@megadrummer2 I always leave links for further reading and studying. The main premise of this video is that there are people out there who want to make you believe that universal truth is basically impossible for various reasons. So for example it would be impossible to truly be able to measure the world because our understanding of reality is limited. Of course, while humans have to keep developing their understanding it is nonsense to state that something like science is fundamentally flawed
I found that most of this video went right over my head. Mainly because I have not studied the philosophers that were mentioned and their thoughts on these issues. Which is also why I have come here, to seek knowledge and understand more in depth the things I am interested in. My father was an intense thinker & philosopher and once told me that most everything in this world is based on or can be explained by mathmatics. At least I think that's what he said, or something of that nature.
@allansachsjr The framing YOU are describing here is not necessarily abstract. Speaking in concise terminology is the key, as opposed to being cryptic, which many relativistic schools of philosophy fall prone to.
It is only in one dimentional operations that 2+2=4. In 2,3,...,n dimentions only if you are extremely lucky does 2+2=4.
Ending your video with that statement exemplifies your oversiplification of things. I get the impression that you speak of things of whitch you compreend very little.
@Zebarbas And I suppose you do comprehend them, oh purveyor of gnosis.
What people like you repeatedly do is make claims with no solid example to apply it to, and blatantly withhold info so only you can conceptualise the outcome. 2+2=4 is a perfectly logically sound statement and your attempt to esoterically conplicate an issue without context is intellectually dishonest and obnoxious. I've no time for people like you. I put an explicit warning on the vid info, which you ignored.
@treegraph It's only difficult if one assumes that numbers are social constructs. The fact is that counting helped people in objective tasks, even during the stone age, like counting enough rocks to make spear tips for all the hunters - so it was gradually expressed in logical concepts. The mind works numerically on a natural basis - like when expressing music.
Kant argues that objective truth is a construction based on sensory experience and logical judgments which are to be verified in a community of philosophers and scientists. That is a pretty weird relativism. The last time we discussed Kant you admitted to not having read him directly. I have to say, while I like most of your vids, this sort of thing hurts my trust of your judgment, no offense.
@BoethianAcolyte The last time we spoke about Kant was months ago. It is incorrect to state that all life is based on sensory experience. We have many empirical methods and inductive practices to measure the world free of our direct senses and personal experiences. ALL arguments I hear to try and refute this revert to perspective, limits of language, et al, which I refute in this video. People who revert to such ideas are relativists, whether they acknolwedge it or not.
You make lots of valid and obviously solid points, however I don't know that I'd lump Nietzsche in with other relativists. It might not even be appropriate to consider Jean Paul Sartre a relativist either. Sure, one dealt with a philosophy that predated but almost anticipated existentialism, and the other one was basically the grandfather of that philosophy so to speak, but I think it's too much of an oversimplification to label that type of philosophy as relativism.
@GodlessCitizen MrE will be unhappy with this one- but I agree with what you are saying. However at the same tme I am aware of the point MrE is making regarding the use of Nietzsche by the left- fully. Not to sure about Sartre though! Oh and you can never over simplify too much when dealing with Leftists, because they talk so much crap they would have you chasing your own ass and elbow.
About this categorization of "leftists". I must take issue with it. I consider myself left wing in terms of politics, but I am not a moral relativist, nor do I invoke nonsensical ideas like "scientism" or the pejorative use of the word "reductionist". I don't agree with most of existentialism, and post-modernism is indeed vacuous and empty.
@GodlessCitizen Im off to bed my friend. You rightly make an interesting qualification but mine and I dare say MrEs profiling of Leftists, Socialists and Feminists take a great deal of qualification against your qualification. So I, I cant speak for MrE, are simplifications on the quick for the comments section. I may decide to look at this tomorrow. You've made some good points. I differ from E in that I both hate and find PM FN and Exist to have high value. I study the vacuum so here U akin2E
@GodlessCitizen To clarify, leftism is really a term that defines a group of left-wing philosophers in their own right. I will make a video about it in the future, but I think it is VERY important to expose the cultural marxists that have hijacked so much Western culture since the 60's. Earlier Liberalism was far more individualistic, though the modern left today favours collectivism over individualism, which flies in the fact of the likes of John Stuart Mill believed.
Well, all left wing political thought cannot be classified under the rubrick of "marxist". Also individualism is an essential value of the enlightenment and thus western civilization, however, I hope you don't take it to the level that Ayn Rand's Objectivism did. Calling anything short of that, "collectivism" would be pretty insane. No man is an island after all.
@GodlessCitizen Did I classify ALL leftist philoopshy under Marxism? No. Of course Marxism is a strong basis for many of the modern left's ideas, but it is by no means the only one. You are misrepresenting Rand if you think she completey shuns collectivism. To understand why you need to distinguish between voluntary collectivism and forced collectivism - they are worlds apart.
I didn't mean to imply that you did, but just using "leftist" as an unqualified, blanket term is not a good way to go about classifying intellectual positions. However about your point on Ayn Rand, her philosophy was empty, calous, and devoid of intellectual merit. Objectivism was basically like a religion that promoted self-interest above all. It wasn't rational, scientific or well, objective. The void left by organized religion should not be filled with marxism or objectivism.
@GodlessCitizen The term leftist is a necessary distinction between the PC marxism that occurred out of the civil rights movement. It is important because it draws a line between this group and those who are more classicaly liberal, which leftists try to hijack. I don't agree with many of Rand's ideas but you are reverting to typical arguments by adjective that her critics regularly use. It doesn't bode well for your understanding of her philosophy.
@GodlessCitizen Objectivism itself isn't really a belief system, its more of an important understanding for a thoughtful being to acquire.
Religion is often for those that do not want to think on life's mysteries. A philosopher can accept certain ideas and reject others, based on logical reasoning.
The scientific method, objectivism, both are tools.
Relativism is essentially a tool that doesn't work.
"leftist" is here being used as a blanket term for post-modernist views, quite aptly imo.
@GodlessCitizen Yes, Nietzsche was an existentialist, but basically all his arguments that I have ever come across involve relative philosophical statements. That would make him a relativist, which existentialism would fall under as a philosophical school of thought.
"Real World"=my opinions and worldviews Check! Sorry but everyone is a 'reletavist' since pure objectivity is impossible. BTW the scientific method is not the end all be all of existence. Science is a tool to inform not dictate policy. Let's remember that 'science' led to Eugenics policies resulting in horrific results. No, I'm not talking about 'those guys' either, but people that were the movers of the American Eugenics Movement, that led to people being sterilized against their will
@HeavyTrafficAhead Congratulations on making typical leftist and relativist logical fallacies that I have fully debunked my channel and blog. Science dictates nothing - people do. Science does not harm anyone - people do. Every single argument you have made is typical of those I hear from people who can't conceptualise reality outside of their heads and blame science for the sins of people. Science is amoral and reality is independent of the observer. 'Nuff said.
@RockingMrE Nothing to do with Leftism. BTW I can't stand a lot of the crap that is thrown under the rubrik of 'Post Modernism'. Actually I find a lot of it quite hilarious. BTW, you just agreed with my post regarding science. The problem is you failed to detect that I was critiquing those that think science is some kind of savior and that 'Reason' is the answer to everything. If you knew anything about history, you'd see that worship has led to serious disaster. That's the only point. Full Stop
@HeavyTrafficAhead No one is worshipping science any more than they are worshipping mathematics. It's a strawman, and I'm trying to be polite, though I do get very fed up of these sorts of claims. Science is like a car, and if we drive it responsibly it is useful. If we drive it drunk then it is a deadly weapon. Philosophical morality is the key to these things, not science. Your arguments are mired in leftism if you are using this logic to claim science is dangerous.
