Presocratic Philosophy

[@Glacialvoid]

You are one of the reasons I'm not failing my idea history class.

[@tpiriyan8961]

Dr. Brown...thank you very much posting these invaluable lectures for all to benefit. I find your voice and pace drawing me back to listening your series again and again to absorb the key threads in philosophical development.

[@jeanbordes8241]

A brillant and clear lecture on the origin of ancient Greek Philosophy dealing With some of its Most difficult thèmes and making them Easy to grasp.

[@popasailorcollar]

this was so helpful thank you! would never guess i'd be watching entire philosophy lectures on my spare time after coming home from uni.

[@RajuGogul]

philosophy is a complex topic as I know ..... your lecture - simplified the complexity

[@Eccl9.7]

Good Sir, thank you for an intellectually rousing and well put together video!

[@DanellPatrick]

Thank you so much for making these for everyone to watch.

27:24 This is the point in philosophy where the theist and non-believer stand on equal ground. Think about it. Here on earth, the non-believer's view seems to explain a LOT more than that of the religious one. As we progress out into the unknown, before our solar system, let's say, the non-believer's view still holds sway, although he's lost a bit of ground not being able to prove his very compelling theories. Let's mover farther back: To before there was even a Milky Way: Again, the non-believer's view seem to be able to explain a lot more than just God did it- but the scientists/nonbelievers are losing ground, not being able to prove in practice how this occurred. Mind you, I am a non-believer. Now, when we talk about ultimate beginnings, the two stand on equal ground. THEY ARE BOTH EQUALLY IGNORANT. The theist says that God did it, but when asked where God came from, they just say 'He always was'. But is the scientific position any better? We are told our Universe had a beginning. But when we ask the scientists out of what material expansion took place, they say the singularity did it. When asked what a singularity is, they say it is a point of infinite mass, of infinite smallness, that all we see today was inside that initial 'singularity'. OK, fine. Let's assume for sake of argument that is 100% true. So the next logical question is where did the singularity come from? They give every answer you can imagine. But they never answer this one: If all the matter that is now in our Universe existed inside the 'singularity' prior to the quantum fluctuation that began inflation, then how the FUCK is that a beginning???? If something is ALREADY THERE, then expansion was no beginning. Neither answer makes any sense anyway. If the Universe began, then out of what? If it was always here, then how the fuck does that make sense? Sounds familiar, doesn't it, my fellow atheists? It sounds a lot like what the religious say about God. Personally, my guess is an eternal Universe with no beginning; infinite in size- no edges or barriers; No beginning, no end; it is all that is. Whatever I opt for sounds ridiculous. There are only 2 choices: Either the Universe began, or it didn't. Neither option makes any sense. We should admit it. We have no better idea how this thing got here, IF it got here or what, than do the religious. Sure it sounds ridiculous to say some eternal being did it, but our alternatives are equally non-sensical. Perhaps we just live in an inexplicable Universe- and if that's the case, then why do we fight each other over shit that neither of us can EVER be certain of? It's MADNESS, I tell ya....

[@abraxxas7]

2eelShmeal We don't just live in a three dimensional space..or four dimensional even. There are many more up to possibly 10 or 13, so where are they and what's in them? It's possible for a thing to exist but not "exist" in the dimensions we are able perceive. Picture a two dimensional universe, a plane. Now picture a balloon next to the plane but not touching it. If you move the balloon to pass through the two dimensional universe, someone only able to experience the two dimensions would first see a dot pop into "existence" from nowhere (the exact moment the balloon touches the plane) and then see the dot expand into a circle, never understanding the true nature of the object. Keep passing the balloon through the two dimensions and the circle would contract until it eventually popped out of "existence" in the two dimensional plane. It is possible the four dimensional space-time and everything we are able to perceive in it was created by quantum fluctuations or particles popping into and out of the dimensions we are able to experience.

[@awotnot]

spot on and it's the reason that i myself will always remain a shaman until i am shown better evidence than currently available

[@onemorebrown]

Hi Stephen, it really depends on what you mean by 'civilization'...as I was using it it means roughly 'living in a city' and the Gobleki Tepe site doesn't seem to be a city, though you are right that it does challenge certain ideas about when humans developed religious structures

[@onemorebrown]

yeah I did notice that but sadly not before I recorded this video! But yeah you are right

[@paul-filipilasca1632]

Many thanks for your great work in spreading knowledge!

[@Intjwithocd]

Parmenides VS Heraclitus was something else

[@fustian]

Dr. Brown, the timeline shows the modern period in philosophy as extending from 1600 BCE through 1800 CE. Please fix.

[@anhumblemessengerofthelawo3858]

_Note the danger in viewing history the way a mathematical physicist would (being "inspired" by Descartes):_ _attempting to break down time, into hypothetical chunks, with nice, neat labels, thereby quantifying what is a quality. This gives the illusion of history -- it is, emphatically, not history itself._ *See Jacob Klein "History and the Liberal Arts"* it's available with a search.

