This channel is one of the best channels on the internet. You might be the best teacher I have evert encountered. And I anm a life long learner in my 60s. Thank you.
I’m very grateful that these lectures are online. As a philosophy student and one who would claim to be a philosopher, it is good to have another great teacher.
There is a problem of infinite regress in the way we understand the world, but I think it is in a specific area regarding "description" rather than the way that Sanchez and others seem to put it. I know I may be sounding a bit pompous here in pointing this out. I am not a big philosopher or even claim to be one or aspire to be one, but please bear with me. There is such a beautiful, crafty neatness in the reasoning put forward by Sanchez that such a neatness itself contradicts what Sanchez himself says about knowledge. My argument is the following Let's start with the conclusion that Sanchez makes: "yes, I know that nothing is known" -- which is quite a firmly deterministic end point. So now, here is the contradiction: if he was correct about nothing is known, then to conclude that he knows that "nothing is known", goes against the same conclusion. Note that he is not concluding that "possibly, nothing may be known" or even "there could be a lot more to know" -- those may take us into escape routes out of the self-defeating regression. But he is quite firm in his conclusion that he surely knows that nothing is known. But look at that conclusion again: How did he so clearly avoid infinite regression and say that nothing is known... but then he should not be saying that! Or put it more simply "He can't conclude that nothing is known because he can't know even that by his very same conclusion" This format of the argument is similar to the famous paradox in semantics: "This sentence is false" -- making us go around and around in circles. After all, if we agree that the statement "this sentence is false" is true, then we must then say it is false quite meekly and honestly. But now that when you say it is false, something about that statement is true ... maybe the meaning of the whole statement itself? Then surely, the sentence must be regarded as true again! And there we go like a dog chasing its own tail. Many (all?) paradoxes do have this kind of "infinite regression"--that's why they are appealing as party jokes, and become paradoxical. But frankly, all that is just wordplay. And not really anything of substance. Infinite regressions can easily be cooked up in many situations. Just go to a barbershop in India (I am an Indian so I know Indian barbershops. Not sure about other cultures) Here the barber puts a mirror on the wall in front of the customer and a parallel mirror on the opposite wall. As a child, I was very curious to know where those infinite reflections end... and of course they do not. How much I ever try to shift my head and try to locate where those infinite reflections end, I cant get to the end. So, here is truly an infinite regress. Nothing to worry about. Nothing paradoxical. That is how mirrors work. Some semantic structures can also be contrived to work like those infinite reflections. Like the aforesaid example of a statement, "this statement is false" However, I do agree there are possibilities of serious infinite regressions in several arguments we make. Not in the whole argument, but in one specific part of the argument. I alluded to that understanding of infinite regress in my first sentence of this comment: The way we "describe" can have infinite regress -- and those must be weeded out, else the entire argument itself would fail. Here is an example: Take modeling architecture (and the reason I wrote this elaborately starts here... I am a theoretician in the field of representation of architecture) There is premise in my field that "Here is possibility of a built-environment (architecture) out there to be soon seen built in the world. Now let me describe that in a model I create for me and my collaborators to work on the model, so we can weed out all the issues at the model level before the architecture really comes up in the world" It is a simple premise and quite a pragmatic one. The next part of carrying out those steps, is where infinite regress creeps in: "I see this part of that real world out there. So I need a corresponding part here in the model too, to represent that part" It looks innocent, right? But it is actually regressive. Because someone can peer across the shoulders of that architect doing the modeling and say "Hey, you forgot to represent this other part" ... to which the modeler says "Oh, you are right. Now let me put that part too into the model" After the sincere modeler now models that new part, the chap peering across the shoulder puts one more spanner into the process: "Thank you for putting the part... but, you still have not put this yet another part into the model!" Soon enough, the modeler is regressing between the ingredients of the description in the model, with what he and that sarcastic chap behind him believes are ingredients in the real world. (Sort of a reverse of the "ship of Theseus" problem) This kind of "Divide and conquer" contrivances are seen in many reductionist arguments, and in all of those you do see the problem of infinite regress. It does affect the entire argument, simply because you cannot extricate yourself from the contrived infinite regressions that you yourself created when describing the model. The answer to that? I have a hesistant answer in a paper I had submitted in a conference on computation in architecture titled "The importance of being abstract" (Sabu Francis, eCAADe 2007) -- else this lengthy comment will becomes even more lengthy :-) Thank you for your excellent video. This also explains the motivation behind the software I wrote in architecture modeling ... why it took a different approach completely than what is often done.