@RockingMrE (cont) I will however concede that Christians make these sorts of claims about science too. Religion makes absolute claims about truth based on relative arguments, while philosophers popular with leftists, like Nietzsche, make relative claims based on absolute statements. Both are logically inconsistent.
@RockingMrE Mind telling me what is 'Leftist' in anything I said? I don't get it or I'm not seeing it. And referring to your post below, you're using Nietschze as an example of a 'Leftist'? huh wha?
@HeavyTrafficAhead Nietzsche is a cult hero of leftists. Leftists claim that moral relativism is necessary to prevent tyranny, and this is the fundamental foundation of left-wing philosophy. Sorry if I seem frustrated, but as my channel grows I am not really interested in hearing arguments that I read ad nauseum that deny this. It becomes time consuming and very boring.
@RockingMrE Hey MrE I like the ending, always remember that 2+2=4. That reminds me of a film, it might be the Marathon man, if you have not seen it... "is it safe". Or is it 1984 where there is the light above the guy and the Statists are trying to convince him that even though he sees four lights on the ceiling above him, they want him to say five and be unsure of what he sees. I think today successful proved that about relativism and how it is interlinked with oppression, especially for men.
@apekillssnake It was most likely 1984. Relativism being linked with oppression is one thing, but it is a central tenet for leftism that grew out of the 60's.
@RockingMrE I agree, just in reading some of your other comments, like the one above this one on your channel. You did an excellent job in explaining that. I will say that this is one of the reasons Im reluctant to start making videos because the public really do want you to bleed for their art. I think the greycloud guy is ok though. I see mental improvement on your channel though. Keep up the good work.
@sketch2k Calculus and Math are Tools that create absolute constants in certain relativistic frameworks and these tools are guided by language forming questions for which those tools might offer an answer.
Anyway, I'm all about freedom. Now lets rid the world of knowledge hoarding oppressors by oppressing them hahahahaha
Oh but it's different because of the non-aggression principal. We are reacting in defense, not initiating force. But math does not predict morality.
@sketch2k I think you'll find that we lack the information to truly understand quantum mechanics at this moment in time, much like when we though the world was flat. Either way the laws of quantum mechanics don't make the objectively definable natural world obsolete. Here's a link to watch:
@RockingMrE Just based on this video, I'd suggest you give them a look (Look for the "later" Wittgenstein as opposed to the "earlier"). They discuss an important factor which you don't seem to give much attention to, which is the self-referentiality of language. Does "objectivity", "reality" and "truth" exist? Of course! But these words gain meaning like all other words, which is through their actual usage. Check them out and let me know what you think.
Every time I stat to win a debate with a Relatvist they always fall back into the idea of subjective perception, typically when I cite an emperical math or science fact.
Nihilism is the negation of sentimental meaning of an object or concept not the physical properties like many deluded Relativist believe.
@xXChrisHATEXx5 Perception is the holy grail of relativists. That's really all they have when you break down the philosophy, whatever "brand" of relativism it might be.
i am a moral relativist. of course i fit into a whole lot more labels than that when it comes to ethics. ultimately i am an amoralist as well, as i ultimately believe that morality is based purely on opinions and desires. we think life is valuable, this is our opinion, thus it is morally correct to save lives and avoid killing. or for theists, god desires us to value life, and his opinion is that we should not kill each other, thus it is wrong to kill people.
@greycloud24 Much of what we are is pre-programmed through nature. This is being empirically uncovered all the time. We don't kill for example unless we have to or are put under pressure. Polar bears will only attack one another if necessary, and they are known as possibly the most ferocious animals on the planet. Fundamental morals are therefore objective, and even our purpose in life is driven by natural desires, in spite of modern life.
@RockingMrE i would agree that much of our moral decisions are hardwired into our brain chemistry from evolution. we don't murder because those groups of people who had the capacity to murder each other formed weaker societies and have long since went extinct. the societies that had moral rules that favored survival were the ones that continued to thrive the most. this is a natural result of selective forces on a societal scale. but successful survival isn't objectively "right".
@greycloud24 Successful survival can be brutal. But we know that evolution makes us reciprocally altruistic and often conmpassionate. Furthermore it is logically sound to try to coopoerate with one another because conflict is a big price to pay, while coopoeration has many rewards. The animal kingdom reflects this too - animals will avoid conflict because of risk. This is a form of natural objective morality, though this can go out the window if animals are struggling to survive.
part 2. what i mean i guess is that earth even being full of life is not objectively better than the sun even though the sun probably contains no life. life in and of itself is not "better" than non-life. it is only our opinions that life is better than non-life. even though society and animal groups display certain behaviors (that we think of as moral behaviors) that make them more or less fit for survival doesn't mean that it is objectively right or wrong.
@greycloud24 Most objective individuals just accept we are part of nature, though our elevated consciousness as humans allows us to escape the simple urges that nature puts upon us. That is good enough for many people, though others need more to life than that. Personally I am grateful to have a chance to live in the world, for all its faults. There is much to enjoy about life, and being an animal that can "think" more clearly is good enough for me. I take my morals from logic and reason.
@RockingMrE i agree with this. in general my morality is based off of minimizing suffering while increasing pleasure on a large scale. but this simply appeals to my fundamental desire to be happy mixed with my innate empathy induced by mirror cells. however, on a truly objective scale all of my thoughts, desires, and opinions are meaningless. it takes subjective beliefs and perceptions to give meaning to objective occurrences.
@greycloud24 To an extent our tastes are subjective. But fundamentally we are creatures of objective existence. We have objective goals like eating, sleeping, procreating, excreting, etc. Then taste comes in because our brains are hardwired to respond well to certain individual tasks. Some of us like pursuits of logic and music (like me), while others may prefer athletic pursuits. So in this regard these can be subjective. They are however objectively definable as aspects of human behaviour.
@RockingMrE when i say there is no objective morality, by that i mean that morality is subject to a thinking organism that has intent. if morality were objective we would expect it to work much like gravity, in that it would effect all things. one could say that morality is objective more like light in that its effects only work in particular circumstances but than we can show that morality doesn't follow any super set of laws. a sociopath doesn't have the sense of morality you do.
@greycloud24 I;ll directly deal with morality in a different vid. But needless to say our emotions and brain functions are more deterministic than we would like to admit, and this is being proven all the time. However, humans are able to ponder their thoughts and break certain patterns of behaviour. We can also use logic and reason to understand why it is better to mutually benefit from interactions. This is where morality meets nature - which is where we can objectively define morality.
@RockingMrE if you define morality as genetically hardwired behavior patterns induced by bio-chemicals during recognized events to form a survival pattern that is selected upon by natural selection. if this is how you define morality than i would agree that morality exists on an objective scale. however no particular moral rule is universal to all creatures with perhaps the exception of "you shouldn't commit suicide until you reproduce first".
@greycloud24 This is a nuanced subject. Allow me to make a video about this in the future. I largely agree with where you are going with your views however, though even the simplest animal knows that killing is a serious act given that the price is so high.
@apekillssnake when you smile it requires muscle use and this requires you to use your frontal lobe to make the decision to smile, and through a complicated pathway goes through your parietal lobe and cerebellum before enervating your facial muscles into the smile. when you see someone else smile a pathway from your occipital lobe through your cerebellum recognizes the smile and lights up the cells in your frontal lobe that would have started the pathway to make you smile. they mirror the smile.
@apekillssnake part 2. they are thus called mirror cells. the same cells that are used in a decision to act frequently are used in recognition of someone else performing the same act. this along with vasopressin and oxytocin (two different hormones) are the most known pathways of empathy in human beings. these have a lot to do with how you feel about other human beings and why you suffer when you see other people suffer.
if i understood this well i think you have to say goodbye2atheism and or believe in a god or just say you don't know if a god exists or not though logically there must be a higher power, ok?