[@FonsecaStatter]

Never had read that Parmenides and/or Zeno were «Italian»... They were Greek and spoke and wrote in Greek... They were from Elea, a Greek colony in the South of what is today «Italy»... On the same logic of the author, Thales and Anaximander, for example, would be «Turkish».

[@MatthewMcVeagh]

Unless you follow Metternich and consider Italy 'purely a geographical expression'.

[@garundip.mcgrundy8311]

I like your time line, cuz it doesn't pretend to go further back than 6000 years ago.

[@rameezwaniii]

you said behind all of these axioms there is an uber axiom which says that anything that we perceive has some kind of explanation for it. is this ultimate axiom? is this what you're saying? so this need for explanation is innate in us.

[@travylacefield2770]

my dad took me to ucla when i was a kid he graduated there in 1984

[@Zetzitsen]

Anyone know where this guy got his sources? I have a couple of books and wikipedia, but they take up so little information on the subject on presocratic philosophy/philosophers.

[@Frahamen]

Put one hand in a cold basin? The other one in a hot Basin. Put both your hand in a mildly warm basin. It will feel cold on one hand, but hot on the other hand.

[@matthewjohnston283]

The trouble with Parmenides meeting Socrates as told by Plato is that the "Socrates" in that dialogue was certainly fictional. Clearly what Socrates the character says in that dialogue is Plato's thoughts.

[@muglymae7408]

What kind of homework assignments do you typically give after each lecture?

[@simflyr1957]

I love this "stuff". Some of these philosophies are exactly where I refute the "big-bang" . You can't have something from nothing, no matter what physics claims. Its also a math proof.

[@mrhumman9100]

Thanks sir watching and learning a lot love you man you done a great job i person like me that done Electronics has love with Philosophy and he want to learn it desperately can learn a lot i watch each of your lecture every day note it and learning it by heart thanks once again sir thanks

[@fidomusic]

Good lecture. I wish you'd have included a section on Pythagoras, and maybe more on Heraclitus. Incidentally, near the beginning, when you contrast analytical philosophy with continental philosophy, you called England an island. Not at all. England is not an island, Britain (England, Scotland and Wales) is an island. A trivial point maybe, but as a Brit it struck a nerve with me! Oh, I see below someone has already made this point lol.

[@shortsmike]

a square in motion spinning about its center appears as a circle...hmmm..I guess our senses do in fact deceive us

[@thwrldsgr8st]

Sir, around 58:08, you say, "That was the view Parmenides had." Do you mean Democritus?

[@thwrldsgr8st]

No problem at all. Thank you for the lectures!

[@ElephantMen]

So, as it stands now, Democritus is wrong, because have still yet to reach an indivisible particle of matter. What we called "atoms" can actually be divided into electrons protons and neutrons, and those can be divided into even smaller particles of matter, and we don't know what those can be divided into; although it is theorized by string theorists that those sub atomic particles can be divided into even smaller vibrating strings.

[@11Kralle]

Maybe Demokrit would call the "strings" atoms - until they'll be broken into smaller phenomena?

[@counterstriving]

@EIephant Men -- I realize this is an old post, but I'll respond to it anyway. So, "as it stands now," Democritus has NOT been proven wrong. What our splitting of the atom proves is that our concept of it isn't what Heraclitus had in mind. The Greeks' very definition of "atom," atomos, includes its being unsplittable, and being the smallest possible bit, constituting everything. We have not found, nor determined the impossibility of, any such thing. Anyway for Heraclitus and his ilk this was as much a logical problem as an empirical hypothesis.

[@skurai]

pretty good lecture, good way to refresh important points. its my first from yours but i can see myself coming back.

[@crossroads427]

Didn't they get there information from the ancient universities in what is known now as Africa. I think it was Kemet before the take over. Just saying.

[@paulbottomley42]

England is not an island. Great Britain is an island which happens to have England and Scotland on it. Just sayin'. However I get that that's pretty much totally irrelevant to the thrust of this video, which is, as was the last one, really educational and well presented :)

[@matthewjohnston283]

I think the axioms idea you proffer is anachronistic. That is definitely true of Descartes, but not the preSocratics.

[@monikaberger5399]

Nice intro to Presocratic Philosophy. I enjoyed watching it! About Anaximander's "infinitite" as ἀρχή of things: can you fix the term "apeiron." It's around minute 24. You had a typo (switched letters around) and said it wrong just as you had typed it. It's ἄπειρον.

[@jenniferyoung5291]

Ancient "Western" philosophy... good point. -J.YO'

[@argoschen]

I enjoy your lectures. Thanks. Have you noticed that on your slide of the Time Line that both the Medieval Phil and Modern Phil are marked with dates like 600 BCE-1500 CE and 1600 BCE -1800CE? Shouldn't they be CE instead of BCE?

[@mbarron651]

Thanks for the great talk.

[@user-yo9pv1ni6t]

Plato inspired by Socrates was the greatest of all philosopy, My philosospy begins and ends w Plato.

