What is Philosophy?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 14 июл 2024
- I am writing a book! If you want to know when it is ready (and maybe win a free copy), submit your email on my website: www.jeffreykaplan.org/
I won’t spam you or share your email address with anyone.
This is a video intended for college students considering taking a class in philosophy, but who are not sure exactly what philosophy is. This is also a video for parents or other relatives or friends of college students who have decided to major in philosophy, but who are not sure exactly what philosophy is.
I reckon the majority of us are just people interested in philosophy who found your excellent lectures on youtube and can't get enough
This . But I wish I was the first person he mentioned.
Definitely this!
I took a moral philosophy class with him and he always puts a ton of effort into his lectures. Awesome guy
@@SilentlyContinue Me too.
@@chaoslord07 dab on the haters
Your wrong I'm not a student or parent. I'm just some guy who came across your video on if everyone sees the same red. Now I'm listening to all of them as I work to stay entertained.
I’m a mature undergraduate law student in 🇲🇹 malta and I’ve devoured all your videos !! You have a gift of simplifying what every one else complicated
Thank you prof. Kaplan. I really like your lectures. You delivered them in a clear and rigorous way.
Thank you for the kind words!
@@profjeffreykaplan I invite you to reflect on how it's wrong from the beginning. Philia does not mean "Love" and Sophia does not mean "Wisdom." These oversimplified mistranslations are well known in classical hermeneutics. It might be better to spend time on the relevant taxonomies that include Philia and Sophia, and how Pythagoreans (who coined the term "Philosopher") distinguished their projects from Sophists. Pythagoreans also repurposed Schole, or Leisure, into our notion of Philosophiscal Schools. Those institutions copied their books by hand as well as taught them to new Mathetes ("disciples") and Akousmatikoi ("hearers"). We contemporaries oddly disembody "ideas as mental states" largely due to the commodification of printed books, which is itself a philosophical problem.
Talking about philosophy philosophically, pure genius.
Great video. Another thing to add concerning the major philosophical questions (does god exist, free will, Justice, etc.)…even if we forget about them after leaving childhood and get consumed by distractions, taxes, and dates…our decisions and lives are still steered by our subconscious answers to those questions. To take an intro philosophy course it take more conscious control over your life.
i love this guys teaching! he is one of the best teachers i've ever seen
As an engineer, I love philosophy. Unfortunately, it doesn’t pay my bills.
The problem with arguments made around 15:00 is that it's actually a subject of debate as to whether some of those questions are objective or subjective. "Which actions are morally good," for example, has proponents on both sides. Also, there is a philosophical view that doesn't point to the mere disagreement in philosophy, but the fact that philosophers have disagreed over the same questions for the past 2,000 years in order to cast doubt on a definitive conclusion ever being reached. I also think that math 20:50 is a really bad example of a non-empirical question, as some argue that the foundation of math isn't abstract reason but is grounded in the empirical world. We discovered that 9 isn't prime by observing such division between objects in the real world, and then abstracting to an inductive conclusion. Same with a triangle. Axioms would have never been thought of if they first weren't reflected in experience. And in 29:30, many philosophers (Not Socrates, but Nietzsche, for example) would include rhetoric or persuasion among a philosopher's tools. 39:20 is completely right, though.
Yeah since philosophical questions can't be answered through observation I'd argue they can't be considered true or false.
Thanks for your passion-- your love for learning surely shines through! I wish I'd had a fun professor like you back at the "Yale of the Midwest" (shown in the 1895 photograph). BTW, I recently replicated the shot using a modern-day student with a cell phone up to his face. One wag saw the replication and said, "We've gone from a society of thinkers to one of talkers." I gotta admit, he got me thinking about that one Jeffrey!
I'm not a philosopher (unless the armchair variety counts), but the philosophers I have known have a deep ENTHUSIASM for the discipline. It seems to me that this enthusiasm is encompassed, in a genuine way, within the sense of PHILIA. So I, personally, would not so quickly dismiss the relevance of philia in defining modern philosophy.
Moreover, sophia is also useful for defining modern philosophy. We tend to think of wisdom as profound insightfulness, often of the sort that comes with age and experience. The ancient Greek understanding of it was more along the lines of "skill". A master carpenter or stonemason would be considered wise.
Combining philia and sophia is, in my mind, quite nicely congruent with the pursuits of modern philosophy and helpful in defining it. I happen to love (in the philia sense) language, and frequently find exploring the etymology of a word very helpful in grasping its deeper implications.
Sorry if I'm being pedantic. My intent is to advocate for the art of etymology, and to advise against its offhand dismissal due to a blunt, overly-simple, literal translation of a word.
FWIW, my daughter double-majored in philosophy and history. (A father's nightmare?)
As a. Twenty something subsaharan African from Kenya,I do appreciate this channel, I'm always hungry for knowledge and this is where I run to when I want to learn one or two things
Interesting explanation. Really worth watching.
I'm not one of your students, nor a parent - I'm doing a short course on philosophy after being out of education and work for a while, and your videos help explain the topics further! I'm trying to get better words to explain this crap in my head. Your passion feels so wholesome, and now I'm obsessed!
I am always disappointed when people question the merits of doing an undergraduate degree in philosophy, as people often question it's correlation to securing a career. To major in philosophy can inexorably lead to many lucrative careers, such as law, administration, journalism, academia, and others. The personal fulfillment of doing a degree in philosophy is far reaching.
Amazing! Great video!
I'm a mature interested person, Ive seen a good few of your videos, and it all seems very intuitive.
As a teacher of philosophy, with a masters degree in tge subject. After watching this video, I'm more sure than before, in telling my students that philosophy is the study of controversies 😜
I would love to see videos like this about psychology, maybe about Jungian psychology. It would be great if you talked about those topics too. You have a very clear and engaging way of speaking-and you are not pretentious, and that is a great relief; people I know who talk about philosophy are quite pretentious and it's honestly quite annoying to listen to them; you are authentic and humble. I can tell you like what you do, and you don't act as if you were superior to other people because of your knowledge and your ability to communicate it.
Hope you consider expanding into psychology.
Thanks for your amazing work.
Very interesting as well as informative.
Thanks!
Genius educator. Thank you.
I've enjoyed all your videos very helpful and informative for such a big expansive subject
A really terrific programme.
I should have read philosophy before going to law school.
Or #3, I am not taking a philosophy class or the parent of same, but am binging on all of your videos, including this one. Checkmate.
A compelling argument for majoring in philosophy.
Excellent video, Dr. ("Doc") Kaplan.
Thanks for the kind words. Whether you are a real human or a bot, I appreciate it either way.
:Ooooooooooo awesome video, thank you for this!
Im a single mom that never have time, always questioning my existence and seeking wisdom for my behavior
The definition that i use is: set of knowledge that seeks to rationally establish the most general principles that organize and guide knowledge of reality, as well as the sense of human action.
Your videos are incredible
Thank you. That's kind of you to say, and encouraging to hear.
Just in case it's helpful to have them organized in some way, I have ordered them by topic and as courses in playlists: ruclips.net/channel/UC_hukbByJP7OZ3Xm2tszacQplaylists
Thanks Professor Kaplan for all your inspiring videos.
Philosophy produces better persons. People that cultivates the ability to understand other people, accept them, and objectively help them… while feeling happiness in doing so.
What is the just way to arrange society?
This is a question that seems to assume that we can consciously arrange society (like a contract) -which, at the same time, assumes we can do it the right way for all too.
I am a graduating student at Management Accounting. We don't even have any philosophy class on our course. I am just interested in Philosophy. It's too compelling for me and it makes me ask a lot of questions to myself about myself and the world around me.
I just feel like in whole my life, I am at the wrong course...
My mind has full of questions, contradictions, ideas, analysis, and wanting to gain a lot of knowledge. I love it... I am passionate about it... I want to learn more about it...
Excellent video. Philochrony is the theory that describes the nature of time and demonstrates its existence. Time is magnitive.
I'm not in college as matter of fact I fertilize lawns for a living I just like learning new things
Thank you Professor Jeffrey. This video changed the way I look at philosophy. I would love to engage in more philosophical discussions from now one. Although, I've already been doing that, but now I have developed a deeper appreciation of doing it. I'd probably watch all your videos for a year, like a separate course other than the one I'm currently studying.
I'm here because your self presentation and appearance remind me of an old college friend who developed a bad relationship with ambien. I mean you don't remind me of the ambien use, it's just pleasant to imagine what he could have become. And I like the way you explain things. I'm just an unemployed tech bro though.
"Superb job on this video; it's far more engaging than my own."
I start my physics classes with a definition of science, almost equivalent to yours. "The philosophy that truth is _solely_ determined by observation/experiment" I also use the slash. Not a perfect definition, but cool to see the similarity.
Brilliant video! It makes mine look like amateur work.
Kurt Goedel's incompleteness theorems can be seen as a partial answer to the philosophical question "What can we know ?" , but it was proven by mathematical means . Does this mean that the once philosophical question "What can we know in mathematics ?" has lost it status as a philosphical question ? The same happened to the paradox of Achilles and the tortois once mathematicians figured out that an ifinite series can have a finite sum . This shows me that either mathematics is part of philosophy (and also a language) or the link with philosophy is stronger than only the laws of logic
There is a connection in my mind between Godel’s incompleteness of formal logic systems and the seeming observable notion that, in the final analysis, there is no such thing as a complete knowledge of anything. There are always more mental associations of varying value that can be “REAL”-ized - even ones that completely contradict other ones. But supposedly, disciplines like zen can use these kinds of conundrums like a hammer, to shatter our mental confusions between our abstractions with the un-namable “suchness of being”.
Kaplan is awesome! Especially when he wants to tell parents what philosophy is, and he within 5 minutes or so, ends up telling parents that their college-age kid, is either childish or smoking weed ❤ (@05:20 -ish)
I did an engineering undergraduate degree in the seventies. Students were required to take one "arts elective" each year. The most memorable class of all my undergrad (and post graduate) studies was Philosophy 100. Maybe there is something about being a professional philosopher that lends itself to being an outstanding teacher. I venture that question is NOT a philosophical question. We can start with Dr. Kaplan as one data point in answering that question in the affirmative!
A few thoughts I had while listening to this:
1. Nature is not evil. It is neutral. Not good nor bad. That is man's as in mankind's. Need to understand something. From understanding can come control. Which inevitably leads to power. Not over nature, but over man.
2. Define immortality? Depending on the story, immortality can have its cons. For example you could live forever yes! If you say are immune to disease. No longer need to eat or drink. However, what is the inverse of that? You are immortal yes. Save for injury. Not being immune to anything. Usually in any story there's some kind of weakness to it. The one that springs to mind is the film League of extraordinary gentleman. I don't recall the characters name, but so long as I did not look at a pain of himself. He would never age. He was immune to injury. Or he would just heal very fast.
Anyway, just some thoughts that spring to mind while listening to this. That I wanted to share.
I used to always wonder what happens if i was to enter a black hole. Even as a small child.
When we talk about wisdom, it's about Sophia. Merriam Webster defines it simple as "Divine Wisdom". Things like Purpose, Soul, Free Will, Fairness...instead of having some else provide the answer (revelation) we can arrive at answers to questions related to Sophia by reasoning. Now, could anyone arrive at the concept of "virtue" without having been first exposed to any "revelations"? It's harder to answer than it seems. In some way, Philosophy may very well be Religion for Skeptics, or Divinity in the Machine. Talking about the number nine (9, IX, .........), the only way to reason about it is with our neuronal machine.
I am in my 30’s and I went back to university to finish my studies and took bold decision to finally major in Philosophy.
Do I feel scare of my future in terms of acquisition of wealth? Yes
Do I feel terrified about my age and the competition with younger students? Yes
However, harsh life experiences have taught me that when you align yourself with your life purpose everything else comes by default.
👽♥️♥️♥️
If you studied philosophy hoping that will help you in the acquisition of wealth, well all I have to say is I pity you!
I majored in STEM in college. In our junior year, we were required to sign up for at least one humanities elective. Among other options, I did consider philosophy-but only because I'm an Ayn Rand fan, and she said that every thinking person should study philosophy.
Ultimately though, I didn't pick philosophy. (Sorry, Ayn. You too, Jeff. 😔)
Future earnings was not an issue. As I said, I'm a STEM major. That philosophy course - _"Introduction to Philosophy"_ - was only going to be an elective for one semester. Rather, there were two other reasons:
(1) The course spent a lot of time discussing God. For me, that's a huge bummer-a major turn-off. See, growing up in multi-religious, multi-cultural India, I've wasted enough hours of my life arguing with friends and classmates over whose religion is the one true religion. And how many-if any-gods (and goddesses) there really are. Take your pick: 0, 1, 2, 3, more. As you said, it depends on which revelation you go by. Alternatively-if you want to be logical and rigorous-which axioms you start with. In any case, it's not scientific and can't be verified empirically. Furthermore, philosophy _hasn't_ answered the question conclusively one way or another. And regardless of whatever conclusion one comes to, it's impossible to convince those who believe otherwise.
(2) Of all the subjects of study-STEM, humanities, performance arts etc.-philosophy is unique in that it doesn't have a straightforward definition. Just as you did in this video, they tried to "define" philosophy with a bunch of examples of the kind of questions philosophy tries to answer. While I understood-after hearing the explanation-why each particular question fell under philosophy's purview, unfortunately, I couldn't grasp the overall pattern.
Next, we were told that philosophy consists of all the topics covered by its subtopics, such as metaphysics, ethics, epistemology etc. That too was not very satisfactory-it was like defining math as the sum total of algebra, geometry, calculus etc. ("Sum total" - see what I did there? 😜)
Finally, they had another big section on what is _not_ covered in philosophy. By itself, that's not unusual-other subjects do it too; it helps establish the boundaries. But in the case of philosophy, it seems like it's defined as much by what it's not as what it is. (That previous sentence would be inadmissible in my _"Business Communication in English"_ class, but it should be trivial for philosophers to comprehend.)
Long story short, I opted for _"Modern History: Post WW2 through the Collapse of the Soviet Union."_ It turned out to be exactly what the name said.
Regardless, I remain interested in certain subtopics of philosophy-specifically Logic, Epistemology, Ethics, and Jurisprudence. I've done a lot of self-study in my spare time, and continue to upgrade my knowledge through resources such as your RUclips videos. So thanks, and I too will see you in the next video!
I think a better definition of a philosophical question is "one that can't be answered sufficiently with *just* observation or experimentation or proof/calculation from axioms"
I have met some anti-scientific philosopher who, when confronted with scientific facts said "let's not go there, that's not philosophy", and I think this could prevent that from happening.
I say the question of whether the universe is going to expand forever is also a philosophical question, since empirical answers aren’t guaranteed to be correct and so the claim that the universe is expanding now isn’t even verified empirically, from a philosophical point of view.
In part, this is the reason that someone who is trained to a maximal degree in physics is said to have a Doctor of Philosophy degree in physics.
They are trained about how to provide rational arguments that tie empirical observations to theoretical claims, and to provide new forms of argument specific to physics, if and when the extant argumentation seems to fail to explain the rational interpretation of (new) empirical observations by physicists.
@jeffrey kaplan hello i am very interested in the science of argumentation and i would like to know if philosophy is the best school of argumentation where one argues the best and with the best methodology between law school or philosophy school where one learns to argue the best and who between the philosopher or the lawyer argues the most or the best and those in an objective way and what would you advise to a student to learn how to argue to go to law school or to philosophy school thank you very much your videos are wonderful.
Φιλοσοφίαν έστιν το απορρείν και θαυμάζειν ανευ ορίων said Plato in Timaios. So all types of questions are philosophy, hence all forms of scientific knowledge are parts of Φιλοσοφία. Without limitation (άνευ ορίων)
Good
Well atleast I learned that triangle is as fiction as unicorn.
Fr
Imagine being a philosophy instructor that refers to God as a creature.
The Cambridge dictionary defines creature as "a life form that is unsual or imaginary".
To Theists their god is unusual (unique).
To Atheists that God is imaginary.
I'd say he's nailed the description.
What term would be an alternative? Thing? Guy? I noticed his use of "creature" myself, and the usual term theists use for God is "being". There must be a well-thought out reason, a basis in philosophy for using "creature", and I would suggest that it is this: If you follow his whole lecture, notice he says that triangles (in the perfect sense) don't exist in the world, the triangle is a concept. So too is God, when treated as a philosophical subject. And as such God (unlike arguably a triangle) is a *created* concept, hence in rigorous treatment, in the context of philosophy, God is a creature because what is under discussion is the human created idea of God, without prejudice to whether or not the "creature" of God is an existent being. I would assume somewhere in his lectures Kaplan addresses this. Etymologically the word, creature, means something living or imaginary that has been created. Referring to animals (including us) as creatures is not philosophically neutral, it implies the existence of a God, a creator. However, referring to God as a creature reflects the fact that argument and discussion is not about "God", but around a topic, an idea that we have constructed.
Hi Sir, I have a simple (may be) question. Two persons are counting some identical items (x), one person is taking x one by one from the pile and putting it inside a bag after counting. The role of the another person is to watch so that there is no mistake in counting. Just for the sake of judgement of the quantity, the person watching says some random three digit number between 700 and 800, now the question is what are the chances of that number being the exact number matching with the total quality of item x after they finish the counting process.
🎯 Key points for quick navigation:
00:00 *🎓 Einleitung: Das Video richtet sich an Studenten und Eltern, um zu erklären, was Philosophie ist.*
01:06 *🏫 Definition: Philosophie als akademische Disziplin unterscheidet sich von der alltäglichen Nutzung des Begriffs.*
01:48 *🔄 Neustart: Vorurteile über Philosophie sollen beiseite gelegt werden, um neu zu beginnen.*
02:02 *🇬🇷 Etymologie: Philosophie bedeutet wörtlich "Liebe zur Weisheit".*
02:24 *🤔 Kritik: Etymologische Definitionen sind für das Verständnis der modernen Philosophie unbrauchbar.*
03:34 *🧠 Beispiel: Philosophische Fragen wie "Existiert Gott?" oder "Habe ich freien Willen?" werden eingeführt.*
05:19 *👶 Kinder: Kinder stellen oft philosophische Fragen, verlieren aber im Laufe der Zeit das Interesse.*
06:37 *🌱 Stoners vs. Philosophen: Philosophen versuchen, diese Fragen ernsthaft und rigoros zu beantworten.*
08:12 *🌌 Vergleich: Unterschied zwischen Philosophen und Astronomen bei der Erforschung der Sterne.*
09:16 *✝️ Religion: Unterschied zwischen Philosophen und religiösen Führern in der Beantwortung von Fragen durch Offenbarung.*
10:28 *🔍 Unvoreingenommen: Philosophen haben keine vorgefertigten Antworten, sondern untersuchen Fragen ernsthaft.*
11:12 *📝 Philosophie definieren: Eine Methode ist, Beispiele für philosophische Fragen zu geben.*
12:06 *🎭 Subjektivität: Philosophische Fragen sind nicht subjektiv, sondern objektiv.*
13:41 *🌎 Beispiele: Philosophische Fragen sind tief und bedeutend, aber nicht alle tiefen Fragen sind philosophisch.*
17:18 *🧪 Empirisch vs. Nicht-empirisch: Philosophie beantwortet Fragen, die nicht durch Beobachtung oder Experiment beantwortet werden können.*
20:11 *🧮 Mathematisch: Manche nicht-empirischen Fragen können durch Beweise und Berechnungen beantwortet werden, aber nicht philosophische Fragen.*
21:57 *🔺 Abstraktion: Mathematische Fragen unterscheiden sich von philosophischen durch ihre Lösungsmethoden.*
26:15 *📚 Definition: Eine philosophische Frage kann weder empirisch noch durch Berechnung beantwortet werden.*
27:08 *⚖️ Gerechtigkeit: Die Frage, wie Gesellschaft gerecht organisiert werden soll, ist eine philosophische Frage.*
28:32 *🧠 Rationalität: Philosophische Fragen werden durch rationale undrigorose Argumentation beantwortet.*
28:56 *💬 Argument: Philosophen nutzen Argumente als rationalen Prozess, um die Wahrheit einer Behauptung zu demonstrieren.*
29:51 *🧠 Philosophen: Sie haben nur Argumente und klare Gedanken, um ihre Fragen zu beantworten.*
31:12 *🤔 Philosophische Qualität: Einige Argumente sind besser als andere, wodurch nicht "alles geht".*
32:06 *🌍 Existenz von Gott: Beispiel eines Arguments gegen die Existenz eines allwissenden, allmächtigen und gütigen Gottes angesichts des Bösen in der Welt.*
33:15 *🏛️ Philosophie: Sie liefert begründete Antworten auf philosophische Fragen, was ihren Wert ausmacht.*
36:51 *🌌Unsterblichkeit: Die Frage, ob die Seele nach dem Tod weiterlebt, ist eine philosophische und wertvolle Frage.*
37:29 *📚 Philosophische Fragen: Fragen, ob Philosophie wertvoll ist oder "alles geht", sind selbst philosophische Fragen.*
40:03 *⚙️ Schwierigkeit: Philosophie ist schwierig, da sie nur auf klaren, rationalen Gedanken und Argumenten basiert.*
42:02 *🧪 Werkzeuge: Philosophen nutzen Worte und Argumente ähnlich wie Chemiker ihre Instrumente.*
44:01 *📊 Testergebnisse: Philosophiestudenten schneiden bei standardisierten Tests wie GMAT, LSAT und GRE gut ab.*
47:44 *💼 Karriereaussichten: Philosophiestudenten haben im Vergleich zu anderen geisteswissenschaftlichen Fächern gute Gehaltsaussichten.*
49:35 *💰 Philosophie und Reichtum: Die Frage, ob man Philosophie studieren sollte, um reich oder klug zu werden, ist selbst eine philosophische Frage.*
Made with HARPA AI
How are you SO good oh my god
I am wondering if you shot this video in the mirror mode.
Good question. I get this one frequently enough that I made a video explaining how it works: ruclips.net/video/6_d44bla_GA/видео.html
Nope! Here for a unique set of reasons 😂🤗💛✨
Exactly the right amount of cowbell.
Ever since taking basic and mid level courses in philosophy I cant stop preching to anyone unfortunate enough to listen why I think education should emphasize philosophy much higher.
I just know I´m way smarter (them cognitive faculties have leveled up) after studying it than I was before. Much more of a pain in the ... aswell I suspect a lot will say.
Me 😊 It’s a triangle.
‘It’s not a triangle.’
Me 😮
Literally me
I’m just here because I’m curious lol
What about social experiments... couldn't you create and study different societies to determine which one is most just, which would be both experimentation and observation?
Or I enjoyed the Set Theory presentation and stayed for the philosophy.
50:39
And Plato says that "it i only through our dreams that a man/woman can know themselves personally." Are you sure about the Dragon Grandma image in a dream?
If someone believes that a certain book is inspired by God and that one's beliefs should not go against what this book teaches, then what impact would this view have on his ability to do philosophy?
Min 16 "The heavens, We have built them with power. And verily, We are expanding it" (51:47 holy quran
Most people assume that people's income is the measure of how smart they are. Incomes are greatly determined by institutional arrangements; therefore, not necessarily connected to smart decisions. I do not see human progress if we humans decide to stop thinking. Should we rely on AI?
At the start of the course I teach, I state that philosophy is the study of what it is possible to know and how we can know it.
I also warn them that they might find a lot of fuss about what it might or might not be, but that is because they probably have lost the plot. Admittedly this leads to a particularly partial philosophical outlook, but I prefer to present a discipline that is more concerned with answers rather than evasions of answers. My students study philosophy to support their other studies. They need to understand how the knowledge they learn about can be justified.
Would like to get my 5 kids interested like me.
I'm so happy I'm a robotics engineer working on artificial intelligence. I'm probably too dumb to do philosophy.
Weell-Done
Oh no😮
OK. So here is a question given the current zeitgeist... Is the question "Is gender a spectrum?" a philosophical question?
Im just a guy watching all of your videos
I am neither just interested
0:19
but I am none of that, neither a college/uni/academic student nor a parent.
0:34 ... i came here because i like philosophy not because of im ug lmao
i am physics major student
@36:00 the question of do you have an immortal soul is phrased poorly. A better way would be to ask are you an immortal soul that has a body.
As far as the proof against an all knowing, all powerfull, and all loving God. The problem is why would you assume an all loving God would prevent all suffering. If you as a parent shielded your child from all pain you would stunt their development, why would the same not be true for an all loving God? Would a life free from all pain be worth living?
But, what do I know I am an uneducated stoner.
Perhaps a loving God would not have created beings who need pain in order to develop. Doesn't it seem that a loving God would have created beings who can learn through nothing more than observation and reasoning from the evidence? Why, please, is pain necessary? And, why wouldn't a life free from all pain be worth living? If God is our parent, then I'd say that It's a very abusive parent, indeed.
i’m here for the bass riff at the beginning and i stay for the snacks. what’s a major.
“Stoners” 😂 💪
i’m just some 19 year old that like to think
Think again Dr. Kaplan - isn't it "The Wisdom of Love"???????? Then what does Theosophy mean???? Huh?????
Love is hardly an emotion. Especially not philia
What are your views on modern psychology prof.Kaplan?
he is writing all of this reversed
It's almost as if he's actually right handed writing on glass and the video is then flipped to mirror image.
I don't think your taxonomy of fields of study works. The sciences utilise observation and experimentation, of course, but also rely heavily on reasoning and the sort of stipulation and proof in mathematics. And some subjects like history rely heavily on persuasive argument in conjunctionwith observation. Meanwhile, philosophical questions like "What is the just way to arrange society" (should) rely heavily on observation of societies. And perhaps some proofs from stipulation can occur, at least in the philosophy of mathematics, where ideas such as constructivism require proof that they actually are able to achieve the required results. Romantic subjects like English rely almost exclusively on argument, though admittedly of a different sort. Maybe philosophical questions can be defined as those which, despite being informed by observation, ultimately have to be answered by persuasive, rational argument.
When he said triangles don't exist.... that really messed me up. You think you know things and then you hear a philosopher speak! haha thanks!
After we came out of the church, we stood talking for some time together of Bishop Berkeley's ingenious sophistry to prove the non-existence of matter, and that every thing in the universe is merely ideal. I observed that though we are satisfied, his doctrine is not true, it is impossible to refute it. I never shall forget the alacrity with which Johnson answered, striking his foot with mighty force against a large stone, till he rebounded from it, 'I refute it thus.'
- James Boswell, The Life of Samuel Johnson
While Johnson's refutation is flawed and doesn't refute Berkeley's idealism, the deeper argument is sound. I just drew a triangle. Kaplan is wrong. While materially every triangle I draw is different, they are all triangles. Every pronounced phoneme is different physically, but it is recognized by all users of the language within certain limits as, say, the phoneme [u].
@@karelvorster7414 I understood him to mean that there are no naturally occurring triangles. That we can only draw or form triangle to represent a mathematical ideal. You could argue a mountain is a triangle if you were adamant but I see that the only triangles in "existence" were drawn
@@edotblair Good day, Erica.
Aren't we humans a part of nature? And I can draw a triangle. Even an ET is part of nature. Triangles are natural, they just need humans to occur. Separation always leads to riddles that needn't be. Seeking the underlying unity solves all riddles. But many a philosopher, like many a politician, thrives on division.
@@karelvorster7414 i'm not saying you're wrong. In fact, it's exactly as you say. Triangles wouldn't be if we weren't drawing them. Philosophy is fun hahaha
@@edotblair Never mind being wrong. I'd rather be disproved than remain in the light of error. Philosophy is fun and at the same time it is all-pervasive and all-powerful. Everybody has a philosophy and lives by his or her ideas but most of them remain unexamined. Have a good and thoughtful day!
argument do not one sees similarity in every thing that is around us directing us to the fact that there is one who has created them all that that is God
This might be interesting. With 51 minutes devoted to it I'm expecting a boilerplate definition, something parsimonious, rigorous, and comprehensive. Let's go:
3:34 Examples? Seems like deflection. Let's skip ahead.
13:37 I'm still waiting but this does not look very promising. "Does God exist," is not a philosophical question.
* The existence of a God is not philosophy.
* Free will is not philosophy.
* How do I know I am not dreaming is not philosophy.
* The existence of a soul is not philosophy.
Philosophy is absolutely unable to answer any of these questions so they can't be philosophical unless you define philosophy as the meaningless collection and argumentation of ignorance. And, I don't consider philosophy to be as trivial as that.
15:29 None of these questions are deep. They are just questions. Is this nothing more than a feeble attempt to rationalize philosophy? There is a good reason for philosophy to exist but it has nothing to do with the above questions.
Skipping
20:20 This is pathetic.
26:26 Philosophy is the hopeless attempt to answer questions it can't answer? Seriously?
Skipping
I'm sorry but this is ridiculous. If philosophy today is truly as awful as this lecture then it will require a chapter of its own.
You’re a case that proves his point. Almost every other comment on this video has been positive whereas yours was negative. It’s a question, a philosophical question at that, as to who is right.
If you had argued your position well, then there would be chance you’d be taken seriously. But you have no argument, just a string of unsubstantiated claims (aka uniformed opinions).
Consequently, one might conclude that philosophy is just not for you. (Perhaps a career in marketing?)
@@stephenl9463
You clearly misunderstand. These are not philosophical questions because they have scientific answers. I have no reason to make some kind of argument because I can prove things with evidence.
Ignorance of science does not bolster philosophy. And trying to get approval from philosophers would be a waste of time. Philosophy is very bad at construction, answering questions, and problem solving. This is what science does. What philosophy does very well is logical analysis. It's good at finding logical flaws. I don't know why philosophers keep pretending that philosophy is more than that.
Marketing? That's amusing.
If identifying God as a creature isnt a contradiction, then He created Himself. And if somehow that too isnt a contradiction of the most fundamental kind, then God and the universe seem to have a lot in common.
stoner here watching
Classic philosopher's mistake. Make a 60 minute lecture piece defining your work with well thought out details when, really, a snappy and sleazy 5-minute sales pitch is what those parents (think they) want.
(Good video there, boss. Joke's not at your expense.)
All man are not interest philosophy so take care that all are interest
Imagine, if you will, that I took all the basic phenomenal properties you experience and the optic structure they are situated in (the relations between individual quales) and removed everything else from the world. What would change from your point of view? Absolutely nothing.
Those tests are RIGGED!! haha j/k 😆
Why aren't philosophers as rigorous as astronomers? Where are your satellites? :trollface:
He is hot