I reckon the majority of us are just people interested in philosophy who found your excellent lectures on youtube and can't get enough
@SilentlyContinue
Жыл бұрын
This . But I wish I was the first person he mentioned.
@apollosankofa87
Жыл бұрын
Definitely this!
@nathanparrish4342
6 ай бұрын
I took a moral philosophy class with him and he always puts a ton of effort into his lectures. Awesome guy
@emilienone3501
5 ай бұрын
@@SilentlyContinue Me too.
@hoagie911
4 ай бұрын
@@chaoslord07 dab on the haters
@theorycraft7138
Жыл бұрын
Your wrong I'm not a student or parent. I'm just some guy who came across your video on if everyone sees the same red. Now I'm listening to all of them as I work to stay entertained.
@muafizidningilma2261
2 ай бұрын
haha, same. Me too
@winkylee2155
4 жыл бұрын
Thank you prof. Kaplan. I really like your lectures. You delivered them in a clear and rigorous way.
@profjeffreykaplan
4 жыл бұрын
Thank you for the kind words!
@scottmcloughlin4371
2 жыл бұрын
@@profjeffreykaplan I invite you to reflect on how it's wrong from the beginning. Philia does not mean "Love" and Sophia does not mean "Wisdom." These oversimplified mistranslations are well known in classical hermeneutics. It might be better to spend time on the relevant taxonomies that include Philia and Sophia, and how Pythagoreans (who coined the term "Philosopher") distinguished their projects from Sophists. Pythagoreans also repurposed Schole, or Leisure, into our notion of Philosophiscal Schools. Those institutions copied their books by hand as well as taught them to new Mathetes ("disciples") and Akousmatikoi ("hearers"). We contemporaries oddly disembody "ideas as mental states" largely due to the commodification of printed books, which is itself a philosophical problem.
@johnwalterknych3856
2 жыл бұрын
Great video. Another thing to add concerning the major philosophical questions (does god exist, free will, Justice, etc.)…even if we forget about them after leaving childhood and get consumed by distractions, taxes, and dates…our decisions and lives are still steered by our subconscious answers to those questions. To take an intro philosophy course it take more conscious control over your life.
@Firerose101
Жыл бұрын
As an engineer, I love philosophy. Unfortunately, it doesn’t pay my bills.
@OrangeBananaMonster
3 жыл бұрын
The problem with arguments made around 15:00 is that it's actually a subject of debate as to whether some of those questions are objective or subjective. "Which actions are morally good," for example, has proponents on both sides. Also, there is a philosophical view that doesn't point to the mere disagreement in philosophy, but the fact that philosophers have disagreed over the same questions for the past 2,000 years in order to cast doubt on a definitive conclusion ever being reached. I also think that math 20:50 is a really bad example of a non-empirical question, as some argue that the foundation of math isn't abstract reason but is grounded in the empirical world. We discovered that 9 isn't prime by observing such division between objects in the real world, and then abstracting to an inductive conclusion. Same with a triangle. Axioms would have never been thought of if they first weren't reflected in experience. And in 29:30, many philosophers (Not Socrates, but Nietzsche, for example) would include rhetoric or persuasion among a philosopher's tools. 39:20 is completely right, though.
@isaacm4159
10 ай бұрын
Yeah since philosophical questions can't be answered through observation I'd argue they can't be considered true or false.
@dotexe6415
5 ай бұрын
I'm not one of your students, nor a parent - I'm doing a short course on philosophy after being out of education and work for a while, and your videos help explain the topics further! I'm trying to get better words to explain this crap in my head. Your passion feels so wholesome, and now I'm obsessed!
@JasonGafar
3 жыл бұрын
I am always disappointed when people question the merits of doing an undergraduate degree in philosophy, as people often question it's correlation to securing a career. To major in philosophy can inexorably lead to many lucrative careers, such as law, administration, journalism, academia, and others. The personal fulfillment of doing a degree in philosophy is far reaching.
@MrMcGreed
Жыл бұрын
As a teacher of philosophy, with a masters degree in tge subject. After watching this video, I'm more sure than before, in telling my students that philosophy is the study of controversies 😜
@2099EK
Жыл бұрын
Or #3, I am not taking a philosophy class or the parent of same, but am binging on all of your videos, including this one. Checkmate.
@2099EK
Жыл бұрын
A compelling argument for majoring in philosophy.
@bryanoldenburg9870
Жыл бұрын
Thanks for your passion-- your love for learning surely shines through! I wish I'd had a fun professor like you back at the "Yale of the Midwest" (shown in the 1895 photograph). BTW, I recently replicated the shot using a modern-day student with a cell phone up to his face. One wag saw the replication and said, "We've gone from a society of thinkers to one of talkers." I gotta admit, he got me thinking about that one Jeffrey!
@perfectlydamagedwithharley4903
Жыл бұрын
I'm not in college as matter of fact I fertilize lawns for a living I just like learning new things
@InYourDreams-Andia
Жыл бұрын
I'm a mature interested person, Ive seen a good few of your videos, and it all seems very intuitive.
@octaviorusso2312
5 ай бұрын
I would love to see videos like this about psychology, maybe about Jungian psychology. It would be great if you talked about those topics too. You have a very clear and engaging way of speaking-and you are not pretentious, and that is a great relief; people I know who talk about philosophy are quite pretentious and it's honestly quite annoying to listen to them; you are authentic and humble. I can tell you like what you do, and you don't act as if you were superior to other people because of your knowledge and your ability to communicate it. Hope you consider expanding into psychology. Thanks for your amazing work.
@mariellascerri1448
2 жыл бұрын
I’m a mature undergraduate law student in 🇲🇹 malta and I’ve devoured all your videos !! You have a gift of simplifying what every one else complicated
@roycanriz
Жыл бұрын
A really terrific programme. I should have read philosophy before going to law school.
@trudyannrenion1586
6 ай бұрын
Im a single mom that never have time, always questioning my existence and seeking wisdom for my behavior
@jamescruz3
Жыл бұрын
The definition that i use is: set of knowledge that seeks to rationally establish the most general principles that organize and guide knowledge of reality, as well as the sense of human action.
@lolwtf1217
5 ай бұрын
I am a graduating student at Management Accounting. We don't even have any philosophy class on our course. I am just interested in Philosophy. It's too compelling for me and it makes me ask a lot of questions to myself about myself and the world around me. I just feel like in whole my life, I am at the wrong course... My mind has full of questions, contradictions, ideas, analysis, and wanting to gain a lot of knowledge. I love it... I am passionate about it... I want to learn more about it...
