I watched vaush's debate with the expert, than i watched your reaction to it, and now im watching you debate that same expert. This is the trilogy i didnt know I needed, thank you Steven.
The problem is both "identifying as tall" and the cancer example both have something you can physically test -- height, or having cancerous cells. While identifying as a gamer, or identifying as a woman (in the new sense of the word) doesn't need a relation to the physical world. It's like a tag, or a property on a social level nowadays. Whereas woman initially referred to adult female, which was physically provable. Gamer doesn't have a physically provable trait (maybe that you play games, but you can play games and not identify as a gamer), it's just a subtext of a group that expresses an emotion, or thought, or feeling without a physically immutable trait that can test it. You can also identify as a gamer without actually playing games, but because your are involved in the gamer cliche on a cultural level. It's like being part of a group that doesn't exist except between your friends. So it has meaning inside the minds of those who know, but has no physically testable trait. So he's literally looking for a physical property he can test, but these words are evoking a societal / emotional feeling. A gamer being someone who plays games, is nerdy, etc. But you can't use a tape measure to test a gamer (like being tall or not), or analyze your body for cancer. Essentially trying to assign it as a physical trait where its being used as a societal trait the bridge between law and society -- Law characterizes that woman have physically identifiable traits, where as society is saying that just identifying as a woman is sufficient. A better example would've been the word Kind, or Mean. You can't measure whether your kind. Your kind because you say you are, therefore your only kind if and only if you say you are kind, even if others say you aren't kind.
@@fataliity101 Just because a small minority of people redefine a word doesn't mean everyone has to agree. The grand majority of people understand woman to mean adult human female.. If I had a questioning child I would say we are being polite but that person is really a man.
@@giseletheriault8633I thought sex and gender are objectively different but linked. Also, even in the widely accepted social sense, that person who identifies as a woman probably doesn't identify with traits socially perscribed to being a man even if born male, despite that ultimately not even being a requirment. Basically people are weird, and are gonna be weird, and if there's no harm, there's no foul and the ultimate problem lies in the fact cis gendered individuals like us (very much assuming here) will never understand the complicated horror of being born the wrong sex... And the least we can do is not oppose that idea.
At that point, I would have laughed, asked if. Sushi suffers from brain damage and left. The “agua” argument isn’t just kind of stupid, it’s flagrantly intellectually dishonest and so laughably stupid that there is no reason you should take that person serious on any level for anything. Such a person could say the Earth is spheroid and I would immediately begin to wonder if maybe flat Earthers are right.
I hope he never looks at the chat. Every twenty comments or so is from some dude that probably didn't even get a GED calling him dumb or can't speak. It's honestly disturbing and disappointing. I wonder if it's just assmad trans-allies that need to ad hom over nothing because they hate his political stance. In which case, they would be better at home in Vaush's chat.
Every word out of this man's mouth could be, in my opinion, wrong and I'd still sit here and listen to him speak for hours and hours on end. He just seems like a guy who is interested in having a conversation with people and exploring ideas. The aqua guy is okay too idk kinda sounds dumb.
@@Mongoosemcqueen To know why his original comment is funny you have to already know your comment so you are just explaining his joke. If you think explaining the joke makes it better then why not explain yours too?
I get this, but I do not identify as getting it. In order to understand this joke, you MUST identify as understanding it, therefore I clearly do not understand it, even though I do, in fact, understand it. Which is false.
Technically, when Vaush says 'water' it's a totally unique word bc whenever anyone else says it they're not saying it with Vaush's unmatchable smugness.
Fuck Vawoosh, but I think I know what point he was trying to make, as a translation major, we talked about this a lot during class. Most words in most languages can be translated to a fairly high degree of accuracy, but a lot of the times the same word isn't always a one to one equivalent. It's easy with names, which is why it's retarded of Vawoosh to use water as an example, and it would be the same with a cat or a dog, but in my native language for instance, we only have one word for envy. In the English language there are two words, envy and jealousy, and they are used interchangeably, which I think is a shame because I think the distinction is quite useful. Envy is when you want something somebody else has, Jealousy is when you don't want someone to have what you have. We only have the former. In that way, if you used the word jealous in it's proper context, to us it might be understood differently, and then the same thing becomes two different things with different meanings. But you can't apply that to fucking water. Vawooshes argument was probably going to go somewhere along the lines of "In this African tribe women serve a different role to what is common in the rest of the world and when you use their word for woman it carries a different meaning because it inherently encompasses the traits associated with their women, their duties, tendencies and features, as such their word woman and woman in general is different from ours so they are different genders etc. I don't know if I buy it but I can see the point. I still don't think it's an applicable one in the scenario he used it for.
This guy is awesome. He has walked into the howling pit of despair that is online debate culture with all his formal qualifications and has not condescended or looked down upon anyone, and has brought civility and charity, even to those who arguably don’t deserve much of either (namely Vaush). On top of all that, he seems very knowledgeable on his subject. More him please.
In philosophy you kind of have to be charitable to other peoples arguments otherwise there isn’t a point in arguing. Philosophers actually consider and counter others arguments rather than just disagreeing and shooting fallacies lmfaoooo
He sucks at speaking though. I could not listen to him for more than a minute before getting insanely bored with his monotone droning. Not saying all speakers need to have enthusiasm but on top of being insanely boring, he literally brought nothing of value to the table. These esoteric thoughts are already hard enough to understand but combined with how dull and long he took to get his points across I hope I never hear from this guy again.
@@yoboiboy4182 pretty much all left leaning people agree with vaushes gender roles, cause its not vaush who made it up. its more about his ability to argue it that makes it wack.
Shouldn't vaush be technically considered the actual 'aqua' professor? It was his theory that h2o isn't always water: crossing the border would magically turn it into the substance known as 'aqua' instead. Truly intellectually outpacing everyone like always.
It's really good to see destiny talking to someone more intellectual. I'd love to see more content like this. It's cool that destiny is usually the smartest person in a debate, but you can tell how bored he usually is and it makes the content much less engaging.
I haven't gotten that far into the video but if "iff" has come up, then they've really gone down the logic rabbit hole. I feel like I'm back on symbolic logic 1
That's because Vaush was being disingenuous in that debate from the beginning. It all loops back to that famous Vaush quote: "I don't give a fuck about principled failure, principled failure is dog shit." He'll do whatever it takes to win at whatever he's doing, including taking positions that he doesn't actually believe or being unnecessarily pedantic and argumentative to pan for time.
To be fair to vaush the reason that he was talking to the PhD was to have a disagreement. Where as Destiny had an hour and a half philosophy lesson then a disagreement.
@@MandalorianRaider Precisely. Vaush is a sophist. He doesn't care about the truth, he cares about optics and about appearing right. You could deconstruct every single argument of his and show him that he's wrong, and his response would be to conjure up as many fallacies as he can in order to seem like he's correct.
10:30 The way he broke down those 3 different perspectives (supernaturalism, naturalism, post modernism) made me feel so much more sane. I am very much a person that believes that there is a physical explanation for everything, and that exact phrase “arbitrary” when used by Vaush to support the existence of dog and autism gender and suggesting sex isn’t real has been the most triggering Vaushism of all time for me. Nothing in nature is “arbitrary”. Now I understand that difference 100%, thanks Professor Aqua.
@@tinywhale3954 10:30 on, he says he is a god cuck, which I have chosen to not hold against him because I like him. He explains supernaturalism, naturalism and post modernism or creative anti-realism and contrasts all of them in a way that makes me understand why that “arbitrary” shit makes me insane
I'll take this. Because he is so philosophically sound and learned. It sucks that he's wrong in such a massive area. God does not exist, he's only been conceived of and believed in via the minds of people.
I would say the problem with Dr Aqua and Vaush's conversation (not that I made it more than 20 minutes in before turning it off) is that Dr Aqua was trying to establish first principles like Water is H20 and Vaush is so dishonest he refused to even agree on those first principles with Dr Aqua. He would rather play semantic word games and engage in pure sophistry than have a constructive conversation because he thinks it allows him to maintain the moral high ground.
It's possible you're right but I think it's good to steel man someone's argument. At least in the aftermath vaush maintained a consistent creative anti realist view when he talked about how the noble gases are only grouped by their value to us as humans. It's not a distinction that exists in real life. I think vaush is wrong but I think there is a large chance vaush actually believes it. His creative anti realist worldview kind of fits with what vaush is most famous for of caring more about "optics" then truth and as a result lying is OK. He criticises destiny for caring about "truth" too much. This view is also common amongst communists like duringthe maoist era scientists would have to explain nature working and atoms interacting in terms of Marxist narratives. (maybe sometime like an electron requires a revolution and a taking in of energy for it to be freeeer in its outer shells). So extreme Marxists seem to truly think all definitions were prescriptive and moral and specifically had to be seen in terms of Marxism. So its better to try and see someone in good faith and his explanation of the differences explains a few of vaush's views.
You could see Vaush' nervous tells right from the start, usually they come in later when he realizes he's losing the debate. So it makes sense that he was bad faith from the start.
@Mitthenstein um I think you're confused have you watched the video? I don't think anyone here is talking about nominalism. If the "you" in that sentence is me certainly I'm not talking about nominalism, I don't think vaush or Dr b is either. Nominalism believes particulars are real, anti realism says nothing is real. The term creative anti realism is what Dr b used in the video
@Mitthenstein I mean it's possible vaush would be a nominalist or the other thing you mentioned "it just works" is instrumentalist which is another thing vaush could be. But my term is based on what Dr b said. So no I definitely do not mean nominalism. You can't just take random philosophy terms and throw them at anything that seems vaguely similar.
@Mitthenstein no their not the same thing. Nominalism is about particulars and abstract objects, it's a form of anti realism but anti realism is bigger then that. Nominalism doesn't deny the existence of particulars nor of science. You can be a naturalist, materialist and still a nominalist. You can be a mereological nihilist and believe simple particles exists but not complex objects. You can be a materialist who thinks that electrons are a good model of reality but don't actually exist etc. Dr b was specifically contrasting his creative anti realism against naturalism and super naturalism as what he saw as the three different metaphysical models of seeing the world. You van be a nominalist or against nominalism in all three. Your problem isn't with me, your problem is with what Dr b says. You don't like his distinction of how people fit metaphysically But if you wanna attack Dr b's understanding of vaush's metaphysics and say he isnt a creative anti realist he's a naturalist who is also a nominalist. That's fine. I think you have a good case for that as vaush is attacking categories specifically here. However I think if you look at other things vaush says, he's closer to a creative anti realist. He seems to attacks facts of reality that don't fit with his moral goal. Not just categories. But you can't just take two terms and pretend they are synonymous in philosophy. There are a lot of technical terms with meanings very very similar to each other but with subtle differences. When you described what you meant by nominalism you actually described something closer to instrumentalism. So I think whilst nominalism describes vaush's specific thing about water, it isn't as good an overall description of vaush.
