Video

Why would you stop at just 3 laws of nature? He summed it all up succinctly. Do you agree by the 1st 3 laws of nature you mentioned?

Doesn't this argument go beyond merely supporting abortion but also infanticide and beyond? As a man, I can't get pregnant, but suppose I have sex consensually and I find myself with a baby I don't want living in my home and crying and waking me up at night. Wouldn't the people seeds argument -- assuming we agree with it in the direction of saying such people seeds don't have a right to our homes -- support me in ceasing to take care of this baby (feed it, clothe it, let it sleep in my home, etc) or even drive it to a dumpster and leave it there?

Looked through all of your summaries and easy to digest analysis of Kant's first Section of the Metaphysics of Morals, thank you, very well explained

So you can only become a just person when you're young and growing up, what's Aristotle's idea of trying to become a just person if you're older and don't live with your parents anymore?

27:45

I will mention you when I get my bachelor's, thanks man

The further explanation of the vacuousness of the original argument is great. I have my doubts as to whether Descartes was being fully intellectually honest with himself there. A ideas (possibly complex but ill understood ideas) further can also come from simple observations or principles and logical ideas that are expanded to their furthest logical extent. Mostly that is what the idea of God in this philosophical sense is " the maximally greatest perfect thing that underpins all existence and is good and loves puppies and such". Decartes IS however arguing that he has an "A" idea as he further asserts that it was put there by "something else" rather than himself, and he is too limited to fully understand it. His justification for why that idea must be caused by something greater and realer is the real problem here. "Suspicious" is a fine objection to the causal principle of ideas, because, if it isn't absolutely and evidently true then the argument can't support God's existence. The context of the argument in the meditations is that Descartes has doubted everything else that he possibly could with extreme skepticism to the point where he only truly believes he knows that he is thinking in the moment and now needs to support the existence of God proper to move forward from there. If the first thing he comes up with from the point of raw "I am a thinking thing" is a suspicious metaphysical argument about the nature of reality proper then Descartes should throw out the argument in the same way he threw out other things he wasn't absolutely certain of beyond all doubt. He should definitely doubt that he can demonstrate via argument that only God itself could possibly be the source of his idea of God.

Thank you so much for this!

I love this channel !!!

Love this!!

Thank you! God bless you! Very helpful!!!

Rawls wrote the the first principle the "principle of equal liberty" is more important than the two principle of "social and economic inequalities" FYI thank you for the amazing explanation

Very well explained professor Jeff. Thank you!

Unfortunately there is not much like this on youtube and from the view count, it seems that not much people are interested in this type of theory

Thank you Very nice talk

Thank you Mr. Fisher, this is very helpful! 😊

Great breakdown. A high school student could understand this

33:15 I don’t have the text in front of me, but I believe his argument against honor being the chief good is because it is too dependent on the opinion and whims of others

Love your series

Thanks a lot for the video, I'm not even native english speaker (lol), but his book its so confusing that I'd come to the point of searching answers even in a foreign language for me. And I felt like I finally understood the "end result principle" BUT, I'm wondering.... If utilitarians base their end result principle upon "happiness" for example, wouldn't that be a pattern? So, what I mean, Isn't the "end result principle" the same as a "pattern principle"?

Your lectures are really helping. Thank you so much. May God bless you 😇✨

Man drops Banger after Banger of philosophy videos

Surprised this guy hasn't blown up on yt yet, He makes a lot videos

7:12 If "Natural Light," and "Clear and Distinct Perceptions" are NOT synonyms, then the reasoning wouldn't be circular. Its possible they're different in Descartes' work, with "clear and distinct perception," referring to things I can assert to know to be true, but that I am not necessarily able to refute the doubts of (cognoscere), while "by the natural light," is a kind of knowledge that is immune to doubt, and would get around the Evil Genius / Great Deceiver kinds of doubts (scientia). If so, then justifying CPI 'by the natural light' would mean that it can be known and immune to doubt BEFORE we justify that God exists as a non-deceiver, so CPI would not need to assume the truth rule to be arguable, and the argument wouldn't be circular

This discussion of "The Divided Line" is much clearer than multiple other discussions (and there are many) of this topic that I have viewed on CZcams. Thanks for such a clear and understandable discussion. I can see how folks can struggle with this topic. It has some very abstract ideas in it. I find it amazing that Plato got so much of our perceptual physology correct before all the science experiements and analysis of this topic in our moder era.

