Yay! Took two classes (Philosophy of Mind and Political Philosophy) with him as an undergrad film student in the 80s. An amazing teacher, and facilitator of discussion. 30+ years later I can still remember how my brain (mind?) would feel afterwards. This is why UA-cam exists.
I honestly believe, in my soul, that Thomas Nagel is a shining star of light that is reflecting great insight and truth onto our current dark sea of intellectual waters! I have a very grim feeling towards the current intellectual establishment, but Nagel is like a miraculous breath of beautiful thinking..... I can only pray his insights lead us to the correct path...if not, at least, his books will survive.
Thank you for posting this by one of the greatest living philosophers, and that is saying a lot, considering the vast, perhaps bloated, contributors to that most indispensable and always under attack (usually from the hard sciences) discipline we call philosophy.
Thank you for sharing this talk and for facilitating access and exposure for the general public to such a personal engagement as this. My first exposure to Dr. (?) Nagel.
Hello, Baked and Awake. I bet you'd appreciate Nagel's famous essay "What is it Like to Be a Bat" and parts of The View from Nowhere (book), if you haven't already read them by now.
Thomas Nagel and a bright young newcomer, Markus Gabriel. Gabriel has made a more explicit case for a new realism that doesn't rely on absolutes and instead proposes a ontological pluralism.
I always thought my instinctive moral boundaries couldn't have come from the almost non existent Christian culture I experienced as a child in an atheist family, post Christian family. Some kind of judgement for my 'sins' has always been a strong motivator. An in built fear even greater than greed, sexual desire, etc. This isn't an argument for god necessarily but it does point to something outside of our current paradigm, imho. Yes I suppose it could be a subconscious group evolutionary strategy in my genetic coding but it seems greater than ant/bee colony instuctions
You note at the end that it is possible an evolutionary delusion. But possibility does not entail probability. Therefore, which explanation has greater explanatory power and self evidence? Which is simpler? Obviously the view that out intuitions are right in that there is a moral realm of which we are subject to.
Think of the two, de-ontological and consequentialism as being your right and left hand. We need both in order to navigate through our continual moral dilemmas. Choosing one over the other would only cripple us not enable us.
I am a fan of Nagel's work in political philosophy. His work is very rich and insightful. (Even the way he pronounces allies (alliiiies) is meaningful. It means they are full of lies! Didn't know that did you?)
Are you serious? His new book justifies intentionality as a series of accidents. He wrote one good paper, then in the end says it doesn't matter... he then reduces your material life, even if it's a disturbing disorder.
@@goodsirknight they are really trying to argue for living non-criminally, reducing liability while maximizing profit and material gain. Here, You get a house, a couple vehicle, meat and TV and sweatpants. I cannot take you seriously.
This lecture on Morality and its theory is quite interesting.. Yes human morality changes but it would definitely be Amazing if all human characters are view on their characters and Autonomy instead of bias judgments. Thank you for sharing this lecture well Appreciated.
then you should listen to Noam Chomsky too. Sleep well, eat well, exercise regularly, love your parents, get married, have kids, build a house, have a rose garden;that's it. Now go back to sleep.
In three sentences: Neither deontological morality (based on proscription) nor consequentialist morality (based on maximizing the good) can claim primacy at first glace. But deontological intuitions should be taken seriously at least as a "guide." However, something is lost when we look deontological intuitions as such rather than as something more fundamental.
@@ggrrttzz Most serious thinkers do not take Noam Chomsky(the political philosopher/commentator and his anti establishment sentiments) seriously. But he is a beloved of many college kids and almost all coffee shop Marxists.
Describing thinking slow as "less efficient but more accurate" is too simple, surely. Thinking slow is more efficient if you wait for all the relevant information to come in, then make one decision, rather than revising as new scraps of potentially misleading information come in. Thinking fast is more accurate in that you are more able to track what is going on in real time, not having to make so many major overshooting readjustments to policy. There is a real "wisdom" problem around these definitions, as you can take any position about "thinking slow" vs "thinking fast" and make it sound wise.
The adequacy of a style of thought for a given purpose certainly depends on much more than it's velocity. Yet there's a real problem with hasty thinking in this world of accelerating information and false measures of "productivity." People really do need to slow down and think more carefully. It's no wonder there's so much amphetamine addiction and cocaine addiction.
@@anonymoushuman8344 Stimulants are prescribed for people with "attention deficit". Often so they can compete in the academic world where they have to think for a long time about a particular subject, often past exhaustion, rather than "think fast" about a subject.
