To suggest that the philosophy of religion is a pseudo-philosophy is bunkum. The existence/ non-existence of a higher power is one of the biggest and most important questions we can tackle and certainly falls within the parameters of philosophy. I'm not talking about theology here.
"The existence/ non-existence of a higher power[...]we can tackle and certainly falls within the parameters of philosophy" Richard Carrier knows this (though the importance of it is not a given). The thing that is pseudo-philosophy are the fallacious and debunked arguments that try to show a god exists.
He specifically says there’s a difference between asking that question and justifying apologetics based on debunked arguments, the latter certainly being pseudo-philosophy.
Thanks for reinforcing my general not caring about philosophy. Granted. It can help you form a view. The conversation always degenerates to nitpicking and vague concepts. So I don’t find much use for it. By the way. Science deals with the natural, observable, testable, verifiable, predictable, and reproducible data...philosophy does not.
Sure, it is important to enumarate to world, yet without philosophy you just don’t get the human side of life. Without philosophical insights, you are a robot.
This may meaningfully sum up Richard Carrier's thoughts: "...philosophy is just science with less data. And I think, if philosophers took that seriously and took the mantel seriously and pursued philosophy with more scientifically rigorous method...a more scientifically informed method, they'd be doing really good philosophy." I think that aforementioned statement is a brave and clarity enabling statement. Thanks for sharing this vid.
I don't think it's very good. It's just Quine's naturalized epistemology re-branded. The same objections apply; it's dogmatic when it comes to its own ontological presuppositions.
@@malchir4036 Yes, could just as easily say it as, Philosophy should be less rational and more empirical. Which of course is stupid, as it just becomes a matter or personal preference.
What do you think that the letters PhD stand for? science is a subcategory of philosophy, not a replacement of philosophy. Carrier said as much when he said : "The analysis of concepts is only a part of philosophy". So I happen to strongly disagree. It's also rather telling that those with a PhD in physics apparently don't even know what the letters PhD stand for. I guess they were too busy diving into the depths of physics to notice they were arguing a self defeating argument by saying those things. When one dives to the bottom of the lake, one can't see what is happening on the surface, and one might even forget a surface exists entirely, until one starts gasping for air that is.
I thought about deleting my original posting. But, that would be an act of hiding from my ignorance. Over these last 6 years, people (friends and passers-by) have been sharing ideas and concerns which argue against the ideas that Richard was sharing on philosophy. I was so wrong and ignorant in siding with Richard's ideas. Philosophy is a valuable tool for people in all walks of life. Philosophy is valuable for scientists who are working on the frontiers of what is known.
@@deeliciousplum Glad to hear it. People make mistakes, and the best thing we can do with them is learn from them. By not removing your other post you enable other people to learn from your mistake without having to make the same mistake for themselves. Combined with your last post it's an act that demonstrates growth and sincerity.
Love Richard. I still think he is too dismissive on God. A little too critical in some ways these types of people. I myself am an agnostic but more towards the atheists side. Love some of Richard's humor for sure. Take care from Buddhist/Agnostic Lee.
This is just ridiculously brilliant. I've come late to Carrier, but the more I see and read of him, the more I find him congenial, serious and important. His thought is immensely clarifying in all the main branches of philosophy. I disagree with him a bit on politics (I'm fond of libertarianism, he isn't), but in every other area I find myself pretty much in substantial agreement, after about 30-odd years of going round the houses as a philosophical amateur. (As a side-note, I resisted the Bayesian Kool-Aid for a long time, while I was obsessed with getting to grips with other philosophies; but over the past few years I've gradually come round to the conclusion that yes, Bayes' Theorem does indeed look like the very archetype of evidence-based, successful reasoning about the world. It's Bayesianism all the way down. Epistemology is more or less solved, and it's all over bar the shouting (as we say in Scotland) :) )
It all depends on how one defines philosophy. If it means metaphysics i.e. “theoretical science” (c.f. experimental science) then that’s the end of discussion and philosophy is not useless nor stupid. But when scientists like Krauss and Hawking dismiss traditional philosophy, it is because they question its methods” i.e. the search for truth using “pure logic” which is not what theoretical scientists do. Theoretical scientists posit questions and hypothesise the answers and then do experiments to find out whether their hypotheses hold water. So its all a question of definitions. R.C. Simply redefines traditional philosophy and gives a whole lecture about why philosophy=theoretical science is (obviously) important.
I'm always frightened to the marrow by philosophers who don't even understand what philosophy is. Carrier presents a horrible case for the usefulness of philosophy. His arguments are chock full of equivocations on words like "philosophy" and "use" and "useful" and, worst of all, what it means to "answer a question." He claims early on that philosophy has answered questions, just like science has answered questions. But if several different people speculate on a single question and don't reach an uncontroversial and shared conclusion, that's not the same thing as "answering" a question. Science does do this. Philosophy has never done it because it's not set up to do this. It can't do this (if it were doing this, it would be science). Carrier seems not to realize that philosophy = thinking as a good in itself, not as an instrument to be used to yield something (an answer, a fact). So many other points I could criticize (he calls "atheism" a fact; I'll give him the benefit of the doubt here and presume he meant the proposition--facts are propositions--that God does not exist. He then tries to claim that somehow philosophy is responsible for producing this fact. Well, there is no fact here. He then says, it's "probably" true.....??????? Really sloppy, dude--come one, get it together). Overall, this is another sham by people trying to keep funding going for the humanities instead of presenting intelligent arguments like Stanley Fish, who admits the humanities are not useful for anything but are still "good" (in themselves). Richard, read Stanley Fish next time.
YEEEESSSSS..... what you said. He is only willing to grant philosophy as valid in so far as it behaves like science. I think he should stick to making Jesus question his own existence.
Philosophy might not be universal but it is because if the conclusions are not absolute then philosophy is not done. Science - for the sake of universality - sacrifices precision. Scientific facts come and go.
jeeze, of course Krauss and Hawkin knew their books were metaphysics, and that they were actually doing philosophy - their criticism was directed at academic philosophy, not just doing philosophy
27:15 - You can definitely say that about math papers too. Many times I've tried to penetrate some math topic and find that the papers are really written like it's a little secret club with the members communicating with each other in a secret language. My eyes glaze over. Then sooner or later I manage to find a paper that actually EXPLAINS the topic using language that a sub-expert can follow, and I find that it was never really that hard in the first place - it makes great sense. So, this is definitely a problem.
