Philosopher writing & moral realism debate ft. Remthebathboi

[@ethelchip3620]

I listened to all this and didn't understand anything.

[@luisgallardo7893]

Same

[@misterdemocracy3335]

It really comes through on your 3rd and 4th listen. But you have to listen to it at .75. Just kidding don’t do that.

[@RealmRabbit]

I've been taking philosophy classes in university for a few years... Even I am lost on what they've been talking about in this video... I feel like Rem is killing my brain cells listening to these random statements that often don't seem very coherent to me...

[@Jmwalsh1017]

@Ethel My dude the TRUUUUUUU value of your comment is staggering

[@pragmaticclarity3034]

@@cwg9238 Kant's words are not contradictory to his own. You are confusing whether or not moral statements are external from us from if moral statements have a truth-value. Kant would agree with the latter and disagree with the former, but Rem would also say the same. Not to mention that the loop you mention isn't even applicable since Destiny himself agreed that there are necessary conditions for experience, like non-contradiction. The problem is he started making incoherent statements after that point.

[@UltraGman]

How to write like a philosopher, no periods, just, commas;

[@AlexMiddleton111]

@Lance Bushyour its disappointing the backward attempt these two made to try to discuss what is a traditionally academic conversation that has little relevance outside a certain context. Its very much been emphasized the last half a century to only use popular language.

[@B_e_e_k_a_y]

Am, i, a, philosopher, now,? :D

[@sakshampandey7342]

@@B_e_e_k_a_y I, Kant, say;!

[@LesterBrunt]

@@B_e_e_k_a_y No you need more text, you can't just put a comma between each word, there has to be a super long convoluted, with pretentious idiosyncratic multi-syllable vocabulary, that keeps on going, and going, till you really don't know what the original point was about, and you have already spaced out and are just staring at the direction of the letters, but your mind is wandering off into anything else, because it is such complete torture to read stuff like this, that never seems to end, and it just feels like I'm filling the pages because my publisher wanted 400 pages and I really don't feel like writing 400 pages of super condensed material.

[@B_e_e_k_a_y]

@@LesterBrunt Lovely work👏

[@TheDethBringer666]

Rem's the original nerd who adjusted his glasses and says "ACTUALLY..."

[@Sprite_525]

2:45 exactly

[@Pokemon223223PlaysMC]

Destiny failed to falsify the Christian god in this debate.

[@jeremias-serus]

Veil oldie but goldie

[@scifywriter9768]

@@jeremias-serus newer viewer is confused by the few of these in this comment section. Wut? Lol.

[@nicholasdavison8921]

This guy's channel is full of under 2min memes. Don't bother taking him seriously.

[@christianlima987]

it’s your job to prove a positive claim.

[@co-bruh1423]

Literally everyone cannot falsify nor prove such a thing. Waste of time.

[@Simjorfeo]

I just love how Destiny types "it's time to battle" in the league chat, interrupts the discussion and then the editor cuts to destiny being dead on 2/7.

[@brandoloudly9457]

Destiny has an op editor. Glad he gets taken care of.

[@Drkilljoy13]

Now this is Kantent

[@adam-yk6yd]

Massively underrated comment

[@sweetlolitaChii]

Omfg😂

[@thermite8281]

In this thread, Rem ruins the public perception of philosophers.

[@rodolfocarrillo6166]

Destiny, you would really enjoy Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus by Ludwig Wittgenstein. An easy read.

[@liamcragin]

@@Sue_Me_Toobecause it’s Latin?

[@Reienroute]

I'm only 20 minutes in and watching you two talk past each other is making me want to pull my hair out. Destiny, you don't agree with his version of moral realism. And Rem, you should be able to tell that he's not actually understanding you. The discussion should be pinning down error theory and why Rem discards it. There's really no advancing the discussion until that's cleared up. I can't wrap my head around why it's just passively thrown out there without either one of you addressing it directly. Rem, why just disregard the possibility that moral cognitivism is always just a post hoc rationalization, and how can't you see destiny's attempt to get a detailed example out of you as being implicitly relevant to the validity or non-validity of the theory?? Destiny is literally asking you for a counter example to error theory, even though he might not realize that's what he's doing, and you don't seem to realize why that's important. Just mind boggling.

[@ethannnnnnn]

Destiny should really stop debating with people while playing league. he gets so triggered.

[@mario167100]

Destiny became the Ultimate Skeptic in this debate.

[@ElDrHouse2010]

that aint even his final form

[@SaidMetiche-qy9hb]

Then in his regular life, he watches random shit and plays shitty games without thinking twice about it HHAHAHAHAHA What a sissy boy and loser

[@RivenEnjoyer6897]

@@SaidMetiche-qy9hb ???

[@SpikyWC3]

still waiting for destiny to falsify the christian god

[@metroidfoosion73]

When you come up with something that has no basis in fact, it is not then on the opposing person to DISPROVE it. It is on you to prove something exists before people can then argue it. Otherwise I could just make anything up and ask you to falsify it’s existence. An impossible task since it’s existence is not based upon facys

[@Kiwi-mg6iy]

Metroid Foosion ok you’re server muted

[@bigbeanboys3865]

Kiwi uh oh stinky

[@megafanflash]

How do you falsify that which does not exist or information cant exist about.

