The Debate
VloĆŸit
- Äas pĆidĂĄn 9. 02. 2021
- This is the debate Vaush doesn't want you to see, it was never uploaded to his channel. Many have commented on this video and other highlight channels that its because of Vaush's performance, I also agree. Let me know in the comments, DO YOU THINK VAUSH IS TRYING TO HIDE THIS DEBATE?
In my opinion any video in which a Vaush vs Vegan debate has occurred Vaush lost the debate. Vaush losing a debate seems to be almost an impossible idea to many of his loyalist followers but his arguments against Veganism, moral realism and his poor takes on social responsibility in this debate speak for themselves.
Topics such as social responsibility, Socialism and Veganism are discussed at length.
đŽ Watch My Free Webinar: perspective-philosophy.ck.pag...
Twitch: / perspectivephilosophy
Discord: / discord
Donations:
streamlabs.com/perspectivephi...
Patreon:
/ perspectivephilosophy
COURSE đbit.ly/2VM6q97
TIP JAR đ° paypal.me/PerspectivePhilosoph?
Book recommendationsđ www.amazon.co.uk/shop/perspec...
When they were talking about language, and language being the vehicle of thought, I thought about a case I read when I was at uni. It was about an elderly lady who was considered to be mad and she lived in a mental asylum of her time. One of the things why she was considered mad was that she talked in a made-up language that nobody could understand, and her doctors thought that she was actively refusing to acknowledge that she could understand and speak German. One day, a gentleman went to this asylum on a visit and he said and overheard this lady rambling away: "No, this lady is not speaking a made-up language. She speaks the same language that my nanny used to speak.", meaning that she was one of the last speakers of this small language that would die out eventually.
"I don't wanna be vegan because capitalism"
Vaush literally uses capitalism as an excuse everytime someone tells him to live by his values..
This is because due to the nature of social pressures and the nature of what's accessible it becomes far more impractical. Not impossible, but certainly not as pragmatic as if we had more widescale adoption. In much the same way one might find incremental adjustments towards something marginally better to be a viable advocacy whilst simultaneously asserting that such incremental adjustments aren't enough to truly solve the recognized issues, one can believe it's more moral to be vegan and yet fail to make the commitment due to the current conditions. The world doesn't match my ideals, and as such, I must compromise with the world whilst seeking compromises from the world, that is merely the nature of surviving in a society at odds with one's self in such a way.
Itâs hilarious because I had one of his fans defend his take on child porn saying that not buying fair trade coffee literally makes you as bad as a pedophile with no exaggeration
@@DemonjustinofPhoenix It's easy as fuck to be vegan. Rice and vegetables are the cheapest things ever. you can eat vegan for less than like 3 bucks a day.
@@DemonjustinofPhoenix As opposed to being vegan in what society is it more practical?
@@reginald_1458 there is no society where it is viable, yet, it's becoming more viable but most likely never truly practical
But in socialism
Love him or hate him destiny got destroyed in this debate
RIP Destiny.
I mean Vaush doesn't smell like a rose after either debate
@@shinobi-no-bueno Vaush is made out of slime.
@@shinobi-no-bueno vaush smells like crap no matter what he does...
Well, at least destiny has a fucking spine. Vaush, on another hand, i don't know how he is able to stand.
Metaphysics | A Very Short Introduction (100% free)
czcams.com/video/M8VGPy7-_uw/video.htmlsi=f-kL9i_lv_HaJhZE
I know I am like 2 years late on this, but I highly recommend that you overcome your seeming distaste for sociology (just my interpretation, could totally be wrong on that) and read some Luhmann on system theory and language. Using Wittgenstein to talk about language is literally almost a century behind the discourse on the topic. In fact modern sociology is pretty much set on two psychological systems not sharing any common understanding of anything, which is why any communication happening within social systems loses some of it's original meaning due to a double-translation, first from the psychological system that we would colloquially describe as Person A's thoughts into the social system, where communication takes place and then back from that into the psychological system we would ascribe to be Person B's thoughts. There is no common understanding between individuals. If I say Apple, the Apple I think of will be fundamentally different from the Apple you think of, alone because I have aphantasia, meaning that your concept of apple includes visual information that my understanding could not possibly include due to my brain missing the ability to visualize things that aren't right in front of me.
I've heard 18 minutes of the video so far, and particularly from minute 8:00 to 11:50 or so.
I think that in-between thease minutes, there is a strange exchange in which "perspective philosophy" seems to claim that its better if a person who can become a landlord, doesent become a landlord, or if he does, he can therefore hold the housing hostage( or something umongs thease lines if I'm understanding it correctly).[or maybe he is saying that by chosing to not participate in a landlord function, you can therefore create a crash in the housing market, which would then mean that the gouverment would have to intervene]
Correct me if I'm wrong, because I will reply to this and vaushes take on how conforming to the status quo as a landlord is neutral ,next.
So 1st off, in either of the cases which I assumed PovPhilosophy to be taking, to me seem strange, since he just said earlier that a better solution is when the gouverment provides cheep public housing. If this is the case, than why can't socialist landlords, lower rent cost so they don't benifit more than the little they put in, or educate the tenants before giving them the land on which they are renting if they are able to support themselves through the tax.
By beeing in the system, can can advocate against the system through your actions, because then you would have a direct access to the means of production( if you were a bussiness owner) and in this case to the housing itself.
I disaguree that " it's neutral to open a small bussiness and yet still exploit workers the regular amount which anyone would exploit them", whilst there is no real neutral position in my pov, I would still say that if there were one, than that would be of the worker, not the landlord or bussinwss owner, since the bussiness owner, is directly contributing to the standard amount of exploitation, which in of it self might be small in comarrason to Amazon's exploitation, but it is still exploitation and something which perpetuates the same system.
Something beeing smaller doesent mean that its neutral. If 1 small bussiness is neutral, than are 10 of them also neutral?
I'm sure you'll aguree that they aren't. In which case we need to acknowledge the fact that there isn't only one small hardware store in the world, thus big or small, unless it is actively subverting the status quo in a positive direction, an action is not neutral.
Even if you are a victim of the system, as a worker, you are still a contributor, and the fact that you have no choice justifies you, but it doesent justify the action itself.
I hope I'm clear on this point.
I'm condemning the action of contributing to the status quo, without condemning the individual who didn't have much of a choice, and this is because I understand that they are in such a position in which if they did not contribute, they would individually make no positive change against the status quo, but would also would be in a position of less power if they did so alone. ( the working class needs recurses in order to go against the system, at least in a lot of its stages, because before you spread the idea throughout the working class masses, you won't really be able to just overturn the system just by collectively deciding not to go to work.
I am not excluding however, doing this in a workplace setting at which most of the workers of a single work place decide to cease production in order to regain leverage )
To me, whille we can embrace theory, we still have to embrace our material conditions as such.
Perhapse I'm wrong, but to my mind, most people won't be willing to sacrifice themselves fully unless they have sufficient support from their peers, and untill the goal at least looks like it can plausably be achieved at any given time. So we can't expect people who become landlords to not be landlords, but we can expect them to relinquish a lot of their power, and by doing so, empowering their tenants.
They can be landlords without engaging in the standard practises of what a landlord would do.
We can argue if that then really is a land lord or not, but we wouldn't really get anywhere, when we understand what is beeing meant here .
And in this context, a socialist who becomes a landlord, is still a socialist, in so far as they use their power in order to liberte their tenants. And in so far as they don't, than it cirtainly contradicts their self proclaimed socialist leanings.
( if I didn't word something properly, then do correct me, or ask me what I meant, and I will reply as soon as I can)
Have a good day !
Edit:
Alright heard around 14:32 , again, and realised that I did misunderstand PerspectivePhilosohy. I do aguree with what he basically said: if you have the means to lower the prices, than wouldn't that be the moral thing to do, instead of just keeping them as they are .
Okay, I do think he could have been clearer with this point from the begining, but it's live so what do I expect. Atleast he clarified it pretty soon in the convo.
â@@wfb.subtraktor311it's an interesting point you brought up, I do think that something like that is happening in the 18 minutes of the video I have seen se far, but I'm not completely sure.