Really good, the kind that helps you figure out where you stand and why, since it goes from the bottom up. It's probably not fair to expect every conversation to start by setting up a common philosophical basis upon which the discussion will happen, but damn if it's not helpful and makes things clearer and more productive.
all memes aside, this actually seemed like a super intresting conversation knowing not too much about philosophy myself. in the debate with vaush i actually had the impression that the professor was just too polite not to call out some of the ridiculous claims made by vaush
Turns out the professor was being SUPER charitable to Vaush and over estimated his position. Assuming Vaush had given time and thought into this and had a coherent world view.
@@bez5297 Assuming Vaush was genuinely coming from another philosophical school of thought and not just being pedantic has got to be the most charitable thing I've seen all year.
I think he knew that actually challenging vouche on anything would be a waste of their limited debate time - that tub of lard clearly had zero interest in a discussion. Better to enumerate each of his points, and let their obvious unassailable truth speak for him. Convincing vouche is irrelevant, it's the audience he's talking to.
This guy is amazing, he's purely in it for the philosophy. the contrast of Vaush thrashing and squirming against him to avoid agreeing with the unavoidable truth vs Destiny basically ending up agreeing with 90% of what he says is hilarious.
@@zootsoot2006 What a stupid comment. You do realize Destiny is an atheist too right? This has jack shit to do with ideology itself. It has to do with character. There are Christians who act like Vaush in aand atheists who act like this philosophy PhD in a debate (and vice versa).
It's really smart on Destiny's behalf to talk to people after they've dealt with Vaush. Even the biggest Vaushies can clearly see the difference in faith in the two discussions.
@@tommytowner792 what? he has a philosophy PHD and he has written a paper about this exact subject. he evidently has a better understanding on it than vaush or debate streamers
I usually kind of zone out / go on my phone / play a game while watching Destiny's vids but this type of conversation demands your undivided attention. Super interesting stuff.
yep, these types of conversations are my absolute favourite. Unfortunately they're relatively rare, but if you never listened to his two conversations with Dr. Menzies I would highly recommend them. I believe he had two but the most recent one was fantastic and much in the same vein as this, I felt like I learned a lot and it really had me thinking.
This guy is giving Vaush too much credit. Vaush is just a pure sophist. He selectively forgets the definitions of basic words every time he's losing a debate. It's just a tactic to derail the conversation before it even gets going.
I watch these discussions but rarely comment. More of this please. Never has a Convo, for me, so completely made positions like Vaush's seem so juvenile. It's like the adults finally standing up and saying 'enough!'. You are the sole remaining opposition to my traditional beliefs. Discussions like these are so valuable to people in this space, thank you. The other one that jumps to mind, was a conversation involving Nick Rekieta. I have followed him extensively. Your humble response to his positions was so refreshing. I believe that your evolution is what people that want truth and balance and honest discourse, are craving.
Now good luck trying to explain it in the future. lol That is usually my problem. I get well-informed and educated people influencing my views, but I can't remember the smart stuff they said to defend my position later.
@@HarryBalzak you don’t have to author a whole book, especially if writing isn’t your thing, but I think it’s a good idea to put your beliefs in writing when they’ve been freshly influenced. Especially putting the professors ideas into your own words with your own examples. Maybe an ongoing Google doc subject to change and ready at hand to review before talking to someone about?
Sex: a biological category determined by an implied biological function. Gender: a genteel away of saying "sex" without making people think of fucking. Leftist gender: a collection of secondary traits which correlate with sex but do not define it.
This was a legitimately enjoyable conversation and I think it brings the sex/gender subject to a grounded place. I thought it was ironic how he invoked the word "woke" (1:18:00) whilst speaking on the historical use of words.
Vaush is the type of guy that if you tell him *_"Water is Wet"_* he'll write down *_"Water"_* on a piece of paper and tell you *_"Is this (waving that piece of paper) saturated with water molecules?" hmmmm_*
@@marcmacaluso2795 “Terrible Philosopher”. I definitely wouldn’t go to that extent. Just because you may disagree doesn’t mean they are “terrible”. If that’s the case then nearly all philosophers are terrible. And I’m not sure what you mean by his “linguistic convolutions”. I assume you’re talking about how he explained how words can have a “true” definition. And if that’s what you’re referring to, then what I think he meant to say is that words have a common usage which refer to things which hold to objective existence, which isn’t at all unreasonable and we generally accept this prima facie.
@@acemxe8472 No... Stop. He's a terrible Philosopher because he didn't know the nature of the agent he debated. Vaush is an advocate with a set strategy to NEVER surrender common or foundational truths to anyone. The good Professor should've known he was being conned by the biggest postmodern Neo-Marxist on UA-cam.
Tbf, "wet" is just a property of the paper from the cellulose intaking water via capillary action. If you have "wet" ethanol it just means you have to distill up to the median azeotropic boiling point and add a drying agent like molecular sieves to "dry" it even though it's still a liquid, but I get what you mean.
@@marcmacaluso2795 So it actually had nothing to do with his philosophy? 🤦Rather, the fact that he debated Vaush? Not sure how that follows from the premises, but okay.
Vaush is a pseudo intellectual. Destiny admits that he doesn’t know everything and doesn’t claim too. I feel bad this guy had the misfortune of having a “conversation” with vaush. He might as well have had a conversation with a brick wall. Probably would have gotten better feedback lol
Completely agree but luckily it seems this guy was able to find something interesting in that debate on a meta level. It's a super rare but healthy mindset to have when talking to someone as bad faith as Vaush.
Pseudo intellectual is exactly what I thought of Vaush after watching Destiny's reaction video of the debate. His speech seems almost like that of an A.I. program. He doesn't actually know what he's saying, it's' just a machine learned algorithm to "win" a debate.
Wish I could like this video 50 more times. This is exactly the sort of conversation I hoped to be a part of when I assigned to gender studies, but instead I got just what you described by the end😔
Yeah his point about even trans people not always explicitly identifying as the other gender until sometimes later in their life, and so for that reason alone it's not enough to say that if and only if someone identifies as a woman they are a woman. That makes a lot of sense.
Based on this, I don't think there's any way to determine if this guy is more intelligent than Destiny. All I would say is that this is his field of specialty, not Destiny's. Turn the tables and Destjny might appear more intelligent than him.
@@ericpeck3069 Nah, the dude just has a higher IQ than Destiny and is a more skilled linguist. There is no shame in someone being intellectually superior to oneself. Destiny (and his ego) will be fine.
@@ericpeck3069 Maybe you’re right. Being intellectually dominated like this will probably cause quite the narcissistic injury to Destiny. He might not be fine.
The main issue in the debate with vaush, was vaush was completely unwilling to meet him on a level playing field to discuss these things with clarity. Vaush never really gave an answer, and twisted the conversation about water, the thing itself, to the linguistic differences. Professor made it clear he was talking about the thing itself and vaush refused to engage with it.
It must have been super frustrating for Dr. B. Vaush was so nervous he was unwilling to concede anything which resulted in them not even being able to discuss the topic. Not committing to anything is a clear sign of someone who feeling out over their head.
Nice hearing the dialogue around knowledge breaking down and skepticism ultimately coming down to solipsism or absurdism at the lower levels, really interesting chat. Goes to show how changing the other side's mind isn't even necessary for progress, just honest dialogue.
12:20 honestly dr I think you are giving vaush too much credit, I think he went to that debate with the intention of "destroying" you and making you look like a transphobe, I don't think vaush has ever read something about aristoteles let alone pitagoras
Doesn't Wittgenstein resolve that language paradox philosopher thing at 32:00 ? Like sure, Harry Potter doesn't exist, it's a fictional character, but saying that the phrase "Harry Potter" doesn't refer to anything is just intuitively wrong, because everybody knows what it refers to. It refers to a fictional character. It's just the way humans speak and think. Why feel the need to create paradoxes ? If there's a true paradox somewhere, there's probably something you're missing or not understanding correctly. "Paradox" is a term we use to refer to the coexistence of two things that contradict themselves, which is impossible by definition, so paradoxes don't exist, just like Harry Potter. That probably means this whole discussion is empty as well and just a matter of definition. I would argue that generally, people can sense when you're speaking if you're talking about something that actually exists or something that doesn't, or if you're making stuff up, or if you're not entirely sure of what you're saying. (that's just my common sensical two cents, I am not an expert)
Yeah, the whole Harry Potter thing felt like some hyperautistic circlejerking. Like everyone obviously knows that Harry Potter doesn't exist, but the term still holds a lot of info about a concept that a lot of people understand and roughly agree on. Saying that Harry Potter is an empty term is like saying that emotions don't exist at all because they are just chemical reactions. It's like taking an extreme materialist approach to the point where he's kinda denying even the existense of emergent qualities.
If you subtract any of Harry Potter's "qualities" then Harry Potter would no longer exist because Harry Potter as a concept is contingent on those "qualities." Harry Potter is a boy wizard with a scar on his forehead, wearing big round glasses-subtract any one of those things and you're no longer talking about Harry Potter. Whereas if you subtract one of your qualities, your identity would presumably remain intact because you're real.
I once read the first few chapters of a CS Lewis book that was based on the argument of Naturalism vs. Supernaturalism. The thing was so dense I had to drop it to think on its concepts. Even as a Christian writer (at the time), Lewis didn't even bring the concept of God into it at first. He explains that functionally, all human beings fall into one of two mindsets when it comes to the universe as a whole: 1) Naturalism - The universe is a closed system, and all unexplained phenomena are effectively the extension of some kind reaction within the closed system. In other words, all things can be explained eventually as you understand the universe more. People who don't believe in a higher power fall into this category, or at least, people who don't believe there is some kind of power outside of the universe that can affect things inside the universe (i.e. God, Muhamed, etc.). 2) Supernaturalism - The universe is not a fully closed system, and unexplained phenomena could be described as some kind of force outside of the universe that can affect things inside the universe. This would be where idea of miracles, gods, and holy blessings come from. So I wouldn't agree with Mr. Borgardus that Supernaturalism necessarily means the just a Divine Mind or Mind of God, I can see where he would interpret it that way with him being a Christian. At least as a general concept, Supernaturalism just means that there is some kind of Divine Mind or power that's able to affect things in our world. But man, I need to go back and read that book, I never thought I'd hear those words used in the modern day. I've never thought of Post-Modernism as a third way of thought though. Awesome.