[@SomersBugtopia]

You don't usually *have* to falsify baseless fantasy.

[@235Superman]

I feel like Rem is putting the Kant before the horse

[@EveryPS2Game]

Rem's a Kant

[@creepyguts]

Rem Kant be serious

[@contra5013]

21 minutes in and I understood maybe 3 or 4 sentences

[@tauphillips4673]

Kant is a terrible writer, I agree. What's that? You don't understand what I'm saying? Here, let me quote Kant at you.

[@liamcragin]

I think Kant is fine if a bit boring. He’s incredibly important to the history of philosophy and development of thought in general. The really bad writers are the French, especially the Post-Modernists who think obscure = meaningful.

[@caljente]

not talking to lily feelsweirdman

[@TheHadMatters]

Agreed, but it would probably require a substantial amount of stars to align for Lily to agree to listen to that debate while on stream.

[@TekniQx]

oh my god... I really don't wanna listen to rem debate anything.

[@kurln]

yep. 17 mins in and i'm punching out. Rem makes my eyes glaze over because he redefines every fucking word until I start doubting what the word "is" is.

[@MrJustSomeGuy87]

This is a poorly reashed version of the empiricists (Destiny) vs Kant

[@xnastyxnickx5883]

Yes ive listened for this long. 1:02:11 Lol were all tiny brained but we can presuppose that we actually might be the bigged brain

[@AskYourself]

Getting pretty severely misrepresented here. For ex I've never claimed that "[the LOI] isn't true..". Just insane.

[@Kgodden15]

can i get a time stamp?

[@DrSilentShadows]

name the trait that makes it ok to listen to ask yourself's opinions....I'll wait.

[@mothgru]

sure thing polyaxiomatic andy

[@pep0gmgm]

@@Kgodden15 18:15

[@EpicVideoMaster11]

@REM

[@Briman13]

Rem definitely watches Rick and Morty, that's why he's got such a big brain

[@krizdafix]

I suggest this new philosophy. Semantic egoism. Everyone is in fact a psychological egoist, but with enough semantics and mental gymnastics, they build a belief system that satisfies them more than psychological egoism does, and they therefore reject psychological egoism, while in fact being one themselves.

[@lysergidedaydream5970]

That is actually what Stirner claimed.

[@ZombieLincoln666]

that’s pretty interesting

[@co-bruh1423]

Rem has been talked about enough as it is.

[@JL0ndon]

No I’d recommend things like Camus and Dostoyevsky. The existentialist are probably the most accessible of the philosophy texts. Sartre is a bit hard to crack at first but Being and Nothingness lays out so much for modern and contemporary philosophers. Foucault is also a good read. But I’d say one of my favorite authors is also a philosopher. The Stranger, Exile and the Kingdom, and the Myth of Sisyphus by Camus are well written and easy to get into. The Stranger especially is a great read. He really gets into this man’s head and through a structured story he is able to impart his ideas on the nature of being and consciousness.

[@bleakdakilla8603]

The amount of fuckery in this conversation is overwhelming

[@Alithenius]

So essentially the problem is that Rem is really bad at explaining Kant's point that the notion of knowledge can only ever exist at all if some agent possesses both an ability to conceive and an ability to perceive, but that once that notion of knowledge has been established, there can be deductions about the nature of things such as knowledge, logic, etc. which don't rely on sense data once the conceptions have been ascribed meaning by their application to sense data. To give the computer example, having no operating system means that I/O devices won't ever store any signals on a computer, so there's nothing to parse or transform the data to create any new data. Without I/O devices, the operating system is never going to be able to use its functions for anything, and thus they idly sit in the RAM and do nothing. In that case, the OS of the computer is never used, and once again no new data is ever generated. Once you have both, though, you can start writing data to the computer and using the computer programs to parse the data and perform some functions to create this new data, which provides some information about whatever systems exist external to the computer. The more interesting part, though, is that once the computer receives data, it could also potentially include functions which allow the computer to analyze how the other functions on the computer are transforming data -- which doesn't necessitate reading any more inputs. This is only a weak fix of the metaphor, though. I think the analogy falls apart because I/O systems exist internally to a basic computer (so it'd be like a person who has no other senses other than knowing where their limbs are positioned relative to the rest of their body).

[@kyleeaton2717]

Yes

[@kyleeaton2717]

@@edencastillo4417 What's never brought up in these discussions is relevance. Knowing what's relevant is the most important part. If data can be compared to natural law and lead to methodologies is really what relevance is all about. We don't need to go beyond the relevant frame of reference in practicality.

