Thank you ! I love the format, your channel is a reference in my own amateurish journey. More specifically, epistemology and ethics. Big help there. Plus I like the way you deliver it. Non English-native speaker, I find you very clear. Thanks again.
What if john has a version v1 and he lives in world w2,and v1 is about w1,and suppose v1 is coherent? What we mean by a world (a state of affair, a maximal state of affair, or a simple object or system) ? How we make worlds by our version ?that's not clear at all. We produce tables,producing tables consists in a series of acts which are possible,can we produce a round square?
I love Goodman's ideas and I do follow them. It is more coherent than atomism or physicalism. So far as I can see is coherent with the Gothel theorem of incompleteness, altho Godel's theorem is a math one I do understand that is applicable to thought.
Goodman’s book is on my “to read” list, but I’m waist deep in Hegel at the moment, so it will be a while. Therefore, I can’t comment with knowledge of his arguments. But it does seem that your construal of his “world making” as an individual enterprise, so that being in “each others’” worlds is a problem, seems a bit of a stretch. Surely what ought to be at issue is human, not individual, worlds.
Thank you ! I love the format, your channel is a reference in my own amateurish journey. More specifically, epistemology and ethics. Big help there. Plus I like the way you deliver it. Non English-native speaker, I find you very clear. Thanks again.
What if john has a version v1 and he lives in world w2,and v1 is about w1,and suppose v1 is coherent?
What we mean by a world (a state of affair, a maximal state of affair, or a simple object or system) ? How we make worlds by our version ?that's not clear at all.
We produce tables,producing tables consists in a series of acts which are possible,can we produce a round square?
amazing presentation
Excellent job explaining WofW
I love Goodman's ideas and I do follow them. It is more coherent than atomism or physicalism. So far as I can see is coherent with the Gothel theorem of incompleteness, altho Godel's theorem is a math one I do understand that is applicable to thought.
It would be an even better presentation if he paid us to watch it T or F?
Goodman’s book is on my “to read” list, but I’m waist deep in Hegel at the moment, so it will be a while. Therefore, I can’t comment with knowledge of his arguments. But it does seem that your construal of his “world making” as an individual enterprise, so that being in “each others’” worlds is a problem, seems a bit of a stretch. Surely what ought to be at issue is human, not individual, worlds.