I love this guy! Thank you for totally destroying the post-modernistic secular philosophical lie that is relativism!! Many will attempt to argue these points... But you cannot argue what is true. Truth stands alone whether we like it or not. We cannot bend truth and then call it our own perception... You are then willfully lying... Which is the opposite of TRUTH...
@wutdaFU3K While I understand your point... I don't understand where your claiming he hasn't made his point. Whether an innocuous point or a point on morals as long as it is based in TRUTH.. Relativism is an inane excuse at best. If someone says "to YOU the sky looks blue. to another it may be green... its all relative" thats not only inane its insane. What he's saying is the scewing of the truth for the sake of relativism is self defeating. Whether over morals or simple truths.
@wyattearp985 Some animals can't see the range of light we can, so while the sky looks blue to us, to your dog it's actually gray. Similarly, some animals have even more cones in their eyes and can pick up a larger range of colors. So to a bird, the color they observe is inconceivable to us. Anyway, what he and you are refuting is strict epistemological relativism. Moral relativism is not intrinsic to this.
Also, in math, does a set that contains all sets contain itself?
@wutdaFU3K Can an animal such as a dog argue if the sky is blue or not? No... of course not... And when they can ... you will know the truth and not a scientific hypothesis regariding what they can and cannot see. As far as mathematics goes, there are variables in math that have been disputed... not math in its simplistic form of course... The point he's making has to do with what we know is TRUE... a rock is hard.. Is true.. there is no comparison in that statement and it stands on its own.
@wyattearp985 No, it's a fact. We pretty much know how eyes work, and how they pick up color. And we can tell the range that animals can see too. I told you, it has to do with the amount of cones in the eye. We know the range of light we can see ROYGBIV, and we know that certain animals are less sensitive and cannot see. It's not a hypothesis, it's how your camera lens works.
You just said the sky was blue. I just proved it's relative.
It seems to me that if there did exist organisms that didn't have a lust for their own survival, they wouldn't have survived to reproduction age as often as those who did have such a drive. I would consider it similar to the ability to feel pain. If one doesn't feel pain when their body is harmed, they have no reason to avoid harm--- and therefore they die.
@TrevorNGuitar (Part 2 on "'perceived' morality has a basis in reality")
BUT it can't be said that any action is right or wrong independent of the being making the evaluation. I.e. it can be said that the sun exists whether I'm here or not, but if the goodness or badness relies on one's values, an evaluating entity needs to be specified before the judgment can be carried out.
Therefore, it can't be said to be independent of the observer, which is what most mean when they say objective morals
"In that case the 'perceived' morality has a basis in reality"
That's a tricky way of wording it!
It has a basis in reality in two ways:
1. that reality informs our genetics which informs our values (desire for survival).
2. Our emotional axioms can be altered by varying degrees of traumatic event or association (depending on how basic the value is). I.E.general desire for life would be one of the more difficult ones to change.
Well, fair enough. While that doesn't show they're all lying, it demonstrates that their existence isn't necessarily the proof of what i'm saying. I mean, in any case maybe we can agree that people's views on morality can be reduced to a value judgment of an event. I.e. a similar thing to saying that a work of art is beautiful or ugly. The judgment is more a reflection of how we think than it is of the objective event.
If we can agree that moral judgments are essentially value judgments, then we need go no further to explain the phenomenon any more than we need to explain our desire for food.
It's common to people because it correlates (or has correlated) with survival.
They've done brain studies on people who don't experience morality in the same way. They don't have the same reactions that normal people do. It's not a matter of pretending, it's really just not present in them. They don't place a value on humanity or other people or whatever.
Back to the bible:
If you look at some of the things Leviticus says, it very much reflects a worse moral standard than what we have today.
Sure, but what jesus taught wasn't really the law. The old testament was really god's law book. Jesus taught more morality, it seems to me. There's a subtle difference between the two.
If you take what jesus taught in a general way, most people wouldn't disagree with him. I.E. most people intuitively recognize the golden rule.
