An Overview of Metaphysics

This video introduces the sub-discipline of academic Philosophy known as Metaphysics as well as some of the main problems examined in the field. Philosophy of Mind, Philosophy of Religion, universals, causation, determinism, and others.

[@1234Daan4321]

Never has this subject been this clear to me. Consider me subscribed.

[@ALittleBitofPhilosophy]

Hi 1234Daan4321! I"m so glad you found the video helpful. That was my point in sharing them beyond my classes. Keep thinking!

[@jacobc8722]

I was lucky to have Dr Vaughan as a professor in college, I learned a lot of awesome things and so glad he has a channel and website to continue sharing knowledge! I love Sophie!

[@AngelShoaga-el7vf]

I've battled with understanding philosophical concepts, but all my problems ended the moment I saw this video, thanks a lot for the effort ☺️.

[@mzwakhemcsivion4447]

The greatest lesson I learnt in this video, is the fact that bad attempts lead to bad temptation but proper care for information and resources drives to divinity.

[@fellipemiranda605]

I really appreciate your clarity of speach, your explanations and the well organized topics. There are many philosophic terms that I've been hearing and now I'm understanding its concepts and where they set in. Thank you, Dr. Barry. You are been listened from south Brazil.

[@ALittleBitofPhilosophy]

Thanks for the kind comments! I'm glad my videos have helped you. Keep thinking!

[@chasingshangrila]

💯

[@jacquelinewolf-xw8cs]

I am so happy that I found your wonderful lectures. Thank you for making them available.

[@kj4242]

I feel lucky to have found this podcast.

[@harvisingh6671]

Fantastic Video , i cant wait to play the next one.

[@socraticignorance851]

Ily. this is what i needed. I hope I don't have to watch your whole channel but I will if I have to

[@shafouingue]

👏 Thank you, very clear presentation

[@robertobomfin3787]

Good job Barry! Thanks for sharing.

[@ALittleBitofPhilosophy]

Thanks, Roberto! I made these for the classes I teach, but was convinced to share them openly on KZbin so others could benefit from them as well. They're really basic, but I've has a great response from people the world over who have found them to be useful as they begin to explore Philosophy. I've been sort of overwhelmed by the response. Thanks again for watching and commenting.

[@havendotcom]

Thank you for the lectures

[@miriamawad850]

WOW Thank you so much for your effort...Amazing explanation and really helped me to understand all these notions concerning Metaphysics

[@ALittleBitofPhilosophy]

Thanks for watching and commenting, Miriam! I'm glad my videos were helpful.

[@farhanrafid8584]

Nicely explained

[@echogabriel1103]

I really loved this! Thank you!!

[@ALittleBitofPhilosophy]

Hi Echo. I'm glad you liked it!

[@ryrez4478]

Great presentation!

[@ALittleBitofPhilosophy]

I'm glad you enjoyed it!

[@wisdomseeker3937]

Excellent channel.

[@ALittleBitofPhilosophy]

Thanks for your kind comments. It's my hope that these brief videos can help introduce more people to the basic concepts, issues, and possible solutions in Academic Philosophy.

[@fr.wilbright7348]

Big salute to the narrator.... Thanks a lot

[@ALittleBitofPhilosophy]

Thanks!

[@chitrachannelvlog4822]

I hope the voice real human not AI, glad i drop by this video, cheers from Singapore. 🙏🙏🙏

[@xinyorixahumba6307]

This is so helpful, thank you very much.

[@ALittleBitofPhilosophy]

You are most welcome! Keep learning!

[@DamaKubu]

Lovely summary, highly accessible.

[@ALittleBitofPhilosophy]

Thanks for watching and commenting!

[@gijs5443]

Hi I’m loving your videos! I thought a possible solution for the determinism free will problem, is that there is free will, but it freely follows always exactly the deterministic outcome. Free will is weird anyway. You can choose to act to what you want, but you can’t choose what it is you want. You can ofcourse change what you want. But the changing must then be motivated by another want. I don’t really get the desire for free will, you’d have the ability to change your core motivation. But what for? Shouldn’t there be a motivation to want to change that? My solution is to see free will as a contained thing. An idea, that to assume that it exists, is practical for morality and adds meaning to life, but limited to your body and mind. Your conciousness might not be responsible for the crime, but your body and mind is, and we choose how to deal with bodies and minds for societal benefit. Anyway I’m sure this whole comment will become redundant once I watch more on this series. Thank you for the detailed lectures.

