I wonder what the old Greeks would say if they could see that their theories led to a work of art made of a toilet. I know this is a very crude way of putting it but I’m getting straight to the point.
These videos were really helpful, thank you! Does he go into more detail of how Nothingness manages to give rise to things (illusion or otherwise)? By what force?
Good intro and explanation. Where did the Buddha actually.say all is niether real or unreal? I've seen a Sutta in the Pali Canon where the Buddha says, "Existence and non-existence are extreme views, I teach the middle." And then mentions dependent origination, to imply that the concept of existence and non-existence do not apply to what is dependently originating. Thich Naht Hanh taught us that " nothing existence by itself alone", and "something can not come from nothing" to help negate the notion of intrinsic existence. The Pali Dictionary quotes the phrase, "nothing abides, not even for a moment", to help demonstrate that what is constantly changing lacks self nature. Thay also said, we derive our idea of birth and death by a false notion that, first there was nothing, then we were born, and when we die there will be nothing again. Because of the notion of birth there is the notion of death, rather than a process of continual transformation. If I remember correctly from the text by Nargarjuna, Advice to a King. Nargarjuna used a series of logical statements to negate cause and effect itself, as the ultimate insight into emptiness, but warned not to take that to mean that one should disregard the significance of the Buddhas teachings on Karma and the need for ethical disciple. In that sense the ultimate understanding liberates while the cause and effect level of reality is also very relevant to our human experience.
This was excellent and so well explained! Thank you for clarifying for me - specifically recognizing that Nagarjuna's clarification was pedagogical. I think people who explore this doctrine - myself included - were looking to this as some kind of "definition" of "reality." That cleared a lot up for me. Many, many thanks!
I'm glad you found the video helpful. But I do want to make sure that this is just one interpretation. And what to make of Nagarjuna is heavily debated. Some, like Siderits, see him as an anti-realist. Others, like Mills, see him as a skeptic of philosophy.
@@armchairprofessor4249 The beauty of all this, IMHO, is that it is all based on the perception of the observer. I try to acknowledge the existence of the extremes of nihilism and absolutism, and recognize their power to "convince" us these perspectives can be perceieved as "legitimate," but ultimately try to align myself with the "Emptiness" of the Middle Way. The myriad of perspectives intrigue me! Thanks again for a wonderful video!
It will not settle whether or not abortion is wrong or not to argue the morality of murder. Personally I for myself needed to be deprived of my temporal future. Being cut to pieces and vacuumed out of my mother would have been preferable for me and many others than Adoptin and foster care. Adoption is not a loving option it is legalized human trafficking and identify theft. killing you so you cannot make videos about a subject that you seem to have very little chance at truly understand is perhaps not in your best interests. I think instead of forcing women to give up EVERYTHING, and STILL not be able to give that baby anything but a life of hell for her sacrifice. Why instead not focus instead on the male part of the equation?. I mean by the time abortion actually becomes an issue ALOT of stuff has gone very wrong. When a woman is pregnant and alone what has happened for her to get like that? What if we evened the playing field a bit. What if we made it legal to record and make public records all the lies a man tells to get into a woman's pants to begin with. What if men are legally held liable for those lies. What if Father's are held legally liable for every spiteful thing they say to their young impressionable daughters and wife's that drives these young daughters to the arms of men that then lie. If you are not willing to hold men accountable for the damages they do . Men get off Scott free in these cases and they are the catalysts. And I don't think it is morally correct for a man who cannot get pregnant to be trying to weigh in at the eleventh hour. Marcus needs to go back to the drawing board and start working on the male behaviors that put women in the position of having to make these choices to begin with. By Marcus 's logic if you keep your sperm in your pants there cannot be a child created to begin with. So men need to be responsible for keeping sperm away from women they don't want a future with and they don't want to be a Father to the resulting children. Most of the joy of being a live is starting out under good circumstances. It is never a good thing to be taken from your family and the outcomes of foster care and adoption are statistically much worse than being left with even bad parents. So go do your homework and understand the whole picture before you condemn women and innocent children to an agenda that makes you feel morally upright but doesn't help anyone but you.
