A summary of my answers (ignoring the topics that I was unfamiliar with): A priori knowledge - No Abortion - Permissible at any point Abstract objects - Nominalism Aesthetic value - Subjective Aim of philosophy - No fact of the matter Analysis of knowledge - JTB Analytic-synthetic distinction - No Arguments for theism (which is strongest?) - None Capital punishment - Impermissible Causation - Nonexistent Chinese room - Understands Concepts - The question is too unclear to answer Consciousness - Agnostic Cosmological fine-tuning - No fine-tuning Eating animals - Permissible Environmental ethics - Anthropocentric Epistemic justification - Internalism Experience machine (would you enter?) - Yes Extended mind - No fact of the matter External world - Re epistemology, non-skeptical realism. Re metaphysics, agnostic. Footbridge - Don't push, but either is morally acceptable. Free will - Compatibilism Gender - Social Gender categories - Eliminate God - Atheism Hard problem of consciousness (is there one?) - No Human genetic engineering - Permissible Immortality (would you choose it?) - Yes Interlevel metaphysics - Agnostic Justification - Coherentism Knowledge - Empiricism Knowledge claims - Relativism Laws of nature - Humean Logic - Reject both Material composition - No fact of the matter Meaning of life - Nonexistent Mental content - No fact of the matter Meta-ethics - Anti-realism Metaphilosophy - Too unclear to answer Method in political philosophy - Ideal theory Mind - Non-physicalism Mind-uploading - Death Moral judgment - Non-cognitivism Moral motivation - Internalism Morality - Expressivism Newcomb's problem - One box Normative ethics - Contractarianism Other minds - Agnostic Personal identity - No fact of the matter Philosophical methods - Conceptual engineering Philosophical knowledge (is there any?) - A little Philosophical progress (is there any?) - A little Political philosophy - Libertarianism Politics - Socialism Possible worlds - Nonexistent Principle of sufficient reason - False Proper names - Fregean Properties - Classes Propositions - Mental entities Quantum mechanics - Agnostic Race - Unreal Race categories - Eliminate Rational disagreement - Permissivism Response to external world skepticism - Pragmatic Science - Anti-realism Sleeping beauty - Agnostic Spacetime - Agnostic Statue and lump - No fact of the matter Teletransporter - Death Temporal ontology - Agnostic Theory of reference - No fact of the matter Time - Agnostic Time travel - Agnostic Trolley problem - Don't switch, but either is morally acceptable. True contradictions - Actual Truth - Epistemic Units of selection - Reject all Vagueness - Semantic Values in science - The question is too unclear to answer Well-being - Experientialism Wittgenstein (prefer early or late?) - Late Zombies - Inconceivable
@Bilboswaggins2077
3 жыл бұрын
I haven’t started the video yet, so maybe you mention this but as a non cognitivist how do you get around the Frege Geach problem? I thought this kind of wrecked non cog
@KaneB
3 жыл бұрын
@@Bilboswaggins2077 I think the importance of this problem has been a little overstated. I don't have time to go into any detail at the moment; send me an email at some point if you're interested in my own views specifically. However, there have been decades of responses (and then objections to those responses!) to the FG problem. See here for a summary: plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-cognitivism/#EmbPro plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-cognitivism/embedding-problem-responses.html
@markw6031
3 жыл бұрын
This may be my favorite channel. I've learned a lot. Thank you so much!
@shannon8111
3 жыл бұрын
Nobody else has commented on this so might be an issue on my end, the audio sounds like it is doubling up or something, not had this issue with other videos.
@Ryndika
3 жыл бұрын
pretty sure everyone has it
@KaneB
3 жыл бұрын
I usually use OBS studio for the video recording and audacity for the audio, then I edit them together. That's easy for a slideshow but would have been tricky for this video. Unfortunately, whenever I use OBS for both video and audio, this problem occurs.
@mandobrownie
3 жыл бұрын
Kane B a very common OBS issue is that it'll auto record with multiple mics, either within one layer or multiple layers (like if you have a USB mic and an inline laptop mic), so if you just make sure to turn one off you won't get that modulation effect
@KaneB
3 жыл бұрын
@@mandobrownie I've tried playing around with the audio input before, but I couldn't figure out how to fix it.
