What devin did is something NO ONE in any of destiny's alt right debates ever did. Admit they were wrong. RESEARCH and come back for a more wholesome debate.
he might still be wrong but whats important is that he admitted he had low knowledge and decided to study further, thats the biggest part, alt right debaters will never admit theyre wrong on the spot or else their whole platform falls apart, so it turns into a shit show fast.
@@Stellar77x Confused into saying he is wrong? He didnt have the knowledge to back up his statements at that point, obviously he is going to be viewed as wrong, thats how debates work.
Absolutely perfect from Devin. Few other things I would’ve added. The differences between good/bad and right/wrong and what influences each. 1. The understanding that nobody is born “good”. We have to teach everyone the difference between good and bad. Like teaching a child that shitting in the toilet is good, and shitting on the floor is bad. And religion/myth gives us the understanding between right and wrong. Like living in harmony with thy neighbor is right, and killing thy neighbor is wrong. 2. The clarity of difference between the two choices, religion/myth or tribalism. 3. What happens when you replace that religion/myth with political interference.
Devin did good this debate. He probably should have double downed on the art such as novels, music, or even a science discovery that affected our society or our current knowledge that wouldn't have been possible without "imagination", but overall pretty clean well spoken debate. I really enjoyed it.
I don't know why the argument has to come down to "We should all be robots" vs "We should all believe fairy tales exist". You can live in a world where everyone makes important decisions and choices based on logic, and isn't a literal robot who is devoid of emotion.
"Reason ought to be the slave of the passions" - David Hume. Also myth is not the same as religion. Myths are perfectly compatible with reason because they don't require faith. He was constantly conflating myths, symbolism and religion. Devin is not equipped to have this type of debate and Destiny went soft on him because they're friends.
Jason Main Just change the example to the myth of Muhammed, and I can justify being a pedophile. Or using a different mythos. The Japanese used to believe that the Emperor was the incarnation of God. So during WW II, they would carry out kamikaze attacks (suicide attacks) that otherwise, most people reasonable wouldn't reach this conclusion. Short of hyper patriotism. The point is, believing things for which no rational reasons exists for, is an incredibly dangerous endeavour. That leads to more harm, than good.
Hey Destiny, I'm relatively new to your content but I've loved it so far. I think the way you engage with people of many different ideologies and perspectives is great, even the really stupid ones (which this one wasn't, but you know who I mean). That said, I actually have some insights into this particular topic which you and your fans might find useful. I am by no means an expert, but I have delved into the subject of myths somewhat deeply, and in my studies listening to mythologists discuss myths, two important things have come up that you and Devin don't realize, and I don't blame you for not understanding it because I don't think this is widely discussed: First, that myths, in the proper sense, absolutely change. No myth we have today is some kind of "original" or "true" version. In fact, mythologists would argue that myths, once written down, lose a massive amount of their power, which was to be malleable and alter according to the way their societies change. To hold onto a strict version of a myth, in the proper sense, is to destroy the very thing the myth is meant to do. And second, no society that created myths, in the proper sense, believed they were LITERALLY true. For these cultures, myths are simply a way to help conceptualize their world and relate to complex things that they couldn't understand. For example, no Native Americas actually believed there were literal wolves inside them when they told that story cited in this discussion. They used it as a framework to help conceptualize abstract concepts. And I can guarantee that other myth traditions would have told a similar story but with different roles and animals. If Devin wants to argue for the potency of myths in this sense, then by all means. I could totally support authentic myth traditions that no one believes are literally true and which can change according to the societies who tell them. But for him to argue that they are equivalent to scientific claims, which are veritably true and cannot change be definition (gravity will never stop working the way it does so far as we know) I feel is irresponsible and muddies the discourse in a distressing fashion. Anyway, sorry for the prolixity, folks. Hope my half-assed insights into myths helps you put some of what was said in this discussion into a slightly better context!
It shouldn't but it triggers me that Destiny keeps mentioning Pathos as logical when Logos=logical,Pathos=emotions, and then Ethos= appeal to culture or a certain society
Mylixia rising like a phallus upon awaking. Defender of mythos and literary makings. Though before him stood an immovable logos, Mylixia sparred the matador as does the stubborn Taurus. In this historic showdown an anus was blasted. Destiny destroyed in this debate ‘twas.
Basically it sounds like their whole debate, in a more basic sense, is about whether people should have realistic or idealistic expectations. And having idealistic ones can be motivating to those who'd otherwise give up but can lead to unrealistic expectations. If you're realistic, you know what you're getting but it definitely draws less people in.
