@@Ggdivhjkjl avoid those sweeping statements! Quality of education is different from teacher to teacher, school to school - often regardless of the state/country curriculum. The best teachers can take a messy curriculum with a shitty class and turn it around with fun and interesting lessons that go beyond the base requirements. I had a very open-minded and passionate teacher for RE at my high-school in Canberra and she taught damn well! Now I have a warn down intolerant teacher for college and I too find it scary how much I'm relying on Crash Course...
The vlogbrothers, John and Hank Green got it from somewhere but did so much to popularize it that it has kinda become their thing. Of course, I bet they don't mind others using it as well. =)
One of the things I like about Crash Course is that it feels like I'm learning a lot, but it doesn't take long. I hardly notice 10 minutes have passed by the time the video ends.
Good luck with that. I decided to skip all classes and just study the textbooks for two Psych courses, "Tests and Measurements" and "Existential Phenomenological Psychology". Worked fine for "Tests and Measurements", I ended up with a "B". But the Existential class only had a single question on an essay test, and I ended up turning in a blank paper for an "F" and a headache.
I'm curious. when you study philosophy and write exams, do you write what you believe or do you write stuff like "this guy in history said this and this other guy argued that etc etc" like how are you graded?
TheAnnihilator89 i use "this guys and that guys" arguments and ideas to kind of back up my own interpretation of the issue/question if that makes sense
I turned out an acceptably educated young man. Barely good enough, I mean. I can't help but obsess over how much better I could have been today if I had had access to videos like these back in high school! I never cease marveling at what a great resource this channel is! Thank you for sharing.
Not just swedish; 'kant' means edge in a lot of european languages. (" from Old North French cant "corner" (perhaps via Middle Low German kante or Middle Dutch kant), from Vulgar Latin *canthus, from Latin cantus "iron tire of a wheel," possibly from a Celtic word meaning "rim of wheel, edge" (compare Welsh cant "bordering of a circle, tire, edge," Breton cant "circle"), from PIE *kam-bo- "corner, bend," from root *kemb- "to bend, turn, change" (source also of Greek kanthos "corner of the eye," Russian kutu "corner")."
This was awesome and i loved it, i may not agree with the natural law theory but i really love to hear what both sides in any argument has to say, so that i can form my own decisions based on as much information as possible.
***** Of course i understand that this is a simplified version of it. I could give a rough version of Jordan B Petersons "maps of meaning" which is around 15-20 hours i believe but i havent looked at how long. I simply liked this video, first of all because it covers a lot of ground in very little time.
I’ve been listening to all of the Crash Course Philosophy episodes while I’m at work and I gotta say they have been my most productive days by far. I work at target so it’s easy for me to be able to do my job and also listen and ponder all the content of this series. Really great stuff, I’m already starting a list of books that I need to read. If anyone has any suggestions lmk!! Right now I’m mostly interested in ethics and the concept of morality. As a non-religious person I’m not comfortable with saying I have morals without any reason for having those morals. Also, the more I think, the more I realize that I’m not entirely consistent with what I believe. My favorite thing in the world is getting my worldview shattered with new evidence so these philosophy videos have been like crack😅
It would be cool if you guys turn some of these into a coloring book. Perhaps it would make memorizing history easier. :) Love your videos!!! Keep up the good work!
@Marci marc Damn bro. Voltaire is cool but you have to give it up for the OGs That's like giving a medal for best epic poem written in Italy to Dante while making eye contact with Virgil If they have western vs eastern orators though you've got it
I was really hoping for a bit of Locke Hobbes and Rousseau. Also you dont exactly have to believe in god to believe in natural law, Grotius was the first in the 17th century to push a secular natural law.
@@jthemagicrobot3960 that makes absolutely no sense, athiesm only makes some sense through nihilism. Nihilism denys the existence of absolute truth which goes against your claim that athiesm somehow leads to virtue
@@marlonmunguia163 atheism splits to two different paths one as you state nihilism / hedonism the other is totally control of self. it is this path that causes you to adopt certain behaviors which ironically resemble in action that of Christianity (or how Christianity was). Actually think about what it means to have no god. ps I'm not an atheist and I understand this.
