Transcript for:
Philosophy Overview and Key Concepts

and what is philosophy We can say that philosophy is essentially an activity of research that focuses on fundamental problems concerning the nature of the reality of knowledge and of the value contrary to what happens with the problems of science the problems of the philosophy of how the problems of Mathematics is not empirical problems This is not resolved based on observation and experience but rather by thought only however to unlike Mathematics, philosophy does not has formal methods of proof as well to find answers to problems that philosophers are concerned with especially the critical discussion and argumentation so we can conclude that philosophy involves the following activities were there problems to analyze fundamental concepts by theories that is, answers to problems that is concerned with arguing in favor of these theories and imagine possible objections relatively the same What are the questions of philosophy as we have just discussed see the opposite of your problem e-mail 13 empirical the problems of philosophy are conceptual in nature and means that most of the problems philosophical knowledge consists of of concepts such as what is reality what is consciousness What is truth what is beauty and etc. Also there are also philosophical problems About the relationships between concepts such as for example the mind is different from the body the existence of God is compatible with the existence of evil in the world and etc. You can see that these problems cannot be solved. through observation and experience because they imply reflecting on the form how things are as well as about the the way these can and should be is by this reason that unlike the empirical sciences philosophy is considered a conceptual activity priori This is the problems that arise occupies can be resolved only by thought which does not mean that the philosophers despise or ignore the results achieved by science empirical some philosophical problems can only be resolved by taking into account some empirical information for example if we consider that as a general rule the cause pain we need to know that type of Creature is capable of feeling pain so we can act correctly with everything It is not up to the philosopher to investigate the nervous system of different organisms and the respective pain mechanisms this information is obtained by processes empirical But once obtained it passes is available for use by philosophers in their theories and arguments finally it remains to be said that just like the science also philosophy is found organized into different disciplines just as in science there are several scientific disciplines such as physics, chemistry, biology too philosophy we have certain disciplines philosophical depending on the type of problems that deal with such as metaphysics what is it epistemology what is knowledge axiology What are values ​​ethics? which is a correct action and etc problems as we saw previously the point of starting point for the philosophical discussion are the problems the main skills philosophical problems related to is the ability to form adequately Furthermore the business must also be able to clarify a problem This is make its content and its relevance concepts and always also that a part important of philosophical work consists of analyzing concepts in language to move terms like man horse free will God work of art etc large we refer to our concepts in this case of man horse free will God work of art respectively different terms can express the same concept as it happens for example with the terms porta Minas and pencil and one only has one can see everything its ambiguity reviewed more than one concept as happens for example with the The term bank can refer to either a piece of furniture as an institution financial analyzing a concept is explain its meaning price effect philosophers can appeal to that it was an explicit definition that was a characterization an explicit definition the properties or characteristics that all things have which the concept applies and sun They have in common, that is, they are indicated necessary and sufficient conditions for that the concept is correctly applied in a characterization some properties or characteristics that the things I I think the concept applies to common but did not undergo a definition rigorous exhaustive is what happens for example when we say things like philosophy involves feeding theories of context of philosophical activity we call theories or theses the different answers that pilots advance to solve the problems that you deal with however that is being written the philosophers are not the sentences themselves said but rather the ideas that are underlying, that is, the propositions one proposition is the true thought or false literally expressed by a declarative sentence as with concepts and terms also exist cases where two different sentences pressure the same proposition as it happens for example with free will it is incompatible with determinism and indeterminism is incompatible with the free will and cases where only one sentence due to its ambiguous character expresses the proposition as it happens by example with students only consulting books in the library that can express so much idea that all the books you used we consult the library with the idea that the only thing that students they consult the book in the library as if the propositions were true can be true or false the value of truth of a proposition It is true or the falsehood of this proposition thus always just the decorative phrases serve to express propositions because only these have the content likely to be considered true or false to purify this aspect in us Compare the sentences that follow John Person cuts salaries does not close the door John closes the door they use closed the door How can we see the sentences interrogative exclamatory and imperatives represented in paragraphs A B and C respectively in the heart propositions because it does not express any content likely to be true or false so only the sentences declaratives like the one that appears in the paragraph D has how a thought can be true or and yet in all declarative sentences for They are propositions some of them are absurd and consequently they also do not express a true or false thought is what happens for example with the phrase includes green ideas sleep furiously this way we can conclude that only the declarative sentences that are not nonsense express propositions still matter mention that there are different types of propositions are therefore frequent no one the categorical propositions of conditional propositions of categorical ones affirm or deny in an absolute and Unconditional or party you conditions and without admitting any alternative as happens for example in case that follows only means mortal can it is said that categorical propositions It always has the underlying s&p form. which involve the assignment of a predicate P a subject S thus in what concerns the quality of the propositions categorical can be affirmative when stated something or negative when black something and with regard to quantity categorical propositions can be universal when what they affirm or deny that it applies to the entire subject particular when what he stated business and apply a part of the subject or singular when what they affirm or deny whether only a certain one applies subject examples of propositions categorical Universal affirmative all the boys some fortnite Universal negative in a boy plays fortnite particular affirmative some capable any particular fortnite negative nor all the boys play fortnite singular affirmative fortnite is cool singular negative fortnite is not I did the conditional propositions establish relations of consequence an implication between propositions says that a proposition implies another when it is impossible for the first is true and the second is false or otherwise stated when the second is a consequence of the first This means that the propositions conditionals establish conditions necessary and sufficient between simplest propositions the relation of necessary condition is generally expressed by the expression only if as happens for example in the following if something is an animal only if it is a being alive I don't know if it's a dead animal in turn the condition relation sufficient is generally expressed by expression if as for example if I am man then they are an animal like that Can it is said that conditional propositions has the following underlying structure if P then the p only if the proposition that comes first after sweet or before the sun is designated before tooth and the proposition that arise in second place after then or after of the sun if it deigned to be consequential not to conditional before tooth is the condition sufficient for the consequent EA consequent is a necessary condition to the antecedent otherwise if P so what does it mean is that it is a condition enough for it to be all that it is p is also that or that have cannot be to verify without verifying the other side we say that taking a condition necessary so that with what SUSP what so foot which in this case means that everything that is because it is also P or small can be checked unintentionally also about stay I apologize for the if weight and cheese for example if Portuguese is a sufficient condition for be European because if someone is Portuguese is also certainly European but European it is only necessary and not sufficient to be Portuguese because you can't be Portuguese without being European but can be Europeans in being Portuguese take this moment to say that Portugal is the biggest as we have seen previously. We have to proceed to a explicit definition of something is not enough present the necessary conditions for enough we have to present conditions that are simultaneously necessary and sufficient which generally expresses through the expression if and only if as by example something water if and only if it is h2oh thus to present conditions simultaneously necessary and enough we resort to propositions biconditionals, that is, propositions that has underlying PC form I know that [Music] these propositions are called biconditional for each of the propositions that the compose and imply or have as consequence to another This is because it is simultaneously true that if P then q and which then stands in effect when we say that water h2oh we are affirming that all water is h2oh and that all what is h2oh is water or in other words words we are affirming that this someone water is then h2oh and if someone h2oh then it is water and it means that a necessary and sufficient condition for it grows water is to be h2oh or in other words someone water if and only if there are eggs now that we now understand better what is at stake when we talk about theories in context of philosophical activity Already we can indicate what are the main tasks of philosophers in what concerns respect the same main tasks that philosophers listen to related with theories are formulated theories and evaluate theories form a theory in a if you teach through a sentence declarative is a possible answer to the problem under analysis for example in what concerns the traditional problem of free will we can defend the following theories that we do not have free free will because you are determined we have free will and therefore inside is determined and we have free free will even though everything is over Generally the most discussed theories are abbreviated by means of a term or of an expression that serves to designate them in the example presented the theories announced correspond respectively by having radical libertarianism and by moderate determinism however we must be cautious in using these designations and say that you have classes refer specifically Because sometimes they are used to designate perspectives of the generally different exist by example different versions of realism and of objectivism relativism and subjectivism and many other isms listen to his theories we must take into account account the following aspects the theory It answers the philosophical problem if proposes to resolve active the consistent more plausible theory than the alternatives respond to a month in which Despite the theory advanced search effectively constitute itself as a response to the problem at hand rather than limiting itself to present a set of statements generic more or less related to the problem but they don't respond directly to the same as they respond to other related problems but not that is being discussed For example when someone asks if existence of God is or is not compatible with existence of evil in the world does not constitute an adequate response to say that it is not believe in the existence of God then problem of the existence of God Although is related to the previous one is not identifies entirely with him by other words we serve to respond bugalhos waiting for someone asked me eyes to answer question two we have to I will read the consistency of the theory but what is consistency? consistency is a set property of propositions says that a set by positions is consistent with all propositions that compose it can be simultaneously true on the other side says that a set of propositions is inconsistent with the propositions that make up cannot be all simultaneously true for example it is not consistent to sustain simultaneously that God exists cannot there is evil in the world, the hand in the world and God exists in one of these propositions has to be false or is false the existence of God is not compatible with the existence of evil of the world or is it false that there is evil in the world or is it false God exists, maybe happen to be all false or that surely cannot be all true and means that Matilde inconsistent can never be true or at least one of the ideas that this supports is necessarily false and therefore should not be reformulated or even rejected and replaced by a theory that does not presents this type of inconsistencies internal point 3 points in the direction of make a comparative analysis of the various possible answers to a problem this analysis I will make a comparison in I miss each of them in my heart relation to the problem that is being discussed but also of its scope and explanatory power of the questions it leaves to solve and the new issues that raises and above all the arguments that there are for and against each of them In other words, we should prefer theories with greater explanatory power This is theories that allow us to solve a wider range vast problems instead of theories that seem to be formed to handle problems that are too specific or meanings to respond to quite similar problems we should prefer theories that are capable of solve the problem at hand without having to in introducing complications or problems additional for which it does not offer a satisfactory answer is the so-called principle of parsimony large prefer theories supported by good arguments theories that have good arguments against they arguments finally we are left with refer to the main references of philosophers with regard to arguments properly speaking one argument is a set of propositions in which it is intended to justify or defend one of them the conclusion based on in the other or in the others that are called premises there are expressions linguistics that typically serve to indicate this intention the indicators premises and conclusion when someone claims that God does not exist because evil of the world is using why to indicate what is the reason that leads to thinking that God does not exist or is being used as indicator of premises on the other hand when someone claims that there is evil in the world