At some points in life you just have to resign from trying to understand what somebody says and instead feel comfortable for the sounds he produces xD
This combines many different ideas in the history of philosophy in a silly way. It is philosophical nonsense. It is good for a laugh, but nobody should think it represents anything close to real philosophical positions.
John Duns Scotus more spefically his Synchronic Contingency is quite a good alternative for libertarianism and determinism. the will is not random and it is not predetermined, as there are more real options. (The modality of Scotus is pretty interesting)
I'm tempted to start a series of videos which are exactly the same as these, except re-read in a smooth, deep voice which is somewhat bearable. Good idea?
@Megatrousers: "I'm tempted to start a series of videos which are exactly the same as these, except re-read in a smooth, deep voice which is somewhat bearable. Good idea?"
sometimes i wish he would just slow the fuck down and pronounce the words slow enough for me to hear how man syllables are in it let alone comprehend its meaning
but i think that the speed actually makes it easier, if it was 6 minutes of shit id probably just be thinking too much for too long
If reason has an revolution then we all are into being exerted by gravity. Gravity is proved by iron and heat. If revolution of reason is intern motivated it cannot proceed without gravity. Is resilence what we are looking for? A copy of something we do not have! Child ascertainment of solution in an instinct to bind us to questions not withstanding; for it just hold more questions. Meaning, everything is unstable that believes. Gravity supports nothing; except question of instinct. Any thoughts
@in2dionysus First thing I saw was gravity is proved by iron and heat. umm no it isn't. not by a long shot. the rest of it was a grammatical lacking pile of bunk. is English your first language? if so you need to take a couple grammar classes. if not then sorry I'm not trying to troll but that made no sense whatsoever.
@soulsfang I am guessing he was drunk and English is way down on the totem pole of important languages where he is from. Either way: that comment is pure poetry.
@soulsfang You bring your measure out to who? Except your reason has no revolution! You talk to yourself to much and do not explain your reasoning, meaning you have no revolution! The problem here with what you have stated is that your looking at the mirror and this is what you have come up with, no sense what so ever. Your measure is sadly lacking!
*Sigh* I have once again reached the stage in my philosophy homework when I resort to watching unrelated 3 Minute Philosophy videos instead of doing the assigned reading.
@Ultermarto I teach philosophy. I generally teach it in chronological order to show how philosophical ideas grow out of their socio-political-economic backgrounds. In an introduction course, I generally cover the major ideas, concepts and theories of around 80-100 major philosophers.
@StuyLewis It works out to about six philosophers a week over a 15 or 16 week course. They should learn two or three of the major ideas of each of the philosophers. Unfortunately, I can't really go into depth about any of them, but they at least know the names and something about their most celebrated theories. I also show a lot clips from movies so they get a good sense of the time in which these people lived.
If free will is generated outside of the realm of causality, it could very well line up with idea of God as the eternal cause. If space and time were an effect of something, it must have been caused by something. But that something cannot contain what it effects, or creates. So before time and space, there was no time and space. This is the eternal cause,which is God, which has no cause. God gave us free will, because we are created in the image of God.
Jesus, who is supposedly god, therefor hates gays. Jesus wasn't real anyway. And I could definatly deny his existence. But not Julius Cesar, there is plenty of documentation and proof of his existence, but none of the man who supposedly came back from the freaking dead, cured blindness and disease and cast away mental illness, that was thought to be demons.
@crodownes Given that Jesus was an itinerant rabbi in a backwater of the Roman Empire, was executed by the State at a young age, and wasn't considered notable except to his own followers, the lack of historical evidence relative to the Emperor of Rome is not unexpected. But the lack is not total. Historical evidence for the existence of Jesus is given the illusion of being practically nonexistant by the fact that Christians gathered most of it together in a single book.
He did exist, but there's no more reason to believe he was divine then any of the others making similar claims in that time.
i highly doubt he was divine b/c of how ignorant he was of how the universe worked.
also, even though the NT books were titled after the followers I also doubt they wrote them, the NT was written in Greek, Jesus's followers were illiterate and Aramaic speaking.
there's no way they could've accurately attributed the authorship(s) of the bible.
@EVERYVERSER Evidently His followers had every reason to believe that Jesus was Divine. Your doubt is predicated on certain assumptions about what being a Divine Incarnate might entail, but is there any reason to hold those assumptions? On what do you base them?
It's plausible, though not widely held amongst scholars, that the NT was originally written in Aramaic. Nevertheless, there is no reason to assume that Paul, Luke, Mark, James, Jude or the Johanine community were illiterate...
the majority of people @ the time were illiterate, the only ones who could write were wealthy or powerful enough to afford learning how to read, his followers were Jews, an oppressed minority at the time, they were workers and so with the exception of Saul, its implausible that they would be among those who could write.
if the texts were originally written in Aramaic, then why would they write as if the dialogue was in Greek?
@EVERYVERSER The vote was to determine canonical status. It wasn't like the Jesus seminar voting on "authenticity". Authenticity was only one of the criteria for inclusion in the Biblical canon. The purpose of the canon was to provide the group of texts that would be considered normative and authoritative for the Church at large on matters of doctrine and practice. It wasn't really a choice between Matthew or Thomas as an accurate text. It was between Matthew and Didache as a canonical text.
@EVERYVERSER Actually there are some arguments that literacy went up under the Romans occupation. Nevertheless, I think you overestimate the necessity of being rich or powerful. There is another class you are ignoring, which is the devout. It is this exact class that we must concern ourselves with when it comes to the followers of Jesus. We're not dealing with "most" or "average" 1st century people. We're dealing with a specific religious organization.
