The Ideas of Quine (1977)
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 3 ноя 2015
- Willard Van Orman Quine of Harvard stands as one of the modern world’s most eminent philosophers. In this rare interview conducted by world-renowned author and professor Bryan Magee, Quine discusses his earlier view of himself as a mathematical logician, and his later interest in philosophy in a more general sense-specifically, regarding metaphysics and the philosophy of language.
Brian Magee Rest In Peace. I googled his name and read that he died yesterday. His program is the only one of its kind. Explaining deep philosophical concepts and problems to the layperson.
Extraordinary how meticously and precise Quine formulates his answers, and how Magee 'translates' them into simple language. They supplement each other in this interview perfectly.
Two dogmas of empiricism is maybe the best or certainty one of the best philosophical essays ever written. It’s just beautiful from any objective viewpoint-organization, flow, the structure of the argument, it’s cogency, and it’s rhetorical congeniality.
Funny that this sort of TV show - in depth, not patronising to the audience, genuinely informative - has almost disappeared from our screens, and is now the preserve of independent content makers on RUclips and podcasting platforms. There's clearly still a massive appetite for this sort of thing, but TV producers seem to think that modern audiences are morons with tiny attention spans. I recently watched a series on the BBC called 'Geniuses of the Modern World', about the ideas and impact of Marx, Freud and Nietzsch, which was quite interesting, but it was mainly vapid and relied on weird visual metaphors and pointless shots of the presenter travelling around on trains. I'd have much rather watched an expert on those topics - or a panel of experts- just sit and talk about them for an hour. I'm sure I would have learned a great deal more.
There is a dumbing down of general TV as you say. I can see it is the case of the Italian TV as well.
Look up Closer to Truth with Robert Lawrence Kuhn
Indeed. Interesting interviews like these are available in now days, however, not in the very high standard and discussion way as Magee proposed. Detail is state on those wonderful Magee's interviews.
In Our Time on Radio 4 is what you are looking for.
You're right in almost every respect, but I wouldn't call it massive - Vevo 'things' have views in billions. This has 50k, and comment once in a few months on average. I find the claim that abstract are not mental very disputable by the way. Isn't 'abstraction' a mental concept in the first place?
I've been an admirer of Quine for decades and it intuitively fits with my career as a behavioral therapist.
Quine may be brilliant logician, but he is completely wrong when he makes an analogy between unobservable from the outside, small particles, and directly observable from the first-person perspective processes like, emotions, thoughts, decision-making and so on. His commitment to a across the board physicalism seriously jeopardize his ability to be visionary. It is unfortunate that such great mind is lost for developing a serious theory of consciousness. Impoverished physicalist view is not the way to go
@@elenabalyberdina2393 You're imputing to Quine statements he does not make.
WVO Quine was an extraordinary philosopher. I am reading his essay: "Identity, ostension and hypostasis" and it is simply amazing.
There's a lot packed in there. Not to mention Leibnitz' 3 properties (reflexive, symmetrical, and transitive) for definitively identifying identity.
The fact that a conversation of this kind would be unthinkable on legacy media today speaks volumes of the debasement of mainstream culture.
You should really check the TV listings for the period in question before you make such assertions. This episode of “Men of Ideas” was first broadcast in the graveyard slot on BBC2 on 16 March 1978 - 11.25pm, to be precise - shortly after an appalling “comedy” film starring Zero Mostel, and, before that, table tennis - and this is on the BBC’s “culture” channel!
Even then, programming, like this, which met the BBC’s public service remit was perfunctorily shunted into the dark corners of the schedule where nobody had to watch it.
If you go on to look at the programming on offer on the “lower brow” channels on that day, you’ll be mortified by the stupefying banalities served up in the name of entertainment that were far worse than the light broadcasting we’re offered today.
This programme was anything but mainstream, and things haven’t really changed as much as you think they have.