[@raghu_yadav_yt]

Very good explanation with useful images and some funny notes. Thank you. 😊🙏👍

[@ALittleBitofPhilosophy]

Thank you for the very kind comments!

[@misraibrahim6362]

dear god! thank you for having philosophy!

[@ALittleBitofPhilosophy]

Thanks for watching and commenting!

[@slimshady4life689]

Something I’ve always thought about before I even knew what determinism was is: If my parents never met and had me then it would be logical to say that I wouldn’t exist. In a world where I didn’t exist, would someone else somewhere else in the world be born and grow to have my exact personality? My exact beliefs, characters traits, behavior patterns? Would that person be me or not? Even though we look different physically we’re share the exact same “soul” or personality. Think of two iPhones which are the exact same model but different cases. I don’t know if that’s a bad example but that’s the analogy I came up with. I’d be interested to know what people think.

[@peterclaver4475]

You're great

[@ALittleBitofPhilosophy]

I'm glad you found the video helpful! Thanks for watching.

[@munroescott33]

Causality is only determined in looking back in time. We have freedom in future action. Once acted , it is caused.

[@davidacharles1962]

Thank you!

[@ALittleBitofPhilosophy]

You're most welcome! Thanks for watching!

[@user-qp2xy5zs7r]

Thank you

[@edwardwoods3097]

You need to be much more popular!

[@ALittleBitofPhilosophy]

Thanks for your kind comments! I'm not seeking popularity, but do seek to popularize Philosophy! Thanks for watching.

[@Myshcan]

At 30:48: "How can I be the cause of that decision if my choices are uncaused events in the world. I'm actually no more responsible for them than I would be if they were part of the chain of causation proposed by determinism." I don't understand how taking a decision out the direct chain of causation means that there is no responsibility for that decision.

[@ALittleBitofPhilosophy]

You are exactly correct! Moral responsibility, as we ordinarily think of it, seems to evaporate under both Determinism, AND Indeterminism, so the latter isn't really a solution.

[@MegaSudjai]

Easy answer: you are responsible for the events in the cosmos that lead to your decision making process. In genomics, your programming is termed "DNA". In attachment theory, the term is "nurture". In cognitive psychology, the term is "Schemata". It's a type of "Paying it forward" given to you by your ancestors, and reinforced by the environment in which you are denizen. Such is Life.

[@mohdhussain4604]

Nicely explained...Thanks..can you please suggest which philosophy Book for beginners is good place to start 🙏

[@ALittleBitofPhilosophy]

Hi Mohd! I'd recommend starting by reading some of the great historical philosophers. Plato is always a good place to start. You can find inexpensive copies of his essential work via Amazon or other online book sellers and used book shops. You might start with the Penguin Classics series, "The Last Days of Socrates" which includes the "Euthyphro", "Apology", "Crito", "Phaedo". For Aristotle you can start with "On Politics" and the "Nicomachean Ethics". I would also recommend Epictetus "The Enchiridion" (or "the Manual for Life").

[@mohdhussain4604]

@@ALittleBitofPhilosophy Thank you very much for giving me the prompt and valuable response, speaks your kind nature and intellectual humility.impressed! Bless Rest vedios on philosophy of religion stimulates me enough to dive deep into the subject, would you please suggest 🙏🙏 book on philosophy of religion. Warm regards!

[@sebastianmosebach7249]

24:30 would this be writen as a ↔b ↔ c? And if so would a ↔c also be true? or would it be written a → c?

[@ALittleBitofPhilosophy]

Sure, I don't see why not. This video is designed to give the most basic introduction to these ideas, so they could undoubtedly be better! Thanks for commenting!

[@ovayongqungwana6145]

So matter is energy since Law of conservation of energy states that energy cannot be created nor destroyed but can be transferred? Make me understand

[@ALittleBitofPhilosophy]

Hi Ovayo! Sorry so long in responding to you. So, I'm a philosopher, not a physicist, so I'm going to be cowardly and duck your question. Let me recommend Sean Carroll's EXCELLENT series on KZbin where he does an outstanding job of exploring these fascinating, and sometimes difficult, questions. All the best!

[@Swagroth]

Very helpful video

[@ALittleBitofPhilosophy]

Glad it was helpful!

[@esdet105]

Free will can be explained by quantum physics, which does not fall under 'regular' physics.