Nice video. I took something else away from Kant. He defines the limits of perception in order to derive absolute truths from the fundamentals of human perception. I don't find Kant to be much of a relativist, bur more of a phenomenologist.
@Rybot9000 Relativism is a generic term that defines anyone who believes reality, and often morals, are subjective. Many people do not accept the label willingly. It is often looked upon as a kiss of death.
We sure do need to be armed to the teeth with knowledge - especially with the knowledge of fallacies and sophistry so we can become mobile, biological bullshit-detectors.
Kelley L. Ross has a wonderful, clear explanation as to the simplest fallacy of relativism: that it isn't logically allowed to defend itself from viewpoints that assert the incorrectness of relativism.
Exactly that. We probably would have had some extra symbols for 10 , 11 and "10" representing 12, in the way that it'd mean "1 dozen and 0 single units".
@HairyCookieMunster From what I've repeatedly read quantum physics being somewhat erratic doesn't make the natural world relative. The evidence is all around us, though I think we need to find a unifying theory of relativity and quantum mechanics to gain more information on this matter.
This reminds me of an argument I had with somone on the topic of determinism and free will. No matter how many times I tried to point to examples of my free will, he just turned around and said that I couldn't prove my actions weren't pre-determined by cause and effect. When I pointed out that he had no evidence to assume that they were, well, you know how that goes...
@northernvoxmedia Well you dont really understand what determinism is do you? If I roll a dice with the exact same force, position, trajectory... all the physics are the same, the outcome would be the same every time. Your brain is a product of those same physical laws. If you were to choose a soda and then relive that moment without being aware of the fact that you were reliving it, you'd choose the same soda every time. Its just physics at work. Do you have proof that your mind defies physics?
@Farf420 Yes, I do understand what determinism is. The examples you present are not convincing: the dice throw you mentioned is a physical act, and yes, the outcome would be the same, however act this has no bearing on thought. The fact we are self-aware means we are aware of our actions, we are able to stop and think, and act based on our own decisions, every time. The soda example was terribly poor, supposing we were to repeat that action, I may change my mind, and buy a different brand.
@northernvoxmedia No, you dont lol. Unless thoughts are non-physical magical things that dont obey the laws of physics they are determined by physical cause and effect. We know tons about how the brain functions and when you break down the complexity of thought you just get chemistry which is a product of physics. You know the thing that all reality is based on? You have a sense of free will, thats all. It doesnt really change anything about how we live our lives just a fact to consider.
@Farf420 No, free will is the power of choice, to be able to decide your own course of action. Yes, we know tones about how the brain functions, but there is still a lot left to be discovered. As for function of the brain, that could be the answer to how it works, not why. You have no evidence whatsoever that free will is just an illusion. The very fact you CAN think and make decisions is evidence enough of free will.
@northernvoxmedia I never said thats why it works. The concept of "why" is subjective and irrelevant to the question. You seem to be arguing that souls exist without being aware of it. Or are you just against Predeterminism? I have just the solution, its called Compatibilism. You are free to act as you choose but your motives are ultimately caused by physical laws.
I once argued with someone that right and wrong is objective and common sense, and that only someone who has no sense of right and wrong on their own and needs a divine set of rules to tell them what to do wouldn't understand that.
He pretty much proved me right by being completely unable to grasp the concept of objective morality, instead insisting that nobody can know what is right and what is wrong without a god to tell them. In other words, "Everything is relative, unless my god says so".
Did you study at university? If so, what? You're certainly blessed with a logical mind, that's for sure. Relativists tend to have a way of twisting any information to apply to their own presupposed opinions. They tend to use the concept of subjectivity to assert the objectivity of their own thoughts. Hypocrites!
@SilentSlumber3 I did study at uni, though it wasn't philosophy. Much of my study is autodidactic. Striving to be logical and rational is my guiding philosophical principle. Completely agree that relativists are massive hypocrites.
I don't know your position about Palestine, but i saw some real hypocrisy coming from left-wingers about Palestine(i even documented it, in one of my videos)
"Lefties" hate Nationalism, and in the same time support Religious/Ethnic Nationalists from the Third-world.
They hate "theocracies" and in the same time support Iranian Theocratic Regime (PressTV is media outlet of the Iranian Islamists, and just because they use words like "equality", lefties support PressTV)
@pinegrove33 One of the greatest way to "destroy" the arguments of "ANTIFA" and "lefties", is to SHOW them that they are NOT real liberals just Useful Idiots (Leninist therm).
"Feminists" remain completelly silent seeing the suffering of third-world females. This shit is so fucked up, that many black feminists started articles named "White Privilleged Feminism".
(USA/EU) "Liberals" supporting Ultra-Conservatives from Iran.
Taking me back to my youth, i remember studying Archimedes and even linked a short story by Aldous Huxley "Young Archimedes" to mathematics in a college class. Never heard of that ytuber. I always check to see whether i've blocked them to see what my history with them is lol
@pinegrove33 Lol that's one way to check. I get it in the ear from the same crowd, whatever videos I make, because these leftists deny reality in every sense. Then they have the audacity to attack religion for not respecting science. What a bunch of idiots.
@BusinessIDBAI Believe me you've met plenty if you subscribe to a certain crowd on YT. They all use the same arguments based on perspective, used by relativists for thousands of years. You get sick of hearing them after a while. Religious philosophers like Kant and other similar Idealists are also basically the same, though leftist versions of relativism are pervasive today, especially in universities.
I've been a university student for a while now, and I don't run into to many relativists. Perhaps its because I've switched majors from Biology to Computer Science. Both are kind of hard and factual fields.
I generally find philosophy annoying and dry and dismiss most of its positions like "you can't know anything" as useless and more of a hindrance to conversation. I'm guessing I'd run into more relativists if I engaged more in philosophy, but that's probably the reason I don't.
MrE, my question today is: Have you heard of Deepak Chopra who is a spiritualist and wrote many books including his latest one: The War of the Worldviews with Leonard Mlodinow?
"relativist wackos..." quite right. I've known millions of them...especially here lol. Another great topic selection and excellent deconstruction of the deconstructionists!
great work dude! My recent study of the Trivium, logical fallacies and such is blowing my mind! It's also shaking my world view, it's both scary and wonderful at the same time!
Knowledge is only power if it's applied IMHO, if you can read but don't the power of reading is not at work in your life!
@rooftopeagle I think the knowledge is power quote also relates to those hiding true knowlegde so they can manipulate the thoughts of others. Relativism is a perfect example of this, and I am convinced that this is what Orwell was thinking of when he defined doublethink.
I would be interested to hear how your worldview is being shaken some time.
I wonder if its more a case of relativists arguing against empirically objective truths as though they were absolute truths. Introduce more or contradictory evidence and our empirically objective truth (i.e. those using the same methods find this truth) and our empirically objective truth is no longer true. However, 1+1=2 is an absolute truth as it is defined this way. Understanding of how a truth was derived may require education, and there's the rub.
@Dnomyarification Relativists suggest that because our scientific understanding of the natural world changes over time that this makes absolute truth flawed, or even pointless. This is a red herring because science evolves as we attain more information. For example, the world was always round even when we discovered this through more information. This is how science works, and what relativists can't get into their dense heads.
By objective standards and if all factors are included,then any problem or question(even social questions or dilemmas), can have only one correct answer or the best possible solution.
@AmetReloads I've concluded that reason and logic are excellent guiding principles for ALL aspects of life, including morals. Relativism unravels itself once people see how inconsistent it is. It is due to this that this philosophy is so dangerous and has been exploited by the most dangerous ideologies in history - Nazism and Marxism.
