For a great overview on western philosophy check out the Philosophy Vibe paperback anthology book set, available worldwide on Amazon. Volume 1 - Philosophy of Religion mybook.to/philosophyvibevol1 Volume 2 - Metaphysics mybook.to/philosophyvibevol2 Volume 3 - Ethics and Political Philosophy mybook.to/philosophyvibevol3
All of these theories and infinite more... So we're back to square one... Which model works out best for you in your life, your purposes, your ideals? By their fruits, ye shall know them... We cannot peak around the corner of our experience to see if it corresponds to a free-standing reality... All we can do is see the consequences over time of the acts based on our beliefs and adjust our beliefs accordingly... And hope for the best.
Being a pantheist, I feel honored that you chose pantheism as your first topic for this video. Also, I feel a responsibility to weigh in as well. Baruch Spinoza, while offering a considerable body of work on pantheistic thought, did not exactly "popularize" pantheism. There have been theological connections to pantheism within Taoism and Hinduism for example that existed aeons before Spinoza's time, and yet pantheism as a tradition unto itself never became "popular" to begin with (at least not in the so-called "Western World"). While we may not be considered " theists" in the "classical" sense, we do clearly acknowledge the existence of God and thus the falsity of atheism.
Hindu pantheism is different from Spinoza's pantheism, I would say. Hindu pantheism is some kind of radical existence monism, where only god exists and everything else is illusory. It affirms god but denies everything else, lol.
I never knew what I was, so glad I clicked this video. I've had this belief that the universe is God after I had a NDE coupled with a feeling of being surrounded by.....it's hard to explain but best way I can say it is by pure love. I felt more love in that one experience than I have or ever will have in my entire life. It was profound....a little scary but also very calming to know that's where I'm headed when I do finally go....tho am still a little worried about what happens when this body does finally fail. Onto the next? Merge with the loving aura? We shall all find out one day :)
You’re not thinking hard enough though. In the end you’re just replacing the word “everything” by calling it god. It nullifies the ethical and moral costumes that comes with the All Powerful Being-Person-like tradition that comes with traditional religions. In the end, pantheists are just atheists that dislike the impersonality that comes with the word nature.
Never saw a solopsist that didn't look both ways before crossing the street! The judge asked me why I didn't pay my taxes. I told him that he and the taxman are just thngs in my head and don't really exist. He said: "Five years!"
I lean towards Pantheism/ Pananthieism and Idealism being true or atleast semi true.. I also lean towards simulation theory being kind of true but I don't think it's a computer simulation but more of a simulation created from God/ source or mind/consciousness...
I also think the true nature of reality could be fractal. Our entire universe could be an atom sized piece of a much larger, more complex cosmic system/existence. I also do tend to like the nested universe model.
Thank you for taking the time to make and share this thought provoking video. Philosophy Vibe is truly an underrated channel. While I see the importance of remaining as unbiased as possible on this kind of channel, considering the scope of topics covered, I think it's important to point out that the existence of The Universe/The Pantheistic God demonstrates conclusive evidence that atheism is false, and the only reason that atheists are given the time of day in the halls of so-called "higher education" is due several factors: not just the widespread unawareness of pantheistic thought, but also the dominance of the world's most major religions, as well as the prevelance of atheist, materialist and Marxist indoctrination in academia and the mainstream media.
I’m something of a panDEIST. I think God is physically and metaphysically all encompassing but even he doesn’t “”know” where he came from”. He is not something to be worshipped, but respected and investigated. Our and every other living thing’s consciousness helps comprise his consciousness in the same way that our individual cells are conscious, but so are we as human beings. He has moral beliefs, but he fights an internal struggle to decipher which ones he thinks are correct via introspection - the same way we do. He is capable of good and evil just as we are which is why the problem of evil exists. A theist would say I am anthropomorphizing God and to this I say, yes - I am.
I get that matter does not exist in the sense that atomic particles are not tiny pieces of matter. Somehow energy is bundled to interact with other bundles and macroscopically it appears to be solid. If there is an omnipotent God, I like to ask, What is the difference between creating the world and imagining it? This could be a simulation in the sense that God has only to imagine all of this and need not physically create anything.