@EVERYVERSER ... On the contrary, there is good reason to expect that Paul (as a Pharisee) and Luke (as a doctor) were well educated. It is plausible that, as serious students of religion and leaders in the Church, that Mark, James and Jude were also educated. The Johanine community were probably themselves Greek. Matthew was written by someone well-versed in the Hebrew Scriptures, so literacy there can be assumed...
@EVERYVERSER ...I think that one would have to make the argument that devout Jews in the 1st century were illiterate, given the conditions of Jewish religion (i.e.: They're SUPPOSED to read the Torah).
As for authorship, there is no reason to assume that the attributed authorship is false unless given good reason (i.e.: the same criteria we hold for any other book). That reason only exists for Matthew, the Johanine books, and the Deutero-Pauline letters.
@EVERYVERSER "the universe works fine without and gods, and certainly well without yours."
Unless there is a God and the reason this universe works fine is because of Her. This is something of a non-objection because it relies on a priori assumptions. But then you also expressed that your views are correct because you feel them to be correct, so there ya' go.
You misunderstood my argument, i said that i am confident in my beliefs because i think the arguments and evidence supporting them outweighs those of the opposition.
what i was saying is that i am not sufficiently educated in the area of biblical history to argue in that area.
i also recommended a youtuber who was educated in biblical history and informed you that he has covered the arguments (who the biblical authors were) you have made in his videos.
finally, why would he be so unknown if his followers were written to have spoken of him to everyone on the earth (Romans 10:16 - 10:18 KJV)? and if he had stood at a public tribunal? the NT makes his case out to have been a big one that everyone made a fuss about, he even got his own parade!
in the NT he was a big deal, and the only messiah at the time.
@EVERYVERSER It's not a matter of being unknown. There is actually extra-Biblical affirmation that He existed as a person. The issue is that there are only elaborate biographies and extravagant claims written about Him by the people who actually followed Him. Why this should be treated as somehow shocking or scandalous is beyond me. It is exactly the pattern one would EXPECT. To EVERYONE else of the time, Jesus would have appeared to be nothing more than another failed messianic hopeful.
I do not dispute his existence, I do dispute the credibility of the bible's account of him.
the extra biblical sources list him as, as you've said, just another sect leader, he didn't even make a big splash according to that source.
if im guessing correctly the historian was not a follower of christ, but he did write that he was a cult leader who was crucified among others. He claimed nothing more. I think.
@EVERYVERSER Yes. Entirely without any surprise whatsoever, people who did not believe in His claims did not believe in His claims, nor did the people who did not follow Him believe what the people who did follow Him believed.
@EVERYVERSER I dunno', you were the one who seemed to be taking exception to what I said and arguing that the existence of people who did not believe that Jesus was Divine proves that Jesus was not Divine.
To clarify, i meant that because we have no records of Jesus's divinity from his era, that it stands against the idea that Jesus was divine.
It does not disprove his divinity, being that pretty much everyone at the time of his life was illiterate, most eyewitnesses would be unable to record it, but it is evidence against it.
@EVERYVERSER The entire NT was written during the lifetimes, and in some cases by the very people, who knew Him. If we take Paul's autobiographical statements at their word, & we have no reason not to, then there was already a fully formulated credal statement about Jesus' resurrection (1 Cor. 15:3-8) a mere 2 or 3 years after the event. Luke says directly that he utilized prior sources. Jesus' Divinity is the oldest tradition about Him & predates the written transmission of his moral teachings.
@boarding5401 Another idiot so ignorant that he professes the denial of the historical existence of Jesus. Perhaps a history class or two might do well. Do you deny the existence of Julius Caesar as well?
The thing is...we could never know if we have free will. We can't see into the future, so every time we make a "choice," that choice may have already been set, and we were just set to finalize it, therefore, free will wouldn't exist. Think like a robot. It's programmed to, say, poke bunnies (XD). It can choose to or not to poke bunnies, but it's already been decided by the programmer. *brain deflates* DERP
Does a rock, pen, anvil, or clock have the ability to think? If anything in the universe could have the (limited) power of being able to make a choice outside the constraints of "cause and effect", I'd say it was a "think thing". Cogito ergo sum.
its been a long time to weight for the next video, its almost as if you have a life outside these videos. and we all know that cant be. come back i'm gearing up for my A levels and i need your immense intellect to guide me.
Where did you get the 4 dimensional block universe idea from? Parmenedes thought that the universe was eternal, unchanging and perfect. I don't see how time can be incorporated into this notion. Also he does describes being as spherical; unchanging and the same throughout. I'm not being an online dick, it's just I'm doing an essay at the moment and your vid makes me think maybe there's something I've misunderstood or passed by. A reply would be lovely :)
Where did you get the 4 dimensional block universe idea from? Parmenedes thought that the universe was eternal, unchanging and perfect. I don't see how time can be incorporated into this notion. Also he does describes being as spherical; unchanging and the same throughout. I'm not being an online dick, it's just I'm doing an essay at the moment and your vid makes me think maybe there's something I've misunderstood or passed by. A reply would be lovely :)
Heraclitus didn't actually think everything was made of fire, he just thought it best fitted the understanding of his divine reality (logos). It is constantly changing, yet simultaneously it is in itself a constant body.
Also, how about some more TMPs on theologians? They’re quite fun. How about Origen? He emasculated himself because he loathed sexuality so much. Turns out afterwards (several years later) that he didn’t think this was actually such a great idea ...
