional work!
Thank you so much. Glad you enjoyed the video.
I'm studying my masters in Psychology and we are discussing Aridtotles idea behind causality and I have to say this video does a fantastic job of explaining this concept in great detail. Cheers!
You're welcome, glad it was helpful :)
You guys are so brilliant, the vibe is impeccable. THANK YOU
A pleasure, glad you enjoy!
This explanation was extremely helpful for my essay titled 'Critically examine Aristotle’s theory of causation', so thank you!
Glad it helped. Best of luck in the essay.
I really like the idea that the universe is eternal without a definitive beginning or end. That is so much easier to wrap my head around LOL.. Every time I watch a Philosophy Vibe video a new can of worms opens up and I find 30 new topics to study haha. Thanks guy :P
A pleasure, glad we can assist in your philosophical journey :)
High quality discussions and debates, thank you!👍
I love your videos. I have had two philosophy classes in my first year of university and have found these to be very informative and comprehendible. Thank you!
You're welcome, glad we could help. Good luck in the uni course.
Interesting. Both sides are perfectly probable views, but if you’re concidering which philosophy to live by. Then Aristotle’s Philosophy has a much higher probability of providing you positive results in life. Therfore I must argue that he’s right in the end
The conversation starts on its feet but it later gets confused. Here are some corrections: (a) Aristotle’s theory of “causality” is not about causes as in what it means in a modern sense. Aristotle’s four causes are an explanation of the given individual thing. The modern causality answers who or what pushed a ball. Aristotle wants to teach how to comprehend what a ball is. That directly connects to his syllogism as it wouldn’t mean much to make valid deductions unless your comprehensions of each premise were true. (b) He uses the words movement and change interchangeably. Movement is an attribute of nature, things that exist. Things do not move or change because an external force makes them so. They change (move) because it is how they are. Just like Newtonian Physics discard angels as agents that make planets move, Aristotle assigns the power of being to individual things that are. (c) The Prime Mover or god is the highest form of being in a hierarchical universe. It doesn’t move or change. It is perfection. Everything else that exists strives to be like the Prime Mover. (d) Stating the obvious, what follows from the above about Aristotle’s teleology has nothing to do with an external agent’s assigning purpose to things or events. Aristotle claims each individual thing has a purpose by its nature, by itself. None of the above means Aristotle’s philosophy doesn’t have issues. It does. But the conversation in this video doesn’t seem to be on-level with those matters. Let’s wrap up with their final criticism they think is on the spot: Aristotle says you can know truths within the limits of your nature. So, yes, you will make mistakes by working up from empirical evidence. And you will find out your mistakes because you can tell when you catch one.
I think there is room for considering the existence of a prime mover. I will first state by saying that prime doesn’t necessarily mean supreme, nor does it mean that one can’t be many all at once.
“God, immaterial, unchanging...”
*Shows a bearded man with hands*
Transcendence
it looks like they hate God
I had a laugh at that too. Their explanation was on point though, their illustration though the exact opposite.
This is an impoverished caricature of Aristotle’s Prime Mover. Further Aquinas built on his demonstration and perfected the proof of the God of classical theism. If one is looking to legitimately learn the Prime Mover argument I would recommend reading Feser & Trent Horn for a simple to grasp reasoning.
Your recommendations are worthy, especially Feser's book Aristotle's revenge. But considering the source of knowledge, that is RUclips, and a short span of time, I would argue that the target audience wouldn't be much interested in an in-depth analysis and critique, that which encompasses the wide developments of the argument. Such videos would be helpful to obtain the ability to conceptualise the terminologies of Aristotelian philosophy and partly metaphysics.
@@MM-KunstUndWahrheitAristotle’s revenge is an excellent read. I agree with your input and have considered myself making a short video explaining a modern and also accurate explanation of the prime mover demonstration of God’s necessary existence - Maybe one day
Aquinas distorted and Christianized Aristotle's argument and doctrines. Actually, that's what early Christians did. They stole from Greeks and built their Christian ad hoc.
