A fine one to talk about ethics when he used to hit kids. Anyway, this is just Apophatic theology.

A fine one to talk about ethics when he used to hit kids. Anyway, this is just Apophatic theology.

A fine one to talk about ethics when he used to hit kids. Anyway, this is just Apophatic theology.

wow this is so helpful, thank you

Hume doesn't discuss anything being 'synthetic' or 'analytic', though you attribute this to him. The bulk of the video is explaining how Hume does this, so it's got to be redone. Sorry. The relation of Kant to Hume is worth quibbling about.

I agree with you that there is a time and place for everything under the sun even anger righteous indignation at the right person at the right time to the right degree like in the Bible when it says in your anger do not sin. But I would also have to agree that about 99% of the time our anger is unwarranted we’re just impatient and frustrated also I would also disagree with the stoics on evil that people if they just knew better would not be the way they are that may be true in some cases but in others people know exactly what their doing and even take pleasure in the evil that they do.

There is so muçh struggle in past

I’m curious about where/when did he say that the point of the Tractatus was ethics?

Great video. I have a Philosophy exam this week and this is really helpful for understanding the readings. Thank you

Did it occur to you that if you understood 4D logic that you would find no paradox?

Ethics in the sense of non-cognitivism or am I way off

his view on space and time is similar (if not identical) to what people with NDE's say about space and time and i think that people in the comment section here might be having a hard time following his arguments due to limited experience with "common experience"-defying experiences and cannot see the "shape" in which all their experiences are contained. it is hard for them to imagine that space and time are the lens and not the thing itself. once you've had personal experience with a twitch in your normal perceptions, this video becomes easier to understand, if i am understanding it correctly!

this 10-year-old video is amazing. Thank you!!!

You know, what if a self-interest is benign because someone has a good soul ? What if someone is only love and empathy, then what ? It’s about the kind of self-interest someone got.

You sound like James Woods.

The Socratic method.

very good presentation, but wait a minute. there are computer-generated graphics and then there is chicken scratch. Those handwritten "forms" are very far away from the "good". in fact, i can't even read most of them. may i suggest keeping the blue graphics, keeping your narrative but reworking the chicken scratch with type and easily found graphics in almost any program or app. thanks

11 years ago but just in time for me to lead a presentation on Kant, thank you!!

I liked your examples on circular reasoning, kinda made my brain lag.

People keep being born can we say that's a crushing probability it's like a one in trillion chance to be born There's less than 1 trillion people on the face of the Earth ? Would it be safe to say it's by a Divine God design that people are even born? Yes people have to be born or not be born why does it happen every single day? Fibonacci sequence/ numbers in nature

If this is an accurate description of Hume's argument, it seems to have numerous holes.

hey thank you - still learning from this 10 years since you made it!

All the more reason politics is first philosophy

Knowledge is knowing a thing. It doesn't matter if it's true or not. What does it mean to have knowledge? It is the basis for which we make informed decisions. Whether the information we hold is accurate or less so is inconsequential to the state of having knowledge. What is truth? Truth is a concept of accurate information.

Thank you for another excellent video! Although you mention you are not a teacher like Socrates or Jesus, still, you're an excellent lecturer! Surely both Socrates and Jesus would like as many people as possible to hear your lectures. Thanks again.

for exercise 3, if i had made that claim and you asked me that question, couldnt I just say "my claim does not say anything wether or not fish are the only animal that swim, only that a fish is an animal and that fish swim"?

Plato: Reason / Appetite / Emotion is somewhat similar to Buddhism: Ignorance / Desire / Aversion which gets turned around to Wisdom / Generosity / Loving-Kindness. I guess Reason wound be the bridge between the parts that make the whole since Plato was always appealing to reason, not emotion, though it is possible that reason can indirectly invoke emotion. In any case a beautiful lesson that philosophy is not just coldly logical but also does have a soul / psyche.

You better be vegan.

You tube i don't care

Ooops. The unknowable world is the world of the "Ding an sicht selbst," the thing in itself as it is in itself. You can't know it because you don't have direct access to it. The noumenon is the idea of it created in/by your mind, your perception. And you cannot know that because there is nothing to know.

Glad to see you still doing philosophy :) you were always my favorite professor :)

Very much enjoyed this easy to follow video.

I started listening to a book on Kant on audible just like that and then in order the book to make more sense, i came to these brilliant lectures on the Kant. Hats off. I cannot say I understood everything, and understanding this sure is brain gymnastics. But What a stupendous clarity of mind! Never thought so deeply ever. Thank you. It was a pleasure going through the 4 lectures.

Thanks for the video. Inspiration to focus more on being than having. I feel I will be coming back to this.

thanks for the lecture prof, do you have all 10 videos for te 10 books please thanks

I don't see why adding 2 quarts to 2 quarts is 4 quarts is a posteriori?

RIP professor Pasternack

This is exactly how I thought it out also! LOL

Water is life people drink up 💦

Plato is supposing that if each person is moral in a society, then happiness will be the result for more people.

Commas are important!

You know what's interesting, when you talked about needing careful to ensure that we make exceptions for rules that should have exceptions; Allow me to slide into a brief philosophical discussion for a moment. This is why I have a serious problem with laws as they currently stand. Not just specific laws, but the concept of law in general. Now please I am not asserting that we should have no laws at all in society, that we should be a totally lawless, totally chaotic, totally formless society. First of all I don't think any of those have ever existed in human history and I'm not suggesting that we try to create one now. However I do have a problem with what I see in the US as too much law. The very essence of law states that something should always exist or something should never be allowed and anyone who violates this deserves to be punished in some fashion. Am I the only one that has a problem with this? I would certainly agree that a few minimal laws are important to the basic function and well-being in our society but the moment you step beyond that, I feel you start to create problems. Wonder if anyone else here agees. The essential concept of a law is absolutism and I'm not so sure I agree that most rules should be absolute. I can see a legitimate or agreeable exception to almost every law I've ever known in my lifetime, or every policy, or every procedure, and yet because of malicious political agendas (imo) no exceptions are allowed. I would definitely say on the political spectrum I lean towards left-based minarchism. With few exceptions I always feel that the best government is one that governs least. I believe that with rare exceptions human beings have the right to control themselves and make their own decisions; otherwise why are we here? Are we animals or are we people? Of course, as always, the devil's in the details and I do have my exceptions and of course we need to set aside some usable procedures and basic organization as we already have, but just as a basic governing principle that is where I stand. Just curious if anyone else here has ever felt like this. I literally oppose the concept of law in most, but not all, situations. Laws are absolutes and life is way too complicated and sometimes unfortunate to not produce a situation which in my eyes would either partially or fully justify a certain action that some authority somewhere would claim shouldn't be allowed. How can we choose to govern without allowing for understandable exceptions???

Are you now telling me there's no corn in water?!?!?! ... ...... Sir, Im disappointed in you

Now I'm addicted to watching fallacy videos Yt brings interesting things to us 😂

wow great job with this !

A pacifist, should not be giving a lecture on ethical egoism, because he does not mention, self respect, courage drive and will. He is conflating egoism with predation, and only conflicting with altruism, left out "ethical" part, which means leadership not following. Ethical egoism has nothing to do with rape, which is mentioned 20 times.

I alone have solved this problem.

Christ Shall Rule ♥️

Very well done.

Nature worship is only right religion.