Perhapse you are reffering to a later part of it, but to me it applies here.
I've not read either of thease 2 authors so thanks for the suggestion.
Your example of the apple perfectly encapsulates alot of discourse I see online and in my daily life, in which more and more frequently I catch myself in conversations with people in which whenever a disagreement arises, I realise that me and the other person were talking about fundamentally different things, even if it were the same topic.
I might see something from the perspective of " you betrayed me" and they might see it from " I can't give any more of myself" , and it's all on the topic of our relationship between eachother. ( not the most concrete example, since I didn't make the exact one I thought about for personal reasons...but even so, it further proves your point of how things get muddied up due to different conceptions and the amount of information actually shared, and the amount of information we think we shared )
Tell me if I'm getting your point, or correct me whare you think I'm wrong, and I'll reply when I can.
Have a good day.
@@MalkuthEmperor You almost got it right. Perspective is but one factor in why we do not share common understanding. The more crucial point to the debate, however, is that even with perfect cognitive empathy and a full consideration of the other person's perspective, we would still not have perfect communication, as the basic conceptualisations of what we are talking about might be different. For example, imagine you have a mother and her teenage kid, the mother always goes shopping, and when buying apples, she always buys granny smiths. When she talks about buying apples, she always thinks of the granny smith variety. Now, the teenager is old enough to go shopping and the mother asks them for the first time to go and also buy some apples. The teen does so, and brings home apples, but the apples aren't granny smiths, they are red delicious. The mother asks the son why he bought these apples, and the teen is puzzled. What happened here?
The mother, in her head, associates buying apples with buying granny smiths. These are indistinguishable to her. The teen however, only ever had "apples" on the table, they never had to go shopping, so their conceptualisation of "apples" didn't even include the existence of varieties. So when they went shopping, they just saw the first apples that looked good to them and grabbed them. Neither of them are wrong here. The mother had reason to assume the teen would bring home granny smith apples, the teen didn't know there even was a distinction. They were using the same words, but the meaning of these words included completely different categories of properties for either of them. Hence the loss of information in translation.
1:12:01
So far here.
My 2 sence on the matter.
As much as I dislike that fact, I have to aguree with vaush on the fact that "objectivity" is not "absolute objectivity".
For me , it works like this " our observations of the universe are fundamental influenced by our own personal biases, and even if they weren't, than what would be our way of knowing? "
How could we prove that objectivity is independent of out observation, when we infact have to observe whatever it is we are deeming to be objective?
I'm not saying that I know whether we can or can't, but I am saying that it might be unknowable, and so far seems to be.
And I think this is Vaushes position on this.
He doesent quite encapsulate the idea how I would per say, but reguardless.
From this point on, what we deem as objective therefore is something that we are initially biased towards, and then perhapse aguree on, dependant on the amount of information we have on it, and based on the type of information we have.
What I would call 1st principles, is something which I have been socialised to see as advantageous.
To me those are things like empathy, phisical and mental health, and such. ( I know they are vague in the way i just named them rn , and I can not prove them as good values with absolute objectively, since to me that is impossible to ultimately prove, but that doesent mean that I can't treat things as objective within a framework)
However be the case, I struggle to convey this idea more precisely. I feel it more than anything else, but who knows maybe I'll get to some satisfactory answer eventually.
I'd like to give Perspective philosophy the benifit of the doubt here, that he is aware of this and there is therefore more to his point, but I suppose, I'll have to listen and see if anything clicks for me.
I think it is quite telling that Vaush hasn't uploaded this to his channel...
Probably because he doesnât care all that much about it. Sometimes these things just donât get posted . The Vegan debate just doesnât get the same attention Vaush debating a proud boy or something.!
"I'm being insufferable and you're the one doing funny voices"
My man where can we give you money
@@JamesThomas-xv4tf I reject this. Vaush uploads videos of him debating randos all the time when he does well against them, even if its not a topic his fans typically care about. If Vaush didn't perform as terribly in this debate as he did, he would have uploaded it, but he did do poorly so he didn't upload it and instead uploaded a video of him talking about how Destiny fans are mean to him or some shit.
In fairness, I dont like Vaush, but I've seen him uploading videos late and people jumped the gun saying 'OMG how embarrassing he didn't upload the video'
Just sayin
@@Ethan-kt7yl I've been so annoyed with the mannerisms of the American debate bro scene. This was genuinely refreshing.
Vaushâs position is that whatever makes him right is his position.
"To win as a socialist, not to lose as a socialist", as he said.
Although one can argue that if your only principle is to win, what is even considered "to win as a socialist"?
Especially when he's wrong...
What's even worse is I think PP was trying to show that as a result of his epistemic anti realism he can't even know what the hell makes him right. Actually, he can't have knowledge of anything.
...whether its right or not
Most of this conversation flew right past Vaush. It's kind of annoying how intellectual lightweights like him and Destiny are as big when they don't even understand the fundamental basics of their own belief system. And then they only care about winning, not about learning from people clearly more knowledgeable than them.
Then again if you compare them to commentators and actors outside of social media it tends to be even worse. Sigh
The amount of people in the comments just now realizing how disingenuous vaush is when debating is disturbing. He REGULARLY speaks authoritatively on topics he knows nothing about. The people here who watch his content shouldn't be surprised that he's doing it here.
The amount of people just now realizing that EVERYONE speaks authoritatively on topics they know nothing about is disturbing, if you think Vaush is the only one then you have a lot of growing up to do. Everyone does it kid, its the topic you choose to act authoritative about which is when the problems usually start.
@@Septiviumexe What an absurd argument. Not everyone speaks authoritatively on things they don't know about. Where are you even getting this from?
Even if everyone did do this, Vaush is a content creator with a relatively large fanbase. Him doing it is far more harmful and he shouldn't be held to the same standard as everyone else. This is a dumb take.
@@Septiviumexe you actually sound like Vaush right here so I assume you're one of his fans. Not everyone speaks with authority on things they know nothing about. We literally wouldn't have the word "expert" if that was the case.
@@ItsThatKidGreg I am a Vaush fan but its not like I worship the guy, I like his ideas, thats it. You are LITERALLY speaking authoritatively on the fact that you think that you know that everyone doesn't speak authoritatively on things they know nothing about, please tell me you understand this? You've just made a subjective statement on something you have no data on, something you have guessed. Something you contextually know nothing about
@@Septiviumexe @Mass Debater ok, I may not have any data that says there are people who know things well enough to discuss with authority, but by the nature of research data existing at all, I think my point is proven that there are experts in the world. If that's not convincing enough, go tell your doctor they have no right to speak authoritatively about your health because they, like everyone else, is speaking that way about something they know nothing about.
The fact that you're trying to extrapolate the greater point of what you want to prove from our small exchange, DESPITE your faulty premise shows me you picked up the same disingenuous style of debate as Vaush. The premise of your argument is flawed because you decided to go with a broad brush statement like "everyone does X", which CAN'T be proven true, while the opposite "NOT everyone does X" can be easily demonstrated. This is basic logic and reasoning you can learn in grade school.
If you want to be part of any type of real discourse, I suggest you learn the actual rules of debate. The shit Vaush gets up to, like blatantly misrepresenting the other person's point, poisoning the well by arguing against straw men rather than the actual point, and making ad hominem attacks rather than arguing the point are exactly why he's seen as disingenuous by people like myself. A good example of him doing all of what I just mentioned is the debate with Jackson Hinkle, where he begins implying Jackson must be a holocaust denier for not agreeing with him, despite him only reading up on the topic of discussion the night before. I urge you to rewatch the dude's debates after reading up on dishonest debate tactics. Your perspective on how to go about having a reasonable and honest debate might change drastically.
He also does this thing with his tone of voice where he implies he doesnt know something and somehow him not knowing it invalidates the point or information as if he is king of being right and knowing things.
I hate when ppl do this. They act like what they dont understand must be bullshit because simply because they dont get it or have never heard of it.
What he isn't familiar with must just be worthless
@@shannond1511 Narcissist's bro, they tend to think the world revolves around them.
