The cracks in philosophy | Hilary Lawson
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 7 сен 2024
- Hilary Lawson argues for philosophy's place in the reality of today.
To discover more philosophy content, visit a iai.tv?RUclips&
There are few experiences that deliver hard-hitting and contemplative debates with the world's leading thinkers to the masses. HowTheLightGetsIn does so, alongside other talented performers in music, dance and the arts. The festival creates a magical blend of intellectualism and art in a free and fulfilling weekend.
Hilary is interviewed by Steven Campbell-Harris of The Philosophy Foundation. Together they discuss the upcoming festival, the meaning of its title, and the value of public philosophy.
#HowTheLightGetsIn #HilaryLawsonClosure #PhilosophyOfReality
Hilary Lawson is a post-postmodern philosopher and a renowned critic of philosophical realism. He is best known for his work on reflexivity and his theory of Closure, which puts forward a non-realist metaphysics arguing that we close the openness of the world with our thought and language.
Founded in 2007, The Philosophy Foundation conducts philosophical enquiry in schools, communities, and workplaces. TPF recruits, trains and accredits philosophy graduates and undergraduates to be able to facilitate philosophical enquiries with groups of children, teenagers and adults. The Foundation also provides teacher training and resources for teachers to be able to facilitate philosophical and non-philosophical enquiries with classes. Their mission is to bring understanding, wisdom and eudaimonia (flourishing) to the heart of education for children and adults.
To learn more about The Philosophy Foundation, visit www.philosophy...
To discover more talks, debates, interviews and academies with the world's leading speakers visit iai.tv/subscri...
The Institute of Art and Ideas features videos and articles from cutting edge thinkers discussing the ideas that are shaping the world, from metaphysics to string theory, technology to democracy, aesthetics to genetics. Subscribe today!
For debates and talks: iai.tv
For articles: iai.tv/articles
For courses: iai.tv/iai-aca...
What do you think of the ethics of philosophy? Let us know in the comments below!
To watch more philosophical content, visit iai.tv?RUclips&+comment
In my mother tongue, they would say you have spoken like 10 men. It translates to mean you are in a class of your own. Meaning, this is a major contribution you have made, to say the least.,
Philosophy is a function of the Mind that can only be “logical” in binary terms. As such, it has reduced itself in the deconstruction of language (OSHO). You can either believe what you’ve read and heard through language (Terrence Mckenna) or Meditate-inward exploration-on your own Being. 😊
Nice interview. I will mention regarding the bit about objecting to describing something as 'good', that I agree, descriptions like that are often nebulous and relative. However, if we have a shared goal, say we collectively decide that we are to 'work together toward transforming the world we are presented into an increasingly optimal learning environment', you will find having the light of what could be in mind casts our decisions in relief. High contrast. This is not appealing to a moral label. It feels to me like that is what we are actually supposed to do logically. Is it a coincidence that it also feels moral? Gasp!
16:50 - I don't want people to think I'm good when I'm bad, particularly my friends
But I don't want people to think I'm bad when I'm being good
Very meaningful.
A new revelation is needed beyond the Cartesian for the Carsonian epoch with
climate change, in which we now live. Ortega y Gasset, 'Man And Crisis.' The
historical political crises with which we now live, may be understood from the
sociological perspective, aided by philosophy. 'Man and People' by Ortega y
Gasset. Albert Camus said Ortega had the finest mind in Europe. Jacques
Barzun, cultural historian, said of Ortega: sooner or later, they will have to
listen to him. Well anyhow, I've not listened to the whole video yet, but always
eager to contribute my bit.
Facts and data are not reality. It's the construction that is science that interprets
the facts and data, that is understood as reality. Or so I think.
Philosophy is reckoning with reality. Ortega y Gasset
Brilliant, but he's overlooking a giant of the Enlightenment (Spinoza) who pointed directly to the underlying Reality of existence, what he called "Substance". Fortunately for us, throughout history various methods of tapping this Substance (Aristolle's "Being-In-Itself", the Ousia of the Stoics, the One of Plotinus, the Tao, the Sat-Chit-Ananda (or Brahman, of Shankara), etc. , have been passed on. These methods may be considered doorways or portals into the Ultimate Reality behind the phenomena that compose our closures. To do this, we must transcend the realm of mind, language, and meaning itself and tap into what set theorist Cantor called "The Absolute Infinite". Manjushri in the Surangama sutra recommends the tool of SOUND (the primitive basis of language more foundational than meaning). The storehouse for these Sounds is the Rig Veda and the foremost Shiva mantra in the Vedas is the Mahamritunjaya mantra. Access it at "Sacred Sounds Choir" and listen to it for 5 min per day for at least two weeks. In due time you will transcend the mind and tap into the Ultimate Reality of the Universe, Pure Consciousness "In-Itself".
philosophy not only explores the fundamental nature of things, but challenges the dogma that arises therefrom.
....and it is the cracks that allow the light to enter
@13:50: "The people who've wrapped themselves in the moral flag are usually up to no good, in my view." I struggle to see the difference between people wrapping themselves in the moral flag and your own use of the words "no good". Sounds like a moral flag to me, even if it's just your (moral) view. If you mean to say that _you don't like_ people wrapping themselves in moral flags, then I would just say it that way, thereby not making moral judgments of others, but just making a statement about yourself.
You can not at the same time be against abortion and for a reduction in child support by the state that makes children go hungry and expect to be accepted as a human being. At most you are a moral monster.
Scientists use theories to advance knowledge; philosophers use interpretations.
Quantum scientists work with a blend, 'the Copenhagen interpretation' being a well-known example.
@@jaxagnesson5185 Why are you telling all of us that you don't understand the Copenhagen interpretation, child? ;-)
Can an individual who grew up isolated knowing no language, symbols or gestures with which to communicate, be a philosopher?
Or is that something only attainable through "higher education?"
I'm aware the obvious use of quotes allude to my bias., I can't help it.
To me life IS higher education, filled with lessons that'll remain unteachable in classroom settings.
That person can of course be a philosopher. Effective communicator will be a stretch. The rest of us understanding that particular philosophical presentation won't be easy.
@@tleevz1 What is your opinion/outlook on concepts like mind, soul and body?
What is your opinion of Socrates?
To you, does consciousness/awareness exist independently of flesh?
To you is consciousness a derivative of the manifestation of physical phenomena or do you believe there is some state of conscious nascency from within giving rise to the necessities of flesh?
Philosophy is the search for the process where opinion is pointless and redundant. Unless a mind is irretrievably responsive to divine explanations then each of us can be a philosopher. For these the principle study is Science which is predicated on the understanding that the Cosmos is linear, that it works, is based on a endlessly mutable and robust simplicity, and understanding how it does to the limits of our powers of observation is the pathway to deciding whether we are capable of establishing a future.
All we can claim are the 'solutions/capacities' provided by a deaf, dumb and blind mad experimenter we identify as Mother Nature. She did OK. She provided us with a pre-programmed mind (instincts), a support network of internal drugs (neurotransmitters/hormones) that in combination foster courage, resilience, achievement-seeking and sociability, i.e. alphas. A birthright. A society of those (genetic misfires excused) is the ideal platform. Can it happen?, is the core question of philosophy. How to unleash bright-mindedness, common sense and creativity on the dull sameness of a particular Universe, ours. To try to answer the forgivably cute anthropomorphic question: _Are Intelligence and Imagination the Cosmos trying to make sense of itself?_
Well worth a read. Sets the standard for the topic: Philosophy Who Needs It by Ayn Rand
Nobody needs Ayn Rand, either.
@@schmetterling4477 I'd wager you've never actually read anything Ayn Rand wrote.
@@bpoladsky Yes, I did. I puked after a few lines and then I threw her garbage away. ;-)
Philosophy is the search for truth; or philosophy is truth albeit always transient.
Cracks allow the light to enter
Unfortunately philosophy doesn't have a good error checking mechanism, unlike science, and advancement in learning happens more through introspection and cognition , as opposed to interacting with the world, again unlike science. This makes philosophy more or less a process of speculation and reasoning, and has very little to do with "search for truth", not to mention finding it.
Philosophy is not a field of Science - it's a discipline in the Arts Faculty.
Search for "experimental philosophy." There's also logical analysis of propositions given by scientists, whether in theories or in scientific reports. Your assertion has not been true, at least for the last 100 years. If you're talking about continental philosophy, then you're right.
@@dionysianapollomarx Can you point me to a demonstrable case of progress, especially in science, in the last 100 years that resulted from "logical analysis of propositions given by scientists"? The scientists are quite capable of reasoning and logical analysis themselves to advance their theoretical work, and they are much more equipped to do so being the experts in the field. I can't think of a single theoretical physicist saying that his or her progress in understanding the universe was made due to some meta analysis of scientific propositions researched by Philosophers. There is definitely plenty of interesting analysis of propositions to be had , but without proper checking mechanism, it's of little use, which is why theoretical research in science that actually offers insights about how we think and navigate reality never refers to works in Philosophy as a necessary layer of foundation for some key insights and discoveries.
30:00 the mentality of tief apes!
Physics is not the fundamental science for man; history is. Ortega y Gasset.
How many times can a relativist philosopher submerge themselves in an ice bath to make a 10 DegC room feel warm. I feel the realist viewpoint is underrated.
Eeeh...
Retired British PAYE tax paid no expense account or pension fiddle can’t afford to turn the heat on this winter.Illegals put in. 4 Star Hotels what fancy pants view have you got on this never mind talking K.rap.Put forward some kind of view use that fancy education that us Pensioners paid for,that NHS that gives you a bye not in the picture OAPs can’t get a Doctor or a Dentist.Didn’t see this coming haha did we.Working Class mind set I sort my house out before the next door neighbours
They are trying to show how clever they are. What rubbish, probably have no idea what how the world works.
These thinkers are doing work; some of it important, or at least valuable work. They provoke us to think about things in different ways. I, for example, have just (ten minutes ago) submitted a reply highly critical of Lawson's position; still, I value the discussion, and welcome the forum that presents an opportunity for me to disagree with the presenter. Incidentally, I also am a retired worker (ex-scaffolder, later lorry-driver), but I am not willing to be associated with the narrow-minded whingers of the working-class right.
@@jaxagnesson5185 where can we read your reply?
Irrational apes!