Video

2

A priori synthetic take that empiricists

By definition

Pragmatic theory (or utilitarianism) has resulted in some of the most devastating and brutal “advances” in human conduct and discoveries. history. For example, it allowed the Bolshevik Revolution, which resulted in the torture and execution of hundreds of thousands of people and the unspeakable oppression of millions more for many decades. It allowed for trans fat, celebrated from its discovery and for many decades afterward as the cure for food shortages and by extension world hunger, resulting in the slow poisoning of, and the unprecedented epidemic of heart disease for, generations of people over the course of 80 years.

9:20 appeal to emotion does not a make a theory wrong

thank you!

Thanks you explained it well

Yes, I definitely did not get it, so I went on CZcams to get an understanding.

This was a fantastic lecture, thank you so much!

The answer is that the question "Is it still possible to believe in an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent god?" Misses one of the central ideas of proccess theology: God in process theology is not omnipotent. Dr. John Cobb discusses this very well in his introductory speech on Process Theology, which can be found in an MP3 format online still. The typical atheist argument follows this line of logic "You cannot have an omnipotent and omnibenevolent god which has grand plan and a world in which great amounts of evil and destruction take place. Those two concepts together are contradicted by the presence of evil and suffering in the world." This is very logical and makes a lot of sense, however in Process Theology the "Almighty" interpretation of God's name is not used, so God is not described as Omnipotent, but rather one that makes nudges here and there. The reason this answers the contradiction of omnipotence, benevolence, and evil existing together is because that logic is only based on the presupposition of an omnipotent god. Thus asking "How can evil and suffering exist in a benevolent God's world who nudges and calls to people to act?" Thus the answer would be "Just because God calls to you, does not mean that you cannot ignore that call." And thus people chose to ignore the opportunities and guidance provided to them, and the world becomes worse every time someone decides to ignore those calls and nudges. This is how it side steps the problem of evil, because the original translations did not emphasize an omnipotent god in the same sense as the new wording.

An essay I have written - ‘The Refutation of Materialism’ - clearly and methodically undermines materialism, by showing it to (1) involve a contradiction in terms and (2) to be incompatible with modern physics. czcams.com/video/6r2r0LtJIjg/video.htmlsi=EcoE6dgXCv3F1u0m

I know it is a table, because I built designed and shaped the thing. I know the cup exists because I molded it into the shape of a cup to hold water. In other words my mind never shaped anything, what created these shapes was created by my hands working with matter. I know a cat exists because 'mother cat' molded into the of a living kitten. I know 100% that the Earth Moon and Sun exist as round objects because the universe through gravity molded it into their round shape. Just because Kant and a few nutty psychologists say we have no access to physical reality, doesn't make it so. Dear Professor, if you have ever had do a real job, in the real world - then wouldn't get everything back to front.

At the end of the 16th minute, what did you mean when you said conscious experiences aren’t material? Maybe you meant that in the way that a concept is immaterial - like we couldn’t find matter in the world that directly correlates with ‘justice’ or ‘friendship’.

So helpful ❤❤..

That was good info but definitely not a meditation

Great expaination

This helpped me get an A on my religion test which lead to an A in the whole courseeeee!!!

❤

So, argument # 3 goes something like this: why did you take drugs? It was determined by my genetics and past history. Why did you stop taking drugs? It was determined by my genetics and past history. So my genetics and past history makes me take drugs and also makes me stop taking drugs. So, the same factors can cause two completely opposite actions. How does that work ?🤷‍♂

I watched this to study for a religion test tomorrow and I just want to say that I liked this video because it didn't bore me, I didn't want to just turn it off and watch netflic insetad, I actually watched the whole video and I learned from it, so thank you for keeping it interesting.

What a great lecture!!! Appreciate your explanation!!

Things that go bump in the night

Thanks Sir🙏

Thanks for the lectures.

But if all of what Rorty is saying is ...ahem 'true', then does that mean by extension that we have 'truth', absolutely, or is that relative too?

God probably uses natural evil to judge the moral evil in his administration!

Pragmatic theory of knowledge are very American 😂

I suppose it's worth saying that there are different forms of Process Theology. I don't think the problem of evil, particularly natural evil, is solved here. I think this presentation only moves the problem one stage back. Namely, yes I agree that 'process' is a better description than 'things'. And I agree that God is participative in the overall process and only knows what could happen (we need freedom to be fully human). But none of this removes a creator-God's responsibility for creating 'this' process. I think that the answer is around God not being the creator or omnipotent at all, but instead something more like an archetypal loving process in reality, that we interact deeply with. More like a maximally loving Buddha type becoming.