Just to be a little pedantic here, naturalism isn't necessarily the view that everything that exists can be described in physical terms, that would be materialism, a sub-category of naturalism. Naturalism is the view that everything that exists is part of one single nature, the one that we exist in. So in naturalism, there can be a god, but he would be part of this world, rather than something outside of it.
I think his use of the word (because I've seen it used this way by other scholars) comes from the tendency, in naturalism, to decide whether something exists in our world by insisting we be able to test its properties with our known scientific methods. That hinges the existence of the thing on its physical nature, which wraps materialism into naturalism.
@@upincloud244 A better one than Wikipedia would be the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, which is where the more technical uses of terms are defined and explained.
@@zootsoot2006 I've always considered the notion of god as nonsensical to begin with. It's a paradox unto itself. Then again, philosophy is not something I'm good with unless it's political philosophy. I need an order or process to the thing I'm looking at. I'm very hard wired for logic. Like I can't even understand poetry. Like at all. My brain just can't process it
damn that was awesome, for a second i nearly decided to go further into debatebro youtube, but i realized near nothing is ever going to reach this level of informative and exploratory thinking. welp fun whileit lasted
I think the best part of this video is around 25:00 minutes when destiny provides the professor the most fair explanation/devils advocate of his ‘agua’ argument. (Although it was put together poor you presented it better than vanish himself). Genuinely hats off Steven, especially because he performs the exact opposite on u when describes ur arguments.
It's the immense capability of the human mind to think: "water isn't water, unless we think it's water" and also think our minds are the only thing that gives universe meaning. Universe would be the same without us. -us ofc.
Thank you for putting into words I couldn't explain it myself. Vaush is the 7 levels up from "if a tree falls in a forest and no ones around to see it, did it make a sound?"
The issue with this is that there is a fundamental difference between something having an inherent nature and something having a "meaning" that we impose on it through our experience and categorization of it. Water will always exist as a thing that exists, but the various meanings and ideas we ascribe to water beyond it being the molecular compound it is (its "wetness", quenching, life, cool, etc) are based entirely around how we as a pattern recognizing machine have evolved with it and interact with it in relation to ourselves. The elements that makes water the thing in itself aren't arbitrary, but the representation that gives it meaning to us is. It just so happens that the meaning we ascribe to water is based entirely around the context of our interaction with it as individuals and a species. Schopenhauer - the miserable bastard - describes this distinction between the empirical and the "arbitrary" nature of things as "Everything that there is for cognition (the entire world) exists simply as an object in relation to a subject-a 'representation' to a subject. Everything that belongs to the world is, therefore, 'subject-dependent'." You can agree or disagree with the statement, but I think it's dismissive of a rather well placed and well tread argument against objective meaning that is found in many different traditions and schools of thought stretching back centuries.
@@iannordin5250 no, the words we've derived from being pattern recognising machines aren't arbitrary. Wetness isn't arbitrary neither are any words relating to water. They aren't just meaningless words, yes words are made up but there's a reason we all understand eachother when we speak. There's very few words I could describe as arbitrary but it wouldn't be wetness
@@hughmogus7137 destiny has largely been trying to have genuine discussions for a long time with a larger slant of late. This is just what happens when his opponent is good faith and backs up their positions, refutes some of his and comes to general middle grounds instead of them attacking his character when they realize they have zero grounds.
@@diydylana3151 it was definitely slower paced and more nuanced than a debate but there was plenty of pushback. I feel that bloodsports have radicalized debates to a point that two academic minded people testing each others positions and clarifying no longer counts.
1:34:54 Their back and forth on identifying as a gamer reminded me of a Mitch Hedberg joke, and that joke actually gave me some clarity into Aquaman's position. "I like to boat, but I don't ever want to be referred to as a boating enthusiast." Perhaps Mitch identifies as a boating enthusiast, but doesn't want to identify as someone who identifies as a boating enthusiast. I think Aquaman is claiming these are two separate things while Destiny seems to be grouping them.
I disagree on the coin analogy. The coin in Super Mario Bros. is one set of images in the original implementation, but a different set of images in the All Stars implementation that came out for the SNES, as is the specific sound played when they're collected. What's actually important to the game and thus to the player is the game mechanic. The images are just tapping into the cultural concepts we already have in the same way Sonic uses rings and The Legend of Zelda uses "rupees".
40:16 Professor Aqua: "Its a pattern of images". You: "... One set of images in the original... Another set of images in the All Stars..." You agreed with the professor. It's totally irrelevant to the point that the image exists for some reason. *All* images represent something else; that's basically what it means to be an image. He also said he doesn't believe Hume is right.
@@justinlacek1481 My point was that the coin images aren't important to the phenomenon and thus focusing on them in the analogy doesn't make for a good explanation. The behavior surrounding them is what's important both in the case of Super Mario Bros. and in more important phenomena. And whether the Professor agrees with the idea isn't relevant to whether the concept itself is well explained.
@@biggerdoofus I disagree that their behavior is all that's important. Being able to relate objects in a game with things we have concepts of adds to the entertainment value of the games, which is why we generally use representations of physical things(like coins which in other games we can even use to buy stuff), rather than 1s and 0s(which is essentially what all games boil down to) or just, writing out their function.
If any fellow Thrice fans are here, this man Dr Bogardus was a gem back in 2002/03 on the Thrice message boards spitting philosophy and metaphysics. I believe he was friends with the band. He also inspired me greatly into the realm of seeking truth.
Oh my god, at 20 minutes in, I did the exact same thing, I wanted to learn about philosophy and got myself a Swedish translation of Kants critique of pure reason, It was miserable! what a blast from the past.
Destiny had a conversation with a very nice, very smart Christian philosopher and one of the best question Destiny asked was does he think philosphers overcomplicate simple ideas in there books? The philosopher emphatically said yes lol
It's so bizarre to watch someone like vaush constantly talking about the state of the world, yet never actually interact with it. It all becomes theoretical to him as he sits in his nest and stares at his computer screen.
The worst example of losing expressive power due to changing language is the way people use "literally" solely to convey emphasis, often resulting in it having the opposite of it original intended meaning. And this only happened in the last 20 years, when I was a kid nobody used it for emphasis and when I was a bit older and it started, anyone who did so was mocked ruthlessly. But now the tide has totally turned and Ive just given up on trying to convey the meaning of the word without using many words, because I know if I use it people will assume I mean nothing and just talk like a teenage girl.
Although this can be boring and supersized galactic this is very interesting to watch because you are both helping each other. More of this would be nice. This guy will be an amazing teacher in this crazy world because he cares about taking the walk along with you rather the reinforcing egos. A Mutual exchange that you can tell he really appreciates.
Actually a woman is a person who identifies as a person who identifies as a person who identifies as a person who identifies as a person who identifies as a person who identifies as a person who identifies as a person who identifies as a person who identifies as a person who identifies as a person who identifies as a person who identifies as a person who identifies as....
It’s not as complicated or strange as you are making it seem. It’s not as complicated as this conversation would suggest, either. Identity based grouping is not new. If I say I’m a Christian for example, society considers me a Christian. If someone is never baptized, doesn’t go to church, but calls themselves a Christian they are still considered Christian. If someone is baptized, goes to church, and believes in the Christian god, but does not call themselves Christian, they are not Christian. The only way the category of a “Christian” can be accurate is if we define it as “someone who identifies as Christian”. This is technically circular, but it’s necessary. I was raised and baptized as a Mormon. I am not, nor ever considered myself to be, a Mormon. My brother, who was also baptized, but never goes to church and claims to be agnostic, still calls himself Mormon. Identity based grouping exists. Gender is a grouping of individuals based on identity in the exact same way as religion. In fact, gender is even simpler than religion because religion has beliefs, practices, and actions that represent those religions-however we still submit to the individuals personal identity regardless if they fit the traditional category of Christianity.
@@HawtLS "If I say I’m a Christian for example, society considers me a Christian" No... you're not? If you tell me that you're a Christian, but you believe Jesus was a human prophet and not the son of god.... then you're not Christian. If you tell me you're a Christian but you believe that when you die your spirit reincarnates.... you're not a Christian. The whole premise you base your argument on is flawed. "religion has beliefs, practices, and actions that represent those religions" Exactly, because words have meanings. The whole point to use words is to communicate, and circular words don't communicate anything. Circular definitions are not "necessary", they're nonsensical. A person can identify as things that they are not.
@@AlquimistEd I’d argue you’re in the minority if you consider Christian only to be define about belief in x y or z. If I’m Christian but I think everything in the Bible is metaphorical-most people would say this person is still Christian. They may go to church, pray every day, read the Bible regularly, have been baptized… and you wouldn’t consider this person Christian? Maybe you could say they’re a metaphorical Christian, but that’s similar to the “biological male” distinction we have in gender. I have met an atheistic Mormon before. They were a practicing Mormon, who felt strongly about the values, was baptized, was part of the community, but they lacked a belief in god. Everyone in their community still calls them a Mormon (some people call him an atheistic Mormon). Give me your definition of “Christian”. I guarantee there are people that are recognized as Christian, and identify as Christian, that do not fit your definition. Another example of grouping based solely on identity is emotional states. How would you define someone as lonely with no access to the way they actually feel? Well, it’s based on if they say they’re lonely or not. Someone can have 1,000 friends and be lonely. Someone can never talk to anyone, yet not be lonely. We don’t have a strict definition of someone who is lonely, other than “someone who feels lonely” which is ‘circular’ in the same way as gender. The only people recognized as lonely are those who identify as such.
I feel like, for me, Bertrand Russell has some of the most well written and entertaining works on philosophy. Definitely approachable for a novice such as myself.
I loved this discussion, it was super insightful, never too fast or slow, I learned a lot and it's nice to see two people who like to think about these themes profoundly calmly. Pls, bring him on again.
I truly don't understand how Harry Potter would not be a concept when the definition is that is an idea or abstract thought. I don't understand how that mean Harry Potter is not a concept. Wouldn't the character of Harry be a literal idea?
yeah it's totally silly to think that, conceptual ideas don't require any evidence other than you being able to imagine that concept and understand that concept
Harry Potter ONLY exists as a concept. A real idea, sure, but not a conceptualization of a real thing. Car is a concept that references a real thing. So a word, which represents a concept, that references reality, is whole.
@@HolyWarrior1 why does there need to be a necessary distinction between the "whole" words and the words that refer to fictional/only conceptual things?
So Harry Potter IS a concept. But the concept of Harry Potter isn't just a concept. Me and you can have a concept of Harry Potter. But the thing we have a concept of is a boy with glasses who rides brooms. A concept cannot wear glasses, as a concept is an idea in our minds (perhaps a shared idea) and ideas cant wear glasses. So there is the concept of Harry Potter we can think about but the thing that concept refers to can't be a concept it has to be something else. It's a thing that can have glasses. Except also there is no Harry Potter wearing glasses. So that's why it's confusing.
