I hit a midlife existential crisis to which I responded by nose diving into philosophy. I'm trying to collect books but I cant afford them so videos like yours are my guides to self examination
@@Locreai idk if you want free philosophy books to read im currently reading Suffering Focused Ethics. If you aren't a moral antirealist i imagine its a good read.
@@brandtgill2601 I find that pretty interesting. I'm wide open on philosophy. Everything I do have so far I managed to scrape off of the shelf of used book store in town so its kind of eclectic. I've taken a special interest in picking up religions with them. I have a bit of all the basics from homer and Aristotle to hume and neitche and sartre etc. I think I enjoy ethics/morals, and existentialism I find interesting. I just read any philosopher as a rule
Thanks for the thoughtful answer! Since Google failed you, here's scientism as characterized by van Inwagen: "Scientism, as I use the word, is a sort of exaggerated respect for science -- that is, for the physical and biological sciences -- and a corresponding disparagement of all other areas of human intellectual endeavour. It hardly need be pointed out that scientism is the primary ideology of our age. It hardly need be pointed out that the illusions scientism engenders are so pervasive and so insidious that it is practically impossible to get anyone who is subject to them to consider the possibility that they might be illusions. (I hope the following disclaimer is unnecessary: if I deprecate scientism, I do not thereby depreciate science. To deny that Caesar is due divine honors is not to belittle his generalship.)"
11:02 It's cathartic to hear someone else say they don't care what their pronouns are and doesn't know what gender identity is. As someone who strongly believes trans & queer people are entitled to basic respect and dignity, I'm highly skeptical that the gender ontology which has become vogue the last five years is meaningfully better than the framework it seeks to replace. I'm very libertarian when it comes to how people should be allowed to present themselves, but when ontological beliefs become conflated with etiquette, I view that as dogmatic and as a transgression of my intellectual integrity.
3:54 What do you mean by meaning? You mean what is the purpose of life? 8:10 Skeptics don’t accept the premise-conclusion model. How can you win against someone who doesn’t want to play? 9:40 I’m very strongly pro-choice, not engaged by abortion. 11:03 No preferred pronouns. No gender identity. Don’t really know what it is. I’d make myself androgynous if I could be bothered to do so. 13:01 I generally just like philosophers, don’t rate them. 15:02 Wittgenstein 15:58 Kulka 👍🏼 He’s challenging 17:03 Not interested in Kant 18:26 Modern Issues • I think promiscuity is fantastic - social isolation • Good, I want people to be lazy. WORK SUCKS 22:18 Nominalism, Universals 23:33 David Bowe - a musical cameleon. Nailed it. Shifted. _Earthling_ • No, I can’t fly 26:20 If everyone stopped having kids, that’s bad 27:28 I don’t know what to do with myself. Pretty screwed aren’t I? 28:24 Introduction Textbook 📗 39:48 Troubled or Not Troubled? 42:00 • I’m generally inclined to be an Empiricist 44:50 What is relativism? 48:12 Determinism, The universe had a necessary way it developed 51:29 Argument against God’s Existence • Morals aren’t real - Moral Anti-realist • It’s fine to hold beliefs without justification
I heartily appreciate your efforts to make philosophical concepts and arguments perspicuous. Thank you. By impossibility of metaphysics I meant metaphysical statements are neither true nor false. The alleged metaphysical statements are pseudo statements.
1:57:34 Not everybody. Those involved in the creative arts industries (artists, video creators, authors, story tellers) are not forming hypotheses, neither are those involved in business administration / marketing / SEO, nor are those in history/religion. These fields aren't testing hypotheses*, they're finding ways to tell / retell stories - maybe fictional, maybe factual / historical, but there is no opportunity to falsify those stories. * That's not to say they aren't forming hypotheses as part of their work. For instance, marketers may delve into AB-testing on certain campaigns, authors may be of the scientific kind where they are publishing results of their experiments, story tellers may be trying to retell a historical & verifiable event. Businesses will be involved in strategizing which direction to take their business through (involving heavy elements of data science). This video from a content creator is a philosophy discussion which is most definitely science. Historians are an interesting case. Some of their work might be classed as "science", such as where they delve into historiography, assess reliability of sources, verify timelines. However, they could also be engaged in storytelling, fabricating propaganda, downplaying atrocities, justifying conflicts, reconstructing a timeline of famous events / wars, creating unfalsifiable opinion articles defending the history of a particular nation. There is also a lot of story telling within physics, chemistry & biology, with unfalsifiable ideas pervading those subject areas (evolutionary psychology, vitalism, the multiverse). As for whether that means criminology should be classed as a science, I find no problem with that. For someone who claims he doesn't care about the world being sorted into neat little boxes (1:31:17), I am surprised you care so much about excluding criminology from science.
curious AMA :-) Could you provide us with the correct name of the philosopher you found underrated (something like kukler???). Could you include a link to a good book or introduction? ty.
