Вставка
- Опубліковано 15 чер 2024
- Philosophize This! Clips: / @philosophizethisclips
Get more:
Website: www.philosophizethis.org/
Patreon: / philosophizethis
Find the podcast:
Apple: podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast...
Spotify: open.spotify.com/show/2Shpxw7...
RSS: www.philosophizethis.libsyn.org/
Be social:
Twitter: / iamstephenwest
Instagram: / philosophizethispodcast
TikTok: / philosophizethispodcast
Facebook: / philosophizethisshow
Thank you for making the show possible. 🙂 Today we take a look at Henry David Thoreau's views on the individual, society and civil disobedience.
www.patreon.com/philosophizethis
www.philosophizethis.org
Thank you for wanting to know more today than you did yesterday. :)
Given that I have no former education and, only a GED. I truly appreciate Stephen West, and his ability to articulate the material. I may have to listen to these episodes several times and, use a dictionary frequently but, it’s been eye opening to me and I truly love that ! Thank you Mr. West!
love the ending: Thoreau had to go to jail in order to be truly free
The best philosophy podcast out there, hands down!
This was refreshing and enlightening. I love Stephen's voice and how he condensed so much into a short time. By the way, I grew up 6 miles away from Walden Pond and Concord is pronounced as the word "conquered"🙂
That last sentence is very powerful.
I had to comment again. Excellent job making these podcasts
Thank you for yet another outstanding podcast.
The way you said farmers markets made me smile :)
3:33 "Do you ever worry about realizing when you are 90 that you wasted your life" i worry about that too. Phisosophical type thinking seems like a good way to assess where you wanna go so you so you dont end up at up at a random destination ya dont want.. "Everything dont mean a think if it aint what ya want. Express yourself." -NWA
This was very helpful. So clear in your description and explanation
20:38 where is that interpretation pulled from because Thoreau then goes on to say, "...which also I believe, - 'That government is best which governs not at all'; and which when men are prepared for it, that will be the kind of government which they will have." He seems to be saying that small government is good but no government is better.
No. If anything , it seems that he is saying that the best government is one that is there, but almost doesn't have to be there.
@@El-sr1id He literally says "That government is best which governs not at all' not the simplest
He misquoted Thoreau. Thoreau said: “That government is best which governs the least.”
This is incredible. I will probably return to this.
The Mexican - American war sounds at least as awful as Vietnam and the Iraq War.
Just discovered you. I'll be going to Walden in May and am doing research to prepare myself. Thank you for this contribution!
How was your trip to Walden?
Great video. Thanks !
Thoreau: i need to find myself.
Emerson: imitation is the suicide of individuality.
Woolf: hold my rocks.
Thank you so much.
Thanks - very helpful.
That this podcast has 600 likes, 26k views in May 2022, surely illustrates many fundamental issues today, should be in the millions. Thank you so much Stephen, we know so much more today than we did yesterday because of you.
Absolutely!
I guess the fundamental problem with this world is that people cannot look beyond their fundamental views on things.
very enjoyable
this sh*t is great! so much more thought provoking than Honey Boo Boo
How dare you hold it as non-axiomatic that the television show "honey boo-boo" is not full of deep philosophical wealth. I can empirically assure you that the metaphysical, epistemological and political aspects of the show would put even the most seasoned and renown among Post-modern thinkers to shame.
Whatever happened to the Adam carolla thing? I'm way late but I've been catching up from episode 1
Did you ever do the Q&A episode?
This was great although I would have liked a bit more depth, this could have easily been an hour or two long :)
Dude was a legend..Respeck.
I worry about that epiphany you mention at 23 years old. Does it get any better? Hahah
What happened to the interview with Adam Carolla on Capitalism? Did it go really badly?
@@philosophizethispodcast why did it go badly? I'm curious.
Finding yourself? living outdoors in solitude for two years? deciding not to conform? super, super easy to do when you have no obligations, live for yourself, are maybe bankrolled by others, etc. For those with responsibilities who must earn their living to survive and can't afford the luxury of trial and error? Not so much.
11:45
The only problem I have with this particular talk is that being 50 - 60 years old isn't necessarily approaching the "end of your life". Sure, time has passed, but there might very well be another 40-45 year left, albeit perhaps not the most physically active ones, but maybe the ones with the most depth.
LOL I'm 66 and my parents were both over 100, so I could easily have another 35 years! I want to live until I die. :)
@@marcybrooks3425 hope you still hanging there
As a guy in his mid fifties who studied medical ethics, I have to say this is mere abelist optimism.
18:27
I have a thought.
Truth is subjective not selective. I didn't choose that 2+2=4.