I was just watching a video of Richard Dawkins talking about feminism and postmodern relativism. I would recommend his story about a woman who did not believe in DNA.
@182511419139208 Yeah, I link that vid in my "Postmodernist Nonsense" vid info section. These lunatics make my blood boil. They don't care about anything but furthering their own agenda through deconstructing objective knowledge.
@snakebitgoat He was talking about his experiences with relativists in academia and the bizarre things they believe. His judgement on relativism was based on the relativists.
Relativists use their arguement to augment or diminish anything to bring out what they want to prove(for their gains)by relying on you to have a degree of blinkered vision to be blinded by too many distinctions of family hierarchal phenomena;for classic example: Race,species,ethnicity,nationality,anything to dilute or concentrate..Especially regarding 'sets and subsets' and generalisations to undermine your integrity to leave you accepting you are a non-person instead of an individual.
@PERFECTARYANBASTARD "Especially regarding 'sets and subsets' and generalisations to undermine your integrity to leave you accepting you are a non-person instead of an individual."
You hit the nail on the head here - that's exactly what the aim is.
@RockingMrE Thinking about it; i see relativism as the escape route of a losing or underdetermined counter-arguement to draw the truther into a distactive infinite regression within the labrinth of sets and subsets to either change the subject ,or to get the truther to meet the liar halfway on something else entirely which was never the truthers actual original arguement by linking something irrelevent to the arguement ala entrapment.Relativism is the art of lying ones self out of a corner.
Good one sir;relativism sounds like a drag anchor appeal from people who want to wate your time.Reminds me of a gambit in chess where the opponent tries to lure you into a circular perpetual pursuit where the outcome is a draw by repition in a canned arguement.
Dealing with relativists i have to bypass for maximum gains;otherwise its like stepping in a shit where i have to spend 5 minutes wiping my sole off on the grass..(bunch of 'tar babys')
i think you'll find 2+2=1984 my friend
ajhumour 2 weeks ago in playlist More videos from RockingMrE
@ajhumour Good one ;-)
RockingMrE 2 weeks ago
multi-layered Universe empirically proven to be true? Could you expand on that?
hmelchiori1 1 month ago
@hmelchiori1 Can you be more specific in regards to what you are referring to?
RockingMrE 1 month ago
This is really heavy stuff man, you've got my attention.
megadrummer2 1 month ago
@megadrummer2 I always leave links for further reading and studying. The main premise of this video is that there are people out there who want to make you believe that universal truth is basically impossible for various reasons. So for example it would be impossible to truly be able to measure the world because our understanding of reality is limited. Of course, while humans have to keep developing their understanding it is nonsense to state that something like science is fundamentally flawed
RockingMrE 1 month ago
I found that most of this video went right over my head. Mainly because I have not studied the philosophers that were mentioned and their thoughts on these issues. Which is also why I have come here, to seek knowledge and understand more in depth the things I am interested in. My father was an intense thinker & philosopher and once told me that most everything in this world is based on or can be explained by mathmatics. At least I think that's what he said, or something of that nature.
megadrummer2 1 month ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Wow this guy is hardcore into racism.
AEVautomatic 2 months ago
@AEVautomatic One more slanderous comment and you are out of here.
RockingMrE 2 months ago 5
@AEVautomatic Acknowledging the beautiful differences between cultures is racist?
How hateful and ignorant are you?
Stepstoneau 2 months ago
@AEVautomatic
Also, in this particular video, he simply states facts, and the issues of post-modernism.
Stepstoneau 2 months ago
@AEVautomatic how is he racist? This is about relativism.
snakebitgoat 1 month ago in playlist Deconstructing Leftist Philosophy
Which I meant the kill the occupiers joke?
mike61524334251 2 months ago
MrE, have you heard of Jeremy Clarkson, and what is your response from his joke?
mike61524334251 2 months ago
@mike61524334251 Sorry I took a while to answer. I heard he said a few things in the media, but I haven't had time to check up properly on the story.
RockingMrE 2 months ago
@allansachsjr The framing YOU are describing here is not necessarily abstract. Speaking in concise terminology is the key, as opposed to being cryptic, which many relativistic schools of philosophy fall prone to.
RockingMrE 2 months ago
When I think of relativists, I think of this line from Tim Minchin's poem Storm:
"So I resist the urge to ask Storm
Whether knowledge is so loose-weave
Of a morning
When deciding whether to leave
Her apartment by the front door
Or a window on the second floor."
ArcoFlagellant 3 months ago
Thanks for the informative video.
BlazeTheMovieFan 3 months ago
You're really hitting your stride, Mr. E. Internet magic!
craigrmeyer 3 months ago
It is only in one dimentional operations that 2+2=4. In 2,3,...,n dimentions only if you are extremely lucky does 2+2=4.
Ending your video with that statement exemplifies your oversiplification of things. I get the impression that you speak of things of whitch you compreend very little.
Zebarbas 3 months ago
@Zebarbas And I suppose you do comprehend them, oh purveyor of gnosis.
What people like you repeatedly do is make claims with no solid example to apply it to, and blatantly withhold info so only you can conceptualise the outcome. 2+2=4 is a perfectly logically sound statement and your attempt to esoterically conplicate an issue without context is intellectually dishonest and obnoxious. I've no time for people like you. I put an explicit warning on the vid info, which you ignored.
RockingMrE 3 months ago
@Zebarbas You're talking out of your ass, burying your bullshit in sophistry.
ArcoFlagellant 3 months ago
I'd love to see a video where you adress the philosophy of math and your standpoint some more. I think this is a very difficult subject.
treegraph 3 months ago
@treegraph It's only difficult if one assumes that numbers are social constructs. The fact is that counting helped people in objective tasks, even during the stone age, like counting enough rocks to make spear tips for all the hunters - so it was gradually expressed in logical concepts. The mind works numerically on a natural basis - like when expressing music.
RockingMrE 3 months ago
Kant argues that objective truth is a construction based on sensory experience and logical judgments which are to be verified in a community of philosophers and scientists. That is a pretty weird relativism. The last time we discussed Kant you admitted to not having read him directly. I have to say, while I like most of your vids, this sort of thing hurts my trust of your judgment, no offense.
BoethianAcolyte 3 months ago
@BoethianAcolyte The last time we spoke about Kant was months ago. It is incorrect to state that all life is based on sensory experience. We have many empirical methods and inductive practices to measure the world free of our direct senses and personal experiences. ALL arguments I hear to try and refute this revert to perspective, limits of language, et al, which I refute in this video. People who revert to such ideas are relativists, whether they acknolwedge it or not.
RockingMrE 3 months ago
You make lots of valid and obviously solid points, however I don't know that I'd lump Nietzsche in with other relativists. It might not even be appropriate to consider Jean Paul Sartre a relativist either. Sure, one dealt with a philosophy that predated but almost anticipated existentialism, and the other one was basically the grandfather of that philosophy so to speak, but I think it's too much of an oversimplification to label that type of philosophy as relativism.
GodlessCitizen 3 months ago
@GodlessCitizen MrE will be unhappy with this one- but I agree with what you are saying. However at the same tme I am aware of the point MrE is making regarding the use of Nietzsche by the left- fully. Not to sure about Sartre though! Oh and you can never over simplify too much when dealing with Leftists, because they talk so much crap they would have you chasing your own ass and elbow.
apekillssnake 3 months ago
@apekillssnake
About this categorization of "leftists". I must take issue with it. I consider myself left wing in terms of politics, but I am not a moral relativist, nor do I invoke nonsensical ideas like "scientism" or the pejorative use of the word "reductionist". I don't agree with most of existentialism, and post-modernism is indeed vacuous and empty.
