Відео

Young Eric Jackson George Robinson Susan

Moore David Moore Sharon Jackson Barbara

Walker Sarah Moore Barbara Brown John

Rob's initial argument should be a go-to for all those people who listen to Billy Joel but know better. ;-)

Interesting as always

Stoicism, it seems to me, is to learn to expect the unexpected and not be internally destroyed by an unforseen loss. You grieve like others do and yet are not surprised about the unforseen trouble that life sometimes brings.

nice

I thought the idea was to love, enjoy, be present in the life of a loved one, so when they were gone or you are gone, there were no regrets, coulda, shoulda, woulda. To recognize loss is inevitable and out of your control. What you can control is this moment of living. You still grieve and don't distract yourself away from grief, you don’t let the love, joy, and memories be lost to grief. A life devoted to grieving, your lost accomplishments, possessions, and people, is not a full life. There is no, why me? Loss comes to everyone. 😢

Relativism! that's gotta be good!

🎉

Thank you for introducing me to Plato’s Crito! I was not familiar.

They didn't catch the concept of metaphilosophy. They only catch METAPhilosophy as "philosophy about philosophy"❓So ambiguous METAPhilosophy Understanding MetaPhilosophy thoroughly in 1, 2 & 3 Philosophy ... Love of wisdom META ... Beyond 🔰 MetaPhilosophy is Beyond the Love of Wisdom. What is Beyond the Love of Wisdom❓ 🧩 Wisdom is Truth Itself & Truth Represents the Right Boundaries 🎯 Loving Wisdom Means Loving the Right Boundaries Right Boundaries Provide Clarity So They Are Easily Understood ⭕️ Philosophy Loves Clarity, Not Accumulating Confusion (Polemic) ❇️ Going Beyond Clarity Means Foundational ❇️ Foundational Means Absolute, So MetaPhilosophy Goes Beyond Clarity Which Also Means At the Foundational Point Which Also Means Being MetaPhilosophical Is Being at the Foundation - Absolute, So MetaPhilosophy Explores the Dimension of Absoluteness UNDERSTANDING METAPHILOSOPHY EASILY To make it easier to understand MetaPhilosophy❓ Exploring Absoluteness MetaPhilosophy seeks to understand the fundamental wisdom of what is considered most fundamental. Beyond Rationality Despite rationality being considered the foundation of philosophical reasoning, even rationality is not easily understood if it is not realistic. What is considered rational is sometimes difficult to understand realistically, except as mere overlapping logical conclusions. Subjective-Objective MetaPhilosophy must be able to see the objective side of the subjective, and see the subjective side of the objective. So as not to mistakenly understand the concrete in an abstract way and vice versa, which would take it out of context. Context & Perspective MetaPhilosophy must be able to see context differently from perspective and not equate "different contexts" as "different perspectives," though they are different. ⭕️ THIS IS THE MAIN MISTAKE IN PHILOSOPHY THAT BECOMES THE ROOT OF MANY POLEMICS Philosophical Ambiguity MetaPhilosophy must be wary of ambiguity in philosophy, in order to find universal truth Beyond Cause and Effect MetaPhilosophy must reason beyond cause and effect (beyond relative logical consequences) WORLD VIEW ON METAPHILOSOPHY The Problem of METAPhilosophy❓ ⭕️ They didn't grasp the concept of MetaPhilosophy. They only see METAPhilosophy as 'philosophy about philosophy'❓So ambiguous. So, unlike what is generally known in the world that MetaPhilosophy is philosophy about philosophy❓Which is still ambiguous because they themselves are confused in formulating the concept of MetaPhilosophy and then their confusion considers MetaPhilosophy no different from or part of philosophy ❌ But actually ... 📌 SO, MetaPhilosophy fundamentally is 1⃣ ❇️ Tracing Universal Truth and Applying Knowledge Contextually Practically ... 2⃣ ❇️ Reasoning Equally (Subjective-Objective) Based on Premises Beyond Cause and Effect (Absolute Logical Consequences) Experimentation This means that if previous philosophy only contemplated with thoughts far from experimentation, MetaPhilosophy must base its knowledge on experimental evidence or conduct experiments itself. The difference between science and MetaPhilosophy is that if science seeks to find the truth of probability from the results of its experiments, MetaPhilosophy must be able to see the universal truth from its experimental results. 3⃣ ❇️ Fundamentally, MetaPhilosophy deals with universal absolute truth. Whatever is touched, studied, communicated, or approached by MetaPhilosophy, always seeks the underlying universal absolute truth. 📌 So it is time for science to trust philosophy through MetaPhilosophy, where their synergy will occur - sooner or later. 🔰 Science is the hand of MetaPhilosophy, and vice versa. 🔰 I THINK THIS IS ENOUGH TO EXPLAIN WHAT METAPHILOSOPHY IS

The Problem of METAPhilosophy❓ They didn't catch the concept of METAPhilosophy. They only catch METAPhilosophy as "philosophy about philosophy"❓So ambiguous seremonia.medium.com/metaphilosophy-bbb70ac04ddd

Quine did a better job with his notion of web of belief and confirmation holism undermining any difference between science and philosophy in the first place.

