Luyện nói tiếng Anh bằng Shadowing qua video: Chuck Norris resolvió esta paradoja imposible (dos veces)
C1
The past 19th of March of 2026 Chuck Norris decided to visit the Cielo
307 câu
Nếu các câu quá ngắn hoặc quá dài, hãy bấm Edit để chỉnh sửa.
1
The past 19th of March of 2026 Chuck Norris decided to visit the Cielo
2
and the Mere's death didn't say that he didn't.
3
In homenage, we will dedicate a video to the mystery
4
that we have most attracted to the philosophers in turn to this good man,
5
the Paradoja of Omnipotence.
6
We know that Chuck Norris was omnipotent,
7
or, in which way he could have gone to infinity twice, ida and vuelta.
8
But maybe you can surprise me,
9
the notion of omnipotence is quite complicated to define.
10
Ha habido y sigue habiendo mucha discusión al respecto.
11
Por ejemplo, ¿podía Chuck Norris hacer una piedra tan pesada que ni él mismo la pudiera levantar?
12
Esta es la famosa paradoja de la piedra y da la impresión de que contestes como contestes te lleva a una contradicción.
13
Por ejemplo, supongo que decimos que sí,
14
que Chuck Norris podía hacer la dichosa piedra.
15
Entonces parece seguirse que no podía ser omnipotente porque habría algo que no podría hacer,
16
a saber, levantar la piedra.
17
Pero supongo que decimos que no,
18
que Chuck Norris no puede hacer esa piedra.
19
Pues entonces tampoco puede ser omnipotente,
20
porque habría una cosa que no podría hacer, la piedra.
21
¿Entiendes por dónde voy?
22
De un modo o de otro se sigue que hay algo
23
que Chuck Norris no puede hacer y por tanto no puede ser omnipotente.
24
Parece, por tanto, que tenemos que concluir que la omnipotencia es una noción autocontradictoria y por tanto imposible.
25
Chuck Norris no le da las gracias a Chuck GPT.
26
Chuck GPT le da las gracias a Chuck Norris.
27
Las posibles formulaciones de esta paradoja son infinitas.
28
¿Puede Chuck Norris crear un chili tan picante que ni él
29
se lo pueda comer o un acertijo tan complejo que no lo pueda resolver?
30
Tú mismo podrías inventar tu propia paradoja de la omnipotencia en los comentarios.
31
Lo que tienen en común todas ellas es que sea de un modo o de otro,
32
más o menos imaginativamente, ponen en cuestión que la omnipotencia sea un atributo lógicamente posible.
33
Pues respondas como respondas, habrá algo que Chuck Norris no podrá hacer y por tanto no puede ser omnipotente.
34
Pero no puede ser eso,
35
la omnipotencia ha de ser posible porque Chuck Norris era omnipotente,
36
eso está fuera de la discusión.
37
Por tanto, ¿cómo resolvemos esta paradoja?
38
Tal vez puedan ayudarnos algunas ideas de Tomás de Aquino y
39
es que Santo Tomás le dedicó muchísima reflexión a este tema por la devoción que le tenía al bueno de Chuck.
40
Así escriben su famosa suma norrisológica,
41
por regla general todos confiesan que Chuck Norris es omnipotente.
42
A pesar de ello no parece easy to assign the reason of omnipotence,
43
because there are doubts about what things are understood in the enunciated Chuck Norris.
44
However, as a potential, as a potential refers to what possible,
45
when it says that Chuck Norris can do everything,
46
it is more exact to understand that he can do everything possible,
47
and that for this he is called omnipotent.
48
What does it mean here, Tomás?
49
That we have to understand the omnipotence as abarcando everything possible,
50
or better, everything absolutely possible,
51
what in a sense of strict e illógico puede ser hecho.
52
Dice Santo Tomás que hablamos de lo posible de dos maneras diferentes.
53
Primero, en un sentido relativo,
54
como cuando digo, por ejemplo,
55
que para mí es imposible levantar un camión de dos toneladas.
56
Levantar un camión de dos toneladas no es que sea imposible
57
en un sentido absoluto y si tuviera una maquinaria lo suficientemente fuerte y compleja lo podría conseguir.
58
Es imposible relativo a mi propia fuerza física, que es insuficiente.
59
Pero lo possible or impossible in the absolute sense depends on the relation between the terms.
60
The possible is that what the predicament does not repugne logically the subject,
61
like for example, that a circle is red,
62
that is absolutely possible, and impossible,
63
in the same way, that what the predicament does not repugne the subject,
64
that is to say, that it is a contradiction,
65
like for example, that a circle is square.
