![Thinking About Stuff](/img/default-banner.jpg)
- 15
- 412 513
Thinking About Stuff
United States
Приєднався 2 чер 2020
Philosophy shouldn't be intimidating. Philosophy is simply thinking carefully about the world-trying think through the issues and figure out what is true. In short, philosophy is THINKING ABOUT STUFF.
This channel offers short videos explaining philosophical concepts and arguments. Whether you're taking a philosophy course or just curious about the world, I hope these videos help you along on your philosophical journey.
About Me:
I love philosophy! I took my first philosophy course at a community college and I was hooked. I went on to study it for many years-eventually earning a Ph.D. in it. I'm now a philosophy professor and I make these videos in my spare time.
If you're an educator and you use these videos to supplement your lessons, I'd love to hear about it! Or if you have any other inquiries, feel free to reach out to me via email by clicking the "View Email Address" button below.
This channel offers short videos explaining philosophical concepts and arguments. Whether you're taking a philosophy course or just curious about the world, I hope these videos help you along on your philosophical journey.
About Me:
I love philosophy! I took my first philosophy course at a community college and I was hooked. I went on to study it for many years-eventually earning a Ph.D. in it. I'm now a philosophy professor and I make these videos in my spare time.
If you're an educator and you use these videos to supplement your lessons, I'd love to hear about it! Or if you have any other inquiries, feel free to reach out to me via email by clicking the "View Email Address" button below.
The Sorites Paradox & Vagueness
How many grains of sand does it take to make a heap? How many hairs must one lose to be bald? This "line drawing" question is known as the Sorites Paradox and it is the result of a phenomenon known as "vagueness." Vagueness is everywhere and it is even a threat to the laws of logic. One solution to this puzzle is called Epistemicism, which suggests that there are no true borderline cases; there is always a line to be drawn and vagueness is merely a matter of our own ignorance about where to draw it. But can that be right?
Intro: (0:00)
The Sorites Paradox: (0:13)
Vagueness: (0:51)
Vagueness is All Around Us: (1:12)
Threat to Logic?: (2:04)
Epistemicism: (2:52)
Conclusion: (3:40)
Philosophical Sources:
- Keil, Geert, Lara Keuck, and Rico Hauswald. "Vagueness in psychiatry: An overview." Vagueness in Psychiatry (2016): 1.
- Kerckhove, Lee F., and Sara Waller. "Fetal personhood and the sorites paradox." J. Value Inquiry 32 (1998): 175.
- Waldron, Jeremy. "Vagueness in law and language: Some philosophical issues." Precedents, Statutes, and Analysis of Legal Concepts. Routledge, 2013. 357-388.
- Williamson, Timothy. Vagueness. Routledge, 2002.
Stock Media Sources: FreePik (www.freepik.com) [including MacroVector], Pixabay (www.pexels.com), Pexels (www.pixabay.com), Purple Planet (www.purple-planet.com), ZapSplat (www.zapsplat.com).
Intro: (0:00)
The Sorites Paradox: (0:13)
Vagueness: (0:51)
Vagueness is All Around Us: (1:12)
Threat to Logic?: (2:04)
Epistemicism: (2:52)
Conclusion: (3:40)
Philosophical Sources:
- Keil, Geert, Lara Keuck, and Rico Hauswald. "Vagueness in psychiatry: An overview." Vagueness in Psychiatry (2016): 1.
- Kerckhove, Lee F., and Sara Waller. "Fetal personhood and the sorites paradox." J. Value Inquiry 32 (1998): 175.
- Waldron, Jeremy. "Vagueness in law and language: Some philosophical issues." Precedents, Statutes, and Analysis of Legal Concepts. Routledge, 2013. 357-388.
- Williamson, Timothy. Vagueness. Routledge, 2002.
Stock Media Sources: FreePik (www.freepik.com) [including MacroVector], Pixabay (www.pexels.com), Pexels (www.pixabay.com), Purple Planet (www.purple-planet.com), ZapSplat (www.zapsplat.com).
Переглядів: 1 374
Відео
Slippery Slope (Misunderstood Fallacies)
Переглядів 1,9 тис.Рік тому
The Slippery Slope Fallacy is an informal fallacy that involves inappropriately arguing that A will lead to B, which will lead to C. And C is bad, so we shouldn't do A. But is it always a fallacy to use this kind of "chain of events" reasoning? This video offers 2 points to differentiate legitimate instances of this kind of reasoning from fallacious ones. Intro: (0:00) What Are Fallacies?: (0:1...
