"Joe is obviously a plucky guy, he hung in there with the stabbing." Lol!
@mykrahmaan34083 күн бұрын
The swan example is incomplete: it depends on the definition of what a SWAN is, which none of the quoters of the example ever mentions. How did they confirm the black one is a swan too? If SWAN is originally defined as "a white bird with....", then it can NEVER be proved wrong. Then ALL SWANS ARE WHITE would always be 100% correct.
@das.gegenmittel3 күн бұрын
Is this still a relevant work or is there something more new?
@alexanderamos41856 күн бұрын
OK Mill, proper nouns don’t have connotative descriptions. Brilliant conclusion, “Einstein”.🙄’ Haha! If you don’t get the joke, you didn’t watch the video properly. 😂 I think you are wrong about the Aristotle evidence versus Jesus. The number of historical first person accounts (like epistles in the New Testament,) vastly outnumbers original writings of Aristotle. The numbers I am seeing are like 20-50 times New Testament to Aristotle copies. Granted, Aristotle was way before. Let me know if you have a good counter to this argument. 👍
@kadmii8 күн бұрын
having learned about the concept, I've been watching my daughter's verbal development, and I do think his concept of language games as the foundation and basis of language and thus meaning makes sense. She had spent a great deal of time mimicking sounds and strings of sound within various contexts like she's trying to learn what the trick is behind these sounds, to get what she wants, to pick up what us parents are saying to each other. Saying "miw" is great for a yearling to request for milk, but as she's aged up, that's no longer sufficient, she had to start saying "milk please" or even "can I have milk?" This development happened in parallel to requesting that she be picked up, beginning with a gesture of arms going up (imitating the way that picking up a small child shifts their arms upwards), to "up" to "pick me up", and how to distinguish between wanting to be held, wanting a hug, being lifted into a chair, etc. Now that she has acquired a broader vocabulary, she's now able to play the more advanced language games of describing things like her favorite color, or what she dreamed last night, or how a creaking staircase scared her.
@deidara753310 күн бұрын
You are one of my favorite youtuber. Even though your content isn't part of my academic syllabus, i still spend more time watching this than studying. Your way of presenting makes it is so much more intriguing and is easy to comprehend. Thank you!! Love your channel. ❤
@albertusmagnus582912 күн бұрын
Excellent as usual thank you - at 31:00 your analogy - are you implying a priori categories of understanding in children i.e.to reduce perceived external phenomena like hats to symbols - I've not read Wittgenstein in depth, does he have any view on Idealism or Kant in particular - seems like he (conveniently) bins the whole of philosophy so the answer is probably no 😊
@Menschenthier13 күн бұрын
Thank you so much for this great talk on Foot's great paper!
@MohammadRezaAmini-jf9nv19 күн бұрын
Thank you 🙏❤
@mahocorona664422 күн бұрын
Really great video! This has help me out a lot!
@blazehauser143224 күн бұрын
Fixed ideas are spooks.
@daniel-zh4qc26 күн бұрын
If only rasheed wallace knew there was a world where he was getting blasted in a modal logic lecture.....
@SimonCushing26 күн бұрын
I would NEVER blast Sheed! Except for that one time he threw a towel at Sabonis - but he regrets that now.
@kevinpulliam366128 күн бұрын
Squares circularized. Irrational numbers rationalized. Literature mathematized
@robotaholic29 күн бұрын
I agree with Benetar, and you strawman his argument over and over.
@zeebpcАй бұрын
underrated channel
@LockheedMartinEnjoyerАй бұрын
I have heard others say that what Ross probably meant to use was pro tanto instead of prima facie.
@chefatchangs4837Ай бұрын
How does this channel not have 100k+ subscribers? Amazing content. Thanks so much.
@muhammadshahedkhanshawon3785Ай бұрын
Conceivability is a worst system for metaphysics..
@akbarzamirАй бұрын
Thanks for this video: it’s a very clear survey of her essay, and how it fits into the tradition of moral philosophy - good work! I was wondering whether the ‘courageous thief’ issue could somehow be resolved by returning to her requirement in part 1 that a virtue must be beneficial. I guess that move would then lead to a need to consider each ‘courageous’ action on its individual merits, with some courageous actions being virtuous and others not - contingent on the ends … which seems to bring the argument back towards consequentialism of a sort.