@C3yl0
2 жыл бұрын
I am in my 30’s and I went back to university to finish my studies and took bold decision to finally major in Philosophy. Do I feel scare of my future in terms of acquisition of wealth? Yes Do I feel terrified about my age and the competition with younger students? Yes However, harsh life experiences have taught me that when you align yourself with your life purpose everything else comes by default. 👽♥️♥️♥️
@XwpisONOMA
Жыл бұрын
If you studied philosophy hoping that will help you in the acquisition of wealth, well all I have to say is I pity you!
@beirangiaphiapi452
2 жыл бұрын
Interesting explanation. Really worth watching.
@nostalgia63
3 жыл бұрын
Excellent video. Philochrony is the theory that describes the nature of time and demonstrates its existence. Time is magnitive.
@markharding1985
9 ай бұрын
A few thoughts I had while listening to this: 1. Nature is not evil. It is neutral. Not good nor bad. That is man's as in mankind's. Need to understand something. From understanding can come control. Which inevitably leads to power. Not over nature, but over man. 2. Define immortality? Depending on the story, immortality can have its cons. For example you could live forever yes! If you say are immune to disease. No longer need to eat or drink. However, what is the inverse of that? You are immortal yes. Save for injury. Not being immune to anything. Usually in any story there's some kind of weakness to it. The one that springs to mind is the film League of extraordinary gentleman. I don't recall the characters name, but so long as I did not look at a pain of himself. He would never age. He was immune to injury. Or he would just heal very fast. Anyway, just some thoughts that spring to mind while listening to this. That I wanted to share.
@RonLWilson
4 жыл бұрын
Very interesting as well as informative.
@profjeffreykaplan
4 жыл бұрын
Thanks!
@WisdomisPower-10inminute-dn5no
10 ай бұрын
"Superb job on this video; it's far more engaging than my own."
@ericcmarkowitz725
4 жыл бұрын
Excellent video, Dr. ("Doc") Kaplan.
@profjeffreykaplan
4 жыл бұрын
Thanks for the kind words. Whether you are a real human or a bot, I appreciate it either way.
@MrMcGreed
Жыл бұрын
Kaplan is awesome! Especially when he wants to tell parents what philosophy is, and he within 5 minutes or so, ends up telling parents that their college-age kid, is either childish or smoking weed ❤ (@05:20 -ish)
@gerritgovaerts8443
Жыл бұрын
Kurt Goedel's incompleteness theorems can be seen as a partial answer to the philosophical question "What can we know ?" , but it was proven by mathematical means . Does this mean that the once philosophical question "What can we know in mathematics ?" has lost it status as a philosphical question ? The same happened to the paradox of Achilles and the tortois once mathematicians figured out that an ifinite series can have a finite sum . This shows me that either mathematics is part of philosophy (and also a language) or the link with philosophy is stronger than only the laws of logic
@waynr
Жыл бұрын
I'm here because your self presentation and appearance remind me of an old college friend who developed a bad relationship with ambien. I mean you don't remind me of the ambien use, it's just pleasant to imagine what he could have become. And I like the way you explain things. I'm just an unemployed tech bro though.
@cr-nd8qh
4 ай бұрын
I used to always wonder what happens if i was to enter a black hole. Even as a small child.
@roderickmorrison
Жыл бұрын
I did an engineering undergraduate degree in the seventies. Students were required to take one "arts elective" each year. The most memorable class of all my undergrad (and post graduate) studies was Philosophy 100. Maybe there is something about being a professional philosopher that lends itself to being an outstanding teacher. I venture that question is NOT a philosophical question. We can start with Dr. Kaplan as one data point in answering that question in the affirmative!
@jamesdavis3851
Жыл бұрын
I start my physics classes with a definition of science, almost equivalent to yours. "The philosophy that truth is _solely_ determined by observation/experiment" I also use the slash. Not a perfect definition, but cool to see the similarity.
@MrMakaros
5 ай бұрын
Φιλοσοφίαν έστιν το απορρείν και θαυμάζειν ανευ ορίων said Plato in Timaios. So all types of questions are philosophy, hence all forms of scientific knowledge are parts of Φιλοσοφία. Without limitation (άνευ ορίων)
@slimesisters-ny8ej
Жыл бұрын
When we talk about wisdom, it's about Sophia. Merriam Webster defines it simple as "Divine Wisdom". Things like Purpose, Soul, Free Will, Fairness...instead of having some else provide the answer (revelation) we can arrive at answers to questions related to Sophia by reasoning. Now, could anyone arrive at the concept of "virtue" without having been first exposed to any "revelations"? It's harder to answer than it seems. In some way, Philosophy may very well be Religion for Skeptics, or Divinity in the Machine. Talking about the number nine (9, IX, .........), the only way to reason about it is with our neuronal machine.
@nHans
Жыл бұрын
I majored in STEM in college. In our junior year, we were required to sign up for at least one humanities elective. Among other options, I did consider philosophy-but only because I'm an Ayn Rand fan, and she said that every thinking person should study philosophy. Ultimately though, I didn't pick philosophy. (Sorry, Ayn. You too, Jeff. 😔) Future earnings was not an issue. As I said, I'm a STEM major. That philosophy course - _"Introduction to Philosophy"_ - was only going to be an elective for one semester. Rather, there were two other reasons: (1) The course spent a lot of time discussing God. For me, that's a huge bummer-a major turn-off. See, growing up in multi-religious, multi-cultural India, I've wasted enough hours of my life arguing with friends and classmates over whose religion is the one true religion. And how many-if any-gods (and goddesses) there really are. Take your pick: 0, 1, 2, 3, more. As you said, it depends on which revelation you go by. Alternatively-if you want to be logical and rigorous-which axioms you start with. In any case, it's not scientific and can't be verified empirically. Furthermore, philosophy _hasn't_ answered the question conclusively one way or another. And regardless of whatever conclusion one comes to, it's impossible to convince those who believe otherwise. (2) Of all the subjects of study-STEM, humanities, performance arts etc.-philosophy is unique in that it doesn't have a straightforward definition. Just as you did in this video, they tried to "define" philosophy with a bunch of examples of the kind of questions philosophy tries to answer. While I understood-after hearing the explanation-why each particular question fell under philosophy's purview, unfortunately, I couldn't grasp the overall pattern. Next, we were told that philosophy consists of all the topics covered by its subtopics, such as metaphysics, ethics, epistemology etc. That too was not very satisfactory-it was like defining math as the sum total of algebra, geometry, calculus etc. ("Sum total" - see what I did there? 😜) Finally, they had another big section on what is _not_ covered in philosophy. By itself, that's not unusual-other subjects do it too; it helps establish the boundaries. But in the case of philosophy, it seems like it's defined as much by what it's not as what it is. (That previous sentence would be inadmissible in my _"Business Communication in English"_ class, but it should be trivial for philosophers to comprehend.) Long story short, I opted for _"Modern History: Post WW2 through the Collapse of the Soviet Union."_ It turned out to be exactly what the name said. Regardless, I remain interested in certain subtopics of philosophy-specifically Logic, Epistemology, Ethics, and Jurisprudence. I've done a lot of self-study in my spare time, and continue to upgrade my knowledge through resources such as your KZitem videos. So thanks, and I too will see you in the next video!