Yeah i really dont get it. Imagination only has value insofar as its facilitating rational values. When someonw hypothesizes they're inputting a imaginary value within a rational structure as a means of establishing a predicted outcome. When an author imagines a story the events may not have an "objective" physical existence, but their existence in the mind is none the less a function of rational structuring: of the author deliberating on how best to describe/represent real events or abstract concepts. The entire genre of the diadactic novel aka Madame Bovary, Anna Karenina etc are created using imagination but this imagination is contingent on rationality and structure in order to communicate its meaning and message. Same with the creation myth: its has value only BECAUSE a person recognizes the symbolic nature of the wolves and then applies the story as an ANALOGY guiding rational behavior. I wouldnt say that imagination/irrationality has equal value to rarionality/logic if the former is ultimately subservient/instrumental to the other. That relationship implies that the former relies on the latter, and that the latter is capabale of value independent of the instruments which describe it. That said, destiny's notion of logic as independent of the world seems super misguided since appealing to the concept of "logic" untained from subjectivity sounds like it leads to "objective" morality which does not exist outside of Sam Harris memes
A phrase that might help you is "can explain in principle" like theoretically we can in principle track the motion of every particle, but in practice we cannot.
20:43 Destiny you would love Japan. They've eliminated the majority of their ridiculous mythological beliefs, and focus on rationality. However, this is also why so many commit suicide, because some start to evaluate themselves as an objective 'net negative' to society (by using energy, producing waste, causing pollution with every product they buy, costing taxpayers, etc), and their monetary/labor contribution doesn't equalize the damage they cause. While cancer victims killing themselves left and right may objectively be the correct decision, I'm unconvinced the psychological damage that causes to society is entirely justified
I agree with you, but there is still more to it. A current problem in the world is that some values have been lost aside from what you have mentioned: to keep it simple, a lot of Eastern people have lost their justified sense of pride. Comparing it to the constant desire of average American students of getting the best jobs, Japanese people (in general) now focus a lot more to education and work efficiency, which is basically a really bad outcome for society as it also can lead to what you just mentioned. I just wanted to point that out
Damn, Devin. The first person I've seen to take that debate smacking on the chin like a man and actually come back for a follow up debate. I respect him for that.
Ever heard the saying, "People prefer warm lies to cold truths"? Devin tries to argue the fact a lie is warm means it has merit-- possibly the same merit as truth! Ridiculous.
Soo... basically people need stories because they are unable to think logically; Therefore, stories are important. [edit: Removed the quantifier adjective for "people", as per Mossy's comment]
No. Devin's argument is that no one relies solely on logical deductions to motivate positive actions and be happy. Judging by your thumbnail, I'm guessing you're a fan of Ghibli or some other weeb shit, which all draw on mythological concepts to tell inspiring stories.
+Mossy Qualia I edited my comment, because you're almost certainly right. It's likely not "some" but realistically, at least in current society, all or nearly all people. Devin wanted Destiny to admit there was at least _some_ value in mythos. Destiny's point was that logos is just more useful because it can be adapted and improved on; whereas, things like the bible don't change and cannot be improved on and can lead to the current shitstorm of anti-science / anti-progress / alternate reality. Mythos is useful? Yes; however, I would like to strive towards a society that relies less on mythos and more on logos. If I misunderstood anything, please let me know. [edit: fixed last sentence in the second paragraph]
Mossy Qualia To be fair. One punch man has motivated many out of shape weeb fucks to go out and do exercise. The difference being, all reasonable people agree that this is a work of *fictions and therefore not real* . While other mythos will lead people to commit suicide attacks, because they believe *for which no good evidence exists* , (Islam/kamikaze pilots) because they believe that what they're fighting for *is ordained by God/ the emperor is who God in the flesh* . See the difference?
@@herny45 Isnt that an arguement against individual religions and not Mythos in general? If we can recognise that Mythos in the context of one punch man is good for people then our conclusion shouldn't be to only base society around objective science. Its that the current religions suck and we need better myths.
Let's try this analogy: Science is like our eyes. Some have better eyesight than others. Some have a better understanding of how science works and have better critical thinking skills. No one has perfect eyes, but some scientists have a pretty good eyesight. Religion and myths are like glasses. When you're missing critical thinking skills, the right glasses can help you out. The problem is, that someone else is providing you with these glasses. And while sometimes the glasses better your eyesight, it is not uncommon that the glasses are specifically designed to keep you from seeing the things as they are. Often glasses make your sight worse, not better. And glasses will never make your eyes better than they could have been in the first place; they can only get you so far. And the existence of glasses can make you dependent on them. The wrong glasses can not only temporarily, but also permanently damage your natural eyesight. What Destiny is striving towards are better eyes. The better the eyes, the smaller the need for glasses.
