正在加载视频...

视频加载失败

Iris Murdoch on what philosophy actually is: Philosophy is notoriously difficult to define even for those who practise it. Speaking with Bryan Magee in 1977, Murdoch doesn't sidestep the question. She leans into it. "It's notoriously difficult to find philosophy… it's very difficult to say what it is." Her...

18,908 次观看 • 3 个月前 •via X (Twitter)

0 条评论

暂无评论

原始帖子的评论将显示在这里

相关视频

Bertrand Russell on Philosophy, Doubt, and the Danger of Hate Philosopher Bertrand Russell, asked if he can offer a positive philosophy for those who reject Marx, responds with something unexpected: a warning against dogmatism itself. "One of the troubles of the world has been the habit of dogmatically believing something or other, and I think all these matters are full of doubt." Russell refuses to replace one certainty with another. Even his own views, he insists, should be held loosely: "The rational man will not be too sure that he's right. I think that we ought always to entertain our opinions with some measure of doubt. I shouldn't wish people dogmatically to believe any philosophy not even mine. Not even mine." But doubt alone isn't enough. Russell argues there's a second ingredient that determines whether a philosophy helps or harms the world. The emotional foundation it's built on: "If a philosophy is to bring happiness, it should be inspired by kindly feeling." This is where his critique of Marx becomes pointed. For Russell, the problem is the feeling underneath them: "Marx is not inspired by kindly feeling. Marx pretended that he wanted the happiness of the proletariat. What he really wanted was the unhappiness of the bourgeoisie. And it was because of that negative element, because of that hate element, that his philosophy produced disaster." His conclusion: "A philosophy which is to do good must be one inspired by kindly feeling and not by unkindly feeling."

Mateus — eu/acc 🇪🇺

21,260 次观看 • 2 个月前

David Chalmers on the one thing science can't explain: Consciousness is at once the most familiar thing in the world and the one science has almost nothing to say about. That's the puzzle Chalmers lays out in this early interview, and it's as disorienting today as it was then. His starting point is deceptively simple. Everything we know about the external world: subatomic particles, distant stars, the chemistry of life. We know through consciousness. It's the very first thing we have. And yet when we turn science around and try to explain consciousness itself, we hit a wall. "Consciousness is what we start with when it comes to knowing the world and looking out at the world… everything else is secondary." What makes this so strange is the asymmetry. We've made extraordinary progress understanding things that are genuinely remote and difficult quantum mechanics, stellar evolution, molecular biology. But understanding our own inner experience? Almost nothing. "It almost sticks out like a sore thumb in the scientific picture." This is what Chalmers would later formalise as the "hard problem of consciousness": not just explaining how the brain processes information or controls behaviour. Those are hard, but tractable. The real mystery is why any of that physical activity is accompanied by experience at all. Why is there something it feels like to be you? The question isn't abstract. It sits at the intersection of neuroscience, philosophy, physics, and AI. As we build systems that process language and reason about the world, the question of whether they are or could be conscious presses harder than ever. Chalmers doesn't offer an answer here. Only the sharpest possible version of the question.

Mateus — eu/acc 🇪🇺

14,034 次观看 • 3 个月前

The CDC Doesn't Want You to Hear This Conversation Between Joe Rogan and Tucker Carlson TUCKER: Is your average Amish teenager happier than your average conventional American teenager on Instagram? ROGAN: Well, they certainly have less instances of autism, which is really fascinating. It's very, very fascinating. CARLSON: The Amish have less autism? ROGAN: Yeah, there's almost none. TUCKER: Well, I'm not surprised. ROGAN: It's extremely rare. TUCKER: Why do we think that is? ROGAN: I wonder. I really do. TUCKER: Well, I can think of a couple — Yeah, I don't want to go Bobby Kennedy on you. ROGAN: But that's the problem. If you go Bobby Kennedy, they'll come for you. But the question is why? TUCKER: Look, and I don't know the answer, but... ROGAN: How is that not in the debate? How is that not in the conversation? TUCKER: Well, it's not only not in the conversation, you're punished for adding it to the conversation. And so, like... ROGAN: We are dancing around anti-vax conspiracy theories right now. TUCKER: Why be on the defensive? It's like, if you purport to represent science, and you're mad about a question. ROGAN: And you're ignoring data. TUCKER: Yeah, but even in the absence of data, science is a process. Yes. It's not a result. It's a way of doing things. And at the core of science is asking questions, including unlikely questions. That's what science is. And if you don't allow that, then you may be doing something, but what you're not doing is science. We can say that conclusively. So, for people to wrap themselves in the mantle of science and attack you for asking a question, they're frauds.

The Vigilant Fox 🦊

13,588,562 次观看 • 2 年前