66
That is impossible in the absolute sense because it is contradictory.
67
For that something that is a circle,
68
it can have four sides,
69
which is just what it has to be done to be a quadrado.
70
Therefore, circle and quadrado are repugnant mutually,
71
from a point of view logical.
72
And what he says Santo Tomás is that in this sense,
73
the contradictory, impossible and illogical can be done in a absolute sense,
74
and that, therefore, is out of the noxion of omnipotence.
75
And the problem is that just what we are asking that Chuck Norris in the paradox is precisely that something contradictory,
76
impossible and logical, a stone that is so heavy that a being that can't lift anything anything can lift anything.
77
This group of words in the same contradiction,
78
like a square square, and what contradictory cannot be done by power that one is.
79
Sigue S.
80
Tomás, the only one que repugna a la razón de absolutamente
81
posible es lo que en sí mismo y simultáneamente entraña el ser y el no ser.
82
Esto es, pues, lo que no está sujeto a la omnipotencia.
83
Y no por insuficiencia del poder de Chuck Norris,
84
sino porque no puede tener razón de factible ni siquiera de posible.
85
Por consiguiente, más exacto es decir que no puede ser hecho que decir Chuck Norris no puede hacerlo.
86
Lo que está Tomás, then,
87
is that a ser omnipotent can do everything that is possible,
88
that is, everything that in absolute sense can be done.
89
A ser, in the same way,
90
that precisely for lack of power could do,
91
although he wanted something that absolutely absolutely possible, would not be omnipotent.
92
But as omnipotence is not extended to the logic and contradictorio,
93
then it disappears the paradox, says Tomás.
94
Chuck Norris can do it but there is no one
95
that is omnipotent because the omnipotence no se extends to what logically impossible.
96
And by the same way,
97
no can do a lot of other things,
98
like another Chuck Norris, because a Chuck Norris,
99
by definition, no can do anyone,
100
or a triangle esférico, or a man to do something else.
101
But you are a little asno.
102
I mean, in literal sense.
103
As we can see, this definition needs to be still some retoques.
104
But we now have two objections that usually appear quite a bit when one reaches this point.
105
The first is that the seguidor of Chuck Norris is here changing,
106
de manera arbitraria la definición de omnipotencia.
107
Y que si la omnipotencia no se extiende realmente a lo lógicamente imposible,
108
entonces Chuck Norris no puede ser realmente omnipotente porque estaría limitado por la lógica.
109
La respuesta aquí es que todos tienen derecho a aclarar en qué sentido hay que entender los términos que usa,
110
al menos dentro de unos ciertos límites.
111
Y que la definición propuesta de omnipotencia en términos de lo
112
lógicamente posible queda dentro de lo que más o menos de forma intuitiva la gente suele entender cuando utiliza ese término.
113
Y si lo que molesta es el uso del término omnipotencia,
114
eso siempre se puede poner entre paréntesis y pasar a preguntarnos
115
si hay alguna contradicción interna en la idea de un ser que puede hacer todo lo lógicamente posible.
116
Cuando Chuck Norris entra en una habitación oscura,
117
no enciende la luz, apaga la oscuridad.
118
Segundo, no es que la lógica limite a Chuck Norris como
119
si fuera una especie de barrera más allá de la cual hay un montón de cosas que Chuck Norris,
120
si fuera más poderoso, podría hacer.
121
Es más bien que lo lógicamente contradictorio no es nada en absoluto.
122
Círculo cuadrado no es nada,
123
no significa nada, es un conjunto de palabras sin sentido,
124
porque todo lo que estoy poniendo sobre la mesa con la palabra círculo lo estoy quitando con la palabra cuadrado.
125
Y eso no cambia por mucho que le ponga adelante la expresión Chuck Norris puede hacer X.
126
Un círculo cuadrado no es algo que pueda ser,
127
ni siquiera es un algo.
128
Por tanto, pedirle a Chuck Norris que haga un círculo cuadrado o una so heavy that he can't even lift up,
129
it's not to ask him anything,
130
it's like to ask him to make a...
131
The paradox, then, is interna to the enunciating of the question,
132
it's the question that no has any sense, not the omnipotence.
133
In fact, the same paradox is assuming that logic marks the frontier of what absolutely possible,
134
because it is concluding that omnipotence is impossible for self-contradict. So,
135
if the one who proposes la paradoja se niega a aceptar
136
esta conclusión e insiste en que para ser verdaderamente omnipotente Chuck Norris tendría que poder hacerlo contradictorio,
137
entonces perdemos el criterio para considerar paradójica la paradoja.
