As a form I can assure you: I do not live in brazil.

As an Ohoian, I can confirm it's not here either

@@Picksle And yes, I don't live in ohio either. I'm actually not where I live. Somewhere in Austria, maybe?

Pois é mlk!

@@gamingjr9038 Mó viagem essa ideia de formas, aqui é mundo da feijoada, do samba e do neymar.

life is roblox - sun tzu

many people forget that Sun tzu is also a philosopher

I think that would be eclecticism, since you’d be using teachings from multiple philosophies rather then one So if that’s something you’d genuinely want to do then that would probably make you an eclectic, unless if maybe you’d try and form your own philosophy from it

"wait no don't"-sun tzu

THE SUN IS A DEADLY LASER

We've clearly made a mistake along the way, or several. It's time to figure out what they are and build something new and positive.

There is no need to question that one, I think we all can agree there is objective truth, His name is Yahweh and He gave us Himself in the God-Man Christ who then said: "I am the way, (the truth), and the life, no man comes to the Father except through me." -JOHN 14:6

@@Godsglory777 No I don't agree

Except you can't question PostModernism because of how they define truth. Your truth is just different from their truth. I hate that people even entertained PoMo epistemology.

@@idontcare2508 you need to specify it

What are some notable achievements of eastern philosophy in the field of epistemology?

@@DavidJohnsson The Nyāya school of Hinduism ( founded by Aksapada Gautama) developed and refined many treatises on epistemology that widely influenced other schools of Hinduism. Nyāya treated it as theory of knowledge, and its scholars developed it as Pramana-sastras. Pramana, a Sanskrit word, literally is "means of knowledge". It encompasses one or more reliable and valid means by which human beings gain accurate, true knowledge. The focus of Pramana is how correct knowledge can be acquired, how one knows, how one doesn't, and to what extent knowledge pertinent about someone or something can be acquired.

​@@DavidJohnssonnon duality by adishankaracharya which is famous in western academia too.

Also like all of Abhidarma thought which expounded on the same ideas Kant had but hundreds of years before Kant was even born and in a much more rigorous manner

Even presocratic philosophy was not mentioned, neither ancient Egyptian,Persian .. etc.

Go back home to the Catholic Church my friend!

What made you leave the Catholic Church?

@justinking3558 there were just a lot of things that didn't seem to align properly with what was being practiced vs what was being preached and done. Some things just didn't seem to have the right logic flow and it felt more tainted with the traditions of man than that of which was set forth by God. However, I am not God, and there are many Christian Catholics who produce the good fruit. I think the fruit and the faith in, the Holy Spirit, Jesus, and God are what is most important -- not so much the fine details. I do believe that God appreciates the fruit and faith more than what minor deviations come about. In the end there are 7 churches, and God will forgive us who repent. If God is a just God, and God is a just God, God will forgive our mistakes and our sins through Jesus. We shall not judge, so I will rightfully recognize God as the one who will do so.

@justinking3558 I had wanted to be a priest and join a holy order. In preparation for that things didn't seem right with what was occurring in the church and what the Bible said. Long story short I didn't know what was or wasn't true. I prayed. I studied many religions. I became an atheist. Studying science I became a diest of sorts. Then as the world revealed things to me through struggles I became diest/agnostic Christian. The truths of the Bible starting revealing themselves to me and I eventually became Christian again but with more truth. I am now attending a Presbyterian church and learning about Christianity from a more proper point of view. I am not necessarily Presbyterian, but I am Christian and tend to agree with the reformist church. The Bible, experience, historical and scientific references, and some traditions are what I use to guide me. The Bible being the most important, historical and scientific references second most important, third my own experience, and 4th human traditions that are rooted in history as they apply accordingly.

Thankyou for sharing your testimony brother, God bless you and keep you always

Evil doesn’t have metaphysical substance, it’s merely the lack of good therefore God cannot be evil He must be good

if someone argued that God is an infinite lack thereof... How would you respond?

nah the problem isn't there, but the fact that if there is finite, it means that there can be infinite things. But this is only our mind. And even if infinite is possible, then how does this proves the existence of god. Also, evil is not lack of goodness, that is just neutrality, evil is desire to obtain something at other's expence or just a wish for others to suffer

⁠@@AmirSattBut that definition already presumes the opposite of that is good.

Why do you presume that good can exist regardless of evil? If nothing in the world would be considered evil, no person would have any conception of what is "good".

Keep searching for the truth. You might just find Him.

Might I suggest a box set of CS Lewis' theology books?

Same with the atheist thing lol. His format is incredible, though it can be hard to separate the art from the artist with him.

