@cosmicskeptic The Devil has many names and wants to usurp God's titles by deceiving us. In the New Testament sometimes "Christ" is used as a Title but most of the time it's used as a Name. "Jesus Christ" is Firstname Middlename. It reminds me of how Elohim from Genesis 1 is a title but Yahweh Elohim from Genesis 2 is a name faking like it's a title (in the Old Testament): Amos 5 Names of God Bible 27 I will send you into exile beyond Damascus, says Yahweh, whose name is Elohe Tsebaoth. Amos 5 King James Version 27 Therefore will I cause you to go into captivity beyond Damascus, saith the Lord, whose name is The God of hosts. In the Quran: Allah is a name, not a title (Yah Tsebaoth has 99 names in Islam).
As an atheist I do not dislike god because I'm not convinced that a god exists. But if a god does exist and if god is so evil that god forced other life forms into the type of existence where they would suffer against their will and often suffer horribly against their will, but god didn't care god forced them into existence anyway, then I would want that god to be eradicated from existence in order to stop god from hurting other life forms.
not separatinfg the ad from the rest of the video takes away a lot of your credibility. Especially when makes you make unsustained claims about computers safety.
Using minty as the opposite of spicy is understandable. But not taking the obvious opportunity to colour the 4 category labels green, yellow, orange, red (and instead just using blue for all of them) is inexcusable
I’m 70, a devout atheist, a writer with a deep interest in philosophy and the language, and yet today is my fist exposure to “mereology”. I love still being able to learn new things.
@@pythondrink Devout is usually associated with religion. Of corse, it isn't exclusive to that sort of use, and there is a definition that separates the two, but most people wouldn't immediately think of that. That's why I love it. I very much enjoy alternative and/or uncommon usage of everyday words.
@pythondrink devout: having or showing deep religious feeling or commitment (alternative definition: having a great commitment to a cause or belief) It’s an oxymoron in the sense that you’re religiously nonreligious
@@washadaAgreed. There are art chairs that are still considered chairs despite being very different from other types. It seems to be about their purpose in being created if you ask me.
One of the dumbest things in philosophy though and easily shot in the head. Ya not-take not-a not-shotgun not-and not-discharge not-it not-into not-the not-person's not-temple not-to not-which not-they not-then not-later not-explain not-in not-a not-paper not-the not-experience not-of not-death. Since none of it actually exists, duh.
@@custos3249They don't exist, but it's quite a pain the ne neck to say it like that and if *no separate objects ever* exist and how we label/refuse to label certain pieces of the cosmic arrangement of matter doesn't change, like anything, there's no problem in acting as though they did all exist. So, chairs do not exist, but "particle arrangement that'd be conventionally called a chair" is one helluva mouthful and there's no problem in shortening it to juat "chair"
@@artemagarkovdwemerion4644 Then I recommend you test using my method and get back to us non-existent entities with your findings. As for your/philosophy's poorly thought out second point, in a manner of speaking, it's all pink on the inside, so what's it matter? Right, goat fucker? When your philosophy validates beastiality, may want to reconsider.
Would love for this to become a weekly or monthly series. A fun, easy to watch video that's a good palate-cleanser between more serious videos (I still love the serious videos)
i love the assumption that cosmicskeptic has heard of jacksfilms or literally any other youtuber edit: i hit the hbomberguy clip and now i don’t know what to believe
Honestly, I would think that asking permission to fornicate with the dead body of my grandmother is way worse than just doing it. Like, what kind of major malfunction do you have to have to think, "No, it's wrong to have sex with this dead person, unless their family is cool with it."
@@kinyutakaWell from a utilitarian point of view, things are wrong only if they cause harm to someone and necrophilia only causes harm to the people who knew the dead person, i.e. family, mostly. It doesn't cause any harm to the dead person, they're dead. So I think the person who wrote it wanted to eliminate this "harm" to illustrate that without it, necrophilia can't be wrong, under utilitarianism. I'd argue however that the thought of someone having sex with a dead body is so offputting to anyone, regardless if you knew the dead person, it still causes harm. So necrophilia can only be "not wrong" under utilitarianism if nobody finds out I guess.
@@tommy_svk You aren't considering the fact that the dead one cannot give it's consent on the use of his body, so it's will isn't respected as I don't think anyone wants to be fucked post mortem, and that's harm in my book, I will say more : to me that's exactly the definition of harm; when someone decides in your place what you have to do. And that's why is wrong to kill an innocent person and give it's organs to people who need it, you are not respecting the will of said persone to live.
For the religious mourning thought. I think a really cool counter point is Jesus crying when Lazerous died. There is something so evil and unnatural about death. Death should have never happened.
My counterpoint to that would be is life natural? Death and life fundamentally cannot be seperated, because the existence of one gives the other it's meaning. No life means death is actually just not existing, therefore not death is not "real". All life is simply the natural, infinite state of things and so it would be more "real' relative to death, but still not mean anything. Then, if life is natural, but death is not, then were we meant to live forever? Is our natural state that of gods and angels, up in heaven? If life is not natural, then were we meant to never exist? Is our natural state that of nothing? The ways you look at it swings you from very far religious to very far existentialist. It's interesting
@@deejaydee1578 sort of at least for me this life is to prepare for eternal life and death in this life is a separation which is starker than the physical distance of the rocket scenario and so to someone on this side of that separation it is unnatural because after this we are meant live forever in heaven
Also 100% religious belief doesn't mean 100% certainty you'll see them in heaven. You don't know that they truly belived and repented and were saved, and you don't know that you won't lose salvation yourself somehow in the future. I do know that losing a friend back in highschool from my church to suicide was far harder than losing uncles or grandparents. He wasn't as close to me as they were, but while I can't be certain how he'd be judged it seemed far less likely I'd see him again in heaven.
Mereological nihilism reminds me of parametric generics in programming: you can write a function which accepts a parameter of a generic “anything”, and the function would indeed view anything given to it as the same, but then the function cannot do anything to it either, other than presenting it back as-is. This function is commonly named, you guessed it, “identity”. Any other possible “usage” of the generic parameter requires a contract with it, which expands what you can do with it but constrains what can be accepted in its place, i.e. no longer “anything”.
Please make a series out of this! these videos are some of the most thought inducing content i've seen on this site, and i've been using it for 8 years!
@GospodinStanoje I disagree with your premise that the opposite of a thing necessarily has the effect of negating it's properties. For example, the opposite of "a morally good action" would of course be "a morally bad action". But I have never met anyone who believes that it is generally true that a morally good action can negate the badness of a morally bad action.
@@GospodinStanoje I'll have to slide out of the "completely uncontroversial to the point of near tautology" zone for this one, but: - I do think there are examples of bad actions that don't negate good actions (typically cases of difference in scale: I would personally consider it morally bad to leave popcorn on the floor of a movie theatre for the staff to clean up, but I don't believe that would negate the good of, say, rescuing adorable puppies from being stuck in a tree) - However I do believe that in general, morally bad actions tend to negate the goodness of morally good actions when the goodness and badness are of comparable scale
@@GospodinStanoje I don't believe that the opposite of a thing needs to be able to negate it in either direction. I do however agree that I got confused somewhere in trying to explain that and my previous comment does a poor job of justifying that position. (Also, as an entirely unrelated point to our discussion, as a matter of practical basic first aid, very cold water is actually not good for a burn; it number the pain quickly, but it also stalls the healing process. It is best to treat a burn with only slightly cool water.)
@@martynspooner5822 he probably thinks you can't appreciate beauty if you don't have an ideal of beauty and that ideal would be god but said in a 5 minute speech so it looks intellectual even though he spends most of the time saying nothing
The last one (if we all held the same beliefs we would achieve world peace) reminds me of the Golden Rule. It sounds good, but it's too easy to interpret it to allow us to do whatever we want to others by just saying, "Well, if I were one of them that's what I think should be done to me."
For the grief and afterlife one, I think it's reasonably explained by grief being a natural process that we don't have control over. Has there been any research showing a grief difference between atheists, religious people, and "Christmas and Easter" level of religious people? I'd be surprised if there was enough of a difference to really notice given how baked into us it all is. Cultural and religious practice may make there be more outward displays of it, but that seems more like a ceremony itself than the real grief.
I am a Christian. And I have noticed that age is a big part at how hard I grieve. When my grandfather died, I cried because I was 12 and missed him. But I wasn’t deeply grieving. I also got the chance to say goodbye and watch the process, watch as my parents aunts and uncles and grandma took care of him as he was dying. My grandfather lived a long happy life with many children, step-child and many more grandchildren, he traveled, camped, had many friends helped people, gave advice, took advice. He had a l9mg full life. I’m comparison, I had the same chance with my cousin, to say goodbye and as I was older this time I helped take care of him along with his sisters, my brother my mom and dad, and his parents. But I had far deeper grief because he was so young, only 14. He never made it to 16, never learned to drive, didn’t go to college or have a career, never had a girlfriend, never got married, never had children, never got to met his nephews and nieces or his 4 brother in laws. He never got the chance to grow up and be an adult. I trust God through both deaths (and many others) and I know I will see them both again as it was clear they were both also believers, my grandfather through his faith through out life and my cousin through his faith during death, my cousin made it very clear that he was looking forward to seeing our grandfather again. I mourned the lost years he never got to live. I know he lives now with Christ in heaven and a fuller life it is, but I still miss him, tremendously. Missing him and grieving him is not lack of faith, it’s a very human response to death, Jesus himself wept when his friend died even though he knew he was going to bring him back to life like right after. To me, as a Christian death is not natural part of life, though it is a normal part of our lives and we all die. We as humans were never meant to die, we were meant to live. and keep living, but through our own choices of sin death came to us as a consequence. Jesus conquered death by taking the responsibility of our sin on Himself on the cross. And left us the Holy Spirit as a promise or a down payment if you will, of an everlasting life with no sorrow or pain, and far more wonderful then we can imagine (and no, it’s not sitting on a cloud playing harp, that’s stupid.) He promised us life! Perfect life. I can’t say exactly what that is because I’ve never lived it, but whatever I can imagine it’s going to be far better. And it will be with God and all who trust in Him, including my cousin and grandfather.
Let us say you and your partner lived a relatively full life. You are both in your 70s but healthy. You both get diagnosed with cancer, but your partner dies fairly quickly (albeit painlessly) not long after diagnosis. You also are informed in about a year or two, you will similarly die. If you truly believe in heaven, then you're grief for your lost partner should be small. You will only spend a short time away from each other, there was no pain involved, you both lived full lives. The difference between your feelings of your partner going on a trip you will catch up with them on to a paradise ought to be the same sentiment. However, this is not typically what we find, typically we find that Christians despite saying that they believe in heaven and the person being grieved is going to paradise grieve very very very hard. Far more then many of us would if we actually believed that. Hence why people believe that Christians typically don't actually believe in heaven.
