Episode

Philosophize This! Clips: / @philosophizethisclips
Get more:
Website: www.philosophizethis.org/
Patreon: / philosophizethis
Find the podcast:
Apple: podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast...
Spotify: open.spotify.com/show/2Shpxw7...
RSS: www.philosophizethis.libsyn.org/
Be social:
Twitter: / iamstephenwest
Instagram: / philosophizethispodcast
TikTok: / philosophizethispodcast
Facebook: / philosophizethisshow
Thank you for making the show possible. 🙂

[@schelsullivan]

I'm enjoying the episodes more and more as they approach modern times. Though as a latecomer to channel listen to most of the other ones out of order. But today will be a day that I end knowing more than I did the day before

[@Lenin79988]

Estos vídeos son increíbles.

[@rustyghd3571]

Great episode keep up the great work

[@Synaux]

What is going on? I assume this is a reupload? Are you making a better version or did KZbin take the originals down? I have watched several episodes but I could find episode 1 or 001 or 01 or whatever a few weeks ago

[@christinemartin63]

Locke is an inspiration; we should at least try to be as reasonable as we can. Maybe it can lead to happiness (or at least reduce self harm).

[@QUAKERSATTACKS97]

“Man is born free, but everywhere is found enslaved and in chains” “It would be equally correct to say that sheep are born carnivorous and everywhere eat grass.”

[@post-industrialpeasant3190]

The problem with being "born free" is not in the fact that the baby needs its parents but in the fact that if its parents are themseles truly born free then are said parents free to leave the baby to fend for itself???? Most people would probably say no and by default the answer would be no they are not born truly free. One is born into this world with obligations to the people in the environment around them.

[@owenrice1756]

@@post-industrialpeasant3190 In a way, but these obligations are not inherent in that they are socially felt and socially enforced. Technically speaking yes the parents are free to abandon the baby and that does happen quite a lot in nature and in human society.

[@post-industrialpeasant3190]

@@owenrice1756 one is free to do as they please but they are not free from the repercussions of their behavior from the people in the social enviroment that they live in. Hence one is not fully free and soverign but only partially.

[@post-industrialpeasant3190]

The problem with being "born free" is not in the fact that the baby needs its parents, but in the fact that if its parents are themseles born free then are said parents free to leave the baby to fend for itself???? Most people would say no and by default the answer would be no they are not born truly free. One is born into this world with obligations to the people in the environment around them.

[@jasond6826]

The father of peace is by his design to follow in the way of Almighty God so to allow the child complete dominion with the grace of forgiveness so to allow complete Freedom for the child who follows the same command of that Almighty God. The word of who commands the one before you so we may evolve from a child mind to a Christ father so to walk in Judah beside all who walk the word.

[@irlc1254]

These episodes are an absolute treasure trove! Thank you so much! As I was listening, it seems to me that if we agree with Locke then we have to be anti-abortion. If we are entitled to Life, Liberty and Fruits of our Labour, and if parents don't *own* children (anymore than does the king or government), then it's hard not to say that the unborn has a natural right to life. Neither the man nor the woman owns that life. It's a human being that just is not fully developed yet, just like the argument of the child you presented. The unborn never develops into a monkey, pig or rat. So it is a human being - that's how we all came to life. The unborn is no less dependent on the supply of nutrients than a born child. Whether that comes via the umbilical cord or via a milk bottle is irrelevant. I not heard Locke's philosophy, but I like his take on the role of government.

[@stinkwink695]

That's not the argument, people that are pro choice dont consider a fetus alive, it is a part of the parent, part of their life and it is their liberty to remove it. That is the argument. We could continue your second argument backwards, a fetus doesnt always turn into a human, there are miscarriages, stillborns, and absorptions, but let's say it did and let's continue the argument further, one could say the egg itself is a human and the sperm, and further the nutrients that made them. The point is the argument is still whether the fetus is alive and the point when you believe it becomes alive and has a right to life and how much you are willing to force the mother to sacrifice her right to liberty to protect the right of life of the fetus. So far as a society we have settled on 3 months after conception with exceptions for certain circumstances.

[@stinkwink695]

How lucky are we to be having this debate? Imagine running from a lion holding your baby and your options are drop the baby and live or hold on and you both die.

[@christianrazon1651]

I guess the 1 down vote for this video.... is either a irrational person or a irrational bot..

[@asoulist4829]

Bodily rights are important. But if you are trampling over other people's bodily then that is were it should end. If you are are smoker for example, yes, you have the right to poison your body. However you are not allowed to poison other people's bodies by smoking in a non smoking area.

[@DirtyBottomsPottery]

I made a painting. I saw almost the exact same painting in the form of a photoshop image displayed on the Tonight Show with Stephen Colbert. There were minor superficial inconsistencies. That image was effectively stolen with the use of digital photography at the art show where I displayed it. Someone took what was mine. I have no access to law, because of poverty. If there is no means by which to protect the property of the poor, and they are constantly being stolen from, that might help to understand why there is so little productivity in the poor. You have a situation like before the writing of the Wealth of Nations where the privileged simply take half of what the poor produce. Having half of your stuff taken doesn't encourage people to try and succeed. It does the exact opposite. Without equal access to the law, the law can not exist as blind Justice. This is why Justice is little more than a dirty whore turning tricks at the local gloryhole. The Citizens United ruling made Justice a whore with nearly the full consent of a politically divided Supreme Court. How am I supposed to respect law that places greater value on "freedom of speech" than inalienable rights? I don't. No one does. It's a sick joke. The dissenting opinion of the Citizens United ruling were the words of a worthless, weak minded cuckold. When the rapacious neoliberals are also engaging in maximum extraction of money from the system, that behavior endlessly syphons money out of circulation and kills the economy. Look at inflation during the covid nightmare. At one point I saw T-bone steaks selling for $20/lb. That level of greed does the exact opposite of "flattening the curve", it shortens and heightens the curve. In other words, man's own selfishness, greed, and myopic nature is what destroyed the effectiveness of the stimulus. By doing things to flatten the curve of economic stimulus, we might be able to have a significant increase in productivity without rampant inflation. Some jerk off photographer showed up to my pottery stand and took images. I later saw in the fashion industry my significant forms staring back at me. It felt like one of those Spiderman pointing at Spiderman moments. Poor artists have no access to the law and the thieves are what keep them in poverty. Recently I saw organizations suing AI creators who literally stole their entire database. If I am having my artwork and ideas stolen, and there is no compensation, that might help to explain why good artists fail to get ahead in society. How can a poor artist succeed when anyone without basic decency can steal their ideas with little to no effort? I can't. No one can. The digital age has turned stealing into a casual photograph. The anonymity of this is effectively encouraged and sanctioned by Silicon Valley. Does that mean all artists should band together and file a class action lawsuit against the entirety of entities engaged in such acts? Probably. The very individuals who are responsible are also the ones who stand to gain direct benefit, so I imagine this organizing behavior will meet the same resistance as Amazon employees trying to organize, but with the added pushback of AI with the strategy of a god. This fight is unwinnable in the current state of affairs in this country. The power of AI needs to be reined in or it will cause the extinction of an entire nation of have nots. When extinction is the only outcome, your social contract goes out the window.

[@DirtyBottomsPottery]

40 mass shootings in one month is logical.