@@markofsaltburn Historical accuracy and the-sky-is-falling narratives about cultural decay are in conflict. You'll find people who argue that popular music has fallen into a bad place since the 1960's, when artists like Bob Dylan were mainstream. Of course they always obscure the fact that even at Dylan's height of popularity, his songs hardly charted.
In 1966, only one of his songs made the end-of-year hot 100, all the way down at #74. Above him you'll find fifty or so artists who are just as derivative as anything you can point to today on the charts. And it's not like we can't point to contemporary artists of value like Kanye West, Radiohead, Kendrick Lamar, Bjork, etc., all of whom chart consistently.
People would have you believe that the average person in the late 20th century was consuming more substantive media than the average person now. The truth is that it is at least equal, but more than likely better today.
@@MichaelJimenez416 I bet that 90 pct of the 73 entries above Dylan were songs about going out for vanilla ice cream with your sweetheart or failed attempts to start a new dance craze like "Do the pogo stick"
The replies below are excellent, and I’ll add one other consideration: in the 1970’s, all the remaining truly significant philosophers were in their twilights.
Every idiot blames the media.
Yet, here it is. You finally made it. And you're late. It's not the media's fault, Idiot. Are they supposed to do everything for you?
Magee does a great job here!
Magee always does a great job no matter who is sitting opposite. The breadth and depth of his understanding is awesome.
Oh my god where has Quine been all my life
Thanks, for the subtitles.
+Cauim Ferreira Thanks for noticing the effort!
+mehranshargh "effort"
Ian O'Reilly ???
@@GROMINBLX well, he noticed the "effort."
Farewell, Bryan Magee. The man who made philosophy accessible to many, many of us. I believe his contribution to human thought is immense- because he was the first to provide the link between the academics and the public. That was underestimated in importance in his lifetime.
Omg it's the actual guy
Quine on Quine
This is an amazing intro to Quine's philosophy - so many thanks for uploading!
Magee asked the right question refuting physicalism when he asked about the justification of abstract objects. That's the main weakness of materialism.
That's particular brand of materialism that Quine subscribed to. Not all physicalists accept the Quine-Putnam indispensability thesis.
This channel is a treasure trove. Thank you.
Excellent interview
They got straight to the point, in this program.
A true trailblazer, and my second favorite philosopher, right after Donald Davidson. Thank you for making this content available.
Quite perhaps greatest philosopher of 20th century
Quine is one of the greatest philosophers of all times and certainly was a central figure in the philosophy of language and mathematical logic. Some poor comments below suggests Quine had difficulty or "caught off" guard. He, Quine, pauses to explain his views in none technical terms so that the layman can understand. Remember this was a BBC broadcast.
@@franc6196 ask Einstein to teach general relativity to a lay man. He was famously an uninspired teacher that could not teach well. But he clearly understands.
@@franc6196 if that were the case, then all theoretical physicists would be successful at television programs or podcasts talking about theoretical physics for laymen. This is not the case, so I think you may be mistaken.
Excellent
What a question 25:32 made Quine put all his knowledge!
RIP Bryan
A fictionalist account of numbers might have made a nice addition to this splendid chat.
It’s amazing what a RUclips search for “The Mighty Boosh” can throw up.
What qualifies as psuedoquestion should be because an answer is inconceivable, but only if the one bringing up the question does not truly seek an answer.
I miss this sort of epistemological pushing of philosophical boundaries. We've accepted ignorance in favor of general comfort in what we already know.
‘Twas ever thus. Human nature remains sadly constant.
So Quine and I believe just about all of the same things. I've been studying him off and on for 8 years. The one aspect we may disagree is free will. I believe in probabilistic determinism. Meaning we are determined by probability rather than 100% free or determined. Conditional probability web of the will.
Human Evolution Absolute free will is a holdover from Dualism. Free will is bound by its context. Just as I cannot choose to release myself from the bonds of gravity and fly, since I have no means of doing so, I cannot think in a way incompatible with my own mental architecture. Schopenhauer I believe said that man can do what he wants, but cannot want what he wants, just as Quine essentially said here.
