>>683275 >>683278 I'm not a huge fan of the man but he always prefaces his videos like that by stating that it's just his own personal experience and he might be completely wrong. He doesn't pretend to be an academic.
>>684390 Cicero's whole reputation as an orator was based around elevating Latin as a language and popularizing its use among the intellectual. Greek was spoken as fashion by some in certain periods, but it wasn't the universal norm for the entirety of Roman history.
>>684765 That is true, Easton isn't as bad as I make him out to be but shit, I can't stand watching his videos. He knows his things, from literature anyway. Though I'd still take it with a pinch of salt. Skallagrim is just that weird autist with a dollop of green shit on his head.
I like most of his videos, but I've had a few times when I chatted with him online that have put me off. Once on chainmail, when I asked him why he uses butted mail despite a lack of evidence, and his response was that he thought butted worked fine so it was probably used. The other time I asked him about how he made his shield that was planked but without rreinforcements, and all he said was he felt new evidence suggested authentic it wasn't authentic and so wouldn't say.
It's a bit of an awkward position, since I really enjoy his videos and public "face", but my talks with him have sort of lessened that. I do agree with many of his historical theories (other than the butted mail and shield construction I mentioned earlier) though.
>>684413 underrated, sadly the truth. if you want real knowledge, and more then a small understanding on anything, just fucking read about it. documentaries are usually propagandist trash or utterly useless factual wise.
He is an annoying, popular history, ADD meme-spouter. Skall is reasonable but not academic. Capwell and Knyght Errant are God-tier. Easton is great and bases what he says both on research and extensive HEMA-experience but his videos are too long for what he says, its like he just turns on the camera and improvises how he wants to make his point.
In his social mobility video, he makes the argument that social mobility is unnecessary because the people who deserve to be the upper class have already reached the top. Obviously, this logic only works if you assume that all children genetically inherit the intelligence, competence and work ethic of their parents.
Many people called Lindy out on this in the comments but he defended his view; he basically reiterated that "children are like their parents," and therefore the stupid poor people should have stupid poor children, while the smart rich people should continue to spawn smart rich children. He effectively argued that the fact that there is little social mobility it Britain proves that everybody has already be sorted into their correct place.
Since he insist that genetics are the most important thing in determining the "merit" of a person, I asked him what his views on eugenics were. Pic related was his response. It's been two years, Lindy, and I'm still waiting on that pro-eugenics video of yours.
>>685930 Here are some direct quotes taken from his comments: >Innate merit is entirely inherited >If you inherit good genes then you inherit good genes, and in a meritocracy innately good people should rise/be near the top. Are you against meritocracy? >I was not referring to specific jobs, but to the sort of people classed as belonging to one or another 'class'. >Children take after their parents genetically about 75% of the time in terms of general quality, so there is a strong genetic bias
Perhaps you agree with his views on genetics, but perhaps not. Either way, you can't deny that he's a classist. He looks down upon the lower class as being relatively stupid, lazy and genetically inferior. He's very British in his views. As a mere peasant myself, I can't help but be a little disgusted by him.
Regardless, he still has a funny accent, so listening to him enthusiastically ramble on about swords will always be entertaining.
Capwell is an unfair comparison really. His job is to study, write and talk about armour, with intimate access to surviving examples from world class collections and contacts with similar people all over the world.
Not some guy talking about their LARP or sports experience from their spare bedroom.
>>686137 So he cuts his own hair and thinks it's pointless to worry about his appearance? Honestly if you get to his age and you're still fussing about your hair like a school girl then I don't know what to tell you.
I don't agree that the middle class is any less shallow and vapid than the lower class but I think his uncaring attitude towards his outward appearance is refreshing. He's not 20 anymore. That stuff doesn't matter.
>>686196 The problem is that he thinks that he can not give a fuck about cutting hair because it's for lel plebs and their plebby shit while trying to pretend that somehow middle class or rich people don't do the same.
>>686011 Damn. I really love his videos, he's my favourite individual youtuber I guess. But this puts me off a bit. I don't deny that genetics have some saying in what kind of a person you can grow up to be, but this view is, apart from being disgusting, is just really silly, simplified and far-fetched from reality. Something I'd expect from some basement /pol/ autist. Otherwise, I find his reasoning very intelligent in most cases. What I don't really get either is that the dude looks quite poor himself. The clothes, his place, it all looks pretty low-class to me. He even mentioned that he is nowhere near wealthy and that he can't afford a full suit of plate armour, which is just not THAT unachieveably expensive.