Appeal to Authority (Misunderstood Fallacies)
Переглядів 6 тис.Рік тому
Understanding fallacies is important for critical thinking. The Appeal to Authority is an informal fallacy that involves inappropriately relying on an authority, particularly as a way to dismiss evidence. But when is it appropriate to use expert testimony? And when is it a fallacy? This video explains what the fallacy is, how it's misunderstood, and offers 4 points to differentiate legitimate u...
Necessary & Sufficient Conditions + Wittgenstein's Objection
Переглядів 2,3 тис.2 роки тому
Philosophers analyze concepts. One way to do that is to give the necessary and sufficient conditions for the concept. This video explains the difference between necessary conditions and sufficient conditions. It also describes how these get used in philosophical analysis, and Wittgenstien's objection to such methods. Intro: (0:00) Necessary Conditions: (0:33) Sufficient Conditions: (1:33) How T...
Is Death Bad? - Epicurus on Death
Переглядів 4,4 тис.2 роки тому
Most people fear death. But the ancient philosophers Epicurus and Lucretius argue that your death is not bad for you because once you're dead, you don't exist. And something can only be bad for you if you exist. However, Thomas Nagel argues that death can be bad for us because of what it deprives us of-even if we do not exist to experience it. Intro: (0:00) Epicurus on Death: (0:21) The Argumen...
Kant's Categorical Imperative (Deontology)
Переглядів 29 тис.3 роки тому
Kantian deontology is about rules and duties. Kant argued for an ultimate moral principle called The Categorical Imperative. It says that one must only act on principles (or "maxims") that could be universalized. This means they must still be rational even if everyone were to use them. Intro: (0:00) The Categorical Imperative: (0:43) What is a Maxim?: (1:22) A Maxim as a Universal Law: (2:06) T...
The Zombie Argument: Is Consciousness Physical?
Переглядів 21 тис.3 роки тому
According to philosopher David Chalmers, consciousness is not physical. Imagine a philosophical zombie. They are physically identical to normal humans, but there's one important difference: these zombies don't have any conscious experience. There's no "what it's like" to be a zombie. These beings aren't real, but they're not impossible. If they're made of all the same physical stuff that we are...
Free Will Incompatibilism: The Consequence Argument
Переглядів 8 тис.3 роки тому
Are deterministic laws of nature compatible with free will? According to Peter van Inwagen's "Consequence Argument," the answer is "No." The past and the laws of nature guarantee what the future will be. And the past and the laws of nature are not "up to me." And what results from them is also not "up do me." But my actions result from them. So my actions are not "up to me." Stock Media Sources...
Cultural Moral Relativism
Переглядів 19 тис.3 роки тому
"Is morality different for different cultures?" There are two different questions we might have in mind here. First, we might mean: "Do people's beliefs about morality differ across cultures?" This question is easy. Yes, different cultures have different moral beliefs. We can call this view "Descriptive Relativism." Second we might mean: "Does morality itself (i.e. the moral truth) differ acros...
Why Should We Punish? Theories of Punishment
Переглядів 64 тис.3 роки тому
When we punish people, we're harming them. So what makes it okay for us to do that? There are three main theories of punishment that answer this question in different ways. Retribution and Retributive theories say that wrongdoers simply deserve to suffer. Deterrence theories say that punishment is justified because it prevents future wrongdoing. And rehabilitation theories say that we're justif...
Do We Have Free Will? Compatibilism vs. Incompatibilism
Переглядів 9 тис.3 роки тому
*Clarification* In the video, my explanation of "causal determinism" is somewhat misleading. I explain it in terms of cause and effect. But you can have cause and effect without causal determinism. More accurately, causal determinism is this idea: the past the laws of nature = guarantees exactly one specific outcome. Video Description: Do we have free will? It seems like it. But doesn't everyth...
Kill 1 to Save 5? Consequentialism vs. Deontology
Переглядів 121 тис.3 роки тому
Correction The video inaccurately says that "according to deontology, there are some moral rules that should never be broken." But that only accurately describes "absolutist" versions of deontology (such as Immanuel Kant's). Other versions of deontology can allow for any rule to be broken. What makes a view deontological is primarily that regards morality as fundamentally involving duties and p...
