Cartesian Skepticism - Neo, Meet Rene: Crash Course Philosophy #5 

Victor Hugo lol ...good one!!

Rene decartes is a spy!

Wow.

Guys with pretty faces and minds are the hottest guys around

we need to start a fan club

or are we actually in his dream(inception)?

Well he IS super-cute........wheteher he exists or not!!

He is god

Mike Keller Especially the US president.

Adults are childs with more childs

A lot of adults are but I know some fantastic ones too. The question is are we, now that we are adults, going to be responsible and wise and selfless and all the right things for the next generation to look to

Very sad... Still going through that realization now.

Julian Vázquez a lot of them are like that unfortunately.

+nojerama1996 I'll add fuel to the fire. Read Jed Mckenna.

Never too early

😂😂😂

I am watching this at 12:44am. Is it too early or too late?

Never too early @-@

But you thought didn't you?

but like a philosopher, he said it had problems

He may just reading scripts written by someone else (not really a teacher, 🤔)

Descartes also kind of does that in the middle of explanations. It's acceptable because it will be explained in the future.

Rowan Brown so can you take a side. If I tell you I question my reality. Do I cease to exist?

Do you recommend any specific books on philosophy? I’m new to philosophy and wish to expand my knowledge on the subject.

Any recommendations? I would be really grateful if anyone recommeds some good books to help us understand more..

platos rebublic is a good start, if youre intrested in western thought, Id say look at the Greeks and romans. Marcus Aurilious Meditations is another one ive read. both of them present an interesting view on life.

don't do this to me man

@@ivanarellano3409 I am also new to philosophy, I am going through the book by Marcus Aurelius - Meditations. It's a great book. If not that then you can also read: "Letters from a Stoic - Seneca" or "Discourses of Epictetus - Epictetus". All these book I recommended are based on "Stoic Philosophy". But you can sure google about other philosophical book. If you find something amazing do let me know too! Cheerio!

TheFireflyGrave 😂lol

this is my favorite comment on here lol

Yes.

Yes, because if you doubt that you are doubting that would affirm that you are doubting.

I am absolutely sure that I am absolutely not sure.

Same

+Evan Nelson What were you doing for 8 hours?

Justspent1k your mom

+Evan Nelson there are always plenty of videos to get educated from. You just have to seek them out.

+SangoProductions213 I was not talking about to other videos, i was talking about to me being able to learn about interesting stuff!

Are you John C(ena)? Because I can't see you :/

Biprodev Sarker No. I don't know who John C(ena) is?

I came in the comments because I don't believe that the doubt, the thinking entails so surely my own existence. Then I saw your comment and it made me think about that problem, and I came up with one more doubt (that I address you, if you might): How can I be sure that this thinking that I think is mine is not actually some thinking that the Evil Genius of Descartes put in my mind? In this case, I would not being thinking that I am thinking, I would just being cheated by the Evil Genius. That is, why can't the "thinking" be some sort of an Evil Genius' trick? To illustrate this idea, imagine a videogame character that in some part of the game sit in a bench and start to think about his own existence, and doubting about it all. He clearly does not exist to the player as a person. How can we be sure that we're not in the same condition of that videogame character? Hank said "So Descartes decided that he couldn't know that he had a body - what he believed to be his body could've been part of the Evil Genius' deception. But he must have a mind, or he couldn't be having these thoughts", but according to the Evil Genius' definition (that Hank gave us), these "thoughts" we're having can be an Evil Genius' deception that we have no way of detecting this illusion.

igorpitty90 "How can I be sure that this thinking that I think is mine is not actually some thinking that the Evil Genius of Descartes put in my mind?" Because the Evil Genius would be making you think that you are thinking, you would actually be thinking. You can say the Evil Genius tricked you in whatever way. But, the very fact that they would be tricking you points to a "you" whom can be tricked in the first place. . . . . "imagine a videogame character that in some part of the game sit in a bench and start to think about his own existence, and doubting about it all." Bad analogy - the videogame character has no capacity to actually think. They have no self-awareness at all. They are merely programmed to present an illusion of "thinking" to the player. But, they are not in existence any more than what is programmed and displayed to the videogame player.

which brings us to the question WHY? Why would an evil do all this for what purpose.. it is getting Agent Smith Matrixy here. Agent Smith would say we are a virus.. bu I say we are gods only bound by our own minds. Are we the evil then? For this ride I'll put my seatbelts on.

