28:36 Very true! So much of the news showcase only what goes bad and not much of what goes well. This is what some political parties that seek divorce and breakdown of the EU use. Feeding their followers scandal, wrath, greed and envy.
The biggest obstacle for theists is that their wishful thinking makes it impossible for them accurately to perceive the problems they face and address them, and their constant apologetics makes it impossible for them to communicate those problems as problems, assuming they could bring themselves to admit it. Keep dreaming in medieval metaphysics.
Having coal is luck. Improving the steam engine to get better efficiency from coal in order to power water pumps to improve the productivity of coal mines is not.
Now the new trick for the materialist, in 2023, is to say that there is some law that pushes the universe toward more functionality. They always do this. Their worldview fails to explain things like mind, consciousness, free will, etc so they say they are "illusions", as if that solves the issue lol. This is the self defeating premise of atheism. If we are under an illusion about free will, mind, etc then why should we trust our brains when it comes to materialism, or anything for that matter. Why couldn't materialism be an illusion? There are just so many holes in materialism that its shocking that people actually believe it. "Anything but God" as the saying goes lol.
Without even watching the video, I could tell you that materialism is never going to be a popular worldview. Even though I am pretty sure materialism is true, it is a rather dull uninteresting POV and it requires so much more work. It's much more psychologically rewarding and easier to imagine some sort of spirit world. With spirit world you get gods who answer prayers, the chance of living forever after you die and seeing long lost relatives, loved-ones and pets, the hope of vengeance for wrong-doers ('vengeance is mine sayeth the Lord"), and 'real' meaning and value without having to work to understand why things are meaningful/valuable or right/wrong. It is easier to just say 'god did it' than actually think through the hard issues of why humans value things...why we have morality. And contrary to the popular myth that folks adopt atheism or materialism so they don't have to abide by morality, it does no such thing. In fact a better case can be made that one can much more easily just adjust one's personal view of what god is/wants than to willfully think god doesn't exist. As we see around the world and throughout time, the vast vast majority of people are/were not materialists and most believed there is/was a god. Yet the stark contrast in how they viewed morality and how they thought they ought to treat their fellow man show the simple belief in god does NOTHING to make people treat others well. The most religious were sometimes the most cruel.
You should watch the video. Also the most people ever killed in human history was during the 20th century which was the peak of materialism so it’s clearly much much worse than religion
@@gethimrock Not proportionately. Cain killed 1/4 of the worlds population all because of how his sacrifice was received or not received. But seriously, isn't this just the 'great falling away' that was prophecied? Why would it be waning if it is leading up to the end times? But there probably is something to the idea that believing there is a god who's watching what you do and believing a god is going to help you do better if you think the right thoughts likely DOES make people better. So while there probably isn't a god of the sort folks believe in, it's probably better that they do plus the get all the benefits I noted in my earlier post.
The fact that our thoughts represent while at the same time being of a radically different nature from the represented, in conjunction with the logic inherent in thought interaction, is what very strongly inclines us to belief in non-thought-constituted existents (i.e. things-in-themselves, the noumena). It seems to me extremely likely that both thoughts and things exist though their existences must necessarily be of radically different kinds. I think it all comes down to the fundamental difference between material existence and movement. (Movement is relative so not a property of an object). Since being conscious is self evidently a process and process is an abstract notion entailing a collection of relative movements which themselves are immaterial we have a clue as to why thoughts and minds seem immaterial to us.
I really appreciate the explanation of the difference between 'world government' and global governance and that no one is talking about a one world government. I thought that but sometimes it's not clear when people talk about things.
Pan-Europeanism and supranational justice are noble aims and must be realized. Unfortunately, thus far, it is fair to say that the grasping (and overteaching) technocratic class has pretty much botched it. I very much hope that we have time and space to begin again. A more organuc approach might first see a revival of the Austro-Hungarian Empire in some suitably modern form.
The EU was a mini NWO experiment that failed miserably. "Daniel J. Beddowes and Flavio Cipollini, who together authored a book entitled The EU: The Truth About the Fourth Reich - How Hitler Won the Second World War, argue that Walther Funk put the finishing touches on the plans for what is today the EU. According to Beddowes and Cipollini, “[i]t was Funk who predicted the coming of European economic unity. Funk was also Adolf Hitler’s economics minister and his key economics advisor.” The authors indicate that Hitler’s post-war plans foresaw a federalized, economically integrated European Union free of “the clutter of small nations,” and that these plans were themselves based on a belief held by Lenin, that “federation is a transitional form towards complete union of all nations." Therefore, argue the authors, it is not by chance that the EU closely resembles Hitler’s blueprint for a unified Europe, and that most EU member-states are getting poorer while Germany is continuously getting richer." www.mintpressnews.com/neoliberalism-nazi-germany-european-union-case-study/231660/
Maimonides left us an account of mainstream Islamic philosophy during Middle Ages (God is primarily Will-Power not Reason in islam, he does not act via secondary causes like the laws of Nature, no point to try to find laws of nature, moreover it is blasphemy to try to guess his actions): "Human intellect does not perceive any reason why a body should be in a certain place instead of being in another. In the same manner they say that reason admits the possibility that an existing being should be larger or smaller than it really is, or that it should be different in form and position from what it really is; e.g., a man might have the height of a mountain, might have several heads, and fly in the air; or an elephant might be as small as an insect, or an insect as huge as an elephant. This method of admitting possibilities is applied to the whole Universe. Whenever they affirm that a thing belongs to this class of admitted possibilities, they say that it can have this form and that it is also possible that it be found differently, and that the one form is not more possible than the other; but they do not ask whether the reality confirms their assumption....[They say] fire causes heat, water causes cold, in accordance with a certain habit; but it is logically not impossible that a deviation from this habit should occur, namely, that fire should cause cold, move downward, and still be fire; that the water should cause heat, move upward, and still be water. On this foundation their whole [intellectual] fabric is constructed." Was Islam itself an almost insurmountable obstacle in the way of developing modern science? Definitely yes, an ibn Rushd and other Islamic scholars (having little impact on the masses) cannot change that conclusion I'm afraid...
