![Jeff Fisher](/img/default-banner.jpg)
- 209
- 76 182
Jeff Fisher
Registrace 12. 03. 2020
Video
Transition from Contemporary Moral Discourse to the History of Ethics
zhlédnutí 174Před rokem
Transition from Contemporary Moral Discourse to the History of Ethics
Social and Political Philosophy: Unit I Intro
zhlédnutí 103Před rokem
Social and Political Philosophy: Unit I Intro
Social and Political Philosophy: Unit II Intro
zhlédnutí 89Před rokem
Social and Political Philosophy: Unit II Intro
Judith Jarvis Thomson - The People Seeds Argument
zhlédnutí 451Před rokem
Part 4 of a series of 6 videos covering Judith Jarvis Thomson's "A Defense of Abortion" Part 1: czcams.com/video/h8PTBv1eaWg/video.html Part 2: czcams.com/video/3fI2tDhxHMo/video.html Part 3: czcams.com/video/73z9GthNxPY/video.html Part 4: czcams.com/video/4xF_xrr6gwA/video.html Part 5: czcams.com/video/1G7njbxyGag/video.html Part 6: czcams.com/video/8aAjkN0d0sA/video.html
Judith Jarvis Thomson - Intro to "A Defense of Abortion"
zhlédnutí 429Před rokem
Judith Jarvis Thomson - Intro to "A Defense of Abortion"
Aristotle - Happiness - Some Wrong Answers
zhlédnutí 388Před rokem
Aristotle - Happiness - Some Wrong Answers
Aristotle - The Highest Good
zhlédnutí 472Před rokem
Part 2 of a series of 15 videos on Aristotle's ethics Aristotle (biography) 1 czcams.com/video/gb_3Zfme28I/video.html Aristotle - Nicomachean Ethics Bk. I.1-5, 7, 13 2 czcams.com/video/Khjmyd8_bU4/video.html 3 czcams.com/video/Cy_kXMtSNUc/video.html 4 czcams.com/video/cJh4hBC59vc/video.html 5 czcams.com/video/ke7bfSYM5fg/video.html 6 czcams.com/video/d0WgPxpIS4o/video.html Aristotle - Nicomache...
Aristotle - Justice, Friendship, Community
zhlédnutí 164Před rokem
Aristotle - Justice, Friendship, Community
Judith Jarvis Thomson - Objections to the Violinist Argument
zhlédnutí 430Před rokem
Part 6 of a series of 6 videos covering Judith Jarvis Thomson's "A Defense of Abortion" Part 1: czcams.com/video/h8PTBv1eaWg/video.html Part 2: czcams.com/video/3fI2tDhxHMo/video.html Part 3: czcams.com/video/73z9GthNxPY/video.html Part 4: czcams.com/video/4xF_xrr6gwA/video.html Part 5: czcams.com/video/1G7njbxyGag/video.html Part 6: czcams.com/video/8aAjkN0d0sA/video.html
Judith Jarvis Thomson - The Violinist Argument
zhlédnutí 414Před rokem
Part 3 of a series of 6 videos covering Judith Jarvis Thomson's "A Defense of Abortion" Part 1: czcams.com/video/h8PTBv1eaWg/video.html Part 2: czcams.com/video/3fI2tDhxHMo/video.html Part 3: czcams.com/video/73z9GthNxPY/video.html Part 4: czcams.com/video/4xF_xrr6gwA/video.html Part 5: czcams.com/video/1G7njbxyGag/video.html Part 6: czcams.com/video/8aAjkN0d0sA/video.html
Judith Jarvis Thomson - The Pro Life Argument
zhlédnutí 357Před rokem
Part 2 of a series of 6 videos covering Judith Jarvis Thomson's "A Defense of Abortion" Part 1: czcams.com/video/h8PTBv1eaWg/video.html Part 2: czcams.com/video/3fI2tDhxHMo/video.html Part 3: czcams.com/video/73z9GthNxPY/video.html Part 4: czcams.com/video/4xF_xrr6gwA/video.html Part 5: czcams.com/video/1G7njbxyGag/video.html Part 6: czcams.com/video/8aAjkN0d0sA/video.html
Judith Jarvis Thomson - Other Considerations That Are Pertinent to the Morality of Abortion
zhlédnutí 309Před rokem
Part 5 of a series of 6 videos covering Judith Jarvis Thomson's "A Defense of Abortion" Part 1: czcams.com/video/h8PTBv1eaWg/video.html Part 2: czcams.com/video/3fI2tDhxHMo/video.html Part 3: czcams.com/video/73z9GthNxPY/video.html Part 4: czcams.com/video/4xF_xrr6gwA/video.html Part 5: czcams.com/video/1G7njbxyGag/video.html Part 6: czcams.com/video/8aAjkN0d0sA/video.html
Aristotle - Political Naturalism 1: Human Beings are Political Animals
zhlédnutí 364Před rokem
Aristotle - Political Naturalism 1: Human Beings are Political Animals
Aristotle - Political Naturalism 2: The City State is Natural
zhlédnutí 249Před rokem
Aristotle - Political Naturalism 2: The City State is Natural
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?