If this is truly Hardin's theses, then he is treating humanity like a crowd of rotifers in a drop of water, or if everyone is Ayn Rand. The solution is enlightened self interest & rational regulation that maximizes freedoms. I pray humanity is better than he thinks. Also, RESOURCES ARE INFINITE. All we have to do is get off our Mother planet and go get them. That's a final good for TECHNOLOGY.
How is the solution to the tragedy of the commons "enlightened" self-interest? What even is that? And it's false that there unlimited resources. Even in all of existence there is a limited amount of matter. But the reality is we live on earth, we aren't leaving it anytime soon, and we do not have unlimited resources on earth.
Think about it this way, imagine your parents decided to abort you. Imagine your best friends parents decided to abort them and you never met them. Imagine your partner's parents decided to abort them. Abortion is cruel. Abortion is descrimination. Abortion is unfair. *Abortion* *is* *murder* Anyone who disagrees is either f*cking stupid or evil. Change My Fucking Mind
You who are from the sun, and traveled back in time to be here, and rescue prisoners, have an incredible energy field. It's literally staggering. But much of the potential is not being actualized. Take seriously the concept of _living in_ the sacred space of the heart. You may turn to the text "The Ra Material" for insights into Plato. It is evident that Plato had access to knowledge all but lost in our times. Thank you.
Hi Paul. Ethical theory refers to the study of ethics generally. Meta-ethics is the study of the nature of ethics. For example, what makes an ethical or moral act ethical or moral? Or, what is the nature of the good life? Those kinds of questions. Normative ethics concerns not the nature or content of ethics generally or even specifically in the case of actions, but rather how we ought to live in order to be ethical or moral.
i've been watching a lot of Sapolsky lately and more intrigued about the evolutionary biology behind thinking about the lack of free will - that essentially we're biologically and environmentally determined to be a certain way, and live out that path, essentially
Thinking about this recently, Epicurus's description of friendship matches observable behavior that it is based on some degree of utility(one of which is pleasure), rather than Aristotle's claim that true friendship is based solely on goodwill for another. Because then it would mean that we could be friends with anybody or anything useless like a brain dead person or a rock. Even a soup kitchen volunteer gets pleasure or favorable reputation helping the needy. On the other hand, if Aristotle is right, then what people usually call friendship is fake and disguise for utility. Its been a while since I read Nichomachean Ethics, so possibly misinterpreted. What do you think?
I think Aristotle is correct. Even if we do get utility from a friendship, a true friendship is based on a mutual reciprocity and recognition. We can't have that kind of friendship if we consciously think of it being based on utility or pleasure even if that is a product of a true friendship.
@@armchairprofessor4249 There is an inconsistency that if we care for another's own sake, we don't care they reciprocate, the care is unconditional. But if we do care they reciprocate, then our care for them is conditional, and not for their own sake, rather only if they meet the condition of reciprocation.
I was really resonating with this until the end. "I don't think you should have to be a wage slave or die, and that everyone's needs should be satisfied, but if you are able to work and do not then instead of starving from no money you will instead by being thrown by yourself in the desert and never allowed back in society until you agree that work should be mandatory instead of optional." Hmm... I don't think laziness in and of itself should mean expulsion from society. That's "steal bread, we cut your arm off" in a different form. The punishment does not fit the crime.
I should think that there is more reason, held by a greater number of people, to save the group of five over the singular person. While one person's life is on the line we won't find unanimity of value, so we must instead agree with the reason that is as close to unanimous as possible.
First like 👍 great job// explaining imitations, I’ve heard Hegel favors the imitations of art but a well done job and keeping on topic. I loved the idea that Er is a story for poets but also how you described the immortality of souls.