GodlessCitizen 3 months ago
@GodlessCitizen Im off to bed my friend. You rightly make an interesting qualification but mine and I dare say MrEs profiling of Leftists, Socialists and Feminists take a great deal of qualification against your qualification. So I, I cant speak for MrE, are simplifications on the quick for the comments section. I may decide to look at this tomorrow. You've made some good points. I differ from E in that I both hate and find PM FN and Exist to have high value. I study the vacuum so here U akin2E
apekillssnake 3 months ago
@GodlessCitizen To clarify, leftism is really a term that defines a group of left-wing philosophers in their own right. I will make a video about it in the future, but I think it is VERY important to expose the cultural marxists that have hijacked so much Western culture since the 60's. Earlier Liberalism was far more individualistic, though the modern left today favours collectivism over individualism, which flies in the fact of the likes of John Stuart Mill believed.
RockingMrE 3 months ago
@RockingMrE
Well, all left wing political thought cannot be classified under the rubrick of "marxist". Also individualism is an essential value of the enlightenment and thus western civilization, however, I hope you don't take it to the level that Ayn Rand's Objectivism did. Calling anything short of that, "collectivism" would be pretty insane. No man is an island after all.
GodlessCitizen 3 months ago
@GodlessCitizen Did I classify ALL leftist philoopshy under Marxism? No. Of course Marxism is a strong basis for many of the modern left's ideas, but it is by no means the only one. You are misrepresenting Rand if you think she completey shuns collectivism. To understand why you need to distinguish between voluntary collectivism and forced collectivism - they are worlds apart.
RockingMrE 3 months ago
@RockingMrE
I didn't mean to imply that you did, but just using "leftist" as an unqualified, blanket term is not a good way to go about classifying intellectual positions. However about your point on Ayn Rand, her philosophy was empty, calous, and devoid of intellectual merit. Objectivism was basically like a religion that promoted self-interest above all. It wasn't rational, scientific or well, objective. The void left by organized religion should not be filled with marxism or objectivism.
GodlessCitizen 2 months ago 4
@GodlessCitizen The term leftist is a necessary distinction between the PC marxism that occurred out of the civil rights movement. It is important because it draws a line between this group and those who are more classicaly liberal, which leftists try to hijack. I don't agree with many of Rand's ideas but you are reverting to typical arguments by adjective that her critics regularly use. It doesn't bode well for your understanding of her philosophy.
RockingMrE 2 months ago
@GodlessCitizen Objectivism itself isn't really a belief system, its more of an important understanding for a thoughtful being to acquire.
Religion is often for those that do not want to think on life's mysteries. A philosopher can accept certain ideas and reject others, based on logical reasoning.
The scientific method, objectivism, both are tools.
Relativism is essentially a tool that doesn't work.
"leftist" is here being used as a blanket term for post-modernist views, quite aptly imo.
Stepstoneau 2 months ago
@Stepstoneau (excuse my grammar)
Stepstoneau 2 months ago
@GodlessCitizen Yes, Nietzsche was an existentialist, but basically all his arguments that I have ever come across involve relative philosophical statements. That would make him a relativist, which existentialism would fall under as a philosophical school of thought.
RockingMrE 3 months ago
"Real World"=my opinions and worldviews Check! Sorry but everyone is a 'reletavist' since pure objectivity is impossible. BTW the scientific method is not the end all be all of existence. Science is a tool to inform not dictate policy. Let's remember that 'science' led to Eugenics policies resulting in horrific results. No, I'm not talking about 'those guys' either, but people that were the movers of the American Eugenics Movement, that led to people being sterilized against their will
HeavyTrafficAhead 3 months ago
@HeavyTrafficAhead Congratulations on making typical leftist and relativist logical fallacies that I have fully debunked my channel and blog. Science dictates nothing - people do. Science does not harm anyone - people do. Every single argument you have made is typical of those I hear from people who can't conceptualise reality outside of their heads and blame science for the sins of people. Science is amoral and reality is independent of the observer. 'Nuff said.
RockingMrE 3 months ago
@RockingMrE Nothing to do with Leftism. BTW I can't stand a lot of the crap that is thrown under the rubrik of 'Post Modernism'. Actually I find a lot of it quite hilarious. BTW, you just agreed with my post regarding science. The problem is you failed to detect that I was critiquing those that think science is some kind of savior and that 'Reason' is the answer to everything. If you knew anything about history, you'd see that worship has led to serious disaster. That's the only point. Full Stop
HeavyTrafficAhead 3 months ago
@HeavyTrafficAhead No one is worshipping science any more than they are worshipping mathematics. It's a strawman, and I'm trying to be polite, though I do get very fed up of these sorts of claims. Science is like a car, and if we drive it responsibly it is useful. If we drive it drunk then it is a deadly weapon. Philosophical morality is the key to these things, not science. Your arguments are mired in leftism if you are using this logic to claim science is dangerous.
RockingMrE 3 months ago
@RockingMrE (cont) I will however concede that Christians make these sorts of claims about science too. Religion makes absolute claims about truth based on relative arguments, while philosophers popular with leftists, like Nietzsche, make relative claims based on absolute statements. Both are logically inconsistent.
RockingMrE 3 months ago
@RockingMrE Mind telling me what is 'Leftist' in anything I said? I don't get it or I'm not seeing it. And referring to your post below, you're using Nietschze as an example of a 'Leftist'? huh wha?
HeavyTrafficAhead 3 months ago
@HeavyTrafficAhead Nietzsche is a cult hero of leftists. Leftists claim that moral relativism is necessary to prevent tyranny, and this is the fundamental foundation of left-wing philosophy. Sorry if I seem frustrated, but as my channel grows I am not really interested in hearing arguments that I read ad nauseum that deny this. It becomes time consuming and very boring.
RockingMrE 3 months ago
@RockingMrE Hey MrE I like the ending, always remember that 2+2=4. That reminds me of a film, it might be the Marathon man, if you have not seen it... "is it safe". Or is it 1984 where there is the light above the guy and the Statists are trying to convince him that even though he sees four lights on the ceiling above him, they want him to say five and be unsure of what he sees. I think today successful proved that about relativism and how it is interlinked with oppression, especially for men.
apekillssnake 3 months ago
@apekillssnake It was most likely 1984. Relativism being linked with oppression is one thing, but it is a central tenet for leftism that grew out of the 60's.
RockingMrE 3 months ago
@RockingMrE I agree, just in reading some of your other comments, like the one above this one on your channel. You did an excellent job in explaining that. I will say that this is one of the reasons Im reluctant to start making videos because the public really do want you to bleed for their art. I think the greycloud guy is ok though. I see mental improvement on your channel though. Keep up the good work.
apekillssnake 3 months ago
@HeavyTrafficAhead "I was critiquing those that think science is some kind of savior"
Wait until your liver sclerosis or your diabetes show their first symptoms,to make those statements chappy.
AmetReloads 2 months ago
your a dumb dumb mudafuka
random5241 3 months ago
@random5241 Thanks for that - very insightful.
RockingMrE 3 months ago
intresting video
sugelanren 3 months ago
@sugelanren Thanks :-)
RockingMrE 3 months ago
Is Science not a modern form relativism? Much of our leading science today is based on context and observation.
Relativity.
Quantum Physics / String Theory - rely on observation to exist. Is that not a context?
Absolute Truth is, but has not been described by anything, as of yet.
sketch2k 3 months ago
@sketch2k Calculus and Math are Tools that create absolute constants in certain relativistic frameworks and these tools are guided by language forming questions for which those tools might offer an answer.
