Summary: Relations of ideas are statements that are necessarily true. All it takes to know them is understanding and thought, and it is inconceivable that they should be false. Matters of fact rely on observation for us to see that they are true. I guess the main idea is to make us aware of this distinction so we can better judge what we truly know
empiricists believe that we can have a priori knowledge of analytic statements, and a posteriori knowledge of synthetic knowledge. Rationalists believe that we can have a priori knowledge of some synthetic statements
I'm a mother of an 11th grader, due to pandemic their school's learning method changed. Teacher's just send module and activities online to be done in a week. I am forced to study as well to be able check if she understand the subject. And here i am trying to understand philosophy the simplest way, and this video is a lifesaver ❤️
wow, what a good mom, your kid's going to have a head start. I would recommend that you find religious thinkers and ask them about how they think of the world. It seems like a lot of these ideas were build relationally to theological ideas whether to accept or to refute them. No thought stands in a vacuum.
Our knowledge comes from matter of fact which means that we know factual knowledge about the world without self contradictory, therefore matters of fact is the most reasonable explanation for knowledge and how we know what we know.
Dear Wireless Philosophy! I love how your Videos are made - would you mind giving me a hint on how you produced them (what programmes used etc)? :) Best from Germany Alex
The problem is you can’t know whether your thoughts are operating properly and you can’t know whether your senses are observing reliably in order to reason at all without external input from someone who knows everything and is able to make you know some things by some power.
I don't think the relation of ideas is actually a net gain of information at all though. Saying all triangles have 3 sides or that 2+2=4 is doing nothing more than rephrasing a concept. I'm not actually sure if it's correct to call that a form of knowledge - at least not a significant form of knowledge. But maybe Hume's distinction doesn't care about the significance.
This comment smells of sarcasm and satire, however in the case you are serious (which, of course is unlikely), you are being somewhat of a sophist (in this regard, masking semantic laziness as error or fallacy).
The problem is that this way of perceiving the idea is pedantic and doesn't counter the point. Cut 4 fruits in half you still have 4 fruits, not 8. Similarly, if you slice a cake in half you still have one cake, yet 2 pieces of 1 cake.
Okay to play devil's advocate what if there's some being that as soon as you form two lines and you form the third line for a triangle the first line disappears there's your two line triangle. It's just interpreted in a different way mine is great and filling his gaps but that's also a short coming that can be exploited obviously pros and cons, am I right?
Interesting! Having dismissed God level, these Hume-ian truths would have to be disproven otherwise, a Matrix is not enough to handle them. Maybe Russell's Paradox?
Humes error is that he calls ideas what are actually opinions. It's not that triangles have three sides. That's nominalism. It is that whatever has three sides is a triangle. That's what idea is. Ideas are transcendental to facts and opinions. But Hume completely disregards this because he has animadversion of failure, so he admittedly writes what the commoner would agree with. Hume is an Anti-philosopher. I don't understand how a yale professor teaches this as "philosophy". I guess only appealing to the nominalism of Hume's.
A scientific proof begins with a review of literature that examines relations of ideas, showing that a certain outcome is at least highly plausible. Then comes a demonstration of fact. It is true in fact as well as in idea. We come away convinced that what might have appeared only an empirical truth also expresses a necessary harmony of ideas.
Mathematics are no truths, it is definitions of created "truths" - consensus. And there is nothing that I KNOW, only stuff I choose to believe or acquiesce to the greater common sense.
I don't think math is just consensus, I think it's simply saying a thing is that thing. 2+2=4 is just a rephrasing of 4=4, right? That's not true due to consensus, it's true due to logic. I would argue there is, if nothing else, one thing you can be certain of - your own existence. You might be mistaken about the form you exist in, and everything else around you, but surely you must exist at all in order to experience, don't you agree? That's true empirical knowledge.
a triangle is a triangle because humans defined it as having three sides, therefore, all triangles must have three sides, otherwise it is not a triangle
Im asking an honest question here; does anyone find this non-obvious? No offense intended but this seems like childs play to me but im not particularly smart.
