I watch your lectures every year, and it motivates me to do some light reading in the Stanford Encyclopedia. Thanks for making this stuff less intimidating it is really interesting.
Thank you so much for this amazing lecture. Btw, the first student that tried to argue his opinions needs to go back and read Descartes Discourse, the letter to the Sorbonne, the introduction, and learn that nothing is self evident. :)
You are a gifted professor. Love your method and your personality. So much easier to understand this stuff the way you explain it. Curious...where do you teach?
I enjoyed this series of discussions on Descartes. Awesome teacher & great class involvement, including the doubting bartender with that voice... almost seems like I mean that as an insult. ;D "What kind of alcohol do you put in your Electric Blue?" ".... Are you sure you're reading our drink menu, and not thinking of another bar?" "Yeah! I got it here last time. You served it to me." ".... Are you certain that was me?""..... Uhhhhh... I think so...""AH HA! So you doubt your own memory! Shut up & enjoy my Electric Purple!"
Even the fact that the word “I” exist since the tradition of communication, such that we can’t even tell where does it exactly come from... and we all understand what it means. I mean, I understand what I means to me... and I assume you understand what I will be from your perspective... I think... and to think I use concepts that I didn’t create, but that I found, but it really makes sense to me to relate to something that I received and find out it’s mine so strongly that I can say I! Will that be a distinction between what cannot perceive self consciously and me who is self conscious and therefore it’s me.
I liked the student’s comment, where he said “it seams like it’s an exercise for intellectuals”... we didn’t go through that argument. But in a way it makes sense, in the way that you are trying to suspend all your thoughts and perceptions, but in a way you can’t suspend your own biological living in the meantime that you’re doubting... so, as you suspend everything, you cannot suspend your breathing, your heart beating, your cells from having a metabolism... does it make sense?
I love animals. But Descartes is correct in postulating that "no one is home". Or surely they would all rise and rebel against us (humans)! It does not follow that we should mistreat them though. But it also does not follow that we can't eat them.
If I am not wrong, the book which has been referred here is “the philosophical writings of Descartes. Vol. 2 translated by John cottingham, robert stoothoff and Dugald murdoch. Please correct me if I am wrong.
Oke this is by far THE best explanation of the nutcase Descartes. Btw these American students... Sounds like they legalized weed out there, oh wait they did.
I'm not so sure if Descartes is "assuming" what he sets out to prove so much as demonstrating that even under a radical methodological doubt, it seems impossible to coherently doubt one's existence (as the doubting seemingly requires the existing). And though it might not be the case that Descartes is proving what he thinks he is proving (e.g. I am my thinking self, not my body) I'm not so sure I'd be so quick to say that he "proves nothing" There's definitely something weird going on here, though. And you aren't alone in thinking that: plato.stanford.edu/entries/descartes-epistemology/#4.1
@@adamrosenfeld9384 Thank you for another highly engaging and elegant lecture Adam. It frustrates me, though, that Descartes (as well as everyone in the video) seems to ignore the existence of pure 'reflexive awareness' (emergent consciousness) as a 'container' within which thought arises, and thus presents itself as a separate condition to thought. Like when registering something is too hot and we reflexively shrink away from it - it seems that we reflexively respond intelligently but before we can even have the thought "Too hot!". So since the idea of "I" is a thinking individual, yes, when thoughts arise within the container of awareness (an awareness that is seemingly infinitely spacious, and therefore NOT DISCRETE like a thought is) there is an "I" present. However, it seems equally valid that there is a non-discrete cognitive 'entity' (perhaps infinitely spacious) that houses thoughts, but as host is something superior and 'beyond' those thoughts. In this sense, the thought "I think, and therefore an I - me - exists" can indeed by doubted as a mere product of a 'thought world', for in fact there is another apparent cognitive domain - an infinitely spacious awareness world that is a countermeasure to the cogito, ergo sum proposal. What does anyone think about that? - "I think, therefore I am" vs "I can not think at times and instead just feel aware - an infinitely spacious sense of being, and thus I can doubt whether this 'I' exists."
Discussion of Meditation I starts: @ 5:40
Discussion of Mediation II starts: @ 40:00
Keane Shaw you’re doing God’s work
You're an awesome teacher. Studying meditations in my intro to philosophy class and didn't get it at all until I looked up your videos. Thank you!
Good lesson. I hope my kids are lucky enough to have lecturers like you when they're at school.
I watch your lectures every year, and it motivates me to do some light reading in the Stanford Encyclopedia. Thanks for making this stuff less intimidating it is really interesting.
Thank you so much for this amazing lecture.
Btw, the first student that tried to argue his opinions needs to go back and read Descartes Discourse, the letter to the Sorbonne, the introduction, and learn that nothing is self evident. :)
Amazing teacher!
20 minutes in, You're an amazing teacher, your students are lucky and your teaching is captivating!!
Thank you for the lecture. Made it all so easy and interesting. Keep uploading more useful videos.
You are a gifted professor. Love your method and your personality. So much easier to understand this stuff the way you explain it. Curious...where do you teach?
Well done, Adam. Shall share with my students.
Thanks Chris! I think this more recent one is a bit better - ruclips.net/video/oFKdldMo92s/видео.html
Hope all is well!
Your videos are making me feel more confident in passing my philosophy class. I am taking online and it’s rough! Thank you!
