Пікірлер

• 
  @unsilencedderp941111 сағат бұрын

  hypocrisy or double standards are used when traits of two different things are compared, and you treat similar traits in one instance in a different way than in another because of irrationality. Hypocrisy is different for some people, because of how different people hold different moral positions. One person might say that treating an older son more favorably than a younger son would be being hypocritical because the traits that are being compared is the value of the two kids which most people consider to be equal. Another person might say that not pulling the lever on the trolly problem to kill your oldest son in order to save four random people would also be immoral, since most people think human life should be considered equal. Calling out hypocrisy is almost always a dumb idea, a much more effective way to have a conversation would be to discuss the differences between the morality you and whoever you disagree with has rather than mindlessly pointing out the fact that you think the other person is a hypocrite when that is only true from your point of view. An exception to this would be if you knew for certain what the other person believed, and knew that they didn't know that they were being a hypocrite. Also, if someone says they don't have a double standard, that doesn't mean they do. This argument is on par with "if they say they aren't lying, they are definitely lying."

• 
  @abdallahmosaad857417 сағат бұрын

  I was watching the lecture of the autonomous art work by doctor fry and this lecture saved by brain from shattering

• 
  @LucielStarz123Күн бұрын

  This is the college class I deserved

• 
  @freedsurfer6207Күн бұрын

  What a fun thought rabbit hole you've dug into. I've found myself trying to define respect, you are knowledgeable.

• 
  @unsilencedderp941112 сағат бұрын

  respect is awe, admiration, or jelousy of someone, where you see how someone has specialized in a skill, typically leadership, to the point that you would trust just about anything they say on the topic because you are aware of their knowledge. Demanding respect is similar to demanding credit for a skill you have. The way that people typically demand respect, along with the way the way the Bible demands you respect people, doesn't make any sense when you observe the definition, since respect isn't something you can make yourself give, but something that can only be earned through convincing someone you are good for something. Although, people can also be duped into giving respect to a fraud, or give fake respect if you intimidate them into doing so.

• 
  @seawolfthenandnow76554 күн бұрын

  i tolerate a lot of things, but thats all i do is tolerate it.

• 
  @ToddMagnussonWasHere7 күн бұрын

  So your case is privacy can be a harboring ground for hypocrisy? I think this makes sense within a contextual space whereas you try to catch people abusing privileges by hiding behind firewalls like politicians doing insider trading. Also when I’m trying to grok this by reading the board, “Open Societies” is referring to your own definition in good faith and not the 1989 George Soros book definition where external actors can fund or lobby disruptive social movements from outside the country, which is in many ways worse then a ultra-private (isolationist) hypocritical super-structure. And what I meant by context is that you would form the context of transparency around a context (self, family, town, region, state/nation), you wouldn’t want your mind to be so open that it falls out because you loosen discernment and become too gullible, in the same way you wouldn’t want your choice of in-group context to be so open that external bad actors could poison the well of your trust and currency/trade networks. You have to draw a defensive boundary somewhere. I think the best path would be if a society has enough of a fracture in ideals that it has to accept a potential for new boundaries, trying to reincorporate a region by force only spikes distrust within breakaway cultures. That or the Swiss path where you instantiate new Cantons and leave their way of being alone. America is dealing with this right now with things like the State of Jefferson talks in North California or Greater Idaho. In this case the Federal government actually increases distrust in the entire system by standing in the way of self-determination of regional autonomy. Without adding an entire 2-3 more paragraphs, would the first two axis of Privacy<->Hypocrisy be benefited by adding Trust<->Distrust?

• 
  @ChucklesMcGurk11 күн бұрын

  Human beings are compulsive and extremely good liars. I used to think I could tell but I've realised I was only kidding myself. People are just too good at it. Hypocrisy is just the most obvious form of lying. Lying goes much deeper than that, where people convince themselves and live totally false lives.

• 
  @exili17 күн бұрын

  Random book nerd here, very much looking forward to the next video in this series, this was excellent!

• 
  @dr.richardfeist694310 күн бұрын

  Great, thanks for the comment. I hope that the videos are helpful. Cheers, Dr. F.

• 
  @sharmisthaandbooks25 күн бұрын

  You saved my anxious brain night before the test,thank you professor

• 
  @dr.richardfeist694310 күн бұрын

  Excellent. I hope that the test went well. Cheers, Dr. F.

• 
  @Edward-zw9ld28 күн бұрын

  Rawl believes in his own theory as somehow totally correct- he is wrong

• 
  @randelespanto6452Ай бұрын

  can u be my adviser on my MA thesis if possible regarding A M

• 
  @bulouvosnasser2429Ай бұрын

  really cool video

• 
  @dr.richardfeist6943Ай бұрын

  Thanks for the comment. Cheers, Dr. F

• 
  @jakefromkc8739Ай бұрын

  This series was fantastic! It really helped me understand what was going on. I can't wait to watch more of your videos!