>>686011 >he makes the argument that social mobility is unnecessary No. He explains that people seem to take advantage of social mobility less frequently because individuals have already settled into classes which suit them best or ehich they deserve to occupy. By no means does he argue that it's "unnecessary".
I'm not bothered that he doesn't account for differences in the children of those who earn or end up in their spot, because children ARE extremely likely to emulate the behavior of their parents thanks to genetics AND environmental influences/conditioning. In most cases, whether they're comfortable with their circumstances or not, they simply maintain their progenitors' position
>>686288 I think it comes from the fact that he's a massive nationalist. He loves the antiquated British culture of the past. >pith helmets >stiff upper lip >tea and biscuits, tally-ho! You know, that sort of shit.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rObSWkQA7og Lindy is the sort of patriot who unironically loves everything that Monty Python satirizes in this video.
Now, there's nothing wrong with loving your country, but most decent people draw the line when it comes to the historically bad stuff. Most people understand that these aren't things to be approved of — Americans don't celebrate slavery, for example — but Lindy has such a massive hard-on for the days of yore that he makes excuses and tries to justify his countries numerous historical problems, such as classism. At least, that's the impression that I've gotten from his ramblings. I think he actually dedicated an entire video to explaining why the British concentration camps in Africa were actually benevolent "refugee camps," and how the forced imprisonment of woman and children and mass deaths were just an unfortunate logistical error.
>>686345 Bitch please, he literally calls a society with "no social mobility at all" an "utopia." Hell, he even uses ALL CAPS and an exclamation mark; you can't get anymore definitive than that. I'm sure he'd love to live in a feudal society — after all, they had even less social mobility than we do now! Wow, what a paradise!
And regardless to the validity to his claims about genetics, it does not change the fact that it is inescapably classist to say that poor people are "in their rightful place" because they're born naturally inferior to rich people.
It's 4am here in NZ so I can't argue this point anymore, but if you genuinely think of poor people are somehow fundamentally lesser than the ugly inbred aristocrats of the British upper class then you're not the kind of person that a dirty peasant like I would ever want to associate with. Fucking poms.
>>686506 >he literally calls a society with "no social mobility at all" an "utopia." It's technically true. Social mobility also includes violence, dishonesty, cheating, and other sorts of bad things. If there is no social mobility is means everyone is already in their appropriate place and there's no conflict either, because conflict is a form of attempted social mobility in itself.
This: >>686506, and he probably comes from a fairly well-off family. I don't know if he's ever mentioned it, but it's kind of obvious considering his background, profession, and lifestyle, and views. He studied archaeology at uni, something which mostly at least middle class people do (seriously, it sucks being poor in an archaeology program, because of how hard it is to relate to your peers on certain things, and how certain weird things are just inherent to them), he has a fairly posh accent, and he's employed as a dance instructor, which usually involves family money. He also seems to travel quite a bit. I've always thought of him as an upper-middle class person who's largely concentrated on his hobbies while surviving off of family money.
That being said, he can be entertaining, and I do think he makes some valid claims about history. For example, his video on the Holocaust is pretty spot-on, and it is kind of disrespectful to everyone else the Nazis killed to just talk about Jewish deaths, like they were the only ones that happened/mattered. But, some of his other opinions are so stupid and uninformed, it's hard to take his seriously as a whole.
>>686506 I think it's relevant that Lloyd volunteered at a university for a while as an evolutionary psychologist so he obviously thinks highly of the field. In my experience they go very hard on the genetic determinism stuff.
>>686506 >he literally calls a society with "no social mobility at all" an "utopia." Hell, he even uses ALL CAPS and an exclamation mark; you can't get anymore definitive than that. I can't tell if this is sarcasm.
>>686506 To me he seems a more grounded, modern breed of that classic English gentleman.
I find him endearing because we share interests, his manner is pleasant, and his erdudition, coupled with his nationality, reminds one of manly, Victorian scholarship (strange as that sounds). I've got this appealing conception of the learned English class that's knowledgeable, confident, curious, and masculine after a fashion; he evokes this in a way.
>>685000 Honestly, if you look at the way he handles getting schooled by more knowledgeable people, and even just the way he handles peoples in his comments sometimes, he's.. kinda autistic. He comes across as an overconfident asshole.
