Carneades of Cyrene (Enslaver of Souls, Destroyer of Gods, and Last Great Scholarch of the Academy) 

Thank you, your channel was a huge contribution to philosophy.

The illustration is very entertainig.

Carneades lived a little too early and travelled a little less than he should have - the Jews, and especially St. Paul, would have been delighted to explain 'righteous anger' to him

This is easily one of my favorite channels out there in RU-vid. Big thanks!

Cato the ELDER, not the Emperor. The Empire was still more than a century away at that point.

Love your enthusiasm, very helpful when trying to learn and retain this stuff :) subbed

That was a nice presentation! Subbed!

"Getting riled up by philosophy" We really live in different times, don't we?

Was Carneades arguing against one God or was he arguing against gods?

* Cato the consul as Rome was still a republic.

Pretty good. There seems to be a hermeneutical (in the broadest sense) puzzle here as to whether every argument he made was as great as you make it out to be.

Thanks dude

A lawyer?

so epic i love ur channel i wish u did a longer video!

AWESOME

Gratitude to your work is what I feel.

I am not a theist myself, but I'm sorry to say I don't find these arguments very impressive. The argument about God's goodness and freedom in particular is woth pausing over. So does God do good freely or of necessity? A classically theistic answer, I imagine, would be that God does good according to his nature, which is good or even in some sense goodness itself (incidently, I doubt any theistic philosopher or theologian would say that God is "forced to do good"). Does this mean that God does not act freely? This gets to a very deep question about what freedom itself is or could be. Consider the man in your analogy who does not steal the money in the open cash register. What if we were to say that *he does this because he is by nature a good or honest man* ? Call this [1].This does not seem an unreasonable claim. But, alternatively, we might want to claim that there is no such thing as being good by nature, and that to be a good man is simply to have chosen freely to do good acts a certain minimum number of times (whatever it may mean exactly to choose freely). Does accepting [1] oblige us, to be consistent, to reject the idea that the man acted freely? But in that case, what does it mean to say that anyone acts freely? For an act to be really free, do we have to reject the supposition that it originated in some prior set of causes and conditions (such as, for exapmple in this case, a man's good nature, or predisposition toward goodness)? But then, if we follow this to its logical conclusion, are we not bound to claim that a free act must be *uncasued* , created by "free will" And this, it seems to me, is a reductio ad absurdum, or very like. It is evident that the God's-goodness-versus-freedom argument is premissed on a purely voluntarist notion of freedom which itself is impossible or unintelligible. [Edit: I might add that this "free will" notion of freedom, or voluntarism, and the idea of the human person or individual it assumes, is very culturally specific, and indeed, one could argue, deeply ideological; its connectiion with classical liberalism and hence capitalism should be fairly obvious...]

That is not how one pronounces Arcesilaus. [R SESS UH LAY US}