Leonardo DiCaprio & The Nature of Reality: Crash Course Philosophy #4



Today Hank gains insight from that most philosophical of figures…Leonardo DiCaprio. In this episode, we’re talking about the process of philosophical discovery and questioning the relationship between appearance and reality by taking a look at Plato’s famous Myth of the Cave. All with a little help from our good pal Leo.

Images and video via VideoBlocks or Wikimedia Commons, licensed under Creative Commons by 4.0: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

“Inception” stills copyright 2010 Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc. and Legendary Pictures

Produced in collaboration with PBS Digital Studios: http://youtube.com/pbsdigitalstudios

Crash Course Philosophy is sponsored by Squarespace.
http://www.squarespace.com/crashcourse

Want to find Crash Course elsewhere on the internet?
Facebook – http://www.facebook.com/YouTubeCrashC…
Twitter – http://www.twitter.com/TheCrashCourse
Tumblr – http://thecrashcourse.tumblr.com
Support CrashCourse on Patreon: http://www.patreon.com/crashcourse

CC Kids: http://www.youtube.com/crashcoursekids

source

Fahad Hameed

Fahad Hashmi is one of the known Software Engineer and blogger likes to blog about design resources. He is passionate about collecting the awe-inspiring design tools, to help designers.He blogs only for Designers & Photographers.

34 thoughts on “Leonardo DiCaprio & The Nature of Reality: Crash Course Philosophy #4

  • November 1, 2017 at 2:42 pm
    Permalink

    I'm thinking about the science. Science is believed "truth", however, every time when the later scientist proven the previous scientists were wrong, how can they ensure they are right?
    Maybe just like the cave story, there is no absolute true, only something "bigger or truer"?…

    Reply
  • November 1, 2017 at 2:42 pm
    Permalink

    Yeah so next time I decide to have Espeon on my time I'm going to call it Nocat.

    Reply
  • November 1, 2017 at 2:42 pm
    Permalink

    Wait when he goes back into the cave he is temporarily blinded like he cant see anything now, or just like he can't see the shadows as they one were because now he sees them as lacking their 3dness and substance?

    Reply
  • November 1, 2017 at 2:42 pm
    Permalink

    Go back 115 years ago and explain to someone that in the future a 175,000 lb hunk of metal will soar in the sky… Sounds irrational but it's common to see it now.

    Reply
  • November 1, 2017 at 2:42 pm
    Permalink

    A little kid has this teddy bear then goes to a zoo… What if he goes "That bear is fake! This one (pulls out teddy bear) is a real bear!"

    Reply
  • November 1, 2017 at 2:42 pm
    Permalink

    Take away #1: ( 5:52 ): "Doing philosophy is HARD – you might feel temporarily blinded". I get this response all the time with mine – though I describe it differently: "People turn their heads toward the noise, give a blank stare, and go back to eating grass." I also get 6:08 and 6:12 – which I could say means that I'm on the right track…

    Take away #2: ( 6:21 ) "and you can see through things that used to fool you"…

    Take away #3: ( ) "going from darkness into the light is both disorienting and rewarding" (unless there is a maneating tiger out there in the light – my observation – which is another reason why people reject new ways of thinking – security – they think they're perfectly fine within their current deficient mindframes)…

    Reply
  • November 1, 2017 at 2:42 pm
    Permalink

    Nobody goes to the dentist every day.
    On days that nobody goes to the dentist the dentist makes no money.
    The dentist makes no money every day.

    Reply
  • November 1, 2017 at 2:42 pm
    Permalink

    You know that if the man in Plato's Myth of the Cave brought a light source into the cave he would have had proof.

    Reply
  • November 1, 2017 at 2:42 pm
    Permalink

    I was looking at the two tail cat and the three tail cat was in my blind spot

    Reply
  • November 1, 2017 at 2:42 pm
    Permalink

    "No cat has 2 tails
    Every cat has one more tail than No Cat
    _____________________________________
    Therefore, every cat has 3 tails"

    If no cat has 2 tails, not every cat has 3 tails, therefore, the conclusion is wrong – or the first premise is wrong, which would render the second premise useless, and no conclusion would be drawn.

    Reply
  • November 1, 2017 at 2:42 pm
    Permalink

    This argument is wrong. I mean, If one of the premises is negative, then conclusion must be negative.
    "No cat has 2 tails
    Every cat has one more tail than no cat
    Therefore, every cat has 3 tails."

    Reply
  • November 1, 2017 at 2:42 pm
    Permalink

    I remember trying heroin for the first time and my eyes were opened to that and I realized that school indoctrination was fake and it was weird. But it still screwed me up.

    Reply
  • November 1, 2017 at 2:42 pm
    Permalink

    The puzzle at 06:28 remided me of what was taught in prisons in the film Land of the Blind.

    Nothing is better than a big juicy stake.
    But a stale piece of bread is better than nothing.
    Therefore, a stale piece of bread is better than a big juicy stake.

    A recurring question throughout the movie was "What's better than a big juicy stake?" If the person responded "nothing", they were thinking independendly; if they responded "a stale piece of bread", however, it meant that they had been successfully re-educated.

    Reply
  • November 1, 2017 at 2:42 pm
    Permalink

    Thinking of taking philosophy for A level anyone know any good books i could read in order to find out if i am interested or not

    Reply
  • November 1, 2017 at 2:42 pm
    Permalink

    "..And what is the worldly life except the enjoyment of delusion."

    Quran, 57 : 20

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *