Metaphysics is all of the deepest "What is the nature of" questions. Epistemology is the metaphysics of truth, knowledge, and certainty.

This is one of those videos that's so valuable it fits into a ton of different subjects! Just added it to 15 playlists.

Nice job! I teach philosophy at a good university and you covered a lot of ground with efficiency.

Thanks man. It's helpful for my philosophical studies as my main course of studies

Becoming one of my favourite KZread channels!

In 2021: 'He thinks therefore ban him'.

@Kambopavisaccentric

2 жыл бұрын

We have anonymous to protect him

@luckyyuri

2 жыл бұрын

What’s paradoxical is that everyone today would agree with that :)

@mangaisubburaj4106

Жыл бұрын

😃😃😃😃

@mangaisubburaj4106

Жыл бұрын

Hey, leave him

@themaedog

Жыл бұрын

Shut up glowie

Amazing content as always!

Great vids - They have sparked good discussion in my friend group

hey Ben.. U really did a very good job....hats off to ur good understanding..it's quite helpful

Keep doing man, I love your work.

Love your channel man. Have you considered doing a video on solipsism?

This is great! Thank you

Thank you for this fascinating lecture. I’ve studied systems of philosophy at university but it was a life time ago. You have explained ever so well. In a subject which is not an easy ride. I am certainly going to subscribe

Well done! 👏

Awesome video thanks

Great video :)

Great video

Thomas Aquinas seems to have the clearest position on all this cleaning up misunderstandings

new sub thanks!

Thanks so much ben

So would "what is the meaning of life" be an example of a metaphysics question, while, in epistemology, study lies within studying the nature of the question itself? EG: studying the relative meaning of the words life and meaning? So epistemology would be a cotagorized object within metaphysics?

@gooddaysahead1

Жыл бұрын

Yes. Good. The nature of being, ontology, would also be a category of metaphysics, today. "How do we know," or what is the process of gaining knowledge, is epistemology. How might we come to know the meaning of (human) life is a very complex question that would require the use of questions within all these categories. Existentialism is another branch of philosophy that would ask questions about meaning. Like I stated, it's a big question!

If you do decide to post more in the future, please just use one of the microphones closer to your mouth. The 2 microphones used like this are unnecessarily picking up the room ambience rather than your words. Appreciate the videos regardless, thank you for posting :)

Continental rationalism was a response to the gradual abandonment of the Greek notion of cosmos and its underlying metaphysics. The 'I' in Descartes' Cogito is essentially a refuge for Being. However, without an ontological basis for 'thinking', both the 'I" and 'Being' are at the mercy of empiricism's interrogations and the absurdities of reductionism. The Greeks, as understood through Plato and Aristotle, began with Being, rather than thought alone, in as a sense, beginning with, "I am", rather than I think. Western thought is rather impoverished without regard for these humble and profound beginnings. The devotion to new metaphysics is more so a pantomime, than an honest inquiry.

@roktman

4 ай бұрын

is there a marine rationalism too? or like... aquatic or something...

Metaphysics seems to bridge the two fundamental axioms, ontology (existence) and epistemology (consciousness).

@rishabhthakur8773

7 күн бұрын

Acc. to advait vedanta Existence = Consciousness = ultimate reality .

How do we know that other species don't ask themselves these questions? Or further questions? We [humans] evolve and transform the world based of our perspective of it-not on how it actually is-which no one has knowledge of. A good book I liked was "The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception."

2:29 Rene Descartes: I think, therefore I AM. Me: I eat, therefore I AM. The big question is the "I"... what makes us think that the "I" is real?

@emiledin2183

6 ай бұрын

Because we are rational beings that live and can percieve reality. We know reality is real because we can predict the future (using mathematical formula), this intails objectivity, meaning a God which grounds our reality.

@MyCorrectOpinion

Ай бұрын

@@emiledin2183 Transcendental argument?

Present sir

Does death really mean there had to be life?

Subjectivism refutes logical positivism? I don’t fully agree. Please explain more.

@emiledin2183

6 ай бұрын

Subjectivism claims nothing is objective, that disputes all of math, science etc, which logical positivism approves of.

@MyCorrectOpinion

Ай бұрын

@@emiledin2183 I love how it is impossible to prove subjectivism is wrong because, to do that, is to assume objectivism.

Its unfortunate in a sense that it’s so complex and there isn’t one view that many.. many agree on.

👏🙂 Super

🕊

We are limited. Maybe coming to grips with this, and letting go, is a spanner in the works.

@bobcat2938

3 жыл бұрын

Then again, how do we know we are limited? Maybe there is an answer to every question. Maybe a solution to every problem. Maybe I can live without oxygen.