As a Christian, I agree with your take. Especially the part where you mentioned that Jesus also cried when his friend died, even though he knew his friend was coming back. It's a natural response to an unnatural situation
@@ZacharyBittnerI think you're missing the last part of the comment though. We (humans) weren't meant to die in the first place. Of course we would be sad about it having to happen now that we've sinned. I also think that grieving does not exclude the feeling of peace. A lot of Christians who lose loved ones grief abou the loss or the seperation and so on, but at the same time they have this inner peace, because they know where their loved one is. They're not mutually exclusive feelings in my opinion
@@drewpy14she's talking about the First Person Missing the point, also getting mad at such a small detail seems (No offense) autistic, no really, I'm not joking.
In response to religious grief over death- as a Christian myself, I gave this some thought. While it is probably obvious that a large portion of the grief comes from the separation from your loved one, I want to address the rocket thought experiment. The grief is stronger when the friend dies (rather than simply leaves) because even among Christians we recognize we have only one life on this earth. It exists for a reason; it is not made irrelevant by eternity and the promise of something better, but rather is a gift we are given to experience now. Premature death is a permanent end to the one single chance at that experience that we have. So the grief is also for the seasons of life that will not be lived. This is particularly true for those who die quite young, and unexpectedly. It is not theologically inconsistent; in fact, righteous grief is a significant theme throughout the Bible. Applied in another situation, can a true Christian fear their own death? I certainly do. Not out of fear for what comes next, but rather out of fear for what I would miss out on in this life; for example, being there while my children grow up.
Question for you, what would cause you to fear something you have little control over especially given that the nature of death itself is an inevitability? I say this because of your last paragraph, because even if you live a fulfilling life, there’s a lot you will miss out on for the future of your descendants so why would you grieve for their fulfilling lives?Eventually, unless we are leaders of the world, our names will be all that’s left as the generations go by.
@@faznaz7455I think it’s important to make the distinction between children and other descendants. I certainly don’t fear for a lack of legacy, or worry about being remembered after I die. That doesn’t concern me in the slightest. It is truly the immediate and most important relationships in my life that I am most concerned with, so when I speak of being present in my children’s lives I don’t worry much about the generations after. But to be concerned about what would happen to my infant if she lost her mother young? To hope I can watch her grow? Those seem sensible to me. As for why I would fear something I have little control over, isn’t that the root of most if not all fear? That which we can’t control? Sure, if we were purely rational creatures we’d be able to simply tell ourselves “there’s nothing you can do about that, so don’t waste energy worrying about it.” We aren’t purely rational though. Instinct, emotion, desire…many other elements contribute to fear of the unknown and uncontrollable. Philosophy and theology can be great comforts, but I don’t know that they can ever completely override our basic drives and instincts.
10:27 This point is really interesting. This explains why many far-right nationalists and extremists don’t get along. A white nationalist shares a lot of the same values as a far-right islamist. The difference being that that they have different “hats”. Because their ideology is very tribalistic, it prioritizes their own group (either religious group, ethnicity og nationality) over other groups. This also explains why the nazis did all the mental gymnastics to justify allying with 2 non-aryan but still fascist states (italy & japan).
7:36 I have heard several explanations, but I rhink another factor is that you cannot help or change anyone/thing so your power to influence anything/one is gone.
Still baffled I bumped into you at the pub and now im watching one of your videos 😅 Nothing like washing down dense engineering coursework with some late night philosophy 😍
Are you the Muslim man who was telling him in the pub that you don't like the British dawah scene? Because I heard a bit about you when I had a conversation with Alex after a talk he did at my school!
8:00 That spaceship question was interesting. As someone whose never experienced a death in the family, I've never once had a viceral reaction to learning about someone's death. I've been sad about people being away from me, like this girl that I knew in my class who moved away, but I didn't cry. I'm a Christian by the way.
10:00 world peace may be achieved when everyone has the same values as single world tribe, where there is no individualistic or tribalistic values that may clash between value-holders.
What if the agreed upon values this world tribe has includes: it is morally correct to eat the babies of others and wear their skin? Is that still peacfull? I think to continue this discussion a well thought out definition of 'peace' is probably needed.
@@seftondepledge3658 Peace may simply mean living in congruence with each other taking into account the human condition and other natural factors (which may include some incongruency that has to be solved somehow). "it is morally correct to eat the babies of others and wear their skin" If the human psyche shifts and there are good reasons to do this while maintaining a holistic social congruency, I don't see any problem, besides my current personal values clashing with that particular practice of course. Also, this is a utopianistic view that may be impossible to take place in real life and could end up being problematic if applied. But this is an important topic to discuss given the state of the world in the past and now.
@@notu1529 yep, I completely agree with that if we are using that as our definition of peace. My point was that the idea entirely hinges on the definition of peace (and I think yours is a good one). However most people’s definition would probably include some reference to a lack of violence, which would make the statement false.
I love that take on that identy is not a property, but something that mind projects on a world. It solves problems like ship of Theseus by showing, that it is not a problem at all.
In the example of the friend on the ship, I think some important distinctions should be made that might illustrate why death is a harder thing to face. Between the trip away and death, the journey would likely be known about and planned for for weeks, months, or even years ahead of time giving you time to say your goodbyes, and come to peace with the separation. In death, often it is sudden and unexpected meaning that you would not have the same opportunities to make peace and say your proper goodbyes which is a separate pain from the pain of separation that is unique to the death version of the story. In the event that the death is foreseen, it often would come along with suffering for the one dying. In the trip away, theoretically, the friend would be excited about this trip, and those left behind would not have to watch their friend deteriorate in pain before succumbing to a fate they didn't seek out. This too is a pain separate from the pain of separation that is unique to the death version of the story. In the example of the pain of separation via communication vs. the pain of seeing the ship explode on exit, the death version also carries the unique distinction of it being something the friend did not desire or seek out. Seeing the perceived desire or excitement on their part leading up to departure only for it to end in tragedy before they could accomplish what they set out to do carries with it the loss of their goals that they worked so hard for. For the friend, their end would be sudden, but for those that were left behind, the wish that the friend could have been able to accomplish more of what they set out to do might have hurt, especially those that attempted to talk them out of the plan but found peace with the idea of "well if this is really what you want." That pain is unique to the shuttle exploding vs the friend going off to accomplish their goals.
That's true, but remember that for Christian people, the death of a person is quite similar to the journey to Mars that Alex described on the video (but a journey to heaven instead), so if Christians know that a death would be similar to that journey already, then the pain should be similar too if they already know they eventually are going to die. So for example, imagine that you already know from weeks and even months before that your friend has a terminal illness and he's not going to live more than 3 months, in this example this is not that different from the travel to Mars that Alex described from the video (at least from the perspective of Christianity). And you even have time to say a proper goodbye before your friend dies. But you would still probably be more upset about your friend dying than the travel to Mars without being able to see or talk to your friend again.
great comment - to add onto this, i think that it is also worth mentioning the conditions once more. there seems to me something intrinsic about humans that, although not founded, gravitates us towards blind hope. The ship example may hurt less to a person because even though there is absolutely zero chance your friend will be coming back, there is something naturally less final about that situation compared to the finality of death. i feel as though death is one of few phenomena on earth that eradicate all hope, and even for a while doesn't do so either if you look at the five stages of grief.
@@martiddy There certainly are many parallels, but again, the distinction should be made that most people even Christians don't seek out death. Your comparison has holes in it, which I pointed out by mentioning that the mars trip was likely sought out, and by mentioning that the mars trip would be relatively painless compared to most terminal illnesses. The pain of seeing someone you love deteriorating doesn't vanish the moment that they die even from a Christian perspective (though many will find some form of solace believing that the small silver lining of "they aren't in pain anymore" might serve to mitigate the pain of loss at least marginally.)
Interestingly, Islam forbids excessive mourning, e.g. wailing, tearing hair out, etc., and limits the time for it. There's a lot of emphasis on accepting God's decree (a higher level of faith is to be happy with it and there are levels beyond that), having faith in God's promises, etc. However, we also don't wish for death, as it means the one who is good can't earn more good deeds, and the one who is evil can no longer turn back to goodness. What follows death is also not necessarily pleasant, except for the best of people. For Muslims, there is a period of cleansing of accumulated evil deeds which weren't forgiven before the final Judgment, which is an extremely difficult time. So it's not like we think the other person just goes straight to heaven. Afterlife is extremely difficult.
I think a fundamental factor of humanity that the example and question posed miss is that human emotional is often illogical. Trying to logically explain why someone is sad for a death seems a tad bit lacking in understanding to me
philosophical hot take: there is no worldview that is 100% logically thought up and correct, no matter what view one takes there are always things that make it seem absurd
I must disappoint, but this is Not true. Firstly, because your judgment itself is one Thing exampt from that, what it Claims for all. Secondly, the 'worldview', that the law of non-contradiction is Impossibly wrong and undoubtable is, If anything is, correct. I guess, with worldview you mean Something much more sophisticated and elaborate, and it might indeed be true, that Most fail utterly. But even then, if one is ever to be comleted, one and only one can be true, If worldview is to mean the judgment about the Nature of the World and Not Just a Wish or Fantasy about it, that has no Truth-value at all.
The invention of the hyperbole made this statement true. No matter if something is the truth or is a lie, hyperbole used in the correct way can make the truth seem whichever way it wants. Therefore, while your statement may be true about the language we use, it is not true about the actual nature of reality.
@@awesomesauze7 @awesomesauze7 thank you for your Answer. Could you elaborate, what you mean with hylerbole please, for i without dont fully get, what you say.
Alex, love this new format! Regarding the one about death and religiosity: I can only speak for the judeo-christian worldview, but in this worldview, death is not an inherent part of life, rather a consequence of us being separated from the life-giving God. Therefore, death itself can be understood as something bad and evil and hence it is totally natural to feel grief and anger in the face of the death of ones beloved. It's not just about missing them, but mourning over the reality of death itself and its consequences.
I must excuse myself, If i seem rude, but this makes No Sense at all. For If God is the Life -giving, we are nearer to god in Life, then after death, which cannot be, as the Christians hold it to be true, that they are granted eternal life, which renders death not only Not being Bad, but in comparison Something very good. Therefore, the moarning still is Strange, and this conception you mentioned by itself wrong. Life cannot be without death.
The whole first part of the video reminded me of the the emperor’s soul by Brandon Sanderson where in the spiritual realm objects begin to see themselves as a whole instead of their individual parts like the leg of the table being seen as a part of a table instead of just a piece of carbon.
Conflict doesn't just emerge because we're different. If we both want Scarlett Johansson, conflict arises because we're similar enough to want the same thing, and there's only one of her. And i don't share, back the eff off, skippy.
Isn't that just what he said? If you had the same value, as in "We both agree that adronias should have ScarJo", then there wouldn't be a conflict, but if you have the same value but oriented around yourself, as in "I want ScarJo", then there is conflict.
