Is very difficult to read Dosto, as you say, how you being so young as you are, you're recommending his books ? The Dosto that you reed, will not be the Dosto that you will read ( I suppose), when you will be in your 50 to. Not only completely different as completely different meaning (interpretation). So, why recommend a difficult writer when even you don't understand him ?
@AndI0td7633 күн бұрын
Brother you speak way too quickly, it’s difficult to keep up with all that you’re saying.
@tomascantu79815 күн бұрын
young man you need to be born again. you joined the most corrupt church in the world. GOOD LUCK.
@jackherer-gt2ej5 күн бұрын
When comes the crazy part?
@Touchedbynature3045 күн бұрын
Just type " Marx on Serbs" . He said that Serbs , Scotts and Basques should be exterminated because they slow down the revolution and are " a racial waste". Marx was the first open racist.
@craigklein55637 күн бұрын
It's definitely the most hypocritical that I can think of.
@terrylm2357 күн бұрын
Truth has set you free! To do good.
@markcyriljubay8 күн бұрын
the god who has all the power of the universe to do much better things, but has only given humans books to read. Interesting a godly intellect.
@user-nb3mq3cg8k8 күн бұрын
S5 modal logic is indeed underrated for the proof on the existence of God. Somebody might have different opinions for this especially to the person with no logical training whatsoever. But this is literally just the formal formulations by making use of modal operators "necessarily" and "possibly". This is not new- Leibniz has already argued with this- such as., "If a necessary being is possible, it follows that it exists actually". S5 modal logic get rid of that nuisance natural language that we used that might not captured the whole of making logical inference.
@user-nb3mq3cg8k8 күн бұрын
You forgot Kurt Godel's ontological argument
@displacegamer13799 күн бұрын
4:46 This would then put the function of logic in a higher place than God itself. This is now saying that logic is a more powerful force than God at least as it relates to possibilities. The theists doesn't want to agree to this because God needs to be at the highest possible position. And if God is governed by logic then that place is logic above God.
@StCDUB9 күн бұрын
Some valid points I struggled with this for years with little or no help. There wasn't any mentor worth a damn. I will say there was no church or organization looking out for me. The military gave me structure but was far from mentoring me. I think in most cases young men need to be loved and given direction/structure. For a man to develop properly his father needs to be there and give the child a platform to build off. Similar to riding a bike and eventually letting go.
@clappedoutmotor9 күн бұрын
Industrial animal agriculture has destroyed the natural world and now I'm not having children
@lucslade67009 күн бұрын
Based
@GirlisIdle10 күн бұрын
Beautifully said and presented. I still haven't read The Idiot, since I can't bring myself to read about Myshkin's fate at the end of the novel (I'm faint-hearted, and even just thinking about it is enough to make me cry.)
@Phil4All9 күн бұрын
I’m glad you enjoyed the video
@carrie607310 күн бұрын
i thought the first guy was doing an impression of an oxford posho voice at the start
@gumz418310 күн бұрын
The theists are cookin science now lol.
@user-nb3mq3cg8k8 күн бұрын
They're evolving- *HIDE!*
@MindForgedManacle10 күн бұрын
The problem I have with this video is that the uploader doesn't seem to understand the topic well enough. Having made an in-depth, hour long video on almost every aspect of the MOA, I feel I'm entitled to claim this. To say the Modal ontological Argument only makes 2 assumptions is simply false. Off the top of my head, here are several assumptions to the MOA that are ignored by the uploader: 1) The frame involved. If the set of worlds is not completely universal (ranging over all sets of possible worlds), then the intended conclusion does not follow. This is why Plantinga has to stipulate in "The Nature of Necessity" that: "Every possible world is possible with respect to every possible world". Not all modalities can or must have this universal frame. The accessibility relation is not something that can be taken for granted. 2) Even if the frame of worlds is universal, it's rendered moot by the fact innumerable worlds do contradict God (or at least Christianity), and it reveals the uploader's own misunderstandings again. A world being "impossible" doesn't mean that the concept of God must be incoherent, and certainly not in its entirety (though it may be so). All that's required is that the world not be compatible with God existing there. Christians believe a world of unjustifiable evil can't exist. But there's no inherent conceptual issue with that. Thus it's a possible world. The only way to argue against examples like that would be to say God's existence trumps those, and thus no such world can exist. But that just goes to a later point I'll bring up: This argument essentially requires assuming a premise of God's existence in some fashion already being the case. And there's no actual reason to assume that God's existence is necessary while a world of wanton, unjustifiable evil is conceptually or actually impossible. We already know bad things happen, that is in effect simply a scaling up of that. So we have an actual independent reason to postulate the existence of such a world. Thus, worlds that are by religious doctrine incompatible with God's existence exist. Which implies God does not exist in all possible worlds, and thus cannot actually exist. 3) The modal semantics assumed will massively determine if the argument is valid, and even if sound, what the conclusion actually entails. If modal fictionalism is the assumed and correct modal semantics, then the argument commits the Existential Fallacy because then the argument goes from saying God existing in a possible world fiction entails God existing in the actual world (these are different sets of worlds). If Modal Realism is correct, the argument is a non-starter, since under MR possible worlds are synonymous with areas of spacetime. And God is purported as non-spatiotemporal, and is thus impossible. It's no surprise Plantinga is a modal Actualist, thus that's another assumption. 4) The possibility premise itself is already a red flag. Obviously if you're defining something in an argument such that it's either necessarily existent or impossible, the argument itself can't motivate the truth of that crucial premise. In which case, the argument is rather pointless. Theists will say the premise is true, and atheists will say it's false. Both will reach their prior belief because the argument can only have force with other pro or anti theistic arguments succeeding beforehand. Simply saying we should give the benefit of the doubt that something is possible is completely begging the question. Your very argument is invoking possible necessity as a premise, why would that be a freebie? You do not address any of these in your video, the way one would if the topic were better understood.
@broncosboy0008 күн бұрын
Wow, incredible breakdown. Each point of this comment has to be addressed because if even one of these holes is not addressed than the entire premise falls flat. Thanks friend!
@MindForgedManacle8 күн бұрын
@@broncosboy000 Thanks! It was a topic I was interested in while in college, so I can usually remember the general issues with it. The underlying techniques are interesting (it's formal logic, after all), but the way they're using it reveal why this usage is pointless.