2:30:35 Couldn't it be the case that the very act of focusing changes your phenomenology. You seem to be saying that focusing on "the act of making a choice" reveals it just happens and you have no control over it. But why assume that your phenomenology while you aren't focusing is the same as the phenomenology while you are focusing? What if the phenomenology of "making a choice" is dependent upon not being excessively focused on the phenomenology "making a choice"? Why assume that the state of awareness while you are focused is epistemologically privileged with regards to the phenomenal content of your mind as opposed to the state of awareness while you are lost in thought? Does mindfulness reveal aspects of your phenomenology that were there all along? Or does it create new features that were not there prior to being mindful?
>> But why assume that your phenomenology while you aren't focusing is the same as the phenomenology while you are focusing? I'm not assuming that. It's simply that I can't say what the relevant phenomenology is, when I'm not focusing on it. Basically, the only times where I feel even remotely confident in my judgments about my phenomenology, it seems clear that there is no sense of control.
Hegel responds very uniquely to scepticism because his philosophy claim to use no external methodology or criterion to verify the truth of the relation between consciousness and reality. You really should try to understand Kant and Hegel in my opinion. Hegel calls his philosophy the self-executing scepticism because scepticism is a moment if the whole in his philosophy
Quite refreshing to hear an honest commitment to philosophical skepticism and taking that wherever it may lead. Also appreciate simply saying "i don't know wtf that means" to ill-defined concepts. Did get a bit of whiplash on the free will question (near the end ~2:28:00) though as Kane started talking about causal stories and how much is being determined by external circumstance... Is this not in tension with causal skepticism? Although I respect taking the skeptical objections seriously, i feel like too many situations require committing to some kind of realism just to engage with most things we care about. And then a few questions later, the guy shitting on mathematical logic... Has to be trolling. Philosophy is full of worthless tripe, mathematical/formal logic is a rare exception to that.
I agree that there is a tension here, but I don't think it's a problem in this context. Causal antirealism seems to directly undermine free will: there are no causal powers, so a fortiori I don't have any causal power over my decisions or actions. (There are ways of trying to make free will compatible with causal antirealism; arguably, Hume tries to do this. However, I suspect that this will requiring weakening the concept of "free will" to the point that it's nearly trivial.) So I'm assuming causal realism for the sake of argument. I'm saying: even if we accept causality, it's difficult to see how free will could, even in principle, fit into our picture of the world.
@@KaneB Volition is a type of causation. ------ "Because man has free will, no human choice-and no phenomenon which is a product of human choice-is metaphysically necessary. In regard to any man-made fact, it is valid to claim that man has chosen thus, but it was not inherent in the nature of existence for him to have done so: he could have chosen otherwise. Choice, however, is not chance. Volition is not an exception to the Law of Causality; it is a type of causation." "“Volitional” means selected from two or more alternatives that were possible under the circumstances, the difference being made by the individual’s decision, which could have been otherwise." -Leonard Peikoff
1:57:52 Precisely, Detectives use the Scientific Method in Forensic Science and Criminology, and I also don't see how the definition is broad or makes Science trivial. Also, Kane, I have no idea what you mean by 'Science isn't in a uniformed enterprise', can you elaborate on this? 1:58:42 They serve as our best models of the truth, they aren't supposed to be inherently true. I agree that what we know as "scientific theories" are always susceptible to mistakes and change, but that doesn't mean they ought not be accepted as true. 1:59:20 It does, basically no other method helps us discover things about reality better than the Scientific Method. I do agree that the things we see as facts are not 100%, absolutely certain and that we csn never be so about anything we discover through Science (or anything at all, for that matter), but we can be reasonably certain about a certain hypothesis depending on how much corroborating evidence supports it, but if its not for isn't establishing facts to a reasonable extent of certainty, what do you think it's for? 2:01:02 Yup, it has given us technology like phones and laptops and televisions and cars and other things, and it has also gave us nuclear bombs and other dangerous weapons. Although I obviously apply a positive value to the former and a negative to the latter, as you also probably would Kane, it would be a lie to say Science has not "given" us these things.
He did elaborate leading to that statement. If science is understood as encompassing such diverse fields as biology, particle physics, astronomy, etc. and each of these fields necessarily employs its own idiosyncratic methods (e.g. modeling of life processes, hand-on messing around with microscopic systems using particle accelerators, and passive observation from a distance using radiotelescopes, respectively) due to the diversity of the respective objects of study, it's clear how science appears to be non-uniform.
I belive the meaning of life is to reduce suffering. For others if possible if not then for the self. Basically enact promortalism or try to reduce collective suffering by convincing people to not reproduce as well as just being genuinely "altruistic".
Whatever argument the global skeptic has to support their conclusion, wouldn’t they have to be skeptical of the relation of supporting a conclusion? And thus, their argument would be no good-that is to say, it would be wrong to think they “win”?
where do you post the announcements for these amas/where are questions submitted? are the questions submitted during some livestream or before recording?
@@chocolateneko9912 I lean towards metaphysical naturalism and a kind of mind-brain identity theory, but I don’t see how that (or any other physicalist theory) can get us mental properties, which gives me a little bit of credence towards substance dualism. What about you?
@@pinecone421 I just want to learn more about the philosophy of mind and the psychology about it, I haven't taken an exact philosophical position yet (and probably won't (I would like to be more open about it)). It was nice to hear your thoughts, could you go further in depth if you are able?
@@KaneB The lecture is from the Robert Curtius Lecture of Excellence 2017 at the International Center of Philosophy NRW at Bonn University. Basically he deals with 'existence' and 'nonexistence' as quantifiers (since everything is never 'everything' and nothing is never 'nothing'), to the point of conceiving nothingness as an object (n = n). Hence remembering that every existing object, to be something, must also not be something - hence the dependence on nonexistence -, while nonexistence does not depend on anything. From this he concludes with what would be "the ground of reality". This would probably be the 'ultimate' example of dialetheism (yet).
Hi Kane, great video! Wondered if you (or anyone) could tell me the name of a paper by the philosopher you said was most underrated @ 13.00? Want to give them a read but not sure how to spell their name!
Hi Dr. Baker! I can't find your videos "how science constructs the world" or "the language of nature" which you mentioned were favorable to relativism.
Another question: why would analytic philosophers not take mathematical logic/symbolic logic seriously as would've have Frege, Russell, Dummett and Kripke would have?
The name in cyrilic is Yegor Vybornov. Cyrilic is easy, but I guess I say this as a phylologist that can like write in ancient Japanese and shit, that is also from the part of the world where people used to be taught Russian in the school.
@@KaneB well I believe so 2 myself but I think it does not accurately determine the personality but rather give some glimpses for example about introversion and extroversion
You seem Agender more than non-binary. Agender folks are ‘neutral’ about being in the binary category of man and woman. Non-binary folks are ‘against’ being in the binary category of man or woman.
26:45 Woah there Humean, what happened to not caring about the destruction of the world equaling the injurying of a fingernail? Sudden when your life is in danger of stress reality is real and good and a moral system is needed to protect you, and after it's ok? Clearly have some philosophical wires crossed here.
Ah. Thanks for clarifying. You're not an incel in the sense that you are not the kind of person making an anti-feminist leaning argument who will often then be labeled with the term "incel" from people speculating about the presumed-to-be unorthodox, perhaps even stylistically heretical, life of this stranger in order to make a very rigorous and, er... non-problematic, guess about not only the correctness of the label, but the correctness on its connection to an argument whose premises and conclusions are already made explicit independently. Good to know, I guess? :)
When I first started hearing about the term incel, it's something I related to in many ways. But it seems to have shifted to something a little more specific, so the anti feminist aspect I suppose excludes me. I get the deep frustration, the awful depression that seems directly tied to identity ("whats wrong with me" kind of thoughts). I don't get externalizing that darkness.
It's on the "about" section on my channel page. I can't post it in comments unfortunately (UA-cam automatically removes my comments when I include my email).
Part 2: ua-cam.com/video/-ONvyMaCVeg/v-deo.html
Welp, I can't say I have nothing to do today I suppose. Thanks for the upload, your content always is wild af to me.