Great job dude. I'm a philosophy major, and I love how all your videos are hilarious while still remaining true to the philosophy. You should read the book "Plato and a Platypus Walk into a Bar: Understanding Philosophy Through Jokes." You will LOVE it.
I came up with the arguments for determinism a long time before I heard anyone had ever tought like me (tought process = causuality, brain = atoms = no magic translation or influence of tought on it. The atoms control your toughts.)
The video ignores compatibilism, the view that free will and determinism are compatible with each other. It starts a little bit later, of course, but you really shouldn't go around seeing we can have either determinism or free will. If that's true we're in trouble because all of our experience shows both.
2 dislikes...so Heraclitus came on and disliked for Parmenides and Parmenides then came on and disliked for Heraclitus.
Though really it DOES seem like less of an issue, these dislikes, when you consider they had no choice in the matter. :D
I've loved philosophy a great while and loved these videos for their existence, a funny intro for people getting in and a lot of great points and jokes for people who already know some philosophy.
@frankjohnson123 What do you call it where particles appear to come in and out of existence randomly. There also is the problem that it only appears random, for now...
@daymyth I know what you're talking about, but I'm not sure exactly what it's called. Yes, it is apparently random, but anything on the macro scale is virtually deterministic.
@frankjohnson123 Well enough randomness in the micro surely adds up? Would it be safer to say that given at the micro scale randomness may exist events at the macro are not deterministic but highly predictable?
You are a fucking GENIUS my friend.. my Philosophy and Ethics teacher showed us the one on Kant at the end of one of my A level classes... keep it up!!!
I love how all these seemingly mad and complex ideas, like the block universe, and bundle theory, seem to make sense the way you describe them. Like you said, "batshit ball-to-the-wall lunacy" taken out of context. But once explained, surprisingly difficult to see why it would be inaccurate! Hilarious, too. And succinct. These vids have everything going for them. More!
Game theory is the most important revolutionary concept in philosophy and logic ever created, along with Kurt Godel's theorems, because game theory (at least, it OUGHT to) takes all the great philosophies of the past and ORGANIZES, FORMALIZES, and, when possible, QUANTIFIES them and their interactions among each other. Creating one's own models in game theory is mentally draining, yet, when achieved, profoundly rewarding.
To summarize, the universe has to be infinite for us to be free, but we'll never know if we are truly free or not due to infinity being indefinite. It's a perfect system of organized chaos... almost divine.
I appreciate your videos by the way. I don't feel so strange when I know that people in the past and present have thought and continue to think about these things. : p
If the universe had the capacity to accomodate any and all determined chain of events, then we would be bound by infinite number of cause and effect, and that would be free will. Only way for the universe to accomodate this would be if it was infinite, but since the concept of infinity itself cannot be measured, there is no way for us to truly know if it's infinite or not, so the best way to apply this to daily life would be to, not think about it, do whatever you want, and be free.
Dude I got a Philosophy midterm tomorrow. I am grateful I found this.
Not saying I will souly rely on this, but its still good so I cann learn and be entertained at the same time. Thus using other sources to clarify, re-enforce, and study more in-depth.
Mass and energy are different forms of the same thing, therefore, if energy is conserved so is mass. If mass isn't conserved, you can create substance out of nothing, which would mean that you are a god. Yes, mass will increase as you approach the speed of light, but once you slow down, mass also decreases to what it was. Thus, you have conservation.
@FlowCell "Yes, mass will increase as you approach the speed of light,? but once you slow down, mass also decreases to what it was. Thus, you have conservation"
If mass decreased to what it was, it would revert to energy, and although you could refer to mass as packets of energy, it is energy in the form of the forces lol
You do realize that it takes a great deal of energy to slow down from the speed of light, right? If you want to know where the energy went, it was in slowing back down. Sorry, no magic mass creation here.
@FlowCell "Sorry, no magic mass creation here" What on earth are you dribbling on about magic mass creation ?
Energy becomes mass when it is Accelerated towards the speed of light, although it will Never actually achieve the speed of light, so it cannot slow down from the speed of light, because it never reached it, do you know anything about QM beyond Wikipedia ?
Hey duffus, we aren't talking about quantum mechanics. We are talking about special relativity and the first law of thermodynamics. Nobody here is talking about quantum mechanics but you.
You made the truth claim that mass is not conserved. This is demonstrably false. Deal with it.
u talk tooo fast i couldnt even understand
masterdavid321 1 week ago
God i fucking hate Nietzche.
Seniorchief98 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Hey guys, Im a fledgling philosopher. My model goes something like this:
Our lives are based on our decisions.
Ourdecisions are based on our values
Our values are based on our personality
Our personality is olcated in our brain
Our brain is wired by our DNA
Our DNA is luck.
Therefore life is luck
Comments, questions, concerns?
HedgehogRebellion 2 weeks ago
At some points in life you just have to resign from trying to understand what somebody says and instead feel comfortable for the sounds he produces xD
RyuHayabusa360 3 weeks ago
i fucking love you....
randomcow35 4 weeks ago
This combines many different ideas in the history of philosophy in a silly way. It is philosophical nonsense. It is good for a laugh, but nobody should think it represents anything close to real philosophical positions.
jayraskin 1 month ago
Comment removed
SwartKoos 2 days ago in playlist Favorite videos
What does he mean they never had a choice in the matter?