@matthewfuller9760Ай бұрын
@43:33 the existence of the windbridge research institute is an interesting case of parsimony. I don't believe in spirits so the windbridge intitute doesn't exist is the most parsimonious explanation. (I kid, I kid) :)
@williammcenaney1331Ай бұрын
Can we catch Quine in a permeative contradiction when he presupposes synonymy in papers where he attacks it?
@NovalisovАй бұрын
What book from Stephan Law are you exactly mentioning in this video and in the video with Lockes personal identity theory?
@SimonCushingАй бұрын
archive.org/details/philosophyfiles0000laws
@pieissodeliciousАй бұрын
This is so good.
@necropreneurАй бұрын
Damn i think i found something way more fun than continental philosophy xd thank you much for your work ^^
@LilLegyithsАй бұрын
I think Cushing's comment about the "gods eye view" is the problem I have with many of Benatar's arguments. He isnt consistent about whose perspective hes using. For example: In scenario B number 3, who is it "good" for that a person who doesnt exist doesnt have suffering? Its not good for the person who doesn't exist. Its good for the moralist who has not brought a person into the world who will suffer. Its good for God who sees a lack of suffering.
@lbjvgАй бұрын
Searle’s position is badly mischaracterized. He is not committed to substance chauvinism. If you don’t talk about intentionality or semantics vs syntax or simulation vs duplication, etc… then you haven’t engaged with his argument.
@lukecockburn1140Ай бұрын
Were previous videos about categorical logic, referred to in this video, deleted fron your channel? If so is there anywhere I can watch them?
@SimonCushingАй бұрын
No, they were part of a class and I haven't uploaded everything. One day I'll get around to it...
@anty.Ай бұрын
I really appreciate this explanation, I didn't know that the rule for UG is that you can only use it on variables introduced using UI or assumptions, I didnt understand the way my professor explained it. Thanks!
@Markru666Ай бұрын
Thanks for the effort of putting all of this together. Your explanations were very clear, direct and easy to understand. Thanks 😉
@juliusmcalpine171211 күн бұрын
outstanding presentation. really cleared up some questions for me.
@howdidthishappen6498Ай бұрын
Hey there! Thanks for the video!!
@stegemmeАй бұрын
steel man your opponents and then critique. Sounds quite Popperian
@Manuelleunam47Ай бұрын
Better masturbation then procreation
@rezamahan71092 ай бұрын
hey guys! how are ya? I have a philosophical logic exam in 7 days, I love philosophy, and I'm drunk!!! do you have any solution to this dilemma?😶
@lukhanyogogotya26402 ай бұрын
do you think it's possible to share a link or reference to the duplication argument?
@SimonCushing2 ай бұрын
Well there's this: kzread.info/dash/bejne/p6lny7JpiarHoMo.html
@lukhanyogogotya26402 ай бұрын
great video!!
@DuskPixel2 ай бұрын
Very insightful and massively helped me with my EPQ! I really appreciate it :)
@kittydoran95972 ай бұрын
omg think im a Quine apologist
@hiyacynthia2 ай бұрын
I really benefited from these lectures. It makes Parfit less intimidating. I understand all of this.
@MichaelMarko2 ай бұрын
Theseus' Ship, again!!!
@pz133 ай бұрын
Thank you. So helpful and finally kind understand. *L*
@Eero593 ай бұрын
Great presentation, thanks!
@ASOUE3 ай бұрын
The sound is broken on this video
@SimonCushing3 ай бұрын
Try listening in mono
@TheBigBanggggg3 ай бұрын
I'm glad I did something more useful in my life than doing quasi-science.
@elijahdick956810 күн бұрын
Something doesn't have to be useful to be valuable. Maybe you should try to figure out what the big deal is with "quasi-science" and why people care about it so much
@webizfabulous25353 ай бұрын
amazing amazing lecture.