therefore God does not exist is using the logo to indicate that the idea that evil of the world the door or has as consequence the idea that God does not exists or is used as a argumentation completion indicator is assumed as in the most aspects important in philosophical activity because As we have just seen, it is not enough to move forward theories that answer the problems is I need to substantiate these theories as the arguments for this the pilots have to be able to formulate arguments evaluate arguments and counterarguments air by explicitly formulating a argument or to reconstruct a argument was presented to us by another in a confused disordered way we must follow the steps below identify the conclusion of the argument identify the premises of the argument complete the formal argument explicitly the argument to see how is that this works in practice let's go imagine an example argument presented in a confusing way and disorganized and try to reformulate it explicit form and the argument is clear that God does not exist since he would not allow it that this evil in the world is why God does not there is point 1 and in which the first thing to do is identify the conclusion from the argument for this we have that try to answer the following question what is the idea that the author of the argument I want to see you You can have another way which presents instruments that we talked about believing that in this case It seems clear that the author of the argument that convinces us to believe that God does not exist in some cases we can easily test the conclusion of argument if we find one of the conclusion indicators presented above in the example the expression therefore indicates that what comes next is conclusion of the argument in point 2 establishes that we can then identify the premises of the argument for this we have to answer the following question reasons Introduce the author of the argument to defend your conclusion in the example presented it is stated that the existence of God is not compatible with the existence of evil in the world, that is claims that the existence of God is a sufficient condition for there to be no bad in the world we can need this idea through the following conditional then there is normal in the world at point 3 it is recommended that you try to detect whether some implicit question This is some premise that the author of the argument does not came to formulate explicitly but that legitimate to assume that one of the ideas that needs to disappear in order to get to conclusion an example presents I think that we can assume that the author of the argument Believes that there is evil in world finally at the suggested 4 year point that we write each premise on a line different followed by the conclusion that the enamel in the anti line provided by word logo to be easier to identify the different spaces of the argument further suggests that all lines should be numbered for example with a two and three and so on successively in this case the argument presented example is there any thing like a Give up then normal in world two exists evil from world three therefore God does not exist as far as task of evaluating the arguments in favor and against each of the theories in confrontation philosophers must seek answer the following questions 1 as premises support and justify effectively the conclusion two as premises are true and three are premises are more positive and acceptable than the conclusion point 10 that it is verified that the permissions actually supporting the conclusion of the argument or if despite the claim of the author this support relationship does not exist and here for an argument to be good is I need this for me to be related this way with the conclusion that makes the improbable impossible that this is false if the premises are true this property of arguments are called validity says that an argument is valid when it is impossible or very unlikely that the your premises are true AND your false conclusion let us buy the following arguments if it rains the ground gets wet it rained soon the ground was invited to rain the floor looks better the floor was invited or possible by mind the left is valid because the truth of the premises guarantees the truth the conclusion This is not we are able to conceive of a situation that makes the premises true and false conclusion and means that if not accept the conclusion of the argument then there is at least one premise that we also do not accept it as right-minded invalid because the truth of the premises does not offer any justification for if we accept the truth the conclusion is perfectly possible to imagine a situation in which the premises are true AND false conclusion to be drawn establishes that they rained a condition enough for the mattress to get wet but doesn't tell us it's a condition necessary therefore it remains open to possibility of the floor getting sticky other reasons such as the fact of the automatic irrigation system will be active someone to be drooling on the floor in this if the premises can be both true despite it not having rained is It should be noted that validity is a property of arguments and in propositions completely is a relation between the truth values ​​that the eight technical premises and conclusion of the arguments on the other hand the truth is a property of propositions and not use the same because only these can be true or false In fact the the fact that the argument is valid is not enough to convince us of the Truth its conclusion almost for example in argument that follows just don't stumble Chinese then Mount Everest in the United States United Donald Trump Chinese logo motivate these arguments are in the United States have exactly the same structure as the argument presented a little while ago and By therefore it is also valid however since this for me the false This is not enough to convince us of True to your conclusion and it is precisely for this reason that in point 2 suggests that today it is found that the argument is valid if it seeks determine whether your premises are true or if you are looking for determining the emergence is solid says that the argument is sound when it is valid and has true premises your turn is a very appealing property of arguments Because as we have seen previously about mind for vale is truth the premises guarantees I am supports the truth the conclusion This is if we accept that the premises of a valid argument are true we have good reasons to think that it is a conclusion also ué however the solidity is not sufficient for an argument to be persuasive for in the following example Socrates was a philosopher so it just means the philosopher does not know this argument is valid because it is not possible to have your permission is true AND conclusion false and it is solid but it is a fact historical only they made a philosopher But despite this we cannot say that we a good reason was given for believe in the truth this conclusion after all the only thing that did because he draws the conclusion while premise arguments like these are not Teacher Conventions the option to accept this premise who the match would already be willing to accept the conclusion is precisely for this reason that in point 3 I recommend and after we find that morally it is only for him we were careful to check that the its premises are the most departure plausible or acceptable than the conclusion this property the arguments It is called urgency That which a argument is that urgent when in addition of these oils have more premises plausible what the conclusion if a argument is not with us runs the risk of being viciously circular and By consequently not being able to persuade no one of the Truth of its conclusion to not be those who were already leaving willing to accept it let us consider the following examples If you have a high fever you have to go to the doctor I have a high fever so I have to to go to the doctor If you have a high fever you have to go to the doctor I don't have to go to the doctor right away I don't have a high fever, let's imagine that In both cases we find ourselves in a circumstances that make the premises true, that is, let's imagine that the arguments are solid therefore we have to consider that in the situation of left we have a lot of fever and in the situation on the right We don't have to actively go to the doctor time since it is easier to determine If we have a high fever, what do we know? do we have to go to the doctor or not? the left's argument is that we step by right goal is not that the People this purpose includes highlighting that when the argument seems good but it isn't we have to say that it is a fallacy if the problem is in the form of the argument This is if the argument seems basic but it is not then we say that it is a formal fallacy this problem is not in the form but not content That is if the argument for soil and alcohol people but it is not then we say that it is a informal fallacy the last of the tasks of the philosophers about which we are going praying is a task of counting on increasing the count increase is to use food to show what is wrong with a given theory and argument there are different ways to do it let's go analyze some of them to directly construct an argument whose conclusion is The negation of theory A negation inverts the truth value of a proposition That is, when a proposition is true its negation is false and vice versa this means any proposition is inconsistent with their respective claim and By consequently if we can show that A negation of a proposition is true we were able to show that this proposition is false so our segment the defender of the theory is persuasive that we are attacking attractions productivity truth your third in those propositions may be more complicated than it seems first sight for example What is the correct indication of some animals not humans feel pain or whether God exists then Visa makes sense the table that is below represents the appropriate form for deny different types of propositions You can pause the video and take notes hi godmother build an argument that shows that if we assume the theory as premise we are validly led to absurd or unacceptable consequences these strategies became known as reduction to absurdity any theory that I have absurd implications or unacceptable should be reformulated or rejected and replaced by a better one finally it remains to add that instead of directly attack the Theory in question we can direct our attacks at arguments that support it seems to effect we have the following possibilities showing discharge is not valid, that is this conclusion follows from the premises for this we can resort to formal evaluation procedures such as those they learned first year a counterexample or build one counterexample we have two possibilities one imagine a situation in which the premises are true but the conclusion is clearly false or two construct an argument with the same form the structure of the argument presented but in which the premises are effectively true AND false conclusion or azurmendi be Vale still we we are ready to accept your account I will show here at least one of the premises are false building for this effect the argument whose conclusion is A denial of this premise Alameda welcome to another episode of Philosophy course how many times has a plate been broken it's a glass or we even forgot to buy that jam that our mother asked to bring only market and we repeated regretful with high Jana but it was without wanting here we enter the domain of society is what it is After all an action the that needs to happen to act the that distinguishes an action from a event First of all it is necessary to consider the concepts relevant to the analysis of this type of problems this set particular of concepts that are related to each other is called conceptual network of unfolding action in the following advice action event we intention and purpose reason the basis of the action will release split rationality preference and desires is important highlight the following issues to understand what is at home what is distinction between action and event What is the distinction between volunteer and involuntary the distinction between actions and events I do not divide the Universe into two sets that excluded each other, that is, it is not exclusive This is the set of events include the set that is that of events that are also actions this is because all actions are events in the world but there is events that are not actions but mere events a synonym for event or everything that event happens and so we can understand the dressing characteristics distinctive features of some events that mark them as actions so that these watching the remaining events the most evident characteristic of the actions is the fact that they are carried out by human beings we say for example that today If you go to beach with my friends but we don't say the fact is that the tide will fill the bed action or set of actions but that are It is a mere natural knowledge we call people the ones who practice action however not everything an agent does MEC carries out is considered action No we call action that which is carried out by Muslims as animals that do not think like their vital functions and instinctive acts we are breathing sweating etc. that's what we can call it do something that animals also took to cable Which means that at most events that are actions and that distinguishes it from other events this other feature is the intentionality actions are tested in my intention this being something that the we have equation another way of to say is to affirm that an action is the knowledge carried out by an agent voluntarily, that is, by will own Consciously and intentionally is a voluntary act and therefore that that there is a conscious decision by the agent the involuntary act on the other hand does not presupposes any intention or decision of the agent being a passive subject and not responsible for what happens is not forget about it next time you work out with you for having started from a dish is still useful, it will still scold the in the same One of the most problems important things about happiness are the problem of freedom and determinism for the impact it has on the way we conceive the human being we can summarize the following will be the human being tested through Freedom or will it be entirely determined by factors not controls the Samsung freedom we have in mind is corresponds to free will This is the possibility of choice and self-determination to voluntary act autonomous Independent of any coercion external or internal Our experience of staying day seems to prove that We really act according to our free will however internal and external forces that we cannot control either at the level biological or sociocultural can make us doubt that we actually had was the free will of which we perished not frequently doubt the problem of free will consists in knowing whether the human freedom in terms of possibility to choose and whether or not compatible with others forces that appear in the air we can consider among others three different positions relative to this problem of radical determinism a libertarianism and the other moderate term even radical and libertarianism are incompatibilist positions in the sense that that determinism and implies the rejection of free will In the first case and easing life implies the rejection of determinism in the second herminism moderate on the contrary is a position compatibilist As the term itself indicates by suppose that the boys got rid of me videos are compatible that may exist simultaneously even radical determinism argues that all our actions and decisions are entirely determined by factors that are not