Відео

She is so genuine, kind and intelligent. Her lyricism is really astounding. She doesn’t need any fancy stages to make a fantastic performance. Just Taylor and an instrument is pure perfection. Thank you, Phil. Happy Thanksgiving! 🦃🍁

Wasn't it said, "In everything we do there are good and bad/evil consequences. All we can do is err towards the good." We are both flawed and noble.

Lo quiero mucho señor que me enseñó referencias que no me sabía, como la de la hamburguesa y las papas (BFF)

Lo quiero mucho señor que hizo que me diera cuenta de que esta canción me representa mucho. ❤

Kylie forever

I think the 2 fatalities is their love dying for both of them and she is the one with gun pulling the trigger to leave the relationship. Just my thoughts.

Hey Phil. Congrats on reaching 882 subscribers and many views with just 392 videos-impressive progress! To keep growing, optimizing your video titles, tags, and descriptions can really boost visibility. I’d love to support you with UA-cam SEO and channel management so you can focus on creating content. I noticed your website isn’t responding, which could impact how viewers connect with you outside of UA-cam. Let me know if you'd like a hand with this!

Having watched you comment on Taylor Swift in an intelligent and positive way I shouldn't have been surprised at your take on these books. But I was surprised that you had chosen them to talk about when it popped up on the YT home screen . I really enjoyed them and have them stored on my kindle for a re read at some point. I get your point completely about the removal of gender becoming so refreshing after my initial confusion but I then became slightly obsessed with her emphasis on the importance of tea drinking and special tea sets etc . I don't have any patience for 'hard' science fiction , the tech and science is usually far too boring and completely over my head but Anne Leckie's books are so much more interesting than all that stuff, just as challenging perhaps but they make you think about your own world and surely that's the purpose of good science fiction writing. I'm hoping your video brings new readers to Leckie's work .

Thanks Phil!

Phil, I really enjoyed hearing your thoughts on why theists and atheists might be talking past each other. In some ways, you may be right. However, the issue, as I think you also touched on, is that the theist believes their worldview best aligns with reality, and they often feel that everyone else is ignoring the truth. The idea that the Bible should be interpreted metaphorically-especially because its core teachings are unfalsifiable-is something that many theists simply can't accept.

I very much enjoyed your take on this theme! Love listening to your insights. Thank you so much ❤

I love this song even though it’s not a fan favorite

Thank you for your time for this video❤👍🏻

I don’t understand why some fans get so upset if some songs are lip synched? It’s an over three hour show? It’s a lot for her. There are bigger songs that need her full vocals, so it makes sense she save her voice for those songs and maybe lip sync a little on a few others again it’s not for the whole show. So I see no issue with it 💖

Thank you so much for this video! You really have a knack for this!

Thank you for an excellent breakdown! This song is so beautiful and just so full of emotion. I always thought of the blood soaked gown as a Carrie reference; she's trying to fulfill her dreams, starves herself and listens to people's bad jokes, but when she thinks she's finally won everybody's approval they just want to humiliate her. It's not hard to imagine that the stage incident when she won her first VMA in 2009 could be just another version of Carrie getting drenched in pigs blood.

Beautiful reaction and lyric breakdown. I just found your channel and am really enjoying your Taylor reactions ❤ I really enjoy hearing a person’s view that doesn’t know much about the lore or at least doesn’t focus so much on it and focuses on the song itself.

Great breakdown ❤ thanks

Given the political state of the US and Trump declaring that he HATES Taylor Swift I wonder if she might leave the USA for at least 4 years. Travis and Taylor can live anywhere. If they choose the UK I am sure we will more than welcome her.

