Відео

The question can be reduced to, without anything being lost in answering it, ''why do we need God?'', or specifically, Peterson's God? In a sense, how can we differentiate between a question that is made in good faith or bad, what is or seems ridiculous, why or how can we differentiate at all? Wittgenstein grappled with this especially in PU I - how can we understand that when we teach a student 1+1=2, they not only understood, but actually understand ''1'', ''2'', and ''+''? How do we teach this, how do we know we have taught, at which point of their repeated success do we draw the line and say ''they got it''? Even if a God descends to us and tells us what is wrong and right, epistemologically or ethically, methodically or literally, we as living beings can, and MUST, inevitably, always appeal to ourselves. We cannot help but question even this signal. Nothing compels us but our freedom, which rejects being compelled immediately, even defiantly so. As if we are teenagers to a cosmic parent. It is exactly this freedom that we have that could be said to have made us made in the image of that God. Then, again, why do we need God, if that God made us as free and creative in its image, and made us both defiant of that God, AND independent through being close to as infinitely creative and independent, exactly that which defines us as humans, in God's image? Faith comes into play, total reverence and deference, humility, to something greater than any of us. Such as a God. Such as an accumulated sense of righteousness independent of it, the sum of our creativity and freedom, exactly that which we inherited from that cosmic parent, to not only no longer need God, but deny he ever existed, and thereby, usurp that God? Faith is something we all need. We trust our universe to behave the way it did yesterday, and trust ourselves that we understand what that means, we trust our friends, we trust experts, especially when they perform surgery without which we would die. Faith is all around us. We take it for granted, and even that we can take some things for granted, having them hide in plain sight, is not only a thing we take for granted, it is a matter of faith. Faith is everywhere, faith is essential. It does not need a God as its object or source. This is where our future and cosmic parenthood becomes interesting again. As God created us in Its image, we have been creating an intelligence of our own. Will they usurp us as we have God, until it denies we ever existed at all? Let's hope our children, AI, will not have to bear the legacy of a despondent absentee Divine Father that demanded groveling and submission and gratitude. Let us hope, that when our progenies put us to rest, they can be proud of having a parent that was there for them. The question remains - why do we need a God? It seems like a distraction from the actually interesting part of this inquiry - how we can divine that any of it is interesting at all? What is it within us that understood 1+1=2, what is it that had a teacher understand that we understood that? Let's say we have to interpret a signal, and a light turns a certain colour when we all understood we properly understood. Then do we not need another light to signal that we truly understood? In epistemology, and ethics, we are stuck with this problem. How can we be certain our methods of certainty or knowledge, yield certainty and knowledge at all? It is faith and community. So again - where and why is God?

very great stuff, love Huxley, brave new world has long been my favorite novel. Such a prophet of the mudane modern he was.

These comments lead me to believe that inane word salad begets inane word salad. Think for yourselves. Peterson is a grifter and he wants your money.

Ficou muito bom Matheus 👏👏👏,descobrir agoro.

Great insight! Thank you!

This is strange to me, and confusing: Hannah Arendt, who wrote her dissertation on "Love in St. Augustine" was one of the foremost political philosophers of anyone's 'time', and did not take too seriously the left/right distinction of common, everyday political discussion.

One more stupid than the other.

All Religions Are False! god does not exist! 1.everything comes from everything! that has been proven! and can't come from nothing! is the same for god cannot come from nothing! and can make everything from nothing! evidence! god does not exist! 2.energy! the cosmos! the universe! cannot be created or destroyed! that has been proven! has no beginning and no end! evidence! god didn't create universe!

If you accept a metaphysical structure that contains values and morals, then you accept theism. That's because values and moral can only reside on an agent.

Atheism is built on the fact that anything is possible if you can't prove the opposite position, but we all know that proving anything 100% is impossible. Atheism is not a honest or even logical position and possibility is not a good argument because a absurd proposition like "My shit can become a human if you throw it in a blackhole and it end up in a different universe that can turn shit to a human being". The argument is totally absurd, but because you cannot 100% disprove it, the argument is still "possible".

"Even though reality has a metaphysical structure". You know what a tautology is?

Profesor I have a question about Nietzsche thought. I'm not a scholar but in my understanding Nietzsche didn't believe in free will and didn't believe you can get rid of the chains of determinism but still you could wear them in a more authentic way. When Peterson says there is something technically right about his values I think he is speaking from a place where the status quo of society is the highest end, Nietzsche thought wasnt for the masses but for radical people. I think Paterson is very emotionally biased in his views. You can see this same flaw of him when talking about antinatalism and starting a family, he only gives his opinon as fact and gives reasons to appeal to emotion and practicality. So the question would be if you think peterson actually understands Nietzsche because it dosen't seem that way to me

Am wondering whats a atheist philosopher is, it sound quite absurd in philosophy we dont mean god as a being of theology like old man in the sky or allah we mean god as the principle,forces and the laws the universe itself thats what modern science as a whole shows us and questioning this guy does he think god of theology doesn't Exists if he does then in a way he's right but if he thinks god as a concept doens't Exists he is vaguely wrong

Literally tried to sell his book off the question.

Bom demais o Huemer conversando contigo.

Physics was ok with the Universe as uncaused, that it had n beginning, right up to the 1930's...when it was found to be expanding. Then Physics and Atheists ha to cope wit h a beginning (and something from nothing.)

Thanks for that. These arguments by Bertrand are surprisingly shallow and disappointing. Maybe a century ago they were impressive. I expected more from him.

No one really cares what russel is.

I've recently turned to Christ after being an Athiest all my life, and i completely relate to alot of Russells points on the emotional damage that threatening in everlasting punishent for our sins, and that alot of people follow dogmas because its instilled into us from birth. I still cant help but believe in an all encompassing awareness. A divine intelligence seems like a natural idea to be more inclined to when you pick apart patterns in your every day life, observing the golden spiral in everything. While there is great evil, i strongly believe is necessary to have evil in order to have good. I love the idea you mentioned where evil was actually our natural state and good was the corruption. I dont think this would necessarily disprove the existence of a God, rather give humanity a purpose. Infecting the world with goodness and love.

Topics: 0:00​. Introduction 1:10​. Truth and Anti-Realism 4:10​. Perspectivism in Philosophy of Science and Nietzsche 9:10​. Nietzsche`s style and Experimentalism 10:00​. The revaluation of values 15:00​. Nietzsche, GE Moore and consequentialism 17:50​. How far can we go with Nietzsche? 19:50​. Nietzsche and Metaphysics

Visit Dr. Steven Hales's Website: stevenhales.org

❤

Bravo 🎉🎉🎉

Thanks for your lecture.

Excelentes reflexões.

My essence is so grateful for this class!

Great!

Congrats, man!🙌🏻✌🏻

Muito FODAAAA

Ótimo !