@@jthemagicrobot3960 the other side sounds more like Buddhism than anything, controlling ones emotions immensely. There is no logical reason for an athiest to adopt a moral code, this is because there is no reason for an athiest to believe in absolute truth. It makes man an animal instead of a creature that has an immortal soul which is believed by Christians. Athiests can be moral, but it would go contrary to their belief that there is "no God"
I don't really think you gave the is-ought problem justice. It's not really about the bias of assigning ought based on how things are (or have been), but more of the inherent logical leap that is frequently taken when reasoning from how the world IS to how the world OUGHT to be. Basically, it's not clear how we get from IS to OUGHT, and this is a fundamental problem.
The world is in the state "x". In this "x", it exists a guy with the desire A, and this desire is stronger than all the other desires he has. So, the world, for the guy, ought to be in the way that desire A is satisfying. Ought from is. Am I wrong?
Yes, you are still using the word ought to mean simply that things are. The problem of the natural law fallacy is that one assumes that we can derive something without spacial-temporal features from that which is inseparable from them. When one says that something ought to be a certain way they are saying that it should be that way irrespective of how it is in any sense being now or later. The line of reasoning you just used could be used to justify murder without even discussing what is to be the object of ethics; that is because to natural law the object is simply that which is and nothing more. The central concern for the natural law theorist in morality is diametrically oposed to how human beings experience morality. You wouldn't say that something is right simply because it happened, would you? In your own example you devised a hierarchy of intensity for desire, and natural law theorsits generate a similar hierarchy (like Aquinas did)for relative goods to amend this. However, is it not then, something intrinsic to the nature of the goods by which we make moral judgements, and not by the arbitrary metric of how something is that we judge? This is why natural law tends to depend on god, because that lets them ignore the problem of the hierarchy. However, natural law theory still requires that one relinquish reason to a natural law fallacy in order to infer what those natural laws just so happen to be.
Excellent video! When I saw 7 basic goods, I thought "Oh no, the new natural law of Grisez and Finnis!" But the basic goods here are straight out of Thomas and have an order among them. Very impressive presentation! Still watching...
You know, even as an atheist, I do respect Thomas Aquinas' approach to rationality and reason. I do feel if he had an intellectual individual to lock horns with, verbally that is, they could have come up with some really nice stuff.
His colleagues in the seminary called him the "dumb ox" because he was big and didn't like talking in front of the class. Then one day he helped out a classmate who was struggling to explain something and stunned the whole class (except the teacher who'd been marking his papers).
I am an atheist but this one is good enough to me. It sounds a lot like evolution and natural selection and if you don't put an omniscient entity (god) into the picture and accept that everything, including nature can be flawed at times but generally works out ok, I think this theory basically nailed it.
I want to know what the conversation was like when the writer(s) realized they could frame Aquinas's message in the form of DFTBA. I imagine there was giggling.
Thank you Crash Course, for making the unintelligible, fictitious babble of my ethics class digestible enough to get me through this quarter- I cannot express my appreciation enough!!!
How to make burger 1. Use Freshly Ground Beef. 2. Keep Everything Really Cold. 3. Don't Futz With Your Meat. 4. Do Not Salt Beef Until Patties Are Formed. 5. Form Matters. 6. Season Liberally. 7. Flip Your Burger as Often as You Like. 8. Use a Thermometer.
Love your videos but I wish you had also introduced philosophers such as Ibn Sina (Avicenna), Ibn Rushd (Averroes- he actually influenced a lot of Aquinas' work), and Al-Ghazali.
It's disturbing what was advertised by cigarette manufacturers years ago. We have government regulations that prevent such misinformation and lying in tobacco product ads in the United States. We also benefit from laws that restrict tobacco companies from marketing to children. Unfortunately, in many countries today the same "Big Tobacco" corporations that used to market aggressively to children in the U.S., such as Philip Morris and RJ Reynolds etc.., continue to market tobacco and cigarettes to children and spread misleading ads to all ages because they do not have the same laws.
Ahhh...I love this chanel.Finally achanel which providew us significant amount of knowledge about how our life and the ralations between us work.more generally philosophy!!!!
This is definitely my favorite Crash Course series! You're awesome, Hank! =) Can't wait for next week. I've studied Kant's approach to morality and ethics in school and it has been my favorite since then. Can't wait to see what you have to say about it!
Nowadays, it's scary that people still believe in that, but it was without a doubt a great progress at the time, explaining evolution and some individual or group behaviour before we could know about evolution and cognitions!
