Sometimes it seems to me like people are like subatomic particles, the planets are like electrons, the sun is like the atomic core, the galaxies are like molecules and the universe is like a god or an animal, unconcerned with or unaware of his tiny parts.
@@skeptic1124 lol your telling me you are unconcerned with you brain cells? You are unaware of them? Let one of them become cancerous and then you would be aware and concerned.
Can anyone help me in understanding philosphy and below questions i am beginner and someone say start reading hegel first but i know from one of chomsky interview he dissmiss hegel as nonsense can any one tell me chomsky is right or wrong? Can hegel philosphy of embracing contridictions rather than overcoming is correct or wrong? Also is hegel correct in dissmissing kant noumenal realm is knowable as contridicitions rather than some unkowable substance as describe by kant ? Please answer if someone have answers i will be happy it will be help my understanding
@akbar-nr4kc start with the series by Michael Sugrue on youtube, go to the older videos watch the guy with glasses and blue background (old videos). Good luck
Bro you gotta understand Kant before getting to Hegel. By "nonsense" - which he more correctly says or Derrida - Chomsky just means (agreeing with Bertrand Russell) that it's EXTREMELY difficult philosophy, not really the place to start. Charles Taylor's secondary text on Hegel I would highly recommend, rather than just diving in to the Phenomenology of Mind. It's not nonsense, it's just dense, badly written, difficult stuff
Whoever told you to read Hegel as your introduction to philosophy was surely kidding. He's the most difficult and obscure philosopher going. There are many fine introductory books to philosophy. Bertrand Russell wrote a clear and concise introduction to the subject with his book "The Problems of Philosophy." (First published in 1912.)
The verificationist principle remains valid when applied to scientific or empirical statements. It's not itself a scientific or empirical statement, but a value statement. And so what? So is Occam's Razor.
The issue is not whether verification principle is valid or not as a principle for scientific inquiry. The issue is whether the principle is valid or not as a 'philosophical' principle. By the way, Occam's Razor is widely regarded valid, not meley as a scientific principle, but as a philosophical principle ae well.
@@James-od5eq Anyone who thinks "the simplest explanation is the best" needs help with reality: "Is Occam's razor valid? The validity of Occam's razor has long been debated. Critics of the principle argue that it prioritizes simplicity over accuracy and that, since one cannot absolutely define “simplicity,” it cannot serve as a sure basis of comparison." Sorry.....
By 1973 philosophy departments steeped in the Anglo-American tradition were rejecting Ayer's logical positivism once it was discovered his 'verification principle' for ascertaining truth was not verifiable (!)😅.
The"Verification Principle" remains completely valid when applied to scientific/empirical propositions. It would be difficult to do any science without it. 😊 And it's not self-refuting if it's redefined as a value statement, rather than as an analytic or synthetic statement. As a value statement, it takes its rightful place among the other scientific values: Occam's Razor, explanatory scope, fruitfulness, falsifiability, etc.
@@drawn2myattention641 "Why does the verification principle fail? The theory is not meaningful. One of the most significant criticisms is that the statement of the theory itself does not pass the test as a meaningful statement. The verification theory cannot be verified by sense experience and so is not a meaningful synthetic proposition."
If you look just at its results, a belief in God has been one of human kinds biggest mistakes. And it’s even more of a mistake that we refuse let go of it. That the ancients believed in God is excusable, that modern humans continue to do so is folly.
This is the stupidest thing I have ever seen. Seriously, you do not know history at all. Belief in God prompted the beginning of universities, hospitals, and science. You have been robbed of understanding the world because public schools do not teach church history. You literally have no idea where you have come from, where you are or what western philosophical thought is to say that belief in God was a mistake.
It is impossible to be a Materialist and to make moral claims about anything, because if you believe everything reduces to physics and that the content of reality is restricted to what is called the natural world, then there is no room for judgments about right and wrong, because right and wrong aren't physical entities. You can't believe in logic either, because logic also isn't a material entity.
I smell the powerful odor of Presuppositionalism. Fallacy of composition: since your whole body is a collection of cells, you function as nothing more than one big cell.