Broldin 1 month ago
John Duns Scotus more spefically his Synchronic Contingency is quite a good alternative for libertarianism and determinism. the will is not random and it is not predetermined, as there are more real options. (The modality of Scotus is pretty interesting)
Rekenbij 1 month ago
They told me Heraclitus, They told me you were dead.
They brought me bitter news to hear
And bitter tears to shed.
katherinewillify 1 month ago
Heraclitus is sitting on a plane, stuck beside a rather obese man by the aisle, and a passenger needing the toilet by the window.
The toilet-needing passenger asks Heraclitus if he could let him through.
Heraclitus replied, "I can't move."
Heraclitus then disappeared.
LordAcul 1 month ago
The most fundamental question there is - "What?" Hahaha, yeah!
Sonjayu 2 months ago
i love your work!!!
but i prefer the old style. with the black and white sketches.
elizaarnhem 2 months ago
Thales of Miletus!
toecutterr6 2 months ago
my philosophy teacher actually told us to watch these :p
capricornxaxi 2 months ago 2
@capricornxaxi lol mine too! :P
LoveIndigo678 2 months ago
So Parmenides would probably like minecraft right?
Madpolis7 2 months ago 2
@Madpolis7 that's what i thought
matthew101909 2 months ago
wow!! brilliant !
TheMichlink 2 months ago
Dude how many shots of espresso did you drink before recording this. Nice work but can you slow it down a notch for the rest of us please
acidophilus88 2 months ago
I'm tempted to start a series of videos which are exactly the same as these, except re-read in a smooth, deep voice which is somewhat bearable. Good idea?
Megatrousers 3 months ago 4
This has been flagged as spam show
@Megatrousers: "I'm tempted to start a series of videos which are exactly the same as these, except re-read in a smooth, deep voice which is somewhat bearable. Good idea?"
No, not really. It's called plagiarism.
DrDeist 1 month ago
That intense man, *hat off
ASKaPHYSICIST 3 months ago
fire=energy
energy=mc^2
nass=energy
mass=fire.
FFarmerCharlie 3 months ago in playlist More videos from CollegeBinary 2
what?
jezzaw101 3 months ago
I know it was a joke, but what does choice have to do with affirming what is "written"?
Icecreamforcrowtoo 4 months ago
Why?
acmedressform 4 months ago
sometimes i wish he would just slow the fuck down and pronounce the words slow enough for me to hear how man syllables are in it let alone comprehend its meaning
but i think that the speed actually makes it easier, if it was 6 minutes of shit id probably just be thinking too much for too long
in closing, 3 minutes is the perfect length.
yeup
12345JJBB 4 months ago 12
If reason has an revolution then we all are into being exerted by gravity. Gravity is proved by iron and heat. If revolution of reason is intern motivated it cannot proceed without gravity. Is resilence what we are looking for? A copy of something we do not have! Child ascertainment of solution in an instinct to bind us to questions not withstanding; for it just hold more questions. Meaning, everything is unstable that believes. Gravity supports nothing; except question of instinct. Any thoughts
in2dionysus 4 months ago
@in2dionysus First thing I saw was gravity is proved by iron and heat. umm no it isn't. not by a long shot. the rest of it was a grammatical lacking pile of bunk. is English your first language? if so you need to take a couple grammar classes. if not then sorry I'm not trying to troll but that made no sense whatsoever.
soulsfang 3 months ago
@soulsfang I am guessing he was drunk and English is way down on the totem pole of important languages where he is from. Either way: that comment is pure poetry.
salvagebar 3 months ago
@soulsfang You bring your measure out to who? Except your reason has no revolution! You talk to yourself to much and do not explain your reasoning, meaning you have no revolution! The problem here with what you have stated is that your looking at the mirror and this is what you have come up with, no sense what so ever. Your measure is sadly lacking!
in2dionysus 3 months ago
just wrote a 5 page philosophy essay usiing this video, so helpful thanks!
mlthomps1982 4 months ago
@mlthomps1982 this will be me soon :\
michellemaryable 2 months ago
Bravo!
Colonoscope 4 months ago
I would like to point out that I will most likely never sleep again, due to the fact that I have just been mind fucked.
inot911 5 months ago 2
The older ones were funnier
charlie2434 5 months ago
1:38 Gillard Vs Abbott cameo.
You win at life.
Flowerneko 5 months ago
Can someone tell me the intro song?
xxxGreaseMonkeyxxx 6 months ago
@xxxGreaseMonkeyxxx
That would be "Night on Bald Mountain" by Modest Mussorgsky. It took me forever to find this song's name back in the day, so I thought I'd help.
UAProjects 5 months ago
@UAProjects
Thank you sir.
xxxGreaseMonkeyxxx 5 months ago
Parmenides was in mine craft 2 long
proto360ster 6 months ago
VOLTAIRE!
TuhWeapon 6 months ago
*Sigh* I have once again reached the stage in my philosophy homework when I resort to watching unrelated 3 Minute Philosophy videos instead of doing the assigned reading.
thecathelizabeth 6 months ago 83
@thecathelizabeth you to eh lol.
viper10011 4 months ago
@thecathelizabeth LIKE A BOSS
theafroc 4 months ago
@thecathelizabeth Hey I'm thinking of taking up a course in the forseeable future. How exactly do Philosophy courses work? Are they any use?
Ultermarto 1 month ago
@Ultermarto I teach philosophy. I generally teach it in chronological order to show how philosophical ideas grow out of their socio-political-economic backgrounds. In an introduction course, I generally cover the major ideas, concepts and theories of around 80-100 major philosophers.
jayraskin 1 month ago
@jayraskin that is a lot freaking philosophers for one course. Are they supposed to remember all that or just kind of get a basic idea?