I hit a midlife existential crisis to which I responded by nose diving into philosophy. I'm trying to collect books but I cant afford them so videos like yours are my guides to self examination
@@Locreai idk if you want free philosophy books to read im currently reading Suffering Focused Ethics. If you aren't a moral antirealist i imagine its a good read.
The first question hits hard for me
@@brandtgill2601 I find that pretty interesting. I'm wide open on philosophy. Everything I do have so far I managed to scrape off of the shelf of used book store in town so its kind of eclectic. I've taken a special interest in picking up religions with them. I have a bit of all the basics from homer and Aristotle to hume and neitche and sartre etc. I think I enjoy ethics/morals, and existentialism I find interesting. I just read any philosopher as a rule
Not gonna lie I'm starting to think Kane is corrupting the youth of Athens
And I am all for it!
Socrates!
Woot! About damn time
Thanks so much for taking the time and answering all of my 4 questions haha, didn’t expect that. Your content is amazing. Keep up the great work
thanks dawg
@@workt42 he wouldnt know. He said Many Times he doesn’t like nor read continental philosophy, least of all know those languages
1:37:12 ahh yes finally an explanation of that 🔴 video. Just what I've been looking for.
Incredibly funny guy. loved the ghost bit and the 🔴 bit
omg I've just saw the ghost bit, what is the 🔴 bit then???
the ghost bit got me man
Thank you for answering all of these questions, it must have been tiring; good content.
Yeah I was talking for about six hours overall when recording the two videos. My mind definitely ran into a fog towards the end.
Thanks for the thoughtful answer! Since Google failed you, here's scientism as characterized by van Inwagen:
"Scientism, as I use the word, is a sort of exaggerated respect for science -- that is, for the physical and biological sciences -- and a corresponding disparagement of all other areas of human intellectual endeavour. It hardly need be pointed out that scientism is the primary ideology of our age. It hardly need be pointed out that the illusions scientism engenders are so pervasive and so insidious that it is practically impossible to get anyone who is subject to them to consider the possibility that they might be illusions. (I hope the following disclaimer is unnecessary: if I deprecate scientism, I do not thereby depreciate science. To deny that Caesar is due divine honors is not to belittle his generalship.)"
11:02 It's cathartic to hear someone else say they don't care what their pronouns are and doesn't know what gender identity is. As someone who strongly believes trans & queer people are entitled to basic respect and dignity, I'm highly skeptical that the gender ontology which has become vogue the last five years is meaningfully better than the framework it seeks to replace. I'm very libertarian when it comes to how people should be allowed to present themselves, but when ontological beliefs become conflated with etiquette, I view that as dogmatic and as a transgression of my intellectual integrity.
Thank you so much for your elaborate answers on my questions. I didn't expect you would respond to every one.
You're videos always crack me up Kane. Keep up the quality content. 5:58 woke me up fr
I was only the messenger. Imagine the shock I had when I read it.
Bro you are hilarious and have great takes
Laziness should be advocated more. THanks for doing your part
Hear hear
3:54 What do you mean by meaning? You mean what is the purpose of life?
8:10 Skeptics don’t accept the premise-conclusion model. How can you win against someone who doesn’t want to play?
9:40 I’m very strongly pro-choice, not engaged by abortion.
11:03 No preferred pronouns. No gender identity. Don’t really know what it is. I’d make myself androgynous if I could be bothered to do so.
13:01 I generally just like philosophers, don’t rate them.
15:02 Wittgenstein
15:58 Kulka 👍🏼 He’s challenging
17:03 Not interested in Kant
18:26 Modern Issues
• I think promiscuity is fantastic
- social isolation
• Good, I want people to be lazy.
WORK SUCKS
22:18 Nominalism, Universals
23:33 David Bowe - a musical cameleon. Nailed it. Shifted. _Earthling_
• No, I can’t fly
26:20 If everyone stopped having kids, that’s bad
27:28 I don’t know what to do with myself. Pretty screwed aren’t I?
28:24 Introduction Textbook 📗
39:48 Troubled or Not Troubled?
42:00
• I’m generally inclined to be an Empiricist
44:50 What is relativism?
48:12 Determinism, The universe had a necessary way it developed
51:29 Argument against God’s Existence
• Morals aren’t real - Moral Anti-realist
• It’s fine to hold beliefs without justification
I heartily appreciate your efforts to make philosophical concepts and arguments perspicuous. Thank you.