[@انت-صلي-عالنبي-بس]

What an excellent lecture 🧡💚💙💛💜

[@Graham6762]

Italy and Sicily were called magna Greca and part of Greece. So that is technically wrong.

[@valmarsiglia]

I thought the beginning of civilization had been pushed back to 4500 BCE. Just mentioning it.

[@oksanakulkovets5692]

Thanks

[@MartinFaulks]

This is a great video thank you.

[@Zetzitsen]

Thanks for a great lecture.

[@stephenbyrne3512]

From your timeline I see that you have indicated that between 3500-3000 'Civilisation Begins' - I do not think so. 'As you say different people will date [things] in different ways. Granted, it has little bearing on the main subject matter of your lecture - but I could not accept this as a basic assumption. I think current thinking is that 'civilisation' is quite a bit older - have you ever heard of called Gobleki Tepe? - were the people who constructed that site uncivilised 10,000 yrs ago?

[@nmim4994]

24:53 - this throws out the concept of Christianity entirely unless Christians go & admit to being an irrational religion

[@henrytheinnocentviii7871]

Elaborate.

[@jasonyoung8509]

Thank so much for this!

[@TarekFahmy]

great effort....thanks a lot

[@Rixoonify]

Anyone joining May end 2020 on?

[@WalyB01]

Xeno would really like quantum mechanics.

[@ThaliaSanders]

Awesome

[@KatBuckleyXOX]

XOX

[@JmaJeremy514]

I think you mean to say the Modern Era began around 1600 CE, not BCE.

[@charlesgodwin2191]

The only all - inclusive principle is the principle of inclusion; the all - inclusive One without a second, which eternally changes to eternally remain the same, who's center is everywhere and who's circumference is nowhere, which functions as a diversified unity that actualizes as a unified diversity or Uni - verse. What appears as opposites separate from each other is in reality the poles or extensions of a continuum. That which is nothing in particular is by definition everything in general. Change is cyclical, the seasons follow each other in an eternal process of unfoldment of creative potential. Hot and cold are the poles of the continuum of temperature. Heat only extends so far and cold only extends so far. Since imagination exists as a function of the psyche, imaginal entities, like unicorns, also exist - as imaginal entities. Unicorns have always represented the imagination itself and the childlike wonder of life felt in it's presence. Imagination embraces the flow of life with what if? Then..... The ancient mystery schools employed the four elements of earth, water, air and earth, and space or akasha as code for the process of single eye meditation or contemplation: Earth = turning the attention from outer concerns to inner experience. Water = focussing attention inward what we first encounter is a dark, chaotic flow of thoughts, feelings and sensations. When through practice we are able to observe the flow in it's entirety as a flow thereby disidentifying with any particular, we establish the inner witness, a transitional stage. Air = once the witness is established and stabilized, we can observe our self observing the flow. This practice switches off internal dialogue and subvocalization and is called Self - observation. Fire = once we have established the observer, we can practice being aware of being aware. This state is beyond the limits of of thought, ego and perception wherein perceiver, perceiving and perceived are one, identical, no division. This is inner Wholeness, the child of promise and is called Self = remembering. Space = once Self - remembering is established we can practice Self - inquiry, being aware of being aware that I am, which is prior to the experience of what I am and who I am and from which they emerge and to which they return. Here we receive in order to bestow the gifts of the Spirit of Wholeness : insight for the mind, inspiration for the heart, empowerment for the will and we'll - being for the body. This is the Way of Gosis, knowing by direct perception or experience of the eternal mystery of being, beyond conception. That thou art.

[@onemorebrown]

Good catch! Yes indeed that should have been Democritus. Sorry about that.

[@alwaysincentivestrumpethic6689]

Is it philosophy or History ?? Sarcasm lol Excellent lecture anyway👍👍

[@FonsecaStatter]

If Parmenides was «Italian», then Thales was «Turkish»...

[@onemorebrown]

point well-taken. That was a mistake on my part!

[@FonsecaStatter]

@@onemorebrown Right.. I must say that, that mistake notwithstanding, your presentation is a valuable tool for any one who needs a quick recap... Thanks so much for making it available.

[@NikephorosAer54]

Turks came in Asia Minor in 1100 and 1200 CE. Italians, about 1600 BCE. Count. Arithmetics. A Greek friend, Demetrios Maniates.

[@bondedlove]

bros dissing Christianity?? almost no one in these comments seems to have a problem with it.. this world really is failing

[@richardgalli3026]

Far too many adds. Have to stop and go else where.

[@benquinney2]

DWM

[@sonnyjim5268]

What is with the revisionist history? Why change BC to BCE? Does it offend your snowflake sensibilities?

[@HorkPorkler]

Sonny Jim how topical of you

[@joshuasussman4020]

Sonny, it looks like, of all the folks here, in a mixed and public forum, you were the only one tickled by this. Who’s the snowflake?

[@nomore9004]

From now on BCE stands for Before Christian Epoch.

[@Floral_Green]

Only an American boomer would use such language while getting salty over Christianity. Strange people.