Meaning: Reference, mind, language and their Equivalence in relation to mental states. Compartmentalizing events with perception, semantic expression/ prejudice and intuition. Excellent discussion on externalism thank you all very much.
Happy to say I took a class from Burge. Everyday you'd start out thinking you could hang. And every class end the good students came out of it not sure what happened. If you wanted to have someone speak over your head, he's the one. He would get there eventually, just not so quickly. But when you are done, you begin to worry if you are smart enough to understand what he said. Makes me feel like jello just thinking about it
This needed to be higher quality. Those are huge philosophers in contemporary thought which simple TikTok video is significantly much better resolution. I.e. quite ironic...
I'm a bit new to contemporary analytic philosophy, and therefore confused - externalism seems to be an idea in both the philosophy of mind and in epistemology, and I don't see how they're related. In the phil of minds, externalism seems to refer to how mental contents and linguistic statements get their meaning. So, for instance, to meaningfully say "I served in vietnam," do I need to actually have been a soldier, or is it sufficient to hallucinate the war? Externalism in epistemology seems to be a position about how to assess the truth value of various propositions, and thereby gain knowledge. So, for instance, do I need to view A cause B in order to know they have a causal relation, or could I establish this kind of truth through deductive, or a priori reasoning? Are these two kinds of externalism really distinct? Does mental externalism entail the epistemic variety, or can they vary independently?
Seven years late, but here's an answer for whoever's reading: even for an externalist about meaning, to meaningfully say "I served in Vietnam", one need not have served or have hallucinated doing so, as you might well just have meaningfully say something false. So you've got some sort of confusion going on there, but I'm. not sure what it is. On the other point raised: epistemic externalism is distinct from semantic externalism and externalism about mental content, and the views do not entail each other.
Michael Eppink No, It was University College Dublin in Dublin, Ireland. And here is a link to the programme www.everythingreptilesupply.com/programme.html
+sacredsoma Revised versions of the remarks by Burge and Putnam are published here books.google.ie/books?id=DWXBB_g41ngC&pg=PR1&lpg=PR1&dq=Reading+Putnam+edited+by+Maria+Baghramian&source=bl&ots=xCkanmdo9y&sig=lwU86wDyiH_4TsJRLmaxP3MLHLI&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjGu9-9isjLAhXLPhQKHZejCrkQ6AEINTAE#v=onepage&q=Reading%20Putnam%20edited%20by%20Maria%20Baghramian&f=false
Well, you can't. And I'm not bothered by this. So it is not strictly true that everyone is. The reason you can't is that you and I are the ones who do the defining, so we are causally and logically prior to any definition. Or - it is a brute fact that we are personal selves, who can and do refer to ourselves and talk about ourselves. And so we need a word for that, and there you are.
What an honor to have access to this meeting of minds, recorded for posterity.
Meaning: Reference, mind, language and their Equivalence in relation to mental states. Compartmentalizing events with perception, semantic expression/ prejudice and intuition. Excellent discussion on externalism thank you all very much.
Great video! Great quality! Great philosophers! Great debate! Thank you!
Happy to say I took a class from Burge. Everyday you'd start out thinking you could hang. And every class end the good students came out of it not sure what happened. If you wanted to have someone speak over your head, he's the one. He would get there eventually, just not so quickly. But when you are done, you begin to worry if you are smart enough to understand what he said. Makes me feel like jello just thinking about it
the boys
This needed to be higher quality. Those are huge philosophers in contemporary thought which simple TikTok video is significantly much better resolution. I.e. quite ironic...
I'm a bit new to contemporary analytic philosophy, and therefore confused - externalism seems to be an idea in both the philosophy of mind and in epistemology, and I don't see how they're related.
In the phil of minds, externalism seems to refer to how mental contents and linguistic statements get their meaning. So, for instance, to meaningfully say "I served in vietnam," do I need to actually have been a soldier, or is it sufficient to hallucinate the war?
Externalism in epistemology seems to be a position about how to assess the truth value of various propositions, and thereby gain knowledge. So, for instance, do I need to view A cause B in order to know they have a causal relation, or could I establish this kind of truth through deductive, or a priori reasoning?
Are these two kinds of externalism really distinct? Does mental externalism entail the epistemic variety, or can they vary independently?
Seven years late, but here's an answer for whoever's reading: even for an externalist about meaning, to meaningfully say "I served in Vietnam", one need not have served or have hallucinated doing so, as you might well just have meaningfully say something false. So you've got some sort of confusion going on there, but I'm. not sure what it is. On the other point raised: epistemic externalism is distinct from semantic externalism and externalism about mental content, and the views do not entail each other.
58:19
This kind of falls apart after Burge speeks. I thought the subject was externalism?
I thought this was UC Davis
Michael Eppink No, It was University College Dublin in Dublin, Ireland. And here is a link to the programme www.everythingreptilesupply.com/programme.html
Is the transcript of this roundtable available anywhere?
+sacredsoma Revised versions of the remarks by Burge and Putnam are published here books.google.ie/books?id=DWXBB_g41ngC&pg=PR1&lpg=PR1&dq=Reading+Putnam+edited+by+Maria+Baghramian&source=bl&ots=xCkanmdo9y&sig=lwU86wDyiH_4TsJRLmaxP3MLHLI&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjGu9-9isjLAhXLPhQKHZejCrkQ6AEINTAE#v=onepage&q=Reading%20Putnam%20edited%20by%20Maria%20Baghramian&f=false
+Maria Baghramian Thank you so much
please, just define this "I" that is bothering us all.
Well, you can't. And I'm not bothered by this. So it is not strictly true that everyone is. The reason you can't is that you and I are the ones who do the defining, so we are causally and logically prior to any definition.
Or - it is a brute fact that we are personal selves, who can and do refer to ourselves and talk about ourselves. And so we need a word for that, and there you are.
@@jespervalgreen6461 If you say so...
Boring
It is what it is