I think he's one of those brash autism types that does VERY well, because confidence and daring is great for charisma, and a lot of people are willing to be bitchslapped down by him simply because he plays the part of someone who can dish out bitchslaps. But when you try to get him on a human level, you come up face-first with the autism and rudeness and pushiness.
>>686570 >Social mobility also includes violence, dishonesty, cheating, and other sorts of bad things. >Implying feudalism had no violence, dishonesty, cheating, and other sorts of bad things too. >Implying the only source of social violence is class struggle.
Easiest shit in the world is to criticize from the side lines. If its not a thread about Lindybeige it's about Dan Carlin. If you don't enjoy them why do you watch/listen? What original content do you provide?
> OP asks if a particular aspect of someone's videos is wearing a bit thin > Posted immediately after Lindy releases yet another video moaning about how shit a popular historical tv series actually is > this clearly means that the OP doesn't watch Lindy videos and is just complaining based on nothing
> Asks what people complaining have created and claims they're whiners > in defence of a man who is famous for whining
Some of the stuff he complains about in videos is a bit much. Like moaning about in that Troy film, the bows they used were low poundage. When it's obvious that using full power bows is dangerous, and making them is just a needless effort for something that doesnt matter.
It's like complaining about seeing blank firing adapters and obvious blank rounds for guns in films.
>>691197 No. They could have used basic acting to make the bows appear to be a real bows/high poundage bows. The only reason it was obvious that they were low poundage/prop bows is that they had the actors hold them at full draw for an extended period of time, for no reason. Your blank firing adapters example doesn't work. A better comparison would be when actors cock a shotgun numerous times whenever they point it at someone, and a round doesn't fly out every time. There's no reason to do it, other than Hollywood convention, and all it does is tell the audience that the gun is not loaded. Same with the bows.
>>686011 >Obviously, this logic only works if you assume that all children genetically inherit the intelligence, competence and work ethic of their parents. It's not an assumption. All the most recent studies indicate that intelligence is highly heritable.
>Children take after their parents genetically about 75% of the time in terms of general quality, so there is a strong genetic bias >75% That's on the high end of what reputable studies estimate, but it's by no means outrageous. I myself am more inclined to say 55-65%, based on the different studies I've read about.
>Either way, you can't deny that he's a classist. He looks down upon the lower class as being relatively stupid, lazy and genetically inferior. He's very British in his views. All he's saying is that, scientifically speaking, the idea that we should expect people who have been given the same education to have the intelligence level is false, and that rooting around trying to find some phantom 'discrimination' to explain away the gap is completely pointless. And he's right. The nurture over nature people don't have a leg to stand on these days. He doesn't say anywhere that lower class children who do well should be kept in their place. Just that you shouldn't give mediocre students from lower class backgrounds access to better universities at the expense of the upper classes, because the assumption that they're only mediocre students because they're poor and will blossom once placed in the right environment is fallacious.
>As a mere peasant myself, I can't help but be a little disgusted by him. Then maybe your objections aren't actually based on logical flaws in his argument. Just a thought
>>684396 Personally, I really like Real Crusades History. + At the end of his videos he always puts a ton of reliable sauce + He does a lot of podcasts with actual historians/writers - He has a massive boner for the Crusaders (surprise) + So do I - Won't stop shilling that fan fiction of the Crusades he wrote
>>683275 Yes. And as a larper myself, that idea can have a tiny bit of merit,
Tiny. And not in regards to weapon handling.
Loyd, faggot that he is, bases his ideas on shields and hoplite spear usage on his "re-enactments".
Problem is, his page has pictures, and it's two, single lines drawn up, with 3-5 feet of fucking space between players.
In other words, totally irrelevant.
I can tell you a little bit about what various things do to a persons head in a fight, because i've experienced them, and the brain has trouble with "fake club aimed at your head vs real one" and hits you up with plenty of adrenaline regardless.
Oh, and because I do a LOT of fucking reading. Unlike loyd. That fucking useless shit.
Like, he has entire videos where nothing he says is right.
>>684775 >He knows his things, from literature anyway. Though I'd still take it with a pinch of salt. He's also a trained archaeologist, runs a network of HEMA schools, and has fought arranged duels with practitioners for delicious booze.
the most important part, though, is that he says this >I don't know, so i'm not going to go into that
>>685000 He also thinks we >know nothing about how great swords were used And that people >swung it in a big figure 8 and ran into pikes like WOOOSH JEDI TIME PEW PEW PEW
Oh, and a shield with enarmes can't be used to defend your legs. But a center gripped shield can.
