Відео

I think perhaps the term “subjective impressions” is perhaps more apt. If this is true, it does imply that we can’t know if an objective reality exists, which could be considered identical to saying it doesn’t exist, as no tool could ever be constructed to prove such a thing, because we are always using the tool within the framework of our subjective impressions

@@ethanbenson why is impressions more apt than opinions?

Impressions is more broad a term which conveys that the observer takes what they observe to be correct. Opinions to me at least conveys a sense where it is a particular view on a given impression. For example, I see a rock, which is an impression, and my opinion of it is that it is nice.

@ethanbenson thanks for answering. Your example does not show that impression is a broader term, I had personally assumed it was the opposite, and that opinion was the broader term. But that aside, I can accept your example. Does a first impression matter more to this discussion than a formed opinion? Edit - better word choice

@@danielmaher964 by broad I simply mean that I think you can have impressions of more things than you can have opinions of. Although, I’m not certain of that, it could be the opposite. But then, I think at least we could possibly say that we can have more opinions than impressions, but our opinions can only be about that which we have an impression of. So there is that constraint I think. In terms of if a first impression matters more than a formed opinion, I think in terms of morality both are useful in different ways. It can be useful to consider what people find intuitive, but I think that through further analysis, we learn more.

I try to do that, but I don’t think that motion was accepted hahaha

​@@ethanbenson It was a valiant attempt. Another thing to watch out for is how TAG runners attempt to condense, obfuscate, and simplify the Universe so that it slots neatly into their argument. Their most common offence is pretending Aristotelean Logic is the ONLY logic, or that Euclidean Mathematics are the ONLY mathematics, but we know that's not the case. In fact we have multiple contextual systems of logic and mathematics, most of which are mutually contradictory, and if it is the TAG runner's assertion that these logics and mathematics are concrete objects in the mind of God, then God's mind is also mutually contradictory, QED.

I agree, although, of course, as is the nature with philosophical discussions, nothing can be taken for granted

Well, here I’m talking about the Christian God when I use the term.

@Hingoremfor4003 could do. Although an argument for this would be using theoretical logic rather than practical logic like this argument uses

I don't think that really does anything. Banana = 1 apple =1 1=1 then banana = apple. But also, what's your point?

@@brianw.5230 how do you deal with the objections raised in the video?

​@ethanbenson Pascal recommended people go to Church and pray for faith. That's the starting point. God wants everyone to get to Heaven, according to the Bible. Jesus said to "build up your treasures in Heaven" in the Sermon on the Mount. Theists will be rewarded for all eternity. That's serious wealth. :) What do you think of those responses? Any other objections?

@@brianw.5230 I think it doesn’t address any of the objections which were raised

@@ethanbenson I thought I did. Which ones did I miss?

@brianw.5230 I mean, you haven’t addressed any of them directly. For example, how do you deal with the fact that one cannot choose to believe something? Or the problem that it seems to permit any action so long as there’s a non-zero chance it leads you to God? Or the multitude of Gods which all promise infinite benefit for believing in them? Or the problem that disingenuous belief or forcing yourself to believe doesn’t seem like it would be quite as good as actual belief?

Which is hilarious, because him and his followers seem to think it's a knockdown argument for God (or at least they use it in that way)

So you never made it to the chapter with the 10 commandments, then? Frankly as dumb as Christian fundamentalists are, they're still not as brainless as your atheist zoomer half wit. 😅

Excellent sunmary

I did make a follow up video which is a better critique, although I do stand by this video, despite its flaws. I think those flaws have more to do with presentation of the ideas than the ideas themselves. Anyway, what specifically do you have a problem with and why is it "really bad"?

@@ethanbenson I didn’t get very far into it because of how off base you were. You suggested that a system like utilitarianism gets you objective morality, which is absurd. You need to account for things like categorical imperatives if you’re going to even attempt to ground objective morality. Utilitarianism is subjective* and it’s relative, and it’s speculative, it gives hypothetical imperatives not categorical imperatives, it can’t ground objective values, or purpose… do you think the rest of your video gets better or worse?

