Hello ---- the name is "Hesiod". He is not typically regarded as a philosopher, but as a poet. He lived around the time of another great Greek poet, Homer. Cheers, Dr. Feist
Hey, I just wanted to thank you for making these. I (and my class) really appreciate your explanations. You genuinely do not know how much help you are. Thank you!
my lord, I wrote a whole long comment about a small criticism I had, and deleted it accidentally so I'll be to the point first off, I've learned a lot from you, and especially after virtue, love the channel, and I'm sure you didn't do this intentionally my criticism, from the point of view of a viewer, pertains the fact that throughout this and not all but quite a few of your videos, you seem to have a point and then repeat it in different ways many times again, I assume that it's not intentional, which is why I'm pointing it out this video is a particularly good example of this, because the main idea can be said in under two minutes, and then the examples of which philosophical movements are missing the proper context could be said in 5 minutes at most the rest is filler, and as a viewer, and i think many will agree that it simply feels like nothing is happening throughout most of this particular video after you said your main point i keep waiting and waiting for a new point, a new idea, but then it turns out that it was the same one all along, and so it makes me less willing to watch the whole video, and less willing to watch the other videos , although i personally sped up the videos, and was patient enough when i watched this series on after virtue at the time when i first saw it another thing is that, this video in particular, as an introduction, is not a particularly complex idea to grasp. Let me try to sum it - "in the same way that people won't understand science in a future in which most of its cultural context and original meanings have been lost to time and destruction, so too we are in a situation today with modern morality, which has been severed from its connection to the original context of the moral language. It's like if you are solving a jigsaw puzzle with missing pieces, and so the same shapes feel like they fit because you have some of the same shapes connecting, but so much is missing that you just can't be sure" a solution to this can be editing, scripting and using a teleprompter additionally, you can make a second channel to use the RU-vid algorithms advantage now that you have a lot of content just edit the old content to be main points, and post, because posting on this channel after the algorithm has seen that the views aren't getting any better even after posting consistently, and even after posting for a long time because they have a monetary incentive if a channel takes too long, they stop pushing it in front as much not necessarily, but you know you can keep both channels one with the videos unedited, and the other one with the edited ones and to the point maybe with some really silent royalty free music in the background as well as shorts and this stuff and if you are willing, you can even add pop culture references in small clips throughout the videos as examples of the thing you are talking about you disserve recognition for your work it can help a lot of people as it has helped me and i assume that's why you put them out there in the first place - in order to help educate people and so, the more effective the outreach, the more people you can teach hope you have an amazing day
I would like to extend my heartfelt thanks for your insightful videos. I started reading the book this month, and your videos have significantly enhanced my understanding of its deeper meanings. Your efforts in making the content more accessible and comprehensible are truly appreciated. Thank you very much .🙏🙏🙏
However, John Crowe Ransom's " Wanted: An Ontological Critique" complicates the problem. Ontological critics pertain to a group of readers that are equipped with linguistic and literary skills. What if the author is still alive? Are we going to exclude him as one of the ontological critiques? The intentionalist Hirsch also criticized " intentional fallacy" because language is dynamic. Words such as gay and plastic have different connotations now. So " intentional fallacy" is in itself a type of fallacy.
hypocrisy or double standards are used when traits of two different things are compared, and you treat similar traits in one instance in a different way than in another because of irrationality. Hypocrisy is different for some people, because of how different people hold different moral positions. One person might say that treating an older son more favorably than a younger son would be being hypocritical because the traits that are being compared is the value of the two kids which most people consider to be equal. Another person might say that not pulling the lever on the trolly problem to kill your oldest son in order to save four random people would also be immoral, since most people think human life should be considered equal. Calling out hypocrisy is almost always a dumb idea, a much more effective way to have a conversation would be to discuss the differences between the morality you and whoever you disagree with has rather than mindlessly pointing out the fact that you think the other person is a hypocrite when that is only true from your point of view. An exception to this would be if you knew for certain what the other person believed, and knew that they didn't know that they were being a hypocrite. Also, if someone says they don't have a double standard, that doesn't mean they do. This argument is on par with "if they say they aren't lying, they are definitely lying."
respect is awe, admiration, or jelousy of someone, where you see how someone has specialized in a skill, typically leadership, to the point that you would trust just about anything they say on the topic because you are aware of their knowledge. Demanding respect is similar to demanding credit for a skill you have. The way that people typically demand respect, along with the way the way the Bible demands you respect people, doesn't make any sense when you observe the definition, since respect isn't something you can make yourself give, but something that can only be earned through convincing someone you are good for something. Although, people can also be duped into giving respect to a fraud, or give fake respect if you intimidate them into doing so.
So your case is privacy can be a harboring ground for hypocrisy? I think this makes sense within a contextual space whereas you try to catch people abusing privileges by hiding behind firewalls like politicians doing insider trading. Also when I’m trying to grok this by reading the board, “Open Societies” is referring to your own definition in good faith and not the 1989 George Soros book definition where external actors can fund or lobby disruptive social movements from outside the country, which is in many ways worse then a ultra-private (isolationist) hypocritical super-structure. And what I meant by context is that you would form the context of transparency around a context (self, family, town, region, state/nation), you wouldn’t want your mind to be so open that it falls out because you loosen discernment and become too gullible, in the same way you wouldn’t want your choice of in-group context to be so open that external bad actors could poison the well of your trust and currency/trade networks. You have to draw a defensive boundary somewhere. I think the best path would be if a society has enough of a fracture in ideals that it has to accept a potential for new boundaries, trying to reincorporate a region by force only spikes distrust within breakaway cultures. That or the Swiss path where you instantiate new Cantons and leave their way of being alone. America is dealing with this right now with things like the State of Jefferson talks in North California or Greater Idaho. In this case the Federal government actually increases distrust in the entire system by standing in the way of self-determination of regional autonomy. Without adding an entire 2-3 more paragraphs, would the first two axis of Privacy<->Hypocrisy be benefited by adding Trust<->Distrust?
I had an interview and muttered “Abandon all hope ye who enter here, am I right???” To an older guy standing at this coffee table before the introductory breakfast. Yeah, he immediately went and sat at the faculty table. He was the main professor I was there to interview with. I had just never seen him with his mask on, or in person. 💀💀💀
Thank you for your videos. They really help get better grades in my philosophy class. Your summaries are great! I hope you will post the next parts soon, it would be neat:)