controlled facing nature as a whole of things and facts in which everything results of interior houses is that effects follow inevitable deterministic can universe as a vast system that obeys invariable causal laws that is it is a chain of causes and effects, that is each and every action and decision are like simple events entirely determined by biological factors social, cultural and historical that agents do not control determinism Contradict our most basic ideas about the human being in terms of moral status we are no different in inanimate physical world therefore thus as a bee we go to defend our Hive in case of injury also not we would have reasons to take Hector for to have defended his own so richly and beloved Troy Hector would be so determined to act as he did with a bee too you can easily imagine a series of complicated consequences office and this kind of position up to libertarianism free will defends freedom as we define human responsibility I got it Hi guys, you have the power to interfere in the normal course of things by its rational capacity deliberative this position can also be considered Radical percent and the human behavior is not constrained based on arguments such as fact we realize that we are free and responsible each time we perform a conscious choice this thesis resorts Missions with a case and randomness placing itself as the Inter perspective minister this is a perspective that considers it impossible to lose the names starting from determining causes is a position still quite when was after chance pain in actions non-free and freedom EA responsibility that they may be several, it is not enough to feel or think about them as real based on positions contrary to these two theses we can still thinking about the movie dilemma with this lemma presupposes either of the two possible alternatives lead to result for which we are not responsible by Our actions what alternatives are these well with our actions are necessary consequences of houses interiors would serve radical today Our actions are not necessary consequences of previous causes libertarianism any of the cases radical determinism is true then we are not responsible by Our actions if libertarianism true Among Our Actions Occur without pants by chance and so on we are responsible for them how to avoid this problem and as the third option In fact even if compatibilists moderate determinism I wanted determinism and free will are compatible stating that an act can be tigerish and determined accepted natural determinism but defends that freedom and responsibility human sphere is based on the distinction between Free actions results from unfree will and actions results from internal collection or compulsion or external free means example of heart not means that the actions are not caused even if the actions are caused we must always act otherwise mode or in other words some behaviors are free caused but not constrained However Our actions alone do not depend on forces we do not control our desires and our character by example even if not manipulated and the that I sent the open question we will be really free and now we think about the other question essential if we ask any questions if he is our best friend we suppose he gave our friendship he will be sincere for us so if later we came to discover that in fact he it wasn't really sincere having preferred for any reason to lie we are at least disturbed by these current parts are related to the question of values ​​What is a value is something that is abstract not physical in Paulo's function we value we evaluate the value or assign value is in your general sense to have preference to give more importance to some things people actions situations etc than others I can speak different types of values ethical good or bad fair unfair aesthetic belfi graceful Tosco religious holy profane living Demonic Instrumentals Cheap Car Capable and incapable logical true false Evidently likely among others these value types are not mutually exclusive to what it can have simultaneously more than one of these types the philosophy of values ​​or axiology is an area of ​​philosophy dedicated to the study of the reality and nature of values ​​in general and the meaning nature and truth of value judgments analyzes the possibility of judges be true or false and the conditions under which they may be but what we know more value judgment first we have to understand what a judgment is the preferences we describe are often expressed through judgment the judgment is a proposition that is that which is expressed by a sentence declarative with meaning of the type ah is x and therefore, issuing judgments consists of assign certain properties or features that we bought we come across despite their definitions may vary in some details we can identify in a general way two different types of judgments the judge de facto and value judgments in the approach Initial the judge of fact of São judgments purely descriptive states the states of affairs that may not be the if therefore true or false do not express any preference or evaluation of these states of affairs a example of this type of judgment is the students can choose if only they want in secondary education judgment of fact that is false walks in the simple approach and judgments of value are those that express the assignment along some value positive or negative ethical aesthetic religious utilitarian the other we can express a reference on the part of whom the enunciation It's sad judge an example would be the students should have the possibility to choose the subjects they prefer in teaching secondary we can still be careful with certain services commonly used by express communicate value actions that are however in Strict factual judgments about one's own mental characteristics as in the case we say we love philosophy or my favorite subject is philosophy we are not actually assigning any value or characteristic the philosophy we are simply saying that we love it imposes a very big problem important concerning the nature of the values ​​this problem is what to realize your value judgments have value or not for real or if they can be true or false if it has values truth is always truth or falsehood is subjective or objective This is depends or does not depend on the tastes of individuals or of a way of thinking of society is amazing huh and there are different types in response to this event problem theories that argue that judges value It has no real value, do not comment views and others argue that it has cognitivist communicating in the latter case Truths and falsehoods I think that we can highlight in a way relatively simple are the type cognitivist subjectivism and objectivism and subjectivism is theory about values argues that these are not properties world goals being projected onto it by different individuals and cultures that is, the truth value for Swiss It depends on beliefs, feelings and opinions of the subjects that the team has the objectivism argues that values ​​are objective properties of the world Independent of changes by individuals and cultures and the judge are objectively true and false are judgments of fact in this perspective value judgments are a kind of judges of fact with the difference that about its content we have not yet obtained any certainty cultural relativism can be included within the scope of subjectivism is that in this case what is assumed is that they are the cultures that project values ​​onto world not secretive of properties objectives this type of theory has been high and heated discussion continuing as I accept and respect diversity cultural because it assumes that each culture can only be assessed from within This is your values ​​and that is and patterns of behavior however promotes separation in the sense that accepts that there are different cultures that if you were but who live backwards turned without contact between each other attendant therefore separating its solar resulting in cases of segregation like the Greeks for example and in the end it does not allow criticize intolerable practices or speak of progress to other positions that are oppose how interculturality by example With everything that matters highlight the that there are several arguments in favor and against falls subjectivism that was of the objectivism what I once again sent also open question to really absolute values ​​or will they be all collectives oh hello Malta welcome to another one Sofia course episode the middle ages it was believed that some people don't disappear women had some type of contact or contract with the devil most of them ending up being condemned to the stake fortunately these days are already long behind us for on the other hand there are still people who today in day for example they believe that the Earth flat in fact these days It seems like two explanations or beliefs that are valid in the same way this introduces the problem that we will explore After all, what is knowledge? the first we will try to understand How we can define knowledge and what types of knowledge exist after that we will confront a second Crystal Will that we know what we think we know are two answers to this question that we will address first it is stated that the act of knowing involves a subject and object The first is what knows the second is what it is known or knowledge is therefore what happens when a subject grasps an object without the presence of one of these elements knowledge would be impossible in its own way as the subject relates to objects is not uniform or that leads us to affirm the existence of different types of knowledge we we can then talk about knowledge for type is knowledge of activities linked to the ability to competence to do something being therefore how to know how to do it example Luisa knows how to play handball second propositional knowledge is the knowledge that has as its object prepositions or true thoughts therefore being a knowing what for for example Tiago knows that Fernando Pessoa had trunks third knowledge of contact is the direct knowledge of some reality of people places mental states etc consistent therefore no direct knowledge of objects by For example, Margarida knows about rolls, that is have already visited the city and it is based on these types of knowledge We have already achieved realize that when you ask what it is knowledge is what is most interested in clarifying the nature of the propositional knowledge Plato, you do not leave some that you give a definition or an analysis of this concept of knowledge that came to be considered as the traditional definition of knowledge according to which knowledge consists in true and justified beliefs is better about the formats we can say that a belief is a conviction on the part of of the subject of which corresponds to reality This is this believe that P by true then if the essential condition to establish correspondence of a proposition with reality, that is, p it's true finally the justification corresponds to the foundations on which a proposition is supported understand is if it is justified to believe WTF in summary we have this and they are in which corresponds to the subject of knowledge and sink a given propositional knowledge Bia is true, she believes that pe this is justified to believe for you and therefore means that according to the the theory all three conditions are necessary and sufficient for the knowledge if at least one of them does not is satisfied we will be faced with a example of knowledge with this definition of knowledge as justified true belief apparently solid and consistent that was accepted for a long time however There are examples that suggest that having a justified belief is not enough for us to know the American philosopher is from Munich presented some of these with 300 started a little complex, simplifies at most intuitive and imagine that you are in the cafe studying for the philosophy test and at the same time Portugal is playing against Brazil at a certain point there was applause quite a lot of noise and it is believed that the Portuguese team has just scored a Goal your child is real indeed the selection has just scored therefore beyond the child is truly justified popular that there were your reasons to think that Portugal is winning however there is no one else in the cafe except two Brazilian individuals who remained silent during occurrence the applause after all originated in a bar near the cafe in the states where by mere coincidence the singer that her performance was strongly applauded at the moment when Portugal scored for so many you have a true belief justified but we cannot say that that is knowledge After all reason What do you have to think about? Portugal scored no is a reason or justification that is connected to the this example shows us that although someone is disgusted It is washable for believe in the true such growth seriously knowledge can have justified true beliefs accidentally in this example the relation of justification with true belief is not adequate being the truth of belief just the result of luck or chance from mere coincidence therefore we can say that the conditions of the definition traditional are necessary but insufficient that are now not imposed indicate then are some forms justification for the knowledge that is equivalent to finding out what the sources of human knowledge at this level we speak of a priori knowledge and knowledge upon realizing 'a posteriori' knowledge is that which depends on the experience consists of true beliefs that cannot be justified without empirical data empirical knowledge for example the topic from this video is the knowledge a priori knowledge is that which is independent of consistent experience true beliefs can be justified by thought for without use of empirical data for example everything that is white has color or 2 + 2 = 4 existentially two doctrines philosophical that valued and privileged Unlike the two sources that knowledge comes from rationalism assumes that a priori knowledge seat and right justifications infallible contrary to knowledge empirical with reason being the main source of knowledge empiricism on the other hand side puts that experience origin main of all knowledge, that is all factual knowledge or propositional is a posteriori being that the a priori knowledge by definition in says nothing really about the world and before we move forward we still enter ask for the possibility or validity of knowledge which amounts to ask if the subject learns effectively the object of the question would be therefore the following will be possible to know something of some baptism is a perspective philosopher who answers affirmatively to this question is skepticism denies such possibility although this denial has different speaking degrees so different forms of skepticism in summary pro of automation does not even put the problem of knowing whether the subject grasps or not the object, that is, the object is not placed problem of knowledge is basically that of automatic does not realize that the knowledge is above all a relationship between the subject and the object starting from that's what you went through that things are exactly like the ones we have and skepticism already casts doubt on the possibility of human beings achieving a certain knowledge Evident depending from the degree of doubt can be distinguished different types of skepticism can to speak for example and an absolute doubt in the case of absolute skepticism and doubt that recognizes limits only to knowledge but that does not completely exclude the possibility of knowledge in the case mitigated skepticism or even one of the located that affects the knowledge determined as by example The one who is with the impossibility of knowing what surpasses