If you want to legitimately learn Aristotle's view, stay away from Christian sources.
@@anteodedi8937This comment does not merit an intelligent response but for the purpose of those to read in the future I will comment. Truth is universal. Aristotle, specifically with his metaphysics grasped truths of which unknowingly to him aligned with the God of classical theism. Aquinas married these, the supernatural with the natural. With all this said I do agree that if you want to learn of Aristotle, go to the source. The Nichomichean Ethics is a great start. You will see how Aristotle being a noble pagan discovered many truths, and those that he couldn’t have by reason alone were brought about in Revelation through Christ Jesus.
@@Ajwahed What's intelligent about that response, exactly? That's the typical response coming from a biased kid who watches Trent Horn.
And just like the content of your idol, it consists of rhetoric and little to zero substance. Aristotle's philosophy is not even compatible with Christianity unless you start distorting it, let alone it being true or Christianity consisting of any revealed truth.
But if you want to preach go ahead, I won't stop you.
Could the prime mover not be seen as entropy which drives all things in the universe forward towards one particular end (the heat death of the universe) and yet is not capable of knowing about us or interacting with us? Obviously, this is not something Aristotle could have thought of but it seems like an apt comparison.
Yes, the prime mover is also called as the unmoved mover (this is the wording used in my copy of Aristotle's book Metaphysics) and I did some research concluding that entropy really is just a modern manifestation of the unmoved mover. Aristotle believed the unmoved/prime mover (god, possibly one who does not know or have an ability to intervene anything except themself) was the origin of all things because things can not exist if they do not move. Analogously, a human body is bound to die unless the human gets at least a little bit of physical activity, or birds will die if they do not perform the physical activity of flying enough. Sidenote Aristotle is the father of biology and 2/3rds of all his books are in fact biology books!
Loved the explanation .😍
Thank you 😀
Hello philosophy vibe can you please do a video on Refutation of innate ideas by John Locke... Because I quickly learn and understand from your channel....
Very helpful. Thankyou! ❤
You're welcome 😊
Really helpful...please do more videos on different topic
Thank you, glad you liked it. Please check out the channel we have a lot of content covering all major areas of Western Philosophy.
Best explanation i have ever seen
Thank you very much, glad you enjoyed it.
Thank you very much for this video!
A pleasure, glad you enjoyed it :)
Thnk you so much for a wonderful presentation .
You are most welcome
Cheese Cake: Material ingredients, Formal recipe / mold, Efficient chef, Final product. The Prime Mover founded and manages the restaurant.
Thankyouu really helps with my a level philosophy essays!
You're welcome, good luck in the essays.
Very very helpful! Thank you!
You're welcome, glad it was useful.
Great stuff! Thanks!
Glad you liked it!
beautifully done
Thank you :)
A thing may be moving towards its completion, but from that it may quite likely perish. So one could say that it is moving towards its perished state. I think that the essence of the τἐλος is not so much the movement towards, as the form of the perfection of, the object. A τἐλος is not a kind of attractor, but is a fulfillment. Perhaps it isn't clear how much Aristotle recognised this? I would like to know.
Thank you🙏🏼
You’re welcome 😊
Well done!!!
Thank you :)
Good and helpful video.
Glad it was helpful, thanks for watching.
5:00 with this saying Aristotle contradicted his own worldview.
9:25 ironically Darwinian evolution would just be proof of teleology. Philosophers advocating for teleology bring this up again and again. How he doesn’t know this is astonishing.
Not really, causes of evolutionary systems such as mutations and selections are pretty random. For example, let's hypothesize a mainly blue coloured habitat, we wouldn't be fascinated to see some blue coloured birds there, we would think these birds evolved the blue feathers so they could hide in this habitat. This perfectly fits teleology, but that's not really what happened here. Ancestors of this blue bird species, let's say were coloured various shades of green when they migrated into this habitat, evolved randomly into different colours such as blue red or black. The non-blue birds would be easy targets for predators, this explains why there are no non-blue predecessors of that green bird specie in this habitat. We can find an answer to why only blue birds survived, but saying that, blue birds evolved teleologically, is a mere overvaluation of animal existence.