If you compare the specifics of what jesus taught to, say, kantian or utilitarianism, i think they fall short as a complete morality.
Well, my point is whatever the bible or the Quran says, morality is not experienced in the same way the sun is. It's not an objective measurement. It's a subjective evaluation (i.e. people disagree on the rightness or the wrongness of any particular action). Nobody disagrees with the existence of the sun. You can say that the bible has good ideas in it when it comes to certain cases, but i would rather have the laws of the US than the laws of the bible.
Furthermore, if we define reality loosely as "that which is experienced", and apply that meaning to the question "is god real". We can conclude that god is not real because god is never directly experienced (not by me anyway).
That the existence of god is at BEST a purely theoretical framework for one's worldview, and at worst a nonsensical, non-disprovable tautology. If a god theory were able to make real predictions about the reality we observe, it would be valid.
I agree with you that "reality" can be linked directly with "experience" or observation.
The thing is, when it comes to morality, there is a possibility that the bad feelings we experience and associate with immoral action are driven by our own internal workings. I.e. we're evolved to have a morality. This idea is supported by the fact psychopaths who do NOT feel the bad feelings that normal people would associate with immoral action. They're statistical outliers.
What about the statement "It's impossible to ever come upon an absolute truth?"
Where a "truth" is a correct statement about the natural world.
This i believe is what relativists have in mind. In this way logical proofs can be valid or invalid, however, upon application to real world events, the truth of the conclusion becomes suspect and dependent upon the "reality" that the subject is experiencing.
A flower that is red is red. If u say its purple its still red. God made it 2 be red therefor it is red. But if God sed it was green then it would infact be green.
That's another dishonest trick apologists use: claiming if something isn't a fact, then it's an opinion - usually "just" an opinion or a "mere" opinion - which makes it "arbitrary" and, as you said, becomes something that can't be logically backed up.
It takes just a minute or two of reflection to realize that this is nonsense, but hey, it's slippery enough that it often trips up the man on the street, and that's all the sophist/apologist cares about anyway.
"That's self refuting", even when true, is lazy and weak because with some work such problems are often correctable while leaving the initial idea basically intact. To dispute an idea, EXAMINE IT FIRST, rather than trying to be cute. This lazy approach is the norm for apologists, making them closer to sophists than to people engaged in sincere philosophical discussions. If apologists had a real intellectual leg to stand on, they wouldn't suggest using gimmicks to trip people up.
I thought this was going to be about "moral" relativism and ethics, not metaphysics epistemology, and ontology.
wutdaFU3K 6 months ago
PARADOX
amarajabara 10 months ago
I love this guy! Thank you for totally destroying the post-modernistic secular philosophical lie that is relativism!! Many will attempt to argue these points... But you cannot argue what is true. Truth stands alone whether we like it or not. We cannot bend truth and then call it our own perception... You are then willfully lying... Which is the opposite of TRUTH...
wyattearp985 1 year ago
@wyattearp985 Relativism is NOT a secular principle. "Moral" relativism is. And this guy does not refute it in this video.
wutdaFU3K 6 months ago
@wutdaFU3K While I understand your point... I don't understand where your claiming he hasn't made his point. Whether an innocuous point or a point on morals as long as it is based in TRUTH.. Relativism is an inane excuse at best. If someone says "to YOU the sky looks blue. to another it may be green... its all relative" thats not only inane its insane. What he's saying is the scewing of the truth for the sake of relativism is self defeating. Whether over morals or simple truths.
wyattearp985 5 months ago
@wyattearp985 Some animals can't see the range of light we can, so while the sky looks blue to us, to your dog it's actually gray. Similarly, some animals have even more cones in their eyes and can pick up a larger range of colors. So to a bird, the color they observe is inconceivable to us. Anyway, what he and you are refuting is strict epistemological relativism. Moral relativism is not intrinsic to this.