This still doesn't have anything to do with Veganism as was with 1/2. Mylixia position literally collapses in that original question of "Is it morally okay to skin a cat". Am I missing something? Is this non sequitur hour?
I think that an important implication that Destiny should consider regarding his ideas regarding replacing the systems of myths with logical systems is that logical systems are ultimately human, as well. As such, over the long term, they are just as vulnerable to corruption and stupidity as religions. Logic only demands internal consistency, it does not need to be connected to facts. Also, I have to state that Religion really needs to be lived, or practiced to be truly understood. You cannot simply logically examine them from the outside.
Lupostehgreat no, not even remotely true. First of all, logical systems are not *equally* easy to manipulate as appeals to emotion, such as religions. Secondly, Logos does not require internal justification, it just figures out what is with logic and then some ethos (ethics) is used to jump that is-ought gap. Pathos doesn’t care about logical justification, it’s only emotion. Logos and Pathos are not even remotely comparable.
damn. this is some of the most interesting shit ive seen on youtube. I don't think my mind would have ever been able to go in this path on its own. is there any value to coming up with tought on your own as opposed to having them explainged to you, assumig you understand everything about it after it was explained to you.
The substitute for old stories is life. Life is a story that can be lived without some external story. We enjoy stories so fiction stories will stick around, but in the future we'll put less stock in stories for practical purposes. We just don't need them because life is a more useful story. Also fictions aren't myths. Myths are something that some gullible people will take as a part of reality like thinking gods are real thinking people. Like Harry Potter isn't meant to be taken as real so people in general know it's fiction, but not myth.
You need to stand on the point that rational arguments should always be considered over fantasy/religion. Obviously the wolf fable can be helpful for people, but it should never be considered over a depression diagnosis.
I'd argue its more like a stopgap than a side dish. I was mainly trying to relate this video to the previous one in the series but it seem like Devin is just probing Destiny's ideals in general.
MrBleulauneable I would disagree with his 50/50 split. People used reason to reach a desired outcome (which implies that different people have different desired outcomes). While mythos can (and has led) to people committing suicide attacks, or arbitrary killing some one, where reason alone wouldn't get some one to do. So the point I want to make is. Any "good" that believing in a mythos can bring, is dwarfed by the *demonstrable harm is has* brought. And I'm also not entirely sure of I would put metaphors / parables in the same categories as a mythos. But more like under works of fictions.
@@MrApotator Have all cases of people getting mental diseases after doing psychedelics been proven that they were predisposed to those mental diseases? Also, if it bring on a disease that never would have appeared otherwise, even if they were predisposed to it, or at least one that would have appeared very late in their life, that's also really bad.
>myths have the possibility to lead to bad results You mean like.... The the entire history of Abrahamic religions??? :thinkingface: His argument hinges upon believing things for which no rational reason exists may or may not lead to a bad outcome. Except using history itself we see that it tends to lead to horrible outcomes. The "good" that mythos brings to the table, is dwarfed by the *measurable damage it has done* .
Secular means seperation of church and state, not that a society doesnt believe in metaphysical entities. Otherwise there wouldnt be anything to seperate.
In the current context of the world, I think Destiny agrees with what Devin is saying, but the underlying question is whether or not humanity can grow and evolve out of emotion and into rationality.
I don't get it, someone can misuse Destiny's views how? "There are emotional people that will grasp on to the worst part of my reason and treat it like I treat stories and myth." I don't get what Destiny meant by that.
Prolly he meant in general people are emotional, so if you take his stance on things like friendship, family or idk girlfriends etc, because of you having umm more "intense' emotions than destiny, only thing destiny s ideas and views would do is to fuck your and anyone around you s life. You can start to think or at least act like family or friendship matters as long as they produce net positive on your life, but because you don't have the same inner feelings about these things like destiny do and you are doing it because it sounds or looks more logical, you are not gonna be able to do it. Maybe it can effect your mental health, maybe you would lose people around you, maybe your relationship with family gonna collapse etc. If you start to view these institutions like friendship, marriage family or whatever that is from a completely logical point, the conclusion or result may be logical but logical results doesn't necessarily make people happy if they are driven by emotions. Yeah there will be a few that can maybe pull of to live a life like that. But in general, most of destiny s audience is not gonna be compatible with such a life style. But because of destiny s influence they might try it, and some might try it long enough to harm themselves
Pretty sure you mean logos when you refer to the rhetorical appeal from or to logic and reasoning. Pathos describes an appeal from or to emotion, while ethos describes an appeal from or to credibility, authority and personal ethics. Love the discussion/debate, so different from the hostile shitbags that usually plague you.
This was such an autistic debate. Doesn't it just come down to yes emotion can lead to good results but by it's nature by relying on it as a mode of thinking never guarantees that either a truth statement will be true or that good actions will arise from the person who uses it as a way of viewing the world. Like isn't that where they should be arguing whether emotion or even reason can do these things rather than this silly debate of yes sometimes emotion is good yes sometimes emotion is bad.
There should be a distinction between fiction and myth. People who believe in myth think myths are real while people who create and consume fiction know its not real.
Also the wolf that you feed can also mean seeking help from others I'm with Devin on this one because using destiny's logic the Harry Potter series should be banned because they have imagery from christianity and other mythologies and the concept of good vs evil and how good should triumph evil is overrode by quidditch because people might go on their brooms jumping off roofs and also Destiny's argument towards the end saying that oh these myths and fairy tales all though they have good outcomes we should also have better alternatives such as medicine is what this guy is trying to say, that they should coexist and not have only logic and reasoning becauss humans are emotional we have emotions
You need to make sure that Devin stays in the philosophical realm instead of the practical one, I've seen this with a couple of your other debates where you don't catch the person switching from philosophy to practicality, because the second you let someone switch like that, it makes the debate really wishy washy. Devin kept trying to bring up that myth/religion does good things so that makes it just as good as science reasoning, while you are trying to say that in a perfect world there shouldn't be a need for religion so we should strive towards that perfect world even if we can't realistically get there. Practical to philosophical points don't work well against each other well... (ps not trying to say that I know more or would have done better, just critiquing)
The eagle on the coin thing is completely arbitrary though, so it's good by chance not by reason. Also the clinically depressed person who believes in that wolf mythos will only be hurt from it, because it implies that he's in some way in control, when he isn't. Mythos has historical value in the cases where it was arbitrarily correct, that's it.
In the end. This dudes position was shown to be legit. Destiny kept contradicting himself and playing semantics. You can tell Des got nervous. Great debate.
What devin did is something NO ONE in any of destiny's alt right debates ever did. Admit they were wrong. RESEARCH and come back for a more wholesome debate.
You can't admit to something you didn't do. /s
he might still be wrong but whats important is that he admitted he had low knowledge and decided to study further, thats the biggest part, alt right debaters will never admit theyre wrong on the spot or else their whole platform falls apart, so it turns into a shit show fast.
He wasn't wrong in the first place. He was beguiled and confused into saying he is wrong.
@@Stellar77x Confused into saying he is wrong? He didnt have the knowledge to back up his statements at that point, obviously he is going to be viewed as wrong, thats how debates work.
Nathan B Wholesome? Lol?
these philosophy streams are really good
destiny lets get some KFC together and talk about veganism
TriHard
watermelon
@@Matt-hm2lt cmonBruh
This is such a fucking good one. Possibly the most under-rated debate/conversation.
Absolutely perfect from Devin.
Few other things I would’ve added. The differences between good/bad and right/wrong and what influences each.
1. The understanding that nobody is born “good”. We have to teach everyone the difference between good and bad.
Like teaching a child that shitting in the toilet is good, and shitting on the floor is bad.
And religion/myth gives us the understanding between right and wrong.
Like living in harmony with thy neighbor is right, and killing thy neighbor is wrong.
2. The clarity of difference between the two choices, religion/myth or tribalism.
3. What happens when you replace that religion/myth with political interference.
Devin did good this debate. He probably should have double downed on the art such as novels, music, or even a science discovery that affected our society or our current knowledge that wouldn't have been possible without "imagination", but overall pretty clean well spoken debate. I really enjoyed it.
I'd say his argument was pretty embarrassing. Only thing more embarrassing were Destiny's counters.
I don't know why the argument has to come down to "We should all be robots" vs "We should all believe fairy tales exist". You can live in a world where everyone makes important decisions and choices based on logic, and isn't a literal robot who is devoid of emotion.
"Reason ought to be the slave of the passions" - David Hume. Also myth is not the same as religion. Myths are perfectly compatible with reason because they don't require faith. He was constantly conflating myths, symbolism and religion. Devin is not equipped to have this type of debate and Destiny went soft on him because they're friends.
His Siddhartha arguement was really good, but instead of the wolf myth I'd have used a Zen Buddhist explanation of shunyata or void.
