Benjamin Blake Speed Watkins πŸ‡ΊπŸ‡ΈπŸ‡ΊπŸ‡¦πŸ³οΈβ€πŸŒˆπŸ³οΈβ€βš§οΈ (@SpeedWatkins) header
Benjamin Blake Speed Watkins πŸ‡ΊπŸ‡ΈπŸ‡ΊπŸ‡¦πŸ³οΈβ€πŸŒˆπŸ³οΈβ€βš§οΈ (@SpeedWatkins) profile picture

Engineer, Philosopher, Writer, and host of @RealAtheology. Ardent realist about everything except Theism and The Self. In my view, God and "I" are the problem.

Norfolk VA
Joined May 2021
In case you missed it, here is the recent debate I had on creation vs. evolution. I'll be releasing it soon as an episode of @RealAtheology too.
6
3
36
19,827
Benjamin Blake Speed Watkins πŸ‡ΊπŸ‡ΈπŸ‡ΊπŸ‡¦πŸ³οΈβ€πŸŒˆπŸ³οΈβ€βš§οΈ retweeted
11
9
1
122
3,051
Benjamin Blake Speed Watkins πŸ‡ΊπŸ‡ΈπŸ‡ΊπŸ‡¦πŸ³οΈβ€πŸŒˆπŸ³οΈβ€βš§οΈ retweeted
I hate philosophy Halloween, what do you mean you’re going as Johann Christian von Mannlich’s portrait of Jacobi, often mistaken for Immanuel Kant?
6
22
2
388
6,589
Benjamin Blake Speed Watkins πŸ‡ΊπŸ‡ΈπŸ‡ΊπŸ‡¦πŸ³οΈβ€πŸŒˆπŸ³οΈβ€βš§οΈ retweeted
Wittgenstein deciding how to write the Tractatus:
10
27
301
5,557
Benjamin Blake Speed Watkins πŸ‡ΊπŸ‡ΈπŸ‡ΊπŸ‡¦πŸ³οΈβ€πŸŒˆπŸ³οΈβ€βš§οΈ retweeted
In 1986, Gene Roddenberry said Patrick Stewart's name should "never, ever be mentioned in my presence again." Five years later, Stewart sang and danced on the bridge of the Enterprise as a birthday surprise for him. It was never meant to be seen. A copy survived and ended up as a DVD bonus. RIP Sir Patrick.
112
1,517
70
13,801
733,598
Benjamin Blake Speed Watkins πŸ‡ΊπŸ‡ΈπŸ‡ΊπŸ‡¦πŸ³οΈβ€πŸŒˆπŸ³οΈβ€βš§οΈ retweeted
Star Trek TNG had a profound impact on me growing up, and Patrick Stewart’s role above all: the secular, rationalist, egalitarian, post-scarcity (whisper it: socialist) vision of the future, a completion of the Radical Enlightenment project married to a sort of Aristotelian sense of virtue, duty, and deep purpose, a Shakespearean, theatrical-literary, humanist forgiveness and celebration of our foibles and fallenness, and Age of Discovery romantic call to adventure and exploration. I remain a believer that this world can yet be built.
36
287
29
1,671
36,482
Benjamin Blake Speed Watkins πŸ‡ΊπŸ‡ΈπŸ‡ΊπŸ‡¦πŸ³οΈβ€πŸŒˆπŸ³οΈβ€βš§οΈ retweeted
Jean-Luc Picard remains the single most compelling vision of progressive politics I am familiar with β€” secular, rational, compassionate, egalitarian; a believer in progress & abundance but also duty, hard work, and a constant battle for self-improvement and improving the world.
775
1,146
337
10,055
914,728
Benjamin Blake Speed Watkins πŸ‡ΊπŸ‡ΈπŸ‡ΊπŸ‡¦πŸ³οΈβ€πŸŒˆπŸ³οΈβ€βš§οΈ retweeted
In honour of Sir Patrick Stewart’s passing, here are my top ten episodes of Star Trek: The Next Generation: 1. The Inner Light (S5 Ep. 25) 2. Tapestry (S6 Ep. 15) 3. The Measure of a Man (S1 Ep. 9) 4. Darmok (S5 Ep. 2) 5. The Drumhead (S4 Ep. 21) 6. The Pegasus (S7 Ep. 12) 7. I, Borg (S5 Ep. 23) 8. Who Watches the Watchers (S3 Ep. 4) 9. Ensign Ro (S5 Ep. 3) 10. Cause and Effect (S5 Ep. 18) All are philosophically very interesting and most are carried by Stewart’s performance. I highly recommend them.
161
215
27
1,989
43,556
The philosophers who have influenced me most on the mind-body problem are Thomas Nagel and Jaegwon Kim. My current view is closer to Kim, but I still harbor a deep sympathy for Nagel's inscrutable bats and his flavor of anti-reductionism about consciousness, cognition, and value.
The notion of a "theory of everything" is widely assumed to be the ultimate (and achievable) end goal of physics. In this interview clip, my friend and mentor, NYU philosopher Thomas Nagel, concisely explains why the mind-body problem implies that this goal is logically impossible. In other segments of the same interview, he suggests an alternative, 'neutral monist' conceptual framework for an ultimate theory of everything, combined with a naturalistic version of teleology built into the fundamental laws of nature. I'm doubtful about the coherence of Tom's alternatives, but I agree with him that these are the only routes left if one wants to maintain an atheistic and monistic conception of fundamental reality. youtu.be/QrKCQ9bPJ8M?si=UUBo…
3
1
20
989
Benjamin Blake Speed Watkins πŸ‡ΊπŸ‡ΈπŸ‡ΊπŸ‡¦πŸ³οΈβ€πŸŒˆπŸ³οΈβ€βš§οΈ retweeted
Join us! We are currently reading Plato's Republic but have read many other dialogues as well. We often have recourse to the Complete Works. theascent.io/p/how-to-read-p…
1
1
2
71
(A) If three things are numerically distinct from each other, they cannot be numerically identical to the same thing. According to the Trinity, (B) there are exactly three numerically distinct divine selves numerically identical to one God. Therefore, (C) the Trinity is false.