David Hume and the Problem of Induction
Переглядів 44 тис.3 роки тому
We often use inductive reasoning-especially in science. But David Hume, an 18th century Scottish Enlightenment philosopher, identified a puzzle about such reasoning. It rests on an unjustified assumption. So induction might be a good form of reasoning, but we don't have good reason for believing it. This is the problem of induction. Media Sources: Illustrations: www.freepik.com Video Clips: www...
How to Make Fair Laws: John Rawls and the Veil of Ignorance
Переглядів 47 тис.4 роки тому
In his influential book "A Theory of Justice," Political philosopher John Rawls argues that justice is fairness. And in order to have justice and fairness, we must choose laws from behind a veil of ignorance. This means we must imagine that we didn't know anything about our own identity (wealth, race, gender, religion, etc.) and consider which laws we would choose given that we didn't know how ...
Good: Intrinsic vs. Instrumental
Переглядів 34 тис.4 роки тому
What does it mean to say that something is "good"? Philosophers distinguish between two kinds of "good" called "intrinsically good" and "instrumentally good." In this video, we explain the difference between the two. Media Sources: Music: www.purple-planet.com Sound Effects: www.zapsplat.com Video Clips: www.pexels.com
general aung san familys and be this is myanmar year 1915.
my tun lin aung am myanmar states to myanmar nation. welcome next years 2053 time ok.
I cut; you choose predates John Rawls. As Anatole France wrote: The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal their bread. Laws are written by legislators that are not affected by those laws and do not know the consequences of those laws. That is the actual Veil of Ignorance.
So, if these are 5 random people, why should I care in the first place? Regardless if I'm next to the switch or not
Question is why the heck are they just chilling on the track
I've recently self-published a novel that may be of interest to people who are intrigued by the consequentialism v deontology debate in the context of a "life and death" ethical dilemma. It's called "The Decision" by Nathan McGregor, and it's available in both Kindle and paperback format through Amazon.
I am a deontologist Because I don't wanna interfere anything
You are probably extremely busy, but hoping to see some more videos from your channel and from Let's Get Logical.
I thought LOVE was supposed to be THE ANSWER. War and punishment retribution. Love creates only LOVE.
I remember once asking my grandpa if my friends are conscious or not whilst he was fixing something important. It feels amazing getting this video recommended now after so many years and realizing that I asked this deep philosophical question as a kid out of curiosity.
It’s not the ‘future’ that’s behaving like the past though. It’s a physical phenomenon that is occurring.
Essentially, P zombies are only possible in the case that consciousness isn't physical. They are exact physical duplicates, so in the case where physicalism is true all resultant properties should also be the same. We are carrying out an experiment without carrying it out, then assuming an outcome. First, you'd need to be able to replicate someone's physiology down to the quantum level, then you'd have to be able to tell the difference between a P zombie and a person with a consciousness. Then with your conclusion you could make a determination. This argument skips all that rubbish and asserts in the first premise that the p zombie is possible, which is only true if the experiment would be carried out and shown in their favor. Sure, I can "imagine" the experiment going in the non-physicalist's favor but that doesn't mean it is literally possible, it means It is possible that physicalism is wrong but to know, we'd actually have to carry out the experiment to see what the ACTUAL truth would be. But no, physicalism isn't true or false based on my ability to imagine it is true or false. Possible in the sense that I can imagine an outcome, or another is not the same as possible showing there are no literal contradictions in reality preventing my ideas from being true.
The analogy doesn’t hold though. The analogy needed to be “Amy in the past paid you back once, she says she will pay you back again”.
thanks -- explains it well for me
I used this as a term recently, calling somebody a philosophical zombie as a throwaway insult, totally unconscious of the fact that it's a concept in philosophy until someone asked if it was a known term and someone else explained that it is. So I'm probably a philosophical zombie myself, without knowing it. But I do believe many people are zombies, and this, based primarily on a particularly vivid nightmare I had in 2019
I think the biggest issue with this argument / thought experiment is Claim 1: "zombies are possible". This is the sketchiest, flimsiest part of the whole thing, IMO. It seems silly to say "ok, but are zombies POSSIBLE -- in ANY universe?" when the entire point of the argument is to ground consciousness IN OUR universe. It's comparing apples to oranges, it doesn't work. And this is coming from someone who believes that consciousness is NOT just a code in our brains, and is "something more".