Honestly if you actually like studying and learning about this stuff you’d offer a rare and valuable perspective. There are a lot of atheists in modern academic theology, but for the most part it’s the same deconstructionist views that you see across the board in the humanities. More academics who engage with the field out of a genuine interest and curiosity rather than out of the colonial modernist attitude would be entirely welcome.

@@Mushrooms683All the best in your career brother. I'd recommend reading the Gospel of John from the Bible. A great summary of Christian Theology.

This would be more accurate. What is interesting though is that there is no way these thinkers were not exposed to, and influenced by, other religious/philosophical ideas. Aldous Huxley's perennial philosophy highlights some of the points of convergence

i love how eurocentric this video is

@@petergriffin3194 that's because the chinese can't get rid of Marx and nobody here ever thinks about Confucius

All together now! EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEmanuel Kant was a real p**sant who was very rarely stable Heidegger, Heidegger was a boozy beggar who could drink you under the table David Hume could out-consume Schopenhauer and Hegel And Wittgenstein was a beery swine who was just as sloshed as Schlegel There's nothing Nietzsche couldn't teach ya 'bout the raising of the wrist Socrates, himself, was permanently pissed John Stuart Mill, of his own free will on half a pint of shandy was particularly ill Plato, they say, could stick it away half a crate of whiskey every day Aristotle, Aristotle was a bugger for the bottle - Hobbes was fond of his dram And Rene Descartes was a drunken fart "I drink, therefore I am" Yes, Socrates, himself is particularly missed A lovely little thinker but a bugger when he's pissed

​@@matejmoravek4580Zhuangzi:

Philosophy is not at the end, you left the modern philosophy

The essence of an object exists independently from human mind, otherwise you imply that real world isn't real and is an illusion of our mind

@@AmirSatt Are you defining the real world as the set of objects' essences rather than the set of objects?

@@mesplin3 no I don't

PhilosophicalZoomer

PonderingZoomer

Inspiring Philosophy would be proud lol

Aquinas already did it.

That should be a second channel!!! Redeemed Zoomer a theologian and a philosopher... IM HERE FOR IT

Alexander's mother also seemed to think she'd been impregnated by Zeus. It makes me wonder if any of the Watchers or Nephilim were still around at that time.

Alexander wasn't especially educated as it goes. This especially doesn't make sense when you consider that almost everything Aristotle said was wrong or inaccurate. Alexander barely brought Hellenic culture to all of Eurasia. Hellenic culture persisted in Egypt, Anatolia and Syria for a long time but most of his conquests were reclaimed by the Parthians within a century.

I second this nomination.

I veto this suggestion. It’s hilariously incomplete to the point of silliness.

@@Justanotherconsumer I veto you.

​@@Justanotherconsumervetoed L

@@Justanotherconsumerits not meant to be exhaustive.

Definitely needs a more accurate title.

It need a big "WESTERN" in the title. Within 10 seconds he already assumes that the "most important philosophy started in Greece".

@@Marcoslee which is true, the West has a wider distribution of power and culture than the East, making it more important. While the East has their philosophers and their own lines of thinking, simply those philosophers have less impact on an objective scale.

@@Marcoslee that is true though, because chinese philosophy never seriously confirmed objective truth, and muslim philosophy believe it or not also was heavily influenced by greeks

@@AmirSatt Speaking of being influenced by the greeks, so is everything else in the video already so why not just add in the Persian, Indian, Chinese, etc... philosophers anyways. It takes a lot of work but should at least be acknowledged given the broad title. As far as impact goes, would we really want to dismiss a philosophical framework for not sharing concepts core of another, more influential one and for the most part because it happened to be spread from the birthplace of some powerful empire? There are beautiful ideas in every corner of the world, not just the west. Christian theology, itself borrowing concepts from the greeks as briefly mentioned in this video was at one time far less mainstream, it's practioners at it's conception subject to suppresion but none of this notably doing anything to make it's ideas more or less valuable. It is the theology itself that matters.

Correct, though Kant has issues himself, he effectively did away with natural law in place of "culture", a now ubiquitous term he invented to describe Rousseau's "general will". Where rational consensus takes the place of truth in ethics and political philosophy.

GREGORIAN CHANT | ANGELIC CHOIR

@@SlovakLutheranMonarchist THX😊

It is awesome if you are at peace, but can you elaborate?

Well, a lot of the ideas of Descartes came from the mindset of his age...and the biggest idea created by him, the cartesian dualism, is now considered a huge mistake, so that's maybe why it wasn't brought up.