[@ALittleBitofPhilosophy]

Hi Stephan! Thanks for commenting. Perhaps, but I don't think it's so simple. Quantum physics works in the realm of indeterminancy, while the macro world seems to be the opposite. This is, as I understand it, one of the great puzzles we are struggling with. How do we synthesize the two systems into a single complete explanation? It's far beyond my understanding, that's for sure!

[@esdet105]

@@ALittleBitofPhilosophy That I don't know, but if determinism were true, people's behaviour would be preditctable.

[@elvenatheart982]

Watching philososphy and metaphysiscs questions while making french fries-juat the usual Sunday afternoon .

[@ALittleBitofPhilosophy]

Thanks for watching and commenting. I'm glad you find the videos useful.

[@elvenatheart982]

@@ALittleBitofPhilosophy idk if useful is the right word but cerrainly thought provoking.

[@farhanrafid8584]

Make more videos please

[@ALittleBitofPhilosophy]

Thanks for the encouragement. I have several new videos I want to make, but I'm a full-time professor and I don't have a lot of time at the moment. Hold tight and thanks for watching!

[@JacquelineWolf-vi4zu]

The "wagging finger" comment is very funny!

[@ALittleBitofPhilosophy]

Thanks!

[@pavansingh6874]

Your voice is like our indian foriegn minister mr. Jayshankar...

[@ALittleBitofPhilosophy]

Is that a good thing? :-)

[@glendret]

6.19 - Hamlet get it all wrong: "To be or not to be?" isn't a question - we mush first know that it means "To be", ond only then can we hope to contemplate this contradiction... Hamlet not try "to contemplate a contradiction" but want to make a choice. Actually, no contradiction in his question. And definitely he knows that it means for him to be, he listed that it means, and also he listed that means "Not to be". He just want to decide. And if we want to think about the question "What is mean "to be?"", we shold gain the ground, from there to shart, considering that actually Hamlet said, and avoiding to miss his words or to somehow transform them unwilingly.

[@niaschimnoski882]

This is basically every single universe, in my oppinion. ---------------------------------------- Let N = Nothing. Let A = All present sets. Let T = True. Let F = False. Let P = Past. Let R = Present. Let F = Future. Let M = Motive Force. Let D = Decay rate. Let O = Initial output. Let H = Physical properties. Let K = Hot stroke. Let C = Cold stroke Let I = Iteration Let S = Iteration-space. Let L = Oscilator. ---Set of All Present Sets for undefined I--- N ⊂ A & A ⊂ N. (N = T) ⇒ (N = F) Λ (N = F) ⇒ (N = T). (P ≠ R) & (R ≠ F) & (F ≠ P). (P⊃R)&(P=(R-(R-P))&(F∉R)&(R∉F)&(F=1/R). I=(I+N+0+N). S⊂((N+N×I)×(I!)). P=(P+S) & R=(P+0+P) & F=(1/R). ---------------------------------- ------Similar Oscilator Subsets------- (M ⊂ D) & (M ⊂ O). (H ⊂ K) & (H ⊂ C). ((L=K×O)⇒(L=C)Λ(L=C)⇒(L=K×O))⇒(O=O×D) ----------------------------------- Basically since you can hide the second dimension in stripes within the first dimension, and so on and so fourth for all preceding dimensions, The only dimension you need is a time dimension, all other types of dimension should follow naturally after this. Nothing is essentially a binary oscilator with every property undefined. Because of this I posit that nothingness is the source of dimensionality, and all dimensional properties are described here-in. Note C and K can contain optional addititional code and binary or fuzzy truth values furthermore the rate of decay can be 0 or can be inverse (ie growth). Oscilators can contain multiple oscilators. Within K or C. The initial value is never defined because two parrallel oscilators perfectly out of phase operate always in parrallel (parrallel universes with opposite initial conditions). Remember even the most complicated digital computer is essentially just a chain of binary oscilators interfering with one-another. So if computers can do it this can do it. Except this platonic and has exponentially iterated expansion lasting indefinitely. I think infinity needn't be a number. Indefinity is larger than any number you know but unknown yet finite and countable. Just my 2 cents. I could be totally wrong but I just want to contribute in a meaningful way. PS: This species of logic I'm using assumes that the truth changes at the maximum speed of operation. Hence why N + N can either equal 0 or 2. Yet why N + 0 + N equals 1. This is because N changes after each operation. N+N may involve 2 or 3 actors, but it is one operation. Nothingness starts arbitrarily in either a false or true state and oscilates between the two states at the speed of thought/operation. So per operation: Truth itself changes. This is my solution to the Liar's paradox. A Liar is an oscilator. When a liar says "I'm Lying" they're lying, but they're telling the truth about the next moment and lying about the next next moment and so on. Truth can change. Infinity doesn't exist. An indefinitely large number is the largest number. It belongs to a self referential set that iterates upon itself and expands exponentially. Creating newer larger largest numbers upon each iteration. Each iteration may occur at each plancth time or perhaps a shorter ammount of time. Our universe's fastest clock signal and time resolution, isn't neccesarily THE FASTEST. It would be convenient. But are things usually so? This is how I see reality. It borders on being my religion.