@mandobrownie
3 жыл бұрын
Kane B this forum post should help hopefully obsproject.com/forum/threads/trying-to-sort-out-mic-echo-and-understand-the-obs-interface.100031/
@pmispeed2
3 жыл бұрын
I agree with you about how terrifying the prospect of death is, but there is also something almost equally appalling about the prospect of facing eternity. Can you imagine living to 1 million years old, having exhausted most of the experiences in life, and then knowing you’re not only going to have to endure all that time again, but it literally will never end
@outo511
3 жыл бұрын
I've read somewhere that one of the reasons they wanted to do a new survey, was because the old one was a little bit biased towards analytic philosophy. I don't notice anything different here with this survey.
@jmike2039
2 жыл бұрын
I chuckled at vagueness: 'The question is too unclear to answer' as an option
@Ansatz66
3 жыл бұрын
0:59 Aim of philosophy: Wisdom. It may be true that philosophers as people have a wide variety of goals, but when a person engages in philosophy the most plausible reason is for the sake of wisdom, either for herself or for other people. Philosophy is an exercise in attempting to think clearly and either find answers for questions or understand when questions have no answers. We all want happiness, justice, understanding, and knowledge, but if we choose to seek these things using philosophy, then surely we're trying to gain these things through wisdom. Alternatively people might do philosophy for money, but that wasn't one of the listed options and it's probably best ignored. 3:16 Knowledge: Empiricism It's tempting to say rationalism since the only knowledge we can ever really have is analytic knowledge, but it seems pretty clear that the debate between rationalism and empiricism is over how we gain synthetic knowledge. Empiricism isn't really an effective way to gain synthetic knowledge, but at least it's trying. 3:30 Meta-ethics: moral realism 3:35 Material composition: nihilism, restrictivism, or universalism? There is no fact of the matter. 7:43 Science: scientific anti-realism 7:47 Proper names: Fregean or Millian? Fregean 7:50 Metaphilosophy: non-naturalism or naturalism? Too unclear 7:55 Cosmological fine-tuning: Insufficiently familiar with the issue. It would be prudent to wait until we've watched a few universe form before we consider ourselves competent to explain the structure of universes. 10:48 Eating animals and animal products: Insufficiently familiar with the issue. 12:41 Personal identity: psychological view. 12:44 Knowledge claims: invariantism. 12:46 Propositional attitudes: Insufficiently familiar with the issue. 13:22 Grounds of intentionality: Insufficiently familiar with the issue. 13:32 Mental content: internalism. 13:34 Footbridge: don't push. There are far more consequences to consider than just the lives of the six people who are directly involved, and it seems most likely those consequences will weigh mostly agaist pushing. 14:59 Laws of nature: Humean 15:01 Moral judgment: cognitivism 15:04 Logic: the question is too unclear to answer. A system of logic is not a philosophical position, so it's not clear what this question is trying to ask. 15:30 Perceptual experience: Insufficiently familiar with the issue. 16:25 Truth: correspondence. The meaning of "truth" is defined by its usage, and people almost exclusively use the word to refer to correspondence, even if doing so may be the source of philosophical difficulties. 16:50 Race: unreal. Race shows all signs of being an arbitrary and meaningless division between people. 20:38 Free will: compatibilism 20:41 Aesthetic value: subjective 20:42 Analytic-synthetic distinction: yes 20:44 Experience machine (would you enter?): yes 25:45 Philosophical progress: a little. There's always an ever-expanding library of arguments. 31:43 Time: agnostic/undecided 31:45 Mind: non-physicalism 31:49 God: agnostic/undecided 31:51 Time travel: agnostic/undecided 32:04 Meaning of life: subjective 35:58 Epistemic justification: internalism 36:01 Political philosophy: Insufficiently familiar with the issue 36:04 Moral motivation: externalism. 36:07 Politics: Insufficiently familiar with the issue 36:55 A priori knowledge: yes. Surely we can know that a bachelor is unmarried. 36:58 Teletransporter (new matter): survival 37:00 External world: skepticism 37:03 Law: Insufficiently familiar with the issue 37:17 Trolley problem: switch. 37:57 Abstract objects: The question is too unclear to answer. The distinction between nominalism and Platonism is always terribly muddled. It seems that there are no words to clearly express what Platonism is claiming. Nominalism is appealing because it sounds like Platonism is trying to talk about some sort of supernatural universe beyond our universe, but on the other hand it seems clearly wrong to deny the existence of abstractions. 38:01 Zombies: metaphysical possible. There's no way to rule out the existence of some component to consciousness that is beyond the physical. 39:03 Normative ethics: consequentialism 41:02 Vagueness: Insufficiently familiar with the issue. 43:21 Gender: Insufficiently familiar with the issue. 46:35 Analysis of knowledge: justified true belief 48:38 Units of selection: Insufficiently familiar with the issue. 49:51 Philosophical methods: Insufficiently familiar with the issue. 56:02 Newcomb's problem: one box 56:05 Causation: Insufficiently familiar with the issue, as with any metaphysical issue that is beyond human ken.
