Video

Where can I find the full debate?

"Don't over talk me!" Then constantly over talks. 🥴

You should be able to explain in everyday language. He Proceeds to spew a torrent of undefined jargon.

I hope that people don't watch your video and think that you made a altogether well-informed representation of Hegel and especially the other philosophers that you mentioned here in relationship to Hegel. Wow, there are some aspects to your presentation here that are too aggrandizing or ill-informed. Just to inform people that may be reading this, there are some major philosophers who parted with Hegel and criticized him. Soren Kierkegaard in his later years distance himself from Hegel, also Frederick Nietzsche himself and Heidegger parted ways with him and criticized Hegel. This also goes for the later Schelling. What I'm saying here in all of this is that there really needs to be more exploring the criticism of Hegel instead of this relentless aggrandizing of him and his philosophy. I wish that David Hume was around during Hegel's time so he could tear Hegel apart. The last statement that you quote from Hegel just indicates a intellectual megalomaniac, and yet here you are merely presenting it as a proof of some kind of how just wonderful and amazing his philosophy is. What if it was just Hegel being a legend in his own mind? You don't seem to get that he said that in order to bulletproof himself from any criticism. So if anybody criticized him like Frederick Nietzsche it's just that Nietzsche didn't really understand him.

Lol according to Vaush it would be okay to buy slaves in Ancient Rome because those slaves were going to be bought anyway

stupid.

I have an issue at about 8:30 minutes in. Notions of God and the Divine were not part of Hegel's Absolute Truth or Absolute Spirit. I do not think Hegel was, as George Berkeley did, placing the Roman Catholic God personality ever present watching for worldly events when human's weren't present (like trees falling in forrests). It is unfortunate if Hegel uses the capital 'G' god term. God denotes a man in the ether giving directions. Surley Hegel meant his Absolute Spirit more akin to the totality of reality, encompassing all of existence, history, and thought and not any religion's deity.

Everything from atheist to Catholic is a religion anything to do with God is a religion with God or without God it's religion there is no neutral ground

It genuinely feels like this whole conversation is unsalvageable, because DD cannot spare more than a half second on anyone but him talking, on anything but his explicit demanding that nothing gets to be valid unless if it's very specifically his specific God claim. When the person you're talking two is literally unable to get more than two words through before you insist you need to speak over them, and you say yourself say you have absolute truth (the bit about divine revelation in the second half), you singlehandedly prove that the only reason to ever trust you with any legitimacy is peak foolishness or peak bias.

I'm 30 mins in before I realize that regardless of if there even was a winner in this debate (I'm not), the only consequence of it would be either Vaush acts more morally condescendingly as per PP's position, or PP chills out a bit and realizes that if abstract philosophy was good at solving practical problems more world leaders would be philosophers instead of politicians.

Buddy apes have an enzyme to convert carbs to protein tf

Plants actually feel a very similar pain to animals if not the same but it’s felt somewhat slower from what I’ve read.

Predation isn’t the problem and death isn’t either… it’s that nature is a sadistic parasite that makes it as excruciating and agonizing as possible… it’s not proof that god doesn’t exist it’s very deliberate. There is a creator but there are more than one… the creator of the creatures souls is good. But the creator of the physical world is nature aka Satan or the fake god.

She was right about freewill, given her materialist premise. That is, her logic is correct and yours incorrect for all the reasons others have pointed out. BUT, she is wrong because her premise is incorrect. Nature is not all that there is. There is a Creator beyond nature and He, connection with Him, permits humans to have freewill regardless of what the material universe would suggest.

Quantum Fields Theory and the standard model are fundamental to reality and being. Concrete, revealed and empirically demonstrated unlike God which is only a hypothesis without evidence.

You are a soft ass wokey get real ffs

darth (dunkin is his new name) loses his shit whenever he gets off his 'excluded middle' script.

I have been waiting for this

If humans never consumed meat for sustenance society as we know it would likely have never existed, regardless of the philosophical jerking off meat is widely available mostly healthy when not tampered with and provides what is essentially the most important macronutrient in its most bioavailable form. Veganism is a trend for the most privileged and the idea that we’re trying to compel the less fortunate to engage in unrealistic lifestyles instead of focusing on making our current agricultural landscape more humane in FEASIBLE ways is laughable. It’s the equivalent to trying to convince everyone to buy an EV without an energy grid that can adequately support it. I don’t care about BS thought experiments or trying to isolate a particular moral quandary speak to the lived experiences of human beings. Enough with the cherry-picked data, and flowery philosophical meanderings.

This was honestly a really good conversation up until PP started to harass Rem about his diet. That wasn't cool.

