I mess with this guy heavy

Everyone who wants to be a snail is already slow. ⬇️

I was sceptical right until the pop quiz at the end. That quiz was convincing!

Maths makes sense in itself because that's how it has been created but it doesn't have any great objective power beyond human comfort.

it was fun.

Does Jeffrey Kaplan, in his very popular KZbin video, use an example of the Liar Paradox to illustrate Russell's Paradox?

Now am addicted to the channel

Sounds like he had to much time on his hands . Language does exist in a vacuum . People use it to convey thoughts or information in context agreed upon by a certain society . This over analytical approach offers nothing of practical value .

Amazing lecture and incredible explanation! And I totally respect how you write everything backwards to make students understands. But with all due respects, I must apply my philosophical knowledge to state that there're some loose logic in these statements which I found as a gap to trully grasp Plato whom I admire. Statement 1: Piety is because of the gods love virtuous actions Statement 2: The gods love piety because it is virtuous. The logic appearly works here as it is because of the attributes because the gods love. No problems with that. But as religion developed into monotheism, this logic no longer works. Statement 1 : It is virtuous because God loves and value virtue. Statement 2: God loves because piety is virtuous. Now we hve to consider the fact of the new informations that greek gods never created the world. Rather they were born from it. But the monthiestic idea is that God created everything ad its attributes. So there should be three statement and which supports statement 1 debunking the logical sequence followed in the video. Now one can argues that God can make any acts even the nasty ones as virtuous and good ones as vices. But that would contradict the whole new information (if you based on monothiestic judeo christian view) that God is utterly disconnected from sin, the godlessness which causes vices. Then the final answer resulted in God hates vices because it is not from him but of sin, the void of godlessness. I also perceived you mentioned abraham test of faith by God on the mountain of issac in the od testament. Interestig example but I must argue fairly that the story does not make sense without context. Issac was the seed promised to Abraham by Yahweh, his God and it was called convenant, a divine promise. He did it because he knows no matter what, the seed will be from Issac as the convenant stated which conflict the state of action which he beleives in his God's faithfulness. And of course, Issac was not killed. I just had a little problem with those two examples but otherwise iteresting lecture.

Many are missing a set of balls.

poor guy… the answers you’re so desperately looking for are in the bible brother

Dude discovered lier’s paradox from scratch in a fancy way

How can this theory be put in parallel with Roland Barthes' 'signifiant' and 'signifié' ? Is it the same ?

I will die on this hill. There is no reason to substitute swear words with something “benign.” all you’ve done is make a different sound with your mouth. Everyone knows he’s not a son of a biscuit.

Interesting to think that if the innocent person knows that if the Sherif doesn't go through with the framing, aren't they at least partially responsible for the deaths, injuries, and destruction resulting from the ensuing riot? So are they actually still innocent at that point? 😉

I read Douglas Hofstadter's book, "The Mind's Eye" where he presents parts of Nagle's article with comments by him and and Thomas. That would just not stick with me. I would read it, and an hour later, I had trouble explaining it to other people. This is a lot easier to wrap my head around. I think I will have a better concept of this now.

In my opinion mr kaplan is just doing what all advertisers does , "say the same thing in a different way" and i have to say it worked on me . He introduced a concept by going against a common belief system, typical Copywriting/marketing tactic and with the amount of views and comments , it worked. 😅

Blew my mind

This sentence is not false.

Putting people in prison because they are having gay sex? Prison? You mean where they keep people of all the same gender (assigned at birth) and rarely allow conjugal visits? Where if they are sexually active with others, it can only be gay sex? Yeah, whoever thinks that's a good idea really needs to cut down on the autoerotic cranial insertions.

wow

Amazing! Thank you! ❤

Thank you! 🎉

or maybe im just high asfuth

Could it not be as simple as this: for a set to be a set it must have a referent? And what one thinks one is imagining with a set of all sets that doesn’t include itself has no referent, not even in imagination.

Apparently the algorithm thinks I have no ethics because I tapped "new to you" and it showed me "an introduction to ethics" 😂

Listen, abstractions are is great. But saying that a list of specific buildings is not a helpful answer is an absolutely horendous way to think. As humans we need both forms of thinking.

