Podcast appearances and mentions of Michael Huemer

Morality and prejudiceIs there such a thing as morality? And, if so, can we know what it is and act on it? Or is morality rather a shield for the powerful and a defence of their interest? The answer may have life-changing consequences...Join a heated debate between three philosophers with three different perspectives on the meaning of morality and the role it should play in our lives: Tommy Curry, Chair of Africana philosophy at Edinburgh and a moral sceptic; Michael Huemer, Professor of Philosophy at Boulder and a moral realist; and Melis Erdur, Professor at the Open University of Israel and representing a compromise between realism and scepticism on morality. The debate is inconclusive, but opens important questions on how we should relate to morality and ethics. To witness such topics discussed live buy tickets for our upcoming festival: https://howthelightgetsin.org/festivals/And visit our website for many more articles, videos, and podcasts like this one: https://iai.tv/You can find everything we referenced here: https://linktr.ee/philosophyforourtimesAnd don't hesitate to email us at podcast@iai.tv with your thoughts or questions on the episode! Who do you agree or disagree with?See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

https://youtu.be/J_uYGJgxZGg For those of us unwilling or unable to spend a hundred thousand dollars and four years of our life at university only to be turned into a race-baiting, economically illiterate Bolshevik, Michael Huemer gives us the economic and philosophical education I wish I would have had in school. - Keith Knight, In Defense of Huemer's 'Progressive Myths' Watch on Odysee Watch on BitChute Watch on Rumble

Michael Huemer explains and challenges progressive claims.Today's book: Progressive Myths

In this episode, I sit down with philosopher Dr. Michael Huemer to talk about the importance of thinking critically in a world full of competing ideas. We discuss his latest book, Progressive Myths, and what it reveals about common misconceptions. Dr. Huemer also shares practical strategies for developing independent thought, and I explain how I've applied these lessons in my own life. If you've ever wanted a clear framework for navigating complex ideas, this conversation is for you.Send Me a Text Message with Your QuestionsSupport the showIMPORTANT LINKS:

Tell Spencer your thoughts about this episode!Michael Huemer returns to the podcast to discuss more of the issues in his self-published book, Progressive Myths (which you can buy on Amazon for a mere $12.50). Mike and Spencer discuss the gender pay gap, the claim that women don't lie about sexual assault, and the sex-gender distinction.

Discussing Progressive Myths with Professor Michael Huemer In this episode of The Rational Egoist, host Michael Liebowitz welcomes Professor Michael Huemer, a renowned philosopher from the University of Colorado and the author of Progressive Myths. Together, they unpack some of the most pervasive myths propagated by progressive ideologies, examining their philosophical underpinnings, logical inconsistencies, and practical implications. Huemer, with his sharp analytical style, challenges listeners to question widely held assumptions and consider alternative perspectives rooted in reason and evidence. This thought-provoking discussion is a must-listen for anyone interested in the intersection of philosophy and contemporary politics. Michael Leibowitz, host of The Rational Egoist podcast, is a philosopher and political activist who draws inspiration from Ayn Rand's philosophy, advocating for reason, rational self-interest, and individualism. His journey from a 25-year prison sentence to a prominent voice in the libertarian and Objectivist communities highlights the transformative impact of embracing these principles. Leibowitz actively participates in political debates and produces content aimed at promoting individual rights and freedoms. He is the co-author of “Down the Rabbit Hole: How the Culture of Correction Encourages Crime” and “View from a Cage: From Convict to Crusader for Liberty,” which explore societal issues and his personal evolution through Rand's teachings. Explore his work and journey further through his books: “Down the Rabbit Hole”: https://www.amazon.com.au/Down-Rabbit-Hole-Corrections-Encourages/dp/197448064X “View from a Cage”: https://books2read.com/u/4jN6xj join our Ayn Rand Adelaide Meetups here for some seriously social discussions on Freedom https://www.meetup.com/adelaide-ayn-rand-meetup/

In PX123 our guest is Bryan Caplan. Bryan is Professor of Economics at George Mason University and a New York Times Bestselling author. We interview him about his ground breaking graphic novel ‘Build, Baby, Build - The Science and Ethics of Housing Regulation'. The book is so described: 'In Build, Baby, Build: The Science and Ethics of Housing Regulation, economist Bryan Caplan makes the economic and philosophical case for radical deregulation of this massive market―freeing property owners to build as tall and dense as they wish. Not only would the average price of housing be cut in half, but the building boom unleashed by deregulation would simultaneously reduce inequality, increase social mobility, promote economic growth, reduce homelessness, increase birth rates, help the environment, cut crime, and more. Combining stunning homage to classic animation with careful interdisciplinary research, Build, Baby, Build takes readers on a grand tour of a bona fide “panacea policy.” We can start realizing these missed opportunities as soon as we abandon the widespread misconception that housing regulation solves more problems than it causes.' The book is a must read for planning undergraduates and all policy makers involved in the housing sector. Other books he has written include The Myth of the Rational Voter, named "the best political book of the year" by the New York Times, Selfish Reasons to Have More Kids, The Case Against Education, Open Borders (co-authored with SMBC's Zach Weinersmith), Labor Econ Versus the World, How Evil Are Politicians?, Don't Be a Feminist, Voters As Mad Scientists, You Will Not Stampede Me, and Self-Help Is Like a Vaccine. He is now writing Unbeatable: The Brutally Honest Case for Free Markets.  In Podcast Extra / Culture Corner Bryan recommends ‘The problem with political authority' by Michael Huemer (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Problem_of_Political_Authority). He also recommends the Youtube series 'Ride with Gabi'  https://www.youtube.com/@ridewithgabi  Jess has gone back to duolingo, learning Italian (https://www.duolingo.com). Pete recommends the Netflix K Rom - com ‘Business Proposal'. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_Proposal) Audio produced by Jack Bavage. Podcast released 12 November 2024.