@@giantotter319 It's not that it's considered a huge mistake as much as other theories have proved more convincing: the essence of consciousness is still the greatest question for the philosophy of mind.

@@DaDa-ui3sw Depends who you ask, but for example in ecology the dualism is often treated as a mistake due to the fact it justified climate changing actions by humanity and was a cause of many of them - this is due to human exceptionalism

when i learn that french people in the 17th century were catholic: 🙀

It's doubtful that he was catholic, he was quite critical of its theology, though he did believe in the God of philosophy. Descartes and Pascal are often contrasted as opposites.

Like the thesis antithesis synthesis dynamics is not even really what Hegel theorized in his dialectic. If you just even read Hegel's freaking Wikipedia page you'd see that. If you don't know anything about philosophy you should NOT be educating others, man. Seriously. I'm being harsh because these days, with the Internet and tiktok and youtube, there is an engorgement of blind guides and talking heads leading people in circles or into holes, sometimes with honey. Everyone wants to say something and feel important. And sometimes these guides expose others to Christ--good for them. When in reality we'd be better if people stuck to their wheelhouses and focused on sanctity IRL in their own lives instead of trying to become internet Justin Martyr autodidacts or whatever. Stick to talking about reformed tradition or your personal encounter with Christ or something idk

You can't learn Christianity from the internet. Christianity is a way of life and a personal relationship with Jesus Christ and fellowship in his church. Christianity is not apologetics or history and it's certainly not UKposts videos. When you participate in this, you're basically making the Internet your spiritual director, and that is extremely dangerous. So log off and go learn how to be a Christian by doing it. I only speak harshly because I'm speaking from personal experience and my own temptations to these things. Trust me, you do not want to let your formation be given to you by algorithms and junk food pop apologetics. That is building your faith on sand. So go log off and pick up a real book (preferably the Bible)

The problem with Nietzche, is that he has so many cool sounding quotes that is very easy to take him out of context.

Bro, 1) you don't need to watch this video 2) however learns something from the Web rather from books is ignorant of the argument still, and this is known. If you have short explanation to correct it, say it. If you don't, say that there is much more and one shall focus on a book (like your suggestion that I saved) but stop whining about people speaking to people things they know less than you or less than the standard you want. I don't think who want to understand Hegel and modern philosophy will only watch this video to make themselves a culture, and if they do, poor for them and that should be said in few words, because if they learn philosophy from the tube, they won't read a comment long like yourself. Have a nice day, and let's live the Gospel above our intellectual differences.

@@jackolytetell me you’re the problem without telling me you’re the problem.

maybe Wyoming is just an illusion and lie. How can I know that it exists?

Even that's being generous

Nice AI comment

Whoever claims to understand the Hegelian dialectic is lying.

@@alfredosaint-jean9660 the example in the video is dialectics as explained by another philosopher, Fichte, that had an influence on Hegel, but it s not the same thing.

Spinoza in many ways is a radicalization of Descartes, where Descartes said that we cannot know whether there are natural ends or purposes in nature, Spinoza flat out denied it. Where Descartes subjects God's transcendence to something useful for the mind, Spinoza's God/nature is entirely immanent with no transcendence.

Kierkegaard was not a Christian. His irrationalist philosophy entirely contradict everything the Bible teaches and leads to total skepticism and nihilism.

@@Paganblood Faith is a gift from God, not some spontaneous decision we make. And nothing about your statement takes away from the fact that Kierkegaards irrationalist philosophy is thoroughly anti-Christian.

​@@PaganbloodWelcome to the family! 😊

@@Paganblood It sounds like Calvinism because it's what God's word says. "For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God". But again, this matter does not take away from the fact of Kierkegaards anti-Christian philosophy. How could you possibly defend Kierkegaards idea that an emotional Hindu is close to God while an unemotional but otherwise entirely good and orthodox Christian is not? How could you defend his rejection of basic logic? His ideas are literally absurd and thoroughly anti-Christian.

@@Paganblood If you think it is Christian to believe that passionate Hindus get saved while faithful but unemotional Christians with their full trust in Christ and the Gospel go to hell you sir are insane. And clearly do not understand the first thing about Christianity.

I am not postmodernist, but I think that there is no objective meaning for all humans, imho the whole point is the real joy, happiness and pleasure in life (not hedonism)

​@@AmirSatt if hedonism is the pursuit of pleasure, what distinction is there between hedonism and what you describe, other than an execution that is less reckless and more in line with what westerners might consider traditional values?