I have several issues with aquinas, first: as I mentioned in an earlier video, his assumption that God is at the head of everything because he is God falls apart with denial of God's existence, second, his "basic goods" don't explain mental conditions such as suicidal urges, addiction or psychopathy (if "instinct" is inherently good, then is it not a sin to fight against suicidal urges or addictive tendencies? additionally what if you have no moral compass? are you incapable of sinning or is your mere existence a sin itself?), I have respect for him as an intellectual of his time but in the end he's a one trick pony and most if not all of his arguments fall apart with any serious thought given to the nonexistence of god or lack of morality (side note: for any fervent religious types reading this, I'm not attempting to prove or disprove God's existence, this is all for the sake of argument, while I don't consider myself particularly religious as far as strict adherence to any of the Abraham faiths, I do have my own beliefs as to the existence of God and the origins of the universe)
his explanation for endowment of inherent awesomness also doesn't entirely account for other cultures, entirely foreign cultures like the vikings(to use an example from his time period), how would he account for their almost inherent desire for violence (they literally have to die in battle to achieve paradise)? is their lust for violence inherently good because it's instinctual? or are they all sinners because they don't adhere to his value of life? if that's the case must he not throw out his basic goods concept entirely?
I think it does tie back into it. You have to add time to do this. Otherwise if you were to start this world you explained, without time it wouldn’t work. Adding time though is as follows; Preservation of life we all want to live. Ideally suicidal and addictive mental states urged people to death with time. Eventually leading people to realize these mental states weren’t right. To some before christ these were seen as evil spirits, or witchcraft. With time and after the enlightenment era you had mental conditions. Sin on the other hand is far different biblically. You must go further into the Bible and study it. I myself am beginning to believe. Before I doubted too much about life, I questioned why people died if God sent Jesus Christ. Why I had feelings I couldn’t let go. Then one night I said maybe I should try. I prayed, the next day my loneliness vanished.
by the way i love your page you are doing a better job at teaching me this stuff than my professor. i showed your page to everyone in my class and they all agree
This theory makes far more sense if you use evolution by natural selection as the driver instead of a divine entity: 1. Survival is primary, because you need to be alive to reproduce. 2. Reproduce, because that is the purpose of life (in the eyes of natural selection) 3. This is where the animal kingdom gets pretty divided. Some species just poop out an offspring and then run off to continue there reproduction rampage, and other parents stick around to ensure that their brood survive long enough to continue the process. Humans, in that regard, spend about 18 years doing this because as a society we've determined that's how long it takes for the average human to reach "Adulthood". 4. Aquanis says Find God here. I think instead it should Find Greater Meaning, and I would argue that it only applies to Humans. I have nothing to justify this, but there's a good chance (in my opinion) that during human evolution our intelligence reached a point where the Big Questions (Why am I here, What is my purpose, What happens when I die?) impacted our abilities to function as a society. I think religion is actually a bi-product of naturally selected intelligence, and is why it's so readily accepted by humans throughout the world. It's far easier to run a society if everyone in it bows down to those who can't be questioned. 5-7 Are easy to tie into the concept that we are social beings, evolving from groups of nomadic primates. Wolves and other pack animals don't just constantly murder each other for shiggles (that's shits and giggles if you don't know), but there is also no evidence to suggest that they worship some kind of deity that gives those moral laws to them. Sorry, bit long winded here xD
This is a very well put together argument indeed. but if you base it off of evolution by natural selection, how do humans have the ability to reason? Or at least how do humans have the ability to reason while other animals don't?But it seems to me that the reason natural law theory is a theory that has to do with morals is that it was made in a way where we can use reason to differentiate what is right from what is wrong. I may just be putting my foot in my mouth by saying this though because I don't know the specifics of evolution haha. Like I said at the beginning, this is very well thought out, I just had some questions. Thanks :p
In 3. I would argue that it has been the intention of those who weild the levers of power, to keep humanity as daft as possible? In reality parental engagement has been extended to death?
Natural law wasn't so much proposed by St Thomas Aquinas as it was adopted and explained by him. The concept of natural law is known as far back as the Vedic period in India.
Masloves hierarchy od needs has a place in natural law theory. People violate it for multiple reasons. Mostly because there is a confliction somewhere and people priorities different things. Also people some people are more inclined to feel a sense of empathy than others
Will you guys discuss the theory of natural rights? I know this is more political thought then philosophic, but it's natural law and natural rights that gave us the bases for much of our justice and governmental systems and even the development of human rights.
Cero Balam Oh dear. Then we'll get all the self-important young men who definitely understand what he was really getting at in the comments. It's like a light version of Rand supporters. Luckily, we won't be covering Rand because this is a series on philosophy.