>>685974 >its like he just turns on the camera and improvises how he wants to make his point. Pretty sure he does.
>>686102 I have a fraction of loyd budget, larp, and could make better videos.
>I have a fraction of loyd budget, larp, and could make better videos
That wasn't really my point. Capwell's day job in researching this kind of thing. He's in a whole separate league. For starters, he's an actual historian rather than a youtube one. It just so happens that some of his talks and documentaries have appeared on YouTube.
>>691343 >All he's saying is that the idea that we should expect people who have been given the same education to have the intelligence level is false, and that rooting around trying to find some phantom 'discrimination' to explain away the gap is completely pointless. No, he doesn't say a single thing about education in his video. You're making assumptions to try to justify his opinions.
His argument is that a lack of social mobility is evidence of an Utopian meritocracy because everybody has already been put into their right place. This argument is obviously flawed, because a lack of social mobility would also exist in a hellish dictatorship, which is obviously not even close to meritocracy. Social mobility exists in a meritocracy, and is therefore evidence that a society is a meritocracy. A lack of social mobility can therefore not serve as evidence of a meritocracy.
Saying "Britain is a meritocracy" is an assertion and therefore requires evidence. As we've established, you cannot cite a lack of social mobility as evidence of a meritocracy. >"If everybody stays where they are for their whole life then that's a sign that you've got tremendous meritocracy" As you can see, his entire argument is based on nonsense. It's logically bullshit.
>I myself am more inclined to say 55-65% If children are similar to be parents by around 50%, then in a perfect meritocracy of equal opportunity about half of all children should end up richer or poorer than their parents. That is indeed quite a lot of social mobility, as we would expect from a true meritocracy.
Also, you didn't actually refute his classim anywhere in your post, you just deflected attention towards something about affirmative action. That's not relevant to Lindy's classist claims. It is inescapably classist to insist that poor people are inferior to rich people. You literally can not post a more textbook case of classim than that.
And don't accuse me of being biased having made such a cheap post yourself.
The first video I found of him, was not through his videos on history (I am actually here because of the shitty philosophy discussions); I found him by having a similar mindset as him on global warming. The pretentious nature of him spoke to my younger self but now I have outgrown his fad.
A written criticism of him has been long overdue: First of all, the only thing I have ever heard of him having studied at any academic level is maybe architecture or evolutionary psychology. In his "About me", he cites his A levels rather than a Bachelor's degree or akin, so it is fair to assume he is at most an undergrad; which explains a lot. He still claims to argue from an evolutionary psychologist standpoint; basically a revamped version of sociobiology; which tries to explain psychological behaviours with a evolutionary meta-theoretical framework. This doesn't merely explain a lot of his points, but a lot of his misjudgements. In his intellectual ontology, contingencies don't exist, neither does any kind of secondary property of nature (akin to what contemporary philosophers believe of the agencies of the mind): Genetic determinism or inherited privilege - you may choose only one
He uses a lot of these ideas to affirm his his position in the power structure he was born into. Another example of such denial is how he totally disregards that women de jure was discriminated against to claim they had social power within family structures (which is a point already raised by feminist sociologists and anthropologists): Woman-power in the past Notice that when he defines "big stuff", he would do so still from what would be seen as a masculine role. He totally disregards women being perceived as objects of trade and rather focuses on men being expandable: Sex power - why women were different and men were expendable
It is very important to realise that this point isn't relevant to most people, since most people don't go to war. Cont.
>>695588 Yes, women were regarded in higher respects due to their limited ability of fertility; but men has often been perceived as more valuable due to their productive ability (also noted by a lot of anthropologists): to the extent that a lot of cultures creates a "middle sex" where women can act as men (without ever having children) just to increase production in dire circumstances. Exactly these circumstances have been more influential than any war.
He is also providing more proof of his confirmation bias whenever he speaks of how English or the British politics system is great.
On politics: He claims that not taking a side with a specific party is the better position because of individual politics being better in certain scenarios. This shows that he totally disregards an overarching system of ideas/ideology and tries to be totally pragmatic; he literally tries to not have an ideology (which I think is inherently flawed since it lacks a strong criticism of society). Almost anything he says is affirming an inactive stance to social change; he seems very nostalgic about outdated social roles.
>>695592 On philosophy: He doesn't say a lot on philosophy, but when he does, it is totally unrelevant.