Georgie-boy, you don't fool me: It was your family, the Habsburgers, who, behind the scenes, arranged wars between the European countries, in order to enforce your ideology of Paneurope onto the once sovereign national states. In your wildest dreams, you see yourself as emperors of Paneurope and then your power grip will reach the whole world! The Habsburgers are the ones to abolish property rights, partriotism, nationalism, property ownership, freedom and liberty! Well, here in Europe, we'll fight against your globalistic dictatorship!
Well the fact that the Islamic world stagnated in spite of ibn Shatir, failing to develop the heliocentric model, and that there is indeed little evidence to suppose that Copernicus was directly influenced by the Islamic world pretty much solve the conundrum in Huff's favor. Besides many of these Islamic scholars were going rather against the tide of the Islamic teachings, which severely discouraged non-conformist ideas, there is no surprise that the Islamic world never developed a Scientific Revolution (these guys had little impact in the masses, their books even burned at the order of Islamic authorities). The idea that the Islamic world was basically just 'around the corner'' to develop Modernity (or at least that the West 'owe' Renaissance and the Scientific Revolution to it) proves to be just another multiculturalist myth, the result of largely replacing the quest for truth with pure ideology (not far from the so called 'Scientific Socialism 'I'm afraid, they are definitely in the same league).
Why do he and his brother look so ugly? Their father looked average and their grandparents were good looking. Edit: I see. Father's brow and mother's jaw and bad luck in genetic lottery.
An interesting discussion but the focus is on China. What about India? There the British began subjugating and annexing Indian states in the 1760s. By 1800 they had quite a bit of real estate under their direct or indirect rule. Was it superior weapons and tactics? Keep in mind that the rank and file of the ‘British’ forces were actually natives. Somehow the British beat one Indian adversary after another before the Industrial Revolution was underway.
Eventually a nuclear war will wipe out all the greatness that the Western Culture has given us and beyond: It will definitely prove that, ironically, all the greatness of the Western Culture will end as the greatest evil of all: Eradication of the biosphere of Earth.
Great talk but maybe the order of horseman of apocalypse are in the wrong order.... what if climate change drives famine, leading to leading to mass migration resulting in mixing disease and state collapse... .i.e. climate change = meeting needs of survival and then surpluses become economic.... i.e survival (shelter, food, water) is the economic driver of migration (war creates economic migration etc)
Karl von Habsburg is NWO. What Europe needs is the Lord Jesus Christ not a collection of marxists and radical leftist who want to create a godless super state under their control. Europe turn to Jesus Christ he is your savior! He is the only one who can deliver your souls.
Susan Haack should be, or perhaps could be at any of the best philosophy departments in the United States or England. However, it is humorous and a bit unfortunate to hear her apologize for the wonderful world from ancient Greek, "epistemology."
While I agree with the overall points he made, I have to assert that not all Native American societies were "stone age." The Aztec, Post-Classical Maya, and Inca were easily bronze age of not iron age. Just because they used obsidian for their weapons did not mean they couldn't smelt. Otherwise the Spanish obsession with gold could not have driven them to conquer these peoples. I suggest a perusal of the book 1491 for more info.
This guy is so pompous, he see's himself as a guru, shitting and saying ..hear....what a joke, with Scruton....read Andy Hamilton if you want a basic understanding of the philosophy of music....further Peter Kivy, and of course Adorno
I generally agree about materialism's lack of explanatory power when it comes to the issues Koons speaks about but I think he misrepresents materialism pretty gravely. Namely, he says that all materialist models seek to reduce the macro to the micro, or at least claim that the movements of the small/prior dictate the larger/latter events. It seems that there are several schools of materialism that would not claim this. For example, most critical theorists are materialists, but would not claim that phenomena are completely reducible to their fore-structures. Alain Badiou and Jaques Derrida come to mind here (given it is a question whether one could call them critical theorists).
Any materialist that claims materialism does not reduce the macro to the micro is simply ignorant of the ramifications of his or her own philosophy of mind - or they are just property dualists in denial.
This was rather an exhausting lecture: a lot of nothing. I get that there is no clear answer of what Cleopatra looked like racially but there is a lot of research today that one would think that an academic discussing this topic would use. Some of the examples used seemed very irrelevant.
I dont understand his critique of the evolution of intentional with the "bizarro earth" thought experiment. I thought I was following that everything in that earth is the same as ours with the exception that other creatures from another dimension transport creatures on bizarro earth who are about to die to a world in another dimension and then make sure that those creatures have as many offspring as possible in the world in another dimension. It sounded like he says right after that natural selection is neutralized and so evolution did not select intentionality. I don't see the connection. Can anyone help me out?