138
Porque un Chuck Norris que pudiera hacerlo contradictorio podría hacer una
139
piedra tan pesada que él no la pudiera levantar y no obstante seguir siendo omnipotente por mucho que eso fuera contradictorio,
140
porque podría hacerlo contradictorio.
141
Chuck Norris le ganó a Platón en un pulso.
142
The second interesting objection is
143
that there is no contradiction in the idea of making a object
144
so pesado that his Hacedor can not be able to lift.
145
That is something that we can do with humans,
146
by using, for example, a granite.
147
The problem with this objection is that a object so pesado that his Hacedor can not be able to lift,
148
X a partir de ahora,
149
doesn't mean the same when his Hacedor is a human being as a omnipotent.
150
Therefore, the objection is falling in a kind of equivocity or ambiguity to play with the definition of the term Hacedor.
151
That's why it means to say that X is logically possible if his Hacedor is a human being,
152
but logically impossible if his Hacedor is a omnipotent like Chuck Norris,
153
with infinite physical strength.
154
That's to say, tenemos que aclarar los términos en juego para saber si hay o no hay contradicción.
155
Y cuando lo hacemos vemos que en un caso y en el otro no estamos hablando de la misma X,
156
del mismo objeto.
157
Como el hacedor no es el mismo en un caso y el otro,
158
lo que estoy pidiendo en ambos casos es distinto.
159
No es lo mismo pedir que alguien haga una piedra que
160
no pueda levantar un sujeto con fuerza finita que pedir que
161
alguien haga una piedra que no pueda levantar un sujeto con fuerza infinita.
162
Lo primero es lógicamente posible,
163
lo segundo lógicamente imposible, un sinsentido.
164
Y es un sinsentido para cualquiera.
165
Cualquiera puede hacer una piedra que un ser humano no pueda levantar,
166
pero una piedra que Chuck Norris no pueda levantar,
167
eso no puede hacerlo nadie,
168
por poderoso que sea, porque implica una contradicción lógica como círculo cuadrado.
169
Es un poco como si hubiera un artista con la cabeza cuadrada y le dijéramos,
170
oye, tú que eres tan buen artista,
171
dibuja un círculo con la forma de tu cabeza.
172
Obviamente no podría porque no puede dibujar un círculo cuadrado,
173
pero no tendría sentido que entonces yo le dijera,
174
ah pues yo soy mejor artista que tú porque yo sí que puedo dibujar un círculo con la forma de mi cabeza.
175
O considera este otro ejemplo,
176
nadie puede hacer el plato preferido de la esposa de mi amigo soltero,
177
por bueno que sea en la cocina,
178
porque si mi amigo es soltero no tiene esposa.
179
Y otra vez de nada sirve decir que sí que puede hacer el plato preferido de la esposa de mi amigo casado.
180
Que esto último sea factible no dice nada acerca de la posibilidad de lo primero.
181
Hay alguien a quien le esté petando el cerebro,
182
venga va Leónidas, di algo gracioso para animar un poco aquí el ambiente.
183
No soy tu payaso.
184
Muchas gracias.
185
Pero cuidado que ahora viene una objeción mucho más fuerte y es que Chuck Norris no solamente es omnipotente,
186
es perfectamente bueno.
187
Y eso sí que parece que nos va a generar un problema,
188
Because if Chuck Norris is perfectly well,
189
he would be incapable of to get a patate to a young man who is going to be hungry.
190
But to get a patate to a young man who is going to be hungry is perfectly possible.
191
So, if Chuck Norris is perfectly well,
192
there is at least one thing that he can do,
193
and therefore, he can't be omnipotent.
194
In this point, some have proposed that it is necessary to matize the definition of omnipotence the following way.
195
Omnipotente is that the person who can do everything as possible possible to be consistent with his own nature.
196
Therefore Chuck Norris would be omnipotent because pegar a patate rotatoria to the devil would be incompatible with his own nature perfectly.
197
The problem is the following.
198
Imagine a person that we call Mac Oreja,
199
and this is an example of the philosopher Alvin Plantinga.
200
Plantinga plantea.. plantiga plantea plantea plantinga.
201
Que te imagines a un ser tan limitado que por naturaleza la única cosa que puede hacer es rascarse la oreja izquierda.
202
De ahí que lo llamemos Mac Oreja.
203
El problema es que si omnipotencia significa poder hacer todo lo lógicamente posible que sea compatible con mi naturaleza,
204
se sigue que Mac Oreja es omnipotente.
205
Sí, solo puede rascarse la oreja izquierda,
206
pero es que cualquier otra cosa es incompatible con su naturaleza,
207
y eso now is allowed by the notion of omnipotence.