He uses typical woman tactics. Huge red flag in a man.
@@pleaseenteranamelol711 Of course the flag would be red after the woman stabs you with it
I'm a Vaush fan, but he speaks so authoritatively on a topic which he concedes that he isn't well-read on, in philosophy. That's very infuriating.
EDIT: A year on, I barely constitute as a Vaush fan. Still agree with his anti-Tankie debates, and anti-Nazi debates, but not much else.
Then why are you a Vaush fan?
@@brainbeatsdick7483 because I enjoy his takes on socialism, which he is knowledgeable on.
@@brainbeatsdick7483 It's possible to recognize that someone usually makes great content even though they have their flaws.
@@woosh2055 He has a base level knowledge of socialism, openly admits he doesn't do a lot of research and that he's just really good at rhetoric. What takes do you get from vaush that you dont get from other content creators?
@@brainbeatsdick7483 can you recommend some other content creators? If there is some well-informed substantive leftie content I'd be happy to wean myself off Vaush
"I am consistent, my axioms change all the time"
Lol what
Wasn't he saying that he's being consistent with respect to those specific axioms?
@@romanski5811 Yes, probably, but oneâs positions are downstream from one's axioms. If oneâs axioms change âall the time,â oneâs positions are necessarily inconsistent.
@@romanski5811 which is self refuting
@@unconcernedcitizen4092 "If oneâs axioms change âall the time,â oneâs positions are necessarily inconsistent."
That is explicitly false. The only way you'd have the shadow of a point is if the axioms are being changed unevenly in an ad hoc attempt to make two (or more) positions that previously shared an axiom logically reconcilable with each other.
You just straightforwardly don't understand deontic logic _at all_ .
@@JohnCenaFan6298 Dead wrong. Not even close. See my reply to Unconcerned Citizen.
Man, watching Vaush's typical vacuous rhetorical strategies crash against PP like waves against a rock was immensely satisfying. I dont think Vaush is used to someone being able to come back at him with intelligent responses that both encapsulate his arguments and defeat them at the same time.
Vaush bad
@@sofalso Are you upset he is actually bad?
Thing is alot of peoplenhave wrecked vaush, he just isn't bright enough to understand. Apparently his viewers aren't either.
@@Vaga-Bard which other debates would you this occurred in?
@@Vaga-Bard you have any of those debates on hand, genuinely curious would love to watch em
Even as a leftie this is a good, informative video. It helps highlight and show that even if you like someone (Vaush) itâs important to realize they can and do have poor takes and have their weaknesses. This allows us to be critical and expand the dialogue in a constructive manner. Gave me a good excuse to do some philosophy research.
It's so weird to watch lefties say things that are just... what literally every normal person does, ever. Did you not realize before this video that people you watch can have bad takes???? Did you never disagree with the people you watched before?
@@slamdangles no? Iâm just saying itâs important and that this video helps? Literally my first sentence.
@@ianperry8557 It's not a "bad take" because this is how 99% of his debates looks like, him being dishonest, lying about avoiding bad faith arguments and few seconds later he does just that. It's literally Vaush trying to win debate no matter if he have to lie, bend reality, or any other of his "pro moves" that he is strongly against, if others use them. I watched Vaush for some time, but now looking at debates and how he dehumanizes everyone he does not agree with, im sure he is just an evil dude
This isn't a "poor take", this is how Vaush argues every time. He doesn't argue in good faith, he lies constantly and uses logical fallacies and gaslighting to try to score points over his opponent. He doesn't even know anything about the things he argues about, he goes in with zero research and then acts surprised that an expert in the field he's debating actually knows what he's talking about. Vaush gets BTFO in every single argument he has, he just pretends otherwise. Like when he tried to argue that because the word for water in Spanish is agua (except he said aqua, which is French/Latin, not Spanish), it means water doesn't exist in objective reality. What kind of nonsense is that?
Between his constant lies and underhanded tactics, his dehumanization of anyone he disagrees with, and his regular defense of pedophilia, Vaush is clearly a bad person and I'm surprised anyone takes this clown seriously.
Vaush is just a sophist that tries to win debates at all costs, using strawman arguments and bad faith all the time.
Vaush is clearly in over his head here but too arrogant to admit he possibly could be wrong about ANYTHING... even slightly..
He'll say "well, I may have been unclear because of the circumstances, but my argument was actually this much easier to defend thing" you're right, he'll never cede a point.
@@zacharychristy8928 Yup, I've noticed that as well. To be frank, I find this behavior is a lot more present among members of a majority group (i.e. white, male, y'know...). The strangest, unearned confidence.
this is my main complaint with Vaush, I like the guy, but I worry that he's been "right" for so long that he's not willing to look at cases where he might be wrong
@@Kavukamari "worry"... I think we're pretty much to the point where its just blatant fact, he's a class A narcissist.
@@Jaryism that doesn't make him a narcissistic that makes him human... The title of this vid is just as narcissistic. I mean Vaush didn't upload his debate with me either. That doesn't mean he doesn't want people to see it. It just means he doesn't think it will help his channel and message. Either because it is uninteresting to his audience or because it simply doesn't support his greater message.
Most people will refuse to admit they are wrong in a debate. When Vaush is getting good faith criticisms he's actually not very defensive. This debate perfectly illustrates that. When Vaush felt that PP was being bad faith he used emotive and inflamatory language like delusional. When he realised the arguments were being made in good faith he actually took on board the comments and changed to being far less confrontational.
Vaush seems over all someone that does change his takes based on new info like his tactical N word for instance đ€·ââïž
Holy shit this has really highlighted how bad Vaush can treat people he has discussions with. Really disappointed. Love the channel, will definitely stick around and see what else is here.
If I may defend Vaush (who I have watched a lot). The number of people who throw philosophical theory incorrectly into their debate tactics to use it to back up their point is quite high. I think Perspective Philosophy was giving him some bad vibes so he went on the offensive. This usually exposes the opponent as someone who has no idea what the words they are saying means. But Perspective Philosophy knows what they are talking about.
I think Vaush made a bad call by going on the offensive here, but I can see why he did it.
Towards the end they were having a really good debate. I would have liked it to continue. I hope they debate on the metaphysical some more.
I agree that vaush is awful but I will not pretend that perspective philosophies statements on veganism were not equally as dishonest and awful as vaushâs arguments.
@@TheXello the problem is that vaush doesnât know what heâs talking about. MantisWave video on vaush highlights why and where vaush has no idea what heâs talking about.
â@@TheXellothe truth is Vaush is just an insufferable asshole. I've heard him say how much respect he has for philosophy in his Politics 101 video. He even forwent speaking on certain concepts for lack of education. Here, he not only scoffs at the philosophy, but he just speaks out of his ass. I don't see why you feel the need to defend him.
Whenever I'm reminded of how Gaddafi went down... it think to myself that it should have been Vaush
I think I remember seeing this live on Vaush's stream. Afterwards he complained for a bit about how this guy didn't argue just guestered at his knowledge. He's the reason Vaush says that he's read all theory. You can probably find it in his stream vods playlist where he uploads every stream
Yeah, I remember seeing this as well. Though, tbh, I couldn't care less if he didn't. He hasn't looked bad at all yet (25min into a review).
I think PP's just tapping the clickbait and Vaush bad markets, which is understandable. All slaves to capitalism and all that.
There is also potential that PP may have put a strike on the vod. Always possible.
@@BirdBrain1337 If you watch the degenerate who argues for legalizing CP and pdf file-ia and then defend him... That says more than enough about communists/marxists. The positive side of this story is, if those people ever get their way, and get their "communist utopia", those useful idiots will be the first ones sent to the gulag đđđ
Atleast finally for the first time in their life people like that degenerate will have to work and do something productive.
Wait so it IS uploaded? LMao.
@@BirdBrain1337 yeahhh I think I might agree with you. Idk, Iâm gonna try and watch the whole thing before I make a decision, but frankly Iâm going to watch a vaush stream first lmao.