[@subhajyotigoswami8095]

I'm sorry I haven't read all of this. But i think u have a astonishing knowledge behind this😱

[@Albertmars32]

18:54

[@phillipwilson8973]

And now I need an aspirin 😐😒

[@ALittleBitofPhilosophy]

:-)

[@credterfe]

Physics :- The time required for sunlight to reach Earth is 8 minutes 20 seconds. Metaphysics :- What is time ? Physics:- The storage space of the locker is calculated to be 96 cubic feet. Metaphysics :- What is space ?

[@TiagoFerreiraMarques]

The prime example of an indeterministic event is the Rebel.

[@gustavderkits8433]

Unfortunately, the books about physics had to be seriously revised by science and this caused problems with the ones after the ones on physics, leading to the problems of imaginary worlds, counterfactual arguments, and others. Quantum mechanics blasted holes in causality, or maybe it didn’t, if there are many worlds. We can only speak after we’ve defined the universe of discourse. Infinite regress?

[@ALittleBitofPhilosophy]

Hi Gustav! Thanks for commenting. I think, as long as we avoid the temptation to think we have definitively answered fundamental questions in "Science", I think we're on the right track. Probably the best we can ever hope for are models that more closely approximate the truth (whatever reality turns out to be). Of course, most professional scientists understand this, but we non-professionals can get lured into a false sense of certainty by the progress we've made over the past 400 years. Induction, of which the scientific method is an example, should only ever gives us approximations of certainty, which keeps us intellectually honest.

[@blahblahblacksheep6347]

@@ALittleBitofPhilosophy perfectly said.

[@boonga585]

34:48

[@raycosmic9019]

Metaphysical Realism: Reality = That which is/That I am. That which is, that is nothing in particular (actual), is by definition everything in general (potential). 0. Potential = Being 1. Actual = Becoming (actualized) What appears as separate and opposite, is in Reality - Continuum (hot and cold = temperature). Every choice we make generates a corresponding timeline of experience. Is the resulting narrative a limit or a creative guideline ? No wrong answer - only another choice. Creative Intelligence functions consciously and unconsciously simultaneously. Therefore, consciousness is what something does - not what something is. God is a title that we bestow upon our highest value. God = Creative Intelligence. Creative Intelligence is omnipresent. We are all It, to an unknowable/inexhaustible extent, as the facets of a Diamond are 'both' distinct from each other 'and' the Diamond itself. Love is the recognition of our shared Being.

[@JonuuMonte]

🥹👹👹🤩

[@farhanrafid8584]

Big tip to get more views: Philosophy of X Example: philosophy of matrix Philosophy of Rick and Morty Philosophy of Interstellar

[@ALittleBitofPhilosophy]

Thanks! At the moment, I'm primarily making content for students in my classes, but also decided to share with others. At some point I'm going to start focusing on building more viewership, but as I'm currently still teaching full-time, I don't want to promise more than I can deliver. Thanks for the kind comments and I promise to keep making videos as I get the time!

[@gregjones2217]

Philosophy is what you have when you don't know the truth.

[@ALittleBitofPhilosophy]

One of my student's a long time ago defined 'philosophy' as what people do to make money when they don't want to work. :-)

[@user-tu2xf4uf3n]

Thinking too much sucks ...

[@ALittleBitofPhilosophy]

:-)

[@ricliu4538]

Pretentious attempting to sound Cambridge..but comes of A's nasal dorky and weedy. Bad description of Metaphysika. The Etymology is boring😢

[@ALittleBitofPhilosophy]

Hi @ricliu4538. Sorry you don't like the sound of my voice, that's just what it sounds like. I was born and raised in Oklahoma and have been teaching introductory Philosophy in Arizona for the past 27 years. I've never been to Cambridge (Mass., or UK).