I'd consider myself an outsider to philosophy so if I've misunderstood please do forgive me. Surely the very last remark about the impossibility of understanding meaning really just informs us that meaning is not what we may often think it is, but instead meaning just elucidates how things relate to other, typically more general, things. (But then the general things would be derived from specifics). In my view it's as though language has somehow led us astray from what would otherwise be the obvious notion that there is nothing more than conscious experience and we get stuck thinking that we can somehow describe experiences without reference to other experiences.
this argument seems problematic to me because the conclusion that 'knowledge is fiction' is actually a knowledge about 'knowledge'. So it is a fiction (it rest on the 3 first premices that aren't proved) right ? Then according to this argument: 'knowledge doesn't exist' , but it implies this previous sentence to be false, therefore it contradicts itself, right ?
I think I know what is going on here. This argument uses what we use in every argument. Axioms leading to conclusions. So if by the same method we use to know everything we are able to prove that knowledge is fictious then the system we are using to know is probelmatic and self defeating.
Your always wrong, sometimes you are less wrong but your never gonna be right. If ignorance was a playing card, knowledge would be a house of those cards.
@Jacob B @Cani Terrae Skepticism makes a statement about all knowledge, and a statement isn't a statement without justification. So skepticism must justify itself.
Skepticism based on absence of metaphysical certainty; but not by saying so as usual. Banality. The presenter’s video camera will record him every time he wants under the same circumstances. Can those circumstances change? Of course. Then he can’t know whether the camera will record him if the circumstances change. So he knows that he can have absolute knowledge within its context, there is cause and effect in operation everywhere. He just omits half of his experience to sound like he is onto something.
Thank you for showing me Francisco Sanchez! But i have one question. Isn't 'Nothing is reasonable believed' the kind of negative dogmatism Pyrrhonians try to avoid?
@Sam Braham in the context of justification, yeah, I hold to somewhat of a foundationalist approach where I would start with axioms that I can't justify internally, but presumably they have some justification in reality that I simply lack epistemic access to given the nature of my being. broadly speaking though, Daniel has given this "infinite regress argument" in another video as well and it always stipulates "this cannot go on forever." there is an epistemological view called "infinitism" which this begs the question against. and, more broadly, I hold to causal infinitism and the general form of this argument begs the question against that view as well
@@iruleandyoudont9 Well hello, we meet again on the same topic ^^ I think that, if you accept that there is infinite justification that we do not have access of, you inquiry has already failed. It might be true, but since admitting it as true guarantees the failure of your thought process, there's no reason to even consider it. Think of the ethical, axiological and metaphysical discussions where someone suggests a premise and the other denies it instantly because it would lead to nihilism, which is an unacceptable conclusion (just like skepticism). Just imagine if Kant or Mill had considered that maybe there is no such thing as an action being morally good. They would have invalidated their project from the beginning. So yeah, maybe the "It cannot go on forever" part is not obviously true, like "1+1=2" is, but it leads into a dead end. Yeah, maybe the inquiry is doomed from the beginning, but if you identify a path that surely leads to its doom, you should not even consider it. Call this a pragmatical view, if you will.
From my perspective foundationalism validates relativism and religions. As much as it dislikes their justifications for their beliefs. Everyone is on the same boat
This argument contradicts itself. It claims to be a true argument by following a certain form, but it denies that other arguments following the exact same form (therefore not differing from it in any way) are not correct. So either this argument is not correct and there is certain knowledge, or it is correct but can be so by following a certain form, but that means that other arguments following the same form can also be correct, therefore this argument is incorrect. So whether this argument is correct or incorrect, it must be incorrect. In other words, the fact that this argument acknowledges a certain form of proof, necessarily means that other proofs following the same format can also be correct. But if it doesn't allow this form of proof, it doesn't acknowledge its own correctness either.
This channel is one of the best channels on the internet. You might be the best teacher I have evert encountered. And I anm a life long learner in my 60s. Thank you.
I’m very grateful that these lectures are online. As a philosophy student and one who would claim to be a philosopher, it is good to have another great teacher.
Hey I just want to say. I love your channel! You're a great teacher and I learn a lot from your channel! Keep up the great work
I'm so confused but I'm new to this channel and subject matter. Thank you for making this interesting. You have a student in me.
There is a problem of infinite regress in the way we understand the world, but I think it is in a specific area regarding "description" rather than the way that Sanchez and others seem to put it. I know I may be sounding a bit pompous here in pointing this out. I am not a big philosopher or even claim to be one or aspire to be one, but please bear with me.