• 
  @dr.richardfeist6943Ай бұрын

  Thanks for the nice comment! I am glad that you made it to the end and found it all worthwhile.

• 
  @toricorless5438Ай бұрын

  I had an interview and muttered “Abandon all hope ye who enter here, am I right???” To an older guy standing at this coffee table before the introductory breakfast. Yeah, he immediately went and sat at the faculty table. He was the main professor I was there to interview with. I had just never seen him with his mask on, or in person. 💀💀💀

• 
  @jazzgobrie7396Ай бұрын

  How do you deal with hypocrites?

• 
  @CIANBАй бұрын

  Prefixes?

• 
  @CIANBАй бұрын

  What's the difference between hyper and hypo is it the same thing?

• 
  @moonnight1616Ай бұрын

  Exactly what I searched for Very clear, but still compact

• 
  @dr.richardfeist6943Ай бұрын

  Thanks for the comment. I hope that the video was helpful.

• 
  @annapurna.Ай бұрын

  ❤

• 
  @pineapplefarmer73522 ай бұрын

  Excellent video

• 
  @dr.richardfeist69432 ай бұрын

  Thanks for this. I hope that it was helpful.

• 
  @aycacelik42792 ай бұрын

  Thank you for sharing this. It is very helpful.

• 
  @dr.richardfeist69432 ай бұрын

  Thanks for the comment and I am glad that my video was helpful. Cheers!

• 
  @bethpurkey46762 ай бұрын

  This is the most clear and helpful explanation of Foucault's "What is an Author?" that I've found so far. Thank you.

• 
  @dr.richardfeist69432 ай бұрын

  Thanks for the comment. I am glad that it was helpful.

• 
  @jimhutton41832 ай бұрын

  "promo sm" ✌️

• 
  @carolinafalcao43982 ай бұрын

  Thank you so much for this video! It helped me a lot :)

• 
  @dr.richardfeist69432 ай бұрын

  Thanks for watching. I am glad that it helped.

• 
  @schizophreniqqq2 ай бұрын

  Thank you for the lecture! It is going to be very useful for my Literary Criticism exam!

• 
  @dr.richardfeist69432 ай бұрын

  I am happy that this was helpful. Best of luck on your exam.

• 
  @haritaodedra55292 ай бұрын

  I have my literary Criticism paper, this really helped me revise the text. Thank you so much!

• 
  @dr.richardfeist69432 ай бұрын

  Thanks for watching and I am glad that it helped.

• 
  @samarthnayar41392 ай бұрын

  Please also discuss other philosopher's who responded to Rawls like Nozick, Sen, etc.

• 
  @samarthnayar41392 ай бұрын

  Thank you so much! Your explanation is very helpful. Please also include other lectures on Rawls.

• 
  @CaitlinChea3 ай бұрын

  I was so confused trying to understand this concept on my own, you helped me so much thank you!

• 
  @dr.richardfeist69433 ай бұрын

  Good to hear! Thanks for watching.

• 
  @user-uq7bp9wq3y3 ай бұрын

  Thank you 🙌

• 
  @dr.richardfeist69433 ай бұрын

  Thanks for watching.

• 
  @stevanisyarotty10314 ай бұрын

  I'm writing my master degree's dissertation, and this helps a lot ! thank you !!

• 
  @dr.richardfeist69434 ай бұрын

  Excellent. Thanks for the comment. All the best with your dissertation!

• 
  @henrifeist83294 ай бұрын

  Cutie!!!!

• 
  @rprz4764 ай бұрын

  Really helpful Sir.

• 
  @dr.richardfeist69434 ай бұрын

  Good to hear! Thanks.

• 
  @bobbytimmons124 ай бұрын

  THANK YOU MWAH MWAH

• 
  @bobbytimmons124 ай бұрын

  Thank you king

• 
  @dorotheemcmahon79254 ай бұрын

  Thank you for your videos. They really help get better grades in my philosophy class. Your summaries are great! I hope you will post the next parts soon, it would be neat:)

• 
  @dr.richardfeist69434 ай бұрын

  Thanks for this. I hope to do that soon.

• 
  @telejoymusic4 ай бұрын

  Sir my name is Alex and I want to communicate with you privately Also I really love your videos

• 
  @dr.richardfeist69434 ай бұрын

  Thanks for this. I am glad that you enjoy the videos!

• 
  @thekingmote5 ай бұрын

  Perfect❤

• 
  @dr.richardfeist69435 ай бұрын

  Thanks!