our sensory experience known as metaphysical skepticism taking into account now the two types doctrines that we see as rationalist and empiricist we will explore both positions based on two different phyla of kart and movie The Tribe then great value the kart reason also looks for the foundations of knowledge in order to overcome the arguments of the skeptics radicals is considered the rationalism of pig like the other rationalists I thought that only recurring reason or thought we could football knowledge to obtain the sure second Kart we have to find an entirely secure foundation for the knowledge or belief or conviction that cannot be put into doubt we can justify from it all other beliefs and convictions for this doubt service as instrument of reason that is pulls the true service through it we will use all children in we connect the slightest suspicion has sure if any child resists doubt between classes could be the basis or basis for the rest therefore it is It is necessary to question everything in process of searching for principles undoubted fundamentals that descend say that from the Dota letter initially skeptic's opening in the sense that it seems to assert that knowledge is nothing more than illusion and that is why we know it is new really however skepticism is classified as a tonic considering that it puts all knowledge in question only as means of arriving at any certainty of which no one can turn the doubt Carter the cathartic function This is liberation the spirit of errors and prejudices paving the way for the possibility of build the building of Knowledge being a act of free will will eventually lead to an indisputable truth That statement could be this and even though almost one of ours children are of viable flesh thinks that something we cannot doubt so we are not putting our beliefs in doubt we are gay and doubting is a way of thinking and if we are thinking then we insist that we can then state with all certainty security with Victory the subject or if in Portuguese I think therefore I am people like me must not know how to speak Latin and this statement is known as deposit and it is a statement Evidently, without a doubt, an affirmation of my existence as a being that think and what a certainty a doubt unshakable obtained by intuition mode entirely rational EA priori without resort to sensitive experience and that will serve as a safe starting point for the knowledge and the cogito provides Therefore the criterion of true clarity and distinction is true and evident what we conceive very clearly and very distinctly by together constitutes the foundational belief or basic serves as the foundation for the entire system of knowledge to better understand What is meant by these two properties we can say that clarity corresponds to the presence of the idea to the spirits and what extinction concerns separation of an idea in relation to others therefore a clear idea and distinct If we keep in mind our spirit completely separated all the others One of the problems collect letter I get up to put everything that we intend to meet at home was able give up a higher entity that we deceive and make people believe that things are as we conceive them therefore still necessary to demonstrate the existence of a God, I do not disappoint you history of the evil genius hypothesis and threat of skepticism because the cogito is just a subjective certainty and how did we come to such an idea Record distinguishes three types of ideas the factitious ones that result from Imagination from the relationship of ideas that comes from experience with an idea of handles or will it be for example the adventitious those ideas that we have about things that come from the Senses and the Holy experience for that reason subjective to be false any idea on external objects such as keyboard or dog for example the signatures that are principles that are born with the individual and owe nothing to experience as the concepts of mathematics for example what innate idea we all have and that really important In this context the innate idea of ​​being perfect notion of a omniscient omnipotent and supremely good and Where could have come to the idea if nothing perfect exists in the world. principle allows the backup to show the essence of God God is always perfect and not deceiving. guarantee of the objective truth of ideas Clear and distinct is God who guarantees the adequacy between Evident thought and reality of the value system of science and giving objectivity to the knowledge of God is the beginning of being and knowledge It is likely that God is Dakar also take away proof of the existence of body and external things in general supported by the certainty that God does not deceives to be able to overcome all the arguments of radical skeptics the perspective that adds is subject to some objections if even stronger of the Cartesian Circle God exists because is a clear and distinct idea we can trust in clear and distinct ideas Because deep down there is that in the cycle from which one cannot escape from 21 unlike eckhart is considered an empiricist, that is privileges knowledge a posteriori' all ideas have an empirical basis even the most complex ones the film talks about perceptions to suffer The Tales of Our Mind Classifies according to the criterion of diversity and force with which it impresses the spirit can be ideas or impressions impressions are more vivid and intense than the ideas encompassing our Sensations external visual auditory tactile and etc. as well as our inner feelings emotions six etc the ideas are the pressures constituted thought This is just representations of the impressions or the your reflective images to clarify the relationship that exists between impressions and ideas film proposes the principle of Copy all our ideas are copies of our impressions in favor of the principle film evokes those issues of private certain impressions I am unable to form corresponding ideas and for example a a person born blind will never be able to form the idea of ​​green since never had any impression of seeing the ideas can also be classified as simple or complex being the ideas simple direct copies of prints our thinking can combine imaginatively these ideas so as to form complex ideas that defines two types of knowledge for me the relations of ideas and the questions of fact knowledge of relations of ideas is the priori and corresponds to prepositions that are necessary truths in any circumstance or in other words we cannot deny the contradictory senses and as an example we have the mathematics 2 + 3 = 5 statements like everything that is seen has color this type of knowledge gives us nothing says about what exists in the world the event matters of fact is the posteriori and corresponds to prepositions which are contingent truths This is can be denied we are contradicted for example we can deny something like I will to have a good grade in philosophy without being to assert something logically impossible knowledge of matters of fact is based on the cause and effect relationship This is in the causal relationship if we observe a clock we infer that the effect of certain causes that do not we observe you know its cause a watchmaker to reason about matters of fact is important to make causal inferences or be we infer a cause that does not we observe Based on the effect that we experience is based on these references that there are many facts that We hope it means in the future and how do we discover the causes? of the effects of what we observe and from experience tells us film big problem he poses here cause-effect relationship and generally understood by us as being a connection necessary that cannot be denied without contradiction but only from the experience one can know the relationship between cause and effect and we do not have of any impression relating to the idea of this necessary connection the only thing what process names is that between two names a conjunction is verified constant one of them always occurred following another you were concluding that between them there is a necessary connection which is a mistake they didn't have ice or in other words we have no experience of any power that makes the cause of producing necessarily the effect knowledge of future facts does not feel rigorous equates your position to probability based on expectation certainty associated with this knowledge has only a psychological basis habit or custom the OAB has a practical guide, it is not a rational principle It is very firm on the ground and is characterized therefore by reducing reality to phenomena by the belief that the existence of something for sides names lacks foundation skepticism metaphysical and the conclusion that the our cognitive capacity is limited only likely 700 mitigated film moves away sit on radical skepticism and that kind of skepticism is moderated by being aware of the limitations of human understanding maintains at the same time in the open mind rejecting all the claims of knowledge in issues too far removed from experience to the beloved welcome to more philosophy episodes everyone knows that it is healthier to eat cooked fish with broccoli than a Big Mac that cats see better at night than humans what letters should be left out of the I figure after opening or not whether you should practice physical exercise and immediately after a meal These are those things we say that almost everyone knows we are going learn from a very early age in a way Almost unconscious corresponds to what can be called common sense to vulgar knowledge and intuitively we call mine one of the things that were said science and scientific knowledge but destiny vulgar knowledge or common sense and scientific knowledge in its borders of common sense too much indefinite In order for us to be able to say the that includes or does not include This is one of the types of problems truth in the area of ​​philosophy dedicated to sciences, that is, in the philosophy of sciences nowadays we have to value them philosophy for having progressed so much in field of all known sciences but it is enough to raise the questions by the philosophy of sciences for we easily understand that neither the science itself can answer when such certainty to everything that is proposes this does not mean that it should be disregarded or discredited as It has also happened in times like these currently it just means that the look critical philosophy allows us exercising should also focus on science and scientific knowledge therefore in the philosophy of sciences analyze the fundamental concepts and the reasoning involved in this type of research and discuss their problems metaphysical and histological ethical and logical that are associated with problems that will be treated will be Then the following the problem of demarcation of that distinguishes scientific theories from scientific functions the problem of method scientific method that consists of scientific the problem of evolution of science as science progresses in problem of the objectivity of science will be objective science as we begin to see not all the human knowledge has the same specific features the common sense knowledge seems have different characteristics than that are attributed to knowledge scientific in the first type we have a body of knowledge dispersed and little structured that are acquired often spontaneously or inherited from ancestors having a purpose is essentially practical and being viewed in a dogmatic way This is does not criticize in the second type we have a body of systematized knowledge well structured investigation results half of what I saw the organized ones doing good ones that go explanatory being evaluated and critically tested and it must be borne in mind that the common knowledge was not suppressed with the advent of science a lot contrary in one way or another all we apply common sense to issues of Practical Life when we resort to proverbs homemade recipes cuisine from medicine to traditions popular among others therefore of return between common sense and science is not so Clear to the point of defining science as a good knowledge and common sense as bad knowledge the solution can reside in the need to bring the common sense science and not consider these two forms of knowledge as completely different realities until because if we see science in everyone your methods and Rigor is also wrong access to characterization has not yet provides a general criterion for distinguish what is Science from what It is not scientific and remains for answer What is the criterion or principle that allows us to distinguish between science and non-science or what is the scientificity criterion that we allows you to distinguish a scientific theory of non-scientific material since if you want to find a way general criterion that allows us to mark the scientific knowledge of what This designated problem is not scientific as the problem of demarcation and may have the following formulation which distinguishes the scientific theories of which there are no scientific and this problem is relevant because the scientific knowledge is viewed by many people like someone who is legitimate to place our trust in which has credibility for that reason it becomes important to find a safe criterion to distinguish the scientific knowledge of other types of non-scientific activities this need also comes from the fact that there is in society fraudulent activities that if they intend to pass themselves off as scientists when they are not in reality which aim to profit at the expense of credibility scientific so as not to fall into this type of frauds that demarcation criteria between science and non-science possible adopt as a response were developed two relevant criteria the criterion of verifiability and the criterion of falsifiability as a criterion for verifiability of teeth that lie this is scientific if consists of empirically based information verifiable an empirically assertion verifiable is one in which the values truth can be established through the observation and how objections to this criterion can be consider the following laws of nature cousins ​​in universal phrases but it is not possible to obtain the truth of the laws of nature through observation for example if we consider the law all copper expands When does the cide and would simplify that we would have to observe how all copper behaves of the universe when it is heated but logically we can't do them all the necessary observations for check a law like this verifiability attitude leads to acceptance as scientists you wanted that they are not scientific a very different example this would be the case of astrology if consider a connection as the natives of the sign of Aries have a tendency to be quite impulsive when faced with a There is no such vague and precise connection any conceivable event that in the eyes of an astrology advocate refutes this claim in all situations just modify this theory like this any conceivable observation I agree with fix any theory or connection then no it can be said that a certain observation in part and provides support empirical this objection against the criterion of verifiability planted by philosopher Karl Popper is another form of criticism of the criterion of verifiability consist of to argue that these refute themselves since it does not satisfy its own requirements this is because the criterion that is strictly speaking the following is said sentences have truth value only if are true by definition or capable of being verified by experience However, this criterion does not fulfill the requirements that it strengthens for he himself is not true by definition contrary to what happens with the phrases all red things are colored or no sibling is an only child nor to verify by