Similarly ideas can't wear glasses, like concepts they exist in our minds. I can have an idea of a boy wearing glasses. But the idea isn't actually wearing any glasses, Harry Potter is wearing glasses. So he isn't an idea
@@Buck7205 That the word gender never referred to humans originally, but to language, which is correct. The term was bastardized and attributed to men and women some years back by a pedophile philosopher (forgot his name) to initiate all this fuckery.
My first take as an evolutionary biologist: TL;DR: Harry Potter is a cultural variant (term used by Boyd and Richardson, 2004, "not by genes alone") that exists in the minds of populations and is expressed in their behaviour and so is consistent with a naturalist perspective. There may also be causal relationships between an individuals gender cultural variant and the prevalence of sex linked phenotypes. Finally I would define a third kind of female, a behavioural female (as opposed to a biological or cultural female) is an individual that has inherited (through cross sexual transfer if they are biologically male) some proclivity to recognise themselves as a biological woman, or otherwise has sufficient cross sexual transfers of female behavioural phenotypes. Harry potter exists as a transmitted cultural variant (concepts). Culture is as real as anything else we can describe with science. I don't think you help yourself Tomas by not including this aspect of reality, one can have cultural variants that are uninformative about that which they propose to refer to and still exist and impact human behaviour through cultural transmission of it's related ideas (e.g. the story of harry potter is informative about how one might want to live ones own life). As for the concept of women, it is informative of that individuals desire to associate with others that identify with that cultural variant, so it is a cultural identity. The issue is that woman also refers to biological characters of humans too, and those that identify with the cultural variant "woman" are not necessarily biological variant woman. I define a biologically variant woman as an individual that makes use of an egg in human reproduction however with this particular phenotype are linked developmentally with many other phenotypes to varying degrees and the presence of one of these may indicate the need for another. So one might say that although an individual might not produce eggs, we can say they ought to have that capacity given the presence of other female linked phenotypes, for the purposes of their wellbeing. So while trans women is an informative term, I would say that the degree to which one has these female linked phenotypes is the degree to which their wellbeing might be optimised by medically considering them to be women, and that there may be a causal link between the presence of these phenotypes and a bias for the cultural female variant, and so this cultural variant may be informative (but not perfect information) about whether that individual has these wellbeing relevant female phenotypes. So I would say that identifying with the cultural variant woman is indirect evidence that you ought to be treated for medical reasons as a biological woman, however because cultural variants are highly plastic over an individual's lifetime this alone is not sufficient evidence to make that decision. It is worth noting here that cross-sexual transfer of phenotypes occurs in nature readily (e.g. the pseudopenis of female hyena) and evolution often uses these phenotypic variations (very often to go under the radar of stronger competing males in the case of female-to-male transfer). It is not unbelievable to me as an evolutionary biologist to say that many individuals that come to identify with the cultural variant of women may have had a bias for this variant as a result of the cross sexual transfer of ancestrally female phenotypes evolved for self recognition (cross sexual transfer is the expression of homologous phenotypes to those typically expressed in the opposite sex, not simply overlap in the distributions). For this reason, these individuals are women in both the cultural and behavioural sense, and possibly partially physiologically, and so denying them further developmental switches (whether genetically or environmentally cued) to become more women in the biologically female sense is a question of whether that individual's wellbeing will be optimised by biological consistency with behaviour (transition) or behavioural consistency with biology (behavioural therapy); with the success rates of these different procedures depending on the patients particular state being the deciding factor.
The problem you guys run into is the “Confusing the Map for the Place” fallacy. The map represents the place, but it is not the place. It’s a super helpful way to refer to the distinction.
I do think we can introduce several distinctions that would clarify what is at stake here. For instance, we can say that taxonomy is partially conditioned by social needs, but that the structures that taxonomic categories refer to are real structures nevertheless. Hence, H2O does refer to a real structure, and the category of nobel gasses refers to a structural commonality between members of that group. Taxonomic structure is thus conditioned by but not sufficiently determined by ontic structure. Still, the concept of H2O picks out a particula ontic structure. The term "water" in pre-chemistry times also picked out the same ontic structure, albeit with less systematic refinement (high vs. low resolution modes of designation). Classically, the mode of designation is the sense of a concept whereas the reality picked out by the concept is known as the reference. It's hard to understand the concerns of contemporary philosophy without first getting both the use/mention distinction and the sense/reference distinction.
I think Dr. Aqua's logic is not right. There are plenty of things you could put in the bracket where it would make sense, like "happy", or "confused". Only you can truly know if you feel / are that way, and society should respect your feelings on your self identification. Dr. Aqua seems to want to tie the subjective, fluid concept of gender (it changes throughout time and space) to a concrete measurable state like height, but that is what sex is for, unless and until we learn how to measure gender (assuming a fact of the matter exists).
1:37:30 The 'dark' examples of defining reality, like the presence of a tumor, are really some of the most important, because they have a direct impact on survival. To deny the reality of something that will end your world because you think you can define anything any way you want is the height of hubris. :)
I think there are certain cases where circular/recursive definitions make sense. Recursive type definitions in programing are quite common. For instance a simplified view of json could be json = null | num | bool | string | array | map.
holy fuck these conversations are so much more easy to follow when one person isn't acting in bad faith. The entire vaush debate I was questioning if I was the dumb one not understanding vaush's points but I realize It's just vaush OBFUSCATING the entire way through.
Vaush Debates An Expert w/ No Prep, Makes Crazy Arguments ►ua-cam.com/video/9W_Hz_I6o0I/v-deo.html
I watched vaush's debate with the expert, than i watched your reaction to it, and now im watching you debate that same expert. This is the trilogy i didnt know I needed, thank you Steven.
the amount of brain power wasted on people wanting to be called something they are not. lets just call them trans women.
The problem is both "identifying as tall" and the cancer example both have something you can physically test -- height, or having cancerous cells. While identifying as a gamer, or identifying as a woman (in the new sense of the word) doesn't need a relation to the physical world. It's like a tag, or a property on a social level nowadays.
Whereas woman initially referred to adult female, which was physically provable. Gamer doesn't have a physically provable trait (maybe that you play games, but you can play games and not identify as a gamer), it's just a subtext of a group that expresses an emotion, or thought, or feeling without a physically immutable trait that can test it. You can also identify as a gamer without actually playing games, but because your are involved in the gamer cliche on a cultural level.
It's like being part of a group that doesn't exist except between your friends. So it has meaning inside the minds of those who know, but has no physically testable trait.
So he's literally looking for a physical property he can test, but these words are evoking a societal / emotional feeling. A gamer being someone who plays games, is nerdy, etc. But you can't use a tape measure to test a gamer (like being tall or not), or analyze your body for cancer. Essentially trying to assign it as a physical trait where its being used as a societal trait the bridge between law and society -- Law characterizes that woman have physically identifiable traits, where as society is saying that just identifying as a woman is sufficient.
A better example would've been the word Kind, or Mean. You can't measure whether your kind. Your kind because you say you are, therefore your only kind if and only if you say you are kind, even if others say you aren't kind.
@@fataliity101 Just because a small minority of people redefine a word doesn't mean everyone has to agree. The grand majority of people understand woman to mean adult human female.. If I had a questioning child I would say we are being polite but that person is really a man.
@@giseletheriault8633I thought sex and gender are objectively different but linked. Also, even in the widely accepted social sense, that person who identifies as a woman probably doesn't identify with traits socially perscribed to being a man even if born male, despite that ultimately not even being a requirment.
Basically people are weird, and are gonna be weird, and if there's no harm, there's no foul and the ultimate problem lies in the fact cis gendered individuals like us (very much assuming here) will never understand the complicated horror of being born the wrong sex... And the least we can do is not oppose that idea.
False title, cuz in Mexico this isn’t ‘debating,’ it’s _debatiendo_ 🌶 🇲🇽 💃🏻
It's loqo according to Vaush
i love the debatiendo. one of my favorite dancing music along with flamenco
El fuego comment.
At that point, I would have laughed, asked if. Sushi suffers from brain damage and left. The “agua” argument isn’t just kind of stupid, it’s flagrantly intellectually dishonest and so laughably stupid that there is no reason you should take that person serious on any level for anything. Such a person could say the Earth is spheroid and I would immediately begin to wonder if maybe flat Earthers are right.
Destino debatiendo al Aquaprofessor al que el Bosh le andaba tirando puro argumento loco
My man’s radiating good faith. He’s unburned. Don’t bring him back, let him stay pure.
Radiating is too accurate.
I have such a strongly positive opinion about this guy
I hope he never looks at the chat. Every twenty comments or so is from some dude that probably didn't even get a GED calling him dumb or can't speak. It's honestly disturbing and disappointing. I wonder if it's just assmad trans-allies that need to ad hom over nothing because they hate his political stance. In which case, they would be better at home in Vaush's chat.
“Radiating good faith” is such a perfect description.
True
Every word out of this man's mouth could be, in my opinion, wrong and I'd still sit here and listen to him speak for hours and hours on end. He just seems like a guy who is interested in having a conversation with people and exploring ideas.
The aqua guy is okay too idk kinda sounds dumb.
2 chemists walk into a restaurant. One asks for H2O, the other asks for H2O too. They both get shot because they serve aqua there.
@@Mongoosemcqueen this is just delightful... Not for the other chemist, but, you know.
@@Mongoosemcqueen To know why his original comment is funny you have to already know your comment so you are just explaining his joke. If you think explaining the joke makes it better then why not explain yours too?
@@undesirable2138 hydrogen peroxide is H2O2
@@zzzELEVENzzz haha- my thoughts exactly….
Only a few would get this though.
I get this, but I do not identify as getting it.
In order to understand this joke, you MUST identify as understanding it, therefore I clearly do not understand it, even though I do, in fact, understand it. Which is false.
Technically, when Vaush says 'water' it's a totally unique word bc whenever anyone else says it they're not saying it with Vaush's unmatchable smugness.
based!!!!
You definitely haven't seen president Sunday, he and Vaush are competing with eachother for that "most smug award".
Stay mad
Fuck Vawoosh, but I think I know what point he was trying to make, as a translation major, we talked about this a lot during class. Most words in most languages can be translated to a fairly high degree of accuracy, but a lot of the times the same word isn't always a one to one equivalent. It's easy with names, which is why it's retarded of Vawoosh to use water as an example, and it would be the same with a cat or a dog, but in my native language for instance, we only have one word for envy. In the English language there are two words, envy and jealousy, and they are used interchangeably, which I think is a shame because I think the distinction is quite useful. Envy is when you want something somebody else has, Jealousy is when you don't want someone to have what you have. We only have the former. In that way, if you used the word jealous in it's proper context, to us it might be understood differently, and then the same thing becomes two different things with different meanings. But you can't apply that to fucking water. Vawooshes argument was probably going to go somewhere along the lines of "In this African tribe women serve a different role to what is common in the rest of the world and when you use their word for woman it carries a different meaning because it inherently encompasses the traits associated with their women, their duties, tendencies and features, as such their word woman and woman in general is different from ours so they are different genders etc. I don't know if I buy it but I can see the point. I still don't think it's an applicable one in the scenario he used it for.
