Alert icon
We're changing our privacy policy. This stuff matters.  Learn more  Dismiss

An Introduction to Philosophy

Loading...

Sign in or sign up now!
32,197
Loading...
Alert icon
Sign in or sign up now!
Alert icon

Uploaded by on Aug 21, 2006

Yeah, it's OK by me if you start with this one ;)
http://www.freedomainradio.com

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

License:

Standard YouTube License

Link to this comment:

Share to:

Uploader Comments (stefbot)

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

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

Top Comments

  • I like Broccoli

see all

All Comments (123)

Sign In or Sign Up now to post a comment!
  • well, they all do. said things only they can understand.

  • all philosophizers are delusional, they speak abstract.

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

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

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

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

    fallisic? you mean fallacious as in logical fallacy..

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

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

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

View all Comments »
Loading...

0 / 00Unsaved Playlist Return to active list
    1. Your queue is empty. Add videos to your queue using this button:
      or sign in to load a different list.
    Loading...Loading...Saving...
    • Clear all videos from this list
    • Learn more