experience no we find nothing in the world that is the evidence in favor of this criterion forms the very criterion of verifiability has no value of truth and therefore cannot be a correct criterion and the falsifiability criterion is a answer put forward by Popper to the problem of demarcation according to which a scientific theory if and only if it is empirically falsifiable and were very informative an empirically based theory falsifiable if and only if it is possible design an experimental test that is able to show that the theory is false or whether we cannot conceive of a observation to refute a given theory So this is not falsifiable and therefore is not scientific in the criteria presented by Popper it is important not to confuse Theory falsifiable with theory falsified this because it can not argues that a theory has been liked falsified or refuted by observation to be scientific but rather that has to be falsifiable, that is, it has that it is possible to rectify or fake there by observation if we wait in the example previous the natives of the sign Aries tend to be quite impulsive we can easily understand that it is not falsifiable the problem has to do with the fact of having a training in need or too much of a wave that makes it immune to writing for example is not clear with a strong this trend or what it consists of as they need to be quite impulsive etc. as that which is uttered by astrology has a vague background in need to consider that it cannot be scientific since it is not falsifiable that's why he defended the falsifiability with criterion of demarcation For a theory that is not false it said nothing about the world as to falsifiable statements however there are also some aspects to take into account attention the main thing has to do with the idea that a statement can be more falsifiable than another That is to say that there are degrees of falsifiability let us consider for example two propositions with the following content empirical everything covers dilates when it was that the city and all the metal expands when will it be in both would be the results are observed a piece of copper that did not expansion when heated but the second proposition is more informative than the first Because it concerns not only the copper but to all metals for that reason observation of a piece of Iron by example that does not expand when heated and so on but I wouldn't go back to the first one proposition for this reason has a degree of highest falsifiability This is runs a greater risk of being the result through experience we have been able to achieve this to the conclusion that the higher and the degree of falsifiability of a theory greater than its degree of information or its empirical content, that is, the most informative theories are those that are at greater risk of being refuted by observation they can also present several objections to the criterion of falsifiability not all videos scientific are falsifiable This is the falsifiability does not constitute a necessary condition for the material be scientific scientific theories refer to objects that are not directly observables such as protons etc. in the role of these theories with objects that are not directly observable in the scientific development makes that be highly implausible classified as non-scientific as well falsifications in conclusive because the empirical excess can be attributed that it was the experimental test that is done that it was personal factors of researcher and so in a scientific theory you can be abandoned because of a single observation by a single experience which apparently drew another criticism is that what is being proposed by Popper does not agree with the practice scientific because what happens often in scientific activity real is that an observation the test experimental whose result is not according to the theory more easily leads scientists to question the test or its conditions of performance than the Theory itself in the background history of science allows us to verify that scientists work in order to confirm your theories to continue to sustain them even when the forecasts cases are not confirmed by the employer every month contrary to your theory and the second problem that is needed consider is the problem of the method scientific This is what the scientific method and how it is characterizes the methodical character of the scientific knowledge there are two types of answers or take the main ones that try to solve this problem the answer interview the inductivism and the answer falsificationism falsificationism not supposed interview observation is the starting point of the investigation scientific EA experimentation is essential so that it can be verified or confirm the hypotheses or theories therefore unfolds into the following phases first observation of the phenomena scientist observes facts or phenomena and records in a systematic way to try to find its causes observation is neutral, objective and impartial and observation and recording should be repeated several times with Rigor and meto second discovery of the relationship between the phenomena through comparison and classification of cases the employer seeks to bring the facts closer to discover the relationship between them so he sets out to formulate hypotheses and explanations about the phenomena and their relationships third organization of the relationship running inductive reasoning scientists analyze the relationship found between the names or facts - translated into laws that express the constant relationships between these facts in practice the hypothesis explanatory announced thank you was experimentation and we confirmed what she proposes can go beyond scientific subjective interview response of several objections observation is not the starting point of scientific method and even though the scientist resorts to observation it is not totally neutral in always occurs in a given context the reasoning inductive does not confer logical rigor necessary I think it would be scientific operation that requires the well-known by particular positions for the unknown General Propositions the The problem of Indians is the desire for kilo and it is not possible to prove empirically the existence of a necessary cause and effect relationship among the phenomena in this sense the inductive generalization will be nothing more than a mere belief or expectation that the facts repeat themselves in that way developed falsificationist response by Popper also known as meter and conjectural to the doctor and pathetic objective Because for Popper science does through a process of creative construction of conjectural hypotheses to answer problems observation is not the starting point of scientist abroad result from inductive inferences science starts from problems to facts problems and the theories start out as hypotheses explanatory and creative conjectures that will have to undergo testing rigorous to understand given its recovery therefore falsely with the natural ones are relatively different first the formulation of the hypothesis or conjecture from a fact of problem a fact of problem is the doctor that arises from conflicts arising from our expectations or theories already existing the scientist will have to formulate a suggestive hypothesis or conjecture that can apply to explain the hypothesis formation corresponds to a creative moment of scientific activity associated with intuition and imagination no provisional explanation of a given phenomenon for which there is evidence second deduction of consequences the hypothesis is formed due to its main consequences the scientist seeks to predict what might happen if the yours and can only conjecture for the third test or experiment and can being an actress was faced with the experience the results can show the success or failure of the situation proposal if it is validated by experience the hypothesis is considered as Creed and will become recognized in the scientific community theory charged If it is not valid we will have to abandon it or reform I took out a lot of material scientific that resisted the attempt to rotation would be charged or strengthened can always come to be overthrown resulting in the conjectural character of the scientific method the confrontation of theory with experience is important not to confirm it but to allow it to be resistance you have, make the attempts undertaken to weaken it in a word to falsify to this extent Popper between the experimental test How search for phenomena that may undermine means to nullify, invalidate the hypothesis a scientific theory is valid as long as to resist the attempt to falsify in p and is stronger the more resist some criticisms that are made falsificationism is not resolved abandon a hypothesis only theory only because it was highlighted by the test experimental this because in science beyond of hypotheses or theories and predictions there are other factors involved such as instruments used personal faults and social etc. it can also be objected that falsificationism makes it related to our confidence in scientific theories everything we can say about it example of the reliability of Airplanes is that they were built according to theories that have not yet been respected but that tomorrow they can hardly be would be decided to fly by plane passing by a next question we generally accept that science evolves what kind of problem with problem of the evolution of science is associated with the questions that this assumption entails how science evolves will be that we can say that the history of science is linear like truth or is it full of futures in such a way that it does not shoot the best ones than the other two main theories that try to answer these problems are the perspective of Popper who advocates that the science to come even if irregularly approach to truth and perspective of body that maintains that science progresses through drastic cultures, that is discontinuously and without an end defined and according to Popper's perspective the science progresses, albeit in a irregular in its approximation to the truth although the ultimate truth is unattainable according to falsificationism Popper's a theology is better than the previous if you resist the texts falsifiability to which the previous one does not resisted it is necessary to make an analogy with the theory of the evolution of pieces in combat against the adversities of the environment only the more resistant adapted individuals survive therefore it would happen with scientific theories That is to say the science would advance through a process rational error elimination that would consist of replacing but better and better [ __ ] theories in sum up for Pop although we can never say that we have reached the truth we can conclusively know that certain scientific conjectures or theories are false Which means that the theories current scientific knowledge has a degree of greater likelihood than those that have already been empirically results to contrary to Popper Thomas according to argues that science does not have power come towards the end previously established rejecting the idea that the science to come towards truth and according to the history of science it is simply a succession of paradigms but what is a paradigm a paradigm is a theoretical framework that offers a world view a perspective of a specific way of doing science in a Bavaria focuses on a theory that provides exemplary problems and solutions a certain community of researchers in the within the scientific community we can think as an example above theory of geocentrism earth is the center of the universe that remained dominant while it was until the 16th century until the hypothesis arose heliocentric that opposed responds that the sun would be in the center of the universe when he composed then in different phases the historical process by which to do good paradigm for another these steps So are the following first the phase a normal science when the deaf paradigm a period of normal science begins corresponding in the activity phase cut within a given paradigm accepted by the scientific community consists essentially of solving riddles or problems and according to the application of principles rules concepts of the current paradigm and in the second phase we could anomalies persistent riddles fax here the wall not yet able to answer are not seen as refutations as proofs of that the theoretical assumptions fundamentals are false continuing the latter to be accepted in the third phase we would have the crisis the phase taken by awareness of the insufficiency of the building here people to explain all the facts are not actually says a climate of dissatisfaction and insecurity in a fourth phase we will have science extraordinary the questioning phase of assumptions and foundations of the paradigm current debate is generated about the maintenance of the old paradigm or choosing a new paradigm A fifth phase would be the phase of scientific revolution the phase of change and acceptance of a new paradigm by scientific community and finally the new paradigm would then be a set of beliefs, technical rules and values ​​shared and accepted by a scientific community and which guided the its activity corresponds to the mode of make science of perceiving, approaching and solve problems that are not established I know about this community or in other words, I am looking for a change of a geocentric theory for me the theory heliocentric God because paradigm of geocentric theory was not able to explain all the names that were observed having such anomalies This it's the problems that weren't solved resolve when it was understood that this paradigm left many problems behind resolve began to question whether would really be the one who would correspond to reality after a long and conflicting debate like so many reports historical demonstrates God a revolution in science gradually passing to admire the paradigm of the heliocentric hypothesis so that what was important was important highlight two fundamental moments of progress within science normal science the resolution of new riddles means the possibility of validate new results Without putting into causes the theories of demanding danger and the scientific revolutions occur new discoveries that do not fit the paradigm previous the evolution of Science is through replacement of theories by others that resolve anomalies better with the urgently therefore the change of a paradigm for the other is not cumulative And this is not going to accumulate principles one paradigm for another before corresponds to a mode qualitatively different look at the Real just think about the example we have seen so far the truth the theories scientific is always depending on the paradigm in which they fit into that that is true a paradigm may not be in the other the paradigms are immeasurable This is without comparable incompatible correspond to forms totally different from Explain and predict the phenomena the choice of a new paradigm is marked by order factors historical sociological and psychological and choosing between rivals obeys objective criteria and accuracy consistency achieve simplicity and fertility and subjective aspects related to life story and personality of scientist is incommensurability of paradigms, that is, and cannot be compared objectively brings with it a different interpretation of what may be the progress of science in which the scientific progress cannot be understood as a cumulative process increasingly better theories and paradigms towards the goal to the end we cannot say that I didn't lose you but it is written reality is better than yours predecessor we also cannot say that science progresses cumulatively and continue to replace one with the other what