This is strange to me, and confusing: Hannah Arendt, who wrote her dissertation on "Love in St. Augustine" was one of the foremost political philosophers of anyone's 'time', and did not take too seriously the left/right distinction of common, everyday political discussion.
Месяц назад
i don´t think Mr Huemer characterize the privation idea in the right way... It really seems like he does not know much about tomistic views or aristotelic views... he actually said, because philosophers of the past where wrong about a lot of stuff, then they are wrong about everythig. I really like Huemer, but he´s like marvel movies... he thinks everything is a joke, it´s funny at first, but it get old really fast. he´s a very interesting philosopher, but when he starts talking about god, he becomes a fallacy machinegun.
How did he mischaracterize the privation theory of evil? _____ “he actually said, because philosophers of the past were wrong about a lot of stuff, then they are wrong about everything” He was talking about Aristotle specifically (15:51)
All Religions Are False! god does not exist! 1.everything comes from everything! that has been proven! and can't come from nothing! is the same for god cannot come from nothing! and can make everything from nothing! evidence! god does not exist! 2.energy! the cosmos! the universe! cannot be created or destroyed! that has been proven! has no beginning and no end! evidence! god didn't create universe!
If you accept a metaphysical structure that contains values and morals, then you accept theism. That's because values and moral can only reside on an agent.
I understand that. What I'm saying that if values are self existing they imply a mind. Since the only thing that we know of that contains values are minds.
Atheism is built on the fact that anything is possible if you can't prove the opposite position, but we all know that proving anything 100% is impossible. Atheism is not a honest or even logical position and possibility is not a good argument because a absurd proposition like "My shit can become a human if you throw it in a blackhole and it end up in a different universe that can turn shit to a human being". The argument is totally absurd, but because you cannot 100% disprove it, the argument is still "possible".
Atheism is not "built" on anything: atheism is the default position, if someone had never heard any theory about god or gods it's very hard they'd form a theory about one of the modern religions on their own. Perhaps animism, polytheism, or maybe even monotheism could arise in the individual, but almost certainly not in the currently widespread form. If anything, your example works in favor of atheism, as they're not the ones trying to disprove religions, the burden of proof doesn't fall on them.
@@fuma9532 Do you even know what default means? Every tribe and civilization in history believed in god. Atheism is like a civilizational mind rot that only appears in time of great prosperity.
Personally, I agree that reality has metaphysical aspect to it. But, is that a necessity to all possible realities? I don't think "Even though reality has a metaphysical structure" is really an example of tautology.
Well, of course it is a tautology. But it was necessary to point it out in order to elucidate the question, my friend. Some materialists, for instance, think reality has no metaphysical structure.
@@MatheusBenites-Philosophymaterialist view that we can understand facts without caring about its value is so dumb that's postmodernist criticism of modernity. Jordan Peterson uses post modernism to criticize modernity and that's how traditionalist view come backs. I think Jordan Peterson is meta modernist not a post modernist, modernist or traditionalist. Empiricism is true then why we have caltural war. We can't even understand what's woman. In current caltural war they're only two sides exist postmodernist or traditionalism. Modernity and enlightenment is dying. That's what Jordan Peterson also gonna talk in his book.
Profesor I have a question about Nietzsche thought. I'm not a scholar but in my understanding Nietzsche didn't believe in free will and didn't believe you can get rid of the chains of determinism but still you could wear them in a more authentic way. When Peterson says there is something technically right about his values I think he is speaking from a place where the status quo of society is the highest end, Nietzsche thought wasnt for the masses but for radical people. I think Paterson is very emotionally biased in his views. You can see this same flaw of him when talking about antinatalism and starting a family, he only gives his opinon as fact and gives reasons to appeal to emotion and practicality. So the question would be if you think peterson actually understands Nietzsche because it dosen't seem that way to me
Good question. I think he did understand Nietzsche well, and disagreed with him. For Nietzsche, there were no values built in a metaphysical structure of reality. Nietzsche wanted us to create our own values, our own metaphysical systems, which was impossible. The ubermensch is impossible. Peterson got that right, I think. However, it does not imply theism.
@@MatheusBenites-Philosophy in his wrestle with God lecture he acknowledges Greco Roman society and how it was basically a will to power. Peterson never proved the metaphysics of morality but instead gives his opinion about how nice it is to have kids for example. Also the over man it isn't an end but a means to live more authentically, living in authentic manner would be your morality, you wouldnt create it per se but you would live it. Peterson definitely dosent understand Nietzsche criticisms of christianity, I heard him talking about how Nietzsche disliked fundamentalism when Nietzsche never said that and also he thought communism is christianity's way of surviving the scientific revolution. It comes out very disingenuous to misinterpret his views
@@MatheusBenites-Philosophy I would like to know why you think the Ubermensch is impossible and if the answer is people's incapacity of creating values I would like to know why is that
Am wondering whats a atheist philosopher is, it sound quite absurd in philosophy we dont mean god as a being of theology like old man in the sky or allah we mean god as the principle,forces and the laws the universe itself thats what modern science as a whole shows us and questioning this guy does he think god of theology doesn't Exists if he does then in a way he's right but if he thinks god as a concept doens't Exists he is vaguely wrong
You are very ignorant. There isn't a common view in philosophy. You have many waves of thought and there are atheists philosophers just as Christian philosophers, agnostic, etc.
@@AL-ll3qr you can't but those claims aren't to be taken seriously because they are inventions of ancient people. All of those texts that describe the nature of the world fail and with science we see that.
@@lucacuradossi1040 you can find a atheist, agnostic, polytheistic and a religious in a group of scientists and In a governing body but that doesnt defy absolute truth but yeah I get it although philosophy should aim towards truth but there's a whole different field for it, we Modern philosophers we should have a peak understanding of Epistemology and Logic
@@s33ur3lv3lvly Just accept the reality that the it makes sense for an individual to profit off of their lives work - using their labor to write and market their thoughts, that they have developed over a lifetime, into a marketplace of ideas that finds it of some value. It is a beautiful thing. Technically the public is exploiting Peterson for his knowledge as there is demand and interest for him to produce, so he does so, rather assiduously, and is rewarded in outsized measure because of his innovation. He was early to RU-vid, early to leave the failing university system, early to embrace AI and has set a new precedent for what a public intellectual can look like. Millions have found it valuable regardless of the controversy around him. This is what @Fatality2013 celebrates and I agree.
Topics: 0:00. Introduction 1:10. Truth and Anti-Realism 4:10. Perspectivism in Philosophy of Science and Nietzsche 9:10. Nietzsche`s style and Experimentalism 10:00. The revaluation of values 15:00. Nietzsche, GE Moore and consequentialism 17:50. How far can we go with Nietzsche? 19:50. Nietzsche and Metaphysics
