Video

There is a section in the Twilight of the Idols "How the 'Real World' at last Became a Myth" History of an error. In this short section Nietzsche describes this process of the mutation of this platonic idea. At the end of the day, though, Nietzsche's conclusion was that looking at the world through definitions is a wrong way to do that. 'Only that which has no history can be defined'. Thank you Sir for this lecture and all the videos on your channel. I have used this material not only to learn about philosophy but also to learn English. Many thanks.

the presentation of conclusions and personal views dressed in patchwork plato and the actual book 8 are 2 very different stories

I read Prey World - a great dystopian novel by A. Merow - right now. It is quite realistic

19:55

16:29 16:32

9:42

Or its a loop that if u get back infinitely back at the loop u will still has no BIGINIGING and still had an infinity so we get back at infinite past we will still had an infinite past and vise versa at the future if try to go infinitely at future u will still had an future of infinite

It's about to understand a loop a loop which has two infinity infinite back and infinite front and has no beginning if the univers has no beginning than its a loop because a loop has no beginning and if that's true we were be stuck at that loop and never get out of it we will never reach at the present because of no beginning thus we were be still waiting

Always good to hear from you professor Bonevac....

Normativity by analogia is Microplastics. It's everywhere and yes "EVERYWHERE"

I consider this guy as fairly good, but he was a Trump supporter. So he might be good at teaching philosophy, but his notions on why you would support Donald Trump is beyond me 🤷‍♀ ??

I believe the bible is clear in the new and old testaments. The Father is not the Son and the Son and Father are not the Spirit. Lot of scriptural gymnastics being done here against God.

The thesIs, antithesis and then ...😴😴😴😪👍thanks Hagel

Pragmatism is anathema to philosophy 😂. Is an anti-philosophical attitude parading as a philosophy. Which itself relies on pragmatism to be accepted as a philosophy. There is really nothing more anti philosophical than to just go with it and dont think about it too much. 😂 what are you at the wrong club? 😂

I see this related to order/chaos dichotomy, suppression as a result of excessive orderliness, growth as a result of accepting randomness. Very interesting and valuable insight, though I don’t think it changed my opinions on my interpretation on ethical teleology

Hello, Daniel. Are you planning to make a video of Elizabeth Anscombe 'Intention'? I find it super cool her definition of intentional action which is those actions that a person knows what are they doing it (without observation) and why they are doing it (whithout observation). I'm trying to be more intentional in life and this book has help me with it.

This is a very generous reading of Heidegger - the idea can easily be twisted into understanding modes of being more or less authentic, and the human expressions being worth more or less, offering some support for exterminating the inauthentic. I wish that weren't so, but explains the facts on the historical ground.

Helpful

Wow 😮 to advance for me. I'm totally lost😮. Maybe biblical philosophy for beginners is better for me.

The fact that there is no color something is “normally” is a Buddhist insight. Even something as ‘direct’ as the color of something has no existence independently of everything else, no fundamental nature. If you cannot say of the visual appearance of an object that it gives any information about its existence independent of other things, how much can you say of the independent existence of anything?

Professor Bonevac, I wanted to ask you a question about analytic:synthetic distinction, which you explained in one of your videos: are geometry theorems analytic or synthetic? Typically abstract representations of geometric figures are used to prove these theorems. But some axioms in geometry can’t be proved and were found empirically.

I didn’t see the Kent’s ethics video come through but it’s been 8 months!!!!! Glad to see a fresh upload hope all is well!

Thanks Dan. this one hits a lot of Chords for me.. so to speak. My Labor department supervisor told me to be a Philosopher, but no one wants to hire me so I am reduced to stealing beers from gas stations, and Cvs's and so on. I really cant think of anything better to do with my time. I tried to sue the university that turned me into this monster, but people think I have no case. Honestly, I just want to go back to Russia but even that's not working out. I am so lost. and confused.

Maybe you should stick to philosophy and stay out of the sexual matters of your students. Therapy: recommended.

Time is the measured passing of moments.

Isn't respect a contextual pretext? What makes any moral stance non contextual? If they're all contextual then why pretend, at all, that there is some underlying, universal moral relevance? How can we ever think we posess such abstruse and counter intuitive knowledge. It would take "hubris" to think this way, wouldn't it?

I read an article stating that Professor Bonevac wants to "bar students from skipping class to travel out of state for an abortion." Arguing that requiring him to treat absences for purely elective abortions as excused would violate his First Amendment rights. Is there any context to this? I understand hes pro-life, but he can still respect those with opposing views on abortion and acknowledge that it is a time-sensitive procedure. It's not like a Botox appointment or something that can be easily rescheduled. Is there a place that has the professors thoughts down in more detail?

You're a disgrace

Wow! Thrasymachus sounds a lot like Donald Trump. Fascinating!

Psalms 90:2 .....from everlasting to everlasting thou art God. Christ 1st Coming as: The Son of God: The Lamb of God : The Crucified Messiah Isaiah 48:16 Come ye near unto Me hear ye near: I have not spoken in secret from the beginning from the time it was there AM I: and now the Lord GOD and His Spirit hath sent Me [ Amos 4:12 / Micah 5:2 / John 1:1-14, 3:16-18 / 1st Timothy 3:16 / 1st John 3:8 ; 5:20-21]. Christ 2nd Coming as: The King of kings and Lord of lords: The God Almighty Zechariah 14:9 And the LORD shall be King over all the earth: in that day shall there be One LORD and His Name One. Godhead Identity The Father is the Soul of God [ Leviticus 26: 11&30 / Isaiah 1:14; 42:1 / Jeremiah 9:9; 13:17 / Zechariah 11: 8 / Matthew 12 :18 / Hebrews 10:38]. Christ is the Power of God and the Wisdom of God [ 1st Corinthians 1:24; 10:4 / Proverbs 8:22-31; 30:4 / Luke 11:49 / 1st Peter 1:10-11 / Hebrews 1:1-4] : The Image of the Invisible God [ Colossians1:15 / John 12:44-45; 14: 7-12 ]. The Holy Ghost is the Spirit of God [ Genesis 1:1-2 & 26-27 / Ephesians 2 :10 / Job 33:4 / Zechariah 4:6 /John 14:17-26, 15:26 / Acts 5: 3-4 &9]. ..Job 33:4 The Spirit of God hath made me and the Breath of the Almighty hath given me LIFE....Zechariah 4:6 Not by might nor by power but by my Spirit saith the LORD of hosts. ❤🙏