>My brain is what controls my behaviour. It is, like all matter, composed entirely of chemicals. It is extraordinarily complicated, with many many working parts, all interconnected in a fiendish and as-yet unfathomed pattern. No matter how complicated a thing is, however, it remains true that at any given instant in time, it is in a particular state. The chemicals are joined in particular combinations, and energy and matter are moving around in particular directions.
Taken from his site.
He is basically arguing that the brain is purely made up out of chemicals, without arguing with any opposing view of this, and rather just assumes it as a fact. Therefore I will elaborate on the contemporary field: If there are universal laws, and if indeterminism is true, it still seems to lead to there not being free will. A lot of people who believe in free will, argues for determinism, since they think that the actions MUST follow from our personality or akin. It has nothing to do with determinism and indeterminism, it has something to do with universal laws contra dispositions within secondary properties/ontologies. The Newtonian revolution overthrew the medieval philosophy of dispositions and rather focused it in laws of nature rather than contingent agencies. A lot of people today argue for dispositions rather than universal laws of nature.
Yet he solely takes the (probably unbeknownst to him) stance of a post-positivist reductionist, where everything in nature can be explained by materialistic laws, without knowing that there exists other viable viewpoints.
Just look at this, it went well until he claimed that religion was a package deal. It is basically stating >Anyone believing in Christianity must accept the exact same religious dogmas!
I will just leave it here since I believe most people on here could provide a similar criticism and I am honestly tired of expanding on him.
Conclusion: He is basically an undergrad re-enforcing existing stereotypes without any self-distance. He has almost never altered his position from what would presumably be his socio-economic position and neither his pre-perceived ideas of certain topics. A demagogue with too much of an ego and too little of an education.
>>695592 >Yes, women were regarded in higher respects due to their limited ability of fertility; but men has often been perceived as more valuable due to their productive ability (also noted by a lot of anthropologists): to the extent that a lot of cultures creates a "middle sex" where women can act as men (without ever having children) just to increase production in dire circumstances. Exactly these circumstances have been more influential than any war. We can also look at the results of China's one child policy to see the value that society places on men compared to woman. Lindy argues that, because of fertility, woman are more important in the grand scheme of a peoples survival, but relative to the needs and wants of any individual that importance goes out the window.
>He uses a lot of these ideas to affirm his his position in the power structure he was born into. This is absolutely correct.
>>695595 >He is basically arguing that the brain is purely made up out of chemicals, without arguing with any opposing view of this, and rather just assumes it as a fact. What's the problem with this stance?
>>695596 I should have re-read this to correct all the grammar mistakes and the formatting.
My apologies, but my native language doesn't differentiate on "are/is" and "do/does" etc.
>Genetic determinism or inherited privilege - you may choose only one >Woman-power in the past >Sex power - why women were different and men were expendable
These are video titles of his.
I wrote this right after I woke up and I am very tired still, and I wrote it in one quick go.
However, I would like to add, on: >he totally disregards that women de jure was discriminated against to claim they had social power within family structures
I find this important due to him kinda disregarding that manipulation and covert operations in society are generally frowned upon. If a woman has influence over a man, and influences the politics of said man, she will be seen as a vile person. A lot of the aspects of controlling power structures from a standpoint of marginalisation, especially when it is enforced by the law, will be frowned upon and is a dangerous exercise.
A similar argument could be said of blacks being born poor, they could just steal money! It is kinda a ridiculous since they would have to break laws or social norms to gain more influence in society; the same could have been true of women trying to influence the general politics of a country.
>>695669 >If a woman has influence over a man, and influences the politics of said man, she will be seen as a vile person. Nero's mother and his first wife are considered to have very positive influence on him.
After all he went nuts after his kid died and he married for the second time(but this time with dumb slut slave, who didn't have ANY influence on him).
In everyday life it's more complicated as it depends on kind of influence she has on him. A wife who made her alcoholic husband stop drinking will be seen very positively by everybody but his alcoholic friends(if he had those) and his favourite pub owner.
>>695667 That anyone who won't find a problem with it has never read philosophy and shouldn't comment on the problem of free will.
To make a long introduction to philosophy of mind short: A lot of people today accept that there exists secondary properties of nature (albeit without causal roles most of the times) which are in some sort of relation to first properties of nature. Secondary properties are colours, smells, or 'qualia. First properties are weight, speed, mass etc.