@@TijnBruins It's not anger, it's pity.
This guy is awesome. He has walked into the howling pit of despair that is online debate culture with all his formal qualifications and has not condescended or looked down upon anyone, and has brought civility and charity, even to those who arguably don’t deserve much of either (namely Vaush). On top of all that, he seems very knowledgeable on his subject. More him please.
In philosophy you kind of have to be charitable to other peoples arguments otherwise there isn’t a point in arguing. Philosophers actually consider and counter others arguments rather than just disagreeing and shooting fallacies lmfaoooo
@@EntoriusX Regardless of the reasons why it’s still refreshing and good to have around.
He sucks at speaking though. I could not listen to him for more than a minute before getting insanely bored with his monotone droning. Not saying all speakers need to have enthusiasm but on top of being insanely boring, he literally brought nothing of value to the table. These esoteric thoughts are already hard enough to understand but combined with how dull and long he took to get his points across I hope I never hear from this guy again.
@@stevelogan7551 L + get on some Adderall
@@Sampsonoff You sound unreasonably salty.
I like how you clearly tell the difference between a philosopher and someone who uses philosophical terms.
Larp philosophy was is and will always be cringe
I hope Vaush never lives that "aqua" shit down. So embarrassing
I mean if he retracts it then I think he should be able to live it down
Vaush? All you have to do is cross the DGG border and over there, he's Irish Laddie.
Y’all r dragging him but Don’t y’all pretty much agree with vaush when it comes to gender theory?
@@yoboiboy4182 pretty much all left leaning people agree with vaushes gender roles, cause its not vaush who made it up. its more about his ability to argue it that makes it wack.
Vaush gender
Shouldn't vaush be technically considered the actual 'aqua' professor? It was his theory that h2o isn't always water: crossing the border would magically turn it into the substance known as 'aqua' instead. Truly intellectually outpacing everyone like always.
Agua.
Just another lazy and poorly chosen video title by August, which surprises no one.
@@thighg8744 voosh fan?
@@cosettapessa6417 no it's August's anti-fan
@@cosettapessa6417 no, just an August hater, one of the laziest, least competent and greedy editors I know of
It's hard to find people with good faith sometimes because this guy took it all for himself. What a gem.
It's really good to see destiny talking to someone more intellectual. I'd love to see more content like this. It's cool that destiny is usually the smartest person in a debate, but you can tell how bored he usually is and it makes the content much less engaging.
This. Just came back to rewatch.
lol. yeah, destiny usually has 2 of the 3 total iq points in the room.
This debate was entertaining if and only if it identifies as entertaining
Does the debate have a sentient mind and is gender someone else's assessment of another person?
This debate was something that identifies as entertaining if and only if it identifies as something that identifies as entertaining.
Was it even a debate? Sounded more like a lecture where the guy was correcting Destiny xD
Best comment.
I haven't gotten that far into the video but if "iff" has come up, then they've really gone down the logic rabbit hole. I feel like I'm back on symbolic logic 1
Dang. It's kind of wild how much deeper the convo gets with Destiny rather than Vaush. It shows how vacuous Vaush's philosophy chops are
That's because Vaush was being disingenuous in that debate from the beginning. It all loops back to that famous Vaush quote: "I don't give a fuck about principled failure, principled failure is dog shit."
He'll do whatever it takes to win at whatever he's doing, including taking positions that he doesn't actually believe or being unnecessarily pedantic and argumentative to pan for time.
To be fair to vaush the reason that he was talking to the PhD was to have a disagreement. Where as Destiny had an hour and a half philosophy lesson then a disagreement.
@@MandalorianRaider Precisely. Vaush is a sophist. He doesn't care about the truth, he cares about optics and about appearing right.
You could deconstruct every single argument of his and show him that he's wrong, and his response would be to conjure up as many fallacies as he can in order to seem like he's correct.
@@MandalorianRaider weird how he never wins then
@@mrosskne It's almost like his ideology is fundamentally flawed.
10:30 The way he broke down those 3 different perspectives (supernaturalism, naturalism, post modernism) made me feel so much more sane. I am very much a person that believes that there is a physical explanation for everything, and that exact phrase “arbitrary” when used by Vaush to support the existence of dog and autism gender and suggesting sex isn’t real has been the most triggering Vaushism of all time for me. Nothing in nature is “arbitrary”.
Now I understand that difference 100%, thanks Professor Aqua.
Can you time stamp it since I don't clearly remember his descriptions
@@tinywhale3954 10:30 on, he says he is a god cuck, which I have chosen to not hold against him because I like him. He explains supernaturalism, naturalism and post modernism or creative anti-realism and contrasts all of them in a way that makes me understand why that “arbitrary” shit makes me insane
@@goose5761 Why is him, believing in God a bad thing?
I'll take this. Because he is so philosophically sound and learned. It sucks that he's wrong in such a massive area. God does not exist, he's only been conceived of and believed in via the minds of people.
You may note I am not a Supernaturalist.
I would say the problem with Dr Aqua and Vaush's conversation (not that I made it more than 20 minutes in before turning it off) is that Dr Aqua was trying to establish first principles like Water is H20 and Vaush is so dishonest he refused to even agree on those first principles with Dr Aqua. He would rather play semantic word games and engage in pure sophistry than have a constructive conversation because he thinks it allows him to maintain the moral high ground.
It's possible you're right but I think it's good to steel man someone's argument. At least in the aftermath vaush maintained a consistent creative anti realist view when he talked about how the noble gases are only grouped by their value to us as humans. It's not a distinction that exists in real life.
I think vaush is wrong but I think there is a large chance vaush actually believes it. His creative anti realist worldview kind of fits with what vaush is most famous for of caring more about "optics" then truth and as a result lying is OK. He criticises destiny for caring about "truth" too much.
This view is also common amongst communists like duringthe maoist era scientists would have to explain nature working and atoms interacting in terms of Marxist narratives. (maybe sometime like an electron requires a revolution and a taking in of energy for it to be freeeer in its outer shells). So extreme Marxists seem to truly think all definitions were prescriptive and moral and specifically had to be seen in terms of Marxism.
So its better to try and see someone in good faith and his explanation of the differences explains a few of vaush's views.
You could see Vaush' nervous tells right from the start, usually they come in later when he realizes he's losing the debate.
So it makes sense that he was bad faith from the start.
@Mitthenstein um I think you're confused have you watched the video?
I don't think anyone here is talking about nominalism. If the "you" in that sentence is me certainly I'm not talking about nominalism, I don't think vaush or Dr b is either.
Nominalism believes particulars are real, anti realism says nothing is real. The term creative anti realism is what Dr b used in the video
@Mitthenstein I mean it's possible vaush would be a nominalist or the other thing you mentioned "it just works" is instrumentalist which is another thing vaush could be. But my term is based on what Dr b said.
So no I definitely do not mean nominalism. You can't just take random philosophy terms and throw them at anything that seems vaguely similar.
@Mitthenstein no their not the same thing. Nominalism is about particulars and abstract objects, it's a form of anti realism but anti realism is bigger then that.
Nominalism doesn't deny the existence of particulars nor of science.
You can be a naturalist, materialist and still a nominalist. You can be a mereological nihilist and believe simple particles exists but not complex objects. You can be a materialist who thinks that electrons are a good model of reality but don't actually exist etc.
Dr b was specifically contrasting his creative anti realism against naturalism and super naturalism as what he saw as the three different metaphysical models of seeing the world.
You van be a nominalist or against nominalism in all three.
Your problem isn't with me, your problem is with what Dr b says. You don't like his distinction of how people fit metaphysically
But if you wanna attack Dr b's understanding of vaush's metaphysics and say he isnt a creative anti realist he's a naturalist who is also a nominalist. That's fine. I think you have a good case for that as vaush is attacking categories specifically here. However I think if you look at other things vaush says, he's closer to a creative anti realist. He seems to attacks facts of reality that don't fit with his moral goal. Not just categories.
But you can't just take two terms and pretend they are synonymous in philosophy. There are a lot of technical terms with meanings very very similar to each other but with subtle differences. When you described what you meant by nominalism you actually described something closer to instrumentalism.
So I think whilst nominalism describes vaush's specific thing about water, it isn't as good an overall description of vaush.
This was a good combo. Saw it live. Bring him back again when u can. Really intelligent.
Was it like a USA combo or a UK combo?
He says he's done with youtube for the summer.
Really good, the kind that helps you figure out where you stand and why, since it goes from the bottom up. It's probably not fair to expect every conversation to start by setting up a common philosophical basis upon which the discussion will happen, but damn if it's not helpful and makes things clearer and more productive.
@@eddybarker63 based
True
all memes aside, this actually seemed like a super intresting conversation knowing not too much about philosophy myself. in the debate with vaush i actually had the impression that the professor was just too polite not to call out some of the ridiculous claims made by vaush
Turns out the professor was being SUPER charitable to Vaush and over estimated his position. Assuming Vaush had given time and thought into this and had a coherent world view.
@@bez5297 Assuming Vaush was genuinely coming from another philosophical school of thought and not just being pedantic has got to be the most charitable thing I've seen all year.
I think he knew that actually challenging vouche on anything would be a waste of their limited debate time - that tub of lard clearly had zero interest in a discussion. Better to enumerate each of his points, and let their obvious unassailable truth speak for him. Convincing vouche is irrelevant, it's the audience he's talking to.
@@mrossknedunno man, they wasted pretty much time debating water
This guy is amazing, he's purely in it for the philosophy. the contrast of Vaush thrashing and squirming against him to avoid agreeing with the unavoidable truth vs Destiny basically ending up agreeing with 90% of what he says is hilarious.
Cos he's a Christian and actually believes in something other than himself.
@@YerpDerp17 NO!. Agnostics are the only good people. If you are a theist or atheist you do not deserve to live imo
@@zootsoot2006 What a stupid comment. You do realize Destiny is an atheist too right? This has jack shit to do with ideology itself. It has to do with character. There are Christians who act like Vaush in aand atheists who act like this philosophy PhD in a debate (and vice versa).
@@YerpDerp17 you're right but that's incredibly rare. Typically atheist have a passive form of narcissism
@@rubenleavell no, that's theists.