That’s still an example of being different. You want yourself to have Scarlett Johansson, and I want myself to have Scarlett Johansson. Being the same would mean that you want yourself to have Scarlet Johansson, and I also want you to have Scarlet Johansson. No conflict there because we want the same thing.
I see dying as a breakup actually, a breakup that you did not want. And people grieve for breakups too, sometimes enen more than death, because in a breakup you know you can't be alongside that person again even thought they still exist somewhere in the world, maybe even near you. In death, i feel You're going to deal with the fact you're never going to see each other again faster than in a breakup. So both in death and breakups there are probably things left unsaid, feelings and needs not met. Notice when relatives are prepared for an old person to die of natural causes, got the time they needed alongside them, the grief is a lot less if not almost inexistent, at least that's what's I've seen...
Agree. But if you believe in heaven and you know that you will eventually also die, then you should not grieve because you will meet again after your own death. So for people who believe in heaven, a break-up should be more devistating than looding a loved one to death.
First time hearing of mereological nihilism but this is a position I've had for well over a decade now. I remember thinking in my early 20s how everything was really just different arrangements of pre-existing matter and the only thing that distinguishes one state from another is how our mind categorizes it and gives a name to it. I think it was my encountering The Ship of Theseus thought experiment around then that lead me to that. Nice to put a term to the idea, though!
As a religious person myself, I posit that the grief comes from our humanness. I'm 22, and I failed a year of university due to the changing nature of the education provided during COVID. I feel like a year has been stolen from me, and it has deeply wounded me and even led to a resurfacing of my mental health issues. But it's only 1 year, I have goodness knows how many more, so why am I crippled sometimes by this idea of lost time? Because human perception is just bad sometimes😂 we suck at looking at the big picture, and even when we do, it doesn't always stop the emotions of the moment Just thought I'd offer this explanation
Firstly I’m very sorry to hear about what has happened - wishing you all the best for the future! The grief of death will indeed come from our humanness yes, not as some fault in our thinking or "bad" perception, but as a result of an innate feature 'hard-wired' within every lifeform. It is a combination of evolved traits that have ultimately made us avoid death (fear for those that have the capacity) and prioritise continued survival. Without this, as organic ‘machines’ that have evolved from scratch, there would be nothing to stop our evolutionary ancestors from just dying. These subconscious biological mechanisms are our instincts. For humans, these are perceived emotions (such as grief), with their subconscious underlying mechanisms, that directly or indirectly push us towards survival. For grief specifically, it’ll come from a complex combination of things such as losing a provider, losing a protector, losing a fellow hunter/gatherer, etc. It isn't "bad" or faulty, impulsive emotional responses that makes us feel sad rather than glad that someone has gone to the afterlife (not something I personally believe in), it’s our evolved understanding of what has actually happened to our fellow species-member, and a subconscious signifier to avoid it.
@@MaxFoster-ni3op Since we're talking about religious people being sad when people they know die, I think it would be better to describe a religious explanation of why God designed people to be sad about people dying, even if you don't believe in it.
@@Mo_Mauve I suppose if it's just for making someone feel better in the moment, it may well be more socially appropriate and effective to explain in their framework of understanding. However, in terms of long term growth, would it not be better for people to understand the true, natural, biological mechanisms behind the things they feel? It seems to me that it would be, as they would be much better prepared for inevitable emotional events of life, whilst understanding that it's ok and natural to react in the ways that they are, meaning they can accept negative feelings and work on them instead of thinking there's something wrong or unholy about the way they feel.
Another bit on the world peace one: there are definitely values that, if everyone shared them, would lead to conflict. "Nations can only keep what they can defend through force and anything obtained by conquest is rightfully won" would be a value that would lead to conflict even if everyone shared it, for one. Wars don't need to be waged on moral grounds and, in fact, most aren't.
on the afterlife, with the mars example, for me, i would say the difference in grief comes from knowing with absolute certainty - a kind which the analogy of space travel, psychologically, does not give - that you will not only never see them again in this life and nor will anyone else, but also that they will not have the chance to live out their life, e.g exploring mars, before going to the afterlife (not that i personally believe in it). which is analogous to how we should grieve over the children who grow up in ways that mean they are basically deprived of their childhoods - they may have entered somewhere else and may even have a chance of fulfilment, but theyve still been robbed of something vital. with that being said, i feel immense grief over people i simply miss in my life, knowing full well they are probably if not certainly alive. maybe im just too nostalgic but ive often found that that feeling has been one that weighs equally to the grief ive felt towards the death of loved ones. the only difference i think is seeing someone die in front of you and the pain and danger associated with comprehending death. if i believed in the afterlife maybe i wouldnt feel that so heavily. but also i think its moreso about the nature of the departure. ive lost relatives where the process has been gradual and accepted and their passing was not too painful for them. but then i lost a beloved dog very suddenly and inexplicably (he went from perfectly healthy to collapsed and put down within a week), and the pain there was so much worse. equally, when ive lost friendships in a sudden or dramatic or confusing way, i must confess it caused me more pain even than the death of loved ones that i had long since expected and knew were going to die soon.
Mereological nihilism sounds kind of like something Eckhart Tolle would say. Seems rather Zen, and while I agree it’s not easily intuitive, I tend to think it’s correct.
There is a distinction in utility, structure and the manner in which the arrangement changes how the material interacts with the stuff of other things. You can take a clump of metal and make a slab of steel out of it. You can also take it and make a glider wing out of it. One of these does something the other does not, and this isn't simply a matter of perspective. One can fly, the other cannot. That doesn't mean they ever began to exist at a fundamental level. Though their current form has a beginning, their fundamentals do not.
I am not very well educated in these subjects at all, but I think its so interesting that the first segment of the video, the part on "Nothing begins to exist". Follows some of the core ideas of Taoism from what I have learned. The "lump sum" you refer to is the same "lump sum" that I believe Lao Tzu labled as tao when he said the verse "The unnamed Tao is the Eternal Tao. The named Tao is not Eternal Tao. From the unnamed Tao comes the heavens and the earth. From the named Tao comes all things" - From Tao Te Ching. I think Lau Tzu was touching on the very same idea that was presented in the video, just in a much more mystical/easter spiritual framing. Think it could be intresting thought/video on how multiple subjects can converge on the same idea unknowling (how this all follows first law of thermodynamics as well) that I would love hear your perspective on. Great Video all the best.
Entirely off topic, it's been years since I last saw one of your videos. So much has changed. I guess your videos stopped popping in my feed as I became more stable and confident in my philosophy of life and slowly started focusing on study and other stuffs. But looking back, you had such a big impact on my life. You played a major role in convincing me to leave my religion (yes, that's a good thing), and funnily enough, you even influenced how I talk. Like English is not my first language and I mostly learned it from people online, you were a big part of that. I often think about you when I'm speaking in English for a long time, I feel like I sound like you. Anyways, sorry for being so random and irrelevant. Just happy to see you Alex.
i would love to see more videos with viewers philosophical hot takes but they get a few minutes to explain their position themselves, but other then that, this works amazingly too
Well thought out, and with examples to your points. Thank you for sharing. I like this format. Maybe you could answer the question type that comes up the most and put responses to them out once a week or every other week. I really enjoy your points of view, your ideas, how you share your ideas with examples, and how well you communicate. I believe that I may have understood ideas that you shared as facts, incorrectly in some of your previous videos. If I did, then I am glad that I experienced more of your content anyway.
With respect to material coming into existence, it’s theoretically (only in the sense of never having been actually done yet) possible to cause immense amounts of energy to form simple matter.
It's not theoretical and it's just simple energy rearrangement still. Where stars convert hydrogen into helium and releasing energy in the process. This energy production is a result of the mass difference between the initial hydrogen and the resulting helium.
But the energy would have previously existed, we would just now give it the identity of "matter" instead of the identity of "energy". So it doesn't really change anything, it was still there.
Every single time I try an respond to you on the other post it continually gets deleted. Here's reality regarding Biden (who is no longer the candidate) vs. Trump: If I have to explain why a man (Trump) convicted of 34 felonies by a jury of his peers, found liable for sexual assault/rape by a jury of his peers, who defrauded college students out of MILLIONS with his scam University, who tried to coup the U. S. government by ADMITTEDLY trying to install FAKE ELECTORS to steal an election, who had to have his lawyer argue for complete immunity for his official acts as President to the Supreme Court to avoid going to jail for crimes committed on January 6th, who called for a suspension of the Constitution because he didn’t like the election results, who left office with record job loss, spent $141,000,000 playing golf despite claiming he'd never have time to play gold as President, created a record 4 year deficit, is on tape confirming that he lied/downplayed the seriousness of COVID to try an avoid it negatively effecting his election campaign & an unemployment rate of nearly 9% then you’re just too dumb to even participate in a conversation with me. You’re in a cult. Period, end of story.
Here’s my hot take: any moral standard that allows you to kill an animal to eat it also allows you to kill an animal to have sex with it. Any objection to one necessarily also objects to the other.
the first argument against that take that I was able to come up with went along the lines of "humans are made to eat meat - look at those teeth - but they are not made to have sex with dead animals", which I think is a terrible argument, but hey, it would be an objection to one above the other. To at least finish the argumentative steps needed to arrive at the conclusion: Premise 1: Humans ought to be allowed to do the things they are made to do. Premise 2: Humans are made to eat meat. Premise 3: Humans are not made to have sex with dead animals. Conclusion: Humans ought to be allowed to eat meat, but ought not to be allowed to have sex with dead animals. I don't think it's too far fetched that someone would use this argument, given that something along the lines of premise 2 is an argument sometimes used against vegetarianism. I disagree with all the premises, mostly due to humans not being "made to [...]" in any relevant sense, in my opinion. Even if they were, I don't think such a notion of human nature should be the basis of our morality.
@@thesayerofing "made to [...]" in the sense of creation, not coercion, for example in a divine sense (god made humans in a way that leads to them eating meat, and not leading them towards having sex with animals). The same argument can also be done using natural inclination (humans are naturally inclined towards eating meat, and not naturally inclined towards having sex with animals). Neither of those is an argument I would support - nevertheless, they are valid arguments. The aim of these is to show that there are ways of argumentation to make eating meat less morally problematic than having sex with an animal - to object to "Any objection to one necessarily also objects to the other."
When i was around 11 i attended my first funeral and my grandfather was crying like heaven would not exist and that made me think if the stories they told me were true. Later on he started dating some other lady. If heaven real, is that cheating?
Short, but enjoyable, and gives food for thought. Best wishes for you and yours; hope you enjoy the holidays and it doesnt get too cold on your side of the Atlantic.
please more of this. i literally subscribed because of your last video on the topic. btw here are some of my hot takes: - the right to vote should be earned (through whatever metric) and also be revocable + the weight of the vote should be dynamic. a professionals vote should be taken into account more than that of a unlearned/uneducated person - objective morality does not exist
@@mikaeus468 that's not for me to say. Hence why I wrote 'by whatever metric'. I don't know. Suggestions could be by service to the community, good deeds (whatever the f that means), competence, intelligence. I do not know.
