Thank you so much for making this text easier. I was struggling with it and felt ashamed for not understanding the text, your ironic comments really made me feel validated and helped me listen without shame of finding it difficult.

@LogicPhilosophy

2 жыл бұрын

You are so very welcome! Honestly, I'm a conflict of attitudes. Sometimes super interested, other times wondering what is the point of all this. Sometimes, hyper-focused but other times, I feel like a complete space cadet. This explains the more ironic comments. Best wishes!

My summary of lecture: Clear idea vs obscure idea and distinct conception vs confused conception. First grade of clarity: (feeling of familiarity and recognition) towards clear idea. E.g. Real and fake watch identification by a watch dealer Problem in grade 1: Subjective feeling of mastery Second grade of clarity: (capacity to define) when you can define some idea in abstract terms i.e you can express it in language and come up with a new definition Problem with Grade 2: a definition may fit to different conceptions as time passes with new experiences and new information. Natural order of increasing clarity regarding an idea(evolution of gaining clarity) Third grade of clarity: when you truly realize the practical effects of an idea. Then you understand it. Pierce approach to gaining clarity of an idea is explained in Pragmatic Maxim This maxim has two parts: 1)methodological part 2)metaphysical part Methodological part means put "the idea" under different practical tests and note the result, the sum of all these results pragmatically clarifies that “idea". Here he gives example of diamond and vinegar etc and putting their definition to different sceneries and realizing it's different qualities and effects produced thereafter. So basically if one want to get clarity regarding some idea, think of different ways to experience that idea to know it's effects and thereby knowing it more. One might come to conclusion from above that this can only be applied to physical concepts but pierce extends it further to philosophical terms or metaphysical concepts as well and here he applies his technique to idea of "reality". Most people have sense of reality so they are at grade 1 but few people are able to define it in abstract terms so to get to third level of clarity, know the conceivable practical effects of "reality" in our case E.g. Effect of real is to produce a fixed belief that cannot be bended later by doubt Pragmatic definition of real is "the real is that which is represented by the ultimately fated fixed belief"

@LogicPhilosophy

5 ай бұрын

First-rate summary here!

Thanks for your hard efforts. I appreciate it.

@LogicPhilosophy

4 жыл бұрын

Many thanks! Had fun making these!

@LogicPhilosophy This is actually the best explanation of the Pragmatic Maxim I've ever seen. The division of it into method and metaphysics, and especially the metaphysical section (I'm reminded of the grue problem) is especially clarifying.

@LogicPhilosophy

8 ай бұрын

Aye! Let's go! Thanks for the compliment!

I honestly didn't pay attention in American Phil and your videos are helping me GREATLY

@LogicPhilosophy

4 жыл бұрын

Great! Happy to hear this! Do you have a favorite topic in American Phil or just trying to get through a course?

Very clear and distinct explanation 😁, thanks for the help!

@LogicPhilosophy

4 жыл бұрын

You are very welcome. Thanks for watching!

really good video, helpful, fluid and hillarious. Thank you!

@LogicPhilosophy

3 жыл бұрын

Thanks! Was fun to make. If I made it again, I'd try to shorten it a bit.

We can see how Peirce was the first experimental psychologist when he talks about subjective confusion about an object being put as an objective quality of an object. This idea became the foundation of the "Mind projection fallacy" posited by E.T. Jaynes. Furthermore, it is of my opinion that this line of thinking lead to Peirce's development of his Tychism thesis, which anticipated Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle. Our subjective uncertainty about the simultaneous position and momentum of an object leads us to believe those to be properties of certain objects at certain scales.

Really loved your content

@LogicPhilosophy

3 жыл бұрын

Many thanks! Really fun video to do!

Ty

Thank you so much for this!! You really made the IDEA of this text clear... haha.. get it

@LogicPhilosophy

2 жыл бұрын

Ha, ya, I do. Glad I could help!

How would you personally pragmatically clarify the notions of truth and reality (from one pragmatist to another)?

@LogicPhilosophy

4 жыл бұрын

Oh my! I don't think I could characterize the other pragmatists as well as I could Peirce. With that said, there are many good articles and books on this topic. While my video discusses Peirce's early definition of truth, you might look at a brief account of James's view on truth in Cornelis de Waal's "On Pragmatism" (Thomson, Wadsworth 200), p.42-48. Hope this helps!

nice video. I got the Maxim right just by the text but I might have mistook the grades of clarity. I am not sure but as I read it peirce was quiet negative on the ways of familiarity and distinctness (old ornaments of classical logic... ). So my question would be: Does he intend to make first and second grade of clarity superflous? So the pragmatic Maxim replaces them? Or does he mean it as (3rd grade as you described) an addition to the old grades? This would make things clear for me ;)

@LogicPhilosophy

Жыл бұрын

Great! And, thanks for watching! The older Peirce (in distinguishing his pragmatism from other variants) seems to indicate that the 3rd grade is a supplement to the other grades in that a concept is clearer if it can obtain the 3rd grade. One thing he says is that only certain concepts can obtain this grade (intellectual (scientific) concepts that depend upon hard fact). This seems to suggest some concepts might simply be stuck at the 1st or 2nd grade of clarity. This isn't to say that these concepts are bogus but that we can't obtain the same level of clarity about them.