@WonderfulDeath11 күн бұрын
good thing modal logic isn't something anyone should take seriously, contingent things can't be shown to exist in any way
@Phil4All11 күн бұрын
Funny you say that, many modal logicians do suggest that S5 might demonstrate that everything is necessary
@WonderfulDeath11 күн бұрын
@@Phil4All yea which gets rid of the possibility of any possible worlds outside our own, kind of destroying modal logic regressing back to classical logic
@MindForgedManacle10 күн бұрын
I'm an atheist, and the argument in question is certainly bunk, but you're throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
@WonderfulDeath10 күн бұрын
@@MindForgedManacle no i don't think so, modal logic is reliant on contingency existing, contingency can't be shown to exist due to only having one universe and the unfalsifiability of determinism which precludes the existence of contingency
@MindForgedManacle10 күн бұрын
@@WonderfulDeath There could only be 1 universe and that would have nothing to do with contingency. Possibility and contingency aren't related. Contingency is to causality, not whether or not something can or cannot happen. It has nothing to do with determinism. As an example, one can speak of the possibility of deterministic or indeterministic worlds (in a real sense, that's part of the issue with quantum mechanics vs relativity currently). But you can't intelligibly speak of the contingency of possible worlds. That doesn't mean anything, the concepts aren't related
@pringlessourcream952711 күн бұрын
I'd like to share, I was challenged once" Where in the Bible, says Catholic Church is the One True Church ". In the comment section, I told him, No need, you only observed what Satan does, it will point you to the true way. Satanists celebrate Black Mass, steal Catholic Holy Sacrements, sacrifice children, there are satanists priests, and most important fact, satan hates the Mother of Jesus. As it is written in Genesis3:15" The person became upset and started cursing me to Hell😂
@DarkSkay12 күн бұрын
Imagine that you are a thinker in another world which is governed by different rules. What can you say about our world, execpt that it is possible? How is it even possible that you can remotely think about us, without knowing that we exist indeed? Is this a sort of connection? Can there be such a thing as universal limitations on possibility? Since even the existence of our world can be considered as highly paradoxical - the violation of the first law of thermodynamics making it into a long list of reasons why our world shouldn't exist, with all the paradoxes, colours, mysteries, beauty in it. And be it for their entertainment, the theatre keeps running thanks to the generosity of the Gods. Or something along those lines they said.
@TheMirabillis12 күн бұрын
A “Maximally Great Being” or “Greatest Conceivable Being” ( God ) cannot exist. It is logically impossible for it to exist. One reason why it could not exist is because such a Being ( God ) would have to be Omniscient ( All Knowing ). But that would conflict with God’s own freedom of Will. God’s own eternal knowledge would be telling God what He would do and that would mean that God would not have the freedom to refrain from doing what His knowledge told Him He would do. For example, God always knew that this World would exist. If He had refrained and not created this World, then God would have been wrong in His knowledge that He would create this World. However, God being wrong is impossible. Therefore, He could not do anything which would make Him wrong. Omniscience and Free Will cannot go together. If a God does exist, then it cannot be Omniscient ( which means, that it is not Maximally Great ).
@louis7112 күн бұрын
You define omniscience as the ability to predict the future, or more specifically to predict own future descisions. The resulting paradox of not being able to predict own free decisions wich contradicts omniscience assumes time as existing independent of god, which might not be the case at all. I agree that if god is omniscient he must have to know what he freely wants (or WILL want assuming time). But without such thing as a "future" no paradox arises from this conclusion. This further explains why limited entities like humans that potentially have a free will are not at the same time omniscient, because they are bound to the concept of time, resulting in the disability to have free will and omniscience due to the paradox that would arise as you mentioned. So you could make a point that only god isn't bound to space and time, therefore being the only entity that is omniscient and free in will at once.
@TheMirabillis12 күн бұрын
@@louis71 A timeless God or a God existing outside of time is logically incoherent. But even if it were logically possible that God were timeless it would not refute what I have written. If God were Omniscient, then He could never have any new thoughts nor gain any new knowledge. The knowledge that God would have would be co-eternal with Him. The knowledge that this World would exist would never have come into existence nor would God have ever thought it up. Rather, the knowledge that this World would exist would have always existed in God’s mind. If God didn’t create the World, then the eternal knowledge that He had which stated that He would create this World would have been false. God knowing what He will do would take His free will away. Namely, because He could never do other than what He always knew He would do.
@louis7112 күн бұрын
@@TheMirabillis I see, this is indeed a very strong argument showing paradoxical conclusions that result from the concepts of omniscience and free will. However, god is not restricted by his knowledge in the way you pointed out. Knowledge is always passive and depends on X: that, what the knowledge is about. In this case, this X would be the creation or not-creation of the world. When god knows, he creates the world, this is, and only is, because he does in fact create the world and knows so. Therefore, god knowing, that he will create the world presupposes that he does. God cannot "change his mind" on this because that assumes a flow of time over which god could change one intention to another distinct intention. But with a timeless god, he either A: wants to create the world, creates it and knows that he does, or he B: does not want to create the world, does not create it and knows that he doesn't. So, god's knowledge didn't force him to create the world, since the knowledge depends on god's action and not the other way around. A paradox only arises, when the knowledge depends on actions in the future that have to be free, while the knowledge has to be absolute. in this case, the absolute knowledge constricts the freedom of future decisions. But again, without time this paradox doesn't arise.
@DarkSkay12 күн бұрын
Omniscience leads to omnipotency, and vice versa - respectively the maximum amount of power and knowledge available to an entity (or even in general). Assuming that the logic rules governing our world are the creation of higher entities, they themselves might not be bound by those same rules they established and consistently enforce. They might be able to just ignore our paradoxes; which sounds like an especially powerful ability. Our imagination is without limits. There can't be a humanly imaginable limit to human imagination... However, perhaps divine imagination plays in a completely different league. On the other hand, If this wasn't the case, we would already resemble the Gods, at least to those ones closest to our world & our minds - a bit like all Turing machines are equally capable in theory, be it a superfast computer or a guy with pencil and paper.
@TheMirabillis11 күн бұрын
@@louis71 Note: God being timeless does not refute anything I wrote. Your post “presupposes” that God did not know that He would create the World until He decided that He would. You do not see that God’s knowledge was co-eternal with Him. If God is Omniscient, the knowledge that He would create this World always existed in His mind. He would not be able to refrain from creating the World because the knowledge that He would create the World never came into existence. Rather, it just always existed in God’s mind. Thus, no free will. God had to create the World. His knowledge told Him that He would. Still not convinced ? If God didn’t come into existence, then neither did His knowledge. God never had a new thought.
@eden733513 күн бұрын
very thought provoking 🤭
@Phil4All10 күн бұрын
Thank you, I’m glad you enjoyed it
@nathancanvin794514 күн бұрын
love this video
@Phil4All14 күн бұрын
I’m glad you enjoyed it
@nikostangs15 күн бұрын
It would be a good idea for you to read up on Veganism before discussing it. Veganism was defined by Leslie Cross in 1951: ‘The object of the Vegan Society shall be to end the exploitation of animals by man"; and "The word veganism shall mean the doctrine that man should live without exploiting animals.’ As you can read from this definition: Veganism is not a diet, it's not about reducing suffering or minimizing harm, it's not about human issues, it's not about the climate, health or fitness, it’s not about solving every problem in the world-it’s just about a fair relationship between humans and the rest of the sentient individuals on the planet. It's not about the killing of animals. It’s about NOT USING them. It's about fixing the master/slave relationship between humans and non-humans sentient beings. Essentially being vegan is a mindset: It means rejecting the almost universally socially conditioned idea that non-human animals are slaves or resources for humans to use and exploit. And based on that principle you boycott all forms of animal exploitation. What you should be discussing here is why you view other animals as commodities and why think it's acceptible to violate their reproductive organs, enslave them and otherwise exploit them.