StuyLewis 2 weeks ago
@StuyLewis It works out to about six philosophers a week over a 15 or 16 week course. They should learn two or three of the major ideas of each of the philosophers. Unfortunately, I can't really go into depth about any of them, but they at least know the names and something about their most celebrated theories. I also show a lot clips from movies so they get a good sense of the time in which these people lived.
jayraskin 2 weeks ago
@thecathelizabeth Reading Sophie's world?
urbman29 1 week ago
If free will is generated outside of the realm of causality, it could very well line up with idea of God as the eternal cause. If space and time were an effect of something, it must have been caused by something. But that something cannot contain what it effects, or creates. So before time and space, there was no time and space. This is the eternal cause,which is God, which has no cause. God gave us free will, because we are created in the image of God.
tigerhop 7 months ago
Jesus, who is supposedly god, therefor hates gays. Jesus wasn't real anyway. And I could definatly deny his existence. But not Julius Cesar, there is plenty of documentation and proof of his existence, but none of the man who supposedly came back from the freaking dead, cured blindness and disease and cast away mental illness, that was thought to be demons.
crodownes 7 months ago
@crodownes Given that Jesus was an itinerant rabbi in a backwater of the Roman Empire, was executed by the State at a young age, and wasn't considered notable except to his own followers, the lack of historical evidence relative to the Emperor of Rome is not unexpected. But the lack is not total. Historical evidence for the existence of Jesus is given the illusion of being practically nonexistant by the fact that Christians gathered most of it together in a single book.
CoryTheRaven 5 months ago
He did exist, but there's no more reason to believe he was divine then any of the others making similar claims in that time.
i highly doubt he was divine b/c of how ignorant he was of how the universe worked.
also, even though the NT books were titled after the followers I also doubt they wrote them, the NT was written in Greek, Jesus's followers were illiterate and Aramaic speaking.
there's no way they could've accurately attributed the authorship(s) of the bible.
EVERYVERSER 5 months ago
@EVERYVERSER Evidently His followers had every reason to believe that Jesus was Divine. Your doubt is predicated on certain assumptions about what being a Divine Incarnate might entail, but is there any reason to hold those assumptions? On what do you base them?
It's plausible, though not widely held amongst scholars, that the NT was originally written in Aramaic. Nevertheless, there is no reason to assume that Paul, Luke, Mark, James, Jude or the Johanine community were illiterate...
CoryTheRaven 5 months ago
the majority of people @ the time were illiterate, the only ones who could write were wealthy or powerful enough to afford learning how to read, his followers were Jews, an oppressed minority at the time, they were workers and so with the exception of Saul, its implausible that they would be among those who could write.
if the texts were originally written in Aramaic, then why would they write as if the dialogue was in Greek?
its obvious the authors spoke Greek.
EVERYVERSER 5 months ago
also, why would the NT books be voted upon if they were a known record of events?
EVERYVERSER 5 months ago
@EVERYVERSER The vote was to determine canonical status. It wasn't like the Jesus seminar voting on "authenticity". Authenticity was only one of the criteria for inclusion in the Biblical canon. The purpose of the canon was to provide the group of texts that would be considered normative and authoritative for the Church at large on matters of doctrine and practice. It wasn't really a choice between Matthew or Thomas as an accurate text. It was between Matthew and Didache as a canonical text.
CoryTheRaven 5 months ago
@EVERYVERSER Actually there are some arguments that literacy went up under the Romans occupation. Nevertheless, I think you overestimate the necessity of being rich or powerful. There is another class you are ignoring, which is the devout. It is this exact class that we must concern ourselves with when it comes to the followers of Jesus. We're not dealing with "most" or "average" 1st century people. We're dealing with a specific religious organization.
CoryTheRaven 5 months ago
@EVERYVERSER ... On the contrary, there is good reason to expect that Paul (as a Pharisee) and Luke (as a doctor) were well educated. It is plausible that, as serious students of religion and leaders in the Church, that Mark, James and Jude were also educated. The Johanine community were probably themselves Greek. Matthew was written by someone well-versed in the Hebrew Scriptures, so literacy there can be assumed...
CoryTheRaven 5 months ago
@EVERYVERSER ...I think that one would have to make the argument that devout Jews in the 1st century were illiterate, given the conditions of Jewish religion (i.e.: They're SUPPOSED to read the Torah).
As for authorship, there is no reason to assume that the attributed authorship is false unless given good reason (i.e.: the same criteria we hold for any other book). That reason only exists for Matthew, the Johanine books, and the Deutero-Pauline letters.
CoryTheRaven 5 months ago
I'm not an expert in this, I'm just parroting what others have said, but i have a position on this subject, and i feel like i am correct in it.
the universe works fine without and gods, and certainly well without yours.
as for whatever comes after this life, i doubt my beliefs in this one will have an impact upon it.
Im not a biblical scholar so i wont debate this with you, you should go after itsthesupafly on this.
EVERYVERSER 5 months ago
*without any gods*
EVERYVERSER 5 months ago
@EVERYVERSER "the universe works fine without and gods, and certainly well without yours."
Unless there is a God and the reason this universe works fine is because of Her. This is something of a non-objection because it relies on a priori assumptions. But then you also expressed that your views are correct because you feel them to be correct, so there ya' go.
