@avstern1958

Architects use drawings as analytic tools to understand the space, composition, structure of buildings and built human environments. No one drawing by itself can show the whole "truth" of a building. In fact architects purposefully choose certain drawings to limit certain information and prioritize and clarify other information - these are analytical drawings.  The word analysis includes the root "lysis" which means (if i'm not mistaken) to cut. A plan drawing (sometimes called a plan section) cuts the top off a building, revealing the composition of vertically oriented structures (walls, posts/columns), and revealing the spaces for human habitation that result.  Plans cannot reveal the structure of a roof or floors, that information is purposely left out of a plan drawing by the choice of the view, to prioritize and clarify the vertical structure and resulting space.  To show the roof and floor structures, an architect draws a vertical section drawing that "cuts" vertically through the building. The section drawing reveals the structure of the roof, floor and other other horizontal elements (beams and girders, etc) that help explain the heights of spaces, how strong the floors and roof are - how much load they can hold, where there is vertical circulation (stairwells, elevators). Vertical sections cannot fully elucidate the space available in rooms, etc. because that information is left out of a section drawing to focus on the information listed above.

No individual drawing can architecturally explain a building in its entirety. An architect develops a set of drawings to do that. No single view is sufficient to reveal the facts of how the building is to be built. It is interesting that the metaphor of "perspective" in the lecture is used to indicate that only certain objective fact are typically revealed by a person's perspective (of the goat for instance). To extend that assertion, perspectives can offer as much misinformation as information, and so even the objective facts that may be revealed in a perspective may be hard to differentiate from other objective falsities seemingly revealed in the same perspective.  The signal to noise ratio is unknowable from the person holding the perspective.  Perspective drawings are rarely used by architects as an analytical tool, they paint a picture but do not provide access to much in terms of objective truth.

@grayaj23

I see this position on global skepticism as similar to what a lot of people believe about atheism.  If "global skepticism" must necessarily be a denial of all objective truth, what words should I use to say "I have no idea if objective truths exist.  I have never seen one, but can't prove a negative. As a result I am dubious of any claims that they exist."

Likewise, to me, "atheism" isn't a denial.  It's not a position. It's the lack of a position.  I've never encountered a god or a compelling reason to believe one exists.

The word I would naturally gravitate toward for both of these ideas is "skepticism". To me, that just means "I am as yet unconvinced."

There may yet be gods and objective truths.  I have a bias, but no concrete position on either point.

@johnmanno2052

Dr Kaplan, if one is a moral realist, and says  that there is, or may be, objective truth (and there very well may be), what is the best way in order to approach it, and how do you know that you are in fact approaching it?

@hakimal-hakim8890

Although there is an infinity of perspectives to see the goat, but there is only one goat.

@alirezam24

Two questions:
1. Do we not presume that there is an objective truth out there (goat) and people see it from different perspectives? What if one says that there is nothing out there and all is our description of what we know?
2. There might not be a total order on the perspectives (every two perspectives are comparable) but there might be a partial order. For example, the one who can turn around the goat and see it from different angles has a better perspective than either of you described. Isn't it?

@iqgustavo

🎯 Key Takeaways for quick navigation:

00:00 đŸ€” The idea of there being no objective truths is attractive, as it appears egalitarian and denies anyone a monopoly on truth.
01:52 🧐 An argument for global skepticism about truth relies on the notion that different perspectives lead to different beliefs, which then suggests there are no objective truths.
03:00 🔍 Perspectives can be visual (angles from which we see something) or metaphorical (influenced by experiences, beliefs, etc.).
06:37 đŸš« The fact that perspectives differ does not imply that no beliefs are objectively true or false.
10:28 🔄 Global skepticism is self-refuting and presents logical problems.

Made with HARPA AI

@Flynbourne

It seems to me that the concept of morals is a human creation (also recognising that other non human animals also have something we may consider to be a moral framework).  Therefore there is no ultimate moral truth except for that which is consistent with the human definition of morals.  Whilst we know that humans have different moral framework I think that it is possible to come to a framework or set of axioms which is close to universally accepted.  I think that this is sufficient to make it possible for morality to have an objective element.

@APhilosopherWhoWantstobeKing

When Mr. Kaplan says that there are no perspectives that are better than another, I immediately consider the philosophical norm, that arguments cannot be circular. But life is circular! All the perspectives that lead to a meaningful and good life are circular arguments. And I judge that some perspectives for living are better than others. I equate perspective more with stance than view of the world. I believe that I am a creative being living in a quantum universe.

@wadewithcoffee1207

"He doesn’t know much about goats. From the front, it’s clear the billy goat means business, and Benjamin Franklin—if he were here—might’ve called it an 'electric charge' of nature."

@chrisnevers7565

I think the goat situation is not structurally equivalent across categories. In regards to morality in the analogy, you’re presupposing the existence of objective morality via the goat. You should demonstrate it with a blank space of knowledge that no human knows. This lecture reminded me of Russel’s toaster in space. The burden of proof should be on moral objectivism.

@llort5703

This is beyond my comprehension

@munn7bunnu811

Not a philosophy student or anything like that .. But wouldn't the goat example, question be if the goat exists or not

@PersianQuant

You really gotta educate yourself on what goats look like!

@Yo_mamma_fight

😂Was there an argument made I missed, all I heard was a bunch of statement😂 So now I really don’t believes in objectives truth😂

@MichaelShaw-hy8gj

I agree with you. He repeats over and over that all perspectives are equal but they clearly aren’t. If you go far enough back you can’t see that there is anything there at all. If you look from one angle there might be a truck obscuring your view completely. Thankfully all perspectives are equal doesn’t normally wash in court.

@fanuluiciorannr1xd212

The only true perspective is the immortal science of marxist-leninism!!!
    
    Loud USSR anthem starts playing.

@kredit787

Confusing,no perspective better than another perspective,but goat front face perspective is better to see quantity of horns.

@a.d1287

The truth is objective. Anyone who says otherwise is coping and likely dishonest. Many people dont want truths to objective because its convenient for them (though they often pretenciously try and hide it under some other more "noble" motive)

@i.q369

The statement  "There is no objective truth" is a self defeating statement.  Since if nothing is objectively true, that would include the statement in question, making it also not true.

@Bronco541

I disagree with the first statement. I think the idea "there are no objective truths" is neither attractive or not attractive, it simply is the way it is. It is the most logical way of looking at it to me