​@@auggieeasteregg2150 well it is a question of semantics, what you mean is false short term pleasure, I meant true long term happiness. For example, if you do drugs, that will be short term pleasure, but in a long term it will be suffering, hard work in your field of speciality on the other hand requires effort, but in a long term will bring more joy, happiness and pleasure. So in my philosophy the whole purpose is to maximize happiness, but that is just in my opinion, everyone can think independently, but even then subconsciously that is all what people want.

Because you learn to associate all these aspects of your life with survivability. Subconsciously of course, but we inherently value things that improve our chances of survival. Not to say that we evolved to think an iPhone improves our survivability or whatever other example, but our subconscious forms multiple layers of associations between various stimuli. Which all boils down to whether a stimulus is beneficial or harmful to our livelihood. We evolved to learn from our environment in order to benefit our chances of survival. It just so happened that forming societies, families, social norms, luxury items, etc. was beneficial to the survivability of our species. I ain't no philosopher or psychologist, I just wrote this for fun, so I am probably wrong about some of this stuff.

@@paulcashew5795 nah you are right, it is quite simple, those who wanted to survive survived and passed their genes on, those who questioned their point of existence and didn't know why to live didn't make it long time ago, lol.

Hi I make videos about religion

Good, it always annoys me when people say Hegel talked about "thesis, antithesis, synthesis" when he never once mentioned it or anything like it.

Hi I do videos about religion

He was merely a footnote and is criminally overrated

@@suppiluiiuma5769 Mad over the whole "God is dead" thing?

​@@WhaleManMan Well, more like how he fetishized his own mum.

because nietzsche was literally a no one compared to plato, aristotle, descartes, kant and hegel

Because he ignores plenty of important parts of it. If you care about this stuff, find an actual channel that focuses on this.

​@@giantotter319 i suppose he did an OK job when you take into the consideration that the video is less than 8 minutes long.

@@jjkigtu With that in mind, perhaps. But there are better videos for this topic and better ways to learn about it. I suppose if someone becomes interested in philosophy through this video, good, but something tells me this isn't going to happen.

​@@giantotter319 He's not primarily interested in directing people toward philosophy

@@auggieeasteregg2150 I know, he's primarily interesting in getting views, sounding smart and dismissing philosophy as the suboptimal choice. Still, when presenting a topic, even simplified, one should be more thorough then this.

++ you right 😊

@@JustTriangle So why are u giving false information about a philosopher?

Reading the bible with a dialectic view is extremely common, not just among marxists. Many proto-protestants were attributed with being early kinds of communists, though at this point it was usually called communalism. Really interesting stuff there i suggest looking into it.

I'm subscribed.

Like Marx and are Christian? Read Alasdair MacIntyre

@@bookishbrendan8875 This guys is awesome, thanks for the recommendation!

colossal downgrade

Objective truth exists independently, it doesn't need observation to be true, that is why Hegel is meh

@@AmirSatt “Objective truth” according to Hegel is a loaded phrase. There are different kinds of Truths, but Truth in Hegelian dialectics is more of a property than a proper noun. More along the lines of what is a “true friend” than what is “actually true”. I know this is all explained terribly but im just a guy not a philosopher lmao im sure books will do it a lot clearer than me.

More so an immoralist and a really bad moustache.

@@unknowninfinium4353 He wasn't an immoralist, he was a moral subjectivist

@@gwgwgwgwgwgwgwgwgw He calls himself that. Mentioned it in AntiChrist and in geneaology of morals. Also here immoralist doesnt mean choosing the bad morals but here it means rejecting the accepted Christian morality.

@@unknowninfinium4353 Fair enough, I didn't realize this. Though, without proper context, I feel like just calling him an "immoralist" gives people a connotation that isn't in line with what Nietzsche meant by the word

@@gwgwgwgwgwgwgwgwgw Haha dont sweat. It's alright. Not everyone can understand him. I am included in that. But even if you have a general understanding of him, you are not so far off. Nothing changes if you do understand him or his philosophy. So dont waste your time. No sweat.

youtube

⁠@@redeemedzoomer6053 So the slideshow is made using UKposts

​@@redeemedzoomer6053I think he means editing wise

@@redeemedzoomer6053he’s talking about editing

oh. Microsoft paint and VSDC video editor@@selliri590

Yeah I agree wholeheartedly. Kant and Hegel were two of the last modern philosophers to understand human motivation as transcending the individual will, which of course lines up with the Christian perspective. I think it’s key to juxtapose Kant with his primary critic in Nietzsche and when you examine the areas in which they diverge Kant is of course the defender of orthodoxy. Unfortunately Kant lost this battle historically and the Nietzschian view won out and continues to be dominant today. Kant has just not been a major influence on the western societal worldview since I would say the early 20th century? And it’s a shame because we’d be in a better place now if he was.

