An Introduction to Philosophy

[makeiteasyable]

well, they all do. said things only they can understand.

[fredynek3]

all philosophizers are delusional, they speak abstract. 

[TaliesinMcKnight]

of course.. what is eating well or eating poorly is a philosophical thing.. asigning values. what is good? etc. and what exactly can man know? its the asking of questions and investigation. i dont think its an accident that philosophy and science were once one.. religion was also blended with this.. today we separate religion, science, and philosophy.. maybe if we didnt make this division.. then people wouldnt still believe in talking snakes and women coming from ribs, which is retarded.

[TaliesinMcKnight]

i thought philosophy came from greek philios=son and sophia=wisdom.. thus son of wisdom.. not love of wisdom.. love is agape in greek.. or so i thought..

furthermore, i would disagree witht he first definition of a group of tenants thought to be true and authoritative.. that is the definition of dogma

[fajabanan]

But, the proposition that our senses can't be trusted is not falsifiable either, since our only way of having them falsified is by assuming their validity and somehow finding that they show us something contrary to what they actually are showing us, meaning that if they're valid, they must be invalid, which is of course lunacy. The same goes for the validity of reason, which isn't falsifiable either. Does this mean that these notions are nonsense that can simply be brushed off?

[niriop]

How am I going to take this seriously when he Googles "philosophy" at the beginning?

[Yanirakarola]

I enjoy WIttgenstein's post-Tractatus view of Philosophy which, I interpret to be, a therapy to help us understand that most of the things that keep us up at night that we've learned in our philosophy classes are mere nonsense to begin with...

[TheNotoc]

To be perfectly honest I got lost around 5:36 but that is most likely due to the fact that like most 16 year olds I have the attention span of about 30 seconds.

[bredrin1]

Truth is dependent on perspective and perspectives are subjective, if you can mold enough perspectives to suit your model using propaganda what you are left with is democracy and that is crumbling before our very eyes, much like it seemed in Rome which served the very same purpose and so the lie continues.

Questions are always healthy and a good thing but answers are really preludes to questions that nobody asked yet, there are no real answers and "truth" as a consequence is constantly redefined

[StunningRia]

filo in greek means friend, not love.. love is agapi.

just like phila delphia, phila is friend, and delphia is brother, like brother luv.

[Trandofir]

In ancient texts, philos denoted a general type of love, used for love between family, between friends, a desire or enjoyment of an activity, as well as between lovers.  From wiki.

[kitts21]

Philosophy is to question why orange juice is orange juice and not george bush? Science is Orange juice is x, y,z ...

[D33veeoss]

Philosophy was first experience when a man/woman wondered something.

"will this dry quicker if I spread it out on a line in the sun?"

That was the philosophy step. The search for reality. Truth. Fact.

Now come science wherein the 'speculation' the 'need' is met with answer to prediction.

Thing is this.

Science has answered more than we ask.

We now need philosophy to speculate on the data that science queries upon and suggests.

ie. Big Bang

Philosophy. Science.

[TJae1]

i believe existence is proliferate

[D33veeoss]

You have no belief.

The center in your brain, that triggered that mechanically reflexed answer is no more "yours" than it is "mine"

Don't make me prove it to you.

Suspicion of "belief" is the best I'll concede is possible. And that's pending a cohesive definition of "self", "origin of self and mitigating factors therein", "choice", "freewill", "environment"

etc etc.

"belief" is not within your immediate grasp. And if it is, it's by accident which voids it as defined "belief" anyway

[TJae1]

@D33veeoss interesting ~ I believe ~ therefore I am ~

[TJae1]

@d33 ~ is belief outside ours or Ur grasp ~

[D33veeoss]

Please, explain "grasp, belief, ours/ur/mine/me/you/us".

The question, for it's practical purpose, needs these terms concisely defined

I'm happy to answer I just need to see to where we're on plane.

[TJae1]

@D33veeoss Ur terminology ~ U referred to Me ~ seemed to be more about Ur ideas or concepts or mayb the human species (WE) ~ this seemed more fitting ~

[D33veeoss]

I don't understand you.

Must be my shortcoming.

Take care.

[TJae1]

U do & I didn't request a comment reply ~ Ur idea ~ eh ~

[HolgerFrancisco]

Again, I liked very much. Hope to continue listening (and learning). Thanks for sharing.

[MJRockX]

11)

Because to me, this guy sounds like less of a philosopher, and more like a far-right advocate of keeping the dominating classes of power who would like to control what you accept as knowledge.