King 👑👑
2:25 Bout to be the biggest check-up of his life boiiiii. Doctor's probably doing the Birdman hand rub 😂
All appeals to an authority are fallacious.
No they aren't
People who use the "slippery slope fallacy" argument likely support the projected result at the end of the slope, but don't currently want to admit it because doing so would not be politically expedient.
What a Phenomenal analogy Rawls uses.
I liked the video, I hate it when people make an appeal to a possible slippery slope but there isn't an actual precedent for the slippery slope to happen.
also I subscribed :)
when y ou ignore literally every prediction we make in the past that came true shortly after every step of the way of course y ou're going to be able to tell y ou rself that the slippery slope is a fallacy. Ex: "we just want visitation rights"
At the trolley its 5 dead vs 1 dead consequence whereas the surgeon its 5 dead vs a not expacted to be dead person killed consequence. You're comparing apples to oranges.
Wouldn't appealing to the masses be a fallacy?
You're right that appealing to the masses (or appeal to popularity) is a fallacy. Though I think there's some nuance that's important here and I don't think I committed that fallacy. First, believing genuine experts on a topic within their area of expertise is different than believing an average Joe on some random topic. Appeal to the masses fallacy is highly problematic because popular belief among the general population is highly unreliable. "Everyone believes it" is just not good evidence for a claim. However, consensus amongst experts is at least somewhat reliable. The experts study a particular issue in depth. So if they all agree on a claim (in their area of expertise) then they probably all believe it for at least some good reason. Of course, they can be mistaken, which is why I said, "Even the majority of experts can get things wrong. However, when the overwhelming majority of experts agree on a topic, that strengthens the support for it." To say it "strengthens support" is a modest claim. I'm simply saying that experts disagreeing is one reason to be skeptical of expert testimony and expert consensus is one thing that strengthens support for their testimony. A few people have disagreed with my analysis in my fallacy videos. I'm ok with that. There's room for reasonable disagreement because we're getting into issues in epistemology which can be controversial. But that's part of why I think this is important. If something is a debated issue in epistemology, it's probably a mistake to make oversimplified blanket claims about how the fallacies work. (See what I did there?)
Thank you very much
Well done. Thanks
Instead of Zombies, you should call them Scarecrows because this is a straw-man argument. I can make up 1000's of fictional characters with their own imagined qualities that would just so happen to support my arguments. Don't be stupid!
I think the difference between the first scenario and the second is how removed you are I guess. pulling the lever saves 5 lives while happenstance means it also leads to one death. In the second scenario the act of saving the 5 lives requires the direct and intentional action of killing. I think deontology could justify pulling the lever by the intention of saving lives, given the action requires not intent to murder, while the second scenario requires the intent to murder in order to justify it. I appreciate the second scenario though because it did bring in to question the assurance I had that pulling the lever was the right decision to begin with. I still think I would do it though. Consequentialism would justify both the scenarios though I think. I guess, as in all things, you should take both into consideration. actions aren't removed from their consequences, but the consequences can't justify anything. I can't prove that, because the whole question of morality is entirely subjective unless you believe in objective morality as I do. I just refuse to engage with the extreme that the ends are all that matter. The ends of everything is ruin. I think keeping a healthy and righteous conscience is most of the time more important than maneuvering outside forces through unscrupulous means. I don't know. I'm sure there's a much better argument for my stance than I'm giving. I can feel that theres more to uncover, but I'm sort of in the middle of something and I don't have time to sit here pondering the truth of the situation. If I come to a conclusion that I feel makes a strong rational case I'll come back here and give my thought as I'm prone to do. thanks for the vide.
I'm fine with playing the numbers game. I think even from a deontological standpoint choosing to do nothing has moral value. If 5 people would die if you didn't pull the lever and you had all the knowledge and ability to save them with a simple pull of the lever, you would be responsible for their deaths as far as I'm concerned. not directly, but abdicating to engage is just as involved as directly pulling the lever. therefore I view the problem as simply as this. If you could start the scenario with the trolly hurdling towards one person and intervention would kill even more people, would you? Then why not let your small intervention make that scenario true, because choosing not to pull the lever is just as involved and responsible a choice as choosing to pull it. Noninterventionism is a choice as much as people want to think it isn't. We are always intertwined in the fates of others and allowing people or scenarios to remain as they are puts part of the blame on you for the way things head. If intention matters in deontology then I consider pulling the lever a moral choice if it is made with the intent of saving lives. pulling a lever isn't a moral choice. it has no value. So the only morality in the choice is in the intention if we're speaking deontologically and I suppose the choice to not pull the lever would only hold value in the intention behind it.