@erickgreen236113 күн бұрын
Animal agriculture is essential for human flourishing, the alternatives are very detrimental to not just human flourishment but the flourishment of all life....
@jamesvan220115 күн бұрын
The whole "noah didnt have children for 400 some years but suddenly had 3" is a dumb argument anyway. My sister was having trouble getting pregnant and then suddenly she had twins. It happens. His arguemtn is the dumbest ive heard in awhile.
@musicaltakes15 күн бұрын
The philosophy of veganism is more akin to something like communism, where it attempts to unify everything into a single entity, and all decisions made within this entity need to benefit the whole. What is even more interesting within this comparison is that, just like communism, veganism also has a sheer distaste for capitalist ventures and entrepreneurship, which is why they often target farmers. It is also not uncommon for the vegan collective to go after large corporations that mine natural resources, as they detest anything that generates large amounts of wealth. If you pull a vegan aside and ask them what they think about Elon Musk, nine times out of ten, they will give a negative critique. If you speak with people who were vegan for multiple years and then quit, many will talk about how they feel a sort of guilt when going against the grain within the veganism philosophy and how their actions heavily affect the equilibrium of the whole. This is again something distilled into the philosophy of communism, where the individual's needs are overlooked by the needs of the whole. In both philosophies/ideologies, the needs and wants of the individual become secondary compared to the needs of the collective.
@temple6915 күн бұрын
reactionary nonsense hidden behind posh accents and well manners. nice.
@yujie.ho12316 күн бұрын
I think there is a slight confusion here over what people mean when they say sex and gender are different. The point leftists are making is that gender can involve certain behaviors (roles) which are (1) culturally contingent and distinct from sex, and which furthermore can be (2) limiting to the full diversity of human experiences when doggedly enforced. On the first point, the classic example is the association of blue with maleness, which is a relatively recent phenomenon. Then there's the question of who should wear high heels, use copious amounts of make up product for their hair, and dress in frilly or flowy articles of clothing, all of which were male styles of dress in the eighteenth century. So you have to admit some aspects of gender are well and truly arbitrary--they have nothing to do at all with underlying biological sex. Secondly, even for certain traits or stereotypes which might well and truly be more commonplace at a biological level for a certain sex, whether that be aspects of physical strength, capability to bear a child, styles of reasoning, level of emotional intelligence, and tendencies of mood--it is also arguably overly limiting to apply roles or stereotypes fitted to these generalizations over something as wide and diverse as the human species. After all, even if males are *slightly* more analytical or better at spatial reasoning, would that be justification to bar "all" females from certain positions or hobbies? Obviously not. Similarly, even if most males raised in our culture prefer to wear pants and eschew lipstick and generally employ the deeper timbres of their voice, does that mean all males unequivocally all have to? Combined with the first point, the overall intent of ideas from the left in moderation seems to be the increase of freedom and capacity of human experience by not unnecessarily limiting it with overly stringent roles: some biological men may want to be househusbands, some biological women may be incredibly physically fit... society as a whole would suffer from not allowing these individuals to make the most of their stereotype-bucking capabilities. Obviously, this doesn't come close to the level of gender noncomformity as transgenderism, but I think one leads to the other. More generally, the argument for transgenderism would go, why increase the general misery of the human condition by punishing biological men for wearing dresses, and so forth? I think the overly limiting and problematic aspects of gender roles are a necessary but admittedly insufficient condition to explaining the outright abnegation of gender that many leftists advocate for, but it's still an important motivation for reforming and challenging gender roles. I'm concerned the speakers seem too blithely invested in conservative caricatures of leftist ideas to consider talking these more nuanced arguments.
@user-jy9pl1pr4i16 күн бұрын
These pricks are so insufferable I was initially convinced this was satire
@MagpieR616 күн бұрын
hilarious video, this will blow up
@SyedHaadiAbbasZaidi16 күн бұрын
fuckin neeks
@christianperez784616 күн бұрын
It’s mostly a matter of comfort. When you’re starving or don’t know where your next meal is coming from, you’ll eat just about anything. As human society progresses towards prosperity, we start to consider suffering in a wider array. I don’t think there’s anything wrong with that. Just don’t act morally superior because you have the opportunity to consider veganism an option.
@behemoth534416 күн бұрын
But the way we get our food today is not sustainable anymore. In some developing countries there's a higher percentage of people who eat plant-based food than in First World ones.
@Celestina016 күн бұрын
I'll act morally superior if i have the option to reduce animal suffering and do so, while you have the option to reduce animal suffering and won't do so.
@MarioPlinplin16 күн бұрын
The title of the video made me giggle irl
@lobovutare16 күн бұрын
If you regard animals as moral patients, meaning that their sentience matters morally, then from a utilitarian perspective we should strive to minimize their suffering. Since it has been shown in large scale studies and meta-analyses that a well planned vegan diet is healthful (I refer for one large scale example to the seven dayth adventists), consuming animal products is known to be entirely optional. A superarogatory action does not justify a morally bad action, therefore we have a moral obligation to take the matter seriously. In the UK alone over a billion animals are factory farmed each year. In terms of scale alone this is perhaps the greatest moral emergency of our time in the developed world.
@MagpieR616 күн бұрын
and its proven that plants also feel pain
@MLDGM16 күн бұрын
@@MagpieR6No they don't. They don't have a nervous system or a brain. And even if they did, it's morally better to be vegan because animal agriculture causes more plants to die to feed the animals. Also, even if plants may or may not feel pain, we do have evidence that animals feel pain, so why subject them to pain just for food when there are plant based alternatives which cause less suffering and pain?
@Arthurnate16 күн бұрын
@@MagpieR6it really isn't mate. Read beyond a headline once in a while.
@MagpieR616 күн бұрын
@@Arthurnate simply not true
@erickgreen236113 күн бұрын
Vegan diets are not healthy. Women losing their periods while on the diet isn't uncommon for example....
@twowardrobeswardrobes153617 күн бұрын
Loke smuggled the word ‘being’ into his first sentence. A first cause doesn’t need to be a being.
@stevenmarkhansen18 күн бұрын
love this speciest toffee nosed dunce cap skit❣
@tomoldaker126818 күн бұрын
Why do you say grace in Latin before eating? Jesus never said it in Latin - he said it in Aramaic. The fact that Catholic tradition says it in Latin is entirely a historical contingency: had the Roman Empire not conquered Britain then the mass would never have been said in Latin. Perhaps then, it makes more sense to either say it in Aramaic, or to just simply say it in your easiest first language? Food for thought! Perhaps a video surrounding this topic would be a good idea?!