And please feel FREE to speak your own personal beliefs, even if they are not coming from confused and circular sources of authoritative sources.

[Sconz32]

What the fucking fuck was all this?

[existenceisrelative]

11) A far right member of the ruling class bent on controlling what you believe. Really? This is what you get from a bald, rambling canadian? Schizophrenic meth addicts could tell you that sounds crazy! Even if he does harbor such grandiose and impossible goals, do you really think he'd try to achieve them through youtube?!? Where there's no guarantee anyone at all will ever see it? Also, anyone can be cited as an authority. And I don't recognize your authority to deny anyone else's. So there.

[MJRockX]

10)

It is the logic I have a problem with. It is circular and confused by all means. Moreover if one accepts this logic as being a correct one, even though the mundane topic of eating habits is really in effect benign and to a lesser degree harmful as a result of this twisted logic, I am more cautious when it comes to applying the same logic to matters of great importance.

[existenceisrelative]

10) So don't use the logic if it doesn't work for you. Just don't use it. Simple, no need for a fucking dissertation on your frustration at it. No one wants to hear you throw your fit.

[MJRockX]

9)

What is really at issue here is whether I should indeed accept a claim that my belief shows a need for a methodology, and that that science, or methodology, which proves my beliefs erroneous is the only source of knowledge that they are erroneous.

[existenceisrelative]

9) To what belief do you refer? Specificity could aid your intelligibility greatly.

[MJRockX]

8)

I do however have difficulty in believing that knowledge of eating poorly necessitates, a science or a discipline or methodology for determining how to eat well. Yet it is because of the science, he claims, or a discipline or methodology for determining how to eat well, that is pointed to as the corrective measures to be taken, However, it by this fact of eating well only, that would also reveal the knowledge of eating poorly.

[existenceisrelative]

8) How much time do you actually spend constructing your sentences? They're undecipherable for the most part. Without intelligibility, even the most brilliant rebuttal is about as useful as a cat on a keyboard.

[MJRockX]

7)

This dude is saying the knowledge, shows need for a methodology or science, as the methodology is in fact, the only cause for the knowledge, but our red-herring we run after is, is changing eating habits for the objectively better a good? Obviously the answer is yes. I have no problem believing that.

[MJRockX]

6)

However, the capacity to eat poorly here seems to deem that some correction is necessary and I dont have a problem with changing my behavior as a result of my identifying those which are objectively better; eating daily broccoli instead of ice cream for instance.

[MJRockX]

Where an interpreter of information can accept, reject or simply wait for better information before making a decision.

Instead.

The real issue is kept at bay and within the grey areas of thinking by confusing an objective truth: good nutrition, with a value judgment, corrective behavior toward eating habits is infused with a fallacy of circular reasoning contained within the authoritative claim to knowledge of better nutrition, fair enough? OK

[MJRockX]

5)

O.K. I think this should untwist the logic used here, not to clarify the object at issue, but to simply undo the twisted logic that is tying up and raping many viewers.

What has been done here by effectively changing what should be a matter for objective validity, (the science of nutrition) becomes a value judgment for behavior instead of what it implies directly, that of an evaluation for objective analysis.

[MJRockX]

4)

WOW! This guy is good. He is combining a confusing of issues with circular reasoning to the point where it's very diffocult to untangle the mess, but I'LL try.

[existenceisrelative]

4) Did you watch this through? If so, why?

[MJRockX]

5)

This appears to me to be nothing less than a negation of the mind at the core of the minds very being. Is this what is known as thinking for ones self? I dont think so. Him, maybe it is I who is in need for some authoritative correction so my thinking might fall in line with the SS; Standard State, or better yet, the Ideal State from which there appears to be a deviation from.

[MJRockX]

5)

This in effect sets up a conditional binary opposition which says, personal belief is only true if and only if it is a result of the authoritative, or at least in line with what the authoritative would lay claim to be truth. And the reason given to support this premise is only that it belongs to a self, an individual, a man.

[MJRockX]

4)

This confuses three issues namely those of value and belief. The unstated conclusion here is that, where ones own personal belief is held there is no value. If one would buy into this logic as true then any reasoning which opposes it should necessarily be false.

[MJRockX]

4)

Speaking for me now and my personal belief here is, (and I do happen to value my personal beliefs even more so that those by others claimed to be authoritative in nature. Although I may adopt some of those beliefs as my own at some point, but certainly not simply because of a claim to authority the narrative might contain within its sentences. The suggestion here is a run-on idea of self indulgence with personal beliefs with value of those beliefs.