@bobcat2938

3 жыл бұрын

Lol. Maybe then the rules still apply.

@landphilspecter

2 жыл бұрын

@@bobcat2938 You can live without oxygen, just not in your present form.

The self that speaks. The self that apprehends. The self that dies. Death is the ground of metaphysics. Language is the ground of epistemology. Memory, will, reflection, consciousness, association, separation, imagination and every other faculty of mind, or being, are the ground of ontology. Metaphysics is religion without the mystery of creation: Creation revealed. Creation is to metaphysics as causation is to physics. Facts Wisdom Lore. Words Grammar Story. Letters Sound Meaning. Numbers Logic Equality.

A 2:40

Philosophy is kill me😭😭 still trying not to fail

My brain hurts and I like it.

Free will has it's limitations.

philosophy faces an existential threat in universities and this is one of the reasons of its agitation/angst to invent new venues of...existing.

@MyCorrectOpinion

Ай бұрын

Universities educate you on stupidity, so you are "educated", just not smart.

The dude was called Descartes.

Metaphysics would be math. Epistemology would be physics. For example if I have two rocks. Each rock would have to be equal to 1. BUT epistemologically speaking. Each rock is not exactly the same therefore slightly unequal therefore not exactly 2. More like 1.237 + 1.46652 = 2.123456 Because there's always a different physical rock one could point to. Which of course would be slightly larger or smaller, rougher or smoother, heavier or lighter, browner or grayer, redder or bluer, etc etc. Even if you had two rocks that were exactly equal in all that criteria. The fine atomic structure would still not be equal. And if nothing can be exactly equal? Then 1+1 cannot = 2. 1+1 is merely identical to 2. Which isn't 2 but one instance of 1 each. Epistemologically speaking. Metaphysically speaking? Equal and Unequal are the Oppisite to 1. Because 1 cannot be oppiste to itself and still be 1. But if 1 is the opposite of equal and unequal? What is equal and unequal = to? The Many. The many is = to unequal and equal. As The Many contains both equal and unequal. Hence Plato's defenition of knowledge. One over Many. Or conversly E Plubris Unum. Out of Many One. Which is written on our US currency. 🤔 E Plubris Unum... I need to look up the history and narrative to that. Can't believe they put that on our money.

@rsg9864

4 ай бұрын

Hey there, I'm new to this and interested in studying about these topics. Can you please tell me where and how to start??