@@dertyp3463 I might have interpreted "by whatever metric" incorrectly, and I guess it's completely fine to not want to really work out those details just yet. However, I think it's definitely worth noting that people are going to have to decide those things, and will inevitably put their own biases into such a decision. Abigail Thorn talks about this a lot.
@@emperortgp2424 as someone who served I strongly disagree. I know highly competent people who couldn't get drafted because of their physical condition yet they are valuable to society in other ways.
Minty is the spicy of the ice Capsaicin is the spicy of the fire Horseradish and pepper are the spicy of the fields And vinegar and lemon juice are the spicy of the water And salt is the spicy of the rocks
7:30 I’m agnostic but the argument of Heaven being so different to the mortal plane that you are mourning the persons future inability to access this wholly different (but inferior) plane and the corresponding loss in experiences. I’ve rarely seen theists describe the afterlife as a mere permutation of the mortal realm, but instead as a different realm in its entirety.
Regarding mereological nihilism and the existence of objects, I would argue that objects exist insofar as we have relations to them, and how they relate to us when we interact. They are formed as objects in our experience. In the same way that we automatically perceive sounds as English without effort, we perceive experiences with external reality as objects. An interesting point to consider is whether anyone has ever experienced an object outside of their experience.
07:00 Tears signify the death of an outdated and immature conceptual structure. Once this occurs, the individual is neurologically prepared to absorb new information and perspectives that will replace the old framework. The outcome of this emotional journey becomes the foundation for a more mature and evolved understanding of the world. So, you can say that crying and grieving is a response to adjusting to the new map of the world.
2:48 no there very well is a difference... made of different elements and compounds, made for different purposes, different sizes, etc (obviously. Just because most of everything is made of matter doesn't make it the same. Its not a coherent idea.
Great video, always enjoy Alex's content. As a religious person myself, I found around 8:17 with the analogy of the space ship to be an interesting thought experiment. However, I feel recording my thoughts, because my initial thoughts to the two scenarios was actually being more upset at the first scenario of losing contact with my friend forever than of the second one of my friend actually dying. Of course, in self reflection, I realize that the first scenario is quite better for my friend, since they live. But even as I type I almost feel a compulsion of wanting the second one more, not out of malice but in this state of missing them. I know my thoughts aren't the clearest, but I think there are two things I would get across. 1) I understand the example is supposed to be a analogy to show the disparity of our actions and beliefs, but it doesn't really line up with the religious worldview. I think if anything, the religious experience is akin to the first example (which I think is the point), but the death still occurs in the real world anyway. But 2) , and my major point, I find that religious people can just engage in the sin of selfishness when it comes to death. Like of course we are happy that are loved ones will go to heaven, but I selfishly don't want to wait to see them again. The idea of having to go through life with all its trials without them is hard. Yes, I am happy that I get to see them again but that could be decades. In the same way that having to resist sin for decades is challenging, waiting to see our loved ones is challenging too. You could even be envious in a way too, I have these seen reactions before in other religious folk. TL;DR I don't these arguments about religious people's experience with death accounts for the selfish qualities of the mourner or even just their impatience. Or the differences of severity of the death itself. They are too vague, at least in my own perception of things.
@@NotAUtubeCeleb Oh thank you for the recommendation. I haven't made my through all of the podcast series yet. I'll try to incorporate It into my drive within the coming week.
5:00 you can condemn these things because they do have moral wrongs. You first have to define love, and if you ask me there are around 3 kinds Pragma - Devotion to someone physically and mentally, to know who someone is, flaws and all, and love them for who they are. Familial - A bond developed between family, this love is to build you as a person and support you as you grow and love you unconditionally throughout. It is akin to a tree, you share the same roots even if youre not connected by blood. Simply by living together through your development makes a connection that cannot be broken, you will still love them like a sibling even if you fuck them, you can not develop pragma like an actual couple, you cannot be devoted in the same way. Friendship - bond developed between anyone, and even animals. This bond is basically a watered down version of familial and pragma love, but can grow to either. There are also things that people conflate with love, but are not love by themself. Infatuation/mania/obsession, Sexual/lust, Same sex incest betrays familial love and perverts it, literally. Its using someone else as an object for sexual pleasure. I argue consent is irrelevent when your using someone only for sexual pleasure. Its why I believe one night stands are immoral because it subverts what sex is meant to be, a declaration of complete devotion to someone both physically and mentally, and to create a new life. Basicallly it is wrong because it bends familial love and attempts to turn it into both sexual and pragma love, when that love is always going to be familial love, but often tainted with lust. While I personally have no problem with gay people, I do believe a lot of gay people are driven by lust and not love. For those who are driven by love then it is nearly equivalent to a straight couple that are infertile. Beastiality is betraying both an animal and your own biology, it is also wrong because it is using a living creature as an object for your own sexual pleasure. There is no love possible other than friendship with an animal, you can not be devoted to them mentally because you have different levels of consciousness, and cognition. This is one of the reasons pedophilia is wrong, because children do not have the mental capacity to understand the consequences of actions, and therefore cannot consent nor be mentally devoted to someone, therefore cannot love a partner, they only are capable of familial and friendship. Animals are similar in that way to children, and that is one reason it is condemnable. Necrophilia is wrong for most of the reasons above. Its using someones body as a object for sexual pleasure, its not mutual, even if they or the family consented before death. Even though they are not living, they still hold the right to their own body. Its assaulting someones body, they can not provide consent after the fact. Its like saying your not allowed to stop having sex after you consent to it, no you have the right to stop sex at anytime, dead guy cant reject consent. Also some clinically dead people can be resuscitated, therefore they can't lose ownership of their body and then regain it. That would mean you could do anything to them (rape, mutilation, robbery, etc) before resuscitation and not face any punishment afterward when they come back to life. No, dead bodys are not objects, they have the previous bodily autonomy as they always had, they are just using their 5th amendment rights and shutting the fuck up lol. Just because there is no "harm" done, does not make it moral, nor morally neutral. Utilitarianism is not the only thing to consider or live your life by, its in part an extremely selfish way of looking at the world, and does not always have application in morality. However it is also entirely stupid to refute Utilitarianism entirely, because it does have grounds in a lot of other philosophy. Different philosophies can be used to explain different things, and still make sense, they only conflict when you try to fit a square into a circle hole. If you want to live in a moraless world, keep arguing semantics about how a guy can get ass fucked by his brother and that it's both not weird, and not morally questionable. we can all agree its weird, and on some level wrong, arguing about why is not hugely productive, so actually start thinking of reasons its wrong to fuck your dead grandma 13 different styles before cremating her and using her urn as a rainbow dash cum jar, INSTEAD OF PRETENDING ITS OK BECAUSE YOUR TOO STUPID TO THINK OF ANY POSSIBLE REASON.
Get Atlas VPN for just $1.70/mo + 6 months extra during the Black Friday deal: get.atlasvpn.com/alex
Some of us want to complain about minty just so that we can see the professor after class. Hahahah
@cosmicskeptic
The Devil has many names and wants to usurp God's titles by deceiving us.
In the New Testament sometimes "Christ" is used as a Title but most of the time it's used as a Name.
"Jesus Christ" is Firstname Middlename.
It reminds me of how Elohim from Genesis 1 is a title but Yahweh Elohim from Genesis 2 is a name faking like it's a title (in the Old Testament):
Amos 5
Names of God Bible
27 I will send you into exile beyond Damascus, says Yahweh, whose name is Elohe Tsebaoth.
Amos 5
King James Version
27 Therefore will I cause you to go into captivity beyond Damascus, saith the Lord, whose name is The God of hosts.
In the Quran: Allah is a name, not a title (Yah Tsebaoth has 99 names in Islam).
As an atheist I do not dislike god because I'm not convinced that a god exists. But if a god does exist and if god is so evil that god forced other life forms into the type of existence where they would suffer against their will and often suffer horribly against their will, but god didn't care god forced them into existence anyway, then I would want that god to be eradicated from existence in order to stop god from hurting other life forms.
똑똑해서 좋겠다
not separatinfg the ad from the rest of the video takes away a lot of your credibility. Especially when makes you make unsustained claims about computers safety.
Using minty as the opposite of spicy is understandable. But not taking the obvious opportunity to colour the 4 category labels green, yellow, orange, red (and instead just using blue for all of them) is inexcusable
Yellow is a way More threatening color than orange
Blue is more the opposite of spicy than green. I get that mint is green, though.
@@TwoGraves284that's a hot take right there
the philosophy of pedantry
Too many different colors in one place scares Conservatives. On flags, on people, in their pantries, etc...
I thought the thumbnail said “meteorological nihilism” and was so excited to see that someone else finally recognizes that weather doesn’t exist
"is there really any actual difference between overcast and stormy? It's the same material just arranged differently"
i don’t go outside no matter what so weather may as well be fake
Weather does exist, it just doesn't matter.
@@kingster14444 good one :D
Taking the saying "there's no such thing as bad weather" to the extreme
I’m 70, a devout atheist, a writer with a deep interest in philosophy and the language, and yet today is my fist exposure to “mereology”. I love still being able to learn new things.
"Devout atheist" is the best oxymoron I've ever seen in the comments section. Thank you, I'm going to be using this to describe myself now.
Were you a Google employee? If so, that would explain why you're verified even though you don't meet the requirements for it.
@@captaincookie2785how is it an oxymoron though?
@@pythondrink Devout is usually associated with religion. Of corse, it isn't exclusive to that sort of use, and there is a definition that separates the two, but most people wouldn't immediately think of that. That's why I love it. I very much enjoy alternative and/or uncommon usage of everyday words.
@pythondrink devout: having or showing deep religious feeling or commitment (alternative definition: having a great commitment to a cause or belief)
It’s an oxymoron in the sense that you’re religiously nonreligious
Has anyone else seen "Do chairs exist?" by Vsauce? Seems fitting to mention it considering this video's topics.
@@washadaAgreed. There are art chairs that are still considered chairs despite being very different from other types. It seems to be about their purpose in being created if you ask me.
One of the dumbest things in philosophy though and easily shot in the head. Ya not-take not-a not-shotgun not-and not-discharge not-it not-into not-the not-person's not-temple not-to not-which not-they not-then not-later not-explain not-in not-a not-paper not-the not-experience not-of not-death. Since none of it actually exists, duh.