@kashyapj62943 ай бұрын
great video
@luyombojonathan66883 ай бұрын
Beautiful work !!! Cheers
@shi87793 ай бұрын
Fantastic video
@joydebbarman72673 ай бұрын
Sir, what is Donnellan position? Which use of definite descriptions does he accept? Please reply kindly
@SimonCushing3 ай бұрын
Both! But you mustn't confuse one for the other
@joydebbarman72673 ай бұрын
@@SimonCushing thank you so much, sir
@omarAlkhurainj4 ай бұрын
👏 good job
@tomrobingray4 ай бұрын
It occurs that (true predictions) present the same problem as counter factuals: if I say Trump will win the election, and this does in fact turn out to be true, then it is a true statement right now, even though there is no current corresponding reality. The only solution to this under the Lewis conception is to say that not only are all possibilities real, but also all time frames past and future must be happening concurrently! Lewis then destroys any notion of time, and if this is desirable then why not go for the simpler option of determinism. It perplexes me in these modal discussions that the link between model realities the so called "accessibility relation" seem to just ignore one obvious fact. The only link between two different realities is though their common ancestor reality IE the point in time were the (real) or (possible) universes diverged. For me to talk of modal logic without referencing this (actual reality) of the situation is meaningless.
Пікірлер
"Joe is obviously a plucky guy, he hung in there with the stabbing." Lol!
The swan example is incomplete: it depends on the definition of what a SWAN is, which none of the quoters of the example ever mentions. How did they confirm the black one is a swan too? If SWAN is originally defined as "a white bird with....", then it can NEVER be proved wrong. Then ALL SWANS ARE WHITE would always be 100% correct.
Is this still a relevant work or is there something more new?
OK Mill, proper nouns don’t have connotative descriptions. Brilliant conclusion, “Einstein”.🙄’ Haha! If you don’t get the joke, you didn’t watch the video properly. 😂 I think you are wrong about the Aristotle evidence versus Jesus. The number of historical first person accounts (like epistles in the New Testament,) vastly outnumbers original writings of Aristotle. The numbers I am seeing are like 20-50 times New Testament to Aristotle copies. Granted, Aristotle was way before. Let me know if you have a good counter to this argument. 👍
having learned about the concept, I've been watching my daughter's verbal development, and I do think his concept of language games as the foundation and basis of language and thus meaning makes sense. She had spent a great deal of time mimicking sounds and strings of sound within various contexts like she's trying to learn what the trick is behind these sounds, to get what she wants, to pick up what us parents are saying to each other. Saying "miw" is great for a yearling to request for milk, but as she's aged up, that's no longer sufficient, she had to start saying "milk please" or even "can I have milk?" This development happened in parallel to requesting that she be picked up, beginning with a gesture of arms going up (imitating the way that picking up a small child shifts their arms upwards), to "up" to "pick me up", and how to distinguish between wanting to be held, wanting a hug, being lifted into a chair, etc. Now that she has acquired a broader vocabulary, she's now able to play the more advanced language games of describing things like her favorite color, or what she dreamed last night, or how a creaking staircase scared her.
You are one of my favorite youtuber. Even though your content isn't part of my academic syllabus, i still spend more time watching this than studying. Your way of presenting makes it is so much more intriguing and is easy to comprehend. Thank you!! Love your channel. ❤
Excellent as usual thank you - at 31:00 your analogy - are you implying a priori categories of understanding in children i.e.to reduce perceived external phenomena like hats to symbols - I've not read Wittgenstein in depth, does he have any view on Idealism or Kant in particular - seems like he (conveniently) bins the whole of philosophy so the answer is probably no 😊
Thank you so much for this great talk on Foot's great paper!
Thank you 🙏❤
Really great video! This has help me out a lot!
Fixed ideas are spooks.
If only rasheed wallace knew there was a world where he was getting blasted in a modal logic lecture.....
I would NEVER blast Sheed! Except for that one time he threw a towel at Sabonis - but he regrets that now.
Squares circularized. Irrational numbers rationalized. Literature mathematized
I agree with Benetar, and you strawman his argument over and over.
underrated channel
I have heard others say that what Ross probably meant to use was pro tanto instead of prima facie.