In PX123 our guest is Bryan Caplan. Bryan is Professor of Economics at George Mason University and a New York Times Bestselling author. We interview him about his ground breaking graphic novel ‘Build, Baby, Build - The Science and Ethics of Housing Regulation'. The book is described: 'In Build, Baby, Build: The Science and Ethics of Housing Regulation, economist Bryan Caplan makes the economic and philosophical case for radical deregulation of this massive market―freeing property owners to build as tall and dense as they wish. Not only would the average price of housing be cut in half, but the building boom unleashed by deregulation would simultaneously reduce inequality, increase social mobility, promote economic growth, reduce homelessness, increase birth rates, help the environment, cut crime, and more. Combining stunning homage to classic animation with careful interdisciplinary research, Build, Baby, Build takes readers on a grand tour of a bona fide “panacea policy.” We can start realizing these missed opportunities as soon as we abandon the widespread misconception that housing regulation solves more problems than it causes.' The book should be a must read for planning undergraduates and all policy makers involved in the housing sector. Other books he has written include The Myth of the Rational Voter, named "the best political book of the year" by the New York Times, Selfish Reasons to Have More Kids, The Case Against Education, Open Borders (co-authored with SMBC's Zach Weinersmith), Labor Econ Versus the World, How Evil Are Politicians?, Don't Be a Feminist, Voters As Mad Scientists, You Will Not Stampede Me, and Self-Help Is Like a Vaccine. He is now writing Unbeatable: The Brutally Honest Case for Free Markets. In Podcast Extra / Culture Corner Bryan recommends 

‘The problem with political authority' by Michael Huemer (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Problem_of_Political_Authority). He also recommends the Youtube series 'Ride with Gabi' https://www.youtube.com/@ridewithgabi Jess has gone back to duolingo, learning Italian (https://www.duolingo.com). Pete recommends Netflix K drama ‘Business Proposal'. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_Proposal) Audio produced by Jack Bavage. Podcast released 12 November 2024.
 PlanningxChange is proud to be part of the Urban Broadcast Collective.

In PX123 our guest is Bryan Caplan. Bryan is Professor of Economics at George Mason University and a New York Times Bestselling author. We interview him about his ground breaking graphic novel ‘Build, Baby, Build - The Science and Ethics of Housing Regulation'. The book is described: 'In Build, Baby, Build: The Science and Ethics of Housing Regulation, economist Bryan Caplan makes the economic and philosophical case for radical deregulation of this massive market―freeing property owners to build as tall and dense as they wish. Not only would the average price of housing be cut in half, but the building boom unleashed by deregulation would simultaneously reduce inequality, increase social mobility, promote economic growth, reduce homelessness, increase birth rates, help the environment, cut crime, and more. Combining stunning homage to classic animation with careful interdisciplinary research, Build, Baby, Build takes readers on a grand tour of a bona fide “panacea policy.” We can start realizing these missed opportunities as soon as we abandon the widespread misconception that housing regulation solves more problems than it causes.' The book is a must read for planning undergraduates and all policy makers involved in the housing sector. Other books he has written include The Myth of the Rational Voter, named "the best political book of the year" by the New York Times, Selfish Reasons to Have More Kids, The Case Against Education, Open Borders (co-authored with SMBC's Zach Weinersmith), Labor Econ Versus the World, How Evil Are Politicians?, Don't Be a Feminist, Voters As Mad Scientists, You Will Not Stampede Me, and Self-Help Is Like a Vaccine. He is now writing Unbeatable: The Brutally Honest Case for Free Markets. In Podcast Extra / Culture Corner Bryan recommends 

‘The problem with political authority' by Michael Huemer (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Problem_of_Political_Authority). He also recommends the Youtube series 'Ride with Gabi' https://www.youtube.com/@ridewithgabi Jess has gone back to duolingo, learning Italian (https://www.duolingo.com). Pete recommends the Netflix K Rom Com ‘Business Proposal'. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_Proposal) Audio produced by Jack Bavage. Podcast released 12 November 2024.

University of Colorado at Boulder philosophy professor Michael Huemer, author of Progressive Myths, joins us to smash some. (I didn't actually count how many we covered, but it's at least six.) Sponsors: & Book Discussed:

Tell Spencer your thoughts about this episode!Michael Huemer returns Micro-Digressions to discuss his new self-published book, Progressive Myths, which you can purchase here for a mere $12.50:Progressive Myths: Huemer, Michael: 9798332272073: Amazon.com: BooksDiscussed here: Trayvon Martin, Michael Brown, Eric Garner, and George Floyd cases, as well as some of the general patterns of police violence; the science of climate change and masking (compared with what activists say about these things), and the causes of progressive myths. 