@@timhaldane7588 This is a very insightful quote from Schopenhauer that does elegantly and concisely strike a blow at the idea of absolute free will, such as it sometimes appears for example in Existentialist philosophy. Do you happen to know where I can find the original passage?
@@henriquemendes7938 "Man can do as he wills but cannot will as he wills." - On the Freedom of the Will, (1839)
The meanings of life.
I feel like Quine's point about atoms being basically non-physical entities is no great justification for believing that numbers are abstract objects.
I was surprised to hear Quine's defense of the natural sciences and materialism. He famously said in Two Dogmas of Empiricism "... For my part I do, qua lay physicist, believe in physical objects and not in Homer's gods; and I consider it a scientific error to believe otherwise. But in point of epistemological footing, the physical objects and the gods differ only in degree and not in kind. Both sorts of entities enter our conceptions only as cultural posits." I haven't read much more but there seems to be an inherent tension in trying to maintain both of these conceptions.
Also they could have explored how the positions he has on the problem of meaning don't apply to the sciences.
Quine was a naturalist (see his work on naturalised epistemology) and an empiricist (''I am interested in the flow of evidence from the triggering of the senses to the pronouncements of science. . . . It is these epistemological concerns. . . .that motivate my speculations''.
His defense of the primacy of the natural sciences should not be surprising.
In relation to the quote you posted above, I would recommend reading more about the synthetic-analytic distinction that Quine argued against in 'Two Dogmas...', as well as his holistic theory of meaning that he developed as an alternative to the position adopted by the logical positivists.
@@MontyCantsin5 your "great philosopher" resorts to technicalities of complex concepts he formulated to substantiate his philosophy. No different from die hard idealist like Hegel.
@@czarquetzal8344: No idea where you got the great philosopher quote from but it certainly wasn't me who mentioned it.
Did you have something useful you wanted to add to the discussion or did you in fact mean to type out a load of meaningless drivel?
Nicely put rejection of (Cartesian) dualism, but note the subtle details.
Now, the guy making the interview, he's the real philosopher here.
The froth of words, of which we are so proud, and which we designate as consciousness, is, from at least Freud onwards, so obviously the least of us, that the whole issue of minds, or dualism is a non-runner. When the entire brain process that maps to the production of the previos sentence is a matter of public knowledge, then we will know that this debate is over.
Further to the below McGee should have pushed Quine on the connection between observables and sense qualia.
I would go so far as to say that computationalism is the animism of the 21st century!
What do you mean by that?
This is such a BS nonsensical statement. But what's even worse is that it retards any furher discussion. The best thing about statements such as this is that it will broadcasts to almost anyone (who isn't of the same mentality as the OP) that there is no sense in which engaging in further discussion (about the topics that the statement at first glance seems to be about) will lead to anything good.
Bryan caught Quinne off guard! at 25.49, he was not able to answer the difficult question out to him. Magee was just simply brilliant in a very innocuous way!
He wasn't caught off guard my friend. The question McGee asks him is a simple and obvious question which arrives very quickly in consideration of these matters. Quine has written and thought at length about them. He has discussed them since his youth with intellectual giants such as Bertrand Russell, Kurt Godel and Alfred Tarski!
This question would not have surprised him in the slightest. He was simply pausing to formulate a suitable expression
At least Quine is clever enough to articulate the limits of his ability to think as well as the direction of his thought. His mentor C.I. Lewis had a fuller understanding, as did his "mentors," including William James and most notably, Charles Sanders Peirce. But of course, Quine's not totally lost. He at least knows where he is and where he's going.
"There are abstract ideas which exist.". How can an analytic philosopher say such a thing ?
all analytic philosophers are not morons, that's all. Some have heard about Hegel.
or Marx. Real abstractions, for instance, never heard of?