To claim that everything is simply dictated by first properties is at the root of the problem of free will, since it doesn't allow human interference with nature. Allowing some causality to second properties would allow for some kind of free will. Stephen Mumford argues that indeterminism allows for dispositions to be a viable alternative to deterministic laws, and therefore second properties can have causal roles.
A lot of 20th century philosophy was basically a failure to reduce second properties to first properties and the idea has largely been abandoned altogether due to people providing such strong counter-examples that is truly seems impossible.
Therefore, the stance of indeterminism and property dualism akin the Mumford's is much more popular today than ever before in post-modern times.
>>695679 Point granted. But I talk specifically about going against social norms to increase ones own influence. The point is more abstractly put than some specific incidents may provide. De jure discrimination cannot be justified by a possible illegal act (the similar argument can be put given social norms). I am not a historian so I have no idea of specific incidents and neither general historical movements.
>>695682 >Secondary properties are colours, smells, or 'qualia. >First properties are weight, speed, mass etc. If you define them like this and try to argue for a free will in any way you've already failed.
>>695706 Secondary properties are derivative or primary properties in this reasoning. You can define colour of object by the range of electromagnetic spectrum it reflects. And you can define speed as "fast" which is relative term just like "brown" or "orange".
What you are looking for is physical reality vs perception of reality and the question whether perception is influenced by free will only(as in - deterministic conditions are meaningless), both by free will and deterministic conditions or by deterministic conditions only(as in - free will doesn't exist).
>>695771 >You can define colour of object by the range of electromagnetic spectrum it reflects. And you can define speed as "fast" which is relative term just like "brown" or "orange".
And I didn't do that, you did.
I believe that secondary properties are primary in an ontological sense, and secondary in a pragmatic social sense; I have never defined one as derivative of the other.
And no, you cannot technically define (as in reduce) a colour of an object as the electromagnetic spectrum it reflects, that has been attempted and criticised. Colours have not been successfully reduced to any specific first property as of now, and if you believe you have, there is a lot of fame waiting for you.
>What you are looking for is physical reality vs perception of reality and the question whether perception is influenced by free will only(as in - deterministic conditions are meaningless), both by free will and deterministic conditions or by deterministic conditions only(as in - free will doesn't exist).
This sentence is an absolute clusterfuck and I don't understand it properly. >question whether perception is influenced by free will only What? Like literally what?
>>695790 >And no, you cannot technically define (as in reduce) a colour of an object as the electromagnetic spectrum it reflects, that has been attempted and criticised Because of what? Colour depends on 2 specific conditions: >lightning(which isn't necessarily perfect) in the environment the object is placed in >the distribution of whole-range spectrum reflected by the object(as in - colour in "ideal" lightning) This is how you approach colour when you're designing lightning systems for various places(from art galleries where you want to have very "real" colours through some shops which want the lightning to show the colour more attractively to factory where you only care for yellow, green and red to be visible) and as you can see they're pretty deterministic.
But hey - you can say - there are people who will perceive colours slightly differently than the others(in fact most of them will perceive them differently). And this is perceived reality I was talking about. And it isn't different from physical reality, it just treats it in an ambiguous or relative way(fast is relative and ambiguous, orange is ambiguous)
>What you are looking for is physical reality vs perception of reality and the question whether perception is influenced by free will only(as in - deterministic conditions are meaningless), both by free will and deterministic conditions or by deterministic conditions only(as in - free will doesn't exist).
I'll rephrase it: What you are looking for is physical reality vs perception of reality(which I covered above) and the question whether perception is influenced by: >free will only(or maybe I should say - predominately) >both by free will and deterministic conditions >by deterministic conditions only(see free will only) because trying to differ between primary and secondary properties is basically differing between properties which we measure and control very often(speed, spatial dimensions) and which we tend to perceive but not measure in everyday life.
>>695836 >I have never read philosophy, but I am sure I can do it better than philosophers.
First of all, it would be much better to define colour as a specific brain state or a formation of matter in your brain etc. This totally shits on your reductionist account, since you can have dreams which isn't dependent on any sort of light and still have colour. As Levine stated, even if you define it as "State X in your brain correlates with qualia Y", you cannot claim that state X is Y. This is provided by a lot of thought experiments like philosophical zombies, variations of Mary's room, 'What is it like to be a bat?' and the fact that qualia and physical properties seem essentially different but correlated by a metaphysical contingent law. If you accept property dualism and try to correlate it with physical realit, like supervenience as an example, you're getting into modern philosophy. But from hereon it is possible to claim that secondary properties have causal roles in nature, just like first properties do, therefore enabling free will to exist.