Anyway, I'm all about freedom. Now lets rid the world of knowledge hoarding oppressors by oppressing them hahahahaha
Oh but it's different because of the non-aggression principal. We are reacting in defense, not initiating force. But math does not predict morality.
*shrugs*
sketch2k 3 months ago
@sketch2k I think you'll find that we lack the information to truly understand quantum mechanics at this moment in time, much like when we though the world was flat. Either way the laws of quantum mechanics don't make the objectively definable natural world obsolete. Here's a link to watch:
/watch?v=voJflpjEVrM
RockingMrE 3 months ago
Out of curiosity, have you read Wittgenstein or Rorty?
HappyWithWhatsThere 3 months ago
@HappyWithWhatsThere No, why?
RockingMrE 3 months ago
@RockingMrE Just based on this video, I'd suggest you give them a look (Look for the "later" Wittgenstein as opposed to the "earlier"). They discuss an important factor which you don't seem to give much attention to, which is the self-referentiality of language. Does "objectivity", "reality" and "truth" exist? Of course! But these words gain meaning like all other words, which is through their actual usage. Check them out and let me know what you think.
HappyWithWhatsThere 3 months ago
@HappyWithWhatsThere I will. Thanks for the tip :-)
RockingMrE 3 months ago
@HappyWithWhatsThere I like those guys. you get a sub for mentioning them. What's funny is that I used to be an Ayn Rand Objectivist.
greenghost2008 3 months ago
Good stuff.
SaveTheMen 3 months ago
Every time I stat to win a debate with a Relatvist they always fall back into the idea of subjective perception, typically when I cite an emperical math or science fact.
Nihilism is the negation of sentimental meaning of an object or concept not the physical properties like many deluded Relativist believe.
xXChrisHATEXx5 3 months ago
@xXChrisHATEXx5 Perception is the holy grail of relativists. That's really all they have when you break down the philosophy, whatever "brand" of relativism it might be.
RockingMrE 3 months ago
thank you for making this great video, i was felling down and this helped put me in a good mood.
atlaspressed 3 months ago in playlist More videos from RockingMrE
@atlaspressed Wow, that's quite a compliment to think that my video would do that. Glad you're feeling better.
RockingMrE 3 months ago
i am a moral relativist. of course i fit into a whole lot more labels than that when it comes to ethics. ultimately i am an amoralist as well, as i ultimately believe that morality is based purely on opinions and desires. we think life is valuable, this is our opinion, thus it is morally correct to save lives and avoid killing. or for theists, god desires us to value life, and his opinion is that we should not kill each other, thus it is wrong to kill people.
greycloud24 3 months ago
@greycloud24 Much of what we are is pre-programmed through nature. This is being empirically uncovered all the time. We don't kill for example unless we have to or are put under pressure. Polar bears will only attack one another if necessary, and they are known as possibly the most ferocious animals on the planet. Fundamental morals are therefore objective, and even our purpose in life is driven by natural desires, in spite of modern life.
RockingMrE 3 months ago
@RockingMrE i would agree that much of our moral decisions are hardwired into our brain chemistry from evolution. we don't murder because those groups of people who had the capacity to murder each other formed weaker societies and have long since went extinct. the societies that had moral rules that favored survival were the ones that continued to thrive the most. this is a natural result of selective forces on a societal scale. but successful survival isn't objectively "right".
greycloud24 3 months ago
@greycloud24 Successful survival can be brutal. But we know that evolution makes us reciprocally altruistic and often conmpassionate. Furthermore it is logically sound to try to coopoerate with one another because conflict is a big price to pay, while coopoeration has many rewards. The animal kingdom reflects this too - animals will avoid conflict because of risk. This is a form of natural objective morality, though this can go out the window if animals are struggling to survive.
RockingMrE 3 months ago
part 2. what i mean i guess is that earth even being full of life is not objectively better than the sun even though the sun probably contains no life. life in and of itself is not "better" than non-life. it is only our opinions that life is better than non-life. even though society and animal groups display certain behaviors (that we think of as moral behaviors) that make them more or less fit for survival doesn't mean that it is objectively right or wrong.
greycloud24 3 months ago
@greycloud24 Most objective individuals just accept we are part of nature, though our elevated consciousness as humans allows us to escape the simple urges that nature puts upon us. That is good enough for many people, though others need more to life than that. Personally I am grateful to have a chance to live in the world, for all its faults. There is much to enjoy about life, and being an animal that can "think" more clearly is good enough for me. I take my morals from logic and reason.
RockingMrE 3 months ago
@RockingMrE i agree with this. in general my morality is based off of minimizing suffering while increasing pleasure on a large scale. but this simply appeals to my fundamental desire to be happy mixed with my innate empathy induced by mirror cells. however, on a truly objective scale all of my thoughts, desires, and opinions are meaningless. it takes subjective beliefs and perceptions to give meaning to objective occurrences.
greycloud24 3 months ago
@greycloud24 To an extent our tastes are subjective. But fundamentally we are creatures of objective existence. We have objective goals like eating, sleeping, procreating, excreting, etc. Then taste comes in because our brains are hardwired to respond well to certain individual tasks. Some of us like pursuits of logic and music (like me), while others may prefer athletic pursuits. So in this regard these can be subjective. They are however objectively definable as aspects of human behaviour.
RockingMrE 3 months ago
@RockingMrE when i say there is no objective morality, by that i mean that morality is subject to a thinking organism that has intent. if morality were objective we would expect it to work much like gravity, in that it would effect all things. one could say that morality is objective more like light in that its effects only work in particular circumstances but than we can show that morality doesn't follow any super set of laws. a sociopath doesn't have the sense of morality you do.
greycloud24 3 months ago
@greycloud24 I;ll directly deal with morality in a different vid. But needless to say our emotions and brain functions are more deterministic than we would like to admit, and this is being proven all the time. However, humans are able to ponder their thoughts and break certain patterns of behaviour. We can also use logic and reason to understand why it is better to mutually benefit from interactions. This is where morality meets nature - which is where we can objectively define morality.
RockingMrE 3 months ago
@RockingMrE if you define morality as genetically hardwired behavior patterns induced by bio-chemicals during recognized events to form a survival pattern that is selected upon by natural selection. if this is how you define morality than i would agree that morality exists on an objective scale. however no particular moral rule is universal to all creatures with perhaps the exception of "you shouldn't commit suicide until you reproduce first".
greycloud24 3 months ago
@greycloud24 This is a nuanced subject. Allow me to make a video about this in the future. I largely agree with where you are going with your views however, though even the simplest animal knows that killing is a serious act given that the price is so high.
RockingMrE 3 months ago
@greycloud24 Hey what do you mean by mirror cells?
apekillssnake 3 months ago
@apekillssnake when you smile it requires muscle use and this requires you to use your frontal lobe to make the decision to smile, and through a complicated pathway goes through your parietal lobe and cerebellum before enervating your facial muscles into the smile. when you see someone else smile a pathway from your occipital lobe through your cerebellum recognizes the smile and lights up the cells in your frontal lobe that would have started the pathway to make you smile. they mirror the smile.
greycloud24 3 months ago
@apekillssnake part 2. they are thus called mirror cells. the same cells that are used in a decision to act frequently are used in recognition of someone else performing the same act. this along with vasopressin and oxytocin (two different hormones) are the most known pathways of empathy in human beings. these have a lot to do with how you feel about other human beings and why you suffer when you see other people suffer.
greycloud24 3 months ago
;)
if i understood this well i think you have to say goodbye2atheism and or believe in a god or just say you don't know if a god exists or not though logically there must be a higher power, ok?
AdVader 3 months ago
@AdVader But if there is no evidence for a god then I can't bring myself to believe in this any more than I could the claims of a relativist :-/
RockingMrE 3 months ago
Nice video. I took something else away from Kant. He defines the limits of perception in order to derive absolute truths from the fundamentals of human perception. I don't find Kant to be much of a relativist, bur more of a phenomenologist.