I love this. A few things. So tea is slang for gossip or if you 'spill the tea' it's telling the secret details. So 'at tea time'--when people start gossiping about her private life issues--everyone agrees she's the problem. And then on the Joe possible affair thing... people don't fully know but in another song on this album she says he's with her in his dreams. She also says she's thinking of someone else too lol. SO they're both thinking of other people. SO perhaps more an emotional affair as their relationship is already collapsing. For two graves one gun I always thought of murd#r / Suic1de... like one of them is going to have to go ahead and pull the trigger on their relationship (murd#r it) and end the drawn out hurt that's been happening... their own individual hurt (suic1de)

WOW!! Well done I loved the way you broke this down when you did the explanation I was able to close my eyes and picture what you were saying and than hear the song from a different view. It made me love this song even more.

Loved it ❤ thank you.

I've never really seen the live Eras Tour version before so thank you so much for analyzing this version of it! 5:57 when you point out the emotion in her face you didn't mention what I thought was the most obvious part of that which is she's singing about her Origins where she would just play a song in a parking lot for a very small group of interested listeners and right now she's playing and looking at a ridiculously huge Stadium of people and so when she sings the line about playing songs in a parking lot while the juxtaposition of the current moment is so amusing to her and shows just how far she's really come and how crazily her life has changed since then. She's smiling like the audience she's looking at is all in on the surreal humorous juxtaposition too. ;) then of course 11:25 that huge smile for the Friendship Bracelets line is also because the Eras Tour embraced friendship bracelets entirely because of that one line in this one song. This was *it*! This was my first time seeing one of your reactions/ analyses and i loved it so much. Thank you for being such a fan of her poetry and her heart and voice and all of it ;) I'm also starting my own attempt at a UA-cam channel around reacting to her music and analyzing it and i like the idea of going back to some of my favorite Taylor Swift songs from older albums one day just like you did here.

God bless you. If I may ask, would you consider yourself to be an agnostic or an atheist?

John 6:44 - No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him

Yes. But your belief or unbelief both are not truth. Belief and faith are not truth. If they were then both will be called as evidence. They are called faith and belief for a reason. Belief and Faith's are also a wistful thinking. Those countres who chose and adopt rationality and scientific mindset are always better and happier then those who don't. This is fact.

Very good interpretation, thank you!

When she goes up in the last run on the friendship bracelets, take the moment part it scratches an itch. She's so good at knowing when to pitch up/down to change up to hit that perfect spot in the brain. Yes, she really does sprinkle narcotics in all her songs. Have you watched Miss Americana documentary? The part in this song about starving her body just hurts with the realness of that line.

There appears to be confusion between “lip syncing” and “miming”. I think this stems from misunderstanding the purpose of “backing tracks”. In a show the size of the Eras Tour it is impossible for the singers to hear each other and the band and for the band to hear the singers (and even each other!). So they ALL wear ear pieces which play the backing track so they ALL can synchronise to a single source. So a singer’s lips will be synchronised with the backing track (and everything else) when he / she is miming and also when he / she is singing. Lip syncing is no guide to whether a singer is singing or miming. So my question for FIL, is how do you tell if a singer is singing live or miming unless his / her lips are out of sync with what you hear? Where are all his examples of this? Is he saying that Taylor is so perfect she never gets out of sync with what you hear but is so imperfect that EVERYONE can hear when she makes a mistake and sings the wrong words WHICH WE HEAR,?!!

Hi Phill. This is my take on it. Not reductionist enough for most. "If one digs down deep enough into existence/reality, one eventually comes to a foundational place where all we have are our temperaments, experiences, our hunches and intuitions. It is here, in the depths of our souls, that we place our ultimate hopes, trusts and our loves. This could be the place where God dwells in a form of faith or/and disbelief? This quest for truth and authenticity does not have to be binary." Lol. I am a bit of both at various times.