Really good questions. I think... God is us. We are like the fragments of a shattered mirror, each tiny fragment is part of the whole, and works like a mirror, but it also is kind of seperate. If one would assemble all the tiny mirror fragments, again, and mend all the cracks then you would have a whole functional mirror again. Same is true for consciousness. There is not a single almighty god entity, we all have a tiny bit of that power, and we execute this power by thinking (mostly unconscious) and feeling (mostly in a reactive manner to our sourroundings). Most people arent aware of this, so they let their thoughts and feelings run amok, with the result that they create all kinds of random elements in their life, some wanted, some not. Once you take control of your thoughts and feelings, you can begin to steer in the direction of the things you want. Our thoughts and feelings can and will influence each other, so it is better to take control and to choose consciously the positive. Like the following: "I live in peace, the world is a beautiful place. I am surrounded by kind, solution-orriented people, that help me grow to my fullest potential. I live in abundance, and I share this abundance freely. I forgive and I am forgiven, I love and I am loved. etc." You will see it if you believe it enough. Most people have their subconscious mind filled all the negativity from their past, and come the conclusion that life is a constant struggle. It doenst have to be this way. The universe is on your side, if you are. So idk if this answered your question. thanks for reading and have a nice day.
This seems true to me at this moment maybe because I’ve been struggling a bit lately dealing with “life.” I’ll try to hold on to this mindset throughout the day and see how it goes. Thanks
I look forward to the day when Advaita Vedanta is regarded as a core subject on undergraduate philosophy courses . I am an idealist - pantheist . Everything is mind stuff and this mind-stuff is God ✌️
Idealism predates the early modern period, Ancient Indian philisophy contains the earliest references to Idealism, first implied in the Upanishads and later Buddhist philosophy such as the Yogachara school. I would appreciate an engagement with Eastern philosophy as well instead of a Eurocentric view that Idealism began in the early modern period.
I find the modal reality argument to be the same as the "the greatest being would not be the greatest if it didnt exist, so it must exist" argument. Best sandwich doesnt exist just because you want it to, even though you're really hungry and praise its soft bread and sauces. Or the same way black body radiation is useful for modeling equations but doesn't actually exist in reality.
While physicalism offers no explanation (and has no need) for actual subjective experience, careful attention and logic shows that subjective experience is the only thing I can be absolutely sure exists, beyond doubt. Idealism, on the other hand, illustrates how the appearance of an extended physical reality can be created from experiences. Experiences are of 3 basic types: thoughts, sensations, and emotions. Interestingly, all experiences are unidirectional, all “input”. So logically there is no mechanism for communication between subjects even if separate subjects exist. Communication requires “output” as well as input. So as far as any subject of experience is concerned, reality is essentially solipsistic, even if multiple subjects exist.
doing philosophy is good, but if you want to discover whats true, having a spiritual practice is what will take you there. ultimate truth can’t be adequately described but it is something you can become directly conscious of.
I would argue that in term of unusual philosophies of reality, my own vitologia might be a champion candidate. Vitologia is extremely different from all known theories.
Nick Bostrom would be too modest to accept he was the originator of Simulation Theory. It is just a recent technological iteration of the idea that all reality is virtual and illusory, a proposal that has a long history.
I thought Solipsism means, the self is all that can be known. It doesn't mean there are not other conscious beings, it's just that we cannot adequately know them
I agree to a degree that everything exists only in our minds but since we as humans can AGREE about the things that we are imagining such as tastes and smells and the things that we see, it can’t be that things only exist in our minds unless we as humans have the same mind and that would make ALL OF US one person. Soooo which one of us are we. 😹
3:26 Why would color be solely a product of our minds? What do you mean by "it doesn't exist in the external world"? Color is literally light which is purely physical. Our eyes are absorbing it and based on its frequency we see the color. It's not the product of our mind, it's literally the property of physical light. So is taste and texture.
I'm sure everyone is aware by now that some of largest images we have of galactic superclusters resemble the same form as neurologic structures in our own brain. As above so below. We are made in the image of God. I think pantheism and idealism can easily find common ground if we just instead say "all that exists does so within the mind of God". or if you just want to call it Mind with a capital M that is fine too. "All that exists does so within Mind".
✨🌎💫To embed your desired outcome into the subconscious, adopt the feeling of already having achieved it. Focus solely on the objective itself, without dwelling on potential obstacles or challenges. Emotionally engaging with your desired state impresses it onto the subconscious, which faithfully translates these feelings into tangible experiences. The subconscious mind responds to the dominant emotions it receives, manifesting corresponding circumstances in the external world. Therefore, it's essential to cultivate feelings of success and possibility to ensure the realization of your goals.
If the universe is in fact infinite, the combination of atoms will repeat itself. So if it is in fact, an infinite universe, there has to exist not just you but an infinite Yous in infinite different situations. I like it as a theory, but I cant accept it.
5th easy to convince yourself if you have vivid dreams, but if you have aphantasia that is not very convincing, also why would I create a universe where I am mortal and fragile, and then (if "after life" exists) create a new universe where I do not remember any previous experience, it looks more like a machoism than egoism.
Why would solipsism have anything to do with egotism or narcissism? Doesn’t saying so already invest in other philosophies to its detriment? Besides, even if “I” am the only conscious being, it doesn’t mean that “we” are not all part of the same. You’d just have to explain why I don’t experience anything at will for solipsism to make sense. I’m no philosophy expert, so maybe I got this wrong or something.
Thank you. These specific anthologies are not available on kindle, however we have the Philosophy Vibe scripts series as eBooks, nearly all the content in the anthologies are part of the 11 eBook series on Amazon.
We are the "creation" of an advanced mind or minds from an advanced civilization. Creating realities is a natural goal for any civilization to strive for. Just look at what we try to do with computer games and simulations. We are naturally driven to try to recreate reality using the only means we are currently capable of - computers. Now imagine civilization millions of years more advanced than we are. With all that knowledge, how could they not use it to create other life, realities, universes etc? One of the benefits or reasons is a drive to acquire more knowledge, e.g. knowledge farming. Our universe might be one giant knowledge farm. I can't help but feel that certain things around us are specific works of art, while others appear to be experimental. Some might be outright trolling. (look up images of orchids). Why would a plant create flowers that specifically look like living things e.g. monkey faces, babies in cribs etc? These cannot be "accidents" of evolution.
That is the problem with philosophy: it bends your mind but really doesn’t show reality. It’s at best a useful exercise to learn to reason clearly, a discipline. But it’s premises make no sense (except Nietzsche and Whitehead-the ant-philosophers)
Pantheists have to do more than just assign the label god to the cosmos. Let's assume that consciousness is a fundamental aspect of the cosmos (panpsychism). So what? Consciousness like ours is a feature of highly complex chunks/parts in the cosmos, i.e., life. It emerges in those instances. Apart from those instances, the cosmos would have a very primitive form of consciousness less complex than that of a beetle (certainly not god). Also, why are Lockean metaphysical assumptions taken for granted here? Classical metaphysics (Aristotle and co) didn't regard things like colors, smell as mind dependent. For them, mind consists only of intellect and will. Locke, Descartes, Galileo and co relocated them to the mind leaving only what natural sciences describe as mind independent (shape length etc.). Berkeley went a step further and relocated everything to the mind. That naturally leads to solipsism, which forced Berkeley to postulate unintelligible theories like God feeding the same perceptions to everyone, creating the illusion of a mind independent world (or perhaps that was the entire purpose, to invoke god, aka ad hoc). Why so when you can accept at face value that there is a mind independent world? Rip common sense.
You've got it bckwards. It isn't pantheists that have "assigned the label of god to the cosmos". It's the label of " cosmos" that has been assigned to God. The notion of God existed before the notion of cosmos.
@@mugsofmirth8101 I haven't got anything backwards. Some pantheists just assign the label and leave it at that, rendering god just a superfluous synonym. I was explicit that you have to do more than that. “The notion of God existed before…" That doesn't make any sense, tbh. You naturally start thinking of yourself as part of this natural world/system around you since you are born. You start with the world. God is a later addition.