So I have to read this man's critique on Kant regarding moral for my law studies, but there is such a gaping fault in his whole theory. Bacause if the perpetrators are unable to help themselves from being criminals due to external factors, so are those seeking justice! Also, he takes the point in time that is most convenient for his false theory, the only point in time that supports it. He talks absolute nonsens and I think he is well aware of it himself, but the danger comes when meek students take it as holding any sort of value to reality apart from being a castle in the sky.
A few bullet points for your consideration: Nagel's rebuttal would probably label your example of the accused/defendant as an instance of "moral luck: the idea that people bear the full moral weight of their actions, despite the significant influence of external affairs". I believe the antidote and the poison are one and the same if you only have 2 ethical frameworks. In a court room, those at war are pushing for outcomes (genuine consequentialists). Absurd nonsense 100%. The whole lot of philosophy and my attempts to understand/persuade you through language is falsifiable spaghetti code. Life is soup, I am fork.
No matter what field of philosophy I study, Nagel pops up somewhere. Thanks for the upload.
The Neo-Epicurean will it matter in a million years time?!
Yay! Took two classes (Philosophy of Mind and Political Philosophy) with him as an undergrad film student in the 80s. An amazing teacher, and facilitator of discussion. 30+ years later I can still remember how my brain (mind?) would feel afterwards. This is why UA-cam exists.
Yeah. I took that same Political Philosophy class he offered....circa 1987. Hobbes. Locke, Rawls, then Nozick. Brilliant.
I honestly believe, in my soul, that Thomas Nagel is a shining star of light that is reflecting great insight and truth onto our current dark sea of intellectual waters! I have a very grim feeling towards the current intellectual establishment, but Nagel is like a miraculous breath of beautiful thinking..... I can only pray his insights lead us to the correct path...if not, at least, his books will survive.
It should be remembered that he's an atheist. I'm not, and he's one of my philosophical heroes in any case.
Nagel starts at 3:40
This man is embodiment an examined life well lived.
Gutless Spigot ayyy goteeem
Is that Amartya Sen in the first ten seconds? lol
Yep, that was good for a chuckle!
photobomb !! :-)
He was late but still entered the room like a boss.
😂 Yes
So you too are a Harward Professor?
😂
Thank you for posting this by one of the greatest living philosophers, and that is saying a lot, considering the vast, perhaps bloated, contributors to that most indispensable and always under attack (usually from the hard sciences) discipline we call philosophy.
one of the most original, most powerful and most humane philosophers of our time
Thank you for sharing this talk and for facilitating access and exposure for the general public to such a personal engagement as this. My first exposure to Dr. (?) Nagel.
Yes, Dr. (1963, Harvard University)
Hello, Baked and Awake. I bet you'd appreciate Nagel's famous essay "What is it Like to Be a Bat" and parts of The View from Nowhere (book), if you haven't already read them by now.
He can't be accused of popularizing his message.
Thank you for this video. In a hundred years (or less) Dr. Nagal will be thought of a a turning point to reasonable universal philosophy.
Thomas Nagel and a bright young newcomer, Markus Gabriel. Gabriel has made a more explicit case for a new realism that doesn't rely on absolutes and instead proposes a ontological pluralism.
I always thought my instinctive moral boundaries couldn't have come from the almost non existent Christian culture I experienced as a child in an atheist family, post Christian family. Some kind of judgement for my 'sins' has always been a strong motivator. An in built fear even greater than greed, sexual desire, etc. This isn't an argument for god necessarily but it does point to something outside of our current paradigm, imho. Yes I suppose it could be a subconscious group evolutionary strategy in my genetic coding but it seems greater than ant/bee colony instuctions
Adam Smythe its GOD
You note at the end that it is possible an evolutionary delusion. But possibility does not entail probability. Therefore, which explanation has greater explanatory power and self evidence? Which is simpler? Obviously the view that out intuitions are right in that there is a moral realm of which we are subject to.
When he knocks the microphone it sounds like someone is belching in my ear
Think of the two, de-ontological and consequentialism as being your right and left hand. We need both in order to navigate through our continual moral dilemmas. Choosing one over the other would only cripple us not enable us.
What is the talk about? There's no description and I can't get an idea from the comments.
Watch (:
Moral progress is illusory. The pendulum swings one way and then the other. The equilibrium is always maintained. Any deviation is simply an illusion.
Well, is the behavior of the interrogator in the given example not better explained by a code of honor rather than as a moral thing?
This is great stuff....thanks for upload.
I am a fan of Nagel's work in political philosophy. His work is very rich and insightful. (Even the way he pronounces allies (alliiiies) is meaningful. It means they are full of lies! Didn't know that did you?)