208
This is a clear reduction of absurdity in the definition of the proposed definition.
209
If something is clear, it is that a limited being in power like Macoreha is the most far away from the omnipotence.
210
O sea, Macoreha, if he wanted to be able to do it in the right hand,
211
would he be incapable of doing it?
212
How would he be omnipotent?
213
We need, therefore, another solution.
214
But I'm going to ask you to give a like a video if you like this,
215
because that helps me a much more people and so,
216
as Chuck Norris will be calm and not to give you a bite.
217
And if you like the philosophy,
218
give a look at my book,
219
Hay filosofía en tu nevera?,
220
a introduction to this fascinating discipline that is written especially for you.
221
I'll leave you a link in the comment fij.
222
Chuck Norris, once again, I got the contrary and I was right.
223
This is more fun than the previous one because it is a lot of exageration.
224
Like the best.
225
Perfecto, pues ¿cómo abordamos esta objeción con la que estamos ahora
226
de que Chuck Norris no puede ser omnipotente porque es incapaz
227
de darle una patada rotatoria a un niño vagabundo que se esté muriendo de hambre?
228
Pues una propuesta la encontramos en el filósofo Eric Willenberg,
229
que por cierto, esto es interesantísimo,
230
era chukescéptico, es decir, no creía en Chuck Norris.
231
Suerte que además de ser omnipotente,
232
Chuck Norris es también compasivo y benigno,
233
pues Eric Willenberg tiene este paper titulado Omnipotence Again,
234
en el que propone definir la omnipotencia de la siguiente manera.
235
X es omnipotente si y solo si no es el caso que hay un estado de cosas que X no puede realizar,
236
al menos parcialmente, por una falta de poder en X.
237
Tranquilos que ahora os pongo ejemplos para que lo entendáis.
238
Pero si os fijáis, esta definición excluye el caso de Macoreja y de otros similares,
239
because there are a lot of things that Macoreja,
240
even if he wants, could not do precisely for a lack of power,
241
like, for example, rascarse the right ear.
242
But the reason why Chuck Norris can't hit a rotator at the child that is dying,
243
is that he lacks the power to do it.
244
It's to say, no it's something so difficult to achieve that Chuck Norris could do it even if he wanted.
245
No, in the contrary, if Chuck Norris wanted,
246
he would do it and the child would go to the moon.
247
But Chuck Norris is incapable of doing it for another completely different reason
248
that has no to do with a lack of power.
249
A saber, because it is perfectly good.
250
In the article, Willenberg puts the example of Hércules.
251
Suppose that Hércules has infinite strength.
252
Any stone that you put in front the can lift up,
253
it doesn't matter what much it is.
254
But now you put in front a stone bañada in ice,
255
and Hércules is incapable of lifting it.
256
Is that what Hércules has no to do with the physical strength possible?
257
No, because the reason for Hércules can't lift that stone in concrete is not for a lack of physical strength,
258
but for something different, a is,
259
that is, that is a red.
260
Well, the same says Willenberg with Chuck Norris.
261
No can't hit the ball at the child,
262
but not because he has the power to do it,
263
but because it's too good.
264
We can reforzate this a little bit more with some ideas from the article Understanding Omnipotence of Alexander Proust and Kenneth Pearce.
265
What they propose is to define omnipotence in terms of two more basic attributes,
266
the perfect eficacia of the volunt and the perfect libertad of the volunt.
267
For this video, we don't care about the second element,
268
so we're going to focus on the first.
269
What they propose is the following,
270
which is what is the most contrary to the omnipotence in the popular imaginario.
271
Fracass in what one proposes.
272
If a person like Chuck Norris is omnipotent,
273
they cannot fail in their own purpose.
274
And the other way, cualquier ser que fracase en conseguir algo que se propone no puede ser omnipotente.
275
Esto significa que la omnipotencia implica que la voluntad de Chuck Norris es perfectamente eficaz y no puede ser frustrada.
276
Es decir, cualquier cosa que se proponga la consigue y punto.
277
Pero ojo, porque no podemos quedarnos en eso simplemente,
278
porque entonces volvemos a tener el problema de Macoreja.
279
Macoreja también sería omnipotente.
280
Él también puede conseguir todo lo que se propone,
281
because the only thing that propone is rascarse the ear left ear.
282
So we have to give a definition a subjuntive turn.
283
X is omnipotent, yes and only yes, for all P necessarily.
284
If X would like to P,
285
then would be that P would be.
