The POWER of RELATIVISM in Philosophy (EP 7.1)

[@PhilosophyBattle]

I make typos sure, but this time I'd like to make a couple of corrections Wittgenstein is (1889-1951) He wasn't traveling back in time. and Quine is (1908-2000) a long life, but not 192 years lol. Sorry about that! ENJOY!

[@Limosethe]

When King Crocoduck brought me here in his most recent video, I instantly subscribed. There was no question of if I was going to first watch your video.

[@Dr_Guerreiro]

OMG! I missed your content. You are the best philosophy channel. 1 hour of video to enjoy o//

[@hoodwinkedDaDon]

You are amazing... beautiful videos 😽😽

[@Psicologia_Interdisciplinaria]

EXCELLENT!

[@africandawahrevival]

Great video, you put in alot of work.

[@kehindeonakunle7404]

Great optics and education

[@africandawahrevival]

Bro, can you share how you make the animations?

[@Verumpolitika]

Come back bro!

[@AyalaChampagne]

Hello and thank you. And I could be wrong here, but at 20:50 you analogise the grasping of knowledge, and I think the term should be 'reality' or 'what is', no?

[@PhilosophyBattle]

Oh forgive me for being so late to reply, I hope I can make up for it with some detail. in my response Thank you for your insightful comment. I think 'reality' at first hand is a great suggestion as it does work better at conveying the sense of something being 'objective', (though I also know that relativists we engage with later in this series will say all these terms 'knowledge', 'reality', 'facts' are equally suspect anyway). However the reason why I choose knowledge though, is because it followed in the conversational context of scientist pulling out of reality 'the goods' as an 'absolute conception of reality', rather than just reality out of reality. Roughly speaking, its phrased as knowledge because at that time in the conversation it was about how scientists are supposedly getting 'knowledge', as a product of the investigation. Or as is in the quote I gave of O'Grady jut prior to my analogy, saying a de-humanized "picture of reality" (therefore not simply reality itself). But I agree with if you mean to point out that there is something deceptive in the very idea that knowledge itself, or an objective picture of reality is just somehow out there to be grasped while also not being reality itself... it seems like it would be reality itself if it is out there. I think this really points to the troublesome situation of attempting to talk about 'information' as if it could be 'out-there' when we agree minds are not. Something that I mentioned in the end of my Ontology video after 28:40 or after 39: 04 . So I hope you check out that video too at some time :) . For some reason it isn't doing as well as the others. I don't know why...

[@AyalaChampagne]

@@PhilosophyBattle Hello again and my thanks for the detailed and considered reply. I think we can fairly declare peace... and I will definitly up the views of the Ontology talk :)

[@tristanbruns5968]

I’m halfway through and enjoying it so far…EXCEPT! Dude, 30 minutes of hammering sound effects is kinda making it difficult to concentrate on what you are saying. It was nice ambience for the first 3 minutes of it, but it keeps going and going and going. Maybe it’s just me, but it would have been easier to focus on the highly-technical stuff you are saying without the whong- whong - whong in the background for an inordinate amount of time. I really am enjoying the video, and that is my only critique.

[@gavagai120]

Save for watch afeter

[@leonmills3104]

Nice video I have to say I am very unimpressed by the objections in the series

[@Music_Creativity_Science]

Historically, relativism in a cultural sense doesn't make much sense. Different regions on the planet have always periodically been superior in the human development, Greece, Europe, America, Asia and so on. But now it's time to start thinking about a new paradigm shift for mankind as a whole. We are actually developing as a force in the star system, soon ready to break out (physically and mentally) from our imaginary prison. Philosophical anthropology is an incredibly interesting topic imo. In my COMMUNITY section: "The human evolution process, an essay with modern philosophical anthropology as a basis" I reflect on the modern human species and its relation to energy transformation and space exploration. My basic question is, should the modern human species still be called an animal, or is it now (soon) so different concerning its behaviour that it doesn't make sense anymore ? An animal has a brain mainly to control its body functions, a modern human is more and more developing towards a brain in focus which needs a body to survive, air and food. This brain is constructed to not accept total randomness and luck for surviving in the solar system, it can by transforming energy (then being able to deflect medium sized asteroids, survive in severe ice ages etc) and spreading out in the star system, willfully affect its own probability for survival. Then it has abandoned the main principle in the animal world, randomness and luck concerning survival in the long run.