I have to disagree with Richard's slidearound 43 minutes on general advances in philosophy.. Consequentialist ethics do not stand. Should a doctor kill Richard to collect his organs to help out 10 dying patients in need organs? Democracy and Human Rights are actually in opposition. If you own your body and labor, what gives people around you the right to tax and spend the fruits of your labor even against your wishes? If it is wrong for one person or a small group (facism) to impose their will on society, how is it just for a larger group or even numerical majority? In a democracy, what are the limits of what the majority can support (see treatment of Japanese-Americans, Jews, slavery)? This goes back to ethics (consequentialist vs. deontologic view). Furthermore, negative conceptions of rights (ownership of your body and property) are in opposition with positive conceptions of rights (doctors can be forced to provide care, or more indirectly, people can be forced to pay for doctors to provide care). Regarding evidentialism, are there propositions about reality which can be known a priori? If you say none, then you know at least one.
All knowledge is incomplete, including scientific knowledge. Good philosophy is an art; and like any art, it opens the heart to see and the mind to create. For those who think philosophy is a waste of time, try to imagine the world without philosophy. Try and do anything without incorporating philosophy. Philosophy will never die because as human beings it is very much a part of us.
This presentation threw me a total curveball. At first I was like "if philosophy has less data then clearly it is worth less than science" and if science has divorced itself from philosophy then clearly it is for good reason. However once he started about pseudo-philosophy I was hooked again. Basically, "professional philosopher" William Lane Craig is a pseudophilosopher. His Ph.D. is worthless.
I suppose they mean that, with all the faults in the academic discipline (as opposed to the field), it would be ill advised to subject oneself to such an ineffective system of education, as it would likely do more harm than good. (Feel free to disagree with that point, just thought I'd clarify what they likely were arguing)
To anyone who finds this at all compelling or interesting and isn't already a subscriber PLEASE, PLEASE do yourself a favour and check out Dr Jason J Campbell's channel: drjasonjcampbell /user/drjasonjcampbell There you will find a veritable feast of philosophy and history of philosophy including series on different types of logic, the philosophy of Nietzsche, Kant and other major philosophers, and many other goodies. His approach to philosophy (he calls it "ghetto philosophy") is down to earth and easy to understand but the work is brilliant (yes he's a PHD in, would you believe it? Philosophy and teaches it). It's one of the most valuable RU-vid channels I've had the pleasure to stumble onto.
The opposite of consequentialism is not authoritarianism. Consequentialism doesn't really have a direct opposite. There is nihilism (i.e. no ethical standard), relativism (i.e subjective ethical standards), and various other objective moral positions such as deontology, virtue ethics, etc. Consequentialism has known problems and contradictions (e.g the Repugnant Conclusion) which have yet to be resolved. The only real advance with regard to ethics appears to be that relativism is pretty much a dead thing. The search for a generally agreed upon objective standard for ethics is still ongoing.
Sorry for this being late, but i think you nailed it. I consider morality like the subject of health. Its complicated, sometimes it can depend on the person, and we learn more about it over many years of research and experiance, but there are general rules to it. Though that wouldn't mean "health" is relative or subjective. I Personally think virtue ethics does a great job at talking about morality.
The claim that Krauss and Hawking do philosophy or meta-physics is stupid. Whoever says that doesn't even know what theoretical physics is about, let alone experimental physics. I understand that you don't like the idea that philosophy is useless for science, but plz don't just let your ego talk.
Science IS philosophy with an empirical methodology. Methodological Naturalism is the philosophical view that we name Science. Any scientific Hypothesis is by definition Metaphysics. You need to study the definitions of those words. Yes Philosophers and people in general misuse philosophy that doesn't mean that science is not philosophy. It only means that what they practice doesn't qualify as philosophy.
Upon reflection: it seems to me there is a subtle disingenuous here because materialists completely deny anything existing beyond the physical universe so why mention metaphysics at all if they're going to dismiss any speculation about it. Is String Theory really metaphysics if it's dealing with the material universe? Well, yes, it is if we say metaphysics is physics.
Richard Carrier, you've given me some serious brainwork to do. I'll need to watch this again and really think about it. I was overlooking philosophy and thought it an intellectual masturbation without any real meaning, but your arguments seem solid. Thanks for this.
I'm a student of philosophy and I think that a lot of philosophy actually is intellectual masturbation. Philosophy is only useful and only advances when applied to anything that isn't metaphysics or theology, but unfortunately a lot of philosophers love metaphysics.
+nickolasgaspar that is actually a good distinction, I think, though I wouldn't involve ontology in this, which, depending on how it's used, it can be really useful. You've given me something to think about
+nickolasgaspar Ontology can be a very broad subject, but it can be applied to specific subjects and that is the moment in which it can be beneficial. For instance, the question "how do we define the word "species"" is an ontological question and it is very relevant as well as very useful in biology. Ontology's occupation is determining what kind of objects exist in a determined set, for example the set of the species "felis catus" compared to "canis lupus", or the set of "objects that are art" compared to the set of "objects that are not art". If you ever had a discussion about what should be considered art and what shouldn't, you were engaged in an ontological discussion wether you knew it or not. This is just scratching the surface, but the point is that usually philosophy, nowadays, starts from ontology and then works from there. Philosophical naturalism, also known as "the position of those who do not believe in anything supernatural", is an example of a working ontology.
+nickolasgaspar I never saw a philosopher using ontology in any way other than "determining which objects exist in a determined set", frankly, but you can use words however you like if you make very clear what you mean. Very often metaphysics come after ontology nowadays, so in the case of philosophical naturalism we don't start with metaphysical assumptions, we naturalists instead examine which category of objects we would define as "real" and, observing that we don't accept as real supernatural stuff, we define the set of things that exist as objects that are natural. However, if we did find a supernatural entity or event, we would redefine our ontology. From that we derive the metaphysics, not the other way around.
+nickolasgaspar in philosophy, metaphysics is about questions on the ultimate nature of reality, such as "is reality real or are we in the matrix?" or "what is the nature of time?". The most serious philosophers, as far as I know, try to answer those questions on the basis of their ontologies and they base their ontologies on scientific data wherever applicable. I don't know many links about ontology and, since I study a non English speaking country, I don't really know if the books I use are available in your country... but I learned something too, which is always good.
Here's the problem in a nutshell: completely valid arguments can easily be completely false. Only natural philosophy can establish soundness of a valid argument.