The allegory of the cave, endlessly deep, and I only realized what he was pointing to about a year or more ago with another good explanation/illustration I saw on youtube ... something to revisit continuously throughout life, as our understanding of it will likely change, and our need to constantly reconceptualize the true-beauty-good
nice outfit ... the philosopher, the eternal return, and that which is behind the things, and the samsara ... and in this way it's hard for the philosopher to engage in politics, in power, and also for others to listen to the philosopher, as she/he speaks of the unseen i'm starting to believe more there is no ego, there is no person, no subject, just a collection of dynamic desires and impressions, and that free will is quite limited - we are who we are in ourselves and via our environ. people could do whatever they want, only for the problem that they can destroy not others (always been the problem) but now also the planet (the new problem). as the will needs opposition, in destroying the world humans may destroy themselves, in that in the void without the world and without the thou, there is no reality for a human - then truly only dust, only the evacuated rational thing, a physical thing and not more. yes, society sublimates the base desire, and education raises the good, yet the dynamic whole must always realize in some space - the balancings. man must overcome his materialism to survive, and know that what she is is not material, but the life force, the spiritual - that is what distinguishes the human, that it is soil that has moved beyond soil. without climbing the hierarchy, we revert to dust.
These are very thoughtful considerations, and although the owner of the channel has chosen to overlook them, I most certainly will not. There exists a contradiction in your thinking, to at once believe, you have no ego AND think the will is limited. It is _because of_ the ego that the will _is_ limited, for the ego stands in opposition to God's Will. The world exists as a surface illusion, a dark cloud (as it were); and just beneath the level the body's eyes see, death has its circle. It is the realization you seek that your will and the Father's are ONE, which finally overcomes the materialism you fear. For EITHER the world OR God is real, NOT BOTH at the same time, not both in the same place. Thus the paradox is resolved. You are very close to solving this mystery of being. You stand just outside the gate. Your feet are in the garden. As serendipity would have it, the present lesson I am doing for myself fo today's mental/spiritual orientating, speaks directly to the heart of your thoughts, I feel, and so I will show it, and let it show itself. ~*~ I have already chosen what You will. _1. Father, I thought I wandered from Your Will, defied it, broke its laws, and interposed a second will more powerful than Yours. ²Yet what I am in truth is but Your Will, extended and extending. ³This am I, and this will never change. ⁴As You are One, so am I one with You. ⁵And this I chose in my creation, where my will became forever one with Yours. ⁶That choice was made for all eternity. ⁷It cannot change, and be in opposition to itself. ⁸Father, my will is Yours. ⁹And I am safe, untroubled and serene, in endless joy, because it is Your Will that it be so._ 2. Today we will accept our union with each other and our Source. ²We have no will apart from His, and all of us are one because His Will is shared by all of us. ³Through it we recognize that we are one. ⁴Through it we find our way to God at last. A Course In Miracles 4 6 b 4
fantastic discussion, and at a base, the need for order perpetually against the need for evolution and change, and how to ever know, and how to respect tradition vs. the respect for innovation, and the ever present evolution of knowledge and therefore norms and expectations. it is the principle of goodness, truth, and beauty that persists, but the details and forms of each of these forever mutating, or in heideggerian terms, the aletheia revealing itself and knowing and reknowing itself, and all this within the complicated evolutions of cultures and the precarious situation of educating each generation in this path justice here depicted as an equilibrium or rebalancing occurring within society, and one way is from the wise/guardians/leaders, but a more sustainable and ever present way is this flowing from the demos, and the educated citizenry as the ever present eyes, but not in a draconian nor authoritarian way and those connotations, but via the principles of good-beauty-true and broadly moderating and nudging interactions and maintain proper, productively humane courses of development. the noble lie may be putting faith in the side of the positive and hopeful, in that the human heart contains the health and the darkness, but for civilization to decidedly to lean towards our better angels in our doubt and groping thru the darkness