By impossibility of metaphysics I meant metaphysical statements are neither true nor false. The alleged metaphysical statements are pseudo statements.
1:57:34 Not everybody.
Those involved in the creative arts industries (artists, video creators, authors, story tellers) are not forming hypotheses, neither are those involved in business administration / marketing / SEO, nor are those in history/religion. These fields aren't testing hypotheses*, they're finding ways to tell / retell stories - maybe fictional, maybe factual / historical, but there is no opportunity to falsify those stories.
* That's not to say they aren't forming hypotheses as part of their work. For instance, marketers may delve into AB-testing on certain campaigns, authors may be of the scientific kind where they are publishing results of their experiments, story tellers may be trying to retell a historical & verifiable event. Businesses will be involved in strategizing which direction to take their business through (involving heavy elements of data science). This video from a content creator is a philosophy discussion which is most definitely science.
Historians are an interesting case. Some of their work might be classed as "science", such as where they delve into historiography, assess reliability of sources, verify timelines. However, they could also be engaged in storytelling, fabricating propaganda, downplaying atrocities, justifying conflicts, reconstructing a timeline of famous events / wars, creating unfalsifiable opinion articles defending the history of a particular nation.
There is also a lot of story telling within physics, chemistry & biology, with unfalsifiable ideas pervading those subject areas (evolutionary psychology, vitalism, the multiverse).
As for whether that means criminology should be classed as a science, I find no problem with that. For someone who claims he doesn't care about the world being sorted into neat little boxes (1:31:17), I am surprised you care so much about excluding criminology from science.
curious AMA :-) Could you provide us with the correct name of the philosopher you found underrated (something like kukler???). Could you include a link to a good book or introduction? ty.
Andre Kukla
2:30:35 Couldn't it be the case that the very act of focusing changes your phenomenology.
You seem to be saying that focusing on "the act of making a choice" reveals it just happens and you have no control over it. But why assume that your phenomenology while you aren't focusing is the same as the phenomenology while you are focusing?
What if the phenomenology of "making a choice" is dependent upon not being excessively focused on the phenomenology "making a choice"?
Why assume that the state of awareness while you are focused is epistemologically privileged with regards to the phenomenal content of your mind as opposed to the state of awareness while you are lost in thought?
Does mindfulness reveal aspects of your phenomenology that were there all along? Or does it create new features that were not there prior to being mindful?
>> But why assume that your phenomenology while you aren't focusing is the same as the phenomenology while you are focusing?
I'm not assuming that. It's simply that I can't say what the relevant phenomenology is, when I'm not focusing on it. Basically, the only times where I feel even remotely confident in my judgments about my phenomenology, it seems clear that there is no sense of control.
Hegel responds very uniquely to scepticism because his philosophy claim to use no external methodology or criterion to verify the truth of the relation between consciousness and reality. You really should try to understand Kant and Hegel in my opinion. Hegel calls his philosophy the self-executing scepticism because scepticism is a moment if the whole in his philosophy
thank you for your answer!
Quite refreshing to hear an honest commitment to philosophical skepticism and taking that wherever it may lead. Also appreciate simply saying "i don't know wtf that means" to ill-defined concepts.
Did get a bit of whiplash on the free will question (near the end ~2:28:00) though as Kane started talking about causal stories and how much is being determined by external circumstance... Is this not in tension with causal skepticism? Although I respect taking the skeptical objections seriously, i feel like too many situations require committing to some kind of realism just to engage with most things we care about.
And then a few questions later, the guy shitting on mathematical logic... Has to be trolling. Philosophy is full of worthless tripe, mathematical/formal logic is a rare exception to that.
I agree that there is a tension here, but I don't think it's a problem in this context. Causal antirealism seems to directly undermine free will: there are no causal powers, so a fortiori I don't have any causal power over my decisions or actions. (There are ways of trying to make free will compatible with causal antirealism; arguably, Hume tries to do this. However, I suspect that this will requiring weakening the concept of "free will" to the point that it's nearly trivial.) So I'm assuming causal realism for the sake of argument. I'm saying: even if we accept causality, it's difficult to see how free will could, even in principle, fit into our picture of the world.
@@KaneB Volition is a type of causation.
------
"Because man has free will, no human choice-and no phenomenon which is a product of human choice-is metaphysically necessary. In regard to any man-made fact, it is valid to claim that man has chosen thus, but it was not inherent in the nature of existence for him to have done so: he could have chosen otherwise.
Choice, however, is not chance. Volition is not an exception to the Law of Causality; it is a type of causation."
"“Volitional” means selected from two or more alternatives that were possible under the circumstances, the difference being made by the individual’s decision, which could have been otherwise." -Leonard Peikoff
1:57:52 Precisely, Detectives use the Scientific Method in Forensic Science and Criminology, and I also don't see how the definition is broad or makes Science trivial. Also, Kane, I have no idea what you mean by 'Science isn't in a uniformed enterprise', can you elaborate on this?
1:58:42 They serve as our best models of the truth, they aren't supposed to be inherently true. I agree that what we know as "scientific theories" are always susceptible to mistakes and change, but that doesn't mean they ought not be accepted as true.
1:59:20 It does, basically no other method helps us discover things about reality better than the Scientific Method. I do agree that the things we see as facts are not 100%, absolutely certain and that we csn never be so about anything we discover through Science (or anything at all, for that matter), but we can be reasonably certain about a certain hypothesis depending on how much corroborating evidence supports it, but if its not for isn't establishing facts to a reasonable extent of certainty, what do you think it's for?
2:01:02 Yup, it has given us technology like phones and laptops and televisions and cars and other things, and it has also gave us nuclear bombs and other dangerous weapons. Although I obviously apply a positive value to the former and a negative to the latter, as you also probably would Kane, it would be a lie to say Science has not "given" us these things.
He did elaborate leading to that statement. If science is understood as encompassing such diverse fields as biology, particle physics, astronomy, etc. and each of these fields necessarily employs its own idiosyncratic methods (e.g. modeling of life processes, hand-on messing around with microscopic systems using particle accelerators, and passive observation from a distance using radiotelescopes, respectively) due to the diversity of the respective objects of study, it's clear how science appears to be non-uniform.
thank you for answering my question.
I belive the meaning of life is to reduce suffering. For others if possible if not then for the self. Basically enact promortalism or try to reduce collective suffering by convincing people to not reproduce as well as just being genuinely "altruistic".
@@mr.frolicyoutube designed For? By what. All I see is chaos not design
@@mr.frolicyoutube what about infertile people.
If asked "what's the meaning of life* I always respond: can you refirmulste your question more precisely?
Wittgenstein and Dooyeweerd brother.
Now the dr has a girlfriend! We're all for the better.
I like how you give serious reply to mocking and stupid comments lmao.
I mean, it's an Ask Me *Anything*. Can't really complain about the mocking and stupid comments!
Whatever argument the global skeptic has to support their conclusion, wouldn’t they have to be skeptical of the relation of supporting a conclusion? And thus, their argument would be no good-that is to say, it would be wrong to think they “win”?
Not gonna lie, you got me at " AAAHHHGhosts"...
where do you post the announcements for these amas/where are questions submitted? are the questions submitted during some livestream or before recording?
I make a video asking people to submit questions in the comments. I delete the video once it receives ~100 comments.
Oh damn congratulations on the gf! Happy for you and her
1:37:20 this seems interesting. Where can I read more about it?
52:08 Oh... Oh no. Not Epicurus.
Ah. It wasn't him, but not much better.
Have you read Emil Cioran?
Kane you are so funny 😆. Also happy to hear you have a gf.
All the cool cats in my philosophy department watch your videos
He has a gf but doesn't know what a girl is.
@@FACEandLMS We all have minds, yet we don’t know what minds are…? What’s your point lol
@@pinecone421what would be your take on the mind generally? I know it can be a complicated question so write as long as you like
@@chocolateneko9912 I lean towards metaphysical naturalism and a kind of mind-brain identity theory, but I don’t see how that (or any other physicalist theory) can get us mental properties, which gives me a little bit of credence towards substance dualism.
What about you?
@@pinecone421 I just want to learn more about the philosophy of mind and the psychology about it, I haven't taken an exact philosophical position yet (and probably won't (I would like to be more open about it)). It was nice to hear your thoughts, could you go further in depth if you are able?
Hey, Kane. Can you write the name of the underrated philosopher and some of his books or papers about alien life.
Andre Kukla
Wionder If my question about G. Priest conclusion about 'the ground of reality' will be answered in the next video 🤖
It's answered, but the answer is, "I haven't seen that lecture"
@@KaneB The lecture is from the Robert Curtius Lecture of Excellence 2017 at the International Center of Philosophy NRW at Bonn University.