@Davidson 1 If by "whatever you think it is" you mean thought absent of or prior to agency, then I might agree. But if you mean thought with agency, then you did not understand what I just said.
@Davidson 1 How can an agent know something separate from their subjective experience?
@Davidson 1
I am sorry, but neither mathematics nor morality is objective. What is the number two outside of its conceptualization? Where does the Pythagorean theorem exist outside of my mind? They don't.
Also, murder is definitely a matter of opinion. The US fighting Al-Qaeda, to the Americans, was a righteous cause, but to Al Qaeda it was murder. And Al-Qaeda considers what they did to the US holy jihad while the Americans consider it murder. It depends on what your perspective is to determine whether or not something is considered murder.
Knowledge comes from perspective. This is so because in order to know something you must first see it or hear it or smell it or taste it or feel it or experience it in some matter.
So even if there was something absolute outside of our perspective we could not know it without involving our perspective. That makes the subjectivity of Truth inescapable.
And I should be clear, it is not a matter of opinion but a matter of perspective. Opinion comes from reason, perspective comes from experience. Experience is more immediate than opinion. You can change your opinions through new experiences, but you can never change what you experienced.
Subjective truth is experienced truth. And before experience is ignorance. If we have not experienced it, we do not and cannot know it.
Further, I can say that the statement "there is no such thing as objective truth." can be true because truth, as it functions in the day to day, is a quality of a statement. It's a subjective quality at that, because it is a matter of linguistics. There is no truth substance. There is no thing that is truth. Truth is a conceptual classification of statements in practice.
This does not mean that there is no truth, it means that there is no truth outside of experience. Also, this does not mean that truth is inconsistent. Experiences cannot be chosen, this is why I say truth is subjective not selective.
@Davidson 1
If you’re going by the idea of murder being wrong, no matter what other factors that might be introduced, then I’d like to point out that it is an idea and therefore subjective. However, I see that you’re coming at this with the idea of innate morality. I will hand it to you, if that is what you are talking about, the study of innate morality is interesting.
Yes, I admite that babies are seen to have a sense of right and wrong very early on. However, this is limited within ingroup/outgroup mentality. When an outgroup man kills an ingroup man, then this is murder. When an ingroup man kills an outgroup man, this is justifiable. If ingroup kills ingroup, one of them becomes outgroup.
Here though, we can see it depends on what the baby considers as ingroup and outgroup. This is perspective-based and therefore subjective again. All of this is hardly universal. It appears to be survival-driven altruism. Beyond this, moral developments are influenced by social interactions.
On your point about not limiting knowledge to experience, then I don’t know what else you’d include. Knowledge is to have the ability to state something that is true and to have the ability to demonstrate it as well.
If it can’t be proven, then it can’t be known.
Anyway, I understand how you can see opinion and perspective as the same thing. This one is my fault because a common way of using perspective is interchangeable with opinion. But this is not the only way of using the word, and I kind of overlooked this.
By perspective, I meant one’s place of observation. Standing on a hill allows you to see further than standing below it. The most immediate place for anyone’s observations is one’s own self. This place of observation, this perspective, cannot be changed. However, observations made from this place can change opinions. This is how perspective and opinion are different.
You asked, “When you say ‘there is no truth substance’ does that apply to that statement as well?”
I’d argue yes, and the reason why is as I stated before. It’s a linguistic thing. If I said, “I is going to the store.” You’d point out that I’m not using the language correctly. I didn’t follow the rules, but the rules are made arbitrarily over centuries of usage. They weren’t made by some absolute law of the universe.
Here too, the word “true” follows these same limitations. We say a statement is true if it matches with what we observe. If I say, “It is true that my cat is in my living room.” and I don’t have a living room, then I didn’t use the word “true” correctly and you could correctly call me a liar.
At what point was there a need for this truth substance that we could measure the falseness of my statement or the truthfulness of me being a liar? We only need to see if the rules of the language were followed correctly.
@Davidson 1
If there is an adequate rebuttal to my views, I haven't been gifted such a thing.
What are these logical and moral grounds you bring up that make you unable to accept subjectivism?
I still don't unstand how we can know of universals or innate concepts outside of our subjective experience. I'm still of the understanding that if something is outside of our subjective experience, then it is unknowable.
I don't deny objectivity, but this is post-hoc and inseparapleble from our subjective experience.
Meth and trees
Adam CoroYack
2
Do you think Jesus Christ's life would reflect the Walden Pond and a what I lived for experience? He did enter the desert for 30 days facing the temptations of food, testing God, and worship of Satan.
I know this is old but no. He believed in ultimate Truth.
You make good points & you are enthusiastic but don't have in-depth knowledge.
Define "in-depth" knowledge and elaborate why he doesn't obtain it. Defend your position.
pfffft! silly man.