Відео

🎉

I feel bad now that he passed away but "I don't want to be a vegan" and "Eating meat is natural" aren't exactly great counterpoints to the well-defended thesis of animal liberation...

14 down, n videos left to go! Thanks for all this great content! ❤

I wonder how these objective morals gain their agency (out there waiting for us to discover them)? 🤭

I've been watching each of these in order from #1. Why is this giving me deja vu the whole way through? Is this a duplicate that perhaps should be renamed or removed?

Hey Stanley, the issue isn't "why are the questions hostile" but rather "why are you so snippy and defensive?" No one is attacking you, despite how you've been responding! Relax! This can be fun if you let it be! ❤

Go easy on me, this is my first delve into the three Philosophy of Politics! 😊

Thanks, gents! 🎉

@concrete: There are cars. Cars demonstrably exist. Why would we be charitable when it comes to something that can not be demonstrated to exist? Perhaps you have less of a problem with Jesus having two different natures because he also has two different lineages and two different places of birth?

How can one lack a belief in the lack of a belief? Hmm... I suppose one could be in denial, claiming that atheism isn't a position one could take on the god claim, but that's just silly. Kind of like not believing in Mets (baseball team) fans or denying the existence of people organize their lives around astrology. 😆

Yes! I've made it to 9! 🎉

How can the Kalam rule out "Hinduism?" Hinduism is not "a" religion but a vast collection of belief systems and practices that range from monotheism all the way to animism. For someone to identify as Hindu is their prerogative, but to assume all forms of Hinduism can be conflated in anything other than a lazy, slapdash label is rather rude and disrespectful. Any culture that predates Jesus by almost 3300 years and persists today deserves some respect, especially considering how much of an influence it has had on Christianity. 😊

Full speed ahead! Thanks for this great material! ❤

Thanks, gents! ❤

Great to see Graham Oppy here again! In a world of soundbites and memes, I love these long videos! ❤

Wonderful speaker, much appreciated! 🎉

Brave, bold, and undaunted, I've made it to #5! 🎉

I adore Gregory's response to the question pertaining to evolution! Hooray! ❤

Heading into number 4! Thanks for making and posting these great videos!

Wow! It always amazes me how much time an effort can go into the philosophical support of christian mythology. Thanks for posting! 😊

Onto number 2 and looking forward to listening to Noam!

Just to let you know, this is a duplicate comment to the one you received 3yrs ago from PhillipJackson1517. It's not exactly the same thing, but it's very similar in structure at least. Thought it might boost your channel through engagement. xD

Thank you so much! I love this channel so much I'm going to watch/listen to all of your videos starting here with the 1st! ❤

When Kurt Jaimungal asked Chomsky, "Do you believe in God?" Chomsky looked confused, then said, "I don't even know what I'm being asked about." ("Noam Chomsky: God, Morality and Consciousness," by TOE, @ 06.00.) Nobody can say what a "God" is without begging the question, and Kurt wisely made no attempt to do it.

I have to agree with Tyler so much that there's too much B.S. in philosophy. Way too much vagueness and loose use of language and a disconnection with empirical science. There's similar problems in science too though. Tyler makes an effort for clarity and that's a very good thing.

Great interview if only his book wasn't 100 dollars 😢

Transactional bros, when will our sanely motivated rejection of unitarity get the attention it deserves from the Foundations community 😭

Seems to me we can speak about empirical distances without using absyract objects... I think doimg "euclidean rescues" is wrong. Nothing is above falsification. All hail *the evidence.*

It makes me sad to see so many biased atheists, who have not read Richard Swinburne, say so much ignorance about him, without considering his age, that speaks more badly of them than of Swinburne.

Whoa that's one cold open! Nice. 🍻

detroyer got s little chonkier since the last time i saw him

Best one in a minute. I love when Troy has to low key bring all his degen anti realist stuff to a normal person.

