Hello Sir, This is your regular viewer. I graduated in English Literature and love to watch your lectures. I also recommend your videos to my friends too. Moreover, I would say you are doing great work. Keep it up! I have some suggestions for you. Please make videos on: 1) where to start philosophy for beginners. 2) Philosophy books for beginners

@3rd_POV

3 ай бұрын

Thanks Zain, I know you are a regular and also thanks for spreading the word. Good suggestions, will do.

Excellent. LOL. I feel nostalgic listening to your karachi wali urdu explaining complex ideas in the most simple way for people like me.

@3rd_POV

21 сағат бұрын

Haha thanks - some others have also told me that I have a typical Karachi style, and why not, lived there long enough!!!

this channel is extremely underrated..........needs more advertising

@3rd_POV

3 ай бұрын

Please share this channel with your friends

Philosophy with Karachi touch🤗 On serous note, great content 🙌🏼

@3rd_POV

3 ай бұрын

Thx

brilliant, i also loved your summary of kafka's trial

@3rd_POV

3 ай бұрын

Thx

Love you from india Kashmir ,,, Keep going

@3rd_POV

3 ай бұрын

Thanks

@musalone1405

3 ай бұрын

hi bro m from Gurez❤

@3rd_POV

3 ай бұрын

@@musalone1405 great

Sir your reasearch is on excellence level, upload more. Sir you don't know how much I am enjoying it.

@3rd_POV

3 ай бұрын

Thanks - please share my channel with your friends

Sir plz make a long video about philosphy of Heidegger ,,,

@3rd_POV

3 ай бұрын

Will do, but I think before him we will have to cover others. But I will keep him in mind.

great content love from india

@3rd_POV

3 ай бұрын

Thx

@user-si2zr7we3y

3 ай бұрын

​@@3rd_POVسر آپ کا کہناہے کہ wurld war one کی وجوہات مذہب تھا تو میرا سوال ہے جرمنی اور انگلینڈ تو زیادہ تر دونوں ایک ہی مذہب کے ماننے والے تھے عسایت کے

@3rd_POV

3 ай бұрын

@@user-si2zr7we3y Hey thanks for your comment. I never said that the reason of the first world war was religion. On another note, European countries fought with each other for 200 years after reformation, it was largely between Catholics and Protestants. You can get more details about the Protestant reformation in my 2 videos that I made on Reformation.

A genius and great intellect.❤❤

@3rd_POV

3 ай бұрын

Hume was indeed - he deflated the balloon of reason.

Love from India

@3rd_POV

3 ай бұрын

Thanks

Love from Indian Gurez (Shina community)❤

@3rd_POV

3 ай бұрын

Thank you for your support

very very nice explanation sir❣..sir if you dont mind ek baat bolta hu aap har video ka kuch accha part crop karke shorts video ke form mein dala kijiye jiasen aap thora din pehle dale they isse apke channel rise karega.

@3rd_POV

3 ай бұрын

Good idea yar, I will try to do that. Thanks for your support.

Boht khoob.

@3rd_POV

3 ай бұрын

Thx

Another great video👍

@3rd_POV

3 ай бұрын

Thx

Sir plz aik video me Apna introduction b de dn.I really appreciate your work

@3rd_POV

26 күн бұрын

Ok will do brother

Great work brother....✌

@3rd_POV

3 ай бұрын

Thanks ✌️

Aristotle phar bhi video banado sir

@3rd_POV

3 ай бұрын

Will do - thx

Good 😊

@3rd_POV

3 ай бұрын

Thanks 😊

Many of Hume's objections can be answered. Objection (1) :"A great number of men join in building a house or a ship, in rearing a city, in framing a commonwealth: why may not several deities combine in contriving and framing a world?" Responses: "If the physical universe is the product of intelligent design, rather than being a pure accident, it is more likely to be the handiwork of only one rather than more than one intelligence. This is so for two broad reasons. The first reason is the need for theoretical parsimony. In the absence of any evidence for supposing the universe to be the handiwork of more than one intelligence rather than only one, then, faced with a choice between supposing it the handiwork of one or of more than one intelligent designer, we should choose to suppose it to be the creation of only one. For it is not necessary to postulate more than one to account for the phenomena in question. The second reason for preferring the hypothesis of there being only one designer of the universe to supposing more than one is that the general harmony and uniformity of everything in the universe suggest that, should it be the product of design, it is more likely to be the handiwork of a single designer, rather than a plurality of designers who might have been expected to have left in their joint product some trace of their plural individualities. " (David Conway "Rediscovery Of Wisdom") "And, to jump ahead a bit, there are two further problems with polytheism as an explanation of the existence of not merely a universe but a universe governed throughout space and time by the same natural laws . If this order in the world is to be explained by many gods, then some explanation is required for how and why they cooperate in producing the same patterns of order throughout the universe. This becomes a new datum requiring explanation for the same reason as the fact of order itself. The need for further explanation ends when we postulate one being who is the cause of the existence of all others, and the simplest conceivable such-I urge-is God. And, further, the power of polytheism to explain this order in the world is perhaps not as great as that of theism. If there were more than one deity responsible for the order of the universe, we would expect to see characteristic marks of the handiwork of different deities in different parts of the universe, just as we see different kinds of workmanship in the different houses of a city. We would expect to find an inverse square of law of gravitation obeyed in one part of the universe, and in another part a law that was just short of being an inverse square law-without the difference being explicable in terms of a more general law." (Richard Swinburne "The Existence Of God") Objection (2) :"[I]f we survey the universe ..., it bears a great resemblance to an animal or organized body, and seems actuated with a like principle of life and motion. A continual circulation of matter in it ...: a continual waste in every part is incessantly repaired: the closest sympathy is perceived throughout the entire system: and each part or member ... operates both to its own preservation and to that of the whole [I]t must be confessed, that... the universe resembles more a human body than it does the works of human art and contrivance [Y]et is the analogy also defective in many circumstances ...: no organs of sense; no seat of thought or reason; no one precise origin of motion and action. In short, it seems to bear a stronger resemblance to a vegetable than to an animal." Response: "Hume's argument seems weak. Hume's claim is that the physical universe - more specifically, our solar system - bears a closer resemblance to some animal or a vegetable than it does some machine or other artefact. The claim is unconvincing. In its manifest workings, the physical universe in general, and our own solar system in particular, exhibits a degree of regularity and predictability that far exceeds that which is exhibited by any animal or vegetable. After all, it is by the sun that we set our clocks and not by the comings and goings of sun-flowers or salamanders! That this is so suggests that the physical universe more closely resembles some regular and predictable machine or artefact, for example a clock, than it does any far less regular and predictable animal or vegetable. " (David Conway "Rediscovery Of Wisdom") Objection (3) :"But how this argument can have place where the objects, as in the present case, are single, individual, without parallel or specific resemblance, may be difficult to explain." Responses: "From time to time various writers have told us that we cannot reach any conclusions about the origin or development of the universe, since it is the only one of which we have knowledge, and rational inquiry can reach conclusions only about objects that belong to kinds, for example, it can reach a conclusion about what will happen to this bit of iron only because there are other bits of iron, the behaviour of which can be studied. This objection has the surprising, and to most of these writers unwelcome, consequence, that physical cosmology could not reach justified conclusions about such matters as the size, age, rate of expansion, and density of the universe as a whole (because it is the only one of which we have knowledge); and also that physical anthropology could not reach conclusions about the origin and development of the human race (because, as far as our knowledge goes, it is the only one of its kind). The implausibility of these consequences leads us to doubt the original objection, which is indeed totally misguided." (Richard Swinburne "The Existence Of God") "By tracing the origin of the physical universe to a supposed 'Big Bang', modern cosmology places Hume in the following dilemma. Either, he must deny that the physical universe as a whole is singular and unique, on the grounds that it resembles other things besides it that explode, such as grenades. Or, alternatively, should he insist on the uniqueness of the physical universe, he must concede that there are some unique things which are capable of standing as terms of causal relations. " (David Conway "Rediscovery Of Wisdom") "Second, Hume seems to assume that the universe is unique and conclusions cannot be reached about unique objects by analogy. But this is false as well. Astronomers reach conclusions all the time about the origin of the universe and this is unique. Furthermore, all events are unique in some sense, but no one would want to say that arguments by analogy do not apply to any objects whatever. The fact that the universe or some other object is unique does not rule out the possibility that it has properties in common with some other object, including some of its parts. For example, there may be only one object which satisfies the description "the tallest man in Maryland," but one could still compare this object with other objects and make judgments about the origination of the object. If one accepted Hume's principle it would seem to rule out the possibility of discovering a new culture and inferring that an utterly new and unique object in that culture was designed. But such an inference seems to be quite possible." (J.P Moreland "Scaling The Secular City")

ماشااللہ بہترین

@3rd_POV

3 ай бұрын

Thx

Keepgoing 👑

@3rd_POV

3 ай бұрын

Thx

Hi, Sir does this analogy also apply to Marcus Aurelius I don't think he build any castles or indulge in vigorous sexual activities he was a simple man who wrote and followed stoic philosophies he was a philosopher king...personally "mediations" really helped me alot..these book summeries are good but i would suggest u to make videos on specific topics i.e common ideas like nihilism, absurdism that'll definitely catch the eyes of people imo

@3rd_POV

3 ай бұрын

Hey, thanks for your comment, I know stoic philosophy helps many people, somehow I don’t like it. You know Gibbons said that the downfall of Roman Empire started when Marcus Aurelius made his son the next king. His son was a tyrant.

@Ynwa00

3 ай бұрын

@@3rd_POV okay thanks sir🙏

Good sir

@3rd_POV

3 ай бұрын

Thanks and welcome

❤❤❤❤❤

@3rd_POV

3 ай бұрын

Thx

👍

@3rd_POV

3 ай бұрын

Thanks

❤

@3rd_POV

3 ай бұрын

Thx

Hume says:"Why may not the material universe be the necessarily existent Being?" Responses: "First, these ideas are in conflict with modern science. According to science, many natural laws are statistical in nature. Statistical laws are probabilistic: Given the initial conditions, the results are probable, not necessary, and more than one result can occur. For instance, according to modern physics, the laws governing subatomic particles (e.g., electrons and protons) are statistical. Second, if the processes of the world are logically necessary and can be traced back to some ultimate necessary fact, then every event is determined in the strongest possible sense. Why accept that? Virtually everyone has deep-lying metaphysical intuitions to the contrary. For example, I've got a red shirt on, but it certainly seems to me that I could have put a white shirt on instead. I think we ought to accept such metaphysical intuitions in the absence of very strong arguments to the contrary. " (Stephen Layman "Letters To Doubting Thomas") "Which aspects of physical reality are necessary and why should we think this? According to contemporary physics, even the smallest subatomic particles have not always existed but came into being early in the expansion of the cosmos. And remember, a necessary being cannot fail to exist under any circumstances and so will be without beginning." (Stephen Layman "Letters To Doubting Thomas")

Excellent example 😂 apna pyar khud hi krna paray ga 😂 9:03

@3rd_POV

3 ай бұрын

Thx

🫡

@3rd_POV

3 ай бұрын

Thx

Dear, hum apnay abba Kay piyar ko bhee saraahtain hain… 🤔

@3rd_POV

3 ай бұрын

Lol

Hume's objection to the cosmological proof is also untenable. Objection:"In such a ... succession of objects, each part is caused by that which preceded it and causes that which succeeds it. Where then is the difficulty? But the whole, you say, wants a cause. I answer that the uniting of parts into a whole, like the uniting of several distinct countries into one kingdom, .. . is performed merely by an arbitrary act of the mind and has no influence on the nature of things. Did I show you the particular causes of each individual in a collection of twenty particles of matter, I should think it very unreasonable should you afterwards ask me what was the cause of the whole twenty. This is sufficiently explained in explaining the cause of the parts." Responses: "Consider an illustration. Suppose that the series of contingent beings were merely a series of self-propagating robots, each one bringing the next into existence. No matter how far back in time you go, there was just one of these robots functioning. Each robot functions for, say, ten years, then, in the last few minutes of functioning, propagates a new robot. (Just as the new robot starts to function, the old one ceases to function and disintegrates.) Now, in this scheme, we have a cause for the existence and functioning of each of the robots. But we have not identified a cause of the robot series as a whole. For example, what causes (or caused) the series to be one of robots rather than one of rocks, roses, rats, or reindeer? What is the cause of there being any robots at all? That question has not been answered. In the same way, even if we know that each contingent being is caused to exist by some other contingent being, we still do not have an explanation for the fact that there are contingent beings. There might have been nothing at all or only necessary beings." (Stephen Layman "Letters To Doubting Thomas") "Moreover, it is simply false to suppose (as Hume does) that when, for each individual contingent thing, we’ve identified some further contingent thing as its immediate cause, then we’ve explained everything that there is to explain. To borrow an example from Leibniz, suppose there were an infinite series of geometry books, each one of which was copied from a preexisting one. We would have an immediate cause for each book, but obviously we would not have explained everything. For example, why does the series of books have the specific content that it has rather than some other content? Why is it that geometry is the subject matter of each of them? Why isn’t it instead a book of Shakespeare plays, or a coloring book, or an automotive repair manual, that gets copied and recopied infinitely? By the same token, even if we suppose that the series of contingent things that make up our universe in one way or other extends backward infinitely, we still have not explained everything. For example, why does the series consist of just the specific kinds of contingent things it does, rather than some other kinds? Why is it stones, trees, dogs, human beings, planets, stars, solar systems, galaxies, and so forth, that make up the infinite series of contingent things that we actually have? Why not some other sorts of contingent things entirely? Why is our infinitely old universe (supposing that it is infinitely old), or the infinite series of universes (if we suppose instead that there is such a series), or the multiverse (if we suppose that that is the correct scenario), governed by exactly the laws of nature which do in fact govern it, rather than some other laws? To answer such questions, we need to appeal to something over and above the series of contingent things, even if we suppose the series to regress infinitely. " (Edward Feser "Five Proofs Of The Existence Of God") "Hume's objection has force only if he is correct to suppose that the parts of any whole none of which exist necessarily in and of themselves can each and all be fully explained in terms of other members of that same whole. This supposition may be doubted. The causal explanations of the parts of any such whole in terms of other parts cannot add up to a causal explanation of the whole, if the items mentioned as causes are items whose own existence stands in need of a causal explanation. The fatal flaw in Hume's supposition has been well put by James Sadowsky. He asks, how any member [of any such causal series] can do any causing unless it first exists. B cannot cause A until D brings it into existence. What is true of D is equally true of E and F without end. Since each condition for the existence of A requires the fulfilment of a prior condition, it follows that none of them can ever be fulfilled. In each case what is offered as part of the solution turns out instead to be part of the problem." (David Conway "Rediscovery Of Wisdom")