@@custos3249They don't exist, but it's quite a pain the ne neck to say it like that and if *no separate objects ever* exist and how we label/refuse to label certain pieces of the cosmic arrangement of matter doesn't change, like anything, there's no problem in acting as though they did all exist. So, chairs do not exist, but "particle arrangement that'd be conventionally called a chair" is one helluva mouthful and there's no problem in shortening it to juat "chair"
@@artemagarkovdwemerion4644 Then I recommend you test using my method and get back to us non-existent entities with your findings. As for your/philosophy's poorly thought out second point, in a manner of speaking, it's all pink on the inside, so what's it matter? Right, goat fucker? When your philosophy validates beastiality, may want to reconsider.
@@washada Well yes, but is there a reasonable difference between the 2? The function of the chair is all that matters not whether its real or not.
Would love for this to become a weekly or monthly series. A fun, easy to watch video that's a good palate-cleanser between more serious videos (I still love the serious videos)
totally agree!
This would be great as a series, it could turn into a philosophical YIAY.
Completely agree!
Yeah, I'd love this!
Yess
LWIAY Philosophy version?
i love the assumption that cosmicskeptic has heard of jacksfilms or literally any other youtuber
edit: i hit the hbomberguy clip and now i don’t know what to believe
My philosophy course literally JUST did a reading on mereological nihilism. Thank you Alex, I feel seen
Do "you" feel seen? Or do the subatomic particles arranged in the form of "you" feel seen?
@@ZyroZoro Don't look at my particles you're changing their state bro please stop
@@CromulentEmbiggening, 🧠 moment
The term "Necrophilia, with the permission of the family" will stay with me as one of the creepiest things I've ever read.
Then you probably need to read a little more...
@@etrs Or not?
Honestly, I would think that asking permission to fornicate with the dead body of my grandmother is way worse than just doing it.
Like, what kind of major malfunction do you have to have to think, "No, it's wrong to have sex with this dead person, unless their family is cool with it."
@@kinyutakaWell from a utilitarian point of view, things are wrong only if they cause harm to someone and necrophilia only causes harm to the people who knew the dead person, i.e. family, mostly. It doesn't cause any harm to the dead person, they're dead. So I think the person who wrote it wanted to eliminate this "harm" to illustrate that without it, necrophilia can't be wrong, under utilitarianism. I'd argue however that the thought of someone having sex with a dead body is so offputting to anyone, regardless if you knew the dead person, it still causes harm. So necrophilia can only be "not wrong" under utilitarianism if nobody finds out I guess.
@@tommy_svk You aren't considering the fact that the dead one cannot give it's consent on the use of his body, so it's will isn't respected as I don't think anyone wants to be fucked post mortem, and that's harm in my book, I will say more : to me that's exactly the definition of harm; when someone decides in your place what you have to do. And that's why is wrong to kill an innocent person and give it's organs to people who need it, you are not respecting the will of said persone to live.
For the religious mourning thought. I think a really cool counter point is Jesus crying when Lazerous died. There is something so evil and unnatural about death. Death should have never happened.
also, there is a very human belief that we can overcome distance in the rocket analogy
My counterpoint to that would be is life natural? Death and life fundamentally cannot be seperated, because the existence of one gives the other it's meaning. No life means death is actually just not existing, therefore not death is not "real". All life is simply the natural, infinite state of things and so it would be more "real' relative to death, but still not mean anything.
Then, if life is natural, but death is not, then were we meant to live forever? Is our natural state that of gods and angels, up in heaven? If life is not natural, then were we meant to never exist? Is our natural state that of nothing? The ways you look at it swings you from very far religious to very far existentialist. It's interesting
@@deejaydee1578 sort of at least for me this life is to prepare for eternal life and death in this life is a separation which is starker than the physical distance of the rocket scenario and so to someone on this side of that separation it is unnatural because after this we are meant live forever in heaven
Also 100% religious belief doesn't mean 100% certainty you'll see them in heaven. You don't know that they truly belived and repented and were saved, and you don't know that you won't lose salvation yourself somehow in the future.
I do know that losing a friend back in highschool from my church to suicide was far harder than losing uncles or grandparents. He wasn't as close to me as they were, but while I can't be certain how he'd be judged it seemed far less likely I'd see him again in heaven.
I thought the thumbnail said “meteorological nihilism” and as a Scottish person I thought: “yep, sounds about right”.
This should be a monthly segment that you do Alex, love it!
Definitely make it a series. It’s nice to have well reasoned serious but brief talk about philosophical topics.
I like this format, since it rapidly exposes me to philosophical ideas and if I'm intruiged, I can read for myself.
This is genuinely the pick me up that I really needed today. Thanks, Alex!
Mereological nihilism reminds me of parametric generics in programming: you can write a function which accepts a parameter of a generic “anything”, and the function would indeed view anything given to it as the same, but then the function cannot do anything to it either, other than presenting it back as-is. This function is commonly named, you guessed it, “identity”. Any other possible “usage” of the generic parameter requires a contract with it, which expands what you can do with it but constrains what can be accepted in its place, i.e. no longer “anything”.
That is an *excellent* connection that I am slightly disappointed for not having made myself
Please make a series out of this! these videos are some of the most thought inducing content i've seen on this site, and i've been using it for 8 years!
Damn, minty being the opposite of spicy makes so much sense, chili tricks our mouth into thinking our mouth is hot, and mint cold
@@GospodinStanojenah milk is mild
@@GospodinStanoje nah milk is neutral, between minty and spicy. water is also neutral but not exclusive of milk
@GospodinStanoje I disagree with your premise that the opposite of a thing necessarily has the effect of negating it's properties.
For example, the opposite of "a morally good action" would of course be "a morally bad action". But I have never met anyone who believes that it is generally true that a morally good action can negate the badness of a morally bad action.
@@GospodinStanoje I'll have to slide out of the "completely uncontroversial to the point of near tautology" zone for this one, but:
- I do think there are examples of bad actions that don't negate good actions (typically cases of difference in scale: I would personally consider it morally bad to leave popcorn on the floor of a movie theatre for the staff to clean up, but I don't believe that would negate the good of, say, rescuing adorable puppies from being stuck in a tree)
- However I do believe that in general, morally bad actions tend to negate the goodness of morally good actions when the goodness and badness are of comparable scale
@@GospodinStanoje I don't believe that the opposite of a thing needs to be able to negate it in either direction. I do however agree that I got confused somewhere in trying to explain that and my previous comment does a poor job of justifying that position.
(Also, as an entirely unrelated point to our discussion, as a matter of practical basic first aid, very cold water is actually not good for a burn; it number the pain quickly, but it also stalls the healing process. It is best to treat a burn with only slightly cool water.)
the best part of my day is Alex explaining the most complicated ideas knowing I’ll never understand it.
i actually find his explanations very easy to understand, he does a great job
This is one of your best if not the best series on your channel, please continue making videos like this.
100% needs to become a series
Hearing Peterson's weird logic never fails to make me roll my eyes...
"from pleasure"
I can't stand him, he never says anything that makes any sense
It went over my head completely, so if you feel music there has to be a God, i just don't get it.
@@martynspooner5822 he probably thinks you can't appreciate beauty if you don't have an ideal of beauty and that ideal would be god but said in a 5 minute speech so it looks intellectual even though he spends most of the time saying nothing
"well then what makes you think you're secular?"
lol
I would love for this to become a series.
The last one (if we all held the same beliefs we would achieve world peace) reminds me of the Golden Rule. It sounds good, but it's too easy to interpret it to allow us to do whatever we want to others by just saying, "Well, if I were one of them that's what I think should be done to me."
Yes please, I'd love to see more of these and some opinions on spicier takes.
For the grief and afterlife one, I think it's reasonably explained by grief being a natural process that we don't have control over. Has there been any research showing a grief difference between atheists, religious people, and "Christmas and Easter" level of religious people? I'd be surprised if there was enough of a difference to really notice given how baked into us it all is. Cultural and religious practice may make there be more outward displays of it, but that seems more like a ceremony itself than the real grief.
I am a Christian. And I have noticed that age is a big part at how hard I grieve. When my grandfather died, I cried because I was 12 and missed him. But I wasn’t deeply grieving. I also got the chance to say goodbye and watch the process, watch as my parents aunts and uncles and grandma took care of him as he was dying. My grandfather lived a long happy life with many children, step-child and many more grandchildren, he traveled, camped, had many friends helped people, gave advice, took advice. He had a l9mg full life. I’m comparison, I had the same chance with my cousin, to say goodbye and as I was older this time I helped take care of him along with his sisters, my brother my mom and dad, and his parents. But I had far deeper grief because he was so young, only 14. He never made it to 16, never learned to drive, didn’t go to college or have a career, never had a girlfriend, never got married, never had children, never got to met his nephews and nieces or his 4 brother in laws. He never got the chance to grow up and be an adult.
I trust God through both deaths (and many others) and I know I will see them both again as it was clear they were both also believers, my grandfather through his faith through out life and my cousin through his faith during death, my cousin made it very clear that he was looking forward to seeing our grandfather again. I mourned the lost years he never got to live. I know he lives now with Christ in heaven and a fuller life it is, but I still miss him, tremendously. Missing him and grieving him is not lack of faith, it’s a very human response to death, Jesus himself wept when his friend died even though he knew he was going to bring him back to life like right after. To me, as a Christian death is not natural part of life, though it is a normal part of our lives and we all die. We as humans were never meant to die, we were meant to live. and keep living, but through our own choices of sin death came to us as a consequence. Jesus conquered death by taking the responsibility of our sin on Himself on the cross. And left us the Holy Spirit as a promise or a down payment if you will, of an everlasting life with no sorrow or pain, and far more wonderful then we can imagine (and no, it’s not sitting on a cloud playing harp, that’s stupid.) He promised us life! Perfect life. I can’t say exactly what that is because I’ve never lived it, but whatever I can imagine it’s going to be far better. And it will be with God and all who trust in Him, including my cousin and grandfather.
Let us say you and your partner lived a relatively full life. You are both in your 70s but healthy. You both get diagnosed with cancer, but your partner dies fairly quickly (albeit painlessly) not long after diagnosis. You also are informed in about a year or two, you will similarly die.
If you truly believe in heaven, then you're grief for your lost partner should be small. You will only spend a short time away from each other, there was no pain involved, you both lived full lives. The difference between your feelings of your partner going on a trip you will catch up with them on to a paradise ought to be the same sentiment.
However, this is not typically what we find, typically we find that Christians despite saying that they believe in heaven and the person being grieved is going to paradise grieve very very very hard. Far more then many of us would if we actually believed that. Hence why people believe that Christians typically don't actually believe in heaven.
As a Christian, I agree with your take. Especially the part where you mentioned that Jesus also cried when his friend died, even though he knew his friend was coming back. It's a natural response to an unnatural situation
@@ZacharyBittnerI think you're missing the last part of the comment though. We (humans) weren't meant to die in the first place. Of course we would be sad about it having to happen now that we've sinned.