[@rylace]

Goes to show that no amount of studying complex and deep topics will necessarily make someone actually intelligent :)

[@JJ-gr4jk]

I love this shit destiny please keep doing it, you need Jhc and Marty back

[@_jhc]

n o

[@hihello-sx1sx]

_jhc y e s

[@hihello-sx1sx]

LazyKid also nec

[@sorenjune9822]

Listened to this when I was an anti-realist, and now again as a realist, and Rem remains dumb af about this topic. The companions in guilt argument is a justification for general moral realism, it is not in itself a moral realist position. Companions in guilt is meant to establish that it is inconsistent to believe there are normative truths in epistemology but no normative truths in morality. That’s it. It attempts to force either some bullet biting, or acceptance that moral facts and normative epistemic facts rely on the same justification. Also, Rem ought to have a moral theory that goes beyond the mere acceptance of cognitivism and rejection or error theory. That is in substance what moral realism would be, but it’s not enough. You need to have some way of accounting for moral statements and a theory that can output answers that generally align with our pre-theoretical notions about morality. Say what you want about moral theorists like Kant, or Mill, they have ways of explaining why murder is wrong, why charity is good, etc. Saying that you are a moral realist without having a theory of morals is just annoying, and it borders on sophistic.

[@Elitest2]

You know when you forcefully throw one of those super bouncer balls in a small room? That's destiny in this debate

[@mikegribanov6105]

Destiny pushing the boundries of academia and entertainment, accidently turned one dial way too hard in this debate.

[@skepticmoderate5790]

No. This is his best content.

[@nocuh]

mfw 11:19 _"I literally just sat here and clearly defined-"_ Philosophy heads get lost in the clouds, their hands struggle to legibly communicate what jargon they longwindedly speak in riddles, from both sides of the mouth

[@Hahalol663]

nah cur It didn’t seem that unclear to me. He defined his version of moral realism as cognitivism minus error theory, and went on to explain them. What’s exactly is unclear about that?

[@nocuh]

Panda Pandemic What? Who? Whyhow? What? > *It* didn’t seem *that* unclear to me. *He* defined *his* version of moral realism as cognitivism minus error theory, and went on to explain *them.* _What's exactly is_ unclear about *that?* I think you understand and make my point while questioning [it] erring on the side of brevity to the detriment of clarity; the words used only impede effective communication by being ambiguous or inaccessible

[@maximthefox]

@@Hahalol663 I know what both cognitivism and error theory is and I have absolutely no idea whatsoever what cognitivism minus error theory means. I also have a degree in philosophy and that's no word of a lie.

[@johntheawesome6009]

he lost that argument when he went 2/7 and inted his game

[@PkrBarMovie]

You can't have a semi-colon in a statement; semi-colons separate clauses which bear statements.

[@lillychamberlain1496]

Why would you use them, instead of a good old-fashioned "."?

[@heyounoob]

@@lillychamberlain1496 its meant to reiterate a point in a different way, its more fit to be in one sentence

[@lillychamberlain1496]

@@heyounoob How about just stating your points clearly? OMEGALUL

[@PkrBarMovie]

@@lillychamberlain1496 A semi-colon implies that the statement after the semi-colon elaborates on the one prior to it. It's a way not to have to use words like "as", "since" or even "because".

[@lillychamberlain1496]

@@PkrBarMovie OK philosopher

[@Sammie_the_CEO]

Rem reads Kant like a teenage girl reading Billie Eilish lyrics 😂 "Its sooooo deep."

[@meaves3764]

Sam this comment is everything

[@bioshockk]

This is my favorite fucking comment

[@halfbloodprincess989]

truuuueee

[@I_FUCKING_HATE_YOUTUBE]

Kant was pretty fucking deep for its time. Like come on this guy freaking revolutionized philosophy, you can't get more important than that.

[@Sammie_the_CEO]

@Jackal I didn't compare Kant to anything, it was an observation on Rems behaviour not the writing of Kant.

[@co-bruh1423]

Rem served as the epitome of why moral realism is a joke philosophy that should have you exiled from academia. Moral antirealism not only makes sense, but it actually benefits society in the manners of progress and understanding the world. What a vacuous conversation.

[@MYWAYORSTUDIOS]

Like 55 percent of all philosophers are moral realists and 25 percent are moral anti realists. The companions in guilt argument shows how morality has to be real, if it isn't it boils down to absurdity. Without moral facts, epistemic facts don't exist, if epistemic facts don't exist, you have no reason to believe in anything, including the belief that epistemic facts don't exist. It's completely absurd. 92% of philosophers that specialize in meta ethics are moral realists as well.

[@MYWAYORSTUDIOS]

Also you saying it "benefits" society while saying that moral anti realism is true is extremely funny. If moral anti realism is true, there is no "benefit".

[@meap1022]

Most philosophers are moral realists 😭😭

[@co-bruh1423]

@@MYWAYORSTUDIOS Because people aren't guided by arbitrary morals held by only ever SOME of the population? Oh yes, no benefit to be found. None at all.

[@co-bruh1423]

@@meap1022 unfortunately...

[@downsjmmyjones101]

16 minutes in and I'm gonna have an aneurysm. Rem can't understand that there seems to be 2 definitions of moral realism.

