Видео

Great, now how do we differentiate illusions from valid perspectives? (love the series btw)

this is great thank you

The clearest explanation of Leibniz on the net..! It would be great if you could someday compare and contrast Leibniz concept of the monad with Whitehead's monad.

Love the Escher shirt as well ;)

I am glad that my perception of Leibniz allows me to deny interaction with Leibniz. My activity allows me to note my monadic status as God. Or did I get that entirely wrong on account of my confused perception?

Nice one. Thanks!

your monad is among my favourite pedagogical monads, mr Gijsbers

Thank you! I was reading TLP and couldn't understand this particular part. You've helped me, sir.

Great Video. Finish it!

Thanks But what is the method of understanding the concept of causality? Is causality a concept which is empirical or it is our mind to relate cause and effect ? So how she denies the necessity connection of cause and effect?

@14:00. A person using a different conceptual scheme which we recognize as speech might make the following curious statement. It is raining outside so I am going to put on a loaf of bread.

Many thanks for the video. It is invigorating to hear thoughtful people talk. I do have some reservations about the relationship expressed between concepts and world and reality. consequently I let AI convert these reservations into a short story. It is certinaly a clunky story and needed considerable coaxing to make it vaguely human (no surprise there!!!). It is not AI at its finest, but it does elucidate the difficulties we humans can have with concepts, world and reality. This is the power of story Once upon a time, in a world just like ours, there lived a curious young girl named Lily. Lily was always asking questions about the world around her, eager to understand how everything worked. One day, while playing in the park, Lily noticed that whenever she threw her ball up in the air, it would always come back down. Intrigued, she asked her father, "Daddy, why does the ball always fall back to the ground?" Her father smiled and replied, "That's because of something called gravity, Lily. It's a force that pulls everything towards the center of the Earth." Lily's eyes widened. "Gravity?" she repeated, her voice trembling slightly. The word sounded strange and powerful, like a mysterious force that controlled everything. She imagined an invisible hand reaching out and pulling everything down, never letting go. Seeing the wonder and a hint of fear in his daughter's eyes, Lily's father added, "You know, Lily, you could think of it as 'the heaviness monster' if you like. It might seem a bit scary at first, but it's just a name for something that has always been there, whether we knew about it or not." Lily tilted her head, considering this new information. "So, gravity works even if we don't know about it?" "Exactly," her father said. "Gravity, or 'the heaviness monster,' is a force that exists in nature. It's not something that humans created or put there. It's an integral part of the truth about our world, regardless of what we choose to call it or whether we understand it." Lily nodded slowly, realizing that this mysterious force was not something to be feared, but rather a fundamental part of the world she lived in. It was there, working tirelessly, long before she or anyone else had even known of its existence. From that day on, Lily continued to explore the world around her, always eager to learn more. She knew that understanding concepts like gravity, or "the heaviness monster," was essential to grasping the truth about the universe, no matter what name they went by. And so, Lily grew up to be a curious and wise young woman, forever seeking to unravel the mysteries of the world, one question at a time. She never forgot the lesson her father taught her that day in the park - that the forces of nature, like gravity, work silently and tirelessly, shaping our world and keeping it in balance, regardless of our knowledge or understanding of them.

Great work you’re doing! Thank you so much for the content. I’m interested in semantics and pragmatics in linguistics, and your insights from theoretical philosophy really help me fill in some background I am lacking. I was wondering if you’ve considered holding Q&A sessions or if there are other social platforms where one could reach out to you?

1:25 understand the relation between "truth" and "doing the right thing intellectually" 2:25 model 1/4: consequentialism 3:45 well-known problems with consequentialist theories in ethics carry over to epistemology 4:10 pb.1 no substantive activity is automatically evaluated positively 5:50 pb.2 guru 7:20 model 2,3/4: natural ends, intentional ends 7:55 model 2/4: natural ends 10:00 compare to consequentialist: the aim is not to have a lot of good deeds on your list 10:40 the value is in the predisposition to act 11:40 model 3/4: intentional ends 12:00 not when I arrive at the truth but when I aim to arrive at the truth 12:40 could we also form beliefs without the aim of arriving at the truth? 13:45 e.g. a bathroom scales 16:40 e.g. I really don't like a certain politician 19:05 model 4/4: motive 19:40 2 motives at least: love of truth, aversion to falsehood 22:00 how to weigh these two things against each other 23:40 maybe knowledge can be understood in terms of of intellectual virtue 25:05 it's difficult to really live an epistemically good life.

i am waiting for Video 9!

