Video

Your videos are almost always very poorly researched, and your presentation is unenthusiastic. I highly doubt you've ever received any formal training in philosophy. Can't think of any motivation behind this "academy" other than the pennies CZcams throws at you at the end of every month. You might want to reconsider your life choices. This ain't it, buddy.

Just noting that while this video mentions Quinean ontological commitments, it doesn’t actually go into what they are. It might be good to combine lessons or rename this one?

I really enjoy your lessons, thank you so much.

If you have any questions, let us know in the comments below!

The winds of grace are always blowing but one needs to raise the sail

I look forward to the rest of this series. In the meantime, I will try to answer the question: I vote, "no". At first glance, it does not make sense to say that time passes. Time is a dimension, just like the three spatial dimensions. We speak of objects moving or passing along the three spatial dimensions, not the other way around, as if these dimensions passed by three dimensional objects that are otherwise stationary. By this logic, we should see time the same way. However, there is a huge caveat to this. According to Einstein's relativity theory, it is incorrect to state that one object is stationary and the other one is moving. Rather, any motion consists of objects moving relative to each other. Perhaps this is also true of objects moving relative to dimensions. If we follow this train of thought, we may determine that asking whether time moves or whether we move is a non question.

If a robot can deceive you, it means you're getting dumber

Do you do more on eastern philosophy?

Quite

If you have any questions, let us know in the comments below!

Who cares about Kant? 😂. Why shouldn’t me and my friends conquer you and your friends? Explain

If you have any questions, let us know in the comments below!

Would be nice to correct an early slide that should say "free will determinism is impossible" but instead says "determinism" is impossible. I think that this video would do well to explain how if everything is caused be preexisting factors free will exists. The car thief in you example was born to a single mother in the slums. His friends were criminals. He stole that car because of everything in his life that came from the moment of his birth. Society attributes a moral choice to him, and punishes him for making a 'bad' one because society has no free will either. Truly, hard determinism is a 100% mechanical view of the world and everything in it. Maybe uncertainty at the quantum scale gets around this somehow, but I don't think so.

Thanks for this series! I’m looking to dive into philosophy and I find your content to be very informative

Nice introductory lecture

If you have any questions, let us know in the comments below!

I'm glad I stumbled upon this gold mine... it's sad that the youtube algorithm hasn't blessed you with the attention your channel deserves.

If you have any questions, let us know in the comments below!

I will have to research more on ontology, primarily because I would like to see examples of it used in ideas, just so I understand it better. This is so because the current presentation is a little abstract for me to understand fully. Wonderful video though, thank you very much!

If you have any questions, let us know in the comments below!

If you have any questions, let us know in the comments below!

"Very good" as Genesis 1:31 states is not "perfect" in a Platonic Form. God forgot to carry the 1 and fucked up the universe he created, and made evil. Very good, but not perfect. It's that simple.

If you have any questions, let us know in the comments below!

Please do a whole series on Ontology. This is incredible!

If you have any questions, let us know in the comments below!

Thank you 🙏🙏🙏

Uncle Augustin was kind and I understand from where he comes. The informations he recieved about God and his angels led to his ideas. If brave people were alive and gave him different informations, informations that were the popular ones before his time, and have become popular again after his time, he would have favored to come with different ideas I suppose. The existance of evil is not an argument against the entire concept of God. It is only an argument against the proclaimed all loving nature of God. Which is okay. God loves himself and his decisions for sure. And we cant hold him accountable since we are his creation and our existance is sustained by him and we exist inside the confines of his will, i.e we cant break any law of the laws of physics. We submit. We submit and pray for mercy. Abraham went to sacrifice his son and didnt bother questioning his God because he submitted fully. Submit or rebel, God loves what he is going to do to you. Since the satisfaction of God with himself is assured, now think for yourself. Do you want hell or heaven? Whoever argued against the duty of worshipping God alone after this was simply promised torture in hell in the end.

If you have any questions, let us know in the comments below!

If you have any questions, let us know in the comments below!

If you have any questions, let us know in the comments below!

I hope you will make a couple of videos on John Duns Scot soon.

If you have any questions, let us know in the comments below!

Can Francisco Suarez be considered a trope nominalist?

If you have any questions, let us know in the comments below!

"Epistemology" entered the lexicon as translation of Fichte's "Wissenschaftliche" and "Aesthetics" from Baumgarten. "Metaphysics" here is one of the canonical five members: 1) Epistemology, 2) Metaphysics, 3) Logic, 4) Ethics and 5) Aesthetics. Universal-ism, Predicate Nominal-ism and Trope Nominal-ism are all come under Metaphysics understood in this sense, viz. as one of the five. Who first categorised this five-fold division remains unclear.

If you have any questions, let us know in the comments below!

Color, taste, and other qualia are hallucinations, they do not exist outside of brain processes. There is no such thing as yellow or sweet in the extramental reality. There really is material arranged roughly as we perceive banana-wise spatial arrangement, although our spatial perception of the banana-wise material is illusory in that our spatial perceptions are highly approximated compared to the true structure of the material. In short, spatial perceptions are illusory, qualia are hallucinated symbols. 5:48, no link? Their is a material causal process from the extramental material, to the brain processes. It is called your senses, isn't that rather obvious? Electromagnetic radiation reflects or radiates from extramental material, propagates through extramental space, is absorbed in cells in the eye, which cells then mechanistically propagate spike trains along nerve cells to the brain, which spike trains are an integral part of the material processes of the brain. There is your link, again, isn't that obvious?

cool!

Can you give examples of mono-categorical ontologies as well polycategorical and where they have been applied in the past. Great lesson 👍

just found this video. on my suggestions and it looks like this is exactly what i am looking for in my journey to self study philosophy. thank you <3

You are very lucid and authentic in your explanations. Good work! Keep it up!

If you have any questions, let us know in the comments below!

Time is a measure, as when I say "6 o'clock", "tomorrow", etc. of relative quantity; 6 o'clock is measured through the hour, tomorrow by a whole day. It is from reference to things existing in space that we understood things existing in time. Likewise that in which embodied beings exist, i.e space or ether, time is indefinite, and as embodied beings in space have beginning and an end in length, and thus can be measured, as 2 feet long, two metres long, etc. so too beings in time have a beginning and an end, and is not properly called length but period, and is measured as 1/2 hour, 4 days, etc. But space is understood with reference to beings existing but no reference is made to becoming, but time is understood with reference to being existing with reference to becoming( becoming is being as coming to be, being as having come to be, and being as passing away).

If you have any questions, let us know in the comments below!

If you have any questions, let us know in the comments below!

I think morality is a social construct. I also think good an evil do not exist in the natural world, they are also not only social constructs but a sort of early form of civilization. I believe civilization emerged due to the need of human beings to control their environment. It is a sort of language or glue that can keep vilages together and eventually created the connected world we see before us. That's what your video made me think about.

If I remember correctly (I don't have the essay on hand) Hannah Arendt suggested that political authority is conditioned on a historical inheritance and tradition. She uses this to further suggest that modern revolutions have all failed because they have forgotten their historical inheritance (specifically they have forgotten the tradition they inherited from the Roman Republic) and therefore lack the political authority that condition the possibility of their revolution's success. I was wonderin if her theory was at all inspired by Book 2 Chapter 21 of The City of God. Specifically, the analysis St. Augustine conducts on Cicero's interpretation of the line of Ennius? "Ancient morality and the men of old/Fixed firm the Roman state."

Your first mistake is to call Nietzsche a philosopher. He was no such thing.

If you have any questions, let us know in the comments below!

If you have any questions, let us know in the comments below!