There is such a beautiful, crafty neatness in the reasoning put forward by Sanchez that such a neatness itself contradicts what Sanchez himself says about knowledge. My argument is the following
Let's start with the conclusion that Sanchez makes: "yes, I know that nothing is known" -- which is quite a firmly deterministic end point. So now, here is the contradiction: if he was correct about nothing is known, then to conclude that he knows that "nothing is known", goes against the same conclusion. Note that he is not concluding that "possibly, nothing may be known" or even "there could be a lot more to know" -- those may take us into escape routes out of the self-defeating regression.
But he is quite firm in his conclusion that he surely knows that nothing is known. But look at that conclusion again: How did he so clearly avoid infinite regression and say that nothing is known... but then he should not be saying that! Or put it more simply "He can't conclude that nothing is known because he can't know even that by his very same conclusion"
This format of the argument is similar to the famous paradox in semantics: "This sentence is false" -- making us go around and around in circles. After all, if we agree that the statement "this sentence is false" is true, then we must then say it is false quite meekly and honestly. But now that when you say it is false, something about that statement is true ... maybe the meaning of the whole statement itself? Then surely, the sentence must be regarded as true again! And there we go like a dog chasing its own tail.
Many (all?) paradoxes do have this kind of "infinite regression"--that's why they are appealing as party jokes, and become paradoxical. But frankly, all that is just wordplay. And not really anything of substance.
Infinite regressions can easily be cooked up in many situations. Just go to a barbershop in India (I am an Indian so I know Indian barbershops. Not sure about other cultures)
Here the barber puts a mirror on the wall in front of the customer and a parallel mirror on the opposite wall. As a child, I was very curious to know where those infinite reflections end... and of course they do not. How much I ever try to shift my head and try to locate where those infinite reflections end, I cant get to the end.
So, here is truly an infinite regress. Nothing to worry about. Nothing paradoxical. That is how mirrors work. Some semantic structures can also be contrived to work like those infinite reflections. Like the aforesaid example of a statement, "this statement is false"
However, I do agree there are possibilities of serious infinite regressions in several arguments we make. Not in the whole argument, but in one specific part of the argument. I alluded to that understanding of infinite regress in my first sentence of this comment: The way we "describe" can have infinite regress -- and those must be weeded out, else the entire argument itself would fail.
Here is an example: Take modeling architecture (and the reason I wrote this elaborately starts here... I am a theoretician in the field of representation of architecture) There is premise in my field that "Here is possibility of a built-environment (architecture) out there to be soon seen built in the world. Now let me describe that in a model I create for me and my collaborators to work on the model, so we can weed out all the issues at the model level before the architecture really comes up in the world"
It is a simple premise and quite a pragmatic one.
The next part of carrying out those steps, is where infinite regress creeps in: "I see this part of that real world out there. So I need a corresponding part here in the model too, to represent that part"
It looks innocent, right? But it is actually regressive.
Because someone can peer across the shoulders of that architect doing the modeling and say "Hey, you forgot to represent this other part" ... to which the modeler says "Oh, you are right. Now let me put that part too into the model"
After the sincere modeler now models that new part, the chap peering across the shoulder puts one more spanner into the process: "Thank you for putting the part... but, you still have not put this yet another part into the model!"
Soon enough, the modeler is regressing between the ingredients of the description in the model, with what he and that sarcastic chap behind him believes are ingredients in the real world. (Sort of a reverse of the "ship of Theseus" problem)
This kind of "Divide and conquer" contrivances are seen in many reductionist arguments, and in all of those you do see the problem of infinite regress. It does affect the entire argument, simply because you cannot extricate yourself from the contrived infinite regressions that you yourself created when describing the model.
The answer to that? I have a hesistant answer in a paper I had submitted in a conference on computation in architecture titled "The importance of being abstract" (Sabu Francis, eCAADe 2007) -- else this lengthy comment will becomes even more lengthy :-) Thank you for your excellent video. This also explains the motivation behind the software I wrote in architecture modeling ... why it took a different approach completely than what is often done.
really interesting, I see how clear the contradiction is in the conclusion
I'd consider myself an outsider to philosophy so if I've misunderstood please do forgive me. Surely the very last remark about the impossibility of understanding meaning really just informs us that meaning is not what we may often think it is, but instead meaning just elucidates how things relate to other, typically more general, things. (But then the general things would be derived from specifics).
In my view it's as though language has somehow led us astray from what would otherwise be the obvious notion that there is nothing more than conscious experience and we get stuck thinking that we can somehow describe experiences without reference to other experiences.
"Nothing is known" sounds to me like a performative contradiction.
Eh... who knows?
It's supposed to be silly
Can you please do a video explaining Kant’s political philosophy/reviewing Ripstein’s book “Force and Freedom”?
i just cant take this comment serious
Is your life long enough for it to matter?