Allow me to simplify things with a single sentence. The One Commandment: No soul should influence any affect upon any other soul, whether by assertion or passivity, absent anointed defense or mutual consent. Things are not what they seem. Someone you have all been waiting for a very long time is working from the woods to clean things up, and he is Here, waiting for you all. ❤

Does it skip Jeff's notice that God is in a different category than the other examples...Man no wonder America is getting screwed by Satanist's...Jeff is missing the obvious...

superb!

Loved it!

If it’s important, I write it on my Palm Pilot. My left hand.

is this dude writing inverse from his side?

this gave me Vsauce vibes for some reason.

Plato was a beginner kzbin.info/www/bejne/poOYmWasg6h8btU

I'm a bad person for how much I'm still laughing at the guy getting sent to the hospital by such a... ridiculous sentence. You'd think he read that his whole family died in a boating accident from watching.

I'll put my cards on the table right away: I believe meta-ethics is a mistake. Instead of adding to our understanding of morality it takes away from it by increasing our confusion. This problem doesn't arise so much from the multiplicity of ethical theories, or the difference of opinion over what is good or bad; it is, in my view due to taking for granted that we are always already in a moral system which we understand from a sense of personal commitment to the moral rules. These are rules that everyone knows, that apply to everyone, and that everyone agrees if anyone violates they should merit some degree of punishment. Moral rules come in the form of prohibitions, such as, do not murder, do not deceive, and requirements, such as, keep your promises, and obey the law. Generally people agree with these rules. People who systematically disagree are usually psychopaths, and we do our best to exclude them from our society. Talking about "normative facts" is still a descriptive view of normativity. It takes for granted that we are always living within normative systems, when what we should be doing is understanding it from within the system because we are within the system. Normativity fundamentally pervades all human life, and is inescapable. Think of the language we speak and write in everyday. If you make grammatical mistakes, semantic mistakes, or spelling mistakes, it's likely other persons will correct you, and show you how to do it right. This is living in a normative system. We shouldn't be dividing ethics into normative vs meta-ethics. We should be dividing it up between morality and ethics. There is almost no disagreement that it is wrong for anyone to murder in most circumstances, or that everyone ought to keep their promises in most circumstances, or that people merit punishment if they murder someone. In contrast, there is plenty of disagreement about ethics: i.e., what is the greatest good, how we should achieve the good life, whether and to what extent we should be helping our neighbours, who do we include as ethical subjects. Arguing about whether there are objective moral facts or not will never change the facts on the ground. If I believe in moral error theory, that doesn't mean I can escape giving or receiving moral judgement because that is inescapable living in human society. Philosophy is stuck in this meta-ethical mire because Aristotle's "moral" philosophy took morality for granted, possibly in reaction to Socrates' execution for "corrupting the youth" and ignored moral prohibitions and requirements; it concentrated instead on developing character and virtue. You cannot understand ethics if you leave out morality.

Too much assumed logical dignity since most communication is but swindle of unfounded intellectual integrity. Scriptural concordance has replaced intellectual integrity since the ancient Greek symposia.

Im just going to call this a "subjective linguistic cul-de-sac" meaning that there is no basis for shared truth. We can create absurdisty and confuse it with uncertainty, rationalism should lead a person to conclude that preposterous things exist... If we determine them to exist.

These videos are fantastic! Thank you so much! 🎉

Nice lecture👍

My answer- virtue and holiness are characteristics of a holy and perfect God. God came to Earth as a man and lived a holy and perfect virtuous life through Christ. The closer we imitate God and His characterics, the closer we are to virtuous.

wow, so you say that to retain information from books i have to think about it? no way

Nah...BS. 'Is a cat' - in this domain it is a subject- not a predicate. Bruh.. Spare the bs. Your arguments are inconsiderate of the separate domains hence inconsistent. You basically solved nothing.

Colossians 2:17 “Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.” Cause n Effect.

banger vid

Why is this dude glazing LeBron sooooo hard

Who’s on first?

They aren't Arabic numerals. The Indians invented them, and the concept of Zero (Shunya) first appeared in the Harrapan civilisation, North West India. The Muslims took the idea from Bharat.

Glad vsauce grew his hair out again