Are Rawl's theories just building on classical theories of Aristotle's etc. I think that the time context is what accounts in Rawls concept of justice.

Thank you ❤

Thank you for this, great understandable articulation - who is your main audience ?

Thank you

Wow, this is amazing. I'm a high schooler interested in philosophy and this channel contains among the most clear and easy to understand explanations I have found for concepts in philosophy books. I don't know if you'll ever see this comment, but your videos have really furthered my interest in philosophy (especially ancient philosophy, which I didn't like as much before). Thank you for making philosophy fun, interesting and accessible :)

I really really enjoyed watching your video and your analytical view. Thank you

Wow you explain these concepts so clearly thank you.

No no NO. Look up Cerritos College Professor Rodney Swearengen "Mundane Geometry and the anology of the Divided Line..." Because there's two Allegory of the Caves in Plato's Republic. Just knowing the basics of the Divided Line is just the way out of the cave. But you have to start all over again outside in the Sun. Where the Divided Line becomes an object of geometry. Because now your looking into a pond seeing your own reflection, birds, trees, nature, stars, and finally the Sun. Where you begin to reason. That the Sun is not sight. But the cause of sight itself, and seen by sight. From there you realize that the objects of thought are not mere shadows but geometrical objects. And begin to "Understand" the Forms. But like the Sun is not the cause of sight. It is the Idea of the Good that is the cause of the Forms. "Treeness" to Plato is 1234 Shadow Object Geometrical Form and and True Form of "Tree" that comes from the Universe like in a dream but from the dreams of the Universe. That's The Idea of the Good or "Logos." To not get caught up into understanding "treeness" so much less it blinds you like "Those who Stare at the Sun" mentioned in Phaedo. Because what's gonna happen? You'll go blind. Or in this case make a sophomoric yt video. No offense intended. But if i were you? I'd update the presentation more once you attain a more correct understanding of Plato. Because Plato? Is extremely intelligent. It takes years to finally get a grasp on what he's talking about. Especially the "Forms" he's litteraly talking about the relationship of geometry to objects to paintings to shadows to imgination.

Goat

your videos are really good; excellent explanation of what others struggle to explain clearly. you deserve more viewers

Amazing content, amazing video, you explained it so well, i was looking for this info, thank you so much ✌️

Great video!

great video!!!

Great❤

Pencils can also write

Isn't seek peace law 2? And preservation #1???

I am perceiving a crystal clear explanation of this topic. I believe God is not a deceiver. So this crystal clear explanation exists.

Thnku sooo much!😊

@Jeff Fisher Thanks for taking the time to make this video and making it more available. How do you think Rawls would deal with, as I see it in America at least, the unwillingness for toleration of a pluralist society on the overlapping ideas and their corresponding derivation of principles of Justice, unless one is accepting of the outer unrelated claims? I see that overlap becoming almost irrelevant. Does Rawls say how to achieve his theory. I haven’t read rawls yet and just ordered his theory of justice.

Loving your summaries, sir. Thanks. It really helps to get the big picture with this type of lucidity. 👍🏾

Thanks very much. That was great.

It's very helpful during the exam season. Thanks!

Nice explanation. But it is always somewhat amusing when ppl start comparing animals and humans re: natural law, i.e. animals don’t understand and humans do. Seriously. Animals, in fact, live according to the way God meant for them. If one wants to compare them to humans, here’s a very relevant example: dogs aren’t trying to be squirrels, and a male wolf doesn’t try to become a female wolf, and a rooster won’t try to lay eggs. Not only that, but animals are capable of pure, unconditional love; of pure, childlike joy and presence in the moment. <- those all pertain to the natural law. But humans fail while animals excel.

This was so helpful, thank you!

I’ve a test today and I can’t thank you enough for the Crystal clear explanation. You’re a life saver.