The usual materialist position on mathematics is that it is a useful mental illusion, a fiction, which simply happens to conveniently agree with reality. How anyone can honestly believe this for more than a moment is beyond me.
Logical positivism's entire framework needed Wittgenstein to correct it, the whole philosophical movement is thoroughly "over" and Ayer's "Verification Principle" is a failure. All his anti-theological points take a naive reading of Kant and Philosophical Theology as a whole; it all sounds like an early version of Richard Dawkins, who couldn't be bothered to read or understand the dense, difficult theology of Aquinas or the mathematics of Duns Scotus before criticizing it. Thank you for posting the lecture, this is just my opinion
@@johansigg3869 Um, did you not even bother listening to the talk? If so, you certainly didn't understand anything because this talk has absolutely nothing to do with logical positivism or the verification principle.
@Philosophy_Overdose I feel like you concentrated on the first sentence of my response, which was a general judgment of Ayer as a whole, and didn't respond at all to the meat of it, the naive reading of Kant and lack of familiarity with the dense theology he is attacking. The talk may not he about logical positivism, but A.J. Ayer is, and that's certainly the framework he's using here. It's a framework, logical positivism, and a highly flawed one we have now moved past.
@@johansigg3869 How is he using a positivist or Kantian framework here exactly? He's certainly not evaluating the theological claims and arguments from some positivist or Kantian perspective...
![I.N "HALLUCINATION" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/n5B5q1Hwt_U/mqdefault.jpg)
Sometimes it seems to me like people are like subatomic particles, the planets are like electrons, the sun is like the atomic core, the galaxies are like molecules and the universe is like a god or an animal, unconcerned with or unaware of his tiny parts.
@@skeptic1124 lol your telling me you are unconcerned with you brain cells? You are unaware of them? Let one of them become cancerous and then you would be aware and concerned.
Can anyone help me in understanding philosphy and below questions i am beginner and someone say start reading hegel first but i know from one of chomsky interview he dissmiss hegel as nonsense can any one tell me chomsky is right or wrong? Can hegel philosphy of embracing contridictions rather than overcoming is correct or wrong? Also is hegel correct in dissmissing kant noumenal realm is knowable as contridicitions rather than some unkowable substance as describe by kant ? Please answer if someone have answers i will be happy it will be help my understanding
@akbar-nr4kc start with the series by Michael Sugrue on youtube, go to the older videos watch the guy with glasses and blue background (old videos). Good luck
@@mrmega54I second this. And I would say start with his videos on Descartes. Also become familiar with the Bible.
Bro you gotta understand Kant before getting to Hegel. By "nonsense" - which he more correctly says or Derrida - Chomsky just means (agreeing with Bertrand Russell) that it's EXTREMELY difficult philosophy, not really the place to start. Charles Taylor's secondary text on Hegel I would highly recommend, rather than just diving in to the Phenomenology of Mind. It's not nonsense, it's just dense, badly written, difficult stuff
Whoever told you to read Hegel as your introduction to philosophy was surely kidding. He's the most difficult and obscure philosopher going. There are many fine introductory books to philosophy. Bertrand Russell wrote a clear and concise introduction to the subject with his book "The Problems of Philosophy." (First published in 1912.)
anyone can be excused for being wrong if they don't know what they are talking about
Are you saying AJ Ayers is wrong or that Believers are wrong? Your comment could apply to either side.
@thomasdequincey5811 yes, exactly
@alexzicker Anyone can write a meaningless comment on youtube.
The verificationist principle remains valid when applied to scientific or empirical statements. It's not itself a scientific or empirical statement, but a value statement. And so what? So is Occam's Razor.
@@drawn2myattention641 lol ok have it your way. (And I don't think "valid" [sic] is the issue.)
@@drawn2myattention641 "a value statement"....
The issue is not whether verification principle is valid or not as a principle for scientific inquiry. The issue is whether the principle is valid or not as a 'philosophical' principle. By the way, Occam's Razor is widely regarded valid, not meley as a scientific principle, but as a philosophical principle ae well.