@wobwobninja4771
3 жыл бұрын
Your videos are incredible
@profjeffreykaplan
3 жыл бұрын
Thank you. That's kind of you to say, and encouraging to hear. Just in case it's helpful to have them organized in some way, I have ordered them by topic and as courses in playlists: kzitem.info/rock/_hukbByJP7OZ3Xm2tszacQplaylists
@a.nonimus6705
17 күн бұрын
I *was* an undergraduate philosophy student. Not in your class though. Also, 9 years ago. Then I got my degree. So I'm just watching your youtube videos because they make for entertaining background noise while I drink tea. You're a great lecturer 👍 Also, you have some really crazy dreams. Pirate ships turning into dragons that are your grandmother? Man, I need to ingest chemicals to have those kinds of dreams...
@mr.cauliflower3536
Жыл бұрын
I think a better definition of a philosophical question is "one that can't be answered sufficiently with *just* observation or experimentation or proof/calculation from axioms" I have met some anti-scientific philosopher who, when confronted with scientific facts said "let's not go there, that's not philosophy", and I think this could prevent that from happening.
@WisdomisPower-10inminute-dn5no
10 ай бұрын
Brilliant video! It makes mine look like amateur work.
@writerightmathnation9481
Жыл бұрын
I say the question of whether the universe is going to expand forever is also a philosophical question, since empirical answers aren’t guaranteed to be correct and so the claim that the universe is expanding now isn’t even verified empirically, from a philosophical point of view. In part, this is the reason that someone who is trained to a maximal degree in physics is said to have a Doctor of Philosophy degree in physics. They are trained about how to provide rational arguments that tie empirical observations to theoretical claims, and to provide new forms of argument specific to physics, if and when the extant argumentation seems to fail to explain the rational interpretation of (new) empirical observations by physicists.
@erickouhai9818
Жыл бұрын
Thank you Professor Jeffrey. This video changed the way I look at philosophy. I would love to engage in more philosophical discussions from now one. Although, I've already been doing that, but now I have developed a deeper appreciation of doing it. I'd probably watch all your videos for a year, like a separate course other than the one I'm currently studying.
@beingsane
6 ай бұрын
Min 16 "The heavens, We have built them with power. And verily, We are expanding it" (51:47 holy quran
@HamNurf8
Жыл бұрын
Well atleast I learned that triangle is as fiction as unicorn.
@arzzeyy
6 ай бұрын
Fr
@charlesonderi8226
11 ай бұрын
Good
@mileaioan5434
2 жыл бұрын
Amazing! Great video!
@rebasy9273
3 жыл бұрын
:Ooooooooooo awesome video, thank you for this!
@jhoigaar
7 ай бұрын
And Plato says that "it i only through our dreams that a man/woman can know themselves personally." Are you sure about the Dragon Grandma image in a dream?
@SMSDanmbisaa
18 күн бұрын
Am still here 2024 learning from the video, you have my thanks for the service you delivered.
@Underwarts
Жыл бұрын
Exactly the right amount of cowbell.
@ratgirl34
Жыл бұрын
Me 😊 It’s a triangle. ‘It’s not a triangle.’ Me 😮
@arzzeyy
6 ай бұрын
Literally me
@anirudhadhote
Жыл бұрын
Hi Sir, I have a simple (may be) question. Two persons are counting some identical items (x), one person is taking x one by one from the pile and putting it inside a bag after counting. The role of the another person is to watch so that there is no mistake in counting. Just for the sake of judgement of the quantity, the person watching says some random three digit number between 700 and 800, now the question is what are the chances of that number being the exact number matching with the total quality of item x after they finish the counting process.
@Epiphone1964
Жыл бұрын
What about social experiments... couldn't you create and study different societies to determine which one is most just, which would be both experimentation and observation?
@TobiasLundell-i9t
11 ай бұрын
Ever since taking basic and mid level courses in philosophy I cant stop preching to anyone unfortunate enough to listen why I think education should emphasize philosophy much higher. I just know I´m way smarter (them cognitive faculties have leveled up) after studying it than I was before. Much more of a pain in the ... aswell I suspect a lot will say.
@GRDwashere
Жыл бұрын
I'm so happy I'm a robotics engineer working on artificial intelligence. I'm probably too dumb to do philosophy.
@sergiochantayon7819
Жыл бұрын
Most people assume that people's income is the measure of how smart they are. Incomes are greatly determined by institutional arrangements; therefore, not necessarily connected to smart decisions. I do not see human progress if we humans decide to stop thinking. Should we rely on AI?
@certifieda1000
2 жыл бұрын
I’m just here because I’m curious lol
@ymk899
Жыл бұрын
@jeffrey kaplan hello i am very interested in the science of argumentation and i would like to know if philosophy is the best school of argumentation where one argues the best and with the best methodology between law school or philosophy school where one learns to argue the best and who between the philosopher or the lawyer argues the most or the best and those in an objective way and what would you advise to a student to learn how to argue to go to law school or to philosophy school thank you very much your videos are wonderful.
@havetacitblue
Жыл бұрын
Or I enjoyed the Set Theory presentation and stayed for the philosophy.
@whyilovethesesongs
4 ай бұрын
What are your views on modern psychology prof.Kaplan?
@jhoigaar
7 ай бұрын
Think again Dr. Kaplan - isn't it "The Wisdom of Love"???????? Then what does Theosophy mean???? Huh?????
@AceHack00
Жыл бұрын
I am neither just interested
@AceHack00
Жыл бұрын
Would like to get my 5 kids interested like me.
@cr-nd8qh
4 ай бұрын
Im just a guy watching all of your videos
@trumannE8642
Жыл бұрын
argument do not one sees similarity in every thing that is around us directing us to the fact that there is one who has created them all that that is God
@transcendingsoul5099
2 жыл бұрын
Nope! Here for a unique set of reasons 😂🤗💛✨
@uubuuh
2 ай бұрын
i’m here for the bass riff at the beginning and i stay for the snacks. what’s a major.
@martinbennett2228
Жыл бұрын
At the start of the course I teach, I state that philosophy is the study of what it is possible to know and how we can know it. I also warn them that they might find a lot of fuss about what it might or might not be, but that is because they probably have lost the plot. Admittedly this leads to a particularly partial philosophical outlook, but I prefer to present a discipline that is more concerned with answers rather than evasions of answers. My students study philosophy to support their other studies. They need to understand how the knowledge they learn about can be justified.
@tombouie
Жыл бұрын
Weell-Done
@dotexe6415
5 ай бұрын
50:39
@harshp981
Жыл бұрын
0:34 ... i came here because i like philosophy not because of im ug lmao i am physics major student
@jeeves_.103
Жыл бұрын
i’m just some 19 year old that like to think
@unkierich
Жыл бұрын
@36:00 the question of do you have an immortal soul is phrased poorly. A better way would be to ask are you an immortal soul that has a body. As far as the proof against an all knowing, all powerfull, and all loving God. The problem is why would you assume an all loving God would prevent all suffering. If you as a parent shielded your child from all pain you would stunt their development, why would the same not be true for an all loving God? Would a life free from all pain be worth living? But, what do I know I am an uneducated stoner.
@1thomson
Жыл бұрын
Perhaps a loving God would not have created beings who need pain in order to develop. Doesn't it seem that a loving God would have created beings who can learn through nothing more than observation and reasoning from the evidence? Why, please, is pain necessary? And, why wouldn't a life free from all pain be worth living? If God is our parent, then I'd say that It's a very abusive parent, indeed.
@hoagie911
Жыл бұрын
I don't think your taxonomy of fields of study works. The sciences utilise observation and experimentation, of course, but also rely heavily on reasoning and the sort of stipulation and proof in mathematics. And some subjects like history rely heavily on persuasive argument in conjunctionwith observation. Meanwhile, philosophical questions like "What is the just way to arrange society" (should) rely heavily on observation of societies. And perhaps some proofs from stipulation can occur, at least in the philosophy of mathematics, where ideas such as constructivism require proof that they actually are able to achieve the required results. Romantic subjects like English rely almost exclusively on argument, though admittedly of a different sort. Maybe philosophical questions can be defined as those which, despite being informed by observation, ultimately have to be answered by persuasive, rational argument.
@mahamedkaariye191
6 ай бұрын
All man are not interest philosophy so take care that all are interest
@alisonurfe1119
3 жыл бұрын
How are you SO good oh my god
@scientious
Жыл бұрын
This might be interesting. With 51 minutes devoted to it I'm expecting a boilerplate definition, something parsimonious, rigorous, and comprehensive. Let's go: 3:34 Examples? Seems like deflection. Let's skip ahead. 13:37 I'm still waiting but this does not look very promising. "Does God exist," is not a philosophical question. * The existence of a God is not philosophy. * Free will is not philosophy. * How do I know I am not dreaming is not philosophy. * The existence of a soul is not philosophy. Philosophy is absolutely unable to answer any of these questions so they can't be philosophical unless you define philosophy as the meaningless collection and argumentation of ignorance. And, I don't consider philosophy to be as trivial as that. 15:29 None of these questions are deep. They are just questions. Is this nothing more than a feeble attempt to rationalize philosophy? There is a good reason for philosophy to exist but it has nothing to do with the above questions. Skipping 20:20 This is pathetic. 26:26 Philosophy is the hopeless attempt to answer questions it can't answer? Seriously? Skipping I'm sorry but this is ridiculous. If philosophy today is truly as awful as this lecture then it will require a chapter of its own.
@stephenl9463
Жыл бұрын
You’re a case that proves his point. Almost every other comment on this video has been positive whereas yours was negative. It’s a question, a philosophical question at that, as to who is right. If you had argued your position well, then there would be chance you’d be taken seriously. But you have no argument, just a string of unsubstantiated claims (aka uniformed opinions). Consequently, one might conclude that philosophy is just not for you. (Perhaps a career in marketing?)
@scientious
Жыл бұрын
@@stephenl9463 You clearly misunderstand. These are not philosophical questions because they have scientific answers. I have no reason to make some kind of argument because I can prove things with evidence. Ignorance of science does not bolster philosophy. And trying to get approval from philosophers would be a waste of time. Philosophy is very bad at construction, answering questions, and problem solving. This is what science does. What philosophy does very well is logical analysis. It's good at finding logical flaws. I don't know why philosophers keep pretending that philosophy is more than that. Marketing? That's amusing.
@vielosoph
3 ай бұрын
🎯 Key points for quick navigation: 00:00 *🎓 Einleitung: Das Video richtet sich an Studenten und Eltern, um zu erklären, was Philosophie ist.* 01:06 *🏫 Definition: Philosophie als akademische Disziplin unterscheidet sich von der alltäglichen Nutzung des Begriffs.* 01:48 *🔄 Neustart: Vorurteile über Philosophie sollen beiseite gelegt werden, um neu zu beginnen.* 02:02 *🇬🇷 Etymologie: Philosophie bedeutet wörtlich "Liebe zur Weisheit".* 02:24 *🤔 Kritik: Etymologische Definitionen sind für das Verständnis der modernen Philosophie unbrauchbar.* 03:34 *🧠 Beispiel: Philosophische Fragen wie "Existiert Gott?" oder "Habe ich freien Willen?" werden eingeführt.* 05:19 *👶 Kinder: Kinder stellen oft philosophische Fragen, verlieren aber im Laufe der Zeit das Interesse.* 06:37 *🌱 Stoners vs. Philosophen: Philosophen versuchen, diese Fragen ernsthaft und rigoros zu beantworten.* 08:12 *🌌 Vergleich: Unterschied zwischen Philosophen und Astronomen bei der Erforschung der Sterne.* 09:16 *✝️ Religion: Unterschied zwischen Philosophen und religiösen Führern in der Beantwortung von Fragen durch Offenbarung.* 10:28 *🔍 Unvoreingenommen: Philosophen haben keine vorgefertigten Antworten, sondern untersuchen Fragen ernsthaft.* 11:12 *📝 Philosophie definieren: Eine Methode ist, Beispiele für philosophische Fragen zu geben.* 12:06 *🎭 Subjektivität: Philosophische Fragen sind nicht subjektiv, sondern objektiv.* 13:41 *🌎 Beispiele: Philosophische Fragen sind tief und bedeutend, aber nicht alle tiefen Fragen sind philosophisch.* 17:18 *🧪 Empirisch vs. Nicht-empirisch: Philosophie beantwortet Fragen, die nicht durch Beobachtung oder Experiment beantwortet werden können.* 20:11 *🧮 Mathematisch: Manche nicht-empirischen Fragen können durch Beweise und Berechnungen beantwortet werden, aber nicht philosophische Fragen.* 21:57 *🔺 Abstraktion: Mathematische Fragen unterscheiden sich von philosophischen durch ihre Lösungsmethoden.* 26:15 *📚 Definition: Eine philosophische Frage kann weder empirisch noch durch Berechnung beantwortet werden.* 27:08 *⚖️ Gerechtigkeit: Die Frage, wie Gesellschaft gerecht organisiert werden soll, ist eine philosophische Frage.* 28:32 *🧠 Rationalität: Philosophische Fragen werden durch rationale undrigorose Argumentation beantwortet.* 28:56 *💬 Argument: Philosophen nutzen Argumente als rationalen Prozess, um die Wahrheit einer Behauptung zu demonstrieren.* 29:51 *🧠 Philosophen: Sie haben nur Argumente und klare Gedanken, um ihre Fragen zu beantworten.* 31:12 *🤔 Philosophische Qualität: Einige Argumente sind besser als andere, wodurch nicht "alles geht".* 32:06 *🌍 Existenz von Gott: Beispiel eines Arguments gegen die Existenz eines allwissenden, allmächtigen und gütigen Gottes angesichts des Bösen in der Welt.* 33:15 *🏛️ Philosophie: Sie liefert begründete Antworten auf philosophische Fragen, was ihren Wert ausmacht.* 36:51 *🌌Unsterblichkeit: Die Frage, ob die Seele nach dem Tod weiterlebt, ist eine philosophische und wertvolle Frage.* 37:29 *📚 Philosophische Fragen: Fragen, ob Philosophie wertvoll ist oder "alles geht", sind selbst philosophische Fragen.* 40:03 *⚙️ Schwierigkeit: Philosophie ist schwierig, da sie nur auf klaren, rationalen Gedanken und Argumenten basiert.* 42:02 *🧪 Werkzeuge: Philosophen nutzen Worte und Argumente ähnlich wie Chemiker ihre Instrumente.* 44:01 *📊 Testergebnisse: Philosophiestudenten schneiden bei standardisierten Tests wie GMAT, LSAT und GRE gut ab.* 47:44 *💼 Karriereaussichten: Philosophiestudenten haben im Vergleich zu anderen geisteswissenschaftlichen Fächern gute Gehaltsaussichten.* 49:35 *💰 Philosophie und Reichtum: Die Frage, ob man Philosophie studieren sollte, um reich oder klug zu werden, ist selbst eine philosophische Frage.* Made with HARPA AI
@lucaslahlum6331
3 жыл бұрын
Love is hardly an emotion. Especially not philia
@MaRover66
4 ай бұрын
stoner here watching
@ksuuvis
3 жыл бұрын
he is writing all of this reversed
@canwelook
2 жыл бұрын
It's almost as if he's actually right handed writing on glass and the video is then flipped to mirror image.
@TheJanitorIsIn
Жыл бұрын
Classic philosopher's mistake. Make a 60 minute lecture piece defining your work with well thought out details when, really, a snappy and sleazy 5-minute sales pitch is what those parents (think they) want. (Good video there, boss. Joke's not at your expense.)
@joepowerhouse2371
11 ай бұрын
The study of problems that dont exist until you study them.
@adcaptandumvulgus4252
Жыл бұрын
Thanks for not bringing up theosophy
@Babby6010
2 жыл бұрын
Imagine being a philosophy instructor that refers to God as a creature.
@canwelook
2 жыл бұрын
The Cambridge dictionary defines creature as "a life form that is unsual or imaginary". To Theists their god is unusual (unique). To Atheists that God is imaginary. I'd say he's nailed the description.
@zylo1967
Жыл бұрын
What term would be an alternative? Thing? Guy? I noticed his use of "creature" myself, and the usual term theists use for God is "being". There must be a well-thought out reason, a basis in philosophy for using "creature", and I would suggest that it is this: If you follow his whole lecture, notice he says that triangles (in the perfect sense) don't exist in the world, the triangle is a concept. So too is God, when treated as a philosophical subject. And as such God (unlike arguably a triangle) is a *created* concept, hence in rigorous treatment, in the context of philosophy, God is a creature because what is under discussion is the human created idea of God, without prejudice to whether or not the "creature" of God is an existent being. I would assume somewhere in his lectures Kaplan addresses this. Etymologically the word, creature, means something living or imaginary that has been created. Referring to animals (including us) as creatures is not philosophically neutral, it implies the existence of a God, a creator. However, referring to God as a creature reflects the fact that argument and discussion is not about "God", but around a topic, an idea that we have constructed.
@edotblair
3 жыл бұрын
When he said triangles don't exist.... that really messed me up. You think you know things and then you hear a philosopher speak! haha thanks!
@karelvorster7414
3 жыл бұрын
After we came out of the church, we stood talking for some time together of Bishop Berkeley's ingenious sophistry to prove the non-existence of matter, and that every thing in the universe is merely ideal. I observed that though we are satisfied, his doctrine is not true, it is impossible to refute it. I never shall forget the alacrity with which Johnson answered, striking his foot with mighty force against a large stone, till he rebounded from it, 'I refute it thus.' - James Boswell, The Life of Samuel Johnson While Johnson's refutation is flawed and doesn't refute Berkeley's idealism, the deeper argument is sound. I just drew a triangle. Kaplan is wrong. While materially every triangle I draw is different, they are all triangles. Every pronounced phoneme is different physically, but it is recognized by all users of the language within certain limits as, say, the phoneme [u].
