Video philosophy lectures, with memes and sometimes the word "nostalgia" appended to them. Metaphysics! Ancient Greece! Pop culture!
SHOWS: Dr Bowers' Office Hours, Nostalgia Philosopher
ABOUT ME: I received my PhD in philosophy in 2010 from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Since then, I have taught as an adjunct professor at Bowdoin College, Moravian College, North Carolina A&T, and Wake Forest University. My areas of specialization are metaphysics, ancient Greek philosophy, and philosophy of religion. I am presently seeking a full-time position. More information can be found here: unc.edu/~jjbowers.
First argument: GOD cannot be perfect, agreed Second: Creation comes from a place of knowledge Third: Neoplatonism is self-learning to obtain better consciousness, to increase balance, to become one from multiple facets of life Fourth: IT Is yours to divine and define Fifth: Balance between D & X Six: Nothing is superior to balance your consciousness in the learning of layers of emanation Seven: Beings have no proof of devine, only consciousness and experience Eight: Creation is based on experience in creating D & X balance Nine: We never die, we are eternal Ten: Experience divine your higher self Eleven: Time doesn't exist, concept to defer alternative consciousness from faith Twelve: Faith is based on what you cannot explain Thirteen: Neoplatonism is the emanation of self with your consciousness to higher self, this is based on dark & light (balance of self consciousness existence).
I study literature at UFRRJ in Brazil. I`ve been studying the Philosophy of Horror by Carroll and many other books and articles to make some research about monsters, fear, and madness in literature. I must say I found both the book and your explanation amazing. Thank you for the video.
Considering that books are mass published and we know Carolinus is capable of time travel, it wouldn't be too much of a stretch to assume that he just went to the future and picked up a copy.
The monotheists themselves have different and conflicting notions of their notion of God. They then argue that their sectarian notion is only correction instead of maybe they are 2 different gods
I've said this before but I think polytheists positing the argument from religious diversity -- such as Greer in *A World Full of Gods* and Steven Dillon in *The Case for Polytheism* and so on -- and monotheist theologians are talking past eachother. The definition of a god in Dillon's book is that of some mind with remarkable greatness that commands veneration. The definition of God in the many Scholastic traditions is that of Being qua Being. These are wildly different things. Indeed, by Dillon's definition, every Catholic is a polytheist due to their veneration of saints and angels and their adoration of the persons of the Trinity, and Kabbalist Jews are also polytheists due to believing in powerful angels and Sefirots.
I would site another objection. If your cup is a part of the clay in the same way your hand is part of you then it should manifest in a similar way no mater what its history. The cup should just leap into existence without needing to be made.
I disagree that polytheism requires no special pleading. In fact, it's very simplistic to say that ploytheists used to be tolerant. The best they could do was imply that all the other different gods were in fact just different aspects of their own gods. Otherwise, you have to recpncile the fact that the guy in front of you is telling you that it was Marduk who created the world when you know fpr a fact that the world was created when Gia emerged from the primordial chaos. You can't both be right and generally one thing has to go: your myth, or the other guy's gods. There's also just the problems of the one and the many and how there can be many perfect and eternal things and if they are not that then why are they gods? And why do the gods oppose each other morally (many neopagans deny this but neopaganism is a completely modern fabrication anyway. They are like people who speak latin: not their mother language).
I just finished reading this paper for my course here at the University of Edinburgh. Yours is an excellent video series explaining it, thank you. The ending is tragic, I must say. And of course, the philosophy is spectacular and beautifully presented. I wish I could write my own essays in the form of dialogues lol
Heyy! I've been using your videos as part as a research to a high-school philosophy project and just thought it would help other people to have the main questions here if they want to copypaste them! Main Questions: 1. What is the Freudian solution to the Paradox of Horror? 2. What is a taboo, in the Freudian sense? 3. Which role does taboo play in socialization, according to Freudians? 4. What does a horror monster do for socialized adults, according to Freudians? 5. Which type of monster do Freudians easily analyze? 6. Which types of monsters do Freudians have a tougher time with? 7. Carrol’s Combinatorial Objection to the Freudian Solution 8. How should a Freudian respond to the Combinatorial Objection? Also the Combinatorial Objection: 1. Monsters can be generated infinitely using combinatorial means 2. If monsters can be generated infinitely using combinatorial means, then the freudian account is false 3. So the Freudian solution to the paradox is false Great work!!