I find it funny that the more I go through these videos the view count beings to decrease. It is like a philosophy version of survival of the fittest xD

Could you elaborate on extensional treatment of concepts being limited? I mean, it's obvious in a language, when the word refers to the same thing, but has different style, implications, etc. But is it so in philosophy too?

Clear and cogent as always from Victor Gijsbers. Thank you. This topic reminds us of the social dimension to knowledge.

2:00 there's nothing in our beliefs that is really self-evident, non-negotiable? law of non-contradiction? logic? 5:55 coherentism really takes a very serious and important step um on the way to understanding experience and understanding our relation to the world, but if the coherentist goes on... 7:30 e.g. 20 years go by 9:25 state vs process, structure vs responsibility 11:15 social epistemology 12:05 what they did takes away my justification

1:15 coherentism 1:35 doesn't have to be an asymmetric relation 2:15 e.g. capital of France is Paris 3:10 circular? 3:30 notion of coherence 4:05 minimal coherence: don't contradict each other 6:05 actively support each other, deductive argument, probability, explain 7:25 quantify coherence 8:00 problem: Mary stole my money, not a terrible problem 11:45 compare to foundationalist 12:35 more famous problem: sufficient for justification? Lord of the ring 14:25 conspiracy theory, secret lizard men from outer space 15:55 how coherence connects to truth? 16:40 coherentist: this is a problem for everyone 18:25 coherentist: how big is this problem really 19:55 psychosis, conspiracy theory 21:35 it sounds easier than it is to come up with examples of really coherent false belief systems 21:50 different experience, different coherent system, is this ok? 22:45 special role of experience, my belief is that experience is not a good guide towards the truth 23:45 toward fundationalist 24:50 pure coherentist, Kantian move 26:10 does that mean there are no problems for coherentism?

I don't think Descartes ever advocated atomic theory. That was Gassendi, D'Holbach and others.

I'm a Dewey/Rorty scholar and am so glad to see these up here. You do a great job and I appreciate you posting it. I'm at CU Denver in the U.S.A.

1:00 Wilfrid Sellars, make trouble for foundationalism about sense experience 1:55 the myth of the given 4:25 those two properties of the given just can't come together 6:20 e.g. seeing a brown table; seeing that the table is brown 10:25 each of them has one of properties that we want to given to have 14:20 extremely complex 15:00 e.g. tie shop 18:20 in order to to even talk about something like brown you need to be able to talk about the other colors and many other things 19:00 there's always reasons in the background of any perceptual judgment 20:15 all perceptual judgment takes place in the space of reasons 21:15 Kant, the only thing that the foundationalist can get for free is a subjective play of Sensations that that never Rises to the level of information about an external world. 23:20 animals or very young children

Surely all knowledge is empirical though. From evolution, the sensibility of vocalisation in organising reality, and then the mechanisms of the mind and neuronal mapping of reality into vocalising and memorising a symbolic system that was first produced by organising external reality by early sapiens? A evolution of maths is empirical to the collective concious of learning and organising the external reality. That to me seems really clear, and to say it's anything else diverges into a realm very much like one we find in religion.

1:10 there are certain beliefs that do not have to be justified through inference( or justified in some non-inferential way) 2:05 strong foundationalism and weak foundationalism 2:25 strong: Beyond criticism 3:00 weak: can be strengthened given more justification 4:05 what kind of beliefs could those be? 2 classes of answers, self-evident, observation 5:45 self-evident, René Descartes, Cogito 7:20 self-evident, mathematics and logic 9:50 two worries of self-evident truth, rather narrow 11:35 I hold a green pen 12:30 bring us to content through God: Descartes, Spinoza 13:45 experience, non-inferential 15:15 usually observations are not Beyond criticism 16:35 change or reinterpret the notion of observation: impression 18:00 Descartes, internal, external 18:45 weak foundationalism 20:35 pretty hard to distinguish from coherentism

Such a great channel

Thanks for the presentation. The Kantian influence on Bonjour is clear.

