Very informative content and well delivered.

12:24 I disagree since science holds precedence over philosophy and I believe thats the point Hawking was making.

Aren't the mechanisms by which fascism takes over the same as those used by other subversive political groups? The Bolsheviks, Soviets and Communist Parties have used the same tactics.

23:30 that even sounds lame, as witness pinochet...

Question - are you or would you recommend particular researchers (philosophers, sociologists or others) dealing specifically with the interactions between money and the scientific process? I can think mainly of work on science and values here, but if you have other suggestions of interesting literature to look at that'd be great. Been considering doing some work on this after my PhD if possible. Thanks, and thanks again for the lecture series!

The chubby viral pro life lady argues that they can feel enormous pain at just 12.5 weeks.

Fascism is a collectivist ideology. They marched under red banners. Nationalists? The communists added "Mother Russia".

Facism in italy came to power before they wrote about it the doctrine of fascim is written in 1927, five years after the march of rome. There is no reason as well to think fascist are only lying, Gentile was a hegelan professor, im sure he belived in the ideas he was formulating. Both were socalists prior to creating fascim, its not just the failures of liberal democray that it fights but the filures of socialism, by being a reformed version of it.

Now at the end of a PhD dealing a lot with the philosophy of biology and linguistics, I've started the series a month ago or so and been watching all videos (a long time after their release, granted). I've generally found them very good, but this video was the first one where I feel you failed to be properly respectful and at least try to present a balanced perspective, or at least some possible charitable readings - more so for postmodernism, but also for radical feminist epistemology. I get that the science wars are a very controversial topic and it's hard not to take sides, but I feel trying to be as nuanced as you were when presenting Feyerabend would be much more interesting and informative here.

I feel like this is conceptually bigoted. We see power for powers sake more than ever today, and the regime isn't "fascist". To say there is no ideology moving fascism and nothing to study also betrays a conceptually limited horizon you hold. The idea of living "historically" is at the crux. The concept is that once you remove people from "time" with no connection to past or ethnos you have no reason to exist other to seek out comfort wnd pleasurable sensation because once these people cease to exist there is really no impact their existance has rendered in any concievable way. Their life day to day is like someone of that in a nursing home, or a minumum security prison. Performing meaningless work to pass the time , sub par food prepared for them, living vicariously through television or pornography. Making easy slaves of people because nothing is gripping them out of anything that they hold as more valuable then their own life because nothing exists to them but their own life. The idea is that this is a perennial feature in history. Men having always conceiving of themselves as being a part of a chain of existance and in time, whether native aborginie or the kingdom of prussia. This is more a fair take on what politically lies behind the action you see entailed in 21st Century and maybe beyond.

The worst book ever in the history of man. This man fucked up discourse so horribly.

Thank for the video! Helped me a lot in my studies.

If thats the case, then the proponents of Neo-Darwinian mechanism are the biggest dogmatists to ever exist because look at their attitude they don't want their theory to be challenged.

your rationalizations for what is or isn't fascism,aside from the anachronistic angle, seem post facto. there have always been popular movements of what we'd anachronistically call the right and the left, take the grachii, as opposed to, broadly, caesar or sulla

while it is anachronistic to call plato fascist, the shoe fits

Great lecture series! Really made the important points clear and easy to understand

You proved him right by your side opinions filtering through on vaccine deniers. Dangerous to observe deleterious effects of mRNA experiments? WTF.

Very engaging talk, you rock dude!