The professor seems like such a nice person. I loved listening to him.
This professor is so pure... I don't want him burned by the debate lands
It's really smart on Destiny's behalf to talk to people after they've dealt with Vaush. Even the biggest Vaushies can clearly see the difference in faith in the two discussions.
No they can't lol they are all so dumb.
This dude's straight up teaching a class, not debating.
Yes, and that's a problem. It's not a debate, it's preaching your views.
@@tommytowner792that's not a problem at all.
@@tommytowner792 not really he just has a better understand of this topic than vaush or any of the debate bros
@@moon-pw1bi He has no better understanding at all. It's just his own viewpoint of the matter which is completely subjective.
@@tommytowner792 what? he has a philosophy PHD and he has written a paper about this exact subject. he evidently has a better understanding on it than vaush or debate streamers
I usually kind of zone out / go on my phone / play a game while watching Destiny's vids but this type of conversation demands your undivided attention. Super interesting stuff.
yep, these types of conversations are my absolute favourite. Unfortunately they're relatively rare, but if you never listened to his two conversations with Dr. Menzies I would highly recommend them. I believe he had two but the most recent one was fantastic and much in the same vein as this, I felt like I learned a lot and it really had me thinking.
I know i can't even read the comments or i have to rewind lol
It’s sad that this guys name is officially ’Professor Aqua’ because of some shit debate move.
Sad for you, aqua for me
Idk I think I’d roll with it if I were him. Professor Aqua sounds like someone that might appear in an X Men film, or an episode of the boys.
That’s what I refer to Vaush as, not this guy.
Sure but also lmao.
Sounds like a boss out of a Pokemon game. Pretty badass imo
This guy is giving Vaush too much credit. Vaush is just a pure sophist. He selectively forgets the definitions of basic words every time he's losing a debate. It's just a tactic to derail the conversation before it even gets going.
That was incredibly dirty
Someone that actually knows philosophy as opposed to just having it in their gamer tag while making shit on people videos
I watch these discussions but rarely comment. More of this please. Never has a Convo, for me, so completely made positions like Vaush's seem so juvenile. It's like the adults finally standing up and saying 'enough!'. You are the sole remaining opposition to my traditional beliefs. Discussions like these are so valuable to people in this space, thank you.
The other one that jumps to mind, was a conversation involving Nick Rekieta. I have followed him extensively. Your humble response to his positions was so refreshing. I believe that your evolution is what people that want truth and balance and honest discourse, are craving.
This was a great conversation. Really helped me settle some ideas in my mind about sex/ gender issues
Now good luck trying to explain it in the future. lol
That is usually my problem. I get well-informed and educated people influencing my views, but I can't remember the smart stuff they said to defend my position later.
@@HarryBalzak you don’t have to author a whole book, especially if writing isn’t your thing, but I think it’s a good idea to put your beliefs in writing when they’ve been freshly influenced. Especially putting the professors ideas into your own words with your own examples. Maybe an ongoing Google doc subject to change and ready at hand to review before talking to someone about?
Sex: a biological category determined by an implied biological function.
Gender: a genteel away of saying "sex" without making people think of fucking.
Leftist gender: a collection of secondary traits which correlate with sex but do not define it.
This was a legitimately enjoyable conversation and I think it brings the sex/gender subject to a grounded place. I thought it was ironic how he invoked the word "woke" (1:18:00) whilst speaking on the historical use of words.
Vaush is the type of guy that if you tell him *_"Water is Wet"_* he'll write down *_"Water"_* on a piece of paper and tell you *_"Is this (waving that piece of paper) saturated with water molecules?" hmmmm_*
And just for the record *This guy is a terrible philosopher.*
Anything could be justified using linguistic convolutions even God & Harry Potter.
@@marcmacaluso2795 “Terrible Philosopher”. I definitely wouldn’t go to that extent. Just because you may disagree doesn’t mean they are “terrible”. If that’s the case then nearly all philosophers are terrible. And I’m not sure what you mean by his “linguistic convolutions”. I assume you’re talking about how he explained how words can have a “true” definition. And if that’s what you’re referring to, then what I think he meant to say is that words have a common usage which refer to things which hold to objective existence, which isn’t at all unreasonable and we generally accept this prima facie.
@@acemxe8472 No... Stop.
He's a terrible Philosopher because he didn't know the nature of the agent he debated.
Vaush is an advocate with a set strategy to NEVER surrender common or foundational truths to anyone.
The good Professor should've known he was being conned by the biggest postmodern Neo-Marxist on UA-cam.
Tbf, "wet" is just a property of the paper from the cellulose intaking water via capillary action. If you have "wet" ethanol it just means you have to distill up to the median azeotropic boiling point and add a drying agent like molecular sieves to "dry" it even though it's still a liquid, but I get what you mean.
@@marcmacaluso2795 So it actually had nothing to do with his philosophy? 🤦Rather, the fact that he debated Vaush? Not sure how that follows from the premises, but okay.
God the last half hour of this was AMAZING. Absolutely knocks it out of the park.
I love it! I started to miss philosophical conversations like this. This is the content I find the most interesting.
Vaush is a pseudo intellectual. Destiny admits that he doesn’t know everything and doesn’t claim too. I feel bad this guy had the misfortune of having a “conversation” with vaush. He might as well have had a conversation with a brick wall. Probably would have gotten better feedback lol
Except in this case, the brick wall, has a chance to fall on somebody.
Completely agree but luckily it seems this guy was able to find something interesting in that debate on a meta level. It's a super rare but healthy mindset to have when talking to someone as bad faith as Vaush.
Pseudo intellectual is exactly what I thought of Vaush after watching Destiny's reaction video of the debate. His speech seems almost like that of an A.I. program. He doesn't actually know what he's saying, it's' just a machine learned algorithm to "win" a debate.
Because Vaush is a state of mind
Wish I could like this video 50 more times. This is exactly the sort of conversation I hoped to be a part of when I assigned to gender studies, but instead I got just what you described by the end😔
This was a really good video to watch, I learned a couple of things from what Tomas said.
Yeah his point about even trans people not always explicitly identifying as the other gender until sometimes later in their life, and so for that reason alone it's not enough to say that if and only if someone identifies as a woman they are a woman. That makes a lot of sense.
Always great to see Destiny bring on a guest who is more intelligent than he is.
Based on this, I don't think there's any way to determine if this guy is more intelligent than Destiny. All I would say is that this is his field of specialty, not Destiny's. Turn the tables and Destjny might appear more intelligent than him.
@@ericpeck3069 Nah, the dude just has a higher IQ than Destiny and is a more skilled linguist. There is no shame in someone being intellectually superior to oneself. Destiny (and his ego) will be fine.
@@user-hn9qw7ou8d Nah.
@@ericpeck3069 Maybe you’re right. Being intellectually dominated like this will probably cause quite the narcissistic injury to Destiny. He might not be fine.
This is the first time in my entire life a discussion about philosophy hasn't given me a taste for lead. I love this guy.
The main issue in the debate with vaush, was vaush was completely unwilling to meet him on a level playing field to discuss these things with clarity. Vaush never really gave an answer, and twisted the conversation about water, the thing itself, to the linguistic differences. Professor made it clear he was talking about the thing itself and vaush refused to engage with it.
It must have been super frustrating for Dr. B. Vaush was so nervous he was unwilling to concede anything which resulted in them not even being able to discuss the topic. Not committing to anything is a clear sign of someone who feeling out over their head.
There is no even ground between a person thats doing "content"/an entertainer and a proper academic talking about his field....
Nice hearing the dialogue around knowledge breaking down and skepticism ultimately coming down to solipsism or absurdism at the lower levels, really interesting chat. Goes to show how changing the other side's mind isn't even necessary for progress, just honest dialogue.
I hope we see more of this guy on twitch/youtube he seems a like a great lecturer/teacher.
For real. I wouldn’t miss a class if he was teaching at my uni.
this is not a debate, this is the exchange of ideas in a respectful manner
i believe across the border they call this a "conversación"
That’s what debate should be. What we have now is just dunking competition
The opening screen that said “debate” with info is very clean and well done! Nice work to whoever made that graphic, looks great!
12:20 honestly dr I think you are giving vaush too much credit, I think he went to that debate with the intention of "destroying" you and making you look like a transphobe, I don't think vaush has ever read something about aristoteles let alone pitagoras
True
*pythagoras
@@raneenah3240 *Protagorus
Doesn't Wittgenstein resolve that language paradox philosopher thing at 32:00 ?
Like sure, Harry Potter doesn't exist, it's a fictional character, but saying that the phrase "Harry Potter" doesn't refer to anything is just intuitively wrong, because everybody knows what it refers to. It refers to a fictional character. It's just the way humans speak and think. Why feel the need to create paradoxes ? If there's a true paradox somewhere, there's probably something you're missing or not understanding correctly.
"Paradox" is a term we use to refer to the coexistence of two things that contradict themselves, which is impossible by definition, so paradoxes don't exist, just like Harry Potter. That probably means this whole discussion is empty as well and just a matter of definition. I would argue that generally, people can sense when you're speaking if you're talking about something that actually exists or something that doesn't, or if you're making stuff up, or if you're not entirely sure of what you're saying. (that's just my common sensical two cents, I am not an expert)
Yeah, the whole Harry Potter thing felt like some hyperautistic circlejerking. Like everyone obviously knows that Harry Potter doesn't exist, but the term still holds a lot of info about a concept that a lot of people understand and roughly agree on.
Saying that Harry Potter is an empty term is like saying that emotions don't exist at all because they are just chemical reactions. It's like taking an extreme materialist approach to the point where he's kinda denying even the existense of emergent qualities.
If you subtract any of Harry Potter's "qualities" then Harry Potter would no longer exist because Harry Potter as a concept is contingent on those "qualities." Harry Potter is a boy wizard with a scar on his forehead, wearing big round glasses-subtract any one of those things and you're no longer talking about Harry Potter. Whereas if you subtract one of your qualities, your identity would presumably remain intact because you're real.
I once read the first few chapters of a CS Lewis book that was based on the argument of Naturalism vs. Supernaturalism. The thing was so dense I had to drop it to think on its concepts.
Even as a Christian writer (at the time), Lewis didn't even bring the concept of God into it at first. He explains that functionally, all human beings fall into one of two mindsets when it comes to the universe as a whole:
1) Naturalism - The universe is a closed system, and all unexplained phenomena are effectively the extension of some kind reaction within the closed system. In other words, all things can be explained eventually as you understand the universe more. People who don't believe in a higher power fall into this category, or at least, people who don't believe there is some kind of power outside of the universe that can affect things inside the universe (i.e. God, Muhamed, etc.).
