Hahaha! Yes, if you're reading a philosophy book in public, you're likely one of the only people doing so in whatever place you're in, unfortunately The first thing you said reminded me about how a guy I knew -- who owned a book store -- got his philosophical education. He read Jameson's massive tome Post-Modernism, and then decided to read everyone Jameson mentioned. It took him several years, but he ended up with a great understanding of many areas
I really love these conversational-type videos. It's great to hear in a nice narrative form how you reasoned into and out of different convictions. I usually listen to these on a mobile device, which isn't too terribly friendly to post comments, but I thought this one was worth opening up the computer to leave a post. Look forward to upcoming content. -zach
Really enjoying these Philosophical Development and Commitments videos! It's interesting to hear you take on various thinkers and philosophies. I'd also be interested in hearing your views on specific texts, as in going beyond just exposition of the work.
That’s interesting you included GEB in your list of books that took you out of that mindset. I had an interdisciplinary physics/biology class called Computational Evolution where we read sections of GEB among other things pertaining to modeling emergent behaviors. The class didn’t mention anything about free will, but it made me start connecting some dots in my head and I haven’t been able to rationalize free will since.
I suppose that's the case -- the logicist idea was a sort of Enlightenment project. Once you realize that it's not going to work, the question is what direction you go in after that
Well, I talk a bit about that in one of the other videos in this sequence, the Blondel one. I'll be doing some other ones about the people who didn't turn out to be a phase, but to become lasting dialogue-partners.
That metaphor has been in use for quite some time -- I first encountered it in discussions about martial arts myself. What do I think? I'd say that how much one's mind can effectively hold is in large part a function of the training one puts one's mind to
Your intellectual path here, in terms of developing interests, is so similar to my own its uncanny. Which probably means that you are paragon of reason;) I've noticed a number of philosopher types who went through a similar sequence. For me after I got through Wittgenstein and the logicism project I jumped on the continental po-mo train. then after a time I felt that I had spent too much time with the Derrida types and returned to a new appreciation of logic and analytic philosophy. I find that I like both sides of the isle. I think when I was young I expected too much from myself and I tended to take many thinkers for granted. It wasn't until later that I really went back and read Plato carefully and began to appreciate the ancients much more. anyways, good thoughts, I think your analysis would be helpful to prospective students.
Loved this video, great, great stuff. That godel escher bach is one ominous tome, hehe. Keep those videos coming Dr. Sadler. Greetings from Lima, Peru.
Interesting stuff thanks. I've always been a bit skeptical of these big unifying theories and systems, although I don't know too much about mathematics. I can see the appeal though. I find all this crazy set theory stuff, with different sizes of infinities fascinating. These theoretical mathematicians are very smart people.
Well, I'm not sure what you're asking about by my "views on specific texts". What I find important or valuable in them? I tend to do that in my more expository videos already, as asides
Well, I'll be doing quite a few more of them -- a lot at present, while my knee heals and I gear up for the semester, and then one every once in a while
Unfortunately I quit my third major/minor in mathematics because of time constraints, but I can see the appeal of logical/mathematical rigor. I still get a kick out of learning new mathematical concepts, quite different from the way I respond to, say, discovering Kant's aesthetic theory. I'd certainly like to study the foundations of mathematics and I plan on studying more formal logic, because I think it gives a certain conceptual structure to even existentialist thinking.
Aftet watching any of your videos, I find myself taking down the names of the authors yoy mention and reading their stuff--some of it is massive yet extremely fruitful. Great video. It is easy to see how philosophers and writers are/can sometimes be looked upon as loners being that I seem to become one when I check out their works and read them. Thumbs Up!
Well, I don't believe in a Platonic afterlife, as Plato depicts it -- though that would be rather nice, I think. I can be described, rather inadequately, as a "Christian platonist" -- but that doesn't really tell one much, I think. As to how Christians view Plato -- that's a huge conversation, and there's not one single answer, but rather a rich history. Blondel, for his part, is not a neo-Platonist, I think, though a few people have described him that way
so true in the other hand there are a millions things to read,a millions leads to follow..to much ..and not enough time in one life to get it all together.:)
I mean what is your current philosophical creed. What is your commitment in what regards a certain philosopher, philosophic concept, or the view on life in general.
I haven't gotten yet at this "phase" :) i just have read Labyrinths by Borges ...I'm reading Lila by Robert M.Pirsig and he got this idea for the systems (not only formal one )...he said "There's a old analogy to a cup of tea.If you want to drink a new tea you have to get rid of the old one tea that's in your cup..your head is like that cup.It has a limited capacity and if u want to learn smth about the world you should keep ur head empty in order to learn it..what do u think ?
Did you by chance read Lakatos (esp. Proofs and Refutations)? I'm curious whether that lead to your engagement with Alasdair MacIntyre and his Thomism.
I also find it interesting that your interest and disillusionment in mathematics roughly matches the "narrative" of European philosophy from Descartes to someone like Nietzsche or Derrida.
I am not an an expert in the history of philosophy but i know some things about concepts. I know that in one of your videos on introduction to philosophy you told your students that you believe in an afterlife of some sort of platonic ideas. Blondel as a neoplatonist (?) may be basically the same. My question is: since plato said that people do bad things because of ignorance and not because of the will to do evil, how can a christian view plato? Is the punishment for ignorance or for evil will?
LOL coincidentia oppositorum paradoxical contradictions like loop holes within logic itself as if this constant dualism of polarities are the very building blocks of the universe to appear as both incomplete and yet complete simultaneously in regards to the fact that this principle is the very nature of existence. * Mad Hatter * How deep does the rabbit hole go ?
This personal videos are my favorite also your stories episodes. Is there a book that you recomend that will help create a system for boxing (martial arts)? I took note on that book you mention for game theory, just wondering your opinion maybe you know a book.
Well, you have the grandest of all in Godel's incompleteness theorem (not just about math, but any formal system), right? btw, "paradox" is not the same as "contradiction"
Gregory B. Sadler Thank you for your Guidance in this matter. I am amazed that I did not know of such important theorem before. Does the theorem mean that one must abandon all hopes to find a unified theory or an ultimate truth form? (since, You mentioned that it applies to any formal system)
By "logicism", you could also refer to the reductive program of science-driven philosophy in the last century as "positivism" or "logical empiricism". You seem to be siding with many philosophers I see saying that the program of positivism died, due to a combination of things that humbled the scientific worldview: Godel's discoveries in logic, the development of quantum mechanics, relativity... In my opinion these examples of theory change gave philosophers cold feet about the positivist program, but that was premature. Science has continued to develop an impressively consilient knowledge-base about the world, of course with frontiers. Consider that it is actually an example of a argument from ignorance fallacy to claim that science hasn't fully reduced and explained the human condition, therefore it never will. That's a fallacy. I'm rather excited and humbled by the pace that science is explaining the world: evolution, cosmology, anthropology, neuroscience, artificial intelligence, etc. I'd say the positivist program of building a unified worldview based on science is still marching forward, albeit with more informed and adjusted goals from what Russell and Hilbert et al. originally had. The sexier term for the meta-philosophy that says that philosophy should be driven by and informed by science first is "naturalism". While still being rather loosely clarified, naturalism, seems to carry less of the historical bad after taste of positivism. Would you call your philosophical move away from logicism as being anti-positivist or anti-naturalist?
"Would you call your philosophical move away from logicism as being anti-positivist or anti-naturalist?" No, I wouldn't. Nor would I see myself as "siding with. . . " I'd say I tried out a common approach in philosophy, found it wanting, and then went on to better approaches, which tend to be poorly served by thinking in terms of categories like "naturalism", "anti-naturalism", etc. I don't say the program of positivism (which is much broader than logical positivism in the Anglophone world) really died. I suspect it will exercise a perennial attraction, actually. If you want to pursue and align yourself with it, go on ahead. Given my projects, I doubt I'll ever clear the time to want to spend on revisit much of that, so it's great that someone wants to carry that banner as far as it will go. . . . (Thanks for the lesson on fallacies, and giving me something to "consider")
Hahaha! Yes, if you're reading a philosophy book in public, you're likely one of the only people doing so in whatever place you're in, unfortunately
The first thing you said reminded me about how a guy I knew -- who owned a book store -- got his philosophical education. He read Jameson's massive tome Post-Modernism, and then decided to read everyone Jameson mentioned. It took him several years, but he ended up with a great understanding of many areas
I'm glad you enjoy them. I think I might be about halfway done with the "philosophical development" ones -- but there's plenty more other stuff coming
I really love these conversational-type videos. It's great to hear in a nice narrative form how you reasoned into and out of different convictions. I usually listen to these on a mobile device, which isn't too terribly friendly to post comments, but I thought this one was worth opening up the computer to leave a post.
Look forward to upcoming content.