There are various analytic philosophers who hold that view, among them Frege, Church, Russell, Ayer, Carnap and others. Simply put, the idea is as follows: the abstract entities are such that if they didn't exist, we cannot explain in virtue of which some of our language can works at the level of semantics. Take, for instance, numbers and propositions. Although Quine himself didn't accept propositions (he pretty much rest on the idea that sentences can do all the extensional work that propositions are supposed to do), he nevertheless regarded abstract entities such as sentences and numbers are man-made things which help to organize part of the referential work in our use of singular terms and descriptions. So one could hold, as Quine did, that abstract entities do in fact exist, but that they are no independent neither of human creation of them nor of their organizational utility for the system of belief (which Quine regarded as the whole fabric of human knowledge). This is a naturalistic stance towards abstract entities.
There are others who took a more primitive approach to the ontology of abstract entities, the most notably being Frege and Carnap.
How can anybody so brilliant get it all so wrong? This we can ask of so many modern thinkers.
Militant Agnostic care to illuminate? You must be far more brilliant of you can claim that he must be wrong.
Militant Agnostic: Do enlighten us.
Consciousness is fundamental. If the scientific community would have been open to that statement, we would have progressed so much further today. But they rather stick to their reductionistic (and in my opinion odd) belief that consciousness is just a byproduct of the brain, while there have been tremendous undeniable indications it isn't. Our brain doesn't produce consciousness. It anchors and conditions consciousness, which is the unified matrix where the whole universe is woven into.
Kris C I'm not sure where you're getting that from, but as far as its possible to tell, consciousness IS a product of the brain, and any neuroscientist (who are clearly the most qualified people to speak on the subject) will tell you that. Yes there's the hard problem of consciousness, and science will probably never solve it, but that doesn't rell you anything useful about the nature of consciousness. There's no good reason to think that consciousness is some sort of immaterial thing or universal force which is 'anchored' by brains. You're sounding suspiciously like Deepak Chopra.
If you truely know this. Why don't you have a Nobel prize? Science deals in what can be proven. Consciousness clearly arises from the brain because when we operate on it people lose parts of their conscious experience.
I agree with Kris C. it's inconceivable that consciousness could come from brain material. even if we could narrow down brain activity down to a single process and call that consciousness, the question would still remain: how does it work? this is something that the brain matter will never be able to explain. therefore, consciousness must come from a metaphysical reality.
@@alexpeek8760 you do realise you just said something to the effect of "this can't be explained, so here's an explanation", don't you? The fact that there is no current scientific explanation, or even the fact that the cause of conscious experience may always be beyond our understanding, doesn't mean we can just make up whatever nonsense we like. The only facts of the matter that can be rationally determined is that consciousness does not seem to exist without brains, and that brain activity is directly linked to mental states. The idea that consciousness is somehow caused by extra-material phenomena is unfalsifiable, untestable, and therefore useless as an explanation.
Alex Peek you're using the word metaphysical incorrectly.
"Intersubjectivity of the natural sciences." Take that you peddlers of everything being subjective and relative.
BDBS I don't think you understand what intersubjectivity means...
Intersubjectivity of the natural sciences can be consistent in a relative and subjective system. Just use something like Frege’s gedanke, everyone has possible acces to certain sources and are relative to them, and as they are subjects they alter the intersubjective and shape them accordingly.
Excuse me for my english.
@@fluxpistol3608 What does intersubjectivity mean? I think OP was saying intersubjectivity is closer to objectivity than subjectivity
27:30 Magee makes a naive and nonphysical assumption if "our eyes were small enough to see atoms". How would a biological eye on the length scale of an angstrom exist. And at such length scales, the wavelength of photons in the visible light spectrum is bigger compared to the particle that wouldn't be able to in the retina and register as anything resembling color. Much like how our eyes would have to be 13 ft wide too "see" radio waves. Even more importantly, that the Heisenberg indeterminacy principle disallow a particle's position and momentum to be observed or known the first place!
Pretty awesome that Quine instantly retorted with those very same corrections. And then Magee backs off immediately after that, he's clearly not a philosopher of science for sure.
Victor P. You’re right, it’s not a useful statement. But we have to understand what he was trying to raise: the difference in how physical particles and mathematical objects are unobservable.