I think induction(as employed in the brain) works not by extension but by reduction. It works like how the brain fills in the missing details of an incomplete face. I'm only suggesting that induction doesn't have to go ad infinitum for its employment. A mere absence of the related object/idea in a set of objects/ideas makes itself present!! Inference emerges by virtue of how the brain processes the structure of information than the sequence of (logical) operations. Like how the brain fills in the missing details of an incomplete picture of a face(There are countless such examples) Now, is that an infallible method? Certainly not. Does that mean it is purely rational? I would say yes in that it relies on cognitive architecture only, for its being , not on the sentiment!! What about Deduction?? Well, it was never strongly associated with the sentiment unlike induction; never was infallible in that it was only as fallible as it's premises and their interactions!
You forget to mention the seven philosophical relations, that compone the relations of idea and the matters of fact, I think they are esential to understand this two concepts.
What I've considered saying to people who won't wear masks during coronavirus time: " Sir, is your thesis that Bacon's ideas of inductive reasoning and empiricism are incorrect? Perhaps you are more aligned with Mr. Hume's criticism of inductive reasoning? If so, I would suggest you change your habit of only getting your information from the Fox Network. "
What if I curved one of those lines connected it and called that a triangle with 2 sides? It would be a crescent so I would be wrong, but I've still done what you said I can't do and what if others agreed with me? Then I would be right and you would be wrong. Triangles are only triangles because we all agree what that word means. There's no magic that allows us to know things just because we've made a word that can only mean one thing. Let me show you by example. Say I take 2 electrons and 2 photons and ask you to count them. Will you count to 4 for sure? No. The rules of the world are not the same on that level and at a given moment these 4 particle-waves might add up to 3 or 5 or any number you like. Just because you didn't manage to imagine how something can add up in a different way doesn't mean you have discovered a truth about the universe.
Judging by the overall feel of your comment, I guessed you were an atheist, and I was right ;) You seem to presuppose what you critique. You suppose that it's intelligible when you talk about triangles, or about 2 electrons and 2 photons. It wouldn't be intelligible if concepts and numbers are arbitrary and meaningless, which you seem to hold.
Kaffikjelen I'm not sure what my atheism has to do with it. Good guess, I guess? No I don't think those concepts are meaningless or even arbitrary, math holds most of the time in most cases and that appears to be an inescapable property of the universe we live in. My point is that just because you have labeled something and can't think of any other explanation doesn't mean you have proven anything to be true. I haven't presupposed that the opposite is true. Thankfully there's more options than true or total chaos, but even if I was to agree what we know to be false about the quantum world and admit I have no examples. This video still uses an argument from ignorance to prove the conclusion. Just because we can't think of ways we could be wrong doesn't mean we will always be right in all cases. Unless I missed something?
Brad Younger I'm not just talking about the words but the concept itself. Can you be 100% sure you know what a triangle is and 100% sure you have thought of all possibilities? Is your mind so perfect and flawless that there is no chance of error? Lets say that it is. The concept is still arbitrary. A perfect triangle is something that can't even exist in the real world because all mater and energy must be divided in quanta. The point is we could just as well have thought of a concept that has any number of incoherent chaotic points, sides and arbitrary properties. Can you picture a flabelnorf without at least 3 rotating shades? It's impossible because a flabelnorf has 3 or more rotating shades. Have we learned something about the nature of the world? The real world has not agreed to play by our rules of logic at all times in all places.
Brad Younger It's not "pretty much true be definition". It is exactly true be definition. That is what we are talking about isn't it? What are we talking about? You might not need to know everything about triangles, but you do have to know everything about the definition if you want to say it's true be definition. The video has set it up this way. There is no room for error. I haven't heard of people believing that math is "discovered". It sounds silly to me, but it doesn't really matter here. Even if math is the master of how things work we still have to be 100% sure we understand it in every way that it applies to triangles and we still have to be 100% sure we will make no errors. This video makes the claim that because we can't picture what those new triangles could be and because it sounds silly, that means we know something about how not only this world, but any possible world works. We know what a triangle is and we have learned something new. If math is invented it means we have invented 100% certain information about the real world and all other worlds, and can't be wrong. If it's discovered it means we have discovered 100% certain information about the real world and all other worlds, and can't be wrong.