I donât get the impression that the guy vaush is debating, nor his audience, are very good at self critique. Iâll be back in a few hours to finish the video while I play cult of the lamb, though. Maybe he will change my mind, Iâm certainly not opposed to it vaush definitely says dumb shit lol.
@@christianmccauley7340 cheers, fam.
I love the irony of Vaush not realizing that he's being inconsistent with whether or not he believes he is being consistent or inconsistent
No one is consistent with their ideology. No one. I find it pretty hilarious that this is, for some people, a sign of some kind of intellectual dishonesty. The entire point at the beginning of this whole thing was Perspective Philosophy making the 'no ethical consumption under capitalism' argument, and then holding Vaush up to a standard and 'inconsistency' while he himself claiming to be socialist is providing google money and himself ad revenue.
I mean, seriously, if this is the best anyone has, write it down on a napkin and give it to me because i'm out of toilet paper.
Real inconsistencies are stances like 'pro life' when in reality it's pro birth or other nefarious positions couched in supposedly empathetic language. Doing the best you have with what you got is not inconsistency. Moralizing inconsistency is the same thing as pointing out a hypocrite: it doesn't actually address anything other than you found a contradiction, much like pointing out climate change is a problem, and then saying nothing afterwards. Like, okay cool, you saw something you didn't like. So now what?
@@heavysystemsinc. I think you misunderstand
That's some big "wow, a character from the MCU did her hair and that's exciting to me" energy. Oof
@@heavysystemsinc. Huh? I am entirely consistent within my ideology, and have been so for years now. I guess it helps when your ideology is internally consistent within itself.
@@scaryperi3051 If you honestly think that you might want to take a close look at yourself and reassess that ridiculous notion that any subjective human being that is governed by emotion can ever be 100% consistent in their views.
Found your channel after the Vaush debate. Really liked your arguments and was incredibly impressed by the depth of your knowledge and your conviction!
Debating Vaush is the kind of thankless task that makes an intellectual valuable to the public. Much gratitude for a wildly entertaining spectacle.
Ngl, ive been slowly turning away from Vaush's content and ides because of debates like this. Like i dont mind people having positions that aren't substantiated well and they're at least willing to discuss it and perhaps admit they need to go back to the drawing board. But when you get this triggered, blatantly belligerent, condescending and essentially unwilling to actually have a conversation... im just blown away.
first conversation in a while I'm not listening to at 2x and am actually listening closely to every argument, there's really something important here
Dude I absolutely loved your debate. You add an entirely another level to the discourse. You should get more engaged in politics in my opinion.
this dude is the reason people don't take philosophers seriously & frankly find them insufferable.
@@bvishal2kn I'm not disagreeing or arguing but care to elaborate?
I never seen this guy til just now and not all that impressed, and no I don't watch vaush.
@@blakewisswell It's probably because PP makes references and uses words he doesn't understand (alot of people accuse philosophers of word salad). I don't mean that as an insult either, but it's really hard to engage with philosophers when you're essentially required to have read 50 authors and also understood their points sufficiently just to have a conversation on the same ground in a world that actively combats higher level education for the vast majority.
@@Luftgitarrenprofi maybe. I haven't watched anything else. Seen a couple tweets. His reasoning is a little 'meh' to me. Not bad not good.
@@Luftgitarrenprofi it's true that it's extremely difficult for the average person to effectively engage with someone educated in philosophy but vaush willingly chose to debate him. PP is using the knowledge that he has expertise in as a doctoral candidate in philosophy. he shouldn't have to dumb down his arguments when vaush chose to debate him knowing that he has that expertise.
Vaush the kind of guy that will rather deny the reality of our universe than admit he is wrong on ordering mustard steak
Most of us are đ
I don't hear an argument against it.
I've never heard the term mustard steak. I'm gonna wipe it clean from my memory.
When rationality goes too far and becomes irrational
So? From what Iâve seen most PHD level philosophers arenât even ACTUAL moral realists despite the term. Most of their arguments Iâve seen (Iâm not a goat at philosophy, just someone who looks into it occasionally when Iâm bored of politics) are just reasons to act as though moral realism is possible not that it even exists.
One of my favorite discussions. The ego is so dangerous in personal philosophical modification.
This was the first debate I watched where Vaush admitted he was not aware of certain concepts his opposition introduces instead of pretending like he was already well-versed in the subject matter.
I'm so glad your video was recommended to me. I absolutely love your content and the fact that you don't dumb down complex philosophical concepts but explain them well and precisely. I'll binge your content for the next days
PP: "So I'm being insufferable, but you're putting on silly voices?"
Vaush: "Yes, that is correct."
Pretty much says it all.
i ccringed hard omg.
Both of these guys are fools
@@uppercutgrandma4425 why
You can rewatch all of his Streams
czcams.com/video/Zy6ZBjW84oI/video.html
Class been watching a few debates just lately and this vid has just took it to a new level for me
I don't understand how someone can go out of their way to say that they have no principles ("I just say random things that I feel like saying right now") and then also:
1) expect to be taken seriously
2) claim that their goal is to convince people and "win"
It's called two things.... "culture war" and "stupidity"
I know this is really old, but he didn't say that? He said he's a moral anti realist, which doesn't mean you don't have principles
@@hectichero321 He's openly admitted he just wants to win, and not for nothing but if you actually listen to Vaush's nonsense it's very clear he doesn't have any principles except for "winning" which he never does.
And honestly, what the fuck does "moral anti realist" even mean?
It doesn't mean a fucking thing. Everyone has a set of morals, and everyone has to live within reality unless they are wildly mentally ill.
@@hectichero321
In debate he has zero principals other than whatever he believes will be most immediately expedient to appear to be coming out on top moment to moment.
His positions and rhetoric can and will contradict themselves within minutes of each other as required by this principal.
He has the reddit intellectual disease, and frankly it's inoperable.
@@hectichero321His verbatim goal in any âdiscussionâ isnât truth, itâs to âwinâ regardless of right or wrong. By his own words, he literally stands for nothing but being a whiny manchild until he either gets his way or gishgallops to the point of destroying any sense of a coherent two way dialogue. If you actually listened to what he said, youâd understand that Vaush doesnât have conversations with people to communicate ideas, he simply chooses to force his ideas to be âcorrectâ because theyâre his ideas - heâs waiting to speak, not listening.
OMG I've been waiting for this!
Same! Proper stoked to see this! :D
okay akihiko
@@mightytaco123 not familiar with akihiko đ€·ââïž
WOW. Absolutely ran circles around him. Well done.
yeah he just knows so much more than him itâs like vaush read wiki articles on his positions and jumped into a debate
Vaush does that with all of his talking points.
Loves to spout about âfacts and logicâ and then when faced with them hides behind the shield of subjectivity.
This entire debate can essentially be summed up as, âwith great power comes great responsibilityâ
If Vaush was Spider-man Uncle Ben would tell him "with great power comes great responsibility" and then just stays a civilian because bad guys are gonna bad guy
@@samuelwilkin5 Vaush would just become a supervillain himself because of his self serving attitude. He would only do a good thing if it didn't inconvenience himself enough.
@@Juusokakku After looking at his "Poppy" drama and how he treated a person, and claimed that "Sexually harrasing someone on discord isn't bad, i don't feel remorse" im sure he would be a villan.
@@Juusokakku Vaush would join Hydra in the name of Socialism lol
@@majorbombasdonât forget that time he said child pornography is fine.
Found you because of this debate with Vaush and not disappointed, I have always wondered where Vaush would draw the line or fall into the Deontological frame of mind as no one is purely a Deontologal or Utilitarian, more so closer to one or another depending on the situation. Also, I wish I could go and get an education in PoliSci with Philosophy did for one semester but well money is king lubricator and I don't have enough. You earned my sub in this debate and I finally had the courage to ender discord and chat recently. Just came back to say thanks and help with the algorithm.
Edit:
I remember the original stream and this revealed Vaush is all about the ends, not the means. He wants to disenfranchise all conservatives,
covers for political violence from the left but acknowledges the political violence on the right. This also introduced me to Perspective Philosophy and I have not been disappointed yet, I may disagree politically but unlike Vaush he doesn't attack the character he addresses the ideals. If it hasn't happened Michael Moreno and Perspective Philosophy would be a good discussion.
really hoping ya'll talk again, this was a great watch
This was an awesome video! I had most of these thoughts but just didn't know how to word them properly. Well done!