I go to a french school and I learned it as "Cogito ergo sum". Are you sure? :V

ParamoreFan101 Well, unless I've been deceived by a nasty demon, that book was originally called "Discours de la méthode" and was in French. "Meditations on first philosophy" was intended for scholars, it was longer and in latin, but it doesn't have the famous phrase. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cogito_ergo_sum

KRIGBERT Good to know, I knew I should never trust my philosophy teacher on these things anyway. Thanks for correcting my faulty knowledge! Always appreciated.

Koops The Poet Thanks!

This. I was just about to comment on that myth. It goes from „je pense, donc je suis“ (1637, Discours) to „Ego sum, ego existo; certum est. Quandiu autem? Nempe quandiu cogito“ (1641, Meditations) and finally to „ego cogito, ergo sum“ (1644, Principles). So he actually wrote the latin version as well - but only 3 years later in a different book.

+Zwerggoldhamster I made an audible ayeeeee in response

+Zwerggoldhamster I mirrored him as if I could be so handsome as he is.

XD I laughed because I was lying down in bed watching this video lol. XD

lol same

I somehow really like the sound of the snaps he makes with his fingers.

+David Durant That's Thought Cafe's typical brilliance for you! :D And yes, we will be getting to Popper soon :)

+CrashCourse when you get onto aesthetics some Levinson would be amazing.

+CrashCourse what about carl sagan?

+arichards761 Not a philosopher, but maybe CrashCourse will cover Kuhn (to get your philosophy of science kick).

+CrashCourse Yay! Will you explain the objections to Popperian logic as well? I like Poppers line of demarcation, and have my own thoughts on it that I'd like to share sometime when I begin to produce videos, but I have been made aware that not all Swans are white, and that I also can't assume that there will eventually be found a black swan, for reasons.

......whoa......

+GentleFist Brewer lol my thoughts exactly

Milo curry​ What's "thoughts",precious?!

Thought bubbles,having thoughts about being thought bubbles.

+superj1e2z6 I'd be OK with that.

the official sandidge02 nope

the official sandidge02 They probably have covered math topics on another channel. But i was saying it would be cool to see a full series on Crash Course. Perhaps Calculus, or Statistics.

+FirstRisingSouI Yeah me too, I'm so damn excited every time there's a new one.

48 Episodes

Mr. Tenandstuff Precisely!

+Josh Derak I can vividly recollect having several dreams where I would woke up from a dream only to find out I was still dreaming. And had to force my eyes open or try to move a limb to actually wake up.

Wh3tst0nE Ever woken and had sleep paralysis? It's terrifying but doesn't last long.

yeah i think it was that state between dreaming and being awake (that can go back and forth depending on your tiredness, stimuli or lackthereof etc)

I had a nightmare once that I couldn't wake up and kept waking up falsely over and over and over and over. A hint to me that I was dreaming was that I couldn't turn any lights on. This caused me to panic and finally wake up. I've had this dream more than once. I just kept trying to turn the lights on each time I dreamt it until I stopped dreaming it.

+Arnon Rosenthal * attempted to prove

+Tommy Meyer Yes, off course it didn't turn out to be convincing :)

+Arnon Rosenthal He used the skeptic method.

@@claytonkeenan how can you used a skeptic method of argument to prove that god exists if very nature of skepticism is disbelief in pretty much everything?

@@alexhood3966 Metaphysical Skepticism* There are different skepticisms.

Ok

X

You can’t see details in a dream

proxima centauri b Then maybe it wasn’t a dream

... the only difference being last-Thursdayism sounds more ridiculous when you say it out loud.

+YellowFlareMC True. Those five minutes guys are just ridiculous!

Occam's Razor whoops (whoops sorry)

Actually, people kept it fairly mature. Either that, or CrashCourse removed all of the controversial comments.

yeah that one took me back a little.

yeah that one took me back a little.

+Boneyard Broadcast at the end of March!

+CrashCourse Flippin Sweet!

+CrashCourse Who's going to present it?

+Hayden Kingsley I forgot her name, but just check the video. It covers a majority of these questions.

+Hayden Kingsley Hot Indian-British lady

we all wish we had fathers that might say to that: "what a little philosopher!"