2) Supernaturalism - The universe is not a fully closed system, and unexplained phenomena could be described as some kind of force outside of the universe that can affect things inside the universe. This would be where idea of miracles, gods, and holy blessings come from.
So I wouldn't agree with Mr. Borgardus that Supernaturalism necessarily means the just a Divine Mind or Mind of God, I can see where he would interpret it that way with him being a Christian. At least as a general concept, Supernaturalism just means that there is some kind of Divine Mind or power that's able to affect things in our world.
But man, I need to go back and read that book, I never thought I'd hear those words used in the modern day. I've never thought of Post-Modernism as a third way of thought though. Awesome.
What's the book?
@@fabiancovarrubiass I believe it's called Miracles.
What do you mean at the time ? LMAO, he is one of the biggest Christian’s apologists out their.
@@FM-dm8xj He was an atheist before he was a Christian is what I mean lol.
@@theschoolbus4447 I thought their was something else too, my fault.
I come back and watch this debate every couple months, absolutely hilarious every single time.
in mexico would be watching this on tutubo
El yutuub
si aquí no lo vemos en la "computer" o "cellphone" lo vemos en la computadora or el celular
Just to be a little pedantic here, naturalism isn't necessarily the view that everything that exists can be described in physical terms, that would be materialism, a sub-category of naturalism. Naturalism is the view that everything that exists is part of one single nature, the one that we exist in. So in naturalism, there can be a god, but he would be part of this world, rather than something outside of it.
I think his use of the word (because I've seen it used this way by other scholars) comes from the tendency, in naturalism, to decide whether something exists in our world by insisting we be able to test its properties with our known scientific methods. That hinges the existence of the thing on its physical nature, which wraps materialism into naturalism.
@@upincloud244 Wikipedia works pretty well
@@upincloud244 A better one than Wikipedia would be the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, which is where the more technical uses of terms are defined and explained.
What God, other than one of a Pantheon, would actually be part of this world, if in fact he created it? Seems like a nonsensical view.
@@zootsoot2006 I've always considered the notion of god as nonsensical to begin with. It's a paradox unto itself. Then again, philosophy is not something I'm good with unless it's political philosophy. I need an order or process to the thing I'm looking at. I'm very hard wired for logic. Like I can't even understand poetry. Like at all. My brain just can't process it
this guy is amazing, talk to him more please
Great conversation. It shows what a discussion can be like when both sides are interested in learning and accuracy of what they are discussing.
This is a refreshing conversation compared to others. I feel a lot of people just wanna get there view point out there and never sift thru it.
Wahtched this live, really enjoyed this conversation :)
damn that was awesome, for a second i nearly decided to go further into debatebro youtube, but i realized near nothing is ever going to reach this level of informative and exploratory thinking. welp fun whileit lasted
Read some philosophy!
I think the best part of this video is around 25:00 minutes when destiny provides the professor the most fair explanation/devils advocate of his ‘agua’ argument. (Although it was put together poor you presented it better than vanish himself). Genuinely hats off Steven, especially because he performs the exact opposite on u when describes ur arguments.
This guy was really awesome, thanks for having him on
It's the immense capability of the human mind to think: "water isn't water, unless we think it's water"
and also think our minds are the only thing that gives universe meaning.
Universe would be the same without us. -us ofc.
Thank you for putting into words I couldn't explain it myself. Vaush is the 7 levels up from "if a tree falls in a forest and no ones around to see it, did it make a sound?"
The issue with this is that there is a fundamental difference between something having an inherent nature and something having a "meaning" that we impose on it through our experience and categorization of it. Water will always exist as a thing that exists, but the various meanings and ideas we ascribe to water beyond it being the molecular compound it is (its "wetness", quenching, life, cool, etc) are based entirely around how we as a pattern recognizing machine have evolved with it and interact with it in relation to ourselves. The elements that makes water the thing in itself aren't arbitrary, but the representation that gives it meaning to us is. It just so happens that the meaning we ascribe to water is based entirely around the context of our interaction with it as individuals and a species. Schopenhauer - the miserable bastard - describes this distinction between the empirical and the "arbitrary" nature of things as "Everything that there is for cognition (the entire world) exists simply as an object in relation to a subject-a 'representation' to a subject. Everything that belongs to the world is, therefore, 'subject-dependent'." You can agree or disagree with the statement, but I think it's dismissive of a rather well placed and well tread argument against objective meaning that is found in many different traditions and schools of thought stretching back centuries.
@@iannordin5250 no, the words we've derived from being pattern recognising machines aren't arbitrary. Wetness isn't arbitrary neither are any words relating to water. They aren't just meaningless words, yes words are made up but there's a reason we all understand eachother when we speak. There's very few words I could describe as arbitrary but it wouldn't be wetness
@Steve Dimov yeah your right. Wetness could be arbitrary to aliens I guess then.
@Steve Dimov Ah of course, if we completely make shit up outside of our species then yes, "wetness is arbitrary".
Holly crap an intelligent debate against this guy versus the “aqua is not h20” brain dead one is very refreshing
This was not a debate. Debates discourage open mindedness so thats largely what made the difference
@@hughmogus7137 lmao I was like wait am I missing something because this is 100% a convo so far
@@hughmogus7137 destiny has largely been trying to have genuine discussions for a long time with a larger slant of late. This is just what happens when his opponent is good faith and backs up their positions, refutes some of his and comes to general middle grounds instead of them attacking his character when they realize they have zero grounds.
@@diydylana3151 it was definitely slower paced and more nuanced than a debate but there was plenty of pushback. I feel that bloodsports have radicalized debates to a point that two academic minded people testing each others positions and clarifying no longer counts.
1:34:54 Their back and forth on identifying as a gamer reminded me of a Mitch Hedberg joke, and that joke actually gave me some clarity into Aquaman's position.
"I like to boat, but I don't ever want to be referred to as a boating enthusiast."
Perhaps Mitch identifies as a boating enthusiast, but doesn't want to identify as someone who identifies as a boating enthusiast.
I think Aquaman is claiming these are two separate things while Destiny seems to be grouping them.
I disagree on the coin analogy. The coin in Super Mario Bros. is one set of images in the original implementation, but a different set of images in the All Stars implementation that came out for the SNES, as is the specific sound played when they're collected. What's actually important to the game and thus to the player is the game mechanic. The images are just tapping into the cultural concepts we already have in the same way Sonic uses rings and The Legend of Zelda uses "rupees".
40:16 Professor Aqua: "Its a pattern of images".
You: "... One set of images in the original... Another set of images in the All Stars..."
You agreed with the professor. It's totally irrelevant to the point that the image exists for some reason. *All* images represent something else; that's basically what it means to be an image. He also said he doesn't believe Hume is right.
I didn’t want to be the one to tell you this but someone already did, you just didn’t understand the professor lmao.
@@justinlacek1481 My point was that the coin images aren't important to the phenomenon and thus focusing on them in the analogy doesn't make for a good explanation. The behavior surrounding them is what's important both in the case of Super Mario Bros. and in more important phenomena. And whether the Professor agrees with the idea isn't relevant to whether the concept itself is well explained.
@@biggerdoofus I disagree that their behavior is all that's important. Being able to relate objects in a game with things we have concepts of adds to the entertainment value of the games, which is why we generally use representations of physical things(like coins which in other games we can even use to buy stuff), rather than 1s and 0s(which is essentially what all games boil down to) or just, writing out their function.
Destiny finally popping off FINALLY after ALL these years! thank you people!!
what destiny does wit a notebook I do it in my brain!
If any fellow Thrice fans are here, this man Dr Bogardus was a gem back in 2002/03 on the Thrice message boards spitting philosophy and metaphysics. I believe he was friends with the band. He also inspired me greatly into the realm of seeking truth.
Really lol? Thrice was one of my first gigs back in 02/03. Wonder if he's still a fan :)
This guy speaks exactly like I expect a philosophy lecturer to speak.
I was very disappointed by my own professors, speaking way too fast and loudly.
Oh my god, at 20 minutes in, I did the exact same thing, I wanted to learn about philosophy and got myself a Swedish translation of Kants critique of pure reason, It was miserable! what a blast from the past.
Destiny had a conversation with a very nice, very smart Christian philosopher and one of the best question Destiny asked was does he think philosphers overcomplicate simple ideas in there books? The philosopher emphatically said yes lol
C’mon man, we all know the best way to introduce oneself into philosophy is to first pick up something written by Heidegger🤣😂
@@glitchin1233 sometimes it really is complicated though
Bro. The vibe is just so chill and relaxing. Like right from the start. I'll use this as asmr when I go to bed tonight
It's so bizarre to watch someone like vaush constantly talking about the state of the world, yet never actually interact with it.
It all becomes theoretical to him as he sits in his nest and stares at his computer screen.
I loved this conversation so much! Opened my mind in so many ways.
The worst example of losing expressive power due to changing language is the way people use "literally" solely to convey emphasis, often resulting in it having the opposite of it original intended meaning. And this only happened in the last 20 years, when I was a kid nobody used it for emphasis and when I was a bit older and it started, anyone who did so was mocked ruthlessly. But now the tide has totally turned and Ive just given up on trying to convey the meaning of the word without using many words, because I know if I use it people will assume I mean nothing and just talk like a teenage girl.
I would say this transition is even more recent, like in the last 7 years. I might be wrong.
@@ihsahnakerfeldt9280mate, who cares when, like literally, it's literally happened like, right now
@@ihsahnakerfeldt9280 There is _literally_ a mad TV skit about the use of literally. God, the world didn't start when you born lmao.
Although this can be boring and supersized galactic this is very interesting to watch because you are both helping each other. More of this would be nice.
This guy will be an amazing teacher in this crazy world because he cares about taking the walk along with you rather the reinforcing egos. A Mutual exchange that you can tell he really appreciates.
wow we've discovered the true meaning of being a woman: a person who identifies as a woman but does not identify as someone identifying as a woman.
Yup. Weird how we got here. But we are here now. We now have the answer
Actually a woman is a person who identifies as a person who identifies as a person who identifies as a person who identifies as a person who identifies as a person who identifies as a person who identifies as a person who identifies as a person who identifies as a person who identifies as a person who identifies as a person who identifies as a person who identifies as....
It’s not as complicated or strange as you are making it seem. It’s not as complicated as this conversation would suggest, either.
Identity based grouping is not new. If I say I’m a Christian for example, society considers me a Christian. If someone is never baptized, doesn’t go to church, but calls themselves a Christian they are still considered Christian. If someone is baptized, goes to church, and believes in the Christian god, but does not call themselves Christian, they are not Christian.
The only way the category of a “Christian” can be accurate is if we define it as “someone who identifies as Christian”. This is technically circular, but it’s necessary.