CoryTheRaven 5 months ago
You misunderstood my argument, i said that i am confident in my beliefs because i think the arguments and evidence supporting them outweighs those of the opposition.
what i was saying is that i am not sufficiently educated in the area of biblical history to argue in that area.
i also recommended a youtuber who was educated in biblical history and informed you that he has covered the arguments (who the biblical authors were) you have made in his videos.
EVERYVERSER 5 months ago
@EVERYVERSER Confident but insufficiently educated can be a dangerous combination.
CoryTheRaven 5 months ago
Comment removed
EVERYVERSER 5 months ago
finally, why would he be so unknown if his followers were written to have spoken of him to everyone on the earth (Romans 10:16 - 10:18 KJV)? and if he had stood at a public tribunal? the NT makes his case out to have been a big one that everyone made a fuss about, he even got his own parade!
in the NT he was a big deal, and the only messiah at the time.
EVERYVERSER 5 months ago
@EVERYVERSER It's not a matter of being unknown. There is actually extra-Biblical affirmation that He existed as a person. The issue is that there are only elaborate biographies and extravagant claims written about Him by the people who actually followed Him. Why this should be treated as somehow shocking or scandalous is beyond me. It is exactly the pattern one would EXPECT. To EVERYONE else of the time, Jesus would have appeared to be nothing more than another failed messianic hopeful.
CoryTheRaven 5 months ago
I do not dispute his existence, I do dispute the credibility of the bible's account of him.
the extra biblical sources list him as, as you've said, just another sect leader, he didn't even make a big splash according to that source.
if im guessing correctly the historian was not a follower of christ, but he did write that he was a cult leader who was crucified among others. He claimed nothing more. I think.
EVERYVERSER 5 months ago
@EVERYVERSER Yes. Entirely without any surprise whatsoever, people who did not believe in His claims did not believe in His claims, nor did the people who did not follow Him believe what the people who did follow Him believed.
CoryTheRaven 5 months ago
i concur entirely.
were we ever arguing?
EVERYVERSER 5 months ago
@EVERYVERSER I dunno', you were the one who seemed to be taking exception to what I said and arguing that the existence of people who did not believe that Jesus was Divine proves that Jesus was not Divine.
CoryTheRaven 5 months ago
To clarify, i meant that because we have no records of Jesus's divinity from his era, that it stands against the idea that Jesus was divine.
It does not disprove his divinity, being that pretty much everyone at the time of his life was illiterate, most eyewitnesses would be unable to record it, but it is evidence against it.
EVERYVERSER 5 months ago
I also said i am ill-equipped to debate this point with you, there are other atheists with biblical knowledge that i lack.
EVERYVERSER 5 months ago
@EVERYVERSER The entire NT was written during the lifetimes, and in some cases by the very people, who knew Him. If we take Paul's autobiographical statements at their word, & we have no reason not to, then there was already a fully formulated credal statement about Jesus' resurrection (1 Cor. 15:3-8) a mere 2 or 3 years after the event. Luke says directly that he utilized prior sources. Jesus' Divinity is the oldest tradition about Him & predates the written transmission of his moral teachings.
CoryTheRaven 5 months ago
try another atheist, id like to hear the opposing view from an atheist who is knowledgeable in this area before i judge on this.
I'll restate that I don't have enough information to sufficiently debate this.
EVERYVERSER 5 months ago
@CoryTheRaven If you wish to continue this, Pm me, we have been dominating this commentary box and it is quite unfair to the other viewers.
EVERYVERSER 5 months ago
do a three minute philosophy on beyonce
JackJosephh 7 months ago
do jesus! wait.. he never existed
boarding5401 7 months ago
@boarding5401 roflwut
x69Crunchyx 7 months ago
@boarding5401 Another idiot so ignorant that he professes the denial of the historical existence of Jesus. Perhaps a history class or two might do well. Do you deny the existence of Julius Caesar as well?
CarlosMarti123 7 months ago
@CarlosMarti123 Relax history Nazi. Stop being a homosexual. If you can take a penis you can take a joke
boarding5401 7 months ago
Comment removed
CarlosMarti123 7 months ago
Comment removed
CarlosMarti123 7 months ago
Comment removed
CarlosMarti123 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@boarding5401 Calling someone homosexual as an insult is an sign of illness.
CarlosMarti123 7 months ago
The thing is...we could never know if we have free will. We can't see into the future, so every time we make a "choice," that choice may have already been set, and we were just set to finalize it, therefore, free will wouldn't exist. Think like a robot. It's programmed to, say, poke bunnies (XD). It can choose to or not to poke bunnies, but it's already been decided by the programmer. *brain deflates* DERP
Abab216 7 months ago
@Abab216 You make every choice based on your past and how you're made which you both didn't choose. You more or less have it anyway.
jfyvneld 7 months ago
lol thank you very much !
2u4ria 8 months ago
Do Thomas Paine!!
anonymous1trgb 8 months ago
mind fuck
LoreJunkie 8 months ago 17
i didn't know free will was associated people jumping
Satansbitch101 8 months ago
Does a rock, pen, anvil, or clock have the ability to think? If anything in the universe could have the (limited) power of being able to make a choice outside the constraints of "cause and effect", I'd say it was a "think thing". Cogito ergo sum.
kvash3154 8 months ago
Thank you, I have a Religion exam tomorrow and this helps very much O_O
clozapinedream 8 months ago in playlist Philosophy
haha that was great
soulseeker300 9 months ago
Heraclitus would've deserved more credit here... Philosophy of Language and all that...