"Only natural philosophy can establish soundness of a valid argument." Correction: only natural philosophy can establish soundness of a valid argument with a high degree of certainty. If you don't know how to reason about which kinds of things are more likely without scientific levels of certainty, I don't know how you get through your day or make any important life decisions.
Tatra ko moha: ka: shoka:"-- "Where is delusion or misery for the one who has realized this non-dual state?"--- Ishavasya Upanishad In the Upanishadic times, men were not spoken of as good or bad. Instead, they were recognized into two types - the learned and the ignorant. As per Advaita philosophy is that, when you are on the correct path, knowledge which correlates and corroborates with your study comes from within you. That is the real proof that you are on the right track. When creation occurs, the universe the essence of which was always within Brahman evolves itself and issues out of the Brahman with name and form, this is what is called creation. Brahman creates the world just as a spider creates it's webs out of itself. The Vedas contain the meaning of consciousness. A visible attribute of consciousness is an energetic field that governs the shaping of organisms. Morphogenesis is a scientific term to explain this very shaping of tissues, organs, and entire organisms. Fields of conscousness are called M fields -morphogenetic. Just like electromagnetic and gravitational fields. All life forms are connected by "morphic fields" or strong intertwined energetic connections. Our separation from each other is an optical illusion of consciousness. "Without and within all beings the unmoving and also the moving; because of Its subtlety, unknowable; and near and far away is That( brahmAn )". --- Bhagavad Gita, Ch.13,Verses 15 Consciousness is the creative force of the entire universe. The entire universe is in fact a single living conscious organism with complete awareness of itself. Not only is consciousness responsible for the physical universe and its elements-- it is the universe. The field of consciousness contains information about everything that has happened since the dawn of time. "Om purnamadah purnamidam purnaat purnamudachyate,purnasya purnamadaya purnamevaavashishyate" "That (consciousness) is full (perfect) ; this (the manifest universe of matter; of names and forms being maya) is full. This fullness has been projected from that fullness. When this fullness merges in that fullness, all that remains is fullness."--- Isa Upanishad The fabric of the universe, the primal Field, was created by consciousness and is held in existence by consciousness. The entire universe is the consciousness of the Creator. Consciousness creates energy, it creates matter, and it creates the perspectives of space and time. There is a consciousness in every molecule of matter. All atoms in the entire universe are capable of mind reading and communicating with other atoms. The expanded abilities of self awareness is abstract reasoning, free will, creativity, foresight etc. Morphic fields underlie the intelligent organization of proteins, cells, crystals, plants, animals, brains, and minds. They help to explain habits, memories, instincts, telepathy, and the sense of direction. The structure of morphic fields depends on what has happened before. They have an inherent memory and imply that many of the so-called laws of nature are more like habits. Upanishads, which form the principal source material for Advaita Vedanta.enables us to realize the nature of ourselves and reality-- to recognize that we are perfect and complete. Strictly speaking, only the teaching as clarified by Shankara should be called ‘Advaita Vedanta’. Advaita is a system that states that all is the Self. That which is me, that which is you. That which is the world, that which is in the world, that which is transcendent of the world-all is the Self. Brahman is at best described as that infinite, omnipresent, omnipotent, incorporeal, impersonal, transcendent reality that is the divine ground of all Being. Brahman is also beyond the senses. It is the basis of the material world, which in turn is its illusionary transformation According to Adi Shankara, Maya is the complex illusionary power of Brahman which causes the Brahman to be seen as the material world of separate forms. It has two main functions - one is to "hide" Brahman from ordinary human perception, and the other is to present the material world in its stead. Maya is also said to be indescribable, though it may be said that all sense data entering ones awareness via the five senses are Maya, since the fundamental reality underlying sensory perception is completely hidden. Maya is neither completely real nor completely unreal and hence indescribable. Its shelter is Brahman. Brahman is actually indescribable but Brahman itself is untouched by the illusion of Maya, just like a magician is not tricked by his own magic. . When Maya is removed, there exists ultimately no difference between the Jiva-Atman and the Brahman. Such a state of bliss when achieved while living is called Jivan mukti-he liberated soul.
The greatest son of Kerala is Adi Sankaracharya who was born in 2000 BC at Kaladi. He was a 12 strand DNA seer with raised Kundalini , the world’s greatest and original philosopher, intellectual , scholar and poet.
Thank you for posting the presentation. As an avid STEM graduate and hard-science practitioner, I find it refreshing to see someone put philosophy into perspective. The pseudo-philosophy field unfortunately drowned the core philosophy and what it stands for. With our religious zealots at the helm of the demolition ball...
The scientific method is indeed based on philosophy. But only in regards to the ability to know (epistemologically) and how you gain that knowledge. The actual process and the tools, mathemathical and logical models, sets it apart. Which makes the answers we get from it far from philosophical. The crude data/facts before the metaphysical is not philosophy. This distinction is equally crucial to make, lest we'll keep getting the "It's _just_ a theory", as if there is no spectrum of reliability, by ill-informed philosophers and wannabe philosophers.
"The actual process and the tools, mathemathical and logical models, sets it apart." What a silly thing to say. This doesn't set science apart from philosophy they both use these. Maybe you just ignored the video. If you really wanted to set science apart, you could have made the distinction Carrier provided. Science actually gathers the data, and gets enough to make more certain of conclusions. You seem to be simply giving your opinion of the word usage. As such, your opinion holds no weight compared to what the words actually mean.
The point about philosophy and history of philosophy being confused was spot on. We had "philosophy" in upper secondary school and most of it wasn't philosophy, but history of philosophy. I found it very boring, even though I liked to ponder about problems of philosophy in my free time.
I think I disagree with Dr. Carrier in his demarcation of philosophy from pseudo-philosophy. What we call philosophy (and, I think, what we call science) is really a group of researchers under a specific academic heading which has varying aims and varying methods. Just as there is a philosophy of science which asks (among other things), of any particular scientific subfield, 'Are its methods adequate to its aims?', so is there a philosophy of philosophy which asks the same question of various philosophical subfields. This seems to be the fundamental question one can ask - of any field of inquiry, are its methods adequate for its aims? If they are adequate, then that's fine, and if they aren't either change the methods or the aims. It turns out, as there are many possible aims for inquiry, there are many criteria for adequacy of methods to aims, so its not a trivial problem. However, I don't think we can throw out any inquiry whose methods are adequate for its aims as 'pseudoX' simply because we don't care about its aims. If we don't care about its aims, then we don't have to work on it, but our not caring isn't evidence that no one should care.