I mean, Peter Singer would beg to differ with you on that one. He goes into detail in Practical Ethics on why he thinks that utilitarianism is not subjective. In fact, this was the whole project of Derek Parfit, who convinced Singer that morality is objective. It is kind of besides the ultimate point though. I go on in the video to claim ethics is subjective, so it isn't that crucial to my point that you agree that utilitarianism can be objective. I would say though, that this video is actually more of a vehicle for my own views than a critique of the moral argument. My other video on it is directly a critique of it. As a sidenote, it's pretty disingenuous to claim the video is bad without actually watching the whole thing, or even most of it.

@@ethanbenson I didn’t say I watched it all, and I asked you if it gets better to hear whether or not you think the rest is better or not, because even you should understand that bringing up man made moral systems doesn’t mean morality itself is objective. Humans creating logical systems doesn’t equal logic existing, any moral than theological systems means that God exists. You should know this. It’s difficult to finish something that begins this poorly. Do you want me to critique the rest? Oh and Peter Singer thinking utilitarianism is objective doesn’t mean morality is objective, that’s an appeal to authority, and I assure you he’s wrong, and clearly YOU also think he’s wrong since you’re a non cognitivist.

@skepticalstrom6247 you saying the video is really bad implies you’ve actually watched it. I don’t have time to respond to all of this, and I feel I have elsewhere anyway, but my comment regarding Singer isn’t an appeal to authority. What a braindead thing to say. My point is that most contemporary utilitarian philosophers argue that utilitarianism is compatible with morality being objective, even though I disagree with them.

I can't help but agree

No it doesn't. If you consistently measure something, easy enough to do with a survey, as to whether X is moral or not, then it's objective.

@@willnitschke Sorry but if you the subject are consistently measuring something, You the subject are subjectively measuring that thing. If you the subject come to the conclusion morality is objective, I'll repeat myself.That is your subjective opinion

@@RobertSmith-gx3mi So you're definition of "subjective" is "if people do something". That's a really stupid definition, isn't it? So if I offer my old iPhone for $1 million dollars, and 1 million people refuse the offer, it's not an objective fact that people won't buy my shitty iPhone for 1 million dollars. It's subjective bro! Because that's the definition I'm using, I've pulled out my arse! I can't be wrong because what I'm saying is perfectly consistent with my idiotic definition. Wow, that's dumb. 😅

@@willnitschke I'm sure. Someone who thinks objective morality does exist would find the reality of that being a subjective opinion to be stupid

@@RobertSmith-gx3mi Yes I do think that's stupid, because human action is very obviously not random. And it takes a special kind of clueless person with an undeservedly high opinion of himself, to dismiss what is at the core of academic psychology, with a ridiculous circular definition.

Yeah, I noticed that watching it back too. Unfortunately, I didn’t realise it would be picked up in the moment and because it was all recorded as one audio track, I couldn’t mute it.

@@asyetundetermined I don’t know about that, I personally think ontological arguments holds that title.

@@ethanbenson right, it’s a pretty dismal choice. “I can imaging god, therefore god” or “I presuppose the existence of my preferred god characterization as it provides convenient, if largely hollow, answers to questions that are unsettling to me if unanswered, therefore god”. Kinda wild to think that these are two of like the five major recurring arguments spanning thousands of years of thought on the subject.

Yeah, I think one major example of the propaganda model at work is the way the UK press have framed at least the Irish fight for freedom (and I assume the same is the case for Scotland and Wales).

