Good video. I've been subscribed for a while and enjoy these. As for R/M's argument, I think they pretty much gave away the farm. If you want to argue against idealism, and I'm a realist myself, you have to confront the comprehensiveness of the representation. Berkeley and Hume argue that all we know is----all we know, which is a representation. R/M seem to agree. So their backs are against the same wall as Kant's, who wanted to defend the provenance of positive science by affirming the existence of the thing in itself, the real object out there, but actually couldn't because on his own principles there is no way to prove any modification of the manifold of sensibility isn't merely endogenous. There is no bridge from the representation, once you admit it, to the thing that supposedly causes it. Berkeley and Hume may have been a lot of things but neither of them was stupid. They pushed the logic of representation to its ultimate conclusion, and both Moore and Russell seem to have fallen into the trap.
My reading of Sellars' Empirism and Philosophy of Mind leads me to belive that this exact differential of psychological states and the real object was what he sought to clarify. Henceforth, a first look at a defense of a "psychological nominalism" converging with a "scientific realism" may sound dichotomous, in some contradictory sense, but when the differentiation between what is "mind dependent" and what is "object of world" is clarified Sellars' vision become much more palatable. The question becomes how to differentiate content in our minds and its proprierties from the real content, present in the world. Great Lecture, professor Bonevac.
Thank you so much for your videos! Fantastic content!! I have a question on this one, isn't Russell's argument exactly the same as what Kant says about the distinction between the thing in itself and its representation?
Professor Bonevac how do you believe the arguments made by Russell would address things like the double slit experiment being mind dependent or it expressing objects of consciousness.?
In what sense is an "electron" or "photon" what we say or think it is? If we say it is both a particle AND a wave aren't we eqivocating? Taken seriously why shouldn't anything electrons and photons make up ALSO have that property as well? Human children are made from the gametes of male and female parents, they're not created by asexual hermaphrodites. For living things 1 + 0 = 1, 1 x 0 = 0 and 1 = 1. But for electrons and other elementary particles 1= 0 😱?
Behavior isn't being, is it? What we do isn't what we are. Unless there is a test for being. It seems to me that we are saying that the charge of an electron and the light of a photon are what the particles do, but the things behind these doings are like what? Like a rock? How do you test for rockiness? When you throw a rock hard enough doesn't it break? Water and rocks are actual substances in the Aristotelian sense. They are things in themselves, independent of us or our senses. Charges and light are also substances as per lightning and rainbows. But electrons and photons? How sure are we that when we say we've collided single electrons and single photons in a collider that that's what has taken place? What makes us so sure when we are dealing with the quantum world and its inherent uncertainties?
@@kallianpublico7517 I don't usually raise my hand in class, but I was encouraged to based on the a statement in the realists' critique.. "The cat isn't affected by my seeing it or not seeing it" -- then lightbulb -- I've always been curious to why the change of a wave to particle occurs based on observation (seeing).. I was a bit convinced at your rebuttal, though the "aha/but wait" feeling wouldn't lament.. I watched the video again -- made some of my own edits to the question I'd ask, but while researching I found this article on "Objects of consciousness" on the NIH website stating: "Certain interpretations of quantum theory deny that dynamical properties of physical objects have definite values when unobserved." and "This allows us to reinterpret physical properties such as position, momentum, and energy as properties of interacting conscious agents, rather than as preexisting physical truths."
But isn't that position question-begging, given that it's an explanation of the confusion of idealism if there are objects out there, but an idealist would say that we have no right to postulate anything more than the act of the mind.
Awesome teaching but Russells reconfiguration of the argument already assumes the existence of 'actual objects'. How could we know the actual objects existing with only having mind dependent representations. Also calling them representations already assumes they are representations of some actual thing. So I couldnt understand how Russel get out of his mind and check the actual object mind-independently
Good one. My only objection is that there was a tendency to repeat the very same point too many times. It would also have been useful to mention similarities and differences between representationalism and direct (or naive) realism a la Searle (2015).
Dr Bonevac, what about the modern views of the physicists that deny that space-time is fundamental and that the relative nature of the universe does in effect mean that each person creates the world through observation. Would a mathematical proof to this effect tempt you to take up an idealist position? Thank you for your videos and your provision of free education.
The fundamental reality is beyond our ability to know and philosophy, fueled by an unquenchable curiosity, is principled, organized, and disciplined speculation on the matter. Unassailable confirmation of the ultimate truth of things transcendental being unavailable to us, the coin of the realm is reduced to the quality of one's argument which is always opposed by other schools of thought and endlessly debated to an impasse, leaving each side more certain of their position than before. Philosophy puts me in mind of the prisoners assessing the shadows on the wall in Plato's Allegory of the Cave.
I do not think that pragmatism can be defeated through Russell's non-argument. I think he is relying on false interpretations of "mind-dependent things" to result in the notion of pragmatism being seen as absurdity as if one could simply think an attacking bear out of existence and walk away unscathed. Pragmatism merely contends that something is true when it predicts phenomena. Phenomena is not something that is consciously controlled, it is merely consciously EXPERIENCED.
Can someone explain why the equivocation argument isnt just begging the question against the idealist? It seems obvious to me that by saying the idealist is equivocating between the representation and the thing in itself, one is pressuposing representative realism, and so begging the question against the idealist. Someone explain why I am wrong please because I dont want to write this on my midterm tomorrow if it is incorrect!
Could the idealist make an argument for a quale? For example, non-visible light exists but we cannot perceive of it directly through our senses. Perhaps the idealist may say that the concept of a "tree," exists in the mind. The object the mind refers to as a tree may exist independent of the mind; yet, the properties/connotations that we perceive to be "treeish," are mind dependent. Non-visible light on the other hand, has no mental property such that we can imagine a beam of light that is not visible. There is no quale for non-visible light.
That sounds a lot more like a refutation of solipsism then it does idealism which isn’t surprising because Russell and the rest of the analytic philosophers seem to often purposefully misunderstand the Idealist claim. The Idealist doesn’t think that the cats very existence, i.e., it’s subjectivity, is dependent upon mine, or that of any other finite and contingent subject but rather is dependent upon and, in fact, is the cosmic mind itself. In other words, there still is something there that is the cat, it just doesn’t exist in any state other then in its own subjectivity, which, by definition, isn’t objective.
