There's just so much to learn in philosophy... just when I think I'm getting somewhere I realise I have forgotten the stuff I tried to grasp a two years ago. It's goes on and on in this sort of circle.
I LOVE Borges, so always I love your every lecture about Borges, too! Mr. Bonevac! Personally, I wholeheartedly request your lecture about his relatively unknown masterpiece, "Deutsches Requiem", which was both of beautiful defence of Nazism and fetal condemnation to its contradiction, and above all else warned its real danger for our future. It even inclines me to guess Borges had rather some sympathy for Nazism and hated Juan Peron just because he hated his insufficient understanding of Nazism as a "true" fan of Nazism. What do you think about my "rather dangerous" understanding of it? I'd love to listen to your detailed lecture about it and always thank you for providing us with your great lectures!
I’ve watched ( & loved) your videos on Borges, mr Bonevac, and I’ve wondered if you’re aware of the work of David Foster Wallace, if so, what’s your take on it?. I know his literary and journalistic works were informed by the writs of Wittgenstein, Richard Rorty, Kurt gödel, Borges, Richard Taylor & many more. He was very concerned with time, fate & language, he was an analytic philosophy student after all.
Loved the video - many thanks for posting. If time and inclination permit, do try Against a Dark Background by the late Iain M Banks, which features (inter alia) a group of people who refer to themselves as The Solipsists (note plural), and take turns using first-person pronouns.
The real "foe" today of realism is pragmatism. After all, we now know that what we see is not what we get, e.g. a table is not a solid piece of wood but mostly empty space filled with miniscule nuclei and a probabilistic haze of electrons. The pragmatist will tell us that in most situations we can view the table as a solid piece of wood, but in some instances we must see it for what it really is at the atomic scale. Take this to the social, political, or economic level and you get "pragmatists" telling us that although people were created via an ad hoc evolutionary process, that it would be best to organize a society around a coherent ideology and train people to fit within that ideology. So now we get communism, Marxism, fascism, libertarianism, etc. through the backdoor of pragmatism rather than the front door of idealism.
What the actual hell are you talking about? Are you a social darwinist or something? What does evolution have to do with organizing society via an ideology? Do you think evolution has some objective message that tells us how we should structure society? So do Marxists, and fascists. Divine law can come in many forms and it never seems to leave. Or are you cool kid and think you are not ideological in anyway?
The mind that perceives is not the same mind that thinks "linguistically". Consciousness is not self-consciousness. To understand this "rationally" ask yourself which came first consciousness or language, which is the basis of self-reflection: thought. Or to put it another way; is consciousness dependent on the linguistic mind, or is the linguistic mind dependent on consciousness. It is surely a reality that language affects consciousness, but this reality is called delusion. The ultimate judge of reality is consciousness. Science may make discoveries based on mathematics, a form of linguistics, but the final judge are the senses. Science exposes Nature as revealed by the senses.
The point is,IMO, is that consciousness can’t relate with language. To “know” something is beyond language. You may experience (perceive) a wonderful sunset but you can’t convert that to language so as to make someone to experience what you experienced.
@@felipeblin8616 The linguistic mind is all epistemology. You do "know" by the linguistic mind. The conscious mind is ontology. Nature, all things external and independent of the self (reality), is revealed by the senses and the conscious mind that is connected to the senses. Besides these two faculties the mind also posesses memory, will, and a third faculty that accociates or identifies one thing with another (a sound with an animal as an example).The linguistic mind makes full use of consciousness, memory, will, and the other faculty (which I will call intimacy) to define and redefine (interpret) its field of endeavor. The conscious mind deals with reality. Reality which is the sounding board for memory, will and intimacy. It is where memory, will and intimacy find their end: limits. The linguistic mind has no such limits, or its limits are bound by a property particular to itself: imagination. Such imagination can lead to science, culture, or any other "belief". It can also lead to delusion, mass hysteria, hallucinations, and other mental illnesses. Consciousness does not limit what can be imagined by the linguistic mind. In the case of hallucinations or dreams it cannot limit what can be "perceived". Perception that is constrained by personal memory, will, and intimacy is consciousness. Perception unconstrained by your particular memory, will and intimacy is imagination. Imagination is the realm of the linguistic mind. Reality is the realm of consciousness. The meeting place of both is Nature. It contains them both and probably determines their relationship to one another. Determines it because it also contains other things. Things hidden that may be revealed by evolution or science or other means; or things hidden that may never be revealed: things beyond our creation, nature.