Agaperion Rex I suppose it depends. Lots of mathematicians have spent their lives on innocuous and perhaps meaningless occupations which have no real relevance in the world as it pertains to humans and their welfare, and I don't think they wasted their time. More carefully, one may point out that the advances in logic brought about largely by philosophers (Frege, Russell, Pierce, Whitehead, Wittgenstein) i) was incredibly esoteric, abstract, and seemingly irrelevant to human welfare at the time it was done (read Principia Mathematica or the Tractatus Locigo-Philosophicus for evidence) and yet ii) was absolutely necessary for what might be the largest single advance in technology of the modern world - computing. So I'd like to conclude that we should air on the side of 'if you're interested, you should pursue it' (as long as it's methdologically sound), since we don't know what will eventually give rise to massive advances.
Agaperion Rex I get the feeling that you're much more confident that you're correct than I am. I don't think my argument can be extended to those who believe in a flat Earth, as surely we'd both say that they're methodologically in error - their methods are not adequate for their aims. As for Platonists, it's easy to parody Platonism, but it's not without reason. You just have to realize that Platonists take "exists" to mean something different than materialists, and then to hear them out. For instance, when dealing with functions there are problems which arise with well-definedness where the most obvious solution is to say that there exists some object which our number symbols refer to. Now I'm not a Platonist, but it seems pretty dogmatic to just dismiss the view because it disagrees with your assumptions. Especially, as is often the case but I don't know about you, if one has not read the relevant literature or seriously considered the view. [Example: Take the function f:Z[3] --> Z, f([x])=x (where Z[3] is the integers mod 3). It's easy to see f([0]) = 0 and f([3])=3. However, since [0]=[3], and f([0])=/=f([3]), we say that f is not well-defined. This is because, we want to say, the *same number* is referred to by both [0] and [3] (or they are different names for the same number) and if a function is well-defined, it maps every element of its domain to a single element of its codomain. Thus, it seems like we're committed to the existence of some mathematical object named by both [0] and [3].) I am familiar with Zen. Are you familiar with the work of logician Raymond Smullyan or the work of cognitive and computer scientist Douglass Hofstadter? Both have done very serious work, which I would call progress, and yet both attribute much of their success to deep study of Zen Buddhism. Now I'm not a Zen Buddhist, but it seems again that I would not be so quick to rule out potential inquiry because I disagree with some of its aims. Also, I don't take any of this to be akin to totalitarian brainwashing or coercive preaching or something like that. These are mistaken to pursue because either they aren't inquiry and are immoral for some other reason or their methods are not adequate for their aims.
I've enjoyed the half dozen or so other videos I've watched from Carrier, but he sure knows how to shoot down all of the things about philosophy that make it enjoyable. What I hear him saying is: "If you don't refuse to believe all of the things that "academic" philosophy refuses to believe, then you are doing "pseudo" philosophy." essentially "Materialism is the only valid school of philosophy." This all translates to me as: "Don't wonder, just calculate and trust the results." Well, I prefer to continue applying skepticism... even AFTER arriving at the same comfortable little angle of sight where so many "skeptics" seem to settle in to congratulate themselves for believing more correct things than everybody else... They must be just as happy as every other group who knows that only their ideology is right!
philosophy in its proper context can be scientific and philosophical...you either have a explicit or implicit system...knowledge is contextual and within that framework, science tells what is and philosophy predicated on the law of identity ( what is) how and why we should use it as we DO....this equation brings TRUTH !!!
Half of this video is good, the other half is gibberish. Thanks for pointing out what is currently wrong with academic philosophy and what philosophy is supposed to be doing. But, dang it, you've got to stop calling everything "philosophy". Sure, Aristotle lumped everything under the term. So what? The world has moved on, and it is time for you to catch up. Another thing is that you switch back and forth between the multiple definitions of philosophy in a willy-nilly fashion. First you claim all the scientific advances as advances in philosophy, and in the next sentence you say philosophy isn't making any advances (in part) because there aren't enough philosophers. If science is part of philosophy, then scientists are philosophers, so there is definitely no shortage of them! Finally, I dare say that academic philosophy has had nothing to do with the rise of atheism. Rapid advances in science has blown religion out of the water. The average atheist could care less what an academic philosopher has to say on the subject. He became an atheist because religion simply doesn't make sense in today's world.
I think you should watch again this talk. You will find some of your rejections irrelevant. Religions making no sense is due to prevailing logic and philosophy btw,
Philosophy in the eastern world is how you view your self and the world....also philosophy can help comfort your mind *improve your mind*satisfying your mind in a positive way.....can't have a negative mind in a positive world or vice versa....
I refer you to your own presentation about science and morality and how using facts and science alone you can derive an 'ought'from an 'is'. Again I ask: philosophy? Maybe we can just replace philosophy with the term "reason" and call it a day.
The youtube user Antis14CZ wrote 3 years ago: If I get the point of the lecture correctly, from the perspective of a scientist, you can think of philosophy as the process that deduces what should science study next. If you were building a skyscraper, philosophy would be the girder skeleton and science would be the walls, windows and furniture you add on to it. The science of mechanical engineering calculate precisely the number of weld, the thickness of metal/concrete to reach the philosophical ideal of saving human life by not collapsing on the first earth quake. If the society didn't care much about human life, science would concentrate on saving money instead of quality. The science of electrical engineering calculate the power required for moving the elevator at high speed (I see the Toronto CN tower as an example) for the philosophical ideal that times is valuable and getting stuck for minutes induce claustrophobia.
SOOO.... Philosophy is: The art of conspiracing beyond the answer of a dilemma, waiting for actual smart people to take on the task of answering your every silly misconception, question how the nature of the answer came to be, lazily point at the variables into the inception of the answer, pretend you're smart and repeat. Nice 'job"
Dr. Carrier suggests that scientific metaphysics like string theory is justifiable metaphysics but dismisses as a pseudo-philosophy spiritual hypothesis about cosmology and the universe even when framed within the boundaries of reason and logic. The Gnostic cosmology I espouse is admittedly speculative but it's in no way much different than string theory.
According to Frederick Copleston, Aristotle divides Philosophy into three parts: (1) Theoretical Philosophy: (a) Physics or Natural Philosophy; (b) Mathematics; and (c) Metaphysics, including Natural Theology. (2) Practical Philosophy: Politics and Ethics. And (3) Poetical Philosophy: Aesthetics or Theory of Art. Similar to what Dr Carrier gave but not the same.
