Tjump invents a new Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy page in real time (debating Tjump)
Вставка
- Опубліковано 6 жов 2024
- I'm with Tjump on the religion stuff, but I think his views on morality are incorrect. Some issues.
1 Tjump is using a proprietary definition of morality. No one else would say an action is bad because it's not the best possible action.
2 His criticism of utilitarianism that he claims to be on the criticisms of utilitarianism page on the SEP is from a page that does not exist, and is a criticism that no one except Tjump makes.
3 Based on most definitions saying "x is immoral" means "x shouldn't be done." If he thinks it's immoral and should be done, that's a strange definition of immoral, that's unique to him.
4 His claim that this is a problem for some but not all models of utilitarianism is false. I'd encourage anyone who disagrees to send me a model supporting each of those. Ultimately, Tjumps criticism is a merely semantic dispute based on his own unique usage of moral language.
5 As you observed, he could not name a utilitarian who espoused the view that he claimed afflicted many models of utilitarianism. This is because it is a view that no one serious holds. Everyone serious utilitarian would agree that it would be better if you could save all six people in the trolley problem, but that if you can only save five, you should save the five over the one.
I don’t get why tjump says that it should be done, but still calls it immoral. I thought the whole point of saying something is immoral is to say that its an action that should not be taken. Or am I mistaken?
Tjump is using a strange definition of immoral that's unique to him. He thinks anything that is not literally perfect is immoral, so everything that has costs is immoral because it would be better if there were no costs. However, that's not how anyone else uses the word immoral. Most people use immoral to mean "should not be done."
Tjumps hypothesis says:
1. every involuntary imposition on will is immoral.
2. Some involuntary impostions on will are pragmatic and inevitable because of current practical limits but still immoral.
3. Some pragmatic impositions on will are more immoral or less immoral than others.
Such a weird definition. Good job pressing him.
Hey Matthew, do you have the link for the debate?
Why I’m I getting recommended this video?
utilitarians do the pragmatic thing also, i dont think any utilitarian agrees any action is actually maximal, we are limited in what we can do
TJump is *far* more confident in his philosophical ability than his actual ability warrants.
yeah, it appears to be the Dunning-Kreuger effect in action.
This wasnt a very fruitful conversation on either part. Theres a breakdown happening and neither one of you seem willing to address it. Posting this video kinda proves that point. I still dont think you understand his position on morality completely. I dont think i do either. Im still kind of wrestling with it so to speak. But either way i dont really understand what the point of this video is.
Well, I think that it is relevant to point out that Tjump lied about the existence of a stanford encyclopedia of philosophy page. I think his view is wrong, and we shouldn't take seriously his appeals to authorities that don't exist.
Tjumps around between no free will determinism and morality based on choosing not to do things against other people's free will. Nice!
God wins again!
When you talked about making the trolley fly over the people, all I could think of was this video: ua-cam.com/video/aL-gG96ZCcs/v-deo.html
He doesnt know what a means to an end is?
Im glad you put your sword away for utilitarianism for a while anyway... what a terrible view....
Yet another damning video against Tjump. He was shown to just reject or accept consensus as he sees fit in some of his debates, but just making up stuff about SEP is bizarre. It's too big of an error to be just a mistake, I think it's evidence pointing towards Tjump being a dishonest agent.
He told me to look in the Stanford to prove that it's false that Descartes' Cogito entails a kind of idealism. It would mean thoughts are the basis of reality. Tjump would not like that being a fedora materialist. He just does his "you're confusing epistemology and ontology" - when the argument is thoughts have ontology, therefore i have ontology. And then says look in the Stanford.
Anyway, tl;dr, yes, he obviously just *says* the stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. Many such cases with fake philosophers.
the cogito does not inherently imply idealism. he’s absolutely correct about that.
@@Obscuredbywinds Obviously, it is based on thoughts being the most fundamental thing in reality and separate from your body.
So you and him are both dumb. It's what inaugurates a whole era of idealism
@@cherokeenameshitsinboxes1330 for descartes there is the separation between mind and body but other philosophers have taken the cogito and used it as a foundation for other views that don’t lead to idealism.
@@Obscuredbywinds Name them, then. The reason there is the separation between mind and body is because of the Cogito, obviously.
Tjump's a tard being a physicalist empiricist and citing an argument that says idealist rationalism is the way. He needs to feel smart because he isn't.
@@cherokeenameshitsinboxes1330 Uhh how about centuries of intellectuals in the phenomenology tradition? read pontys work how he builds off of descartes but reversed the cogito to be about the body first. read hintikkas paper on the cogito and the different ways in which it can be interpreted outside the dualist perspective. you don’t know what you’re talking about
See this discussion between William Lane Craig and Cosmic Skeptic: ua-cam.com/video/pmWgdUAivsM/v-deo.html
Notice the humility of Alex? Notice that Alex recognizes the intellectual bankruptcy of several of the arguments that he proposes to Craig?
Get audio editing software if you want to post for people to listen.
This was a bad discussion. Too antagonistic and no mutual understanding
It was a bit antagonistic. However, I think he was saying non sense, so it was important to press him.
@@deliberationunderidealcond5105 There are more tactful ways of getting someone to change their mind
Tjump got smoked
All your subscribers seem to be atheists. At least, Alex is respected by many non-atheists. Imagine atheists praising another atheist for a job well done. I can't fathom this strange behavior.
I'm not sure what you're saying. Who the heck is Alex?
@@deliberationunderidealcond5105 Alex O'Connor. His channel is much better than yours. Why? Because he's a clearer debater, he's a humble individual and doesn't belittle and act cynically towards his guests even when he might be justified in doing so. He also has a much better understanding of the arguments put forth by some of the top Christian apologists and doesn't trivialize them, and when he doesn't understand some of the nuances of the more sophisticated arguments for God's existence, he admits it and attempts to re-read them until he has a better grasp of them.
@@deliberationunderidealcond5105 We'll see how much of an atheist you are after the entire financial system collapses; it's a mathematical certainty that it will collapse. I'm sure you'll be praying to a God you now deny when you're starving to death during a hyperinflationary depression, your neighbors, their families, and your family are homeless and jobless.
Remember I wrote this and keep its message in the back of your mind.
@@ScottRachelson777 you’re delusional