One of the reasons why I put Democritus over other ancients is that he accepted randomness of existence and did not try to find teleological answers.
@@emyrronain6983 survival of the fittest is a teleological concept.
What exactly do you mean by “putting Democritus over other ancients”?
@@jakelm4256 I disagree with the former statement. "Survival of the fittest" means that among a fixed number of species, the most environmentally adapted species will have an easier time passing on their genes to the next generation compared to other species. If these species have a teleological purpose in this context, it is simply to live and adapt, but these species just live, adaptation is caused by genetic changes which randomly occurs.
What I meant was that I put democritus [in a higher regard] over other ancient[Greek philosophers]. I can leave a passage from one of Bertrand Russell's books as a reason; ''It was common in antiquity to reproach the atomists with attributing
everything to chance. They were, on the contrary, strict determinists, who
believed that everything happens in accordance with natural laws.
Democritus explicitly denied that anything can happen by chance. †
Leucippus, though his existence is questioned, is known to have said one
thing: “Naught happens for nothing, but everything from a ground and of
necessity.” It is true that he gave no reason why the world should originally
have been as it was; this, perhaps, might have been attributed to chance. But
when once the world existed, its further development was unalterably fixed
by mechanical principles. Aristotle and others reproached him and
Democritus for not accounting for the original motion of the atoms, but in this
the atomists were more scientific than their critics. Causation must start from
something, and wherever it starts no cause can be assigned for the initial
datum. The world may be attributed to a Creator, but even then the Creator
Himself is unaccounted for. The theory of the atomists, in fact, was more
nearly that of modern science than any other theory propounded in antiquity.
The atomists, unlike Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle, sought to explain the
world without introducing the notion of purpose or final cause. The “final
cause” of an occurrence is an event in the future for the sake of which the
occurrence takes place. In human affairs, this conception is applicable. Why
does the baker make bread? Because people will be hungry. Why are
railways built? Because people will wish to travel. In such cases, things are
explained by the purpose they serve. When we ask “why?” concerning an
event, we may mean either of two things. We may mean: “What purpose did
this event serve?” or we may mean: “What earlier circumstances caused this
event?” The answer to the former question is a teleological explanation, or
an explanation by final causes; the answer to the latter question is a
mechanistic explanation. I do not see how it could have been known in
advance which of these two questions science ought to ask, or whether it
ought to ask both. But experience has shown that the mechanistic question
leads to scientific knowledge, while the teleological question does not. The
atomists asked the mechanistic question, and gave a mechanistic answer.
Their successors, until the Renaissance, were more interested in the
teleological question, and thus led science up a blind alley.''
@@emyrronain6983 just about everything you stated in your first paragraph has an underlying assumption of teleology. Even trying to explain it away you resort to it. Speciation, generations, “to live”, “to adapt.” All teleological.
Appealing to that passage of Russell’s in attempt to explain why Demcritus is on the whole greater than any other is just baffling, and is honestly not even worth addressing further.
Nice. I fully expect tard comments on youtube
1.The theory of evolution is just a theory..it is based on inference..you cannot put a philosophy to test by a theory..if it is not certain that animals did perform evolution how can one say that since..animals who survive the world are living and thus nothing really has any telos when it is not proven at the first hand that animal evolve or not..and also we are not seeing any kind of evolution right now..do we...we see many birds die of various continuous method but no one is ever seen a bird which has evolved at the present time of the factor which has be hampering its cause of death...