My consistent issue with Vaush is not just his lack of principles, but this odd notion that he can never just admit to either not knowing something or just being outright wrong. Itâs not a horrible thing to just say âI donât knowâ. I donât debate topics that I donât know anything about, at most Iâll just ask challenging questions to get information that I didnât have prior, but Vaush sees this as losing. Does he think his fans are going to outright abandon him just for not knowing something admittedly? I doubt it, so why not just admit it? I donât get it man.
Brother, to be completely direct and honest with you I think it's because his goals for such a talk are to win a rhetorical battle and further some sort of message, or set of messages, with the audience. Vaush is not entering such a discussion in good faith.
Well, because he openly is of the opinion that it is a good thing to lie to people if it helps the political goal you perceive right
He literally said he didn't know shit in the middle of this debate, what?
Why are you lying? He regularly looks things up mid-sentence because he doesn't know them.
Guys⊠my comment is from 2 years ago, I donât give a shit đ
No matter how smart someone is they melt down to this nonsense when their meat eating is challenged.
@Ethan Hunter đ€Ą
@Kenura Medagedara What did she say?
Meat taste good đ
A bear can live off of meat or plants. Should we assign them a negative utility because they eat meat, and sometimes eat meat from a farm?
@@HarkDawg25 I donât care
Thank you for challenging Vaush. Please do it more often
I don't see why vaush wouldn't upload this. Aside from the vegan section, it seemed pretty reasonable.
Bro probably just forgot
mentiswave does a good video on why he's being absolute insane in this debate
You know his philosophy was doomed when he claimed to be "morally free" yet based his views on a "neutral" spectrum. Basically giving his own opinions as facts.
Oooh I clicked expecting a response and didnât expect a convo! Thisâll be good
I'm a fan of Vaush, but the fervor with which he is confident in his anti-vegan takes (and some other things) really annoys me...
he wasn't anti vegan though, just anti essentialism
@@FedThePoopy he quite literally has banned vegans from talking to him and if you read his comments he is anti-vegan
Those are usually the takes he lifts from Destiny.
why a fan?
@@jazzcabbage9370 he literally is pro vegan
Ive listened to this debate on vaush's channel... what?
You should do a video on after virtue.
I've listened to the audio book once but the only thing I took away was the beginning thought experiment about the lost history of ethics.
After listening to this im interested i listening to it again but I would love to hear you break down the cliffnotes.
I will 100% do that once I have the time!
Would love some timestamps so we can jump to specific topics in future videos :)
Vaush seemed very abrasive here. I want to be very very charitable and say that he thought this would be a remastered version of the 'rem' debate. And thats why he goes full 13yo troll voice in some instances. But rather late, in the end, I think he either realized that he was making himself look bed, or he saw you as actually trying to engage, and changed his tone. I really would like a round 2 of this, with him actually being mature the whole way through
I feel like PP's lighthearted response to Vaush trolling him about reading After Virtue and meeting Alisdair was the turning point for Vaush being more receptive.
@@Maelthorn1337 great catch. You are probably right
Also PP is actually quite a bright fellow. I felt like I learnt something.
Yeah, this reminds me of the âdebateâ he did with the German climate change denier. He kept laughing and mocking him, any climate change denier must have felt demeaned and not taken seriously. The denierâs points were super data driven from what I remember, and I donât think Vaush was prepared to take down his points.
@@june4135 I mean it might be true he acted similar here but I think he did well against that climate denier.
He didn't provide a wealth of data himself but he did point well a lot of the issues the other dude had interpreting it/framing it or how his data was far from the consensus he pretended it was.
As a former philosophy student, this was a very satisfying debate seeing as you obliterated him and he knew it.
but he didnt
I think it was the only anchor he could hang onto.@@garywebb2432
@@garywebb2432 I agree vaush is too dumb and self assured to understand how bad he did in this debate
@@garywebb2432yes, yes he did. You are blatantly lying to us right now.
how
@@zzodysseuszz
Man, idk shit about Socialism, but Veganism is definitivly the way
I would love to, but I am allergic to too many things to do that sadly. I'm immuno compromised and sadly a lot of vegetables including beans/soy are on my 3rd level.
your expressions through the video remind me of a college professor to a student on there first day of school
As much as I like vaush, I forget how much of an edge lord he can be. I learned a lot from your explanations.
Why do you have such affinity for an edgelord?
@@kinghassy334 So why are you a fan of a person like that?
@@brainbeatsdick7483 because he's entertaining and generally good on all other things
@@kinghassy334 What a descriptive, unique answer. You sound brainvaushed. How old are you? 21?
@@brainbeatsdick7483 lmaoo brainvaushed, good one
Were you thinking of something else when you said the Frege-Geche embedding problem? I looked it up and it doesnât sound like what you were talking about
Ian: I'm a presuppositionalist.
Also Ian: *has no idea how utility works*
Nice. Itâs always good to listen to someone more well-read on phil stuff talk to a popular debate guy like vaush
Hmm, I'm not sure Vaush's point around the middle of the discussion was answered fully.
As a Vegan, something I've struggled with is in answering those "thresholds." We say the consumption of animal products is wrong, as you are putting money into the hands of an industry that then does harm. However, purchasing any type of food will put money into the hands of some 'thing' that then enacts harm. Thus, the problem is not discrete and instead is continuous. That is, we arbitrarily select some point on this gradient and leave it at that.
As a Vegan, I've had another Vegan get mad at me for the one time I purchased Rice milk, as consumes more water and causes more emissions than some of the other plant-based milks. This has also happened when I purchased oat milk instead of almond milk, as it causes more emissions and land use than almond milk. And I've even been criticized for the purchase of those milks in the first place, as other food choices are better for the same nutritional value.
And we can keep going down this path -- why buy rice when you can just eat beans? The latter has more nutritional value and has less impact on the environment. Yet, why should we even buy legumes, when we have potatoes that are far less impactful on the environment?
Perhaps legumes have more protein. But why do we need to eat more protein than what is nutritionally required to be healthy? It seems lifting weights and being an athlete are "bad" things, because they end up contributing to the consumption of unnecessary products that harm the environment.
Similarly, I've donated quite a bit of money to the Against Malaria Foundation (AMF). Yet, I could always donate more. I may need an RTX 2080 to play new games in 4k 100+ FPS, but I could instead give that money to people who need it. Further, I don't even need a good PC, as I can play video games in bad quality, that way the money for a medium quality PC would instead go to people that need it. FURTHER I don't even need to play video games at all -- this way, all of that money can go to someone that needs it.
What Vaush said is entirely correct. My father is not a Vegan, yet donates a TON of his money to AMF (more than me, and even proportionally more than me). And whenever I have asked Vegans I personally know or meet on how much they have donated, I find out they barely donate if at all. This includes the vegans that criticized me for the type of plant milk I bought.
So it does end up just coming off as a "dick measuring contest."
TL;DR: Veganism definitely seems like a "dick measuring contest" for a great number of Vegans.
I agree with this general argument, however I would draw a hard line at eating meat. I think it actually isn't that bad to consume stuff that has animal products in them IF those products could feasibly be made without the use of animal products, because in that case we should be advocating to change the production process, not necessarily to eliminate the consumption of that product. But when it comes to meat, it is literally impossible for a ribeye steak to be made without killing a cow, so the only thing we can do in that situation is to eliminate the consumption of ribeye steaks. I would even concede that not all meat products fall into this latter category, for example if someone said they eat meat burgers but will immediately switch to lab grown burgers once they become available, I would be completely fine with that, because meat patties could genuinely be closely replicated through lab grown meat whereas ribeye steaks can't.