// GUEST // X: https://x.com/jimmysongBooks/Website: https://programmingbitcoin.com/Medium: https://jimmysong.medium.com/Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/jimmysong__officiallyLinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/jimmysong// SPONSORS // The Farm at Okefenokee: https://okefarm.com/ Heart and Soil Supplements (use discount code BREEDLOVE): https://heartandsoil.co/ In Wolf's Clothing: https://wolfnyc.com/ Tuttle Twins: http://angel.com/breedlove Mindlab Pro: https://www.mindlabpro.com/breedloveEmerge Dynamics: https://emergedynamics.com/breedlove // PRODUCTS I ENDORSE // Protect your mobile phone from SIM swap attacks: https://www.efani.com/breedlove Noble Protein (discount code BREEDLOVE for 15% off): https://nobleorigins.com/ The Bitcoin Advisor: https://content.thebitcoinadviser.com/breedlove Lineage Provisions (use discount code BREEDLOVE): https://lineageprovisions.com/?ref=breedlove_22 Colorado Craft Beef (use discount code BREEDLOVE): https://coloradocraftbeef.com/  // SUBSCRIBE TO THE CLIPS CHANNEL // https://www.youtube.com/@robertbreedloveclips2996/videos // OUTLINE // 0:00 - WiM Intro1:22 - The Case for Bitcoin Maximalism12:11 - What is Rent-Seeking?18:26 - The Problem of Political Authority28:34 - The Farm at Okefenokee29:53 - Heart and Soil Supplements30:53 - Helping Lightning Startups with In Wolf's Clothing31:45 - The Illusion of Political Authority36:51 - Mimetic Desire and Politics44:05 - The Moral Illusion of Political Authority50:04 - Alternatives to Political Authority54:29 - Tuttle Twins: Teaching Kids Critical Thinking 55:46 - Mind Lab Pro 56:55 - Kalshi 58:09 - Emerge Dynamics 59:13 - Decentralized Capitalism 1:07:17 - The Language Game in Politics 1:18:54 - Public Goods and Market Failure 1:26:19 - Utopianism vs Realism 1:39:41 - Bridging the Gap Between God and Science 1:45:28 - The Path Forward// PODCAST // Podcast Website: https://whatismoneypodcast.com/Apple Podcast: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-what-is-money-show/id1541404400Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/25LPvm8EewBGyfQQ1abIsE?RSS Feed: https://feeds.simplecast.com/MLdpYXYI// SUPPORT THIS CHANNEL // Bitcoin: 3D1gfxKZKMtfWaD1bkwiR6JsDzu6e9bZQ7 Sats via Strike: https://strike.me/breedlove22 Sats via Tippin.me: https://tippin.me/@Breedlove22Dollars via Paypal: https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/RBreedloveDollars via Venmo: https://account.venmo.com/u/Robert-Breedlove-2The "What is Money?" Show Patreon Page: https://www.patreon.com/user?u=32843101// WRITTEN WORK // Medium: https://breedlove22.medium.com/Substack: https://breedlove22.substack.com/ // SOCIAL // Breedlove Twitter: https://twitter.com/Breedlove22WiM? Twitter: https://twitter.com/WhatisMoneyShowLinkedin: https://www.linkedin.com/in/breedlove22/Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/breedlove_22/TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@breedlove22All My Current Work: https://linktr.ee/robertbreedlove

https://youtu.be/yhL7B3Aqw9I [H]omicides committed by blacks against whites are more than twice as common as homicides by whites against blacks in the U.S., despite that there are 5.6 times more white people than black people in the U.S. A randomly chosen black person is thus 13 times more likely to kill a white person than a random white person is to kill a black person. (p. 32) Males make up only 50% of the population but 95.5% of the police shooting victims. (p. 63) The gender pay gap statistics do not control for occupation or other relevant factors. In other words, they are not, in fact, about the same work or equal work. Rather, almost all of the gap is due to men and women doing different work. (p.100) [M]en suffer over 90% of all workplace deaths in America each year.(p. 105) - Dr. Michael Huemer, Progressive Myths Michael Huemer (BA, UC Berkeley; PhD, Rutgers University) is a professor of philosophy at the University of Colorado at Boulder. Watch on Odysee Watch on BitChute

// Dr. Michael Huemer /// Progressive Myths: https://a.co/d/7YFUvQN Follow Michael Huemer on Substack: https://fakenous.substack.com/ /// Keith Knight /// Domestic Imperialism: Nine Reasons I Left Progressivism: https://libertarianinstitute.org/books/domestic-imperialism-nine-reasons-i-left-progressivism/ The Voluntaryist Handbook: https://libertarianinstitute.org/books/voluntaryist-handbook/