Basically he deals with 'existence' and 'nonexistence' as quantifiers (since everything is never 'everything' and nothing is never 'nothing'), to the point of conceiving nothingness as an object (n = n). Hence remembering that every existing object, to be something, must also not be something - hence the dependence on nonexistence -, while nonexistence does not depend on anything. From this he concludes with what would be "the ground of reality".
This would probably be the 'ultimate' example of dialetheism (yet).
Hi Kane, great video! Wondered if you (or anyone) could tell me the name of a paper by the philosopher you said was most underrated @ 13.00? Want to give them a read but not sure how to spell their name!
André Kukla
Hi Dr. Baker! I can't find your videos "how science constructs the world" or "the language of nature" which you mentioned were favorable to relativism.
ua-cam.com/video/arDbrM27s4s/v-deo.html
ua-cam.com/video/CGMOJh3z3N4/v-deo.html
Another question: why would analytic philosophers not take mathematical logic/symbolic logic seriously as would've have Frege, Russell, Dummett and Kripke would have?
I'm involuntarily celebrate. Forty five years of diabetes has left me impotent.
I don't love ultrafinitism, but I love finite models!
The name in cyrilic is Yegor Vybornov. Cyrilic is easy, but I guess I say this as a phylologist that can like write in ancient Japanese and shit, that is also from the part of the world where people used to be taught Russian in the school.
2:05 In this section you are describing what we in the Objectivist Philosophy circles call "The Crow Epistemology".
26:01
1:08:18
2:36:24
The jump scare at 6:00 lmaoo
can I ask what your mbti personality type is?
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
seems like that test is pretty much BS anyway
@@KaneB well I believe so 2 myself but I think it does not accurately determine the personality but rather give some glimpses for example about introversion and extroversion
Big sad that he's never hear of Mainländer or Cioran
Absolute madlads
Our unknown German säd boi
Jesus Christ that screamer scared the shit out of me
Once upon a time really is a movie just for Hollywood geeks imo
What's ama mean???
ask me anything
"I've had plenty of weird degenerate sex... uh 'What are your opinions about ultrafinitism?' "
Shame you haven’t heard of Cioran haha. Imho he’s probably more of a poet than a philosopher, but he’s a hell of time
Nice discover please to find you
You seem Agender more than non-binary. Agender folks are ‘neutral’ about being in the binary category of man and woman. Non-binary folks are ‘against’ being in the binary category of man or woman.
I guess stupid, but if you like writing, writing books; maybe you can make a living popularizing philosophy. You already have an audience.
This. I haven't read anything that Kane has written, but if it's as accesible yet rigorous as his youtube-videos, then it's great.
hi
Since you have a girlfriend, do you know what a girl is?
18:00 "I think moral systems are absurd" says the guy that doesn't believe in reality...
21:00 "Work sucks" says the non-binary arm-chair philosopher
26:45 Woah there Humean, what happened to not caring about the destruction of the world equaling the injurying of a fingernail? Sudden when your life is in danger of stress reality is real and good and a moral system is needed to protect you, and after it's ok? Clearly have some philosophical wires crossed here.
🔴
Ah. Thanks for clarifying. You're not an incel in the sense that you are not the kind of person making an anti-feminist leaning argument who will often then be labeled with the term "incel" from people speculating about the presumed-to-be unorthodox, perhaps even stylistically heretical, life of this stranger in order to make a very rigorous and, er... non-problematic, guess about not only the correctness of the label, but the correctness on its connection to an argument whose premises and conclusions are already made explicit independently. Good to know, I guess? :)
When I first started hearing about the term incel, it's something I related to in many ways. But it seems to have shifted to something a little more specific, so the anti feminist aspect I suppose excludes me.
I get the deep frustration, the awful depression that seems directly tied to identity ("whats wrong with me" kind of thoughts). I don't get externalizing that darkness.
It seems naive to hold that « work is bad » without elaborating
👻 … (😂😂😂👍!!!)
Agree RE Moore. I *hate* the way he writes. It’s the most annoying style I’ve ever come across.
adult human female.
Don't be so sure
@@rico_1617 I'm right.
hi,kane! how to get in touch with you?looking for your email,please.
It's on the "about" section on my channel page. I can't post it in comments unfortunately (UA-cam automatically removes my comments when I include my email).
Your quick dismissal of manga & anime has inspired me to understand your entire philosophy and then tear it apart in a spiteful manner, BEWARE!!!