Відео

Not necessarily. The structure of values could be self-existing. That was the point of the question

I understand that. What I'm saying that if values are self existing they imply a mind. Since the only thing that we know of that contains values are minds.

Atheism is not "built" on anything: atheism is the default position, if someone had never heard any theory about god or gods it's very hard they'd form a theory about one of the modern religions on their own. Perhaps animism, polytheism, or maybe even monotheism could arise in the individual, but almost certainly not in the currently widespread form. If anything, your example works in favor of atheism, as they're not the ones trying to disprove religions, the burden of proof doesn't fall on them.

@@fuma9532 Do you even know what default means? Every tribe and civilization in history believed in god. Atheism is like a civilizational mind rot that only appears in time of great prosperity.

@@fuma9532 Default? every tribe and civilization on earth believes in a god. It's very odd if we get thirsty but there's no water to drink.

what the hell are you on about, you've been brainwashed and seem to misunderstand the burden of proof.

Personally, I agree that reality has metaphysical aspect to it. But, is that a necessity to all possible realities? I don't think "Even though reality has a metaphysical structure" is really an example of tautology.

Well, of course it is a tautology. But it was necessary to point it out in order to elucidate the question, my friend. Some materialists, for instance, think reality has no metaphysical structure.

​@@MatheusBenites-Philosophymaterialist view that we can understand facts without caring about its value is so dumb that's postmodernist criticism of modernity. Jordan Peterson uses post modernism to criticize modernity and that's how traditionalist view come backs. I think Jordan Peterson is meta modernist not a post modernist, modernist or traditionalist. Empiricism is true then why we have caltural war. We can't even understand what's woman. In current caltural war they're only two sides exist postmodernist or traditionalism. Modernity and enlightenment is dying. That's what Jordan Peterson also gonna talk in his book.

@@MatheusBenites-Philosophy Are you confusing ontological metaphysics with 'supernatural metaphysics' `?

Good question. I think he did understand Nietzsche well, and disagreed with him. For Nietzsche, there were no values built in a metaphysical structure of reality. Nietzsche wanted us to create our own values, our own metaphysical systems, which was impossible. The ubermensch is impossible. Peterson got that right, I think. However, it does not imply theism.

@@MatheusBenites-Philosophy in his wrestle with God lecture he acknowledges Greco Roman society and how it was basically a will to power. Peterson never proved the metaphysics of morality but instead gives his opinion about how nice it is to have kids for example. Also the over man it isn't an end but a means to live more authentically, living in authentic manner would be your morality, you wouldnt create it per se but you would live it. Peterson definitely dosent understand Nietzsche criticisms of christianity, I heard him talking about how Nietzsche disliked fundamentalism when Nietzsche never said that and also he thought communism is christianity's way of surviving the scientific revolution. It comes out very disingenuous to misinterpret his views

@@MatheusBenites-Philosophy I would like to know why you think the Ubermensch is impossible and if the answer is people's incapacity of creating values I would like to know why is that

You are very ignorant. There isn't a common view in philosophy. You have many waves of thought and there are atheists philosophers just as Christian philosophers, agnostic, etc.

Philosophy isn't a political party, there are atheist, agnostic, polytheistic...etc philosophers. Read the history of philosophy and you will see

How can you know the God of theology doesn’t exist

@@AL-ll3qr you can't but those claims aren't to be taken seriously because they are inventions of ancient people. All of those texts that describe the nature of the world fail and with science we see that.

@@lucacuradossi1040 you can find a atheist, agnostic, polytheistic and a religious in a group of scientists and In a governing body but that doesnt defy absolute truth but yeah I get it although philosophy should aim towards truth but there's a whole different field for it, we Modern philosophers we should have a peak understanding of Epistemology and Logic

Good I fcking love capitalism, especially when it’s him profiting! Great man he deserves it!

@@Fatality2013 I don’t how to respond.

​​@@s33ur3lv3lvlyHe probably means it is a difficult question to answer and that he answers it in the book. Don't be so cynical

@@s33ur3lv3lvly Just accept the reality that the it makes sense for an individual to profit off of their lives work - using their labor to write and market their thoughts, that they have developed over a lifetime, into a marketplace of ideas that finds it of some value. It is a beautiful thing. Technically the public is exploiting Peterson for his knowledge as there is demand and interest for him to produce, so he does so, rather assiduously, and is rewarded in outsized measure because of his innovation. He was early to UA-cam, early to leave the failing university system, early to embrace AI and has set a new precedent for what a public intellectual can look like. Millions have found it valuable regardless of the controversy around him. This is what @Fatality2013 celebrates and I agree.

Yes, that's an interesting concern. 'A chocolate cake looks better than a pile of dirt' - you can call this an intuition, after all it does seem immediately true upon reflection to me. But isn't this just a preference?

yeah i was flabbergasted as well. He just states this without any evidence and goes from there.

@joepvans5035 Honestly, as I grow older, I have less and less patience with bullshit. Where do these people get the audacity from to assert these kind of claims without any evidence? It just baffles me.

Have you read his books or his blog (Daily Nous)? I don't agree with major points of his metaphysics, incl. his moral ontology, and his politics, but it is very obvious that he is not a bad thinker.

I don't think he's a bad thinker either, I just think he hasn't looked too deeply into Benatar's arguments

Obrigado por se inscrever aqui também! Thanks for subscribing here too

Good point!

Good argument!

Because we can make decisions about who we will bring into existence and that has an impact on the total number of people who exist, and the total number of people who could have existed but don’t. If you resist comparing against the never-existant, then you run into trouble when comparing the absence of pain with the presence of pain in a life of only pain. If you think that never existing is no better than existing that is. Your view is like saying that when we are born we are incarnated from a collective group of never existing souls, that can be harmed later down the line if we don’t decide to bring one into existence in that moment. That is not the right way to conceptualise it

A question to YOU now. if you had a button could peacefully wipe all sentient lives in universe and it also guarantees NO LIFE EVER ARISES AGAIN TILL ETERNITY. The one opportunity to liberate all innocent beings from the vicious ways of universe. Would you press the button? YES or NO.

@naturalisted1714, life was imposed on you and on me. If our parents had not produced us we would not suffer, we would not experience anything.We are born, we suffer, and we impose suffering on other beings. When we are not born, we do not suffer. When we do not procreate we do not impose suffering on another being. We end that cycle of suffering for our lineage. It seems that you are arguing that life is imposed suffering and because others suffer it's fine to procreate and impose suffering on your child. Your argument disregards the individuality of each existence.

I'm having a hard time understanding how this doesn't amount to saying that, for some moral X, there is no obligation not to ~X, because even if you don't, others will. This implies that there is no obligation to do anything, as an individual, if your effort and those of others who behave like you do isn't eliminating the unwanted thing universally. That's clearly implausible. Imagine you looked at human existence economically. At least as far as we can tell, there won't ever be "enough to go around" of some highly desirable thing to satisfy every possible desire. It follows that, in the case of that item (whatever it may be), there will always be somebody in a state of wanting without having. Does this fact make it true that you have no obligation to give to those in need? That is, even if your giving couldn't possibly eliminate the problem of needfulness simpliciter from the universe?

Thank you for sharing your experience.

Yes. Although, the universe can still be infinite according to theories such as the multiverse.

Given his talents in other areas, I also expected more from him on the Philosophy of religion. However, the part where he analysis Christ`s character is good, as well as his response to Kant`s moral argument.

@@MatheusBenites I watched only half of the video because I know and admire his achievements in other, more formal areas. I got discouraged because he is obviously biased. I mean his argumentation against God is inconsistent and self-defeating.