Welcome to The Nonlinear Library, where we use Text-to-Speech software to convert the best writing from the Rationalist and EA communities into audio. This is: In Defense of Lawyers Playing Their Part, published by Isaac King on July 2, 2024 on LessWrong. This is a linkpost for In Defense of Lawyers Playing Their Part. Michael Huemer writes about why he believes it's wrong for lawyers to pursue unjust legal outcomes. It's a good article, and one of the best defenses of this position I've seen. Still, I think this argument is mistaken. The reason why we require lawyers to fight for "their side" even if they believe they're in the wrong is to minimize the opportunity for bias. Imagine if all trials were bench trials, decided by only one person as the judge. Even if they're taught to be as objective as possible, there would still be significant concerns about unconscious bias. One person only has one set of experiences to draw on, which is necessarily not very representative of the full range of experiences. And in some ways this problem becomes worse the more training the judge is given, since it filters the pool of valid people down to a small subset of the population. The chosen solution to this is to instead have the important cases decided by a jury, randomly[1] selected from the population. The jury is then instructed that they must come to a unanimous decision, and are allowed an arbitrarily-long time to discuss the case. This prevents a tyranny of the majority, while still allowing a diverse range of perspectives to have a voice in the discussion. Any prospective juror who seems likely to be so biased that they would vote in a predetermined way regardless of the evidence is removed from consideration during voir dire. (This step does reduce the representativeness of the jury, but the assumption is that for any group of people who hold a particular perspective, there will be members of that group who are not so biased as to be selected out.[2]) But this doesn't solve all problems. The jury is still only human, and if they're presented with facts that are biased in only one direction, they're more likely to vote in that direction. If lawyers were instructed to present an unbiased case to the jury, this would provide a significant incentive for the less ethical lawyers to not do as instructed, using a misleading presentation of data to bias the jury towards their side. This is a bad incentive to give people. It would also lead to copious accusations from the losing side that the other side's lawyer was presenting biased facts, which would necessitate some process to sort them out every time, even if both lawyers were perfectly objective. So instead, we tell the lawyers to go nuts. Be as biased as possible, and, as long as they're equally skilled and there aren't background factors that favor one position over the other, this ensures that each presented position is equally far from the truth. The jury now has a fair overview of both sides of the case, without a malicious lawyer being able to advantage one over the other.[3] Michael provides 5 arguments in favor of this position - that lawyers are obligated to do their best even for a client they believe is guilty - then attempts to refute them all. I'll go through them individually. 2.1. The epistemological problem Michael argues that lawyers can know with high confidence that their clients are guilty, giving the example of Benjamin Courvoisier. Thus, "I'm not sure so I should just defend my client" is not an excuse. In the case of Benjamin Courvoisier, Benjamin confessed to the lawyer, presumably under the expectation that the lawyer would not publicly share this information. If lawyers were duty-bound to share any private confession given to them, all but the dumbest criminals would simply stop giving private confessions. The overall effect on convictions would be negligible. But cases like Benjamin Courvoisier are few and far between. Using this example to argue that de...

Dr. Michael Huemer joined the podcast to discuss the Fine-Tuning Argument. In this video, we discussed the reality of Fine-Tuning and different explanations. Dr. Huemer's Blog: https://fakenous.substack.com/ Dr. Huemer's Books: https://www.amazon.com/Books-Michael-Huemer/s?rh=n%3A283155%2Cp_27%3AMichael+Huemer -------------------------------- GIVING -------------------------------- Please consider becoming a Patron! Patreon (Thanks!): https://www.patreon.com/AdherentApologetics YouTube Membership: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCO8jj_CQwrRRwwwXBndo6nQ/join

With a PhD from Rutgers, University of Colorado Professor Michael Huemer joins Bob to discuss his approach to anarcho-capitalism laid out in his book, The Problem of Political Authority.Mentioned in the Episode and Other Links of Interest:The YouTube version of this interview.Michael Huemer's website and his blog.Huemer's Amazon author page.The link to Monetary Metals.Help support the Bob Murphy Show.

Michael Huemer claims he is not a brain in a vat.Today's book: Can We Know Anything? A Debateby Bryan Frances & Michael Huemer

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast: Episode 423. My appearance as the first guess on Adam Haman's new podcast and Youtube channel, Haman Nature (Haman Nature substack). As I noted in the initial discussion, this is the fourth or fifth podcast for which I was the first guest, the others being KOL374 | The Intellectual Contributions of Hans-Hermann Hoppe: The Great Fiction Podcast Ep. 1, KOL078 | Lions of Liberty Podcast Inaugural Episode: Intellectual Property, KOL244 | “YOUR WELCOME” with Michael Malice Ep. 001: Intellectual Property, Prostate Cancer, and KOL347 | This Time I'm Curious Ep. 1: The Libertarian Movement, AI Rights, UFOs, Music, Movies, Alcohol. Shownotes: Adam and Stephen discuss argumentation ethics which of course means they also talk about museums. Part 1 of a 2 episode interview. https://youtu.be/00MQjVoHgYI?si=yGoO7GfLW1EFx2X6 Time marks: 00:00 – Intro 2:50 – Remembering PorcFest 2023 and fun with the creature from Bretton Woods. 5:52 – Introducing Stephan's new book: Legal Foundations of a Free Society. 7:00 – Libertarianism in America, then and now. 9:35 – With the change in the way we consume information, is intellectualism dead? 13:58 – The origins of this book: activism vs. preaching to the remnant. The value of engaging these ideas deeply to maximize credibility and effectiveness. 18:40 – From Marx to Rothbard: People who care about ideas are reachable and teachable. 20:17 – Exploring argumentation ethics. To understand liberty, we must understand property. 29:13 – Oh crap! Does Elon Musk own us? 29:31 – Back to argumentation ethics. Is v. ought. Natural order arguments. 35:31 -- A very brief discussion of Michael Huemer and intuitionism. 37:23 -- Five blind men describing an elephant - all roads lead to liberty. 40:30 -- Outro Pix of Adam, me and others at Bretton Woods at PorcFest 2023...