+faceshed If you're talking about a 'triangle' with two sides, you're no longer talking about a triangle. We can be 100% of what a triangle is because its necessary features are contained within its definition: a shape that has three sides and internal angles adding up to 180 degrees. If you say that you are imagining triangle with two sides, the simple answer is that you are mistaken, and you are not thinking of a triangle. A triangle necessarily has three sides because that is what it means for something to be at triangle; its necessary truth means that this will be the case in all possible worlds, because there is no conceivable or possible world in which it is otherwise.
mathematical truths such as 2+2=4 aren't true because we cannot conceive their being false, consider 2+2=5, but due to definition and derivage relative to existing definitions, consider the operation of adding ropes to each other by tying them together: each operand represents the number of knots in the ropes being tied together and the result is the number of knots in the rope you are left with after tying them together, by this, tying a rope with 2 knots to a rope with 2 knots yields a rope with 5 knots, thereby making an addition where 2+2=5
This stuff is for the dumb. Isn't it obvious that a triangle is defined as with 3 sides?? and a statement can be true or false. The statement I have a dog is subjected to the truth. This is basic distinction..I don't know why you/philosophers have to make it seem complicated with some word jargon.
Summary:
Relations of ideas are statements that are necessarily true. All it takes to know them is understanding and thought, and it is inconceivable that they should be false.
Matters of fact rely on observation for us to see that they are true.
I guess the main idea is to make us aware of this distinction so we can better judge what we truly know
empiricists believe that we can have a priori knowledge of analytic statements, and a posteriori knowledge of synthetic knowledge.
Rationalists believe that we can have a priori knowledge of some synthetic statements
it's 1am and i'm trying to study for my philosophy exam.....thanks you're really helpful!! also i like your pup hehe
same!
Every single time
History tends to repeat itself huh XD
@@uvetteadams 4 years and I'm doing the exact same thing
4 years later, same shit bro
Daniel Greco is the only philosophy professor I somewhat understand, thank God for him!! Keep teaching and making these great videos please!
I'm a mother of an 11th grader, due to pandemic their school's learning method changed. Teacher's just send module and activities online to be done in a week. I am forced to study as well to be able check if she understand the subject. And here i am trying to understand philosophy the simplest way, and this video is a lifesaver ❤️
Best of luck Florenda! What a great start. I realy enjoy this type of abstract way of thinking
wow, what a good mom, your kid's going to have a head start. I would recommend that you find religious thinkers and ask them about how they think of the world. It seems like a lot of these ideas were build relationally to theological ideas whether to accept or to refute them. No thought stands in a vacuum.
Completely agree mom!
bro your kid is in 11th grade, make her do her own work u weirdo
I love it. I share every one of these I watch!! Philosophy needs to be popularized!!
Thanks! Really appreciate the support!
Totally. Popularising a great subject with much to offer to society. :)
Agreed. People would be a lot more introspective if it were.
“I haven’t observed anything in 2016 yet.”
Lucky you! Stay there.
Very comprehensible, visually satisfying and extremely well articulated. Thank you so much.
I'm having exams on Hume and other Metaphysics philosophers , and that one helped me a lot
I finally found a great channel for philosophy videos. Thank you for this sir.
i love this video. it is 4.31 am, i am trying to finish my essay for my philosophy class. this video is very helpful. thank u！！！
Wow, As an Existentialist, I must say... This is the most efficient representation of the Epistemology.
Thanks for these videos, I appreciate the briefness and condensed knowledge.
David Seelmann Thanks! Hopefully you continue to check them out.
Just found you and so happy I did!