Rybot9000 3 months ago
@Rybot9000 Relativism is a generic term that defines anyone who believes reality, and often morals, are subjective. Many people do not accept the label willingly. It is often looked upon as a kiss of death.
RockingMrE 3 months ago
E=mc2(squared) Globalist trivia or immaculation? Globalism must die; when? Localism is not uni.
sgone0 3 months ago
2+2 = 4. I concur
Is that paint burgundy or maroon ? Looks red to me m8. ;o)
I like the cut of yer gib sir.
misterpants666 3 months ago
@misterpants666 Thanks. The old colour chestnut is one to get your blood rising :-D
RockingMrE 3 months ago
Great stuff! Thank you.
We sure do need to be armed to the teeth with knowledge - especially with the knowledge of fallacies and sophistry so we can become mobile, biological bullshit-detectors.
GorgeousGeorge108 3 months ago
@GorgeousGeorge108 Exactly. Knowledge keeps the bs away :-D
RockingMrE 3 months ago
Kelley L. Ross has a wonderful, clear explanation as to the simplest fallacy of relativism: that it isn't logically allowed to defend itself from viewpoints that assert the incorrectness of relativism.
QuantumMaths 3 months ago
@QuantumMaths I'll look her up. Sounds like a good tip :-)
RockingMrE 3 months ago
@RockingMrE
HIM lol. Not many guys named Kelley, but this one is! :P
QuantumMaths 3 months ago
@QuantumMaths Okay :-D
I'll put that on my to do list.
RockingMrE 3 months ago
You're a top man, Rockingmre and this strikes me as one of your best videos. Clear and unarguable.
cheesehoven 3 months ago
@cheesehoven Thank you. I didn't expect this much enthusiasm over this topic to be honest.
RockingMrE 3 months ago
I love your way of stripping topics to the hard bones facts.
patrick258181 3 months ago
@patrick258181 I like to be concise wherever possible. That's why I don't make rant videos.
RockingMrE 3 months ago
Did I give you enough details of author and spiritualist Deepak Chopra?
mike61524334251 3 months ago
@mike61524334251 I think so. I'll check him out :-)
RockingMrE 3 months ago
brilliant
MensRifleAssociation 3 months ago
you make me cry tears of joy
mrgraybutler 3 months ago
@mrgraybutler Lol, over refuting relativism?
RockingMrE 3 months ago
there is a lot of really high quality videos on youtube, this video is one of them. Well done.
thumbs up
simonashari 3 months ago
@simonashari That's quite a compliment :-)
RockingMrE 3 months ago
5+5=10, but i bet if we evolved 12 fingers we'd count 6+6=10 (duodecimal)
SEThatered 3 months ago
@SEThatered and different languages have different was of saying "10" but they all mean the objective value of ten. So whats your point?
Farf420 3 months ago
@SEThatered Lol, I'll assume you're joking given that if we had 12 fingers we would be able to count to twelve using our fingers and thumbs :-P
RockingMrE 3 months ago
@RockingMrE
Exactly that. We probably would have had some extra symbols for 10 , 11 and "10" representing 12, in the way that it'd mean "1 dozen and 0 single units".
SEThatered 3 months ago
well said thank you :)
objective/subjective? lol round and round we go ;)
i'm not disagreeing with you on 'objective truths' but i am curious what you think of the 'observation problem' in quantum physics?
HairyCookieMunster 3 months ago
@HairyCookieMunster From what I've repeatedly read quantum physics being somewhat erratic doesn't make the natural world relative. The evidence is all around us, though I think we need to find a unifying theory of relativity and quantum mechanics to gain more information on this matter.
RockingMrE 3 months ago
This reminds me of an argument I had with somone on the topic of determinism and free will. No matter how many times I tried to point to examples of my free will, he just turned around and said that I couldn't prove my actions weren't pre-determined by cause and effect. When I pointed out that he had no evidence to assume that they were, well, you know how that goes...
northernvoxmedia 3 months ago
@northernvoxmedia Well you dont really understand what determinism is do you? If I roll a dice with the exact same force, position, trajectory... all the physics are the same, the outcome would be the same every time. Your brain is a product of those same physical laws. If you were to choose a soda and then relive that moment without being aware of the fact that you were reliving it, you'd choose the same soda every time. Its just physics at work. Do you have proof that your mind defies physics?
Farf420 3 months ago
@Farf420 Yes, I do understand what determinism is. The examples you present are not convincing: the dice throw you mentioned is a physical act, and yes, the outcome would be the same, however act this has no bearing on thought. The fact we are self-aware means we are aware of our actions, we are able to stop and think, and act based on our own decisions, every time. The soda example was terribly poor, supposing we were to repeat that action, I may change my mind, and buy a different brand.
northernvoxmedia 3 months ago
@northernvoxmedia No, you dont lol. Unless thoughts are non-physical magical things that dont obey the laws of physics they are determined by physical cause and effect. We know tons about how the brain functions and when you break down the complexity of thought you just get chemistry which is a product of physics. You know the thing that all reality is based on? You have a sense of free will, thats all. It doesnt really change anything about how we live our lives just a fact to consider.
Farf420 3 months ago
@Farf420 No, free will is the power of choice, to be able to decide your own course of action. Yes, we know tones about how the brain functions, but there is still a lot left to be discovered. As for function of the brain, that could be the answer to how it works, not why. You have no evidence whatsoever that free will is just an illusion. The very fact you CAN think and make decisions is evidence enough of free will.
northernvoxmedia 3 months ago
@northernvoxmedia I never said thats why it works. The concept of "why" is subjective and irrelevant to the question. You seem to be arguing that souls exist without being aware of it. Or are you just against Predeterminism? I have just the solution, its called Compatibilism. You are free to act as you choose but your motives are ultimately caused by physical laws.
Farf420 2 months ago
@northernvoxmedia Sometimes it's better just to punch them and move on :-P
RockingMrE 3 months ago
And one more thing, Deepok Chopra is a man. Sorry to bring this up.
mike61524334251 3 months ago
I once argued with someone that right and wrong is objective and common sense, and that only someone who has no sense of right and wrong on their own and needs a divine set of rules to tell them what to do wouldn't understand that.
He pretty much proved me right by being completely unable to grasp the concept of objective morality, instead insisting that nobody can know what is right and what is wrong without a god to tell them. In other words, "Everything is relative, unless my god says so".
Psykotto 3 months ago
Did you study at university? If so, what? You're certainly blessed with a logical mind, that's for sure. Relativists tend to have a way of twisting any information to apply to their own presupposed opinions. They tend to use the concept of subjectivity to assert the objectivity of their own thoughts. Hypocrites!
SilentSlumber3 3 months ago
@SilentSlumber3 I did study at uni, though it wasn't philosophy. Much of my study is autodidactic. Striving to be logical and rational is my guiding philosophical principle. Completely agree that relativists are massive hypocrites.
RockingMrE 3 months ago
I could not find one logical fallacy in this video. Beautiful.
slaughtz 3 months ago
@slaughtz Thank you :-)
RockingMrE 3 months ago
I just call them nihilists
escobari 3 months ago
@escobari Nihilism is just one form of relativism ;-)
RockingMrE 3 months ago
"Literature Lost" believe it or not is the finest book i read that debunks both postmodernism and moral relativism.
pinegrove33 3 months ago
@pinegrove33 Sounds interesting. I'll check that out some time.
