Thanks a lot for this great lecture. A question regarding the regress argument: theoretically, is ot possible to have "loops" in the chain? Such a case won't determine the existence of intrinsic/final goods, right?
The way I thought the function argument worked is by saying that a thing can be said to be good when it fulfils its function, and the function is what the thing is meant to do or that thing's special capacity: man's unique function is rationality, thus a good man is one that uses rationality well. I then thought the second stage was saying that human rationality is used best when actively applying a rational principle to make preferential choices that aim at finding the mean between the excesses on either side; the action found at this mean is what we could describe as virtue. So this links Aristotle's notion of rationality and virtue and explains how they produce the 'good' human life.
@Surfing with Aristotle Yes, the function argument holds that what is good for any thing is only relative to that thing. I do not think Aristotle meant this in a human relative way though? Wasn't this an objective claim about the world? Even if there were no humans then a good tree would be one that actively did its tree thing well. I do not believe that good per se is exclusive to humans, only the human good. An advantage of Aristotle's account is its objectiveness, so I do not see how making it more relative improves the theory? I'm no Aristotle expert - are you? - if not, perhaps there is one out there than can chime in?
@Surfing with Aristotle I am not appealing to authority, it's just that I studied Aristotle under Prof Chris Megone - although it was a little while ago - and I found that whenever I thought I understood Aristotle's argument he would point out that I was missing some of the nuances. I don't think Aristotle would have any notion of what a 'good' rock was, it would be incoherent as good can only be applied to a function and only living things or artefacts have a function. And I think Aristotle was clear that we cannot become our own experts , rather we require the instruction from others to become experts (of a sort): but I don't think he would claim that we can become 'our own' experts.
By taking only an introductory course in philosophy would have been for the greater good for my personal life , if I had taken more courses about the study and research of life'so wonders of our little yet diverse world of wisdom and the greater needs for pure knowledge.
The intrinsic goodness of a thing, is it in the object or in the state of affairs, or is it in the intellect of the individual such that the individual can't do anything about ( the intrinsic goodness is intrinsic to that individual ) or the individual decided that this thing x is his or her intrinsic good ? Is it for any individual (rational person ) such that it's intrinsic to any individual or just for that specific individual and it varies among individuals ? I want to ask, what are the true answers ? And what these great philosophers ( Nietzsche,hume,kant,daniel bonevac,sartre,camus,john searle,hegel, and others ,,,,) would say ? And what great sociologists ( durkheim, others ,,,,,) would say ?
What is the point of seeking or even achieving excellence in any rational plan when in the end one must die ? The answer is in Yin Yang. In understand the truth that excellence is also inadequacy, or not excellent, rational is irrational, plans are flows, death is life. With such understanding, and only with such understanding, can we live every moment in happiness, appreciation, and void of worries. Every cloud has a silver lining. May the love and the peace of Jesus be with us.
@Surfing with Aristotle Don't be ridiculous !!! There is no such choice because life cannot exist without death and death cannot exist without life, Yin Yang. Understanding this fact allows you to live and die the way you wish for, in happiness, appreciation, and tranquility. May the love and the peace of Jesus be with us.
Yin Yang is fact of life. Do you believe you have a father and a mother ? That's Yin Yang. Night and day, big and small, good and evil are all interrelated, intertwined, interdependent, and interconnected, necessary parts of the whole. One cannot exist without the other. To say God is good is being ridiculous. God is by necessity both good and evil. This Chinese wisdom is recorded in 5000 years old I-Ching, the Book of Transformation. May the love and the peace of Jesus be with us.
What is the chief end of man? I'm sure you get my reference. It would be interesting to compare and contrast The Westminster Confession with Aristotle's ideas.
Next time I greet someone, I’ll be sure to ask “Are you flourishing?”
I have learned more philosophy from this man than god knows how many books I have struggled through :)
yes!
im a software engineering student but im fascinated by philosophy. Thank you prof Daniel for putting this great content up for free!
bro how tf did you comment this 3 months ago 💀
@@dandanthemuffinman2042 oh lmao, he basically had it open to everyone and then made the vid private
Thank u for your lectures professor!
Thank you very much for your work. We appreciate it! Спасибо )
I appreciate your work, i need more of your videos on Philosophy
Love the videos man you make great content and have been a great help through high school philosophy
Thank you!