This argument is really constrained by the framework of the human. I mean, it's an inference from bottom to top in theological terms and also clearly anthropocentric. Is the Divine experience or theophany definable by those encosmic characteristics it might produce? I'm referring to phenomena like images, physical and natural movements, thoughts that do not transcend the mind. If the Divine experience has an ineffable cause, the theophany, at least in its essential definition, must also be ineffable. That is why this argument does not prove, by any means, the existence of various Gods, but rather reaffirms the plurality of phenomena capable of one or more Gods. A polytheist.
Neoplatonic pantheism/panentheism is more probable and inclusive of both monotheism and polytheism. Emanations meaning that all originates from God means that their can be different aspects of God but their is one God which rules over and precedes them. Even in most polytheism all the Gods are related to a progenitor God ouranos (or chaos) in greek myth.
i love watching your video dr bowers , the onlu thing i'm wondering how are not more people enjoying logical argument debate between fictional characters.
I would had simply guess people love to get scared and disgusted. But working on the real object of horror produced quite an interesting and enjoable declension of horror fiction.
In Christianity, you are expected to experience pain. In fact, the philosophy brings you more pain. And you tell yourself you're doing it for God, which is some small consolation. Then you gaslight yourself into believing that you're actually more happy.
As a Christian, I rationalized this as this world is one big test and if he intervened then we would know about God and couldn't be saved by faith given to us by God based on the softness of our hearts. So he sets up the world so that it IS plausible to be an atheist or anything else, plausible enough to stay there if you're not truly sincere in seeking the truth no matter what.
I wonder if the writers of the old testament did not put an omniscient characteristic on God. God seems angry that the world is so full of evil and then says he regrets making man and floods the world. When did we decide that if God exists he MUST be omniscient and omnipotent?
Christianity is willingly giving up your free will to serve God and the bible claims we're sealed by the holy spirit. So why doesn't God take that into account and actually help us be good.
The bible says it is impossible that any one of us can never sin. We ALL fall short. So we're being infinitely punished for something we must do. And then God provides a loophole to this with Jesus...
So you're saying this philosophy implies no beginning to the universe. What about the big bang theory and the fact that science disagrees? Do you stick to your philosophy like a Christian despite science?
Inclusive monotheism - I got the feeling this was the Narnia theology, at one point when they were deciding who was going to heaven, someone who worshipped something else they said it was actually the same. Anyone else remember this?
Many of Hume's objections can be answered. Objection (3) "If we survey the universe ..., it bears a great resemblance to an animal or organized body, and seems actuated with a like principle of life and motion. A continual circulation of matter in it ...: a continual waste in every part is incessantly repaired: the closest sympathy is perceived throughout the entire system: and each part or member ... operates both to its own preservation and to that of the whole [I]t must be confessed, that... the universe resembles more a human body than it does the works of human art and contrivance [Y]et is the analogy also defective in many circumstances ...: no organs of sense; no seat of thought or reason; no one precise origin of motion and action. In short, it seems to bear a stronger resemblance to a vegetable than to an animal." (Dialogues) Response: "Hume's argument seems weak. Hume's claim is that the physical universe - more specifically, our solar system - bears a closer resemblance to some animal or a vegetable than it does some machine or other artefact. The claim is unconvincing. In its manifest workings, the physical universe in general, and our own solar system in particular, exhibits a degree of regularity and predictability that far exceeds that which is exhibited by any animal or vegetable. After all, it is by the sun that we set our clocks and not by the comings and goings of sun-flowers or salamanders! That this is so suggests that the physical universe more closely resembles some regular and predictable machine or artefact, for example a clock, than it does any far less regular and predictable animal or vegetable." (David Conway "Rediscovery Of Wisdom")
Many of Hume's objections can be answered. Objection (2) “But how this argument can have place where the objects, as in the present case, are single, individual, without parallel or specific resemblance, may be difficult to explain.”(Dialogues) Responses: "From time to time various writers have told us that we cannot reach any conclusions about the origin or development of the universe, since it is the only one of which we have knowledge, and rational inquiry can reach conclusions only about objects that belong to kinds, for example, it can reach a conclusion about what will happen to this bit of iron only because there are other bits of iron, the behaviour of which can be studied. This objection has the surprising, and to most of these writers unwelcome, consequence, that physical cosmology could not reach justified conclusions about such matters as the size, age, rate of expansion, and density of the universe as a whole (because it is the only one of which we have knowledge); and also that physical anthropology could not reach conclusions about the origin and development of the human race (because, as far as our knowledge goes, it is the only one of its kind). The implausibility of these consequences leads us to doubt the original objection, which is indeed totally misguided." (Richard Swinburne "The Existence Of God") "By tracing the origin of the physical universe to a supposed 'Big Bang', modern cosmology places Hume in the following dilemma. Either, he must deny that the physical universe as a whole is singular and unique, on the grounds that it resembles other things besides it that explode, such as grenades. Or, alternatively, should he insist on the uniqueness of the physical universe, he must concede that there are some unique things which are capable of standing as terms of causal relations." (David Conway "Rediscovery Of Wisdom") "Second, Hume seems to assume that the universe is unique and conclusions cannot be reached about unique objects by analogy. But this is false as well. Astronomers reach conclusions all the time about the origin of the universe and this is unique. Furthermore, all events are unique in some sense, but no one would want to say that arguments by analogy do not apply to any objects whatever. The fact that the universe or some other object is unique does not rule out the possibility that it has properties in common with some other object, including some of its parts. For example, there may be only one object which satisfies the description "the tallest man in Maryland," but one could still compare this object with other objects and make judgments about the origination of the object." (J.P Morlend "Scaling The Secular City")
Many of Hume's objections can be answered. Objection (1) "A great number of men join in building a house or a ship, in rearing a city, in framing a commonwealth: why may not several deities combine in contriving and framing a world?"(Dialogues) Responses: "And, to jump ahead a bit, there are two further problems with polytheism as an explanation of the existence of not merely a universe but a universe governed throughout space and time by the same natural laws. If this order in the world is to be explained by many gods, then some explanation is required for how and why they cooperate in producing the same patterns of order throughout the universe. This becomes a new datum requiring explanation for the same reason as the fact of order itself. The need for further explanation ends when we postulate one being who is the cause of the existence of all others, and the simplest conceivable such-I urge-is God. And, further, the power of polytheism to explain this order in the world is perhaps not as great as that of theism. If there were more than one deity responsible for the order of the universe, we would expect to see characteristic marks of the handiwork of different deities in different parts of the universe, just as we see different kinds of workmanship in the different houses of a city. We would expect to find an inverse square of law of gravitation obeyed in one part of the universe, and in another part a law that was just short of being an inverse square law-without the difference being explicable in terms of a more general law."(Richard Swinburne "The Existence Of God") "If the physical universe is the product of intelligent design, rather than being a pure accident, it is more likely to be the handiwork of only one rather than more than one intelligence. This is so for two broad reasons. The first reason is the need for theoretical parsimony. In the absence of any evidence for supposing the universe to be the handiwork of more than one intelligence rather than only one, then, faced with a choice between supposing it the handiwork of one or of more than one intelligent designer, we should choose to suppose it to be the creation of only one. For it is not necessary to postulate more than one to account for the phenomena in question. The second reason for preferring the hypothesis of there being only one designer of the universe to supposing more than one is that the general harmony and uniformity of everything in the universe suggest that, should it be the product of design, it is more likely to be the handiwork of a single designer, rather than a plurality of designers who might have been expected to have left in their joint product some trace of their plural individualities."