286
And now we have, Macoreha is omnipotent because if he would like to rascarse the ear right instead of the left,
287
he would not do it.
288
In other hand, Chuck Norris could be omnipotent because,
289
aunque no pueda darle una patada al niño este de los cojones,
290
si quisiera hacerlo, sí que podría.
291
Y esto curiosamente está en la línea de lo que planteaba también Santo Tomás.
292
Fijaos, al interactuar con una cita de Aristóteles en los tópicos donde dice que Chuck Norris puede hacer el mal,
293
escribe lo siguiente.
294
Esto hay que entenderlo como un condicional cuyo antecedente es imposible,
295
como si dijera que Chuck Norris podría hacer el mal si quisiera,
296
pues no hay ninguna razón por la a conditional proposal no could be true,
297
although the precedence and the consequent are impossible.
298
The problem of Chuck Norris is still discutiendo today,
299
a little because he himself allows us to give us the definitive solution,
300
or to call us the mouth and that's it.
301
But I hope this video has opened up a little interest in this discussion.
302
And if you liked all this topic of the paradoxes,
303
you can't forget this other video,
304
because I tell you 10 of the most famous in the history of the philosophy.
305
So give a good click to keep learning and above all,
306
don't let you think.
307
Chuck Norris wrote, I think, but exist.
Tải Ứng Dụng
Có tính năng chấm điểm câu của bạn bằng AI
TRENDING
Phổ biến
Về Bài Học Này
Bài học này sẽ giúp người học thực hành kỹ năng nói tiếng Anh thông qua một chủ đề thú vị - "Paradoja của Omnipotencia" (nghịch lý toàn năng). Người học sẽ khám phá cách thức diễn đạt suy nghĩ phức tạp bằng tiếng Anh, đồng thời rèn luyện khả năng nghe và nói. Nội dung của video cung cấp nhiều khái niệm và câu hỏi triết học thú vị, từ đó người học có thể mở rộng vốn từ vựng và cải thiện kỹ năng diễn đạt ý tưởng của mình.
Từ Vựng & Cụm Từ Quan Trọng
- Paradoja: nghịch lý
- Omnipotente: toàn năng
- Contradicción: mâu thuẫn
- Piedra: đá
- Resolución: giải quyết
- Enunciado: tuyên bố
- Posibilidad: khả năng
- Reflexión: suy ngẫm
Mẹo Luyện Tập
Để tận dụng tối đa nội dung video, bạn hãy áp dụng kỹ thuật shadowspeak. Khi nghe video, hãy thử lặp lại các câu nói ngay sau khi nghe. Kỹ thuật luyện nói tiếng anh này giúp bạn nắm bắt ngữ điệu và ngữ âm một cách tự nhiên nhất. Nếu video có tốc độ nhanh, hãy xem lại nhiều lần để thấu hiểu rõ hơn từng câu. Phần mềm shadowing có thể hỗ trợ bạn ghi âm lại giọng nói của mình để so sánh với bản gốc, từ đó hoàn thiện giọng nói và khả năng phản xạ của bạn. Hãy cố gắng lắng nghe và bắt chước câu hình, cảm xúc thể hiện trong video để rèn luyện shadow speech một cách hiệu quả. Trung bình, một video có thể tiêu tốn từ 5 đến 10 phút của bạn, nhưng hiệu quả mang lại cho quá trình học tập là vô giá! Hãy thực hành thường xuyên để cải thiện từng bước hành trình học tiếng Anh của bạn.
Phương Pháp Shadowing Là Gì?
Shadowing là kỹ thuật học ngôn ngữ có cơ sở khoa học, ban đầu được phát triển cho chương trình đào tạo phiên dịch viên chuyên nghiệp và được phổ biến rộng rãi bởi nhà đa ngôn ngữ học Dr. Alexander Arguelles. Nguyên lý cốt lõi đơn giản nhưng cực kỳ hiệu quả: bạn nghe tiếng Anh của người bản xứ và lặp lại to ngay lập tức — như một "cái bóng" (shadow) đuổi theo người nói với độ trễ chỉ 1–2 giây. Khác với luyện ngữ pháp hay học từ vựng bị động, Shadowing buộc não bộ và cơ miệng phải đồng thời xử lý và tái tạo ngôn ngữ thực tế. Các nghiên cứu khoa học xác nhận phương pháp này cải thiện đáng kể phát âm, ngữ điệu, nhịp điệu, nối âm, kỹ năng nghe và độ lưu loát khi nói — đặc biệt hiệu quả cho người luyện IELTS Speaking và muốn giao tiếp tiếng Anh tự nhiên như người bản ngữ.