Legit hahaha, I thought the same. I was initially concerned I would be mistaken for one of them whilst writing and recording this

@@ethanbenson When I saw the thumbnail that crossed my mind for a split second, but I remembered this is (or ought to be) a nonpartisan concern (weaponisation to prop up pseudoscience aside)

Exactly right. I tried my best to present it in that spirit (although I think I definitely betray my own position inevitably. Such is the nature of political discourse)

@@ethanbenson I noticed that and counted it an example of your first point on propaganda, because I could see both your attempt to be neutral and your actual viewpoint

Well, I’m glad that can be counted as a success in this way hahaha

I agree, I think we’re pretty lucky in that throughout school we are encouraged to find multiple sources for things. On top of that, if you take media studies you get exposed to some of these theories of how a message is dispersed to the public through the media. In terms of jobs within philosophy, my main ambition is to work in academia, but you can work in government positions, for medicine companies, in sales, in law, pretty much wherever an argument needs to be made or where ethics may need to be considered. It’s interesting you mention about democracy, one of the most common types of philosophical work for a long time was essentially trying to figure out what an ideal society looks like (which all pretty much goes back to Plato’s Republic). There are various ideas, but, as is pointed out in Manufacturing Consent, they are not often discussed because they fall outside the range of acceptable discussion generally because to most people, thinking democracy is flawed is necessary to be a totalitarian.

This video isn't about that position. I'm not advocating for Chomsky as if he's some political candidate or something. That's nonsensical. The video is specifically about the propaganda model. I don't know a lot about the Yugoslav wars, so I don't think I'm in a place to comment about his position on that beyond the fact that has no bearing on the content of the video.

@@ethanbenson your whole position is taken from his stance and with his arguments. With him advocating for them in the intro. Feel free to kid yourself more

Yes, I advocate for this particular position, but that has nothing to do with any other positions Chomsky holds. Do you seriously think that because one agrees with someone on one thing that they must then agree with them on everything?

Have you considered doing something actually productive out of your life? Instead of making braindead comments? Do you really think I just sit at home all day and this is all I do?

He is preaching to the chore, i.e other Globohomo lovers

Do you have an actual response to any of the points raised? Or just vague smugness?

Even low mental aptitude all over the world know , that media and government lies. Trust of governments is of all time low in western world. Shows how out of touch with reality the ruling class is, they think we are all imbeciles... Go ask your local politicians how much bread,milk or whatever costs on average, even if ur local reps completely isolated from the experiences of people, you can imagine in what kind of fictional reality the people live in who are behind the scenes moving the chess pieces. Sitting in their ivory towers.

Literally made this video after going to the gym

So saerykarty2971- This isn't a useless venture/video here, in case you were not aware. Many people, including myself, enjoy learning and academia. It matters to more than just the creator of this video. That's for sure! I'm sure it matters to any person that is curious about learning, studying topics and gaining knowledge, while also trying to understand why things are done, how they're done, and maybe even who is behind it. Any reason to watch is enough though, don't you think? I think the content of this video is much better than zoning out on tiktok or other useless entertainment that doesn't really benefit a person! Knowledge is power, as they say. Besides, Im curious - what exactly do you gain by insulting and bringing negativity into the world? It seems like a waste of potential for you to be honest! Just an observation. The world takes all kinds for it to be able to "work" as we move forward into the future.. I hope you find what you're looking for. Take care - ✌💙☯️ To the creator of this content - Thanks for making this video. I appreciate it! A quote that you might find useful: "Those who mind don't matter, and those who matter don't mind."

Why is this comment from the most stereotypical rightwinger ever in my feed?

Thank you, what a substantive response!

It's expected from a Chomsky fan

Why is that? Is it because it's not presented like the majority of crap online? It seems alright to me. I definitely wouldn't say it made me feel like joining a rave or anything, but I do appreciate the time it took to make this video, and the information provided. Come on now, you ain't cringin'... you take care now, ya hear?