I agree with the basic premise of this point and personally, the way that I deal with this issue myself is that:
-I acknowledge that we live in a society, where we will always negatively affect the environment or contribute to/support a harmful industry (unless we change how our society functions, then the harm will still exist, however, it will be far lesser, the negative outcomes created might become minor enough to be considered insignificant). Therefore, it's impossible for us to live in a truly ethical way. There are many ethical decisions that we can make. We might make some decisions that are more ethical than the decisions made by others and at the same time, other people can make ethical decisions that are more ethical than the ones we make. This is ok.
-Although it's unrealistic for a human being to be ethical in every way possible, we should still strive to minimize the harm we cause.
-Human life is valuable, thus while it would not be ethical for an individual to minimize the harm that they cause by making themselves not alive. I feel that I need to state this for safety reasons.
-I'm sure that we could both agree that the lives of animals are valuable, just like human lives.
-I personally think that most people tend to focus on veganism since it's more extreme than vegetarianism, and it's also more ethical. However, I shall focus mainly on the consumption of meat, rather than either of the aforementioned categories.
-When it comes to ethics, we tend to focus a lot on anti-meat consumption movements, and I think that's mainly because the harm it causes is far greater than the other things you mentioned. Meat consumption negatively affects the environment, contributes to a harmful industry, and results in the suffering and death of non-human animals. Therefore, I think that it could be argued that based on this 3 category system, meat consumption hits all the "you probably should not do that because it causes x" categories. Ethically speaking, I personally view this to be why there is such a deep intense focus on meat consumption.
-The threshold for what you mentioned is individual and I personally believe that a person's threshold should be as high as they can make it. At the same time, I understand that we as human beings desire certain things such as comfort. And I personally believe that this should include proper nutrition and yeah I would agree that we probably should not consume more protein than required. That's a valid point that you made.
-While I do strive to make ethical choices, I accept the fact that I will make unethical choices. Those choices are bad, and I should not make them. But sometimes I will, it is inevitable. However, I will always strive to do better over time, meaning that as time goes on, I will make more and more ethical choices.
-I could see how someone may argue that it would be more beneficial for me to make as many ethical choices as I humanely could right now, however, I would argue that making ethical choices takes knowledge, finding better alternatives takes time, therefore this is not something I can freely choose to do and be at the highest threshold I can personally agree. This is a process of education and adaptation and it takes time. If I just as deeply as I can into this, I will most likely get overwhelmed and give up which would be counter-intuitive as it would lead me to cause more harm than if I allowed this to be a process.
-In my option, if this is a dick measuring contents, it should be a dick measuring contest, where you only measure your own dick and you keep the size of your dick to yourself. Sure, you can give advice and help educate people, however, you should not try to measure their dicks yourself.
To conclude: Yeah I do think that more people should be vegan, and that vegan advocacy is good (as long as it does not shame people as this might push them away from veganism.) At the same time, I find it acceptable not to be vegan, however, I think that it's wrong to argue against the idea of veganism and or to dismiss it. In my view, it's ok for people not to be vegan, however, I would strongly prefer it if people who consume meat and animal by-products, acknowledge/ know that they could make more ethical choices, by making as many vegan/vegetarian/ meat-free, food-related decisions that they can. It should not be done in a way that shames, but rather as a polite respectful suggestion.
This is just how personally logic this out. I'm not saying that you have to agree with me or follow my logic. This is simply my personal view, based on the subjective moral basis that I believe in, which mainly focuses on harm reduction. I am also ok with being a "bad person" / doing bad things. I totally understand how that is problematic, because, well it is. If we accept that it's ok for us to do bad things, then what reason to we have to follow what we perceive as moral? Anyways, I am still trying to figure out either a compromise or a new better way of thinking about this whole "it's ok to be a bad person and to do bad things" opinion that I have. I do think that perhaps, the assumption that we should strive towards doing what is the most ethical, is the best way to resolve that. However, I shall let that sit on my mind for the time being. Now that I think about it, maybe I could change "it's ok to be a bad person" to something like "we as human beings, care about our own wellbeing above anything else" but now I got to figure out if I can find any way to criticize/argue against that statement.
Furthermore, I may change my view in the future. I don't view my views as being objectively correct, they are subjective, I just have to assume that they are right/make as much sense as they can, until I change my mind lol. It's either that or feeling as though everything is hopeless and meaningless, and that just doesn't vibe with me cuz I personally care about my own wellbeing.
The problem is, if you don't think that animals should be given the same moral consideration as humans, than any line you draw before then is necessarily arbitrary and you can't call any one line 'right' or 'wrong' in that sense.
I'm personally more on the side of animal welfare, and I recognize that the line is arbitrary, like why is factory farming bad but not eating meat?
But if a vegan thinks you shouldn't eat meat, should they be given the same moral consideration as humans, then? If they don't think so, then why is eating meat wrong but an animal life isn't worth as much as a humans. Because if they think it's an ethical obligation of everyone to not consume any animal products, why shouldn't it just be murder to consume animals?
@@blasianking4827
Let me see if I understand you correctly.
"than any line you draw before then is necessarily arbitrary and you can't call any one line 'right' or 'wrong' in that sense."
The issue as I see it is that a line must be drawn, and there is no way in getting past that. There is no distinct answer at any one point, but drawing a line can have some practical application. Many vegans strive for a "pure" diet, yet this is not only impossible, it is impractical and invalidates the original purpose in going plant-based. I'd rather convince 10 people to go vegetarian, than argue with another vegan on soy milk vs rice milk.
"why is eating meat wrong but an animal life isn't worth as much as a humans."
An animal isn't nearly as intelligent or conscious as a human, and doesn't have anywhere near our capacity with language (language in a more fundamental sense, which is tied directly into intelligence and even ethical problems). A child, for example, doesn't have the right to own a gun, vote, or even drive, until a certain age. They are disallowed certain rights/privileges despite still being human and significantly more intelligent than any animal. The same applies with animals.
@@DDogg43777 Oh I agree that a line must be drawn. I think you're misunderstanding my point, because I agree with you for the most part.
I am validating different people's perspectives on what line they wish to draw, not saying that everyone should go vegan or whatever.
Dude keep this up and your channel will pop off. Definitely subbed
This debate enraged me goddamn, good job holding his feet to the fire starting to really dig this channel
The hypotheticals are like a never ending vortex.
Would love to hear how you've debated Jay Dyer on each other's fundamentals 10mins after uploading the video, so I could listen to it.
for someone that thinks "being a bad person" is meaningless he's quite stuck up on whether vegans think he's a "bad person".
It's more about the hubris of the vegan.
Imagine drinking a cup of water because you're thirsty, yet some random person says you're a bad person because the cup isn't environmentally friendly.
You'd be standing there like, "What? What are you talking about?"
Yet they insist you're a bad person. It's meaningless, but the literal accusation is annoying. Especially with how convinced the person making the accusation is. You'd think they're a lunatic.
@@tekigami8169 Nonsense. He himself admitted he has no consistent moral foundation to anything. So why is hubris bad, and modesty good? The truth is he just doesn't want to feel judged. Most people are quite bad at feeling like a bad person, or a person who does bad things. Even dogs seem uncomfortable for being judged, it's a very base instinct. All his posturing about some preaching, or someone 'daring' to insinuate something about his moral status is just diverting the discussion away from his badly formulated takes on morality. He's literally acting like a guilty dog lmao.
â@@tekigami8169 Most vegans don't even do that, though. Most vegans believe that when someone consumes animal products when they have the ability to choose another product that isn't derived from animal agriculture, that person is doing a very bad thing but isn't necessarily a bad person.
Morality doesn't exist. Murder is always bad. The person being a p3dophile makes it morally correct.
@@scaryjerryofmerrykerriemay2727 what?
50:15
PP: So I'm being insufferable, but you're putting on silly voices?
Vaush: (Realising that he has been called out for using a stupid rhetorical strategy) YeS ThAt Is CoRrEcT.
đ€Łđ€Łđ€Łđ€Ł
i mean hes not wrong
Yeah like pp did come off pretty preachy but maybe thatâs just him trying to like heard vaush into an objective moral framing, but him just completely refusing that such a framing is even objective at all
He was exactly right
@@sofalso Vaush was?