A marker of meta-philosophy is the use of people's names to denote entire philosophical approaches. I see you are committed to a Kantian conception of Platonic forms notwithstanding the Socratic qua Hegelian dialectic which has been completely over-thrown by Darwinian if not Freudian sensibilities. Its as though Marxists are unaware how Orwellian they have become despite the best attempts by Rawlsian justice-seekers. Not to mention Chomsky and BOOM! we must wait to see where Aikonic and Talessian assertions will map onto a priori Cartesian coordinates.

I’m curious about who/what counts as metaphilosophy (recognizing that consideration of the question is itself presumably metaphilosophical). Quine’s Two Dogmas, I assume, and LW’s Philosophical Investigations? How about Rorty’s Phil. & the Mirror of Nature? Habermas’ Knowledge & Human Interests? Foucault’s Order of Things? Horkheimer’s ‘Traditional & Critical Theory’? Horkheimer/Adorno’s Dialectic of Enlightenment? Lyotard’s Postmodern Condition? Mannheim’s Ideology & Utopia?

Hmm. Didn’t even know this existed. Pretty neat, guys!

Love you guys :)

Hit the Like button 🎉 Write a comment ✍️ Push the channel up the algorithm ⚡️

❤

I'm happy to see the podcast is back up! - Ian

👈👈

Love the enthusiasm.

I still don’t understand how Billy Joel figures into all of this.

This is great! The example that kept coming to mind was colorblindness as a solution to racial discrimination. It seems like a lot of ink would have been saved if some folks in that debate had this concept in hand. Anyway, glad to have you guys back!

Welcome back!!

This is brilliant. The curative fallacy is everywhere.

So the curative fallacy is the mistake of thinking the solution to an existing problem is whatever would have prevented the problem from occurring. It’s a fallacy because this rule of thumb often doesn’t work (e.g., closing the barn door would have prevented the horse from escaping the barn but now that the horse has escaped through the open door, closing the open barn door won’t get the horse back into the barn - in fact, closing the door will make it impossible to get the horse back into the barn). Is this written somewhere we can cite? (Why We Argue?) Or is this something that’s still in progress?

Philosophy Improv

Environmentalists who oppose carbon capture/sequestration policies on principle are an interesting case here. In this case the preventative (don't burn fossil fuels) is a big part of the curative, but needn't be all of it.

Definitely a good fallacy to keep in mind, and I like how y'all applied it to the current political toxicity.

Also Southpark has a brilliant precursor to the curative fallacy 😂: ua-cam.com/video/gdbjw27QPJQ/v-deo.htmlsi=sXq1luGPUcYT_10U

Quick note on turning the other cheek from Matthew 5:38. Depending on how you read the text, it is not about love, but about defiance. Inside Christian circles, it is often taught that, in context, a slap on the right cheek would have been a backhanded slap from the right hand of a higher ranking person against a lower ranking person. By turning the other cheek, you are inviting an open forehand slap from the right hand to the left cheek, placing the slapper in a dilemma: either he is shamed for his inability to force the lower ranking person into submission, or if he slaps the left cheek he is treating the slapped person as an equal. Most English translations say: “…do not resist evil. *But* if anyone slaps you on the right cheek…” There is likely some scholarly disagreement about this, but it is likely not as simple as Dr. Talisse lays out. I really like the idea of the curative fallacy. Have you published a paper on it, or do you plan to do so?

Ok. I just discovered this. My first question. Does anyone ever occasionally come by and air out your offices? Second. So you finally get to perhaps what you were aiming at, the difficulties that our democracy is facing today. Other than chuckling about how right we are and how wrong everyone else is, well where does it go from here? Luckily, you have now ran out of time!

👍

You’re back!!

So great you are back

nice!!!!

This comment section is amusing

Welcome back!

Great to have you all back!

Love seeing you back! It would be amazing if you did a Q&A segment from time to time. Maybe even with questions from your students.

This is wonderful. Two huge interpretive keys for unlocking Rawls. At the end you seem (to me) to suggest that Rawls was of the opinion that if pure liberalism doesn't work, the anarchist wins. But can't we rank liberal societies by how well they *balance* equal-liberty-for-all with stability?

Isn't one of W.'s points that we haven't been to get at "the truth" of language and how it relates (in what ways it corresponds and doesn't correspond) to the external world through dialectics? So one can't expect to find a clearly stated first premise to the so-called "private language" argument.

You have failed to understand what virtue meant to the Stoics. You cannot use Catholic or Aristotelian virtue and switch it for Stoic virtue and try and make sense of Stoicism. No more than you can switch out a river bank and a savings bank, or an elephants trunk for a tree trunk.. It is a nonsensical thing to do..

Where are the videos boys?

Nice shirt

1244

A Cynic is less likely to make the wrong choice via process of elimination

i love you guys