Relativism doesn't imply that there aren't objective truths about subjective experience. We might perceive objects differently, but that doesn't negate the possibility of an objective nature of qualia (like pain always being a 'bad' experience for the subject, all colours having a common property, sound differs from colours in that property etc.)
No, 'perception of reality' has nothing to do with this.
I claim that colours are ontological entities/properties in the world and have causal roles (or dispositions).
Determinism/indeterminism has almost no impact on whether free will exists or not.
Determinism dependent on physical laws and only physical laws has such an implication etc.
I am talking about the colour as a property in itself, not colour as something we ascribe in our everyday life to certain objects.
When I speak of 'green' I am not saying 'That green which the grass possess'.
>>695862 >since you can have dreams which isn't dependent on any sort of light and still have colour
Yea, and everyone knows psychedelic drugs can allow you to experience colourful patterns, they are chemicals activating the pathways utilised during normal perception, yet over stimulating the pathways resulting in hallucination.
>>695862 >I have never read philosophy, but I am sure I can do it better than philosophers. 3 post from now you'll start asking me about my degree. I'm calling it so you don't do this.
>since you can have dreams which isn't dependent on any sort of light and still have colour. they are dependent on the sort of light I am dreaming of(often with pretty fantastical properties), dreams are just the sort of experience where you rarely notice details like this >>695872 has better idea about problem with it and that's why I'd say I agree with you on that point. > it is possible to claim that secondary properties have causal roles in nature, just like first properties do, therefore enabling free will to exist. >Relativism doesn't imply that there aren't objective truths about subjective experience. Pick one.
If secondary properties can be defined by using objective truths(first properties) then the entire term is redundant because that makes primary properties and secondary properties the very same thing.
>>695893 Objective truths=/=first properties. 1+1=2 is an objective truth but has no material instantiation.
They are seemingly/intuitively not the same thing. You can experience qualia directly to your subject whereas first properties seem to act upon objects in the world somehow. A colour can exist in space etc. Observations like these should be enough for us to investigate such a question further.
>they are dependent on the sort of light I am dreaming of(often with pretty fantastical properties)
How are they? They are clearly more likely just neurons in your brain rather than a surface or light. If you're going to take a reductionist account, this is clearly a better position to argue for (indirect realism is still compatible to this, but naïve realism isn't).
>then the entire term is redundant because that makes primary properties and secondary properties the very same thing.
It doesn't matter. If you're a materialist reductionist you need to argue that secondary properties are somehow reducible to primary properties. Sure, the term might be redundant, but we don't know whether they are the same thing or not. People for a long time didn't know that the morning star and the evening star are the same planet; now we know.
>the very same thing. No, most people would argue that there is more complexity in the physical reality than the mental reality. Two different brains can have the exact same mental state, information is lost when going to second properties.
You could argue that there are two kinds of properties, secondary properties supervene on first properties, and the laws of the universe are deterministic/indeterministic (but purely physical).
The original point is that: Lindy does most likely not believe in secondary properties as fundamental (he is a materialist reductionist most likely). He implicitly assumes that laws govern the universe. Which makes free will a very easy thing to argue against.
>>696006 I, on the other hand, is, as pointed out earlier: >>695671 (which was quite funny) an idealist.
I believe that the world is primarily governed by second properties and that the physical laws are reducible (maybe not pragmatically reducible, I don't know if science or philosophy can or will ever succeed with such a feat) to them.
That is, I believe that the very main causes of the world are subjects acting dependent on sensory input.
This view isn't philosophically absurd, and there are a lot of intermediary views that isn't idealist.
There are people who give a compatibilist account for free will and some sort of property dualism.
I reject property dualism and substance dualism and claim that only secondary properties exist.
However, directly when you enter into the possibility of property dualism, you can give a good ground for dispositions and later on free will, so if you're going to argue against free will you need to reduce secondary properties into first properties, or argue that there are physical laws which govern everything.
He's right on most things, like when he harps on hollywood or bad movies portraying weapons, armor and general medieval life wrong, but one thing he is definitely wrong in is that stupid video he made on pike formations never engaging each other
Thread replies: 133 Thread images: 7
Thread DB ID: 516468
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the shown content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows their content, archived. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content, then use the post's [Report] link! If a post is not removed within 24h contact me at firstname.lastname@example.org with the post's information.