@evo1ov3

4 ай бұрын

@@rsg9864 That there is all 100% Plato's writings! Clearly it's not 100% of his ideas. Because he constantly studied with other people his whole life. He's just probably the first person to synthesize all his ideas on paper that we know about. And believe you me or ask anyone else.... Plato has a metric TON of ideas. So be advised. You'll be reading someone who's intelligence level is literally off the charts. But if you stick with him. You'll be shocked to discover that Plato? Is actually quite easy to understand. Why? Start with the end of Book VI of the Republic beginning with the Simile of the Sun then read through the analogy of the Divided Line. 3rdly read ALL of Repulic Book VII which immediately begins with The Allegory of the Cave. (You're going to need Simile of the Sun and Analogy of the Divided Line to understand Allegory of the Cave) Finally? Close the book. Let everything sink in. The next day. Start over from the beginning. What you will be shocked to discover. Is that Plato's logic works very much like the order of operations to Algebra (PEDMAS parentheses exponents multiply add subtract) Only? This is 40Obce Greece and ALGEBRA has not been invented yet! 😆 Plato only has access to Arithmetic and Geometry. At this junction. You may like I had to do. Relearn or tutor yourself again on the basics of Arithmetic and Geometry. I'm a little bit older and haven't sat in a math class in litteraly decades. But it is absolutely important that you understand basic Arithmetic and Geometry if you are going to continue on with Plato. I cannot stress enough how much importance that is. Why? Well there's another student of Plato that the educational establishment doesn't tell you about. (Can't quite imagine why lol) And that is Euclid. Yes The Euclid of Euclidean Geometry EUCLID. Oh sure they'll talk about Plato's other student Aristotle all day long into the next big bang and until the end of the universe and time itself. But just be advised that the dude who wrote Elements? Euclid of Alexandria. Studied with Plato at some point. Or so they say. Anyways that's gonna become important later on when see the scope of what Plato's ideas did for the "Western Tradition." But back to my analogy of PEDMAS to Plato's logic. At the end of Republic VI after Simile of the Sun you should have picked up 4 words. Imagination Belief Thought Understanding. Or Ekisia Pistis Dianoa Noēsis. Or the 1234 "Objects of Thought" (you'll see objects of thought pop up from time to time from any given random philosophy teacher) MEMEORIZE that sequence. Think about how that sequence works. Use synonyms, put it into your own words. Just at a very minimum understand how an image or an illusion turns into a belief or opinion. From there an opinion turns into an argument or a science claim involving sensible empirical evidence and finally after all that is done. When you have your idea, statement and argument. How all that turns into a THEORY or "Ideal" 🙂 See where this is going?!? 🤣 Congratulations you now understand 90% of all philosophy. Or what Plato's Academy defines as φιλοσοφία: "Desire for the knowledge of that which always exist. The state which contemplates the truth. What makes it true. Cultivation of the soul based upon correct reason." 90% of philosophy, you understand it. When you read Plato. Or when Plato reads you. (Loljk) it'll appear like binary 1 and 0 computer code. Or 1111112222221111122221111133333333222222233333333433333334333222111333444444444444. Plato ALWAYS begins with 1 imagination goes to 2 belief then to 3 thought and finally 4 Understanding. And never skips a step. He'll even put in "Easter Egg" jokes that only a reader who understands his 4 step Divided Line system will understand. No seriously. "And what of this 3rd thing Galucon?" "One Two Three... But where is our Fourth Timaeus?" Plato is absolutely fucking WILD. I am not even kidding. Being able to understand Plato is its own reward. Trust me. So where was I? Ah yes the 4 Contexts of Thought from the Divided Line = the minimum you need to understand 90% of philosophy. Now for the GOOO PART. The final 10% THE MOST IMPORTANT PART OF ALL PHILOSOPHY Oh your gonna like this shit. Because this is THE most important you will ever ever ever ever learn. It will absolutely fry your brain. And that has to do with... OPPISITES I don't give a fuck who you are. How much "education" you think you have. Where you're from what you believe or how many bullshit fucking degrees you think you have. I will literally fight someone in the street over this. This is so fucking important. I cannot even begin to explain the absolute profundity of how important this is and how central to basic logic it is. After you have learned the 4 part Divided Line. You need to learn how to do Oppisites. To test we start all over at the very very beginning with Euthphyro. "Is piety pious because the gods love it. Or is piety loved by the gods because it is pious?" Do you understand philosophy? Or is philosophy not understood by YOU?" Another words basic logic. Of subject and predicate. Or as Aristotle calls it Antecedent and Consequent. This is where dialectic begins. And where a basic understanding of Arithmetic and Geometry is existentially important. As Plato warns in Republic. That just knowing how to do dialectic (oppisite questioning) alone leads to nihilism. Another words you'll get what Socrates calls misology or misanthropy. The hatred of arguments. Plato goes a step further and says you'll forget about the meaning of life get depressed and want to kill yourself. Hence the warning that was said to be above his Academy: "Let None Pass Who Has Not Studied Geometry." Plato is dead fucking serious. Plato believes that an afterlife is possible and possibly a form of reincarnation based upon reports of what we call today as "Near Death Experiences." (See Republic X Myth of Er and Phaedo) Also there is a "God" but not what you or I call "God." But The One. Which is not God. Kinda like the Singularity of the Big Bang if you will. That's the "God" if you must assign a belief similar to that to Plato. Point is Plato doesn't want evil to overtake a person's soul so that they end up committing suicide or other irreversible acts of violence. Or even worse they use his teachings to become a political Tyrant.(See GWF Hegel, Karl Marx for more on that subject) And Plato ends up being held accountable in a "Life Review" when he dies and finds out what the Perfect Form of Justice and Injustice actually ARE. #FAFO another words. And trust me you will fuck around and find out if you don't take this "oppisite" and its solution "The Idea of The Equal" shit seriously. And learn about basic Arithmetic and Geometry. So you don't fall down into that bottomless pit of "nothingness." (Which actually is something because you can't paradoxically claim to know nothing) Anyways to summarize. Start with Republic VI and VIi. Close the book. Start over from the beginning. Finish it. (See Michael Sugrue's lectures from the 1990s on Plato's Republic. He's now much older. And claims to have read it now....... An unbelievable 50+ times... If only he knew about how The plain meaning of Thales Right Angle Theorm and Thales Proportionally Theorm applies and is used by Plato as his basis for logic applies to the Republic) But like I said #FAFO Or get brushed up on basic Arithmetic and Geometry. It's your choice. I cannot do it for you. 1)So Republic VI and VII at a minimum. 2)Start over and Finish Republic 3)Read Euthphyro. 4)Next Apology. (Euthphyro sets up Apology) 5) Crito (didn't care for Crito. Probably just skip it. But read it once) 6) Phaedo. (omfg read Phaedo) 7) Meno 8) Symposium 9) Read Republic again. And be amazed at what the fuck that book is. Which is a book.But omfg. If it isn't what Plato said about "Writing is the Geometry of The Soul." 10) Then have your mind completely blown away with Timaeus. Which is technically the "sequel" to Republic. But they didn't have the word sequel back then. So Plato just says it takes place the day after Republic And finally make sure you know Arithmetic Geometry and especially how Thales Theorm works: Draw a circle with a line straight through it so that each half of the circle is Equal to the other Half. Now Divide the Line once on the north and south where the line meets the circle. Call these OPPISITE POINTS A & B . Now arbitrarily Divide the circle again. Anywhere you want it. Now call this POINT C. Now draw two lines from Point A and Point B to point C. C IS ALAWAYS A RIGHT ANGLE. AND THE BASES OF THE TRIANGLE OPPISITE POINTS A & B ARE ALWAYS EQUAL ( aka The Isoceles Triangle ) So what? Where A is Man B is Mortal C is Socrates A➡️B C➡️A C➡️B △ 1. All men are Mortal. 2. Socrates is a Man. C. Therefore Socrates is Mortal. Or 1.All Mothers are Female 2. Mary is a Mother ∴ Mary is Female △ Like I said. Study Geometry before reading Plato. Or #FAFO Your choice. No pressure.😊