Ptrrrrrrrr 9 months ago
These are good videos but it would help if you talked a lot slower. I can't keep up.
neotri45 9 months ago
you speak way too fast! Do you do that on purpose? U really should talk slower
watcher111222333 9 months ago
its been a long time to weight for the next video, its almost as if you have a life outside these videos. and we all know that cant be. come back i'm gearing up for my A levels and i need your immense intellect to guide me.
geoffvador 9 months ago
How Ontological.
rgaleny 9 months ago
i loved this one
I think it was my favorite :]
the second i find out a new 3 minute philosophy was posted i send it to my whole family ^^
amenos33 9 months ago
HAHAHAHAHA!!! The little children believe in free will.
alifeofreason 9 months ago
how close is heraclitus to.. hairy clitorus?? lol
25lollipops25 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Free will is choice.
riverlioness 10 months ago
hay, Mr. Three Minute Philosophy! what do you go against Mr. Marx and Mr. Thales?
wewantsainty89 10 months ago
Where did you get the 4 dimensional block universe idea from? Parmenedes thought that the universe was eternal, unchanging and perfect. I don't see how time can be incorporated into this notion. Also he does describes being as spherical; unchanging and the same throughout. I'm not being an online dick, it's just I'm doing an essay at the moment and your vid makes me think maybe there's something I've misunderstood or passed by. A reply would be lovely :)
P.S Great vids
MentalToss 11 months ago
Where did you get the 4 dimensional block universe idea from? Parmenedes thought that the universe was eternal, unchanging and perfect. I don't see how time can be incorporated into this notion. Also he does describes being as spherical; unchanging and the same throughout. I'm not being an online dick, it's just I'm doing an essay at the moment and your vid makes me think maybe there's something I've misunderstood or passed by. A reply would be lovely :)
MentalToss 11 months ago
Love it! Brilliant vulgarization! Keep it up!
javimsan 11 months ago
do SARTRE! :D
xxuselessbulletsxx 11 months ago
Heraclitus didn't actually think everything was made of fire, he just thought it best fitted the understanding of his divine reality (logos). It is constantly changing, yet simultaneously it is in itself a constant body.
These are really funny, by the way.
42elliott 11 months ago
Comment removed
42elliott 11 months ago
What about Xeno? :(
OCPRS 11 months ago
Also, how about some more TMPs on theologians? They’re quite fun. How about Origen? He emasculated himself because he loathed sexuality so much. Turns out afterwards (several years later) that he didn’t think this was actually such a great idea ...
MoaiMaea 11 months ago
Determinism? WTF has that to do with anything?
FaithlessDwarf 1 year ago
Great job dude. I'm a philosophy major, and I love how all your videos are hilarious while still remaining true to the philosophy. You should read the book "Plato and a Platypus Walk into a Bar: Understanding Philosophy Through Jokes." You will LOVE it.
shsfootball54 1 year ago
"When Heraclitus countered his argument by moving"
LMFAO
ThatDifferentGuy 1 year ago
Why are Socrates and Plato black lol? They are Greek.
alifeofreason 1 year ago
wha?
Skate2bate 1 year ago
I came up with the arguments for determinism a long time before I heard anyone had ever tought like me (tought process = causuality, brain = atoms = no magic translation or influence of tought on it. The atoms control your toughts.)
Very funny vid by the way.
GregTom2 1 year ago
Nice video :)
BravoCharlieTV 1 year ago
how would you know paramenides was a very annoying person to have luch with?...he's dead :P but i like the humour :)
ssfiteni 1 year ago
a very interesting series
KhyberBoy09 1 year ago
The video ignores compatibilism, the view that free will and determinism are compatible with each other. It starts a little bit later, of course, but you really shouldn't go around seeing we can have either determinism or free will. If that's true we're in trouble because all of our experience shows both.
AKASquared 1 year ago
@AKASquared
"seeing" s/b "saying"
AKASquared 1 year ago
2 dislikes...so Heraclitus came on and disliked for Parmenides and Parmenides then came on and disliked for Heraclitus.
Though really it DOES seem like less of an issue, these dislikes, when you consider they had no choice in the matter. :D
I've loved philosophy a great while and loved these videos for their existence, a funny intro for people getting in and a lot of great points and jokes for people who already know some philosophy.
obiwanobiwan13 1 year ago
Wait...What? LOL :D
qwartsy 1 year ago
Do... Nietzsche. not just a bs vid :P
FlynnForthewin14 1 year ago
my brain exploded
funnyapples1 1 year ago
There is no free will... only the illusion of it... But there is chaos so...
daymyth 1 year ago
@daymyth Chaos means that just because a system is deterministic doesn't make it predictable. It really has nothing to do with true randomness.
frankjohnson123 1 year ago
@frankjohnson123 What do you call it where particles appear to come in and out of existence randomly. There also is the problem that it only appears random, for now...
daymyth 1 year ago
@daymyth I know what you're talking about, but I'm not sure exactly what it's called. Yes, it is apparently random, but anything on the macro scale is virtually deterministic.
frankjohnson123 1 year ago
@frankjohnson123 Well enough randomness in the micro surely adds up? Would it be safer to say that given at the micro scale randomness may exist events at the macro are not deterministic but highly predictable?
daymyth 1 year ago
@daymyth Yes, that would be an accurate description to my knowledge.
frankjohnson123 1 year ago
@daymyth
The law of large numbers. Enough random events with even a slight bias and there is only one way the overall result could go.