@@James-od5eq Anyone who thinks "the simplest explanation is the best" needs help with reality:
"Is Occam's razor valid? The validity of Occam's razor has long been debated. Critics of the principle argue that it prioritizes simplicity over accuracy and that, since one cannot absolutely define “simplicity,” it cannot serve as a sure basis of comparison."
Sorry.....
By 1973 philosophy departments steeped in the Anglo-American tradition were rejecting Ayer's logical positivism once it was discovered his 'verification principle' for ascertaining truth was not verifiable (!)😅.
The"Verification Principle" remains completely valid when applied to scientific/empirical propositions. It would be difficult to do any science without it. 😊
And it's not self-refuting if it's redefined as a value statement, rather than as an analytic or synthetic statement. As a value statement, it takes its rightful place among the other scientific values: Occam's Razor, explanatory scope, fruitfulness, falsifiability, etc.
@@James-ll3jb This video isn’t about logical positivism or the verification principle...
@@Philosophy_Overdose It doesn't have to be lol.
@@Philosophy_Overdose ...sure about that? Lol...
@@drawn2myattention641
"Why does the verification principle fail? The theory is not meaningful. One of the most significant criticisms is that the statement of the theory itself does not pass the test as a meaningful statement. The verification theory cannot be verified by sense experience and so is not a meaningful synthetic proposition."
😮
If you look just at its results, a belief in God has been one of human kinds biggest mistakes. And it’s even more of a mistake that we refuse let go of it. That the ancients believed in God is excusable, that modern humans continue to do so is folly.
@longcastle4863 while I agree with you, I still think it could be argued that dismissal of god is arrogance.
This is the stupidest thing I have ever seen. Seriously, you do not know history at all. Belief in God prompted the beginning of universities, hospitals, and science. You have been robbed of understanding the world because public schools do not teach church history. You literally have no idea where you have come from, where you are or what western philosophical thought is to say that belief in God was a mistake.
God is not great
🤨
Slogans are silly!
Neither are you
Nor anything else
@@longcastle4863 . Actually, God IS great!
It is impossible to be a Materialist and to make moral claims about anything, because if you believe everything reduces to physics and that the content of reality is restricted to what is called the natural world, then there is no room for judgments about right and wrong, because right and wrong aren't physical entities. You can't believe in logic either, because logic also isn't a material entity.
I smell the powerful odor of Presuppositionalism. Fallacy of composition: since your whole body is a collection of cells, you function as nothing more than one big cell.
The usual materialist position on mathematics is that it is a useful mental illusion, a fiction, which simply happens to conveniently agree with reality.
How anyone can honestly believe this for more than a moment is beyond me.
Every point in this talk is philosophically naive and obsolete
What!? How so?!
Logical positivism's entire framework needed Wittgenstein to correct it, the whole philosophical movement is thoroughly "over" and Ayer's "Verification Principle" is a failure. All his anti-theological points take a naive reading of Kant and Philosophical Theology as a whole; it all sounds like an early version of Richard Dawkins, who couldn't be bothered to read or understand the dense, difficult theology of Aquinas or the mathematics of Duns Scotus before criticizing it. Thank you for posting the lecture, this is just my opinion
@@johansigg3869 Um, did you not even bother listening to the talk? If so, you certainly didn't understand anything because this talk has absolutely nothing to do with logical positivism or the verification principle.
@Philosophy_Overdose I feel like you concentrated on the first sentence of my response, which was a general judgment of Ayer as a whole, and didn't respond at all to the meat of it, the naive reading of Kant and lack of familiarity with the dense theology he is attacking. The talk may not he about logical positivism, but A.J. Ayer is, and that's certainly the framework he's using here. It's a framework, logical positivism, and a highly flawed one we have now moved past.
@@johansigg3869 How is he using a positivist or Kantian framework here exactly? He's certainly not evaluating the theological claims and arguments from some positivist or Kantian perspective...
Later in life he changed his belief to Christianity.
@@tubalcain1039 No.
@@Philosophy_Overdose You are correct,but he DID have a near death experience. Apologies.
We believe in nothing (but science), Lebovski!
@@tubalcain1039Brains in the throes of NDEs, starved of oxygen, etc., are unreliable sources.
@@tubalcain1039Near death but not actually dead. So, it was an experience while alive.