Our knowledge comes from matter of fact which means that we know factual knowledge about the world without self contradictory, therefore matters of fact is the most reasonable explanation for knowledge and how we know what we know.
Didn't Leibniz already make this distinction with necessary and contingent truths? How is Hume's distinction any different?
Dear Wireless Philosophy!
I love how your Videos are made - would you mind giving me a hint on how you produced them (what programmes used etc)? :)
Best from Germany
Alex
The part is equal to or smaller than the whole. Would this be an operation of thought?
The problem is you can’t know whether your thoughts are operating properly and you can’t know whether your senses are observing reliably in order to reason at all without external input from someone who knows everything and is able to make you know some things by some power.
"I've never met Napoleon, but I plan to find the time." --- Steely Dan, Pretzel Logic. 1:12
What would you say is the relationship between epistemological skepticism and the absurd?
Any progress with that question?
@@incertoa3345 none whatsoever!
Hume never fails to fuck me up.
I take it that I know this video is good.
Isn't this similar in a way to the Platonic forms?
Thank you so much sir. Very good explanation
I don't think the relation of ideas is actually a net gain of information at all though. Saying all triangles have 3 sides or that 2+2=4 is doing nothing more than rephrasing a concept. I'm not actually sure if it's correct to call that a form of knowledge - at least not a significant form of knowledge. But maybe Hume's distinction doesn't care about the significance.
Thank you so much for this video!!!
Amazing video! Well stated
i dont care if you have a puppy or not but the puppy on the picture is darn cute
How does hume think we should ascertain the meaning of philosophical term??
Yeah, 2016 didn't exactly turn out the way everyone expected it to
cut the apples in half. you still have two oranges, two apples, but have 6 pieces of fruit.
You dick.
This comment smells of sarcasm and satire, however in the case you are serious (which, of course is unlikely), you are being somewhat of a sophist (in this regard, masking semantic laziness as error or fallacy).
Mrbigweeknee rather than assert, prove your observation. Otherwise, your comment smells of self-importance.
perhaps you will have 6 "pieces" of fruit but you still only have 4 whole fruit from which the pieces are divided.
The problem is that this way of perceiving the idea is pedantic and doesn't counter the point. Cut 4 fruits in half you still have 4 fruits, not 8. Similarly, if you slice a cake in half you still have one cake, yet 2 pieces of 1 cake.
nice vid, thanks 👍🏼
Alpha Centauri isn't the closest star to our sun. Proxima Centauri is. Alpha Centauri is just the brightest star in the Centauri cluster.
David Hume is great
Okay to play devil's advocate what if there's some being that as soon as you form two lines and you form the third line for a triangle the first line disappears there's your two line triangle. It's just interpreted in a different way mine is great and filling his gaps but that's also a short coming that can be exploited obviously pros and cons, am I right?
I generally take it I know.
i like ur puppy
Interesting! Having dismissed God level, these Hume-ian truths would have to be disproven otherwise, a Matrix is not enough to handle them. Maybe Russell's Paradox?
very precise..indeed
so does Hume believe in self-knowledge or no?
But our thoughts aren't independent. They are informed by the memory stored up in the material of our brain as knowledge.
There is nothing you know for sure ... this is where all philosophy ends agnosticism
I wish I didn't know anything about the 2016 election. 2014 was a simpler time lol
Humes error is that he calls ideas what are actually opinions.
It's not that triangles have three sides. That's nominalism. It is that whatever has three sides is a triangle. That's what idea is.
Ideas are transcendental to facts and opinions. But Hume completely disregards this because he has animadversion of failure, so he admittedly writes what the commoner would agree with.
Hume is an Anti-philosopher. I don't understand how a yale professor teaches this as "philosophy". I guess only appealing to the nominalism of Hume's.
Pretty much.
4:33 word salad.
"how do we know these things about stuff?" ..books?