Thanks to Thomas Sowell lecture which brought me here. Keep making these great educational videos, thanks a lot!
Au contraire mon frère! Please do not conflate what is true with what Truth is! What is true is determined entirely by what Truth actually is! In other words… deductive theorists are in fact absolutely correct… true conclusions necessarily follow from true premises However, and this is where they come horribly short (and what I suspect you may in fact be hinting at) - how do they know, with apodictic certainty, if their premises are actually true (subjective inference does not yield true conclusions)? What Postmodernists ought to be commended for, is the fact that they’ve finally admitted to the fact that philosophy, after nearly 21 centuries of musing and exhaustive searching and countless arguments and tomes of theorising, has utterly failed in its quest to find Truth! The search for Truth has proved to be nothing less than trying to find the proverbial ‘Blue Flower’ (German: Blaue Blume, symbolic of what is unattainable)! The ‘Paradox of Enquiry’ explains why philosophy’s search for Truth has proved to be a Sisyphean exercise in futility… If you don’t know what you’re looking for, then you have no hope of ever finding what it is that you’re looking for… And if you do happen to know what it is that you’re looking for, then if you have no hope of ever finding what you’re hoping to find, because whatever you already have can only be epistemically superior to whatever it is you’re hoping to find! And since knowledge is predicated on the Truth, we must grant that the doctrine of Acatalepsy held by the ancient Skeptic philosophers had it right - what we understand as ‘knowledge’ never amounts to certainty, only to probability, or what the Apostle Paul called ‘knowledge falsely so-called’ (1Tim 6:20)… For Truth to be Truth, is has to be absolute, it has to be immutable, it has to be incorrigible… In other words… for Truth to be Truth, it needs to transcend human experience Also, it has to be knowable, but since we cannot come to find it, it has to find us… In other words… Truth has to be revelatory (Jhn 16:13)… So, it is possible to know the truth of a proposition, but not by any measurement of human reasoning deductively, inductively or abductively, and certainly not by asking Google or Siri or ChatGPT or whatever - Truth can only be known if the Author of Truth reveals it to us! Ie one can only come into possession of (true) knowledge if it is imputed… what Scripture properly intends as ‘Faith’ (in the Hebrews 11 sense)!
dO bOtH xD
Some lifes aren't worth saving
As a consequentialist, I view the very phrasing "kill one to save five" as unjustifiably ceding ground to deontology. Deontologists truck in a multiplicity of verbal disintctions. The phrasing that's fair to consequentialism is: "choose one death plus one lever pull over five deaths plus zero lever pulls".
My english isnt that good but are you saying you would do nothing in that Situation?
What's the difference between Ted and Zed? How can you tell one from the other?
Commenting for the algorithm.
The line between being based and not being based is susceptible to vagueness. Luckily, this video is a clear case of being based.
From your keyboard to God’s ears.
This video saved me 1 point on my Philosophy test
I don’t make these for fame or riches. I do it for things like this. (Though fame and riches wouldn’t hurt.)
In both cases you just do nothing
Is being moral intrinsicly good ?
Maybe zombies are not possible
Ive always understood it as this: Most information used to support a claim is ultimately derived from some form of authority. Ex. Historical records/documentation or scientific studies, as they were written by experts on the respective subjects (I’ve had people tell me I was appealing to authority by merely listing sources, such as names of experts and their works, as a window to pursue further research). Relying on experts and citing their work to derive information is one thing, as the information should stand on its own regardless of who wrote/compiled it. It’s another when you rely solely on the status of an expert as a means to validate the claim.
Either case is unfortunate. I’d flip a coin 🪙 and let chance determine the outcome.
wtf david u are so fucking smart i think hume he was or maybe after thinking to much he became crazy cause he was using reason to criticize reason 😂how is that possible
this is pure gold!! thanks a lot for the concise video!
thanks
I am not smart enough to imagine a Ted and Zed being equal molecule by molecule and even so they are different. One of them has conscience and the other has not. I do not feel Zed as conceivable and possible.
Would a philosophical zombie laugh and cry? Or in other words: Can emotions only be expressed, when experienced by conciousness?
Also, if u decide that u can't choose, u r a loser