@@harrygarris6921 Neither Kant nor Hegel were modern philosophers mate. And not sure why you think Kant was such a great dude, guy was a virgin whose ideas on ethics are still laughed at today. Also Nietzsche didn't have a "view", he criticized even his earlier works, assuming he is some kind of major key part of today's thought is kind of unhinged.

@@giantotter319they were absolutely modern philosophers and the only way to deny that is to have a stupidly idiosyncratic understanding of “modern”. Kant’s moral philosophy was a massive innovation which is not “laughed at” by any serious student of philosophy today. By taking modernity as a *problem* he was the first to realize that the moral law cannot be outside the moral subject (a view which has not left us since). Nor did he think that the subject can *decide* what the moral law is; because he walked the fine line between these two opposing views, and understood this ‘antinomy’ as urgently needing examination, we cannot think seriously about ethics today without reading Kant imo.

@@edwardbackman744 Right, Kant made a whole journey to establish an ethical principle that could be applied in any situation - but isn't applied in any situation because it's incredibly clunky or just doesn't work with actual personal or social ethics. It's a fun footnote, after all not many people establish a new system of morality, but nobody seriously thinks about it as a system that could work. Even Bentham, as much of a clown he was, has some people who agree to his points. With Kant, everyone just goes "interesting, but no". The whole idea of moral duty sinks it and really the only people who could actually follow it understand how shit it is. If you desperately want to fight modernity, you should find better allies. Probably would be useful to realize we have passed modernity by now, though.

Kant and Hegel should be taken seriously for sure, but I also think they're part of the problem. The correctly identified many shortcomings in the early modernists, but ultimately did away with natural law, and set the groundwork for postmodern relativism, even if it wasn't their intention. As Leo Strauss observed, the errors of Marx are already present in Kant and Hegel.

Yeah but he oversimlified it too much without giving any counter arguemnt and prsented opinion as fact

For example 5:03 Premise 1: "I think therefore I am" I have no problem with that, go on Premise 2: "I am finite/limited" Depending on the definition of finite, if finite means "There is something logically possible that I can't do", then we can't be sure I am finite, since maybe I can do them but forget that I do them right after, or erase my memory because I like not knowing once I do know the truth. If you define finite as "I can't do logically impossible things", yes, you are finite. Premise 3: "The finite implies the existence of the infinite" This is an assumption, an axiom, there is no proof for that. There is no logical necessity for the infinite to exist if the finite exists. Just look at a set of natural numbers 1 to 10, with addition and subtraction that can't go beyond 1 or above 10. It is a logical system with rules and consistency, but no infinity. Premise debunked Premise 4: "That which is infinite in every way is God" Even if I grant for the sake of argument premise 3, being an infinite line (D1) doesn't make the line infinite in two dimensions. Being infinite in one way doesn't make you infinite in other ways. So the existence of one infinity doesn't necessitate a thing that is infinite in every way. Premise 5: "If God is infinitely good he wouldn't deceive me" - problem 1: You don't have a proof for premises 3 and 4. - problem 2: Even if I grant you the stake of argument premises 3 and 4. you have still a lot of problems. - problem 2.1: You assume that good is an objective property and is not a subjective property that you imagine (Like the value of dollar bills, after all, it's only paper). Another Axiom - problem 2.2: Even if good is objective and not a made-up quality, and thus can be infinite. What if evil is the opposite of Good and not the absence of good (for example evil would be killing a child, absence would be not helping a child, good would be helping a child). If that is the case (which you can't know since there is no logical proof for any option) - then God is infinitely good and infinitely evil, either that makes him infinitely neutral, or that good and evil don't exist as objective truths, or that only one exists as an objective truth, or that something can't be both infinite in every way. There are so many options that your whole argument falls apart, you have to add another axiom Premise 6: problem - based on premises 3,4,5 (and potentially 2 depending on the definition of finite) which are flawed, leading to a false proof that doesn't prove what you wanted to prove (it still does not prove the opposite, that would be a fallacy to think that, but it does not prove what you set to prove - we still don't know for 100% certainty anything beyond I think therefore I am and maybe I am limited depending on the meaning of the word. Not the axiomless perfect proof Descartes wanted

I expected a bit of over simplification, my issue is a few glaring inaccuracies. Ex) Hegel never once talked about "thesis, antithesis, synthesis"

Didn't even discuss all of Western philosophy, generally just the ones he could somehow rope God into. People like Locke, Marx, Voltaire, etc weren't even mentioned by name.

YT has a lousy and glitchy algorithm (no soul)