@edotblair
3 жыл бұрын
@@karelvorster7414 I understood him to mean that there are no naturally occurring triangles. That we can only draw or form triangle to represent a mathematical ideal. You could argue a mountain is a triangle if you were adamant but I see that the only triangles in "existence" were drawn
@karelvorster7414
3 жыл бұрын
@@edotblair Good day, Erica. Aren't we humans a part of nature? And I can draw a triangle. Even an ET is part of nature. Triangles are natural, they just need humans to occur. Separation always leads to riddles that needn't be. Seeking the underlying unity solves all riddles. But many a philosopher, like many a politician, thrives on division.
@edotblair
3 жыл бұрын
@@karelvorster7414 i'm not saying you're wrong. In fact, it's exactly as you say. Triangles wouldn't be if we weren't drawing them. Philosophy is fun hahaha
@karelvorster7414
3 жыл бұрын
@@edotblair Never mind being wrong. I'd rather be disproved than remain in the light of error. Philosophy is fun and at the same time it is all-pervasive and all-powerful. Everybody has a philosophy and lives by his or her ideas but most of them remain unexamined. Have a good and thoughtful day!
@bte1234
29 күн бұрын
thx great stuff
@waynr
Жыл бұрын
Why aren't philosophers as rigorous as astronomers? Where are your satellites? :trollface:
@HamidSain
4 жыл бұрын
most of the above deep questions have been questioned by philosophers for the last 2500 years😳....by a reasonable guess, philosophers can continue to produce Non-answers for the next 2500 years.....is there any hope for humanity to get the answer for the truth of the ultimate reality😒....Philosophy is the useful tool for thinking and not a very useful tool to answer the question of ultimate reality
@profjeffreykaplan
4 жыл бұрын
Philosophers have definitely been discussing these questions for a long time, but I don't agree that they have merely produced 'non-answers'. They definitely have answers. What philosophers have not produced, you are right, are *widely agreed upon answers*. That is definitely disheartening, but at least it doesn't show there are no answers to be found. I have a short-ish video about a slightly different but definitely related issue: kzitem.info/news/bejne/mpulyqZjcohnjW0
@turkucelik6699
4 жыл бұрын
He is hot
@brucemah609
10 ай бұрын
This squiky and scratch sound of your crayon on yhe biard?😮 No thanks..sounds.like a possible good video..too bad 😞 the delivery is poor
@amisikiarie
3 жыл бұрын
To refer to God as a "creature" is to demonstrate onself to be completely uneducated on the matter. God is, by definition, the Uncreated One: the Creator.
@profjeffreykaplan
3 жыл бұрын
Sorry. I will change the word to "being" when I make a new version of the video. That is not the only definition of God that is common to monotheistic theologians. For many (maybe most) medieval Jewish, Christian, and Muslim theologians God is defined in terms of perfections, and the fact that God created the universe is thought by them to be true, but not part of the God's definition. I discuss one famous proof for God's existence that comes from that definition in this lecture, for example: kzitem.info/news/bejne/rImcuYaOip53mZg Anyway, this point about the word "creature" doesn't affect any of the particular points I am making in this video, right?
@amisikiarie
3 жыл бұрын
@@profjeffreykaplan Reading my statement and seeing your response I am impressed by your humility and ashamed by my brashness. While what I said is correct, I am not proud of the tone with which I did so. The video is really well-made and clear; my sharp words are not so much directed at you as they are at the naturalistic framework (which you apparently hold to) that I see being asserted and defended everywhere (in modern culture). In fact, I 100% commend your defending of objective truth, although I come at it from a different background and context. The particular points you were making in the video are not directly affected, except insofar as the way you approach philosophy precludes the possibility of God's absolute existence. You say in the video that the philosopher may answer the questions, among which is "does God exist?", either affirmatively or negatively, and remain a philosopher; while the priest/theologian/etc. is bound to answer this question affirmatively if he is to remain in his field. This is true, but it obscures the deeper issue at play. You write down a list of questions about metaphysics, epistemology and ethics and then state that philosophers, in contradistinction to religious leaders, do not have predetermined answers to these questions. This gives the impression to the naive hearer that philosophy is objective where religion is biased. Yet this can only be done by excluding key points of dispute from the list of questions. For example, what if the list included, "Has God revealed himself decisively to every person?" or "Is it due to sin that humans fail to perceive God?" To these questions, the secular philosopher has the predetermined answer, "no", because if he did not have this answer, he could never proceed to ask "does God exist?" So in reality the philosophy you're presenting is just as biased, only unconsciously so, as is the religious thinking you refer to. If you've read this far I commend your attitude. I really do apologize if I offended you with my first statement, and repeat my appreciation for your attitude.