Historical statements are categorically unverifiable. That includes last week. Did Caesar cross the Rubicon? How does one know?

Great video, thank you very much , note to self(nts) watched all in it 00:01

Yeah this is just went wrong when you start talking about belief it's not it's not a matter of believing anything.

So based on the Categorical Imperative, if I can universalize the maxim that all people should speak their truth, whatever it may be, regardless of the feelings of others, so long as it does not DIRECTLY lead to them experiencing physical pain, then they can themselves share their truth with the community ad nauseam. This means that if this person was a racist, they could tell other people their racist thoughts, so long as that other person was free to share their thoughts, and the racist would be moral in doing this.

Two things fill the mind with ever new and increasing admiration and awe, the more often and steadily we reflect upon them: the laws of Texas above me and the rules of grammar within me.

You think women who have abortions are criminals, and you want to fail students who have them??? Daniel, you are morally repugnant.

your channel is a gem. bravo!

Hey boomer incel. Stay out of our uterus. What women do with their bodies is non of your business.

I think Kant's view on ethics makes more sense if we accept the idea that he is attempting to apply Rousseau's concept of the general will to ethics. “All wills lie in one will,” said Kant. Rousseau was also interested in universality -- eliminating all the particular wills that contradict each other to arrive at a general will. But of course he was more interested in the political. I like that term "compossible."

One of the best kant explanations out there

this is really heart warming but then again what about the people identify themselves as religious are they to be categorized rational in their own sense or harmful to rationality ? what about their laws of morality or the way they trying to approach their ethics ?recently iranian president died as you know .is it morally right to be happy about it ?or he had to be respected as a human being in his own way ?

Love these videos! You have been missed!

What did Jesus say when he was called good? "There is only one that is good." I think Kant is really contradictory. He has a way of hiding his contradictions in jargon. In Christian tradition how is morality viewed? In the book of Job it is made clear that morality does not insure you (indemnify) against suffering. What is Kant trying to say about morality, with these Biblical views in mind? That the goodness he prescribes and formulates from "reason" is equivalent to God's goodness? Obviously not, as God's will is not equal to man's will. So what then? That behavior prescribed by reason is the only impulse that can be called morality? That the "traditions" of morality prescribed by Religions are not..valid? That his formula of morality is infallible? Infallible to whom? To one's self or God? The flaw in his thinking is that he disregards the past, or, more specifically, the unknown. Who can imagine a "universal law"? Even the Laws of Physics have exceptions. Was Kant conceited? It is a wonder no philosopher made his own reputation refuting and exposing Kant. His jargon is beyond forgiveness. Much less interpretation.

Good will is not good if it merely comes from logical thinking, then it should be called logical will. As in if every rational being will come to the same conclusion, then everyone is good; if everyone do not come to the same conclusion, then not everyone is rational - then they are exempt from that “respect for automomy”?

Thank you Professor, great course!

Always fond of your uploads, Prof. Bonevac. I’ve come into a renewed interest in Kant and I’ve been using your old videos to study up. Interesting to see you in the news these days too! Thanks always for the great content.

So good to see more videos from you!

Thx Keep uploading videos 🙏

Wonderful lectures. As a personal note, I wish to say that every AI generated picture in the course is just an abomination. (the average that AI is pushing us towards is an abomination)

Regarding the 'elephant in the room' absence. We know how large elephants are. And regardless of the size of the room I am in, I can observe all of the POSSIBLE places where an elephant could possibly BE, and conclude that there is no elephant in any of those separate places. And then I can go on to conclude that there is no elephant in the whole room. Sure, there could be a small toy elephant in the drawer of the desk that I didn't open up. But is that REALLY what I was looking for? Is that really an 'elephant' or a 'toy elephant'? Are toy elephants REALLY elephants? Or perhaps there's a book with the word 'elephant' in it. Does that word 'elephant' count as 'an elephant in the room'? I think the issue here is one of specificity. It seems like a Sophist trick to claim that a toy elephant or the text of the word 'elephant' actually are elephants in the intended meaning of the original investigation into whether or not there is an elephant in the room. Language makes it easier and more efficient to think, because the concepts/precepts are already there in our brains with a corresponding word associated with it. It seems obviously wrong to think that without the word, the concept/precept doesn't exist at all and therefore we are unable to think without it. To me, that's just clearly and obviously wrong. And it's demonstrated by the creation of new words upon the realization that we have a concept in our heads FOR WHICH a word does not yet exist. As language is pretty much social, most of us do not get the honor of creating new words for the rest of us. But we can still rummage around in our minds to approximate a definition -- not unlike what's found in dictionaries for words that do exist. Those dictionary definitions clearly don't contain the word they're defining. Poets often get the honor of creating new words for the rest of us to use. Those words are not being handed to the Poet by some god. For example, Poe created the word 'tintinnabulation'.