Good stuff. Consider It’s electricity and magnetism. Terrence Howard is talking about it. His Joe Rogan experience appearances are astounding. He shows new shapes
No one who fundamentally can’t understand why 1 x 1 = 1 and not 2 should be taken seriously in science/mathematics. That’s like 2nd grade basics that TH absolutely whiffs. Just because an idea seems “out there” and “novel” doesn’t mean it’s worth looking into or respecting. Loons say crazy stuff all the time that people with stunted critical thinking skills would eat up if said loon was as famous as TH. There are good reasons why only people like Joe Rogan and his regular listeners take TH seriously.
What is a philosopher? Do they have to hold an academic pedigree? Can anyone question reality without ending up a rambling stoner or deranged mental patient? lol idk but this was a very well made video. You clearly know what you’re talking about and that type of mastery is always fun to see.
Thanks for the comment! In the past, studying philosophy was a usual part of the curriculum for well-educated (and wealthy) people. Today, it is mostly pursued by academic researchers, as in any other discipline. But of course, there are many different notions of what makes a philosopher. Researching philosophy doesn't necessarily make you a philosopher :) There is a cool book on this subject by Pierre Hadot, "Philosophy as a Way of Life." Many philosophers throughout the ages have questioned the existence of reality. Today's doubts about that are often expressed through examples like: the problem of living in a simulation or the brain in a vat scenario. A particularly strong philosophical position on this matter is 'solipsism' (the idea that only one's own mind is sure to exist), but today I don't think anyone truly believes that, it's more like a mental exercise.
Ogólnie zastanawia mnie, czemu filozofia w sumie ogranicza się jedynie do myśli zachodniej... Filozofia chińska kończy się na Konfucjuszu, i nie wiem, czy to nie z tego powodu, że taki Laozi jest asocjowany z ruchem religijnym, czy coś... A pretty sure, że tak traktuje się całą indyjską tradycję filozoficzną, bo przecież każdy tam był praktykującym yoginem, co jest kryterium dyskwalifikującym z bycia filozofem. No, więc wylewam swoją frustrację w nadziei, że poruszysz wątek cokolwiek :). Quality vid btw
Dzięki za komentarz! Filozofia zawsze do pewnego stopnia była odbiciem swoich czasów, przesiąknięta kulturą miejsca i epoki. Przykładem jest chociażby przesiąknięta chrześcijaństwem filozofia średniowiecznej Europy. Rzeczywiście, filozofia wschodnia jest mało obecna na zachodnich uniwersytetach, a różnice kulturowe z pewnością odgrywają tu dużą rolę. Głównym powodem jest to, że mają one zupełnie inny charakter filozofowania. W dużej mierze filozofia wschodnia ma charakter mądrościowy i praktyczny, co odróżnia ją od bardziej systematycznego podejścia filozofii zachodniej. Silne poleganie w taoizmie i buddyzmie na introspekcji i subiektywizacja filozofowania mają działanie dyskredytujące z perspektywy zachodu. W dzisiejszym dyskursie filozoficznym, który jest silnie znaturalizowany i analityczny, różnice kulturowe stają się jednak mniej znaczące.
If we set PRACTICAL PREVENTION OF ALL EVIL (defined exhaustively as DISASTERS, PREDATION, DISEASES ~ which include all birth defects, all weapons manufacture, all violence ~ and DEATH) as the sole purpose cum criterion of proof of all knowledge, then whatever assumptions as to existences that enable achieving this goal would be the 100% accurate answer to this historic question forever. Not realizing this fact that "purpose free search for knowledge would lead us nowhere" is the reason why human race as a whole, from antiquity to present day, from Thales of Miletus to Stephen Hawking and still continuing, is yet to derive the mathematical model of the mechanism for even a single natural phenomenon that could PREDICT accurately when it could harm life function, let alone PREVENT such. When one doesn't know where one wants to go no road can be wrong, neither can any be right. That has always been (and still, of course, IS) the fate of all hitherto search for knowledge of the entire human race, with the ideal : KNOWLEDGE FOR ITS OWN SAKE OUT OF CURIOSITY.
Thank you for sharing your thoughts! Interesting perspective that a purpose-free search for knowledge leads to stagnation. The practical prevention of all evil seems compelling, but surely unrealistic. I think that some people just like to be evil, or do evil things for the sake of being good.
@@nikodemlewandowski379 The goal mentioned above certainly is NOT an easy task. It involves a total reset of the fundamentals of current mathematics and particle physics to derive the mathematical model of the mechanism how particle interactions inside the earth develop PLANTS on its own surface, to then deliver and sustain living beings here through them. This earth is the only vessel in the entire known universe that manufactures living bodies in its bowels, delivers and sustains them on its own surface through the PLANTS it develops for that purpose. Understanding this mechanism implies discarding the sustenance of life irrelevant assumptions in almost all branches of current science, including The Cartesian System of Coordinates, the positive and negative directions of which, when applied to the center of the earth, has ABSOLUTELY NO PHYSICAL MEANING, the Copernican assumption that this earth is a mediocre ball of mass that revolves stupidly around a star without any relevance to how that elaborately calculated motions of celestial bodies serve to sustain life here, and the Standard Model of particles, where only the photon has any direct relevance to life function. So called natural sciences completely ignore life function as irrelevant for its investigations, while biology and the so called social sciences lack any fundamental principles to analyze how plants develop from soil due to particle interactions inside the earth. Once the absurd Cartesian System of Coordinates is substituted with a particle physics compatible system of arithmetic and geometry, many things nobody ever imagined as possible, like compelling lions and tigers to survive only on plant sources would become a reality. If one assumes a priori positive results that we desire are impossible, as you mentioned in your response, then there is no purpose in wasting time, efforts and funds searching for knowledge. It is far more rational then to enjoy life as much as possible instead, and let events flow whatever way nature (or god or whichever other name one prefers to call The Cruel Brute that created and sustains all the evil) decides they should.
Imagine: You making up a pink elephant. Then tell someone about it. Next ask quation that person : " what is a hight of elephant?". Next after hundreds years of seeking " truth " one can tell... man what you talking about? Or more precisely " you can not find, prove or describe concept - they are only in your mind". As simple as that. Amen.
Thank you for sharing your thoughts! It reminds me of the philosophical debate around whether concepts have any reality outside of our minds. While it's true that some concepts are entirely abstract, others can represent things we experience in the physical world. Surely a challenge within metaphysics.
The nature of reality is as such it shouldn't be questioned reality is our surroundings we accept it the human mind is not able to comprehend it for once in philosophy there must be acceptance regarding a topic and no questions asked. We all shall have our own perceptions and accept each other as their own for everyone has their own reality.
Thank you for your comment! It raises an important point about the nature of reality. The nature of reality, how it works, is not obvious, which is why we delve into these questions in philosophy. You mention acceptance of our surroundings as reality, but philosophical inquiry examines for example: whether reality consists of one substance or two (monism vs. dualism). Idealism, in particular, argues that reality is fundamentally mental, challenging the notion that our surroundings are purely physical. Naturalism, by contrast, maintains that everything arises from natural causes and properties. While acceptance of the existence of reality is reasonable and valuable, philosophical exploration helps us better understand the complexities and nuances of reality.
But to what extent? Do we listen to the church and refuse to question their leadership because they obviously speak for god? Or is religion potentially a human construct? We need to question reality to reach this level of scrutiny
@@Mustachioed_Mollusk there is a thin line between objection rejection and questioning you can reject if it doesn't feel ok you can question if it affects you but you can not object unless you are not affected my statement stands for the present where most are allowed to follow their free will and to that I stand with keeping your reality to yourself.