[@mintymilkk]

video starts at 1:04:00

[@note4note804]

This conversation feels so unusual. I feel like it's 1 guy yelling, "Explain how a moral fact could exist?" and the other guy is yelling, "Things are true if humans perceive them!" and it never goes anywhere beyond that.

[@HoldenCoughfield]

That's cause Rem is an irrational being justifying an irrational position through an emotional attachment to the issue.

[@pragmaticclarity3034]

HoldenCoughfield that couldn’t be further away from the truth. I would actually say Destiny has more of an emotional attachment to anti-realism/non-cognitivism.

[@HoldenCoughfield]

@@pragmaticclarity3034 That's because anti-realism/noncog is applicable in this case. Morality is independent of observable physics. It doesn't exist except within the human mind, it is nothing more than a hallucination. Trying to justify morality as 'truth' is an exercise in emotional rationalizing.

[@pragmaticclarity3034]

@@HoldenCoughfield I don't think your response is coherent. Here's why, unless I'm not understanding you: "That's because anti-realism/noncog is applicable in this case." Are you suggesting that there are cases in which moral anti-realism is not applicable? If you are a anti-realist this would hold true at all times within ethical discussions. "Morality is independent of observable physics. It doesn't exist except within the human mind, it is nothing more than a hallucination." I'm not sure what this is supposed to be deriving. This seems to suggest things that are within the human mind are just hallucinations, are my conceptions of a chair a hallucination? Yet, I'm not sure why the ontological status of morality is relevant in this situation as morals could be internal yet still real/objective--depending on how you define such things. On top of that I'm not sure why you bring up 'observable physics' as that also seems irrelevant. "Trying to justify morality as 'truth' is an exercise in emotional rationalizing". Not at all, there are plenty of contemporary and old arguments that can support a non emotional reason to why moral propositions have truth-value. You might disagree with them, but to call each one of them "exercise in emotional rationalizing" seems uncharitable. If you mean this in response to Rems position from a pragmatic ethics stance then this is still unemotional, so it would be very odd to claim this.

[@HoldenCoughfield]

@@pragmaticclarity3034 The whole point of my comment was that Rem is making a case from emotion while Destiny is giving a logical one and it pokes serious holes in Rems rationale. There is no empirical proof of morality existing outside of human imagination. What is good and what is bad is a human conception. This is Destiny's arguement. Rem had no retort. He just went in circles the whole video.

[@topkek670]

the highschool dropout criticizing the way philosophers write.. this is next level

[@ItsPagi]

I'm 5 minutes into this video. I'll finish it when I wake up. Just wanted to suggest you to maybe try to read something less close to the analytic tradition because most of the times they are really hard to read (and boring). Idk why would you read Hume in your free time but that guy is literally great part of what you study in several exams about logic. Try reading Plato if you are willing to read something from the ancient philosophers (but if you are talking about morality I suggest you to read Seneca, lovely and very relatable). If you want something from a more recent author go with Nietzsche or Schopenhauer (and then eventually go ahead with Kierkegaard if you are interested in certain thematics like anxiety or uncertainty about the future). I doubt that you are gonna read this comment so I'll write you an email or I'll pass by your stream if during this video you do not speak about other authors again.

[@ElDrHouse2010]

43:40 Jesus... Rem's take is absolutely lunatic asylum tier

[@MaleTears]

Rem is absolutely insufferable.

[@jeremias-serus]

Male Tears most people in the world are absolutely insufferable, when it comes to critical thinking, politics, and philosophy

[@MaleTears]

@@jeremias-serus is it possible to learn about these concepts without enduring through so much droning conversation from insufferable people?

[@quad9363]

I think I get Rem's position. Most people are arguing about the ontology of whether morality exists, but he is only focused on there being truth-values to moral claims. Still a realist position, but not the type most people argue over.

[@lillychamberlain1496]

So, it's completely useless to berate Destiny over this shit...He never talks about Morality in this way and basically nobody he talks to does either.

[@chriswheal8204]

Help me out here, if he claims there are truth values to moral claims wouldn't he then have to point to a moral claim that is true?

[@quad9363]

@@chriswheal8204 Not necessarily, you could argue there is a truth-value to the number of atoms in the universe, but that doesn't mean you know what that number is.

[@chriswheal8204]

@@quad9363 this sounds different since you could easily quantify the number or approximate number of atoms in an object and scale it up. With a truth claim I feel like you have to prove moral truth does exist. If you could make a minor truth claim (comparable to an atom claim in a small object) I would understand. A better comparison sounds like if you could never calculate the number of atoms in even the most microscopic object, then you could not prove the atomic content of any object.

[@pragmaticclarity3034]

Lilly Chamberlain but Destiny does talk about this. One example, in his vegan debates ethics comes up frequently, so him being an anti-realist would surly make and impact on his views there, and elsewhere.