Even throwing away the possibility to see physical particles, these are somehow (causally) related to the senses (like vision). We can’t say the same about mathematical objects.
Also, it is more basic to assume that particles have material existence (they exist independently of us, as things in the world, interacting with one another). But we can’t say this about mathematical objects either.
He had to quickly say something that sum up these two points (and maybe some other). Unhappily that was what came out.
@@rodrigosilveira2525 I agree. I wish this was pursued further. In some sense, quantum field are in some sense observable, but are also quite abstract and axiomatic, and it would be interesting to carve out the difference between them and other abstract mathematical entities.
You win a cookie. Well done.
Despite its clumsiness, it's obvious the point that Magee was trying to make.
Well he is not really a materialist in min 8 he said that there are also abstract objecta from Mathematics, it is not compatible with a physicalist world view.
16:18
Wow
Are you me!?
1:38 Philosophy
Knowledge
Nature
System of The World
I thought Quine was weak in his attempt to argue that numbers existed in the same sense elementary particles existed. I don't think if there were no brains to create the concept of numbers, numbers would not exist. But sub-atomic particles would still exist.
I disagree. It seems common sense that without brains things (plural) would exist, but with the existence of brains comes the interest, and ability to differentiate or count them, and hence numbers. Numbers for me are brain tools. But that's just a starting point for a lot of philosophical argument, I do realise that.
I disagree. I think that if there were no brains things (plural) would exist, but with brains come the interest in counting or differentiating them, hence numbers. For me numbers are brain tools. But I understand this is just a starting point for a lot of philosophical argument.
If and only if (and only so long as) the inclusion of an abstract (non sense-perceptible) entity A in ones ontology is essential to ones non-contradictory identification of an observable phenomenon P should one assert that A exists. Historically and currently, physicists' assertions of the truth of their identifications of certain facts or events concerning sense-perceptible entities have committed them (wittingly or unwittingly) both to the existence of photons or electromagnetic waves and to the existence of numbers or sets.
You seem to believe that numbers could exist only if there were a being capable of creating a concept of numbers. Another person might believe that the natural world could exist only if there were a (supernatural) being capable of creating a concept of the natural world. I reject both versions of creationism. Furthermore, from the perspective of mathematical physics, I do (as did Quine) consider my ontology to be tentative. However, I also consider numbers far less likely than photons to ever be excised from my ontology by Ockham's razor.
@@KennisonDF Numbers and elementary particles are elements in the set of concepts. The set of concepts and its members have been created by our brains.
I maintain there is a distinction between elements in the set of concepts. The distinction is that some of those elements refer to objects that have a material existence outside of our brains and some don't. The material existence of a conceptual element would be determined by empirical investigation designed to demonstrate material existence. The concept of number refers to something that doesn't have a material existence outside our brains. the concept of an elementary particle refers to something that does have a material existence outside our brains.
Your ontology is another immaterial concept that would not exist without you.
@@jjjccc728 This is factually untrue. For there to be meaning, there has to be distinction. For there to be distinction, there has to be plurality. This necessitates some kind of numbering inherent in the universe, else everything would be One.
Here is a very simple proof that numbers had to appear somewhere in Porphyry's tree long before brains appeared. At the very beginning, in fact.
What was his views on Wittgenstein I wonder
Not too too high. Though he's indebted to early Witt.
25.45....A stop sign!
Make an app that sounds an alarm okay?? For everyone important that knows what I am talking about. Make a system that sounds the red alert.
Neil peart's really smart
It bothers me that Quine didn't seem to get past how it is that activities in the brains of humans gives rise to feelings, thoughts, etc. and not the activities in the nervous systems of other creatures. I hope that I am wrong on this!
@25:30 - a no no to any materialist speaking on the subject - Never give reference to abstract entities
I encourage you to read Quine's "On What There Is" and Quine's "Ontological Relativity" where he gives arguments for his ability to refer to these abstract entities without granting them ontological status.