Tatra ko moha: ka: shoka:"-- "Where is delusion or misery for the one who has realized this non-dual state?"--- Ishavasya Upanishad In the Upanishadic times, men were not spoken of as good or bad. Instead, they were recognized into two types - the learned and the ignorant. As per Advaita philosophy is that, when you are on the correct path, knowledge which correlates and corroborates with your study comes from within you. That is the real proof that you are on the right track. When creation occurs, the universe the essence of which was always within Brahman evolves itself and issues out of the Brahman with name and form, this is what is called creation. Brahman creates the world just as a spider creates it's webs out of itself. The Vedas contain the meaning of consciousness. A visible attribute of consciousness is an energetic field that governs the shaping of organisms. Morphogenesis is a scientific term to explain this very shaping of tissues, organs, and entire organisms. Fields of conscousness are called M fields -morphogenetic. Just like electromagnetic and gravitational fields. All life forms are connected by "morphic fields" or strong intertwined energetic connections. Our separation from each other is an optical illusion of consciousness. "Without and within all beings the unmoving and also the moving; because of Its subtlety, unknowable; and near and far away is That( brahmAn )". --- Bhagavad Gita, Ch.13,Verses 15 Consciousness is the creative force of the entire universe. The entire universe is in fact a single living conscious organism with complete awareness of itself. Not only is consciousness responsible for the physical universe and its elements-- it is the universe. The field of consciousness contains information about everything that has happened since the dawn of time. "Om purnamadah purnamidam purnaat purnamudachyate,purnasya purnamadaya purnamevaavashishyate" "That (consciousness) is full (perfect) ; this (the manifest universe of matter; of names and forms being maya) is full. This fullness has been projected from that fullness. When this fullness merges in that fullness, all that remains is fullness."--- Isa Upanishad The fabric of the universe, the primal Field, was created by consciousness and is held in existence by consciousness. The entire universe is the consciousness of the Creator. Consciousness creates energy, it creates matter, and it creates the perspectives of space and time. There is a consciousness in every molecule of matter. All atoms in the entire universe are capable of mind reading and communicating with other atoms. The expanded abilities of self awareness is abstract reasoning, free will, creativity, foresight etc. Morphic fields underlie the intelligent organization of proteins, cells, crystals, plants, animals, brains, and minds. They help to explain habits, memories, instincts, telepathy, and the sense of direction. The structure of morphic fields depends on what has happened before. They have an inherent memory and imply that many of the so-called laws of nature are more like habits. Upanishads, which form the principal source material for Advaita Vedanta.enables us to realize the nature of ourselves and reality-- to recognize that we are perfect and complete. Strictly speaking, only the teaching as clarified by Shankara should be called ‘Advaita Vedanta’. Advaita is a system that states that all is the Self. That which is me, that which is you. That which is the world, that which is in the world, that which is transcendent of the world-all is the Self. Brahman is at best described as that infinite, omnipresent, omnipotent, incorporeal, impersonal, transcendent reality that is the divine ground of all Being. Brahman is also beyond the senses. It is the basis of the material world, which in turn is its illusionary transformation According to Adi Shankara, Maya is the complex illusionary power of Brahman which causes the Brahman to be seen as the material world of separate forms. It has two main functions - one is to "hide" Brahman from ordinary human perception, and the other is to present the material world in its stead. Maya is also said to be indescribable, though it may be said that all sense data entering ones awareness via the five senses are Maya, since the fundamental reality underlying sensory perception is completely hidden. Maya is neither completely real nor completely unreal and hence indescribable. Its shelter is Brahman. Brahman is actually indescribable but Brahman itself is untouched by the illusion of Maya, just like a magician is not tricked by his own magic. . When Maya is removed, there exists ultimately no difference between the Jiva-Atman and the Brahman. Such a state of bliss when achieved while living is called Jivan mukti-he liberated soul.
religious philo = theology [please no smily faces, one about religion/s the other about god/s] , so of course for the last 100 years years, has been bunkum in comparison to the real stuff...philosophy...which is not to deny its past achievements eg Thomism, Augustine, a list, but PAST
I maintain that Gnosticism, under perhaps the guise of pagan mythology, nevertheless had an achievable goal in mind, that it is as such applied philosophy. Plato's "Republic" from almost 500 BC laid out several premises that match current mores. Both Philosophy and Religion are equally lame if they do not work at their disciplines.
Willard did NOT "partially overthrow Godel's incompleteness theorems". They cannot be overthrown in whole or in part, any more than you can overthrow 1+1=2. Godel's 1st & 2nd incompleteness theorems are about consistent, recursively-defined axiomatic theories that are capable of Peano Arithmetic. Willard has investigated some other systems, and their possible applications. Other mathematicians have also investigated systems not covered by Godel's work. For example it is a theorem of Model Theory that the theory of Real-Closed Fields is complete.
12:09 - In fact, from what I can tell (a relatively "outsider" view, admittedly), it seems that philosophy as practiced by the mainstream makes a particular point to DENY that "good" and "bad" even exist - they want to say that everything is relative - that whether something is good or bad depends on one's perspective. And I suppose that's true in a sense - after all, Hitler thought he was in the right. But I don't buy it - I do think there is something like moral and ethical objectivity in the world, and the best of people who pursue religious faith see that too. But they are prone to trying to tell you that faith (and their own particular brand of faith) is the only way to access that discrimination, and I don't believe that.
Philosophy should be a valuable field, providing us with new tenets of morality & political policy based on evidence. But that sort of thing is left to political consultants, grasping at-& spinning-the work of statisticians. We need better connections between statistical studies of, for example, the outcomes of various public policies & the principles of morality that we can draw from them. Philosophers should be attacking our horrible policing policies, for example, & our systematic failure to rectify past racial injustices, which maintains a permanent underclass.
Some of philosophy can be little more than ivory tower mental masturbation. It teaches you how to think critically but many times there is little advancement being made.
Given the intertwined nature of science and philosophy, I have to why scientists like Krause and Hawking feel the need to pull them apart by saying philosophy is no longer relevant to creating knowledge.. What's the advantage for doing that?
If you could not even decide what should be done with your time, what is the value of time? To know what to do with one's limited time is an important part of what drives philosophy.
The point is, philosophy is not a waste of time at the moments where we need it. On the other hand, when things are going well, we of course don't need it, and we can better use our time living life and solving problems.