Thank you!

aspiring philosopher... either u naturally are a thinker or you are not... i dont think you can become a philosopher, sure you can train critical thinking.. but are you really a free thinker, if u take someones elses rulesets and patterns... and start parroting same stuff? all modern so called philosophers literally parrot and quote roman empire times philosophers mainly... there's very little original thought , people should think more about that, when did we last time have original thoughts? i personally don't even remember when i had an original thought in my brain (probably in my childhood before indoctrination) , the more people have "high education" - the more stupid they sound to me, in most cases. universities these days are the congregation of stupid .. you mention Noam Chomsky ... noteworthy in linguistics... but politically complete imbecile ... it's like jumping off a cliff... people should never step outside their field of expertise/mastery... anyone who lived thru soviet union know that Noam Chomsky is one of the biggest morons who all of ex soviet peasantry even know by name ... the guy is literally an anecdote in east-europe and russia. edit: the title of the video is ironic, because you're controlled... to spread nonsense, while actual commies are in control of western media , entire book is literally to discredit capitalist societies .. and in context of cold war era. watch this guys interviews in more modern time, dude still promotes commie garbage basicly and stupid gen z and alpha in america are in awe...

I don't think you have actually engaged with a single modern philosophy paper. Also, when I use the term "aspiring philosopher" I say that in contrast to being a "professional philosopher", someone who does philosophy for a living. Chomsky isn't strictly a communist in the soviet sense. He's an anarcho-syndicalist, which is slightly different. I think even if you disagree with him on that, it doesn't outright dicount his points here.

@@ethanbenson wrong comment mate

Was replying to Microphunk

Even if this is the case in reality, the implication of presenting an argument is that you wish to pursuade someone who does not already believe the conclusion that they ought to believe the conclusion. That's fundamentally the point of an argument.

@@ryngrd1 it’s hard for there to be a debate when you’ve failed to present an argument for your claim.

Agreed. There is no debate, there is zero doubt. Athiesm is Moral bankruptcy, as evidenced in reality. 😇🙏💪✝️🔥🙌

​@@ethanbensonWe have to feel sorry. When they have to admit that their claimed "all good, just and unchanging" god ordered and condoned slavery, stoning gays and girls who couldn't prove their virginity based on the hymen myth and graping captured and bought virgins etc., their whole belief system starts to crumble. They have to stay in denial and keep blaming others.

@@KasperKatje While these events occurred, by focusing on only the negative, your assessment comes across as rather deranged, sorry.

​@@willnitschkewhy? His claim is that atheism equels immorality and the claim in the clip, and almost overall by Christians, is morality being absolute/objective and their god being the standard. I focus on the topic and those things show that the claim is false.

Thank you!

I'm not so sure about that. The purpose of an argument is to convince someone who doesn't already believe the conclusion that the conclusion is true and that they ought to believe it. Whilst I agree, retention is part of why these arguments are made in practice, they are also made to convert people exactly because they are formed as arguments. I do agree that certainly, many people have been converted for other reasons (after all, it seems colonialism is the best way to spread religion. Those conversions were certainly not through philosophical dialogue), yet that does not mean that the arguments do not intend to prove the conclusion true, and to do so effectively, that conclusion cannot be presupposed.

@@ethanbenson But they do. If the conclusion isn't presupposed (although this is hidden to varying degrees of success depending on the education and cleverness of the creator), it must be preferred to preserve the soundness of the premises. The arguments *are* deliberately designed to *appear* outward facing, and are structured thusly. However, retention, not conversion is the primary goal. If the arguments were obviously aimed at doubting believers instead of 'de/unconverted heathens', they would, ironically, be far less effective for that purpose. They must only *answer* compelling arguments against their presupposed/preferred conclusion(s) to allow believers to *feel justified* in their faith. This is not merely philosophy and logic, but sociology/psychology cloaked in such. This intentionality becomes clear once you realize two things: First, to be effective, an argument needs to not only be sound and valid, but (at least) attempt to address/understand how and what, the who it intends to convince thinks/reasons/believes. Modern apologists and their arguments *appear* to address the arguments put forth 'against' them, but only in so far as necessary. They do not address the underlying critical thought, nor do attempt to consistently and accurately reflect reality. Because doing so would tacitly endorse such thinking. Which in turn would hinder the 'argument's' effectiveness at its *primary* purpose. Second, theistic 'reasoning' is usually backwards/upside down, in part if not entirely. (almost universally in my experience) Once you see this pattern all of it makes infinitely more rational/logical sense. I suspect the average theist is not even aware of this. (Douglas Adam's 'puddle analogy' is an almost perfect example this backwardness). Some apologists are at least partially aware. I apologize for the wall of text and ask you forgive the imprecision in my words, it has been many years since my studies have benefited from the formal structure of a classroom. P.S. I might have been a mite hyperbolic. It was an inductive conclusion drawn from hundreds of examples, without a (known) exception. It is not impossible for there to be religious philosophers doing the sort of work you describe. I am not omniscient, nor employed in the philosophy department of a (religious) university. However, their work necessitates being far too nuanced and dense for the average person. So, they can not engage the colloquial form of 'apologetics', nor will you (likely) find them on UA-cam.