The argument for free will lies with the existence of consciousness that enables decision making independent of neural activity. If the world is a movie and you the movie character, it would be deterministic. If the world is a video game and your consciousness (the player) can decide which buttons to press in a game to control your game avatar , then even though the game world is deterministic, if you include the part of you as a player together with the game character, free will would exist in that sense

Typical democrat

Ethics are both subjective and situational. Most cats can be fed vegan, though it takes careful planning and works better for some than others. I believe that by accepting guardianship of animals, responsibility for their well-being is incurred. You may later judge that breaking that responsibility is worthwhile, but I can't imagine doing anything to hurt my babies. It broke me to put down my old boy, Hobbes, when his kidneys were failing. My cat Zoe THRIVED on a vegan diet, but my older girl Molly won't touch it, and of course I can't let one get fat and unhealthy, so now I feed them both the same: a mix of raw meat, canned meat, and dry meat products. I try to stick to animals they could actually kill, especially small fowl. (There's a lot of them in this area.) I don't have the stomach to kill them myself, but I try to pick options that are less cruel. (I refuse to say more humane, because it's just not.) I purchase products with minimal supplemental synthetics, while staying within the appropriate guidelines set out by AAFCO, and with consideration to the opinions of professionals in the field (which I am not) as well as the opinion of my personal veterinarian and my own observations.

Is there such thing as free will: YES Is there such thing as God: Debatably YES Is there such thing as a soul: IT IS CONSCIOUSNESS ITSELF!!!!

Tjump isn't that smart.

What about the process that you find things that are good for you though? It seems that this is another "good" thing that doesn't come exactly by following the instructions. I guess you could say that the instructions are not clear and this process still exists but the direction seems to be predetermined.

I’d like to get to the point where we’re talking about surplus labour value and renting as inherently immoral tax farming, but I’m kinda with vaush in saying that we’re not there yet. I’d stress that business owners and landlords need to do better, but while so many bosses and landlords are abusive criminals, it is morally good to enter the marketplace as a boss or landlord who isn’t an abusive criminal. They buried the bar, and we can overtop it by as much as we want. We should do better, but we don’t have to.

I NEED MORE HEGEL VIDEOS FROM YOU

so, who told PP he makes any sense, cause he dont

you're the first person to ever explain hegel in a simple and not unorganized way. thank you a lot!

The rambling philosopher 😂

does god know why he exists or is it the only thing that he does not know

Andrew said "You're gonna have some form of autocracy whether you like it or not at this point, at least in the United States, we might as well PICK THE ONE THAT WE WANT" 🤣 The irony... How can you pick without democracy?? Beautiful.

a year later xerxes went on tom rabbit channel professing his Catholicism

Edison should've stopped after a few failed light bulbs according to Destiny's logic

I made it three minutes. You lefties are so wild.

STATS: PP over-talked or interrupted DD a total of times. DD over-talked or interrupted PP a total of times!! And said times. DD is a DH

10:45 Meaning that it does not exist out there?

CAn the moderator ever get the lib to stop interrupting? Only stops the fascist.

I’m glad this video exists because there’s not enough of this content out there. To me, veganism and socialism go hand in hand. If you’re doing one but not the other are you really that compassionate?

Love Andrew ❤

Flu comes from animals? You need to quit with the pseudo science!

Bogardus' position is not just "like" a pragmatist, he stated what BonJour refers to as the pragmatic "vindication" when he offered his conditional of "if it is true, then we can know it." Also, did he say he was writing a paper that proposes a fourth condition to epistemic justification with respect to dismissing lucky outcomes? That's another thing that has been offered already, and another thing BonJour explains, specifically stating that this is a position reached by "most philosophers" who have discussed responses to Gettier problems. Maybe I misunderstood what Bogardus was saying there. Or maybe it's a lit review issue.

Based on your arguments here, and your stance on rights of animals (you consider them as the other in terms of self and the other and you give equal moral value to the other if I understand correctly), do you think a major proportion of current non vegans (who support the industry after knowing about it) deserve life without parole? Or is this a moral progression, where we progress to a vegan society and then the institutions make such changes to laws so that murder and its subsequent punishment would include murder of animals too.

lol darth absolutely destroyed this dude

I like some of PPs stuff but not sure why he doesn't get that atheism is the lack of belief not an affirmative belief. Additionally, omnipotence itself is logically incoherent. Can God make a rock so heavy he can't lift it? Thoughts on this reverse ontological argument?: 1.The creation of the universe is the greatest achievement imaginable. 2.The merit of an achievement consists of its intrinsic greatness and the ability of its creator. 3.The greater the handicap to the creator, the greater the achievement 4.The biggest handicap to a creator would be non-existence 5.Therefore if we suppose that the universe is the creation of an existing creator, we can conceive a greater being - namely, one who created everything while not existing. 6. Therefore, God does not exist.

Such an annoying voice, wake this Irish dude up in the middle of the night, he talks just like you and me...smh

lol read a book

I have a problem with Perspective Philosophy's use of the argument from Sufficient Reason. Logic is a tool for humans to describe reality, on the foundation of the laws of thought. Logic doesn't create or alter reality, so the assertion that something about reality exists that is untestable simply because it's necessary to satisfy a logical proposition seems to be a category error. Therefore not sufficient to justify it as corresponding with reality, which is the definition of Truth he used. And since it's not justified as True, then it can't be Knowledge as only True justified beliefs are defined as Knowledge by him. Meaning that his argument cannot get you to Theism rationally.