But the study of philosophy makes it very obvious to us that, more often than not, things are not going well with the way we think and act. There is a possibility that the more you study philosophy, the more you get sucked into its vortex. This is especially true for a beginning student, who may be overwhelmed by its introduction of problems regarding almost every aspect of our lives. The student may be led to conclude that all of this confusion, especially since it is only going on in his own mind, is pointless -- "if I just ignore them, the problems will go away. It's all in my head anyway! Then I can continue to do what I normally think and do." But of course the problems remain in the student's thoughts and actions. The student has adopted the philosophical conclusion that "if I don't think about a problem, it is no longer a problem to me." He will be right, and he would have wasted his time. He has however, failed to gain the ability to identify and conquer difficult conceptual problems where almost any answer is possible. This may be a waste of time to him, but it may not have been a waste of time to the alter-ego of the student, who has learnt lessons from philosophy and applied it to his thoughts and actions. Both the former and the latter student would have made "better" use of his time from his point of view. But can you see the difference between the two of them?
Unlike commenting on RU-vid? Or the mass of other things you do in life? I just don't want to here you ever putting forward an argument or discussing religious, epistemological, or ethical issues - that's a waste of time.
Why don't people understand that the science at its foundation stems from a branch of philosophy? I hear college professors of a lot of different fields going off about how their sciences follow from famous empiricists. Actually read what they wrote brah. I'm currently studying philosophy and math. At its core all knowledge is just semantic labeling, and in certain circumstances, you can match that with numbers to allow for predictions through inductive inferences.Maybe they're applicable in our day to day life, maybe they're not (astrophysics and other branches of theoretical physics). Honestly anyone can be a scientist if they go by the book and by the scientific method. Same can be said for any other field. Philosophy deals with the creation of new knowledge through the use of deductive and inductive tools, and heavily structured (such dense) essays. I took a philosophy of induction class last spring, and I got a good conceptual understanding of quantum mechanics, and inductive methods. Going to take a stats class to back it up, but that's probably a higher level of knowledge than most sociology, art history, english, or political science major receive throughout their education. We also cover modern philosophers: John Locke, Hobbes, Roussea, Adam Smith, etc. Science is a good branch of philosophy and I'm a realist when it comes to modern scientific theories, but societal problems can't be solved through science alone.
I wouldn't say that science is a branch of philosophy, but rather science has a philosophical component. I think when scientists criticise philosophy, they mean pure, speculative philosophy with no scientific component used to test hypotheses.
When you say that philosophy hasn't made any progress since Plato and Aristotle you would be correct and it's not an insult. Philosophy does not equal worldview nor is it it some kind of science. Defining what philosophy is a whole philosophical problem for itself but every one can agree that it's seeking of absolute truth or self-realization of the human spirit or how ever you wanna define it. Sciences like physics or math make new discoveries through trial and error, they take certain hypothesis which can be based on what ever and they star from there proving it, old and disproved hypothesis are part of the past and are no longer relevant. Whit question you can go deeper and deeper and from a scientist you will at one point just hear 'no' but the thing is that it works and that's reason enough, how and why something does something is irrelevant and philosophy asks those kinds of questions. Philosophy isn't about splitting into bunch of categories (even though there are categories in philosophy, if it's about finding the absolute truth and that's only one category that may deal in arts, ethics, metaphysics and so on) like how science takes a subject and splits it (so certain stuff is subject of biology, some of physics, others is chemistry...) but is about a whole bigger picture. Absolute truth is one, there can't be more truths, only thing that changes is the spirit of times. So Hegel divides history into external and internal (English is my second language and i don't know if my terminology is right and am really newbie at this) histories, internally there is only one absolute and that's (that would be the world of ideas to Plato) but externally the comprehension of absolute truth is seen as bunch of different beliefs and thoughts taking place instead of the older ones but in fact they internally share the same idea and it's only people taking their place in a different time that's changed. I don' think I explained it very well (as Socrates said, only thing I know is that i don't know nothing at all) but read up Hegel and his lectures on history of philosophy and also Heidegger and his contemporaries introductions to philosophy to gain real grasp of the problem.
Not German, Serbian... It didn't progress in a today's scientific kind of progress where you would by conducting an experiment conclude that old belief is rendered obsolete and is no longer viable. Even though you could make an argument that since 19th century philosophy, Aristotle's metaphysics is not as relevant but subjects of both Platos and Aristotles philosophy are as relevant today as they were in their prime time because that's the nature of philosophy. Not that nothing new of impact happened since but that you're not moving on from it nor will philosophers even move on from Plato or Aristotle, like lets say medical science has for sure moved away from Hippocrates. Also, I'm not really that versed in philosophy, like I said i am newbie, even on my native language; let alone english so if was wrong with bunch of my point please point them out (but if someone can on a seminar say that Hawkings works are metaphysics, which it is not even close, then I guess everything is possible)... And why did you think I was German?
Science is part of Philosophy too. :) Even the brain doesn't say the body on which it survives and thrives on is stupid, does it? Without the digestive system, how does the brain get the food that provides it with the necessary nourishment? :) Perhaps, that's always been a concept that's proven too complex and perplexing for the scientists.
It is odd for someone who is not a philosophy professor or even has an advanced degree in philosophy (he has a PhD in ancient history) and he doesn't even publish *in philosophy* to be commenting on the state of the field of philosophy. If you are seeking that, philosopher Michael Huemer has a blog that you might find interesting.
You miss the point of the venue/audience/event. This was a talk at a specific event for a specific audience of skeptics, agnostics & atheists and he did an admirable job.
@@christopherhamilton3621 why is some non-philosopher presenting to anyone as an authority on what happens in philosophy? Why would his audience thinks he knows anything about this (since he doesn't)?
@@NathanNobis101 Because his audience actually needs to learn a bit more about it & he’s at least a little more informed about it than them, and he chose to give an account of the problems of both science and philosophy to them, especially given the fact that well known atheists previously said some stupid shit. Why didn’t they get a philosopher to give the talk is a separate question, even if valid. Do you really need to be a Ph.D philosopher to give a presentation anyway? That stance is exactly one of the issues he’s taking issue with. I’m certain he ran his basic ideas by someone with appropriate qualifications regardless: he’s really not talking out of his ass, after all.
@@christopherhamilton3621 if you are going to give an accurate report about what's going on in academic philosophy, or any field, you very likely have to part of that field. He's not and what he says is not, and was not, accurate. Again, it's odd to have an unqualified and inexperienced person giving such a report.
I get your point: he may not be an expert, but certainly didn’t claim to give the final answer on things either… Just a few points in the context of atheistic opinion & arguments relevant to the intersection of science & philosophy.