[@MichaelscadaverX]

😂😂😂😂 bro just destroyed the system so simply

[@faarsight]

God is not

[@ardiankasapi9174]

You are so wrong. You can NOT explain this only for one reason. You do NOT know the ALBANIAN language. The second reason is that jou do NOT know the SYMBOLIC ALGORYTHM (Petro Zheji theory). It is simple. You have te come immediatly at Albania, to learn ALBANIAN language. See you in Tirana.

[@elvenatheart982]

What

[@williammabon6430]

God has given us a gift. Let us share our present with the world. God do exist and the proof is in mathematics. Here is that proof. Infinity = 1/x(delta) + 1. This equation says a number, or any number is a set in space that change with space. It reveals how one number is different from any other number. In Number Theory this equation delineates the process as to how we count or measure anything using numbers. In physics this equation reads: Gravity is matter changing with space. It combines Relativity/fractured space with Quantum mechanics/spatial expansion and information/complete symmetry of a space. How dose God fit into this equation? This equation is God's mathematical name. God's name in this equation reads: God's Mind Is Man Changed With God. Breakdown: God's mind is infinite. In math this measure out as the set of infinity In math (1/x) represents a fraction of a whole. Any child is a fraction of a parent and man according to the Bible is God's child. Therefore, man is a fraction of God Change in math is represented by the Greek letter (delta) and it denotes a difference of some kind. Plus (+) in math means to combine or add something with something. There is only one God. In math the number 1 means something, or someone is complete and individual from all the rest. Spelled out: God's Mind (Infinity) is (=) Man (1/x) Changed (delta) With (+) God (1). Scientific Method Step 1 Observation: Math can deliver unbreakable truths such as 2+2 will always = 4 Step 2 Question: Do math and Divinity share a common truth? Step 3 Hypothesis: If God exist, He should be found in the house of mathematics. Step 4 Prediction: God's Mind Is Man Change With God is an equation Step 5 Test: Any number (Infinity) is (=) a set in space (1/x) that change (x^2) with (+) space (1)) Note: "X" describes any set, (1) describes any kind of space physical or otherwise This equation tells us why 2 feet is not the same as 2 inches. Both distances are measured out as 2 units of space but there is a change or difference between both units. They are each sets in a space of distance but they represent changes in their measurement of distance. Step 6 Iterate: New look at what makes up reality. Reality consists of 3 domains of space. a. Fractured space or matter b. spatial expansion or energy c. Complete or unbroken space Step 7 Conclusion: We now know Infinity is real therefore the value in enumeration demand God exists otherwise the domain for enumeration would be incomplete. We know the domain for enumeration is complete because we can count. God must be able to count too all the way to Infinity because His mathematical name tells us what is any number. I wrote a research doc looking deeper into this matter. Anyone who wants a free copy can contact me at: [e-mail] God's Mind Is Man Changed With God

[@williammabon6430]

@Devil's Logic Old enough to know when a team or a person needs help

[@tangerinesarebetterthanora7060]

You've made too many assumptions to effectively prove your point.

[@nauticaladventurer4460]

Although very admirable that philosophycal thought might be, the truth is the bills dont get paid by someone sitting idly by lost in thought. My concern is should everyone become a philosopher there wouldnt be any restaurants, grocery stores, barber shops, bus drivers, pilots, and all society would collapse. Then there would be no family, relationships or love. Just personal selfish thought. Thats not a healthy way of living. We need to be concerned with the well being of those around us and come together in peace, unity, and love. Philosophy is a total waste of time.

[@ALittleBitofPhilosophy]

I agree. We don't want everyone to be any one kind of thing. But, one doesn't have to be a professional philosopher to study Philosophy, apply it to their life and find benefit in it. Thanks for watching and commenting!

[@SisypheanRoller]

This has the same sort of energy as someone denigrating number theory as a purely abstract nonsensical branch of mathematics, right up until it began to power civilization through applications in cryptography, thanks to which you can do banking and all sorts of sensitive work on what is effectively a public communications channel. I would encourage you to broaden your mind and ponder on things for their own sake. I've personally had many benefits in the more practical aspects of life due to a lifelong habit of educating myself on things I know little about. You may be surprised to find similar benefits, if you decide to set aside your snap judgements and give it a fair shot.

[@debst.george4437]

​@ALittleBitofPhilosophy exactly, Amen! I have for most of my lifetime studied, life, religions, geology, gemology, what really makes people tick and what makes them do the things they do. Numbers and how it relates to life. I find I'm a philosopher of sorts but! That doesn't mean I haven't accomplished much with life at the same time. ❤👌🕉☯️🥰