Jason Main
Just change the example to the myth of Muhammed, and I can justify being a pedophile.
Or using a different mythos. The Japanese used to believe that the Emperor was the incarnation of God. So during WW II, they would carry out kamikaze attacks (suicide attacks) that otherwise, most people reasonable wouldn't reach this conclusion. Short of hyper patriotism.
The point is, believing things for which no rational reasons exists for, is an incredibly dangerous endeavour. That leads to more harm, than good.
Hey Destiny, I'm relatively new to your content but I've loved it so far. I think the way you engage with people of many different ideologies and perspectives is great, even the really stupid ones (which this one wasn't, but you know who I mean).
That said, I actually have some insights into this particular topic which you and your fans might find useful. I am by no means an expert, but I have delved into the subject of myths somewhat deeply, and in my studies listening to mythologists discuss myths, two important things have come up that you and Devin don't realize, and I don't blame you for not understanding it because I don't think this is widely discussed:
First, that myths, in the proper sense, absolutely change. No myth we have today is some kind of "original" or "true" version. In fact, mythologists would argue that myths, once written down, lose a massive amount of their power, which was to be malleable and alter according to the way their societies change. To hold onto a strict version of a myth, in the proper sense, is to destroy the very thing the myth is meant to do.
And second, no society that created myths, in the proper sense, believed they were LITERALLY true. For these cultures, myths are simply a way to help conceptualize their world and relate to complex things that they couldn't understand. For example, no Native Americas actually believed there were literal wolves inside them when they told that story cited in this discussion. They used it as a framework to help conceptualize abstract concepts. And I can guarantee that other myth traditions would have told a similar story but with different roles and animals.
If Devin wants to argue for the potency of myths in this sense, then by all means. I could totally support authentic myth traditions that no one believes are literally true and which can change according to the societies who tell them. But for him to argue that they are equivalent to scientific claims, which are veritably true and cannot change be definition (gravity will never stop working the way it does so far as we know) I feel is irresponsible and muddies the discourse in a distressing fashion.
Anyway, sorry for the prolixity, folks. Hope my half-assed insights into myths helps you put some of what was said in this discussion into a slightly better context!
I lrearned something new today! This is actual really interesting
It shouldn't but it triggers me that Destiny keeps mentioning Pathos as logical when Logos=logical,Pathos=emotions, and then Ethos= appeal to culture or a certain society
Clayton Smith a more accurate description of Ethos is ethics, but you are still somewhat correct since ethics come from culture/society.
Mylixia rising like a phallus upon awaking. Defender of mythos and literary makings.
Though before him stood an immovable logos, Mylixia sparred the matador as does the stubborn Taurus.
In this historic showdown an anus was blasted. Destiny destroyed in this debate ‘twas.
Destiny got moral'd in this debate.
What a great follow-up. It is hard to argue an absolute state of existence versus co-existence. Good job Devin.
Basically it sounds like their whole debate, in a more basic sense, is about whether people should have realistic or idealistic expectations. And having idealistic ones can be motivating to those who'd otherwise give up but can lead to unrealistic expectations. If you're realistic, you know what you're getting but it definitely draws less people in.
Isn't setting an unattainable goal also a sort of 'myth' itself?
Destiny feed Nathan
So he basically just read Jordan Peterson and Jonathan Haidt for 6 hours and then came back with this?
thank you xD
Yeah i really dont get it.
Imagination only has value insofar as its facilitating rational values.
When someonw hypothesizes they're inputting a imaginary value within a rational structure as a means of establishing a predicted outcome.
When an author imagines a story the events may not have an "objective" physical existence, but their existence in the mind is none the less a function of rational structuring: of the author deliberating on how best to describe/represent real events or abstract concepts.
The entire genre of the diadactic novel aka Madame Bovary, Anna Karenina etc are created using imagination but this imagination is contingent on rationality and structure in order to communicate its meaning and message.
Same with the creation myth: its has value only BECAUSE a person recognizes the symbolic nature of the wolves and then applies the story as an ANALOGY guiding rational behavior.
I wouldnt say that imagination/irrationality has equal value to rarionality/logic if the former is ultimately subservient/instrumental to the other. That relationship implies that the former relies on the latter, and that the latter is capabale of value independent of the instruments which describe it.
That said, destiny's notion of logic as independent of the world seems super misguided since appealing to the concept of "logic" untained from subjectivity sounds like it leads to "objective" morality which does not exist outside of Sam Harris memes
don`t insult mylixia, he is better than the JP
I'm just glad he tried at all
A phrase that might help you is "can explain in principle" like theoretically we can in principle track the motion of every particle, but in practice we cannot.