I also think that grieving does not exclude the feeling of peace. A lot of Christians who lose loved ones grief abou the loss or the seperation and so on, but at the same time they have this inner peace, because they know where their loved one is. They're not mutually exclusive feelings in my opinion
@@emilyesnyman i tend to agree with the other person. There is no evidence there is inner peace for "a lot" of Christians.
@@drewpy14she's talking about the First Person Missing the point, also getting mad at such a small detail seems (No offense) autistic, no really, I'm not joking.
Please do make this a series, this is really fun
6:45 glad to see people repping the classics
I just love listening to you talking about philosophy man, make it a series!
i dont normally comment but please keep making these, rtheyre super fascinating!
That hbomberguy reference caught me offguard lmao.
I saw your comment before the reference, and was listening for it... Then he said the hot take and I knew what was coming lol
This was way too short. WE NEED MORE.
In response to religious grief over death- as a Christian myself, I gave this some thought.
While it is probably obvious that a large portion of the grief comes from the separation from your loved one, I want to address the rocket thought experiment. The grief is stronger when the friend dies (rather than simply leaves) because even among Christians we recognize we have only one life on this earth. It exists for a reason; it is not made irrelevant by eternity and the promise of something better, but rather is a gift we are given to experience now. Premature death is a permanent end to the one single chance at that experience that we have.
So the grief is also for the seasons of life that will not be lived. This is particularly true for those who die quite young, and unexpectedly. It is not theologically inconsistent; in fact, righteous grief is a significant theme throughout the Bible.
Applied in another situation, can a true Christian fear their own death? I certainly do. Not out of fear for what comes next, but rather out of fear for what I would miss out on in this life; for example, being there while my children grow up.
Question for you, what would cause you to fear something you have little control over especially given that the nature of death itself is an inevitability? I say this because of your last paragraph, because even if you live a fulfilling life, there’s a lot you will miss out on for the future of your descendants so why would you grieve for their fulfilling lives?Eventually, unless we are leaders of the world, our names will be all that’s left as the generations go by.
@@faznaz7455I think it’s important to make the distinction between children and other descendants. I certainly don’t fear for a lack of legacy, or worry about being remembered after I die. That doesn’t concern me in the slightest. It is truly the immediate and most important relationships in my life that I am most concerned with, so when I speak of being present in my children’s lives I don’t worry much about the generations after. But to be concerned about what would happen to my infant if she lost her mother young? To hope I can watch her grow? Those seem sensible to me.
As for why I would fear something I have little control over, isn’t that the root of most if not all fear? That which we can’t control? Sure, if we were purely rational creatures we’d be able to simply tell ourselves “there’s nothing you can do about that, so don’t waste energy worrying about it.” We aren’t purely rational though. Instinct, emotion, desire…many other elements contribute to fear of the unknown and uncontrollable. Philosophy and theology can be great comforts, but I don’t know that they can ever completely override our basic drives and instincts.
Yea definitely turn this into a series. These are bangers.
10:27 This point is really interesting. This explains why many far-right nationalists and extremists don’t get along. A white nationalist shares a lot of the same values as a far-right islamist. The difference being that that they have different “hats”. Because their ideology is very tribalistic, it prioritizes their own group (either religious group, ethnicity og nationality) over other groups.
This also explains why the nazis did all the mental gymnastics to justify allying with 2 non-aryan but still fascist states (italy & japan).
7:36 I have heard several explanations, but I rhink another factor is that you cannot help or change anyone/thing so your power to influence anything/one is gone.
Still baffled I bumped into you at the pub and now im watching one of your videos 😅 Nothing like washing down dense engineering coursework with some late night philosophy 😍
Ayy word, that's cool
What was he like?
@@mannyoftheeast3318minty
Are you the Muslim man who was telling him in the pub that you don't like the British dawah scene? Because I heard a bit about you when I had a conversation with Alex after a talk he did at my school!
No ahahahah @@somebody9033
8:00 That spaceship question was interesting. As someone whose never experienced a death in the family, I've never once had a viceral reaction to learning about someone's death. I've been sad about people being away from me, like this girl that I knew in my class who moved away, but I didn't cry.
I'm a Christian by the way.
I would enjoy a series on this. However I preferred it when Alex would make 20-30 minute videos on a specific topic.
Spaceship analogy is a very very good one that pushed me all the way on that side of the argument
10:00 world peace may be achieved when everyone has the same values as single world tribe, where there is no individualistic or tribalistic values that may clash between value-holders.
What if the agreed upon values this world tribe has includes: it is morally correct to eat the babies of others and wear their skin? Is that still peacfull? I think to continue this discussion a well thought out definition of 'peace' is probably needed.
@@seftondepledge3658 Peace may simply mean living in congruence with each other taking into account the human condition and other natural factors (which may include some incongruency that has to be solved somehow).
"it is morally correct to eat the babies of others and wear their skin"
If the human psyche shifts and there are good reasons to do this while maintaining a holistic social congruency, I don't see any problem, besides my current personal values clashing with that particular practice of course.
Also, this is a utopianistic view that may be impossible to take place in real life and could end up being problematic if applied. But this is an important topic to discuss given the state of the world in the past and now.
@@notu1529 yep, I completely agree with that if we are using that as our definition of peace.
My point was that the idea entirely hinges on the definition of peace (and I think yours is a good one). However most people’s definition would probably include some reference to a lack of violence, which would make the statement false.
I love that take on that identy is not a property, but something that mind projects on a world. It solves problems like ship of Theseus by showing, that it is not a problem at all.
In the example of the friend on the ship, I think some important distinctions should be made that might illustrate why death is a harder thing to face.
Between the trip away and death, the journey would likely be known about and planned for for weeks, months, or even years ahead of time giving you time to say your goodbyes, and come to peace with the separation. In death, often it is sudden and unexpected meaning that you would not have the same opportunities to make peace and say your proper goodbyes which is a separate pain from the pain of separation that is unique to the death version of the story.
In the event that the death is foreseen, it often would come along with suffering for the one dying. In the trip away, theoretically, the friend would be excited about this trip, and those left behind would not have to watch their friend deteriorate in pain before succumbing to a fate they didn't seek out. This too is a pain separate from the pain of separation that is unique to the death version of the story.
In the example of the pain of separation via communication vs. the pain of seeing the ship explode on exit, the death version also carries the unique distinction of it being something the friend did not desire or seek out. Seeing the perceived desire or excitement on their part leading up to departure only for it to end in tragedy before they could accomplish what they set out to do carries with it the loss of their goals that they worked so hard for. For the friend, their end would be sudden, but for those that were left behind, the wish that the friend could have been able to accomplish more of what they set out to do might have hurt, especially those that attempted to talk them out of the plan but found peace with the idea of "well if this is really what you want." That pain is unique to the shuttle exploding vs the friend going off to accomplish their goals.
That's true, but remember that for Christian people, the death of a person is quite similar to the journey to Mars that Alex described on the video (but a journey to heaven instead), so if Christians know that a death would be similar to that journey already, then the pain should be similar too if they already know they eventually are going to die. So for example, imagine that you already know from weeks and even months before that your friend has a terminal illness and he's not going to live more than 3 months, in this example this is not that different from the travel to Mars that Alex described from the video (at least from the perspective of Christianity). And you even have time to say a proper goodbye before your friend dies. But you would still probably be more upset about your friend dying than the travel to Mars without being able to see or talk to your friend again.
great comment - to add onto this, i think that it is also worth mentioning the conditions once more. there seems to me something intrinsic about humans that, although not founded, gravitates us towards blind hope. The ship example may hurt less to a person because even though there is absolutely zero chance your friend will be coming back, there is something naturally less final about that situation compared to the finality of death. i feel as though death is one of few phenomena on earth that eradicate all hope, and even for a while doesn't do so either if you look at the five stages of grief.
@@martiddy There certainly are many parallels, but again, the distinction should be made that most people even Christians don't seek out death. Your comparison has holes in it, which I pointed out by mentioning that the mars trip was likely sought out, and by mentioning that the mars trip would be relatively painless compared to most terminal illnesses.
The pain of seeing someone you love deteriorating doesn't vanish the moment that they die even from a Christian perspective (though many will find some form of solace believing that the small silver lining of "they aren't in pain anymore" might serve to mitigate the pain of loss at least marginally.)
Interestingly, Islam forbids excessive mourning, e.g. wailing, tearing hair out, etc., and limits the time for it.
There's a lot of emphasis on accepting God's decree (a higher level of faith is to be happy with it and there are levels beyond that), having faith in God's promises, etc.
However, we also don't wish for death, as it means the one who is good can't earn more good deeds, and the one who is evil can no longer turn back to goodness.
What follows death is also not necessarily pleasant, except for the best of people. For Muslims, there is a period of cleansing of accumulated evil deeds which weren't forgiven before the final Judgment, which is an extremely difficult time. So it's not like we think the other person just goes straight to heaven.
Afterlife is extremely difficult.
I think a fundamental factor of humanity that the example and question posed miss is that human emotional is often illogical. Trying to logically explain why someone is sad for a death seems a tad bit lacking in understanding to me
Oh, I like that first one. Never heard the word Mereological before. Will try to remember that one.
philosophical hot take: there is no worldview that is 100% logically thought up and correct, no matter what view one takes there are always things that make it seem absurd
how is this a hot take. anyone who claims their worldview is 100% correct and includes everything is just a bad faith moron.
I must disappoint, but this is Not true. Firstly, because your judgment itself is one Thing exampt from that, what it Claims for all. Secondly, the 'worldview', that the law of non-contradiction is Impossibly wrong and undoubtable is, If anything is, correct.
I guess, with worldview you mean Something much more sophisticated and elaborate, and it might indeed be true, that Most fail utterly. But even then, if one is ever to be comleted, one and only one can be true, If worldview is to mean the judgment about the Nature of the World and Not Just a Wish or Fantasy about it, that has no Truth-value at all.
The invention of the hyperbole made this statement true. No matter if something is the truth or is a lie, hyperbole used in the correct way can make the truth seem whichever way it wants. Therefore, while your statement may be true about the language we use, it is not true about the actual nature of reality.
@@awesomesauze7 @awesomesauze7 thank you for your Answer. Could you elaborate, what you mean with hylerbole please, for i without dont fully get, what you say.
Didn’t Plato and Socrates beat up all the sophist already? What’s with this metaphysical relativism? Where’s the knowledge!?
Alex, love this new format! Regarding the one about death and religiosity: I can only speak for the judeo-christian worldview, but in this worldview, death is not an inherent part of life, rather a consequence of us being separated from the life-giving God. Therefore, death itself can be understood as something bad and evil and hence it is totally natural to feel grief and anger in the face of the death of ones beloved. It's not just about missing them, but mourning over the reality of death itself and its consequences.
I must excuse myself, If i seem rude, but this makes No Sense at all. For If God is the Life -giving, we are nearer to god in Life, then after death, which cannot be, as the Christians hold it to be true, that they are granted eternal life, which renders death not only Not being Bad, but in comparison Something very good. Therefore, the moarning still is Strange, and this conception you mentioned by itself wrong. Life cannot be without death.