@Mai-Gninwod
6 ай бұрын
So many things that really speak to me here. In particular, your thoughts on the death penalty and gender.
@KommentarSpaltenKrieger
2 жыл бұрын
The "meaning of life" question can be confronted with the same problem as moral facts: If someone asks what the meaning of life is (presupposing there is such a thing), I might tell that person that it is, in fact, "killing puppies". How would that person respond? "No, I won't do that" probably. People want the meaning of life to be objective, but won't adhere to it if it is disagreeable, so why not cut this bs short and do what you feel is right from the get-go ?
@dharmadefender3932
2 жыл бұрын
True. If it was my objective meaning of life to sell cars, maybe I don't want to be defined by selling cars. Maybe I want to do something else.
@rath60
Жыл бұрын
I doubt someone will read this but fine tuning refers to unitless vslues such as alpha--the fine strcture constant-- its value if modified slightly would prevent electrons orbating nucliesus. So long as the ratio of your natural constants equals alpha your fine. Thecfact alpha is unitless means that changing its value cannot be compensated. As for an anti-realist view you could say that the anthropic principle comes out naturally from the fact that science is meant to allow for human term predictions.
@RaffzVieira
3 жыл бұрын
Neat stuff, will watch the old one too
@andrewwells6323
3 жыл бұрын
I thought this was out in December, thanks for the heads up!
@forbesbeckum4209
3 жыл бұрын
Good update on some of your positions. We are a lot more similar than I had previously thought.
@jmike2039
2 жыл бұрын
On some major topics like abstracta, philosophy of mind, and analytic synthetic distinction you didn't really elucidate why you think those positions are more reasonable to hold. Would love to hear your takes on that Dr
@mandobrownie
3 жыл бұрын
I've been in philosophy, so to speak, for around the same amount of time as you, and although I can understand why the field would want to do this kind of survey, I kind of find this survey very useless for any kind of philosophical reasoning, whether it be reasoning about philosophy or doing like epistemology or whatever other field. One big issue is that on basically each issue there's a kind of pro-seminar version of each debate or position, and the version that the people who "do" those fields adopt. Let me give just two examples. First, the mereology question: someone like, for example, Ted Sider will think that the 5 modal logic axiom is true within the domain of material composition, so obviously universalism is true, while someone like Carl Gillett would think that even saying 5 is true of material composition means that you're doing a different kind of inquiry (in one of his books he talks about scientific composition as separate from mereological composition as defined by analytic metaphysics). My guess is that Ted might accept what Carl says, so is the question in this survey about strictly analytical metaphysics' material composition, or both scientific composition and analytical metaphysics's material composition? It's just not clear. Second, the footbridge question: if you think that ought entails obligation, as I think many analytic people do, then you'll approach the question differently than if you think that ought does not always entail an obligation or a change in permissions. What I wish they did instead was have each area editor make a shorter survey just for their area that is taken just by people in their area, where the expectation is to only answer questions you very directly and thoroughly work on. Even if there wouldn't be much use for it, I think it'd be more useful that the survey as it is.
@KaneB
3 жыл бұрын
I'm not sure what you mean when you say it's useless for "philosophical reasoning". The goal here is just to figure out how popular various positions are among philosophers. Maybe this survey isn't a particularly effective way of achieving that goal. Though I can't think of any kind of survey that would provide more accurate results, and that it would be practically possible to conduct. How are you interpreting "ought" if it's not entailing obligation?
@mandobrownie
3 жыл бұрын
Kane B yeah, my points there aren't the clearest. I guess my real question is why do they think it's good to keep doing the survey, and does that answer really include anything about how it could be used in, say, the content of a publication in a phil journal, or, say, how it's results could end up having some unexpected consequences on what people's reported and actual positions are? Re: ought, one interpretation of ought is that you take the content of the ought and place it in a multitude of different situations and contexts, and if in more than not you'd be obligated then you ought to do it. Doesn't entail that in any given situation you're obligated, just that it's likely that you'll be obligated. Another is that ought is more of a complex social enjoinment that some sort of heteronomous imposition of obligation, and while sometimes that social enjoinment will be enjoining to take on an obligation, there's nothing that'd make it such a case conceptually or whatever.