-zach
Really enjoying these Philosophical Development and Commitments videos! It's interesting to hear you take on various thinkers and philosophies. I'd also be interested in hearing your views on specific texts, as in going beyond just exposition of the work.
That’s interesting you included GEB in your list of books that took you out of that mindset. I had an interdisciplinary physics/biology class called Computational Evolution where we read sections of GEB among other things pertaining to modeling emergent behaviors. The class didn’t mention anything about free will, but it made me start connecting some dots in my head and I haven’t been able to rationalize free will since.
It could probably use a reread. Maybe this year for me
I suppose that's the case -- the logicist idea was a sort of Enlightenment project. Once you realize that it's not going to work, the question is what direction you go in after that
Well, I talk a bit about that in one of the other videos in this sequence, the Blondel one. I'll be doing some other ones about the people who didn't turn out to be a phase, but to become lasting dialogue-partners.
Interesting insights here from your life journey as a thinker. It puts things in new perspectives for me to gain from your experiences.
Glad to read it -- yes, it's a great book. He (more) recently published another follow-up to it
That metaphor has been in use for quite some time -- I first encountered it in discussions about martial arts myself.
What do I think? I'd say that how much one's mind can effectively hold is in large part a function of the training one puts one's mind to
I'm going to assume you mean Godel? Not Goebels, right?
I discussed Godel in the video
Kek.
Your intellectual path here, in terms of developing interests, is so similar to my own its uncanny. Which probably means that you are paragon of reason;) I've noticed a number of philosopher types who went through a similar sequence. For me after I got through Wittgenstein and the logicism project I jumped on the continental po-mo train. then after a time I felt that I had spent too much time with the Derrida types and returned to a new appreciation of logic and analytic philosophy. I find that I like both sides of the isle. I think when I was young I expected too much from myself and I tended to take many thinkers for granted. It wasn't until later that I really went back and read Plato carefully and began to appreciate the ancients much more. anyways, good thoughts, I think your analysis would be helpful to prospective students.
Hahaha! Or we could both be totally off, just in the same way, eh? (though probably not)
Loved this video, great, great stuff. That godel escher bach is one ominous tome, hehe. Keep those videos coming Dr. Sadler. Greetings from Lima, Peru.
Interesting stuff thanks. I've always been a bit skeptical of these big unifying theories and systems, although I don't know too much about mathematics. I can see the appeal though. I find all this crazy set theory stuff, with different sizes of infinities fascinating. These theoretical mathematicians are very smart people.
Well, I'm not sure what you're asking about by my "views on specific texts". What I find important or valuable in them? I tend to do that in my more expository videos already, as asides
Yes, reading Cantor was very interesting in that respect -- the finite and transfinite
Well, I'll be doing quite a few more of them -- a lot at present, while my knee heals and I gear up for the semester, and then one every once in a while
Unfortunately I quit my third major/minor in mathematics because of time constraints, but I can see the appeal of logical/mathematical rigor. I still get a kick out of learning new mathematical concepts, quite different from the way I respond to, say, discovering Kant's aesthetic theory. I'd certainly like to study the foundations of mathematics and I plan on studying more formal logic, because I think it gives a certain conceptual structure to even existentialist thinking.
Aftet watching any of your videos, I find myself taking down the names of the authors yoy mention and reading their stuff--some of it is massive yet extremely fruitful. Great video. It is easy to see how philosophers and writers are/can sometimes be looked upon as loners being that I seem to become one when I check out their works and read them. Thumbs Up!
Well, I don't believe in a Platonic afterlife, as Plato depicts it -- though that would be rather nice, I think.
I can be described, rather inadequately, as a "Christian platonist" -- but that doesn't really tell one much, I think.
As to how Christians view Plato -- that's a huge conversation, and there's not one single answer, but rather a rich history.
Blondel, for his part, is not a neo-Platonist, I think, though a few people have described him that way
so true in the other hand there are a millions things to read,a millions leads to follow..to much ..and not enough time in one life to get it all together.:)
Love these more personal videos
I mean what is your current philosophical creed. What is your commitment in what regards a certain philosopher, philosophic concept, or the view on life in general.
I haven't gotten yet at this "phase" :) i just have read Labyrinths by Borges ...I'm reading Lila by Robert M.Pirsig and he got this idea for the systems (not only formal one )...he said "There's a old analogy to a cup of tea.If you want to drink a new tea you have to get rid of the old one tea that's in your cup..your head is like that cup.It has a limited capacity and if u want to learn smth about the world you should keep ur head empty in order to learn it..what do u think ?