I don't believe truth can be objective belief with intrinsic value. I think our knowledge (believes) is always guesses. So, the better a guess can do for us instrumentally - the more true it is. But never the real and final truth. Because the content of the physical world and content of our mind is radically different. I don't think it destroys me as thinker, because I believe in that concurent instrumental truth because this is my concurent instrumental theory about the truth. I don't believe it as a final dogm, only as the best current answer.

Idiot..wasting time.

How does Kantian limitation on reasoning as in only cognitions or concepts can only have validity or are limited by their use in the empirical world.... How, if even possible can this apply to quantum understanding of the universe?

It's one of the most useful videos I have ever watched. Thanks a lot.

Thanks for the book suggestion. I have A Common Humanity in my ‘to be read’ pile now. Gaita’s argument reminds me of Heidegger’s concept of ‘Familiarity’.

Everything is so cool except the innovation of strong foundationalism and weak foundationalism it doesn't exist in the scripture and so it's heresay

0:10 why do we care about justification 0:15 1st reason: ingredient of knowledge 1:30 2nd reason: why do you believe that 3:20 distinguish "epistemic justification" from two other things: causal, pragmatic 7:05 can I really believe it? 8:30 how does justification (usually) work? 9:30 e.g. are there more than a thousand dogs in the Netherlands? 10:45 attempt: works through inference? 11:25 1st problem: we seem to believe a lot of things that maybe we haven't really inferred: "can", "could have", "unconsciously" 13:45 2nd problem: those other things you believe probably need to be justified as well: "string of reasons", 15:15 change Definition of justification? 16:05 the regress problem 17:30 Agrippa's trilemma 18:10 3+1 ways 18:50 1st option: infinitism 20:00 2nd option: foundationalism 21:10 3rd option: coherentism 22:00 holism 23:00 skepticism

does science progress towards truer representation of world or thats not possible cause science works on induction and there's always a possibility of change or something like that .(I'm not a scientist or philosopher .three days ago i talked to someone who explained me that how science "works" )

2:40 roughly two ways: +something or replace J 3:40 what do people try and where does it go wrong and what does that teach us 4:15 we want it to be general, simple, abstract 5:50 1st try: +causal relation between “the stuff that makes the proposition true” and your belief 7:00 hard to apply this causal criterion to the example of the clock 7:50 suppose that my cardboard cut out of a sheep is leaning against the sheep 8:35 it also gets rid of too many things: 2+3=5, casual relation? 9:35 “observation” as a criterion for knowledge would also be too strong: Amsterdam is the capital of the Netherlands 10:25 dialectic 11:25 just ditch JTB? Reliabilism 12:55 revisit clock example 13:55 too vague? what should count as the method that I have used 14:50 three ways to describe 16:15 revisit the fridge example 16:55 Linda zabski, “the inescapability of Getter problem” 17:50 1. good enough is good enough? 18:35 2. intuition is wrong? 19:20 3. keep trying? 19:40 4. knowledge first epistemology? 21:15 I'm going to leave you in a pit of despair

Your channel is fantastic. Thanks. You explain things very clearly, which is great for novices; but you cover a wide range of legit academic philosophy, which is great for more experienced philosophers who - for all the normal reasons - don't have time to read or recall everything they're interested in. Good job!

Is there anything that says Trust the path not the arrival

0:10 JTB is especially famous because it is wrong 0:55 until a guy came along called Edmund 2:20 JTB is an analysis of propositional knowledge 2:40 proposition: statement that can be true or false 3:45 the three conditions are J T and B Justified true and believe, are they necessary, sufficient? 5:10 start with belief 6:15 true 8:00 Justified 9:55 every part of it seems to be necessary, but are these things together also sufficient? 10:15 Gettier cases 10:45 three examples 11:20 1st: clock at 2:00 13:10 2nd: sheep in the field 15:05 3rd: milk in the fridge 17:05 we need to fix our analysis in such a way that the counter examples fit 17:40 explosion of analysis of knowledge