I submitted a couple I'd say are at least interested come on alex!
Make it a series i love these😍
Please do make this a series, it’s really entertaining and teaching
Very much liked these takes. A few of those felt like "yeh, i like that". Not nescessarily rigerously, but the concept put a grin on my face
The whole first part of the video reminded me of the the emperor’s soul by Brandon Sanderson where in the spiritual realm objects begin to see themselves as a whole instead of their individual parts like the leg of the table being seen as a part of a table instead of just a piece of carbon.
Conflict doesn't just emerge because we're different. If we both want Scarlett Johansson, conflict arises because we're similar enough to want the same thing, and there's only one of her. And i don't share, back the eff off, skippy.
Tell me, why did you decide to use Scarlet Johansson, for this analogy?
@@vladtheinhaler93 Now I'm imagine a sort of ethical Last Thursdayism where every single moral/value judgement is somehow linked to Scarlett Johansson
How about what Scarlett Johansson wants?
Isn't that just what he said? If you had the same value, as in "We both agree that adronias should have ScarJo", then there wouldn't be a conflict, but if you have the same value but oriented around yourself, as in "I want ScarJo", then there is conflict.
That’s still an example of being different. You want yourself to have Scarlett Johansson, and I want myself to have Scarlett Johansson. Being the same would mean that you want yourself to have Scarlet Johansson, and I also want you to have Scarlet Johansson. No conflict there because we want the same thing.
That religious mourning one is talked about by Shakespeare in Twelth Night, really interesting how long ideas persist
I see dying as a breakup actually, a breakup that you did not want. And people grieve for breakups too, sometimes enen more than death, because in a breakup you know you can't be alongside that person again even thought they still exist somewhere in the world, maybe even near you. In death, i feel You're going to deal with the fact you're never going to see each other again faster than in a breakup. So both in death and breakups there are probably things left unsaid, feelings and needs not met. Notice when relatives are prepared for an old person to die of natural causes, got the time they needed alongside them, the grief is a lot less if not almost inexistent, at least that's what's I've seen...
Agree. But if you believe in heaven and you know that you will eventually also die, then you should not grieve because you will meet again after your own death. So for people who believe in heaven, a break-up should be more devistating than looding a loved one to death.
@@Ms19754 Pretty much, yes. A death of a relative makes me sad for a few days. A breakup can make me sad for months.
First time hearing of mereological nihilism but this is a position I've had for well over a decade now. I remember thinking in my early 20s how everything was really just different arrangements of pre-existing matter and the only thing that distinguishes one state from another is how our mind categorizes it and gives a name to it. I think it was my encountering The Ship of Theseus thought experiment around then that lead me to that. Nice to put a term to the idea, though!
As a religious person myself, I posit that the grief comes from our humanness. I'm 22, and I failed a year of university due to the changing nature of the education provided during COVID. I feel like a year has been stolen from me, and it has deeply wounded me and even led to a resurfacing of my mental health issues. But it's only 1 year, I have goodness knows how many more, so why am I crippled sometimes by this idea of lost time? Because human perception is just bad sometimes😂 we suck at looking at the big picture, and even when we do, it doesn't always stop the emotions of the moment
Just thought I'd offer this explanation
Firstly I’m very sorry to hear about what has happened - wishing you all the best for the future!
The grief of death will indeed come from our humanness yes, not as some fault in our thinking or "bad" perception, but as a result of an innate feature 'hard-wired' within every lifeform. It is a combination of evolved traits that have ultimately made us avoid death (fear for those that have the capacity) and prioritise continued survival. Without this, as organic ‘machines’ that have evolved from scratch, there would be nothing to stop our evolutionary ancestors from just dying. These subconscious biological mechanisms are our instincts. For humans, these are perceived emotions (such as grief), with their subconscious underlying mechanisms, that directly or indirectly push us towards survival. For grief specifically, it’ll come from a complex combination of things such as losing a provider, losing a protector, losing a fellow hunter/gatherer, etc. It isn't "bad" or faulty, impulsive emotional responses that makes us feel sad rather than glad that someone has gone to the afterlife (not something I personally believe in), it’s our evolved understanding of what has actually happened to our fellow species-member, and a subconscious signifier to avoid it.
@@MaxFoster-ni3op Since we're talking about religious people being sad when people they know die, I think it would be better to describe a religious explanation of why God designed people to be sad about people dying, even if you don't believe in it.
@@Mo_Mauve I suppose if it's just for making someone feel better in the moment, it may well be more socially appropriate and effective to explain in their framework of understanding. However, in terms of long term growth, would it not be better for people to understand the true, natural, biological mechanisms behind the things they feel? It seems to me that it would be, as they would be much better prepared for inevitable emotional events of life, whilst understanding that it's ok and natural to react in the ways that they are, meaning they can accept negative feelings and work on them instead of thinking there's something wrong or unholy about the way they feel.
I'd love for this to be a series
9:50 I actually think this guy has a point.
Another bit on the world peace one: there are definitely values that, if everyone shared them, would lead to conflict. "Nations can only keep what they can defend through force and anything obtained by conquest is rightfully won" would be a value that would lead to conflict even if everyone shared it, for one. Wars don't need to be waged on moral grounds and, in fact, most aren't.
Looking forward to seeing the Ben Shapiro debate!
It is already up, but not on this channel. Just look it up.
It's already up: ua-cam.com/video/yspPYcJHI3k/v-deo.html
@grahamh.4230 i can't find it anywhere
@@ImmutableUniverse ua-cam.com/video/yspPYcJHI3k/v-deo.htmlsi=1fxvRx7BsqijNbv9
on the afterlife, with the mars example, for me, i would say the difference in grief comes from knowing with absolute certainty - a kind which the analogy of space travel, psychologically, does not give - that you will not only never see them again in this life and nor will anyone else, but also that they will not have the chance to live out their life, e.g exploring mars, before going to the afterlife (not that i personally believe in it). which is analogous to how we should grieve over the children who grow up in ways that mean they are basically deprived of their childhoods - they may have entered somewhere else and may even have a chance of fulfilment, but theyve still been robbed of something vital.
with that being said, i feel immense grief over people i simply miss in my life, knowing full well they are probably if not certainly alive. maybe im just too nostalgic but ive often found that that feeling has been one that weighs equally to the grief ive felt towards the death of loved ones. the only difference i think is seeing someone die in front of you and the pain and danger associated with comprehending death. if i believed in the afterlife maybe i wouldnt feel that so heavily. but also i think its moreso about the nature of the departure. ive lost relatives where the process has been gradual and accepted and their passing was not too painful for them. but then i lost a beloved dog very suddenly and inexplicably (he went from perfectly healthy to collapsed and put down within a week), and the pain there was so much worse. equally, when ive lost friendships in a sudden or dramatic or confusing way, i must confess it caused me more pain even than the death of loved ones that i had long since expected and knew were going to die soon.
Mereological nihilism sounds kind of like something Eckhart Tolle would say. Seems rather Zen, and while I agree it’s not easily intuitive, I tend to think it’s correct.
Makes me think of Alan Watts
There is a distinction in utility, structure and the manner in which the arrangement changes how the material interacts with the stuff of other things.
You can take a clump of metal and make a slab of steel out of it. You can also take it and make a glider wing out of it. One of these does something the other does not, and this isn't simply a matter of perspective. One can fly, the other cannot.
That doesn't mean they ever began to exist at a fundamental level. Though their current form has a beginning, their fundamentals do not.
@@cadecampbell5059 Definitely. It reminds me of his "Everyone is 'I'" talk.
Mereological nihilism is just that, a mental sugar. Things do exist separate.
I am not very well educated in these subjects at all, but I think its so interesting that the first segment of the video, the part on "Nothing begins to exist". Follows some of the core ideas of Taoism from what I have learned. The "lump sum" you refer to is the same "lump sum" that I believe Lao Tzu labled as tao when he said the verse "The unnamed Tao is the Eternal Tao. The named Tao is not Eternal Tao. From the unnamed Tao comes the heavens and the earth. From the named Tao comes all things" - From Tao Te Ching. I think Lau Tzu was touching on the very same idea that was presented in the video, just in a much more mystical/easter spiritual framing. Think it could be intresting thought/video on how multiple subjects can converge on the same idea unknowling (how this all follows first law of thermodynamics as well) that I would love hear your perspective on. Great Video all the best.
Entirely off topic, it's been years since I last saw one of your videos. So much has changed. I guess your videos stopped popping in my feed as I became more stable and confident in my philosophy of life and slowly started focusing on study and other stuffs.
But looking back, you had such a big impact on my life. You played a major role in convincing me to leave my religion (yes, that's a good thing), and funnily enough, you even influenced how I talk. Like English is not my first language and I mostly learned it from people online, you were a big part of that. I often think about you when I'm speaking in English for a long time, I feel like I sound like you.
Anyways, sorry for being so random and irrelevant. Just happy to see you Alex.
Nice
Hope you’re ok man.
@@ionasmith1998 yeah, I'm doing great
i would love to see more videos with viewers philosophical hot takes but they get a few minutes to explain their position themselves, but other then that, this works amazingly too
mint is a spice fight me, unsubscribed
You are scientifically wrong
It's definitely an Herb
Well thought out, and with examples to your points. Thank you for sharing.
I like this format. Maybe you could answer the question type that comes up the most and put responses to them out once a week or every other week.
I really enjoy your points of view, your ideas, how you share your ideas with examples, and how well you communicate.
I believe that I may have understood ideas that you shared as facts, incorrectly in some of your previous videos. If I did, then I am glad that I experienced more of your content anyway.
With respect to material coming into existence, it’s theoretically (only in the sense of never having been actually done yet) possible to cause immense amounts of energy to form simple matter.
It's not theoretical and it's just simple energy rearrangement still. Where stars convert hydrogen into helium and releasing energy in the process. This energy production is a result of the mass difference between the initial hydrogen and the resulting helium.
But the energy would have previously existed, we would just now give it the identity of "matter" instead of the identity of "energy". So it doesn't really change anything, it was still there.
“The Final Theory: Rethinking Our Scientific Legacy “, Mark McCutcheon for proper physics.
@RasmusVJS Indeed.
Turn this into a series!
Every single time I try an respond to you on the other post it continually gets deleted. Here's reality regarding Biden (who is no longer the candidate) vs. Trump:
If I have to explain why a man (Trump) convicted of 34 felonies by a jury of his peers, found liable for sexual assault/rape by a jury of his peers, who defrauded college students out of MILLIONS with his scam University, who tried to coup the U. S. government by ADMITTEDLY trying to install FAKE ELECTORS to steal an election, who had to have his lawyer argue for complete immunity for his official acts as President to the Supreme Court to avoid going to jail for crimes committed on January 6th, who called for a suspension of the Constitution because he didn’t like the election results, who left office with record job loss, spent $141,000,000 playing golf despite claiming he'd never have time to play gold as President, created a record 4 year deficit, is on tape confirming that he lied/downplayed the seriousness of COVID to try an avoid it negatively effecting his election campaign & an unemployment rate of nearly 9% then you’re just too dumb to even participate in a conversation with me. You’re in a cult. Period, end of story.