The cosmic process is also a 'Monster of energy"... are earthquakes, a sign of God's love? How about Covid...process theology is just another way to rationalize God's cruelty....antidote to Whitehead: Nietzsche.

your final question as same as what is more correct , knowledge from science or from religions ? and the answer is so clear

Very nice take. I love the Bhagawad Gita. It has become my constant guide and companion.

Hi "Correspondence with reality" is the best definition of truth. The argument that we have no direct interaction with reality is incorrect. If a sign says "beware edge of cliff" and I say to myself "that is not reality, that is my mind interacting with my mental construction of reality", and keep walking until fall off the cliff, then my broken legs will tell me "that sign was reality". There's no arguing with broken legs. Philosophically, what just happened is that rather than our minds only being indirect perceivers of reality, reality has forced itself onto our mind. Reality can only do this if it is more real than our minds, and more powerful. There's no room for Berkeley's solipsism, and as Dr. Sam Johnson said as he kicked the stone, "I refute Berkeley thus". It's all been discussed 250 years ago. Coherence fails as a definer of truth because any group of liars can coordinate their lies to "cohere", but that doesn't make them "truth", because lies have nothing to do with truth. Pragmatism is a little better, but as the physicists found after Einstein discovered relativity, although Newton's classical mechanics still worked pragmatically in most situations, it was no longer "the truth". From a moral perspective, honesty is an ongoing commitment to truth that self corrects by abandoning non-truth, until only the correspondence with truth remains. Therefore honesty is truthfulness is truth. Cheers, P.R.

it seems to me that these three theories are not necessarily inconsistent with one another?

You have reasons why you reacted in a negative or positive manner, mostly do to what we “perceive “ to be true. Again as the professor stated , because you wanted too .We believed what we observed , it’s a environmental byproduct in my personal opinion ,we measured people unconsciously in how we met then not necessarily what they been in process of becoming, I believe this has been one of most valuable studies I have reviewed, thank you For your time in this discussion.

Critical Theory relies heavily on The Pragmatic Theory of Truth. I could be wrong. Oh wait. It’s true to me. 🤪 If you follow the logic, it’s why one could say 2020 was “The most secure election in US history.” And “Jan 6th was an insurrection”. All are very useful positions to have. And the left validates the hell out of their shared set of “truths”. Because it’s useful.

Occam’s Razor would suggest the Correspondence Theory of Truth should be the pick.

08:49 Like gender isn’t a fluid thing. Or all white people aren’t racist if they aren’t “anti-racist”, or Biden is not mentally ok at all right now.

Programs 😌

Fantastic!

Amazing!

🙏🙏

Thank you for a clear and concise lesson on Truth.

Question: if we are talking about truth, AKA what is *actually* true, why aren’t we calling it ontology? I mean, there’s a difference between “p is true if it coheres with prior beliefs” and “we come to know p if it coheres with prior beliefs.” It sounds like you went from saying “here’s one way in which things can be true” (talking about truth) to saying “given what you already know about Leprachauns, you should know that that’s not true” (talking about knowledge). Unless coherence theory is a type of subjectivism (truths are true only with respect to an individual). I had this same confusion during Sam Harris’s first podcast with Jordan Peterson where they were disagreeing about what it means for something to be true and Sam said “before we can move on, we have to lay down some epistemology.” I think I’m confused on what epistemology actually means.

Stop trying to be too clever, the word truth and the meaning of truth is man made so its the truth in a man made world

sound very American. I spent years with Buddhism , more than 200 temples around Asia and your descriptions of 'how they are over there in Asia and how they see the world compared to over here '..... really does not check out on any level just about. sorry.... get out more? I guess people might think so based on reading of 19th century and Greek historical philosophy that it should be like that... but it just isnt . Theravada Buddhism all over Asia, Thailand, Myanmar etc is about as rational and objective and male-oriented as you can get. So was the real Buddha in the suttas. Anyway. I only saw your kind of stuff in yoga centers in Philipinnes.

At 17:40 about the belief in God: "if we can't falsify it, I guess it's true". Wait a sec, professor! 'can't falsify' is not the same as 'verify', it's the other way around: 'falsify' means 'can't verify'. Religious beliefs have nothing to do with pragmatism. Whereas we can't verify them, they must be false, according to pragmatism!

For the Abrahamic religions: God could know every possible future but maybe not the one that will actually be chosen.

Physics and Truth are very different things. One is verifiable, the other is an opinion based on hypothesis. Even physics is liable to be misunderstood.

хуйня полная