I was raised and baptized as a Mormon. I am not, nor ever considered myself to be, a Mormon. My brother, who was also baptized, but never goes to church and claims to be agnostic, still calls himself Mormon.
Identity based grouping exists. Gender is a grouping of individuals based on identity in the exact same way as religion. In fact, gender is even simpler than religion because religion has beliefs, practices, and actions that represent those religions-however we still submit to the individuals personal identity regardless if they fit the traditional category of Christianity.
@@HawtLS "If I say I’m a Christian for example, society considers me a Christian"
No... you're not?
If you tell me that you're a Christian, but you believe Jesus was a human prophet and not the son of god.... then you're not Christian.
If you tell me you're a Christian but you believe that when you die your spirit reincarnates.... you're not a Christian.
The whole premise you base your argument on is flawed.
"religion has beliefs, practices, and actions that represent those religions"
Exactly, because words have meanings. The whole point to use words is to communicate, and circular words don't communicate anything. Circular definitions are not "necessary", they're nonsensical.
A person can identify as things that they are not.
@@AlquimistEd I’d argue you’re in the minority if you consider Christian only to be define about belief in x y or z.
If I’m Christian but I think everything in the Bible is metaphorical-most people would say this person is still Christian. They may go to church, pray every day, read the Bible regularly, have been baptized… and you wouldn’t consider this person Christian? Maybe you could say they’re a metaphorical Christian, but that’s similar to the “biological male” distinction we have in gender.
I have met an atheistic Mormon before. They were a practicing Mormon, who felt strongly about the values, was baptized, was part of the community, but they lacked a belief in god. Everyone in their community still calls them a Mormon (some people call him an atheistic Mormon).
Give me your definition of “Christian”. I guarantee there are people that are recognized as Christian, and identify as Christian, that do not fit your definition.
Another example of grouping based solely on identity is emotional states. How would you define someone as lonely with no access to the way they actually feel? Well, it’s based on if they say they’re lonely or not. Someone can have 1,000 friends and be lonely. Someone can never talk to anyone, yet not be lonely. We don’t have a strict definition of someone who is lonely, other than “someone who feels lonely” which is ‘circular’ in the same way as gender. The only people recognized as lonely are those who identify as such.
The way this man “debates” is what debate should be in an ideal world. He is the inverse Vaush.
I feel like, for me, Bertrand Russell has some of the most well written and entertaining works on philosophy. Definitely approachable for a novice such as myself.
Loved this convo! Actually productive, interesting and I learned a lot.
Hell yeah, was hoping to see this guy again.
When you cross the Mexican border, we don’t call it Destiny. We call it *el nombre de una niña*
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
'Destino'..... deffo sounds more like a guy's name in Spanish.
You forgot the word "negra"
inshallah
@@tcritt Whoosh
Great convo. Love this type of content.
I loved this discussion, it was super insightful, never too fast or slow, I learned a lot and it's nice to see two people who like to think about these themes profoundly calmly. Pls, bring him on again.
half way though the video, i like the calm convo's every now and then.
I truly don't understand how Harry Potter would not be a concept when the definition is that is an idea or abstract thought. I don't understand how that mean Harry Potter is not a concept. Wouldn't the character of Harry be a literal idea?
yeah it's totally silly to think that, conceptual ideas don't require any evidence other than you being able to imagine that concept and understand that concept
Harry Potter ONLY exists as a concept. A real idea, sure, but not a conceptualization of a real thing.
Car is a concept that references a real thing.
So a word, which represents a concept, that references reality, is whole.
@@HolyWarrior1 why does there need to be a necessary distinction between the "whole" words and the words that refer to fictional/only conceptual things?
So Harry Potter IS a concept. But the concept of Harry Potter isn't just a concept. Me and you can have a concept of Harry Potter. But the thing we have a concept of is a boy with glasses who rides brooms.
A concept cannot wear glasses, as a concept is an idea in our minds (perhaps a shared idea) and ideas cant wear glasses.
So there is the concept of Harry Potter we can think about but the thing that concept refers to can't be a concept it has to be something else. It's a thing that can have glasses.
Except also there is no Harry Potter wearing glasses. So that's why it's confusing.
Similarly ideas can't wear glasses, like concepts they exist in our minds. I can have an idea of a boy wearing glasses. But the idea isn't actually wearing any glasses, Harry Potter is wearing glasses. So he isn't an idea
Watched Avi's debate with Tomas and it seems like that was more of a debate with more push back
Kripke has finally been name-dropped on Destiny. Philosophy Bro attained!
Aqua
Agua.
Spaga
@@Awaken_To_0 Fart
Matt Walsh is right about gender.
What does Matt say?
@@Buck7205 That the word gender never referred to humans originally, but to language, which is correct. The term was bastardized and attributed to men and women some years back by a pedophile philosopher (forgot his name) to initiate all this fuckery.
These thumbnails are bangers, August
This was very interesting. Would love to see more conversation between the two of you in the future.
My first take as an evolutionary biologist:
TL;DR: Harry Potter is a cultural variant (term used by Boyd and Richardson, 2004, "not by genes alone") that exists in the minds of populations and is expressed in their behaviour and so is consistent with a naturalist perspective. There may also be causal relationships between an individuals gender cultural variant and the prevalence of sex linked phenotypes. Finally I would define a third kind of female, a behavioural female (as opposed to a biological or cultural female) is an individual that has inherited (through cross sexual transfer if they are biologically male) some proclivity to recognise themselves as a biological woman, or otherwise has sufficient cross sexual transfers of female behavioural phenotypes.
Harry potter exists as a transmitted cultural variant (concepts). Culture is as real as anything else we can describe with science. I don't think you help yourself Tomas by not including this aspect of reality, one can have cultural variants that are uninformative about that which they propose to refer to and still exist and impact human behaviour through cultural transmission of it's related ideas (e.g. the story of harry potter is informative about how one might want to live ones own life). As for the concept of women, it is informative of that individuals desire to associate with others that identify with that cultural variant, so it is a cultural identity. The issue is that woman also refers to biological characters of humans too, and those that identify with the cultural variant "woman" are not necessarily biological variant woman. I define a biologically variant woman as an individual that makes use of an egg in human reproduction however with this particular phenotype are linked developmentally with many other phenotypes to varying degrees and the presence of one of these may indicate the need for another. So one might say that although an individual might not produce eggs, we can say they ought to have that capacity given the presence of other female linked phenotypes, for the purposes of their wellbeing. So while trans women is an informative term, I would say that the degree to which one has these female linked phenotypes is the degree to which their wellbeing might be optimised by medically considering them to be women, and that there may be a causal link between the presence of these phenotypes and a bias for the cultural female variant, and so this cultural variant may be informative (but not perfect information) about whether that individual has these wellbeing relevant female phenotypes. So I would say that identifying with the cultural variant woman is indirect evidence that you ought to be treated for medical reasons as a biological woman, however because cultural variants are highly plastic over an individual's lifetime this alone is not sufficient evidence to make that decision. It is worth noting here that cross-sexual transfer of phenotypes occurs in nature readily (e.g. the pseudopenis of female hyena) and evolution often uses these phenotypic variations (very often to go under the radar of stronger competing males in the case of female-to-male transfer). It is not unbelievable to me as an evolutionary biologist to say that many individuals that come to identify with the cultural variant of women may have had a bias for this variant as a result of the cross sexual transfer of ancestrally female phenotypes evolved for self recognition (cross sexual transfer is the expression of homologous phenotypes to those typically expressed in the opposite sex, not simply overlap in the distributions). For this reason, these individuals are women in both the cultural and behavioural sense, and possibly partially physiologically, and so denying them further developmental switches (whether genetically or environmentally cued) to become more women in the biologically female sense is a question of whether that individual's wellbeing will be optimised by biological consistency with behaviour (transition) or behavioural consistency with biology (behavioural therapy); with the success rates of these different procedures depending on the patients particular state being the deciding factor.
oof. Feels like you're doing him a disservice by leaving his name out of the title.
The problem you guys run into is the “Confusing the Map for the Place” fallacy. The map represents the place, but it is not the place. It’s a super helpful way to refer to the distinction.
just like asgard is not a place!
@@takeshii based
I do think we can introduce several distinctions that would clarify what is at stake here. For instance, we can say that taxonomy is partially conditioned by social needs, but that the structures that taxonomic categories refer to are real structures nevertheless. Hence, H2O does refer to a real structure, and the category of nobel gasses refers to a structural commonality between members of that group. Taxonomic structure is thus conditioned by but not sufficiently determined by ontic structure. Still, the concept of H2O picks out a particula ontic structure. The term "water" in pre-chemistry times also picked out the same ontic structure, albeit with less systematic refinement (high vs. low resolution modes of designation). Classically, the mode of designation is the sense of a concept whereas the reality picked out by the concept is known as the reference. It's hard to understand the concerns of contemporary philosophy without first getting both the use/mention distinction and the sense/reference distinction.
HAVE HIM ON AGAIN THIS WAS GOOD
Yo why is Destiny always putting out fire content when I have work to do
Destiny matching energy in the lauren southern debate haha🤣
One of the best videos of yours I have watched for a long while.
I think Dr. Aqua's logic is not right. There are plenty of things you could put in the bracket where it would make sense, like "happy", or "confused". Only you can truly know if you feel / are that way, and society should respect your feelings on your self identification. Dr. Aqua seems to want to tie the subjective, fluid concept of gender (it changes throughout time and space) to a concrete measurable state like height, but that is what sex is for, unless and until we learn how to measure gender (assuming a fact of the matter exists).
Is someone happy because they identified as happy?
@@shadowwhowalk No I think the causality works the other way - they identify as happy because they are happy.
1:37:30 The 'dark' examples of defining reality, like the presence of a tumor, are really some of the most important, because they have a direct impact on survival. To deny the reality of something that will end your world because you think you can define anything any way you want is the height of hubris. :)
I identify as a person who identifies as someone who identifies as a guy who thinks Destiny is a girls name.
I think there are certain cases where circular/recursive definitions make sense. Recursive type definitions in programing are quite common. For instance a simplified view of json could be json = null | num | bool | string | array | map.
But nobody communicates verbally in C or python.
The 'iff' examples really highlighted the limits of Destiny's logic/critical thinking ability. He just completely missed it.
True, but he still gets credit for actually trying to understand, unlike Vaush.
This was a great conversation. Thankyou.
holy fuck these conversations are so much more easy to follow when one person isn't acting in bad faith. The entire vaush debate I was questioning if I was the dumb one not understanding vaush's points but I realize It's just vaush OBFUSCATING the entire way through.
Good philosophy is usually clear.
You can see Destiny just sitting back and learning.
Good faith at it's best.