You say this, yet many Christians will argue that the moral character of God changes in the New Testament, or that God was simply adhering to the cultural values of the time when commanding genocides (Num 21:1-3, Deut 3:3-6, Jdg 1:4, 1 Sam 15:2-8), or encouraging slavery (Lev 25:44-46) or claiming the death penalty is warranted for minor crimes like working on the sabbath (Ex 31:12-15), having people in your town who worship another God (Deut 13:13-16) or not screaming loud enough when being raped (Deut 22:23-24). So, either God is a relativist, doesn't exist, or the things listed aren't morally wrong. It's your choice.

@@ethanbenson You fail to understand the context of the laws and commands in the Old Testament. God is no different in character in the Old Testament than in the new. First, revelation is progressive and exists in a cultural context. Slavery was common throughout the ancient world and still exists today. The fact that it is illegal is the result of the Judeo-Christian ethic. God places restrictions upon slavery, which in the Bible is merely indentured servitude. Servants have an opportunity to be free, every seven years. How is working on the Sabbath a minor crime, in the context of what it represents in the theocracy at the time? King David committed murder and adultery and deserved to be killed, under the law, yet he appealed to God's mercy and was spared. Deserving something and it actually being meted out are two different things. God is not a relativist but your forget about His mercy. The fact is well all deserve death. No one deserves to live. Yet, while we were sinners Christ died for us. God wa just as merciful in the Old Testament as He is today. Adam and Eve were to die, once they ate of the tree of knowledge of good and Evil, yet Adam lived to be 930 years of age.

@@theodoreturner5567 on the slavery thing, this is only true for Israelites. For any slaves from foreign lands, this does not apply. You must know as well that both sides of the slavery debate at the time were argued using Biblical quotations. Therefore, we cannot say that Christian ethics are what abolished slavery, because they also were used to uphold it. At best, these ethics are unclear on the topic. We must appeal to something beyond the Bible if we are to say what changed. Furthermore, if it were the case that God disapproves of slavery, why not just say “don’t keep slaves of any kind or own other people as property”. Wouldn’t that be the most simple approach? Reread your comment about Sabbath work and tell me how what you said isn’t relativistic. As to your point about revelation occurring over time, I don’t know how you don’t see this is relativistic. One generation has better knowledge than the past generation, therefore cannot be excused for the same ignorance. Therefore we cannot judge that earlier generation on what they did not know to the same extent that we can judge people now. Relativism. God’s mercy is an odd point to bring up. God excuses David, yet doesn’t care to save the millions of children dying from malaria, or to stop the holocaust, or to just outright say slavery was wrong from the start. God’s forgiveness is rather limited it seems.

@@ethanbenson No. It does not just apply to Jewish slaves. Yes, some people had a shallow interpretation of the Bible, in trying to support the misuse of slaves. I do not believe God changed. The principles are the same the context is different. When you have a theocracy, it is different than when you do not. Under a theocracy the punishments were from God. Today, we are not under a theocracy. Only God has the authority to "play God". Am I being relativistic when I spank my two year old and not my 42 years old son?