20:43 Destiny you would love Japan. They've eliminated the majority of their ridiculous mythological beliefs, and focus on rationality. However, this is also why so many commit suicide, because some start to evaluate themselves as an objective 'net negative' to society (by using energy, producing waste, causing pollution with every product they buy, costing taxpayers, etc), and their monetary/labor contribution doesn't equalize the damage they cause. While cancer victims killing themselves left and right may objectively be the correct decision, I'm unconvinced the psychological damage that causes to society is entirely justified
I agree with you, but there is still more to it. A current problem in the world is that some values have been lost aside from what you have mentioned: to keep it simple, a lot of Eastern people have lost their justified sense of pride. Comparing it to the constant desire of average American students of getting the best jobs, Japanese people (in general) now focus a lot more to education and work efficiency, which is basically a really bad outcome for society as it also can lead to what you just mentioned. I just wanted to point that out
Enjoyable.
Woah ethos is not emotion it’s appeal to ethics and pathos is appealing to emotion what you’re looking for is logos an appeal to logic
Cool Videos ethos is about the sender being trustworthy and credible. Its Also about ethics, just not entirely
I did not think Devin would get there in the end but I'm super glad for him that he did.
Am i buggin or do they mean Logos when they say pathos?
Edit: whoops there we go.
Damn, Devin. The first person I've seen to take that debate smacking on the chin like a man and actually come back for a follow up debate. I respect him for that.
Devin is slowly becoming destiny
You know the meat industry is trying to control the chat when the top two comments are from KFCnutrients and tylerMCDONALD.
Ever heard the saying, "People prefer warm lies to cold truths"? Devin tries to argue the fact a lie is warm means it has merit-- possibly the same merit as truth! Ridiculous.
Soo... basically people need stories because they are unable to think logically; Therefore, stories are important.
[edit: Removed the quantifier adjective for "people", as per Mossy's comment]
its basically the same for mathematics.
No. Devin's argument is that no one relies solely on logical deductions to motivate positive actions and be happy. Judging by your thumbnail, I'm guessing you're a fan of Ghibli or some other weeb shit, which all draw on mythological concepts to tell inspiring stories.
+Mossy Qualia I edited my comment, because you're almost certainly right. It's likely not "some" but realistically, at least in current society, all or nearly all people.
Devin wanted Destiny to admit there was at least _some_ value in mythos. Destiny's point was that logos is just more useful because it can be adapted and improved on; whereas, things like the bible don't change and cannot be improved on and can lead to the current shitstorm of anti-science / anti-progress / alternate reality.
Mythos is useful? Yes; however, I would like to strive towards a society that relies less on mythos and more on logos.
If I misunderstood anything, please let me know.
[edit: fixed last sentence in the second paragraph]
Mossy Qualia
To be fair. One punch man has motivated many out of shape weeb fucks to go out and do exercise.
The difference being, all reasonable people agree that this is a work of *fictions and therefore not real* . While other mythos will lead people to commit suicide attacks, because they believe *for which no good evidence exists* , (Islam/kamikaze pilots) because they believe that what they're fighting for *is ordained by God/ the emperor is who God in the flesh* .
See the difference?
@@herny45 Isnt that an arguement against individual religions and not Mythos in general?
If we can recognise that Mythos in the context of one punch man is good for people then our conclusion shouldn't be to only base society around objective science. Its that the current religions suck and we need better myths.
if the myth of the eagle hasn't influenced societies' attitudes, it doesn't apply
Let's try this analogy:
Science is like our eyes. Some have better eyesight than others. Some have a better understanding of how science works and have better critical thinking skills. No one has perfect eyes, but some scientists have a pretty good eyesight.
Religion and myths are like glasses. When you're missing critical thinking skills, the right glasses can help you out. The problem is, that someone else is providing you with these glasses. And while sometimes the glasses better your eyesight, it is not uncommon that the glasses are specifically designed to keep you from seeing the things as they are. Often glasses make your sight worse, not better. And glasses will never make your eyes better than they could have been in the first place; they can only get you so far. And the existence of glasses can make you dependent on them. The wrong glasses can not only temporarily, but also permanently damage your natural eyesight.
What Destiny is striving towards are better eyes. The better the eyes, the smaller the need for glasses.
Intelligence is like Eyes, Religion is like a back alley eye implant.
Pathos is emotion, Ethos is ethics, Logos is logic.
This still doesn't have anything to do with Veganism as was with 1/2. Mylixia position literally collapses in that original question of "Is it morally okay to skin a cat". Am I missing something? Is this non sequitur hour?