[@oephry3253]

Destiny doesn’t disagree with Rem, but Rem did a bad job explaining Kant arguing for knowledge as a priori. He kept getting hung up on explaining how this is merely describing a process before we even get to the external world, and that Kant in fact doesn't believe we can have knowledge of an external world, but merely explaining how reason and experience work together to from knowledge. So to Destiny, it felt like Rem was implying that objective facts exist independently from humans. Even though I understand what he's saying there was one point that felt like he implied we could have knowledge with no sense experience, but he clarified and it wasn't the case. The main problem though is that this is a super semantical debate. Despite this argument being Kant’s attempt to defeat skepticism, some philosophers agree with Kant but don’t agree that this necessarily proves we can be certain of any truths of the world. What people view as a universal truth, is usually something independent of the structure of our mind or existence, a truth that we merely discover and is true regardless of our perceptions. Kant's theory implies otherwise, that knowledge depends on the structure of our minds and how we interpret concepts. The implication being, hypothetically, if the structure of our minds told us that 5 + 12 = 13, that this would be a universal truth because it would be true for every person. To Destiny, this reliance on the mind rather than an independent universal truth would also fall under skepticism, because it still implies we fundamentally lack knowledge in some way, which Kant admits as well. Kant claims that the world itself is outside our experience and calls it noumena, while what Rem is describing is phenomena, which just claims the mind is an active shaper of our perceptions rather than a passive observer. What Rem is pointing out though, is that this theory is a compromise by Kant because traditional skeptics are usually empiricist, in that they believe all knowledge can be gain through sense experience alone, and rationalist that we can gain knowledge through reason alone. But in his compromise Kant claims that we need both to gain knowledge. Both theories (empiricism and rationalism) assumes universal truth exist independently of individuals and tries to explain the process in which we recognize these truths using sense data or reason. But traditionally empiricist, who are the ones that in some cases are led to skepticism, view the mind as a passive observer rather than an active shaper. Rem's issue is essentially the label of skeptic that Destiny uses, because he think it implies that like Hume, Destiny doesn't believe in causality or the principle of induction which all of science is built on, and Kant's theory explained earlier, is basically a justification for us to believe in these principles. Kant views knowledge of the world as a priori, and Hume views it as posteriori. My problem is, that Destiny explained earlier on that he agrees with Rem, but that this is a definition that most people don't use. Which is true, like I said earlier, philosophers point out that Kant's definition of a universal principle strays from the traditional definition, so I thought the conversation could've ended there, but they continued to talk past each other for almost 2 hours. It was a good conversation though, it just felt like Rem really didn't want Destiny to use the label of skeptic, but I don't necessarily think it's wrong for him to, especially when he went on to explain that he understands the issues with traditional skepticism whenever Rem points it out. To Destiny, being skeptic just means there isn't universal truths in the traditional sense, that there is some truth out there independent of our perceptions. Or that's what it feels like to me, but I'm also a layman who just enjoys reading philosophy, and I am no expert.

[@exalted_kitharode]

Destiny poses great questions which shows he really has aptitude for philosophy, because he doesn't uncritically accept what Rem is saying(who sometimes confuses different things there), Destiny makes useful disitctions and traces back the thought to assess it for justification. His legitimate challenge to the circular reasoning Rem demonstrated weren't responded. Also Rem in several times misrepresents philosophical milieu, making look like his marginal views are more popular in academia than it actually is

[@GKJusticar55]

I’m just here for the League of Legends.

[@eliper4823]

This debate is comedy gold 😆😂😂😂

[@OlPalJoe]

I'm actually super curious to how a mind would work with no sense data or language

[@badmittens5160]

It's an interesting idea, but there's no way to perform an ethical experiment to test that.

[@haruhirogrimgar6047]

@@badmittens5160 Sort of have to grapple with the concept of personhood for that. Outside of biologically is a being unable to engage with external stimuli even human? I would argue that it isn't and it is open to the type of testing we reserve for animals.

[@mirrekhan1607]

This rem guy is wrong on a lot of things he says about regarding what philosopher's believe. Not surprising since he is a bachelor student. Does anyone know which university he is at?

[@axvle]

Rem just read Kant and is milking it hard. Destiny hasn't read Kant, though, so he can't offer very good critisism on the spot, either, edit: Destiny actually does make some good critiques. The fact that Kant was a genius doesn't erase the fact that he lived 200+ years ago, had (relatively) limited knowledge, and could make mistakes.

[@dhavalmahajan2162]

A tesseract is a 4th dimensional platonic solid which we have speculated on but exists beyond the bounds of human experience.

[@badmittens5160]

No, it's the Space Stone. :P

[@brunosanchez3427]

in the beginning of these these convos I always think that REM is just spouting nonsense, but then by the latter parts, I start understanding him and realize he has been dunking on Destiny for the whole conversation.

[@myspacebarbrokenevermindif9892]

Bruno Sánchez even if he's right, it's his fault for poorly explaining it.

[@Sourusophyexe]

I almost believed you, but nobody truly believes those shit memes Rem spits lmao.