I remember when I asked myself whether all of life was an illusion and it's only our perception of life that makes it alive when I was four years old. And yes, even those doubts you had were also pondered about at that age. I still have those doubts. I often had an idea that only I existed and everyone else were just an illusion. But, I didn't tell anyone about this and now today I thank myself for not asking that. There's always that one person who says, " He's the Devil!" and the majority that says, " He's crazy". Xd

Indeed. He spent a lot of time explaining why logic itself is unreliable, in his Meditations. Going on to then use a sentence that relies on the term "ergo" requies logic to function - ergo points to a deductive conclusion, but deduction has been previously doubted, because the manipulator could always manipulate you to believe that you had come up with a logical chain for arguments even though you have not, by messing with your memory midway through the thinking process. The "ego sum, ego existo" phrase no longer requires the use of logic (at least that's what Descartes appears to think), as it does not attempt to draw any conclusions - it is a mere observation without having to rely on any senses. Which, by virtue of being a sort of observation, ironically, is still somewhat empirical in my humble opinion, but that's a different argument. I think this is an important topic and should have received more screen time, at the expense of some of the basic explanation that was already done in the previous video.

This is nice, but in the correction of this fault you've distracted those attempting the learn,from the point of the information

+roidroid His thoughts could have been planted by the "demon". The demon could be taping on his computer screen what I am thinking right now. But the question is : Where is he planting those thoughts ? It stills requier the existence of a consciousness to put the toughts into and so you can be aware of those thoughts. It doesn't really rules out the existence of consciousness but it does put a doubt on the validity of the toughts and the logic that's suppose to rule them.

+roidroid 1) can we learn about the thing? 2) can we make predictions based on our understanding of the thing?

+roidroid Actually, all one's doubt proves is that something exists and that it is capable of doing something.

+roidroid He said "I think therefore I am." not "I am therefore I think." He was trying to establish his existence, not some quality of that existence. "Am I thinking? Or do I only think that I'm thinking? But in that case am I not thinking even if it's only thinking that I'm thinking?" was not what he was getting to.

Since certainty seems impossible here, why bother dwelling on it. Seems like a waste of energy.

yessss

falafel can become a symbol of this course i really like how it sounds FALAFEL!

+Kingwut117 Has Hank finally gone Veg? He's been mulling it over for like 2 months

Crash Course Falafely.

+Adam Madaris Are there thoughts? What is producing thoughts? If yes and it is I. Then am I thinking?

+DarkPages Also he found no problem doubting his body but not his mind.. Pre-supposing dualism much? Pretty convenient since that then allows disembodied minds i.e. souls

I'd say that if the 'evil demon' can plant false experience of a body then what's to stop the 'evil demon' from planting false experience of a mind that has thoughts?

+Claire Louise From the looks of the intro and flash segments, I'm afraid this is going to be rather Eurocentric.

+Claire Louise It wouldn't fit onto the same timeline, it would have to be a separate, parallell series.

+Doc Eon philosophy is philosophy. regardless of where in the world it was thought of, or when.

Ebon Hawk Well, in a sense that's true. But if you disconnect philosophical ideas from their historical context you lose something in the process.

Claire Louise _"There's loads of classic philosophy that's not European"_ is the purpose of this the history of the ideas, or the ideas themselves? which one should it be?

It's in both, as well as in Principles of Philosophy and The Search for Truth Discouse: je pense, donc je suis Meditations: ego sum, ego existo Principles: ego cogito, ergo sum Search: dubito, ergo sum, (vel, quod idem est,) cogito, ergo sum

+deadagain33 As long as we're being especially skeptical, it's always possible that there isn't an "I" and we just can't imagine an alternative.

+deadagain33 But if it can't be differentiated from what's "really real"... Does it matter?

Hank skipped a step or two. You don't even need the evil genius: or rather, you could be your own evil genius. Maybe the world was created 5 min ago, but that still implies a world. Take it a step farther and doubt even that. Maybe you're a brain in a jar, and the world you know an illusion: that still implies a brain, a jar, and an illusionist. What if you're a mind in the void... Driven mad, engaging your own illusions like a daydream just to survive? Well... There we still must admit something exists- even if it's just you. We can doubt everything but one thing- because that must still be the source of the doubt- or more generically, any thought. If, as you say, that thought originates elsewhere, it still exists- it is self-proving... Perhaps the only thing that is self-proving. Whatever it originates from or interacts w/ then is also proven- after all, what does not exist cannot, by definition, interact with anything. Thus, you can at least prove yourself... If nothing else.

+ARedthorn It's really the only thing you can prove, I agree. Attempting to objectively prove anything else with 100% certainty is an exercise in futility

+Tommy Meyer An exercise in futility? My counterexample is the law of non-contradiction. Gotcha.

Mike Hermida don't worry, according to my psuedo science santa must exist since there's proof of him everywhere

Mike Hermida lol jk, the majority of us have been lied to since childhood