@Dmmck I differentiate consciousness from perception. Dreams and hallucinations are perceptions but they are not consciousness. Consciousness is not self-consciousness. It is also not the other faculties of memory, will and the ability to associate or identify one thing with another which I call intimacy. Perception that is tied to the linguistic mind I call imagination. Perception that is tied to reality is consciousness. The consciousness that produces stimuli and response is limited. The personal, or particular, will, memory and intimacy dictates the response of the consciousness of individual beings. The will, memory and intimacy of the linguistic mind is only limited by the imagination. I explain this better to the other person on this post.
@Dmmck There is no thinking without language. The constant dialogue we have within ourselves does not come to exist without the indoctrination of language. After it is learned it comes to proccupy a large portion of activity that has nothing to do with consciousness. This preoccupation is what I call the linguistic mind. The origin of language in history cannot be traced as far as I know. But I would expect we humans lived and learned many things before any formal language developed. I imagine sounds and gestures passed for some proto-language before the first humans developed tools. In any case language as a tool could not achieve its present power without the faculties of memory, intimacy and will. The effort it takes to learn language coupled with its constant reinforcement has made it a pathological function of the mind. Without knowing it your will, memory and intimacy are constantly reinforcing it so that it takes up a significant portion of brain processing. Modern life has made it so "normal" that we barely notice that we're making the effort to create things to say and think. The reason you don't think you posess two minds is that your linguistic mind has overridden your consciousness. You think therefore you are. Not you sense therefore you are. Consciousness is not a thought. It is through consciousness, memory, intimacy, and will that we have trained ourselves to think linguistically. What other vistas of the mind could we have harnessed our faculties to do? Our linguistic mind may prevent us from ever "knowing".
@Dmmck By linguistic I don't just mean language. Whatever can be a sign is linguistic. This includes images, numbers, ideas, ideas about ideas, etcetera. I distinguish it from perception. The percept is not the same as the concept. The sun 🌞 that I perceive is not the same sun that is a word or image in my head. My senses are never my thoughts. There would be no new things to discover in the world if this wasn't so.
Wouldn't the simplest explanation be God? We would have our minds, ideas and a Divine Mind that perceives all minds and ideas and ensures convergence. Why exactly is God as the missing explanation fanciful? If God does exist and does create us and the world, wouldn't it be simpler to create the world as mental ideas for minds rather than create a different mode of existence called matter with which mind interacts. If Kant is right and we can't know things-in-themselves tgen why believe they are matter at all and not idea?
It's a good question and realists can't really explain whether the things we perceive correlate necessarily to the things-in-themselves outside our minds. Because in the end, their minds are all they have with which to understand the world. As Berkeley said, the observer tends to forget himself.
Regarding idealism: Couldn't we just kill idealism with our understanding of evolutionary biology? If we regard the science of evolution correct, there is simply no reason to believe human beings would evolve with deceiving perceptions. Quite the contrary, we can trust our perceptions because they evolved out of the necessity to perceive those objects around us. It would be nonsense for a specie to evolve with a set of perceptions which fail to perceive the world, because this would simply make us inefficient to survive. Edit: nevermind, of course you can't. An Idealist would say "how can you be sure that that which you observe about evolution is true? These observations are still dependent on your perceptions."
It's not that your perceptions are deceiving but you can not in any satisfactory way say that you perceive the world exactly as it is outside your mind because your mind is the only way you can not only perceive but understand the world. Berkeley did not think reality was not real, but that it wasn't made of matter, only ideas in your mind and the mind of god who gives reality regularity and continuity and perceives it.
"Sometimes a few birds, a horse, have saved the ruins of an amphitheater."
This is the most animated Bonevac lecture I've seen yet
Brilliant lecture professor! THANK YOU!
i love these lectures on the little known literature artists of philosophy.....as already said you are the john cena of philosophy
I love you so much mister Bonevac
There's just so much to learn in philosophy... just when I think I'm getting somewhere I realise I have forgotten the stuff I tried to grasp a two years ago. It's goes on and on in this sort of circle.
I LOVE Borges, so always I love your every lecture about Borges, too! Mr. Bonevac!
Personally, I wholeheartedly request your lecture about his relatively unknown masterpiece, "Deutsches Requiem", which was both of beautiful defence of Nazism and fetal condemnation to its contradiction, and above all else warned its real danger for our future. It even inclines me to guess Borges had rather some sympathy for Nazism and hated Juan Peron just because he hated his insufficient understanding of Nazism as a "true" fan of Nazism.
What do you think about my "rather dangerous" understanding of it? I'd love to listen to your detailed lecture about it and always thank you for providing us with your great lectures!
I’ve watched ( & loved) your videos on Borges, mr Bonevac, and I’ve wondered if you’re aware of the work of David Foster Wallace, if so, what’s your take on it?. I know his literary and journalistic works were informed by the writs of Wittgenstein, Richard Rorty, Kurt gödel, Borges, Richard Taylor & many more. He was very concerned with time, fate & language, he was an analytic philosophy student after all.
I think he even wrote one or two philosophical papers!
This video was so fun to watch.
Any similitude with actual world is pure luck. Really creepy indeed!
I love it, being an idealist is like being an infant 6 month or less old.
Very childish.
I shall ruthlessly bash idealists with this video.
Loved the video - many thanks for posting. If time and inclination permit, do try Against a Dark Background by the late Iain M Banks, which features (inter alia) a group of people who refer to themselves as The Solipsists (note plural), and take turns using first-person pronouns.
"Hore-heh Luis Bore-Hess"
as it is correctly pronounced
Always remember the fact that Spanish pronounces its J always as /h/ or /x/ and its G before E or I as /h/ or /x/ too!😘
The real "foe" today of realism is pragmatism. After all, we now know that what we see is not what we get, e.g. a table is not a solid piece of wood but mostly empty space filled with miniscule nuclei and a probabilistic haze of electrons. The pragmatist will tell us that in most situations we can view the table as a solid piece of wood, but in some instances we must see it for what it really is at the atomic scale.
Take this to the social, political, or economic level and you get "pragmatists" telling us that although people were created via an ad hoc evolutionary process, that it would be best to organize a society around a coherent ideology and train people to fit within that ideology.
So now we get communism, Marxism, fascism, libertarianism, etc. through the backdoor of pragmatism rather than the front door of idealism.
What the actual hell are you talking about? Are you a social darwinist or something? What does evolution have to do with organizing society via an ideology? Do you think evolution has some objective message that tells us how we should structure society? So do Marxists, and fascists. Divine law can come in many forms and it never seems to leave. Or are you cool kid and think you are not ideological in anyway?
The mind that perceives is not the same mind that thinks "linguistically". Consciousness is not self-consciousness. To understand this "rationally" ask yourself which came first consciousness or language, which is the basis of self-reflection: thought. Or to put it another way; is consciousness dependent on the linguistic mind, or is the linguistic mind dependent on consciousness.
It is surely a reality that language affects consciousness, but this reality is called delusion. The ultimate judge of reality is consciousness. Science may make discoveries based on mathematics, a form of linguistics, but the final judge are the senses. Science exposes Nature as revealed by the senses.
The point is,IMO, is that consciousness can’t relate with language. To “know” something is beyond language. You may experience (perceive) a wonderful sunset but you can’t convert that to language so as to make someone to experience what you experienced.
@@felipeblin8616 The linguistic mind is all epistemology. You do "know" by the linguistic mind. The conscious mind is ontology. Nature, all things external and independent of the self (reality), is revealed by the senses and the conscious mind that is connected to the senses.
Besides these two faculties the mind also posesses memory, will, and a third faculty that accociates or identifies one thing with another (a sound with an animal as an example).The linguistic mind makes full use of consciousness, memory, will, and the other faculty (which I will call intimacy) to define and redefine (interpret) its field of endeavor.
The conscious mind deals with reality. Reality which is the sounding board for memory, will and intimacy. It is where memory, will and intimacy find their end: limits. The linguistic mind has no such limits, or its limits are bound by a property particular to itself: imagination. Such imagination can lead to science, culture, or any other "belief". It can also lead to delusion, mass hysteria, hallucinations, and other mental illnesses. Consciousness does not limit what can be imagined by the linguistic mind. In the case of hallucinations or dreams it cannot limit what can be "perceived".
Perception that is constrained by personal memory, will, and intimacy is consciousness. Perception unconstrained by your particular memory, will and intimacy is imagination. Imagination is the realm of the linguistic mind. Reality is the realm of consciousness. The meeting place of both is Nature. It contains them both and probably determines their relationship to one another. Determines it because it also contains other things. Things hidden that may be revealed by evolution or science or other means; or things hidden that may never be revealed: things beyond our creation, nature.
@Dmmck I differentiate consciousness from perception. Dreams and hallucinations are perceptions but they are not consciousness. Consciousness is not self-consciousness. It is also not the other faculties of memory, will and the ability to associate or identify one thing with another which I call intimacy.
Perception that is tied to the linguistic mind I call imagination. Perception that is tied to reality is consciousness.
The consciousness that produces stimuli and response is limited. The personal, or particular, will, memory and intimacy dictates the response of the consciousness of individual beings.
The will, memory and intimacy of the linguistic mind is only limited by the imagination. I explain this better to the other person on this post.
@Dmmck There is no thinking without language. The constant dialogue we have within ourselves does not come to exist without the indoctrination of language. After it is learned it comes to proccupy a large portion of activity that has nothing to do with consciousness. This preoccupation is what I call the linguistic mind.
The origin of language in history cannot be traced as far as I know. But I would expect we humans lived and learned many things before any formal language developed. I imagine sounds and gestures passed for some proto-language before the first humans developed tools.
In any case language as a tool could not achieve its present power without the faculties of memory, intimacy and will. The effort it takes to learn language coupled with its constant reinforcement has made it a pathological function of the mind. Without knowing it your will, memory and intimacy are constantly reinforcing it so that it takes up a significant portion of brain processing. Modern life has made it so "normal" that we barely notice that we're making the effort to create things to say and think.
The reason you don't think you posess two minds is that your linguistic mind has overridden your consciousness. You think therefore you are. Not you sense therefore you are.
Consciousness is not a thought. It is through consciousness, memory, intimacy, and will that we have trained ourselves to think linguistically. What other vistas of the mind could we have harnessed our faculties to do? Our linguistic mind may prevent us from ever "knowing".
@Dmmck By linguistic I don't just mean language. Whatever can be a sign is linguistic. This includes images, numbers, ideas, ideas about ideas, etcetera. I distinguish it from perception. The percept is not the same as the concept. The sun 🌞 that I perceive is not the same sun that is a word or image in my head. My senses are never my thoughts. There would be no new things to discover in the world if this wasn't so.
Wouldn't the simplest explanation be God? We would have our minds, ideas and a Divine Mind that perceives all minds and ideas and ensures convergence.
Why exactly is God as the missing explanation fanciful? If God does exist and does create us and the world, wouldn't it be simpler to create the world as mental ideas for minds rather than create a different mode of existence called matter with which mind interacts. If Kant is right and we can't know things-in-themselves tgen why believe they are matter at all and not idea?
It's a good question and realists can't really explain whether the things we perceive correlate necessarily to the things-in-themselves outside our minds. Because in the end, their minds are all they have with which to understand the world. As Berkeley said, the observer tends to forget himself.
Regarding idealism: Couldn't we just kill idealism with our understanding of evolutionary biology?
If we regard the science of evolution correct, there is simply no reason to believe human beings would evolve with deceiving perceptions. Quite the contrary, we can trust our perceptions because they evolved out of the necessity to perceive those objects around us. It would be nonsense for a specie to evolve with a set of perceptions which fail to perceive the world, because this would simply make us inefficient to survive.
Edit: nevermind, of course you can't. An Idealist would say "how can you be sure that that which you observe about evolution is true? These observations are still dependent on your perceptions."
Watch a few videos by Daniel Hoffman and read about Plantinga's Evolutionary Argument for Naturalism.
I highly recommend you to watch another lectures by Mr. Bonevac solely dedicated to Borges' "Tlön, Uqbar, Orbis Tertius"
It's not that your perceptions are deceiving but you can not in any satisfactory way say that you perceive the world exactly as it is outside your mind because your mind is the only way you can not only perceive but understand the world. Berkeley did not think reality was not real, but that it wasn't made of matter, only ideas in your mind and the mind of god who gives reality regularity and continuity and perceives it.
Realism/ idealism feels like a false binary to me.