[@rocketrelm1125]

Destiny's right in the practical sense though, because that's not how language works. Even if you can convince me that the way you define Banana means Purple in a logical sense, I'm not going to go around saying that this shirt is Banana colored and that I want Banana tinted highlights in my hair. Not when to get people to understand what I mean would take an actual hour of discussion, while there's a word that makes everyone know I mean Purple without that.

[@ZombieLincoln666]

Yeah that’s usually how philosophy goes. I mean he’s playing leagues of legends while talking about centuries old problems lol

[@B______L]

Destiny didn't start with the Greeks.

[@seebradrun]

I really enjoyed listening to this and trying to follow along. Was there ever a next conversation? DGG !

[@Pooranonymity]

make sure to praise rem every day for moral good luck

[@alexk.7064]

So, this is what I got out of the first hour of this discussion: -Destiny, being a skeptic, says morality doesn't matter ultimately because our knowledge and experience, deriving from our senses are ultimately a product of those senses, therefore not *ultimately* true. -Rem says that because the realm of human knowledge is all we have, any hypotheticals that presuppose a different set of senses are gibberish, since this isn't what we observe in our perception of reality. It seems to me that, after that painful semantics argument, they are ultimately talking past each other (for the first hour at least). The reason I conclude that is because it seems to me that Destiny is talking about what is ultimately true, whereas Rem is talking about the practical reality we all live in and the morals we have (so Destiny is talking theory, whereas Rem is talking application of philosophy). I think that both of them get some parts right. Ultimately, morals, knowledge or even thoughts are a product of our senses and experiences, and thus we can't claim they're true in the same way facts of nature are true. However, for practical purposes we can say that it doesn't matter whether our morals are true or not, we act is if they're true and use them as tools to make decisions. I wonder if moral statements and the system of moral axioms we apply in our lives are actually circuits of neurons in our brains that fire every time we make a decision and influence those decisions in some way. If so, would that count as a physical manifestation of moral statements in reality?

[@aenpien]

"I wonder if moral statements and the system of moral axioms we apply in our lives are actually circuits of neurons in our brains" Yes, although the structure of the circuit representing these can differ from person to person. "that fire every time we make a decision" Not every time. Some "event" -> "decision" patterns may have a more direct link without needing to go through moral analysis related neurons (though the moral neurons may still be activated, but not necessarily directly used). These links can be created or unmade if the person's morals change. "If so, would that count as a physical manifestation of moral statements in reality?" Yes but I would say this doesn't have any more meaning than the physical structure of a random rock I picked up from the ground. If we take human senses out of the equation entirely.

[@alexk.7064]

@@aenpien -I was thinking about the degree of variation in someone's "moral circuitry". Do you think we'll ever get to the point where we can derive the moral positions of a person by simply scanning their brain and determining the existence or not of such circuitry? -It's really interesting that you mention the fact neurons can be active without necessarily being used. Do we know why this happens or is it just something we've observed? -I probably didn't understand this, since I'm pretty much philosophically illiterate, but doesn't the argument on whether or not moral realism is a thing we should consider boil down to the question of whether or not moral statements and values actually exist in the real world? -What would be good sources to read up on this topic? I got hooked on the subject because of the debate but I'm not entirely sure of the context in which this debate is held. Is moral realism a concept that contradicts Destiny's view on morality and if so, how?

[@aenpien]

@@alexk.7064 - What's likely to become possible first is analyzing neural activity in response to stimuli such as hearing moral statements, and being able to determine what that neural activity means (agree/disagree/?). Not possible with current science and tech but is much more realistic than straight up scanning all the synapses and determining something from that. - A neuron fires a signal to all the other neurons that it connects to. When a neuron receives enough signals to pass a threshold, it in turn fires a signal to all the neurons it connects to. So a sequence of neurons firing can lead to a certain result (decision), but that doesn't mean those were the only neurons that received signals or sent signals. - Moral realism is that there exist correct morals independent of individuals (one way to describe it). The neural circuits representing morality in brains exist physically but since they differ between individuals, that's not evidence of moral realism. - I know almost nothing about philosophy. And I didn't watch the video pepeLaugh

[@alexk.7064]

@@aenpien Oh, it makes sense then why Rem is asspained that Destiny refuses to accept Moral Realism. Thanks for answering, it was really helpful :)

[@user-uq4gr5nl5o]

Wait, did they say that the "3 is greater than 1" thing is an irrational statement? How?

[@CR33SIVE]

JJJ They clearly misspoke

[@DaRkJoKeR77]

Rem is really bad at explaining his ideas in ways that a non philosophy major would understand.

[@ZenixLrX]

i Fing love when they talk about this can we get REM to talk with Philosofy Tube

[@thecactus7950]

Philosophy tube doesn't know much about philosophy it seems. It'd still be interested, but I honestly think destiny knows more aboutp hilosophy than him. If you don't believe me, look at his video's about Kant, AI or Time, he gets so much basic stuff wrong. And, those video's were released while he was in college studying philosophy, or right afterwards. Now that he's gone on to make video essays only tangentially related to the epistemology, ontology, metaethics ect, kind of philosophy rem and destiny talks about, he probably knows even less.

