"What doth life" is a reference to the show "Xavier:Renegade Angel" which cites philosophical concepts in completely silly and absurd ways. You may actually find it quite enjoyable, I think it's underrated haha
A lot of good gems in here. I laughed about your response about taosim. Thanks for answering my question about Lakatos. Gives me some things to think about regarding rationality in choosing a research program without hindsight. Where might disagree with you is that what progresses or degenerates a research programme isn't the programme itself; but rather the people in the programme. It's how those people respond to things that would refute it that causes the programme to progress or degenerates. I haven't gotten into Paul Feyurabend yet, so thanks for the recommendation. The critique of Jacques lines up with the things that drive up the wall about him. But, it's not necessarily a bad thing to be the villain. A good villain is one that I love to hate. I love how frustrating Jaques is.
That psychadelic experience is like going to the funfair with your mind. Do you find deep truths, maybe, are they more true then other aspects of concioussness and experience, probably not. The therapeutic effects i think could possibly be large.
Traditionally people tend towards worship of that metaphysical thing that underlies reality. Hinduism, taoism, Shinto, a few specific Christian, and Jewish theologians, and ancient Buddhism all have had an indescribable god. I see no issue with it.
@@ruthoglesby1805 indeed it has. but not as a personal agent for sure. For ultimate reality you may have: Brahman, Waḥdat al-wujūd, Ein Sof, Absolute Nothingness, etc
i think the script is israeli, tho idk it looks like it has the markings of it similar to the tree of life/tora and that alphabet, aleph 1 for cardinality
@Kane B on the topic of moral theorizing for antirealists (well more of a tangent to it, really) I think one subject which is quite interesting is the flipside, moral theorizing for moral *realists*, and how some moral realists do actually benefit quite a bit from antirealist (especially emotivist) approaches. So, if I had to partition moral realists into two camps, I think a pretty handy way to do it is this one: effective moral realists vs ineffective moral realists. In this model, an effective moral realist is a moral realist who claims to be able to derive or infer entire complex normative ethics systems *from* their metaethics (or from nature or conceptual analysis or a holy book or whatever). And an ineffective moral realist would be someone who makes no such claim, who is a moral realist merely because he believes some moral facts exist, some moral claims are beliefs about moral facts, and some of those claims are true, but not that he can build up to anything comprehensive. I would describe myself as an ineffective moral realist. I think some moral claims are truth apt and true (for example, "It is morally permissible for someone who cannot resurrect people to not resurrect people." or "Everything else being equal for any entity potentially involved, it is immoral to deliberately violate an entity's preference hierarchy.") but I don't think the vast majority of them are (for example, I cannot make a robust case for the truth of useful day-to-day moral claims like "Rape is immoral." at all). So when I *actually* decide how to act or prescribe others ought to act, 99.99% of the time I do it based on perfectly antirealist subjective things like my preferences or dispositions or intuitions or how I would want my medianworld to look like and what are the steps to get from reality to my medianworld.
Numbers may not exist but quantities do. Even if there were no intelligence in the universe, there would still be 2 planets, or 5 atoms, etc... as quantities on things .
@@Lmaoh5150 fair point, in fact I've often wondered, does a universe exist of no one is there to experience it? I guess the deeper question is, what is an observer?
@@OBGynKenobi i feel that the roots for answering this reside in the only given - private phenomenal consciousness. a system can also sense and act responsively to its surroundings, but if there's no consciousness, then i'd argue that saying it observes isn't quite right, though we could broaden it to mean 'holding that existence is a certain way', even if the instance of observation isn't accompanied by qualitative, semantic informativity. i recommend Bernardo kastrup's PhD dissertation 'analytic idealism', awesome text.
@@OBGynKenobi quote from the hitchhiker's guide to the galaxy: "...any given universe is not actually a thing as such, but is just a way of looking at what is technically known as the WSOGMM, or Whole Sort of General Mish Mash. The Whole Sort of General Mish Mash doesn’t actually exist either, but is just the sum total of all the different ways there could be of looking at it if it did. ... You can slice the Whole Sort of General Mish Mash any way you like and you will generally come up with something that someone will call home. Please feel free to blither now."
There's a decline of weirdness in culture? I feel like that's a huge stretch. I see tons of weirdness, maybe even more now possibly because of the accelerating diffusion of culture. Even at the extreme highest of bracket at least in music anyways, we have Bad Bunny, Doja Cat, Lady Gaga, Billie Eillish and Young Thug to name a few. I'm big in the arts and I literally see "weirdness" everywhere. Hell, Balenciaga runway shows are a huge source of memes now. No disrespect, but I feel like you have to be over 50 years old and not be on any social media to seriously think that the 70s are more weird than now
Weird "moral" view on abortion. Can tell you don't have kids. And you're misstating Canada's law. No province offers abortion beyond 23 weeks (probably because normal people find the idea of killing a baby older than that to be morally repulsive).