we can say is that in the face of normal science a development of science is cumulative but revolutions scientific that result in the change of paradigm episodes development not cumulative so paradigm shifts do not imply approximation to the truth when does not agree with a theological view of evolution of science the truth is not a The goal towards which science is directed is relative to each Paradigm and can only be understood within the limits that each paradigm imposes and as for the problem of the objectivity of Christian science essence is entirely objective or not either we can consider the different answers of lack of everything according to the Pope's patience is entirely objective given that every scientific theory is assessed through tests each time more if you have counterfeit That is me actively looking for counter examples that can be applied impartially on the contrary second second entirely objective ascension a since the objective criteria of choice theories are insufficient there are also subjective factors personal and social history influence science as a critique Cone Theory can be argued that the idea that the paradigms Without commensurable implausible given that it is possible to argue that the theories current scientific data are more fibrous and the minutes of what you take from the past well as you can see a growing success of prestige of science seems demonstrate that current theories are closer to the truth than the previous as a critique of pop theory the difference to comment that we can never say that we reach the truth then science cannot be trusted in being the operation of the machines that we use this as a consequence negative of the seal theory we agreed on case of the Planes class kills welcome to another episode from the course he Sofia we all know it seems completely wrong from the point of view qualitative buy a song from Ana malhoa like Mozart's symphony for buy GPS with inception this never heard properly green advice or still the blood one your cousin did with the Marcos's scream After all, why is it that it seems consensual that we cannot do what criteria prevent us from doing such comparisons This is one of the types problems that are introduced in the dimension aesthetics of aesthetic philosophy characterized by varying nature and foundation of aesthetic judgments This is if they can be true and false with based on specific criteria or if you have correspondence or not with what exists specifically in the world and yet before otherwise let's try to understand better what this object of study is about it's called aesthetic judgment concepts experience sign everything that the subject thinks feels Presses on his concrete relationship with the world and with oneself own referring only to contact of the self with things in general experience can be sensitive This is relative To our Physical sensations But it can also be other types intellectual moral religious loving aesthetics etc the experience aesthetics then correspond to different situations when contemplating beings and things of nature when contemplating a work of art or they can still be that in artistic creation process at the level from this type of experience we find some elements that help us to understand her the artist spectator work of art the nature or result of contemplation of nature and the work of art and aesthetic emotion the process of artistic creation and the cultural context and as it happens by the way all kinds of experiences the aesthetic experience also underlie aesthetic values ​​that Guide the type of experiences that we ended up being some examples of these values ​​are beauty reality Preciousness Harmony harmony expressiveness originality and diversity among many others and the aesthetic values ​​are many and various reasons why it is extremely difficult give an explicit definition of what they are if such a definition exists or may exist we are often tempted to suggest that all aesthetic values ​​have to do with with beauty and purpose but that in true originality is not a sign of none of them as well as many others cases by aesthetic judgments are those that attribute aesthetic value to an object in a broad sense we can summarize its form in X Ep where X is an object evaluated and that it is a property static the example could be something like genre the book of steels by Fernando Extremely deep person or something simpler for Mona Lisa that resuming then we begin by seeing the aesthetics discuss philosophical problems on topics such as those mentioned by judgments like these questioning whether they can be true and false and In which circumstances This is on what grounds and the justification and this in turn refers to weak points so nature of values ​​and owners of value problem of knowing if this value can be found somehow in the objects to which such judgments refer here we also recall a problem addressed in the philosophy of values ​​the subjectivism and objectivism in this case applied specifically to the practices aesthetic objectivism argues that synthetic judgments are true and false as a judge of fact Why also designate tactical facts We could therefore say that according to aesthetic objectivism Bel as an example of aesthetic value does not depend on tastes of personal feelings the judgment according to which the web based on features or properties of objects actually existing in them although not all agree on obesity when there are objective criteria that allow to say that something is Beautiful beauty is present in the things themselves the judgment relative to the Beautiful objective therefore even that no one knows how to appreciate the Beethoven's symphonies in and actively beautiful and romantic harmony and beauty among the aesthetic values ​​are properties of these same symphonies by other side subjectivism and relativism aesthetic claims that the properties of value are not part of the reality of world of facts being the judgments that attribute the properties true or false only for one subject but not for everyone or even for a community of culture but not for others We could therefore say that according to the objectives in aesthetics, beauty depends on tastes preferences and feelings personal the judgment according to which something is beautiful occurs exclusively to sensitivity of the law before a certain object as not all agree relatively on the beauty of something then only the subjective criteria are allow us to say that something is Beautiful beauty judgment is in the eyes of the beholder relative to seeing it subjectively so far we speak of aesthetics in the broadest sense general but we can subdivide this area in different ascetic branches of nature addresses our aesthetic relationship with entities such as animals only landscapes however the haruma developed of aesthetics and philosophy of art main problem of being in relationship he gives the definition of art After all what art is the object of study of this problem it is therefore the possibility we identify a Set of characteristics or properties that all objects of art and only these that many authors consider that the answer to the problem definition of art implies this possibility of finding an explicit definition of art that is establish the necessary conditions and enough for it to be considered art and means that these art theorists have tried to find a set of characteristics that all the works of art and only the works of art have in common since they are dedicated find the essence of art these theories were classified as theories art essentialists and yet not even all art theorists consider this type of approach is very promising for these authors of dynamic nature creative and innovative phenomenon artistic we will never achieve securely establish a set of intrinsic properties that all works of art and only they have in common but this does not imply necessarily that they cannot find any type definition of work of art only indicates that instead of we focus on the properties intrinsic features of artistic objects we must focus on its aspects procedural and contextual relational and this is in the relationships that these establish in the processes they go through and in the historical and social context that involves since they maintain that it does not there is a kind of common essence to all works of art the theories that are dedicate themselves to finding a definition of art in these molds they became known as non-essentialist theories of art Let's then consider different theories of art dealers each one of them is a explanation if this and that what does with that someone is considered art essentialist theories from represents manages to have species Invest and formalist theory and non-formalist theories art essentialists theory institutional EA theory history watch the purpose of each one we will talk about its advantages and criticisms that are made shoot representationalist to It has two versions a more restricted theory mimetics of art or the theory of art as imitation EA Theory representationalist in the broad sense mimetic theory of art was First proposed in the 5th century before of Christ by Plato and Aristotle Plato and Aristotle also defended that differently than the type of representation involved in production artistic consisted simply in imitation of nature not only in the sense of accurately imitating the her appearance of physical objects but also imitate when representing human behaviors through arts as theater and even concepts or ideas and the mimetic theory gives some unquestionable advantages presents a rigorous and objective criteria that we allows you to measure and compare the works of art the quality of the work in question will depend on the quality of the imitation most of the artistic productions resorts to imitation regardless of we are talking about painting, among other things of the sculpture of the cinema theater or of the poetry and It is common in carriers of works of art refer to and the criterion of imitation as a criterion of appreciation We often hear expressions like What does this painting represent? I understand the logic of this film The Things they are nothing like this play says It reminds me a lot of what actually happened people do to each other and this type of appreciation seeks to know and recognize in works of art through what they imitate This is of the points that establish with the known reality experienced with everything also high certain criticisms the fact of having recognized works of art as such that it does not have any imitative intent abuse EA architecture and others are rarely indicative of receipt of the value of the best imitation E that is if art is imitation then the the best will be the one that takes it to such a level of imitation that can make us believe that the work is reality but a lot of art you think is representative but it is not Realistic and literature and theater were often food as an attempt to respond to this type of frequent criticism The Theory representationalist in the broad sense includes both imitative representation that the representation does not issue active establishes that something is a work of art social is a representation since notion of representation is broader than the notion of imitation this version of representational theory you sir criticisms made of mimetic theory still thus objections continued to be made in exceeded being the main problem the fact that there are works of art without any representative purpose and for other hand there are many things that represent something and are not art traffic signs for example i.e. and at the same time too restrictive and too broad the second take specialist the works of art are vehicles of expression of feelings of Emotions experienced by authors and therefore can awaken the in those who contemplate them the author often cited as a proponent of a ter species Invest was lev Tolstoy his thesis that something is only art when not only the author's cousins ​​but also can cry and without public sleep is in however but it is the answer to contrition plus and is not very developed in philosophical terms later in the century 20 the English philosopher Robin Collingwood systematized one of the best known pressures of theories that are seen this version of the theory of quite as a distinction between art and craft the craft is an activity in which raw material is transformed through a certain technique in a previously product designed the distinctive features of the Office are not necessarily found in art and therefore art is not a craft Does it consist of stimulation of Emotions then Arts there just one craft of the color I wanted for so many something art if and only if something expression imaginative of Emotions in the sense that it is a conscious and controlled process that involves some kind of language advantages that this theory of art presentation as follows brings us closer to the common perception of art because it is common to feel emotion in presence of battery-powered works of art that mostly characterized by the fact that simplicity allows inclusion in the universe of art many works that otherwise they would be excluded and the main criticisms of the comic strip that if seen from the other side they are the following is too inclusive as it implies that the psychotherapy is art for example is too exclusive to qualify them as a Craft and not as art in the sense own some important models of art history the work of taking that not have any emotional content and that are appreciated for other qualities aesthetics that are not expressive by example japanese vase to a painting abstract fallacy because it has the status of a work of art depend on the artist's original intention and not of aspects inherent to the work being at the same time unfair and realistic Because there is the artist feel always what is works cousin and while I want to have representation mixed that was to have specialists were about all right extrinsic elements of work itself in reality represented exterior and in the experience interior of the artist the formalist theory will focus exclusively on the work and the their respective formal qualities one philosopher and art critic developed a version of this theory was Claire Brown until Central that defended was the following someone is a work of art if and only if that has a significant form of form significant corresponds to a configuration of lines colors shapes and spaces that have the capacity to originate a certain type of emotion of spectator aesthetic emotion emotion aesthetics corresponds to a type particular emotion all people sensitive people experience when they are before works of art According to Belo the representation and expression of emotions are not necessary conditions in the insufficient for art because the works of art are representational content expressive EA things that have content representational the by It is but they are not works of art as advantages of this type in theory we can point out that identify the type of specific Mission of artwork and draws attention to the art form not for its content yet again they are also pertinent objections raised Bel define the notion in a significant way with a configuration of colored lines forms and spaces that have the capacity to provoke the same aesthetics in the spectator but simultaneously definition aesthetics as the type of emotion that we feel when we are faced with line settings colors and shapes That is, when we are faced with a form significant hour with seems clear This definition is circular the vicious and little informative on the other hand if the only thing relevant to the statute has a object while the work of art was effectively its properties formal then there could be no works of art with the same formal properties