The issue with Quine and the Logical Positivists was that they assumed that metaphysical reality/realities don't exist...Hence, what is it that wills?
Quine said he is a physicalist as opposed to an idealist. Hence, will is exerted by a physical being. A physical being is the what.
9:22 rejection of dualism
It’s surprising that Quine has such difficulty explaining his view on the existence of numbers. Why would he not simply say that numbers don’t exist because they express an organizing principle, a systematic description of the physical world.
He must have been a riot at party's back in the day
At least he knows how to spell the plural of "party". (It's "parties", not "party's".)
I believe it's "parti"
Ah yes, parti
Another "gotcha" moment at 25:30. Uh-uh...uh, uh-uh-uh, uh... Ok, well numbers are real objects but we can't count them because we have no minds.
Away from names and their fame as genius, Quine here does not attract any attention to be a genius! He could not express himself well. It seems that he is a genius man for his written mode of expression rather than spoken mode of language.
Quine's comment about preserving "the closed character of the system of the physical world" betrays a physicalist dogmatism for which there is no foundation. This video makes it clear that physicalism is based on nothing more than what people want to believe. He is clearly at a loss concerning the fact that science has nothing to say about why conscious experience doesn't in any way resemble what we know about the physical world.
Contrary to what he says, the fact that we can't observe experiences from the outside does, in fact, distinguish them from physical phenomena. Science has no way for accounting for subjective properties belonging to physical objects, nor can it explain any of the other properties observable in consciousness. There's no lack of evidence for the unsustainability of the physicalists' claims; there's just a lack of willingness to accept what the evidence is telling them.
"the fact that we can't observe experiences from the outside does, in fact, distinguish them from physical phenomena. Science has no way for accounting for subjective properties belonging to physical objects" - I think this is false.
To be a physicalist is not to claim consciousness does not exist. Almost everybody admits the existence of consciousness. To be a physicalist is merely to be a naturalist with respect to consciousness, i.e., one does not need any other stuff (in principle) to account consciousness beyond science.
There is a further question as to whether science can explain consciousness in the same way it has explained ontologically reduced phenomena (i.e., physically abstracted) such as motion. I believe this is not the case - consciousness appears to be outside the realm of conventional scientific explanation. However I would not go so far as to say this is impossible, and I would suggest this is the rational thing to do! Why should we put all of our eggs in one basket... Everybody nowadays operates on confidence intervals...
I.e., if Chalmers was right, then there really is a hard problem and an easy problem of consciousness. But that distinction is up for scrutiny and will have to stand the test of the next 50+ years of neuroscience.
For logical reasons, I think Chalmer's distinction is apt... To me, that does not necessitate that science *fails to account for* consciousness, but merely that consciousness is a feature of the world more fundamental than accessible by human language. I.e., consciousness is entirely compatible with the world-view of the physicalist, the physicalist just states that we may or may not understand how consciousness arises from natural phenomena.
Bryan keep going on about this non issue of "mind-body". But I guess it appeals to the religious masses.
Many who believe there is a real "hard problem" inherent in rejection of the mind-body dichotomy characterize themselves as non-religious, but they are mystics nonetheless.
I think Quine's genius is in his understanding and explanation of logic, mostly the predicate
logic of Frege and Russell.. So he can really only discuss the logic of the arguments for or against something rather than the common sense arguments for or against something. Perhaps this is why his common sense discussions do not come off so well.
I wonder why Quine thought the question 'what is there' to be the most general question one can ask.
Isn't the more general and the more pressing question 'what is it'?
Isn't it essence metaphysicians are concerned with over and above whether or not this or that thing exists?
You need to know what there is before knowing what it is. This is why ontology comes first.
+Wilde0603 To a certain degree. But couldn't we just as well say that we can only ask 'what is there' in a context in which we have previous knowledge of what there is, such as words, existence, etc?
Granted that what there is is all there is, it seems like the answer to 'what there is' is somewhat obvious. As Quine might say, 'everything'.