@ReverendDr.Thomas18 күн бұрын
FIRST! 🎉 🐟 30. DIET & VEGANISM: PREAMBLE: Even though the term, “vegetarian”, has customarily referred to a human who desists from eating animal flesh, but who may still consume animal by-products such as eggs and milk, here it is used LITERALLY, that is, “one who subsists on vegetation”. One who consumes vegetation, dairy and/or eggs, is properly called a “lacto-vegetarian”, or a “lacto-ovo vegetarian”, respectively. The term “vegan” is not directly related to diet, but to the philosophy of the avoidance of unjustifiably harming animal life. Animal killing is permissible only in the case of hunger, self-defence, or in order to eradicate vermin from one’s dwelling and work places. Obviously, veganism is to be promoted as the ideal way of life. At the risk of nit-picking, both the words “vegetarian” and “vegan”, refer to those humans who subscribe to those two notions, and not to the food products themselves. Even if one was to qualify the term “diet” with the word “vegetarian” (e.g. “I consume a vegetarian diet”), it would not provide a great deal of information, since those who consume a raw fruit diet, as well as those who consume only soda drinks and candy, could both claim to consume a “vegetarian/vegan diet”, and nobody would agree that these two diets are comparable in any significant way! N.B. If you are reading this, it is highly probable that you are familiar with the concept of the “Three Modes of Nature” (“trī-guṇa”, in Sanskrit). If not, it is recommended that you read (or re-read) Chapter 18 of “A Final Instruction Sheet for Humanity” (“F.I.S.H”) at this point. In any case, those who are, in fact, familiar with the three modes of nature, have an extremely flawed understanding of how they apply to food and diet, particularly if they have studied the ancient Indian texts known collectively as “Ayur Veda” (“The Science of Life/Longevity”). Those persons invariably believe that animal products are categorized in the mode of darkness. However, that assumes that animals are actually human food, which they definitely are not. The system outlined below is, by far, the most accurate, logical, and AUTHORITATIVE method of classifying food, and ought to be followed by anyone who is truly desirous of living a wholesome life. Unfortunately, even most vegetarians and vegans seem to lean towards less-than-ideal diets. Of course, it is morally-preferable to consume a poor plant-based diet rather than eating murdered animals. One of the greatest tragedies is, that throughout history, the vast majority of diets have consisted of dead foodstuffs, and non-human “food”. FOODS IN THE THREE MODES: There are THREE kinds of foods, according to the three “modes”, explicated in Chapter 18 of this “A Final Instruction Sheet for Humanity”: Foods in the mode of PURITY (“sattva guṇa”, in Sanskrit) promote good physical and mental health. The adage “healthy body, healthy mind”, is pertinent to this mode. Such foods include, in approximate order of their importance: fruits (especially if they are tree-ripened), vegetables, nuts, legumes/pulses, grains, roots, flowers, tubers, bulbs, and of course, purified water (or milk, in the case of infants), supplemented with seeds and herbs. To be included in this classification, the food must be living, that is, fresh and raw (or at most, steamed or lightly sautéed, if one is residing in a cold clime). Most animals subsist on living foodstuffs, so to be considered healthy, the food must be both living and natural. As with all herbivorous mammals, humans who consume a pure diet, normally experience a bowel movement after each (substantial) meal. Foods in the mode of PASSION (“rajas guṇa”, in Sanskrit) promote indigestion (or, at least, are more difficult to digest than pure foods) and overly-excite the mind. Such foods are basically the same as above, but with a certain quantity of oil, spices, sweeteners, salt and/or other condiments added. To be included in this category, the plant-based foods may be properly cooked (but not overcooked) and moderately-to-mildly seasoned. Those who consume foods predominately in the mode of passion, normally defecate after breaking their fast (i.e. breakfast). Foods in the mode of DARKNESS (“tamas guṇa”, in Sanskrit) cannot rightly be called “food” at all, and invariably cause digestive upsets, such as constipation or diarrhoea. Such “offal” is either dry, stale, putrid, rancid, decayed, carcinogenic, overcooked (or even worse, burnt), processed beyond recognition, bitter, or the remnants of another’s meal (that is, food that has been leftover by a person who is lower in the hierarchy of society than the person who intends to consume it. For example, it would be offensive for a beggar to offer the remains of his meal to his king, yet the converse would be a rather benevolent act). Again, to be included in this classification, the food is to be of wholly plant or fungal origin. THE IDEAL DIET: Ideally, the bulk (if not ALL) of one’s diet should comprise of minimally-processed raw foods, such as tropical fruits or vegetable salads, the latter of which often consists of fruits anyway, because such foods as tomatoes, cucumbers and olives are, in fact, fruits, since they are seed-bearing foods. If one consumes a very high proportion of raw fruits, it is rarely, if ever, necessary to fast. Fasting is beneficial for those who partake in a diet high in processed and cooked dishes. Fruit-juice fasting is perhaps the best method of fasting, especially for those living a vigorous lifestyle. Unless one is particularly active, eating more than two meals per day is unnecessary. Ideally, cooked and highly-processed foods should be reserved for the final meal of the day, since the process of digestion itself consumes more energy than any other activity. Ideally, one should sit in a comfortable position, and eat one’s meal with a RELAXED mental disposition. Consuming food in an anxious state of mind may cause digestive upsets. If practical, it is suggested that eating with bare hands is more conducive to the enjoyment of one’s meal. In case the reader may be wondering what this author, the current World Teacher, usually consumes, the following is my typical daily meal plan: Upon waking from sleep, I rinse my mouth with a mixture of commercial mouthwash, a drop of clove oil and tea tree oil. Then, I drink at least one cup of purified water, mixed with a couple of vitamin tablets (definitely vitamin B12, and when I am residing in a location that receives little direct sunlight, vitamin D also). After two or three hours, I break my fast with either a bowl of oats, mixed with raw and dried fruits, chia seeds, raw cacao nibs, moringa powder, and sweetened soya drink (inaccurately called “soya milk” by many persons), plus a handful of mixed nuts and seeds, or else, I prepare a large fruit salad (ideally, using as many tropical fruits as can be afforded), plus a variety of nuts and seeds. For my second and final meal of the day, I prepare a mixed salad, invariably consisting of Roma tomatoes, cucumber, lettuce or alfalfa sprouts, raw beetroot, black olives, a gherkin (pickled cucumber), a type of herb (coriander, parsley, oregano, etc.), a teaspoon of ground seeds (sesame, chia, and flax), and dressed with extra-virgin olive oil and apple cider vinegar. The salad is eaten with a cooked dish (I am particularly fond of Indian, Italian, Mexican, Chinese, and Lebanese recipes), plus a side snack like corn chips, and after a while, I consume dessert with soya drink. Cont ..
@bowswindle870118 күн бұрын
Full video please
@oingoboingo832318 күн бұрын
Nietzsche may have nearly everything wrong about Christianity but not all of his ideas are bad.
@fr.hughmackenzie590019 күн бұрын
11:50 Heidegger is the big Existentialist influence upon Peterson -- and hence a similarity to Feuerbach and of course to Kant's moral argument for God. Heidegger's Dasein is a "practical-orientation" beyond being captured by propositions, but rooting them and therefore science and a certain naturalism. P. of course throws in Jung, which leads him back towards propositions. But P. has not yet quite squared the circle - partly because Heidegger himself, notwithstanding some key insights, is incoherent about the use of propositions.