[@thecactus7950]

@Sean that's my point, even his previous videos weren't all that good

[@discorico2821]

One and a half hour into an Philosophoie debate: "I dont think Math exists." "I dont either."

[@skepticmoderate5790]

I don't either. Do you?

[@discorico2821]

@@skepticmoderate5790 Depends on how long I think about it.

[@ElDrHouse2010]

like out in the physical material world? no. its imaginary measure. the universe cant give a fuck about math.

[@raydencreed1524]

@@skepticmoderate5790What does it mean for a thing to exist?

[@raydencreed1524]

@@ElDrHouse2010What would it mean for the universe to give a fuck about math?

[@Shimansaji]

REM denies the self, the most despicable philosopher.

[@heyounoob]

at 41:00. i think destiny is misunderstanding rem - the point is that someone without experience would never understand anything. but that is because without experience we do not think - we never begin to look at the logic, not because the sense is required to analyze the logic. say that senseless person SOMEHOW had thoughts just moving around their head, rem would probably say this person now has the ability to arrive at the laws of contradiction - this isn't because of senses they had, they can do it entirely with thought - it's just that they would never begin to think without sense (they wouldn't be a "rational agent"). my 2c as someone who studied epistemics 5 years ago in university

[@lholliday198]

Remember, Destiny isn't a formally educated philosopher. A lot of these things should be walked through more respectfully by Rem, if not for Destiny himself, then for the audience. Being combative with somebody so obviously confused by your terminology isn't a good outreach attempt

[@hihello-sx1sx]

L Holliday you honestly interpret this conversation as Rem initiating the combativeness? Destiny, even self admittedly so, entered the conversation in an antagonistic manner. I’m pretty sure that at one point he even said that it was because he was heated after a league game.

[@LesterBrunt]

I had to read Kant for philosophy at Uni, still traumatized. First time reading it, I think I read the first page like 5 times and I still couldn't get it because of how it was written. Same with my favorite writer Adorno, once read a text by him translated in Dutch, not kidding there were really sentences that ran almost the entire page. But then again, it is not supposed to be easy reading material. You are supposed to make notes and critically think about all the statements.

[@yli4526]

I really enjoyed reading Kant but I can totally understand why people hate it, he can be pretty obtuse. It's a little baffling to me to hear Rem read direct quotes from Kant to a person who has basically no prior knowledge of Kant given how highly technical and niche Kant's use of fairly common terms are. What book of Kant did you read?

[@yeahiknow3]

I study metaethics and this was a painful and hilarious conversation.

[@Kyle_Schaff]

Yeah, what *Yeah Way* asked. I have to know if Rem is totally just off the mark on this one. His definitions seem completely outside of what I’ve seen before, but my background is only some intro philosophy class like 3 years ago and KZbin videos, so I’m afraid I might just be a dumbass lol

[@arssome1452]

let me clarify bla de blu freidiscap flibbledy flee.

[@bjaanderson]

Oh shit! That made my head feel all warm. Thanks fam 💪🏽

[@ChefRyoshu]

rem couldnt ground his axioms in this debate

[@pkmncq]

For the people who are unable to understand what they’re talking about, destiny is right there with you.

[@TravelWithBradley]

Strawman Rem... Goal posts have jetpacks attached... Nobody else is needed for him to argue.

[@i_Amazin_]

Chat complains about this, but then watches him talk to Emmia, Sushia and Wes.

[@benjaminsnellsson2395]

Destiny loses the debate at 1:14:00 by invoking Godwins law

[@lazysod3]

Ask Rem if X-Rays existed before Roentgen invented cathode tubes.

[@xenoblad]

Eh.... all Rem is saying is that we need to chop up the mass of data we receive. After we chop up the data, then we have an idea of some objects. After we have the idea of some objects, then we apply understanding. The chopping "function" is going to go about it's chopping in a specific way that's determined before the inputs come in(even if it's random), otherwise it's not going chop up the input data. This chopping "function" basically has a preference for how to chop and as a result, the objects and the understanding made about the objects are at the mercy of this chopper's preference. If you have experience, this is necessarily true, irregardless of how many senses you have. I honestly don't think descriptive egoism is in conflict with this. Ultimate scepticism does though.

[@Nod4]

Destiny was written and morally realistic in this debate

[@Bubbaoxs]

Reading philosophy is like reading shit you already know-with horrible phrasing.

[@the500mphtortoise]

My logics not circular its wholism lol

[@benjamineer3045]

holism :)

[@the500mphtortoise]

@@thelvadam5269 i got my gf lost and she said we were walking in circles. I told her i was just taking a wholist route.

[@Patoismastah]

I disagree with rem about moral realism. Realism isn't moral. As Kant once said: you can't have realism without morality but you can have morality without realism. I agree that kant's use of semicolons is tantamount to his use of greater than 7 commas in this debate.