@@KaneB yes you are. You’re implying that because there’s no criminal restriction, that it’s common practice to abort babies at any time, which is your moral view. That’s not the case at all. Also very weird how you’re very concerned about animal agriculture nowadays-but morally okay with killing an 8 month old fetus. Most of the ethical vegans draw the line on abortion at sentience, which is around 3 or 4 months old at most from what I gather. Think about this some more.
@@hiker-uy1bi I never said anything about "common practice". I certainly do not hold the moral view that late-term abortions ought to be common practice lol. If an animal is contained within your body, it's fine to kill it. I don't care what most vegans do. I think it's fine to kill anything contained inside your body, no matter how sophisticated its mental states are.
@@hiker-uy1bi If something is contained in your body, it's okay to kill it, even if this involves causing it to experience pain. It's not okay to cause pain to other things. I'm not seeing where the inconsistency is supposed to be here. More generally: a person can think that pain is bad, and that in general it's wrong to cause pain, but that there are specific situations where this can be outweighed by other considerations. For instance, perhaps it's okay to cause pain in self-defense. Most vegans do not insist that you must let yourself be devoured by a pack of dogs, even if fighting the dogs away would cause them pain.
hi kane .. you may be interested in a private email conversation about belief and religion which i had a while ago with chomsky .. if yes put your email here and i can forward it to you ... greetings :)
![Lp. Сердце Вселенной #60 РОЖДЕНИЕ ЛОЛОЛОШКИ [Финал] • Майнкрафт](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/YoR0pAV9FVQ/mqdefault.jpg)
"What doth life" is a reference to the show "Xavier:Renegade Angel" which cites philosophical concepts in completely silly and absurd ways. You may actually find it quite enjoyable, I think it's underrated haha
Now that's the smartest thing, I ever heard.
4:30 what about a mother to her child or me to my dog? Surely the duty of care towards the vulnerable should morally prohibit suicide?
Love the assortment of questions!
A lot of good gems in here. I laughed about your response about taosim.
Thanks for answering my question about Lakatos. Gives me some things to think about regarding rationality in choosing a research program without hindsight. Where might disagree with you is that what progresses or degenerates a research programme isn't the programme itself; but rather the people in the programme. It's how those people respond to things that would refute it that causes the programme to progress or degenerates. I haven't gotten into Paul Feyurabend yet, so thanks for the recommendation.
The critique of Jacques lines up with the things that drive up the wall about him. But, it's not necessarily a bad thing to be the villain. A good villain is one that I love to hate. I love how frustrating Jaques is.
I'm in the exact same predicament as you are in regards to psychedelics.
что думаете о кукече?
🔴
😈
@@justus4684 порву
@@EdgarQer черти
Could you make a reading list? Or blog of what you read? I’d love to think like you.
That psychadelic experience is like going to the funfair with your mind. Do you find deep truths, maybe, are they more true then other aspects of concioussness and experience, probably not. The therapeutic effects i think could possibly be large.
Traditionally people tend towards worship of that metaphysical thing that underlies reality. Hinduism, taoism, Shinto, a few specific Christian, and Jewish theologians, and ancient Buddhism all have had an indescribable god. I see no issue with it.
The Kyoto School describes God as "Absolute Nothing". It is a very good read and full of meaning!
Not a practitioner, but not sure Taoism has a 'god' in the western formulation of such.
@@ruthoglesby1805 indeed it has. but not as a personal agent for sure. For ultimate reality you may have: Brahman, Waḥdat al-wujūd, Ein Sof, Absolute Nothingness, etc
The first one is a Hebrew name, meaning "the new harvest of men"
i think the script is israeli, tho idk it looks like it has the markings of it similar to the tree of life/tora and that alphabet, aleph 1 for cardinality
@Kane B on the topic of moral theorizing for antirealists (well more of a tangent to it, really) I think one subject which is quite interesting is the flipside, moral theorizing for moral *realists*, and how some moral realists do actually benefit quite a bit from antirealist (especially emotivist) approaches.
So, if I had to partition moral realists into two camps, I think a pretty handy way to do it is this one: effective moral realists vs ineffective moral realists. In this model, an effective moral realist is a moral realist who claims to be able to derive or infer entire complex normative ethics systems *from* their metaethics (or from nature or conceptual analysis or a holy book or whatever). And an ineffective moral realist would be someone who makes no such claim, who is a moral realist merely because he believes some moral facts exist, some moral claims are beliefs about moral facts, and some of those claims are true, but not that he can build up to anything comprehensive.