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast: Episode 423. My appearance as the first guess on Adam Haman's new podcast and Youtube channel, Haman Nature (Haman Nature substack). As I noted in the initial discussion, this is the fourth or fifth podcast for which I was the first guest, the others being KOL374 | The Intellectual Contributions of Hans-Hermann Hoppe: The Great Fiction Podcast Ep. 1, KOL078 | Lions of Liberty Podcast Inaugural Episode: Intellectual Property, KOL244 | “YOUR WELCOME” with Michael Malice Ep. 001: Intellectual Property, Prostate Cancer, and KOL347 | This Time I'm Curious Ep. 1: The Libertarian Movement, AI Rights, UFOs, Music, Movies, Alcohol. Shownotes: Adam and Stephen discuss argumentation ethics which of course means they also talk about museums. Part 1 of a 2 episode interview. https://youtu.be/00MQjVoHgYI?si=yGoO7GfLW1EFx2X6 Time marks: 00:00 – Intro 2:50 – Remembering PorcFest 2023 and fun with the creature from Bretton Woods. 5:52 – Introducing Stephan's new book: Legal Foundations of a Free Society. 7:00 – Libertarianism in America, then and now. 9:35 – With the change in the way we consume information, is intellectualism dead? 13:58 – The origins of this book: activism vs. preaching to the remnant. The value of engaging these ideas deeply to maximize credibility and effectiveness. 18:40 – From Marx to Rothbard: People who care about ideas are reachable and teachable. 20:17 – Exploring argumentation ethics. To understand liberty, we must understand property. 29:13 – Oh crap! Does Elon Musk own us? 29:31 – Back to argumentation ethics. Is v. ought. Natural order arguments. 35:31 -- A very brief discussion of Michael Huemer and intuitionism. 37:23 -- Five blind men describing an elephant - all roads lead to liberty. 40:30 -- Outro Pix of Adam, me and others at Bretton Woods at PorcFest 2023...

Welcome to The Nonlinear Library, where we use Text-to-Speech software to convert the best writing from the Rationalist and EA communities into audio. This is: Agents that act for reasons: a thought experiment, published by Michele Campolo on January 24, 2024 on The AI Alignment Forum. Posted also on the EA Forum. In Free agents I've given various ideas about how to design an AI that reasons like an independent thinker and reaches moral conclusions by doing so. Here I'd like to add another related idea, in the form of a short story / thought experiment. Cursed Somehow, you have been cursed. As a result of this unknown curse that is on you now, you are unable to have any positive or negative feeling. For example, you don't feel pain from injuries, nothing makes you anxious or excited or sad, you can't have fun anymore. If it helps you, imagine your visual field without colours, only with dull shades of black and white that never feel disgusting or beautiful. Before we get too depressed, let's add another detail: this curse also makes you immune to death (and other states similar to permanent sleep or unconsciousness). If you get stabbed, your body magically recovers as if nothing happened. Although this element might add a bit of fun to the story from our external perspective, keep in mind that the cursed version of you in the story doesn't feel curious about anything, nor has fun when thinking about the various things you could do as an immortal being. No one else is subject to the same curse. If you see someone having fun and laughing, the sentence "This person is feeling good right now" makes sense to you: although you can't imagine nor recall what feeling good feels like, your understanding of the world around you remained intact somehow. (Note: I am not saying that this is what would actually happen in a human being who actually lost the capacity for perceiving valence. It's a thought experiment!) Finally, let's also say that going back to your previous life is not an option. In this story, you can't learn anything about the cause of the curse or how to reverse it. To recap: You can't feel anything You can't die You can't go back to your previous state The curse only affects you. Others' experiences are normal. In this situation, what do you do? In philosophy, there is some discourse around reasons for actions, normative reasons, motivating reasons, blah blah blah. Every philosopher has their own theory and uses words differently, so instead of citing centuries of philosophical debates, I'll be maximally biased and use one framework that seems sensible to me. In Ethical Intuitionism, contemporary philosopher Michael Huemer distinguishes "four kinds of motivations we are subject to": Appetites: examples are hunger, thirst, lust (simple, instinctive desires) Emotions: anger, fear, love (emotional desires, they seem to involve a more sophisticated kind of cognition than appetites) Prudence: motivation to pursue or avoid something because it furthers or sets back one's own interests, like maintaining good health Impartial reasons: motivation to act due to what one recognises as good, fair, honest, et cetera. You can find more details in section 7.3 of the book. We can interpret the above thought experiment as asking: in the absence of appetites and emotions - call these two "desires", if you wish - what would you do? Without desires and without any kind of worry about your own death, does it still make sense to talk about self-interest? What would you do without desires and without self-interest? My guess is that, in the situation described in Cursed, at least some, if not many, would decide to do things for others. The underlying intuition seems to be that, without one's own emotional states and interests, one would prioritise others' emotional states and interests, simply due to the fact that nothing else seems worth doing in that situation. In other words, although one might need emotional states to first develop an accu...