[@bjaanderson]

Hmm... ah, yes. I know some of these words 🤗

[@DockingMule6493]

What I gather from the drawing at 50:49.. so truths of the word are ran through filters that are our senses and then our reason to become what we find as logically true. If our reasoning or senses differ from one another then we can't arrive at the same truths. If we gained extra senses then we would theoretically be increasing the set of truths that are ran through our reasoning and as such increasing the set of truths we accept.

[@TrantaLocked]

So they have completely separate beliefs of what morality even is. One believes morality is inherently fused to rationality, while one believes morality specifically describes what makes people feel good/bad for which theory could include the belief that rationality is morally good because rationality leads to situations that make people feel good. It doesn't even make sense to claim that rationality is inherently fused to morality, possibly due to some stubbornness or other lack of imagination. It isn't **inherently** morally right to think rationally, but it is morally right anyway because rationality leads to situations that make human beings feel good.

[@matthewbonvillion8724]

Emmerson and Thoreau were pretty dope writers I think.

[@HebrewsElevenTwentyFive]

Some philosophy is pretty interesting, although I can see why for the average person it would be uncomfortable reading. I love reading and even I have to get myself in the mood to read philosophy 🕵🏾

[@Tom-jy3in]

Rem is right but so bad at explaining his reasoning it actually hurts.

[@GKJusticar55]

I’ve come back to this debate a few times, the League of Legends is very cool.

[@kaluselayza2342]

Destiny sure is playing like a God today!!!

[@kaluselayza2342]

Did you see the way Godstiny left the Pink Ward alive until AFTER he took blue? Tilts the enemy team real well, they would be fearing for their lives. The only problem Godstiny has, is mana problem.

[@Darkpwng]

Destiny rammed Rem in this debate. Philosophically of course.

[@gabrielsmith6600]

Very frustrating. Rem lacks the ability to lead Destiny through his points and then takes that as some sort of antagonism.

[@gamikhan9087]

I kinda agreed with [REM] in this debate I also kinda disagree with [REM] in this debate

[@Akumetsu-z1i]

About an hour in and I understand the slight frustration Rem had with destiny's example of a person with no senses. The statement itself felt like a contradiction. If a person is alive but can not recieve any input or senses, how can you claim that is a person or if that object is alive. Like if you stabbed it would it be able to recieve a sense of "death." It is equivalant to saying here is a piece of paper it doesn't know causality right? What if it is alive? But still a paper, no heartbeat , no senses and all that; just a paper but alive. This is why the conversation is revolving around. Destiny is like here is a dead person but he is alive but also dead. This is what Rem is alluding to at 47:04, why do you describe a Corpse as "Human."

[@powercore2000]

it is possible for someone to be technically "alive" but have severely impaired or no ability to gather sense data; such as people in vegetative states. Now judging quality of life is a different argument, but you can have an organism equipped biological processes to keep itself running, despite a lack of ability to process thought or intake sensory data.

[@haruhirogrimgar6047]

@@powercore2000 Pretty sure it would die right away unless it was made in a lab and had all of its needs forcibly met by the researchers.

[@powercore2000]

@@haruhirogrimgar6047 It would but that wasn't the argument, a creature can still meet the definition of living despite not being able to process sense data. It might not live long, or well, but a vegetative person still meets this standard.

[@thepleasantpuffin]

If Destiny doesn't accept the whole idea of Socratic Wisdom then I don't think he's ever going to make it anywhere with philosophy. You have to go into studying this stuff knowing that you aren't shit, or your ego will cloud over any insight. Also, I can tell that Destiny went to school for music because he doesn't seem to understand that a proof doesn't have to be able to prove individual examples. A proof just has to prove a category of ideas as correct.

[@BouncinBrandon]

I kant believe how kantroversial this debate was

[@dubsteak]

I love how Rem quotes a philosophy book as proof of his argument ...

[@BrendanBeckett]

I know why it seems like that but he's just using Kant's argument and crediting him while doing it because he should

[@dodododododo1584]

Destiny's God play is truly inspiring. The way he plays like a God amongst insects shows what a great God Destiny is.

[@nollhypotes]

This is so frustrating to listen to. Rem keeps making arguments agreeing with destiny then leaping to a different conclusion.

[@tjcofer7517]

I liked discourse on the method... also the republic was super fun to read.

[@MrJeo29]

The republic was super fun to read? Are you a fuckin alien?

[@luiz00estilo]

39:40 I do computer science, and this is _absolutely wrong_ . Computers can, and _do_ change their functions based on data. It's not a _very_ common pattern, but it's common enough to have a name: *Reflection* . A lot of languages support it (including bare assembly), and it's the ability to change your own code, based on the data you receive, and sometimes accommodate some _external_ function or method that was not written in the program itself, and you can even overwrite written functions in the code. Kinda interesting the fact that this example goes completely against what Rem is trying to defend.

[@TheCannoth]

Please summon Alex Malpass to help sort this discussion

[@alexd4566]

Well, do they read the philosophers in their original language or just a translation?

[@JohnSmith-cw1lf]

Lol

[@downsjmmyjones101]

So the first hour doesn't matter at all because they're operating off of different theories of truth. Awesome.