I think that an important implication that Destiny should consider regarding his ideas regarding replacing the systems of myths with logical systems is that logical systems are ultimately human, as well. As such, over the long term, they are just as vulnerable to corruption and stupidity as religions. Logic only demands internal consistency, it does not need to be connected to facts.
Also, I have to state that Religion really needs to be lived, or practiced to be truly understood. You cannot simply logically examine them from the outside.
Lupostehgreat no, not even remotely true.
First of all, logical systems are not *equally* easy to manipulate as appeals to emotion, such as religions.
Secondly, Logos does not require internal justification, it just figures out what is with logic and then some ethos (ethics) is used to jump that is-ought gap. Pathos doesn’t care about logical justification, it’s only emotion.
Logos and Pathos are not even remotely comparable.
FREZIA REFERENCE WAS GOLDEN W/MUSIC
what's the song called at 3:40? the guitar is really good
damn.
this is some of the most interesting shit ive seen on youtube.
I don't think my mind would have ever been able to go in this path on its own.
is there any value to coming up with tought on your own as opposed to having them explainged to you, assumig you understand everything about it after it was explained to you.
Are you talking to Badger from Breaking Bad?
its logos my dude. not pathos. pathos means to argue using a us vs them type method.
CD hugo Pathos is emotion, not “us vs them”
The substitute for old stories is life. Life is a story that can be lived without some external story. We enjoy stories so fiction stories will stick around, but in the future we'll put less stock in stories for practical purposes. We just don't need them because life is a more useful story.
Also fictions aren't myths. Myths are something that some gullible people will take as a part of reality like thinking gods are real thinking people. Like Harry Potter isn't meant to be taken as real so people in general know it's fiction, but not myth.
He's got me, 8.5 grams of shrooms is the highest human experience one can have.
I hope you didn't kill any cats while you were high
42:03 spoiler: sage advice. Shoutout Devin redemption arc stumping
There are conscious states that will never be able to be explained rationally. Language fails us in that respect.
You need to stand on the point that rational arguments should always be considered over fantasy/religion.
Obviously the wolf fable can be helpful for people, but it should never be considered over a depression diagnosis.
D C Thats not the argument though, the other dude is arguing that it can help a bit in the scenario as a side dish to the science.
I'd argue its more like a stopgap than a side dish. I was mainly trying to relate this video to the previous one in the series but it seem like Devin is just probing Destiny's ideals in general.
@Jorgen Well in the argument it is more than a "side dish", he says 50/50 for myth and science so more like an indispensable tool for him.
MrBleulauneable
I would disagree with his 50/50 split.
People used reason to reach a desired outcome (which implies that different people have different desired outcomes).
While mythos can (and has led) to people committing suicide attacks, or arbitrary killing some one, where reason alone wouldn't get some one to do.
So the point I want to make is. Any "good" that believing in a mythos can bring, is dwarfed by the *demonstrable harm is has* brought.
And I'm also not entirely sure of I would put metaphors / parables in the same categories as a mythos. But more like under works of fictions.
WOO DEVIN! Right or wrong that was a great debate and good research.
Devin people shouldnt be encouraged to not take shrooms. It's among the healthiest psychedelic/psychoactive substances. It's has huge benefits.
MrApotator but it can also create or at least cause other mental diseases to surface.
@@firesong7825 no it can't. If you are predisposed to psychosis or schizofrenia, it can bring it on early, but it can't create them.
@@MrApotator Have all cases of people getting mental diseases after doing psychedelics been proven that they were predisposed to those mental diseases?
Also, if it bring on a disease that never would have appeared otherwise, even if they were predisposed to it, or at least one that would have appeared very late in their life, that's also really bad.
@@firesong7825 are you seriously not understanding? Psychs DO NOT CAUSE MENTAL ILLNESS.
35:26 omg he's playing Minecraft. And eating.
>myths have the possibility to lead to bad results
You mean like.... The the entire history of Abrahamic religions???
:thinkingface:
His argument hinges upon believing things for which no rational reason exists may or may not lead to a bad outcome.
Except using history itself we see that it tends to lead to horrible outcomes.
The "good" that mythos brings to the table, is dwarfed by the *measurable damage it has done* .
Would an example of religion and mythology helping society be the prisons and how people turn to religion and change their criminal ways?
Isnt it logos, not pathos? Correct me if im wrong
I fucking love Devin.
It's a remake of Harris Peterson with Tip Tippy gamers.
Is this a re uplaod? or just a snippit of a stream from previous week? I watch too much destiny.