Thanks for sharing your wisdom sir!
Great lecture!!!
Thanks a lot for this great lecture.
A question regarding the regress argument: theoretically, is ot possible to have "loops" in the chain? Such a case won't determine the existence of intrinsic/final goods, right?
The way I thought the function argument worked is by saying that a thing can be said to be good when it fulfils its function, and the function is what the thing is meant to do or that thing's special capacity: man's unique function is rationality, thus a good man is one that uses rationality well. I then thought the second stage was saying that human rationality is used best when actively applying a rational principle to make preferential choices that aim at finding the mean between the excesses on either side; the action found at this mean is what we could describe as virtue. So this links Aristotle's notion of rationality and virtue and explains how they produce the 'good' human life.
@Surfing with Aristotle Yes, the function argument holds that what is good for any thing is only relative to that thing. I do not think Aristotle meant this in a human relative way though? Wasn't this an objective claim about the world? Even if there were no humans then a good tree would be one that actively did its tree thing well.
I do not believe that good per se is exclusive to humans, only the human good. An advantage of Aristotle's account is its objectiveness, so I do not see how making it more relative improves the theory?
I'm no Aristotle expert - are you? - if not, perhaps there is one out there than can chime in?
@Surfing with Aristotle I am not appealing to authority, it's just that I studied Aristotle under Prof Chris Megone - although it was a little while ago - and I found that whenever I thought I understood Aristotle's argument he would point out that I was missing some of the nuances. I don't think Aristotle would have any notion of what a 'good' rock was, it would be incoherent as good can only be applied to a function and only living things or artefacts have a function. And I think Aristotle was clear that we cannot become our own experts , rather we require the instruction from others to become experts (of a sort): but I don't think he would claim that we can become 'our own' experts.
Are you sure it's not that giant headed horse creature with wings in Egypt ?
By taking only an introductory course in philosophy would have been for the greater good for my personal life , if I had taken more courses about the study and research of life'so wonders of our little yet diverse world of wisdom and the greater needs for pure knowledge.
Please do some videos on Aristotle's views on art sir
The intrinsic goodness of a thing, is it in the object or in the state of affairs, or is it in the intellect of the individual such that the individual can't do anything about ( the intrinsic goodness is intrinsic to that individual ) or the individual decided that this thing x is his or her intrinsic good ? Is it for any individual (rational person ) such that it's intrinsic to any individual or just for that specific individual and it varies among individuals ?
I want to ask, what are the true answers ? And what these great philosophers ( Nietzsche,hume,kant,daniel bonevac,sartre,camus,john searle,hegel, and others ,,,,) would say ?
And what great sociologists ( durkheim, others ,,,,,) would say ?
Sir post some practical philosophy which we can apply in our lives and improve
Anything on schopenhauer, professor?
What is the point of seeking or even achieving excellence in any rational plan when in the end one must die ? The answer is in Yin Yang. In understand the truth that excellence is also inadequacy, or not excellent, rational is irrational, plans are flows, death is life. With such understanding, and only with such understanding, can we live every moment in happiness, appreciation, and void of worries. Every cloud has a silver lining. May the love and the peace of Jesus be with us.
@Surfing with Aristotle Don't be ridiculous !!! There is no such choice because life cannot exist without death and death cannot exist without life, Yin Yang. Understanding this fact allows you to live and die the way you wish for, in happiness, appreciation, and tranquility. May the love and the peace of Jesus be with us.
Yin Yang is fact of life. Do you believe you have a father and a mother ? That's Yin Yang. Night and day, big and small, good and evil are all interrelated, intertwined, interdependent, and interconnected, necessary parts of the whole. One cannot exist without the other. To say God is good is being ridiculous. God is by necessity both good and evil. This Chinese wisdom is recorded in 5000 years old I-Ching, the Book of Transformation. May the love and the peace of Jesus be with us.
25:03 bookmark
What is the chief end of man?
I'm sure you get my reference. It would be interesting to compare and contrast The Westminster Confession with Aristotle's ideas.
I often do that in my classes, contrasting Aristotle, the Westminster Confession, Walter Pater, G. E. Moore, and the existentialists.
@@PhiloofAlexandria Excellent!
@@PhiloofAlexandria, are you VEGAN? 🌱
art for art's sake
money for god's sake
One of 10CC’s finest. 🎶
reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee