Відео

But it feels like having the belief of having a sensation is the definition of having that sensation, thus it is impossible per definition to have a sensation which is not in accordance with the belief you have of which sensation you have.

Antinomious.

lol there was no coup

Survival of mankind, peace and prosperity has to kept in mind

Is the game of chess objective like if I check my somebody is it objectively true that it's a checkmate. I asked a guy this once thinking he would say definitely yes it's objective but he argued that it's a man-made game etc et cetera but I feel like you could take that argument with anything. Like if you ask Is it Objectively true that in a hydrogen atom there are this many protons In the nucleus And you can just argue no this is objectively true because protons and neutrons are just our subjective experience of what atoms look like and the language just made up Etc et cetera

wait, that argument seems to me to be a bit circular... before ZFC, the DEFINITION of the natural numbers (as it was tought to me in grad school) were the peano axioms, so when building the numbers with sets, what is done is to build them SUCH THAT you can prove the postulates, therefore proving that those sets are actually natural numbers (what you said implies that the REASON for the postulates are the numbers as sets, and i disagree). This could be the case if ZFC came before Peano arithmetic

Quick is the word. One example less would have been none at all.

All the scriptures have been written by human beings and are based on human dictates. I like to keep it simple regarding faith: I now belong to the Father, the Supreme Soul, and I recognise, accept and move along while considering myself to be a soul and I know the Father as He is. ....this kinda leaves out all the middle men 🥲 

poo

Is Engaging in the hypocricy fallacy or constantly pointing out for example that the opponent your debating is radical with no explanation a form of poisoning the well?

I have issues with the vague notion of rights. One is that a rights based morality leads to a spoiled citizenry. We often ask, what will I get out of it? I am so tired of people squawking about their rights. This notion of responsibility over rights is intriguing.

to me, something's "identity" is that object as a whole. removing one plank and then replacing it, will deem the old plank, now simply an old plank. but it would still hold the association of "previously being apart of the ship". While the new plank is now apart of the ship. the ship is still has the same identity. On the other hand if you completely disassemble something beyond reasonable functionality or recognition, then the ship is no more and all former components are still "associated" with being former parts. taking the majority of the parts and assembling them back together in the same fashion is simply reconstructing the same ship. so to me it would still be Theseus's Ship, just reconstructed. Like taking apart a rifle to clean it. doesn't make it a "new" rifle. Id argue that using new parts during reconstruction will make it something new entirely.

Is there any reason to do a reductio, as opposed to a direct proof?

Interestingly enough, I firmly believe in this but I vote. Meanwhile other people don't vote and this is never the reason

hopefully no one uses this video to disprove someone who takes the 1 as the smallest natural number, since the answer here depends on how you defined inductive set (weather it "must include 0" or "must include 1")

I have come to know about Epicureans.

Did anyone else's mind glaze over by the 2 minute mark??

Sometimes an architect will look at a building, totally understand its foundation and construction, and still say, "That is the ugliest building I have ever seen"

Christ, that intro joke about the brit and french 😂 subd just for that

This video is missing from the Ockham's Razor playlist.

Conservatives have been against Roe v Wade since the moment it was decided, opposing it constantly and for consistent reasons. If they got it overturned in 1 year, presumably that would be conservative. But if it takes 50 years, it's NOT conservative, even though the oppose it for the exact same reasons and fought it the whole time? Baloney.

Jay Dyer enters chat

Is modus tollens commit affirming the consequent fallacy? P -> Q ~Q --------- ~P Is not I'm seeing it's affirming the consequent?

Ethics are cultural and political. Morals are personal and individuated. Ethics are the application of logic and reason to benevolence. Morals are the application of sensation and awareness to benevolence. A corporation can be ethical. A corporation cannot be moral.

TST isn’t a religion for many reasons. Such as having no central or founding text. They don’t just get to claim that their “canon” is all books written about Satan in a positive light. Especially when they are written by authors who never even heard of a TST. They allow anyone to join…even those who don’t identify as “Satanists”. Which is absolutely absurd. Could a Christian join a Buddhist temple while still being Christian ? Could a Buddhist be a member of a mosque without being Muslim ? No. In fact I can’t think of a single religion that would allow such a thing. Certainly the vast majority don’t and for good reason. One reason is that it dilutes the host religion. Which defeats the whole purpose of it having any kind of special message. If TST is a religion then their religion is politics and they should change their name to the temple of politics T.O.P

5.8 thousand people saw this video, they must be on to something, eh?

I really don't understand the purpose of this topic.. Please help me out... At the end what I am supposed to find out? And how questions gonna be asked...?

the absolute state of skeptics...

First video of yours I’ve seen and now looking forward to watching the rest. I remember being taught about catharsis in theatre class back in high school and being pretty sure I understood but not entirely certain. This video really clears up the original intention of the term outside of lay usage. I find the discussion of emotional impact in storytelling fascinating. Thanks for this!

Sure Ucraine has not provoked? I don't know for sure, that is why I am asking, only double-checking...

Can something both speak and not exist?

Kevin de LaPlante video on this topic is better

Maybe we are all different spatial events within the one existence/substance and not existents.

fun fact: your skin has been a theseus ship itself. everyday cells get added, and cells die. over and over till you fall.

I think you very much have not understood this philosophy

🤘🏽

Isn’t the Church of Satan associated with Herbert Spencer and social Darwinism as well?

I thought Rand’s first name was pronounced like Ein.

You have to admit that the Temple of Set, especially Michael Aquino has a fairly colorful past...but I digress.

2:14 Satanic temple make child sacrefise. They have it on their wepside. It' a ritual wchich celebrate body autonomy and the self. And requires death of other homo sapience organism.

In this case is not accusation when I acuse them of thinks that they commit on their wepsite

So... This is one the way where proclivities of sceptic provide ... to promote the one of most maleficent organisation in the world.

Could you cover witchcraft, its various models (e.g., psychological, spirit, energy, etc)? I feel that philosophy of religion focuses too much on Christianity or Eastern religions very broadly. It'd be interesting to see a philosophical analysis of witchcraft.

Satanism is silly stuff, male fertility, penis totem stuff. Just as there is no evidence for the existence of God the same can be said of Satan.

I would be interested in watching a video on rand objectivism.

neat

First 😅

I was wondering if you could give me a logical proof of the earth being a globe?

Wars are often fought by groups and not necessarily governments. Did the American Colonies have grievances of wrongdoings?

I'm really confused because I believe that humans have a value, I seriously doubt the existence of gods, I believe that there can be a morality without gods, but historically, humanity has been atrocious to itself and will never change, so I consider myself a nihilist. 🤷