Sounds like you’ve got some terrifying animals in that forest.

@billc3114

2 жыл бұрын

Some kinds of birds I would say. Or insects.

@a.hardin620

2 жыл бұрын

Hope it’s not a rattlesnake!

@klammer75

2 жыл бұрын

🤣😆🤨

@kevinkant6817

Жыл бұрын

It’s a big ole caulk

you and greg sadler are such valuable resources for people doing self-study in philosophy. thanks so much!

Great idea! I'm going to wait for these lectures with much anticipation. Your rattlesnakes seem to be excited as well!

Sir this is godsend. All I can say is thanks 🙏

Thank you for uploading this topic! It’s extremely helpful!

I'm delighted that the good Professor intends to share his knowledge on the subject of logic. I picked up a copy of the Tractatus by Wittgenstein but I want some grounding in formal logic before I attempt to tackle that particular text!

@jschoolaccount6790

2 жыл бұрын

I agree. I've been looking for a proper logic course for the sake of better reasoning. Prof Bonevac's teaching is great and I'm looking forward to the rest of this series.

@donaldb1

2 жыл бұрын

I can tell you that, although Wittgenstein was there at the beginning of modern formal logic, the notation he uses in the Tractatus is not entirely the same as is used in formal logic nowadays. However, I can also say that I think it is possible to figure out what he's on about in that book without mastering every detail of his particular system.

@tobetrayafriend

2 жыл бұрын

@@donaldb1 Thank you for your thoughts.

What a gift! Please keep it up!

Great idea Prof. I will be happy to follow the course.

These videos are extremely valuable!

Very excited about this series!

I'm not sure you read these comments, but this is just to say thank you for the coming course on logic. I enjoyed your thoughts on Heidegger and now for something completely different...

Thank you, Professor 👍

Looking forward to this!

Thank you professor.

Am very excited for this! 🥳🤓🤩

Looking at the topics that will be covered, I'm most excited for Russell's type theory. I already have some familiarity with set theory and mathematical induction, but I got in through Morse-Kelly set theory, so an exploration of ZF is appreciated

Professor, are you intending to create a series on logic and post it here on KZread? Or is this for a course you are teaching at the University? Thanks for the wonderful content, we're very grateful to have you share your knowledge with us.

@PhiloofAlexandria

2 жыл бұрын

Yes-just for KZread!

@aesoprocksGM

10 ай бұрын

@@PhiloofAlexandria I would love a course on logic by you.

I'm so psyched. Are you going to explain predicate logic? What other forms of logic will you explain?

I hope you keep up the videos. Since you don't do so many lectures.

Thanks for the great content. I just like to ask you to work on the sound quality of your videos. You should perhaps use an exernal mic or somme think else, but the the quality of sound recording had to be as great as the great content.

@PhiloofAlexandria

Жыл бұрын

Working on it!

This will help me understand the January 6 hearings!

Good you was a colleague of med legenhaussen

sir its like you record videos close to a sleeping dragon

Logic is the science of inference? Is inference what the brain 🧠 does, what the linguistic mind does, or what the consciousness in survival mode does? Does it concern systems in relation to each other determined by proximity or urgency circuits? Does it concern semantics, meaning and context determined by culture? Does it concern the Self and Nature in physical and metaphysical tension and integrity. Is there a logic of eating, sleeping, procreating and dying? Is homeostasis "logical"? Balance and imbalance are the same as premise and conclusion? Is the brain to blame for logic? Is the person to blame for logic? Is the soul to blame? Is it always the stomach's fault?

this n has dinosaurs hissing in his backyard

I wish the professor had just gone through classical Logic as set forth by Aristotle in the Organon, since this is our every day way of reasoning. We can easily understand that as a structure with patterns and essential components, such as the concepts the judgments and the reasoning themselves. But instead he just jumped from the mere mentioning of Aristotle as the discoverer of the discipline all the way to the 19th and 20th century to the most advanced but also obscure and abstract way of studying this subject. Unfortunately this will have the inevitable consequence of spooking students instead of availing themselves of Logic to filter out all the confusions and lies that we find in everyday culture. My suggestion: start from the beginning, with the essential concepts, the laws of Logic, syllogisms and the repeating patterns. This will help people savor Logic better, in my humble opinion. Then, if they like the subject, they will move on to the more abstract and formal aspects of modern Logic.

@PhiloofAlexandria

2 жыл бұрын

Well, that’s because this is the content of a graduate seminar. It presupposes a solid knowledge of logic from one or two undergraduate courses. I’ll do a series on more introductory topics soon.

@javiervonsydow

2 жыл бұрын

@@PhiloofAlexandria thank you for your reply. I'll be looking forward to your introductory courses.

I don't think there's so much wrong or right as viewpoints of philosophy. As they say about truth ones truth isn't always another's but that doesn't mean neither or one isn't true.

I do not understand why it is said that logic is "normative". Why are we saying that logic is trying to distinguish "good" inferences from "bad" inferences rather than saying logic is trying to distinguish inferences from non-inferences, i.e., what IS and what IS NOT an inference? It is almost as if we are saying "being" itself is "good" and "non-being" is "bad". This is a normative statement, but is it a logical one? I don't like this whole idea of logic as a normative discipline. Can somebody set me straight?

@PhiloofAlexandria

2 жыл бұрын

Interesting question. I think of it this way: people draw conclusions from bodies of information. Sometimes, they really follow; sometimes, they don’t. I think of the latter as a bad inference, rather than a non-inference, because the person drawing it *thinks* it follows. But it’s a subtle point.

Interesting, but starting with the Stoics and Sextus would have eliminated 20th century “non-novel” theories. Thank you.