Today, we continue our series on the moral argument for theism. We discuss the Euthyphro dilemma, Hume's Law, and explore a back-and-forth between William Lane Craig and Michael Huemer on the question, “Why obey God?” Common Mistakes about the Moral Argument | Majesty of Reason Majesty of Reason – Moral Arguments for God: An Analysis … Continue reading CA126 Euthyphro's Revenge →

what are some of the fallacies that occur in argumentative positions? we learn today about 14 different ways your mind is being mislead.

Dr. Michael Huemer joins me to defend interactionist substance dualism, the view that the mind and body are composed of different substances and can exert causal influence over each other. Knowledge, Reality, and Value: A Mostly Common Sense Guide to Philosophy  Linktree

Dr. Michael Huemer joins me to defend interactionist substance dualism, the view that the mind and body are composed of different substances and can exert causal influence over each other.  Knowledge, Reality, and Value: A Mostly Common Sense Guide to Philosophy  Linktree 

Michael Huemer talks about puzzles and insights in the study of knowledge.Follow @IdeasHavingSexx on TwitterToday's book: Understanding Knowledge Discussed and recommended: Meditations on First Philosophy by René Descartes, An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding by David Hume, and The Problems of Philosophy by Bertrand RussellMike's blog, author page, and website

Today, we discuss the idea that understanding a concept is not a matter of knowing a definition. As philosopher Michael Huemer argues, our main access to a concept comes “not through directly reflecting on the concept, but through activating the dispositions that constitute our understanding.”  The Wittgensteinian view of concepts explains how it's possible that we know how to competently use terms even though it is so hard to successfully analyze them. I can't provide a perfect conceptual analysis of knowledge (no one can), and yet I have no issue using the term and understanding what it means. Not only can I competently use words that I can't analyze, I can reject proposed analyses as insufficient, like the justified true belief analysis. That's because I understand the meaning of the concept, despite the fact that I can't define it.  “Indefinability of words is perfectly normal," Huemer argues, "since understanding is not constituted by knowledge of definitions. The best way to convey a word's meaning is through examples.”  Language & Meaning: Crash Course Philosophy Understanding Knowledge - Michael Huemer Linktree One note from Huemer on the Wittgensteinian view of concepts and the contrasting Lockean view: "I think what I have to say about concepts is like some stuff that Wittgenstein said, but I don't actually care how well it matches Wittgenstein's views. I also don't care, by the way, whether the 'Lockean theory' matches Locke's views. You have to add in caveats like this whenever you mention a major philosophical figure, because there are always people who have devoted their lives to studying that figure and who, if you let them, will give you all sorts of arguments that the famous philosopher has been completely misunderstood and never really said the things they're famous for saying." 

The Rational Egoist: Debating Objectivist Ethics with Professor Michael Huemer and Host Michael Liebowitz Welcome this episode of "The Rational Egoist," a stimulating podcast with host Michael Liebowitz, where philosophical concepts, ethical frameworks, and the power of choice are brought to the fore. In this episode, Michael engages in a thought-provoking debate with Professor Michael Huemer, a respected professor of philosophy at the University of Colorado, Boulder, and a strong proponent of ethical intuitionism, direct realism, and libertarianism. The central point of discussion is the contentious Objectivist Ethics. Professor Huemer, known as one of the most ardent critics of Objectivism, disagrees with using 'life' as the standard by which morality is judged. The debate heats up as Liebowitz passionately argues for the necessity of a standard to measure from, drawing analogies with health and physical attributes to drive home his point.In their discourse, they reflect on Ayn Rand's philosophy, emphasising her use of 'life' as a standard of value. The conversation evolves into an exploration of the implications of this philosophy. What happens when we value life? What does it mean for our actions and their moral implications?They delve into the concept of a 'life force' that all living things possess, behaving in ways that promote and extend this force for as long as possible. According to this view, valuing life leads to actions that promote life and avoid death.This conversation extends beyond just knowledge, delving into 'evaluation'—a different type of cognition. It's not just about understanding; it's about weighing and assessing.In this compelling discussion, both Michael Liebowitz and Professor Huemer grapple with the question of whether morality requires choice, reaching a consensus that for an action to be right or wrong, morality is necessary, and humans, unlike animals, can choose their behaviours. Tune in to "The Rational Egoist" for this engaging debate on Objectivist Ethics. This episode is a must-listen for anyone seeking to better understand the philosophical and ethical underpinnings of their actions and decisions. Michael Liebowitz is a philosopher, political activist, and host of the Rational Egoist podcast. He is a passionate advocate of reason and his views have been heavily influenced by the philosopher Ayn Rand. Liebowitz has dedicated his life to promoting its principles of rational self-interest, individualism, and reason. In addition to his work as a podcast host, Liebowitz is also a prominent spokesperson for the Libertarian Party for Connecticut - USA and has been involved in a number of political debates advocating for individual rights and freedoms through his YouTube videos and interviews. Liebowitz's life story is a testament to the transformative power of the writings of Ayn Rand. After spending 25 years in prison, he was able to turn his life around by embracing the principles of rational self-interest and morality espoused by Ayn Rand. He has since become an influential voice in the libertarian and Objectivist communities, using his own experience to inspire others to live their lives in accordance with reason, individualism, and self-interest. Liebowitz is also the co-author of "Down the Rabbit Hole: How the Culture of Correction Encourages Crime," a book that explores the ways in which misguided societal attitudes towards punishment and rehabilitation have led to a rise in crime and recidivism. In addition to his work in politics and philosophy, Liebowitz is a regular guest on the Todd Feinburg show at WTIC, where he provides expert commentary on a range of political and social issues.