I'm reading a book called the subtle art of not giving a fu#$, and came across the name Charles Peirce,I'm not familiar with the author,I'm use to Ram Dass and Alan Watts. How is Charles compared to these two guys? Philosophy is a study I never got into.

This is helpful. thank you!

@LogicPhilosophy

3 жыл бұрын

Great. Glad it helped!

Thanks dad

@LogicPhilosophy

2 жыл бұрын

LOL. You are welcome!

can u give me premises about how to make ideas clear?

@LogicPhilosophy

4 жыл бұрын

Are you asking for a step by step approach?

@brendalg4

2 күн бұрын

​@@LogicPhilosophyI don't know about @erumakhter, but I'm looking for a step by step approach. I haven't watched the video yet... I was looking at the comments to try to figure out what the video would be about

I don’t normally leave comments but I felt like I should maybe ask further. Did you mean to talk about the effects the diamond would then have on the door. The scripture was saying stuff about how we need to evaluate how the effect of what is getting sent out and then the first video I see are a bunch of bot like comments praising this dude. we need to not worship people but stand beside them and if they make an error kindly correct or ask them about it and hope they respond back.

@LogicPhilosophy

2 жыл бұрын

These bots are looking more and more lifelike! Not sure what you are asking. The pragmatic clarity of "hard" would be a specification of the conceivable practical effects of an object X (so yes, the effects sent out into the world).

I don’t get the sport example. Wrestling is a legitimate sport. It would be the same as if you said “playing basketball with my brother” instead of wrestling. Both would be engaging in a sport.

@LogicPhilosophy

3 жыл бұрын

I think the idea I was trying to get across here is that sports generally have some type of codified rule structure to them, e.g. no traveling in basketball, or restrictions on the "moves" or "strikes" you can perform. But when I'm wrestling with my brother, we are just wildly fighting / playing without any defined structure or rules. I'm not saying that it isn't a sport but just that properties typically thought to be clearly associated with being defining features of things taken to be sports are not clearly found in wrestling with my brother. So, the idea of a "sport" does not clearly include or exclude the example. So, we need a clearer idea! I hope this makes sense! Maybe a better example would be a competition between my brother and I about who can shovel the most stones.

@dialecticalmonist3405

3 жыл бұрын

@@LogicPhilosophy You are correct. For the method by which one performs in any arena is not associable to the rule set, but rather to the tactical advantages it provides. There is no rule that states you have to move a muscle fiber in football, but activating muscle fibers helps one obtain a tactical advantage in increasing the probability of obtaining points through intention. If one could simply teleport themselves and ball into the endzone, they would not be breaking the rules of football, although the game would probably not finish with a winner due to the chaos such an event would generate.

this was the most unclear explanation of making clear ideas, I am so confused I'm gonna watch cat videos, good night.

@LogicPhilosophy

2 жыл бұрын

lol... how'd those cat videos go?

@someonesgamedevcareer8472

2 жыл бұрын

@@LogicPhilosophy they did go, now I'm happier due to my blissful ignorance

퍼스 전집 = 미국 천부경

15:02 I would say by far most Atheists are in fact reasoning just like that when it comes to the Idea of God.

@LogicPhilosophy

2 жыл бұрын

I love novel (or even wonky) arguments pro/contra God's existence! So would the argument look like this? P1: My idea of God is unclear. IC: Therefore, the idea of God is unclear. P2: You can reason however you want with unclear ideas. C: Therefore, there is good reason to doubt the existence (or the conception) of God (atheism/agnosticism)

@niclasromanski7920

2 жыл бұрын

​@@LogicPhilosophy Exactly. But it is somewhat relatable because the idea of God seems sometimes on purpose unclear. But so is the Idea of absolute objective knowledge. Yet a lot of people use it even in day to day language whenever they say for example "is". Because it is just like the idea of God an useful one. God is like absolute objective Truth, seemingly unreachable in this life. He is like meaning, nearly everyone has some of it in his life, wants him at least subconsciously to be true (if it is a good God) and recognizes that by believing in him, he will have more meaning in his life. He is something to strive for, just like Truth, the meaning of Life and maybe even the idea of unity or the good as in Platonism. Unity is a great and important factor of God and Pragmatism. Unity sometimes is more important than what we consider to be objective true. Objective arguments for God besides usefulness can mostly be given by Religion, Physics and Metaphysics i think. I would say that sacred geometry, Idealism, Process Philosophy, Kabbalah, Hermeticism and Neoplatonism are doing a great job here and one should keep in Mind that they do not have to conflict with contemporary science and the big bang aka the one who created all. Sometimes i ask myself if God himself is a pragmatist and if this would be a good thing for us.

Listen to this at 1.25x speed

@LogicPhilosophy

3 жыл бұрын

got to go at least 1.5x speed.... vroom!

@000DNJ

2 жыл бұрын

@@LogicPhilosophy anything beneath 3.75 is literally intolerable

Ty