@profjeffreykaplan
3 жыл бұрын
@@amisikiarie Apology for your tone accepted, though it's not a big deal, at least not to me. As for your specific point about my way of framing things precluding the possibility of God's existence, I don't think that's true. (As a side note, is there anything I say in any of my lecture videos that suggests that I am not myself a theist? I have several lectures presenting prominent, established arguments for God's existence. And I haven't recorded my lectures dedicated solely to the philosophy of religion. In those, I also present prominent, established arguments against God's existence. But, regardless, I don't state my own view anywhere. It might not be what you assume.) But that's sort of beside the point. The point is that contemporary academic philosophy of religion is full of both theists and atheists, having pleasant, collegial, rigorous debates about questions like "Does God exist?" "Can objective moral facts exist without a divine law giver?" and so on. This is just a sociological fact about college and university professors who work on the philosophy of religion. My own areas of research specialization are philosophy of language and philosophy of law, but I teach material in the philosophy of religion, and I personally know dozens of academic philosophers who are theists. So the idea, not that you necessarily hold it, that academic philosophy--a real practice, engaged in by real people, which exists in thousands of colleges and universities throughout the world--somehow excludes religious belief is is simply not accurate. I will admit, however, that if we took a poll of academic philosophy *not working in philosophy of religion specifically*, such as those working in epistemology, ethics, aesthetics, and so on, we would probably find that most are not theists. But they still hire and promote and respect and discuss philosophy with the many academic philosophers who are theists or who actively practice a religion. But to get to the more specific point you make about the kinds of questions you ask, let me try to convince you with an analogy. Consider the question, "Does there exist intelligent alien life on another planet elsewhere in the Galaxy?" (I take it that literally no one knows the answer to this question, right? Could go either way. The only evidence for an answer is statistical evidence that comes in the form of arguments that are like 'we estimate the number of exoplanets to be X, and we estimate the likelihood of any planted being inhabited to be Y, so therefore the chances that at least one planet other than earth is inhabited to be Z.' But those arguments include a lot of wild, fun estimates. So no one really knows. And also, different religious traditions have different views of this. Some of them claim, within their central liturgy, that alien life does exist. Others, such as Judaism for example, are open to the possibility, but insist that the moral and spiritual center of the universe is the plant Earth.) Anyway, the question doesn't presuppose an answer either way. It simply asks whether aliens exist. Of course, some people with a deep emotional commitment to one answer or the other may not like even asking the question. But the fact that they don't like it is not really relevant. The question itself is neutral. But consider the question, "What is the average height of all the buildings constructed by intelligent aliens living on other plants elsewhere in the Galaxy?" This question assumes that aliens exist and goes on to ask a question about thee buildings that they build. In philosophy of language, which is one of my areas of research specialization, the technical term for this is a 'presupposition.' The question doesn't *assert* that aliens exist. Rather, it *presupposes* it. It takes for granted, as a background condition, that aliens exist and that they build buildings, and then it asks a question about how tall those buildings are. If you ask that question, then you have moved on from a debate about whether aliens exist and are focusing on a more detailed question about them. Of course, someone might point this out and say "oh, but I am not so sure that aleins even exist in the first place, what are the evidence/arguments for that?' and the one who originally posed the question has to decide whether to withdraw the presupposition and say 'fair enough, here is the evidence that aliens do exist and build buildings' or they can say 'of course aliens exist, that is a fully answered question for me, and I am busy so I don't have time to prove it to you, I am just going to continue discussing the height of their buildings.' You get the point. Anyway, the questions that you list, like "Has God revealed himself decisively to every person?" they presuppose that God exists. That's fine. There is nothing wrong with that. That question is a perfectly legitimate question to ask, even in an academic philosophical discussion. Academic philosophers of religion definitely do debate questions that presuppose the existence of God. I have seem it happen many, many times. The point is just that I probably wouldn't list that question in a very short list of example philosophy questions because it excludes from the discussion those who are not yet convinced that God exists. That is, I am starting with the more fundamental question "Does God exist?" and then we can get to the more advanced question, one which presupposes a particular answer to the first question, if and when we answer the first question by concluding that God does exist. Does that make sense? The question "Does God exist?" Does not presuppose anything at all about whether God exists or not. It simply asks the question.
@amisikiarie
3 жыл бұрын
@@profjeffreykaplan What you're saying makes sense though I disagree. Let me attempt to use the terminology you've introduced (though I am an amateur not professional philosopher). The analogy you give of the aliens is helpful because it isolates the issue I am driving at. But it is also misleading because it cannot be applied to the question of God's existence if God is who the Bible claims that he is. That is, it teaches that "the fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge" and that in Christ "are hidden "all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge" and that "the fool says in his heart, 'there is no God'" (Proverbs 1:7, Colossians 2:3, Psalm 14:1). These statements contend that we cannot meaningfully interpret reality, or language, or anything at all, without first assuming (presupposing) God's existence. Now many people (you may/may not fall into this category) will want to violently disagree with this contention and claim that reality is understandable and interpretable without the presupposition that God is. I am not yet arguing for the truth of this claim (the necessity of presupposing the Christian God's existence for human knowledge), I am simply presenting it. So the claim is that nothing can be understood without the presupposition of the God presented in the Bible. Returning, then, to your analogy, we find that the question of alien-existence is taken to be neutral. This is because, as you say, "no one knows the answer to this question...[it] could go either way". However, if God does exist and has presented himself to every person in the universe, it follows that the question of his existence is not neutral. It presupposes the possibility of a reasonable person who does not already know God. And if there is a reasonable person who does not know God then the Bible is false when it says that "the fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge". Hence, by entertaining as an open or legitimate question whether God exists, you are excluding the possibility of his absolute existence and universal revelation. So in effect the approach you're taking begins by presupposing the non-existence of an absolutely revealed God who is the foundation of human knowledge, and is therefore not at all neutral with respect to the Bible. Does this make sense?
@canwelook
2 жыл бұрын
Whenever a god is claimed to exist, its existence should not be a philosophical question, but an empirical one.