A scientific proof begins with a review of literature that examines relations of ideas, showing that a certain outcome is at least highly plausible. Then comes a demonstration of fact. It is true in fact as well as in idea. We come away convinced that what might have appeared only an empirical truth also expresses a necessary harmony of ideas.
universal objective truth: that puppy is fluffy
Mathematics are no truths, it is definitions of created "truths" - consensus.
And there is nothing that I KNOW, only stuff I choose to believe or acquiesce to the greater common sense.
I don't think math is just consensus, I think it's simply saying a thing is that thing. 2+2=4 is just a rephrasing of 4=4, right? That's not true due to consensus, it's true due to logic.
I would argue there is, if nothing else, one thing you can be certain of - your own existence. You might be mistaken about the form you exist in, and everything else around you, but surely you must exist at all in order to experience, don't you agree? That's true empirical knowledge.
How'd you know it's actually your puppy?
a triangle is a triangle because humans defined it as having three sides, therefore, all triangles must have three sides, otherwise it is not a triangle
That is one fluffy puppy. Good puppy.
Im asking an honest question here; does anyone find this non-obvious? No offense intended but this seems like childs play to me but im not particularly smart.
Truth incarnate
I think induction(as employed in the brain) works not by extension but by reduction. It works like how the brain fills in the missing details of an incomplete face. I'm only suggesting that induction doesn't have to go ad infinitum for its employment. A mere absence of the related object/idea in a set of objects/ideas makes itself present!! Inference emerges by virtue of how the brain processes the structure of information than the sequence of (logical) operations. Like how the brain fills in the missing details of an incomplete picture of a face(There are countless such examples)
Now, is that an infallible method? Certainly not. Does that mean it is purely rational? I would say yes in that it relies on cognitive architecture only, for its being , not on the sentiment!!
What about Deduction?? Well, it was never strongly associated with the sentiment unlike induction; never was infallible in that it was only as fallible as it's premises and their interactions!
You forget to mention the seven philosophical relations, that compone the relations of idea and the matters of fact, I think they are esential to understand this two concepts.
Why is Hume described as an empiricist when he believes in a priori truths?
right
So, he's right??
So he's an empiricist who believes that the world is best understood through rational thought? Isn't that an odd combination?
Jeff Frana yeah it is. But maybe they mean something else by empiricism and rationalism
One should not assume the philosophy of David Hume.
with the first example you gave. can they be aprioi and aposteriori? can knowing a whale is blue and big aprioi?
■
ThereIsNoAuthorityButYourself
■
?
What I've considered saying to people who won't wear masks during coronavirus time: " Sir, is your thesis that Bacon's ideas of inductive reasoning and empiricism are incorrect? Perhaps you are more aligned with Mr. Hume's criticism of inductive reasoning? If so, I would suggest you change your habit of only getting your information from the Fox Network. "
What if I curved one of those lines connected it and called that a triangle with 2 sides? It would be a crescent so I would be wrong, but I've still done what you said I can't do and what if others agreed with me? Then I would be right and you would be wrong. Triangles are only triangles because we all agree what that word means. There's no magic that allows us to know things just because we've made a word that can only mean one thing.
Let me show you by example. Say I take 2 electrons and 2 photons and ask you to count them. Will you count to 4 for sure? No. The rules of the world are not the same on that level and at a given moment these 4 particle-waves might add up to 3 or 5 or any number you like. Just because you didn't manage to imagine how something can add up in a different way doesn't mean you have discovered a truth about the universe.
Judging by the overall feel of your comment, I guessed you were an atheist, and I was right ;)
You seem to presuppose what you critique. You suppose that it's intelligible when you talk about triangles, or about 2 electrons and 2 photons. It wouldn't be intelligible if concepts and numbers are arbitrary and meaningless, which you seem to hold.
Kaffikjelen I'm not sure what my atheism has to do with it. Good guess, I guess?
No I don't think those concepts are meaningless or even arbitrary, math holds most of the time in most cases and that appears to be an inescapable property of the universe we live in. My point is that just because you have labeled something and can't think of any other explanation doesn't mean you have proven anything to be true.