Also, in math, does a set that contains all sets contain itself?
wutdaFU3K 5 months ago
@wutdaFU3K Can an animal such as a dog argue if the sky is blue or not? No... of course not... And when they can ... you will know the truth and not a scientific hypothesis regariding what they can and cannot see. As far as mathematics goes, there are variables in math that have been disputed... not math in its simplistic form of course... The point he's making has to do with what we know is TRUE... a rock is hard.. Is true.. there is no comparison in that statement and it stands on its own.
wyattearp985 5 months ago
@wyattearp985 No, it's a fact. We pretty much know how eyes work, and how they pick up color. And we can tell the range that animals can see too. I told you, it has to do with the amount of cones in the eye. We know the range of light we can see ROYGBIV, and we know that certain animals are less sensitive and cannot see. It's not a hypothesis, it's how your camera lens works.
You just said the sky was blue. I just proved it's relative.
Rocks are hard. Molten rocks are soft.
wutdaFU3K 5 months ago
Read Frank Turek's book...this guy is talking the same thing like turek...
This guy is a good man...
KevinVang1000 1 year ago
I'm a bit busy this week, sorry. I'll try to respond by the weekend.
mrbluesky323 1 year ago
@TrevorNGuitar
It seems to me that if there did exist organisms that didn't have a lust for their own survival, they wouldn't have survived to reproduction age as often as those who did have such a drive. I would consider it similar to the ability to feel pain. If one doesn't feel pain when their body is harmed, they have no reason to avoid harm--- and therefore they die.
I'm curious as to what your theory is.
mrbluesky323 1 year ago
@TrevorNGuitar
Thanks for the chat also. I agree, most people on youtube aren't interested in communication.
mrbluesky323 1 year ago
@TrevorNGuitar (Part 2 on "'perceived' morality has a basis in reality")
BUT it can't be said that any action is right or wrong independent of the being making the evaluation. I.e. it can be said that the sun exists whether I'm here or not, but if the goodness or badness relies on one's values, an evaluating entity needs to be specified before the judgment can be carried out.
Therefore, it can't be said to be independent of the observer, which is what most mean when they say objective morals
mrbluesky323 1 year ago
@TrevorNGuitar
"In that case the 'perceived' morality has a basis in reality"
That's a tricky way of wording it!
It has a basis in reality in two ways:
1. that reality informs our genetics which informs our values (desire for survival).
2. Our emotional axioms can be altered by varying degrees of traumatic event or association (depending on how basic the value is). I.E.general desire for life would be one of the more difficult ones to change.
BUT (continued)
mrbluesky323 1 year ago
@TrevorNGuitar
Well, fair enough. While that doesn't show they're all lying, it demonstrates that their existence isn't necessarily the proof of what i'm saying. I mean, in any case maybe we can agree that people's views on morality can be reduced to a value judgment of an event. I.e. a similar thing to saying that a work of art is beautiful or ugly. The judgment is more a reflection of how we think than it is of the objective event.
mrbluesky323 1 year ago
@mrbluesky323
If we can agree that moral judgments are essentially value judgments, then we need go no further to explain the phenomenon any more than we need to explain our desire for food.
It's common to people because it correlates (or has correlated) with survival.
mrbluesky323 1 year ago
@TrevorNGuitar
They've done brain studies on people who don't experience morality in the same way. They don't have the same reactions that normal people do. It's not a matter of pretending, it's really just not present in them. They don't place a value on humanity or other people or whatever.
Back to the bible:
If you look at some of the things Leviticus says, it very much reflects a worse moral standard than what we have today.
mrbluesky323 1 year ago
@TrevorNGuitar
Sure, but what jesus taught wasn't really the law. The old testament was really god's law book. Jesus taught more morality, it seems to me. There's a subtle difference between the two.
If you take what jesus taught in a general way, most people wouldn't disagree with him. I.E. most people intuitively recognize the golden rule.