36
1
4
33
8,156
Benjamin Blake Speed Watkins πŸ‡ΊπŸ‡ΈπŸ‡ΊπŸ‡¦πŸ³οΈβ€πŸŒˆπŸ³οΈβ€βš§οΈ retweeted
i’m starting a Plato reading group at @edenhousesf, comment if you’re interested in joining
17
3
68
2,356
Benjamin Blake Speed Watkins πŸ‡ΊπŸ‡ΈπŸ‡ΊπŸ‡¦πŸ³οΈβ€πŸŒˆπŸ³οΈβ€βš§οΈ retweeted
I am glad to share my new book: THE PHILOSOPHY OF PLATO In Plain English Volume I in The Examined Life Series on the History of Philosophy. WHY I WROTE IT I believe that anyone who wants to understand important ideas should have a fair chance to do so. Many philosophy books assume knowledge the reader has not yet acquired. Others are easy to read but give only brief summaries. I wanted to write a substantial introduction that explains the ideas and the arguments in familiar language. No prior training in philosophy is needed. The reader brings curiosity and a willingness to think. WHAT THE BOOK COVERS The book begins with Socrates: his questions, his trial, and his conviction that becoming a good human being matters more than wealth, power, or reputation. It then explores Plato’s major ideas: β€’ Reality and the Forms: Why did Plato think there must be more to reality than the changing things we see? β€’ Knowledge and opinion: What is the difference between believing something and understanding why it is true? β€’ The Allegory of the Cave: How can education help us recognize the limits of what we have always accepted? β€’ The human soul: Why do we struggle against ourselves? How should reason guide anger and desire? Does the soul survive death? β€’ Justice and happiness: Why should we be just when wrongdoing seems more profitable? What makes a life good? β€’ Love and beauty: How can attraction lead us toward a deeper understanding of what is worth loving? β€’ Politics and education: What makes a society just? Why did Plato want philosophers to rule? What should we teach the young? β€’ Art and persuasion: Does persuasive speech give us knowledge? How can stories, poetry, and music shape our character? β€’ The universe: Is the order of nature the work of intelligence? The final chapters consider Plato’s criticisms of his own theories and his influence on later philosophy. HOW IT IS WRITTEN My guiding aim was simple: keep the philosophy serious and make the explanation clear. When Plato gives an argument, the book explains its steps. When a difficult term is needed, it explains the idea the term names. Concrete examples and illustrations help readers see what an abstract claim means. The purpose is to help readers understand Plato well enough to assess his reasons and form judgments of their own. WHAT IS INCLUDED β€’ 539 pages β€’ 18 chapters β€’ 14 illustrations β€’ Chapter summaries of key ideas β€’ Questions for understanding β€’ A glossary of philosophical terms WHO IT IS FOR Curious adults, students, independent readers, and anyone who has wanted to understand Plato but found the usual explanations hard to follow. WHY PLATO STILL MATTERS We already hold opinions about truth, justice, freedom, happiness, and how people should live. Plato examined those questions with unusual depth. Learning what he argued can help us think more carefully about beliefs we might otherwise take for granted. Writing this book has deepened my own understanding and shown me how much there is still to learn. I hope it will help others find the same value in studying philosophy.
13
42
2
263
7,431
Hume presents a necessary condition for the credibility of a miracle report. When we look at history, we discover that no miracle testimony meets that evidential standard. Therefore, no known miracle reports are credible.
Replying to @darwintojesus
Laid out plainly, Hume’s argument in 'Of Miracles' leaves little room to doubt its validity or the plausibility of its premises. Miracle-belief is unjustified unless its report amounts to a proof. No report has ever amounted to a probabilityβ€”much less a proofβ€”so it's unjustified.
2
1
1
16
774
Benjamin Blake Speed Watkins πŸ‡ΊπŸ‡ΈπŸ‡ΊπŸ‡¦πŸ³οΈβ€πŸŒˆπŸ³οΈβ€βš§οΈ retweeted
Replying to @darwintojesus
Laid out plainly, Hume’s argument in 'Of Miracles' leaves little room to doubt its validity or the plausibility of its premises. Miracle-belief is unjustified unless its report amounts to a proof. No report has ever amounted to a probabilityβ€”much less a proofβ€”so it's unjustified.
3
2
1
10
1,182
I am not convinced Hume had the base rate fallacy in mind. It is true that, in hindsight, his reasoning avoids this error. But Hume is making a simpler, more direct claim: we must reject miracle testimony because it fails to meet a specific, necessary standard of evidence.
Phil's explanation is excellent, but the quick and dirty version of Hume's "Of Miracles" is that it's a warning against the base rate fallacy. If a witness is 99% reliable but the event they describe has a 1-in-10,000 prior, your posterior should be <1%. Don't believe them!
4
2
23
1,916
As no one troubles to say 'bless you' when I sneeze anymore, I reckon I am straying further and further from the good graces of the Almightyβ€”and at this rate of neglect, one more ragweed season ought to cost me my soul.
2
10
575
Benjamin Blake Speed Watkins πŸ‡ΊπŸ‡ΈπŸ‡ΊπŸ‡¦πŸ³οΈβ€πŸŒˆπŸ³οΈβ€βš§οΈ retweeted
15
314
11
3,375
55,038