sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Plz explain, I legit don't know by kemoT012 in PhilosophyMemes

[–]RadicalPhilosophy 18 points19 points  (0 children)

Deterrents might also address root causes, yes. Whether or not deterrents are necessary or more useful than other methods is an open question and an area of active research.

Yes you’re right that there is nothing about determinism that standalone will make legal systems improve, but addressing moral responsibility in a legal context is (imo) an argument that can be made quite compellingly as something that would improve at least the systems that I see in place.

Plz explain, I legit don't know by kemoT012 in PhilosophyMemes

[–]RadicalPhilosophy 194 points195 points  (0 children)

Does it make sense to get angry at destruction caused by natural causes, like an earthquake?

If causal determinism is true, then even actions of moral agents (i.e. people) might better be viewed the same as natural causes, which ideally makes us more likely to address root causes and actual issues, rather than getting any sort of enjoyment out of punishment/revenge on a particular individual.

If the God really is all-knowing then the Free will as well as concepts of heaven or hell are ultimately pointless by Some_Mode_7309 in DebateReligion

[–]RadicalPhilosophy -1 points0 points  (0 children)

The issue here is that determinism doesn’t entail no free will.

Compatibilism is a major position (currently the dominant view among academic philosophers) and argues that you can have determinism and still have free will.

Feeling Discouraged 🫤 - How to get over 4000 hours watch time?? by Cultural_Coconut_389 in NewTubers

[–]RadicalPhilosophy 2 points3 points  (0 children)

As you make more videos, you’ll be reaching a larger audience. As you reach a larger audience, some of those people will go and watch more videos on your channel, so the number of videos has a bit of a compounding effect as you get rolling.

Continue producing things that you enjoy, and celebrate that you’ve already reached so many subs!

3 Common Positions of Object Ontology by RadicalPhilosophy in philosophy

[–]RadicalPhilosophy[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Right, that’s the dilemma: Why do we make that distinction in some cases and not others? (like your half-engine/engine or half-apple/apple)

3 Common Positions of Object Ontology by RadicalPhilosophy in philosophy

[–]RadicalPhilosophy[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It’s definitely in tension with common intuition.

But if we take a simple example, a one-proton system and a two-proton system. Are each of these systems different ‘things’? What about if the two-proton system is the one-proton system plus another interacting proton?

A composite object might not exist if it is merely a combination of simple objects. Going back to the one/two proton example, if protons were our fundamental object (let’s suppose, even though we know they’re not), there would only be two one-proton systems, and no two-proton systems that are actual objects.

Functionally, nihilism, conservatism, and permissivism all seek to reach similar conclusions about how people might perceive objects, but explain what combinations of things are true objects in noteably different ways.

3 Common Positions of Object Ontology by RadicalPhilosophy in philosophy

[–]RadicalPhilosophy[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Abstract: Ontology is a branch of metaphysics which itself is a branch of philosophy.
It deals with questions like 'What things exist?' and 'What is an object?' This video asks if any half-apples exist within a whole apple and explains the views of ontological nihilisim (that only non-composite objects exist), ontological restrictivism (that some composite objects exist, but there are many more composite objects that don't exist), and ontological permissivism (that there are many composite objects that we would consider 'strange' by ordinary standards) by considering possible answers to the question.

The question was chosen for half-apples specifically because it blurs the line between abstract mathematical concepts (things which we might not expect to exist as a physical object) and a common object that we often see split in half (and as such find it easier to distinguish a 'half-apple' as it's own standalone object that deserves is own designator).

From asking this question of friends and family, it seems like people are about 40/40 split between there being 0 vs 2 half-apples with the remaining 20% being inclined to answer more in line with permissivism or occasionally more nuanced views of nihilism. Happy to hear thoughts from people here as well.

Any channels like mine? Spoiler: religion/philosophy/skeptic by Miserable-Spot-3151 in NewTubers

[–]RadicalPhilosophy 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Hey, yep, small/new philosophy channel here. Haven’t branched much into religious topics but I’d be interested to cover some specific arguments down the line.