Here’s my hot take: any moral standard that allows you to kill an animal to eat it also allows you to kill an animal to have sex with it. Any objection to one necessarily also objects to the other.
the first argument against that take that I was able to come up with went along the lines of "humans are made to eat meat - look at those teeth - but they are not made to have sex with dead animals", which I think is a terrible argument, but hey, it would be an objection to one above the other.
To at least finish the argumentative steps needed to arrive at the conclusion:
Premise 1: Humans ought to be allowed to do the things they are made to do.
Premise 2: Humans are made to eat meat.
Premise 3: Humans are not made to have sex with dead animals.
Conclusion: Humans ought to be allowed to eat meat, but ought not to be allowed to have sex with dead animals.
I don't think it's too far fetched that someone would use this argument, given that something along the lines of premise 2 is an argument sometimes used against vegetarianism. I disagree with all the premises, mostly due to humans not being "made to [...]" in any relevant sense, in my opinion. Even if they were, I don't think such a notion of human nature should be the basis of our morality.
@@triffnixwho is making people do stuff?
@@thesayerofing "made to [...]" in the sense of creation, not coercion, for example in a divine sense (god made humans in a way that leads to them eating meat, and not leading them towards having sex with animals). The same argument can also be done using natural inclination (humans are naturally inclined towards eating meat, and not naturally inclined towards having sex with animals). Neither of those is an argument I would support - nevertheless, they are valid arguments.
The aim of these is to show that there are ways of argumentation to make eating meat less morally problematic than having sex with an animal - to object to "Any objection to one necessarily also objects to the other."
@@triffnix then clearly god/nature "makes" some people do it. Does that make it moral?
@@thesayerofing in my opinion, no. There are ways to make that case, though.
Please make this a series. It's extremely interesting!
Lots have people have said this already but I think this would be a cool series
When i was around 11 i attended my first funeral and my grandfather was crying like heaven would not exist and that made me think if the stories they told me were true.
Later on he started dating some other lady. If heaven real, is that cheating?
Short, but enjoyable, and gives food for thought.
Best wishes for you and yours; hope you enjoy the holidays and it doesnt get too cold on your side of the Atlantic.
please more of this. i literally subscribed because of your last video on the topic. btw here are some of my hot takes:
- the right to vote should be earned (through whatever metric) and also be revocable + the weight of the vote should be dynamic. a professionals vote should be taken into account more than that of a unlearned/uneducated person
- objective morality does not exist
'Should' in what sense? How should a vote be earned or revoked?
@@mikaeus468 that's not for me to say. Hence why I wrote 'by whatever metric'. I don't know. Suggestions could be by service to the community, good deeds (whatever the f that means), competence, intelligence. I do not know.
@@dertyp3463 I might have interpreted "by whatever metric" incorrectly, and I guess it's completely fine to not want to really work out those details just yet. However, I think it's definitely worth noting that people are going to have to decide those things, and will inevitably put their own biases into such a decision. Abigail Thorn talks about this a lot.
Extension of your hot take: If you don't have any chance to get drafted in the military, your vote should count as less.
@@emperortgp2424 as someone who served I strongly disagree. I know highly competent people who couldn't get drafted because of their physical condition yet they are valuable to society in other ways.
Always waiting for your videos.
Minty is cold spicy and not the opposite of spicy. Merely spicy of another kind.
Minty is the spicy of the ice
Capsaicin is the spicy of the fire
Horseradish and pepper are the spicy of the fields
And vinegar and lemon juice are the spicy of the water
And salt is the spicy of the rocks
I've enjoyed these, make it a series.
Please turn this into a series !!
7:30 I’m agnostic but the argument of Heaven being so different to the mortal plane that you are mourning the persons future inability to access this wholly different (but inferior) plane and the corresponding loss in experiences.
I’ve rarely seen theists describe the afterlife as a mere permutation of the mortal realm, but instead as a different realm in its entirety.
6:20 "Conscious" machines would most likely be utilitarian.
Def turn this into a series please!
Regarding mereological nihilism and the existence of objects, I would argue that objects exist insofar as we have relations to them, and how they relate to us when we interact. They are formed as objects in our experience. In the same way that we automatically perceive sounds as English without effort, we perceive experiences with external reality as objects. An interesting point to consider is whether anyone has ever experienced an object outside of their experience.
07:00 Tears signify the death of an outdated and immature conceptual structure. Once this occurs, the individual is neurologically prepared to absorb new information and perspectives that will replace the old framework. The outcome of this emotional journey becomes the foundation for a more mature and evolved understanding of the world. So, you can say that crying and grieving is a response to adjusting to the new map of the world.
2:48 no there very well is a difference... made of different elements and compounds, made for different purposes, different sizes, etc (obviously.
Just because most of everything is made of matter doesn't make it the same. Its not a coherent idea.
Stupendous, please make this a series
Definitely keep this as a series
Yes please do turn this into a series.
Please turn this into a series
Great video, always enjoy Alex's content. As a religious person myself, I found around 8:17 with the analogy of the space ship to be an interesting thought experiment. However, I feel recording my thoughts, because my initial thoughts to the two scenarios was actually being more upset at the first scenario of losing contact with my friend forever than of the second one of my friend actually dying. Of course, in self reflection, I realize that the first scenario is quite better for my friend, since they live. But even as I type I almost feel a compulsion of wanting the second one more, not out of malice but in this state of missing them.
I know my thoughts aren't the clearest, but I think there are two things I would get across. 1) I understand the example is supposed to be a analogy to show the disparity of our actions and beliefs, but it doesn't really line up with the religious worldview. I think if anything, the religious experience is akin to the first example (which I think is the point), but the death still occurs in the real world anyway. But 2) , and my major point, I find that religious people can just engage in the sin of selfishness when it comes to death. Like of course we are happy that are loved ones will go to heaven, but I selfishly don't want to wait to see them again. The idea of having to go through life with all its trials without them is hard. Yes, I am happy that I get to see them again but that could be decades. In the same way that having to resist sin for decades is challenging, waiting to see our loved ones is challenging too. You could even be envious in a way too, I have these seen reactions before in other religious folk.
TL;DR I don't these arguments about religious people's experience with death accounts for the selfish qualities of the mourner or even just their impatience. Or the differences of severity of the death itself. They are too vague, at least in my own perception of things.
If you haven't already, watch the podcast episode where he talks about "Is Religion just death anxiety" for a longer, similar discussion.
@@NotAUtubeCeleb Oh thank you for the recommendation. I haven't made my through all of the podcast series yet. I'll try to incorporate It into my drive within the coming week.
This would be a great series! I believe I have a few spicey takes of my own
MAKE THIS A SERIES PLEASE
Congratulations for 1M
❤
The hbomberguy “sell their houses to who Ben” is maybe one of my favorite clips on all of UA-cam
Yes, make this into a series. Thanks in advance.
Would looove for this to become a series
Actually awesome series. Please do more :)
This format, with variety, would work well as a series.
This series would surely be fun !
5:00 you can condemn these things because they do have moral wrongs.
You first have to define love, and if you ask me there are around 3 kinds
Pragma - Devotion to someone physically and mentally, to know who someone is, flaws and all, and love them for who they are.
Familial - A bond developed between family, this love is to build you as a person and support you as you grow and love you unconditionally throughout. It is akin to a tree, you share the same roots even if youre not connected by blood. Simply by living together through your development makes a connection that cannot be broken, you will still love them like a sibling even if you fuck them, you can not develop pragma like an actual couple, you cannot be devoted in the same way.
Friendship - bond developed between anyone, and even animals. This bond is basically a watered down version of familial and pragma love, but can grow to either.
There are also things that people conflate with love, but are not love by themself.
Infatuation/mania/obsession, Sexual/lust,
Same sex incest betrays familial love and perverts it, literally. Its using someone else as an object for sexual pleasure. I argue consent is irrelevent when your using someone only for sexual pleasure. Its why I believe one night stands are immoral because it subverts what sex is meant to be, a declaration of complete devotion to someone both physically and mentally, and to create a new life. Basicallly it is wrong because it bends familial love and attempts to turn it into both sexual and pragma love, when that love is always going to be familial love, but often tainted with lust.
While I personally have no problem with gay people, I do believe a lot of gay people are driven by lust and not love. For those who are driven by love then it is nearly equivalent to a straight couple that are infertile.
Beastiality is betraying both an animal and your own biology, it is also wrong because it is using a living creature as an object for your own sexual pleasure. There is no love possible other than friendship with an animal, you can not be devoted to them mentally because you have different levels of consciousness, and cognition. This is one of the reasons pedophilia is wrong, because children do not have the mental capacity to understand the consequences of actions, and therefore cannot consent nor be mentally devoted to someone, therefore cannot love a partner, they only are capable of familial and friendship. Animals are similar in that way to children, and that is one reason it is condemnable.
Necrophilia is wrong for most of the reasons above. Its using someones body as a object for sexual pleasure, its not mutual, even if they or the family consented before death. Even though they are not living, they still hold the right to their own body. Its assaulting someones body, they can not provide consent after the fact. Its like saying your not allowed to stop having sex after you consent to it, no you have the right to stop sex at anytime, dead guy cant reject consent. Also some clinically dead people can be resuscitated, therefore they can't lose ownership of their body and then regain it. That would mean you could do anything to them (rape, mutilation, robbery, etc) before resuscitation and not face any punishment afterward when they come back to life. No, dead bodys are not objects, they have the previous bodily autonomy as they always had, they are just using their 5th amendment rights and shutting the fuck up lol.
Just because there is no "harm" done, does not make it moral, nor morally neutral. Utilitarianism is not the only thing to consider or live your life by, its in part an extremely selfish way of looking at the world, and does not always have application in morality. However it is also entirely stupid to refute Utilitarianism entirely, because it does have grounds in a lot of other philosophy. Different philosophies can be used to explain different things, and still make sense, they only conflict when you try to fit a square into a circle hole.
If you want to live in a moraless world, keep arguing semantics about how a guy can get ass fucked by his brother and that it's both not weird, and not morally questionable.
we can all agree its weird, and on some level wrong, arguing about why is not hugely productive, so actually start thinking of reasons its wrong to fuck your dead grandma 13 different styles before cremating her and using her urn as a rainbow dash cum jar, INSTEAD OF PRETENDING ITS OK BECAUSE YOUR TOO STUPID TO THINK OF ANY POSSIBLE REASON.