Dante is not mythology. It's literature based on mythology.
Destiny let's chat about white privilege. I'm a white lad in Cape Town South Africa where white privilege exists and has given me the easiest life.
Secular means seperation of church and state, not that a society doesnt believe in metaphysical entities. Otherwise there wouldnt be anything to seperate.
In the current context of the world, I think Destiny agrees with what Devin is saying, but the underlying question is whether or not humanity can grow and evolve out of emotion and into rationality.
Will it though?
I don't get it, someone can misuse Destiny's views how? "There are emotional people that will grasp on to the worst part of my reason and treat it like I treat stories and myth." I don't get what Destiny meant by that.
Prolly he meant in general people are emotional, so if you take his stance on things like friendship, family or idk girlfriends etc, because of you having umm more "intense' emotions than destiny, only thing destiny s ideas and views would do is to fuck your and anyone around you s life. You can start to think or at least act like family or friendship matters as long as they produce net positive on your life, but because you don't have the same inner feelings about these things like destiny do and you are doing it because it sounds or looks more logical, you are not gonna be able to do it. Maybe it can effect your mental health, maybe you would lose people around you, maybe your relationship with family gonna collapse etc. If you start to view these institutions like friendship, marriage family or whatever that is from a completely logical point, the conclusion or result may be logical but logical results doesn't necessarily make people happy if they are driven by emotions. Yeah there will be a few that can maybe pull of to live a life like that. But in general, most of destiny s audience is not gonna be compatible with such a life style. But because of destiny s influence they might try it, and some might try it long enough to harm themselves
Pretty sure you mean logos when you refer to the rhetorical appeal from or to logic and reasoning. Pathos describes an appeal from or to emotion, while ethos describes an appeal from or to credibility, authority and personal ethics.
Love the discussion/debate, so different from the hostile shitbags that usually plague you.
Destiny pls go vegan
Lol
This was such an autistic debate. Doesn't it just come down to yes emotion can lead to good results but by it's nature by relying on it as a mode of thinking never guarantees that either a truth statement will be true or that good actions will arise from the person who uses it as a way of viewing the world. Like isn't that where they should be arguing whether emotion or even reason can do these things rather than this silly debate of yes sometimes emotion is good yes sometimes emotion is bad.
no dislikes PogChamp
There should be a distinction between fiction and myth. People who believe in myth think myths are real while people who create and consume fiction know its not real.
wait this is so wholesome :O
Good job destiny
Also the wolf that you feed can also mean seeking help from others I'm with Devin on this one because using destiny's logic the Harry Potter series should be banned because they have imagery from christianity and other mythologies and the concept of good vs evil and how good should triumph evil is overrode by quidditch because people might go on their brooms jumping off roofs and also Destiny's argument towards the end saying that oh these myths and fairy tales all though they have good outcomes we should also have better alternatives such as medicine is what this guy is trying to say, that they should coexist and not have only logic and reasoning becauss humans are emotional we have emotions
A civil discussion!? What is this?
School is for Students.
Talk to nightmare fuel!
Yeah more "scale" memes
You need to make sure that Devin stays in the philosophical realm instead of the practical one, I've seen this with a couple of your other debates where you don't catch the person switching from philosophy to practicality, because the second you let someone switch like that, it makes the debate really wishy washy. Devin kept trying to bring up that myth/religion does good things so that makes it just as good as science reasoning, while you are trying to say that in a perfect world there shouldn't be a need for religion so we should strive towards that perfect world even if we can't realistically get there. Practical to philosophical points don't work well against each other well... (ps not trying to say that I know more or would have done better, just critiquing)
Isn't the problem of religion that people belive them to be facts unlike "good stories"?
how do you get to debate Destiny
Shoot him an email.
Has he ever debated anti-natalism or efilism? He seems like he's against those positions and I'd love to know why.
which discord?
what, thats kind of obvious isnt it. if hes pro life (morally), then he naturally will be against antinatalism.
Do you even know what the fuck anti-natalism is? Because it's kind of obvious you don't.
Just saw the part where you corrected yourself through chat. Eep! Sorry.
The eagle on the coin thing is completely arbitrary though, so it's good by chance not by reason.
Also the clinically depressed person who believes in that wolf mythos will only be hurt from it, because it implies that he's in some way in control, when he isn't.
Mythos has historical value in the cases where it was arbitrarily correct, that's it.
lol
Have this guy back on. Please!
Destiny lost hard
First?
yep, you did it
In the end. This dudes position was shown to be legit. Destiny kept contradicting himself and playing semantics. You can tell Des got nervous. Great debate.