I would describe myself as an ineffective moral realist. I think some moral claims are truth apt and true (for example, "It is morally permissible for someone who cannot resurrect people to not resurrect people." or "Everything else being equal for any entity potentially involved, it is immoral to deliberately violate an entity's preference hierarchy.") but I don't think the vast majority of them are (for example, I cannot make a robust case for the truth of useful day-to-day moral claims like "Rape is immoral." at all). So when I *actually* decide how to act or prescribe others ought to act, 99.99% of the time I do it based on perfectly antirealist subjective things like my preferences or dispositions or intuitions or how I would want my medianworld to look like and what are the steps to get from reality to my medianworld.
Thx for your answers
Hoping the burning smell isn't something bad.
how the hell did u just pronounce ‘interlocutor’????
You should debate Dr. Avi on abortion
32:40 Nail on the head, this is exactly why there’s (allegedly) less super popular weird artists.
I ❤ JacQues.
Numbers may not exist but quantities do. Even if there were no intelligence in the universe, there would still be 2 planets, or 5 atoms, etc... as quantities on things .
What is a “planet” or “atom” sans intelligence?
@@Lmaoh5150 fair point, in fact I've often wondered, does a universe exist of no one is there to experience it? I guess the deeper question is, what is an observer?
@@OBGynKenobi i feel that the roots for answering this reside in the only given - private phenomenal consciousness. a system can also sense and act responsively to its surroundings, but if there's no consciousness, then i'd argue that saying it observes isn't quite right, though we could broaden it to mean 'holding that existence is a certain way', even if the instance of observation isn't accompanied by qualitative, semantic informativity.
i recommend Bernardo kastrup's PhD dissertation 'analytic idealism', awesome text.
@@OBGynKenobi quote from the hitchhiker's guide to the galaxy:
"...any given universe is not actually a thing as such, but is just a way of looking at what is technically known as the WSOGMM, or Whole Sort of General Mish Mash. The Whole Sort of General Mish Mash doesn’t actually exist either, but is just the sum total of all the different ways there could be of looking at it if it did.
...
You can slice the Whole Sort of General Mish Mash any way you like and you will generally come up with something that someone will call home.
Please feel free to blither now."
@@real_pattern An amoeba isn't conscious yet it reacts and interacts in a meaningful and consequential way with the environment.
There's a decline of weirdness in culture? I feel like that's a huge stretch. I see tons of weirdness, maybe even more now possibly because of the accelerating diffusion of culture. Even at the extreme highest of bracket at least in music anyways, we have Bad Bunny, Doja Cat, Lady Gaga, Billie Eillish and Young Thug to name a few. I'm big in the arts and I literally see "weirdness" everywhere. Hell, Balenciaga runway shows are a huge source of memes now. No disrespect, but I feel like you have to be over 50 years old and not be on any social media to seriously think that the 70s are more weird than now
ty, and algo bump
98
“Philosophy never really… it’s not really had any notable impact on my life.”
Moral degeneracy
y0u kn0w it
LOL
Weird "moral" view on abortion. Can tell you don't have kids. And you're misstating Canada's law. No province offers abortion beyond 23 weeks (probably because normal people find the idea of killing a baby older than that to be morally repulsive).
No I'm not. In Canada there is no criminal restriction on abortion at any time of the pregnancy. Accessibility is a different matter.
@@KaneB yes you are. You’re implying that because there’s no criminal restriction, that it’s common practice to abort babies at any time, which is your moral view. That’s not the case at all.
Also very weird how you’re very concerned about animal agriculture nowadays-but morally okay with killing an 8 month old fetus. Most of the ethical vegans draw the line on abortion at sentience, which is around 3 or 4 months old at most from what I gather. Think about this some more.
@@hiker-uy1bi I never said anything about "common practice". I certainly do not hold the moral view that late-term abortions ought to be common practice lol.
If an animal is contained within your body, it's fine to kill it. I don't care what most vegans do. I think it's fine to kill anything contained inside your body, no matter how sophisticated its mental states are.
@@KaneB so pain sensation isn’t a motivating factor for your veganism? Because if it is, your abortion views are inconsistent. Fetuses can feel pain.
@@hiker-uy1bi If something is contained in your body, it's okay to kill it, even if this involves causing it to experience pain. It's not okay to cause pain to other things. I'm not seeing where the inconsistency is supposed to be here. More generally: a person can think that pain is bad, and that in general it's wrong to cause pain, but that there are specific situations where this can be outweighed by other considerations. For instance, perhaps it's okay to cause pain in self-defense. Most vegans do not insist that you must let yourself be devoured by a pack of dogs, even if fighting the dogs away would cause them pain.
Reply to this comment with why you hate Jacques. I hate him because he isn’t as cool or smart or good looking as Kane, he is just “fart jokes guy”
hi kane .. you may be interested in a private email conversation about belief and religion which i had a while ago with chomsky .. if yes put your email here and i can forward it to you ... greetings :)
s0unds like a scam