@rsg9864

4 ай бұрын

@@evo1ov3 Omg, man I can feel and see you and your inner thoughts just by looking at this. Yes, I met you without meeting you 😅. You are fukin awesome and yeah I'll give it a try I promise I won't let your patience and writing to go waste. Thanks a lot for your time and I wonder what might be your age (maybe 50?🤣🤣) but I am young asf so don't worry I am yet to get a degree 😂...

@evo1ov3

4 ай бұрын

Lol thanks man! Speaking of writing after I wrote that long ass post. I guess, the KZread algorithm started recommending some absolutely insane content on Plato and philosophy. There was this one especially. That just.... Blew me the hell away. Listening to it I was just stunned and rendered speechless. The video was called: Why we should read Plato by - Jerry Balmuth I was like omfg... wow. Just utterly at a loss for words. If I heard this lecture 30 years ago when I started college. That's nuts. Anyways he breaks down the 4 stoic values of Wisdom, Courage, Temperance. And Justice. Not just what they kinda are in general. But how they are exactly logically derived from Plato's philosophy and account of Socrates. How the theory of the forms actually works. What "virtue" is. Another word for the "excellence" of a thing. For example the virtue of a thumb is that it allows you to grasp coffee. That the virtue of reason is wisdom. That the excellence of appetite is moderation. That the excellence of passion or spirtedness (think athletes and physical training) is Courage. I mean I sorta had my own ideas from my studies. That like Courage is the knowledge of bravery and cowardice. That Wisdom was the mean in between knowledge ignorance. That moderation was the middle ground in between extreme disciplined behavior and extreme excessive indulgence like drinking eating and dating to excess. So that you like a fool to your friends. (Cleary I need to work on the "appetite" part in some ways.) But yeah all that shit checked out. The greek words for those three things are logos, thymos, and eros. So I already knew about that. But this guy's lecture like condensed whole entire lifetime's of studying philosophy into one hour. I was just like... Holy %&%# And you wanna know why? Dude was 93 years old. Enlisted in the United States Army World War II 😳. Became a commissioned officer during World War II.... My god. Just woah. So I felt I'd be remice in my duty to intellectual honesty. If I didn't bring that up. I mean you can "learn" how to think about "philosophy" from a millon different people. But what about from a US Army that fought fucking national socialists in World War II? If anybody's perspective ought to be heard about philosophy... I mean idk. I've been thinking about this bullshit for a long time. That should have been at the very top of my list a very very long time ago. I'm still speechless. 😆 "Follow the argument wherever it may lead." Right?! Lol! Thank you for the kind words! Take care!

Is it just me, or does David Hume look like Nicholas Cage?

Matt Dillahunty sent me here.

gravity acceleration is 9,81m per second? wrong. per second per second or per second squared. God is in the details.

@roktman

4 ай бұрын

yeah... ive met her.. shes black...

The fields of epistemology and metaphysics do not help us answer questions so much as they help us ask more and (hopefully) better questions.

and then FUNDEMANTAL? OMG

Metaphysics and Epistemology are NOT two branches of philosophy. You might describe them as two dimensions of it, but even that is wrong. You cannot talk about knowledge without having something to know about. Rather , Epistemology and Ontology are two pillars supporting an arch, with Metaphysics being the whole structure.