@karelvorster7414
3 жыл бұрын
God, a creature? Talk of a strawman argument (pun intended)! What about studying a modicum of theology before mentioning God? The difference between philosophy and theology is that philosophy relies on revelation by men such as Plato or Kant or oneself, whereas theologians and religious people rely on revelation by God or gods who like to speak in riddles or stories. Philosophy is much more explicit and conceptual. It offers explanations and therefore may be called more democratic, specially when it arises among complicated adults who have lost their powers of poetic intuition. But while they differ in style, religion and philosophy have a lot in common: they all use speech to communicate (religion also uses the visual and performing arts as well as music), they all try to show that they are right. But no matter what, most religious people ad most philosophers don't really know what the source of their intuitions or teachings is. Nobody has gone into the back of any human mind to see how a thought emerges. We cannot predict what our next thought will be, right? Therefore it is right to speak of "revelation" both in the case of prophets and of philosophers. Socrates, one of the fathers of philosophy, was a deeply religious person. He claimed to be guided by a spirit. He used both rational arguments and poetic images and stories. Descartes and Rousseau, to name but a few philosophical celebrities, all had sudden mystical intuitions that changed their lives. Philosophy isn't narrowly rational and the word "reason" itself has many meanings, just as the word "love". Being a linguist, I love etymology and I do think that philosophy is also a matter of deep feelings, of love. Can we pursue what we hate? At a deeper level, philosophy is rightly called "love" because philosophy is an ongoing activity of pursuing and desiring an elusive and alluring beloved: winged, beautiful truth. Remember that Eros, the god of love, is a naked child. Love is poor. Philosophy in that respect differs radically from science, which is a process of capturing and piling up, hoarding knowledge. Knowledge in philosophy is never the end, only a stepping stone to a destination that forever recedes while filling us with wonder and delight. The goal pursued by philosophy is rightly called "wisdom". There is no wisdom in modern science because it only deals with particulars and from the narrow, dogmatically asserted point of view of their material and efficient causes, whereas philosophy encompasses the whole of human and cosmic life, including the hidden assumptions made routinely by scientists. Wisdom is about the whole. It is holistic. Therefore wisdom includes what chemistry doesn't, namely right and beautiful human conduct. Wisdom is not inert knowledge stored in books or data banks. It helps us to behave like good human beings. Science is at best amoral. It may become-and has often proved to be-utterly immoral in its applications, just as bad philosophy by the way. Pythagoras was right to call philosophy the "love of wisdom", after all. Is the love of pickles a matter of mere subjectivity? Since there must be a reason for loving or not loving pickles, it isn't. Philosophizing may also tell us that too much of a good thing may lead to unintended-and undesirable-consequences.Therefore the desire for pickles could invite a speech on temperance, or even about the ultimate good. Is the expansion of the universe a philosophical question? It is because it rests on a number of philosophical and unexamined (unexamined by astronomers, at least) assumptions such as the existence and definition of space. The question of organic life is also a deeply philosophical question and not just a matter for biologists. Aristotle tried to answer that question by developing the concept of "soul'. Mr. Kaplan's (otherwise very clear) definition of philosophy apparently ignores most of philosophy and reduces philosophy to the unexamined postulates of Western contemporary science such as the (un)truth that only what can be experienced by the senses is true. Philosophy isn't the slave of modern science. Philosophy rather judges and tests the assumptions on which science rests, questioning the existence of the broad categories of time, space and the relationship between the observer and the observed. It rightfully asks why we can draw triangles without ever having seen a triangle in nature, which seriously undermines the postulates of a science purportedly based solely on sensory perception. It rightfully asks whether we derive the relationship between eggs and hens from linear, unthinking observation (the answer is NO). The reason why philosophy is so bold is simple: philosophy is all about the supreme human faculty of reason. Reason shines its powerful and loving light on all things. It thereby judges everything but is judged by none except by herself. The self-contained, restful nature of reason is a beautiful thing to contemplate, specially when compared with all those restless entities that would compete with it such as sensory perception. Generous, rational logos is a beautiful thing to contemplate when compared with all the discourses that deny human intelligence and its power to form concepts, the shining love that continuously and logically unites the manifold display of beings into a beautiful and infinitely desirable Uni-verse. Professor Kaplan's logos is clear and energetic. It brings forth a convincing explanation. One is forced to admire the consistency between the philosophical vision held by the thinker and the form of his speech. Professor Kaplan's forceful presentation has certainly made academic philosophy an object worth considering, but by denying the ancient definition of philosophy as "the love of wisdom", he has unfortunately placed on himself and on his audience some undue limitations. Philosophy is not just an inquiry, it is a BEAUTIFUL inquiry, beautiful in itself and in its results. Prof. Kaplan's discourse has made philosophy quite worth considering, but not worth loving. His own philosophy may insist Nagel-wise on "feeling" how it "feels" to bet a bat, but it cannot evoke our deepest feelings for living creatures. His language is plain, but it is not simple, simplicity being a beautiful clarity that invites our attention. (Simplicity can be a riddle, not because of itself, but because our minds are twisted and complicated.) For all his analytical energy, our orator has failed to see and to express philosophy as artistry. A philosopher is an artist whose prime material is true concepts manifested as right words ("mots justes") in the body of a beautiful-and therefore desirable-body. If we consider philosophers as artists, we come to realize how they are vastly superior to scientists and how much more demanding their task is: it won't suffice to observe the so-called "hard facts" and theorize about them. Besides, they have to act and persuade others to act in a way consistent with their thinking. Professor Kaplan's speech has examined academic philosophy as if philosophy were only a matter of the classroom, an activity primarily done by authorities. But philosophy concerns everyone and aspires to incarnate and play among us mortals. For philosophy is love in beautiful action guided by right thinking. Never in the history of mankind has there been a more pressing need for such compassionate and thoughtful action than today, when all of us live under the menacing shadow of huge and destructive arsenals held in the claws of dwarfs blinded by their passions. So be a philosopher, start philosophizing today. Save your community. Save our beautiful home, planet Earth.
@stephenl9463
Жыл бұрын
Oh my goodness! You’ve written a book!
@barryrempp1261
11 ай бұрын
I'm not a philosopher (unless the armchair variety counts), but the philosophers I have known have a deep ENTHUSIASM for the discipline. It seems to me that this enthusiasm is encompassed, in a genuine way, within the sense of PHILIA. So I, personally, would not so quickly dismiss the relevance of philia in defining modern philosophy. Moreover, sophia is also useful for defining modern philosophy. We tend to think of wisdom as profound insightfulness, often of the sort that comes with age and experience. The ancient Greek understanding of it was more along the lines of "skill". A master carpenter or stonemason would be considered wise. Combining philia and sophia is, in my mind, quite nicely congruent with the pursuits of modern philosophy and helpful in defining it. I happen to love (in the philia sense) language, and frequently find exploring the etymology of a word very helpful in grasping its deeper implications. Sorry if I'm being pedantic. My intent is to advocate for the art of etymology, and to advise against its offhand dismissal due to a blunt, overly-simple, literal translation of a word. FWIW, my daughter double-majored in philosophy and history. (A father's nightmare?)
@chriss4891
Жыл бұрын
Talking about philosophy philosophically, pure genius.
@roderickmorrison
Жыл бұрын
OK. So here is a question given the current zeitgeist... Is the question "Is gender a spectrum?" a philosophical question?
@dogsdomain8458
Жыл бұрын
Imagine, if you will, that I took all the basic phenomenal properties you experience and the optic structure they are situated in (the relations between individual quales) and removed everything else from the world. What would change from your point of view? Absolutely nothing.
@lifebyvikk6751
10 ай бұрын
As a. Twenty something subsaharan African from Kenya,I do appreciate this channel, I'm always hungry for knowledge and this is where I run to when I want to learn one or two things
@canislupus909
Жыл бұрын
but I am none of that, neither a college/uni/academic student nor a parent.
@J-YouTube324
7 ай бұрын
Those tests are RIGGED!! haha j/k 😆
@BENZIVAR93
Жыл бұрын
i love this guys teaching! he is one of the best teachers i've ever seen
Пікірлер: 153