that certain common objects to which they do not we recognize this status therefore the formal properties have an object not are the only relevant thing Oh, you have as for the work of art Furthermore the form and content are inseparable ignore the relationship of formal aspects that the materials and the connection with reality allows us realize the meaning and value of one's own formal elements of the works and would be their defects regarding the holidays of art not specialists the philosopher George tip and was one of the first to formulate in an articulate manner in a version of the institutional theory of art according to this theory we can say that some treat as a work of art in sense this object belongs to this class determined if and only if something is a artifact that has a Set of characteristics to which the status of candidates for consideration by one or more persons acting on behalf of of a certain social institution World of Art Let's take it one step at a time so as not to look so confusing in low definition establishes two necessary conditions jointly sufficient for something be art the art factuality and assignment of status the meaning that day which assigned the mission in fact is much more side than the traditional because he considers that in addition to the concrete material objects produced or transformed by humans corresponds to the center and traditional of fact also the movements have a choreography or the musical notes of a given on the day for example are artifacts and even objects that were not manufactured or whose properties formal were not changed by direct intervention of a human being There may be thousands of contexts acquired a statute of artifacts for being used in a certain way by someone so tip and consider that without the artifact understood in this broad sense it can't even be said that it has there has been any kind of creation and therefore the existence of humor in fact is a necessary condition for the very creativity is the second condition imposed by the theory institutional tells us that for a artifact is a work of art is necessary that a person or several people who act on behalf of the World of Art the tribe the candidate status appreciation of a set of features is a rather trivial example of assignment of status occurs when two people decide to start dating thus assigning the status boyfriend girlfriend another although it does not involve an institution social in the formal sense This is constituted with hierarchical employees and perfectly defined regulations etc. this theater fits into a practice social institution regulated by a certain set of rules even though these standards may never come to be properly explained by no one and this shows that beyond institutions formal institutions also exist informal ones that structure less rigid from more social practices or less established according to like O World of Art is a social institution of an informal type so one hundred The World of Art is a social institution within which aldocar for status assignments By part of its representatives however although several people are needed to constitute the social institution of world of art once constituted is enough that one of its members often artist himself acts as representative of the same and the tribe is all if candidate for consideration for a particular de facto value when this happens and being in fact becomes considered a work of art in the classificatory sense This is what can be classified as work of art belonging to the class determined whether a candidate for consideration actually become appreciated by public of an afternoon then becomes considered a work of art in the sense evaluative means no and the category of works of art as it is a good example from this category In other words, it is a good work from art to institutional art there seem to be some relatively few doctors to their rivals the philosophers of art precedents were focused on the expressive figurative features of the art that they ended up ignoring completely the institutional nature of art and the ownership of status so contrary to theories previous Institutional theory offers a procedural definition and not a working definition of art ending for defending that which causes something is a work of art, it is not the its properties manifest themselves as its effects on its functions but rather the way how it is treated by those who created it and who exposes and by whom he appreciates some of the main objections raised this perspective are the following data to know what it is a work of art we have to know what it is a lot of trees and to know what it is the World of Art we have to know what they are the works of art the definition seems walk in circles without ever forgetting properly the meaning of their terms and therefore offers a definition circular or vicious art shoot institutional to support anything can become art since everything is this is assigned by a representative of the Art World of anything can be a work of art then apparently not we have good reason to worry with distinction between art and non-art and as a consequence any definition of air become uninformative and not operational and in yours if the theory institutional is true Stop it is possible to speak of primitive art For it is unlikely that there would be anything that resembled a lot of art when cavemen made the first cave paintings besides the idea of ​​a solitary artist who lives and wanted to be on the fringes of society too becomes impossible to carry out and the critique of institutional theory art as the starting point for theory Art history defended by Gerald levinson and the science of intentional Tiririca also take levinson's History seeks to define art as a plant statistical and relational properties contextual and not properties intrinsic and manifest of the objects of according to the historical theory of art alcohol is a work of art if and only if someone with property rights over something that is seriously intended to be viewed in the same way as they were considered other objects covered by the concept of work of art thus according with this perspective even man of the Neolithic period This is from a period prior to the Constitution of the institution social world of art could produce a work of art by combining some colored stones to provoke to be visual this happens because a of the ways in which works of art were correctly viewed throughout the history is precisely like objects that aim to produce personal pleasure the rest according to the historical theory of art it is possible to make art on the fringes of social institution of the World of Art because all that matters is that the intention of the Creator has good precedents historical This is either one of the forms how the works of art were correctly faced over time do not there is however that the artist has the awareness that your intention has good historical percentages in the history of art is enough for the de facto presidents There are Furthermore Whatever the intention behind the creation it has to be serious This is cannot be momentary or temporary or merely illustrative and finally the artist has to have property rights over the object in question because it cannot be said that someone to produce a certain work of art if from the start that person does not Siqueira had the right to use this object was in a way force throw historical has some advantages about the theories we realize not only enables the existence of art solitary with show Why in art is missing although not every product The reason why anything goes is that no there are defined limits regarding the kind of things that people can seriously intend to be faced as works of art the reason why it was the result is that around here whatever it is currently considered art it is necessary take into account the history of art so there are no guarantees that a determined by the present tense art is valid through the history of art and despite their virtues they present themselves also some Criticism does not explain that Why is the first work of art considered art and this is if what it does with which something is a work of art EA its relationship to previous art then how the first work of art came about important that the work does not have good precedents to which we can act one considered too inclusive in the sense that there are today several objects that share the intention with great Portraits of the past and yet some works of art for example photographs here step or robot portraits that the police use can also be say that it is too exclusive if think about the condition of rights to property for example insofar as choose Victory mind of the concept of art some works simply because the artist does not own the means of production as in the case of graffiti by example and like the other areas of philosophy this continues to be a very investigated in the sense of seeking answering the questions we start by lift that deep down remains in open with everything everyday We will not let them continue to do the two our ethical judgments we can now really like or not Malta class welcome to another episode of philosophy science of religion consists in thinking philosophically topics that arise when the subject is religion It's starting first characterization more negative is important Make it clear what is philosophy of religion is not in First of all, you cannot confuse the philosophy of religion with the study of history of the main religions because the philosophy cannot be reduced to history secondly, one cannot confuse the philosophy of religion with theology because theology already has a body of doctrines that are not questioned the existence of God Incarnation immortality of the soul and etc. however the philosophy of religion took a step back and question but are there good reasons to believe in the existence of God the most positive way we can characterize the philosophy of religion as the critical examination of concepts and fundamental religious beliefs such as the concept of God the concept of faith a sound of miracle And there sleeps power as well as the belief that I persist in that life after of death that God knows even before we are born or we want to make existence of evil is somehow consistent with the love that God has for his creatures one of the most fun programs both by philosophers like Portugal and others scholars of religion is to know whether can and should there be an agreement between one side the contents of faith and beliefs religious and on the other hand what can be investigated understood and accepted as true appellant only the capabilities of our reason could summarize in a single question is the reason compatible cofer or will they be incompatible is the position being that the relationship between reason and religious faith is in opposition Or at least separation maintaining the thesis that only faith allows us to believe in existence of God is called visit representatives of this line of thought of Saint Francis and that remained for the latter not only does reason allows to show the existence of nature of God as Believing in Him based on Rational arguments and evidence wrong in sense in which it is not true faith religious this must accept that believe to trust in a blind way to what part of our feeling and not from our reasoning we will see more in front of Pascal's position in the position according to which faith and reason are incompatible and we must follow this last the reason that shows us that God there is no baptism designated in this perspective not only religious faith is not justification for accepting that something is a fact but attempts to demonstrate the existence of God fail and there is including solid arguments in the sense that it does not exist a gnosticism also works corresponds to the idea that reason in us has shown so far or never mix there sufficient evidence that should lead us I want to believe that God exists I want believe that he does not exist at all we must suspend our judgments about this matter we still have for this one compatibility between reason and faith snakebite is often controversial within modern religions themselves for example the Christian religion that counts with the largest number of believers Catholicism clearly rejects The fideism considering that there is a complementarity between faith and reason this functionalist position of harmony and coincidence between what is religious faith reveals supernatural way and what the reason allows us to conclude was defended by many philosophers throughout history It is after all the most important position typically philosophical in the decision to religion once fideism is adopted nothing to discuss to argue because reason this matter is worthless FS would be thus a divine gift that we can only expect to receive otherwise never we obtain true faith we are now interested in considering the very problem of the existence of God after all we really have to argue for or against the existence of God several elements were formed for and against the existence of God being moments in favor we will address the argument cosmological the theological argument and the ontological argument of arguments against the powers that be he who is considered as the main one argument from Evil before we analyze it that treats each argument is important we understand that they are referring to The main religions when talking about God typically when the main religions speak of God are referring to to the theistic God my theistic God God is understood with the following predicates omnipotent can do everything or he feels who knows everything my present is in everywhere at the same time extremely good morally perfect creator and person and not a force of nature either Christianity like Judaism Islam defend the existence of this theistic God sins still click on different names this conception of God's view there must be other conceptions of God such as with Buddhism in which it is argued that God is creator but I didn't even enter matter with creation or pantheism in that God is not distinct from the world and the cosmological argument also called argument of the first house argument caused but in some information about the way the world is so it is an argument to posteriori the classic version of cosmological argument is from Thomas d'aquino in this document begins to be with simple facts about the world as fact that in it I see things whose existence is caused by other things to say this concludes that there has to be a first cause or God's one accessible instrument training may be the following there are things in the world if there are things in the world then they are things were caused to exist by something else if the things of the world were caused to exist by some other thing then or to a causal chain that regresses infinitely or just once first cause that the origin of the chain causal but there is no causal chain that Rodrigo infinitely soon just one first cause we accustom God that origin of the causal chain in the third premise cast two possibilities that can explain what to use the things that exist in the world first the hypothesis of a causal chain that regress infinitely, that is, the things that exist in the world must be the causes that preceded them in turn these causes must be other causes than the realized and so on until the infinity the second hypothesis is to fire that only a first cause to which no has a cause that is the origin of the entire chain causal like this instead of the causal chain infinitely attack this chair stop at a first cause in caused and Supernatural like God but when this You might be more plausible on Wednesday premise it is stated that the hypothesis no repression to infinity in jail of the causes is not