@Joey-xf6sg20 күн бұрын
Honestly, I think Pascals Wager is the strongest argument, but I think it cannot stand on its own. First, you have to understand how Christianity is the most plausible religion (which clearly seems to be the case since it has a historical basis), and then you approach the wager. But where the argument succeeds greatly in my opinion is that your credence for theism does not need to be as high as it would be for other beliefs based on the possible eternal consequences for not believing. One does not need to have certainty about God, but only accept the reasonableness of Christianity and then wager from there. Ultimately, I think this argument is the one that personally sustains my faith the most.
@correctrper294121 күн бұрын
this has to be a joke
@georginathompson378821 күн бұрын
You boys are hilarious. Very good niche.
@adamdodda375122 күн бұрын
mythical recommendation pull
@marcuspooh23 күн бұрын
I echo with your sentiment.
@FollowJesusChristfirst23 күн бұрын
Jordan use John Safran vs God an Athiest proving God is what they want.Simple Demons proven real so God is real simple move on Atheist's.Oh worms can't turn into anything but worms that is that sorted,throwing a million grades over a wall you don't get a clock one day wake up.
@user-sm5mc9xq4i24 күн бұрын
Everyone was confused by the young philosopher....😅 It is better to read in order in which years the work was written.. This way you will understand the evolution of the author and his ideas, and if you are Russian and know the history of the 19th century in Russia, you will understand the reasons for Dostoevsky's reasoning and how his later life showed.. the fallacy of Fyodor Mikhailovich's philosophy!
@amateurprojects334124 күн бұрын
Wondering about the existence or otherwise of God? Here's a hint: Ask him (do it humbly) He promises to respond. No response? Then assume he doesn't exist. However, if & indeed when you get a response, take it from there. Good luck x
Пікірлер
Is very difficult to read Dosto, as you say, how you being so young as you are, you're recommending his books ? The Dosto that you reed, will not be the Dosto that you will read ( I suppose), when you will be in your 50 to. Not only completely different as completely different meaning (interpretation). So, why recommend a difficult writer when even you don't understand him ?
Brother you speak way too quickly, it’s difficult to keep up with all that you’re saying.
young man you need to be born again. you joined the most corrupt church in the world. GOOD LUCK.
When comes the crazy part?
Just type " Marx on Serbs" . He said that Serbs , Scotts and Basques should be exterminated because they slow down the revolution and are " a racial waste". Marx was the first open racist.
It's definitely the most hypocritical that I can think of.
Truth has set you free! To do good.
the god who has all the power of the universe to do much better things, but has only given humans books to read. Interesting a godly intellect.
S5 modal logic is indeed underrated for the proof on the existence of God. Somebody might have different opinions for this especially to the person with no logical training whatsoever. But this is literally just the formal formulations by making use of modal operators "necessarily" and "possibly". This is not new- Leibniz has already argued with this- such as., "If a necessary being is possible, it follows that it exists actually". S5 modal logic get rid of that nuisance natural language that we used that might not captured the whole of making logical inference.
You forgot Kurt Godel's ontological argument
4:46 This would then put the function of logic in a higher place than God itself. This is now saying that logic is a more powerful force than God at least as it relates to possibilities. The theists doesn't want to agree to this because God needs to be at the highest possible position. And if God is governed by logic then that place is logic above God.
Some valid points I struggled with this for years with little or no help. There wasn't any mentor worth a damn. I will say there was no church or organization looking out for me. The military gave me structure but was far from mentoring me. I think in most cases young men need to be loved and given direction/structure. For a man to develop properly his father needs to be there and give the child a platform to build off. Similar to riding a bike and eventually letting go.
Industrial animal agriculture has destroyed the natural world and now I'm not having children
Based
Beautifully said and presented. I still haven't read The Idiot, since I can't bring myself to read about Myshkin's fate at the end of the novel (I'm faint-hearted, and even just thinking about it is enough to make me cry.)
I’m glad you enjoyed the video
i thought the first guy was doing an impression of an oxford posho voice at the start
The theists are cookin science now lol.
They're evolving- *HIDE!*
The problem I have with this video is that the uploader doesn't seem to understand the topic well enough. Having made an in-depth, hour long video on almost every aspect of the MOA, I feel I'm entitled to claim this. To say the Modal ontological Argument only makes 2 assumptions is simply false. Off the top of my head, here are several assumptions to the MOA that are ignored by the uploader: 1) The frame involved. If the set of worlds is not completely universal (ranging over all sets of possible worlds), then the intended conclusion does not follow. This is why Plantinga has to stipulate in "The Nature of Necessity" that: "Every possible world is possible with respect to every possible world". Not all modalities can or must have this universal frame. The accessibility relation is not something that can be taken for granted. 2) Even if the frame of worlds is universal, it's rendered moot by the fact innumerable worlds do contradict God (or at least Christianity), and it reveals the uploader's own misunderstandings again. A world being "impossible" doesn't mean that the concept of God must be incoherent, and certainly not in its entirety (though it may be so). All that's required is that the world not be compatible with God existing there. Christians believe a world of unjustifiable evil can't exist. But there's no inherent conceptual issue with that. Thus it's a possible world. The only way to argue against examples like that would be to say God's existence trumps those, and thus no such world can exist. But that just goes to a later point I'll bring up: This argument essentially requires assuming a premise of God's existence in some fashion already being the case. And there's no actual reason to assume that God's existence is necessary while a world of wanton, unjustifiable evil is conceptually or actually impossible. We already know bad things happen, that is in effect simply a scaling up of that. So we have an actual independent reason to postulate the existence of such a world. Thus, worlds that are by religious doctrine incompatible with God's existence exist. Which implies God does not exist in all possible worlds, and thus cannot actually exist. 3) The modal semantics assumed will massively determine if the argument is valid, and even if sound, what the conclusion actually entails. If modal fictionalism is the assumed and correct modal semantics, then the argument commits the Existential Fallacy because then the argument goes from saying God existing in a possible world fiction entails God existing in the actual world (these are different sets of worlds). If Modal Realism is correct, the argument is a non-starter, since under MR possible worlds are synonymous with areas of spacetime. And God is purported as non-spatiotemporal, and is thus impossible. It's no surprise Plantinga is a modal Actualist, thus that's another assumption. 4) The possibility premise itself is already a red flag. Obviously if you're defining something in an argument such that it's either necessarily existent or impossible, the argument itself can't motivate the truth of that crucial premise. In which case, the argument is rather pointless. Theists will say the premise is true, and atheists will say it's false. Both will reach their prior belief because the argument can only have force with other pro or anti theistic arguments succeeding beforehand. Simply saying we should give the benefit of the doubt that something is possible is completely begging the question. Your very argument is invoking possible necessity as a premise, why would that be a freebie? You do not address any of these in your video, the way one would if the topic were better understood.
Wow, incredible breakdown. Each point of this comment has to be addressed because if even one of these holes is not addressed than the entire premise falls flat. Thanks friend!
@@broncosboy000 Thanks! It was a topic I was interested in while in college, so I can usually remember the general issues with it. The underlying techniques are interesting (it's formal logic, after all), but the way they're using it reveal why this usage is pointless.
good thing modal logic isn't something anyone should take seriously, contingent things can't be shown to exist in any way
Funny you say that, many modal logicians do suggest that S5 might demonstrate that everything is necessary
@@Phil4All yea which gets rid of the possibility of any possible worlds outside our own, kind of destroying modal logic regressing back to classical logic
I'm an atheist, and the argument in question is certainly bunk, but you're throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
@@MindForgedManacle no i don't think so, modal logic is reliant on contingency existing, contingency can't be shown to exist due to only having one universe and the unfalsifiability of determinism which precludes the existence of contingency
@@WonderfulDeath There could only be 1 universe and that would have nothing to do with contingency. Possibility and contingency aren't related. Contingency is to causality, not whether or not something can or cannot happen. It has nothing to do with determinism. As an example, one can speak of the possibility of deterministic or indeterministic worlds (in a real sense, that's part of the issue with quantum mechanics vs relativity currently). But you can't intelligibly speak of the contingency of possible worlds. That doesn't mean anything, the concepts aren't related
I'd like to share, I was challenged once" Where in the Bible, says Catholic Church is the One True Church ". In the comment section, I told him, No need, you only observed what Satan does, it will point you to the true way. Satanists celebrate Black Mass, steal Catholic Holy Sacrements, sacrifice children, there are satanists priests, and most important fact, satan hates the Mother of Jesus. As it is written in Genesis3:15" The person became upset and started cursing me to Hell😂
Imagine that you are a thinker in another world which is governed by different rules. What can you say about our world, execpt that it is possible? How is it even possible that you can remotely think about us, without knowing that we exist indeed? Is this a sort of connection? Can there be such a thing as universal limitations on possibility? Since even the existence of our world can be considered as highly paradoxical - the violation of the first law of thermodynamics making it into a long list of reasons why our world shouldn't exist, with all the paradoxes, colours, mysteries, beauty in it. And be it for their entertainment, the theatre keeps running thanks to the generosity of the Gods. Or something along those lines they said.
A “Maximally Great Being” or “Greatest Conceivable Being” ( God ) cannot exist. It is logically impossible for it to exist. One reason why it could not exist is because such a Being ( God ) would have to be Omniscient ( All Knowing ). But that would conflict with God’s own freedom of Will. God’s own eternal knowledge would be telling God what He would do and that would mean that God would not have the freedom to refrain from doing what His knowledge told Him He would do. For example, God always knew that this World would exist. If He had refrained and not created this World, then God would have been wrong in His knowledge that He would create this World. However, God being wrong is impossible. Therefore, He could not do anything which would make Him wrong. Omniscience and Free Will cannot go together. If a God does exist, then it cannot be Omniscient ( which means, that it is not Maximally Great ).
You define omniscience as the ability to predict the future, or more specifically to predict own future descisions. The resulting paradox of not being able to predict own free decisions wich contradicts omniscience assumes time as existing independent of god, which might not be the case at all. I agree that if god is omniscient he must have to know what he freely wants (or WILL want assuming time). But without such thing as a "future" no paradox arises from this conclusion. This further explains why limited entities like humans that potentially have a free will are not at the same time omniscient, because they are bound to the concept of time, resulting in the disability to have free will and omniscience due to the paradox that would arise as you mentioned. So you could make a point that only god isn't bound to space and time, therefore being the only entity that is omniscient and free in will at once.
@@louis71 A timeless God or a God existing outside of time is logically incoherent. But even if it were logically possible that God were timeless it would not refute what I have written. If God were Omniscient, then He could never have any new thoughts nor gain any new knowledge. The knowledge that God would have would be co-eternal with Him. The knowledge that this World would exist would never have come into existence nor would God have ever thought it up. Rather, the knowledge that this World would exist would have always existed in God’s mind. If God didn’t create the World, then the eternal knowledge that He had which stated that He would create this World would have been false. God knowing what He will do would take His free will away. Namely, because He could never do other than what He always knew He would do.
@@TheMirabillis I see, this is indeed a very strong argument showing paradoxical conclusions that result from the concepts of omniscience and free will. However, god is not restricted by his knowledge in the way you pointed out. Knowledge is always passive and depends on X: that, what the knowledge is about. In this case, this X would be the creation or not-creation of the world. When god knows, he creates the world, this is, and only is, because he does in fact create the world and knows so. Therefore, god knowing, that he will create the world presupposes that he does. God cannot "change his mind" on this because that assumes a flow of time over which god could change one intention to another distinct intention. But with a timeless god, he either A: wants to create the world, creates it and knows that he does, or he B: does not want to create the world, does not create it and knows that he doesn't. So, god's knowledge didn't force him to create the world, since the knowledge depends on god's action and not the other way around. A paradox only arises, when the knowledge depends on actions in the future that have to be free, while the knowledge has to be absolute. in this case, the absolute knowledge constricts the freedom of future decisions. But again, without time this paradox doesn't arise.
Omniscience leads to omnipotency, and vice versa - respectively the maximum amount of power and knowledge available to an entity (or even in general). Assuming that the logic rules governing our world are the creation of higher entities, they themselves might not be bound by those same rules they established and consistently enforce. They might be able to just ignore our paradoxes; which sounds like an especially powerful ability. Our imagination is without limits. There can't be a humanly imaginable limit to human imagination... However, perhaps divine imagination plays in a completely different league. On the other hand, If this wasn't the case, we would already resemble the Gods, at least to those ones closest to our world & our minds - a bit like all Turing machines are equally capable in theory, be it a superfast computer or a guy with pencil and paper.
@@louis71 Note: God being timeless does not refute anything I wrote. Your post “presupposes” that God did not know that He would create the World until He decided that He would. You do not see that God’s knowledge was co-eternal with Him. If God is Omniscient, the knowledge that He would create this World always existed in His mind. He would not be able to refrain from creating the World because the knowledge that He would create the World never came into existence. Rather, it just always existed in God’s mind. Thus, no free will. God had to create the World. His knowledge told Him that He would. Still not convinced ? If God didn’t come into existence, then neither did His knowledge. God never had a new thought.
very thought provoking 🤭
Thank you, I’m glad you enjoyed it
love this video
I’m glad you enjoyed it
It would be a good idea for you to read up on Veganism before discussing it. Veganism was defined by Leslie Cross in 1951: ‘The object of the Vegan Society shall be to end the exploitation of animals by man"; and "The word veganism shall mean the doctrine that man should live without exploiting animals.’ As you can read from this definition: Veganism is not a diet, it's not about reducing suffering or minimizing harm, it's not about human issues, it's not about the climate, health or fitness, it’s not about solving every problem in the world-it’s just about a fair relationship between humans and the rest of the sentient individuals on the planet. It's not about the killing of animals. It’s about NOT USING them. It's about fixing the master/slave relationship between humans and non-humans sentient beings. Essentially being vegan is a mindset: It means rejecting the almost universally socially conditioned idea that non-human animals are slaves or resources for humans to use and exploit. And based on that principle you boycott all forms of animal exploitation. What you should be discussing here is why you view other animals as commodities and why think it's acceptible to violate their reproductive organs, enslave them and otherwise exploit them.
Animal agriculture is essential for human flourishing, the alternatives are very detrimental to not just human flourishment but the flourishment of all life....