@@BlakeZeb yup
Can you make a video about books and philosophers you would recommend? This video is the first time I've heard of alasdair McIntyre
I can highly recommend McIntyre's book "After Virtue". It attempts to explain why modern day discussions on most topics never truly end up being "solved". Both sides can have valid and sound arguments based on different axiomatic values. And since we never seem to manage to justify just exactly what makes a certain axiomatic value (for example individual liberty vs utility) the right one to hold they end up seeming merely subjective. McIntyre argues that the distorted state of our modern conception of morality is caused by the lack of a shared teological concept of "the good life for man".
Happy one year anniversary to this banger!
Maybe I'll write my paper on ethics can't seem to find an idea great video btw I love talks like this.
The intellectual divide here is almost as big as Vaush and most of his debate opponents, just the other way around.
correct
I donât know about that, this is two people just having a useless convo...usually vaush convos is him looking like an idiot and his opponent looking smarter than they are simply be speaking with someone as ignorant as immoral as vaush
There's always a bigger fish
"What do you win when you behave like this?" Yesss. đ (and it's a question actually worth answering if he's engaging in good faith)
If people throw away their morals and principles and admit to this fact, their political opponents will always use it against them.
I'm confused, Vaush didn't do badly in this, nor did the guy who posted this. Vaush is skeptical of human ability to reason and establish objective claims, thus his ethics revolve around personal preference and subjective perspectives. His claims do not revolve around a rational grounding in an objective standard. The guy who posted this thinks we can trust our ability to reason, and from that position follows a line of reason to his idea of objective morality. You can only question the internal consistency of each position, neither can be proven superior. Vaush lacked the ability to eloquently state his position in the face of a philosophy phd. No one won or lost, it's just two incompatible ethical frameworks bumping into one another.
are you sure it's not in the VOD playlist?
it probobly is there
Well, this went over my head at times.
You referenced multiple books to check out. Do you have a layman's suggested reading list?
Following this
"If you give a mouse a cookie" is a great start for the virtue ethicist realm in terms of practicality
@@professionalname5298 how is it objective?
@@land_and_air1250 Barry is objective
@@professionalname5298 how do you know that
52:35 Can someone tell me what this is that sounds like Fray-Gay-Gee-Chin Betting Problem? I would love to study up on this but all google searches lead to stuff involving gambling addictions and I'm clearly not spelling that first word correctly
It's the Frege-Geach problem, if you are interested.
@@jordanthegoatnotle4-63 Thank you!
I thought I told you not to upload this!
Great discussion Lewis
Is socialism all about self-sacrifice? I really think the paradox is caused by the term "fair market value". The "status quo" is constantly inflating prices, not keeping things "fair".
Great conversation! Wish Vaush had uploaded it, then I would have seen it much sooner. I think he did admirably for someone without a philosophy background.
As much as I have strongly disagreed with him on a bunch of things I still think heâs honest.
Hey, can anyone direct me into more reading about this "hegelian" take on ethics? I always was more interested in philosophy of mathematics and science, so I'm lacking in my axiology understanding. I started to be more interested in ethics and politics in recent years, but usual naive utilitarian view used in social issues seems to be lacking for me, but I don't think I have enough vocabulary and theory to verbalize my objections.
Maybe I'm a big himbo but it was really hard to understand some of the things you said. Idk if this critique would help your specific brand but perhaps you should try language that makes your videos a bit more accessible for dummies like me? Cheers and i wish you luck but my adhd brain died halfway through
Learning can be fun, we shouldn't dumb down content, we should always aim to improve. I didn't know some things they talked about until I looked it up
It's nice to see some philosophy actually being brought into these kind of streaming debates. Honestly, although I enjoy Vaush, sometimes I feel brain dead after watching streamers like Vaush and Destiny.
Vaush is made out of slime.
It's bloodsports. It's not really supposed to be something you base your decisions or worldview on because it's just entertainment.
@@zvenarschficker6663 I don't recall Perspective Philosophy or Vaush showing up on the Ralph Retort to debate members of the Alt-Right. If you're trying to tell me this is Bloodsports I'm going to need to see some blood.
@@zvenarschficker6663 Eh, I actually take that back. Left vs Left is way more vicious than Left vs Right these days.
You feel brain dead because he's not helping you develop intellectually. The opposite is occurring and that's why you feel that way. I would recommend not listening to vouch.
Vaush: "If you want to argue that all of us are engaging in bad behavior and should disincentivize it to the greatest possible extent..."
How does he say this like it isn't a self-evident truth??
Idk why I'm only just now seeing this channel, but you look just like William Osman if he was a philosophy and political nerd instead of a engineering and "science-ing" nerd. I also enjoyed your ability to break down Vaush's argument better than he can, so I'm definitely subbing
Wow, Vaush is in way over his head here
This was so embarrassing to watch.
Everything vaush talks about is over his head and out of his depth. He has his opinions, attained from wherever, and proclaims them with a sense of authority and credibility that wouldn't hold up outside of the youtube debate bro milieu.
@Liam Marra heâs doing more than most people on the left in the online space. Also pretty sure Vaush is a sociology background vs philosopher.
@@Coastpsych_fi99 He's not on the left, it's just an aesthetic for him, he's said so himself.
@@pietzsche I'm talking about Vaush, and saying that his presence is positive for the left.
This conversation is amazing. Loving the deep philosophy.
What was the book he recommended Vaush in this video called again? I don't know where he mentioned it ;(
After Virtue by Alasdair MacIntyre
@@callmecraig3046 Thank you :)
Just 15 minutes into the debate sk far but I already see the difference between these two. The host believes that anything less than the best action is just varying degrees of bad actions, and the guest believes that good and bad are a spectrum with room to be less than the best without being the worst. I gotta say, I agree with the guest on that.
"the guest" lol... Stop it, you know who tf vouch is. Loser
It's almost like vaush is super based and always right all the time
@@ticker0157lol
â@@ticker0157I know that was sarcasm but I had to downvote you anyways sorry
I think the host wants to set the standard higher, which would lead to more people moving towards where he'd want them to be. I guess the argument would be that higher standards bring higher utility
Still waiting for the 2v1 gang-bang of Perspective Philosohpy & AskYourself VS Vaush.
@Danny Dreadnought I thought they're both cool now after their last name-the-trait debate.
Found this video as I'm a Vaush fan but I'm with you on everything you say about veganism my dude. Also pretty cool to hear a fellow north easterner in the lefttube sphere, hoping your channel grows mate!
It's no coincidence that the thickest sections of the country (Newcastle / Liverpool to name just two) are full blown Communist leftards.
Love this conversation, super interesting. đ
Having a PhD happen to have your take and explain it is lovely.
I'm only at 47m, but asking here in case it's not covered and I forget, what's the argument for assuming equal or comparable moral weight to the life of a non-human animal (specifically the ones we eat) to humans? I agree in assigning some moral value to farmed animals, and non-human animals in general, but I get stuck on a similar point to Vaush (though he's not doing his best in arguing this) where I simply do not think even the torture of trillions of animals is comparable to things like child slaves and the broader environmental destruction caused by the totality of our global economy.
I don't weigh veganism particularly highly compared to something like buying second hand, repairing and maximizing the use of every product one can, voting for progressive candidates and policies (to the greatest extent one can), donating to and campaigning for those candidates and policies, donating to and volunteering for charitable causes, etc. There are so many ways to "fight the system" that it seems pointless to focus so hard on veganism, especially when there are many interpersonal, human costs and many of the benefits of "vegan morality" (not the best phrase, I know) can be achieved with only partial adherence.
I don't want to ramble too long, and get back to the video, to elaborate, crudely, on my last sentence: It sucks to tell your grandma you won't be eating her cooking because it includes milk and eggs. One can bias themself against eating most animal products, preferring and exploring vegan and vegetarian options, while enjoying a hamburger or chicken nuggets on occasion. If someone, like myself, is able to happily and comfortable reduce their consumption of animal products to 1/5 their prior rate, especially with eating chicken over beef and/or pork, why push for significantly greater inconvenience to rid that last 20%? Surely it's more practical and probable to convince people to treat animal products as occasional luxuries rather than moral hazards?