[existenceisrelative]

4) No one's forcing anything onto you. Calm the fuck down.

Though I do agree with the "run-on" comment. He doesn't seem to have any lines or corners in his thoughts. It does make it a bit hard to listen to.

[MJRockX]

3)

The narrator then immediately goes on to give his personal opinion of what value he gives others, personal beliefs of how to live as one he likes, which is to say, no value at all, then gives proof surrogate answers to a supposed question of which the audience never asked, but is implied in his statements, answering such questions of, [people who actually value personal beliefs, what kind of people are they? Here is the phony proof surrogate: Self indulgence was his only philosophy.

[existenceisrelative]

3)

Uh huh. That's what you got from this?

I think maybe you have the wrong video in mind.

Or maybe you just don't agree with something he said. So you've decided to excessively verbosely throw a little digital fit.

[MJRockX]

2)

Notice that the first definition of philosophy given is that of one of being, authoritative by some school or group was not the narrators ides, but one he picked up from Googles definitions which in itself appears to be athoritive, thus we naturally consider it to be credible, and most will believe that it is true.

[existenceisrelative]

2)

It was a list of differing definitions of the same concept.

"Truth" was neither accredited to it, nor meant to be inferred.

[MJRockX]

1)

Its interesting how he starts the video with the asking of others via Google what definitions there are or opinion of what Philosophy is. Notice the question is over what it is, rather than what is it good for. Right off the bat it becomes obvious that this is a narrative and not a real philosophic approach to the questions philosophy attempts to address.

[existenceisrelative]

1) "What it's good for" would not be a decent start to an introduction. Knowing what something pertains to is not a substitute for knowing what the thing is. If someone hands you something unknown, you first ask what it is. Then you ask what you do with it. To do things any other way would be counter-intuitive in the extreme. Which would be confusing and hinder learning. Which seems to be the objective.

[MJRockX]

It's easy to get lost within this philosophy video. It's chalked full of fallisic argumentation. Flawed logic.

[stefbot]

I'm going to guess that you meant - fallacious arguments? :)

[Spanglefeather]

@stefbot

no probubbly chock full of fellatio arguments LOL 

[Spanglefeather]

chock full of fellatio arguments

[chuFFisTwo]

you can read everything he says in at Read Freedomain Radio on Wordpress, tag 0377

[TaliesinMcKnight]

@MJRockX "fallisic argumentation.. lmao!!!!!

fallisic? you mean fallacious as in logical fallacy..

[summergiles]

you lost me.

[proatheism]

Excelent video, its hard to get quality videos on this subject.

[dedbusted]

I like Broccoli

[posksas]

@dedbusted yes, but how can you verify what you have been eating is really broccoli, hmMMMMmmmmmmm o.O?

[meatcannon]

I feel like i'm stuck in a cuckoo clock.

[xEpicsoldier]

i think we should use philosophy as a way to improve our lives, not define what we can't ultimately define. Isn't the whole concept an on-going struggle anyways? Because it's not like we have a checklist to the universe.

[nikopian1]

How are you to know how to improve your life if you do not know how your mind works; you need to define things to a certain extent if you are to understand what to do with them. But you are right in that we should use philosophy to improve Our lives.

[xEpicsoldier]

Well, my point was that instead of going mad with questions that can't be answered, really, we should focus on the things that can be. And then use it. And learning how your mind works is one of the things that can be answered. whoever gave me a -1 on my comment will die and perish!!!!! >:D

[sonicdottails]

negativity sucks

[minggnim]

I don't find this as being an introduction to philosophy.

It's more a person rambling on using very poor examples.

Having said that, if someone else finds this educational or interesting...cool.

[sonicdottails]

hi

thanks for intellectually stimulating vids.

what did you say it was called when you say the 'problem of aging'? (~12:57)

[almostlearned]

IT IS NOT FOR EVERYBODY.

[seggallion8]

love it

[numbcore]

damn it gets boring after a while

[Kerdex]

Not really, to me. I guess to me it seems like it just kinda wanders aimlessly as far as subject goes.

[numbcore]

And you dont find that boring? If it were more brief it could be oke

[Kerdex]

I guess that's true for people with shorter attention spans. But if you want a full intro to Philosophy, I think this video is a good as they get.

[numbcore]

Apparently you have somewhat a philosophical background which means you are more interested in this, in which case your standpoint makes more sense.