Hello, I think I should start this comment by prefacing that I am neither well read nor well educated on the topic at hand, I am (pardon my french) a dumbass on the internet. I found the topic at hand interesting but it left me with a quick question and maybe a counterpoint to the arguments being made. When some question can't be falsified due to some kind of limit, like in the poisoned food example, In my opinion blind faith that the food wouldn't be poisoned is still as insane, given there is a better way of handling the issue. When something is unfalsifiable, a statistical approach would be the correct way to think about this. Entertaining the hypothesis that someone is out to poison your food, and you don't have the resources to falsify that, the next best thing would be to guesstimate how likely it is for someone to try tampering with the food. An insane person would not be able recognize his inability to falsify and try testing everything, but a rational person(again It's my dumbass opinion) would see how likely it is for such event to happen and make changes accordingly. If it is indeed likely that you would be poisoned, like in the FBI top 10 list example, then it would be insane to go out and eat in the first place. We cannot apply reason to see if our senses are lying to us because it's technically unfalsifiable due to human limitations, then the next best thing would be to see how likely it is that our senses are lying, and If they do, what would the effect be. When even statistics doesn't help, then we can use blind trust otherwise it will not be logical. The act of trying is what's important and settling for the best thing we have while being realistic is what distinguishes the normal person from insane one. Thanks for reading and sorry for wasting time if I wrote something completely ignorant. Edit: Removed some repeated words that I left by mistake and tried to restructure the text make it more coherent. Added another bit at the end to express my point clearer.

Thank you 🙏 I hope these new videos will catch up in views with the first videos. Still the best close reading of the Tractatus online (that I have been able to find). Let me know if you come to the Hague, then I will buy you lunch!

Thanks for this video very enlightening. Kurt Vonnegut in “Breakfast of Champions” defined madness as a chemical problem in brain and bad ideas. Both conditions must be met in order for someone to classified as insane. There are many people with chemical problems and many people with bad ideas it is the combination of the two that results in madness. Seems like Gaita was not a fan of Descartes.

This video is dynamite!

I have a question: - suppose you buy a book written by author Azure - however the author Azure is actually a codename of author Oliver E. - you think you've read a book of the author Azure (You believe because you saw the name on the book cover. It's true, but the author is actually a pseudoname) Would that count as an example? If you didn't know that it couldn't be considered as knowledge?

Thank you.I love your explanation sir. Your explanation on proposition variable (for 4.1) also is very illuminating.

Incredibly grateful for your generous videos. Kant is a beast to understand.

yep, the only thing that really forces us to believe is ... rhetoric. They should have added Aristotle's On Rhetoric to the organon from the beginning; would have saved us a lot of analytical headache!

Incredible. I'm excited for part 9!

0:15 before delving into 0:55 start with some concept, philosophically important. 1:30 give definition 1:40 dialogues of Plato 2:20 Socrates asks the person: hey what is courage? 2:45 definition is not just a list of examples and counter examples 4:40 a set of necessary and sufficient conditions 6:00 if and only if 7:15 when somebody gives such a conceptual analysis, how do we know whether it's right? 9:30 analysis can go wrong in two different ways 10:30 or fails on both accounts 11:35 method of counter examples 12:15 this method is paradoxical? already know? 14:05 intuition: you shouldn't put too much theoretical stress on that term 15:10 start out with a feel, want a strict analysis 15:25 Plato's answer: we forgot about it. 16:25 contemporary philosopher prefer: certain amount of of coherence 17:40 when is enough? that's one of the things that philosophers can go on 18:10 rational reconstruction 19:15 analytic philosophy

0:10 difference between true belief and knowledge 0:50 e.g. rainy outside 1:40 two attempts to explain the difference: justified, reliable method 3:20 why should we care about knowledge 4:20 Linda zabski: knowledge as a cup of espresso coffee 9:05 the so-called value problem for knowledge 10:10 Plato's analogy: true belief is like a statue that isn't chained down 12:45 more stable 13:45 Charles Saunders, whales can fly, tenacious believer, possible to get stability without having good argument. 17:30 we should take a step backwards, what is primarily valuable here 18:05 earnestly strive for 20:45 social project, shared project 21:15 there are many other positions