• 
  @adelisagasaj39335 ай бұрын

  Great videos, thanks. It would be helpful if the whiteboard is a bit closer to the camera.

• 
  @dr.richardfeist69435 ай бұрын

  Yes. I will look into that. Thanks.

• 
  @emiliadenaro44095 ай бұрын

  where are the others chapter?

• 
  @dr.richardfeist69435 ай бұрын

  I haven't been able to post more but I hope to, soon!!

• 
  @emiliadenaro44095 ай бұрын

  thank you from italy

• 
  @emiliadenaro44095 ай бұрын

  Thank you so much from Italy.

• 
  @dr.richardfeist69435 ай бұрын

  Thanks from Canada.

• 
  @shay07036 ай бұрын

  Thank you! your lecture was very helpful

• 
  @dr.richardfeist69436 ай бұрын

  Thanks for this. I am happy that it was helpful.

• 
  @sudikshasiddhi4576 ай бұрын

  Great lecture sir. Best of wishes from India:)

• 
  @dr.richardfeist69436 ай бұрын

  Thanks. I hope that is was helpful. Greetings from Canada.

• 
  @rentrapsoftware79056 ай бұрын

  You don't need to be too eager to explain, relax, and be more clear and articulate.

• 
  @madeleineyoung70625 ай бұрын

  you're so dramatic. chill tf out

• 
  @madeleineyoung70625 ай бұрын

  you definitely were not able to understand lectures at any decent college....

• 
  @tevaunАй бұрын

  Well, I am a professor and I think that he is doing a great job. It is all pretty clear.

• 
  @Prettyanonymou7 ай бұрын

  What a cool guy! THANK YOU for your videos! Got an exam tomorrow!

• 
  @ashkanrazzaghi25817 ай бұрын

  Thank you!

• 
  @1tom9447 ай бұрын

  i'm here for my presentation on this essay next week. This is helpful. Thanks

• 
  @dr.richardfeist69434 ай бұрын

  Good to hear. I am happy that it is of some help.

• 
  @Laocoon2837 ай бұрын

  Anyone else feel like socrates is just a fictional caricature of a type of person that Plato invented to write his dialogues? Why do people treat him as an actual person?

• 
  @dr.richardfeist69437 ай бұрын

  Thanks for the question. In the scholarly literature on Plato, it is generally accepted that Plato fictionalizes the historical Socrates. What is debated is the degree of Plato's fictionalizing. A good way to enter this vast discussion is to compare and contrast Plato's account of Socrates' trial and Xenophon's account of Socrates' trial. Then go to the secondary literature and you will find voluminous amounts on the "historical Socrates" and "Plato's Socrates".

• 
  @defenderofwisdom8 ай бұрын

  I would consider, however, that there is a line where sovereignty can result in false definitions. If some grand, foolish king decided "theft is a wooden fork" then this absurdity would be meaningless despite the application of power. Whereas some definitions are more clearly true when they reflect some qualities qua being like that quality. "Diatomic" comes to mind. In this sense, if some relatively low-income or even poor people were to engage in let's say file sharing, where definitions revolving around theft or piracy and notions relating around license are relatively contrived... Especially in a situation where nothing of any ontological significance is taken, and there was no or relatively little value to pay with, then the sense that 'something is stolen via piracy' would also seem absurd. This concepts of theft and piracy would be closer to "they stole my heart" - utter analogies. Such that if that nation suggested their sovereignty was affronted, it would sound like spoiled whining and mere legalism, moralism, even. A preference that those low-income people go uncultured and uneducated, since in both situations no significant payment could be made. Therefore the claims revolving around theft, piracy and sovereignty would imply no prevented material losses for that nation, just a prevented gain for the individuals in question. At best, some contrived benefit for the aristocrat in terms of superior knowledge, ability or mediation would be preserved. But somehow, having the power to deprive the poor seems like a kind of oppressive and futile power, and if that was the sole goal, the oppression is vastly more unjust. Here even the state loses... It loses an opportunity to have an impeccably well mediated and educated population, rich and poor alike, and trades it for half the benefit: a mediated and educated aristocracy. If there was someone such that they would pay out for two or three streaming services, let's say... If they did this they could have fully nutritious meals and some recreational income... But they also used file sharing to obtain a very broad cultural and educational experience... Let's say this person would achieve about 40%-60% quality of experience by paying out for 5-7 services, but in doing so they'd have to eat a lot of ramen and cereal and therefore be deprived a nutritious life and have their recreation reduced to those services and the free ones in their community... I'd say that this would be tremendously more unjust. The nation is healthier to have the first situation rather than the second. That first person will be intellectually, mentally and physically healthier. That value will be greater to society than the difference in 2-3 extra payments to streaming services a month can provide.