If you compare the specifics of what jesus taught to, say, kantian or utilitarianism, i think they fall short as a complete morality.
mrbluesky323 1 year ago
@TrevorNGuitar
Well, my point is whatever the bible or the Quran says, morality is not experienced in the same way the sun is. It's not an objective measurement. It's a subjective evaluation (i.e. people disagree on the rightness or the wrongness of any particular action). Nobody disagrees with the existence of the sun. You can say that the bible has good ideas in it when it comes to certain cases, but i would rather have the laws of the US than the laws of the bible.
mrbluesky323 1 year ago
@TrevorNGuitar
:)
mrbluesky323 1 year ago
@TrevorNGuitar (part 2)
Furthermore, if we define reality loosely as "that which is experienced", and apply that meaning to the question "is god real". We can conclude that god is not real because god is never directly experienced (not by me anyway).
That the existence of god is at BEST a purely theoretical framework for one's worldview, and at worst a nonsensical, non-disprovable tautology. If a god theory were able to make real predictions about the reality we observe, it would be valid.
mrbluesky323 1 year ago
@TrevorNGuitar
I agree with you that "reality" can be linked directly with "experience" or observation.
The thing is, when it comes to morality, there is a possibility that the bad feelings we experience and associate with immoral action are driven by our own internal workings. I.e. we're evolved to have a morality. This idea is supported by the fact psychopaths who do NOT feel the bad feelings that normal people would associate with immoral action. They're statistical outliers.
mrbluesky323 1 year ago
What about the statement "It's impossible to ever come upon an absolute truth?"
Where a "truth" is a correct statement about the natural world.
This i believe is what relativists have in mind. In this way logical proofs can be valid or invalid, however, upon application to real world events, the truth of the conclusion becomes suspect and dependent upon the "reality" that the subject is experiencing.
mrbluesky323 1 year ago
A flower that is red is red. If u say its purple its still red. God made it 2 be red therefor it is red. But if God sed it was green then it would infact be green.
44SCB 1 year ago
All relativity is in a nutshell is a circular puzzle of arguments used by those to dodge responsibility and Truth.
cctman 1 year ago
lol matt this is making my brain hurt . oh man :) really good video though.
Nakutao 1 year ago 4
hahahaha praise the LORD
MikeyTipunama 1 year ago
relativism just seems like an opinion...& how can you back something up that is just an opinion. You can't. Not logically at least.
MegaTheNora 1 year ago
@MegaTheNora
That's another dishonest trick apologists use: claiming if something isn't a fact, then it's an opinion - usually "just" an opinion or a "mere" opinion - which makes it "arbitrary" and, as you said, becomes something that can't be logically backed up.
It takes just a minute or two of reflection to realize that this is nonsense, but hey, it's slippery enough that it often trips up the man on the street, and that's all the sophist/apologist cares about anyway.
VeryEvilPettingZoo 1 year ago
"That's self refuting", even when true, is lazy and weak because with some work such problems are often correctable while leaving the initial idea basically intact. To dispute an idea, EXAMINE IT FIRST, rather than trying to be cute. This lazy approach is the norm for apologists, making them closer to sophists than to people engaged in sincere philosophical discussions. If apologists had a real intellectual leg to stand on, they wouldn't suggest using gimmicks to trip people up.
VeryEvilPettingZoo 1 year ago
I think i got a nose bleed, here! :) Great video. Good stuff.
vekl 1 year ago
relativists dont hold to the view out of logic its a pure emotional response.
TheHeroProduction 1 year ago
great video!.. im loving it
iToyRobot 1 year ago
WOW I just witnessed the absolute annihilation of Relativism.
THEHRHOFTIME 1 year ago
Great job Matt, That ws a tongue twister!
LogosApologia 1 year ago
lol I want to see a theist try this argument on me.
Landofjello 1 year ago
@Landofjello you're cool
Zerozx11645 1 year ago
@Landofjello And that's your point? Tell me, what did you find to be logically fallacious?
HeReformedMe 1 year ago
@HeReformedMe Nothing lol. I was just trolling. And hey, trolls at least gets comments on a vid so you're welcome ;)
Landofjello 1 year ago
Matt, you think your sooooooooo slick!!
stereodust3 1 year ago 8
@stereodust3 lol, that was punny
jamieabrown1 1 year ago
I am lost lol
Chase9803 1 year ago
Great work. Love it.
joespicer 1 year ago