Bit scattered, sorry, hopefully my underlying argument is reasonable discernible.
I am very dumb and know nothing about philosophy, and so I really donât know what to take away from this. It sucks that Vaush made perfect sense to me the entire time, but my pea brain started getting tripped up whenever PP would talk about anything I didnât fully understand. So, if anything, this makes me want to watch more of your videos that hopefully break concepts down to their basics even further, and probably also read some philosophy books. It would be nice to feel smart, but man, I always feel dumb and itâs videos like that that cement the fact that I am dumb lol
We all have to start somewhere, check out Stanford encyclopaedia of philosophy and the IEP for brief explanations. I also recommend you start with the early platonic dialogues such as Protagoras and Gorgias
I'm not gonna lie, this debate goes completely over my head intellectually. I don't like Vaush to begin with, but I strangely empathize with his ignorance in this debate.
He should've just said "I don't know" to some of these questions. I'm here, listening to you talking to him, trying to gather some knowledge. So thank you for that. I'm learning how to strengthen my values
What was the vegan cheese you recommend, I couldn't totally understand what you said?
Tyne chease, I recommend the Ethiopian spice.
Lots of good vegan cheese depending on where you live. Miyokos and Violife are always good bets. You can also make your own high end vegan cheeses
@@PerspectivePhilosophy soon to be renamed as âTyne Coagulated Fat Cuboidâ if the dairy industry gets its way.
Violife (I think it's them) now do a really nice smoked apple wood cheese
@@c.karnstein3299 Thanks!
Iâm not really seeing how Vaush lost this. Itâs just looking to me that PP doesnât see the bigger picture.
Did you ever think that he didnât put this out there because there wasnât really anything to it?
Also from what I see PP is really bad at communicating. It seems like heâs deliberately trying to confuse rather than try and seek clarity with terms we agree to. As a philosopher you should be able to talk to people who donât know what you know. LikeâŠthis reads like an attempt at being smug that you know these terms that, letâs be honest, mostly wouldnât.
Maybe thatâs why he didnât upload this, you spend too much time just clarifying what each of you mean. Learn to communicate better, youâre a philosopher for crying out loud. Are you sure you have a PhD?
Everyone keeps saying that Vaush did bad in this debate... they're obviously fans here of PP and are just simping for the uploader. You guy's are just hilarious. I bet the reason why Vaush didn't upload this debate was because it wasn't entertaining at all.
I just left a comment saying the same thing lol
posting this at around 33:43 watched time, still working through it:
this conversation so far is basically perspective pointing out that "neutral" as a moral term when it comes to ethics is very specific and a lot thinner line to dance on than most people use it, and as socialists who nearly always make a claim to following a higher moral standard are obligated to both know that line and do our best not to cross it into negative actions. vaush seems like (after being walked to this point) he understands that people as individuals can do morally negative actions without a. being bad people or b. having had a net negative on the world in their life project. vaush just seems like he doesn't want to admit to this point because he doesn't want to come off as if he's judging people for doing the wrong thing... which is really strange for vaush who does just that pretty often.
i think vaush is just kind of shutting off when he comes to the realization that he hadn't thought this through as well as he claims, which is just one of those human things that basically everyone does at some point in their life. i think vaush would do well to come back to this as an example of how NOT to handle being wrong, because it's pretty clear he could have learned a good deal about how to think through his positions and ultimately how better to advocate for them
People in the chat were talking like vaush was trying to end capitalism through being a better landlord. I think it would've been better to establish each other's positions and beliefs before starting the convo
I mean thats basically what he did say. He said that being a 'decent' landlord is morally neutral and that its possible to be a socialist whilst actively profitting off of exploitation.
@@angusmarch1066 yeah you definitely can. People need apartments in the system we live in, and if you donât do it, market forces ensure that someone else will. If you think itâs immoral, take that up with the system not with the fucking socialist landlord
@@land_and_air1250 there is no such thing as a socialist landlord. If a person is exploiting the labour or capital of another person and profitting from it that is not socialist. You making the "if I dont do it someone else will" is weaselly, cowardly and redundant since YOU did it. You are the one perpetuating the system through your actions, the system doesnt exist in a vacuum. By blaming the landlord, I am blaming the system and vice versa.
@@angusmarch1066 yikes I hope you donât like most of the first leftists in history as they had a tendency to be owning class by their own definition. And no the system can and will perpetuate without you. If you think you as a single cog in the machine can grind it all to a stop Iâm sure youâll find yourself looking like more a wheel. And Iâd actually prefer it if my landlord was a socialist, would probably make it easier to talk to be just better overall. And heck if every socialist owned property we would be a hell of a lot stronger politically.
Your way of blaming those who succeed in the system is politically ineffective as it pushes those who would be our ally away. Why would a landlord become a socialist if they were told they were going to have to change their life significantly to be doing not harm. And not only is it politically ineffective, itâs not even a defendable moral stance as legitimately they are adding no harm to society and by them presumably not hating the poor, would probably add a slight positive effect on society with them being the one in that position of power.
@@land_and_air1250 okay capitalist, youre telling me your argument is "because other leftists do something, that makes it moral"? If you can produce some names of people who were land owners then they were hypocrites and I dont mind telling you so, because unlike you Im not a mindless zombie who blindly consumes information without examining it critically or who supports people without calling them out on thier inconsistencies. By your logic, people do not perpetuate the system. What entity does then? Im sure there's nothing politically ineffective about telling your """allies""" that they cannot utilise thier power as a member of the public, because theyre "just a cog in the machine" but instead should just mindlessly consume and exploit others, without taking responsibility for yourself as a human being with personal autonomy. What a dumbf*ck take. Your position is precisely the one that the capitalist system wants you to have. Actively choosing to make other human beings beholden to you for basic human needs like shelter is the definition of directly doing harm to society. You are delusional if you think otherwise.
immigrated from vaush's channel, i learned alot from this debate however, i think vaush is correct in his assumption that impugning ones character for not being able to practice their politics to such a degree you piss them off and turn them away from praxis isnt doing the cause any good. Like some commie once said "You gotta meet the public with the level of radicalization they're open too".
Attacking socialist influencers (or grifters in your eyes) in itself isnt efficient in our overton window, especially when their popularity is doing so much to bring people over at this point. I'm not saying you cant criticize these people, but the hateful rhetoric i see going on here is at a point where its almost counter productive to the growth of socialization they bring. Ngl the constant verbal attacks towards Vaush in other vids turned me away at first but i looked past it now cause i found you to be very educational, i can't imagine how many others would feel the same if you toned down the impugning when almost 100% of us are hypocrites by being indoctrinated in capitalism. To the layman like myself, it does come of very "you criticize society yet you live in it, curious" anyways i subbed đ€·ââïž
You don't find Vaush significantly much more pejorative in his language and rhetoric towards people he disagrees with?
@@brainbeatsdick7483 I think heâs more effective in his advocacy, flawed as it may be
@@gilgazord0303 Isn't that what a grifter is? Intellectually flawed yet rhetorically effective?
@@brainbeatsdick7483 I thought grifting was about preaching shit you donât believe in to get paid?
@@brainbeatsdick7483 against grifters and fascists. There's a difference
Im not a good thinker, but my question about landlords is, if they would do their renting out for no profit so that the costs are split throughout all housholds in the house that could work right? The landlords would just be there to help get handyman to repair the house and there to get everyone to pay them equally? Im just curious i would never think this is a good solution becase as i said, im a bad thinker i just liked to know if that would be a thing that could work
I donât love the debate format or Vaush but I loved this. Your conversation style is generous, calm, and thorough. Really enjoyed this, especially the parts where Vaush stopped talking. đ Subbed!
I follow Vaush regularly, but your commentary is very insightful. I'm still waiting for the second Cosmic Skeptic debate. I know you made a video responding to Determinism, he might not have seen it because your channel is underrated. You should reach out to him
This seemed like two amicable debates happening at the same time. One, on fiercely semiotic principles, and one on the phenomenology of being a person rather than an ideal. It was boring, and it's super-difficult to obtain ethical cashews.