It's like in politics, and I wonder what my political views would be if I had not emigrated to Australia. Thankfully I left my family's views behind, but would I have thought like them if I had stayed? Is it nurture or nature? I can't remember being influenced by anyone in my life as far as ethics (I did live in Essex!) goes and just have this innate feeling about right and wrong, empathy, sympathy and generally believing the best in people. This of course can bite you on the bum, but I think the benefit of the doubt rather than despise people initially, which seems to be an initial reaction to most conservative thinkers. I think choosing to believe is offered to us all, it's a question whether we think on that choice or not. Good topic, Phil, as usual.

It seems that you failed to mention that when she is singing “live”, she is using auto tune. Fans are not hearing her actual singing voice the entire show.

Regarding whether god can be empirically tested or not. Maybe god can't directly. But the effects of god can and the claims of religious texts such as the bible definitely can. Take Genesis. It doesn't tally with what we know about the long history of the natural world. Taken literally, it's flat out wrong. Even worse for the bible is that Jesus held that the old testament stories were true which then means that he was wrong and not who he was claimed to be either. In any other endeavour of knowledge this would be enough to write the bible off as an anachronistic book of cultural relevance only. Not a source of bona fide true knowledge. That this hasn't happened is the problem, leading to young Earth creationists and gross science denialism.

Hmmmm...11 minutes of talking about 'god' and he never defined which god he was talking about. Phil needs to do some more thinking.

You're right about the bible. Everything else you are a clueless normie.

Nice video. I do have some thoughts 1. I think it can be possible to find meaning in a story that can be applied in the world even if the story isn’t true. However this is like in Family Guy when Peter Griffin starts a church to the Fonz and starts teaching people to follow his teachings. That could have great value to people but Fonzy isn’t god and was never supposed to be so meaning and good morals in a story doesn’t mean there is a god. 2. Is this a binary question? There is a god, there isn’t a god. If both sides agree on a definition that could be answered and quite possibly if you broaden the term god enough the atheist may even argue yes, and if you narrow it sufficiently the theist may argue no, but at some point to ask the question and give an answer the person asking and answering need to be able to explain their reasoning, if they don’t then they’ve missed the point but I don’t think this problem of agreed definition is impossible. 3. On different truths I saw this addressed in the debate between Alex O’Connor and Dinesh D’Souza where Alex (atheist) tackled the question of whether the Bible (not god in this case) was true and went through a number of types of truth, including historical, allegorical and moral. I found from this that while there are parts of the Bible like the virgin birth and the resurrection which Christians need to be true, there are other parts, like the slaughtering of the almalakites that they almost need to not be true or it destroys the moral truth of the whole Bible. Also scientific truths like the universe having a beginning being undermined by other facts like the sun being older than the earth despite the earth being created in genesis before the sun. Again this was critiquing the Bible, not god, but the same lines of argument could certainly be used. 4. The argument “a god is real” and “god is real” is actually quite different. A theist does need to provide some sort of argument that it is the god of their religion that is real and not just a generic god. Any moral teachings of the religion are irrelevant if another religion with opposing laws has equal claim to the title of god. Whereas the atheist can claim morals have come from humans and will vary across cultures so don’t need morals to be universal for their worldview to be consistent. Only that scientific truths are universal. I can’t remember if I had more points I thought of but the video certainly made me think. Thanks for making it.

by 2:09 My take is "Phil has been sniffing his own farts"

How wonderful. Its all just a misunderstanding. I agree with theists that their claim "a god exists" is "true" in the sense that its meaningful to them, its meaningful to me as well given the consequences of that claim! I mean sure, some theists take "true" to mean "conforming to reality" because they beat their children lest they anger a really real god, or they call gay people an abomination to show their attitudes match his on the matter, or they push forward faith healing because their scriptures say prayer is more powerful than medicine, but theyre nothing to worry about, its their own fault for not knowing which definition of "true" to use! Im not even sure why youre a part of this conversation, theologians can be atheists and its framed as if theyre at odds with each other. If you dont believe there are any gods, congratulations, you havent been indoctrinated to accept fiction as fact, im oh so very happy for you.

That's sound like alternative "truth" gospel not supported by the holy Books of various cultures, religions, and many denominations

What is the point of God? I think you said it can give my life meaning, A kind of psychological aid? Regarding meaning and truth : Does God have to exist for metaphors to have meaning? No - I'm interested if Christianity reveals any useful mysteries at all.

So basically the theists "truth" is - i want to believe this so I do and don't care if it's factually correct. If something is factually incorrect, how can it be "true"? Simple redefine "truth"

Why is it that theists, not atheists, continually redefine words?

And which believers, there's over 3000 religions and even more gods all around the globe.. Who has the right "truth"... Every religions is still based on stories, campfire stories even. No any actual proof that would hold in court.

This was funny.

This is what's wrong with the world today. Truth isn't truth because there are different kinds of truth. WTF!

Yrs, religious people believe truths that aren't true. We all do this, but we need to admit it. Then we can search for truths that ARE true.

missing the point is because is not about proving anything, you cannot prove non existance and that something made up exists. so neither can do anything with the starting point of proving. All that can be done is explain the reasoning in a physical manner or simply have no mechanistic physical explanation whatsoever and admit bravely that its just faith, not any sort of deductive reasoning. Thats it. Also other problems in those debates reduce to both parties not defining what existence is, what is an object, and what is a fact, etc. Simple things that must be defined to present a deductive theory of the existence of something you are proposing like a God that creates or simply exists somewhere and can do things, etc. existence: physical presence object: that which has shape, weight, mass any of those works. fact/truth: an event (a series of objects in motion) that is happening or has happened. A historical fact, a report on live news such as the Israel-Hamas war, whatever. Things we can confirm to be true, because those events have had/have physical presence.

I agree with most of this, except it seems to me that, for most of history, theists were the ones who adopted the framework of the empirical truth of God. Even during early modern times, people really believed witches consorted with the devil and cast spells. It was only in modern times, after scientific methods made the proposition of the empirical existence of God less and less tenable, that theists began focusing on the philosophical side of religion, on the ideas of experiences and meanings. Can we interpret the Bible as a collection of figurative stories that serves a vehicle in the search for meanings today? Yes. Did the authors of the Bible see it that way, rather than an empirical account? I find that hard to believe. I think they saw it as a kind of "based on true story" embellished and abridged storytelling, but they must have believed the original story to be real. We see this in Greek authors who wrote about myths. They wrote fictional tales about Gods to convey morals, but the ancient Greeks really did believe those Gods existed empirically.

I think 💭 you are correct. 💯

In terms of History- the sources are absolutely unsatisfactory to conclude that in all probability the stories told in the Bible are accurate and true to what happened. We effectively have one source (other Roman historians mention Jesus... Not supernatural acts) which is non contemporaneous, inconsistent within its own re-telling of stories, self derivative and hugely intended politically (It's purpose is of course to proselytise). It's a very poor Historical Source which falls well, well below necessary credence to support evidence for SUPERNATURAL events. That is an absolutely extraordinary claim and requires extraordinary evidence to deem it likely to have occurred as told. But we're talking about knowledge, the religious person (Abrahamic at least) is interested in "Faith"- you cannot have faith as well as knowledge. I think most religious people would get to the point where they don't actually care about probability based, historical assessments- they believe what they do (which is not something you can choose, of course!) regardless of the truth in many cases. In SPITE OF evidence which makes Biblical (or those from the Torah or Qur'an) claims demonstrably untrue. Knowledge and faith are very different things and many of those invested in Faith are completely uninterested in knowledge. Epistemology is irrelevant to many who have faith. Which is fine... As long as they don't make claims or try to legislate because of it. People need to have the humility to remember: It's just a belief. It has no credibility or weight behind it, it's just an unreasoned personal belief. I would be careful with your wording though "Empirical truth" or "Theological Truth"- sometimes you get a little close to implying there can be multiple truths- that what someone believes makes it "Their truth"... No. It's just their belief.