Philosophy is best understood as three distinct practices each with its own aim and tools; a) Academic Philosophy is about organising people, history, and jargon. Credentials are essential and meaningful answers or solutions are optional. b) Truth Wisdom is metaphysics and epistemology (which is the metaphysics of knowledge, certainty, and truth) and aims at the most universal answers to the most universally important questions. c) Practical Wisdom is the ordinary understanding of philosophy and aims at custom solutions to individual problems. Questions get answers, problems get solutions. An answer is a framework of understanding; a solution is an action plan.
I feel so happy I have a friend that have the same ideas and beliefs has me, I feel acknowledged and that I'm not alone in this world. Btw can I ask you some questions? 1. If we're mechanical -- causal, how do you find meaning in life? How and why do you feel content with the fact? 2. Have you felt boredom with the eventual cycle of life? 3. What are your goals/wants in life? 4. Do you have some tips for productivity?
How lucky do I feel to have happened upon this video. I have long been of the opinion that science, philosophy, and spirituality are intertwined in the most fascinating and ever evolving ways. I have also found Tao, Buddhism, and Greek philosophy to be the most intriguing of all. Quantum mechanics has been an additional topic of interest of late, and the connection to these is undeniable...and by the way, quantum mechanics has opened up lively debate over free will, especially when it comes to wave function. I have yet to be fully convinced either way regarding determinism.
Actionable certainty is the purpose of all knowledge, wisdom, and understanding as proven by the fact that when you have sufficient information to accept the fact or take the action, you want no more.
Knowledge is justified belief. It cannot be justified true belief because the ultimate truth can not be known and that would make the word knowledge useless.
Great content. Enjoyed listening to what you had to present. Allow me to postulate the following regarding free will. How would you account for the recent neuroscientific findings that show a deterministic outcome to choice in your philosophical inquiry? The illusion of choosing is just that, illusion. One chooses to eat a cracker and not a carrot not because of a free will but because of predetermined set of dispositions. There was a study done on exactly that. And it turns out that a choice is made before a conscious agency acknowledges the desire and chooses to choose. Therefore it stands to reason that free will is mere illusion. Am curios of your opinion, if you happen to formulate one.
Talking about mechanistic worldview. On the one hand, I totally get and support this vision when we discuss human behavior in broader terms. On the other, I don’t really think of myself as lacking a “free will” when, say, I’m choosing what to eat for breakfast. Just considering that all these years of biological development of human species led me to choose eggs over porridge seems ridiculous to me (although I know that it isn’t). I can change my mind just that easily, can’t I? Hence the question - how much of a mechanistic worldview can our psyche really take in? Can we just “get it” or are we biologically programmed to seek this free will?
And, if we’re kinda destined to always feel “free”, hence “special”, wouldn’t it be socially and politically harmful to convince people otherwise (hello Socrates)? Meaning that mechanistic worldview may not find much support outside of academia, so what’d we do?
My opinion is that it’s basically not possible to fully incorporate the idea that we are not free, you take it for granted in your day to day life that other people are free and you experience yourself as having the ability to meaningfully choose between multiple options, even though the idea of an ontologically free will is pretty much incompatible with any worldview short of either a completely solipsistic one or one in which you just don’t believe in a standard construction of causality at all (I’m thinking something like Lucretius’ “atomic swerve” idea), so I would personally say yes, we are programmed to experience ourselves this way and we can’t break that programming.
Introduction to Political Philosophy Course by Alexander Koryagin: ua-cam.com/play/PLB4w-p0WTsoLNmg8yYbucBczABaQash7C.html
Philosophy is best understood as three distinct practices each with its own aim and tools;
a) Academic Philosophy is about organising people, history, and jargon. Credentials are essential and meaningful answers or solutions are optional.
b) Truth Wisdom is metaphysics and epistemology (which is the metaphysics of knowledge, certainty, and truth) and aims at the most universal answers to the most universally important questions.
c) Practical Wisdom is the ordinary understanding of philosophy and aims at custom solutions to individual problems.
Questions get answers, problems get solutions. An answer is a framework of understanding; a solution is an action plan.
Interesting take! Thank you for sharing your thoughts!
Every science teachers and people that want to understand life should understand these concepts
I feel so happy I have a friend that have the same ideas and beliefs has me, I feel acknowledged and that I'm not alone in this world. Btw can I ask you some questions?
1. If we're mechanical -- causal, how do you find meaning in life? How and why do you feel content with the fact?
2. Have you felt boredom with the eventual cycle of life?
3. What are your goals/wants in life?
4. Do you have some tips for productivity?
How lucky do I feel to have happened upon this video. I have long been of the opinion that science, philosophy, and spirituality are intertwined in the most fascinating and ever evolving ways. I have also found Tao, Buddhism, and Greek philosophy to be the most intriguing of all. Quantum mechanics has been an additional topic of interest of late, and the connection to these is undeniable...and by the way, quantum mechanics has opened up lively debate over free will, especially when it comes to wave function. I have yet to be fully convinced either way regarding determinism.
Thank you for the feedback and for your kind words! Happy you found the video helpful!
Philosophy does deal with truths. Truth is that which continuously replicates and that's exactly what logic is, relationships that always replicate.
The video I've uploaded yesterday was broken, uploading a fixed version!
(Previous video unlisted: ua-cam.com/video/QKEsFLMxKMI/v-deo.html )
Actionable certainty is the purpose of all knowledge, wisdom, and understanding as proven by the fact that when you have sufficient information to accept the fact or take the action, you want no more.
Knowledge is justified belief. It cannot be justified true belief because the ultimate truth can not be known and that would make the word knowledge useless.
Would you describe your theory of mind as epiphenomenalist, professor?
Great content. Enjoyed listening to what you had to present.
Allow me to postulate the following regarding free will.
How would you account for the recent neuroscientific findings that show a deterministic outcome to choice in your philosophical inquiry? The illusion of choosing is just that, illusion. One chooses to eat a cracker and not a carrot not because of a free will but because of predetermined set of dispositions.
There was a study done on exactly that. And it turns out that a choice is made before a conscious agency acknowledges the desire and chooses to choose. Therefore it stands to reason that free will is mere illusion.
Am curios of your opinion, if you happen to formulate one.
Talking about mechanistic worldview.
On the one hand, I totally get and support this vision when we discuss human behavior in broader terms.
On the other, I don’t really think of myself as lacking a “free will” when, say, I’m choosing what to eat for breakfast. Just considering that all these years of biological development of human species led me to choose eggs over porridge seems ridiculous to me (although I know that it isn’t). I can change my mind just that easily, can’t I?
Hence the question - how much of a mechanistic worldview can our psyche really take in? Can we just “get it” or are we biologically programmed to seek this free will?
And, if we’re kinda destined to always feel “free”, hence “special”, wouldn’t it be socially and politically harmful to convince people otherwise (hello Socrates)? Meaning that mechanistic worldview may not find much support outside of academia, so what’d we do?
My opinion is that it’s basically not possible to fully incorporate the idea that we are not free, you take it for granted in your day to day life that other people are free and you experience yourself as having the ability to meaningfully choose between multiple options, even though the idea of an ontologically free will is pretty much incompatible with any worldview short of either a completely solipsistic one or one in which you just don’t believe in a standard construction of causality at all (I’m thinking something like Lucretius’ “atomic swerve” idea), so I would personally say yes, we are programmed to experience ourselves this way and we can’t break that programming.
An uncaused cause is an ineffable boundary condition.
There is no sense in which the will is free, and the word will is sufficient to discuss our experience of freedom, which is ignorance of causality.