Mind and Cosmos. Brilliant
Are you serious? His new book justifies intentionality as a series of accidents. He wrote one good paper, then in the end says it doesn't matter... he then reduces your material life, even if it's a disturbing disorder.
@@Impaled_Onion-thatsmine ill have to re-read the book because that was not my take on it at all.
@@goodsirknight they are really trying to argue for living non-criminally, reducing liability while maximizing profit and material gain. Here, You get a house, a couple vehicle, meat and TV and sweatpants. I cannot take you seriously.
And you could call that friends :-P
@@Impaled_Onion-thatsmine ok dude can't say i know what you're talking about but i like your enthusiasm and lack of coherency
Does morality change? Rather society changes on whether to enforce compliance by law.
This lecture on Morality and its theory is quite interesting.. Yes human morality changes but it would definitely be Amazing if all human characters are view on their characters and Autonomy instead of bias judgments. Thank you for sharing this lecture well Appreciated.
So disappointing we didn't really get to hear his answer to Kamm's America challenge
So nobody is going to talk about Amartya Sen from the very beginning of the video?
Can someone summarize this for me and the public? I can not stay awake whenever I listen to him.
then you should listen to Noam Chomsky too.
Sleep well, eat well, exercise regularly, love your parents, get married, have kids, build a house, have a rose garden;that's it.
Now go back to sleep.
Eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow we die.
Good sense of humour for a girl.
In three sentences: Neither deontological morality (based on proscription) nor consequentialist morality (based on maximizing the good) can claim primacy at first glace. But deontological intuitions should be taken seriously at least as a "guide." However, something is lost when we look deontological intuitions as such rather than as something more fundamental.
@@ggrrttzz Most serious thinkers do not take Noam Chomsky(the political philosopher/commentator and his anti establishment sentiments) seriously. But he is a beloved of many college kids and almost all coffee shop Marxists.
Amartya Sen sighting at the beginning :)
Most philsophers are like a centipede rendered petrified by trying to answer the question of how his many legs move.
Bernard Liu why don’t you go watch mick taylor
make male infant circumcision illegal in the US
Describing thinking slow as "less efficient but more accurate" is too simple, surely. Thinking slow is more efficient if you wait for all the relevant information to come in, then make one decision, rather than revising as new scraps of potentially misleading information come in. Thinking fast is more accurate in that you are more able to track what is going on in real time, not having to make so many major overshooting readjustments to policy. There is a real "wisdom" problem around these definitions, as you can take any position about "thinking slow" vs "thinking fast" and make it sound wise.
The adequacy of a style of thought for a given purpose certainly depends on much more than it's velocity. Yet there's a real problem with hasty thinking in this world of accelerating information and false measures of "productivity." People really do need to slow down and think more carefully. It's no wonder there's so much amphetamine addiction and cocaine addiction.
@@anonymoushuman8344 Stimulants are prescribed for people with "attention deficit". Often so they can compete in the academic world where they have to think for a long time about a particular subject, often past exhaustion, rather than "think fast" about a subject.
Very fine indeed.
26:55
Amartya Sen = based
That's the great economist Pof. Amartya Sen
Do I hear some one burping several times in the background?
He must have had Taco Bell for lunch.
minchia thomas nagel
So I have to read this man's critique on Kant regarding moral for my law studies, but there is such a gaping fault in his whole theory. Bacause if the perpetrators are unable to help themselves from being criminals due to external factors, so are those seeking justice! Also, he takes the point in time that is most convenient for his false theory, the only point in time that supports it. He talks absolute nonsens and I think he is well aware of it himself, but the danger comes when meek students take it as holding any sort of value to reality apart from being a castle in the sky.
Could you elaborate please? Why is he wrorng? What are the implications of flaws in his theory?
A few bullet points for your consideration:
Nagel's rebuttal would probably label your example of the accused/defendant as an instance of "moral luck: the idea that people bear the full moral weight of their actions, despite the significant influence of external affairs". I believe the antidote and the poison are one and the same if you only have 2 ethical frameworks. In a court room, those at war are pushing for outcomes (genuine consequentialists).
Absurd nonsense 100%. The whole lot of philosophy and my attempts to understand/persuade you through language is falsifiable spaghetti code. Life is soup, I am fork.
Can't he talk without notes? ...
He is presenting a paper. Watch him answer questions at the end. It's a pretty standard process.
I agree with Chad-wtf-reading your lecture? Bad choice, no matter what the precedent. It diminishes his prodigious knowledge of the area.
@@golgipogo why