Welcome to A Little Bit of Philosophy. I'm Barry F. Vaughan.
This channel is for posting videos about the Philosophy classes I teach at Mesa Community College. These videos are meant as a suppliment to the material we discuss in class, as well as all the readings for Introduction to Western Philosophy, Introduction to Logic, Introduction to Philosophy of Religion, Introduction to Ancient Philosophy, and Introduction to Ethical Theory.
These videos are not intended to be stand-alone material, but you might find them interesting if you are interested in learning more about Philosophy.
ABOUT ME: I'm a professor/instructor (we don't have offical rank at our institution) at Mesa Community College in Arizona. My PhD is from the University of Oklahoma with an AOS in Ancient Greek Philosophy and AOCs in Philosophy of Religion, Ethics, and Epistemology (1999). I have MAs from Baylor University in Philosophy (1988) and Religion (1990), BA from Oklahoma Baptist University (1986).
reality, consciousness and God. science has made zero progress in understanding these since forever. defining the undefinable is a fools errand. unprovable truth is a hard pill to swallow 😂
What an ignorant position to portray logic and myth as two opposing sides. Evidently that is not at all how the greeks or any other people treated them. It is a modernist revisionism that likes to portray the past as a superstitious primitive dark age that only makes sense when one holds axioms of an idea of progress. The question here is progress to what? To further show silly Simpsons clips and laughing and ridiculing at what was once sacred? You are an excellent example of what Nietzsche called last man. A flea making everything little and small. Typical american degeneracy.
(2:22ff.) The idea that one cannot know why arguments fail without first knowing what arguments are is wrongheaded, though it does seem inescapable 'logically'. If someone tells me they can argue with success that the sight of wet pavement immediately outside my window means it must have recently rained, I can respond by refuting the claim or agreeing with it without consideration of the meaning of argumentation. I would discern the cause of the wet pavement, notwithstanding any search for the validity of an argument regarding same, and would not even have to or need to know if anything resembling what we would normally call an "argument" is actually going on in this, my ascertainment of the actual cause. Thus I would not need to know what an argument is, to know if an argument e.g. "the wet pavement was not caused by rain but by a garden hose" is true or not: I know the 'argument' is a success or not BEFORE I even know the situation as an argument, or therefore what even an 'argument' is...
🎯 Key Takeaways for quick navigation: This video discusses simple deductive arguments based on categorical propositions. ️ We will learn more about existential import and its effect on immediate inferences. The video reviews the square of opposition introduced in the previous lecture. ⚖️ The square of opposition shows how categorical propositions relate to each other (contradiction, contrariety, etc.). ✨ We can make immediate inferences based on truth values assigned to propositions on the square. ✅ Assuming a universal affirmative is true lets us infer the truth/falsity of other propositions. Not all propositions can be determined based on subalternation (e.g., particular affirmative doesn't imply universal). The video uses "all dogs are mammals" as an example to illustrate inferences. ✨ If a universal affirmative is true (e.g., all dogs are mammals), we can infer some dogs are mammals (subalternation). This works because Aristotle assumed categories refer to real things (existential import). ❌ If categories are empty (e.g., hobbits), inferences based on existential import are fallacious. boş Empty sets tell us nothing about individual members because they don't have any. This is called the existential fallacy. Boolean squares lack subalternation and contraries because universals don't imply existence. ⚠️ Medieval thinkers recognized issues with existential import for subcontrary propositions. ✅ But we'll mostly focus on Aristotelian logic, where valid inferences rely on existing things. Made with HARPA AI
Lets say theyd no sense of smell sight hearing taste sight. How conscious would they be. They might have only touch and the thoughts touch provided. Their only memories would be of touch. Even helen keler wasnt so deprived.
Not the case that Theism entails that God be Omni- anything. The Greek gods certainly weren’t omnipotent, omniscient, or Omni benevolent. Even in Monotheism it is not necessarily the case that that one holds that all these apply; this is all just Greek philosophy leaking into the thought of *some* theologians.
Now I know why there are moods that are weak... they are conditionally valid on the the Aristotelian point of view. Not something discussed in my Logic class. Thanks.
Nice video! I do have an issue with your definition of "what is god". Applying omni-traits as a requirement of divinity disregards religious practices where those traits dont apply. Not all theists apply these traits to divine beings. I would recommend checking out Stephen Dillon's book The Case for Polytheism.
Here are some things Jesus Christ said of Himself. “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me” John 14:6 "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." John 3:16 "Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because they have not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son." John 3:18 Jesus asked his disciples, “Who do people say the Son of Man is?” They replied, “Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets.” “But what about you?” he asked. “Who do you say I am?” Simon Peter answered, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.” Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven. Matthew 16:13-17 Skeptics said for centuries, "The bible we have now has been corrupted through the years.". In 1947 the Dead Sea Scrolls were found and proved otherwise. They said, "There's no way Israel can become a nation again as God promised in preparation for the end times.". Israel became a nation again in 1948. All this being said, it does require faith to believe. Hebrews 11:6 tells us, "And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him." Also John 20:27-29 states, "Then he said to Thomas, “Put your finger here; see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it into my side. Stop doubting and believe.” Thomas said to him, “My Lord and my God!” Then Jesus told him, “Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.” Don't be deceived, Jesus is the Son of God and the only way of being saved from God's judgement for our sin. Christ consciousness won't save you. Believing Jesus was an ascended master, a prophet or a good teacher won't save you. Romans 10:9 tells us how to be saved, "if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved". Trust in Him, He shed his blood and gave His perfect life for you. Call on Him, He loves you, and He hears you.
nat atbot GPT-3 [:|]... "thank you. 0:19:07 if you look at a venndiagram like a chemistry orbital youd discover a football shape in the middle and helium " [BEEP]