When Russell says he is not the creator he doesn’t say anything significant. He is equally not a tree surgeon or a pastry chef. No one can make “things spring out of their mind” because the mind is always embodied and immaterial - a paradox.
Hi Professor Bonevac, I understand my position as an individual with short reach in the world. Interestingly enough, social media has provided an opportunity to find loopholes that reach high places, even if it is for a short moment. You are this high place at the moment, as I’m sure for many others who enjoy your lectures, and this comment may be that loophole if opportunity and curiosity deems it to be. I have been reading Sartre lately and wrote a short essay on the meaning of life. It is based on an atheist’s perspective about existence, but not one that tries to find flaws in theism. If anything, it finds flaws in atheism and the fragility of our concept of meaning to life. As much as I’d like to, I cannot relieve myself from the burden of atheism and must try to understand my existence. I wanted to know, would you give a moment of your time to read what I’ve written and help me develop these ideas? I don’t want to take away too much time from you. But, because I can’t see myself as being intelligent enough to be the first to wrestle with these ideas, I must consult those who are intelligent enough to know where these ideas exist. I must find people that can help me through this fog of ignorance, because they have already ventured through it. I don’t mind posting them here. Thank you.
@@darkfazer Hi. Sorry this took so long. I must clarify that this was an email between my professor and I. It is five pages long, so I hope it’ll look okay as a comment. It’ll be posted right after this.
@@darkfazer I’ve been thinking about this lately. I realize that human existence, apart from our subjective feelings about it, is meaningless. I believe Camu also looks at it in a larger scale, where most humans live lives that might be meaningful for the individual, but meaningless for human existence as a whole. And even when the individual has moments that make life meaningful, most of its existence is meaningless even to the individual. Human existence itself is nothing meaningful if it succumbs to extinction, and every life will never have meaning to anything outside of human subjectivity. I understand that Satre thinks that we ourselves are responsible for our meaning in life, and that this is attainable without theist beliefs. He believes that theism doesn’t sufficiently resolve every issue in life, and it can be very life denying. At first, I wanted to completely refute the existence of meaning at all, but I couldn’t without contradicting my own claim in a way. This claim being: Experience is solely what matters in life, not having meaning to life. (This would allow for any manner which one can live a meaningful experience in life; whether it is through bad faith or not is irrelevant) I don’t mean a life full of hedonism, since this may spoil the experience of life at a different stage of life. But if experience is what solely matters in life, then the aim to live a life through meaningful experiences gives life meaning. Which means that I cannot say that life is meaningless to us, although it may be meaningless outside of us (outside of our subjective opinion). This is where I hit a point of confusion. Meaning to life does and doesn’t exist at the same time; it is either absurd or one of them is false (whether there is or isn’t meaning to life). For now, let’s imagine/accept that meaning to life is truly non-existent, and any form of meaning to life we create is subjective but truly false (our idea to give meaning to our life viewed only as a response to cope with being an abandoned animal; a tactic to survive and progress in life, just like theism is also a tactic to cope with being an abandoned animal). I personally can’t help but feel a sense of fraud when I try to fool myself to think that there is meaning to life and that I must pursue it. I know that I can fabricate goals that may lead to the feeling that life is meaningful or aim to live meaningful experiences, but it doesn’t change the truth that meaning doesn’t actually exist outside of my imagination. Whether these are goals in life or for the sole purpose of experience, (sole purpose of experience being that we aim to experience, not accomplishments, even though this aim may lead to accomplishments) I cannot help but see it only as a reason to stay alive and, most importantly, make progress in life. But is this not in itself deception from our part? Deception that tries to resolve the same issue that religion also aims to resolve; this issue being the feeling of abandonment and meaninglessness in life. The atheist form of deception may be more efficient for some, but the theist form of deception may be more efficient for others when it comes to meaning to life. In my own experience of trying to grasp and accept the nihilistic nature of existence without meaning to life, I have noticed drawbacks to my life. These being both in the pursuit of goals or aim to experience. I realize I cannot continue to experiment with this mindset and that I must at some point fool myself into thinking that life has some meaning through my own will, so I can continue to make progress in life to fulfill this idea of meaning to my life. If I don’t believe in any meaning to life, then it seems that I don’t have to progress in life in any way to fulfill a meaning to my life. But this experience brings up another concern. If progress in life demands meaning to life, then we must believe that there is meaning to life to make progress in life. If all ideas that give meaning to our life are deceptive ideas, then we must deceive ourselves to live a meaningful life. If we must deceive ourselves to live a meaningful life, then the concept that life is meaningful is also a deception. If we are beings that must believe that there is meaning to life to make progress in life and belief that there is meaning to life is deception, then all human progress is based on deception. If all of human progress is based on deception, then deception can lead to objective results. If this is true, does it mean that we can never stop deceiving ourselves, be it in an atheistic or theistic manner, in order to live a meaningful life and make progress in life? Is existentialism simply a different answer to our existential problems from the answers that come from theism? And for those who cannot or will not grasp the ideas that give meaning to life from the atheist perspective, may we not be denying them meaning to life and progress in life by destroying/denying their ability to believe in theism? Equally, for those who cannot or will not grasp the ideas that give meaning to life from the theist perspective, may we not be denying them meaning to life and progress in life by destroying/denying their ability to believe in atheism?
@@darkfazer --- Professor’s Response: If there is no meaning in life, why is progress important? --- That’s exactly why I can’t say, according to my argument, that there can be progress without meaning to life (Meaning that if we don’t have the idea to do anything that may make our life meaningful, something that we may act on, then any progress isn’t meaningful, it isn’t really progress). This is why I cannot say; experience is what solely matters in life, not having meaning to life. By saying that, I have contradicted myself, because experience (or progress, since emphasis on experience itself is progress towards meaning to life) seems to create meaning to life. So in the end, if there’s no meaning to life, then progress is not important and therefore, not progress at all (progress to what?). Not even being alive matters, apart from some instinct for self preservation (which itself is a concept that arises more questions), which when the instinct is disregarded one may decide to commit suicide. (I’ll bring up the instinct for self preservation again later) *I may lack the knowledge or the proper way of writing down what I mean to say, but I only ask for patience to truly investigate and fully manifest my thoughts. What I want to clarify first is that meaning to life is based on self deception no matter where this meaning derives from. The atheist existentialist is no less of a deceiver as the theist, even though it may provide a different perspective to life, and even though the atheist sees the theist as life denying. If meaning to life cannot truly be existing and non-existing at the same time, then only one claim must be true. Let’s take the side of the atheist existentialist and also assume that meaning to life is truly non-existent, since the only compelling argument that meaning to life does truly exist depends on the existence of a God who cares about human affairs and who is the creator (which would make us like the paper-knife). In this point of view, there is no intrinsic meaning to life, meaning that any meaning to life is solely based on our own individual subjective notion and creation of it, but this doesn’t make meaning to life something that truly exists, just like a subjective belief in God doesn’t make God’s existence true. If there is no true meaning to life, then our idea that there is meaning to life is a deception. This doesn’t mean that I regard the notion of meaning to life as unimportant, on the contrary, I believe it is of utmost importance. Now, we can refer back to progress. If there is progress, then there is meaning to life. This is because having the idea that there is meaning to life turns our actions from being meaningless, unimportant, or mundane, to actions that lead to this idea of meaning to life; therefore, we can call those actions progress. Before I continue, I need to return to the notion of self preservation, which I mentioned earlier. Like Sartre mentions, man is in anguish by its forced responsibility to make decisions in life. This responsibility urges us to formulate ideas which leads to decisions we must take to fulfill those same ideas (ideas of who we want to be to create our essence). But why must we make those ideas of who we want to be? And what happens if we stop making them? I’ll try to explore the first question by making the following claims: If we create ideas (ideas of who we want to be), then we must take actions to fulfill them. If these ideas lead to actions to fulfill them, then there is progress being made. If these ideas lead to progress, then, according to the prior claims (from the beginning of this email till now), there is meaning to life. The meaning of life here is based on our idea of what we should/want to be. It is an idea based on our subjective opinion about the world and how we should fit into it. I must emphasize that even though the concept of meaning to life is important to define ourselves and to progress in life, it is still not a true concept but our own creation, just like the concept of theism. Now, let’s explore the second question: If we don’t create ideas, then there is no progress being made. If there is no progress being made, then there is no meaning to life. I must pause here to make sense of what I’m about to say. At this point, I am convinced that forming ideas that lead to meaning to life through progress is essential for human existence. Because of this, I believe that the very act of forming ideas that lead to meaning to life is nothing but self preservation. And because it is self preservation, it emphasizes that we have the responsibility to form ideas and to make decisions which lead to our concept of a meaning to life. I will continue the claims with this in mind: If there is no meaning to life and no self preservation (which itself is a drive to formulate ideas that lead to meaning to life), then there is no reason to be alive. If there is no reason to be alive, then suicide is (might be using the wrong word here) justified. This second set of claims seem grim, but it is an extreme that seems important to understand. I don’t believe most people who didn’t fulfill their idea will necessarily commit suicide. The notion that we can still create new ideas is still prevalent. Therefore, we can change these ideas and adapt them to our will or capability. But if we assume that the complete lack of ideas and actions (that lead to meaning to life) will ultimately result in suicide and see suicide as an issue, then we must understand the formation and fragility of these ideas. [Viktor Frankl wrote his book exploring the importance of meaning to life in the concentration camps, and how it led him to develop his practice of logotherapy. I realize that individuals did not choose to befall to the horrible circumstance, but having meaning to life seems important to the continuance of life itself.] To start, we must contemplate on the difficulty of first creating this idea of what will make our lives meaningful. Since one is not born having an idea of what their meaning to life is a priori, one must first create an idea of what it is, or more realistically, what it could be. We can see this as solely an aspiration to fulfill those ideas. After, we must act on this idea and make progress to achieve what we believe will give our life meaning. This seems easier said than done. In my opinion, human beings are horrible at creating their own ideas of meaning to life by themselves and fulfilling this idea without the aid of theism or indoctrination from some secular ideology; even Sartre mentions that his way of thinking isn’t meant for everyone. It is not that I believe that human beings are incapable of imagining ideas of what gives meaning to life, but that our judgement may be erroneous, or that we may be too indecisive to choose an idea that we can aim towards. If our judgement is erroneous or we can’t decide on an idea that we can aim towards, then our actions (or lack of action) will result in a lack of meaning to life and the loss of potential progress (both in progress lost because it didn’t lead to meaning in life and in the time that is lost to reform ideas). This leads to the fragility of meaning to life. Let’s take for example the devote Catholic, who may believe that life after death is more meaningful than this life. They are not free to make any decision they would like according to their beliefs, and this includes committing suicide. They are grounded, however superstitious the belief may be, to a set of rules that must be followed to successfully reach this transcendental meaning. Also, just because they are Catholic doesn’t necessarily mean that they are also not subjected to the responsibility to act. They can also choose to give this life meaning and to act upon the idea, even though it may never be (to them) more meaningful than the transcendental meaning. I am not saying this to defend theism in any way, nor am I saying that Christianity is a perfect religion. But I want to contrast this example with the atheist perspective. I may have the opinion that existentialism leads to a more fulfilling life. A life where one is free to choose for themselves what makes life meaningful, and to pursue this without the boundaries of theism or other secular doctrines. But the difference between myself and the devote Catholic is that if I fail to successfully gain a sense of meaning to life, I have no place to fall back on but myself, and I must pick myself up. This is something I must accept as an atheist existentialist, but this I cannot apply to everyone. Like Sartre mentions, we do not only make decisions for ourselves, but for humanity. Who am I to know that the atheist existentialist perspective is one that is beneficial if everyone practiced it? As a final note, Nietzsche wrote in “The Gay Science” in the passage of the Madman, “Is not the magnitude of this deed too great for us? Shall we not ourselves have to become gods, merely to seem worthy of it?” And now that it seems that we must become gods, this task does seem too great for us collectively. Our existence, our meaning to life, depends on self deception whether it comes from atheism or theism. We seem too disorganized to successfully steer our own moral values. Also, our freedom seems to make our hardships more difficult to deal with. If this is not what human nature can successfully deal with, then our future seems unfounded. But if human nature can deal with this burden, how must we learn to do so?
I think the concept of meaning being a deception is something I must clarify. My reason to call our belief that life has meaning a deception is based mainly that it is a false belief. On a very nihilistic perspective that doesn’t consider human subjectivism, meaning is completely devoid. Since it is impossible to have these two claims make logical sense at the same time: Life has meaning. (Or we can say “Meaning to life exists”) and Life doesn’t have meaning. (Or “Meaning to life doesn’t exists”) Then we seem to have to agree that one of these claims is false. The theist may say something like, “Of course there’s meaning, because we’ve been created by God to have meaning.” But the atheist has been freed from the concept of God. I, as an atheist, can only see one possible way of looking at these two claims. There is no such thing as a meaning of life that truly exists. If the universe was absent of creatures to have the existential problems that lead to creating meaning to life in their lives, then the concept of meaning to life is non-existent, because it isn’t necessary. Better yet, let’s imagine this universe without life at all; then there would never be such thing as meaning to life. Human beings create the concept of meaning to life as a subjective belief that it exists. Something that subjectivism can do is make it seem like contrary terms can be true at the same time. For example, moral claims can both be “true” even though they contradict. Like these two claims: You should eat meat. You shouldn’t eat meat. It is not based on any objective moral values (since we don’t even know if objective moral values exist), but solely on our subjective interpretation about the world through our subjective moral values. Which means we can say both claims are true, even though it makes no logical sense. If you ask me, there’s no such thing as objective moral values. If there’s no objective moral values, then moral values don’t exist. But this is going a bit off track. My point is that human beings create meaning to life as some necessary concept to make progress in life. It is not something we discover to be true about the universe. It is only something that helps us live life as existential beings. If I say life has meaning and give whatever subjective reasons for it, it doesn’t make the claim “life has meaning” true. But because the claim “life has meaning” isn’t true, I am creating a false concept by believing that it is true. I am not telling or believing the truth. If I decide to continue to believe that life has meaning (doesn’t matter whether based in theism or atheism), then I believe in a claim that is false. This is why both the theist and the atheist deceives themselves by believing that life has any meaning. Apart from our moral values, what’s to say that one can’t believe that life is completely meaningless, even if it leads to suicide or depression? But because we believe suicide and depression are negative/bad, we persist on deceiving ourselves to believe that life has meaning.
Some thoughts. Equivocation can be a logical error, it can also be a literary device for poetry. It would be greatly appreciated if you could also speak on other things that can be logical errors such as tautology, paradoxes or oxymorons or any other "self-contradictions". If you could explain their use in promoting errors in scientific thought, and discriminating it from their "correct" use in literary thought. Secondly the notion of a "fact" seems to give many people license to spread falsehoods. This discussion on realism would do well to define and discriminate between facts and their proper use. Are there different kinds of facts? Can facts be used to lie? How can they be used to lie if they're facts? For my own part I consider facts to be a device strictly for the use of historians and reporters. Strictly limited to corrroborateable times, dates, events, names, identities, locations, etcetera. Science, which claims to be a more "reliable way of knowing", lays claims to scientific facts: measurements, methodologies and their "factual" correlations producing predictive models. It would be helpful to many to explore the fallacies and forensics of facts.
@@simorote the truth tables of propositional logic sound fine when you don't give a concrete example in language. Make a logical proposition that would actually fit as an example of a tautology and then let's discuss it. From my understanding it uses a trick of equivocation to achieve "truth". It says the same thing using different words, but claims it is saying two different things: equivocating.
@@kallianpublico7517 the whole business of logic is to formalize entailment to use in natural (or formal) languages, there is no "trick" nor "equivocation". Sentences of the form: if P then P are true, and inserting an example in English (say: I ate cereals for breakfast) will not change the truth value of the formula nor equivocate in any way.
The problem is you did not see a cat. You saw an image of a cat and thought by mistake that you know there is a cat. The truth is you did not see, or cannot see the DNA, the guts, and the shit of the cat that made the cat a real cat and not just an image of a cat. It's that simple. May the love and the peace of Jesus be with us.
@@PhiloofAlexandria you mean images of cat shit, not what's in them to make than real cat shits and not just images of cat shit. Besides, each one of them is particularly different from the other. Therefore cat shits are not universal. May the love and the peace of Jesus be with us
But he did see a cat. He did not see an image of a cat. He may have also introspected and introspected an image of a cat, but that is a different mental operation from seeing. That seeing a cat is mediated by an image of a cat does not mean that what is seen is not the cat but the image of a cat. To attempt to explain seeing a cat by seeing of a representation of a cat is to not explain seeing at all. Therefore, the representation (if such there be) is internal to the act of seeing, not something external to the act towards which the seeing is truely directed. To explain a thing is not to explain it away.
@@jeffreyscott4997 No one here is trying to explain the cat away. The truth is he saw an image of a cat and believed he saw a cat. He did not see the life, the molecules, the blood in the cat that made the cat a real cat and not just an image of a cat. He also brush his teeth everyday believing that he will have healthy teeth tomorrow. But he has not seen tomorrow, so what made him think there is a tomorrow, or that his teeth, or he himself will still be on earth tomorrow ? His beliefs, you see ? Not his knowledge for he knew nothing about tomorrow. That, is the truth. The truth is what we see is not real, what is real we cannot see. We live by our beliefs, not our knowledge, for knowledge we have none. May the love and the peace of Jesus be with us.
@@jwu1950 You are just repeating your assertion. Where is this image of a cat you talk about? There is him, the cat, and his seeing of the cat. In this the existence of an image is only theorized as the means by which the seeing is done by him. But this explanation of the cat-seeing implies that the cat-seeing does not in fact take place. To put this another way, just what is it that is missing from his seeing of the cat that, where it there, would make it the seeing if a cat instead of a cat-image? Just what would seeing what makes the cat a real cat be other than what he did? Your standard implies that to see the real cat he would have to do something that would be something other than seeing, which is absurd.
You’re pretty much the only teacher I trust right now mr Bonevac.
Thank you!
@Westley Kairo that's a pretty gross violation of someone's privacy, and a pretty creepy thing to do.
@@jamesmiorelli9775 they're just bots James
you are the man. Always happy when I see you in my reccomended
Good video. I've been subscribed for a while and enjoy these. As for R/M's argument, I think they pretty much gave away the farm. If you want to argue against idealism, and I'm a realist myself, you have to confront the comprehensiveness of the representation. Berkeley and Hume argue that all we know is----all we know, which is a representation. R/M seem to agree. So their backs are against the same wall as Kant's, who wanted to defend the provenance of positive science by affirming the existence of the thing in itself, the real object out there, but actually couldn't because on his own principles there is no way to prove any modification of the manifold of sensibility isn't merely endogenous. There is no bridge from the representation, once you admit it, to the thing that supposedly causes it. Berkeley and Hume may have been a lot of things but neither of them was stupid. They pushed the logic of representation to its ultimate conclusion, and both Moore and Russell seem to have fallen into the trap.
My reading of Sellars' Empirism and Philosophy of Mind leads me to belive that this exact differential of psychological states and the real object was what he sought to clarify. Henceforth, a first look at a defense of a "psychological nominalism" converging with a "scientific realism" may sound dichotomous, in some contradictory sense, but when the differentiation between what is "mind dependent" and what is "object of world" is clarified Sellars' vision become much more palatable. The question becomes how to differentiate content in our minds and its proprierties from the real content, present in the world.
Great Lecture, professor Bonevac.
Awesome teaching, keep it up :)
Thank you so much for your videos! Fantastic content!!
I have a question on this one, isn't Russell's argument exactly the same as what Kant says about the distinction between the thing in itself and its representation?
Amazing video
Professor Bonevac how do you believe the arguments made by Russell would address things like the double slit experiment being mind dependent or it expressing objects of consciousness.?
In what sense is an "electron" or "photon" what we say or think it is? If we say it is both a particle AND a wave aren't we eqivocating? Taken seriously why shouldn't anything electrons and photons make up ALSO have that property as well?
Human children are made from the gametes of male and female parents, they're not created by asexual hermaphrodites. For living things 1 + 0 = 1, 1 x 0 = 0 and 1 = 1. But for electrons and other elementary particles 1= 0 😱?
Behavior isn't being, is it? What we do isn't what we are. Unless there is a test for being. It seems to me that we are saying that the charge of an electron and the light of a photon are what the particles do, but the things behind these doings are like what? Like a rock? How do you test for rockiness? When you throw a rock hard enough doesn't it break?
Water and rocks are actual substances in the Aristotelian sense. They are things in themselves, independent of us or our senses. Charges and light are also substances as per lightning and rainbows. But electrons and photons? How sure are we that when we say we've collided single electrons and single photons in a collider that that's what has taken place? What makes us so sure when we are dealing with the quantum world and its inherent uncertainties?
@@kallianpublico7517 you may not have the answers and that's ok..
@@kallianpublico7517 I don't usually raise my hand in class, but I was encouraged to based on the a statement in the realists' critique.. "The cat isn't affected by my seeing it or not seeing it" -- then lightbulb -- I've always been curious to why the change of a wave to particle occurs based on observation (seeing).. I was a bit convinced at your rebuttal, though the "aha/but wait" feeling wouldn't lament.. I watched the video again -- made some of my own edits to the question I'd ask, but while researching I found this article on "Objects of consciousness" on the NIH website stating: "Certain interpretations of quantum theory deny that dynamical properties of physical objects have definite values when unobserved." and "This allows us to reinterpret physical properties such as position, momentum, and energy as properties of interacting conscious agents, rather than as preexisting physical truths."
@@SabatajPresents You may not want to accept the answer. What does that say about you?
Really well said!
But isn't that position question-begging, given that it's an explanation of the confusion of idealism if there are objects out there, but an idealist would say that we have no right to postulate anything more than the act of the mind.
Awesome teaching but Russells reconfiguration of the argument already assumes the existence of 'actual objects'. How could we know the actual objects existing with only having mind dependent representations. Also calling them representations already assumes they are representations of some actual thing. So I couldnt understand how Russel get out of his mind and check the actual object mind-independently
You can step into a lion's cage and see if it really does exist.
@@darkfazer Did you ever entered one to say that? Im not sayin there are no 'real' objects. There are, but they all are mind dependent
Good one. My only objection is that there was a tendency to repeat the very same point too many times. It would also have been useful to mention similarities and differences between representationalism and direct (or naive) realism a la Searle (2015).
Dr Bonevac, what about the modern views of the physicists that deny that space-time is fundamental and that the relative nature of the universe does in effect mean that each person creates the world through observation. Would a mathematical proof to this effect tempt you to take up an idealist position? Thank you for your videos and your provision of free education.
The fundamental reality is beyond our ability to know and philosophy, fueled by an unquenchable curiosity, is principled, organized, and disciplined speculation on the matter. Unassailable confirmation of the ultimate truth of things transcendental being unavailable to us, the coin of the realm is reduced to the quality of one's argument which is always opposed by other schools of thought and endlessly debated to an impasse, leaving each side more certain of their position than before. Philosophy puts me in mind of the prisoners assessing the shadows on the wall in Plato's Allegory of the Cave.
I do not think that pragmatism can be defeated through Russell's non-argument. I think he is relying on false interpretations of "mind-dependent things" to result in the notion of pragmatism being seen as absurdity as if one could simply think an attacking bear out of existence and walk away unscathed. Pragmatism merely contends that something is true when it predicts phenomena. Phenomena is not something that is consciously controlled, it is merely consciously EXPERIENCED.
Gold!!
I CANNOT wait on the re-birth of METAPHYSICS!!!!!!! I agree with Russell!!!!
Can someone explain why the equivocation argument isnt just begging the question against the idealist? It seems obvious to me that by saying the idealist is equivocating between the representation and the thing in itself, one is pressuposing representative realism, and so begging the question against the idealist. Someone explain why I am wrong please because I dont want to write this on my midterm tomorrow if it is incorrect!
I would ARGUE against RUSSELL's point that THINGS can be KNOW and YET REPRESENTED as INTERNAL OBJECTS!!!
Could the idealist make an argument for a quale? For example, non-visible light exists but we cannot perceive of it directly through our senses. Perhaps the idealist may say that the concept of a "tree," exists in the mind. The object the mind refers to as a tree may exist independent of the mind; yet, the properties/connotations that we perceive to be "treeish," are mind dependent. Non-visible light on the other hand, has no mental property such that we can imagine a beam of light that is not visible. There is no quale for non-visible light.
That sounds a lot more like a refutation of solipsism then it does idealism which isn’t surprising because Russell and the rest of the analytic philosophers seem to often purposefully misunderstand the Idealist claim. The Idealist doesn’t think that the cats very existence, i.e., it’s subjectivity, is dependent upon mine, or that of any other finite and contingent subject but rather is dependent upon and, in fact, is the cosmic mind itself. In other words, there still is something there that is the cat, it just doesn’t exist in any state other then in its own subjectivity, which, by definition, isn’t objective.
We are the CREATOR is HAMBUG ASSERTIONS!!!! Russell is RIGHT there!!!!
Philosophy & the mirror of nature
METAPHYSICS IS CALLING ME!!!!!!
When Russell says he is not the creator he doesn’t say anything significant. He is equally not a tree surgeon or a pastry chef. No one can make “things spring out of their mind” because the mind is always embodied and immaterial - a paradox.
Hi Professor Bonevac,
I understand my position as an individual with short reach in the world. Interestingly enough, social media has provided an opportunity to find loopholes that reach high places, even if it is for a short moment. You are this high place at the moment, as I’m sure for many others who enjoy your lectures, and this comment may be that loophole if opportunity and curiosity deems it to be.
I have been reading Sartre lately and wrote a short essay on the meaning of life. It is based on an atheist’s perspective about existence, but not one that tries to find flaws in theism. If anything, it finds flaws in atheism and the fragility of our concept of meaning to life. As much as I’d like to, I cannot relieve myself from the burden of atheism and must try to understand my existence.
I wanted to know, would you give a moment of your time to read what I’ve written and help me develop these ideas?
I don’t want to take away too much time from you. But, because I can’t see myself as being intelligent enough to be the first to wrestle with these ideas, I must consult those who are intelligent enough to know where these ideas exist. I must find people that can help me through this fog of ignorance, because they have already ventured through it.
I don’t mind posting them here.
Thank you.
I'm no professor, but I'd gladly see what you have to say.
@@darkfazer Hi. Sorry this took so long. I must clarify that this was an email between my professor and I. It is five pages long, so I hope it’ll look okay as a comment. It’ll be posted right after this.
@@darkfazer
I’ve been thinking about this lately. I realize that human existence, apart from our subjective feelings about it, is meaningless. I believe Camu also looks at it in a larger scale, where most humans live lives that might be meaningful for the individual, but meaningless for human existence as a whole. And even when the individual has moments that make life meaningful, most of its existence is meaningless even to the individual. Human existence itself is nothing meaningful if it succumbs to extinction, and every life will never have meaning to anything outside of human subjectivity. I understand that Satre thinks that we ourselves are responsible for our meaning in life, and that this is attainable without theist beliefs. He believes that theism doesn’t sufficiently resolve every issue in life, and it can be very life denying.
At first, I wanted to completely refute the existence of meaning at all, but I couldn’t without contradicting my own claim in a way. This claim being: Experience is solely what matters in life, not having meaning to life. (This would allow for any manner which one can live a meaningful experience in life; whether it is through bad faith or not is irrelevant) I don’t mean a life full of hedonism, since this may spoil the experience of life at a different stage of life. But if experience is what solely matters in life, then the aim to live a life through meaningful experiences gives life meaning. Which means that I cannot say that life is meaningless to us, although it may be meaningless outside of us (outside of our subjective opinion). This is where I hit a point of confusion. Meaning to life does and doesn’t exist at the same time; it is either absurd or one of them is false (whether there is or isn’t meaning to life).
For now, let’s imagine/accept that meaning to life is truly non-existent, and any form of meaning to life we create is subjective but truly false (our idea to give meaning to our life viewed only as a response to cope with being an abandoned animal; a tactic to survive and progress in life, just like theism is also a tactic to cope with being an abandoned animal).
I personally can’t help but feel a sense of fraud when I try to fool myself to think that there is meaning to life and that I must pursue it. I know that I can fabricate goals that may lead to the feeling that life is meaningful or aim to live meaningful experiences, but it doesn’t change the truth that meaning doesn’t actually exist outside of my imagination. Whether these are goals in life or for the sole purpose of experience, (sole purpose of experience being that we aim to experience, not accomplishments, even though this aim may lead to accomplishments) I cannot help but see it only as a reason to stay alive and, most importantly, make progress in life. But is this not in itself deception from our part? Deception that tries to resolve the same issue that religion also aims to resolve; this issue being the feeling of abandonment and meaninglessness in life. The atheist form of deception may be more efficient for some, but the theist form of deception may be more efficient for others when it comes to meaning to life.
In my own experience of trying to grasp and accept the nihilistic nature of existence without meaning to life, I have noticed drawbacks to my life. These being both in the pursuit of goals or aim to experience. I realize I cannot continue to experiment with this mindset and that I must at some point fool myself into thinking that life has some meaning through my own will, so I can continue to make progress in life to fulfill this idea of meaning to my life. If I don’t believe in any meaning to life, then it seems that I don’t have to progress in life in any way to fulfill a meaning to my life. But this experience brings up another concern.
If progress in life demands meaning to life, then we must believe that there is meaning to life to make progress in life.
If all ideas that give meaning to our life are deceptive ideas, then we must deceive ourselves to live a meaningful life.
If we must deceive ourselves to live a meaningful life, then the concept that life is meaningful is also a deception.
If we are beings that must believe that there is meaning to life to make progress in life and belief that there is meaning to life is deception, then all human progress is based on deception.
If all of human progress is based on deception, then deception can lead to objective results.
If this is true, does it mean that we can never stop deceiving ourselves, be it in an atheistic or theistic manner, in order to live a meaningful life and make progress in life? Is existentialism simply a different answer to our existential problems from the answers that come from theism? And for those who cannot or will not grasp the ideas that give meaning to life from the atheist perspective, may we not be denying them meaning to life and progress in life by destroying/denying their ability to believe in theism? Equally, for those who cannot or will not grasp the ideas that give meaning to life from the theist perspective, may we not be denying them meaning to life and progress in life by destroying/denying their ability to believe in atheism?
@@darkfazer
---
Professor’s Response:
If there is no meaning in life, why is progress important?
---
That’s exactly why I can’t say, according to my argument, that there can be progress without meaning to life (Meaning that if we don’t have the idea to do anything that may make our life meaningful, something that we may act on, then any progress isn’t meaningful, it isn’t really progress). This is why I cannot say; experience is what solely matters in life, not having meaning to life. By saying that, I have contradicted myself, because experience (or progress, since emphasis on experience itself is progress towards meaning to life) seems to create meaning to life. So in the end, if there’s no meaning to life, then progress is not important and therefore, not progress at all (progress to what?).
Not even being alive matters, apart from some instinct for self preservation (which itself is a concept that arises more questions), which when the instinct is disregarded one may decide to commit suicide. (I’ll bring up the instinct for self preservation again later)
*I may lack the knowledge or the proper way of writing down what I mean to say, but I only ask for patience to truly investigate and fully manifest my thoughts.
What I want to clarify first is that meaning to life is based on self deception no matter where this meaning derives from. The atheist existentialist is no less of a deceiver as the theist, even though it may provide a different perspective to life, and even though the atheist sees the theist as life denying. If meaning to life cannot truly be existing and non-existing at the same time, then only one claim must be true. Let’s take the side of the atheist existentialist and also assume that meaning to life is truly non-existent, since the only compelling argument that meaning to life does truly exist depends on the existence of a God who cares about human affairs and who is the creator (which would make us like the paper-knife). In this point of view, there is no intrinsic meaning to life, meaning that any meaning to life is solely based on our own individual subjective notion and creation of it, but this doesn’t make meaning to life something that truly exists, just like a subjective belief in God doesn’t make God’s existence true. If there is no true meaning to life, then our idea that there is meaning to life is a deception. This doesn’t mean that I regard the notion of meaning to life as unimportant, on the contrary, I believe it is of utmost importance.
Now, we can refer back to progress. If there is progress, then there is meaning to life. This is because having the idea that there is meaning to life turns our actions from being meaningless, unimportant, or mundane, to actions that lead to this idea of meaning to life; therefore, we can call those actions progress.
Before I continue, I need to return to the notion of self preservation, which I mentioned earlier. Like Sartre mentions, man is in anguish by its forced responsibility to make decisions in life. This responsibility urges us to formulate ideas which leads to decisions we must take to fulfill those same ideas (ideas of who we want to be to create our essence). But why must we make those ideas of who we want to be? And what happens if we stop making them?
I’ll try to explore the first question by making the following claims:
If we create ideas (ideas of who we want to be), then we must take actions to fulfill them.
If these ideas lead to actions to fulfill them, then there is progress being made.
If these ideas lead to progress, then, according to the prior claims (from the beginning of this email till now), there is meaning to life.
The meaning of life here is based on our idea of what we should/want to be. It is an idea based on our subjective opinion about the world and how we should fit into it. I must emphasize that even though the concept of meaning to life is important to define ourselves and to progress in life, it is still not a true concept but our own creation, just like the concept of theism.
Now, let’s explore the second question:
If we don’t create ideas, then there is no progress being made.
If there is no progress being made, then there is no meaning to life.
I must pause here to make sense of what I’m about to say. At this point, I am convinced that forming ideas that lead to meaning to life through progress is essential for human existence. Because of this, I believe that the very act of forming ideas that lead to meaning to life is nothing but self preservation. And because it is self preservation, it emphasizes that we have the responsibility to form ideas and to make decisions which lead to our concept of a meaning to life. I will continue the claims with this in mind:
If there is no meaning to life and no self preservation (which itself is a drive to formulate ideas that lead to meaning to life), then there is no reason to be alive.
If there is no reason to be alive, then suicide is (might be using the wrong word here) justified.
This second set of claims seem grim, but it is an extreme that seems important to understand. I don’t believe most people who didn’t fulfill their idea will necessarily commit suicide. The notion that we can still create new ideas is still prevalent. Therefore, we can change these ideas and adapt them to our will or capability. But if we assume that the complete lack of ideas and actions (that lead to meaning to life) will ultimately result in suicide and see suicide as an issue, then we must understand the formation and fragility of these ideas.
[Viktor Frankl wrote his book exploring the importance of meaning to life in the concentration camps, and how it led him to develop his practice of logotherapy. I realize that individuals did not choose to befall to the horrible circumstance, but having meaning to life seems important to the continuance of life itself.]
To start, we must contemplate on the difficulty of first creating this idea of what will make our lives meaningful. Since one is not born having an idea of what their meaning to life is a priori, one must first create an idea of what it is, or more realistically, what it could be. We can see this as solely an aspiration to fulfill those ideas. After, we must act on this idea and make progress to achieve what we believe will give our life meaning. This seems easier said than done. In my opinion, human beings are horrible at creating their own ideas of meaning to life by themselves and fulfilling this idea without the aid of theism or indoctrination from some secular ideology; even Sartre mentions that his way of thinking isn’t meant for everyone. It is not that I believe that human beings are incapable of imagining ideas of what gives meaning to life, but that our judgement may be erroneous, or that we may be too indecisive to choose an idea that we can aim towards. If our judgement is erroneous or we can’t decide on an idea that we can aim towards, then our actions (or lack of action) will result in a lack of meaning to life and the loss of potential progress (both in progress lost because it didn’t lead to meaning in life and in the time that is lost to reform ideas). This leads to the fragility of meaning to life.
Let’s take for example the devote Catholic, who may believe that life after death is more meaningful than this life. They are not free to make any decision they would like according to their beliefs, and this includes committing suicide. They are grounded, however superstitious the belief may be, to a set of rules that must be followed to successfully reach this transcendental meaning. Also, just because they are Catholic doesn’t necessarily mean that they are also not subjected to the responsibility to act. They can also choose to give this life meaning and to act upon the idea, even though it may never be (to them) more meaningful than the transcendental meaning. I am not saying this to defend theism in any way, nor am I saying that Christianity is a perfect religion. But I want to contrast this example with the atheist perspective.
I may have the opinion that existentialism leads to a more fulfilling life. A life where one is free to choose for themselves what makes life meaningful, and to pursue this without the boundaries of theism or other secular doctrines. But the difference between myself and the devote Catholic is that if I fail to successfully gain a sense of meaning to life, I have no place to fall back on but myself, and I must pick myself up. This is something I must accept as an atheist existentialist, but this I cannot apply to everyone.
Like Sartre mentions, we do not only make decisions for ourselves, but for humanity. Who am I to know that the atheist existentialist perspective is one that is beneficial if everyone practiced it?
As a final note, Nietzsche wrote in “The Gay Science” in the passage of the Madman, “Is not the magnitude of this deed too great for us? Shall we not ourselves have to become gods, merely to seem worthy of it?”
And now that it seems that we must become gods, this task does seem too great for us collectively. Our existence, our meaning to life, depends on self deception whether it comes from atheism or theism. We seem too disorganized to successfully steer our own moral values. Also, our freedom seems to make our hardships more difficult to deal with. If this is not what human nature can successfully deal with, then our future seems unfounded.
But if human nature can deal with this burden, how must we learn to do so?
I think the concept of meaning being a deception is something I must clarify. My reason to call our belief that life has meaning a deception is based mainly that it is a false belief. On a very nihilistic perspective that doesn’t consider human subjectivism, meaning is completely devoid.
Since it is impossible to have these two claims make logical sense at the same time:
Life has meaning. (Or we can say “Meaning to life exists”)
and
Life doesn’t have meaning. (Or “Meaning to life doesn’t exists”)
Then we seem to have to agree that one of these claims is false.
The theist may say something like, “Of course there’s meaning, because we’ve been created by God to have meaning.”
But the atheist has been freed from the concept of God. I, as an atheist, can only see one possible way of looking at these two claims. There is no such thing as a meaning of life that truly exists. If the universe was absent of creatures to have the existential problems that lead to creating meaning to life in their lives, then the concept of meaning to life is non-existent, because it isn’t necessary. Better yet, let’s imagine this universe without life at all; then there would never be such thing as meaning to life. Human beings create the concept of meaning to life as a subjective belief that it exists.
Something that subjectivism can do is make it seem like contrary terms can be true at the same time. For example, moral claims can both be “true” even though they contradict. Like these two claims:
You should eat meat.
You shouldn’t eat meat.
It is not based on any objective moral values (since we don’t even know if objective moral values exist), but solely on our subjective interpretation about the world through our subjective moral values. Which means we can say both claims are true, even though it makes no logical sense. If you ask me, there’s no such thing as objective moral values. If there’s no objective moral values, then moral values don’t exist. But this is going a bit off track.
My point is that human beings create meaning to life as some necessary concept to make progress in life. It is not something we discover to be true about the universe. It is only something that helps us live life as existential beings. If I say life has meaning and give whatever subjective reasons for it, it doesn’t make the claim “life has meaning” true. But because the claim “life has meaning” isn’t true, I am creating a false concept by believing that it is true. I am not telling or believing the truth. If I decide to continue to believe that life has meaning (doesn’t matter whether based in theism or atheism), then I believe in a claim that is false. This is why both the theist and the atheist deceives themselves by believing that life has any meaning.
Apart from our moral values, what’s to say that one can’t believe that life is completely meaningless, even if it leads to suicide or depression?
But because we believe suicide and depression are negative/bad, we persist on deceiving ourselves to believe that life has meaning.
Some thoughts. Equivocation can be a logical error, it can also be a literary device for poetry. It would be greatly appreciated if you could also speak on other things that can be logical errors such as tautology, paradoxes or oxymorons or any other "self-contradictions". If you could explain their use in promoting errors in scientific thought, and discriminating it from their "correct" use in literary thought.
Secondly the notion of a "fact" seems to give many people license to spread falsehoods. This discussion on realism would do well to define and discriminate between facts and their proper use. Are there different kinds of facts? Can facts be used to lie? How can they be used to lie if they're facts?
For my own part I consider facts to be a device strictly for the use of historians and reporters. Strictly limited to corrroborateable times, dates, events, names, identities, locations, etcetera. Science, which claims to be a more "reliable way of knowing", lays claims to scientific facts: measurements, methodologies and their "factual" correlations producing predictive models.
It would be helpful to many to explore the fallacies and forensics of facts.
Tautoligies aren't logical errors.
@@simorote how is a tautology not an equivocation?
@@kallianpublico7517 because a tautology is a theorem of propositional logic, which means that it's true and not an error.
@@simorote the truth tables of propositional logic sound fine when you don't give a concrete example in language. Make a logical proposition that would actually fit as an example of a tautology and then let's discuss it. From my understanding it uses a trick of equivocation to achieve "truth". It says the same thing using different words, but claims it is saying two different things: equivocating.
@@kallianpublico7517 the whole business of logic is to formalize entailment to use in natural (or formal) languages, there is no "trick" nor "equivocation". Sentences of the form: if P then P are true, and inserting an example in English (say: I ate cereals for breakfast) will not change the truth value of the formula nor equivocate in any way.
There's the *real* real and then there's the *REAL* real. And that, is scary.
Unless, of course, the universe itself is a mind, in which case everything is mind dependent.
The problem is you did not see a cat. You saw an image of a cat and thought by mistake that you know there is a cat. The truth is you did not see, or cannot see the DNA, the guts, and the shit of the cat that made the cat a real cat and not just an image of a cat. It's that simple. May the love and the peace of Jesus be with us.
I grant the DNA point, but I have 14 cats, and I see plenty of sh*t. 🙂
@@PhiloofAlexandria you mean images of cat shit, not what's in them to make than real cat shits and not just images of cat shit. Besides, each one of them is particularly different from the other. Therefore cat shits are not universal. May the love and the peace of Jesus be with us
But he did see a cat. He did not see an image of a cat. He may have also introspected and introspected an image of a cat, but that is a different mental operation from seeing. That seeing a cat is mediated by an image of a cat does not mean that what is seen is not the cat but the image of a cat. To attempt to explain seeing a cat by seeing of a representation of a cat is to not explain seeing at all. Therefore, the representation (if such there be) is internal to the act of seeing, not something external to the act towards which the seeing is truely directed. To explain a thing is not to explain it away.
@@jeffreyscott4997 No one here is trying to explain the cat away. The truth is he saw an image of a cat and believed he saw a cat. He did not see the life, the molecules, the blood in the cat that made the cat a real cat and not just an image of a cat.
He also brush his teeth everyday believing that he will have healthy teeth tomorrow. But he has not seen tomorrow, so what made him think there is a tomorrow, or that his teeth, or he himself will still be on earth tomorrow ? His beliefs, you see ? Not his knowledge for he knew nothing about tomorrow. That, is the truth.
The truth is what we see is not real, what is real we cannot see. We live by our beliefs, not our knowledge, for knowledge we have none.
May the love and the peace of Jesus be with us.
@@jwu1950 You are just repeating your assertion. Where is this image of a cat you talk about? There is him, the cat, and his seeing of the cat. In this the existence of an image is only theorized as the means by which the seeing is done by him. But this explanation of the cat-seeing implies that the cat-seeing does not in fact take place.
To put this another way, just what is it that is missing from his seeing of the cat that, where it there, would make it the seeing if a cat instead of a cat-image? Just what would seeing what makes the cat a real cat be other than what he did? Your standard implies that to see the real cat he would have to do something that would be something other than seeing, which is absurd.