53:15 Bro is just causally begging the question... Like Why should I grant this claim? I think denying the existence of “normative properties” sidesteps an unnecessary major problem in meta-ethics such as the queerness argument, an ontologically heavy commitment, Indeterminacy, variability of normative reference, and much more. I think the root of the matter is what norms are, specifically the distinction between categorical and hypothetical norms. But most philosophers seem to appeal to these moral entities like stance-independent/external moral reasons for action.., which insufficiently explain what norms are, in fact, we can do away with all this by drawing upon how social norms work without “reason fundamentalism”. Let's imagine two containers: one labeled yellow balls only and the other labeled red balls only. You pick up the conceptual content of both containers through your visual experience. When deliberating about what to do, you recognize that it is appropriate via the conceptual content to place the yellow ball in the yellow container rather than to place the red ball instead. Some prior background about my beliefs; The form of normative realism I defend is my version of Normative Conceptualism, which considers moral normativity as a feature of moral concepts; they're located in the normative meaning/content, which is determined by its embedded "normative role" to regulate behavior. The kind of things concepts are abilities that are peculiar to cognitive agents. A concept is normative in virtue of being composed of normative meaning/content. Moral concepts are constituents of moral thoughts. Normative concepts are explanatorily indispensable and cannot be "defined, reduced, or even analyzed" into concepts that are themselves more basic/fundamental than deontic concepts. A standard view about the semantic shape of ‘that’-clause attitude ascriptions is that they are fundamentally relational. One part of this idea is that the attitude verb expresses a binary relation whose extension, if not empty, is a collection of pairs each of which consists of an individual and a proposition; a. Holmes {fears/suspects} that Moriarty has returned. I understand certain deontic concepts, such as necessity and obligation, are expressed using modal auxiliary verbs like 'must' and 'should', invoking norms, rules, or necessity. a. "You must finish your homework." → Obligation. These expressions differ fundamentally from attitude verbs, both linguistically and maybe conceptually because they are too different. I endorse motivational externalism, which states that the connection between having moral thought and motivation, i.e., the desire to act in service of a goal, is purely contingent thus denying that it is a conceptual platitude that moral thoughts necessarily motivate. Moral knowledge is possible through introspection. I access my perceptual experience of the circumstance, discern the normative conceptual content, and apply the right concepts with the correct grasp of them to form moral beliefs about the situations I encounter

I asked for this interview to be uploaded and it happened!!!!

Great Christmas gift!! I think this guy is on to something

This interviewer has a "I'm in over my head" look throughout the whole thing lol. Don't worry bro, I'm there you.

Bro, all this talk about semantics and y’all talking over eachother lmao “dialogue” like Plato’s early monologues lol

Just found this channel, you're underrated mate.

Love this chanel. Thanks for all these interviews. It's really nice to have serious philosophical discussions like this available. One suggestion, for whatever it's worth: it would be cool if you could discuss the perspectives on linguistics (and, derivatively, on philosophy of language) that come from work in systems neuroscience and machine learning. Ever since reading Paul Churchland's "Plato's Camera", I've started thinking that there is a really important disconnect between the way that formal semanticists (and philosophers of language in that tradition) think about language and the way that neuroscientists/ML people tend to think about it, and that this isn't a good thing for philosophy of language. There's been a revolution in NLP over the last decade, but afaik it hasn't had much impact on phil. lang (most of the people talking about it seem to work in "philosophy of AI" or whatever). It would be very cool if someone with a background in philosophy of language like yourself could interview someone like Ev Fedorenko or Jay Mclelland to bring out the implications of some of this work for traditional debates in the philosophy of language and general philosophy.

good interview.

Good to have you back with another banger interview :3

Fantastic interview

This video is awesome so far, and there's so much more to watch.

Thank you :)

Hell yeah

It's not possible for the blue Jays to beat the Yankees or vice versa under the mlb modality because they are both American League teams and the world series is constitutive of a national League and an American League team 😅

I am proud to have a Bangladeshi legend atheist. Arif Mohiuddin Ahmed, Asif Mohiuddin is great!

ye'know

Have you heard of Howard Robinson? He's the best representative of the total opposite view of consciousness, in my opinion. Would be a great addition to your channel to have him on since there are only a handful of videos with him on YT

If the patchwork principle is true, is it possible to have two 3-omni Gods?