[Kerdex]

Actually, no. I have no philisophical background whatsoever. :P

I just found it interesting all the way to the end. Philosophy interests me, but this is the only real intro to it so far.

[greenghost2008]

i want to say sorry for somthing. I didnt subscirbe right away. lol

[Boahnico]

I just have to critizise one thing:

When you described Descartes Idea of an "evil demon" you let it look like Descartes used this demon argument as a real point of discussion. He knew that it is extremely unlikely that this is the truth.

BUT, the question he was asking was: What am a able to know, without ANY doubt?

In this context the idea of an evil demon is to take as seriously as the idea that things are falling on the ground when you let them fall.

(sorry for my english)

[SatanOnFire333x2]

Nice. Your page is very educational.

[tetraedronico]

funny thing: I just noticed that your microphone doesn't work, the microphone that is recording your voice probably is integrated in your laptop. ;)

[Arachnidia]

Truth: What is truth? Can ALL truth be validated? I understand the use of empirical data to support a hypothesis as being TRUE. However, as you noted in the case of Descartes, there was no way to prove or disprove his idea. In the case of perception using only objectivity, could two people see the same thing when looking at a figure? Using degrees, agreement could be had re: color, shape, texture, etc., correct? What happens when you throw in subjectivity? Where lies truth at that point?

[thehumanSAM]

i agree with you archnidia

[Arachnidia]

Why thank you darling!

[InfectedDaemon]

I would also say that the train of thought is to long, but it serves a purpose. Summary: There are valid precepts (or truth), there are deviation of truth within the norm, all hypothesis must have a null and provable hypothesis and our senses can bring us to the truth if we corroborate them (Jejeje, under 350 chars!).

[stefbot]

A brilliant summary! :) If only I could be as concise... :o

[dkg0]

It would be fantastic if you could summarise all of his videos in this manner.

[InfectedDaemon]

The only thing I can take home from the video is the premise that you cannot propose an argument or a hypothesis without there being a null hypothesis to it that can be proved. So that basically thwarts all (or most) theological arguments, since I can say that the Flying Spaghetti Monster created the universe and is the Supreme Being, and there is no way to disprove it since I can say that the FSM escapes all explanation and science.

[ZerepWerdna26]

That would be true if you believed that everyone's version of truth is right, and that we should be acceptant of them. That would be called moral relativism. However, in moral absolutism, your argument that the Flying Spaghetti Monster would be thrown out and destroyed, because FSM does not incorporate any moral values or thought, which is the main principle behind all religions. That would be the "null hypothesis" of that argument.

[InfectedDaemon]

Actually the FSM has his 8 "really rather you didn'ts" that function as moral precepts. So Pastafarianism does have moral precepts.

[canubelieve]

HAHA great comment!

[fexdid]

Good to know. Thank you. Cheers.

[barrywilliamsmb]

Right on fexdid! I've seen a lot of people called all manner of names in these comments but never have I read any body's apology. Gee friend, you sure are different;-)!

I've just started watching Stef and am already alarmed at how much I've learned. And while I've recognized some major opportunities for personal growth through viewing his videos, Stef's method of imparting knowledge is completely different from any other cd or tape I've listened to.

It's more like gossip than training...

[fexdid]

That last comment was pretty harsh and arrogant. I apologize.

I was trying to express my disappointment with having to "jump ship" as you say - tho not because things are "too hard". Cheers.

[stefbot]

No problemo, I think you made the right decision for you...

[fexdid]

Minute 14:00: I can stand no more. Pity, because imo you have much of value to say, despite the fact that you haven't shared any of this for over 10 minutes now.

I think if you showed off the sweat stains on your shirt as mentioned below, that would at least be something unique and stimulating. Just WAY too many examples. I think MY health has deviated from the ideal due to sheer boredom.

[dommyxx]

well IT IS an introdution.

[fexdid]

Writing at 10:00 into video: Stuck with this because I learned A LOT about the 'why' of philosophy merely from your distinction that philosophy presumes our rational fallibility. Thank you!

However, for my taste, the next 5 minutes or whatever of examples are quite excessive and I can barely stand to watch further. I would hate to abandon this vid/your vids because I'm sure I will learn A LOT more about philosophy from it, but I may. I hope I'm not being rude.