Did you by chance read Lakatos (esp. Proofs and Refutations)? I'm curious whether that lead to your engagement with Alasdair MacIntyre and his Thomism.
What led to MacIntyre was reading MacIntyre
I also find it interesting that your interest and disillusionment in mathematics roughly matches the "narrative" of European philosophy from Descartes to someone like Nietzsche or Derrida.
I am not an an expert in the history of philosophy but i know some things about concepts. I know that in one of your videos on introduction to philosophy you told your students that you believe in an afterlife of some sort of platonic ideas. Blondel as a neoplatonist (?) may be basically the same. My question is: since plato said that people do bad things because of ignorance and not because of the will to do evil, how can a christian view plato? Is the punishment for ignorance or for evil will?
Professor would you still recommend Godel Esher Bach for someone who is interested in cognitive science with a philosophy background?
Yes. It's an eternal golden braid, after all
That's good -- the trouble, though with formal logic, is that it ends up seeing rather sterile
LOL coincidentia oppositorum paradoxical contradictions like loop holes within logic itself as if this constant dualism of polarities are the very building blocks of the universe to appear as both incomplete and yet complete simultaneously in regards to the fact that this principle is the very nature of existence. * Mad Hatter * How deep does the rabbit hole go ?
I am curious to find out what are your convictions now.
This personal videos are my favorite also your stories episodes. Is there a book that you recomend that will help create a system for boxing (martial arts)? I took note on that book you mention for game theory, just wondering your opinion maybe you know a book.
That's not an area of my expertise
About what?
Didn't gobels idea kinda mess up the logicist idea.
I do not know of any "mathematical paradox"! Can someone please enlighten me and give an example of Math contradicting itself.
Well, you have the grandest of all in Godel's incompleteness theorem (not just about math, but any formal system), right?
btw, "paradox" is not the same as "contradiction"
Gregory B. Sadler
Thank you for your Guidance in this matter. I am amazed that I did not know of such important theorem before.
Does the theorem mean that one must abandon all hopes to find a unified theory or an ultimate truth form? (since, You mentioned that it applies to any formal system)
Put in very simple terms, the conclusion of his theory is that no formal system can be entirely consistent and complete at the same time
Gregory B. Sadler
Thank you. I am studying the theorem's proof for now. This is most intriguing.
My favorite mathematics was always probability and statistics
I enjoyed that as well
By "logicism", you could also refer to the reductive program of science-driven philosophy in the last century as "positivism" or "logical empiricism".
You seem to be siding with many philosophers I see saying that the program of positivism died, due to a combination of things that humbled the scientific worldview: Godel's discoveries in logic, the development of quantum mechanics, relativity... In my opinion these examples of theory change gave philosophers cold feet about the positivist program, but that was premature. Science has continued to develop an impressively consilient knowledge-base about the world, of course with frontiers.
Consider that it is actually an example of a argument from ignorance fallacy to claim that science hasn't fully reduced and explained the human condition, therefore it never will. That's a fallacy. I'm rather excited and humbled by the pace that science is explaining the world: evolution, cosmology, anthropology, neuroscience, artificial intelligence, etc. I'd say the positivist program of building a unified worldview based on science is still marching forward, albeit with more informed and adjusted goals from what Russell and Hilbert et al. originally had.
The sexier term for the meta-philosophy that says that philosophy should be driven by and informed by science first is "naturalism". While still being rather loosely clarified, naturalism, seems to carry less of the historical bad after taste of positivism.
Would you call your philosophical move away from logicism as being anti-positivist or anti-naturalist?
"Would you call your philosophical move away from logicism as being anti-positivist or anti-naturalist?" No, I wouldn't. Nor would I see myself as "siding with. . . " I'd say I tried out a common approach in philosophy, found it wanting, and then went on to better approaches, which tend to be poorly served by thinking in terms of categories like "naturalism", "anti-naturalism", etc.
I don't say the program of positivism (which is much broader than logical positivism in the Anglophone world) really died. I suspect it will exercise a perennial attraction, actually. If you want to pursue and align yourself with it, go on ahead. Given my projects, I doubt I'll ever clear the time to want to spend on revisit much of that, so it's great that someone wants to carry that banner as far as it will go. . . .
(Thanks for the lesson on fallacies, and giving me something to "consider")
Lets use some logic:
I like the video. The Algorithm likes me commenting. Therefore I like commenting.
Close enough.
That’s nice