Tracchofyre No, that's sophism, not philosophy. You don't need to go much further than the "love of wisdom" part, trying to come up with more 'refined' definitions usually ends up producing clunkier and less useful definitions that lose the value of the original.
Tracchofyre You would criticize what you believe to be a belief, and you would be a sophist doing so, as your criticism doesn't really lead anywhere. Philosophy literally means "love of wisdom", and that meaning is sufficient. Come up with a purpose for the word that requires further explanation and we can do that. See, your mistake is that you believe words to represent our beliefs in what something is; we *decide* the meaning of the words we use, and anything further than the self explanatory in this case is simply not useful. Extrapolating further on whether or not a word means what it literally means is just an utter waste of time.
Tracchofyre See? You just wrote four paragraphs of pure nonsense and useless babble that doesn't mean anything. And your alternate definition for philosophy is essentially a more wordy and less flexible and thus less useful variation of the original. You didn't gain anything by adding those new words like "analysis" and "logic", it's simply more words you have to explain and define, and since you're a sophist you'll likely do that by adding just more and more fancy sounding words, ultimately ending up with an incomprehensible mess that can only serve the purpose of causing a head-ache. I'm sorry, but you're just being foolish. "Love of wisdom" is sufficient, and in all that babble you made you failed to deliver a situation or context where it's not. What you're doing is essentially the problem with academic philosophy; in short and easily understandable words: it's all bullshit.
Tracchofyre I don't make claims, I make observations. I'm getting tired of your bullshit. Come up with something interesting and I might reply to you, otherwise I'm done wasting my time with you.
Philosophy is thinking about how to think. Most philosophers now are: neo-pragmatists; empiricists; trans-phenomenologists; or critical realists. I.e. they all acknowledge the efficaciousness of the scientific method. The "post-moderns" and "relativists" exist mostly as straw-men for preachers to kvetch about. If one actually reads real philosophers, e.g. Philosophy Today, one finds that post-modernism and relativism are NOT respected by most philosophers. In short, in actual practice philosophy is a friend of science. Carrier's proposed correction of "academic" philosophy is already well underway.
But....since scientists are philosophers with better data....including lesser fields just as archaelogists, psychologists etc.....why would we need philosophers with less accurate data than that.
Tracchofyre Of course I will not disagree with u. Surely u can see that did not mean to say the opposite...but rather to show that many times philosopher go into paths completely unrelated to reality without offering any resolution. Questioning is good....but many time I find philosophers philosophizing for the sake of philosophizing...like it is some kind of intellectual contest with no interest in applying their philosophy to practical matters ...especially when scientific matters are concerned. I hope u catch my drift.
Tracchofyre I do get what u r saying...I do. My point is that it is difficult, in my opinion, to go 'deep' unless u have some scientific training because going 'deep' and keeping it real are 2 completely different things!
begin with: Big Bang Cosmology, or as it was known for 2000 years before this name The Christian Theory of Creatio Ex Nihilo is pseudo-science and, subsequently pseudo-philosophy. No wonder it was fathered by a bloody priest (G. Lemaitre)
+Darth Valar - Big Bang Theory is not pseudoscience. It explains the escape of galaxies. Many people object to various hypotheses which try to explain the Big Bang itself, but that's a different story. Those speculations are just that - speculations.
The "escape of galaxies" is just a misinterpretation of the redshift - it is not real - that's what invalidates the Big Bang Cosmology. And, anyway, I am skeptic of any "scientific" thoery proposed by a priest ...
Even if Big Bang is wrong, it's still a valid scientific theory. Being skeptical is fine. That's what we are supposed to be. BTW - If there is a way to show that Big Bang is wrong, and it involves a measurement of sorts, it's almost a guaranteed Nobel prize. Without a measurement, it's going to be just fame. That's how Nobels work.
the redshifting is just one from many observable phenomena that validate the big bang framework. ITs not pseudoscience. In order for a framework to be pseudo science it needs to ignore evidence that point to a different directions. The fact is that we don't got any. BBT might be wrong but its the only framework compatible with the sum of our current evidence.
A theory is a tested, well-substantiated, unifying explanation for a set of verified, hypotheses that have not been disproved. A theory is always backed by peer reviewed experiment; a hypothesis is only a suggested possible outcome, and is testable and falsifiable. I am skeptical about your understanding of the scientific method.
I think philosophy should be defined as any thoughts relating to truth. It seems obvious to me that any claim relating to truth also touches on an established area of philosophy, or several areas. Science would therefore be the discipline within philosophy that uses hypothesis, testing and peer review to get as closely to objective truth as possible.
MrP86 The reason you can even study geophysics under the paradigm of the scientific method is due to the vast heritage of philosophy that has preceded it. You are leeching off not only the great milestones of physics and other empirical sciences, but also the successful results of great philosophical experiments in the past. I myself am planning to study computational biology but even I know the value of philosophy. Not all philosophy is useful, I agree. But when we do need it, it is very valuable. Personally, I feel that its study can bring a clarity to our thoughts, concepts and actions. The clarity of our conceptual frameworks enable us to make decisions with a clear head. Philosophy also helps us weigh ambiguities in a systematic way -- it is not essential to action, but when used well, it is a road leading to good action, good decisions. I hope you may rethink your stance about philosophy.
I strongly disagree Karl. Yes science once was known as natural philosophy and the two subjects had a much closer relationship in the past. But from what I can see, philosophy offers us nothing in terms of understanding the natural world in the way that science does today. Geophysics does not "leach off the great milestones in physics" It IS physics, just applied to understanding our own planet. Of what relevance this point has to anything I'm not sure ? Give me some examples of how philosophy has great application in geophysics today ? In fact give me some examples where philosophy has some scientific value today ?
Julien Couvreur "Consequentialist ethics do not stand. Should a doctor kill Richard to collect his organs to help out 10 dying patients in need organs?" Well maybe you could explain what is wrong with killing someone in this case...other than the consequences. Maybe you have difficulty grasping that actions have more than one consequence. But it's still the consequences that are important.
It's one of those things where you criticise something because you don't understand what you don't know. The view taken by many "interpretations" of Quantum Mechanics is to "calculate, not speculate", that one *should not* seek to understand the nature of what is being described by the maths. That's a philosophical position. More notable, the Copenhagen Interpretation fundamentally confuses ontology and epistemology.