Of the two options offered in your closing statement; 1.There is no Human Freedom OR 2.There is no God, only one option has been proven in this video, namely that there can be no human freedom if God is all knowing. Would you be willing to do a follow-up video proving that Human Freedom is true and not just an intuitive false assumption? 😎

Thanks, professor. Im studying this field, and I found your explanations straightforward and uncomplicated. Thanks for sharing this content. 🙌😁

هذا موضوع رسالتى للماجستير عن " النظرية الاستقرائية عند نلسون جودمان"

You argue from an athiest point of view by reducing God’s influence over your life (and the world) to a simple question of intellectual beliefs. As if God himself isn’t deeply involved in his creation. Suppose that God does exist. Just because you stop believeing in the existence of Him, doesn’t necessarily have to take away all of His influence over your life. If human kind is created as an image of God, and God is love, then who is to say that love wouldn’t still live in your heart even though you stop believing in Him on an intellectual level. What I’m saying is that, He may still live in your heart as love lives on in your heart. A change of your interpretation of reality doesn’t necessarily change the reality. That is a possible explanation to why x-theists values doesn’t change. It does, however, make a difference whether you follow Him or not. There is a difference between belief and faith. Faith is more profound. My point of view leads me to the idea that, only when you stop following the way of love, is when you truly reject God as your Lord. That is what matters. So I argue that, even though you may think that the existence of God doesn’t make a difference in your life, he may still have an impact. Because the creation doesn’t have to be compleatly cut off from the creator in ways that matter. So what I’m saying is that, you’re right, whether you believe or don’t believe in God’s existence may not make a huge difference (although it might). But whether God does or does not exists makes a difference. And, whether you keep living as the image of Him in your heart or not - that matters.

My belief is that God knows certain important things about the future because He will make them be so. But He doesn’t know every individual path every human will take. He knows the destination of human kind, because He is deeply involved in the fate of humanity. And the things that He promise, are things that He will make sure happens. That is my take on the meaning of divine knowledge.

I like to challenge age old thinking instead of accomodating ideas. Now for ur-facism it is purely theoretical concept, now we know that imbalanced hormonal levels (serotonin, cortisol, dopamine, ..) cause people to seek safety and turn to tribalism - just a chemical characteristic of a human brain. Same for recovering non-existed greatensss - the process of recovery implies getting back something familiar, as brain feels safer with known concepts it's a rational thing to do, rather than pursuing some new levels of magnificence that would be a big unknown.

Nice account of the essential Diogenes who Alexander may have admired because Diogenes clearly showed he had no fear of Alexander.

I think, în 24', woke-ism is a safe stage 4.

Do you have an academic citation for the concept for the term that you used in the video: "biographically alive"? For personhood. When you said earlier a person is not someone who is biologically alive but also "biographically alive."

The Thucydides Trap (as described by Graham T. Allison) only looks at very few examples from history, and only European and global history after European dominance.

Fascism never died. The US and its puppets kept it alive in Italy and other countries. Look up operation Gladio and the Italian social movement.

Why is Fascism bad? Is the 5th stage inevitable? If Pinochet isn't a fascist (according to Paxton), what is it about fascism that makes it worse?

These lectures are excellent but I wish the professor would refrain from bringing politics into the classroom.

This series is more and more relevant nowadays now that people question more and more whether science is an epistemologically sound way of understanding the world.

The value of having both male and female perspectives has been kinda opaque to me. But the primatologist example is nice, because it suggests things directly relevant to gender and sex might be missed (oh and the other examples)

Karl Popper gives us a satisfying way to make sense of the world, and it feels like most philosophers seem to lead us down intellectual dead ends because of their all or nothing ways of getting to truth. The enlightenment actually started with Popper, yes If you look through history, it appears progress is like a pendulum. One group comes up with a good idea, and they forge ahead. They run into problems, and dissent occurs. Another group pops up, and the cycle continues. Whether falsificationism is sufficient I do not know, but the trial-and-error methodology is a necessary one indeed

I'd love it if the Dark Ages were explored a bit more some day, and learn about the regresses and progresses throughout that bit. Scholars in Europe were expanding on Aristotle's ideas, as far as I know. But not sure to what extent

Is he done making anymore videos? I miss his badass series.

Are invisible gnomes the same as strings?

