ImmersiveAmbientModecolor: #cecfc1 (color 2)
Video Format : 22 (720p) openh264 ( https://github.com/cisco/openh264) mp4a.40.2 | 44100Hz
Audio Format: Opus - Normalized audio
PokeTubeEncryptID: 6faf6238284a9d7ef0ed5944d4121c0f264593031fe0f83580e358b77f443c75addb108c1d713041985df5e91a38c072
Proxy : eu-proxy.poketube.fun - refresh the page to change the proxy location
Date : 1716386380769 - unknown on Apple WebKit
Mystery text : cFRmRC1QNENWMEUgaSAgbG92ICB1IGV1LXByb3h5LnBva2V0dWJlLmZ1bg==
143 : true
24,538 Views ā¢ Mar 12, 2020 ā¢ Click to toggle off description
Views : 24,538
Genre: Education
Date of upload: Mar 12, 2020 ^^
Rating : 4.914 (17/775 LTDR)
RYD date created : 2024-05-13T16:44:47.90784Z
See in json
YouTube Comments - 131 Comments
Top Comments of this video!! :3
Wow wonderful explanation sir.... lots of love
7 |
It seems strange to me for Russ Shafer-Landau to say "Global skepticism is the view that there is no objective truth at all, anywhere". I would have thought skepticism is a position regarding knowledge rather than truth. That is, there may be plenty of truths but we just can't know them.
4 |
The most logical person I have seen in my life. Wonderful teaching. Thank you so much for your videos.
17 |
Links to the other videos mentioned:
- The difference between arguments and conclusions: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GAYn5v5E20s
- The fallacious move from different perspectives to relativism about truth: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9eodr-9V6Z8
4 |
I was thinking that maybe we donāt need any extra premises for GS and GR. I think this because both rules use an objective standard. For GS we could say that it says that all claims are subjectively true. So it wouldnāt be subjectively true that all claims are subjectively true. Thatās self defeating.
The pushback would be that GS is just subjectively true, but that thinking insists on an objective standard. That it is not subjectively true that GS is subjectively true.
My point is that no matter how you see it, thereās an appeal to objective standards, contrary to saying that thereās are no such things.
1 |
Supposing global subjectivism is true and then having one person believe it is false does not render it false globally, since the whole premise of global subjectivism is that truth is relative to individuals. So global subjectivism would be false to that one person, not globally.
9 |
Iām a little confused about whether relativists/subjectivists are making claims about ātruthā or claims about āvalidityā. I understand their argument like I understand how it is ātrueā that the angles of a triangle add to 180 in Euclidean space, and not 180 outside of Euclidean space. Both are true relative to a frame, but not relative to all possible contexts.
3 |
Global skepticism isn't the claim that there are no objective truths, but rather the claim that our beliefs are never justified.
1 |
A question that comes to mind is: suppose there are no objective facts, globally, let's just assume this for the sake of the argument, would there be a way in our logical system and in our language, to point to this fact convincingly? The answer given in the video above is, well, no. And the point was well made and I believe there isn't one indeed. Does this mean there are objective facts, or does this mean there is a possible shortcoming in our language?
|
What do you mean by "truth relative to a individual person / to a society". Does this just mean that there are no objective truths, but the people in that society think that some things are true? How would that be different from global nihilism?
1 |
"well, except for the nihilist" that's usually how it goes xD
1 |
I have a problem with the āentailsā example. Eg āBlack holes are pink entails black holes are visibleā Where visible means light bounces off it.
Light does not bounce off black holes.
|
What about Mackieās opening statement āthere are no objective valuesā, isnāt this an objective āvalueā since itās an attitude that is universal... making it objective in some way? Or necessarily objective (since it must always obtain). Is it self-refuting?
6 |
I see that you write backwards with a left hand. When you write forwards, do you use your right or your left?
3 |
are you writing backwards my guy
39 |
My grass is decidedly brown
Also isnāt Global Skepticism guaranteeing its own truth?
So that makes it self defeating at the outset.
1 |
Oh no!! He popped up again.
|
I think the advice is only self refuting in a specific context. However, if by saying you can trust me, he is implicitly referring to himself as the exception and by referring to a specific set of college professors, not all.
I agree moral skepticism by itself is not self refuting. Have you done a video on Pyrrhonian moral skepticism?
2 |
Here "Global subjectivism" was defined to mean "all beliefs are true", or rather a statement equivalent with this.
My impression of subjectivism an subjectivists is that the perspective is something more similar to "your belief in X and my belief in not-X can both be true". Someone trained in the dark arts of logic may then suggest that (a) everything follows from a false statement*; and (b) "X and not-X" is false; and thus (c) all statements are true, including "global subjectivism is false"; implying (d) either X and not-X are never true simultaneously, or global subjectivism is false. But since the first statement is simply the negation of global subjectivism, in either case global subjectivism is falseāeven without assuming that anyone believes global subjectivism to be false.
(*) because my textbook on logic says so (and proves it; proof omitted from this youtube comment).
Isn't it fun to play around with fixpoints and negation? š
|
@Drakhra
3 years ago
Thanks for this - I was hollering about the Global part of GS throughout so I am very glad you addressed it at the end! Love your videos.
9 |