Thank you man
this argument seems problematic to me because the conclusion that 'knowledge is fiction' is actually a knowledge about 'knowledge'. So it is a fiction (it rest on the 3 first premices that aren't proved) right ? Then according to this argument: 'knowledge doesn't exist' , but it implies this previous sentence to be false, therefore it contradicts itself, right ?
I think I know what is going on here. This argument uses what we use in every argument. Axioms leading to conclusions. So if by the same method we use to know everything we are able to prove that knowledge is fictious then the system we are using to know is probelmatic and self defeating.
Your always wrong, sometimes you are less wrong but your never gonna be right.
If ignorance was a playing card, knowledge would be a house of those cards.
@@iordanneDiogeneslucas "Your always wrong" the I guess you're wrong about that too?
Mulțumesc=Thank you! In Romania language.
So skepticism is like a child on a never-ending question-mission? :)
@Language and Programming Channel how do we justify skepticism then?
@@samuelchan3920 Easy, we don't. That's why it's the more justifiable!
@Jacob B @Cani Terrae Skepticism makes a statement about all knowledge, and a statement isn't a statement without justification. So skepticism must justify itself.
so crucial
Interesting how Derrida seems to make the same argument as Sanches when arguing for the impossibility of stable meaning.
ilovemypiano I agree! I taught Derrida in just that way in a seminar years ago.
Skepticism based on absence of metaphysical certainty; but not by saying so as usual. Banality. The presenter’s video camera will record him every time he wants under the same circumstances. Can those circumstances change? Of course. Then he can’t know whether the camera will record him if the circumstances change. So he knows that he can have absolute knowledge within its context, there is cause and effect in operation everywhere. He just omits half of his experience to sound like he is onto something.
Thank you for showing me Francisco Sanchez! But i have one question. Isn't 'Nothing is reasonable believed' the kind of negative dogmatism Pyrrhonians try to avoid?
It’s a good thing he and everyone else doesn’t know what he’s saying, or we’d be in big trouble.
I seriously don't understand how you can just assert as a premise "It cannot go on forever."
@Sam Braham in the context of justification, yeah, I hold to somewhat of a foundationalist approach where I would start with axioms that I can't justify internally, but presumably they have some justification in reality that I simply lack epistemic access to given the nature of my being. broadly speaking though, Daniel has given this "infinite regress argument" in another video as well and it always stipulates "this cannot go on forever." there is an epistemological view called "infinitism" which this begs the question against. and, more broadly, I hold to causal infinitism and the general form of this argument begs the question against that view as well
@@iruleandyoudont9 Well hello, we meet again on the same topic ^^
I think that, if you accept that there is infinite justification that we do not have access of, you inquiry has already failed. It might be true, but since admitting it as true guarantees the failure of your thought process, there's no reason to even consider it. Think of the ethical, axiological and metaphysical discussions where someone suggests a premise and the other denies it instantly because it would lead to nihilism, which is an unacceptable conclusion (just like skepticism). Just imagine if Kant or Mill had considered that maybe there is no such thing as an action being morally good. They would have invalidated their project from the beginning.
So yeah, maybe the "It cannot go on forever" part is not obviously true, like "1+1=2" is, but it leads into a dead end. Yeah, maybe the inquiry is doomed from the beginning, but if you identify a path that surely leads to its doom, you should not even consider it. Call this a pragmatical view, if you will.
@@andreiparaschiv9915 neither nihilism nor skepticism should be viewed as "unacceptable." that's just philosophically cowardly in my view
@Language and Programming Channel infinite regress has to go on forever or else it's not infinite regress
Does this mean that trying to be rational is ultimately irrational... thus all rationality and logic is meaningless?
From my perspective foundationalism validates relativism and religions. As much as it dislikes their justifications for their beliefs. Everyone is on the same boat
This argument contradicts itself. It claims to be a true argument by following a certain form, but it denies that other arguments following the exact same form (therefore not differing from it in any way) are not correct. So either this argument is not correct and there is certain knowledge, or it is correct but can be so by following a certain form, but that means that other arguments following the same form can also be correct, therefore this argument is incorrect. So whether this argument is correct or incorrect, it must be incorrect.
In other words, the fact that this argument acknowledges a certain form of proof, necessarily means that other proofs following the same format can also be correct. But if it doesn't allow this form of proof, it doesn't acknowledge its own correctness either.
This was incredible helpfull but in another way than you might expect :)
@@cutecats1368 In what way was it helpful?
Infinite regress proves Islamic monotheism and reject trinity as mathamatically onl one eternal value with highest number possible at any given time
infinite regress does not prove Islamic monotheism because infinite regress states that there isn't a beginning or "cause of all causes"