Again, thank you for creating this series. Super helpful introduction to the philosophy of science!

printing was invented in china and gunpowder was not rediscovered in europe, just taken from china. I believe this history is a bit eurocentric.

yo bro thanks a lot

You are still wrong on mereology.

2 minutes in and I can't watch anymore bc you're doing exactly what Doug says you'll have to do when it comes to reason. Use it, which assumes it, to argue for why we're obligated to it. Sorry but that's not only, as be says, viciously circular, but there's never even theoretically any reason offered why we have any obligation to reason itself. And the fact that you are doing this proves that you feel that there is some kind of obligation, or why make this video, but having not provided One, you've just argued for the necessity of his. 15 years later I certainly hope for you my friend that you're not still borrowing from God to suppress the truth of God.

Wonderful. Listening for the first time in 2023, I recognized the backlash against vaccines and reasonable Covid measures, while large groups of people embraced the deadly pseudo-science of folk remedies. This was just what the presenter describes in the warnings about the democracy-science tension in the last segment.

It is amazing when we human beings try to explain God in our own human terms, the conclusions are always lethargic. *How is God outside time, you ask, well because He brought time into existence, He must be outside of it.* In your argument, premise one is biblical. Premise 2 and 3 are well calculated to lead to premise 4, and that is where the poison is for an unguided viewer. Actually, premise 2 and 3 are one and the same argument, accepting either will lead to accepting premise 4, the conclusion, which is what the "composer" wants. We have free will, otherwise, they’d be NO sin and sinners to dent the ideal world where they’d be no free will. God desires genuine love that springs from the heart and this is why God gave us the gift of free will, so we’d freely choose to serve Him. God foreknew (saw it before it happened) that I would *“FREELY CHOOSE”* to do a particular thing. This is different from saying, God foreknew I’d -FREELY- CHOOSE to do a particular thing. *Those choices are NOT predetermined, they are what we FREELY choose, FREELY chose OR will FREELY choose, JUST that God knows either of these because He is God and is not like you and me, mere men, His creatures.*

Doesn't prove God's existence

If you mean "indirect voluntarism" that means we are "indirectly" responsible for our beliefs. I think. Good video.

An exception: The Taoists.

Science can become an ideology akin to religion, that is the danger..

Sorry, but this is a superficial mess. Include more diverse sources and interpretations in your analysis, next time.

Fascism is a form of socialism. Fasci was a name for trade unions in Italy. The ideology is literally the evolution of socialist and identitarians that though that Marx was wrong and class warfare fell out short, thinking national interest united more the population, due to their experiences with the first world war. Literally comming from the ideas of having trade unions of combat as though by Georges Sorel, and the later concept of nationalsyndicalism developed by his followers. Even the german version, nationalsocialism, tells you very clearly what it is about. All those "fascist" were socialist: Mussolini was a socialist, Hitler was a communist in 1919, or the french colaboracionist Jacques Doriot, another dissapointed communist. Modern peronism in Argentina is nowadays considered a socialist ideology, being in its origin a nationalistic socialism, a "third way" against socialist and capitalist imperialism that united together diverse social groups in the common cause of defending abd refirming the nation. Peronism is what fascism looks like when it remains undefeated, and its just socialism. That "Third Position" the actual fascist, not the fake ones the press talk about, claim they are still to this day. Hitler hated marxist, but he called himself a socialist. Nationalsocialism was "real socialism" for him, which it is the most socialist statement he could make, the "any socialism that i dont like or treatment my defense if it wasnt real socialism" has been a very old excuse, for so long that its a cliché at this point. Its just fascinating to watch so many marxist "intellectuals" or influenced by marxism cultural dominance over everything relating socialism or social studies, pounding the term until reducing it as a hollow one, synonim of tyranny, or nationalism (the "wrong ones", not all of them), as if standart marxist socialism couldnt be reduced to just tyranny. Fascist is comming back indeed, accusing their oposition of being the fascist ones.