@@anteodedi8937 Sorry but chronology does have significance whether you like it or not. It's not as though the designation of God has been associated with The Universe without justification as you erroneously suggest. There are perfectly legitimate reasons for why pantheists conceptualize God as The Universe and this becomes obvious when observing how divine attributes of God such as Omnipresence is a characteristic which only The Universe exhibits. There is no other entity besides The Universe (or The Cosmos if you prefer) that is known to exist which possess these divine attributes.
@@mugsofmirth8101 Chronology may have some minor significance, but you never showed that the notion of God came before. Actually, I provided an a priori argument that it cannot be the case. Oh, and yeah, pantheists give justification after they redefine divine attributes to mean something entire else. This type of pantheism that tries to naturalize god by identifying it with the cosmos is just naturalism/atheism dressed up in hippy clothes. Spinoza arguably is one of them. For the theist, there is the world + god. Now here comes another type of pantheism. Some pantheists, instead of identifying god with the world, they just eliminate the world from the picture. They keep the god of theism but deny that the world or anything else exist; hence god is all there is. This pantheism, no matter how crazy, is the only genuine form of pantheism, the pantheism of Parmenides and Vedanta.
@@anteodedi8937 "pantheists give justification after they redefine divine attributes to mean something entire else." In my previous response to you I gave an example of a divine attribute of The Universe (Omnipresence) without redefining it in any way, so you're statement is clearly false. "This type of pantheism that tries to naturalize god by identifying it with the cosmos is just naturalism/atheism dressed up in hippy clothes." This is just a silly variation of the ludicrous Richard Dawkins claim that "pantheism is just sexed-up atheism" which is really nothing more than just an atheist cope for the fact that The Universe does exist, is conceived as a deity, and atheists can't do a damn thing about it.
At some point , the universe became structured like a neural network, that is, stable masses sending signals back and forth. At some later point, that neural network became sentient. That is God. And so, God did not make the universe, the universe made God.
That modal realism doesnt seem quite right. You are confusing "possible" with "logically possible", not sure if it is just you confused or the modal realism confused, but i find it misleading. The truth is that one of those things has to be subset of the other - either just some part of "possible" is really "logically possible" or just some part of "logically possible" is really "possible". So there are two modal realisms with two different worldviews (i would call the first one open-minded and the second one closed-minded) and we dont know which one (if either) is true.
Too much faith in logic. Logic operates on premises and rules. Look at the premises. Do you believe them? Look at the rules. Are they helpful? The universe does not have to answer to man-made premises and rules. Logic is not the criterium. Function is. Logic is nothing more than consistency. Consistency is handy for communication with others but a hinderance in formulating new theories. Assumptions and inferences, hopes and fears, tautologies and predictions...
No shit! 😂. We're else did everything come from?? God ... Because there's only one. reality cant have existed separately from god but that don't make any sense. So therefore gods everything and everyone. Besides if I'm god then in death there can be no separation from god. Right?
Well, that's the thing. Nobody is saying colours don't exist. What they're saying is colours exist IN THE MIND, not in the objective world. In reality, they're just lightwaves in differing frequencies.
@@ebob4177 Yes but since we all agree on which color is which, whatever makes that color that color, must exist in some form outside of our brain in order for us all to have the same experience of said color.
One peaceful question, if the external reality exist just in the mind, how does the alarm clock wake you up? Woudn't the alarm clock disappear from reality when no one is percieving it? So how does it wake you up if you're by yourself sleeping? 🏔️
Depends on which sort of idealist you are. But according to Berkeley (who is really the only impressive idealist I'm aware of, Kant not withstanding) it is God who wakes us up. God causes all the sensations to exist in us
@@ultrasignificantfootnote3378 There are still laws of nature for a Berkeleyan idealist. Learning those gives us insight into how God creates the sensible world, and the regularities between its parts. If you want to wake up on time, you'd better set that alarm anyway, or else you're going against the better judgment of mankind whose learned that setting an alarm is followed the next morning by an alarm clock going off, thanks be to God and good programming. Indeed we DON'T need alarm clocks to wake up, but we do to wake up on TIME, and that gives us some rational control over our life. Nothing in the sensible world is lost on Berkeley's idealist picture except that the clock isn't doing anything but is a collection of experiences either in us or other minds, God's included