RockingMrE 3 months ago
I don't know your position about Palestine, but i saw some real hypocrisy coming from left-wingers about Palestine(i even documented it, in one of my videos)
"Lefties" hate Nationalism, and in the same time support Religious/Ethnic Nationalists from the Third-world.
They hate "theocracies" and in the same time support Iranian Theocratic Regime (PressTV is media outlet of the Iranian Islamists, and just because they use words like "equality", lefties support PressTV)
DanishGreatDane 3 months ago
@DanishGreatDane that's an excellent point about nationalism. I didn't think of it honestly
pinegrove33 3 months ago
@pinegrove33 One of the greatest way to "destroy" the arguments of "ANTIFA" and "lefties", is to SHOW them that they are NOT real liberals just Useful Idiots (Leninist therm).
"Feminists" remain completelly silent seeing the suffering of third-world females. This shit is so fucked up, that many black feminists started articles named "White Privilleged Feminism".
(USA/EU) "Liberals" supporting Ultra-Conservatives from Iran.
It's time for different approach with lefties...
DanishGreatDane 3 months ago
Another question: From my previous comments, were my comments double speak?
mike61524334251 3 months ago
@mike61524334251 Not unless you are referring to the fact you mentioned to different authors for one book.
RockingMrE 3 months ago
Taking me back to my youth, i remember studying Archimedes and even linked a short story by Aldous Huxley "Young Archimedes" to mathematics in a college class. Never heard of that ytuber. I always check to see whether i've blocked them to see what my history with them is lol
pinegrove33 3 months ago
@pinegrove33 Lol that's one way to check. I get it in the ear from the same crowd, whatever videos I make, because these leftists deny reality in every sense. Then they have the audacity to attack religion for not respecting science. What a bunch of idiots.
RockingMrE 3 months ago 3
I'm not sure I've run into many relativists. Or at least had any lengthy conversations.
But, they sound like your general theistic apologist. Is that close?
BusinessIDBAI 3 months ago
@BusinessIDBAI Believe me you've met plenty if you subscribe to a certain crowd on YT. They all use the same arguments based on perspective, used by relativists for thousands of years. You get sick of hearing them after a while. Religious philosophers like Kant and other similar Idealists are also basically the same, though leftist versions of relativism are pervasive today, especially in universities.
RockingMrE 3 months ago
@RockingMrE
I've been a university student for a while now, and I don't run into to many relativists. Perhaps its because I've switched majors from Biology to Computer Science. Both are kind of hard and factual fields.
I generally find philosophy annoying and dry and dismiss most of its positions like "you can't know anything" as useless and more of a hindrance to conversation. I'm guessing I'd run into more relativists if I engaged more in philosophy, but that's probably the reason I don't.
BusinessIDBAI 3 months ago 2
MrE, my question today is: Have you heard of Deepak Chopra who is a spiritualist and wrote many books including his latest one: The War of the Worldviews with Leonard Mlodinow?
mike61524334251 3 months ago
@mike61524334251 No I haven't heard of her. Why?
RockingMrE 3 months ago
"relativist wackos..." quite right. I've known millions of them...especially here lol. Another great topic selection and excellent deconstruction of the deconstructionists!
pinegrove33 3 months ago
great work dude! My recent study of the Trivium, logical fallacies and such is blowing my mind! It's also shaking my world view, it's both scary and wonderful at the same time!
Knowledge is only power if it's applied IMHO, if you can read but don't the power of reading is not at work in your life!
rooftopeagle 3 months ago
@rooftopeagle I think the knowledge is power quote also relates to those hiding true knowlegde so they can manipulate the thoughts of others. Relativism is a perfect example of this, and I am convinced that this is what Orwell was thinking of when he defined doublethink.
I would be interested to hear how your worldview is being shaken some time.
RockingMrE 3 months ago
@RockingMrE I agree, if knowledge is hidden then it can be powerful on it's own but it still needs to be applied!
I'll put it on the list of videos to make ;-)
rooftopeagle 3 months ago
"gender neutral parenting"=thought neutral process
pretorious700 3 months ago
I wonder if its more a case of relativists arguing against empirically objective truths as though they were absolute truths. Introduce more or contradictory evidence and our empirically objective truth (i.e. those using the same methods find this truth) and our empirically objective truth is no longer true. However, 1+1=2 is an absolute truth as it is defined this way. Understanding of how a truth was derived may require education, and there's the rub.
Dnomyarification 3 months ago
@Dnomyarification Relativists suggest that because our scientific understanding of the natural world changes over time that this makes absolute truth flawed, or even pointless. This is a red herring because science evolves as we attain more information. For example, the world was always round even when we discovered this through more information. This is how science works, and what relativists can't get into their dense heads.
RockingMrE 3 months ago
\m/
smashbeans 3 months ago
Excellent video.
You've summed it up well.
By objective standards and if all factors are included,then any problem or question(even social questions or dilemmas), can have only one correct answer or the best possible solution.
AmetReloads 3 months ago
@AmetReloads I've concluded that reason and logic are excellent guiding principles for ALL aspects of life, including morals. Relativism unravels itself once people see how inconsistent it is. It is due to this that this philosophy is so dangerous and has been exploited by the most dangerous ideologies in history - Nazism and Marxism.
RockingMrE 3 months ago
I enjoy Rocking Mr. E. Therefore, it must stand as a Fact.
TheCaptainSlappy 3 months ago
@TheCaptainSlappy Thanks for the words of confidence Slappy :-P
RockingMrE 3 months ago
I was just watching a video of Richard Dawkins talking about feminism and postmodern relativism. I would recommend his story about a woman who did not believe in DNA.
182511419139208 3 months ago
@182511419139208 Yeah, I link that vid in my "Postmodernist Nonsense" vid info section. These lunatics make my blood boil. They don't care about anything but furthering their own agenda through deconstructing objective knowledge.
RockingMrE 3 months ago
@182511419139208 Dawkins isn't a historian nor is he a social professor, he's a biologist so I wouldn't give him any weight there
snakebitgoat 3 months ago
@snakebitgoat He was talking about his experiences with relativists in academia and the bizarre things they believe. His judgement on relativism was based on the relativists.
182511419139208 3 months ago
@182511419139208 ahhhh ok thanks
snakebitgoat 3 months ago
Relativists use their arguement to augment or diminish anything to bring out what they want to prove(for their gains)by relying on you to have a degree of blinkered vision to be blinded by too many distinctions of family hierarchal phenomena;for classic example: Race,species,ethnicity,nationality,anything to dilute or concentrate..Especially regarding 'sets and subsets' and generalisations to undermine your integrity to leave you accepting you are a non-person instead of an individual.
PERFECTARYANBASTARD 3 months ago
@PERFECTARYANBASTARD "Especially regarding 'sets and subsets' and generalisations to undermine your integrity to leave you accepting you are a non-person instead of an individual."
You hit the nail on the head here - that's exactly what the aim is.
RockingMrE 3 months ago
@RockingMrE Thinking about it; i see relativism as the escape route of a losing or underdetermined counter-arguement to draw the truther into a distactive infinite regression within the labrinth of sets and subsets to either change the subject ,or to get the truther to meet the liar halfway on something else entirely which was never the truthers actual original arguement by linking something irrelevent to the arguement ala entrapment.Relativism is the art of lying ones self out of a corner.
PERFECTARYANBASTARD 3 months ago
Good one sir;relativism sounds like a drag anchor appeal from people who want to wate your time.Reminds me of a gambit in chess where the opponent tries to lure you into a circular perpetual pursuit where the outcome is a draw by repition in a canned arguement.
Dealing with relativists i have to bypass for maximum gains;otherwise its like stepping in a shit where i have to spend 5 minutes wiping my sole off on the grass..(bunch of 'tar babys')
PERFECTARYANBASTARD 3 months ago