Become a Philosopher with Learn Philosophy I have a First Class BA (Hons) in Philosophy, and a Masters with Distinction in Philosophy from the University of Edinburgh
Let's examine a genuine example: World War 2. Did the final result of defeating the Nazis justify the end result of freeing Jews? Of course - The same is alto true of Israel's current war. The purpose is to defend themselves from physical attacks by its enemies, plus murders, rapes, kidnappings, etc. YES! What Israel has done, and continues to do, is absolutely, positively justifiable!
Genesis proves the Trinity. You just haven’t actually understood it because you don’t know proper hermeneutics. Also the ancient Jews understood God to be multipersonal. There’s good ancient Jewish teachings other than the Old Testament that validate this if you want me to share it. Saying the trinity is a later development is only true if you mean to say the word “trinity” wasn’t applied to describe Gods three persons until the 3rd & 4th century. 3 persons who share one essence. Giving it a term is not that same as the understanding of that relationship being “developed” it was already known that all three persons were God but not the same person. You can get that from Genesis alone. There’s a clear distinction between the Father(God) and the Son (Angel/Word of the Lord) and the Holy Spirit in Genesis
Kept reading through notes I found on the double effect but couldn't wrap my head around it, this video is way better, its straightforward and really well explained. Thank you!!
I am curious about genesis when God created male and female, saw it was good then sent them off to multiply. Yet in the garden of Eden there was only 1 man.
Absolutely. I'd like to explore this in another video. Genesis 1 and 2 appear to be two originally separate units of text. Genesis 1 suggests that man and woman were made together as the final creation. Genesis 2 has man being created first, then animals (which he names), and then finally the woman. There are other interesting differences between the texts as well. The fact that the compilers of the Bible put these two texts next to each other may suggest they were unconcerned about any potential contradictions in the Bible and wanted to present different traditions from Israelite history.
@@ReneeB-mz9cx Interesting the alchemical true form, Rebis, is more powerful than angels. The Rebis is the ideal divine state, the Philosopher's Stone, the combination of opposites.
Dark age lunacy writ large in the modern world. Theism is humanities greatest failure. Those dark age peasants can be forgiven for believing the madness of theism as they couldn't be educated. The elite and the churches ensured that. Again, those dark age peasants can be forgiven. Modern day educated people have no such excuse.
@@untanglephilosophy not sure, I came here to learn. I might coincide with some gnostic beliefs but I personally don't think the whole "loosh" and "archons" make sense wholistically.
Thank you for checking out my video. This is the beginning of a new series on biblical scholarship. My aim is to make interesting and enlightening videos on biblical literature, which may have a touch of controversy but are wholly non-exclusionary. They can be enjoyed whether you are religious, come from a religious background, or are as non-religious as they come. We will dive not just into philosophy and theology, but also history, mythology, linguistics, archaeology, and more. I hope you’ll join me on this exciting journey.
Then it appears that Politicians especially those in the USA and some in Britain are not adherents of Natural Law with their lack of ethics proudly put on display. Good explanation.
I would love to see someone actually try to do a calculation with this algorithm. if you could try to assign actual number values for each factor, you could produce a total utility value which you may compare against the utility value of the opposite choice in a moral dilemma.
Good will is not intriniscaly good, it is a preconditon for good, intrinsicaly good is the value coming from the free choosing of fulfilling the moral duty.
the thing I get confused about this is always how much nuance should apply. Like, say I want to cut in line to spend less time in line. If everyone did that no one would spend less time in line, so a contradiction in the will I guess. But say I'm kinda late and under this circumstance I decide to cut in. If everyone decides to cut in when they're late, since not everyone is late, everyone who is late would actually save time. So is that okay in this case? It seems to me that if we allow no nuance the whole idea is simply impossible to reasonably apply in most non-trivial scenarios, but if you allow enough nuance then in the limit your maxim even when universalized would actually only apply to the specific situation and reduce to "would I like to do this now?". So, like, it feels like the whole exercise can only be reasonably well defined in light of some criteria to decide how the maxim is cut off to begin with, which kinda seems to defeat the idea of this as some ultimate test, as it relies on some other sort of test essentially, to actually be applied. Anyway, I guess I've never really seem this be applied to anything more than toy problems or with a heavy grain of vagueness - like in "refusing people who need help *when we could easily help them*", that "easily" is doing a whole lot of work. That being said, nice video - it helped me put this nagging feeling into words, so thanks for that : )
Thanks for your comment, and a great contribution! Defenders of Kantian ethics may try to argue a couple points in response to the interesting problems you raise. Firstly, they could go down the avenue of arguing that since maxims have to be universalisable, they cannot be too nuanced or specific. To be universalisable they need to be general. Secondly, they could bring more attention to the formula of the end in itself. Kant might think that cutting into a line isn't treating others as an end in themselves, and that the ideal solution is that others queuing offer the place in front of themselves to those that are in greater need. This may be the best may to honour the spirit of the Categorical Imperative. I appreciate that this doesn't fully address your concerns, but it's a possible area to explore in responding to those issues. Thanks again :)
@@untanglephilosophyThanks for the reply, it had slipped me by. I think part of the problem may be that I was expecting the categorical imperative to *have* to be able to be deterministically applied to every specific situation - sort of like "solving all ethics". But if it is more of "something which always applies but might not always be solvable", or "there are things we can categorically say from these, but we can't necessarily have a categorical say on all things just from this", or "these imperatives can't decide everything but no decision should contradict these imperatives", than that seems a lot more tenable to me. Would you say that's the case? Also, It occurred to me that the idea of the formulations being equivalent is pretty interesting in itself, but I haven't given it much thought yet. But yeah, thanks for the reply, it does point to directions to look further into : )
Great resource for condensed arguments, thanks so much. Suggestion: could you please add links for whoever you're citing? Increases credibility of rationale
Thank you for the feedback and I'm glad you found the video helpful. Yes, absolutely! I have been intending to do that but have neglected it so far. Will add them in at some point