AKASquared 1 year ago
You are a fucking GENIUS my friend.. my Philosophy and Ethics teacher showed us the one on Kant at the end of one of my A level classes... keep it up!!!
tontyismynameyeh 1 year ago
jeez! make the video 4 minutes long and talk slower.. its not a competition!
fromthectothertothes 1 year ago
"Isms in my opinion, are not good" ... ferris bueller.
game. set. match.
landerzoo 1 year ago
came here from wimp.com
dandypajamas 1 year ago
Cool video but the seeming attempt at the Yahtzee voice is a bit grating.
Vonunov 1 year ago
watch?v=xQycQ8DABvc
AntiFed1791 1 year ago
I would hate to have lunch with him....
ryuzzaki 1 year ago
"Parmenides was a very annoying person to have lunch with"
Nice! You gotta do more of these!
SuperPowerTitan 1 year ago 73
"Parmenides was a very annoying person to have lunch with"
Nice! You gotta do more of these!
SuperPowerTitan 1 year ago
DO JOHN STUART MILL!!!
economienda 1 year ago 32
@economienda LOLOL utilitarianism
mreddieg 1 year ago
@economienda STUART MILL IS MA HERO DO IT
skadaification 7 months ago
Your videos are becoming less funny and more politicized... for some reason.
CircleBastiat 1 year ago
I love how all these seemingly mad and complex ideas, like the block universe, and bundle theory, seem to make sense the way you describe them. Like you said, "batshit ball-to-the-wall lunacy" taken out of context. But once explained, surprisingly difficult to see why it would be inaccurate! Hilarious, too. And succinct. These vids have everything going for them. More!
RainRavens 1 year ago
Game theory is the most important revolutionary concept in philosophy and logic ever created, along with Kurt Godel's theorems, because game theory (at least, it OUGHT to) takes all the great philosophies of the past and ORGANIZES, FORMALIZES, and, when possible, QUANTIFIES them and their interactions among each other. Creating one's own models in game theory is mentally draining, yet, when achieved, profoundly rewarding.
nahaymath 1 year ago
BRAVO!
nahaymath 1 year ago
Dude, who are you? these vids are awesome!
yomiab 1 year ago
Damn, nice video.
sizzlesticks 1 year ago
DO EUTHYPHRO! :)
djNerd42 1 year ago
wait, are you saying you think there's no free will or just poking fun?
djNerd42 1 year ago
Love the free will pic.
jgonnerman85 1 year ago
To summarize, the universe has to be infinite for us to be free, but we'll never know if we are truly free or not due to infinity being indefinite. It's a perfect system of organized chaos... almost divine.
I appreciate your videos by the way. I don't feel so strange when I know that people in the past and present have thought and continue to think about these things. : p
81stReich 1 year ago
If the universe had the capacity to accomodate any and all determined chain of events, then we would be bound by infinite number of cause and effect, and that would be free will. Only way for the universe to accomodate this would be if it was infinite, but since the concept of infinity itself cannot be measured, there is no way for us to truly know if it's infinite or not, so the best way to apply this to daily life would be to, not think about it, do whatever you want, and be free.
81stReich 1 year ago
thank you
DLoc0 1 year ago
Hmm, I am assuming this is a political & personal jab against libertarianism?
lector0003 1 year ago
Dude I got a Philosophy midterm tomorrow. I am grateful I found this.
Not saying I will souly rely on this, but its still good so I cann learn and be entertained at the same time. Thus using other sources to clarify, re-enforce, and study more in-depth.
Thank You!
teddybruscie 1 year ago
Transcribed 120 "the proven scientific principle of conservation of mass and energy"
Well the picture shows the conservation of Angular momentum
There is no conservation of mass
Although there is conservation of energy via the Thermodynamic laws
But what can one expect from an Australian, quite amusing if not entirely accurate 7 out of ten, must try harder
UneCritique 1 year ago
@UneCritique
Mass and energy are different forms of the same thing, therefore, if energy is conserved so is mass. If mass isn't conserved, you can create substance out of nothing, which would mean that you are a god. Yes, mass will increase as you approach the speed of light, but once you slow down, mass also decreases to what it was. Thus, you have conservation.
FlowCell 1 year ago
@FlowCell "Yes, mass will increase as you approach the speed of light,? but once you slow down, mass also decreases to what it was. Thus, you have conservation"
If mass decreased to what it was, it would revert to energy, and although you could refer to mass as packets of energy, it is energy in the form of the forces lol
UneCritique 1 year ago
@UneCritique
You do realize that it takes a great deal of energy to slow down from the speed of light, right? If you want to know where the energy went, it was in slowing back down. Sorry, no magic mass creation here.
FlowCell 1 year ago
@FlowCell "Sorry, no magic mass creation here" What on earth are you dribbling on about magic mass creation ?
Energy becomes mass when it is Accelerated towards the speed of light, although it will Never actually achieve the speed of light, so it cannot slow down from the speed of light, because it never reached it, do you know anything about QM beyond Wikipedia ?
UneCritique 1 year ago
@UneCritique
Hey duffus, we aren't talking about quantum mechanics. We are talking about special relativity and the first law of thermodynamics. Nobody here is talking about quantum mechanics but you.
You made the truth claim that mass is not conserved. This is demonstrably false. Deal with it.
FlowCell 1 year ago
@FlowCell Chuckle,
"You made the truth claim that mass is not conserved."
That I did,
And if I thought you stood the slightest chance of understanding, I'd explain it to you,
"Hey duffus, we aren't talking about quantum mechanics. We are talking about special relativity"
Chuckle read up on Galileo's principle of relativity, work your way up to QM, and then you'll understand how ridiculous you sound
UneCritique 1 year ago