@MyCorrectOpinion

Ай бұрын

true!

How is the knowledge that’s studied in epistemology different from the knowledge that only normal people with average intelligence can acquire! And by normal people I mean people without any “Intellectual/ Developmental Disabilities” that would impair their learning abilities!

I’m not sure epistemology is equated with metaphysics. Nor should it be confused. Epistemology is a subject of matter, metaphysics is not

Epistemology is a sub-branch of metaphysics. If we separate the two then we cannot expect to get to the bottom of either. That is to say, be cautious of what is said here. Note that all the philosophers quoted were unable to make sense of metaphysics or epistemology,

@NoHateLikeChristianLove

2 жыл бұрын

That’s not true. The device you’re using now is the result of a practical application of science which is “epistemology”. No one has EVER made a practical application using “metaphysics” and that’s the whole point of scientific inquiry. We need more practical applications and less sophistry.

@3jay22

2 жыл бұрын

@@NoHateLikeChristianLove practical application? was that a hiccup or are you seriously suggesting there is such thing as “practical application” in nature?

@NoHateLikeChristianLove

2 жыл бұрын

@@3jay22 I said “practical applications”. If you’re not sure what that is look it up. “Metaphysics” can’t demonstrate any practical applications. I’m not sure why you went to “nature” when that’s not what I said. What do YOU think practical applications are?

@peterjones6507

2 жыл бұрын

@@NoHateLikeChristianLove You cannot say 'nobody has ever...'. It is unrigorous speech. You mean only that you have not seen such an application. I find metaphysics practical because, besides including the study of epistemology, it allows us to prove that only one description of reality works in logic. People who find it useless simply have not noticed this. Nagarjuna and Bradley would be counter-examples to your claim. I would agree that metaphysics is hopeless in our universities but this is not the fault of the discipline. It's ability to prove that materialism and idealism don't work would count as an example of its practicality, as would its ability to counteract all but one theory of consciousness. After all, metaphysics is simply thinking a lot about fundamental questions - such as the nature and origin of knowledge - and it would be foolish for an intelligent person not to do this. I do understand your low view of the discipline, however, since it is the view of most professors of philosophy. It's just that this view collapses when we closely study the logic.

@peterjones6507

4 ай бұрын

@@NoHateLikeChristianLove I take it you have no interest in the Perennial philosophy, for which knowing is fundamental. If you cannot falsify this philosophy then you cannot prove epistemology can be done without metaphysics. I'd say the state of metaphysics and epistemology in academia is clear proof that separating them is the road to nowhere.

fundemental? spelling first.

3:35 subtly scoffing at skeptical empiricists.

@bon12121

2 жыл бұрын

5:38 very good point.

@bon12121

2 жыл бұрын

but to be honest, this isn't a criticism of skeptical empiricism. It would have to be re-worded ' only statements that can be falsified by experiment are meaningful' is not falsifiable Is true, but not a criticism. Falsifiability is intrinsic to logic. take reductio ad absurdum for instance.

@bon12121

2 жыл бұрын

this is because 'verifiability' only exists in the strictly logical sense to a skeptic, not in the inductive sense.

@bon12121

2 жыл бұрын

I literally pressed pause at this point and thought for 20-30 minutes, then clicked unpause and saw that you talked immediately next of skeptical empiricists.

Wtf metaphysics. So off science

@itsjustanapple5452

2 жыл бұрын

Metaphysics is reality. Science is just a tool

@MyCorrectOpinion

Ай бұрын

LOL!!! Science assumes metaphysics in the first place! To even assume science in the first place, you must assume induction, causality, and the myth of the given. All are, like, philosophical questions broo.

@MyCorrectOpinion

Ай бұрын

If you really think science is the only thing that gives you truth, just prove science with science.

@swedensy

29 күн бұрын

@@MyCorrectOpinion woo wooo

When God entered his creation in time,in the form of Jesus Christ, the truth of reality was complete. The Bible is a reliable collection of historical documents, written by eyewitnesses during the lifetime of eyewitnesses.They reported on supernatural events that took place to fulfil specific prophecies,and claimed they were divine and not human in origin. Why are we here? To glorify God throughout our short lives. The God breathed scriptures are our guide to how joy and eternal happiness can be achieved.

@roktman

4 ай бұрын

bro... how do you know all this... have you met god?? i have in a dream.. and she was a black woman!!!

@MyCorrectOpinion

Ай бұрын

@@roktman He's a brown man.

All this sounds ridiculous