@Trynottoblink
3 жыл бұрын
I laughed out loud at the immortality thing.
@GottfriedLeibnizYT
3 жыл бұрын
31:47 Interesting..given that you're an empiricist.
@tiramisuvodka8353
11 ай бұрын
32:00 maybe living it self would be the meaning of life?
@garrywarne1
3 жыл бұрын
I have always been under the impression that Contractarianism is considered a branch of deontology. That is the stance taken by, for example, the SEP page on Deontological Ethics lists Contractarianism as an example. Do you disagree with this assessment?
@KaneB
3 жыл бұрын
I don't see why a contractarian approach would necessarily lead to a deontological theory. But to clarify: obviously, I'm not a contractarian in any traditional way - I don't care about hypothetical scenarios; I don't care what system of rules the ideal actors in a state of nature would come up with, etc. What's relevant to me are the actual negotiations between real people. Now, it's unlikely that the result of these negotiations will be universal rules, and in some contexts, we may well evaluate actions merely by their consequences. So, I'm not inclined to class this as deontological, though I suppose it leans more towards deontology than toward the others. Maybe I shouldn't call it contractarian either.
@mandobrownie
3 жыл бұрын
Kane B there are some contractarians who eschew the hypothetical agreement stuff for actual agreement and also say that they think such a theory is likely deontic. Someone like A John Simmons, and in certain moods Robert Paul Wolff will both want actual agreement without the need for universalizable contents of such agreements. So yeah, I'd venture to say you're likely still considered a deontologist, even if it is a relatively unexplored area of deontic theory.
@emmanuelperez9490
3 жыл бұрын
Do you have a video of the metaphysics of space-time?
@KaneB
3 жыл бұрын
No. I don't have any plans to cover anything like that anytime soon.
@Human_Evolution-
3 жыл бұрын
Great video.
@tylerhulsey982
Жыл бұрын
Great video but your position on abortion is wild
@davidprentiss689
3 жыл бұрын
Who are the committed halfers?
@fanboy8026
3 жыл бұрын
Awesome
@fanboy8026
3 жыл бұрын
What do you think of the cognitive scale argument for veganism
@KaneB
3 жыл бұрын
Never heard of it. Unless this is a different name for the marginal cases argument? iep.utm.edu/anim-eth/#SH1f
@fanboy8026
3 жыл бұрын
@@KaneB Well that argument is like this "Humans are N times more intelligent than animal R and M times more intelligent than animal S.Because of that we shouldn't kill R but we should kill S.Since N>M.But based on what reason we should say that S should be killed?we can imagine an animal T exist who humans are O times more intelligent than him and N>O>M.So should we kill T or not kill T?"
@KaneB
3 жыл бұрын
@@fanboy8026 The question would just be whether T possesses the capacities that are taken to confer moral status. Obviously, there will be vague boundaries here. That's a problem, but it's a problem for vegans as well, since all mental traits seem to exist on a spectrum. Check out the recent work on plant cognition, for example.
@JohnVKaravitis
3 жыл бұрын
Where are the results of the survey?
@KaneB
3 жыл бұрын
They haven't been released yet. I'll probably do a video on the results when we get them.
@prenuptials5925
3 жыл бұрын
fine-tuning is the most ridiculous and absurd idea ever, and a prime example of bad anthropic reasoning. if something like the weak nuclear force was ever so slightly different, than the universe would evolve in a radically different way in accordance to those physical laws. "fine-tuning" looks more like an odd normative claim, that our universe is the most perfect one. everything is simply just a result of first causes, and if the laws of nature were so that they produced a universe which were unstable, it simply wouldn't exist or it would cease to exist at a certain point. and this is from the realist perspective, from an anti-realist one it's an even more bizarre idea. whenever i hear some physicist talking about this metaphysical nonsense i just can't help but painfully cringe. i'm happy my university makes it mandatory for all students to do an intro logic/epistemology course, because clearly these basic skills are totally lost on some otherwise respectable academics.
@dharmadefender3932
2 жыл бұрын
There seem to be two different types of fine tuning. Fine tuning of biological life and fine tuning of the physical constants. The former seems basically explained through evolution, the latter seems like an arbitrary argument from ignorance or incredulity fallacy.
Пікірлер: 57