@@ethanbenson Since this life in temporary, you cannot compare the fact that we all die, with the fact that some die earlier or later in life. What matters is eternal life.

@@tgenov I do accept that the argument works for someone who already believes the conclusion. I don’t think it would work for many people who do not believe that God exists. We can say that without objective values, we may still have intersubjective values whereby we can still make statements about what will tend to be true for a group of people.

@@ethanbenson That's the crux of the point. The argument doesn't matter. The argument succeeds for somebody who believes the conclusion; and it fails for somebody who believes the negation of the conclusion. Your beleifs determine whether the argument succeeds or fails. This renders argumentation pointless. "We can say that without objective values, we may still have intersubjective" That's what objectivity is... systemized intersubjectivity. From the persiective of any single subject the values are external to them. They are an objective property of the external world. If relativism is true - logic/argumentation would be irrelevant because the rules of logic/rhetoric are not objective/intersubjective. Everybody gets to make up their own rules which renders the social value of argumentation null and void. Why should any shared understanding/consensus exist even for a society of two people?

@tgenov this is true for this argument, not for all arguments. And you are right in practice for our everyday uses of moral and epistemological claims, however, this is distinct from claiming that those are ontologically real beyond our experience of the world, which is what I dispute more on the grounds of an inability to know that which is external to experience rather than a certainty that ontological realism is false. Why should we share ethical and moral frameworks with those around us? Mutual benefit. If we can work together, we are able to do more than working alone. Hence, we can agree on things as if they are objective even if that is not the case in an ontological sense

@@tgenov right, but my claim is that it is unknowable if the objective and subjective coincide simply because we are acting from the perspective of a subject, and so, can only know what appears to be objective, without complete certainty as to if we are correct. Adopting an intersubjective account of things allows for these things to coincide and work together in a comprehensive way. I don’t know how we can justify any claim of knowing what is objective, and this is why I take my approach, as it offers a pragmatic solution to this epistemic scepticism whilst retaining the benefits of a realist position.

@@ethanbenson OK but the critique applies to your criteria for (un)knowability too! And your criteria for justification. And to all criteria. The cognitive faculty of evaluation is a priori drawing all such distinctions - it's responsible for making those very assertions. Any perceived "benefits" of any position? what's that all about? That's an evaluation too... If relativism's true - why even bother with intersubjectivity? Is cooperation valuable? A

Yeah, I think this is a problem for all cosmological arguments

@@user-tp7gy4dj4l Premise 1 is not "everything has a cause" it's "whatever begins to exist has a cause", so your entire argument is a strawman butchering.

He's talking generally about causation, not specifically the kalam, so your entire argument is a strawman butchering

Gg

Interesting point, I’ll have to think on that

@@jessiferLib I agree. I think it’s ultimately not a very convincing argument for someone who does not already believe God exists (which is surely the entire point of making an argument that proves God).

How could something like logic be a byproduct of evolution. Naturalism has a ton of problems as a system on like every level

@@petermetcalfe6722 Ehhhh.... "Always" is a weird word for it. It is generally agreed the universe exists at all points in the past. It is not generally agreed the past is infinite. Regardless, "The universe began to exist" is a claim that can not be substantiated, as beginning to exist implies a previous time of non-existence, and there was no non-universe point in the past.

A man with a gifted jawline, to be sure

Yeah, I remember that whole thing and the general consensus being that the criticism was silly. I wonder if this new controversy at the least opens the possibility for some people that even if we say the end result of helping those people was good, that it doesn’t mean we can’t also perhaps say the action itself was cynically done for personal gain.

That’s a good point, thanks for the feedback!

I wasn't bothered by the defining of terms, and it seems especially useful when addressing the average theist. 🤷‍♂

No, you’re exactly right, these things are considered under consequentialism. I just gave a simplified overview for the sake of the video being accessible

You raise a good point hahaha