The whole "noah didnt have children for 400 some years but suddenly had 3" is a dumb argument anyway. My sister was having trouble getting pregnant and then suddenly she had twins. It happens. His arguemtn is the dumbest ive heard in awhile.
The philosophy of veganism is more akin to something like communism, where it attempts to unify everything into a single entity, and all decisions made within this entity need to benefit the whole. What is even more interesting within this comparison is that, just like communism, veganism also has a sheer distaste for capitalist ventures and entrepreneurship, which is why they often target farmers. It is also not uncommon for the vegan collective to go after large corporations that mine natural resources, as they detest anything that generates large amounts of wealth. If you pull a vegan aside and ask them what they think about Elon Musk, nine times out of ten, they will give a negative critique. If you speak with people who were vegan for multiple years and then quit, many will talk about how they feel a sort of guilt when going against the grain within the veganism philosophy and how their actions heavily affect the equilibrium of the whole. This is again something distilled into the philosophy of communism, where the individual's needs are overlooked by the needs of the whole. In both philosophies/ideologies, the needs and wants of the individual become secondary compared to the needs of the collective.
reactionary nonsense hidden behind posh accents and well manners. nice.
I think there is a slight confusion here over what people mean when they say sex and gender are different. The point leftists are making is that gender can involve certain behaviors (roles) which are (1) culturally contingent and distinct from sex, and which furthermore can be (2) limiting to the full diversity of human experiences when doggedly enforced. On the first point, the classic example is the association of blue with maleness, which is a relatively recent phenomenon. Then there's the question of who should wear high heels, use copious amounts of make up product for their hair, and dress in frilly or flowy articles of clothing, all of which were male styles of dress in the eighteenth century. So you have to admit some aspects of gender are well and truly arbitrary--they have nothing to do at all with underlying biological sex. Secondly, even for certain traits or stereotypes which might well and truly be more commonplace at a biological level for a certain sex, whether that be aspects of physical strength, capability to bear a child, styles of reasoning, level of emotional intelligence, and tendencies of mood--it is also arguably overly limiting to apply roles or stereotypes fitted to these generalizations over something as wide and diverse as the human species. After all, even if males are *slightly* more analytical or better at spatial reasoning, would that be justification to bar "all" females from certain positions or hobbies? Obviously not. Similarly, even if most males raised in our culture prefer to wear pants and eschew lipstick and generally employ the deeper timbres of their voice, does that mean all males unequivocally all have to? Combined with the first point, the overall intent of ideas from the left in moderation seems to be the increase of freedom and capacity of human experience by not unnecessarily limiting it with overly stringent roles: some biological men may want to be househusbands, some biological women may be incredibly physically fit... society as a whole would suffer from not allowing these individuals to make the most of their stereotype-bucking capabilities. Obviously, this doesn't come close to the level of gender noncomformity as transgenderism, but I think one leads to the other. More generally, the argument for transgenderism would go, why increase the general misery of the human condition by punishing biological men for wearing dresses, and so forth? I think the overly limiting and problematic aspects of gender roles are a necessary but admittedly insufficient condition to explaining the outright abnegation of gender that many leftists advocate for, but it's still an important motivation for reforming and challenging gender roles. I'm concerned the speakers seem too blithely invested in conservative caricatures of leftist ideas to consider talking these more nuanced arguments.
These pricks are so insufferable I was initially convinced this was satire
hilarious video, this will blow up
fuckin neeks
It’s mostly a matter of comfort. When you’re starving or don’t know where your next meal is coming from, you’ll eat just about anything. As human society progresses towards prosperity, we start to consider suffering in a wider array. I don’t think there’s anything wrong with that. Just don’t act morally superior because you have the opportunity to consider veganism an option.
But the way we get our food today is not sustainable anymore. In some developing countries there's a higher percentage of people who eat plant-based food than in First World ones.
I'll act morally superior if i have the option to reduce animal suffering and do so, while you have the option to reduce animal suffering and won't do so.
The title of the video made me giggle irl
If you regard animals as moral patients, meaning that their sentience matters morally, then from a utilitarian perspective we should strive to minimize their suffering. Since it has been shown in large scale studies and meta-analyses that a well planned vegan diet is healthful (I refer for one large scale example to the seven dayth adventists), consuming animal products is known to be entirely optional. A superarogatory action does not justify a morally bad action, therefore we have a moral obligation to take the matter seriously. In the UK alone over a billion animals are factory farmed each year. In terms of scale alone this is perhaps the greatest moral emergency of our time in the developed world.
and its proven that plants also feel pain
@@MagpieR6No they don't. They don't have a nervous system or a brain. And even if they did, it's morally better to be vegan because animal agriculture causes more plants to die to feed the animals. Also, even if plants may or may not feel pain, we do have evidence that animals feel pain, so why subject them to pain just for food when there are plant based alternatives which cause less suffering and pain?
@@MagpieR6it really isn't mate. Read beyond a headline once in a while.
@@Arthurnate simply not true
Vegan diets are not healthy. Women losing their periods while on the diet isn't uncommon for example....
Loke smuggled the word ‘being’ into his first sentence. A first cause doesn’t need to be a being.
love this speciest toffee nosed dunce cap skit❣
Why do you say grace in Latin before eating? Jesus never said it in Latin - he said it in Aramaic. The fact that Catholic tradition says it in Latin is entirely a historical contingency: had the Roman Empire not conquered Britain then the mass would never have been said in Latin. Perhaps then, it makes more sense to either say it in Aramaic, or to just simply say it in your easiest first language? Food for thought! Perhaps a video surrounding this topic would be a good idea?!