[stefbot]

Well if 5 minutes is too hard, you might want to jump ship now... :)

[theinternetscholar]

Good stuff, but kinda long . . .but it shows that you are being thorough and making sure everyone understands

I'm in the process of going through your philosophy videos . . .going to take a while, but it will probably be worth it

Thanks

[patchyXtheXpirate]

serious sweatmarks on that grey shirt sir

[stefbot]

No one said philosophy was easy... :)

[patchyXtheXpirate]

lol touche' good sir

[monsterjazzlicks]

Is this episode the best place to start for a complete novice ?? And then should one just follow through the remaining episodes in chronological order ??

Ta !

[VCADD]

I might be a redneck

[seanmc30]

I love the nutrition VS medicine argument....nutrition will be my profession (when I finally get out of school).

[NeonKnight88]

What he means that when we vote for ron paul we vote for him to just be our dictator, government is inherently evil

We are always at his mercy, but he promises to remove fascism in the US and I will vote for him

[debaiona]

stefbot has like 5 vids on Ron Paul. Go watch those.

[debaiona]

But you cannot ever limit the government. We started off in this country with the Articles of Confederation, which left an incredibly weak central government, and the government has only increased in size, scope, and power since then. If we couldn't stop the expansion of government after the Civil War, in 1913, after WWI, after WWII, after FDR and LBJ, after Vietnam, after Reagan... how can we stop it now? What can you tell me that you can do to stop it now?

[qkholster]

Good insights, yet there is a chance that there will be a "cure" for aging one day.

[isjoeythere]

I really enjoy your stuff--but I'm still voting for Ron Paul and supporting the Libertarian Reform Caucus. It may be immoral, but just like every other violent criminal, my vote is cast because there is an incentive--reducing the scope of government. Whether my vote really has an effect or not, I'm following my self-interest.

[Stoub]

Yeah. I'm not voting for Ron Paul. He's a criminal just like the rest. I'm not against him but in no way do I support him.

[JTickett]

well the voting system is flawed and you'll never get what you want through that anyway. Why not vote for the least bad one then? I heard an anarchist once say not to argue with anarcho-capitalist/anarcho-soc­ialists etc etc, because in general you share goals. I dont know what you dont like about Ron Paul, but I would recommend voting anyway for something that you could say is a 'good start' or not as bad as it could be.

[stefbot]

It is against your interest to vote for RP.

[allmanjoy]

who is there to vote for then......

[debaiona]

No one. There is no one to vote for, because voting - the entire machinery of government - is against your self interest!!

[sirfingerlock]

So...while you vote for no one there is going to be a President elected who will be voted into office in the country you live in. He or she will be the President of the country you live in whether you voted or not. So, in light of that...Ron Paul is the biggest threat? WOW

[JPDaniel]

Great stuff! I'll have a listen to your podcasts.

[3yearshardcore1]

I just want to thank you for all of your posts and directing my attention to freedomain. I have only viewed a few of your posts so far, however, I look foward to watchin a different one each night. I am a second year psych/philosophy student (so I dont know much (unlike other self professed experts that comment;)). I find your explanations clear and your examples illustrative. Keep up the good work.

[stefbot]

Thanks so much! You should have a listen to my podcasts as you roam around campus, I think you'd really like them - freedomainradio dot com...

[willey1984]

Holy shit. i am a philosopher and am used to reading through arduous arguments with the mere hope of understanding a little at the end (ie Hegel). But could you plleeeaaasssee cut out all of the talking and talking and just say what you want to say more concisely? I don't have 40 minutes to learn two points. I am not cutting you down, you are a great person, but you could easily say what needs to be said in a few sentences (in fact I did, as i was writing an outline while you were talking).

[stefbot]

Haha, really - more lengthy than Hegel? Youtube would crash!

Sorry my philosophy intros are too long brother! Perhaps you can return to skateboarders falling over... ;)

[sobutter]

to continue my earlier comment, sure some branches of philosophy utilize empirical data to support a thesis but are no means grounded by it.

just want to make this clear to people taking your podcasts as a valid intro to philosophy

[msbsevensixseven]

Could you be more specific as to what branches you are talking about?

Empiricism, in what I know it to be, is essential for any sort of coherent philosophy.

[sobutter]

i didn't watch the whole thing but you made a comment about nutrition and philosophy being a science, you seem to have at least a minimal grasp of philosophy but I find it hard to believe that you're claiming that philosophy is a science. you should know philosophy(the general study) is not grounded on empirical study therefore philosophy is considered to be in the humanities department and not the science department.

[gmgauthi]

Man, this podcast made me hungry! Barbecued flesh, baked nature, custard Eclaires, and some lettuce, tomato, and broccoli on the side.... A veritable picnic of philosophy... mmmmmm....