Dear RICHARD. I do like your talks, but please do read Garr Reynold's "Presentation Zen". Also please do realize and remember that bullets kill - your slide at 40:44 is hurting my eyes. There should NOT be a bullet in front of "2" (it's 2nd level heading, by the way) and there absolutely should not be a bullet in front of "less obvious" (that should be aligned left)
No, it is just the enshrinment and deification of the intellect...but our puny little minds can wrap themselves around life and the Universe...nice try Socrates...
I can't view this video but Philosophy is just exploring concepts, i.e. Opining. So philosophy isn't stupid -- it just doesn't provide answers, only opinions that are seemingly based upon caprice. Disagree? - well a philosophical position contrary to yours is wrong based upon what? For example what makes virtue ethics wrong or moral relativism right? Preference. Many philosophies are coherent so they cannot all be right (assuming an objective reality)
Disagree. Philosophy is an underpinning of science and while it doesn't specifically 'prove' things, it is incredibly useful in determining how to prove things and what does or does not constitute proof. The single most important advancement in science in the past 2000 years WAS a philosophical advancement, that being the development of the enlightenment-methodology of a theorize/experiment/conclude cycle of improving/discarding existing theory. Without that philosophical change to how science was being conducted, we would not be where we are today. If someone wants to claim that Philosophy is 'dead', I propose the correct response would be to say '...Then we need to stop ALL science immediately!'. If the person then asks 'why would we need to do that', I would pause for a while, narrow my eyes and say 'Are you asking a philosophical question?'....
I think we agree on the importance of philosophy. I just happen to find it more useful in demonstrating how all modes of inquiry, like science or even philosophy itself, rely on assumptions as foundations. Delving into philosophy is live eating an big ole slice of humble pie.
Agree. There are an awful lot of people today who do take the attitude that Philosophy is useless. As the video also said (sorry you can't view it...) this is possibly due to our seeming inability to separate real, logical philosophy from pseudo-philosophies (i.e. Religion, Mysticism, etc.)
I'm impressed. I'm impressed that he dismissed modern academic philosophers and I'm impressed that he introduced the term pseudo-philosophy. Otherwise everything was wrong. When we think of philosophy we are immediately hit by pseudo-philosophy. We are hit by existentialism, phenomenology, goddo, the meaning of life, Marxism and a whole bunch of ism's that the philosopher despises. For starters we reject essentialism. We don't ask "what is?" questions. We are a bona-fide discipline that only does big. For example, epistemology, the biggest question in philosophy, is the big brother of science and tells scientists what they can and cannot do. Most scientists are unfamiliar with the rules or that philosophy owns the rule book. Philosophy, as with all disciplines, does "standing on the shoulders of giants and seeing further". Our giants are Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Locke, Hume, Kant, Mill and Popper. They only do BIG and there are only two big problems, cosmology (understanding the world) and ethics. They don't do goddo and "why are we here?" or "what is the meaning of life?" To be a philosopher you have to take the next step up the ladder. Tell us about WORLD 4, 5 and N. Improve on the two best known moral theories that are now 200 years old and one of them was stupid. Do not write yet another book on Descartes or the history of philosophy. Do philosophy. Do big.
The definition of Pseudo-Philosophy is flawed. It states that Pseudo-Philosophy is..."Philosophy that relies on fallacious arguments to a conclusion; And/or relies on factually false or undemonstrated premises; And isn't corrected when noted." I have two points: 1) Whether a premise is demonstrated or not does not necessarily make it effective or ineffective, true or false. After all, a premise is an assumption that something is true, not a proven fact that something is true. 2) Whether a pseudo-philosophy or heresy is corrected or not does not change the fact that it is still pseudo-philosophy or heresy. An expression of the definition of an error remains an expression of the definition of an error whether it is corrected or remains uncorrected. One can only correct an instance of error, not the definition of the error.
Krauss and Hawking, in their books, were putting forward hypotheses, which I would argue is part of the scientific process. Dr. Carrier is arguing that the development of hypotheses is actually a philosophical exercise. I am not sure that I agree - I have to think about that.
Another very good example of Philosophy done by scientists is the debate between Quantum Mechanics and Pilot Wave theory. Another good example would be RNA world hypothesis vs Double origin hypothesis for the origin o f life.
Mr. Carrier must never have gone outside the academy in the last 30-years for if he had he would see that we now live under an oligarchic plutocracy fuelled by the largest usurious financial system in the known universe wherein most of the inhabitants now reside on debt rat island! Other than omitting the number of homeless people this conference had to navigate to get there I'd say, in general, it was a good overview:) I do, however, disagree with his definition of pseudo-philosophy.
I think it has more to do with where and when you are applying philosophy, and most of all how. In science philosophy is vital to aim your research, why to research things and then some, but as soon as you use it to skip steps in experiments, to fill in blanks, or come to conclusions and call them facts, it will fail miserably. Way too many people make the mistake in believing philosophy can come to factual conclusions about the material world, which it can as long as based entirely on firmly established facts, but it can only be an aid in scientific investigation, never replace it. Just listen to how apologists misuse it to try to dismiss and debunk science, pretend it can have better or even definite conclusions about things it cannot possibly. Any philosophical conclusion about the material world should be able to be shown true or false by science sooner or later. In truth, whether we study it r not, we all use it in one way or another, even unknowingly. As for any of its components that are based on unknowns and use what ifs, rather than facts, like metaphysics: Those should be treated as abstract arts with no weight at all in an academic sense, which thankfully science does. Most important though is how one uses philosophy, and philosophy itself has a whole branch dedicated to just that: Epistemology. I believe it should be the very first thing any philosopher and scientist needs to learn, understand and be very aware of at all times. Anyone using philosophy who omits practicing good epistemology which most apologists, pseudo scientists, conspiracy theorists... and those following any Ideology in whole do, is subject to scrutiny and ridicule by those who do, as their arguments and conclusions cannot be taken for granted, even if right by sheer coincidence, as that just doesn't count. And so, I believe strongly that epistemology should be part of education from the very start, and not just by proxy, but at some point when age appropriate (ASAP) as an actual mandatory subject, with significant weight in the grading system, because the rest of ones life depends on it already when it comes to things like our beliefs, morality, our interactions with each other, and human progress as a whole, as the past and current lack of it in general society where it is not practiced consciously shows.
Science, technology, engineering are not the same thing but people lump them together and then compare it with philosophy. Science is doing philosophy with math and data imho.
Parsons and Carrier are making radical claims when they say PoR, theology, and Platonism(Platonism!) is meaningless. Has Parsons written a book arguing this?