I'd say the difference is that you can safely remove the baby from your home and relinquish onto another party. Don't get me wrong, I'm and abolitionist and I think this analogy is horrible, but I don't think your objection is valid.
@@grovr7543 Might it still require some time and energy and other resources though to secure a new home for this people seed instead of merely throwing it out of our homes? I don't see what major difference it makes whether the metaphorical people seed is a fetus, already-born baby, infant, teenager, or a full-grown violinist unless there's a resource expenditure threshold of some sort which makes the difference between whether it's unethical to simply eject them from our homes vs. securing them a new one.
@@darkengine5931 I think you make a great point. It will still require time and resources to transfer the obligation onto another party, so couldn't you just include the gestational period as part of the period of time it takes to transfer the obligation? Absent of applying a specific threshold of resources, I think this argument is valid.
@@grovr7543 Cheers! At least that's the way I'm contemplating it. If, due to choices I consensually made, anything resembling a "person" ends up in my home and dependent on its shelter to survive, then I would consider myself morally obliged to do at least the bare minimum to secure them a new home. It is the least I can do; I cannot just throw them out in ways that ensure their death or else I would consider myself a monster. Perhaps some of the argument hinges on the use of "seed" in "people seed". What's that? We started with a violinist who is clearly a person, and then transitioned to a "people seed". Is this more like a thing or a person? I lean towards looking at a fetus as something like a "person", and for reasons no biologist can nullify. It doesn't have to do with sentience or the nature of the cells involved. It's just that when my wife gets pregnant, only to look at what's growing inside of her as "just a clump of cells" that inspires no sense of care or responsibility than I have for a stick, then I think something must be wrong with me. Further, if everyone thought this way, our species would have gone extinct ages ago. So I think most of us must necessarily err on the side of looking at what's growing inside as more than a "thing".
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
Such is life but it doesn't hurt to plant the seeds who knows what fruits it may grant in time.
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
Okay, I should have listened 15 more seconds before typing that. Because you go on to say it.
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
In the meditations in context, we just tossed the breath of human sense experience as functionally useless for a basis of certain knowledge because we can't necessarily tell if we are dreaming and thus can doubt any experience and are reduced to the only certainly knowable thing being that we are thinking beings, yet Descartes justifies CPI, a complex metaphysical assertion about how ideas must fit together with the necessary realities that give rise to them as a self-evidently true concept by the natural light. If the argument isn't exactly circular it reeks of special pleading. Those are the two options. Either the argument is circular because all of the premises of the CPI require something like the combination of the truth rule and an honest God, or we've handwaved doubt and asserted CPI in a way that can't possibly be justified in light of how doubt must be applied, or I suppose both. So, why shouldn't I simply doubt the CPI? It seems to have a good chance of simply being incorrect. Why should I assume the truth rule? It seems antithetical to cartesian doubt. Why should I assume a non-deceptive deity? It introduces doubt to the system that Descartes wishes to implement. You have to assume all three as self-evident in a system that starts with the premise that I should throw out anything that I can doubt.
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 ?
These are videos I made for a college course during the pandemic. I decided to make them public just in case other people might find them helpful.
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 :)
Thank you for such kind words. I'm very glad to hear that you have found these videos helpful and that they have furthered your interest in philosophy. Ancient philosophy is really great--it can be a bit hard to enter into, though. I'm really happy to hear these videos have encouraged your interest in it--that's the point of them! (or, at least why I made them all public).
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.
Yes, according to Aquinas, humans are unique in that they alone among living organisms can understand the eternal law as it applies to themselves--and this just is the natural law (the natural law is the eternal law as that law applies to rational organisms). The reason to compare humans and animals in this context is to clarify what the eternal law as applied to some species or being amounts to. It amounts to commands for a being to act or behave according to that being's nature (whether that being be a wolf, a fern, a photon, or a human being), and these commands are given to the being in question through its very nature. And yes, while you be hard pressed to find, say, a photon or a wolf disobeying the eternal law (as it applies to them), you won't be too hard pressed to find a human being disobeying the natural law. But human beings alone are able to do this because they have a will. Having a will, however, is also what makes them alone capable of love, according to Aquinas. Animals, not having a will (that is to say, a faculty of desiring something understood to be good precisely because it is understood as good), cannot will the good for others and so would not be capable of love, according to Aquinas.
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.