In episode 225 of the Parker's Pensées Podcast, I'm joined once again about Dr. Michael Huemer, this time to discuss the philosophy of philosophy (also called meta-philosophy by some) as well as to discuss some problems with analytic philosophy, continental philosophy, and historical philosophy that Dr. Huemer raised on his blog, FakeNous. check out more from Dr. Huemer here: https://fakenous.substack.com/ If you like this podcast, then support it on Patreon for $3, $5 or more a month. Any amount helps, and for $5 you get a Parker's Pensées sticker and instant access to all the episode as I record them instead of waiting for their release date. Check it out here: Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/parkers_pensees If you want to give a one-time gift, you can give at my Paypal: https://paypal.me/ParkersPensees?locale.x=en_US Check out my merchandise at my Teespring store: https://teespring.com/stores/parkers-penses-merch Come talk with the Pensées community on Discord: dsc.gg/parkerspensees Sub to my Substack to read my thoughts on my episodes: https://parknotes.substack.com/ Check out my blog posts: https://parkersettecase.com/ Check out my Parker's Pensées YouTube Channel: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCYbTRurpFP5q4TpDD_P2JDA Check out my other YouTube channel on my frogs and turtles: https://www.youtube.com/c/ParkerSettecase Check me out on Twitter: https://twitter.com/trendsettercase Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/parkers_pensees/ 0:00 - What is Philosophy? Why do it? 14:34 - Is Philosophy the "Love of Wisdom"? 18:27 - Who Gets to be called a philosopher? 25:27 - What's the main goal of philosophy? 24:44 - Is philosophy more of an art of science? 26:14 - Science vs. Philosophy - who wins? 31:14 - Bohmian interpretation of quantum mechanics 33:54 - What is Continental Philosophy? What are some problems? 41:47 - What is Analytic Philosophy? What are some problems? 55:20 - Huemer's methods for generating new ideas 57:33 - What is Historical Philosophy? What are some problems? 1:08:34 - Philosophy as a way of life?

In this episode of New Ideal Live, Ben Bayer and Mike Mazza respond to several common and plausible philosophic objections to Objectivism that were sent in by viewers. Among the topics covered: Why it is valuable to explore objections to any philosophy, especially one's own; Why Objectivism does not fall foul of a supposed is/ought gap in its argument for self-interest;What Ayn Rand says we can learn about the foundations of morality by comparing human beings to other organisms; How to deal with scientific claims that seem to conflict with philosophic ideas; Why modern brain science cannot disprove the existence of free will;The merits and shortcomings of raising questions about the compatibility of free will with modern brain science;Why Objectivism takes free will to be a self-evident primary that cannot be disproven by science; Why accepting the importance of science and rationality entails implicitly assuming free will; Why the choice to live, which sits at the foundation of the Objectivist ethics, is not a groundless choice and does not make the Objectivist ethics arbitrary or subjective;How objections to the choice to live arise; Why the choice to live is grounded in reality and thus not arbitrary; Why the method of raising counterexamples, commonly used in analytic philosophy, often neglects the need to keep firmly in mind the facts one is trying to conceptualize;The sort of counterexamples to Rand's ethical argument raised by Michael Huemer; Why counterexamples of this kind often fail to grapple with the real meaning of the generalizations they're meant to refute. Mentioned in this podcast and relevant to the discussion are the New Ideal Live episode “Objectivism Q&A—July 2022,” “Life-Based Teleology and the Foundations of Ethics” by Harry Binswanger, “Why Champions of Science and Reason Need Free Will” by Ben Bayer, “Seize the Reins of Your Mind: The Objectivist Theory of Free Will” by Onkar Ghate, Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand by Leonard Peikoff, and “Reasoning About Ends” by Darryl Wright. To learn more about our Ayn Rand Non-Fiction Reading Groups, click here. To learn more about Ayn Rand University, click here. This episode was recorded on March 23, 2023. Listen to the discussion below. Listen and subscribe from your mobile device on Apple Podcasts, Google Podcasts, Spotify or Stitcher. Watch archived podcasts here. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xl_qFquVyvU&t=2402s Podcast audio:

Michael Huemer is a professor of philosophy at the University of Colorado, Boulder. In this interview, we chat about his work on souls and reincarnation. Mike's Blog: https://fakenous.substack.com/ Check out the Paper: https://philpapers.org/archive/HUEEIE.pdf -------------------------------- GIVING -------------------------------- Please consider becoming a Patron! Patreon (Thanks!): https://www.patreon.com/AdherentApologetics YouTube Membership: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCO8jj_CQwrRRwwwXBndo6nQ/join

https://youtu.be/pONdewnuFYs Excerpt from Knowledge, Reality, and Value: A Mostly Common Sense Guide to Philosophy by Michael Huemer, Ph.D. Credulity Humans are born credulous – we instinctively believe what people tell us, even with no corroboration. We are especially credulous about statistics or other information that sounds like objective facts. Unfortunately, we are not so scrupulous when it comes to accurately and non-misleadingly reporting facts. There is an enormous amount of disinformation in the world, particularly about politics and other matters of public interest. If the public is interested in it, there is bullshit about it. I have noticed that this bullshit tends to fall into three main categories. First, ideological propaganda. If you “learn” about an issue from a partisan source – for instance, you read about gun control on a gun control advocacy website, or you hear the day's news from a conservative radio show – you will get pretty much 100% propaganda. Facts will be exaggerated, cherry picked, deceptively phrased, or otherwise misleading. Normally, you will have no way of guessing the specific way in which the information is deceptive, making the information essentially worthless for drawing inferences. Second, sensationalism. Mainstream news sources make money by getting as many people as possible to watch their shows, read their articles, and so on. To do that, they try to make everything sound as scary, exciting, outrageous, or otherwise dramatic as possible. Third, laziness. Most people who write for public consumption are lazy and lack expertise about the things they write about. If a story has some technical aspect (e.g., science news), journalists probably won't understand it, and they may get basic facts backwards. Also, they often just talk to one or a few sources and print whatever those sources say, even if the sources have obvious biases. BitChute

https://youtu.be/dfw0wVP1m_E Excerpt from Knowledge, Reality, and Value: A Mostly Common Sense Guide to Philosophy by Michael Huemer, Ph.D. Credulity Humans are born credulous – we instinctively believe what people tell us, even with no corroboration. We are especially credulous about statistics or other information that sounds like objective facts. Unfortunately, we are not so scrupulous when it comes to accurately and non-misleadingly reporting facts. There is an enormous amount of disinformation in the world, particularly about politics and other matters of public interest. If the public is interested in it, there is bullshit about it. I have noticed that this bullshit tends to fall into three main categories. First, ideological propaganda. If you “learn” about an issue from a partisan source – for instance, you read about gun control on a gun control advocacy website, or you hear the day's news from a conservative radio show – you will get pretty much 100% propaganda. Facts will be exaggerated, cherry picked, deceptively phrased, or otherwise misleading. Normally, you will have no way of guessing the specific way in which the information is deceptive, making the information essentially worthless for drawing inferences. Second, sensationalism. Mainstream news sources make money by getting as many people as possible to watch their shows, read their articles, and so on. To do that, they try to make everything sound as scary, exciting, outrageous, or otherwise dramatic as possible. Third, laziness. Most people who write for public consumption are lazy and lack expertise about the things they write about. If a story has some technical aspect (e.g., science news), journalists probably won't understand it, and they may get basic facts backwards. Also, they often just talk to one or a few sources and print whatever those sources say, even if the sources have obvious biases.  

In this episode of the Parker's Pensées Podcast, I'm joined for the 5th time by philosopher Michael Huemer. This time we discuss the nature of human rights, how we know about them, and then go in depth on the nature of the right to bear arms. check out Dr. Huemer's substack article on the topic here: https://fakenous.substack.com/p/is-there-a-right-to-own-a-gun If you like this podcast, then support it on Patreon for $3, $5 or more a month. Any amount helps, and for $5 you get a Parker's Pensées sticker and instant access to all the episode as I record them instead of waiting for their release date. Check it out here: Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/parkers_pensees If you want to give a one-time gift, you can give at my Paypal: https://paypal.me/ParkersPensees?locale.x=en_US Check out my merchandise at my Teespring store: https://teespring.com/stores/parkers-penses-merch Come talk with the Pensées community on Discord: dsc.gg/parkerspensees Sub to my Substack to read my thoughts on my episodes: https://parknotes.substack.com/ Check out my blog posts: https://parkersettecase.com/ Check out my Parker's Pensées YouTube Channel: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCYbTRurpFP5q4TpDD_P2JDA Check out my other YouTube channel on my frogs and turtles: https://www.youtube.com/c/ParkerSettecase Check me out on Twitter: https://twitter.com/trendsettercase Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/parkers_pensees/ Time Is Running by MusicLFiles Link: https://filmmusic.io/song/6203-time-is-running License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ --- Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/parkers-pensees/support