(David Conway "Rediscovery Of Wisdom") "Of the ‘unity of the Deity’ the proof is, the uniformity of plan observable in the universe. The universe itself is a system; each part either depending upon other parts, or being connected with other parts by some common law of motion, or by the presence of some common substance. One principle of gravitation causes a stone to drop towards the earth, and the moon to wheel round it. One law of attraction carries all the different planets about the sun. This philosophers demonstrate. There are also other points of agreement amongst them, which may be considered as marks of the identity of their origin, and of their intelligent author. In all are found the conveniency and stability derived from gravitation. They all experience vicissitudes of days and nights, and changes of season. They all, at least Jupiter, Mars, and Venus, have the same advantages from their atmospheres as we have. In all the planets the axes of rotation are permanent. Nothing is more probable, than that the same attracting influence, acting according to the same rule, reaches to the fixed stars: but, if this be only probable, another thing is certain, viz. that the same element of light does.* The light from a fixed star affects our eyes in the same manner, is refracted and reflected according to the same laws, as the light of a candle. The velocity of the light of the fixed stars, is also the same as the velocity of the light of the sun, reflected from the satellites of Jupiter. The heat of the sun, in kind, differs nothing from the heat of a coal fire. In our own globe the case is clearer. New countries are continually discovered, but the old laws of nature are always found in them: new plants perhaps or animals, but always in company with plants and animals, which we already know; and always possessing many of the same general properties. We never get amongst such original, or totally different, modes of existence, as to indicate, that we are come into the province of a different Creator, or under the direction of a different will. In truth, the same order of things attends us, wherever we go. The elements act upon one another, electricity operates, the tides rise and fall, the magnetic needle elects its position, in one region of the earth and sea, as well as in another. One atmosphere invests all parts of the globe, and connects all: one sun illuminates; one moon exerts its specific attraction upon all parts. If there be a variety in natural effects, as, e. g. in the tides of different seas, that very variety is the result of the same cause, acting under different circumstances. In many cases this is proved; in all is probable. The inspection and comparison of living forms, add to this argument examples without number. Of all large terrestrial animals the structure is very much alike. Their senses nearly the same. Their natural functions and passions nearly the same. Their viscera nearly the same, both in substance, shape, and office. Digestion, nutrition, circulation, secretion, go on, in a similar manner, in all. The great circulating fluid is the same: for, I think, no difference has been discovered in the properties of blood, from whatever animal it be drawn. The experiment of transfusion proves, that the blood of one animal will serve for another. The skeletons also of the larger terrestrial animals, shew particular varieties, but still under a great general affinity. The resemblance is somewhat less, yet sufficiently evident, between quadrupeds and birds. They are alike in five respects, for one in which they differ. In fish, which belong to another department, as it were, of nature, the points of comparison become fewer. But we never lose sight of our analogy, e. g. we still meet with a stomach, a liver, a spine; with bile and blood; with teeth; with eyes, which eyes are only slightly varied from our own, and which variation, in truth, demonstrates, not an interruption, but a continuance, of the same exquisite plan; for it is the adaptation of the organ to the element, viz. to the different refraction of light passing into the eye out of a denser medium. The provinces, also, themselves of water and earth, are connected by the species of animals which inhabit both; and also by a large tribe of aquatic animals, which closely resemble the terrestrial in their internal structure: I mean the cetaceous tribe,* which have hot blood, respiring lungs, bowels, and other essential parts, like those of land animals. This similitude, surely, bespeaks the same creation and the same Creator."(William Paley "Natural Theology")
Another issue with all types of monotheism is that their claims are unfalsifiable; with existence exclusive monotheism, it is impossible to prove or disprove that there is only one god and that every other is imaginary; with value exclusive monotheism it is impossible to prove or disprove that the god worshipped by monotheist(s) is the only real god and that others are demons ESPECIALLY because of the fact that, according to value exclusivists, demons can imitate the abilities of gods, which makes it impossible to test if a deity is a genuine god or a demon; with inclusivists, it is impossible to prove or disprove their claim because if the one god manifests himself in different, contradictory ways to different people, it is impossible to test if every single god is actually just a mask for the one true god.
I'm a Norse Polytheist and I believe every god/goddess exists, and many unknown ones even. But I only worship a few, as they are the ones I feel connected to. The others just might not care about me, and that's no biggie to me