Amazing teacher, fantastic class participation too
I enjoyed this series of discussions on Descartes. Awesome teacher & great class involvement, including the doubting bartender with that voice... almost seems like I mean that as an insult. ;D "What kind of alcohol do you put in your Electric Blue?" ".... Are you sure you're reading our drink menu, and not thinking of another bar?" "Yeah! I got it here last time. You served it to me." ".... Are you certain that was me?""..... Uhhhhh... I think so...""AH HA! So you doubt your own memory! Shut up & enjoy my Electric Purple!"
Great job with this! Has really helped me with uni revision, you made the topic interesting and easy to understand!
mY understanding of 2nd meditation summarizes to there are two options, the evil deciever or not, In both cases if i think, I am.
Even the fact that the word “I” exist since the tradition of communication, such that we can’t even tell where does it exactly come from... and we all understand what it means. I mean, I understand what I means to me... and I assume you understand what I will be from your perspective... I think... and to think I use concepts that I didn’t create, but that I found, but it really makes sense to me to relate to something that I received and find out it’s mine so strongly that I can say I!
Will that be a distinction between what cannot perceive self consciously and me who is self conscious and therefore it’s me.
This was great helped me alot.. keep up the good work
I liked the student’s comment, where he said “it seams like it’s an exercise for intellectuals”... we didn’t go through that argument. But in a way it makes sense, in the way that you are trying to suspend all your thoughts and perceptions, but in a way you can’t suspend your own biological living in the meantime that you’re doubting... so, as you suspend everything, you cannot suspend your breathing, your heart beating, your cells from having a metabolism... does it make sense?
I think so
So by his own thinking all doubts can be doubted. So does that make Descartes his own Evil Deceiver?
I love animals. But Descartes is correct in postulating that "no one is home". Or surely they would all rise and rebel against us (humans)! It does not follow that we should mistreat them though. But it also does not follow that we can't eat them.
Discussion starts at 05:40
Hi
What is the "tips for reading" that you mention at 2:50? Is it a book or a website? thanks
It's for his personal syllabus, but I'm sure there are online resources for reading and understanding philosophy.
What’s the last term that he mentioned?
If I am not wrong, the book which has been referred here is “the philosophical writings of Descartes. Vol. 2 translated by John cottingham, robert stoothoff and Dugald murdoch. Please correct me if I am wrong.
Excuse me, what did she say? 45:50
Juno X what my brain heard “who defines what the word just think”
what do you think?
this is not the answer but im looking for your thought.
U D Man..."daN"
Let's not forget that Descartes was a mathematician.
30:50 but it's all just hypothetical isn't it?
Trying to move ahead 8:42 with my awakening from dysfunctional conditioning....
That dude who realizes he doesn’t have free will
Oke this is by far THE best explanation of the nutcase Descartes. Btw these American students... Sounds like they legalized weed out there, oh wait they did.
'Guess n test' saves time for some working medics in their obligatory learning MCQs - evidenced by skewed non random guessing patterns. Just sayin'.
Surely Descartes is assuming what he sets out to prove. 'I think => I am' boils down to 'I => I'. Which proves nothing. (Is Gödel relevant here?)
I'm not so sure if Descartes is "assuming" what he sets out to prove so much as demonstrating that even under a radical methodological doubt, it seems impossible to coherently doubt one's existence (as the doubting seemingly requires the existing). And though it might not be the case that Descartes is proving what he thinks he is proving (e.g. I am my thinking self, not my body) I'm not so sure I'd be so quick to say that he "proves nothing"
There's definitely something weird going on here, though. And you aren't alone in thinking that: plato.stanford.edu/entries/descartes-epistemology/#4.1
It proves that something is real
@@adamrosenfeld9384 Thank you for another highly engaging and elegant lecture Adam. It frustrates me, though, that Descartes (as well as everyone in the video) seems to ignore the existence of pure 'reflexive awareness' (emergent consciousness) as a 'container' within which thought arises, and thus presents itself as a separate condition to thought. Like when registering something is too hot and we reflexively shrink away from it - it seems that we reflexively respond intelligently but before we can even have the thought "Too hot!". So since the idea of "I" is a thinking individual, yes, when thoughts arise within the container of awareness (an awareness that is seemingly infinitely spacious, and therefore NOT DISCRETE like a thought is) there is an "I" present. However, it seems equally valid that there is a non-discrete cognitive 'entity' (perhaps infinitely spacious) that houses thoughts, but as host is something superior and 'beyond' those thoughts. In this sense, the thought "I think, and therefore an I - me - exists" can indeed by doubted as a mere product of a 'thought world', for in fact there is another apparent cognitive domain - an infinitely spacious awareness world that is a countermeasure to the cogito, ergo sum proposal. What does anyone think about that? - "I think, therefore I am" vs "I can not think at times and instead just feel aware - an infinitely spacious sense of being, and thus I can doubt whether this 'I' exists."
Chick walks in 24 minutes late. C'mon, man :-)
Let's not rush to judgment here. There are all kinds of good reasons for being 24 minutes late to class. :)
Hangovers are a bitch
Dr. Arthur F Holmes of Wheaton College was a far superior teacher.
I'm okay with this assessment. Dr. Holmes was fantastic, and his history of philosophy lectures are a treasure.
But he talks weird 😊