A series of conversations on philosophy, its history and its enduring issues. I provide my side of the conversation in the video. Please supply your side in the Comments section. Or you can contact me by email at educatingadams@gmail.com.
This book (and film) always reminds me of the book series and masterpiece theatre show based on the books “Brother Cadfael” that is a series of books and films about a monk who uses deductive reasoning, common sense and scientific methods to solve crimes, murders, and mysteries that otherwise would not have been solved due to the superstition and ignorance of the time and would have just been written off as accidents or acts of God or the devil.
Yes the setting was an Italian monastery in the year 1327 very close to the border of France. But the film, starring Sean Connery can be a little misleading if you judge the architecture alone because it was filmed in Eberbach Abbey in Germany.
Question: Besides Aristotle, Plato, and I think Diogenes Laertus, which ancient Greeks have works which survived, not talking fragments here. Antisthenes has only fragments. Dunno about Xenophon though.
Xenophon's Anabasis appears to be intact and complete. I have my own reservations about Aristotle, but I am hardly a serious scholar of the ancient texts. There's good reason to think that Euclid, Ptolemy, and Galen were well preserved. Beyond those people I know no BCE Greek authors who have works that have survived completely intact
Very good video on Kierkegaard which is rare on youtube, usually people just talk about what he did and wrote and never go into the depth of religious thinking (probably cant understand it fully since they are not using it). Parallels with Agamennon and Jeptah to Abraham was something I skipped, so thanks for pointing to them, does Kierkegaard mention Jeptah story in his books?
Greetings from England… just discovered you, and mighty glad I am for that too… exactly what I’ve longed for … and at last I’ve gone down that funny shaded path and found that small, unnoticed door, strangely left open at just this of all moments , as I was passing…
I am not quite sure if I am understanding the difference between perpetual peace and universal peace. So, Kant argues against the idea of universal peace achieved through individual absolute peace (where individuals agree to pacifism) but he does not throw out the possibility of universal peace altogether. Rather, the distinction is that Kant argues it is achieved perpetually through the development of peaceful Republics. Am I understanding that clearly?
It really isn't a difference between perpetual peace and universal peace except that you can have a temporary universal peace conn's goal is a permanent personal piece, perpetual peace. He is trying to propose a structure for a a universal peace that can be preserved. Yes he is proposing not merely peaceful republics but a confederation of peaceful republics.
Im confused. Right around 14:00 you say that Bertrand Russell presents two approaches for reaching peace. The first is individual relative pacifism, but then you transition into discussing Kant's perpetual peace. Is Russell's second approach to pacifism the adoption of Kant's idea of peace? Please help clarify.
MacIntyre says we’ve either got to be Nietzscheans or Aristotelian, since the enlightenment moral project has failed. What do you think? Are these the only options? Is James’ and Dewey’s Pragmatism more Aristotelian or Nietzschean?
I’ve heard you say that you’re a Nietzschean and perhaps a Jamesean Pragmatist. Could you possibly explain the difference between the two and/or perhaps do a video on Rorty and his Nietzscheanized version of Pragmatism?
Love this video, it's interesting how advanced the ancient Greek philosophical schools, even after more than two thousand years modern ways of thinking seem primitive by comparison
Im taking intro to philosophy and this greatly helped my understanding in the Four Great Errors. I had a lot of questions before, but now... well I still have many questions, but different ones
not exactly. what's the issue here is the problem of a perfect being. and the perfect being as Adso sees is paradoxical. if a being is perfect any change can only make it less perfect. however a perfect being should have perfect ability. since change is considered preferable to inflexibility a perfect being must be capable of perfect change. Adso also sees, and this may be more important, God must have free will. To say otherwise is to say there are things that God cannot do, and this is a problem. But if God has free will, then there is no scientific law. If scientific laws exist then there are things that God has made about which he cannot change his mind. But if the universe is ordered only by the will of God, then since he has free will, the order of the universe could change it anytime. so, there is no scientific law. Russell's Paradox deals more with the problem of self-referentiality.
@@jaradams To the first part of your answer: Can God the Almighty create such heavy a stone that he wouldn't be able to lift? Isn't it the right metaphor?
It's certainly close enough. But a stone so heavy that the almighty can't lift is logically impossible. Or at least that's the usual resolution to the paradox.
One thing I did like about him is that his philosophy wasn't completely amoral; He did admonish his followers not to harm anyone even though the goal of life for the Cyrenaics was pleasure and goal of life for Socrates was virtue. I hope to someday read the Philebus where Socrates goes on to explain the differences between higher and lower pleasures as well as a mix of both.
Duuuude... Please let me have your email. I need more Philosophy-Buffs to talk to. Philosophy, The Mother of all The Sciences. - Magister Kevin Xenophanes
2 + 2 equals 4 because humans decided it to be the most reasonable amount/outcome. Value being subjective is based on reasoning either logical or illogical. Biased or unbiased.
Your late wife's fitbit numbers were subjectively valuable in relation to physical health, however the objective value in her daily numbers is in the ability to present to another fitbit user the objective fact that she logged a greater number of steps on a given day.
great talk. you mention that a world filled with ataraxic individuals wouldnt be likely to be a nice place, without progress or concern for the disasters of the world. however, how much suffering is inflicted because people are dogmatic? or because they are filled with passion, anger or anxiety? just a thought. :)
Hello! What philosophy would stem from the satisfaction of disapproval? This is someone who basks in the opposite of applause. If a person becomes tired of praise, pleasantries, and begins to deliberate self-sabotage his social life due to the self-gratification of being disapproved of by others, what philosophy would that link up with the most? I thought cynicism at first, but also thought not quite.
@@TalkingPhilosophy45 Did not find much about that, could you make a video synthesizing that with what is taught by the cynics? What if the person also regrets much of their behavior, but cannot feel any candid authenticity to themself any other way than by being the contrarian?
Diogenes inspired me to live more of a minimalistic life, also, I found out for myself that it's is important to tell people what you really think or do without shame, since social norms and customs can silence all those parts that make us human. I feel like my life is changing so rapidly but I'm only 16. I am thankful for being able to learn about ancient philosophy from an early age, I think it'll change my life for the better. Thank you for sharing all this knowledge! RU-vid channels about philosophy are truly precious, so keep it up!
Interesting; however, are you concerned that people considering suicide might be encouraged by the first two minutes of your video?I am a suicide survivor. My late husband took his life in 2008.
of course you have to be somewhat concerned. however I do think Saint Augustine presents an adequate antidote to Nietzsche. I also think your raising the question is an important component of dealing with the possibility of being encouraged by Nietzsche. I think the greater danger is in not discussing suicide at all for fear of accidental encouragements. Sorry to hear about your loss.
Phenomenology (Husserl): Method; Theory of Essences; Avoidance of Psychologism. 10. Existentialism (Kierkegaard, Sartre, Heidegger): Existence and Essence; Choice, Responsibility and Authentic Existence; Being-in-the -world and Temporality. 11. Quine and Strawson: Critique of Empiricism; Theory of Basic Particulars and Persons.
Thank you sir. Sir please teach us following portion Hegel: Dialectical Method; Absolute Idealism 6. Moore, Russell and Early Wittgenstein: Defence of Commonsense; Refutation of Idealism; Logical Atomism; Logical Constructions; Incomplete Symbols; Picture Theory of Meaning; Saying and Showing. 7. Logical Positivism: Verification Theory of Meaning; Rejection of Metaphysics; Linguistic Theory of Necessary Propositions. 8. Later Wittgenstein: Meaning and Use; Language-games; Critique of Private Language. 9. Phenomenology (Husserl): Method; Theory of Essences; Avoidance of Psychologism
Some minor points; Socrates never wrote anything, at least anything mentioned in tradition, except possibly some poetry by contributing to one of Euripides' plays. Plato never claimed to be Socrates' major pupil anymore than Alex Haley would have claimed to be Malcolm X's, or Ospensky being Gurdjieff's major student or any biographer making claim to be of the subject he biographer, (an exception might be Porphyry and Plotinus) .