The more interesting question seems to be 'what is it', since it is the question that actually preoccupies our search for knowledge about real things.
would you not answer the second question with the answer to the first?
Why can't he just simply say that philosophy is that which describes science but is more fundamental than physics?
"that philosophy is that which describes science" - philosophy is exactly the opposite, in its true sense. Read Aristotle metaphysics
Ever heard of philosophy of science? You don't think that it is possible that it might describe science? I don't consider the thoughts of a man who lived thousands of years ago to be a viable candidate to compete with modern day thoughts.
Science can provide Man with knowledge of the world around him, but cannot endow him with wisdom or a love thereof. One would need to invoke the transcendental for that, and at that point, they have gone beyond physics in their thinking. Your dismissal of the ancients is folly in the extreme. I think it was Chesterton who said on modern thought:- "It is an attempt to crush a rational opponent not by reason but by some mystery of superiority, by hinting that one is specially up to date or particularly ‘in the know."
So can you define what you refer to as "wisdom or a love thereof"? It sounds like some sort of mystical or imaginary concepts as you explained it so far. Also what is the transcendental? If you are so sure that greek philosophers can teach me something, then go ahead and give me an example. I would be surprised.
"wisdom or a love thereof" I'm referring to the English translation of the Greek word Philosophia. As for Greeks teaching you something, well, what does a great mind like yours need enlightening on?
This american philosopher has not read Kant or it seems he didn´t.
... or maybe he read Kant more critically and achieved a greater understanding of Kant's writings than did Kant's sycophants or Kant himself.
@@KennisonDF wow
It's possible that he didn't. A lot of early 20th century analytic philosophers didn't read Kant and ended up providing insights very similar to Kant's without knowing that Kant got there way before them.
Quine speaks in trouble
why does he stutter so much?
questions can be framed with words he might not want to use. one must be very careful not to create ambiguity
I didn’t really notice it like that, I was hearing them as thought breaks to be precise
Carefully choosing his words so the carnality of the viewer while at home eating a Libbyland TV dinner may apprehend, bridge the gap to his intellect. However, in spite of the obvious dumbing down by Quine, 40 years later, in our pseudo age of higher learning, still manages to evade the intellect.
Its called thinking while talking. I do that a lot lol
Chomsky? Buuwahahahaha that is rich...
No matter what you think of Chomsky’s politics, you have to acknowledge the sheer brilliance of his early work as a linguist. He revolutionized the field in his twenties and continues to be the most important living figure in the discipline. Almost everything that has been done in linguistics since the 1950s has had to acknowledge him, either by building on or critiquing some aspect of his work.
Science killed epistemology as a branch of philosophy
Not at all. Can the findings of science be trusted? That's what epistemology is about.
@@robsonalmeida5045 what method would you use to determine that? Philosophical word salad? Not even Hume, Popper, or Kant reached the endgame of that inquiry.
@@manuelmanuel9248 Because they never found an answer, does that mean epistemology is dead? Even if we don't get nowhere else with epistemology, the skepticism of how to properly get to the thruth will remain
@@robsonalmeida5045 perpetual skepticism without results is like sex without orgasm.
Yes and no. Epistemology naturalized is a natural extension of the progress of science. However, internalism remains the highest standard of justification and science has to depend on some internalist standard to be viable.
There is no philosophical “investigation”. Just word salad.
You've dogmatically fallen prey to verificationism and a pretty unsophisticated brand of logical empiricism.
@@alwynraynott7303 try flying on an a airplane that is not empirically investigated but rather “philosophically” investigated. It will be a short flight.
Quine relegates philosophy to be the slave of science.
And all the silly materialists rejoice!
Consumers galore!
Quine was a ontological relativistic. Complete wrong position.
Quine talks in circles around the question of free will. Another big head bites the dust.
How is he talking in circles?
Oh God, what utter nonsense. Quantum Physics my dear boy...
Quine is certainly aware of quantum physics... he even mentions elementary particles in the discussion.