FIRST! 🎉 🐟 30. DIET & VEGANISM: PREAMBLE: Even though the term, “vegetarian”, has customarily referred to a human who desists from eating animal flesh, but who may still consume animal by-products such as eggs and milk, here it is used LITERALLY, that is, “one who subsists on vegetation”. One who consumes vegetation, dairy and/or eggs, is properly called a “lacto-vegetarian”, or a “lacto-ovo vegetarian”, respectively. The term “vegan” is not directly related to diet, but to the philosophy of the avoidance of unjustifiably harming animal life. Animal killing is permissible only in the case of hunger, self-defence, or in order to eradicate vermin from one’s dwelling and work places. Obviously, veganism is to be promoted as the ideal way of life. At the risk of nit-picking, both the words “vegetarian” and “vegan”, refer to those humans who subscribe to those two notions, and not to the food products themselves. Even if one was to qualify the term “diet” with the word “vegetarian” (e.g. “I consume a vegetarian diet”), it would not provide a great deal of information, since those who consume a raw fruit diet, as well as those who consume only soda drinks and candy, could both claim to consume a “vegetarian/vegan diet”, and nobody would agree that these two diets are comparable in any significant way! N.B. If you are reading this, it is highly probable that you are familiar with the concept of the “Three Modes of Nature” (“trī-guṇa”, in Sanskrit). If not, it is recommended that you read (or re-read) Chapter 18 of “A Final Instruction Sheet for Humanity” (“F.I.S.H”) at this point. In any case, those who are, in fact, familiar with the three modes of nature, have an extremely flawed understanding of how they apply to food and diet, particularly if they have studied the ancient Indian texts known collectively as “Ayur Veda” (“The Science of Life/Longevity”). Those persons invariably believe that animal products are categorized in the mode of darkness. However, that assumes that animals are actually human food, which they definitely are not. The system outlined below is, by far, the most accurate, logical, and AUTHORITATIVE method of classifying food, and ought to be followed by anyone who is truly desirous of living a wholesome life. Unfortunately, even most vegetarians and vegans seem to lean towards less-than-ideal diets. Of course, it is morally-preferable to consume a poor plant-based diet rather than eating murdered animals. One of the greatest tragedies is, that throughout history, the vast majority of diets have consisted of dead foodstuffs, and non-human “food”. FOODS IN THE THREE MODES: There are THREE kinds of foods, according to the three “modes”, explicated in Chapter 18 of this “A Final Instruction Sheet for Humanity”: Foods in the mode of PURITY (“sattva guṇa”, in Sanskrit) promote good physical and mental health. The adage “healthy body, healthy mind”, is pertinent to this mode. Such foods include, in approximate order of their importance: fruits (especially if they are tree-ripened), vegetables, nuts, legumes/pulses, grains, roots, flowers, tubers, bulbs, and of course, purified water (or milk, in the case of infants), supplemented with seeds and herbs. To be included in this classification, the food must be living, that is, fresh and raw (or at most, steamed or lightly sautéed, if one is residing in a cold clime). Most animals subsist on living foodstuffs, so to be considered healthy, the food must be both living and natural. As with all herbivorous mammals, humans who consume a pure diet, normally experience a bowel movement after each (substantial) meal. Foods in the mode of PASSION (“rajas guṇa”, in Sanskrit) promote indigestion (or, at least, are more difficult to digest than pure foods) and overly-excite the mind. Such foods are basically the same as above, but with a certain quantity of oil, spices, sweeteners, salt and/or other condiments added. To be included in this category, the plant-based foods may be properly cooked (but not overcooked) and moderately-to-mildly seasoned. Those who consume foods predominately in the mode of passion, normally defecate after breaking their fast (i.e. breakfast). Foods in the mode of DARKNESS (“tamas guṇa”, in Sanskrit) cannot rightly be called “food” at all, and invariably cause digestive upsets, such as constipation or diarrhoea. Such “offal” is either dry, stale, putrid, rancid, decayed, carcinogenic, overcooked (or even worse, burnt), processed beyond recognition, bitter, or the remnants of another’s meal (that is, food that has been leftover by a person who is lower in the hierarchy of society than the person who intends to consume it. For example, it would be offensive for a beggar to offer the remains of his meal to his king, yet the converse would be a rather benevolent act). Again, to be included in this classification, the food is to be of wholly plant or fungal origin. THE IDEAL DIET: Ideally, the bulk (if not ALL) of one’s diet should comprise of minimally-processed raw foods, such as tropical fruits or vegetable salads, the latter of which often consists of fruits anyway, because such foods as tomatoes, cucumbers and olives are, in fact, fruits, since they are seed-bearing foods. If one consumes a very high proportion of raw fruits, it is rarely, if ever, necessary to fast. Fasting is beneficial for those who partake in a diet high in processed and cooked dishes. Fruit-juice fasting is perhaps the best method of fasting, especially for those living a vigorous lifestyle. Unless one is particularly active, eating more than two meals per day is unnecessary. Ideally, cooked and highly-processed foods should be reserved for the final meal of the day, since the process of digestion itself consumes more energy than any other activity. Ideally, one should sit in a comfortable position, and eat one’s meal with a RELAXED mental disposition. Consuming food in an anxious state of mind may cause digestive upsets. If practical, it is suggested that eating with bare hands is more conducive to the enjoyment of one’s meal. In case the reader may be wondering what this author, the current World Teacher, usually consumes, the following is my typical daily meal plan: Upon waking from sleep, I rinse my mouth with a mixture of commercial mouthwash, a drop of clove oil and tea tree oil. Then, I drink at least one cup of purified water, mixed with a couple of vitamin tablets (definitely vitamin B12, and when I am residing in a location that receives little direct sunlight, vitamin D also). After two or three hours, I break my fast with either a bowl of oats, mixed with raw and dried fruits, chia seeds, raw cacao nibs, moringa powder, and sweetened soya drink (inaccurately called “soya milk” by many persons), plus a handful of mixed nuts and seeds, or else, I prepare a large fruit salad (ideally, using as many tropical fruits as can be afforded), plus a variety of nuts and seeds. For my second and final meal of the day, I prepare a mixed salad, invariably consisting of Roma tomatoes, cucumber, lettuce or alfalfa sprouts, raw beetroot, black olives, a gherkin (pickled cucumber), a type of herb (coriander, parsley, oregano, etc.), a teaspoon of ground seeds (sesame, chia, and flax), and dressed with extra-virgin olive oil and apple cider vinegar. The salad is eaten with a cooked dish (I am particularly fond of Indian, Italian, Mexican, Chinese, and Lebanese recipes), plus a side snack like corn chips, and after a while, I consume dessert with soya drink. Cont ..
Full video please
Nietzsche may have nearly everything wrong about Christianity but not all of his ideas are bad.
11:50 Heidegger is the big Existentialist influence upon Peterson -- and hence a similarity to Feuerbach and of course to Kant's moral argument for God. Heidegger's Dasein is a "practical-orientation" beyond being captured by propositions, but rooting them and therefore science and a certain naturalism. P. of course throws in Jung, which leads him back towards propositions. But P. has not yet quite squared the circle - partly because Heidegger himself, notwithstanding some key insights, is incoherent about the use of propositions.
Honestly, I think Pascals Wager is the strongest argument, but I think it cannot stand on its own. First, you have to understand how Christianity is the most plausible religion (which clearly seems to be the case since it has a historical basis), and then you approach the wager. But where the argument succeeds greatly in my opinion is that your credence for theism does not need to be as high as it would be for other beliefs based on the possible eternal consequences for not believing. One does not need to have certainty about God, but only accept the reasonableness of Christianity and then wager from there. Ultimately, I think this argument is the one that personally sustains my faith the most.
this has to be a joke
You boys are hilarious. Very good niche.
mythical recommendation pull
I echo with your sentiment.
Jordan use John Safran vs God an Athiest proving God is what they want.Simple Demons proven real so God is real simple move on Atheist's.Oh worms can't turn into anything but worms that is that sorted,throwing a million grades over a wall you don't get a clock one day wake up.
Everyone was confused by the young philosopher....😅 It is better to read in order in which years the work was written.. This way you will understand the evolution of the author and his ideas, and if you are Russian and know the history of the 19th century in Russia, you will understand the reasons for Dostoevsky's reasoning and how his later life showed.. the fallacy of Fyodor Mikhailovich's philosophy!
Wondering about the existence or otherwise of God? Here's a hint: Ask him (do it humbly) He promises to respond. No response? Then assume he doesn't exist. However, if & indeed when you get a response, take it from there. Good luck x