How does this channel not have 100k+ subscribers? Amazing content. Thanks so much.
Conceivability is a worst system for metaphysics..
Thanks for this video: it’s a very clear survey of her essay, and how it fits into the tradition of moral philosophy - good work! I was wondering whether the ‘courageous thief’ issue could somehow be resolved by returning to her requirement in part 1 that a virtue must be beneficial. I guess that move would then lead to a need to consider each ‘courageous’ action on its individual merits, with some courageous actions being virtuous and others not - contingent on the ends … which seems to bring the argument back towards consequentialism of a sort.
@43:33 the existence of the windbridge research institute is an interesting case of parsimony. I don't believe in spirits so the windbridge intitute doesn't exist is the most parsimonious explanation. (I kid, I kid) :)
Can we catch Quine in a permeative contradiction when he presupposes synonymy in papers where he attacks it?
What book from Stephan Law are you exactly mentioning in this video and in the video with Lockes personal identity theory?
archive.org/details/philosophyfiles0000laws
This is so good.
Damn i think i found something way more fun than continental philosophy xd thank you much for your work ^^
I think Cushing's comment about the "gods eye view" is the problem I have with many of Benatar's arguments. He isnt consistent about whose perspective hes using. For example: In scenario B number 3, who is it "good" for that a person who doesnt exist doesnt have suffering? Its not good for the person who doesn't exist. Its good for the moralist who has not brought a person into the world who will suffer. Its good for God who sees a lack of suffering.
Searle’s position is badly mischaracterized. He is not committed to substance chauvinism. If you don’t talk about intentionality or semantics vs syntax or simulation vs duplication, etc… then you haven’t engaged with his argument.
Were previous videos about categorical logic, referred to in this video, deleted fron your channel? If so is there anywhere I can watch them?
No, they were part of a class and I haven't uploaded everything. One day I'll get around to it...
I really appreciate this explanation, I didn't know that the rule for UG is that you can only use it on variables introduced using UI or assumptions, I didnt understand the way my professor explained it. Thanks!
Thanks for the effort of putting all of this together. Your explanations were very clear, direct and easy to understand. Thanks 😉
outstanding presentation. really cleared up some questions for me.
Hey there! Thanks for the video!!
steel man your opponents and then critique. Sounds quite Popperian
Better masturbation then procreation
hey guys! how are ya? I have a philosophical logic exam in 7 days, I love philosophy, and I'm drunk!!! do you have any solution to this dilemma?😶
do you think it's possible to share a link or reference to the duplication argument?
Well there's this: kzread.info/dash/bejne/p6lny7JpiarHoMo.html
great video!!
Very insightful and massively helped me with my EPQ! I really appreciate it :)
omg think im a Quine apologist
I really benefited from these lectures. It makes Parfit less intimidating. I understand all of this.
Theseus' Ship, again!!!
Thank you. So helpful and finally kind understand. *L*
Great presentation, thanks!
The sound is broken on this video
Try listening in mono
I'm glad I did something more useful in my life than doing quasi-science.
Something doesn't have to be useful to be valuable. Maybe you should try to figure out what the big deal is with "quasi-science" and why people care about it so much
amazing amazing lecture.
great video
Beautiful work !!! Cheers
Fantastic video
Sir, what is Donnellan position? Which use of definite descriptions does he accept? Please reply kindly
Both! But you mustn't confuse one for the other
@@SimonCushing thank you so much, sir
👏 good job
It occurs that (true predictions) present the same problem as counter factuals: if I say Trump will win the election, and this does in fact turn out to be true, then it is a true statement right now, even though there is no current corresponding reality. The only solution to this under the Lewis conception is to say that not only are all possibilities real, but also all time frames past and future must be happening concurrently! Lewis then destroys any notion of time, and if this is desirable then why not go for the simpler option of determinism. It perplexes me in these modal discussions that the link between model realities the so called "accessibility relation" seem to just ignore one obvious fact. The only link between two different realities is though their common ancestor reality IE the point in time were the (real) or (possible) universes diverged. For me to talk of modal logic without referencing this (actual reality) of the situation is meaningless.