2. The 2nd point I agree with that guy..God cannot be powerful and ignorant at the same time..
Also according to Aristotle as there was never a point of time when a Supreme power would have started this universe..it doesn't have to go with that logic..even ideas are something that are beyond space and time..And GOD is the cause of causes therefore He is also the cause for ideas..so if GOD can be the cause of ideas at the same time ideas can be beyond space and time..then why GOD create this universe at the same time it doesn't have to be a particular point of time..like Sun and its rays...we know that sun is the cause of sun rays..but no one can argue that..it was a particular point of time when sun manifested the sun rays..similarly it can be the relation with GOD and Universe that is the existence of Universe and the existence of the GOD can be something inseparable.
Video quality is vry good bt voice is not clearr....
Where are you living ?
Why should I give a crap about what some superstitious bonehead from 2000 years ago thought about causality? Physics and philosophy have made a few advances since Aristotle's time.
Homie, its great to see you take your channel in a new direction. It might have been an easy and natural progression for you to consider how to improve, but for me and many others, I suspect that these (4) causes can guide an integrated, virtuous and meaningful growth without being overwhelmed by creeping doubts that our pursuit of purpose might be too performative, misdirected or subject to being hijacked. Here are some specific ways that this concept is very meaningful to me, an engineer and educator, who likely has a few shared interests with you:
1. The (4) causes integrate materialism, scientific causality, bulk properties, and our sense of purpose.
2. The (4) causes can scaffold a sequence of experiences and considerations, to assist with concept development and refuting misconceptions when teaching.
3. The (4) causes can frame the construction of a fishbone diagram, to ensure that a root cause analysis (RCA) is on the lookout for invisible causes which might commonly go unconsidered.
4. The (4) causes can frame the consideration of a 'Failure Modes and Effects Analysis' (FMEA), again helping to address common blindspots.
5. The (4) causes clarify how antifragile mechanisms result in emergent properties that can scale up, introducing new and exciting things to our universe.
6. The (4) causes can frame an inquiry into game theory, from which it can be proven that a virtuous 'will to meaning' is strictly dominant over a will to pleasure or will to power.
7. The (4) causes can collectively act as a philosophical razor for identifying and rejecting dubious claims of teleology without causality.
8. The (4) causes help identify the enormous amount of processes and structures that we rely on to experience life.
9. The (4) causes reveal how nature provides a blank canvas for us (and any other highly intelligent creatures throughout the universe) to improvise, hypothesize, and improve our sense of meaning and purpose.
10. The (4) causes remind us that we are more than the sum of our parts, we are subject to little variations which go beyond what can be accurately modeled by science, and so the imaginary boundary lines which divide each of us and allows for highly accurate predictions, can never be 100% right, because at a fundamental level the imaginary boundary line doesn't account for the sense of unity and belonging that we are all a part of the entire universe. If ever you have to endure unnecessary suffering or a cruel fate, you may find solace in knowing that you are part of something greater.
I am not sure to be on board here. Beyond the "prime mover" we have the idea of the "unmoved mover". A consquence without cause. And it makes no sense. Nowadays, most modern physicists, not all of them I admit, but most, agree on the concept of the Block Universe: a universe which is eternal, and where past, present and future equally exist. In other terms, no origin, no unmoved mover/prime mover.
Prime mover is not the origin that initiated the causal chain, it merely is an explanation as to why things are in a causal chain.
Don’t worry: everything is known. There are no doubts, no mysteries.
A seeker is one who wants to know the absolute and how to implement absolute truth into daily life
There are very very few genuine seekers and many many deluded pseudo-seekers who, whilst seeking comfort and consolation, are unable to separate themselves from pursuing the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
They deludedly believe they can benefit from Christ’s promised salvation without following Christ’s instructions
Their lives, full of sound and fury, signify nothing
“Take up your cross and follow me”
If you can use batter voices ..it would be batter...
anyone else here from the eboys....??? just me lol
Your interjection of Darwin shows you are out of date. Darwin has been disproven in terms of primary evolution that is the explanation for human development - ape to human. Yet his theory may have some validity in terms of non-essential changes seen in nature.
whos here from eboys