plausible because if forget the causes infinite force then I would do nothing at the beginning of your downfall origin the causal chain itself gave origin to everything we have today for him will be if we can establish an idea here an analogy we exist because the our parents caused us and in turn our parents exist because our grandparents caused them and so on and so forth. now suppose there would be no first couple of our ancestors it seems that in this case there would be no causal chain that leads to our existence in the same way if there is no first cause or God would cease to exist own causal chain and nothing would exist but as there are things and chains causes sex that there will have to be a first cause is a central objection argument cosmological makes us add that this argument comments on the fallacy of false dilemma when I only cast two options to explain the things that exist in world is that in addition to the chain option infinite regression and the Option say only one first cause can be had also consider the option to see several different first causes for example other criticisms of the argument cosmological point out that even if can conclude that there is a cause first nothing guarantees that this cause or be an artist or be the first pants of the causal chain does not need to have the traditional earthquake attributes such as omnipotence omniscience or his goodness absolute the starting point of the argument teleological also known as argument of design is ours feeling surprised by many of the things that exist in our universe manifest in order and design in the sense of purpose from this seeks to show that whatever it is produced universe has to be a being smart is for me to look for the logical structure of several versions of the teleological argument Consider the following when we walk through a forest we found a clock in the ground and we wonder how this object could be in that place having into account the observed data or evidence This is the specific characteristics of watch as the fact that your suits are set to signal the time and the day is September we have two hypotheses to explain this phenomenon or clock was conceived by one of them will or clock shape if by chance it seems that the observed evidence would not be surprising if the hypothesis of watchmaker were true but it would be very surprising if the hypothesis of if it were true This is to decide in clock house that allows you to perform a certain function to signal the time of day be extremely surprising that was formed by chance like this we can say that the hypothesis explains we better hope to observe the hypothesis of the clock instead of the chance hypothesis now instead of clock let's suppose that we start from the observations we already make nature, living beings and their organs the eye for example display a intricate structure with performance complex functions such as vision taking into account tells the wonders of nature we have two hypotheses to explain this ending to living beings were conceived by God Or were they by chance time presumably the wonders of nature I only learned if they were conceived by God what were conceived by chance thus the wonders of nature confirms the hypothesis of God closure there may be the case for that reason we can conclude that the data observations on the wonders of nature confirms the existence of God main criticism that can be made of this argument must also commit the fallacy of the false dilemma because not only two hypotheses to explain the wonders of nature can also help in the beginning allows to explain the structure enters into one-eyed house by the process of evolution by natural selection Furthermore even if the argument was good no would prove the existence of the theistic God but without any Entity it is natural the ontological argument starts of the concept of God and a priori premises premises that can be known regardless of the experience of the world to conclude that it exists in reality in the classic version of Santo Anselm starts by defining God as a being greater than which nothing can be thought and from this definition with that's why God exists today after God there is no such thing or if just this thought but not in reality would not be that being greater than that which nothing can be thought of in a simple version the food can be presented in the following form if God exists a thought if God exists in thoughts and not in reality then we can conceive of a more being perfect than God but not conceivable to a being more perfect than God soon I actually gave up both at first premise it is stated that there is at least comment mental age same other me I accept this premise. That is, you can at least less think about the existence of God This because to affirm or deny the existence of God in reality must understand if what is being stated or denied in the second premise it is argued that if God exists only as a mental entity but not as existing in reality Then it would be possible to conceive of a more perfect being than God but why Why this form it seems that we can imagine not be even better and more perfect than God or in other words we can conceive of a being that it still exists in thought too exists in reality But why to exist in thought and in reality is more perfect than existing only in thought because for example it seems in 50 hours that exist only in my thought is a thing that is the smallest of that I did this in my mind and from my pocket around there in the third premise it is advocated that one cannot conceive of a being more perfect than God but why don't we we can forget that we are starting from definition of God as the greatest being of all that which nothing can be thought of therefore affirm that God is the greatest being than which nothing can be thought is the even if it says that God is a being maximally perfect This is being with all qualities as omnipotence omniscience and the one will between others and therefore it cannot be conceived another having better or more perfect than God, let's finish this promise that you made power however logical in your hymn steps about the justification of our knowledge is of the letter the first problem sleep anthological It is to present a logical structure that allows proving the existence of things that do not exist for example if we define the island perfect as the island larger than which Nothing Greater can be thought of and based on in this definition there must be an island perfect because perfect exit no existed or if only this exists in thought but in reality it would not be that Island greater than which nothing can be thought the problem is that he is perfect is only in the imagination in other instrument reviews they do notice that existence is not the true predicate given that the existence adds nothing to advice of thing change assistance could be illustrated in a sentence like next x out if we say that XP we we have to say nothing purpose x because in a property is assigned therefore it is wrong to conclude that any thing is better than others Simply by having the predicate existence Furthermore it can be said that this moment starts talking about the begging the question or circularity AND this is in the definition itself presented of God is already committed to the idea that exists in reality when a source This is what we want to prove and conclude purpose of the counter arguments this God we then have to consider the one who is considered the most important argument from evil an instrument in front that the presence of evil in the world is a strong evidence against the existence of God I am many examples of natural evil and take an existing mural in the world by one side moral evil offers to the evil that has its origin in human actions such as murders tortures robberies etc. by other side the natural evil Hair salmon that does not originate in the actions of beings humans like earthquakes hurricanes some types of diseases etc to develop the argument we must still make another distinction between justified evil and evil Not justified normal justified It is the evil that if it does not exist leads to realization than something much bigger, for example, mooring is proven or a disease supported bravely in these cases their bad existence we are at the same time eliminate the biggest father of that give courage to hear everything for that in these cases we are faced with evil justified on the contrary, unjustified evil is the one that if it doesn't exist doesn't take you here I hope some one any bigger and so this evil is meaningless or free at least some of the bad ones our world seem to be free in case of for example a stray dog ​​being struck by lightning and become horribly burned for five days until finally dying as one animal does not have free will as if put in Human cases we can't face any kind of responsibility for what happened Why would allow God as a theist that something of this kind happened when it could easily prevented it can be argued that the existence of gratuitous Evil that supposedly we find in the world is very unlikely from the point of view of earthquake that presupposes an entity Supernatural omnipotent omniscient and usually perfect but not improbable from the point of view of atheism that presupposes the non-existence of such entity this because if it exists this exists being when I felt for someone perfect really important he knows that I want and have the power to eliminate the bad free or meaningless hours and seem to continue this to have more free This seems to show that God probably doesn't exist one way or the other of argument was also traditionally formed in the form of paradoxes being commonly called Epicurus' paradox The which is super glasses puts what already we saw but in the apparently more intuitive If God is omniscient omnipotent this moment good then bad could not exist know that I exist As we have already verified So we have to be able to God knows where to find evil is me I felt like getting rid of him that moment good but you don't have the power to do it, do you? omnipotent or God can illuminate evil is omnipotent that was to get rid of him this good moment but don't know where find is not michetti or God can eliminate evil has omnipotent knows where find I felt but I don't want to doing is not jealous good deep down this paradox leads us to conclude that no there is a Supernatural being or is there no proves the existence of God when he puts in question the granting of God's sight while being perfect or feeling omnipotent and extremely good criticism that instruments are made are Mainly two on the 7th day of theodicy optimism 7 that has this insemination because it denies that we need it to know the reasons that God may have to do something if God exists that he fact seems to us from one point of view subjective that there are free evils not I know there really is a point of Free Mouse Objective View unjustifiable Michael Bergman does the following analogy to illustrate the best we cannot use our inability to see which ones want Santos in the garage when we are looking from the street to conclude that it is unlikely that there is insects in the garage in a similar way do not we have to use our inability to understand the reasons that justify that God allows evil to conclude that it is unlikely that there is any reason that justify God allows this evil to another criticism was to have Odyssey the theodicy consists of giving an answer to the question to know why God allows the barely showing itself in this way that none beyond justifiable in the background is a attempt to justify the evils that plague us seem capable of justification but since its most influential was life for Lines what he finds is that God allows evil precisely because it best of all possible worlds no implies a world without evils, that is what does this mean second limit if God exists as a perfect being omnipotent and I felt that I wanted the best of all possible worlds or be our world as a whole is the best in the world not being possible design an even better world side and emphasizes that the world without any kind of evil it would not be the best possible world because some more parts of the world are Such that if God thus eliminates himself the injunction would be part of the husband and powerful in the world such as the case of Forgiveness As we saw previously, it implies some kind of offense or evil but that at the same time strengthens relations with these cases it seems plausible to accept the idea that seeing interested parties may be necessary to have a greater perfection throughout this case of the world so any candidate to be the best possible world has simultaneously good aspects and Mouse aspects being that the best in the world And it is the one in which the value of the good aspects and outweigh the value of the aspects hands there disclose to me even if we consider all the things we have no justification for to claim that the world with less evil would be possible as it could be argued we cannot know if it is possible to create the better world without these aspects negatives since we do not know what the connections between these aspects and the other aspects of the world we have seen so far arguments that are not justified rationally the existence or the nonexistence of God however as we will initially see fideism exposes begin with any epistemic reason to believe in God we consider Then why end Pascal ophidism as an alternative to discussion we were watching the Pascal's argument does not aim to prove that of this exists but rather that it belongs to the rational mind still believe in God that there is no movement in favor of its existence the current power because the competition to the rational mind wanting say deep down what you do Calypso says that what you should do is think in terms of practical benefits actually no reason is needed epistemic second step Cau PA to God low in thinking in terms of cost-benefit the principle of present rationality then tells us that if we have to choose within different options we must choose one option x if that option had better result and take care of the other options available never having a result worse than them what does it mean in this case the options we would have would be must believe in the existence of God or night cream without being God answers that we believe in the existence of God if he exist then rewards happiness eternal or for that there just aren't any good ones results will be indifferent for in practice we can't do anything boring for some time time You will have that we are at the beginning of the prayers however if point that not we believe in this is to be God if he does not there is then result is so indifferent as if we believe that there is bottom we didn't lose anything but if he existed and we didn't believe in it punishment would be eternal and this is hell therefore if the option to believe in God has the best result than alternative does not believe we have to want believe and with criticism increase Pascal one may question whether God benefits from just like paradise the great ones who has faith only for the petty interest of reward and those secrets that have faith in an interested way or in this addition of this a religious profession based on cost-benefit market seems would merely be of selfish interest and as This would be morally repugnant to the relationship with God if there is ultimately the Pascal's argument assumes that the child is under voluntary control and book of the person to what is quite plausible of because we don't have that control volunteer about most things in that we believe And thank you for having me by your side more philosophy videos or other disciplines together in the chest for a long time Thank you and good studies