I haven't presupposed that the opposite is true. Thankfully there's more options than true or total chaos, but even if I was to agree what we know to be false about the quantum world and admit I have no examples. This video still uses an argument from ignorance to prove the conclusion. Just because we can't think of ways we could be wrong doesn't mean we will always be right in all cases. Unless I missed something?
Brad Younger I'm not just talking about the words but the concept itself. Can you be 100% sure you know what a triangle is and 100% sure you have thought of all possibilities? Is your mind so perfect and flawless that there is no chance of error?
Lets say that it is. The concept is still arbitrary. A perfect triangle is something that can't even exist in the real world because all mater and energy must be divided in quanta. The point is we could just as well have thought of a concept that has any number of incoherent chaotic points, sides and arbitrary properties.
Can you picture a flabelnorf without at least 3 rotating shades? It's impossible because a flabelnorf has 3 or more rotating shades. Have we learned something about the nature of the world? The real world has not agreed to play by our rules of logic at all times in all places.
Brad Younger It's not "pretty much true be definition". It is exactly true be definition. That is what we are talking about isn't it? What are we talking about?
You might not need to know everything about triangles, but you do have to know everything about the definition if you want to say it's true be definition. The video has set it up this way. There is no room for error.
I haven't heard of people believing that math is "discovered". It sounds silly to me, but it doesn't really matter here. Even if math is the master of how things work we still have to be 100% sure we understand it in every way that it applies to triangles and we still have to be 100% sure we will make no errors.
This video makes the claim that because we can't picture what those new triangles could be and because it sounds silly, that means we know something about how not only this world, but any possible world works. We know what a triangle is and we have learned something new.
If math is invented it means we have invented 100% certain information about the real world and all other worlds, and can't be wrong. If it's discovered it means we have discovered 100% certain information about the real world and all other worlds, and can't be wrong.
+faceshed If you're talking about a 'triangle' with two sides, you're no longer talking about a triangle. We can be 100% of what a triangle is because its necessary features are contained within its definition: a shape that has three sides and internal angles adding up to 180 degrees. If you say that you are imagining triangle with two sides, the simple answer is that you are mistaken, and you are not thinking of a triangle. A triangle necessarily has three sides because that is what it means for something to be at triangle; its necessary truth means that this will be the case in all possible worlds, because there is no conceivable or possible world in which it is otherwise.
mathematical truths such as 2+2=4 aren't true because we cannot conceive their being false, consider 2+2=5, but due to definition and derivage relative to existing definitions, consider the operation of adding ropes to each other by tying them together: each operand represents the number of knots in the ropes being tied together and the result is the number of knots in the rope you are left with after tying them together, by this, tying a rope with 2 knots to a rope with 2 knots yields a rope with 5 knots, thereby making an addition where 2+2=5
Bob Webster Each time you tie the rope it adds 1 knot. The total is all of the existing knots plus the new one, so it is really 4+1=5
Bob Webster you actually only gave a situation of 2+2+1=5
An 1hr Till My Philosophy Exam Lmao
cute dog omg
To be fair, nobody could have predicted the 2016 election. I guess Hume was right about induction.
excellent
Its raining right now
test
Get a load of this guy. I bet he doesn't even have a fluffy puppy.
open one orange and ask yourself again how many pieces of fruit you have
OOOOOOOOHHHH!
By faith we understand Hebrews(Bible)
SINCE HUME, NOBODY HAS REALLY ANYTHING IMPORTANT ABOUT EPISTEMOLGY. THAT INCLUDES KANT AND QUINE.
This stuff is for the dumb. Isn't it obvious that a triangle is defined as with 3 sides?? and a statement can be true or false. The statement I have a dog is subjected to the truth. This is basic distinction..I don't know why you/philosophers have to make it seem complicated with some word jargon.
not really. we as humans decided that a triangle had three sides
Philosophy is so stupid
god wtf is happening
😂😂😂